waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes: > Simple.  Take out some physics books, and start looking for statements which > say that there is no objective physics.  I doubt you will find any.  You > might find statements that there is no objective length, or no objective > location, but no objective _physics_?  Perhaps you have a different understanding of what "physics" is.  If we can't measure anything objectively, then the answers we get from physics aren't objective either.  That's what I mean when I say there's no objective physics.  Sure, we can all agree that (say) F = GMm/r^2, but that's maths.  It's only physics when you relate it to the real world, and if we can't do that objectively, we're stuck.  (Of course, this displays my blatant bias towards applied science; but even theoretical physics gets applied to models of real world situations, based on real world observations.)  >                 (Consider, for instance, that speed-of-light-in- > vacuum is invariant.  This sounds an awful lot like an objective > speed-of-light-in-vacuum.)  It's an axiom that it's invariant.  But if the two of us measure it, we'll get different answers.  Yes, we call that experimental error, but it's not really "error" in the conventional sense; in fact, if you don't get any, that's an error :-)  You could argue that the value of c is "objective, to within +/- <some value>".  But I'd call that a rather odd usage of the word "objective", and it opens the way for statements like "Murder is objectively wrong for all people, to within 1% of the total population."
In article <1993Apr5.023044.19580@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:   |>  |> That's your mistake.  It would be better for the children if the mother |> raised the child. |>  |> 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. |> Compare that with how homos are raised.  Do a study and you will get my |> point. |>  |> But in no way do you have a claim that it would be better if the men |> stayed home and raised the child.  That is something false made up by |> feminists that seek a status above men.  You do not recognize the fact |> that men and women have natural differences.  Not just physically, but |> mentally also. |>   Bobby, there's a question here that I just HAVE to ask. If all of your posts aren't some sort of extended, elaborate hoax, why are you trying so hard to convince the entire civilised world that you're feeble minded? You have a talent for saying the most absurd things. Here's a little sign for you, print it, cut it out and put it on top of your computer/terminal.                ENGAGE BRAIN PRIOR TO OPERATING KEYBOARD   (Having said all that, I must admit we all get a laugh from your stuff.)     --
I found this little gem, I don't know if anyone has any interest/comments...   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Hi everyone,            I'm a commited Christian that is battling with a problem.  I know that romans talks about how we are saved by our faith not our deeds, yet hebrews and james say that faith without deeds is useless, saying' You fools, do you still think that just believing is enough?'  Now if someone is fully believing but there life is totally lead by themselves and not by God, according to Romans that person is still saved by there faith. But then there is the bit which says that God preferes someone who is cold to him (i.e. doesn't know him - condemned) so a lukewarm Christian someone who knows and believes in God but doesn't make any attempt to live by the bible.  Now I am of the opinion that you a saved through faith alone (not what you do) as taught in Romans, but how can I square up in my mind the teachings of James in conjunction with the lukewarm Christian being 'spat-out'  Can anyone help me, this really bothers me.--   in Christ,  Will   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------  --Adam
In <C5IwxM.G0z@news.chalmers.se> d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) writes:  >In article <kutluk.734797558@ccl.umist.ac.uk> kutluk@ccl.umist.ac.uk (Kutluk Ozguven) writes: >>Atheists are not >>mentioned in the Quran because from a Quranic point of view, and a >>minute's reasoning, one can see that there is no such thing.  >  But there are people who say that they are Atheists. If they aren't Atheists, >what are they?  When the Quran uses the word *din* it means way of individual thinking, behaving, communal order and protocols based on a set of beliefs. This is often interpreted as the much weaker term religion.   The atheists are not mentioned in the Quran along with Jews, Mushriqin, Christians, etc. because the  latter are all din. To have a din you need a set of beliefs, assumptions, etc, to forma a social code. For example the Marxist have those, such as History, Conflict, etc. That they do not put idols (sometimes they did) to represent those assuptions  does not mean they are any different from the other Mushriq, or roughly polytheists.   There cannot be social Atheism, because when there is a community, that community needs common ideas or standard beliefs to coordinate  the society. When they inscribe assumptions, say Nation, or "Progress is  the natural consequence of Human activity" or "parlamentarian democracy is doubtlessly the best way of government", however  they individually insist they do not have gods, from the Quranic point of view they do. Therefore by definition, atheism does not exist.  "We are a atheist society" in fact means "we reject the din other than ours".   Atheism can only exist when people reject all the idols/gods/dogmas/ suppositions/.. of the society that they part, and in that case that is a personal deviation of belief, and Quran tells about such deviations and disbelief. But as I mentioned, from a Quranic point of looking at things, there is no Atheism in the macro level.   I think it took more than one minute.
