HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ingles@dennison.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 18:36:12 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor


In article <1992Apr14.165441.4767@watson.ibm.com>, strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
> In article <kSm+ZC+@engin.umich.edu>, ingles@crane.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
> |> > |> 
> |> > |>  Okay. But I think by the time a child is old enough to read,
> |> > |> understand, and get something out of the Bible, they have already
> |> > |> had the bulk of their moral education...
> |> > |> 
> |> > 
> |> > Yes and no.  On fundamentals like not lying or stealing, yes.
> |> > 
> |> > On more subtle things like tolerance, it's not clear.
> |> > From my perspective as a parent, middle-schoolers
> |> > have a lot to learn in that area.
> |> >
> |> > On other things like the courage to be different,
> |> > the dangers of assimilation to the crowd, conscientious
> |> > objection, the conflict between serving oneself
> |> > and serving others, ..., I think a certain level
> |> > of maturity is required.
> |> 
> |>  Ah, but it would seem that the exact same level of maturity
> |> would be needed to understand and appreciate the Bible, and
> |> so it's not clear that anything is to be gained from using
> |> it...
> |> 
> I had understood your earlier point to be that
> by age 7 or 8 it was too late to give a moral
> education.

 No, just that kids at 7 or 8 would not be able to get the
sort fo lessone you mention, not from literature anyway.

> My reply was that at this age we can read things
> like the story of Adam and Eve, the story of
> Abraham, the story of Hanukkah, and learn these
> lessons.  That is, the reading is part of the process
> which will lead to the higher "level of maturity".
> 
> This probably boils down to the Jewish belief
> that it's important for your kids to read
> ("early and often").

 Oh, I agree. Kids should *definitely* read a lot. Even things
above their level, to stretch their minds. But I would not
rely on this as a major component of moral education.

> Rob Strom

 I'm just not sure that such lessons can be usefully absorbed
from literature at that age. Certainly not by everyone; perhaps
not by most kids.

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@caen.engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:45:24 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Research

In article <ekTyiB2w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) writes:

|> > There are specific Biblical injunctions against dishonest business
|> > practices, false weights/measures, putting "stumbling blocks before
|> > the blind" by exploiting someone else's ignorance, etc.  And
|> > there are whole books written about lashon ha-ra, which encompasses
|> > slander, gossip, spreading rumors, etc.
|> 
|> I know all that.  Nevertheless, it remains true that lying in general isn't
|> prohibited in the commandments, nor is it particularly well-defined.  I know
|> that various other bits of text say that it's not a good thing, but that's
|> not the same as having a commandment against it.
|> 
It's not at all clear that lying is wrong in *every* situation.
For example:  military secrecy during wartime, telling someone
they have a terminal disease --- these situations call for
particular discretion and a blanket rule against deception may
not be correct.

But I do think that the specific kinds of lying that Heinlein's
character would have wanted to cover are in fact covered.

Would you like to give an example of a form of lying which
you believe (a) should be prohibited (b) is not prohibited
by Jewish law (c) is prohibited by some other code which
you believe to be more comprehensive.

|> I'm not entirely sure why this thread seems to be turning into a discussion
|> of Talmudic law, either.
|> 
Because one of the participants (Graham Matthews) posted that
the moral code of the Bible "sucks".  Talmudic law claims
to be based upon an interpretation of the Torah --- i.e.
the moral (among other things) code of the (Jewish) Bible.

And you yourself introduced the Bible into this thread when you said 
|> The interesting thing about the Bible isn't what its moral code prohibits,
|> but what its moral code fails to prohibit...

I'm not quite sure how you expected anyone to respond to your
post on the Bible's moral code without introducing the commentaries
and scholarly legal opinions of what the Bible's moral code means.

-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:47:08 GMT

In article <zNk+f2B@engin.umich.edu> ingles@cclittle.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>In article <1992Apr06.180107.25461@watson.ibm.com>, strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
>> It's not clear that we disagree here.  Certainly setting
>> an example is a paramount concern of Jewish ethics.
>> Remember we are commanded to be "a holy people
>> and a light unto the nations".  The emphasis
>> on literature comes from the traditional view that
>> part of being a good person includes reading and
>> studying.
>
> I agree, too. I think much can be learned from literature; perhaps
>even moral lessons. But not always or even most often.
> I guess I think literature is a good thing, but that it's not
>all that important in teaching morals. Far more important is
>example.
[...]
> Okay. But I think by the time a child is old enough to read,
>understand, and get something out of the Bible, they have already
>had the bulk of their moral education...

