waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
Sorry, Bill, I had to clear this up. There may be good evolutionary arguments against homosexuality, but these don't qualify.  In article <C4vwn0.JF5@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes: >C.Wainwright (eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk) wrote: [deletions] >: |> It would seem odd if homosexuality had any evolutionary function [deletions] >: So *every* time a man has sex with a woman they intend to produce children? >: Hmm...no wonder the world is overpopulated.  Obviously you keep to the >: Monty Python song:  "Every sperm is sacred".  And if, as *you* say, it has >: a purpose as a means to limit population growth then it is, by your own  >: arguement, natural. > >Consider the context, I'm talking about an evolutionary function. One >of the most basic requirements of evolution is that members of a >species procreate, those who don't have no purpose in that context.   Oh? I guess all those social insects (e.g. ants, bees, etc.) which have one breeding queen and a whole passel of sterile workers are on the way out, huh?   >: These days is just ain't true!  People can decide whether or not to have  >: children and when.  Soon they will be able to choose it's sex &c (but that's  >: another arguement...) so it's more of a "lifestyle" decision.  Again by >: your arguement, since homosexuals can not (or choose not) to reproduce they >: must be akin to people who decide to have sex but not children.  Both are  >: as "unnatural" as each other. > >Yet another non-sequitur. Sex is an evolutionary function that exists >for procreation, that it is also recreation is incidental. That >homosexuals don't procreate means that sex is -only- recreation and >nothing more; they serve no -evolutionary- purpose.   I refer you to the bonobos, a species of primate as closeley related to humans as chimpanzees (that is, very closely). They have sex all the time, homosexual as well as heterosexual. When the group finds food, they have sex. Before the go to sleep at night, they have sex. After they escape from or fight off prdators, they have sex. Sex serves a very important social function above and beyond reproduction in this species. A species closely related to humans. There is some indication that sex performs a social function in humans, as well, but even if not, this shows that such a function is not *impossible*.   Sincerely,   Ray Ingles               ingles@engin.umich.edu
In <1qvh8tINNsg6@citation.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@citation.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W  Newton) writes:   >In article <C5qGM3.DL8@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike  Cobb) writes: >>Merely a question for the basis of morality >> >>Moral/Ethical behavior = _Societally_ _acceptable_ _behavior_.  >I disagree with these.  What society thinks should be irrelevant.  What the >individual decides is all that is important.  This doesn't seem right.  If I want to kill you, I can because that is what I decide? >> >>1)Who is society  >I think this is fairly obvious  Not really.  If whatever a particular society mandates as ok is ok, there are always some in the "society" who disagree with the mandates, so which  societal mandates make the standard for morality?  >> >>2)How do "they" define what is acceptable?  >Generally by what they "feel" is right, which is the most idiotic policy I can >think of.  So what should be the basis? Unfortunately I have to admit to being tied at  least loosely to the "feeling", in that I think we intuitively know some things to be wrong.  Awfully hard to defend, though. >> >>3)How do we keep from a "whatever is legal is what is "moral" "position?  >By thinking for ourselves.  I might agree here.  Just because certain actions are legal does not make them "moral". >> >>MAC >>-- >>**************************************************************** >>                                                    Michael A. Cobb >> "...and I won't raise taxes on the middle     University of Illinois >>    class to pay for my programs."                 Champaign-Urbana >>          -Bill Clinton 3rd Debate             cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu >>                                               >>With new taxes and spending cuts we'll still have 310 billion dollar  deficits.  -- ****************************************************************                                                     Michael A. Cobb  "...and I won't raise taxes on the middle     University of Illinois     class to pay for my programs."                 Champaign-Urbana           -Bill Clinton 3rd Debate             cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
>DATE:   18 Apr 93 23:17:25 GMT >FROM:   Bake Timmons <timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu> > >	These Bible-lovers have got to chill out.  If we all could just relax >and see atheism for what it is, the funny pages could have more material. > >	Atheism denies the existence of God.  This is logically bankrupt -- >where is the proof of this nonexistence?  It's a joke. > >	So nobody can take the above sense of atheism seriously.  Perhaps  Perhaps because you just made it up?
healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) writes: >  >Tammy "See, Maddi, I trimmed it!" Healy  Well, you're going to have to practice, but you're getting the hang of it.  Soon we're going to have to give you a new nickname.  Try these on for size:  Tammy "Lucky Seven" Healy Tammy "Pass the falafel" Healy Tammy "R Us" Healy Tammy "Learning by Doing" Healy    Maddi "Never a Useful Post" Hausmann  --  Maddi Hausmann                       madhaus@netcom.com Centigram Communications Corp        San Jose California  408/428-3553
In article <C5u7Bq.J43@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes: >As per various threads on science and creationism, I've started dabbling into a >book called Christianity and the Nature of Science by JP Moreland.   	As I don't know this book, I will use your heresay.  > A question >that I had come from one of his comments.  He stated that God is not  >necessarily a religious term, but could be used as other scientific terms that >give explanation for events or theories, without being a proven scientific  >fact.  	It depends on how he defines God. The way I understand the meaning of that term preclues it being used in a useful way in science. Ideas drawn from an understanding that God is supernatural precludes us from forming scientific assertions that can be falsified, that is, where we can decide that they are true or false within the terms of we use and useful observations drawn from them.  	Some religionists have an interest in bluring the definitions within science to make them more reconcilable, and especially subserviant in a basic way, to religious dogma. This pursuit always fails.  >  I think I got his point -- I can quote the section if I'm being vague.  >The examples he gave were quarks and continental plates.  Are there  >explanations of science or parts of theories that are not measurable in and of >themselves, or can everything be quantified, measured, tested, etc.?    	Reconciliation of science with religion involves circumventing the tendancy to claim that either pursuit can gain absolute or certian knowledge, or that the domain of truth in each is fundementally limited in some way. It gererally confurs the element of uncertainty and limitations to human knowledge while allowing for the different concerns of these separate pursuits. Science and religion ask different questions which have imperfect and provisional answers, at best. Science is distinctly limited in where it can ask meaningful questions. More questions can be posed than it can answer. At the basis of sacred language is the place where words fail us and mere assertions disolve in contradiction.
In article <kmr4.1563.734805744@po.CWRU.edu>, kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes: > In article <1qgbmt$c4f@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cr866@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Frank D. Kirschner) writes: >  >> --- >  >    Only when the Sun starts to orbit the Earth will I accept the Bible.  >          >       Since when does atheism mean trashing other religions?There must be a God      of inbreeding to which you are his only son.
In article <4949@eastman.UUCP> dps@nasa.kodak.com writes: >In article 11853@vice.ICO.TEK.COM, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes: >|> >|>  Yet I am still not a believer.  Is god not concerned with my >|>  disposition?  Why is it beneath him to provide me with the >|>  evidence I would require to believe?  The evidence that my >|>  personality, given to me by this god, would find compelling? > >The fact is God could cause you to believe anything He wants you to.  >But think about it for a minute.  Would you rather have someone love >you because you made them love you, or because they wanted to >love you.         First, I don't expect them to love me if they don't even know I   exist.  Secondly, I wouldn't expect them to love me simply because   they were my creator.  I would expect to have to earn that love.  >The responsibility is on you to love God and take a step toward >Him.  He promises to be there for you, but you have to look for yourself.    Are you daft?  How do I love something I don't believe exists?   Come back when you've learned to love your third testicle.  >Those who doubt this or dispute it have not givin it a sincere effort. >Simple logic arguments are folly.  If you read the Bible you will see >that Jesus made fools of those who tried to trick him with "logic". >Our ability to reason is just a spec of creation.  Yet some think it is >the ultimate.  If you rely simply on your reason then you will never >know more than you do now.   To learn you must accept that which >you don't know.    At which point you have stepped over the line and become a   complete asshole.  Even though it's your first offense, I won't   let it slip becuase I've heard it too goddamned many times.    You love Jesus because deep in your heart you're a cannibalistic   necrophiliac.  Because I say so, and I'm much more qualified to   assess your motivations than you are.    Fortunately, there are some things I get to accept on evidence   rather than faith.  One of them being that until christians like   yourself quit being so fucking arrogant, there will never be   peace.  You've all made sure of that.  /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\   Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM   They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away, and sank Manhattan out at sea.