In article <1r4dglINNkv2@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes: |>  |>  |> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes: |>  |>  |>  |> >  Neither I, nor Webster's has ever heard of Francis Hitchings.  Who is he?  |> >Please do not answer with "A well known evolutionist" or some other such |> >informationless phrase. |>  |> He is a paleontologist and author of "The Neck of the Giraffe".  The |> quote was taken from pg. 103. |>  |> Jack      For your information, I checked the Library of Congress catalog, and they list the following books by Francis Hitching:      Earth Magic      The Neck of the Giraffe, or Where Darwin Went Wrong      Pendulum: the Psi Connection      The World Atlas of Mysteries
In <93106.155002JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu> <JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:        Who cares what the fellow wrote anyway? I mean, it came from PSUVM, so how could it possibly have been of any importance?  =====  (disperse smileys until no longer offended)
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.  >Why should a fatwa issued by Khomeini be relevant to anyone who >doesn't live in Iran?  Issued by Khomeini it shouldn't be relevant to anyone. But issued by an honest and learned scholar of Islam it would be relevant to any muslim as it would be contrary to Islamic law which all muslims are required to respect.  >  Who is it that decides whether Rushdie's behavior is excusable?   Anyone sufficiently well versed in Islamic law and capable of reasoning, if you are talking about a weak sense of "excuse." It depends on what  sense of "excuse" you have in mind.   > And who cares if you think it is inexcusable?  Only someone who thinks my opinion is important, obviously. Obviously you don't care, nor do I care that you don't care.
In article <1993Apr3.221101.25314@midway.uchicago.edu> shou@midway.uchicago.edu writes: >In article <1pi0dhINN8ub@dsi.dsinc.com> perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) writes: >>Bigots never concede that their bigotry is irrational; it >>is other people who determine that by examining their arguments. >[...] >No!  I  expected it! You've set yourself up a wonderful little >world where a bigot is whomever you say it is.  This is very  >comfortable for you--imagine, never having to entertain an >argument against your belief system.  Simply accuse the person >making of being a bigot.    Well, this particular thread of vituperation slopped its venom over into alt.atheism, where we spend most of our time entertaining arguments against our belief system, without resorting to accusing others of bigotry.  It's somewhat ironic that our exposure to bigotry happens in this instance to have originated in rec.scouting, since I always understood scouting to teach tolerance and diversity.  I understand bigotry to be irrational prejudice against other people who happen to be of a different race, religion, ethnic background, sex, or other inconsequential characteristics.  All the evidence I've seen indicates that sexual orientation and lack of belief in gods are exactly such inconsequential characteristics.  Thus, pending further evidence, I conclude that those who show prejudice against such people are bigots, and organizations that exclude such people are discriminatory.
In article <1993Apr26.000410.18114@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>, mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes: > In article <C62B52.LKz@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes: > >I can think of a lot more agonizing ways to get killed.  Fatal cancer, for > >instance. > > > >Anyone else have some more?  Maybe we can make a list. > How about dying of a blood clot in a _very_ bad place.
In article <C5Jxru.2t8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes: >What do you base your belief on atheism on?  Your knowledge and reasoning?  >COuldn't that be wrong? >    Actually, my atheism is based on ignorance.  Ignorance of the   existence of any god.  Don't fall into the "atheists don't believe   because of their pride" mistake.   /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\   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 <1qiu97INNpq6@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:   > > As evidence for the Resurrection, it is often claimed that the Disciples >were tortured to death for their beliefs and still did not renounce >their claim that Jesus had come back from the dead. > Now, I skimmed Acts and such, and I found a reference to this happening >to Stephen, but no others. Where does this apparently very widely held >belief come from? Is there any evidence outside the Bible? Is there any >evidence *in* the Bible? I sure haven't found any... >
:P>My atheism is incidental, and the question of "God" is trivial. :P :P>But........ :P :P>It matters a great deal to me when idiots try to force their belief on me, :P>when they try to enforce their creation myths to be taught as scientific :P>fact in school, when they tell me I can have no morals because morals are :P>from "God", when a successful presidential candidate says that an atheist :P>shouldn't be considered a citizen and couldn't be patriotic because "after :P>all this is one nation under God", when the fundies try to take over the :P>party that may well provide the next President of The United States of :P>America so that they can force their beliefs on the rest of the country, :P>et cetera.......... :P :P>That's why I subscribe to alt.atheism. :P :P>And in the middle of this, people who aren't mind readers pop up on :P>alt.atheism to tell me what I do or don't believe, or to concoct some :P>straw-man reason why I don't share their particular belief. :P :P>You think I should just accept this? :P :P>This isn't particularly a dig at fundamentalist christians. I have been :P>told on alt.atheism that I reject Allah because I am too proud to embrace :P>islam, and that I reject Krishna because my eyes are closed. But most of :P>the religious nuts who post on alt.atheism are some kind of militant :P>christian who can't accept that others don't share their beliefs. This :P>kind of stuff should be kept on talk.religion.misc, where it belongs. :P :P>ATHEISM ISN'T A BELIEF, IT'S THE ABSENCE OF BELIEF IN ANY GODS. :P>                                 ------- :P :P>Do you have a problem with this? :P :P>> :P>>Bill :PFirst, I would like to say that atheism is in fact a belief.  