I tend to agree with the last point.  I can't speak directly from
observational experience, as my only daughter's only 18 months old,
but my subjective feeling is that the most basic moral education comes
down to "how would you like it if someone did that to you?" and "what
if everyone did that?"; at least, that is what I find when I search my
own motivations.  These sound to me like values imparted long before
one could understand something like the Bible, let alone understand it
in complex non-literal ways.

Literature conveys a lot, and reading and studying is a means of
learning and inspiring thoughtfulness, but I'm not sure how successful
it is as moral education.  Possibly we're mixing areas here, since I
do understand how enlightened study of the Bible could lead to deeper
understanding and practice of Jewish ethics and identity, but some of
the examples discussed in this thread have included much more basic
ideas like not stealing.

As a personal anecdotal example of one way in which the "moral
message" of literature may not have its intended effect, one of the
earliest influences I can recall on my rejection of such Christianity
as I was raised with was C.S. Lewis's "Narnia" series, most
particularly the "everybody dies and goes to heaven" conclusion.  I'm
fairly confident that this was not the author's intent...

-- 
Jim Perry   perry@apollo.hp.com    HP/Apollo, Chelmsford MA
This particularly rapid, unintelligible patter
Isn't generally heard, and if it is it doesn't matter!
From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: IQ and religious belief
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:41:10 GMT
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

In <22944@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>In article <rfmc3INN3ga@caravan.ksu.ksu.edu>, yohan@caravan.ksu.ksu.edu
>(Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>> 1)  Being giants in the field of science doesn't confer credebility to what
>they
>> might say about philosophical subjects (i.e religion)
>> 
>> 2)  Einstein and Newton were more intelligent in some areas.  I doubt I need
>to
>> remind anyone about all of Einstein's eccentricities like forgetting where he
>> lived, etc.  Newton thought his greatest accomplishment was dieing a virgin.
>> I say that destroys his credibility right there.  :)

>True, every human being has talents and non-talents. Einstein was a lousy
>violin player :-).
So was Sherlock Holmes. :-)
--
As usual, JIMHO.
	  Gavin...                  Plus qu'il n'en faut.           
	  willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie                                      
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 22:53:05 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Research

In article <graham.702607638@bizet>, graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
|> Matthew P Wiener
|> >>> So you have your opinion about what's good, I have mine.  Who cares?
|> 
|> Rob Ingles: [I think you mean Ray?]
|> >> Rob was the one who was asking *us.*
|> 
|> Matthew P Wiener
|> >Because someone was going on an anti-Bible rampage, saying it's of no
|> >use to anyone, etc.
|> 
|> I suggest you actually read some of the threads you reply to Matthew!
|> The thread began by Rob suggesting that the bible was more than just
|> a book, that it had provided a moral code for humanity etc for 2000
|> years, etc, and that in this respect it was much more than just a book.
|> 

I don't like to get into long metadiscussion, and I really think
the side issues about whether Matthew or Matthews or Mathew were
being hypersensitive or hypercombative are not too relevant.

I do keep an archive of my posts.  I know that I did not
start the thread --- why would I choose the title "Achilles
heels for religion"?  My earliest posting in this thread
was a response to Gene Schwartzman.  Gene said "Why do
people call the Bible all-knowing...it's basically just
a fantasy book".  I replied that it also had a moral
code which served humanity for 3000 years (not 2000 ---
we're talking about the Jewish Bible here).  So I agree
that I brought up this point, but I believe that Matthew
is correct in saying that it was a response to something
earlier.  If you want to look it up, the id
of my post is <1992Mar18.024810.6722@watson.ibm.com>.


-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
From: jn1a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jad Nehme)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Truth
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:05:08 GMT
	<92106.081858J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: Masters student, Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>Excerpts from netnews.alt.atheism: 15-Apr-92 Re: Truth John A.
>Johnson@psuvm.ps (530)

>In article <1992Apr15.033458.13891@access.usask.ca>,
>choy@skorpio.Usask.CA says:
>>
>>What do we know to be true?
>
>You will die.

What makes you think he is like every other human being dead so far? 
Can you prove your statement?  I didn't want to tell anyone, but,  since
you are bringing up the subject, I'll tell you: I can't die of old age.

Jad Nehme.
From: choy@skorpio.Usask.CA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Truth
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:34:58 GMT
Reply-To: choy@skorpio.Usask.CA
Organization: University of Saskatchewan

What do we know to be true?

