HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Interpreting it.
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:47:57 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA06303; Tue, 17 Nov 92 10:45:57 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA24035; Tue, 17 Nov 92 10:45:49 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0656; Tue, 17 Nov 92 19:43:14 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

Rob Strom, you have gone at great lengths displaying your view of the OT.
To start at the beginning: the claim was that the god  of the OT is an
evil sucker. You say that your understanding/interpretation says otherwise.
However there is no clue whatsoever that the full thing has to be interpreted.

I can't imagine at all why a god and its moral lessons should be subject
to rabulistic operations. And when we are at it, why can't it choose more
reliable ways of communication? And why does it give its message such a
disgusting form?

You say how can one read Shakespeare for its literal meaning? Quite easy,
Shakespeare's work are not supposed to be the relevance of What The Creator
Of This World and Master Of It All Wants Us To Tell Us. And further, the
lessons of your god are badly written. Your god appears not to be a god of
communication. Same with other religions.

I further wonder why the moral lessons of your god have to be discussed in
order to be adapted to times changing. Can you prove that it is getting
nearer the to the original meaning or another absolute good? Or do you
walk a random path? What is the point to it then? Is religion meant to evolve?
Can't your god tell what it wants? A lot of the tradion of violence and other
disgusting acts has to be blamed to the obvious approach of interpreting the
OT literally.

In case I misunderstand you, please define your god and tell us from whom you
have got the evidence for that.
   Benedikt
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: Gene Naftulyev <naft0001@student.ec.umn.edu>
Subject: Re:      Re: God Is Unfair
X-Xxdate: Sat, 21 Nov 92 21:18:51 GMT
Organization: U of M
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 21:16:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.204029.27449@watson.ibm.com> Rob Strom,
strom@Watson.Ibm.Com writes:
>No.  I'm maintaining that having one's ears pierced does.
>And for the first several months thereafter, replacing
>the studs hurts.
>
>While circumcision hurts, so does having silver nitrate
>drops in the eyes, and various immunizations, and other
>things which are medically necessary and which are routinely
>done to infants.  The circumcision doesn't stand out
>any more than these other traumas.


Well maybe if all infants had their ears rierced at birth, and just to
make sure that the holes didn't close up, why not use a paper punch, say
a 3 mm  size!

The point is that most male infants don't have a choice regarding
circumcision, most of the teen and pre-teen kids that get their ears
pierced do. They do it out of choice, not because their parents or
doctors decided. 

Anyway to compare an act that is done right after birth with one that is
a choice ten or more years later is absurd...if adult males had
circucision at puberty as a sign of adulthood, there could be an argument
(after all why do girls, and boys get ear rings - to be more like adults)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Judiasm in an atheist
Date: 21 Nov 1992 11:49:06 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>It fascinates me that I continually hear sentiments of this nature from
>those of Jewish beckground. Non-believers of Xian background normally
>seem to want to get away from the whole concept of the holidays. I 
>suppose they would prefer to replace them with purely secular "holidays"
>without religious connotations, but I dunno. Maybe they'd prefer to not
>have any. Note I am making a generalization; I do not intend that
>these statements to include all atheists of Jewish or Xian background.

Not so.  The holidays are wonderful.  Since even the "religious" people
don't treat the holidays as religious, there is no real problem.  It isn't
hypocritical to celebrateon a day dedicated to a phenomenon that you think
was fake, since the holiday has basically escaped its origins.  Anyway,
the solstice holiday has a long tradition of non-Christianity.  The
Christians themselves adopted the holiday, presumable using the
"if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" strategy.

keith
From: jimb@rcx1.csd.harris.com (Jim Burmeister)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
Date: 16 Nov 1992 15:59:00 GMT
Organization: Harris CSD, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com


In article <1992Nov16.014859.23828@nmsu.edu>, epowers@spock.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) writes:
> 	The most important thing here is actually that SCIENCE assumes that  
> supernature is not operative.  My problem is that science starts with two  
> assumptions, the validity of logic and the non-interference of the  
> supernatural.  When I start with the validity of logic, I end up with a  
> scientific method that works quite well.  When I assume that nature is a 
> closed system (i.e., the non-interference of the supernatural) I find I can 
> "verify" nothing, as my thoughts are no different than those chemical 
> reactions that do not produce thought, and therefore the scientific method 
> is invalid.  One assumption contradicts the other.  Without looking beyond 
> science, I am afraid I must throw all of science away.  More details 
> available, if you are interested.

I am interested in your details as you have completely lost me with this
statement.  The validity of logic and the non-interference of the supernatural
seem like pretty good foundations for science to me; why do the cause you
to "throw all of science away?"

-Jim Burmeister, jimb@csd.harris.com



Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: ...and Puppies! (WAS:Re: Kittens!)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:23:59 GMT

rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes: >
hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:  >>

>> [a joke, deleted for space]

>As an atheist I feel that you should make your point
>in a gracious, justified, logical and diplomatic way.
>Don't bring your self down by demening any one, or 
>anyones' belief. This was a joke in very poor taste.

