waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <bissda.4.734849678@saturn.wwc.edu>, bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) wrote: >  > 	First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian.  It  > makes sense to be one.  Have any of you read Tony Campollo's book- liar,  > lunatic, or the real thing?  (I might be a little off on the title, but he  > writes the book.  Anyway he was part of an effort to destroy Christianity,  > in the process he became a Christian himself.  Seems he didn't understand anything about realities, liar, lunatic or the real thing is a very narrow view of the possibilities of Jesus message.  Sigh, it seems religion makes your mind/brain filter out anything that does not fit into your personal scheme.   So anyone that thinks the possibilities with Jesus is bound to the classical Lewis notion of 'liar, lunatic or saint' is indeed bound to become a Christian.  Cheers, Kent
In article <1993Apr16.223250.15242@ncsu.edu> aiken@news.ncsu.edu (Wayne NMI Aiken) writes: >JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu wrote: >: YOU BLASHEPHEMERS!!! YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL FOR NOT BELIEVING IN GOD!!!!  BE >: PREPARED FOR YOUR ETERNAL DAMNATION!!! > >Did someone leave their terminal unattended again? > >-- > >Holy Temple of Mass  $   >>> slack@ncsu.edu <<<    $  "My used underwear >   Consumption!      $                             $   is legal tender in >PO Box 30904         $     BBS: (919) 782-3095     $   28 countries!" >Raleigh, NC  27622   $  Warning: I hoard pennies.  $     --"Bob"  Probably not! The jesus freak's post is probably JSN104@PSUVM. Penn State is just loaded to the hilt with bible bangers. I use to go there *vomit* and it was the reason I left. They even had a group try to stop playing  rock music in the dining halls one year cuz they deemed it satanic. Kampus Krusade for Khrist people run the damn place for the most part....except the Liberal Arts departments...they are the safe havens. -wdb
Kent Sandvik (sandvik@newton.apple.com) wrote:  : I agree, I had a hard feeling not believing my grand-grand mother : who told me of elves dancing outside barns in the early mornings. : I preferred not to accept it, even if her statement provided : the truth itself. Life is hard.   Kent,  Truly a brilliant rebuttal. Apparently you are of the opinion that ridicule is a suitable substitute for reason; you'll find plenty of company a.a
In article <1993Apr22.162239@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) wrote: >  > In article <1r5hj0INN14c@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan > Schneider) writes: > >Well, suppose a probe emitting radiation at a constant frequency was > >sent towards a black hole.  As it got closer to the event horizon, the > >red shift would keep increasing.  The period would get longer and longer, > >but it would never stop.  An observer would not observe the probe actually > >reaching the event horizon.  The detected energy from the probe would keep > >decreasing, but it wouldn't vanish.  Exp(-t) never quite reaches zero. >  >   That's kind of what I meant.  To be more precise, given any observer, in any > single position outside the event horizon, would that observer ever in any way, > be able to detect the probe having crossed the event horizon?  Yes, unless the observer is at rest with respect to the singularity at infinite distance away. But an observer on a close approach to the BH will see the particle go in in finite time.  Peter
[reply to frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)]   >>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.   >This can be avoided in at least two ways: (1) By leaving the Good >undefined, since anyone who claims that they do not know what it is is >either lying or so out of touch with humanity as to be undeserving of a >reply.   If the Good is undefined (undefinable?) but you require of everyone that they know innately what is right, you are back to subjectivism.   >(2) By defining the Good solely in terms of evaluative terms.   Ditto here.  An evaluative statement implies a value judgement on the part of the person making it.   >>At this point the objectivist may talk of 'self-evident truths'   Pretty perceptive, that Prof. Flew.   >>but can he deny the subjectivist's claim that self-evidence is in the >>mind of the beholder?   >Of course; by denying that subject/object is true dichotomy.   Please explain how this helps.  I don't see your argument.   >>If not, what is left of the claim that some moral judgements are true?   >If nothing, then NO moral judgements are true.  This is a thing that >is commonly referred to as nihilism.  It entails that science is of >no value, irrepective of the fact that some people find it useful.  How >anyone arrives at relativism/subjectivism from this argument beats me.   This makes no sense either.  Flew is arguing that this is where the objectivist winds up, not the subjectivist.  Furthermore, the nihilists believed in nothing *except* science, materialism, revolution, and the People.   >>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."   >And if those preferences should include terrorism, that moral opinion >is not true.  Likewise, if the preferences should include noTerrorism, >that moral opinion is not true.  Why should one choose a set of >preferences which include terrorisim over one which includes >noTerrorism?  Oh, no reason.  This is patently absurd....   And also not the position of the subjectivist, as has been pointed out to you already by others.  Ditch the strawman, already, and see my reply to Mike Cobb's root message in the thread Societal Basis for Morality.
