HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Jonathan Egre' <jonathan@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Higher ideas in the Bible ?
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 16:33:30 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

Eli Chiprout <emc@doe.carleton.ca> writes:

> Further, the Bible is supposed to be the only book that contains "lower"
> ideas with early writings (and this includes moral, theology, ethics, etc.)
> and "higher ideas" with later writers -- never the reverse.  For instance
> early writers of the Bible talk about collective sin: if the father sins
> all of his wives and children fall into the pit with him.  Later writers 
> introduce a "higher" concept of individual sin:  A man is not responsible 
> for the behaviour of his father but only for his own.  There are many such
> ideas -- too lengthy to describe here, but I can give more examples if 
> people are interested. 
> 
> This property of the Bible is supposed to be absent from any other religious
> work and points to something special that even an atheist is supposed to
> acknowledge.

> I would appreciate comments.

If you think about it, "higher ideas" in morality, theology and ethics
*must* mean "ideas closer to what we believe today".  You cannot deny this 
without admitting that your own morals and ethics are "wrong"; and that 
would be quite bizarre ("I belive in X, but I also know that X is wrong").

This is connected with the way in which history is portrayed as an 
inevitable journey of progress towards our current situation, which is 
*implicitly desirable*.  Most people seem to believe that the "goal" of 
evolution is for homo sapiens to appear, and now that we have appeared, 
there will be no more evolution.

We discover that people living 3000 years ago believed in A, people living
2000 years ago believed in B, people living 1000 years ago believed in C, 
and we know that today we believe in D.  Therefore, we "join up the dots" 
and say that A is the most primitive idea, B is an improvement and so on
leading to D, which is the "highest idea" or the truth; whereas in reality
they are just different ideas, and D just happens to be what we believe
today.

The world we live in today has been dominated by Euro-American culture, 
morals and ethics, which in turn have been dominated by Christianity.
Even those of us on alt.atheism.moderated who do not believe in the existence
of any deity basically share the secular ethics and values taught by 
Christianity, so we naturally belive that Christian ethics are "higher"
than the ethics of people living in the Middle East 3000 years ago.

Many of us would also accept the idea that Christianity is a more
sophisticated religion than proto-Judaism, simply because we see Christianity
as the last stepping stone in a string of religions which must be a string
of progressively more sophisticated religions (because we view history in 
general as a record of progress).

(Of course, my argument falls apart if you are a hardened moral absolutist 
or religious fundamentalist.)

--
Jonathan Egre' / jonathan@mantis.co.uk / jonathan_e@cix.compulink.co.uk      
                 Voice: +44 223 421094 / Fax: +44 223 421093
From: David James Alexander Hanley <U55870%uicvm.uic.edu@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Why theism is widespread
Date: Thursday, 13 Aug 1992 01:15:56 CDT
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

In article <1992Aug7.181110.5243@cis.ohio-state.edu>, ahles@cis.ohio-state.edu
(mark ahles) says:
>Why is belief in God almost universal among societies (not individuals)?

>I believe it must be either:

 [These are not the only possibilities by a long shot, they are just two
that might possibly support your view point.]

>
> -A benefit exists evoluutionarily for theistic societies.  This might be
> explained by 'working towards a common goal, self sacrificing, etc'.  But
> I know of NO successful socity that was atheistic.

  This does not follow at all.  Humans are universally subject to
diseases.  Does this mean that it is advantageous for humans to be
sickly?  I think not.  Religion is the best tool by which people can
gain power, and once in power, enslave the people.  Therefore, it
is a recurring phenomena in history.  But, religion is a terrible
burden on our society, and it would be better if it were not there.

>                                  OR
> -God put a belief in God in man.

  This also does not follow.  Mabye satan put belief in man?  Mabye god
did it but god is evil?  Mabye aliens did it?  Mabye it has been
pounded into our skulls since birth?  Mabye it is an unfortunate
human trait to look for an all-powerful leader?

  It is very easy to argue your case if you only accept possibilities
that you like.  It is also incorrect.

>
>In either case, I see no advantage to atheism.  It is bad for the individual
>(if divinely inspired) and/or society (if an evolutionary advantage).

  Hmm.. Mabye if there had been less religion it would not have been
so easy to arrange the crusades.. The inquisition.. In fact most
wars have felt the meddling touch of religion, inspiring young men to
go to their deaths.


D*A*V*E
From: Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Science and dogma
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 11:44:43 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

John Daly <daly@vanilla.princeton.edu> writes:

> In 1861 the French Academy of Science published a brochure listing 51
> scientific facts which controverted the Bible.  Today, not a SINGLE one
> of those 51 scientific "facts" are accepted by science.

