HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Do you have any children?
Date: 24 Jan 93 10:38:11 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

Hello, netters.  Here's a puzzle for all of you.  Which of the following
bits of (il)logic has been presented as a serious argument by a t.r.m'er
pretending to be in his right mind?

(1) Why does an elephant have red eyes?
    So he can hide in cherry trees.
    But I've never seen an elephant in a cherry tree!
    That's how well he hides.

(2) Your house is on fire.  You have a box on matches, a tap with
       running water and a hose.  How do you solve the problem?
    You attach the hose to the tap and put out the fire.
    What if you have the same implements, but the house isn't burning?
    You use a match to set the house on fire and reduce the problem to
       the one we just solved.

(3) How do we know that an omnipotent and omniscient Creator exists?
    Look at childbirth.  It is designed in such a truly wonderful way.
    But it is not designed in a wonderful way at all.
    Oh, that's because of Adam's fall.

(4) What do you think when you see a watermelon of which only the
       middle part has been eaten?
    Some rich man has eaten it, and discarded the rest.
    What if the rest of the flesh has been eaten as well?
    The rich man has been accompanied by his servant.
    What if the shell is gone too, and you only find the seeds?
    The rich man has been riding a donkey.
    What if you find nothing at all?
    The rich man has had chickens with him as well.

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: CHRISTIANS ARE BEING DUPED!
Date: 26 Jan 1993 03:15:13 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu () says:

>                         CHRISTIANS ARE BEING DUPED!
      

[etc., etc., etc. deleted]

Next time you speak to that master of yours, could you ask
him/her to PLEASE REPAIR YOUR CAPS LOCK KEY?

Thank you very much. :-)
-- 
________________________________________________________________________
* Linda Zinn                    When you point a finger at someone,    *
* au500@cleveland.freenet.edu   you're pointing three back at yourself *
* ******Wanted: Books by E.D.E.N. Southworth; cattail dinnerware****** *
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Subject: Re: Buddhism and the Absolute God
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 21:47:29 GMT

In article <lmg7t2INN4ps@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>>Can you exist and not exist at the same time?
>
>If I were to become unconscious, "I" would not exist, yet my
>body would exists.
>
>>Can you make a square circle?
>
>Move the circle from 2-D space to 3-D space, and extend it into
>the z axis the same amount as its diameter. It is now both a square
>and a circle.
>
>>Can you make 2+2=5
>
>Sure - "2+2=5"
>
>>Can you make it rain and not rain in the same place at the same time?
>
>Yes. Enclose the Earth in a big box. It is now raining and not raining
>in the same place (the box) at the same time.
>
>>Aren't these logical impossibilities, and therefor not a limitation of power?

>How many did I get right?

None.

Ted
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: gj156879@alfred.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879)
Subject: Re: Peace Symbol
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:11:50 GMT

It is sort of neat that the peace symbol is an upside down rune from
norse mythology.  The rune, (picture a peace symbol upside down)
represents the horns of an elk.  It's the "defence" rune, I believe.
[He said, being too lazy to go across the room and look it up...]

                                        Nik
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.pagan
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: VERIFYING CHRISTIANITY #1
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: 26 Jan 1993 20:43:54 UTC

In article <1993Jan26.154824.18539@news.ysu.edu> 
af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes:
>In attempting to verify the claims of Christianity, one must first start
>with the document(s) it's 'precepts' are contained in...the Bible.
>  COMPLETE harmony in it's major subject - God's redemption of man.

emancipate yourself from mental slavery
none but ourselves can free our minds
have no fear for atomic energy
'cause none o' dem can stop-a da time
how long will they kill our prophets
while we stand aside and look
some say it's just-a part of it
we got's to fulfull the book
please won't you help sing dees songs of freedom
'cause all I ever had
redemption song
please won't you help sing dees songs of freedom
'cause all I ever had
redemption song
redemption song
redemption song
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27143 alt.slack:3798 alt.discordia:714 alt.pagan:15677
From: mist@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Paul Timmins)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.slack,alt.discordia,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Birthing men...
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:30:04 GMT
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA


  Hrmm. I dunno, if you offer some of people enough,
they might be willing to take the chance. Provided you slap them around,
kick them in the stomaches, and entice them with various sundry items. 
   Tra la la. 
  Stupid people shouldnt breed.
 Hell, they shouldn't breath either. Well, if they're stupid enough, they
just shouldn't. 
      Vapors are everywhere
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Simple Question
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:31:39 GMT
Organization: The Language Game Inc.
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1993Jan22.221007.21290@ra.royalroads.ca>,
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
> Mankind has a nasty propensity towards violence and mayhem; this is a 
> consequence of our sinful nature.  God did not originally design us to
> commit sin but we chose to disobey God in the Garden of Eden.  Since
> that time, all men are tainted with sin and the carnal desire to keep on
> sinning.  We kill and harm each other because we choose to.  But keep
> in mind that we are also capable of much good.  The only way to overcome
> our sinful nature is salvation through Jesus Christ.

