waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1qjf31$o7t@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: |> In article <1qimbe$sp@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |> #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: |> #|>  |> #|> I forget the origin of the quote, but "I gotta use words when I talk to |> #|> you".  An atheist is one who lacks belief in gods, yes?  If so, then |> #|> it's entirely plausible that an atheist could dig Lenin or Lennon to |> #|> such an extent that it might be considered "worship", and still be |> #|> an atheist.  Anything else seems to be Newspeak. |> # |> #Ask yourself the following question.   Would you regard an ardent |> #Nazi as a republican, simply because Germany no longer had a Kaiser? |>  |> No, because that's based on false dichotomy.   There are more options |> than you present me.    And that, of course, is the point.   You can't simply divide the world into atheists and non-atheists on the basis of god-belief.  If all you care about is belief in a supernatural deity, and have nothing to say about behaviour, then belief in a supernatural being is your criterion.  But once you start talking about behaviour, then someone's suscept- ibility to be led by bad people into doing bad things is what you  are - I assume - worried about.  And in that area, what you care about is whether someone is sceptical, critical and autonomous on the one hand, or gullible, excitable and easily led on the other.  I would say that a tendency to worship tyrants and ideologies indicates that a person is easily led.   Whether they have a worship or belief  in a supernatural hero rather than an earthly one seems to me to be beside the point.
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:  >>But chimps are almost human... >Does this mean that Chimps have a moral will?  Well, chimps must have some system.  They live in social groups as we do, so they must have some "laws" dictating undesired behavior.
In article <bissda.4.734849678@saturn.wwc.edu> bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:   >        The arguements he uses I am summing up.  The book is about whether >Jesus was God or not.  I know many of you don't believe, but listen to a >different perspective for we all have something to gain by listening to what >others have to say.   Read the FAQ first, watch the list fr some weeks, and come back then.
In article <1qibo2$f4o@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:   > >#>In the absence of some convincing evidence that theist fanatics are more >#>dangerous than atheist fanatics, I'll continue to be wary of fanatics of >#>any stripe. ># >#I think that the agnostic fanatics are the most dangerous of the lot. > >Fair point, actually.  I mentioned theists and atheists, but left out >agnostics.  Mea culpa. >   No wonder in the light of that you are a probably a theist who tries to pass as an agnostic. I still remember your post about your daughter singing Chrismas Carols and your feelings of it well.
In article <1qlfd4INN935@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: |> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |>  |> >>Well, chimps must have some system.  They live in social groups |> >>as we do, so they must have some "laws" dictating undesired behavior. |> > |> >So, why "must" they have such laws? |>  |> The quotation marks should enclose "laws," not "must."  Oh, Your Highness?   And exactly why "should" the quotation marks enclose "laws," not "must."  In case you didn't notice, it's the function of the "must" that I wish to ironicise.  |>  |> If there were no such rules, even instinctive ones or unwritten ones, |> etc., then surely some sort of random chance would lead a chimp society |> into chaos.  Perhaps the chimps that failed to evolve cooperative behaviour died out, and we are left with the ones that did evolve such behaviour, entirely by chance.  Are you going to proclaim a natural morality every time an organism evolves cooperative behaviour?  What about the natural morality of bee dance?
dean.kaflowitz (decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com) wrote: : >  : > I think you're letting atheist mythology  : Great start.  I realize immediately that you are not interested : in discussion and are going to thump your babble at me.  I would : much prefer an answer from Ms Healy, who seems to have a : reasonable and reasoned approach to things.  Say, aren't you the : creationist guy who made a lot of silly statements about : evolution some time ago?  : Duh, gee, then we must be talking Christian mythology now.  I : was hoping to discuss something with a reasonable, logical : person, but all you seem to have for your side is a repetition : of the same boring mythology I've seen a thousand times before. : I am deleting the rest of your remarks, unless I spot something : that approaches an answer, because they are merely a repetition : of some uninteresting doctrine or other and contain no thought : at all.  : I have to congratulate you, though, Bill.  You wouldn't : know a logical argument if it bit you on the balls.  Such : a persistent lack of function in the face of repeated : attempts to assist you in learning (which I have seen : in this forum and others in the past) speaks of a talent : that goes well beyond my own, meager abilities.  I just don't : seem to have that capacity for ignoring outside influences.  : Dean Kaflowitz  Dean,  Re-read your comments, do you think that merely characterizing an argument is the same as refuting it? Do you think that ad hominum attacks are sufficient to make any point other than you disapproval of me? Do you have any contribution to make at all?
