HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 160955r@garnet.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Origins of the Universe was (Clouds of hydrogen gas)
Date: 18 Aug 92 05:49:55 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

Every now and then I wander into talk.religion.misc only to get, again and
again, amazed at the odd richness of human intellectual endeavour...
A bunch of frightened , insecure people decide to rationalize the unfathomable 
using an arbitrary collection of Judaic texts; vague approximations of phy-
sics, chemistry and astronomy are poured in with the unbelievale aim of 
"proving" the existence of God.
Dear believers!
If, for some reason, the universe scares you and you need a Big Daddy to make
it friendlier then do assume his existence: it's your unalienable right, akin
to any other  right to benignly fantasize .    
But why waste your time trying to validate your personnas through your choices?
Why try  PROVE the existence of God? Why hare-brainly enroll science into
the task of showing that a middle aged white male resides in heaven and com-
piles our sins?  And that we do not, in fact, die, but go either "up" or "down"
as a function of whether we longed for the neigbor's wife or not?
In this great country we all know we should be proud of what
we are; just be proud of your revelation or whatever you want to call it and
leave the rest of us , preoccupied with revealing the Mistery, alone...

Cheers!

-- 
Radu T. Tomescu at UCBerkeley
Department of Economics
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14438 sci.physics:13265 sci.chem:3130
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:21:01 GMT
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <VSUMMERS.92Aug21122919@polaris.cv.nrao.edu>, vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu (Vince Summers) writes...

>Some great scientists are believers in creation, some believe in evolution.

I'll call that bluff.  Are there any great scientists out there who would care
to defend creationism with anything other than century-old, long discredited
arguments?

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:41:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.072753.3908@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (
Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <sbuckley.714031443@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley
) writes:
>>>Oh really?  So creating something automatically gives one the right to
>>>do anything at all with the created!  Really, if we managed to generate
>>>life in the lab, would you then conclude we could do anything we wanrted
>>>with it?  Or would you say that we should treat it like any other living
>>>thing?
>>
>>  no that's not what i said.  god is justified in doing whatever he wants
>>with his creation.  if i write a poem, i can burn it, but if i could create
>>life, i could do whatever i want with it.
>
>If you created an intellegent life form why do you think it has any
>fewer rights than other intellegent life? It won't be that long until
>we can create intellegence, that doesn't mean we have the right to
>enslave it.
>
>>but 2 things.  one is i don't
>>believe humans create life.  i believe god does.  human beings can have
>>sex but god creates the life.  :)  two is if you can prove to me that i
>>can create life, which entails proving god is not creating life [but
>>both of those are empirically unverifiable], then i would discuss your
>>hypothetical as reality--until then tho, it's just hypothetical.
>
>Give it another 20 years or so.

     Gentleman, please!  While I do find this discussion
to be quite hilarious, it really isn't appropriate for
rec.humor.
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Summary: so now you've seen the light, you're gonna stan' up for your right
Date: 22 Aug 92 23:32:59 GMT
	<81aO03tL66I500@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.

In article <81aO03tL66I500@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> 
jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>Maybe Paul Harvey is right and I do need to get to know my God better,
>maybe we all need to. In fact, I think I'll do just that, thanks for
>the advice, Paul.

No problema, it is much clearer over here in the light, isn't it? Batton
stick get shorter, rudy get taller. Jah ... Ras TafarI! And now ... YOU
know ... the rest ... of the story ... GOOD DAY!
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:01:45 GMT
Organization: Lurkers Anonymous
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird


 <This is similar to the Trinity.  There is one God, who manifests himself
 <in three persons:  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Just because there are three 
 <manifestations does not mean there are three gods.  There is only one God.
 
(Paul Harvey) writes:

 So, is Hinduism with it's one transcendent and three aspects called Brahma,
 Vishnu, Shiva, polytheism or monotheism? Is there really a difference
 between monotheism and polytheism or have these words only served to try
 to make one religion better or more valid that all others?
 
Yes there is a difference. Many were murdered by the catholic church
for not accepting the trinity. And even more have been killed over
monotheism vs. polytheism, pantheism, panentheism, etcetra. It was
monotheism that most vehemently proclaimed it was right and everyone
else was wrong. 

