HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine)
Subject: Re: A question
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University - Chemistry Dept. Programmer
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:42:00 GMT

In article <BtLJq8.Gvt@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes...
}lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine) writes:
} 
}>Homosexuals are not allowed to marry the persons of thier choice.
} 
}Why is this a problem?  Who cares whether the government affirms one's
}marriage?  I don't.

There are legal ramifications... taxes can be filed jointly, same-sex spouses
would be allowed visitation in hospitals, etc. Currently, there is not a state
in the nation (that I'm aware of) that allows homosexual couples to file their
taxes together. Very few hospitals recognize same-sex partners as 'family'
in visitation rights. There is _no_ rational justification for this
discrimination.

}>Many states _still_ have antiquated laws on the books outlawing
}>'sodomy' (often including oral and manual as well as anal sex).
}>If you can give me _NON-religious_ reasons for this discrimination,
}>I will drop my claim that the government is abusing the seperation
}>of church and state by these practices. 
} 
}The reason may be societal.  Simply put, past U.S. society in general
}had sexual taboos that included these things.  Parts of that society
}evidently also thought their taboos should have the force of law.
}(Was there a religious reason for this?  I am not aware of any.)
}Looking back, it seems it would have been nice if there had been a
}"separation of sexuality and state" amendment to the Constitution.
}-- 
}Gregg Skinner    g-skinner@uiuc.edu         I speak for no organization.

That would have been nice. In the mean time, since there _is_ a seperation
of church and state, and the current policy is a holdover from Christian
laws, the law should be changed to prevent this blatent discrimination.

}-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."---->
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine)
Subject: Faith vs. Reason
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University - Chemistry Dept. Programmer
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:39:00 GMT

It seems clear to me that there is no empirical evidence that requires a
divine being's existence. Whether the evidence at hand suggests a creator
is mostly a matter of opinion. It would seem then that logic and reason
cannot be (certainly have not yet been) used to convince a person to
believe in God when they do not. I feel safe in saying that many Christians
would agree with this statement.

So, leaving logic and reason, many theists appeal to 'faith'. My questions
are as follows:

1) What kind of a thing is 'faith' that we should accept as 'true' what faith
   tells us?

2) How are we to determine _what_ faith tells us? (for example, why does
   faith give us the judeo-christian God as opposed to Aphrodite?)

3) How can we determine whether a person is relying on 'faith' as opposed
   to "wishful thinking"?

In order to squelch any effort at side tracking this discussion to the
issue of what gives logic and reason validity not shared by faith, I'll
attempt to answer that question up front. The kinds of questions that
logic and reason legitimately apply to are usually testable. Experience
has shown that with true premises, and valid arguments, logic will
provide the same answers as physical expirimentation. Reason, I would
argue is a less strict use of the rules of logic. Since the rules are
not so precise, reason alone does, on occasion, fail, and should not
be treated as legitimate as logic. Faith, however, seems to be
indistinguishable from simple assertion. The kinds of questions usually
addressed by faith are typically untestable. Therefore it would seem that
unless someone can provide a distinction between faith and assertion that
there is no more reason to believe in an arguement on faith than there
would be to believe an unsupported assumption.

Anyone care to try and dissuade me from my conclusions?

}-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."---->
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Contents of the 'Death Sea Scrolls': claim by Australian scientist
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:11:00 GMT

In article <26AUG199211284265@chemvx.tamu.edu>, lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug26.083509.323@doc.bmd.trw.com>, jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes...
> }In article <92238.165251A410JACQ@HASARA11.BITNET>, A410JACQ@HASARA11.BITNET (Jacqueline Cote) writes:
> }> A few weeks ago there was an article in a local newspaper that an Australian
> }> scientist (I forgot her name), who had studied (part of) the Scrolls claims
> }> that they state that Jesus *did not* die after his crucifiction, was revived
> }> with mirre and some other substance, and continued to live for another
> }> 30 years, travelling around and telling people about his visions. He married
> }> Mary Magdelen and had three children with her, two sons and a daughter.
> }> After the birth of his second son, he apparently left her to marry a Greek
> }> female bishop (?????).
> }>  
> }> Does anyone else have heard this story? If it *would* be true, it would
> }> have spectacular implications and it would also shed light why little
> }> to nothing is known to the world about the contents of the Scrolls.....
> }>  
> }> The story reminded me of another story I once read *years* ago, about
> }> one of the 'secrets' of the Vatican. That story claimed that there was
> }> evidence (in some convent in France) that indeed Mary and Jesus were a
> }> couple (after his 'death') travelling around and visiting places.
> }>  
> }> Comments, anyone?
> }>  
> }> Jacqueline
> }>  
> }> P.S.: just for the record: I'm an astrophysicist an (of course) an atheist.