The issue that someone designed someone not to commit sin, and this 
construct does it, shows something about the creator.

> Sure, God knows that we are sinful but He wouldn't be a loving God if He
> left us to destroy ourselves.  That is why He has given us His Son Jesus
> Christ so that we may be saved from our sins.  And before this world goes
> to ashes, Jesus will return to save those who follow Him.

This creator, that needs to do some serious bug fixing in order to 
continue with the path also implies something.

Cheers,
Kent
...I guess I've programmed too much the last 2 days :-).
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND
Private activities on the Net, opinions are not Apple's, they are mine.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.all-worlds
Subject: Re: EVIDENCES OF THE EXISTENCE OF ALLAH (THE GOD)
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 06:31:54 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

irfan@maxwell.ece.wisc.edu (Irfan Alan) writes:
>
>EVIDENCES OF THE EXISTENCE OF ALLAH SWA (THE GOD)
>AND THE IMPOSSIBILITIES OF THE WAYS TAKEN BY ATHEISTS,
>NATURALISTS AND MATERIALISTS

You are far too wordy and unclear, and you insult me by dismissing my
beliefs as "stupid" out-of-hand.  I don't think any reponse to your
post would help matters, so I won't put unnecessary effort into trying
to figure out exactly what you've said.

I will, however, offer advice: READ THE ALT.ATHEISM FAQ.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: danb@shell.portal.com (Dan E Babcock)
Subject: Re: Diatribe against Rushdie (was: Jihad in Islam)
Organization: Portal Communications Company -- 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091 (data)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 02:55:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.184930.14707@kth.se> d89-gsk@nada.kth.se (Gani Skepi) writes:
>In article <14279@pogo.wv.tek.com>, daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:
>|> 
>|> As an minor aside, I would point out that the last interview I saw from Rushdie
>|> (either on "60 Minutes" or "20/20"), made clear that he did not consider
>|> himself Muslim.  So I have to ask where you got your information that he now
>|> considers himself a Muslim.  Do you have a quote from a verifiable source, or
>|> is your claim unfounded and apocryphal?
>
>So I am distributing a book claiming *your* mother to be a fucking bitch 
>who like fucking alot, and everyone who knew here testifies she was a 
>good person who *never* would do something like that, so I claim it is 
>"only" fiction. What would you do??? Turn the other cheack??? I'm insult-
>ing *your* dead mother... And then suddenly the media put itself on *my* 

You have the right to publish it. No one will publishit for you, and no one
will read it, so it's your loss.

>Let me put it in this way, do you know why the present Ayatollah (Khameni 
>or something like that) isn't so happy about the foreign policy of the USA?
>
>Well the CIA sent him a small beautiful package, he opened it and found 
>a cassetplayer. He turned it on and it exploded. There was a bomb hidden 
>in it and his arm was damaged. So the CIA sent the guy a bomb to kill him
>with.. This is just one small example. So before pointing fingers at me 
>calling me this and that take a good look in your wardrobe as a lot of 
>sceletons may drop out of it.

Assuming this isn't the product the propaganda machine (likely), so what?
The Ayatollah is a thug, a common criminal. Who cares if he gets a taste
of his own medicine?

>Mr Butler, reality *SUCKS*!!!!!

Reality sucks in part because the world is filled with fanatics (the
worst being religious fanatics).

>Sincerely Yours
>Gani Skepi

Dan

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27542 talk.origins:16710
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:05:45 GMT
Organization: University of Lowell

In article <C1Bsus.K38@panix.com>, arandia@panix.com (Joel Arandia) writes: 
> Wait, kids!  Evolution is both a fact AND a theory(dessert topping and floor
> wax!)  Evolution is a fact.  The fossil record clearly shows that later fossils
> are very different from earlier fossils.  Microevolution is an observed fact.

Hey, what do you know! No one is saying that microevolution isn't a fact.  The
dispute is about macroevolution.