If you prayed more to Athena, and I to Venus, we probably wouldn't
try and kill each other; historically monotheism has not been so
benign.

Dano
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: gilligan@bldrdoc.gov (Jonathan Gilligan 303-497-3861)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Facts and Values (was Where it came from)
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:23:59 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: na
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology

In article <25658@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>Whether you maintain them or not, they are still the facts.  If you happen
>to know them then perhaps you will behave differently.  But I doubt it.  
>Can you provide an example of a specific fact or law of physics that influences
>the moral value of any specific societal rule or law of behavior in any
>definite way?

It's a bit subtle, and subject to dispute, but I'd assert that the
statement that nature is fundamentally mathematical (i.e., that the
laws of physics should be mathematical rather than theological or
teleological, for example) has serious moral consequences.  Science,
as it is generally practiced, takes this starting point, which implies
that nature has nothing to say about morality. Aristotle and others
disagree and state that to describe nature accurately, one must
understand its underlying purpose. I've stated this position in
greater detail in previous articles, so I will leave it at that for
now.

-- 

Disclaimer --- The government probably disagrees with my opinions.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: maoh@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu (Maureen O'Halloran)
Subject: Re: This is SO pointless... PLEASE READ THIS EVERYONE
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 17:17:33 GMT

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

[ p.s. moved from bottom of post]

>P.S.  I do have my own views as many of you already know but I will
>be objective as I hope everyone will be.  I am sure I will learn from
>all of you if we can cooperate?  May I suggest that there _may_ be an
>evil force that _may_ be causing the chaos we have seen so far on
>this group?  Be careful!

And who could this be? ... Hmmm ... I don't know .... Hmmm ... 
Could it possible be SATAN??

[material omitted regarding spiritual correctness test] 

> ... I think that this group is meant for the first group and
>that the second group would be more at home in a New Age type
>newsgroup (I am almost sure one exists).
> ....
>John M.

No, No, No!   You've got your satanic co-conspirators mixed up.  The
New Age people are the ones who believe in crystals, astrology,
psychics, holistic medicine etc. etc. etc.  Their VERY spiritual,
even poly-spiritual.  The amoral godless atheists are referred to as
"secular humanists". 


-- 

 Maureen O'Halloran
 This is not a .signature file 
 
--

 Maureen O'Halloran
 This is not a .signature file 
 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject:  standby for trick question...
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:25:07 GMT

markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
Where does the Bible say that the flood went above all mountains?

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
Gen. 7:19

Very good.  Now can you say WHEN?


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: *I* am THE way.
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 06:37:07 GMT

walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Beginning to think is beginning to be undermined - Albert Camus.) writes:

>all very true, but in your example the judgment still takes place
>according to what we DO, and is softened or hardened according
>to mitigating knowledge. 

>but to do as s.buckley and assume a judgement based on knowledge, 
>without a word on actions, puts a totally different emphasis
>on the matter.

>is he trying to say actions don't count, only correct belief?


  judgement is upon us because we sin and disobey god.  the punishment
for sin is death.  jesus bore that punishment for us all.  those who
accept his offer are saved.  standard christian line.  i personally 
don't know for sure what happens with those who don't hear of jesus, but
it's moot because i know of him and i am judged on whether or not i
accept his salvation--not on my actions in life beyond choosing him
or not.

---                          
     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"                   
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Philosophical objection to homosexuality
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
	<12893@inews.intel.com> <1992Aug12.230324.15603@cs.yale.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:18:40 GMT

<<<Don't you think it's time you backed up your assertion or retracted it?
<<No, I think it is time that you take a trip to the local library.

In article <1992Aug12.230324.15603@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
<Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the convention on Usenet that when
<one makes an empirical assertion, one backs it up.

Excuse me? Convention on usenet? Who told you that? Do you have a reference?
Don't tell me you've become the self proclaimed moderator of t.r.m?

<In your original post, you claimed that "psychologists" had decided
<that homophobia was a mental illness. I challenged that and asked
<for a reference. You provided none. Rather, you proceeded to spout
<quite a bit of tripe about "fear" and latent homosexuality in
<homophobes. Tripe which was not substantiated by even one shred
<of empirical evidence.
<Paul, you made an assertion of fact. It is incumbent upon you to
<back it up. It is not my job to do research to support your
<claim.