As an atheist, and the moderator of rec.humor.funny, I
think that joke is pretty funny.  So there.


-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
From: boyd@acsu.buffalo.edu (Daniel F Boyd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: HERETICS
Summary: Fool
Date: 20 Nov 92 02:15:17 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1eh0ifINN5u4@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu 
(Jonathan W Newton) writes:
> Even the most liberal of philosophers will argue that the mandates
> of the state should take precedence over religious belief when they
> come into conflict.

Did he really say this?
-- 
Daniel F. Boyd -- boyd@cs.buffalo.edu         -a +X -x -e -m -S -F"> "
----------------------------------------------------------------------
((lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x))) 
 (quote (lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x)))))
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: Atheist "philosophy"
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 00:11:59 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 ?

We can reduce emissions of CO2, CFCs and other pollutants.  We can
learn to use energy more efficiently, and start using renewable
sources of energy (wind, solar, geothermal etc.)  (Gee, do you think
that if we had spent as much trying to develop solar as we have to
develop nuclear, that we might have something there?)  We can learn to
recycle non-renewable resources instead of throwing them in the
dumper.  

The point is that our environmental problems, while very complex, are
not necessarily intractable and do not necessarily require the
intervention of a supernatural being whom you people have been expecting
for the past two thousand years now.  BTW, aren't you people expected
to be "good stewards?"  Sounds to me like God expects you to care for
the Earth.  In the U. S. most people are Christians, and yet we have a
lot of environmental problems.  Go figure.  Oh, that's right, the vast
majority of those claiming to be Christians aren't *real* Christians.
I keep forgetting that.
  
>>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 ?

If the vast majority of the population is a) Christian and b)
materialist, how does Christianity help solve the problem?

Atheism doesn't prescribe a specific solution for our environmental
problems.  On the other hand, atheism does not instruct you to rely on
a God who may not exist.  Since most atheists I know are intelligent
enough to see where our current environmental trends are taking us,
and have no belief in an afterlife where "everything is gonna be all
right," I submit that atheists have MORE motivation to preserve the
environment than your typical Christian.

SD
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Church of England / Women / Catholics
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:06:37 GMT

In article <1ebcvuINNmim@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> starr-daniel@yale.edu (Daniel Starr) writes:
>Okay, with the release of the new, improved Catholic catechism today we
>can give the official approved answer on why the Catholic Church will not
>ordain women.  I quote here from an excerpt of the catechism in today's
>New York Times:
>
>"Only a baptized man may legitimately receive Holy Ordination.  The Lord
>Jesus chose men to form the college of the 12 apostles, and the apostles
>did likewise in choosing the collaborators who succeeded them in their
>task... The church acknowledges that it is bound by this choice of the Lord
>Himself.  That is why the ordination of women is not possible."

Well, I'm convinced.

Similarly, The Lord (tm) chose to walk whenever he travelled.
So I guess that the Pope should sell the Popemobile
and never travel in a car or airplane again.



-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21359 talk.religion.misc:21219
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:03:44 GMT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Brandeis University

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.

>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.

>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.

>Jim CopelanD

My apologies.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

	"But God demonstrates His	"I tell you that in the same way,
	 own love for us, in that	 there will be more joy in heaven
	 while we were yet sinners,	 over one sinner who repents, than
	 Christ died for us."		 over ninety-nine righteous persons
					 who need no repentance." 
		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Luke 15:7 [NASB]
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: vdp@mayo.edu (Vinayak Dutt)
Subject:  what is this Christian Fishy stuff
Reply-To: vdp@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Foundation/Mayo Graduate School :Rochester, MN
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 20:22:51 GMT


    I hear a lot about Drawin fish to  make fun of some Xian fish concept. 
Being not of Christian background, I have no idea what this fishy stuff is
about.  So could some fellow atheist inform me what about this fish
concept ?

Vinayak.
---
-------------------------------------------------------
                                           vinayak dutt
                                    e-mail: vdp@mayo.edu

Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum --
"I think that I think, therefore I think that I am."
            -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
-------------------------------------------------------
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Circumcision (was Re: God Is Unfair)
Date: 20 Nov 92 21:11:50 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Nov20.202535.13022@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.151948.215@ncsu.edu>, awmurray@eos.ncsu.edu (ALAN WAYNE MURRAY) writes:
>|> The small holes created by ear piercing will heal themselves if you
>|> don't WORK to keep them open (for example by keeping the piercing
>|> studs in for 6 months).  Even after the 6 months, if you don't put
>|> ear rings in them occasionaly, they will close up and heal.  Has your 
>|> foreskin grown back yet?
>
>No, but it has healed.  It heals in about a week, and then
>it never gives pain again.  Pierced ears have to constantly
>get poked or else the holes start to close, in which case
>it's *really* painful to try to reopen them again.
  
    Given the fact that if I cut your arm off, the wound will heal
    and (aside from some form of phantom limb experience) will not
    give you trouble again, what's your point?

    The body tries to repair the wounds inflicted via ear piercing
    because it has that ability.  Regeneration is not possible, so
    exactly how is the body supposed to recover from a removed
    foreskin?

