waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr5.084042.822@batman.bmd.trw.com>, jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com responds to a lot of grief given to him >In article <1993Apr3.095220.24632@leland.Stanford.EDU>, >galahad@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scott Compton) a.k.a. "The Sagemaster" [ . . .] >But then I ask, So?  Where is this relevant to my discussion in >answering John's question of why?  Why are there genetic diseases, >and why are there so many bacterial and viral diseases which require >babies to develop antibodies.  Is it God's fault? (the original >question) -- I say no, it is not.  Most of Scotty's followup *was* irrelevant to the original question, but this is not unusual, as threads often quickly evolve away from the original topic.  What I could not understand is why Jim spent so much time responding to what he regarded as irrelevancies.  [ . . . ] >> 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),  Well, I guess hypothetical Adam was "the majority of mankind" seeing how he was the ONLY man at the time.  >then God will allow the consequences of that action to >affect mankind as a whole.  If you didn't understand that, then I >apologize for not using one and two syllable words in my discussion.  I understand what you mean by "collective," but I think it is an insane perversion of justice.  What sort of judge would punish the descendants for a crime committed by their ancestor?  >If you want to be sure that I read your post and to provide a >response, send a copy to Jim_Brown@oz.bmd.trw.com.  I can't read >a.a. every day, and some posts slip by.  Thanks.  Well, I must admit that you probably read a.a. more often than I read the Bible these days.  But you missed a couple of good followups to your post.  I'm sending you a personal copy of my followup which I hope you will respond to publically in a.a.
In article <1pik3i$1l4@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: >In article <C4u51L.8Bv@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes: >|> >|>  >|> Why do you spend so much time posting here if your atheism is so >|> incidental, if the question of God is trivial? Fess up, it matters to >|> you a great deal. > >Ask yourself two questions. > >	1.   How important is Mithras in your life today? > >	2.   How important would Mithras become if there was a >	     well funded group of fanatics trying to get the >	     schools system to teach your children that Mithras >	     was the one true God? > >jon.
In article <C4w5pv.JxD@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:  >There are a couple of things about your post and others in this thread >that are a little confusing. An atheist is one for whom all things can >be understood as processes of nature - exclusively. There is no need >for any recourse to Divnity to describe or explain anything. There is >no purpose or direction for any event beyond those required by >physics, chemistry, biology, etc.; everything is random, nothing is >determnined.  	This posts contains too many fallacies to respond too.  	1) The abolishment of divinity requires the elimination of  freewill.   	You have not shown this. You have not even attempted to. However, the existance of an Omniscience being does eliminate freewill in mortals.*  	* Posted over five months ago. No one has been able to refute it,  nor give any reasonable reasons against it.  --          "Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.           They do what god tells them to do. "
In article <735295730.25282@minster.york.ac.uk>, cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk writes: > : Are you saying that their was a physical Adam and Eve, and that all > : humans are direct decendents of only these two human beings.?  Then who > : were Cain and Able's wives?  Couldn't be their sisters, because A&E > : didn't have daughters.  Were they non-humans? >  > Genesis 5:4 >  > and the days of Adam after he begat Seth were eight hundred years, and > he begat sons and daughters: >  > Felicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart   It is still incestuous.... :)
Kent Sandvik (sandvik@newton.apple.com) wrote: : In article <C5Mw03.9qr@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu : (Bill Conner) wrote: : > I'd say that what one chooses to observe and how the observation is : > interpreted and what significance it's given depends a great deal on : > the values of the observer. Science is a human activity and as such, : > is subject to the same potential for distortion as any other human : > activity. The myth that scientists are above moral influence or : > ethical concern, that their knowledge can be abstacted whole and pure : > from nature untainted by the biases of the scientist, is nonsense.  : Bill, this is wonderfully phrased. I assume you understand that your : statement is also undermining such human constructs as religion : as well.   Kent,  I'll accept this as a compliment although I'm always a little paranoid when visiting a.a, thanks. Yes I do know the extent of the statements relevence, it's what I think of as human nature. I'm not sure it undermines either religion or atheism since both claim special knowledge about the Truth and since such claims are always suspect, all we can learn from it is that humans are a very arrogant species. My point is that we cannot ignore human nature when examining human claims. The trick here then, is to find some way to abstract our infinitely fallible nature from whatever reality is out there so we can see what there is to see. I can think of no way this can be done.
sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:  >>Of course, if at some later time we think that the death penalty >>*is* cruel or unusual, it will be outlawed.  But at the present, >>most people don't seem to think this way. >*This* from the same fellow who speaks of an "objective" or "natural" >morality.  I suppose that if the majority decides slavery is OK, then >it is no longer immoral?  I did not claim that our system was objective.
In article <1993Apr3.214741.14026@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes: > > My claim is that a person that committs a crime doesn't believe in  > God, for the moment that the crime is committed, at least, whether  > they are originally believers or not.  To believe is to do good.   > Your statistics indicate people that have declared atheism.  And doubtless, when an atheist does an act of charity they temporarily become a Baptist.
Bill Conner (bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu) writes:  [ ... my stuff deleted ... ]  > I don't have to make outrageous claims about religion's affecting and > effecting history, for the purpsoe of a.a, all I have to do point out > that many claims made here are wrong and do nothing to validate > atheism.   Bill, you seem to have erroneously assumed that this board has as its sole purpose the validation of atheism.  It doesn't.  This board is used to discuss atheism as a philosophy, to share posters' experiences regarding atheism, to debunk various theisms and theism as a whole, to share resources relating to atheism, and even to socialize with others with similar views.  And of course with the number of theists who come here to preach, it is also used to argue the case for atheism.    >           At no time have I made any statement that religion was the > sole cause of anything, what I have done is point out that those who > do make that kind of claim are mistaken, usually deliberately.   If you want to accuse people of lying, please do so directly.  The phrase "deliberately mistaken" is rather oxymoronic.    > To credit religion with the awesome power to dominate history is to > misunderstand human nature, the function of religion and of course, > history. I believe that those who distort history in this way know > exaclty what they're doing, and do it only for affect.  The two forms of theism most often discussed here these days are Christianity and Islam.  Both of these claim to make their followers into good people, and claim that much of benefit to humanity has been accomplished through their faiths.  IMHO they are right.  The American Friends Service Committee (Quaker), Catholic Relief Services, Bread For The World, Salvation Army soup kitchens, and Mother Theresa spring to mind.  (Can someone with more knowledge of Islam supply the names of some analagous Islamic groups?)    When Mother Theresa claims that her work is an outgrowth of her Christianity, I believe her.  Her form of theism ascribes to her deity such a benevolence toward humanity that it would be wrong not to care for those in need.  The point is that such a philosophy does have the power to change the behavior of individuals;  if it is widespread enough, it can change societies.  The same works for the horrors of history.  To claim that Christianity had little to do with the Crusades or the Inquisition is to deny the awesome power that comes from faith in an absolute.  What it seems you are doing twisting the reasonable statement that religion was never the solitary cause of any evil into the unreasonable statement that religion has had no evil impacts on history.  That is absurd.
>>>>> On 25 Apr 93 23:26:20 GMT, bobbe@vice (Robert Beauchaine;6086;59-323;LP=A;YAyG) said:  ...execellent examples of Luther's insane rantings deleted...  Gee, I'm *sooooo* surprised that they don't teach this part of his ideology in high schools today.
