waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In <1r4b59$7hg@aurora.engr.LaTech.edu> ray@engr.LaTech.edu (Bill Ray) writes:  >If I make a statement, "That God exists, loves me, etc." but in no way >insist that you believe it, does that place a burden of proof upon me. >If you insist that God doesn't exist, does that place a burden of proof  >upon you?  I give no proofs, I only give testimony to my beliefs.  I will >respond to proofs that you attempt to disprove my beliefs.  What is your reaction to people who claim they were abducted by space aliens?  Some of these people say, "I was abducted, experimented on, etc." If we insist that these aliens don't exist is the burden of proof placed on us. These people can give no hard facts but can give a lot of testimony to back up their beliefs.  Replace <space aliens> with <elvis>, <big foot>, <blue unicorns>,  and we have a larger percentage of the population than I like to think about.
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes: > ( I am almost sure that Zyklon-B is immediate and painless method of  > death. If not, insert soem other form. ) >  >         And, ethnic and minority groups have been killed, mutilated and  > exterminated through out history, so I guess it was not unusual. >  >         So, you would agree that the holocost would be allowed under the US  > Constitution?  [ in so far, the punishment. I doubt they recieved what would  > be considered a "fair" trial by US standards.  Don't be so sure.  Look what happened to Japanese citizens in the US during World War II.  If you're prepared to say "Let's round these people up and stick them in a concentration camp without trial", it's only a short step to gassing them without trial.  After all, it seems that the Nazis originally only intended to imprison the Jews; the Final Solution was dreamt up partly because they couldn't afford to run the camps because of the devastation caused by Goering's Total War.  Those who weren't gassed generally died of malnutrition or disease.
In article <kmr4.1696.735588167@po.CWRU.edu>, kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes: >In article <1r98voINNr9q@lynx.unm.edu> cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl) writes: > >>> The myth to which I refer is the convoluted counterfeit athiests have >>> created to make religion appear absurd.  >>  You don't need any counterfeit athiest's myth to make religion appear absurd.  You need only read any of friendly Christian Bill Conner's posts.
Excerpts from netnews.alt.atheism: 15-Apr-93 Re: thoughts on christians by Dave Fuller@portal.hq.vi  >    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. >   I think it'd help if we got a couple good atheists (or even some good, steadfast agnostics) in some high political offices.  When was the last time we had an (openly) atheist president?  Have we ever?  (I don't actually know; these aren't rhetorical questions.)  How 'bout some Supreme court justices?    One thing that really ticked me off a while ago was an ad for a news program on a local station...The promo said something like "Who are these cults, and why do they prey on the young?"  Ahem.  EVER HEAR OF BAPTISM AT BIRTH?  If that isn't preying on the young, I don't know what is...  I used to be (ack, barf) a Catholic, and was even confirmed...Shortly thereafter I decided it was a load of BS.  My mom, who really insisted that I continue to go to church, felt it was her duty (!) to bring me up as a believer!  That was one of the more presumptuous things I've heard in my life.  I suggested we go talk to the priest, and she agreed.  The priest was amazingly cool about it...He basically said that if I didn't believe it, there was no good in forcing it on me.  Actually, I guess he wasn't amazingly cool about it--His response is what you'd hope for (indeed, expect) from a human being.  I s'pose I just _didn't_ expect it...    I find it absurd that religion exists; Yet, I can also see its usefulness to people.  Facing up to the fact that you're just going to be worm food in a few decades, and that there isn't some cosmic purpose to humanity and the universe, can be pretty difficult for some people.  Having a readily-available, pre-digested solution to this is pretty attractive, if you're either a) gullible enough, b) willing to suspend your reasoning abilities for the piece of mind, or c) have had the stuff rammed down your throat for as long as you can remember.  Religion in general provides a nice patch for some human weaknesses; Organized religion provides a nice way to keep a population under control.    Blech.  Chris
Benedikt Rosenau writes:  >The argument goes as follows: Q-oid quotes appear in John, but not in >the almost codified way they were in Matthew or Luke. However, they are >considered to be similar enough to point to knowledge of Q as such, and >not an entirely different source.  Assuming you are presenting it accurately, I don't see how this argument really leads to any firm conclusion.  The material in John (I'm not sure exactly what is referred to here, but I'll take for granted the similarity to the Matt./Luke "Q" material) IS different; hence, one could have almost any relationship between the two, right up to John getting it straight from Jesus' mouth.  >We are talking date of texts here, not the age of the authors. The usual >explanation for the time order of Mark, Matthew and Luke does not consider >their respective ages. It says Matthew has read the text of Mark, and Luke >that of Matthew (and probably that of Mark).  The version of the "usual theory" I have heard has Matthew and Luke independently relying on Mark and "Q".  One would think that if Luke relied on Matthew, we wouldn't have the grating inconsistencies in the geneologies, for one thing.  >As it is assumed that John knew the content of Luke's text. The evidence >for that is not overwhelming, admittedly.  This is the part that is particularly new to me.  If it were possible that you could point me to a reference, I'd be grateful.  >>Unfortunately, I haven't got the info at hand.  