> 	Evolution is a theory.  How does it happen?  I think when we talk about
> evolution(the theory), we're actually talking about evolutionary processes like
> natural selection and punctuated equilibrium.  We ain't too sure how evolution
> happens, but we can be sure that it does.
> 
> joel d. arandia

Wrong! All we can be sure is that, of the fossils we've found, according to
present theories about dating methods, the earlier fossils are different from
the later ones (most of the time anyway).  So how are we "sure" that the origin
of species was accomplished through evolution?
--Ray Cote
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:35:15 GMT

creps@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:

>In article <vhl3s2a@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
>>>about certain things we consider to be moral absolutes.  Like sex.  I
>>>just don't find a whole lot to cause the big fuss we give it.  I mean,
>>>it's like THE MAJOR SIN in the Roman Catholic church (as far as I have
>>>heard).  Afterall, you can't do it and effectively serve God.  
>>
>>If God actually did consider one thing to be THE MAJOR SIN, do you
>>suppose it would be a sin of hate, or a sin of love?

>   At least the first poster above displays a misunderstanding of what
>the Catholic Church teaches about sex.  Sex itself is a very good
>thing, not a sin.  It is the act which brings a man and a woman the
>closest they can be to one another, and is therefore most appropriate
>in a relationship in which the couple have made a commitment to spend
>the rest of their lives together.  Also it is the very act by which
>new life is created.

But it's only "good" within the confines of a Church-sanctioned 
marriage.

>   The problem comes when people begin to trivialize it and to distort
>its purposes.  This type of trivialization and distortion is an attack
>on the goodness of sexuality, and therefore is sinful.  The more good
>the thing being abused, the worse the abuse is.  Therefore the
>emphasis on sexual sin is only in proportion to the goodness of
>sexuality.

>   For the second poster, think of it this way: given an act that is
>meant to be the most complete expression of love, is it still a sin of
>love to take this meaning away from it?

I've asked this question before, and I've always gotten the same 
answer.  People first have to insist that what I'm talking about is
meaningless sex, and then proceed from there.  I'm NOT talking about
"sport fucking", but sex within the confines of a loving, commited
relationship.  Face it, there is meaningless sex _within_ marriage,
and there is loving, meaningful sex _outside_ of marriage.  So why
is marriage the "sin variable"?  Why is it marriage, and not love,
that makes sex a sin?

(Feel free to argue that it _isn't_ marriage that makes sex a sin,
but you will be at odds with the fundamentalist church that I was
raised in.  What I'd like is a reasonable explanation of what it is
about marriage that takes the sinfulness out of sex.)

>[ folloups to talk.religion.misc ]

Please email me if you reply, as I'm not subscribed to the group.

>Steve Creps, Indiana University

               -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: creps@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:42:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.214530.29397@esseye.si.com> zoerner@esseye.si.com (Laurie Zoerner) writes:
>So, Steve, what you're saying is that women cannot have this spiritual
>"mark" on their souls, so they do not have the characteristics needed
>for leadership positions in the church. Because the human male authorities
>in the church say that women do not have this mark. Physically, this
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^
                           cannot receive the "mark" of Holy Orders

>is the "authority of the church", a bunch of men who supposedly hear
>the "Word of God" and disseminate it through the Church heiarchy.
>It seems to me that this is very convenient for the male church
>authority figures! They get to filter the "Word of God" to suit
>themselves. Doesn't seem very Christianly to me, seems rather hypocritical.

   You have shown only a correlation (men are in positions of
authority, and from their positions of authority continue to say that
only hold men can hold those positions).  That does not demonstrate,
however, that what they teach is not true.  As I have said before, it
goes back to what authority one accepts, and that if one cannot accept
that authority on one thing on which it claims comptence, then why
does one accept that authority on anything?

   The authority for Catholics is the Magisterium (teaching office of
all the bishops) of the Church.  This authority does not, however,
conflict with Scripture, although parts of it often conflict with
some non-Catholics's _interpretations_ of Scripture.

   In other words, if one does not accept the authority of the
Catholic Church, one is not likely to become (or remain) Catholic.  In
this case it does not matter much whether or not one is able to be a
priest.

   By the way, note that the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom Catholics
consider to most important human being in the Church (besides Jesus,
of course), did not receive Holy Orders.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,soc.culture.jewish
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Subject: Re: Child abuse ordered by G-d
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:26:15 GMT

In article <16B61B336.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> 
I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:

>And that is the point. Of course secular humanism, or what ever makes
>people say the punishment is cruel, are based on assumptions.
>However, assuming that the assumptions are consistent, denying that you
>consider it to be cruel implies that you do not agree with some of the
>assumptions behind secular humanism.