Please, lighten up, you are not my boss and I am not yours. It is not incumbent
on me to provide references. This is hardly a research journal, this isn't
even a sci.* group. Fear when there is no danger is basic psych101. And, no,
I will not provide references for that statment. If you understand it, then you
know or know better, if you do not understand it, well ... that is why there
are libraries. I wish you the best in your studies.
From: denmckinnon@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (NEIL MCKINNON)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Cain's & Abel's Wives [was: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently]
Date: 23 Aug 92 16:01:17 GMT
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University

In article <1992Aug20.200028.10580@ncsu.edu> cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes:
>From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
>Subject: Re: Cain's & Abel's Wives [was: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently]
>Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:00:28 GMT




>To say that there was a group of people other than those from Adam and Eve is 
>simply un-Biblical. At that time, there were no other people to mate with so 
>the wives had to have been "relatives." Also, remember the age of the people back
>then, they lived for several hundreds of years therefore a fairly large 
>population would have built up.


>Chris

It is no more unbiblical, since the Bible offers no explanation of the 
matter at all, other than to say that Cain travelled away from Eden to a 
place where he married.  To say that Adam and Eve must have had daughters is 
just as unbiblical as saying, "Oh, God must have created some other people 
somewhere else, subsequent to the creation of Adam and Eve, one of whom Cain 
later married".  The Bible is silent on the matter.

Neil.
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:13:39 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA


Where does the Bible say that the flood went above all mountains?
Flooding does not have to be too substantial to kill a few people,
especially those who have no believable warning.

Mark


-- 
Even for the physicist the description in plain language will be a
criterion of the degree of understanding that has been reached.
-- Werner Heisenberg
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: God (was: Agnostics and Athiests
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 07:17:16 GMT

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

>In article <sbuckley.713175264@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>}m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>}
>}>In article <sbuckley.712399013@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>}>}  i am talking about god of the bible whose fundamental characteristics
>}>}[found in the bible] 

>This guy?

 [250-odd lines of a critique of god's personality deleted]


>This is one odd dude...

  whom you are free to reject for whatever reasons you want.
From: bcronk@bnr.ca (Bryan Cronk)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Need help with a prayer
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:35:34 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, BNR-RTP

I'm looking for any information on a prayer that I have part of, but
not all of the words to.  Can anyone help?  Here it is:

Prayer for Virtue
------------------

In the quiet of the morning hour 
I come to you for peace.
Help me be patient, gentle, wise;
to see beyond what seems to be;

...(missing phrase(s))...

O clothe me in your beauty, this I pray -
give me the grace to do your will today.


Anyone who knows what the missing phrase(s) are, or any info on it, 
please post a reply or call.

Thanks, Bryan

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Cronk   BNR, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC   (919) 991-7598
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 07:09:12 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Aug15.052543.1812@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> <64058@cup.portal.com>

--will get through it. Make this shield above around and even into the 
ground underneath you. Do this on two or three nights in a row and you
might find that your health will be getting better especially if you live
around some psychic vampires.
John Winston.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:12:05 GMT

In article <sbuckley.714077416@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
}James Meritt writes:
}>Alfred Sipols writes:
}>}I couldn't help but notice that all of your verses are from the Old Testament.
}>}The old law came to an end when Christ died on the cross.
}
}>That's nice.  So I may discard any and every thing from the OT as I wish?
}
}  well, you need to look to jesus as the one who will reconcile you to
}god because the ot is fulfilled in him.  this means that the stuff of
}the ot will not get you to god..

Don't remember mentioning that at all.

}the ot as [among other things] a neat novel, an interesting history
}full of lessons and wisdom about knowing and learning about god and how
}to and how not to live with him.


Lessons like drink untill you puke, kill those that offend you, genocide is
useful, god is a sadistic pervert,....  

yup.  A neat novel.  Rather poor for sf/fanasy, but passable.



Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3722 alt.alien.visitors:5576 sci.skeptic:14174
From: chris@kbsw1 (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:55:47 GMT
Reply-To: chris@kbsw3.UUCP (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Organization: Kentek Information Systems

John, I regularly hit rocks with hammers and break them. (The rocks,
for those wondering about the anticedent) Does this make me evil?
Rocks break in rivers and stream ALL THE TIME. What do the rocks
think about water? Can rocks predict the stock market?

Chris Kostanick
hammer happy boulder basher at large
From: bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Date: 22 Aug 92 20:10:34 GMT
Organization: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adminstration / Boulder Labs

In article <1992Aug22.193950.15330@colorado.edu> bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:
>In article <sbuckley.714429755@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>>bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:
>>
>>>I AM LYING AS I SPEAK.
>>
>>>Until you understand this koan, you will never understand the "new age."
>>
>>  and like the tao which unintelligible, this koan and "the new age"
>>resist clearly delineated concepts.  but one can be delineated: that
>>there are no clear delineable truths.

Don't you hate it when you make a response, then an hour later think
of an important addition...?

If you think this is not a "clear delineable truth," pick up a book
on linguistics.  This koan reflects a well-known fact in linguistics.

Still need help?  If the Democratic Party is comprised of "special
interests" such as workers, parents, the handicapped, minorities,
students, etc., what is the _general interest_ of the Republican Party?
It can't be business -- large business owners and managers comprise a
group smaller than any of the "special interests" of the Democratic Party.
(Thanks, Noam Chomsky).

I am _not_ saying you have to understand linguistics to understand
the "new age."  However, the claim that "new age," "Taoism," "Zen,"
etc. are unintelligible because _you_ can't make sense of it is
demonstratively false.


Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3749 alt.alien.visitors:5678 sci.skeptic:14330
From: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 06:47:20 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <63714@cup.portal.com> <63758@cup.portal.com> <63995@cup.portal.com>

--thought I should have a beard. I sent a sketch of what I thought
the person I call E the adept should look like and she said it looked like 
him except I didn't draw in his beard. So there you have it astral fans.
We'll have to raise our frequency a little more next week because too
many people (including myself) are geting scared when we see or hear
some of these lower frequency astral entities. Not to worry. Somebody 
up there likes us and won't let us stump our toe against a stone.
I can't help myself. I always have to put in a riddle or two.
John Winston
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
From: bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Subject: Re: Ride on John's Back, Please! (Was: Re: Get Off John's Back
Organization: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adminstration / Boulder Labs
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 03:20:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.024128.16516@mprgate.mpr.ca> spani@mprgate.mpr.ca (Leonard Spani) writes:
|In article <64356@cup.portal.com>, John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:
||>      SUBJECT : THE OSTERICH PEOPLE
||>       
||>           In an isolated village of the jungle reigion of Zimbabwie, Africa 
||>      there is a group of about 100 people who are called the Osterich 
||>      people.  They are called this because of their unusual feet.

|You know what the funny thing about this article is?
|
|The "Osterich People" actually exist. I have read about it in "National
|Geographic" or some similar magazine. No kidding. If I remember right, about
|33% of the people in a village had this genetic anomaly in their feet. I have
|seen pictures of the people and the special sandals they wear. Their feet
|give them no advantage, but they also give them no significant disadvantage,
|so the "mutation" or whatever it is stayed around.

Not only that, I saw pictures of them in the _Weekly World News_.  That
proves they're real!  The WWN doesn't print _anything_ unless it has
documented proof.

||>           A French team  headed by famed anthropologist Dr. Etienne 
||>      Charbonal were investigating tthis group of people and eventually got 
||>      there confidence.
         ^^^^^
||>      After 
||>      going into the jungle for hours, the doctor  and team were shown a 
||>      large silver dome. Most of the space craft was covered with 
||>      vegitation. The native people then began to dance wildly around the 

That's obviously a fake.  The WWN article didn't mention it.

||>           More will be known when the French team returns to the jungle  to 
||>      study the UFO.
||>      Information source: Sept. 26,1989 Sun pg. 7.
     
Well, It's been close to three years since that article was published.  What
happened?


Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3937 alt.alien.visitors:5989 sci.skeptic:14807