It was (I think) in the late >>'70s or early '80s, and it was possibly as old as CE 200.  >When they are from about 200, why do they shed doubt on the order on >putting John after the rest of the three?  Because it closes up the gap between (supposed) writing and the existing copy quit a bit.  The further away from the original, the more copies can be written, and therefore survival becomes more probable.  >>And I don't think a "one step removed" source is that bad.  If Luke and Mark >>and Matthew learned their stories directly from diciples, then I really >>cannot believe in the sort of "big transformation from Jesus to gospel" that >>some people posit.  In news reports, one generally gets no better >>information than this.  >>And if John IS a diciple, then there's nothing more to be said.  >That John was a disciple is not generally accepted. The style and language >together with the theology are usually used as counterargument.  I'm not really impressed with the "theology" argument.  But I'm really pointing this out as an "if".  And as I pointed out earlier, one cannot make these arguments about I Peter; I see no reason not to accept it as an authentic letter.   >One step and one generation removed is bad even in our times. Compare that >to reports of similar events in our century in almost illiterate societies.  The best analogy would be reporters talking to the participants, which is not so bad.  >In other words, one does not know what the original of Mark did look like >and arguments based on Mark are pretty weak.  But the statement of divinity is not in that section, and in any case, it's agreed that the most important epistles predate Mark.
Dan Schaertel,,, (dps@nasa.kodak.com) wrote:  > Let us go back , oh say 1000 years or so, whatever.  Pretend someone says to you > someday there will be men on the moon.  (Now remember, you still think the > world is flat).  This is quite an extraordinary claim.  I think C.S. Lewis has argued that medieval people did not all think the world is flat.  However, this argument goes both ways. Pretend someone telling Plato that it is highly probable that people do not really have souls; their minds and their consciousness are just something their brains make up, and their brains (their body) is actually ahead of their mind even in  voluntarly actions. I don't think Plato would have been happy with this, and neither would Paul, although Paul's ideas were quite different. However, if you would _read_ what we discuss in this group, and not just preach, you would see that there currently is much evidence in favour of these statements.  The same applies to the theory of natural selection, or other sacred cows of Christianity on our origins and human nature. I don't believe in spirits, devils or immortal souls any more than in gods.  > The fact is we can argue the existence of God until the end of time, there really is no > way to either prove or disprove it, but there will be a time when we all know the truth.   > I hope and believe I'm right and I hope and pray that you find your way too.   Ah, you said it. You believe what you want to. This is what I had assumed all along.   > OK maybe I shouldn't have said "no way".   I guess I really believe there is > a way.  But all I can do is plant seeds.  Either they grow or they don't.   You might be as well planting Satan's seeds, ever thought of this? Besides, you haven't yet explained why we must believe so blindly, without any guiding light at all (at least I haven't noticed it). I don't think this is at all fair play on god's part.   Your argument sounds like a version of Pascal's Wager. Please read the FAQ, this fallacy is discussed there.  > But > they won't if they're not planted.  The Holy Spirit is the nurishment that > helps them grow and that comes from God.  And I failed to get help from the HS because I had a wrong attitude? Sorry, Dan, but I do not think this spirit exists. People who claim to have access to it just look badly deluded, not gifted.   Petri
In article <2942881697.0.p00168@psilink.com> p00168@psilink.com (James F. Tims) writes: > >By maintaining classes D and E, even in prison, it seems as if we  >place more innocent people at a higher risk of an unjust death than  >we would if the state executed classes D and E with an occasional error. >    I answer from the position that we would indeed place these people   in prison for life.    That depends not only on their predisposition towards murder, but   also in their success rate at escape and therefore their ability   to commit the same crimes again.    In other words, if lifetime imprisonment doesn't work, perhaps   it's not because we're not executing these people, but because   we're not being careful enough about how we lock them up.  /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\   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 <735023059snx@enkidu.mic.cl> agrino@enkidu.mic.cl (Andres Grino Brandt) writes: >From: agrino@enkidu.mic.cl (Andres Grino Brandt) >Subject: Studies on Book of Mormon >Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1993 14:15:33 CST >Hi! > >I don't know much about Mormons, and I want to know about serious independent >studies about the Book of Mormon. > >I don't buy the 'official' story about the gold original taken to heaven, >but haven't read the Book of Mormon by myself (I have to much work learning >Biblical Hebrew), I will appreciate any comment about the results of study >in style, vocabulary, place-names, internal consistency, and so on. > >For example: There is evidence for one-writer or multiple writers? >There are some mention about events, places, or historical persons later >discovered by archeologist? > >Yours in Collen > >Andres Grino Brandt               Casilla 14801 - Santiago 21 >agrino@enkidu.mic.cl                        Chile > >No hay mas realidad que la realidad, y la razon es su profeta I don't think the Book of Mormon was supposedly translated from Biblical  Hebrew.  I've read that "prophet Joseph Smith" traslated the gold tablets  from some sort of Egyptian-ish language.   Former Mormons, PLEASE post.
