waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr6.013657.5691@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye) wrote: >  > [reply to zazen@austin.ibm.com (E. H. Welbon)] >   > >>>     There is no means that i can possibly think of to prove beyond doubt > >>>that a god does not exist (but if anyone has one, by all means, tell me > >>>what it is).  Therefore, lacking this ability of absolute proof, being an > >>>atheist becomes an act of faith in and of itself, and this I cannot accept. > >>> I accept nothing on blind faith. >   > >>Invisible Pink Flying Unicorns!  Need I say more? >   > >...I harbor no beliefs at all, there is no good evidence for god > >existing or not.  Some folks call this agnosticism.  It does not suffer > >from "blind faith" at all.  I think of it as "Don't worry, be happy". >   > For many atheists, the lack of belief in gods is secondary to an > epistemological consideration:  what do we accept as a reliable way of > knowing?  There are no known valid logical arguments for the existence > of gods, nor is there any empirical evidence that they exist.  Most > philosophers and theologians agree that the idea of a god is one that > must be accepted on faith.  Faith is belief without a sound logical > basis or empirical evidence.  It is a reliable way of knowing? >    Could you expand on your definition of knowing? It seems a bit monolithic here, but I'm not sure that you intend that. Don't we need, for example, to distinguish between "knowing" 2 plus 2 equals 4 (or 2 apples plus 2 apples equals 4 apples), the French "knowing" that Jerry Lewis is an auteur, and what it means to say we "know" what Socrates said?  > This is patently absurd; but whoever wishes to become a philosopher > must learn not to be frightened by absurdities. -- Bertrand Russell
In article <1993Apr3.071823.13253@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes: |> In article <1pj2b6$aaa@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |> >In article <1993Apr3.033446.10669@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes: |> >|>Er, Jon, what Ken said was: |> >|>  |> >|> There have previously been people like you in your country.  Unfortunately, |> >|>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |> >|> most Jews did not survive. |> >|>  |> >|>That sure sounds to me like Ken is accusing the guy of being a Nazi. |> >  [my previous posting deleted]  |>  |> Yes, yes.  This is a perfectly fine rant, and I agree with it completely. |> But what does it have to do with anything?  The issue at hand here |> is whether or not Ken accused the fellow from Germany of being a |> Nazi.  I grant that he did not explicity make this accusation, but |> he came pretty damn close.  He is certainly accusing the guy of |> sympathizing with those who would like to exterminate the Jews, and |> that's good enough for me.  The poster casually trashed two thousand years of Jewish history, and  Ken replied that there had previously been people like him in Germany.  That's right.   There have been.    There have also been people who were formally Nazis.   But the Nazi party would have gone nowhere without the active and tacit support of the ordinary man in the street who behaved as though casual anti-semitism was perfectly acceptable.  Now what exactly don't you understand about what I wrote, and why don't you see what it has to do with the matter at hand?
In article <1ql8ekINN635@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: |> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |>  |> >>>>What if I act morally for no particular reason?  Then am I moral?  What |> >>>>if morality is instinctive, as in most animals? |> >>> |> >>>Saying that morality is instinctive in animals is an attempt to  |> >>>assume your conclusion. |> >> |> >>Which conclusion? |> > |> >You conclusion - correct me if I err - that the behaviour which is |> >instinctive in animals is a "natural" moral system. |>  |> See, we are disagreeing on the definition of moral here.  Earlier, you said |> that it must be a conscious act.  By your definition, no instinctive |> behavior pattern could be an act of morality.  You are trying to apply |> human terms to non-humans.  Pardon me?   *I* am trying to apply human terms to non-humans?  I think there must be some confusion here.   I'm the guy who is saying that if animal behaviour is instinctive then it does *not* have any moral sugnificance.   How does refusing to apply human terms to animals get turned into applying human terms?  |> I think that even if someone is not conscious of an alternative,  |> this does not prevent his behavior from being moral.  I'm sure you do think this, if you say so.   How about trying to convince me?  |>  |> >>You don't think that morality is a behavior pattern?  What is human |> >>morality?  A moral action is one that is consistent with a given |> >>pattern.  That is, we enforce a certain behavior as moral. |> > |> >You keep getting this backwards.  *You* are trying to show that |> >the behaviour pattern is a morality.  Whether morality is a behavior  |> >pattern is irrelevant, since there can be behavior pattern, for |> >example the motions of the planets, that most (all?) people would |> >not call a morality. |>  |> I try to show it, but by your definition, it can't be shown.  I've offered, four times, I think, to accept your definition if you allow me to ascribe moral significence to the orbital motion of the planets.  |>  |> And, morality can be thought of a large class of princples.  It could be |> defined in terms of many things--the laws of physics if you wish.  However, |> it seems silly to talk of a "moral" planet because it obeys the laws of |> phyics.  It is less silly to talk about animals, as they have at least |> some free will.  Ah, the law of "silly" and "less silly".   what Mr Livesey finds  intuitive is "silly" but what Mr Schneider finds intuitive is "less  silly".  Now that's a devastating argument, isn't it.
