HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bentkopj@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul J. Bentkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,rec.scouting
Subject: Re: another greeting
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:03:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <sd6g9INNfur@doc.ksu.ksu.edu>, yohan@doc.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes...
> 
>Kent:
> 
>Even if we leave out the biological issues with homosexuality, could you 
>also explain why atheists are not allowed to enter scouting, based on
>biological and social rules? If not, then we have a yet another biased
>society.
> 
>Cheers,
>Kent
> 
>Me:
> 
>Well, I can kind of see the scout's point.  I was a cub scout (yipee), and a
>God-fearing little Christian who didn't question what his parents taught him 
>(but
>I'm feeling MUCH better now).  I distinctly remember that God was rather
>important in the scouts, and I beleive that it was in part of your oath.  
>Anyway,
>the scouts discriminating against atheists be any different than the catholic
>church prohibitting atheists from becoming priests?
>

Jon,
	It shouldn't be in theory, but The Boy Scouts of America, receive
	funding from the "United Way" (SEFA), in which if you do not
	target your pledge, (or worst) if your pledge is automatically 
	removed from your pay-check (ie. your company policy), it will
	go into a "slush" fund and distributed to the The Boy Scouts of 
        America anyway. The "United Way" (whom I have never been a big
	fan of - but have found out alot about this "slush-fund" organization)
	has always had by-laws, and ethical and moral criterea within
        their organizational policy of distribution (one being 
        'discrimination' within organizations ... ie ... thats why
        they do not give funding to the KKK of American Society).
	
	I not starting an arguement on the moral and ethical practices of
	the Boys Scouts of America ... but I think that if they want
	to stay in practice with the major funding they receive from
	these funding-organizations ... they can 'get in line' or 
	do without. Glad to see U.W. suspended funding in the Bay area
	in California of the BSoA.

Paul.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@bluejay.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: The Canaanites(was Re: Achilles heels for religion?)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 23:31:25 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor


In article <1992Apr13.233948.5778@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> In article <WSm+P0_@engin.umich.edu> ingles@crane.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
> >> And the stories don't describe real Canaanites but symbolic
> >> Canaanites designed to (a) teach a lesson about righteousness,
> >> (b) serve as a myth of how our nation showed up in this land ---
> >> a once-in-history event.  They're not supposed to be
> >> generalized to allow *us* to judge some other nation
> >> whose land we want as unrighteous and to wipe them out.
> > How does one ensure that the meaning "not supposed to be"
> >gleaned from the text is not in fact gleaned?
> 
> Because, as has been pointed out before, Judaism isn't literalist.  There are
> commentaries which can be checked; if you look in them they'll _tell_ you that
> that is the wrong meaning to infer from the text.

 Would not a better system be to teach from a text that wasn't
open to that particular misinterpretation in the first place?

> Ken Arromdee

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@caen.engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:44:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr8.154424.24351
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <73208@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.211645.14076@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>>No, Matthew, it is simply ill informed.
>
>>>How would you know?  It wouldn't make a bit of a difference to you.
>
>>What wouldn't?
>
>Exactly.
Huh? Your sentence was unclear. I asked for a clarification, and you
take this as evidence that I don't care??? Have you considered
taking an introductory course in logic.

>No, it's not a matter of opinion.  You postd a massive lack of awareness
>regarding modern rabbinic Judaism when you thought it consists of just
>dietary laws and the Sabbath.  The historical record regarding the
>dominance of the Pharisees during the Second Temple era is rather solid.
Funny....
I've never seen any such evidence, and I've read a fair amount of
history of this era.

>>Are you suggesting that it's impossible in principle for one to
>>believe that the holocaust didn't happen without being unpleasant?
>
>If they don't say or do a thing about their beliefs, they are not
>being unpleasant.  Anything beyond that is unpleasant.
>
>>Suppose you'd simply been fed an incorrect history and were trying,
>>like most people do, to hold on to your worldview. You'd have a lot
>>of incorrect facts, but you wouldn't be lying.
>
>But you would be unpleasant.
Hmmm...I hope you're not maintaining that unpleasant is a single
argument boolean function.
I.e. unpleasant(person).

I would put it to you that it is rather a function which takes
at least two arguments:
unpleasant(person A, person B)
Where it reads "person A finds person B unpleasant."