In article <930421.120313.2L5.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes: >jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes: >> Mathew, I agree.  This, it seems, is the crux of your whole position, >> isn't it?  That the US shouldn't have supported Hussein and sold him arms >> to fight Iran?  I agree.  And I agree in ruthlessly hunting down those >> who did or do.  But we *did* sell arms to Hussein, and it's a done deal. >> Now he invades Kuwait.  So do we just sit back and say, "Well, we sold >> him all those arms, I suppose he just wants to use them now.  Too bad >> for Kuwait."  No, unfortunately, sitting back and "letting things be" >> is not the way to correct a former mistake.  Destroying Hussein's >> military potential as we did was the right move.  But I agree with >> your statement, Reagan and Bush made a grave error in judgment to >> sell arms to Hussein. > >But it's STILL HAPPENING.  That's the entire point.  Only last month, John >Major hailed it as a great victory that he had personally secured a sale of >arms to Saudi Arabia.  The same month, we sold jet fighters to the same >Indonesian government that's busy killing the East Timorese.  I heard about the arms sale to Saudi Arabia.  Now, how is it such a grave mistake to sell Saudi Arabia weapons?  Or are you claiming that we shouldn't sell any weapons to other countries?  Straightforward answer please.  >It's all very well to say "Oops, we made a boo-boo, better clean up the >mistake", but the US and UK *keep* making the *same* mistake.  They do it so >often that I can't believe it's not deliberate.  This suspicion is reinforced >by the fact that the mistake is an extremely profitable one for a decrepit >economy reliant on arms sales.  Who benefits from arms sales?  Hint, it isn't normally the gov't.  It is the contractor that builds that piece of equipment.  Believe it or not, the US and UK don't export the huge quantities of arms that you have just accused them of doing.  Arms exports are rare enough, that it requires an act of congress for non-small arms to most countries, if not all.  Do you believe in telling everyone who can do what, and who can sell their goods to whom?    > >mathew
In article <93108.155839PTS102@psuvm.psu.edu> <PTS102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes: [Pitt vs. Penn State controversy deleted] > >Bringing this back to alt.atheism relevance:  So the guy says we're going to >Hell.  That isn't sufficient cause to bitch to the system operator.  At worst, >it's bad etiquette.  (Unless you really believe that someone is using his >account without his knowledge/permission, which is actually against the law.) >----- >Patrick Saxton          "Pitt is a second-rate school in a second-rate city." >pts102@PSUVM.psu.edu                                         - anon >pts@ecl.psu.edu         ob.atheism:  "In Batman we Trust" >  No.  It wouldn't be sufficient cause to bitch to the system operator if this was just some guy saying that atheists are going to hell.  The point was  that recently many messages were posted from that address.  Each of these messages was posted to a different newsgroup, with the apparent intent of provoking the readers of that particular group.  This, along with the fact that these posts were written in all-caps, makes these posts suspect. Whoever is using this account is using it irresponsibly.  If it is the intended user, they should consider appropriate action.  If it is someone else-- which seems a possibility, then this is also reason to report it. 	We get many posts in the flavor of the one that started this thread. It is only because I have seen posts on other groups by this user that I am considering action.
acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu (Turin Turambar, ME Department of Utter Misery) writes: > Did that FAQ ever got modified to re-define strong atheists as not those who > assert the nonexistence of God, but as those who assert that they BELIEVE in  > the nonexistence of God?  In a word, yes.
In article <j0=5l3=@rpi.edu>, johnsd2@jec322.its.rpi.edu (Dan Johnson) writes: >In article 143048IO30436@MAINE.MAINE.EDU, <IO30436@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> () writes:  Dan Johnson-  You don't know me, but take this hand anyway.  Bravo for GO(DS) = 0.  Beautiful!  Simply beautiful!
In article <1qi83b$ec4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:   (Deletion) >#>Few people can imagine dying for capitalism, a few >#>more can imagine dying for democracy, but a lot more will die for their >#>Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who Died on the Cross for their Sins. >#>Motivation, pure and simple. > >Got any cites for this nonsense?   How many people will die for Mom? >Patriotism? Freedom?   Money?  Their Kids?  Fast cars and swimming pools? >A night with Kim Basinger or Mel Gibson?  And which of these things are evil? >   Read a history book, Fred. And tell me why so many religions command to commit genocide when it has got nothing to do with religion. Or why so many religions say that not living up to the standards of the religion is worse than dieing? Coincidence, I assume. Or ist part of the absolute morality you describe so often?