In article <1993Apr10.123858.25059@bradford.ac.uk> L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham) writes:  >Gregg Jaeger (jaeger@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:  >> Khomenei was a jerk and so were plenty of  >>British "leaders", so what?   >>THE QUR'AN is the basis of judgement. Khomenei was clearly a heretic >>by the standards of the Qur'an. End of story.  >Could you be a little more specific as to exactly why Khomanei was a >heretic and a jerk as judged by the Koran.  I have no liking for the >guy, but as far as I know he has done nothing contrary to the teachings >of the Koran, or at least so I'm told by several Iranian research >students that I share an office with.  >It is easy and convenient for you to denounce him.  But I have the  >feeling that your views are not as clear cut and widely accepted as you >suggest.  I have made this clear elsewhere but will do so again. Khomeini put a  price on the head of someone in another country, this makes him a jerk as well as an international outlaw. Khomeini advocates the view that there was a series of twelve Islamic leaders (the Twelve Imams) who are free of error or sin. This makes him a heretic. In the Qur'an  Muhammad is chastised for error directly by God; the Qur'an says that Muhammad is the greatest example of proper Islamic behavior; thus no muslim is free from error.    >As usual there seems to be almost as many Islamic viewpoints as there >are Muslims.    Perhaps it seems so to you, but this is hardly the case. There is widespread agreement about matters of Islam. There certainly are many viewpoints on issues which are not particularly Islamic in and of themselves, but this is so for any large group of people under the same name.   >It all comes back to the Koran being so imprecise in its wording.  The Qur'an is not particularly imprecise in wording, though it is true that several interpretations are possible in the interpretations of many words. However, as an entire text the Qur'an makes its meanings precise enough for intelligent people free from power lust to come to agreement about them.
In article <1993Apr19.151120.14068@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka) writes: >In <930419.125145.9O3.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew writes: >> I wonder if Noam Chomsky is reading this? > >      I could be wrong, but is he actually talking about outright >_government_ control of the media, aka censorship? > >      If he doesn't, any quick one-stop-shopping reference to his works >that'll tell me, in short, what he _does_ argue for?  "Manufacturing Consent," a film about the media. You alternative movie source may have this; or to book it in your local alternative theatre, contact:  FILMS TRANSIT * INTERNATIONAL SALES Jan Rofekamp 402 Notre Dame E. Montreal, Quebec Canada H2Y 1C8 Tel (514) 844-3358 * Fax (514) 844-7298 Telex 5560074 Filmtransmtl  (US readers: call Zeitgeist Films at 212 274 1989.)  -s
In article <1993Apr10.124753.25195@bradford.ac.uk> L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham) writes:  >Gregg Jaeger (jaeger@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:  >>Well, it seemed slightly incongruous to find the Union Jack flying >>at City Hall in Belfast.   >May I ask why?  It's there not because the British want it there (NI >is just one big expensive problem), it's there because that is >what the majority of the population of NI want.  Is there some >problem with that?  The majority of those who can open their mouths in public perhaps. There seems quite alot of incentive for the British to have control of NI, like using the North Channel and Irish Sea as a waste dump (I was appalled at the dumping I saw in the harbor in Belfast). It is my understanding that quite alot of radioactivity enters the water -- it'd be quite a problem if NI got its independence from Britain and then stopped accepting the waste. Are you suggesting that British industry isn't making profit off the situation as well?