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:  >> The probability that the "automobile system" will kill someone  >> innocent in an accident goes asymptotically close to 1, just  >> like the court system. >However, anyone who doesn't like the "automobile system" can >opt out, as I have.  This isn't true.  Many people are forced to use the "automobile system." I certainly don't use it by choice.  If there were other ways of getting around, I'd do it.  >Secondly, we do try to make the "automobile system" as safe >as possible, because we *do* recognize the danger to the  >innocent, whereas the US - the current example - is not trying >to make the "Court System" safer, which it could fairly easily >do by replacing fatal punishments with non-fatal punishments.  But I think that the Court system has been refined--over hundreds of years in the US, Britain, and other countries.  We have tried to make it as fair as possible.  Can it be made better (without removing the death penalty)?  Besides, life imprisonment sounds like a fatal punishment to me.
jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes:   A religion is a cult which if those in power belong to it.  Actually, they're all bull shit.
In article <2944159064.5.p00261@psilink.com> "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:   (Deletion) >Of course, there is also the >Book of the SubGenius and that whole collection of writings as well.
As I was created in the image of Gaea, therefore I must be the pinnacle of creation, She which Creates, She which Births, She which Continues.  Or, to cut all the religious crap, I'm a woman, thanks. And it's sexism that started me on the road to atheism.  --  Maddi Hausmann                       madhaus@netcom.com Centigram Communications Corp        San Jose California  408/428-3553
>DATE:   Tue, 20 Apr 1993 10:48:19 +0100 >FROM:   mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> > > >There's a great film called "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the >Media".  It's a Canadian film; I saw it at the Berlin Film Festival this >year.  If you get a chance, go and see it. > >I can't really recommend any books from having read them...  I'm thinking of >ordering a book which a reviewer claimed gives a good introduction to his >political activism.  I could dig up the title. > >mathew
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.  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.  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.?    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 <930421.121209.0e2.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes: >jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes: >> The problem with most peace-niks it they consider those of us who are >> not like them to be "bad" and "unconscionable".  I would not have any >> argument or problem with a peace-nik if they held to their ideals and >> stayed out of all conflicts or issues, especially those dealing with  >> the national defense.  But no, they are not willing to allow us to >> legitimately hold a different point-of-view.  They militate and  >> many times resort to violence all in the name of peace. > ><Yawn>  Another right-wing WASP imagining he's an oppressed minority.  >Perhaps Camille Paglia is right after all.  Personal attacks?    >"I would not have any argument or problem with a peace-nik if they [...] >stayed out of all conflicts or issues"?  I bet you wouldn't.  You'd love it.   Deliberate misinterpretation of a persons statement?  (By cutting out the part of the statement, he tries to blunt the thrust of the sentence. He never addresses the issue of extreemist peace people not holding true to their ideals.)  >But what makes you think that sitting back, saying nothing about defense >issues, and letting people like you make all the decisions is anything to do >with "their ideals"?  Ignoring the challenge?  (He ignores the challenge that extreemists for peace tend to be quite insistent that everyone accept their ideals for the world, and have even turned quite violent.  (Witness, Chicago, summer 1968)).  > >mathew  Paranoia?  (He assumes that anyone who argues against his viewpoint must "masturbate over Guns'N'Ammo.")  Fire up the Oven, it isn't hot enough!
In article <1qjfnv$ogt@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) wrote: > (1) Does the term "hero-worship" mean anything to you?    Yes, worshipping Jesus as the super-saver is indeed hero-worshipping of the grand scale. Worshipping Lenin that will make life pleasant for the working people is, eh, somehow similar, or what.   > (2) I understand that gods are defined to be supernatural, not merely >     superhuman. The notion of Lenin was on the borderline of supernatural insights into how to change the world, he wasn't a communist God, but he was the man who gave presents to kids during Christmas.   > #Actually, I agree. Things are always relative, and you can't have  > #a direct mapping between a movement and a cause. However, the notion > #that communist Russia was somewhat the typical atheist country is  > #only something that Robertson, Tilton et rest would believe in. >  > Those atheists were not True Unbelievers, huh?   :-)  Don't know what they were, but they were fanatics indeed.  Cheers, Kent
>>FROM:   mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> >>The latest news seems to be that Koresh will give himself up once he's >>finished writing a sequel to the Bible.  In article <2944079995.1.p00261@psilink.com> "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes: >Writing the Seven Seals or something along those lines.  He's already >written the first of the Seven which was around 30 pages or so and has >handed it over to an assistant for PROOFREADING!.  I would expect any >decent messiah to have a built-in spellchecker.  Maybe Koresh 2.0 will >come with one.  I heard he had asked the FBI to provide him with a word processor.  Does anyone know if Koresh has requested that it be WordPerfect5.0?  WP5.0 was written (and is owned) by Mormons, so the theological implications of requesting (or refusing) WP5.0 are profound!