In article <93108.020701TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu> Andrew Newell <TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:   >>In article <93106.155002JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu> <JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes: >>>YOU BLASHEPHEMERS!!! YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL FOR NOT BELIEVING IN GOD!!!!  BE >>>PREPARED FOR YOUR ETERNAL DAMNATION!!! >> >>readers of the group.  How convenient that he doesn't have a real name... >>Let's start up the letters to the sysadmin, shall we? > >His real name is Jeremy Scott Noonan. >vmoper@psuvm.psu.edu should have at least some authority, >or at least know who to email. >
>>>>> On 16 Apr 93 05:10:18 GMT, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) said:  RB> In article <ofnWyG600WB699voA=@andrew.cmu.edu> pl1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Patrick C Leger) writes: >EVER HEAR OF >BAPTISM AT BIRTH?  If that isn't preying on the young, I don't know what >is... > RB>    RB>   No, that's praying on the young.  Preying on the young comes RB>   later, when the bright eyed little altar boy finds out what the RB>   priest really wears under that chasible.  The same thing Scotsmen where under there kilt.  I'll never forget the day when I was about tweleve and accidently walked in on a roomfull of priests sitting around in their underware drinking beer and watching football.    Kind of changed my opinion a bit.  They didn't seem so menacing after that.
In article <1993Apr14.121134.12187@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) wrote: >  > >In article <C5C7Cn.5GB@ra.nrl.navy.mil> khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Umar Khan) writes: Stuff deleted > >>What we should be demanding, is for Khomeini and his ilk to publicly > >>come clean and to show their proof that Islamic Law punishes > >>apostacy with death or that it tolerates any similar form of > >>coversion of freedom of conscience.  All five schools of law (to the best of my knowledge) support the death sentence for apostasy WHEN it is accompanied by open, persistent, and aggravated hostility to Islam. Otherwise I agree, there is no legal support for punishment of disbelief. The Qur'an makes it clear that belief is a matter of conscience. Public or private disavowal of Islam or conversion to another faith is not punishable (there are some jurists who have gone against this trend and insisted that apostasy is punishable (even by death) - but historically they are the exception.  Cursing and Insulting the Prophets falls under the category of "Shatim".  >  > I just borrowed a book from the library on Khomeini's fatwa etc. >Lots of stuff deleted< >  > And, according to the above analysis, it looks like Khomeini's offering > of a reward for Rushdie's death in fact constitutes a criminal act > according to Islamic law.
In article <EDM.93Apr15104322@gocart.twisto.compaq.com>, edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes: > >>>>> On Thu, 15 Apr 1993 04:54:38 GMT, bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) said: >  > DLB> 	First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian.  It  > DLB> makes sense to be one.  Have any of you read Tony Campollo's book- liar,  > DLB>lunatic, or the real thing?  (I might be a little off on the title, but he  > DLB>writes the book.  Anyway he was part of an effort to destroy Christianity,  > DLB> in the process he became a Christian himself. >  > Here we go again...
I have a request for those who would like to see Charley Wingate respond to the "Charley Challenges" (and judging from my e-mail, there appear to be quite a few of you.)    It is clear that Mr. Wingate intends to continue to post tangential or unrelated articles while ingoring the Challenges themselves.  Between the last two re-postings of the Challenges, I noted perhaps a dozen or more posts by Mr. Wingate, none of which answered a single Challenge.    It seems unmistakable to me that Mr. Wingate hopes that the questions will just go away, and he is doing his level best to change the subject.  Given that this seems a rather common net.theist tactic, I would like to suggest that we impress upon him our desire for answers, in the following manner:  1. Ignore any future articles by Mr. Wingate that do not address the Challenges, until he answers them or explictly announces that he refuses to do so.  --or--  2. If you must respond to one of his articles, include within it something similar to the following:      "Please answer the questions posed to you in the Charley Challenges."  Really, I'm not looking to humiliate anyone here, I just want some honest answers.  You wouldn't think that honesty would be too much to ask from a devout Christian, would you?    Nevermind, that was a rhetorical question.