In article <1APR199313404295@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu<, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes... <In article <31MAR199321091163@juliet.caltech.edu<, lmh@juliet.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.) writes... <<Atheism (Greek 'a' not + 'theos' god)  Belief that there is no god. <<Agnosticism (Greek 'a' not + ~ 'gnostein ?' know) Belief that it is <<  not possible to determine if there is a god.  <No.  Agnosticism as you have here defined it is a positive belief--a <belief that it is not possible to determine the existence of any gods. <That's a belief I'm inclined to reject.  You have also defined atheism <here as a positive belief--that there is no god.  A fairly large number <of atheists on alt.atheism reject this definition, instead holding that <atheism is simply the absence of belief in a god.  Michael Martin, in <_Atheism: A Philosophical Justification_, distinguishes strong atheism   My mistake. I will have to get a newer dictionary and read the  follow up line.
In article <930421.120012.2o5.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes: >mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes: >> I looked back at this, and asked some questions of various people and >> got the following information which I had claimed and you pooh-poohed. >> The US has not sold Iraq any arms. > >What about the land mines which have already been mentioned?  I asked around in one of the areas you suggested yourself, and presented the information I got.  No mention of US landmines was given.  >> other countries (like Kuwait).  Information is hard to prove.  You are >> claiming that the US sold information?  Prove it.  [...]  Information >> is hard to prove, almost certainly if the US did sell information, then that >> fact is classified, and you can't prove it. > >Oh, very neat.  Dismiss everything I say unless I can prove beyond a shadow >of a doubt something which you yourself admit I can never prove to your >satisfaction.  Thanks, I'll stick to squaring circles. > >mathew  Okay, so you are going to blindly believe in things without reasonable evidence?  I didn't realize you were a theist.  I am doubting a claim presented without any evidence to support it.  If you are able to present real evidence for it, then great.  But unsupported claims, or even claims by such and such news agency will not be accepted.  If you want to stick to the sheer impossible, instead of the merely difficult, then fine.    The statement that if such a fact is classified, then you  can't prove it, is a simple matter of pragmatics and the law.  If you  have access to classified information that you know to be classified, and you reveal it, there is a good chance that you or someone else  (the person who revealed it to you), is going to jail.    I never said that you couldn't prove it to my satisfaction, I merely said that it was difficult.  (Who said I try and make things easy for people I am arguing with :) (Unless of course, they need the handicap).
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:  >> 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). >Hehehe, so you say, but this objective morality somehere tells you  >that this is not the case, and you don't know all the rules of such >transcendental game systems...  Which objective system are you talking about?  What is its goal? Again, which brand of morality are you talking about?
In article <sheafferC63zt0.Brs@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes: > >It had to happen: the old allegation of the "deathbed conversion" of the >noted unbeliever... [other examples] >What all of these "deathbed conversion" >claims have in common is that they are utterly unsubstantiated, and >almost certainly untrue.  I would not be too quick to say that they are almost certainly untrue. Even strong minded people may fall back on childhood indoctrination, grasp at straws, or do other strange things when faced with extreme suffering, not to mention physiological problems which may lead to diminished mental capacity.  At the risk of restarting an old argument and accusations of appeal to authority I remind readers of what I posted a while back as a kind of obituary for the late atheist Dr. Albert Sabin. In an old interview rebroadcast on public radio just after his death he told about a time a few years before when he was stricken with a very serious illness. He admitted to having cried out to God while critically ill and on a respirator. As it turned out he recovered and lived several more years. After his recovery he attributed this to early indoctrination. Don't say it couldn't happen to you, or that it hasn't happened to others, even if you are one of the few people who have experienced things like this. People are different. I admire Dr. Sabin for admitting his human weakness in that instance. I would not think less of Asimov for similar weakness.  Nevertheless I agree that these reports are unsubstantiated and may well be untrue. In any case they are not evidence for anything besides the power of early indoctrination and human frailty.