If that's so, I have no problems with you saying that you find me
unpleasant, but I don't think that you saying that I am unpleasant
per se is meaningful, unless you mean by that something like:
(all A) unpleasant(person A, Eric Rescorla)

Which is a false assertion, even if you qualify it so that A!=Eric Rescorla.

So, Matthew, would you mind clarifying what you meant to say?
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh?
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:55:21 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)

In article <1992Apr6.155108.24690@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>Yes.  I'm responding to some very unpleasant people.  You don't notice,
>>since you've apparently decided that any unpleasant remarks that attack
>>the "right" group are not really unpleasant after all.  I don't think so.

>Normal response or paranoia? You be the judge.

Does Eric suffer from dementia or just likes to lie a lot?  You be the judge.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@dennison.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 18:48:36 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Keywords: God


In article <1992Apr7.140653.12527@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>, zeisset@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Stephan Zeisset) writes:
> 
> I don't have the original text at hand, but I think the 'proof'
> was as follows:
> GOD IS OMNIPOTENT (a)
> GOD IS OMNISCIENT (b)
> GOD IS BENEVOLENT (c)
> So GOD knows our suffering (b), wants to stop it (c) and is able
> to do it (a) - But there's still evil in this world.
> 
> You can't prove the existence of god, nor you can prove
> his non-existence.
> 
> Your assumption (if not explicitely mentioned) is that god is
> in some sense like us - He deliberates, decides what is good
> and bad and then he acts.
> This is ridiculous.
> If you accept GOD as the creator not only of the universe but
> of the whole being, he stands outside of all our categories,
> including the way we humans think. 
> As he created also TIME, he stands outside of it. When there's
> no time, there's no reason and no consequence.

 Not necessarily. Consider- we measure time along one axis.
God could experience tiem along another, perpendicular axis,
and hece could still experience duration, *and* see everything
that has happened and will happened along our time axis.

> So thinking about something and creating something is
> essentially the same - What god thinks comes into existence
> (At the beginning was the word ...)

 Perhaps, from our point of view. But not necessarily from
Gods, so this is a null argument.

> So god thinks about good and evil and both come into 
> existence. He decides to eradicate the evil and the evil 
> ceases to exist. But as our human perception is limited
> in time and space, millions of years of suffering lie
> in between.

 Uh... yeah. This "Jesus" character supposedly responded to
us in real-time.

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@caen.engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.
From: NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: American Atheists address needed
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:19:16 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <92104.214333U22015@uicvm.uic.edu>
U22015@uicvm.uic.edu (David Hanley) writes:
 
>
>
>  Well, the address to order books is:
>
>American atheist press, P.O. box 140195, austin, tx 78714-0195
>
>I assume that you can also order the darwin fish there too.
>
>I THINK ( not believe ) that i have seen the fish in the catalog, but
>I can't seem to find them now, so i can't tell you the price.
>
 
I don't think they have the Darwin Fish yet.
 
You can order them directly from the manufacturer:
 
  Evolution Designs
  7119 Laurel Canyon #4
  North Hollywood, CA  91605
 
  $4.95 each postpaid
 
this ad can be found in the back of the current Starlog magazine.
 
Wayne Aiken             netoprwa@ncsuvm.bitnet         "You can BE what
PO Box 30904            netoprwa@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu     you WON'T!!"
Raleigh, NC  27622      slack@ncsu.edu                   --"Bob"
(919) 782-8171          StarFleet BBS: (919) 782-3095
From: poplog@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Bluntly
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:21:05 +1000
Organization: University of New South Wales

In article <1992Apr8.191819.1737@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au>, poplog@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au writes:
> God does not exist. The end

That was just a test, sorry folks :)
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:48:28 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)

In article <1992Apr8.193003.27389@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>>Once, it could be coincidental.  Hundreds of times, no.

>>>Improperly controlled hundreds of times? Quite possible.

>>And highly improbable.  Do you believe that flood geology is a serious
>>contender for explaining countless uncontrolled coincidences in the
>>geological record?  I don't.

>No, but I do believe that teaching is a highly complex phenomenon,
>and I'm concerned with several obvious sources of error.

Well, if they are so obvious, spell them out.  I also believe that
teaching is a highly complex phenomenon, which is why I had no qualms
about deviating from the truth to minimize confusion.