I would very much like to see at least some of these "facts". Otherwise
the above statement is pretty useless.

In fact it seems pretty irrelevant anyway.

--
Tony Lezard IS tony@mantis.co.uk OR tony%mantis.co.uk@uknet.ac.uk
OR EVEN arl10@phx.cam.ac.uk if all else fails. Great! Kept my .sig down to two
lines!
From: Bernt Budde <bug@arachne.udac.uu.se>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Documentary evidence for Jesus' existence
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 07:53:09 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala, Sweden

John Nagle <nagle@netcom.com> writes:

>In article <sbuckley.713158477@sfu.ca> Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca> writes:
>}  jesus said one thing in the bible that is more profound than anything
>}anyone has ever said before, contemporary to him or not.  he said he is
>}the son of god

>      Too bad the Romans didn't have better therapy for mental disorders
>back then.

From my reading on the matter (my interest are largely based in more
modern crackpot cults that are closer to me...), mad prophets were
thirteen to the dozen at the time. It wasn't particularly strange to
howl at the moon and call yourself Messiah then... hardly something
that rated as a mental problem; just a (dangerous) career...

And being related to gods, wasn't the Egyptian pharaos that first? But
Jesse was before the Japanese emperors? I bet, if you studied history,
that if the first claim rules, like our studied Mr Buckley seems to
say, we have to join some old South American religion or something...


Bernt Budde                            |Religion, n: A daughter of
bug@arachne.udac.uu.se                 |Hope and Fear, explaining to
UDAC (Uppsala Univ. Computing Centre)  |Ignorance the Nature of the
                                       |Unknowable.
Don't for a moment believe UDAC,       |
while being a nice place, have         |-Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's
opinions like me!!                     |                 Dictionary
From: Graham Matthews <graham@maths.su.oz.au>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Prof. Mazrui's public lecture on Islam and Rushdie, paraphrased
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 07:10:29 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney

In <9208131631.AA17973@rutgers.edu> RBNXHS@rohvm1.bitnet writes:
>A real equivalent of comparative blasphemy would be in portraying
>the Virgin Mary as a prostitute, and Jesus as the son of one of her
>sexual clients (na' wudhu' billah). Also comparable would be any
>novel based on the thesis that the 12 disciples were Jesus's
>homosexual lovers, and the Last Supper was their last sexual orgy
>together. It would be very interesting to speculate which one of
>the leading western, *civilized* writers would march in procession
>in defense of the rights of such a novelist.

All of them I imagine. The issue is one of freedom of speech. The
"writers" may disagree with what is said, but they would still march
to support the right for any novelist to say such things.

This seperation of what is said from the right to say it, seems
fundamental to the mis-understanding between Islam and the West.
I also feel that Islam is simply going to have to learn to live
with the West on this point as the West will never give this seperation
up - freedom of speech and all the associated freedoms are too
fundamental to western society and thought to give them up.

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: yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Subject: Re: Not killing as a moral absolute (was Re: Best Bible translation?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 16:12:21 GMT

In article <9ZuFPB1w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
|> yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:

[Re: "Thou shall not kill" vs. an alternative "Thou shalt do no murder."]

|> > Since this "commandment" gets brought up often (in this group) as being 
|> > an obvious (or unquestionable) moral absolute, I thought I'd thrown in 
|> > my $0.02.  I think the "do no murder" is better way to state it.  And, 
|> > yes, there is a large difference, but even that form has its faults.
|> 
|> Large difference?  Pthphthth.
|> 
|> Murder is just killing that the state has made illegal.

So, you are asserting that killing in self-defense and hacking
a few people up with a chain saw are (nearly) morally equivalent.

|> mathew

-- 
Dan Yergeau                         He's dead Jim.  Take his phaser
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU        and I'll get his wallet.
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Best Bible translation?
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:42:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Tired of bickering with people, I've decided to try reading the Whole Thing
(TM) in order to get some decent ammunition.  Which translation do you folks
think meets the best combination of scholarly translation and readability?  

For example, when confronting my parents recently, my mother claimed that 
"Thou shalt not kill" was actually "Thou shalt do no murder" (as if that makes
a large difference).  Is there a translation that is sensitive to subtle 
nuances like this?

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*      I'm the person that	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*      the president
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*      warned you about.    
******************************************************************************
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Here is your proof=God Exists?
Date: 18 Aug 92 07:16:15 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com wrote:
: [much deleted]
:     True enough.  Except to deny the argument above, one has to assert
:     that there is *no chance or possibility* that God could exist; and
:     that there is a constant, independent probability that the universe
:     could create itself.
: 
:     If the universe could have such a probability of coming into existence
:     over time, then certainly God could.  In fact, I think it's more
:     reasonable to believe that there is a probability that God came into
:     existence and that there is no chance for the universe to come into
:     existence by itself than the other way around.