> }If you are gullible enough to believe that story, I have a question for you.
> }Would you be interested in buying some beach-front property in Arizona?
> }(There's lots of "beach" down there you know.)  Or how about the Brooklin
> }Bridge?  Or closer to home perhaps, the Eiffel Tower?
> }Regards,
> }Jim B.
> 
> Why are you so quick to dismiss the possibility? It seems a bit more plausible
> than the biblical account of the matter. I'm not going to believe it based
> just on the evidence of heresay, but I have no reason to dismiss it either.

I don't know about Jim, but I am quick to dismiss it because (i) it's a hoary
old theory with no more evidence to back it up than there was when it was first
proposed a couple of hundred years ago and (ii) I have read Barbara Thiering's
fucking stupid book and it is complete and utter trash. I have promised
several times now to post a long critique of this idiot's bizarre book, since
I feel guilty that a fellow Aussie is spreading this sort of ahistorical crap,
but I haven't had time to do anything about it. Looks like I'd better find 
some time.
Tim O'Neill

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:09:33 EDT
From: <EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: In the Infinite Universe
 <92238.152617EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992Aug27.220722.4084@bnr.ca>

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!
I just wrote a whole letter and accidentally erased it!!!!!!

Well, here goes again!

If you were to try to travel "around" the universe, you'd never make it: the un
iverse would collapse ("Big Crunch") first (this is, of course, assuming the "B
ig Crunch" model).
Consider this:  Let's try to graph a trip around the universe (we'll pretend th
at it's possible).  The vertyical axis will be time while the horizontal plane
will be displacement and it will be circular in shape (you're returning to the
same point).  As you graph it, you'll go around the horizontal "circle", but as
 you go around, the "pen" should go up the vertical axis as time passes (a
cilindrical shape).  From above, the 3D graph seems to suggest that you returne
d to the same point.  But looking at it from the side, we see that the line dra
wn does not reconnect.  Time is not absolute in our universe, thus, if one were
 to, theoretically, travel around the universe, would one return to the point f
rom which one started?  Consider........


<TACHYON>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Subject: Re: Free will -answer to your questions jarek.
Organization: Xerox PARC
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:48:49 GMT

I'm coming back to this because this old remark by Graham Matthews
resembles somehow Dough Graham's recent criticism of 'backwards
thinking', ie. of finding reasons to believe in things one already
believes:

In <graham.712301796@galois> Graham Matthews wrote:

-Tony:
>>>What you are after is a way to allow God be able to know all future free
>>>actions (thus not limiting his omnipotence) yet retaining human free will.
-Jarek:
>>Right.
-Graham:
>This sounds to me like reverse engineering a specification for God.
>ie: well we have to solve logical problems X, Y, and Z with respect
>to God, so we better have a God with attributes A, B, and C ...
>
Interesting. You sound as if have never noticed that this is the usual
approach in scientific investigation. I thought you were a scientist...
Or maybe it was just a remark, not a criticism? 

You see, objects are given attributes to describe their behavior (which
shows up in objective experiments or subjective introspection), not the
other way round. If the experiment does not confirm your choice of the
attributes, you change the attributes, not reject the experiment. 

Now, I apply exactly the same procedure to my investigation: I feel that
the omnipotence of God should not be limited (subjective introspection).
This tells me that God should be ABLE to know all future free actions,
not HAVE to know all future free actions, because the later version of 
the attribute of omniscience 1) limits God by removing his freedom of
choice and 2) causes the 'problem of evil' paradox. I accept the 'able'
version of omniscience because an able-omniscient being APPEARS the same
as a must-omniscient being. The diference is in LOGICAL CONSISTENCE.


Best wishes,
             Jarek
------------------------------------------------------
 .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
 `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (4 of 4)
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:03:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.204837.29425@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:

|
|>As for the one's I missed,
|>
|>Abortion and pornography are too modern for Bible documentation, 
|>although nude dancing could probably be included in pornography, and
|>it is certainly in the Bible somewhere.