In article <115565@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes: >In article <1qi3l5$jkj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: > >>I hope an Islamic Bank is something other than BCCI, which >>ripped off so many small depositors among the Muslim >>community in the Uk and elsewhere. > >Grow up, childish propagandist. >    Gosh, Gregg.  I'm pretty good a reading between the lines, but   you've given me precious little to work with in this refutation.   Could you maybe flesh it out just a bit?  Or did I miss the full   grandeur of it's content by virtue of my blinding atheism?    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\   Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM   They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away, and sank Manhattan out at sea.
jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes: > > Sorry, but there are no supernatural > > forces necessary to create a pathogen.  You are saying, "Since > > diseases are bad, the bad entity must have created it."  So > > what would you say about acid rain, meteors falling from the > > sky, volcanoes, earthquakes, and other QUOTE UNQUOTE "Acts > > of God?"  >  > I would say that they are not "acts of God" but natural > occurrences.  It amazes me that you have the audacity to say that human creation was not the result of the natural process of evolution (but rather an "act of God") and then in the same post say that these other processes (volcanos et al.) are natural occurrences.  Who gave YOU the right to choose what things are natural processes and what are direct acts of God?  How do you know that God doesn't cause each and every natural disaster with a specific purpose in mind?  It would certainly go along with the sadistic nature I've seen in the bible.  > >>Even if Satan had nothing to do with the original inception of > >>disease, evolution by random chance would have produced them since > >>humanity forsook God's protection.  If we choose to live apart from > >>God's law (humanity collectively), then it should come as no surprise > >>that there are adverse consequences to our (collective) action.  One > >>of these is that we are left to deal with disease and disorders which > >>inevitably result in an entropic universe. > >  > > May I ask, where is this 'collective' bullcrap coming from?  > > By "collective" I was referring to the idea that God works with > humanity on two levels, individually and collectively.  If mankind > as a whole decides to undertake a certain action (the majority of > mankind), then God will allow the consequences of that action to > affect mankind as a whole.  Adam & Eve (TWO PEOPLE), even tho they had the honor (or so you christians claim) of being the first two, definitely do NOT represent a majority in the billions and trillions (probably more) of people that have come after them.  Perhaps they were the majority then, but *I* (and YOU) weren't around to vote, and perhaps we might have voted differently about what to do with that tree.  But your god never asked us.  He just assumes that if you have two bad people then they ALL must be bad.  Hmm.  Sounds like the same kind of false generalization that I see many of the theists posting here resorting to.  So THAT's where they get it... shoulda known.  > Jim B.  Nanci
timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes:  >Rule #4:  Don't mix apples with oranges.  How can you say that the >extermination by the Mongols was worse than Stalin?  Khan conquered people >unsympathetic to his cause.  That was atrocious.  But Stalin killed millions of >his own people who loved and worshipped _him_ and his atheist state!!  How can >anyone be worse than that?
>DATE:   20 Apr 93 05:23:15 GMT >FROM:   Bake Timmons <timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu> > >>Remember, Koresh "dried" for your sins. >> >>And pass that beef jerky.  Umm Umm. > >Though I wasn't there, at least I can rely on you now to keep me posted on what >what he's doing. >
In article <bakerlj.27.735422537@augustana.edu> bakerlj@augustana.edu (LLOYD BAKER) writes: >What I want is a response  >giving me the pros and cons of Metaphorical religious language. Could an  >atheist accept this view without giving up the foundamentals of what he  >believes in?    Could an atheist accept a usage in which religious literature or tradition is viewed in a metaphorical way?  Of course: this is essentially what we do with Homer, or with other concepts such as fate, luck, free will ;-)...  However, there remains the question of whether the religious literature of -- say -- Christianity is a particularly *good* set of metaphors for the world today.  It's also entirely unclear, and to me quite unlikely, that one could take a contemporary religion like that and divorce the metaphoric potential from the literalism and absolutism it carries now in many cases.
In article <1qjipo$pen@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: |> In article <1qinmd$sp@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |> #|>  |> #|> At any rate, even if your interpretation is correct this does  |> #|> not imply that the killings are religously motivated, which was  |> #|> the original poster's seeming claim. |> # |> #Tricky, tricky.   I'm replying to your blanket claim that they |> #are *not* religiously motivated. |>  |> They aren't.  Irish catholics in the south do not kill Irish protestants |> in the south, yet have precisely the same history behind them.  Those |> who think the killings are religously motivated ignore the rather |> obvious matter of British occupation, partition and misguided patriotism |> on both sides.   False dichotomy.  You claimed the killing were *not* religiously motivated, and I'm saying that's wrong.   I'm not saying that each and every killing is religiously motivate, as I spelled out in detail.   |>  |> The problems fault along the religious divide because at the historical |> roots of this thing we have a catholic country partitioned and populated |> by a protestant one.   The grotesque killing of soldiers and  |> civilians is supposedly motivated by patriotism, civil rights issues, and  |> revenge.  It's only difficult to understand insofaras insanity is hard  |> to understand - religion need not be invoked to explain it.    Does anyone else see the contradiction in this paragraph?   |> #But to claim that "The killings in N.I are not religously  |> #motivated." is grotesque.   All that means is that the Church |> #and believers are doing what they always do with history |> #they can't face: they rewrite it. |>  |> You're attacking a different claim.  My claim is that when an IRA |> terrorist plants a bomb in Warrington s/he does not have as a motive  |> the greater glory of God.   Sorry, Frank, but what I put in quotes is your own words from your posting <1qi83b$ec4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>.  Don't tell us now that  it's a different claim.   If you can no longer stand behind your  original claim, just say so.