In <CINDY.93Apr18124333@solan10.solan.unit.no> cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:  >Various quotes deleted in the interest of saving a little bit of >bandwidth, but i will copy the Koran quote: >>>>"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)  >As it has been pointed out, this quote makes no claim about what >orbits what.  The idea that something orbited something had been held >as true for many years before the Koran was written, so the fact that >it says something orbits something is hardly surprising insight.  My >concern is with the word "rounded".   >There are two interpretations of this word: >1. It means in a circle.  This is wrong, although many believed it to >be true at the time the Koran was written.  In other words, it is not >describing our neighborhood of the universe as it really exists, but >as it was thought to be at the time.  This has implications which i >hope are obvious to everyone. >2. It means "in a rounded shape", which could include elipses (the >geometrical form which most nearly describes the orbits of the >planets).  This is also not a great insight.  Look at the shapes you >see in nature.  Very few of them even approach a square or rectangle; >those are human-created shapes.  Everything in nature is rounded to >some degree.  Even the flat-earthers don't try to claim Earth is a >rectangle.  Children who draw imaginary animals seldom give them >rectangular bodies.  We seem to instinctively recognize that nature >produces rounded shapes; hence, the assumption that the orbits of the >planets would be round hardly takes divine inspiration.  It is good to remember that every translation is to some extent an interpretation, so (as you point out below) one must really go back to the original Arabic.  Regarding the verses relevant to nature, I prefer to use Dr. Maurice Bucaille's translations (in his book, "The Bible, the Qur'an and Science") for in general his translations are more literal.   Maurice Bucaille translates the portion of the verse you are addressing as   "...Each one is travelling with an orbit in its own motion."  (Also note that "the celestial bodies" in the first translation quoted by you above is the translator's interpolation -- it is not existent in the original Arabic, which is why it is included in brackets.)   >Perhaps someone who can read the original Arabic can eliminate one of >these interpretations; at any rate, neither one of them is exactly >impressive.  You're right, what the verses _do_ contain isn't all that remarkable.  However, Dr. Bucaille (a surgeon, that's how he's a "Dr.") thinks it is significant that the above verse contains no geocentric ideas, even though geocentrism was all the rage up until the 17th century (?) or so. (And this goes for the rest of the Qur'an as well, which has about 750 verses or so regarding nature, I think I remember reading once.)
cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - dan) writes: :  [ . . . . . ] : : Personally, I feel that since religion have such a poweful : psychological effect, we should let theists be.  But the problem is that : religions cause enormous harm to non-believers and to humanity as a whole : (holy wars, inquisitions, inter-religious hatred, impedence of science : & intellectual progress, us-&-them attitudes etc etc.  Need I say more?). : I really don't know what we can do about them.  Any comments? :     I have always held that there should be no attempt to change a persons attitude or lifestyle as long as it makes them happy and does not tax anybody else. This seems to be ok for atheists. You don't get an atheist knocking on your door, stopping you in the airport, or handing out literature at a social event. Theists seem to think that thier form of happy should work for others and try to make it so.     My sister is a  born again, and she was a real thorn in the side for my entire family for several years. She finally got the clue that she couldn't help. During that period she bought me "I was atheist, now I'm Xtian" books for my birthday and Xmas several times. Our birthday cards would contain verses. It was a problem. I told my mom that I was going to send my sister an atheist piece of reading material. I got a "Don't you dare". My mom wasn't religious. Why did she insist that I not send it ??     Because our society has driven into us that religion is ok to preach, non-religion should be self contained. What a crock of shit. I finally told my sister that I didn't find her way of life attractive. I have seen exactly 0 effort from her on trying to convert me since then.     I'm sick of religious types being pampered, looked out for, and WORST OF ALL . . . . respected more than atheists. There must be an end in sight.