>DATE:   Mon, 19 Apr 1993 15:01:10 GMT >FROM:   Bruce Stephens <bruce@liverpool.ac.uk> > >I think a good book summarizing and comparing religions would be good. > >I confess I don't know of any---indeed that's why I checked the FAQ to see >if it had one---but I'm sure some alert reader does. > >I think the list of books suffers far too much from being Christian based; >I agree that most of the traffic is of this nature (although a few Islamic >references might be good) but I still think an overview would be nice.  One book I have which presents a fairly unbiased account of many religions is called _Man's Religions_ by John B. Noss.  It was a textbook in a class I had on comparative religion or some such thing.  It has some decent bibliographies on each chapter as a jumping off point for further reading.  It doesn't "compare" religions directly but describes each one individually and notes a few similarities.  But nothing I have read in it could be even remotely described as preachy or Christian based.  In fact, Christianity mercifully consumes only 90 or so of its nearly 600 pages.  The book is divided according to major regions of the world where the biggies began  (India, East Asia, Near East).  There is nothing about New World religions from the Aztecs, Mayas, Incas, etc.  Just the stuff people kill each other over nowadays.  And a few of the older religions snuffed out along the way.
In article <SUOPANKI.93Apr6024902@stekt6.oulu.fi> suopanki@stekt6.oulu.fi (Heikki T. Suopanki) writes: >:> God is eternal.    [A = B] >:> Jesus is God.      [C = A] >:> Therefore, Jesus is eternal.  [C = B] > >:> This works both logically and mathematically.  God is of the set of >:> things which are eternal.  Jesus is a subset of God.   Therefore >:> Jesus belongs to the set of things which are eternal. > >Everything isn't always so logical.... > >Mercedes is a car. >That girl is Mercedes. >Therefore, that girl is a car?  	This is not  strickly correct. Only by incorrect application of the  rules of language, does it seem to work.  	The Mercedes in the first premis, and the one in the second are NOT  the same Mercedes.   	In your case,   	A = B 	C = D 	 	A and D are NOT equal. One is a name of a person, the other the name of a object. You can not simply extract a word without taking the  context into account.   	Of course, your case doesn't imply that A = D.  	In his case, A does equal D.   	Try again...  ---          "One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that          say "Mom", because of the love of their mom.  It makes for more          virile men."          Bobby Mozumder  ( snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu )         April 4, 1993
[reply to frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)]   >>I'm one of those people who does not know what the word objective means >>when put next to the word morality.  I assume its an idiom and cannot >>be defined by its separate terms.   >>Give it a try.   >Objective morality is morality built from objective values.   From A Dictionary of Philosophy, by Anthony Flew:   "Objectivism:  The belief that there are certain moral truths that would remain true whatever anyone or everyone thought or desired.  For instance, 'No one should ever deliberately inflict pain on another simply to take pleasure in his suffering' might be thought of as a plausible example.  Even in a world of sadists who all rejected it, the contention remains true, just as '5 + 7 = 12' remains correct even if there is no one left to count.  The problem for the objectivist is to determine the status of moral truths and the method by which they can be established.  If we accept that such judgements are not reports of what is but only relate to what ought to be (see naturalistic fallacy) then they cannot be proved by any facts about the nature of the world.  Nor can they be analytic, since this would involve lack of action-guiding content;  'One ought always to do the right thing' is plainly true in virtue of the vords involved but it is unhelpful as a practical guide to action (see analytic and synthetic).  At this point the objectivist may talk of 'self-evident truths', but can he deny the subjectivist's claim that self-evidence is in the mind of the beholder?  If not, what is left of the claim that some moral judgements are true?  THe subjectivist may well feel that all that remains is that there are some moral judgements with which he would wish to associate himself.  To hold a moral opinion is, he suggests, not to know something to be true but to have preferences regarding human activity."