Of course he does not agree with all of the assumptions in secular humanism.
He believes in G-d.  That rather contradicts the "secular" aspect.
From: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Do you have any children?
Date: 26 Jan 1993 19:56:13 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) says:

>
>I was wondering, if any of the t.r.m regulars, who don't believe or 
>didn't used to believe that there is a Creator/God, had any children 
>of your own?  Were you present at their birth?  Do you really think 
>that this event has nothing to do with the design of the Creator?  Did 
>this event at least make you think a little about how we as a people 
>came to be? 
>
I do not have any children and I have not been present at a birth.  This
does not mean that I do not believe in a creative force in the universe. 
What I do not believe is that your god is the one who did the creating. 
God is a woman, it is only a woman that can create.  Men tend to destory
things.  Your god is no exception.

-- 
When subtlety fails us we must make do with cream pies.
                                                    --David Brin

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Runes < was: Peace Symbol >
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan,alt.folklore.urban
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 28 Jan 93 04:39:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.033744.21000@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz> comjohn@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Mr. John T Jensen) writes:
>barth@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barth.richards) writes:
>
>>>They were originally notched into the 90-degree edge of a
>>>block of wood rather than on a flat surface
>
>>I don't remember hearing about that one before, but it's interesting.
>>What's your source?
>
>Er, um, well, a book I once read, uh, that is, I might be able to get time
>to go back to the library.  Written by a Swede.  Says he, defensively,
>caught with his trousers down.

I've heard this as well, from the book I used to zox the runes out of
when I started making them.  If you take a block of wood and hold it
with the grain going across, that's how the runes were cut into them; it
had a lot to do with their resulting shapes.  You made one big slash
against the grain, and made all other marks on angles to this, but not
right angles, since such marks would easily just dig big chunks our of
the wood when cutting; you would be going WITH the grain.

I'll post a ref for this if anyone wants it, but if you go to a univ.
library and look up runes, you should find it easily.  It's not exactly
a bone of contention.

Blessings,
Janis
From: radzy%sradzy@jack.sns.com (T.O. Radzykewycz)
Subject: Re: In need of a label...
Originator: radzy@icsib62
Organization: The Radzykewycz Clan; Newark, CA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:57:53 GMT

(I'm having trouble with my new machine.  Posted this a little
while ago, but it doesn't seem to have come across, so I'm re-posting
from the other machine.  Apologies.)

jws5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JUSTIN WINSLOW SOLONYNKA) writes:
> But I'm having trouble giving _myself_ [a label].

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
> Why bother? You know who you are, that is the label. Worlds above and
> worlds below, no *one* in the world like you! You are that you are!

This is a stickey one.  You *are* what you are, and no label can
possibly lead others to understand you completely.  There are a
couple of problems, though.

While friends will look beneath the label and try to find out
who and what you really are, a lot of people will stop at the
label.  If you care what strangers and acquaintances think, then
you'll need to try to find a label which is both accurate and
non-offensive to those people.  (On the other hand, if you don't
care what the strangers and acquaintances think, then it doesn't
really matter.)  (aside: This is where bigotry comes from.)  And
even those who will become friends use the label as a starting
point in getting to know the person behind the label.

A lot of people use labels to help them decide who themselves
really are.  For example, someone may find out that they are
attracted to someone of the "other" sex, and thus think they
need to call themselves bisexual.  But if they have a prejudice
against bisexuals, then they will have a problem with it.  It's
*HARD* to really know who you are, without using labels.

Like Paul, I think that "human BEING" is the best label that a
person can give themself.  This gives potential friends a place
to start; it gives the bigots nothing to rail against; it
emphasizes that we're all part of the interconnected universe.

Then, when other labels fit naturally, then you can choose to
apply them -- SUBORDINATE to the "human BEING" label.  But if
they don't, like the bisexual example above, or the deist
example that Justin started out with, then ignore them -- *NO*
label completely and truly names *anything*.

Bear Blessings!

			-- radzy

------------------------------------------------------------
	T. O. Radzykewycz		|  An it harm none,
	The Incredible Radical Cabbage	|  do as ye will.
					|
	radzy%sradzy@jack.sns.com       |
------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,soc.culture.jewish