It is a beilief :Pbecause a belief in something you hold to with ador and faith.  An atheist says there are no gods.  This cannot be proven. therefore you are excepting this on :Pfaith alone.  That is a belief.  Secondly, you complain so much about how the  :Pfundamental christians are trying to force their beliefs on you, but you don't :Pmention anything about how the atheists, such as; Madamme Murry O'hare(founder :Pof the Atheists Association in Austin Texas), and Robert Sherman(from the       Chicago area) have been trying to force their beliefs on everyone by trying to  get rid of God from our society by banning religious paintings from parks during Chistmas,  forcing cities to change their town seals if there is any mention of God in it (like Sherman has done), or trying to get the slogan "In God We Trust" off of the American currency? You also talk about creation "myths" as if they are in fact myths and tha :P :P :P  :Phave concrete evidece of this.  You probably :Pdon't and that just enforces my point that your atheism is just as much belief as my christianity.  If this is not so please do show me why it isn't.   :PMark Covalt   The only real problem I have with the argument of christianity is that they seem to ignore their origin that being Asiatic in origin.  As soon as christians become the  good non ego-centric Buddhists they are supposed to be, then I might listen.
In article <1qif1g$fp3@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: >In article <1qialf$p2m@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: >|In article <1qi921$egl@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: [stuff deleted...] >||> To the newsgroup at large, how about this for a deal: recognise that what  >||> happened in former Communist Russia has as much bearing on the validity  >||> of atheism as has the doings of sundry theists on the validity of their  >||> theism.  That's zip, nada, none.  The fallacy is known as ad hominem, and  >||> it's an old one. It should be in the Holy FAQ, in the Book of Constructing >||> a Logical Argument :-) >| >|Apart from not making a lot of sense, this is wrong.   There >|is no "atheist creed" that taught any communist what to do "in >|the name of atheism".   There clearly are theistic creeds and >|instructions on how to act for theists.    They all madly >|conflict with one another, but that's another issue. > >Lack of instructions on how to act might also be evil.  That's like saying that, since mathematics includes no instructions on how to act, it is evil.  Atheism is not a moral system, so why should it speak of instructions on how to act?  *Atheism is simply lack of belief in God*.    Plenty of theists >think so.   So one could argue the case for "atheism causes whatever >I didn't like about the former USSR" with as much validity as "theism >causes genocide" - that is to say, no validity at all.  I think the argument that a particular theist system causes genocide can be made more convincingly than an argument that atheism causes genocide. This is because theist systems contain instructions on how to act, and one or more of these can be shown to cause genocide.  However, since the atheist set of instructions is the null set, how can you show that atheism causes genocide? -- David Choweller (davec@silicon.csci.csusb.edu)  There are scores of thousands of human insects who are ready at a moment's notice to reveal the Will of God on every possible subject.          --George Bernard Shaw.
In article <4949@eastman.UUCP> dps@nasa.kodak.com writes: >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".   >        If you rely simply on your reason then you will never >know more than you do now.         ^^^^^^   I once heard an arguement from a xtian friend similar to this. "Christianity is a Higher Logic.  Athiest like u will not be able to understand it.  Your atheist logic is very low.  Only thru faith can  we understand the Higher Logic in God".  So I asked him, "So what is this Higher Logic?"  His answer, "I don't know."  This, & the posting above highlights one of the worst things about xtainity.  It is abundantly clear to both atheists & xtains that their believe is both illogical & irrational.  Their tactics, therefore: to disregard logic & rationality altogether.  Silly excuses such as the ones above and those such as, "How can u trust science, science was invented by man!", only goes to further show the weakness of their religion.  In my country where xtainity was and still is rapidly growing, xtains never try to convert people by appealing to their brains or senses. They know it would be a fruitless act, given the irrational nature of their faith. They would wait until a person is in distress, then they would comfort him/her and addict them to their emotional opium.  Never in my life had I met a person who converted to xtainity coz it's "reasonable".  Rationality has no place in xtainity (see xtian arguement against "reason" above).  --  The UnEnlightened One ------------------+--------------------------------------------------------                   |  Tan Chade Meng    | The wise man tells his wife that he understands her. Singapore         |  cmtan@iss.nus.sg  | The fool tries to prove it.                    |  ------------------+--------------------------------------------------------   --
In article <16BB112525.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:   >I assume that you  say here a religious law is for the followers of the >religion. That begs the question why the religion has the right to define >who is a follower even when the offenders disagree.  No, I say religious law applies to those who are categorized as belonging to the religion when event being judged applies. This prevents situations in which someone is a member of a religion who, when charged, claims that he/she was _not_ a member of the religion so they are free to go on as if nothing had happened.