Still mind boggled that you could let this kind of thing have any
credence as an argument for OR against the existence of a God, but
let's focus first on getting the formal math right.

Your first paragraph there is STILL incorrect. It is not us that needs
all the extra assumptions: it is you. Your first paragraph should read

:     True enough.  Except to deny the argument above, one has to assert
:     that there is *no chance or possibility* that God could exist; OR
:     that the probabilities of God popping into existence is not
:     constant; OR that the probabilities are not independent; OR that
:     there is also a probability of God popping *out* of existence.

Hardly a great leap of faith after all, though it still misses the
point.  Though your math errors can be patched, your fundamental
errors are in formal modelling.

Your real problem here is a failure to identify levels of description.
If anyone associates a probability with the existence of God, they are
not expressing total confidence in a model of reality where Gods pop
into existence with a certain probability. They are expressing a measure
for their uncertainty about the truth value of a proposition, which in
actual fact is either true or false.

Let us consider something less contentious: what is the probability
that Achillies existed as a historical figure? The probability went up
about 100 years ago with the discovery by archaeologists that Homer's
epics were based on real places and events.

What could we mean by that? Either Achillies existed or he is entirely
fictional. Probability does not enter into it. The probablity is
actually a measure of our confidence in the truth of a proposition
given available evidence.

Your argument applied to this case is like saying that as soon as the
scholar admits any probability that Archillies actually existed, he
should integrate over time and conclude that Archillies did exist.

Nobody -- LEAST of all yourself! -- is proposing that all powerful
entities just pop into existence at some time during the life of the
universe. Such a God ain't your God -- your God is creator of the
universe, and **therefore** your proof does not apply to it.

Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:15473 alt.politics.bush:2303 alt.politics.clinton:2378 soc.motss:36130
From: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,soc.motss
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:33:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University - Chemistry Dept. Programmer
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug20.201538.11505@ncsu.edu>, cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes...
}I think the whole point of "traditional family values" not including gays
}would be the redefining of the word. As you know, tradional family refers
}to a male-female relationship. With the Liberal approach, tradional family
}would begin to include homosexual relationships which the Republicans (and 
}myself) do not want.
}Chris

We (liberals), IMO, are not attempting to change the definition of traditional
families. That will for quite some time to come, I'm sure, be the proto-typical
Mom, Dad, and kids type family. What we _do_ want to see is the abolishment of
state sponsored and approved prejudice based on religious views. To put it
simply, I'm not interested in redefining words, I'm interested in giving more
people equal protection under the law.

}-IvArch->--------------------------Brett G. Lemoine-------------------->
}-Texas A&M University--------------Chemistry Department Programmer----->
}-Internet: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu-Bitnet: lemoine@tamchem------------->
}------"A person without a god is like a fish without a skateboard."---->
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: priest observes
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:53:49 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu

skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:

>>austin@apm.magadan.su writes:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>This address is almost certainly bogus (su = Soviet Union?!?).

Not necessarily.  The Soviet Union, or whatever it is called these days,
is gatewayed through Norway, as someone else mentioned.  They have mail and
news access, but not a direct connection.  Did you try mailing it to see
if you get a reply before blasting it as bogus?

-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: DOES GOD EXIST? (different from previous posting).
Date: 16 Aug 92 02:13:09 GMT
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney

(THIAGARAJ JOHN : THIRD) writes:
>			I Found PROOF!
>I was forced, on examination of the facts, to realize there is no
>proof for the theory of evolution. It is purely a theory 

So is the theory of electricity. I suggest you go plug yourself into
the nearest socket (for the australian readers go read "Good Weekend".
My reply is plagiarised from there - very funny reading at times).

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: shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse)
Subject: Re: A question
Organization: U of Chicago, SSPPCC
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:37:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.191005.9049@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.162258.15081@ncsu.edu> 
>  cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes:
>>
>>To respond to the post concerning my comments on homosexuality.
>
>To respond to your response:
>
>>I feel the following about homosexuality:
>
>>1) Homosexuality is a choice, consciousness or sub-consciousness. At any rate 
>>   can be changed.
>
>Thanks Einstein.  The mere fact that you have not the slightest shread
>of evidence other than your malformed sense of importance to back this
>up doesn't bother you in the slightest.

Actually, there's a good deal of empirical evidence that suggests that
sexual behavior is socially shaped, and not genetically determined.   