Henry Choy
choy@skorpio.usask.ca
From: martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:57:36 GMT
Organization: British Telecom

In article <72015@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
> In article <1992Mar31.034145.15862@bmerh2.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30 (Douglas Graham) writes:
> >To me, the worst part of this genocide is not so much that it happened, [...]
> 
> You are relying on Christian interpretations.
> 
> >Yep, that literature sure is a great way to teach morality to kids.
> 
> Jews don't consider the Christian interpretation as a moral guide either.
> -- 
> -Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
>
As far as I can see there are two things wrong with this:

1) I thought somebody quoted directly from the Old Testament with 
   a description of a massacre in this newsgroup (the quoting,
   not the maasacre that is) fairly recently. Now how do Jewish
   people interpret this in a manner which doesn't describe
   a massacre? It doesn't seem possible to me, as the quote was
   of a fairly straightforward "God said kill all the people
   from that city, and so they killed all the people from
   that city" nature.

2) This business about learning morals from books - you keep
   changing the goalposts to suit your argument. First you
   say that morality can only be taught from the jewish parts
   of the bible(s). Then the answer comes back that this is
   only valid if you believe in the jewish god, and for that
   reason any system of morals taught from a religious book
   is of doubtful use. So you start discussing teaching
   children from literature in general. Then when somebody
   points out an apparently immoral bit in the bible you
   say thats not MY bible or MY interpretation, moving
   back to your first assertion that the jewish parts of
   the bible(s) and more specifically your interpretation
   of them are the only source of morality.

   It is surely more valid to say "Don't do that - its not very nice.
   How would you like it done to you?" than "Don't do that because
   god says not to in the jewish parts of the bible. However, it says
   you can in the christian parts of the bible and some other
   religious books but that doesn't matter because our god is
   the only one that really exists".
From: bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie (Bryan O'Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Clergy Abuse
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:53:00 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin

In <9532.29E0E938@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org (David Rice) writes:

>In the next few days I'll post a few Clergy Abuse reports. What
>Christians are doing to little boys would make a hard-core
>porno enthusist blush with shame.

Is it just me, or do other people also get the impression that Iain
Jameson's and David Rice's interests run a little to the bizarre?

Fellas, if you want to discredit chrisitanity by pointing out the
foibles of some of its supposedly repectable members (who are as human
as you and I, even if some of them don't care to admit it), then your
postings are at best useless since they don't tell us anything that
isn't immediately obvious, and are at worst insulting to the christian
readers of this newsgroup through the insinuations you try to make.

If, no the other hand, you're trying to show that by and large,
"celibate" males are more likely to commit abuse than "normal" ones,
then this is not the appropriate group to do it in. If I've missed the
point completely and you're just indulging a morbid interest in
paedophilia, then this is still not the right group (add smilie for
the humour-impaired).

What I'm trying to say is that Mr. Rice's and Mr. Jameson's posts on
this matter come off as irrelevant to atheism or even christianity,
and they smell a little of sour grapes to me. Any comments?

	-- Bryan

--
Bryan O'Sullivan                                                +353-(0)1-973504
Advanced Development Group                                 bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie
Department of Computer Science              "Experience is what you get when you
University of Dublin                         were expecting something else."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: The Canaanites(was Re: Achilles heels for religion?)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:39:48 GMT

In article <WSm+P0_@engin.umich.edu> ingles@crane.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>> And the stories don't describe real Canaanites but symbolic
>> Canaanites designed to (a) teach a lesson about righteousness,
>> (b) serve as a myth of how our nation showed up in this land ---
>> a once-in-history event.  They're not supposed to be
>> generalized to allow *us* to judge some other nation
>> whose land we want as unrighteous and to wipe them out.
> How does one ensure that the meaning "not supposed to be"
>gleaned from the text is not in fact gleaned?

Because, as has been pointed out before, Judaism isn't literalist.  There are
commentaries which can be checked; if you look in them they'll _tell_ you that
that is the wrong meaning to infer from the text.
--
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: dlyndes@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (David Lyndes)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: "Where did the universe come from" is an illogical question
Date: 13 Apr 1992 06:58:09 GMT
Reply-To: dlyndes@deltahp.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: Barrios Technology @ NASA/JSC; Houston

Ryan Daum writes:
|> Many Atheists and Theists alike use the question of "Where did the 
|> universe come from" as a platform on which to support their particular 
|> opinion.  [...] but I hope you get the point.