Pornography from Sumerian times has been discovered. The Arabian Knigts,
perfumed garden etc etc are all pornographic in the "fundie" sense. Whats wrong
with bonking though? I think that it would be a damn sight better world if it
were pornography that children were constantly bombarded with and not the
violent films glorifying war. Sex is a natural act, killing people in the
service of the state is not.

As for abortion it existed thousands of years back. Its only been safe in modern
times though.

|>Drug Culture?  Depends on the meaning.  Alcoholism has been
|>around since yeast got together with sugar.  Other cultures
|>drank/smoked/ate mind altering substances long before 
|>Darwin's time.

Drug culture was the basis of many pagan religions. Magic mushrooms and all
that.


|>Any ICRer's out there want to try to explain why/how these
|>practices are to be blamed on evolutionists.  They seem to be
|>well documented (and, at times, even encouraged) in the Bible.

These evil doers were obviously lead by the devil into anticipating the
evolutionists.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
From: jedwards@ms.uky.edu (Jonathan Edwards)
Subject: Re: Corporate Donations as a write of to RC?
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 10:09:33 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au writes:

>Is it true that corporations (in USA) can donate upto 5% of profits
>to the Catholic Church and declare it a deduction. According to 'Vatican
>Billions' (Avro Manhattan) it is. 

Corporations are entitled to the same deduction for charitable contri-
butions as individuals are, as far as I know.  This means they could
donate up to 50% of their net profits to charity (any charity).  They
would not pay taxes on any money donated.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Contents of the 'Death Sea Scrolls': claim by Australian scientist
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 04:05:38 GMT

Graham:
> While I have no comment about Dr Thiering's work, I suggest that Tim you
> know very little about carbon dating (or you are making up things). The
> carbon dating does not "confirm the consensus position" because the
> carbon dating does not give an exact date, it gives a range of dates.
> Both Dr Thiering's dates and the dates of the consensus position fall
> within this range.

Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
>Perhaps I have got the info on the carbon-dating wrong,but I was under the
>impression that it came up with a result of 'late 2nd century to early 1st
>century BC'which excludes Thiering's hypothesis. I am refering to the 
>arguments overthe dates of those scrolls which mention the Teacher of 
>Righteousness and the Wicked Priest. Other scrolls from Qumran are 
>certainly from as late as the 1st century AD, but it is the scrolls 
>pertaining to the origins of the Qumran sect which are at issue. I haven't
>been able to track down the published paper on the recent dating; if you 
>have access to it and my impression (gleaned from newspaper articles) is 
>wrong then please let me know. 

If I remember correctly the consensus position dates the scrolls around
50 BC, talking of the Wicked Priest and the Son of Light as John and
Paul Macabeus (sp?). Thiering dates them after christ's birth, talking
of Jesus and John the Baptist as the Wicked Priest and the Son of Light
(or vica-versa). I am not completely sure that these are the exact dates
but I am sure that the scroll dating gave a range that allowed for both
side's date.

Graham:
>> The dangers of believing things you hear because they are palatable (or
>> the alternatives unpalatable!) ...
Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
>That's a bit harsh, old son! I try to check things pretty damn thoroughly,
>though in this case I'm hampered by a lack of resources (this comes from 
>living at the arse-end of the world). 
>Tim O'Neill
>Tasmanian Devil

"Arse-end" of the world. See my address!

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: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?
Date: 29 Aug 92 23:04:55 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <10557@spark.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>>From the gospel of John, chapter 8:
>>
>>     "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
>>     At this, they picked up stones to stone him.
>>
>>The reason they were going to stone him, is that "I am" is the way God
>>characterized himself to Moses, and every Jew knew that claim well.
>
>I can't say that this isn't possible, but were the words `I am' taboo?
>I wonder, if Queen Victoria (I think) were God, would anyone who said
>"We are not amused" be guilty of blasphemy?

I think this criticism is plausible, but weak. The phrase attributed
here to Jesus is not clear when taken literally (assuming any
reasonable translation), and so begs to be taken as a figure
of speech. Because we know that figure of speech is used in
a particular sense in a literature well-known to the speaker's
audience, I think this passage can very reasonably be taken
as a claim to divinity (though, in itself, not necessary an
exclusive one).

The phrase attributed to god on Mt. Sinai is usually rendered in
English as 'I am that I am'. Does anyone know whether this is
the same phrase (or a close translated equivalent) in the
original texts? That is, does Jesus use this same phrase,
or a similar one?

