waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes: > means to me.  The full quote (Michael Crichton, _Jurrasic_Park_) was  > something like "The earth has existed quite contently for billions of  > years.  We have been here but for the blink of an eye, and if we were gone > tomorrow, the earth would not miss us.".  I remember this quote to keep > myself humble when thinking that we have progressed so far or that we > are masters of this planet.    Cool quote.  > The earth doesn't need saving, it's existed quite happily with- > out us, we are the ones who need saving.  Better watch it.  The theists will jump on you for that... :-)  > Brian West. > -- > THIS IS NOT A SIG FILE            *    -"To the Earth, we have been > THIS IS NOT A SIG FILE            *     here but for the blink of an > OK, SO IT'S A SIG FILE            *     eye, if we were gone tomorrow,  > posted by west@wam.umd.edu        *     we would not be missed."-   > who doesn't care who knows it.    *        (Jurassic Park)  > ** DICLAIMER: I said this, I meant this, nobody made me do it.**  Nanci
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." > >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. 	  	The "System" refered to a "moral system". You havn't shown any  reason that chimps "must" have a moral system.  	Except if you would like to redefine everything.   ---           " Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. "
In article <1ql0ajINN2kj@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:  >Well, chimps must have some system.  They live in social groups >as we do, so they must have some "laws" dictating undesired behavior.  	Why "must"?  ---           " Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. "
bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:  >This is fascinating. Atheists argue for abortion, defend homosexuality >as a means of population control, insist that the only values are >biological and condemn war and capital punishment. According to >Benedikt, if something is contardictory, it cannot exist, which in >this case means atheists I suppose. >I would like to understand how an atheist can object to war (an >excellent means of controlling population growth), or to capital >punishment, I'm sorry but the logic escapes me.  First, you seem to assume all atheists think alike.  An atheist does not believe in the existence of a god.  Our opinions on issues such as  capital punishment and abortion, however, vary greatly.    If you were attacking the views of a particular atheist (Benedikt, I  presume), then please present your argument as such and do not lump us all together.  As for the issues, let's start with abortion.  Personally, I do not support abortion as a means of population control or contraception-after-the-fact. However, I support the right of any woman to have an abortion, regardless of what my personal views may be, because it would be arrogant of me to tell any individual what he/she may or may not do to his/her body, and the domain of legislators should not extend into the uterus.  That's my opinion, and I am sure many atheists and theists would disagree with me.  I do not defend homosexuality as a means of population control, but I  certainly defend it as an end to itself.  I think most homosexuals would be angered to hear of anyone characterizing their personal relationship as nothing more than a conscious effort to keep population levels down.    As for atheists believing all values are biological, I have no idea what you're talking about.  Finally, there are the issues of war and capital punishment.  An atheist can object to either one just as easily as a theist might.  You seem to be hung up on some supposed conspiratorial link between atheism and  population control.  Could this be the "atheist cause" you were referring  to a few posts back?
In article <C5s9zM.9E0@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) >Subject: Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!! >Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 13:11:38 GMT >In article <C5LH4p.27K@portal.hq.videocart.com>, dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller) writes: >> JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu () writes: >> : YOU BLASHEPHEMERS!!! YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL FOR NOT BELIEVING IN GOD!!!!  BE >> : PREPARED FOR YOUR ETERNAL DAMNATION!!! >>  >>   What do you mean "be prepared" ?? Surrounded by thumpers like yourself >> has proven to be hellish enough . . . and I'm not even dead yet !! > >Well here's how I prepared.  I got one of those big beach >umbrellas, some of those gel-pack ice things, a big Coleman cooler >which I've loaded up with Miller Draft (so I like Miller Draft, >so sue me), a new pair of New Balance sneakers, a Sony >Watchman, and a couple of cartons of BonTon Cheddar Cheese >Popcorn. > >I haven't decided what to wear yet.  What does one wear to an >eternal damnation? > >Dean Kaflowitz > 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!!!
[reply to tgk@cs.toronto.edu (Todd Kelley)]   >In light of what happened in Waco, I need to get something of my chest.   >Faith and dogma are dangerous.   Agreed.   >A philosopher cannot be a Christian because a philosopher can change >his mind, whereas a Christian cannot, due to the nature of faith and >dogma present in any religion.   It is hard for me to understand, but quite a few professional scientists and philosophers are theists.   >Sure, religion has many good qualities.  It encourages benevolence and >philanthropy.   But also intolerance and superstition.  I'm not sure that in the balance it is not detrimental.   >Wouldn't it be nice if everyone were a secular humanist?   Sure would!
