waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1qvn1pINNj90@shelley.u.washington.edu> jimh@carson.u.washington.edu (James Hogan) writes: > >When the various Bill Conners and Bobbys post here, I felt that  >their passive-aggressive "knock that chip off my shoulder" >type of approach meant that attempts at reasoned argument  >would be wasted.   I still think that.  However, while more  >primitive responses (teasing, bronx cheers, sarcasm) are somewhat >satisfying ( :-)  apologies to anyone who still thinks Bobby is >a performance artist! ), some of them feed in to a pointless, >circular round of ad hominem name-calling.  Witness: >    Precisely my position.      As a newbie, I tried the point-by-point approach to debate with   these types.  It wasted both my time and my lifespan.  Ignoring   them is not an option, since they don't go away, and doing so   would leave one with large stretches of complete anonymity in this   group.    What's left?  Healthy flaming.  I'm sure on occassion I've   appeared to be little more than a caustic boob to some of the   Bobby types.  But why waste breath arguing with someone whose most   rational though process involves his excretory system?    And I stand by my record of recognizing these people long before   most of the rest of the group.  So let's see what this Timmons   character has in store for us...  /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\   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 <C5HKv2.Epv@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:  >In article <115256@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:  >>Judaism, for one. Maddi has confirmed this for one. And again I >>reiterate that one can easily leave the religion at any time, >>simply by making a public declaration. If one is too lazy to do >>that then the religion cannot be held responsible.  >There are many "Islamic" countries where publically renouncing Islam can be >quite dangerous.  These countries might not, according to you, necessarily be >practicing "true" Islam, but the danger still remains; one cannot blame >failure to publically renounce Islam on "laziness" as opposed to a desire to >stay alive and well.  Of course, if you're planning to pull a Rushdie then declaring one's leaving the religion is little to be concerned about compared to one's other plans.   In Rushdie's case, the one under discussion, one can. It is tragic that in _some_ "Islamic" countries this is so. There are, however, Islamic countries (whose constitutions contains statements that Islamic law is to be incorporated), e.g. Kuwait, where one can freely make such statements without fear.   >Not to mention that it has already been pointed out that Rushdie has said in >his books that he's not a Muslim, and there have surely been enough readers of >his books to provide the appropriate number of witnesses.  This story has become tiresome. The conditions are clear. If you care to make your point clear then make a chronology and show that he had made public statements about leaving Islam prior to his writing of _TSV_. If he did make such statements then he should have made _that_ clear rather than trying to rejoin Islam or go on talking about his personal feelings.
In article <healta.145.734928689@saturn.wwc.edu>, healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) writes: |> I hope you're not going to flame him.  Please give him the same coutesy you' |> ve given me. |>  |> Tammy   If a person gives a well-balanced reasoned argument, Tammy, then all are happy to discuss it with him.  If he makes astounding claims, which are not backed up with any evidence then he must be expected to substantiate them. If the original author had said that everything was his own opinion and not supportable then people would have simply ignored him.  He did not.  He claimed many things and his logic was seriously flawed.  His argument was for christianity in an effort to try to convince atheists like myself to believe him and his message.  I for one will not take things as read.  If you told me that pink fluffy elephants did the dance of the sugar plum fairy on the dark side of Jupiter then I would demand evidence!   Adda
kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:  >>So, you are saying that it isn't possible for an instinctive act >>to be moral one?  That is, in order for an act to be an act of morality, >>the person must consider the immoral action but then disregard it? >No, I'm saying that in order for an act to be moral or immoral, somebody/ >someone/something must _consider_ it to be so.  That implies intelligence, >not instinct.  Who has to consider it?  The being that does the action?  I'm still not sure I know what you are trying to say.
In <1993Apr19.140316.14872@cs.nott.ac.uk> eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright) writes:  >In article <1993Apr19.112706.26911@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:  >|> (Great respect or love for a particular person does not equal a form of >|> "theism".) >|>  >|>  Fred Rice >|>  darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au     >Hmm.  What about Jesus?  Sure, a person could have great respect for Jesus and yet be an  atheist.  (Having great respect for Jesus does not necessarily mean  that one has to follow the Christian [or Muslim] interpretation of  his life.)
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:  >In another part of this thread, you've been telling us that the >"goal" of a natural morality is what animals do to survive.  That's right.  Humans have gone somewhat beyond this though.  Perhaps our goal is one of self-actualization.  >But suppose that your omniscient being told you that the long >term survival of humanity requires us to exterminate some  >other species, either terrestrial or alien.  Now you are letting an omniscient being give information to me.  This was not part of the original premise.  >Does that make it moral to do so?  Which type of morality are you talking about?  In a natural sense, it is not at all immoral to harm another species (as long as it doesn't adversely affect your own, I guess).