>You are being more critical of irrational practices done
>in the name of religion than you are of similar irrational practices
>done in the name of non-religion.

  *I'm* not.  I abhor all of these practices when they're performed on
  children who are too young or too inexperienced to know the
  difference.  Mutilation is mutilation no matter the form.

>Why do Jews get so much more flak for their
>"barbaric" custom than Americans get for theirs?
>
>Why do you poke fun at our customs --- Americans
>have plenty of equally irrational customs like trick-or-treat,
>Thanksgiving turkey, football half-time celebrations, New Year's Eve,
>and going to bars, compared to which a pidyon ha-ben
>seems relatively sane.  Some of these customs are
>observed even more "religiously" than most Jews
>observe theirs.

  Totally irrelevant argument.  Which of the above activities causes
  pain and suffering in and eight day old child?  


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Judiasm in an atheist
Date: 22 Nov 92 21:56:41 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Nov21.061532.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>Non-believers of Xian background normally
>seem to want to get away from the whole concept of the holidays.

I prefer to keep them as if they were secular holidays, and it usually works.

I was raised in an atheist environment.  Christmas, Easter and
everybody's nameday have always been celebrated in my family without
any mention of religion.

>I suppose they would prefer to replace them with purely secular "holidays"
>without religious connotations, but I dunno.

Or have both.  For me the greatest holiday has always been New Year,
with my birthday probably coming next.

>Maybe they'd prefer to not have any.

No, certainly not that.  I would prefer no holidays to only religious
holidays, but there are always secular occasions for celebration.

-- 
 `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
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 19:31:11 GMT

In article <1e4s9vINN756@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>, starr-daniel@yale.edu (Daniel Starr) writes:
>Okay, you two have _completely_ lost me with your quotes and
>responses, and it sure looks like both of you are confused about each
>other's perspective as well!
>
>As someone who'd like to understand what you're saying, I would
>take it as a great favor if you would each post a message,
>WITHOUT quoting previous messages,
>indicating:
>
>1.  What you think the discussion is about,
>2.  What you think the best answer is,
>3.  What you think the other person thinks the best answer is.
>
>If you could both do that, I think I might understand what
>you're talking about.  If not, unless someone out there
>would like to pipe up saying that this is perfectly
>comprehensible to them,  perhaps you should take this to email?

Fair enough.  I'm suggesting that science and religion are not in conflict
whereas Mr. Copelan feels they contradict each other.  The existence or non-
existence of God are assumptions rather than conclusions.  There are four basic
points that come from this which shows that science and religion are not in
conflict:

  1) The assumption of God's existence is unnecessary for science to function.
  2) Therefore, the religionist demand that the scientific world view conform
     to that of some particular religion is invalid.

Mr. Copelan agrees with these which is why they have barely been mentioned.

  3) The assumption that God does not exist is equally unnecessary for science
     to function.

Mr. Copelan has conceded the assumption part but apparantly still feels that
this assumption is necessary.  Early in the discussion, I posted comments on
the Big Bang model versus Biblical creation which I felt showed my point but
we may need further discussion on this.

  4) Therefore, the scientific demand that religious world views conform to 
     scientific world views is also invalid.

Since religious and scientific world views are not required to be the same,
the two world views can co-exist without conflict.

One of the major obstacles in our discussion seems to be that Mr. Copelan
wants to argue religion.  Since my arguement has nothing to do with religion,
I continually delete those parts of his posts.  Hopefully, this will help
clarify things and we can get into an interesting discussion.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

	"But God demonstrates His	"I tell you that in the same way,
	 own love for us, in that	 there will be more joy in heaven
	 while we were yet sinners,	 over one sinner who repents, than
	 Christ died for us."		 over ninety-nine righteous persons
					 who need no repentance." 
		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Luke 15:7 [NASB]
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Chaotic brain behaviour and its influence on duplicating a perso
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 22:21:08 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <RLK.92Nov15201749@underprize.think.com> rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:
>This is a bit off the subject, but...
[deletions]
>...there are image compression techniques that can
>achieve remarkable reductions in storage needs.  There was a fractal
>based technique that I read about a few years ago (don't have the
>reference handy; it may have been in Scientific American) that could
>reduce storage needs by a factor of 10,000 in some (non-trivial) cases.
>As far as I know, the company that invented this is still in business.

 Well, yeah, the guy who invented the process is called Barnsley (sp?).
However, it's now generally believed that his claims were somewhat (to
put it mildly) exaggerated. Such compression ratios can *sometimes* be
achieved, but generally a human has to 'hand-tweak' the algortithm for
each individual image- it's not automatic by a long shot.
 Supposedly, Barnsley proved some theorem about this... but I gather he
won't share the proof, or even say what he's proven.
 Also, speaking of audio compression...Amigas use .mod files, which store
music as instrument samples and note sequences... and thus entire songs
take up very few K...

>ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
>bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
>harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116
>
>Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write lpf@uunet.uu.net

 Sincerely,
 
 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know this?" -- Woody Allen
Newsgroups: alt.atheism