I wonder how many atheists out there care to speculate on the face of the world if atheists were the majority rather than the minority group of the population.  It is rather a ridiculous question in some ways, I know, but my newsreader is down so I am not getting any new postings for a bit, so I figure I might as well post something new myself.  Also, how many atheists out there would actually take the stance and accor a higher value to their way of thinking over the theistic way of thinking.  The typical selfish argument would be that both lines of thinking evolved from the same inherent motivation, so one is not, intrinsically, different from the other, qualitatively.  But then again a measuring stick must be drawn somewhere, and if we cannot assign value to a system of beliefs at its core, than the only other alternative is to apply it to its periphery; ie, how it expresses its own selfishness.  Idle thoughts...   Adam
In article <1993Apr15.180024.19308@wam.umd.edu>   west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:  +Last night, while watching the 2a.m. rebroadcast of Jerry Springer (a +talk show) I heard this Jewel of a thought from a 12 year old racist.  +The focus of this show was on these kids and their hatred for the Jewish +religion, and why.    [some stuff deleted]  +Interesting (and scary) no?  They went on to say how the Jews had  +killed their god, and how in the end of time that all the races would +go to their homelands (of course, they would remain in America, which +is New Jeruselem, as it says in Gen 2??? (what another kid said) but +the rest of the races would go home) and then the great battle or plague +or whatever Revel. says would happen, and the jews would be killed. + +The most interesting thing about this was that my roomate is Catholic,  +and had the KJV of the Bible on his desk.  He immediatly opened it up +and began to search for the quoted passages (Gen, Rev, and John) to  +look for himself, and couldn't find what they said they saw.  I don't +know  I saw this show a while back, and when I heard these kids quote the Bible to justify their racist claims, I looked up that quote about Jesus hating Jews (since Jesus himself was a Jew, my curiousity had been piqued by such a claim). The jist of the passage (and I am sorry but I can't recall which passage it was exactly) was that Jesus was condemning the Pharisees for being corrupt. Of course, the Pharisees were Jewish too, but it wasn't Jews as a whole that Jesus was condemning, just the powers that be.
In article <C5rEKJ.49y@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes: >James Felder (spbach@lerc.nasa.gov) wrote: > >: Logic alert -  argument from incredulity.  Just because it is hard for you  >: to believe this doesn't mean that it isn't true.  Liars can be very pursuasive >: just look at Koresh that you yourself cite. > >This is whole basis of a great many here rejecting the Christian >account of things. In the words of St. Madalyn Murrey-O'Hair, "Face it >folks, it's just silly ...". Why is it okay to disbelieve because of >your incredulity if you admit that it's a fallacy?  It isn't. And I wasn't aware that this O'Hair chick was a reader of a.a., so that doesn't support your assertion that the argument is "the whole basis of a great many HERE rejecting...".
kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) writes: >mathew (mathew@mantis.co.uk) wrote: >> What is the difference between a "_chemist_" and someone who is taught >> Chemistry at, say, Cambridge University? >  > Put like this, I can't answer. I was originally pointing out that your > attitude _seemed to be_ (I don't know if it really was) that chemists > tend to ignore all kinds of effects;  When they're not important, yes.  All scientists do.  Otherwise science would never get anywhere.  >                                     your original posting stated that > when doing chemistry, it is common to ignore atomic interactions,  Hang about -- not atomic interactions in general.  Just specific ones which are deemed unimportant.  Like gravitational interactions between ions, which are so small they're drowned out by electrostatic effects, and so on.  >> Has there been some revolution in teaching methods in the last four years? >  > Perhaps this revolution has yet to reach Cambridge (my, now I'll get > flamed for sure;-) ).  Oh, probably.  They still make people memorize equations and IR spectra.  Maybe in a few decades they'll discover the revolutionary "data book" technique.