I guess I'm delving into a religious language area.  What exactly is morality  or morals?  I never thought of eating meat to be moral or immoral, but I think it could be.  How do we differentiate between not doing something because it is a personal choice or preference and not doing something because we see it as  immoral?  Do we fall to what the basis of these morals are?  Also, consensus positions fall to a might makes right.  Or, as you brought out, if whatever is right is what is societally mandated then whoever is in control at the time makes what is right  MC 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 <930404.112127.2h6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes: |> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |> >                                      And we, meaning people who drive, |> > accept the risks of doing so, and contribute tax money to design systems |> > to minimize those risks. |>  |> Eh?  We already have systems to minimize those risks.  It's just that you car |> drivers don't want to use them. |>  |> They're called bicycles, trains and buses.  Poor Matthew.   A million posters to call "you car drivers" and he chooses me, a non car owner.
9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Desert Brat) writes:  >Keith, if you start wafffling on about how it is different for a human >to maul someone thrown into it's cage (so to speak), you'd better start >posting tome decent evidence or retract your 'I think there is an absolute >morality' blurb a few weeks ago.  Did I claim that there was an absolute morality, or just an objective one?
mam@mouse.cmhnet.org (Mike McAngus) writes:  >>>No, everything wouldn't be OK, but it would be a start. >>Now wait, if the religious organizations were no longer tax-exempt, what >>other beef could you have?  They would then have as much right to lobby >>as would any other group. >You asked "would everything be okay".  I answered no.  Everything  >encompasses more than just the tax-exempt status of religious  >organizations.  Well, if everything wouldn't be okay, then tell us what it is that wouldn't be okay.   That is, if religions were no longer tax-exempt, then what would be wrong with their lobbying or otherwise attempting to influence politics?
In article <1993Apr14.132813.16343@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) wrote: > Anyhow, on the basis of the apparent success of Islamic banks, it seems > to me that the statement that a zero-interest economy cannot survive in > today's world may be a bit premature.  I'm sure zero-intested economical systems survive on a small-scale, co-ops is not an Islamic invention, and we have co-operatives working all around the world. However such systems don't stand the corruption of a large scale operation. Actually, nothing could handle human greed, IMHO. Not even Allah :-).  Cheers, Kent
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:  >>They spent quite a bit of time on the wording of the Constitution.  They >>picked words whose meanings implied the intent.  We have already looked >>in the dictionary to define the word.  Isn't this sufficient? >We only need to ask the question: what did the founding fathers  >consider cruel and unusual punishment?  >Hanging? Hanging there slowing being strangled would be very  >painful, both physically and psychologicall, I imagine.  Well, most hangings are very quick and, I imagine, painless.  >Firing squad ? [ note: not a clean way to die back in those  >days ], etc.  >All would be considered cruel under your definition. >All were allowed under the constitution by the founding fathers.  And, hangings and firing squads are allowed today, too.  And, if these things were not considered cruel, then surely a medical execution (painless) would not be, either.
In article <JVIGNEAU.93Apr5182106@cs.ulowell.edu> jvigneau@cs.ulowell.edu (Joe Vigneau) writes: > >If anything, the BSA has taught me, I don't know, tolerance or something. >Before I met this guy, I thought all gays were 'faries'.  So, the BSA HAS >taught me to be an antibigot.  I could give much the same testimonial about my experience as a scout back in the 1960s. The issue wasn't gays, but the principles were the same. Thanks for a well put testimonial. Stan Krieger and his kind who think this discussion doesn't belong here and his intolerance is the only acceptable position in scouting should take notice. The BSA has been hijacked by the religious right, but some of the core values have survived in spite of the leadership and some scouts and former scouts haven't given up. Seeing a testimonial like this reminds me that scouting is still worth fighting for.  On a cautionary note, you must realize that if your experience with this camp leader was in the BSA you may be putting him at risk by publicizing it. Word could leak out to the BSA gestapo.