In article <66019@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes: >Benedikt Rosenau writes, with great authority: > >>     IF IT IS CONTRADICTORY IT CANNOT EXIST. > >"Contradictory" is a property of language.  If I correct this to > >      THINGS DEFINED BY CONTRADICTORY LANGUAGE DO NOT EXIST > >I will object to definitions as reality.  If you then amend it to > >      THINGS DESCRIBED BY CONTRADICTORY LANGUAGE DO NOT EXIST > >then we've come to something which is plainly false.  Failures in >description are merely failures in description.   How about this description: "An object that is, at one time, both a Euclidean square and a Euclidean circle"? I hold that no object satisfying this description could exist. The description is inconsistent, and hence describes an object that could not exist.  Now, suppose someone pointed to a bicycle, and said, "That object is, at one time, both a Euclidean square and a Euclidean circle." This does not mean that the bicycle does not exist, it measn that the description was incorrectly applied.    The atheist says, "The descriptions of God that I have been presented with are contradictory, and hence describe something that cannot exist."  Now, your position (so far as I can gather) is that God exists, but the descriptions atheists have been presented with are simply bad descriptions of It.  This is roughly analogous to someone who has never seen a bicycle, and, when they ask for a description from people who claim to have seen one, are told that it is a "Euclidean circle-square". Can they be blamed for doubting rather strongly that this 'bicycle' exists at all?  >(I'm not an objectivist, remember.)   No kidding. :->   Sincerely,   Ray Ingles               ingles@engin.umich.edu
In article <1993Apr20.102306.882@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes: >Hawaii?  We liberated it from  >Spain.  Well, you were going well until you hit this one.  Hawaii was an independent country.  A coup by Americans led to a request to annex it.  The US refused, but eventually did annex it several years later during the Spanish-American War. -- "On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey! On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole     that she made from Leftover Turkey. [days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...    -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes: > To the media, "religion" and "cult" have about the same relative > connotations as "government" and "terrorist group".  Yes, each is a form of the other.  Charley an anarchist?  No, just true words being spoken in jest.
In article 65934@mimsy.umd.edu, mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes: :PNanci Ann Miller writes: :P :P>My favorite reply to the "you are being too literal-minded" complaint is :P>that if the bible is really inspired by God and if it is really THAT :P>important to him, then he would make damn certain all the translators and :P>scribes and people interpreting and copying it were getting it right, :P>literally.  If not, then why should I put ANY merit at all in something :P>that has been corrupted over and over and over by man even if it was :P>originally inspired by God? :P :PThe "corrupted over and over" theory is pretty weak.  Comparison of the :Pcurrent hebrew text with old versions and translations shows that the text :Phas in fact changed very little over a space of some two millennia.  This :Pshouldn't be all that suprising; people who believe in a text in this manner :Pare likely to makes some pains to make good copies.
In article <1993Apr21.144114.8057@wam.umd.edu>, willdb@wam.umd.edu (William David Battles) says: > >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!!!!  E >B >>: PREPARED FOR YOUR ETERNAL DAMNATION!!! >> >>Did someone leave their terminal unattended again? > >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.  Sounds like you were going to a different Penn State or something. Kampus Krusade for Khrist is very vocal here, but they really have little power to get anything done.  Sometimes it seems like there are a lot of them because they're generally more vocal than their opposition, but there really aren't that many Krusaders.  The liberals tend to keep to themselves if they can help it, since all they really want is to be allowed to go about their own lives the way they want to.  ...so you don't hear from or about most of them.  The bible-bangers stand out because they want everyone to be forced to live according to bible-banger rules.  The Krusaders certainly don't run this place.  I'd say we've got a rather average mix. of people here.... much like the rest of the U.S.  And just like everywhere else, some factions are louder than others.