In article <1pi9btINNqa5@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: |> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes: |>  |> >>Then why do people keep asking the same questions over and over? |> >Because you rarely ever answer them. |>  |> Nope, I've answered each question posed, and most were answered multiple |> times.  	He:   Fifty dollars if I can't answer your question.  	She:  What is the Big Bang theory.  	He:   The Big Bang theory is a recipe for cookies.  	She:  Fifty dollars, please.  	He:   Hey, I didn't say the answers would make sense.
verdant@ucs.umass.edu (Sol Lightman) writes: >My theory, though yet unproven, is that this is due to simple envy.  no its not.  its due to the fact that there are two issues here: Religion and religion.  religion is personal belief system. Religion is a memetic virus.  people loudly proclaiming their beliefs are crossing the border from religion -> Religion.  people that want to "save" others are firmly entrenched in Religion ("memoids").  rule #1 of not practicing Religion is to shut the fuck up, unless you discuss it politely.  this means that the motive behind the conversation is not only your self-gratifying wish to spread the word.    religion is something that ultimately comes from within a person, and reflects their value judgements.  Religion is something that is contracted from others and does not reflect the persons value judgements (other than perhaps "i think i'll be brainwashed today").  Religion is a drug...  i believe you can discuss religion.  however, the post that started this off was not intented as discussion, it was more a proclamation of someones Religion.
Mark McCullough (mccullou@snake12.cs.wisc.edu) wrote: 	[...details of US built chemical plant at Al Alteer near Baghdad...] : However, the plant's intended use was to aid the Iraqi infrastructure. : It is not an example of selling a weapon.  May sound nitpicking, : but are we going to refuse to sell valuable parts that build the : infrastructure because of dual use technology?   	I am contending that in this case (and in the case of the sale of pesticides by UK companies) that they knew full well that it was to  be used for the production of chemical weapons even if that was not its officially stated purpose.  : I personally don't think that letting Iran conquer Iraq would have been a  : good thing.    	For that matter, neither do I (for the reasons you state). It is the  hypocrisy and claims the US did not help Iraq that make me angry, plus the fact that the USA seems to believe it has the *right* to interfere where is sees fit (i.e. has an interest) rather than a *duty* to intervene where it is required. This is demonstrated by the failure of the US to do anything about East Timor (and the region *is* becoming destabilised). The USA might have done something approaching the right thing, given my reservations about the uncessary number of civillian casualites, but for wholly the wrong reasons and after having a hand in creating the situation.  : That in no way would affect the US later military action against Iraq.  	I did not suggest it would and it would be ridiculous to assert otherwise. I was simply indicating the USA has previously aided Iraq.  : Intel on manufacturing techniques, or something of that nature?   	No, apparently data (orginally from satellites although I doubt that Iraq would have been given the raw data) concerning troop concentrations.
In article <11862@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) wrote: >  > In article <sandvik-190493224221@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: > > > >As I know you can't get any physical problems by passive Christianity, > >unlike smoking. It's not that hard to avoid Christianity today, anyway. > >Just ignore 'em. > > >  >   Right on Keith, err, Kent.   >  >   Whadda you mean, you didn't see the smiley?  Ouch. I guess I didn't. Sorry. But my comment was just more 'irony' into the fire.  Cheers, Kent
In article <4949@eastman.UUCP> dps@nasa.kodak.com writes: > >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.  Same old bullshit. Not being given to delusions and wishful thinking I do not have the option of either loving or obeying that which I have so reason to believe.  >    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. >Those who doubt this or dispute it have not givin it a sincere effort.  More bullshit. I assure you in my misguided youth I made a sincere effort. It was very painful being a rational person raised in Christian home. Many others could tell the same story. You choose not to believe anyone's experience which contradicts your smug theories.
In article <C5uxJ9.pJ@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:  >See, I told you there was an atheist mythology, thanks for proving my >point. > >Bill  	Considering what you quoted and refered to was blank, I must say: touche!  	Of course, you are correct, there is no atheistic mythology employed  on this board. Or, if there is, it is null and void.   ---  Private note to Jennifer Fakult.          "This post may contain one or more of the following:          sarcasm, cycnicism, irony, or humor. Please be aware           of this possibility and do not allow yourself to be           confused and/or thrown for a loop. If in doubt, assume          all of the above.
