HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
From: jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus)
Date: 16 Nov 92 13:32:51 CST
 <1992Nov10.164821.29822@newstand.syr.edu> <1992Nov12.130951.165091@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> <1992Nov13.112515.1948@newstand.syr.edu>
Keywords: Cure

dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:

>In article <1992Nov12.130951.165091@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
>>dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:
>>
>>> [ more stuff deleted ]
>>
>>Todays translations of the Bible (mostly) come from the original Hebrew
>>and Greek texts, not from word of mouth!  If you compare the different
>>translations, you will see that they say the same things (although the
>>wording is often slightly diffferent - but the meaning is the same).

>Only problem is the bible wasn't written until well after the fact/fiction.

The Old Testament was written before the birth of Christ, which foretold
His birth, life, death and resurection which was to come (i.e. before the
fact).  The New Testament was the fulfilment of the Old Testament, and was
written (mostly) by those who were alive when Jesus was alive.  They witnessed
the events, and the events were nothing minor, they dramatically influenced
society at the time - rather difficult to forget!  Continuing after the
following short words..

>And have you ever been in court and listened to eye-witness testemony?
>Talk about contradictions.  Or pick up any good psychology book and look
>at the experiments that have several subjects observe a crime scene and
>not only do they all report a different story, but some even got the 
>criminal and victim reversed.

Ah, but there is a fundamental difference here.  The books of the Bible were
written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (hence the phrase "inspired
scriptures"), and so what is recorded in scripture is a true account.  I know
that you will think this to be a lot of rubbish (by definition of being an
atheist, I think), but I know it to be true, and the Holy Spirit is still
inspiring people today in what they say, do and write.

Also, the scriptures do not give different accounts.  Instead, they support
each other!

>>
>>Also, the name of Jesus is recorded in other Christian and Non-christian
>>texts.  There is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that the name of Jesus is correct, and
>>that He lived on earth.

>Again nonsense.  There is every reason to doubt.  Just looking in my dictionary
>it says born 4? B.C., crucified A.D. 29? 
>How acurate can any of this stuff be if nobody even knows the most basic
>facts.  I certainly wouldn't give a pluck nickel for any of this.

As I said before, many Non-christian texts have been found that talk about
Jesus, recognising that He did, in fact, live on earth.  I suggest you look
further than your dictionary before dismissing everything.  I'll see if I can
find some books that discuss these texts, and give some references.

[ typical atheist "repeat and twist" statement deleted ]

Yours in Christ,
James.
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God Is Unfair (?)
Date: 19 Nov 92 09:57:33 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Nov17.203918.26279@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>The destruction of Amalek was even too much for Saul to bear.
>But if your own heart told you to destroy Hitler, would you
>not do it?

Hold it.  There si a difference between destroying a dictator and
aggressor (or even defeating his army) and slaughtering the entire
population of a region.  The first may be justified (though it does
make me feel better that Hitler's colleagues were not just killed --
they were tried and got different sentences according to the level of
their guilt).  The second is always a barbaric act.

>The reasons why Amalek had to be destroyed are perhaps lost to history.

Quite so; and I would suggest that there can be no such reasons.

>Some commands must be seen in terms of a time and consciousness-space
so removed that it is difficult to translate into modern terms.

Just what makes the time and consciousness-space so very much removed?

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: Berger@cup.portal.com (Mark - Berger)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 21:37:52 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa
  <18993.2ae51eb9@levels.unisa.edu.au>
  <1992Oct21.144017.10520@gboro.glassboro.edu>
  <1992Oct21.231527.14722@news.media.mit.edu>


RE: The article on religionists reporting better health than non-worshippers:

Jesus!  Can't anybody comment on the original posting without excerpting the 
entire article summary and associated comments?  Let us all bow our heads 
and pray that the great, loving gawd will give us the gift of summarizing.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 12:27:52 EST
From: <EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Which is the REAL NT?

I realize that this question should probably go to another newsgroup, but since
I am a regular poster here and I just happen to be here now....8)

There is a difference between the "protestant" NT and the "catholic" NT.  In th
e Catholic NT, for example, the last book is called "Revelations" and has many
verses that the Protestant NT last book, "Revelation", does not have.
There are other differences.

Some people have me that the "catholic" NT is the original,  uncut, unedited
version and that the Protestants have altered the NT.  Others tell me the
opposite..

Being a Jew AND an ATHEIST, I am not in a very good position to know.
Anyone have any ideas?