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye) writes: > I read an article about a poll done of students at the Ivy League > schools in which it was reported that a third of the students > indentified themselves as atheists.  This is a lot higher than among the > general population.  I wonder what the reasons for this discrepancy are? > Is it because they are more intelligent?  Younger?  Is this the wave of > the future?  I would guess that it probably has something to do with the ease of which ideas and thoughts are communicated on a college campus.  In the real world (tm) it's easier for theists (well, people in general really) to lock themselves into a little bubble where they only see and talk to those people who are of the same opinion as they are.  In college you are constantly surrounded by and have to interact with people who have different ideas about life, the universe, and everything.  It is much much harder to build a bubble around yourself to keep everyone else's ideas from reaching you.  So, in a world where theists are forced to contend with and listen to atheists and theists of other religions some are bound to have a change in their beliefs over four years.  There is nowhere to run.... :-)  > David Nye (nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu).  Midelfort Clinic, Eau Claire WI > This is patently absurd; but whoever wishes to become a philosopher > must learn not to be frightened by absurdities. -- Bertrand Russell
mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:  >As for rape, surely there the burden of guilt is solely on the rapist?  Not so.  If you are thrown into a cage with a tiger and get mauled, do you blame the tiger?
I read an article about a poll done of students at the Ivy League schools in which it was reported that a third of the students indentified themselves as atheists.  This is a lot higher than among the general population.  I wonder what the reasons for this discrepancy are? Is it because they are more intelligent?  Younger?  Is this the wave of the future?
In article <1r35oe$hqd@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: |> In article <1r2kt7$6e1@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |> #In article <1qugin$9tf@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: |> #|> In article <1qkogg$k@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |> #|> |> #|> #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. |> #|>  |> #|> Indeed I may.  And one may be an atheist and also be gullible, excitable |> #|> and easily led. |> #|>  |> #|> #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. |> #|>  |> #|> Sure.  But whether or not they are atheists is what we are discussing, |> #|> not whether they are easily led.   |> # |> #Not if you show that these hypothetical atheists are gullible, excitable |> #and easily led from some concrete cause.   In that case we would also |> #have to discuss if that concrete cause, rather than atheism, was the |> #factor that caused their subsequent behaviour. |>  |> I'm not arguing that atheism causes such behaviour - merely that |> it is not relevant to the definition of atheism, which is 'lack of belief in  |> gods'.    Throw away the FAQ.   We can all just ask Mr O'Dwyer, since he can define the thing that the rest of us only talk about.
keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: >mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes: >>As for rape, surely there the burden of guilt is solely on the rapist? >  > Not so.  If you are thrown into a cage with a tiger and get mauled, do you > blame the tiger?  As far as I know, tigers are not sentient.  If I were pushed into a pool with some dolphins and they attacked me, I might be inclined to blame the dolphins rather than the person doing the pushing, as (a) dolphins are not usually aggressive and (b) they seem to have well-developed brains and a capacity for abstract thought.  As a matter of fact, tigers rarely attack humans unless the human provokes them.  Of course, if they are in a cage which is far too small, that might count as provocation...
In article <1qnpe2INN8b0@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: |> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) 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. |>  |> Just because the wording is elsewhere does not mean they didn't spend |> much time on the wording.  In the part of the posting you have so helpfully deleted, I  pointed out that they used the wording from the English Bill of Rights apparently *changing* what they understood by it, and I asked why then should we, two hundred years later, be bound by what Keith Allan Schneider *thinks* they understood by it.  |>  |> >>We have already looked in the dictionary to define the word.  Isn't  |> >>this sufficient? |> >Since the dictionary said that a lack of mercy or an intent to |> >inflict injury or grief counted as "cruel", sure. |>  |> People can be described as cruel in this way, but punishments cannot.  So one cannot say "a cruel fate"?  Your prevarications are getting increasingly unconvincing, I think.
In article <1993Apr19.113255.27550@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) wrote: > >Fred, the problem with such reasoning is that for us non-believers > >we need a better measurement tool to state that person A is a > >real Muslim/Christian, while person B is not. As I know there are > >no such tools, and anyone could believe in a religion, misuse its > >power and otherwise make bad PR. It clearly shows the sore points > >with religion -- in other words show me a movement that can't spin > >off Khomeinis, Stalins, Davidians, Husseins... *). >  > I don't think such a system exists.  I think the reason for that is an > condition known as "free will".  We humans have got it.  Anybody, using > their free-will, can tell lies and half-truths about *any* system and > thus abuse it for their own ends.  I don't think such tools exist either. In addition, there's no such thing as objective information. All together, it looks like religion and any doctrines could be freely misused to whatever purpose.  This all reminds me of Descartes' whispering deamon. You can't trust anything. So why bother.  Cheers, Kent
In article <C5prCA.590@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) says: > >In <11836@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes: > >>In article <C5L1Ey.Jts@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike >Cobb) writes: > >>  If I'm wrong, god is free at any time to correct my mistake.  That >>  he continues not to do so, while supposedly proclaiming his >>  undying love for my eternal soul, speaks volumes. > >What are the volumes that it speaks besides the fact that he leaves your >choices up to you?