In article <healta.157.735271671@saturn.wwc.edu> healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) writes: > >Bob, if you're wanting an excuse to convert to Christianity, you gonna have  >to look elsewhere. >    Damn.  And I did so have my hopes up.   /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\   Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM   They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away, and sank Manhattan out at sea.
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:  >>The motto originated in the Star-Spangled Banner.  Tell me that this has >>something to do with atheists. >The motto _on_coins_ originated as a McCarthyite smear which equated atheism >with Communism and called both unamerican.  No it didn't.  The motto has been on various coins since the Civil War. It was just required to be on *all* currency in the 50's.
In article <1993Apr26.070405.3615@doug.cae.wisc.edu> kahraman@hprisc-30.cae.wisc.edu (Gokalp Kahraman) writes: >In this respect, since atheists are dominantly arrogant and claim  >self-control and self-ownership, they would make pharoahs  >look like very humble, decent people in comparison!  If the logic is this: >"since I own myself, others who are like me should also own themselves, and >going further, things are self-existent and self-standing, and self-living, >etc."   Yes, atheists tend to claim self control and self ownership. Are you saying that theists claim to not have self control? I don't think atheists are "dominantly arrogant." They don't claim some god that has supremacy over all of mankind. Now this claim would be arrogant, but atheists don't claim  it. Most atheists do claim to own themselves. I think any disagreement with this claim of self ownership would be supremely arrogant.
In article <115288@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes: > >He'd have to be precise about is rejection of God and his leaving Islam. >One is perfectly free to be muslim and to doubt and question the >existence of God, so long as one does not _reject_ God. I am sure that >Rushdie has be now made his atheism clear in front of a sufficient  >number of proper witnesses. The question in regard to the legal issue >is his status at the time the crime was committed.    I'd have to say that I have a problem with any organization,  religious or not, where the idea that _simple speech_ such as this is the basis for a crime.
In article <1pmjo8INN2l0@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:     Just what do gay people do that straight people don't?  Absolutely nothing.  I'm a VERY straight(as an arrow), 17-year old male that is involved in the BSA.  I don't care what gay people do among each other, as long as they don't make passes at me or anything.  At my summer camp where I work, my boss is gay. Not in a 'pansy' way of gay (I know a few), but just 'one of the guys'. He doesn't push anything on me, and we give him the same respect back, due to his position.  If anything, the BSA has taught me, I don't know, tolerance or something. Before I met this guy, I thought all gays were 'faries'.  So, the BSA HAS taught me to be an antibigot.
In article <kmr4.1572.734847158@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes: >From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) >Subject: Re: who are we to judge, Bobby? >Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 04:12:38 GMT > >(S.N. Mozumder ) writes: >>(TAMMY R HEALY) writes: >>>I would like to take the liberty to quote from a Christian writer named  >>>Ellen G. White.  I hope that what she said will help you to edit your  >>>remarks in this group in the future. >>> >>>"Do not set yourself as a standard.  Do not make your opinions, your views  >>>of duty, your interpretations of scripture, a criterion for others and in  >>>your heart condemn them if they do not come up to your ideal." >>>                         Thoughts Fromthe Mount of Blessing p. 124 >> >>Point? > >	Point: you have taken it upon yourself to judge others; when only  >God is the true judge. > >--- > >   Only when the Sun starts to orbit the Earth will I accept the Bible.  >         > I agree totally with you!  Amen!  You stated it better and in less world  than I did.