>
>>2) Homosexuality, as far as I've seen, has never been the issue that it 
>>   is today.  Why hasn't homosexuality been such a debated topic throughout 
>>   history.
>
>Because people were a little more tolerant then?
  
Yeah, right.  People were _way_ more tolerant 50, 100, 500, 1000 years ago.

>
>>3) The Roman Empire was freat and powerful until the extreme moral decay 
>>   weakened it.
>
>The Roman Empire lasted a *hell* of a long time and the Roman Army was 
>chock full of homosexuals and did very well.  I guess love between the  
>men is good for morale.  Oh, I don't think many historians will agree with
>your "moral decay" argument.

By saying that the Roman Army, and by inference Roman society, were 
"chock full" of homosexuals supports the notion that social factors
can strongly influence sexual behavior and that indeed, homosexuality
may be a choice.
>

>One more thing.  You are a bigot.  Justifying your bigotry doesn't
>change anything.  You are a sad and pathetic human being.  Go away.
>
>C Frog

It's clear that there's at least one bigot here, the guy with the 
funny name.

Roger Shouse, The University of Chicago
From: davec@csufres.CSUFresno.EDU (David C. Choweller)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Date: 12 Aug 1992 14:27:41 -0500
Organization: Liverpool Supporters Club
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Aug12.151711.21180@csrd.uiuc.edu> Greg Skinner write:
>merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>
>>jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>>>    ...Christianity doesn't teach
>>>    war but peace (no Crusades).  It doesn't teach conformity
>>>    but freedom to choose (no Inquisitions).
>
>>C'mon, it prescribes the death penalty for many things I don't
>>consider crimes, like homosexual acts.  Where's the peace & freedom
>>here?  Or do you ignore that part of the bible?
>
>In a private exchange, I asked Mr. LeRoy to support for this claim
>(that Christianity prescribes the death penalty for homosexual acts).
>He gave me Leviticus.  I countered with Paul ("no longer under the
>law, but under grace") and pointed out that for Christianity the new
>covenant has replaced the old of which Leviticus is a part.

Do you agree, Greg, that the God that you believe in, at one time
prescribed the death penalty for homosexual acts?  Regardless of
whether the law was changed later, many people were put to death
because of what your God laid down as the law.  Would you agree
with this statement?  I know that this is off the main point, but
I'm curious.  I want to understand liberal Christianity, and how
it can be justified in the face of the barbarity described in the
bible.  Mostly I want to understand how liberal Christians can believe
in a God who laid down a harsh, barbaric law--as a result of which
many people were murdered--and then turn around and say that the
actions for which those people were killed are no longer punishable.
--
                                            davec@csufres.csufresno.edu
I bet the main reason the police keep people away from a plane crash is
they don't want anybody walking in and lying down in the crash stuff,
then, when somebody comes up, act like they just woke up and go, "What
was THAT?!"--"Deep Thoughts," by Jack Handey
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Radio made me puke and get booked
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:42:39 GMT
Organization: University of South Australia

I was listening to the radio on the way home from Uni today and I heard
a peice that was interesting....
Apparently, in a little joint somewhere in Texas, the local healt org. 
wanted to start a Yoga class; it had been suggested to H.Att. victims
that they take it up for health reasons.
However, some mob of fundies chucked a mental, claiming that Yoga
was tantamount to using public funds to promote Hinduism.
(by this point I wanted to puke, narrowly avoiding a daring cat)
Even the mayor got involved - he was one of the heart attack victims
told to take up yoga - he consulted his church (he was even a Presb. Elder)
and they were right behind him. Eventually, they managed to get it
pushed thru, stating that since they didn't like the idea of funding a
religion, they would no longer allow other religions free use ot facilities
etc.
The mayor was quite happy etc, so the station left them and asked the
opinions of some other dude about Yoga. What really pissed me off (and
gave me a speeding ticket) was that this wanker then proceeded to more or
less ignore the issue, concentrating on Hinduism itself, claiming that
Hinduism is the quickest path to having your body invaded by demons.
What bullshit. I am as atheist as one could get, but of all the religions
I mind the least, it's hinduism. At least they keep to themselves and
don't look down on you for not being one of them. Generaly nice people.
The point is, what exactly is this newsgroup for ?
To determine which religion is right and prove that all others are 
wrong (unless you're a B'Hai, inwhich case everybody is right cept aths.)
or to promote atheism? Half of the contributers here are only interested
in proving their own beliefs to sooth their consciences (just like those
middle-of-the-street prayer's Jesus despised) and not to give counter-
arguments to atheism. Religious folk always avoid the question if they
don't like the answer they have to give to maintain credibility.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:15460 talk.religion.misc:14332