James Hogan writes:  timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes: >>Jim Hogan quips:  >>... (summary of Jim's stuff)  >>Jim, I'm afraid _you've_ missed the point.  >>>Thus, I think you'll have to admit that  atheists have a lot >>more up their sleeve than you might have suspected.  >>Nah.  I will encourage people to learn about atheism to see how little atheists >>have up their sleeves.  Whatever I might have suspected is actually quite >>meager.  If you want I'll send them your address to learn less about your >>faith.  >Faith?  Yeah, do you expect people to read the FAQ, etc. and actually accept hard atheism?  No, you need a little leap of faith, Jimmy.  Your logic runs out of steam!  >>>Fine, but why do these people shoot themselves in the foot and mock >>>the idea of a God?  ....  >>>I hope you understand now.  >>Yes, Jim.  I do understand now.  Thank you for providing some healthy sarcasm >>that would have dispelled any sympathies I would have had for your faith.  >Bake,  >Real glad you detected the sarcasm angle, but am really bummin' that >I won't be getting any of your sympathy.  Still, if your inclined >to have sympathy for somebody's *faith*, you might try one of the >religion newsgroups.  >Just be careful over there, though. (make believe I'm >whispering in your ear here)  They're all delusional!  Jim,  Sorry I can't pity you, Jim.  And I'm sorry that you have these feelings of denial about the faith you need to get by.  Oh well, just pretend that it will all end happily ever after anyway.  Maybe if you start a new newsgroup, alt.atheist.hard, you won't be bummin' so much?  >Good job, Jim. >.  >Bye, Bake.   >>[more slim-Jim (tm) deleted]  >Bye, Bake! >Bye, Bye!  Bye-Bye, Big Jim.  Don't forget your Flintstone's Chewables!  :)  -- Bake Timmons, III
In article <1993Apr19.112008.26198@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes: |>  |> By the way, Jon, I found a reference to my claim that the percentage of |> the population that suffers from depression has been increasing this |> century (as you requested).  I will start a new heading ("thread") to |> post it under.  Cool, then we can discuss the increase in radio and TV use,  the increase in the use of fossil fuels, the increase in air  travel, and consumption of processed bread, and you can instruct us on which of them causes increased depression.
In article <66015@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:   (Deletion) >I cannot see any evidence for the V. B. which the cynics in this group would >ever accept.  As for the second, it is the foundation of the religion. >Anyone who claims to have seen the risen Jesus (back in the 40 day period) >is a believer, and therefore is discounted by those in this group; since >these are all ancients anyway, one again to choose to dismiss the whole >thing.  The third is as much a metaphysical relationship as anything else-- >even those who agree to it have argued at length over what it *means*, so >again I don't see how evidence is possible. >   No cookies, Charlie. The claims that Jesus have been seen are discredited as extraordinary claims that don't match their evidence. In this case, it is for one that the gospels cannot even agree if it was Jesus who has been seen. Further, there are zillions of other spook stories, and one would hardly consider others even in a religious context to be some evidence of a resurrection.   There have been more elaborate arguments made, but it looks as if they have not passed your post filtering.     >I thus interpret the "extraordinary claims" claim as a statement that the >speaker will not accept *any* evidence on the matter.   It is no evidence in the strict meaning. If there was actual evidence it would probably be part of it, but the says nothing about the claims.
In article <1993Apr17.122329.21438@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:   >>>"AND IT IS HE (GOD ALMIGHTY) WHO CREATED THE NIGHT AND THE >>>DAY, AND THE SUN AND THE EARTH:  ALL (THE CELETIAL BODIES) >>>SWIM ALONG, EACH IN ITS ROUNDED COURSE."  (Holy Quran 21:33) > >>Hmm. This agrees with the Ptolemic system of the earth at the centre, >>with the planets orbitting round it. So Copernicus and Gallileo were >>wrong after all! > >You haven't read very carefully -- if you look again, you will see that >it doesn't say anything about what is circling what. >
In article <C4rzz2.47J@unix.portal.com> danb@shell.portal.com (Dan E Babcock) writes: >There was a funny ad in USAToday from "American Family Association". >I'll post a few choice parts for your enjoyment (all emphases is in >the ad; I'm not adding anything). All the typos are mine. :)  [Dan's article deleted]  I found the same add in our local Sunday newspaper. The add was placed in the ..... cartoon section! The perfect place for it ! :-)