In article <EDM.93Apr20145436@gocart.twisto.compaq.com> edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes: > >While we're on the topic of books, has anyone else noticed that Paine's >"The Age of Reason" is hard to find.  I've been wanting to pick up >a copy for a while, but not bad enough to mail order it.  I've noticed >though that none of the bookstores I go to seem to carry it.  I thought >this was supposed to be classic.  What's the deal? >--    Me too.  Our local used book store is the second largest on the   West Coast, and I couldn't find a copy there.  I guess atheists   hold their bibles in as much esteem as the theists.  /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\   Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM   They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away, and sank Manhattan out at sea.
jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:   >   ( in <1993Apr16.163729.867@batman.bmd.trw.com> )   ( responding to Dave "First With Official A.A Nickname" Fuller )   [ ... ] > The death penalty IS a deterrent, Dave.  The person executed will never > commit a crime again.  Guaranteed.      [ ... ]  That means that it is an effective anti-recidivism measure.  It does not say that it deters an individual from committing a capital crime in the first place.  The true question is whether the threat of death is likely to actually stop one from murdering.  (Or commiting treason -- are there any other capital crimes anywhere in the USA?)  That is, if there were no death penalty, would its introduction deter a would-be criminal from committing her/his crime?  I doubt it.  This is only the first step.  Even if it were a strong deterrent (short of being a complete deterrent) I would reject it.  For what about the case of the innocent executed?  And even if we could eliminate this possibility, I would reject the death penalty as immoral. This makes me something of a radical on the issue, although I think there are many opponents of captial punishment who agree with me, but who find the innocent executed the strongest argument to make.  I would, if magically placed in charge, facilitate state-aided suicide for criminals who have life-sentences.  This could be a replacement for capital punishment.  Those who don't want to live the rest of their lives in jail would always have this option.
In article <115571@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes: >In article <2BCC892B.21864@ics.uci.edu> bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes: > >>In article <115290@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes: > >>>Well, seeing as you are not muslim the sort of fatwa issued by Khomeini >>>would not be relevant to you. I can understand your fear of persecution >>>and I share it even more than you (being muslim), however Rushdie's >>>behavior was not completely excusable.  As much as I considered some of the (so-called) Islam-related dialogue here a total waste of time, I somehow can't restrain myself in this instance, so, Gregg, try this:  20:52 P.S.T.  I come to my senses and accept the all-knowing wisdom and power of the Quran and Allah.  Not only that, but Allah  himself drops by to congratulate me on my wise choice. Allah rolls a few bones and we get down.  Then Allah gets out the Crisco, bends  over, and invites me to take a spin around the block.  Wow.  20:56 P.S.T.  I realize that maybe Allah is looking for more of a  commitment than I'm ready for, so I say "Man, I've got some programming to do.  Gotta go.  I'll call you."  20:59 P.S.T   Thinking it over, I renounce Islam.  BTW, Gregg, Allah said he still thinks of you.
In article <1993Apr17.041535.7472@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes: |> In article <1qnedm$a91@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |> >In article <1ql8mdINN674@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: |> >|> They spent quite a bit of time on the wording of the Constitution.  |> > |> >I realise that this is widely held belief in America, but in fact |> >the clause on cruel and unusual punishments, like a lot of the |> >rest, was lifted from the English Bill of Rights of 1689. |>  |> According to Jerry Mander's _In the Absence of the Sacred_ (good |> book, BTW), the Great Binding Law of the Iroquois Confederacy |> also played a significant role as a model for the U.S. Constitution. |> Furthermore, apparently Marx and Engels were strongly influenced |> by a study of Iroquois society, using it as the prime example of |> a successful, classless, egalitarian, noncoercive society.  Mander |> goes on to say that both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. would do well |> to study the original document, figure out where each went wrong, |> and try to get it right next time.  That's fascinating.   I heard that the Chinese, rather than the Italians, invented pasta.