In article <C5qLLG.4BC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, mayne@pipe.cs.fsu.edu (William Mayne) writes: |> In article <pww-190493085759@spac-at1-59.rice.edu> pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker) writes: |> > |> >Didn't the Church get lightning rods banned in several European countries |> >in the eighteenth century because it was widely believed that they |> >interfered with god's striking down of blasphemers? I seem to remember that |> >this was more common in eastern Europe. |>  |> I don't know about eastern Europe, but according to Bertrand Russell, |> writing in Science and Mysticism (I think, though it could have been |> another book) said that preachers in colonial Boston attributed an |> earthquake to God's wrath over people putting up lightning rods, which |> they had been preaching against as interference with God's will. Being |> deprived of lightning bolts as a method to get at sinners He evidently |> resorted to sterner measures. |>  |> No smilies. I am not making this up.   I'm sure you are not.   After the "San Francisco" Earthquake  a couple of years ago, there was a flurry of traffic on  talk.religion.misc about how this was the result of the  notorious homo- this that and t'other in the City.  The fact that the Earthquake was actually down the road in Santa Cruz/Watsonville didn't seem to phase them any.
In article <4949@eastman.UUCP>, dps@nasa.kodak.com (Dan Schaertel,,,) wrote: >  > In article 11853@vice.ICO.TEK.COM, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes: > |> > |>  Yet I am still not a believer.  Is god not concerned with my > |>  disposition?  Why is it beneath him to provide me with the > |>  evidence I would require to believe?  The evidence that my > |>  personality, given to me by this god, would find compelling? >  > The fact is God could cause you to believe anything He wants you to.  > But think about it for a minute.  Would you rather have someone love > you because you made them love you, or because they wanted to > love you.      I wouldn't punish him with eternal torture if he didn't love me. But then I;m a decent chap. It seems your god isn't.  > The responsibility is on you to love God and take a step toward > Him.  He promises to be there for you, but you have to look for yourself.  I've looked, and he wasn't. Another promise broken.  > Those who doubt this or dispute it have not givin it a sincere effort.  Lying bastard! How  do you know what effort I have and have not given?   > Simple logic arguments are folly.  If you read the Bible you will see > that Jesus made fools of those who tried to trick him with "logic". > Our ability to reason is just a spec of creation.  Yet some think it is > the ultimate.  If you rely simply on your reason then you will never > know more than you do now.   To learn you must accept that which > you don't know.  Can anyone eaplain what he's just said here?  Peter
In article <healta.183.735790222@saturn.wwc.edu> healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) writes:  >     I was asked to post list of the SDA Church's basic beliefs.  The SDA  >church has always been reluctant to formalize a creed in the usual sense of  >word.  However, the powers that be in the church deemed it neccessary to  >publish a summary of basic SDA beliefs.  	May I ask why they are afraid to do so?  ---    Speaking of proofs of God, the funniest one I have ever seen was in a   term paper handed in by a freshman.  She wrote, "God must exist, because   he wouldn't be so mean as to make me believe he exists if he really   doesn't!"  Is this argument really so much worse than the ontological   proofs of the existence of God provided by Anselm and Descartes, among   others?
In article <C5zu3K.FzD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes: >1)On what basis can we say that the actions of another society, (as per Hitler >comment) are wrong?  Ultimately it rests with personal opinion...in my opinion. :-)   >2)Why does majority make right?  The question doesn't make sense to me. Maybe it would be better to ask, "What makes a democracy better than [for example] a totalitarian regim?"
In article <1r10jcINNt1g@lynx.unm.edu> cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl) writes:   >> Correction: _hard_ atheism is a faith. > >Yes. >
In article <C60A0s.DvI@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> dekorte@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Stephen L. DeKorte) writes: > >I saw a 3 hour show on PBS the other day about the history of the >Jews. Appearently, the Cursades(a religious war agianst the muslilams >in 'the holy land') sparked the widespread persecution of muslilams  >and jews in europe. Among the supporters of the persiecution, were none  >other than Martin Luther, and the Vatican. > >Later, Hitler would use Luthers writings to justify his own treatment >of the jews. >> Genocide is Caused by Theism : Evidence?  Heck, I remember reading a quote of Luther as something like: "Jews should be shot like deer."  And of course much Catholic doctrine for centuries was  extremely anti-Semitic.