In article <1ql6jiINN5df@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: |> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes: |>  |> >>Look, I'm not the one that made those Nazi comparisons.  Other people |> >>compared what the religious people are doing now to Nazi Germany.  They |> >>have said that it started out with little things (but no one really knew |> >>about any of these "little" things, strangely enough) and grew to bigger |> >>things.  They said that the motto is but one of the little things  |> >You just contradicted yourself.  The motto is one of those little things that |> >nobody has bothered mentiopning to you, huh? |>  |> The "`little' things" above were in reference to Germany, clearly.  People |> said that there were similar things in Germany, but no one could name any. |> They said that these were things that everyone should know, and that they |> weren't going to waste their time repeating them.  Sounds to me like no one |> knew, either.  I looked in some books, but to no avail.  That's not true.    I gave you two examples.   One was the rather pevasive anti-semitism in German Christianity well before Hitler arrived.   The other was the system of social ranks that were used in Imperail Germany and Austria to distinguish Jews from the rest  of the population.  Neither of these were very terrible in themselves, but both helped to set a psychology in which the gradual disenfranchisement of Jews was made easier.
mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:  >>Perhaps we shouldn't imprision people if we could watch them closely >>instead.  The cost would probably be similar, especially if we just >>implanted some sort of electronic device. >Why wait until they commit the crime?  Why not implant such devices in >potential criminals like Communists and atheists?  Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning.  You are proposing to punish people *before* they commit a crime?  What justification do you have for this?
I've heard that in California they ask you to swear without any mention of a god.  What states actually include "god" in the courtroom oath?
battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu (Laurence Gene Battin) writes:  >Apart from the suggestion that appeared in the letters column of >Skeptical Inquirer recently, has there been any further mention >about a possible Asimov commemorative stamp?  If this idea hasn't >been followed up, does anyone know what needs to be done to get >this to happen?  I think that its a great idea.  Should we start a >petition or something?  I'm sure all the religious types would get in a snit due to Asimov's atheism.  Do we have any atheists on stamps now?
In article <1993Apr5.084042.822@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes: >In article <1993Apr3.095220.24632@leland.Stanford.EDU>, galahad@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scott Compton) writes: [deletions] >> Now, back to your post.  You have done a fine job at using  >> your seventh grade 'life science' course to explain why >> bad diseases are caused by Satan and good things are a  >> result of God.  But I want to let you in on a little secret. >> "We can create an amino acid sequence in lab! -- And guess >> what, the sequence curls into a helix!  Wow!  That's right, >> it can happen without a supernatural force."  > >Wow!  All it takes is a few advanced science degrees and millions >of dollars of state of the art equipment.  And I thought it took >*intelligence* to create the building blocks of life.  Foolish me!   People with advanced science degrees use state of the art equipment and spend millions of dollars to simulate tornadoes. But tornadoes do not require intelligence to exist.  Not only that, the equipment needed is not really 'state of the art.' To study the *products*, yes, but not to generate them.  >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.    Oh, I will. :->  Sincerely,
The traditions of the church hold that all the "apostles" (meaning the 11 surviving disciples, Matthias, Barnabas and Paul) were martyred, except for John.  "Tradition" should be understood to read "early church writings other than the bible and heteroorthodox scriptures".
In article <4949@eastman.UUCP> dps@nasa.kodak.com writes: >|>  Yet I am still not a believer.  Is god not concerned with my >|>  disposition?  Why is it beneath him to provide me with the >|>  evidence I would require to believe?  The evidence that my >|>  personality, given to me by this god, would find compelling? >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.  Oh no, not again.  There is a difference between believing that God exists, and loving him. (For instance, Satan certainly believes God exists, but does not love him.) What unbelievers request in situations like this is that God provide evidence compelling enough to believe he exists, not to compel them to love him. -- "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)
In article <1ql0d3$5vo@dr-pepper.East.Sun.COM> geoff@East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top) writes:  >Your posting provoked me into checking my save file for memorable >posts. The first I captured was by Ken Arromdee on 19 Feb 1990, on the >subject "Re: atheist too?". That was article #473 here; your question >was article #53766, which is an average of about 48 articles a day for >the last three years. As others have noted, the current posting rate is >such that my kill file is depressing large...... Among the posting I >saved in the early days were articles from the following notables:  	Hey, it might to interesting to read some of these posts... Especially from ones who still regularly posts on alt.atheism!   >>From: loren@sunlight.llnl.gov (Loren Petrich) >>From: jchrist@nazareth.israel.rel (Jesus Christ of Nazareth) >>From: mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) >>From: perry@apollo.HP.COM (Jim Perry) >>From: lippard@uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) >>From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) > >An interesting bunch.... I wonder where #2 is?  	Hee hee hee.  	*I* ain't going to say....  ---           " Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. "
bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:  >>If I kill this person [an innocent person convicted of murder], >>then a murder would be committed, but I would not be the murderer.  At least, >>I wouldn't "reasonably" be considered a murderer, with "reasonable" being >>introduced as a fudge factor necessary to account for the inability to be >>totally objective due to a lack of absolutely true information. >If society collective decides to carry the burden of executing >it's citizens, then it also carries the blame for their innocent >blood.  Each and every voter who casts a ballot in favor of >capital punishment is in part guilty of the murder of each and >every innocent victim of the system.  Why are only those people in favor of the system to blame.  If society accepts such a system, then each member of society is to blame when an innocent person gets executed.  Those that are not in favor should work to convince others.  And, most members of our society have accepted the blame--they've considered the risk to be acceptable.  Similarly, every person who drives must accept the blame for fatal traffic accidents.  This is something that is surely going to happen when so many people are driving.  It is all a question of what risk is acceptable.  It is much more likely that an innocent person will be killed driving than it is that one will be executed.