      Thanx,
          Eylon

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eylon Geva            |   "Somebody please tell me that I'm dreaming,
geva@orville.psu.edu  |    It's not so easy to stop from screaming..."
exg106@psuvm.pdu.edu  |                            Iron Maiden
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jackson@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Bruce Jackson)
Subject: Re: Church of England / Women / Catholics
Organization: University of North Texas, Denton
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 16:42:28 GMT

In article <Bxtsrz.DqI@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>
svanegmo@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Stephen Van Egmond) writes:

> I've been wondering about this for quite a long time.  What sort of
> out-of-date reason does the Catholic church offer for denying women
> the right to become priests?   And why on earth does the pope disapprove
> of the Church of England's decision to allow them to become priests?

In article <1992Nov17.170115.29826@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:

$ The Church's reasoning is that since all of the disciples were men, it
$ is God's will that priest be men.

Actually there is a strong Biblical foundation against women as
religious leaders.  1 Tim. 2:11-15:

     Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.  I
     permit no wowman to teach or to have authority over men;
     she is to keep silent.  For Adam was formed first, then
     Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived
     and became a transgressor.  Yet woman will be saved
     through bearing children, if she continues in faith and
     love and holiness with modesty.

In light of this any group that are biblical literalists could not
possibily allow women to become preists and would oppose practically
any feminist positions.

$ Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
$ mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
$ "If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)

Bruce  -  jackson@cs.unt.edu
From: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Chaotic brain behaviour and its influence on duplicating a perso
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:48:11 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b63519.student.cwru.edu

In article <of1g_dC00iUy02t807@andrew.cmu.edu> "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>>"Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>> impulses.  With accurate enough recording/replicating devices, we
>could     >> basically "install" the old person's memories onto the
>clone.  School
>>> would be pretty useless too.  Why go to school when you can have all
>>> this information just uploaded to your brain?
>>>
>>It's sad that there are people who believe that's the purpose of school...
>
>Why?  What else is there to school than learning that cannot be better
>accomplished elsewhere today, with our current technology.  

I can't describe it exactly, but there is more to school than education. I 
have a friend who, at age 17 was out of college and working. For his entire 
life he mostly ignored everything except learning, working to skip grades, 
etc. He is now 21, but often seems more like 14 or 15. He missed out on a 
lot, and it shows.

I, for one, am happy to be able to take advantage of both the educational 
and the social aspects of college. I would not want to give up either for 
the other.
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
| Damien Neil | dpn2@po.cwru.edu | Case Western Reserve University |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Misquamicus)
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:30:09 GMT
Distribution: na
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Nov16.210344.29705@news.cs.brandeis.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.201545.20231@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
>>How about observable consequences on the physical universe?
>>Is this a possibility?
>
>The hypothetical god in my example had observable consequences on the
>physical universe (namely, it created the universe).  But, without assuming 
>its existence, such interpretation would not be scientifically valid.

Such an assumption is not scientifically valid in the first place. The 
existance of the universe is not an observable consequence, if you think about 
it for a second. That is like using the fact that living creatures exist as an
argument for the existance of god. There are plenty of up & coming ideas in
quantum field theory that deal with the "creation" of the universe without
resort to a supreme being. The concept of "god" is a cop out in this domain.

>>In your example (which was deleted) there is no difference to the 
>>observer which event actually has taken place.  Therefore, there is no
>>information gained by assuming that God was the cause of the Big Bang.
>>It is unnecessary.
>
>Since there is no difference to the observer, the two models can co-exist
>without conflict.
>
>I have already stated that assuming God's existence is unnecessary so you
>are quite right to say that no information is gained by assuming it (that's
>why it is unnecessary).  But, since no information is gained by assuming
>God's non-existence, that assumption is unnecessary as well.

Have you ever heard of Occam's razor? You use it to remove extraneous bits
from theory. Like, god for instance. It has prooved valid through history.

>>Answer this if you can:
>>
>>What would be the difference between the universe we live in and a universe
>>without God?  How would we know the difference?
>
>As far as science is concerned, there would be no difference.  This is because
>science and religion are independant.  God's existence or lack thereof has
>no bearing on science.

So, your god has no physical consequences & is extraneous (hey Bill of Occam,
bring be that razor!)