>>>From John 10:
>>
>>     "I and the Father are one."  <...>
>>     "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews,
>>     "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
>
>As a netter already pointed out, "I and God are one" sounds like a
>Hindu statement.  Could Jesus have said also "You and the Father are
>one" or "You and I are one"?  We can't be sure.

This still looks like a claim of divinity, although again not
necessarily an exclusive one. It would weaken the case for
an unambiguous claim to divinity if there are passages in
which Jesus is quoted as saying a person other than himself
is one with the Father, or some such thing.

>>>From John 17:
>>
>>    "Father, the time has come.  Glorify your Son, that your Son may
>>    glorify you.  For you granted him authority over all people that
>>    he might give eternal life to all those you have given him."
>
>Well, having authority (even the authority to give eternal life on
>God's behalf) doesn't necessarily mean being a god, does it?  There
>should be more to godhood.  This is just one function that may or may
>not be associated with it.

I agree with you here.

>>When he appeared to Thomas:  (John 20)
>>
>>    "Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"  Then Jesus told him,
>>    "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those
>>    who have not seen and yet have believed."
>
>Again, he avoids saying the words "I am God" himself.

Again, I agree, although here our best choices are to either
regard the quotation as a claim of divinity or as some
very slippery weaseling on Jesus' part (obviously Christians
will be unlikely to choose the latter option).


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.athiesm
Subject: die alt.athiesm heathen bastards
Summary: a call to arms, legs and other appendages
Date: 30 Aug 92 23:27:26 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

I just encountered a newsgroup called "alt.athiesm" (instead of
"alt.atheism") on the net -- what gives? Should we start an
aholy war with these heathens? Obviously atheism is the ONE
TRUE NON-FAITH!!! 8-)

Follow-ups set to alt.atheism 

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please Read This One!
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:27:59 GMT

jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>  The classification I've always heard that labels one as a
>  fundie is a Bible literalist.  Do you qualify?
>    I believe that the Bible is a diverse collection of literature
>    that contains the following literary devices: literalism, allegory,
>    metaphor, parables, prophecy, and poetry.  (Not intended to be
>    an exhaustive list.)
>    When the Bible is written literally, I take a literal meaning.
>    When it is allegorical, I take an allegorical meaning.
>    When it uses metaphor, I take a metaphorical meaning.
>    When it records parables, I take an illustrative meaning...[how
>	about a parabolic meaning?  :) ]
>    When it records prophecy, I take a prophetical meaning.
>    When it is poetic, I take a poetical meaning.

And how do you know when the bible is written literally, when it is
written alegorically, etc. Was this meant to be a joke because this
flaw in your position is so trivially obvious.

>    And to pull it all together and decide which is which, I use the
>    principles of hermaneutics for correct contextual interpretation.

The "principles of hermaneutics" indeed! Sounds to me like you guess
which intepretation is correct and then have to hope that you guessed
write. And you told us you were not a moral relativist!

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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: A question
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:10:36 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug26.154203.5111@pellns.alleg.edu> frisinv@alleg.edu writes:
>	You die. Oops, you were wrong and there is a god (or more that one  
>god or some goddesses or a giant carrot with divine powers...). You were a  
>nice guy during your life so this being asks you to join it in heaven. Now  
>a day [in] heaven consists mostly of information exchange, practicing various  
>artforms and sciences, and lotsa philosophizing on whatever the topic of  
>intrest is that day. If your lucky, you might get build a new universe or  
>two. Would you accept the invitation even though you spent your life in  
>the firm belief that [no] such place exists (the alterative is to cease to  
>exist. Not out of spite, there just isn't an alterative existance)? This  
>may sound like a stupid question, but I've gotten very diverse answers  
>among my atheist friends.

The simple answer is: "yes, of course I'd take it".

This assumes, of course, that the heaven that turned out to exist was
really the one that the various religions talk about, even though I
never believed them, with any problems I might have found in the
descriptions resolved.  Of course, there could be all sorts of
gotchas.  For instance, I imagine that even the sort of nice stuff you
describe could get pretty tiresome after a few million years.  Or,
this could be a demonic trick, and, for instance, it turns out that
the "topic of interest that day" ALWAYS turns out to be "Who killed
J.R.?", or that while a *day* in heaven is as you say, the *nights*
are spent up to your ankles in raw sewage, standing on your head (old
joke punchline).  I suspect the safe thing is to make sure up front
that the choice of oblivion remains in heaven (not to turn this back
toward "is there free will in heaven...").
-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.