In <1qjahh$mrs@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)  writes:  >In article <pww-140493214334@spac-at1-59.rice.edu> pww@spacsun.rice.edu  (Peter Walker) writes: >#In article <1qie61$fkt@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank >#O'Dwyer) wrote: >#> Objective morality is morality built from objective values. ># >#But where do those objective values come from? How can we measure them? >#What mediated thair interaction with the real world, a moralon? Or a scalar >#valuino field?  >Science ("the real world") has its basis in values, not the other way round,  >as you would wish it.  If there is no such thing as objective value, then  >science can not objectively be said to be more useful than a kick in the head. >Simple theories with accurate predictions could not objectively be said >to be more useful than a set of tarot cards.  You like those conclusions? >I don't.  >#And how do we know they exist in the first place?  >One assumes objective reality, one doesn't know it.    >--  >Frank O'Dwyer                                  'I'm not hatching That' >odwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon  How do we measure truth, beauty, goodness, love, friendship, trust, honesty,  etc.?  If things have no basis in objective fact then aren't we limited in what we know to be true?  Can't we say that we can examples or instances of reason, but cannot measure reason, or is that semantics?  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
In article <C5qGM3.DL8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes: >From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) >Subject: Societally acceptable behavior >Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 13:39:39 GMT >Merely a question for the basis of morality > >Moral/Ethical behavior = _Societally_ _acceptable_ _behavior_. >1)Who is society >2)How do "they" define what is acceptable? >3)How do we keep from a "whatever is legal is what is "moral" "position? >MAC  Wow! You got me thinking now!  This is an interesting question in that recently there has been a  move in society to classify previously "socially unacceptable" yet legal  activities as OK.  In the past it seems to me there were always two  coexisting methods of social control.  First (and most explicit) is legal control.  That is the set of  actions we define as currently illegal and having a specifically defined set  of punishments.  Secondly (and somewhat more hidden) is social control.  These are  the actions which are considered socially unacceptable and while not covered  by legal control, are scrictly controled by social censure. Ideally (if  socialization is working as it should) legal control is hardly ever needed  since most people voluntarilly control their actions due to the pressure of  social censure.  The control manifests itself in day-to-day life as "guilt" and  "morality".  I've heard it said (and fully believe) that if it weren't for  the VAST majority of people policing themselves, legal control would be  absolutely impossible.  Lately (last 50, 100 years?) however there has been a move to  attempt to dissengage the individual from societal control (ie. if it ain't  illegal, then don't pick on me).  I'm not saying this is wrong, merely  that it is a byproduct of a society which has:  	1) A high education level, 	2) A high exposure to alternative ideas via the popular media, 	3) A high level of institutionalized individual rights, and 	4) A "me" oriented culture.  I guess what I'm saying is that we appear to be in a state of transition,  here in the western world in that we still have many ideas about what we can\ can't allow people to do based entirely on personal squeamishness, yet we  are fully bent on maximizing individual freedoms to the max as long as  those freedoms don't impinge on another's.  IMHO society is trying to persue two mutually exclusive ends here.  While we  appreciate and persue individual rights (these satisfy the old  territoriality and dominance instincts), the removal of socialized,  inherent fears based on ignorance will result in the  continued destabilization of society.    I got no quick fix.  I have no idea how we can get ourselves out of this  mess.  I know I would never consent to the roll-back of personal freedoms  in order to "stabilize" society.  Yet I believe development of societies  follow a Darwinian process which selects for stability.  Can we find a  social model which maximizes indiv. freed.'s yet is stable?  Perhaps it is  possible to live with a "non-stable" society?  Anybody see a way out?  Comments?  PS.  Therefore answer to question #3:  We don't.  Do we want to?    Phil Trodwell
In article <1993Apr19.121340.3133@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes: |> In <1qi191$jkj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |>  |> My understanding is that UK blasphemy laws (yes, they exist in the UK, |> although they are little-used) apply only to _Anglican_ Christianity. |>  |> How does this fit in with your claim that there is no state religion in  |> the UK?  Why don't you ask the approx. two million British Muslims who break it five times a day and have never ever been prosecuted under it?  Then ask how easy it is to hold a Christian church service in Saudi Arabia.