-Misquamicus

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: the Four Dummies
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:04:47 GMT

In article <62132@mimsy.umd.edu>, mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:

> People have been sniping at the gospels for a century now at least--

A bit more than that actually, and not all of those who have come to conclusions
about the gospels which fundamentalists dislike were 'sniping', most of them
were, and are, christians who were studying these texts as they would
study any other ancient texts.

> anything to pry them away from any real experience of Jesus. 

No, anything to throw some light on these very interesting texts.

> For insofar as
> that experience is real, it is all over; when Thomas takes the hands and
> touches the side of Jesus, no quibbles about illusion or delusion are
> tenable.

Excuse me while I gasp in amazement. You have some video footage of this
historic event, perhaps? Or are you saying it occured just because the Gospel
of John says it did? Before I believe it actually happened I want to ask who
wrote this account, what were his sources of information, what were his biases
what are the chances that he embellished the story, what are the chances that
he made it up, would he have had any incentives to do so etc etc.
You can call this sniping, the rest of us call it scholarship. Anyone who takes
the word of a 2000 year old apologetic religious text at face value is an
idiot. We don't do it for any other ancient documents (I don't even do it for
today's newspaper) so why should we do it for the gospels? 
 
> One can read tons of words of textual analysis of the gospels.  I don't
> think a reading of them as dumb or dishonest is reasonable.

Deliberately dishonest? No, I don't think they are, but that doen't mean they
are entirely reliable either. Dumb? That depends on your definition of the
word.  

> The best
> counterargument is that they are isolated from orginal sources, an argument
> typically argued on the basis of dates.  In my experience, these arguments are
> rather speculative, and manuscript discoveries tend to push these dates back.

Really? What MSS discoveries have their been which predate the Rylands 
Fragment? None, to my knowledge. Please enlighten us.

Tim O'Neill
Tasmanian Devil

> -- 
> C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
>                   +    but strife closed in the sod.
> mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
> tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."
> 
>
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:04:45 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: oboe.gvg.tek.com

In article <1992Nov17.193128.21575@mcs.anl.gov>, nasiatka@anhep3.anl.gov
(Jim Wylde) wrote:
> 
> Ok..... This shit is getting deep enough.  I gotta jump in here...
> 
> >>What I said was that all homosexuals do not pick up these
> >>mannerisms.  That does not mean that a mannerism cannot be commonly
> >>associated with homosexuality.
> 
...deletion...
 
> You also don't seem to be too interested in mentioning any of the
> GOOD mannerisms associated with gays/lesbians....  
> 
> I'd also like to know what you'd do.  Would you storm into the
> principals office and demand that junior be taken from Mr. 
> Smothers english class ....
> 
> Do you picture us "teaching" homosexuality?...
> 
> I hate to disappoint you, but most of us are professionals, and
> conduct ourselves in that manner, no matter what profession we
> may be in...
>  
> What exactly are you afraid of?  Why do you hate us this much?
> ...You refer to me like I am on the same social level as a drug dealer...
  What warrants
> making me seem that evil?

Jim, I guess you and the rest of the net didn't see my earlier posting a
couple of days ago to talk.religion.misc entitled "Homosexual Nightmare." I
answered some of these questions in that article, but apparently the
article is no longer posted, so I'll do it again in briefer form.

Being blunt, I don't think it's the mannerisms that really bother people.
Rather it's the fact that during the last 5000 years of Judeo-Christian
history, homosexuality has been considered immoral. In the Bible, God calls
it "an abomination." Those of us who try to live by Judeo-Christian moral
standards find homosexuality morally offensive, and many of us prefer to
shelter our children from that and other immoral or unhealthy influences
because we do not want them to follow what we consider a bad example. As
parents, it's our right to bring our children up according to whatever
standard we choose.

Unfortunately, there are many homosexuals who *do* try to influence
children toward the homosexual lifestyle. I just saw a tv news report last
Sunday in which a lesbian was talking to a group of 10-year old public
school children about how wonderful it is to be a lesbian. I think that's
wrong, and I have the right to demand that the schools not expose my child
to that kind of indoctrination. Accordingly, I believe a law preventing
schools from advocating homosexuality and other forms of immorality is
entirely reasonable. My value system (the Bible) is banned from schools;
why should yours (which I find highly offensive) be permitted?

It's not a matter of hate or fear. It's simply that I want the best for my
child, and exposing her to immoral influences is not what I consider  best.

Chuck Petch
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka Ktf92)
Subject: Re: Darwin on Trial
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 08:56:48 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

In <1992Nov17.062603.7927@news.uiowa.edu> cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu writes:

      (chop-chop-chop)

>  I believe strongly that Darwinism as the best explanation for US.