In article <timmbake.735278230@mcl> timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes: > >James Hogan writes: > >[fine sentiments] > >From his very first post Jim assumed an attack of ad hominem, sarcastic >innuendo, i.e., shit to be shoveled.  He conveniently forgets this, of course, >and then _whines_ about his boredom.  Ad hominem, sarcastic innuendo?  Absolutely.  Forgotten?  Hardly. Bored?  Not really.   I try not to confuse "life on a.a." with life.  I just can't overcome the urge to tease/taunt folks who bound FAQ-less onto a.a. with such a chip on their shoulder.  To listen to you, one might think we belonged to some church!  I appreciate the patience of others who questioned your posting on a line-by-line content basis, though it's hard to know what impact that might have had, as compared to, say, "shovelling".  > >Fact: If he were truly interested in ending the thread he wouldn't have posted >his last shit to be shoveled.  I think I only lamented that, whatever the initial satisfactions, past a certain point circular abuse-heaping was just that.  >-- >Bake Timmons, III > >-- "...there's nothing higher, stronger, more wholesome and more useful in life >than some good memory..." -- Alyosha in Brothers Karamazov (Dostoevsky)  Sincere questions:  Why are you here?  What are you looking for?
(reference line trimmed)  SSAUYET@eagle.wesleyan.edu (SCOTT D. SAUYET) writes:  >First, I'll make the assumption that you agree that a murderer is one >who has commited murder.  Well, I'd say that a murderer is one who intentionally committed a murder. For instance, if you put a bullet into a gun that was thought to contain blanks, and someone was killed with such a gun, the person who actually performed the action isn't the murderer (but I guess this is actually made clear in the below definition).  >I'd be interested to see a more reasonable definition.   What do you mean by "reasonable?"  >Otherwise, your inductive definition doesn't bottom out: >Your definition, in essence, is that >>Murder is the intentional killing of someone who has not commited  >>murder, against his will. >Expanding the second occurence of `murder' in the above, we see that [...]  Yes, it is bad to include the word being defined in the definition.  But, even though the series is recursively infinite, I think the meaning can still be deduced.  >I assume you can see the problem here.  To do a correct inductive >definition, you must define something in terms of a simpler case, and >you must have one or several "bottoming out" cases.  For instance, we >can define the factorial function (the function which assigns to a >positive integer the product of the positive integers less than or >equal to it) on the positive integers inductively as follows:  [math lesson deleted]  Okay, let's look at this situation:  suppose there is a longstanding feud between two families which claim that the other committed some travesty in the distant past.  Each time a member of the one family kills a member of the other, the other family thinks that it is justified in killing a that member of the first family.  Now, let's suppose that this sequence has occurred an infinite number of times.  Or, if you don't like dealing with infinities, suppose that one member of the family goes back into time and essentially begins the whole thing.  That is, there is a never-ending loop of slayings based on some non-existent travesty. How do you resolve this?  Well, they are all murders.  Now, I suppose that this isn't totally applicable to your "problem," but it still is possible to reduce an uninduced system.  And, in any case, the nested "murderer" in the definition of murder cannot be infintely recursive, given the finite existence of humanity. And, a murder cannot be committed without a killing involved.  So, the first person to intentionally cause someone to get killed is necessarily a murderer.  Is this enough of an induction to solve the apparently unreducable definition?  See, in a totally objective system where all the information is available, such a nested definition isn't really a problem.
Darwin fish can be bought from: -- "JOIN THE DARWINNERS (TM) Send $6 to receive your official Evolving Fish..  wherever you want to spread the good news!  Darwinners, 6671 Sunset Blvd., Ste. 1525, L.A.,CA 90028 THE GREATEST THEORY EVER TOLD!"  Jenny
In article <1993Apr14.175557.20296@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>, mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:  >Sorry to insult your homestate, but coming from where I do, Wisconsin >is _very_ backwards.  I was never able to understand that people actually >held such bigoted and backwards views until I came here.  I have never been to Wisconsin, though I have been to neighbor Minnesota. Being a child of the Middle Atlantic (NY, NJ, PA) I found that there were few states in the provences that stood out in this youngster's mind: California, Texas, and Florida to  name the most obvious three.  However, both Minnesota and Wisconsin stuck out, solely on the basis of their politics.  Both have  always translated to extremely liberal and progressive states. And my recent trip to Minnestoa last summer served to support that state's reputation.  My guess is that Wisconsin is probably the same.  At least that was the impression the people of Minnesota left with me about their neighbors.  The only question in my head about Wisconsin, though, is  whether or not there is a cause-effect relationship between cheese and serial killers :)