Umar Khan (khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil) wrote: >I strongly suggest that you look up a book called THE BIBLE, THE QURAN, AND >SCIENCE by Maurice Baucaille, a French surgeon.  It is not comprehensive,  >  He was unable >to find a wealth of scientific statements in the Holy Qur'an, but, >what he did find made sense with modern understanding.  So, he >investigated the Traditions (the hadith) to see what they had to >say about science.  they were filled with science problems; after >all, they were contemporary narratives from a time which had, by >pour standards, a primitive world view.  His conclusion was that, >while he was impressed that what little the Holy Qur'an had to >say about science was accurate, he was far more impressed that the >Holy Qur'an did not contain the same rampant errors evidenced in >the Traditions.  How would a man of 7th Century Arabia have known >what *not to include* in the Holy Qur'an (assuming he had authored >it)?    This book is worth a read to get a sensible view of this issue.   The book is in two sections.  Section 1 contains a fairly reasonable analysis of the Bible, showing many inconsistencies between the Bible and modern science.  Well we all know that, no surprises.  Section 2 analyses the Koran's version of the Old Testament stories, and seems, on the face of it, to present a good case showing the Koran is consistent with modern science.  However, it was plain to me, that this consistency was only possible by the vague phraseology of the Koran.  Take the flood, for example, the bible is full of detail, ("forty days and forty nights", "pair of every animal", etc.), we all know this is nonsense.  The Koran's description of the same event is so obscure as to make possible an interpretation such as "A big river  flooded for a few days and caused much damage".  Yes, no contradiction but also not much fact.  The Koran might be consistent with modern science, but being consistent due to its vagueness compared with other books of that time, does not seem much of an achievement.  The book concludes by saying something like, the Koran must have had divine inspiration because at the time it was written there were a lot of (to us now) ridiculous ideas about the universe, and none of them can be found in the Koran!  Arguing for the greatness of a book by talking about what it does not contain seems absurd in the extreme.  The above is, of course, from memory so I may have missed some points.    --
pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:  >"In Mammon We Trust" >"Hey, this is just a piece of paper!" >"Spend Me Quickly"  "This is your god" (from John Carpenter's "They Live," natch)
In article <1993Apr5.171143.828@batman.bmd.trw.com>, jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes: |> In article <2942949719.2.p00261@psilink.com>, "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes: |> >>DATE:   Fri, 2 Apr 1993 23:02:22 -0500 |> >>FROM:   Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu> |> >> |> >> |> >>> > 3. Can god uncreate itself? |> >>>  |> >>> No.  For if He did, He would violate His own nature which He cannot do. |> >>> It is God's nature to Exist.  He is, after all, the "I AM" which is |> >>> a statement of His inherent Existence.  He is existence itself. |> >>> Existence cannot "not-exist". |> >> |> >>Then, as mentioned above, he must not be very omnipotent. |> >> |>  |> What do you mean by omnipotent here?  Do you mean by "omnipotent" |> that God should be able to do anything/everything?  This creates |> a self-contradictory definition of omnipotence which is effectively |> useless. |>  |> To be descriptive, omnipotence must mean "being all-powerful" and |> not "being able to do anything/everything". |>  |> Let me illustrate by analogy. |> Suppose the United States were the only nuclear power on earth.  Suppose |> further that the US military could not effectively be countered by any |> nation or group of nations.  The US has the power to go into any country |> at any time for any reason to straighten things out as the leaders of the |> US see fit.  The US would be militarily "omnipotent".  Did you check with the Afghans before posting this?   They might disagree.
In article <kmr4.1575.734879106@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes: >In article <1993Apr15.000406.10984@Princeton.EDU> qpliu@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (q.p.liu) writes: > >>>So while Faith itself is a Gift, obedience is what makes Faith possible. >>What makes obeying different from believing?  >	I am still wondering how it is that I am to be obedient, when I have  >no idea to whom I am to be obedient!  It is all written in _The_Wholly_Babble:_the_Users_Guide_to_Invisible_ _Pink_Unicorns_.  To be granted faith in invisible pink unicorns, you must read the Babble, and obey what is written in it.  To obey what is written in the Babble, you must believe that doing so is the way to be granted faith in invisible pink unicorns.  To believe that obeying what is written in the Babble leads to believing in invisible pink unicorns, you must, essentially, believe in invisible pink unicorns.  This bit of circular reasoning begs the question: What makes obeying different from believing?