I think the points are that:

(1) If the question is "why is there something rather than nothing", then
    it won't do to answer by saying "because there is something", even
    if that "something" is supernatural.

(2) If the premises are that nothing can come from nothing, and everything
    we know about didn't exists at some time, that still doesn't get us to
    a creator.  We reply by tracing each individual thing back to a
    previous thing or things from which it came.  For example, this baby
    buggy came from these parts, etc.

(3) The notion of "creation outside of time" is a metaphore with
    our usual notion of creation.  And it is a metaphore which
    stretches beyond the pale of intelligability.

The worst problem that I see with questions like "where did
everything come from" is that I cannot even imagine what
could possibly count as an answer!
-- 
+-------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| David K. Lyndes                     | "Kill the head and the body will      |
| Barrios Technology                  |  die."                                |
| email: dlyndes@deltahp.jsc.nasa.gov |  - Hunter S. Thompson                 |
+-------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer nor of God. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Question about modern manners
Date: 11 Apr 92 21:23:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: skyblu.11APR199214230916
 <1992Apr11.172232.23004@maths.tcd.ie> <1992Apr11.194811.26945@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr11.194811.26945@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes...
>In article <1992Apr11.172232.23004@maths.tcd.ie> dbell@maths.tcd.ie (Derek) writes:
>>>Since it is alergy season, people are often sneezing.  In fact, it seems that
>>>I sneeze every five minutes.  which brings me to my question.  I am a "devout"
>>>atheist, and I don't know what the polite thing to say is when someone blesses
>>>me after I sneeze.  It is offensive that someone would think that I need saving
>>>and need the blessings of a person or a non-existant god.
>>>So what would be the polite response to tell someone?
>>	"Gesundheit" comes to mind.
> 
>This means "God bless you", as far as I know.

My German-English dictionary translates it as "bless you," but it
literally means something like "be healthy."

>Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
>     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Truth
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:36:23 GMT
Organization: British Telecom

In article <4493@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk>, ian@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Speed Freak) writes:
> In article <1992Apr15.033458.13891@access.usask.ca>, choy@skorpio.Usask.CA writes:
> > What do we know to be true?
> > 
> The only truth is that you are the only truth.
> 
> Ian.
> 
It's also true that you nicked my car stereo you bastard!!

PS. The only absolute truth is the fact that you exist and are aware.
As for the rest, a lot of it is so close to the truth that we term it
"truth" as the difference is negligable. For example "you will die" is
not a rigorously true statement, but who will be surprised when you do?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Kent on objective truth
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 01:00:22 GMT

(Kent Sandvik) writes:
>Still, the truth is objective, there's no reason to raise the voice
>for obvious answers.

Is truth objective Kent?

graham

--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: WEEMBA and DABROSKI Angst (Was: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:26:57 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Distribution: world,public
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)

In article <graham.702357388@dumas>, graham@maths (Graham Matthews) writes:
>>What words and actions confirm me as such?  Where have I said a thing
>>about my belief in God?

>Doesn't have to be belief remember. You have claimed to have some
>relationship to God (something to do with actions) - you are therefore 
>not an atheist.

Uh no.  I never claimed that I did.  I claimed that Judaism claims
that I do, by virtue of my birth.  I never said whether I believed
one way or the other regarding what Judaism claimed here.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdavis@laforge (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: Question on modern manners
Organization: NASA
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 20:13:36 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.220721.569@miavx2.ham.muohio.edu>  
bstadnik@miavx2.ham.muohio.edu writes:
> In article <1992Apr12.143119.19410@athena.cs.uga.edu>,  
pellock@athena.cs.uga.edu (Bretamesh) writes:
> > Instead of one of the coventional "God bless you" or "gesundheit", I say
> > "I bless you" (provided of course that I really care that the person
> > who sneezed sneezed).
> > 
> > 	  
>   How about,  "Bless you."   This leaves out the 'by whom'.  The person
> sneezing can take it how they would like.  "I bless you" sounds kind of
> arrogant to me.

  I don't really have any better suggestions, but I think "bless you"  
originated because it was once believed that when sneezing, one's soul leaves  
the body momentarily, and the devil might snap it up if not blessed.  So I  
usually avoid any of the standard comments when someone around me sneezes,  
unless I can think of something particularly witty.

Regards,

Steve Davis
Kennedy Space Center, FL
internet: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.atheism