>>>Good. Prove it.

>>You can refuse to look at the data all you like.  You can insinuate that
>>all sorts of unknown miraculous coincidences occurred.  Whooptie doo.

>You can assert that you're right all you like, but that doesn't
>go one nanometer more towards proving it.

I can't force you to look at the existing documentation that I
mentioned, but you look as silly as creationists who won't look at
the fossil record.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: bentkopj@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul J. Bentkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Owning up to Disobedience
Date: 12 Apr 92 06:51:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <5306@pdxgate.UUCP>, news@pdxgate.UUCP (Net News Account) writes...
>From: allenroy@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (callen roy)
>Path: rigel!allenroy
> 
>For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all.
>(Rom 11:32)
> 
>Why is God so interested in pointing out the universal disobedience of
>the human race?  What reason does He have for wanting to make sure that
>everyone owns up to being disobedient?  Is this so that no one will try to 
>sneak away from the smarting pain of His rebuke?
> 
>Paul seems to have another purpose in mind in this text.  He 
>recognizes a principle in God's dealings with us sinners:  Those who
>admit their disobedience receive mercy; those who do not admit it receive
>no mercy.  The problem with those who do not receive mercy is not that
>God has held it back, but that they didn't recognize that they needed it.
>Those who do not know they have a disease will not reach out to the
>Physician.
> 
>As priceless as the gift of mercy is to all who know they need it, most 
>of those to whom God has made this offer are still suffering outside its
>gracious benefit.  It seems stupid to reject healing when the disease is fatal
>without treatment.  But that reveals the lengths to which all of us go to
>protect our image.  We would rather die championing our innocence than
>to risk facing seemingly certain embarrassment and rejection should we
>show up at the clinic door and whisper our disease.
> 
>When we know in advance, however, that our admission will be met
>with mercy it does make the admission easier.  When we learn that the
>Physician knows how to keep confidences and that His cures are
>effective, we are more likely to risk owning up to our great need.
> 
>John said of our Father that if we will confess our sin, He can be
>counted on to forgive and to cleanse.  To confess, in this context, means to
>agree with God's opinion of us--to say, "yes, You are right in Your
>appraisal; I am a sinner, very much in need of help."  The interesting
>point, of course, is that God already knows full well what our condition 
>is;  we don't confess for His sake, but for ours.
> 
>It is so true: the goodness of God leads to repentance.  It can also be
>said that this same goodness so surrounds us with security that we are able
>to admit our need to repent.  The personal question for us is How can we
>stay away from such a warmly drawing Friend? (by Dick Winn)

The personal question for me, Dick, is why wouldn't I just believe, like
James Stewart in "Harvey" the Magical Rabbit, than your imaginary Warmly
Drawing Friend? Both the same, in my book (and yours).

(of MY Skeptical Thinking by Paul Bentkowski)
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:26:33 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
> In article <graham.702608591@bizet>, graham@maths (Graham Matthews) writes:
> >The proof is in the pudding! Somehow Matthew manages to slip judaism
> >into an argument over paranoia!
> 
> Somehow that's essentially all I've been posting on.

Has it occurred to you that you might be in the wrong newsgroup?

I mean, yes, if people start making assertions about Judaism which you
believe to be untrue then point it out, but isn't it a little perverse to
take a discussion on alt.atheism about paranoia and suddenly slip in Judaism?


mathew

-- 
Hail Eris! / "Our whole economy's based on fear and death; how long can we get
away with this?" --- Jello Biafra / Message for Kodak: Bring back Dan Bredy! /
PGP RSA public key available on request / Desperately seeking Negativland's U2
CD / Just another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bentkopj@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul J. Bentkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: IQ and religious belief
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:06:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <22944@goofy.Apple.COM>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes...
>In article <rfmc3INN3ga@caravan.ksu.ksu.edu>, yohan@caravan.ksu.ksu.edu
>(Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>> 1)  Being giants in the field of science doesn't confer credebility to what
>they
>> might say about philosophical subjects (i.e religion)
>> 
>> 2)  Einstein and Newton were more intelligent in some areas.  I doubt I need
>to
>> remind anyone about all of Einstein's eccentricities like forgetting where he
>> lived, etc.  Newton thought his greatest accomplishment was dieing a virgin.
>> I say that destroys his credibility right there.  :)
> 
>True, every human being has talents and non-talents. Einstein was a lousy
>violin player :-).
> 
	... and a terrible, amature magician, ... though he tried his
	    "hand" (hahaha) at it during his life...