      You're not referring to the *original* theory of evolution, as
first put forth by Charles Darwin about a century back, are you? Because
to the best of my knowledge, that really hasn't much in common with
evolutionary theory of today.

> Anyway, I think the book has some serious argument flaws, but that
> is just from a quick skimming.  

(If it argues against evolutionism, such flaws wouldn't surprise me.)

>     He says at one point, "... Professor William Provine, a leading historian
> of science.  Provine insists that the conflict between science and religion
> is inescapable, to the extent tha persons who manage to retain religious
> beliefs while accepting evolutionary biology 'have to check [their] brains at
> the church-house door.' "  (p.124)
>     Now, I would agree with the Professor that to understand evolutionary
> biology means that you need to dismiss the supernatural entity business.  I
> don't think they can coexist.  What do you say?

      I disagree with the good professor, as I think do many other
atheists and theists alike. You may have to dismiss a god as a direct
creator of mankind as it stands today - but that doesn't mean one
wouldn't *exist*, for some other reason. Of course, no such being has
yet been *proven* to exist...

 - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - 
           Opinions? What's that, mom - some new kind of dessert?
     "Every day for us, something new / Open mind for a different view /
                       And nothing else matters..."     ---     Metallica
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Joe Moody)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Good evening
Date: 16 Nov 92 08:49:32 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: University of Notre Dame


Hello everyone, let me first say that I am not an atheist, but still
respect
other's beliefs. Actually, sometimes I think the atheists do more thinking
than some religious simply because it takes effort to deny one's Creator.

I'm a humble man, not one to condemn, judge or hurt. 
I believe in patience. I believe in showing mercy, even if that just means
forgetting a harsh word that slipped from a friend's mouth. I believe in 
moderation, prayer and charity. I believe that every man and woman I meet
is a brother and sister, even if they think they're my enemy. And I
know I'm far from perfect, all-knowing or all-powerful. 
The system I found closest to where I feel "at home" is Christianity, and
I've come to love Jesus as my Savior, even if He gets a bad rap by 
televangelists. 
I see an old lady, with eyes that saw the great depression, the industrial
revolution and the moon landing, now being laughed at by her grand
children who'd rather play Nintendo and scoffed at by her adult children
who have no time for her or her cross and beads that she clings so tightly
to, unchanging. But a small group of brothers and sisters visit her
regularly to
pray, laugh and talk about her lifetime of experience. 
I've worked in the homeless
shelters full of gentle people who got mixed up in society and now only
the Hope Rescue Mission, it's burnt-out neon cross lit above the door, will
serve them plates of warm food. I guess my point to all this is that one
can really be religious without being some of the horrible things I've read
on this
board, and I hope at least you could except that and not label me as 
another God-fearing-lunatic. Because, yes I fear God, but I love my
family, I love life, and I love the direction Christ has given me. 
Good Evening and peace,

Joe
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Atheist "philosophy"
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:32:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.174810.24082@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) writes:
|>David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
|>>Sorry, WRONG. We -can- save humanity. Society just chooses not
|>>to, because society is a hungry, greedy mob of ignorant fools,
|>>mostly Christians in this country, who believe as you do that
|>>we cannot save ourselves, therefore they do not try. There are
|>>a great many things we can do to save Earth, and therefore us.
|>
|>	Like what ?
|>
|>>NEVER! You demand that we consume and spend, because you feel there
|>>is no need to conserve, because your gods are going to come and
|>>save us. What utter ARROGANCE. What HUBRIS! You sound just like
|>>the James Watt asshole, who said it would insult his gods if we
|>>did not "use up" all of our natural resources.
|>
|>	You misunderstood me, I'm against materialism. The trouble is 
|>	that it doesn't help if there are few non-materialists, when 
|>	there always are much more materialists. Greed is our major 
|>	environmental problem. How do you solve it with atheism ?
|>
|>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

Oh, but we DO understand you!  The question is do YOU understand US?
Atheism says "No gods for me." ... period ... THAT'S ALL!!
I suppose you think praying will get rid of the mess?
Saving humanity requires an effort on the part of mankind to 
work together to clean up what we have now and make sure it
stays clean.  It has NOTHING to do with gods or religion.
I'm against materialism, too.  
Atheist not = materialist.
Andreas = moron.                         
<*sigh*>

Brian /-|-\