In article <C5uE4t.G4K@news.rich.bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.NoSubdomain.NoDomain   (Brian Cash) writes: > Petri and Mathew, >  > Your discusion on the "reality" of atoms is interesting, but it > would seem that you are verging on the question "Is anything real": > that is, since observation is not 100% reliable, how can we say > that anything is "real".  I don't think this was the intention > of the original question, since you now define-out the word > "real" so that nothing can meet its criteria. > Just a thought. >  > Brian /-|-\ >  > PS  Rainbows and Shadows are "real": they are not objects, they > are phenomenon.  An interesting question would be if atoms > are objects (classical) or phenomenon (neo-quantum) or what?  I've been following this train of talk, and the question of dismissing atoms as   being in some sense "not real" leaves me uneasy.  It seems to be implied that we obseve only the effects, and therefore the   underlying thing is not necessarily real.  The tree outside my window is in   this category... is observe the light which bounces off of it, not the tree   itself.  The observation is indirect, but no more so than observations I have   made of atoms.  Also, what about observations and experiments that have been routinely done   with individual atoms.  I am thinking in particular of atom trapping   experiments and tests of fundamental quantum mechanics such as the quantum Zeno   effect, where an individual atom is studied for a long period of time.  Some of the attempts at quantum mechanical arguments were not very satisfying   either.  One has to be carefull about making such arguments without a solid   technical background in the field.  What I read seemed a little confused a   quite a red herring.  Anyway, if the purpose of a public debate is to make the audience think, it   worked.  After doing so, I'm willing to try to defend the following assertion   if anyone cares:
: Are you saying that their was a physical Adam and Eve, and that all : humans are direct decendents of only these two human beings.?  Then who : were Cain and Able's wives?  Couldn't be their sisters, because A&E : didn't have daughters.  Were they non-humans?  Genesis 5:4  and the days of Adam after he begat Seth were eight hundred years, and he begat sons and daughters:
pl1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Patrick C Leger) writes: : You know, it just occurred to me today that this whole Christian thing : can be blamed solely on Mary. :  : So, she's married to Joseph.  She gets knocked up.  What do you think : ol' Joe will do if he finds she's been getting around?  So Mary comes up : with this ridiculous story about God making her pregnant.   :     Nice attempt Chris . . . verrry close.    You missed the conspiracy by 1 step. Joseph knew who knocked her up. He couldn't let it be known that somebody ELSE got ol' Mary prego. That wouldn't do well for his popularity in the local circles. So what  happened is that she was feeling guilty, he was feeling embarrassed, and THEY decided to improve both of their images on what could have otherwise been the downfall for both. Clever indeed. Come to think of it . . . I have gained a new respect for the couple. Maybe Joseph and Mary should receive all of the praise being paid to jesus.
Thanks to whoever posted this wonderful parody of people who post without  reading the FAQ!  I was laughing for a good 5 minutes.  Were there any  parts of the FAQ that weren't mentioned?  I think there might have been one or two...  Please don't tell me this wasn't a joke.  I'm not ready to hear that yet...
Mark McCullough (mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu) wrote: : This figure, is far below all the other figures I have seen.  If it : is indeed accurate, then how do you explain the discrepancy between : that figure, and other figures from international organizations? : Most figures I have seen place the hit ratio close to 70%, which is  : still far higher than your 35%.  Or does your figure say a bomb : missed if the plane took off with it, and the bomb never hit the target, : regardless of whether or not the bomb was dropped?  Such methods : are used all the time to lie with statistics.  Answering the last sentence, claimed that they had a success rate of 80% without initially explaining, until pressed, that this meant that 80% of the aircraft came back having dropped their bombs somewhere, regardless' of whether they had hit the intended target, or indeed anything al all.
Mark McCullough (mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu) wrote: : In article <30136@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes: : >Atoms are not objective.  They aren't even real.  What scientists call : >an atom is nothing more than a mathematical model that describes  : >certain physical, observable properties of our surroundings.  All : >of which is subjective.   : > : >-jim halat  : This deserves framing.  It really does.  "[Atoms] aren't even real."  : Tell me then, those atoms we have seen with electron microscopes are : atoms now, so what are they?  Figments of our imaginations?  The : evidence that atoms are real is overwhelming, but I won't bother with : most evidence at the moment.  You would have us believe that what the eye perceives as images are actaully there - as perceived? This may be interesting. I thought that an electron microscope was used because no wavelength of "light" can illuminate any "object" of atomic scale. If this image is to have useful resolution, wouldn't the illuminating sources wavelength have to be several orders of magnitude less than size of thing observed?  If an atom is a "probablity cloud", lower resolutions would give the appearance of solidity, but it seems fairly certain that an atom is not an object is any conventional sense. Obviously I am not a physicist, but the question does have ramification of a philosophic nature. Anyway, just a stray thought, carry on ...
In article <1993Apr20.195907.10765@mks.com>, mike@mks.com (Mike Brookbank) writes: > In article <1993Apr15.151122.4746@mac.cc.macalstr.edu> acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu writes: > >In article <bissda.4.734849678@saturn.wwc.edu>, bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes: > >> die for a lie?  Wouldn't people be able to tell if he was a liar?   > > > I light of yesterday's events in Waco, Texas I guess the answer to your > questions are very obvious.  If you think Waco is just one example think > back to 1972 in Jonestown where more than 900 people died for a lie. >  Deletions...  Correction.  I think it was 1978.  Also, contrary to earlier belief, it is now widely accepted that not all committed suicide, but were actually killed.  In the end, they did die for a lie, but some not out of conviction alone.  Thought I try to make this point clear. --