In article <C5v09t.1Dq@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:  |>  |> Okay all humans are direct descendents of of a bunch of hopeful |> monsters. The human race didn't evolve from one set parents, but from |> thousands. Do you really base your atheist on -this-?   In article <C5v0zp.1Dq@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes: |> |> Truly a brilliant rebuttal. Apparently you are of the opinion that |> ridicule is a suitable substitute for reason; you'll find plenty of |> company a.a  Bill Conner, meet Bill Conner.
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: > In article <1993Apr15.125245.12872@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats > Andtbacka) writes: > |      "And these objective values are ... ?" > |Please be specific, and more importantly, motivate. >  > I'll take a wild guess and say Freedom is objectively valuable.  Yes, but whose freedom?  The world in general doesn't seem to value the freedom of Tibetans, for example.
In article <healta.161.735350336@saturn.wwc.edu> healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) writes:  >You should wear your nicest boxer shorts and bring plenty of SPF 45+  >sunscreen.  I'll grab my bathing suit, towerl and some veggie hotdogs and we  >can have bonfire cookout!! >Does that sound good enough to you, Dean? >EVERY a.a poster is invited!!!  	Is there room for nudists? After all, if you believe most upstanding moral churches, nudity IS a sin...    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On one of the morning shows (I think is was the Today Show), David Koresh's lawyer was interviewed. During that interview he flipped through some letters that David Koresh wrote. On one of letters was written in Hebrew (near the bottom of the page):    koresh adonai
In article <116533@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes: |> In article <1r2idi$6e1@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |>  |> >So now you are saying that an Islamic Bank is something other than |> >BCCI. |>  |> >Would you care to explain why it was that when I said  "I hope an  |> >Islamic Bank is something other than BCCI", you called me a childish  |> >propagandist. |>  |> Yes, sure, because the only obvious reason anyone would make the jump from |> "BCCI" to "Islamic bank" is by associating Islamic banking with muslim  |> ownership.  But in this case I said I hoped that BCCI was *not* an Islamic bank.  |> And the only reason one would generalize from a _given_ |> Islamic bank to _all_ Islamic banks is through a stereotype -- one |> X is bad, therefore all X's are bad.  But in this case I said I hoped that BCCI was *not* an Islamic bank.  |> Next think you know there is a Bosnia on tap.  But in this case I said I hoped that BCCI was *not* an Islamic bank.
In article <66615@mimsy.umd.edu>, mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes: |> Jon Livesey writes: |>  |> |> What I said was that people took time to *copy* *the* *text* correctly. |> |> Translations present completely different issues. |> |>  |> >So why do I read in the papers that the Qumram texts had "different |> >versions" of some OT texts.   Did I misunderstand? |>  |> Reading newspapers to learn about this kind of stuff is not the best idea in |> the world.  Newspaper reporters are notoriously ignorant on the subject of |> religion, and are prone to exaggeration in the interests of having a "real" |> story (that is, a bigger headline). |>  |> Let's back up to 1935.  At this point, we have the Masoretic text, the |> various targums (translations/commentaries in aramaic, etc.), and the |> Septuagint, the ancient greek translation.  The Masoretic text is the |> standard Jewish text and essentially does not vary.  In some places it has |> obvious corruptions, all of which are copied faithfully from copy to copy. |> These passages in the past were interpreted by reference to the targums and |> to the Septuagint.  So when they took the time to *copy* *the* *text* correctly, that includes "obvious corruptions?"  |>  |> Now, the septuagint differs from the masoretic text in two particulars: |> first, it includes additional texts, and second, in some passages there are |> variant readings from the masoretic text (in addition to "fixing"/predating |> the various corrupted passages).  It must be emphasized that, to the best of |> my knowledge, these variations are only signifcant to bible scholars, and |> have little theological import.  So when they took the time to *copy* *the* *text* correctly, that does not exclude "variant readings from the masoretic text" which are "of little  theological import"  |>  |> The dead sea scroll materials add to this an ancient *copy* of almost all of |> Isaiah and fragments of various sizes of almost all other OT books.  There |> is also an abundance of other material, but as far as I know, there is no |> sign there of any hebrew antecdent to the apocrypha (the extra texts in the |> septuagint).  As far as analysis has proceeded, there are also variations |> between the DSS texts and the masoretic versions.  These tend to reflect the |> septuagint, where the latter isn't obviously in error.  Again, though, the |> differences (thus far) are not significant theologically.  There is this big |> expectation that there are great theological surprises lurking in the |> material, but so far this hasn't happened. |>  |> The DSS *are* important because there is almost no textual tradition in the |> OT, unlike for the NT.  Hey, you're the expert.