In <C5L1tG.K5q@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu writes:  > If some society came up with a good reason for why rape and murder are ok I  > would be consistent with my position and hold that it was still wrong.  My  > basis of morality is not on societal norms, or on current legalities.  My > basis is, surprise surprise, on both the Bible and on inherent moral > abhorrences,        AH! But what, exactly, is "inherently abhorrent" and WHY is it so? What you're saying is, in effect, "I think some things are repulsive, and I know a whole bunch of other people who agree with me, so they should be deemed absolutely immoral now and forever, period".        Which in and of itself is nice enough; to some extent I agree with you. But I do _not_ agree that things are 'inherently' or 'absolutely' immoral; they are labeled 'immoral' each for its own good reason, and if the reason can even theoretically change, then so can the label.  [...] > Yes, that's vague, and the only way I know off the top of my head to > defend it is to say that all humans are similarly made. Yes, that falls > into the trap of creation,        No it doesn't. Humans are to some extent similar, because we all belong to the same species; that that species has evolved is another story altogether. To a certain extent evolution can even lend credence to moral absolutism (of a flavour).  [...] > My arguments are that it is better to exhibit trust, goodness,  > love, respect, courage, and honesty in any society rather than deceipt, > hatred, disrespect, "cowardness", and dishonesty.        You're saying morality is what'll keep society alive and kicking. It is, I think, up to a point; but societies are not all alike, and neither are their moralities.  > No, I haven't been everywhere and  > seen everyone, but, according to my thesis, I don't have to, since I hold that > we were all created similarly.        Similar != identical.  > If that makes an unfalsifiable thesis, just say > so, and I'll both work out what I can and punt to fellow theists.        No, it's falsifiable through finding someoe who was "created different", whatever that might be in the "real" world.
In article <C5rEyF.4CE@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) wrote: > Kent Sandvik (sandvik@newton.apple.com) wrote: > : In article <11838@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert > : Beauchaine) wrote: > : >   Someone spank me if I'm wrong, but didn't Lord, Liar, or Lunatic > : >   originate with C.S. Lewis?  Who's this Campollo fellow anyway? >  > : I do think so, and isn't there a clear connection with the "I do > : believe, because it is absurd" notion by one of the original > : Christians (Origen?). >  > There is a similar statement attributed to Anselm, "I believe so that > I may understand". In both cases reason is somewhat less exalted than > anyone posting here could accept, which means that neither statement > can be properly analysed in this venue.  Bill, I think you have a misunderstanding about atheism. Lack of  belief in God does not directly imply lack of understanding transcendental values. I hope you would accept the fact that  for instance Buddhists appreciate issues related to non-empirical reasoning without the need to automatically believe in theism.  I think reading a couple of books related to Buddhism might  revise and fine tune your understanding of non-Christian systems.  Cheers, Kent
In article <C5s9tv.10H@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes: |> In <1qvh8tINNsg6@citation.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@citation.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W  |> Newton) writes: |>  |>  |> >In article <C5qGM3.DL8@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike  |> Cobb) writes: |> >>Merely a question for the basis of morality |> >> |> >>Moral/Ethical behavior = _Societally_ _acceptable_ _behavior_. |>  |> >I disagree with these.  What society thinks should be irrelevant.  What the |> >individual decides is all that is important. |>  |> This doesn't seem right.  If I want to kill you, I can because that is what I |> decide?  Sounds as though you are confused between "what I want" and "what I think is morally right".