Paul Be.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie)
Subject: Re: Red Sea.
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 00:03:39 GMT

In <1992Apr9.114209.1744@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au> poplog@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au writes:

>  There is no need for rediculous coincidences to explain the story of Exodus. 
>Archeological finds suggest that the Israelites never actually went into Egypt
>at all.  The theory is that the Israelites were realy the Caananites.  But many
>of the northern peoples (in the region of Kurdistan) travelled to Egypt to take
>part in raids.  Some of these tribes then settled in Caanan and became the
>Philistines.  The Caananites were then threatened by the expansion of the
>newcomers, so a new God came into existence to unite the Caananite tribes      
>against the Philistines.  This is how the Isaelites and the Jewish God came
>into existence.  The only real agreement between the bible and history starts
>at about The Book of Kings.

Would you mind posting some sources for all this?  It goes against all
the theories that I have heard before.  I seem to recall that the
Philistines came from Crete (or something like that - they came by sea
is what I particularly recall).

--
John Brownie
School of Mathematics and Statistics
University of Sydney
Internet: jhb@maths.su.oz.au
From: nathans@coos.dartmouth.edu (Nathan Shafer)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:44:33 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <23288@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.173652.25560@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
>nathans@coos.dartmouth.edu (Nathan Shafer) writes:
>>    Well, strictly speaking, Jesus was exempt from Original Sin by virtue
>> of his parentage (i.e. he was born of a virgin).
>
>Jesus was born of a women, i.e. he was *not* exempt from Original Sin.
>Oh gee, I guess we will end up in the Roman Catholic doctrine discussion
>about the holiness of Virgin Mary...

    I won't if you won't.

If you are saying that this is the way you see it, that's fine; I'm
not in the mood to dispute it. However, we were not debating the logic
of Christian theology; we were trying to establish what mainstream, ortho-
dox Christianity *says*, and in that light, what you say is wrong.
Mainstream Christianity teaches that Original Sin comes from both Adam
AND Eve, and that Jesus, since he had only one-half that heritage, (and
presumably but not explcitly because the other half was of divine origin)
was exempt from Original Sin.

 As I said, if you disagree with that, that's fine. I'm not 100% certain
about the theology myself; however, don't try to claim that this is not
what mainstream Christianity teaches.

Nathan Shafer
Dartmouth College, NH
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: imprint@watserv1.waterloo.edu (IMPRINT -- UW's Student Newspaper)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Question about modern manners
Date: 12 Apr 92 15:32:28 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <a0tjf!#@lynx.unm.edu>, jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth) writes:
> 
> Since it is alergy season, people are often sneezing.  In fact, it seems that
> I sneeze every five minutes.  which brings me to my question.  I am a "devout"
> atheist, and I don't know what the polite thing to say is when someone blesses
> me after I sneeze.  It is offensive that someone would think that I need saving
> and need the blessings of a person or a non-existant god.
> 
> So what would be the polite response to tell someone?

How about "May the deity of your choice bless you"?

- Dave
- opinions mine
--
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Backward Masking
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:12:33 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr1.162003.22260@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>,
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:
> The second method that fundies have "discovered", and the one they
> claim is used on "Stairway..." and several songs by the group Rush.
> They claim that the writers choose certain phrases in the songs so
> that when played backwards, the phonemes of the words create a new
> message.  Sort of an audio palindrome if you will.

I've heard about the accusations concerning Led Zeppelin, and here there's 
a little bit of truth behind Jimmy Page's interest in the occult, even
if secret messages played backwards is a little bit too paranoid.

However in the case of Rush this whole issue is really hilarous, anyone
who has followed the lyrics of Peart knows that their world view does
not contain any kinds of references to occult, religion or mysticism.
Quite the contrary, this is one of the few bands who promote secular
humanism.

Cheers,
Kent
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org (David Rice)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Guilt
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 16:55:12 PDT
Organization: Universal Electronics Inc. (Public access BBS)

Tag: CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG
 
CMG> "I would like to apologize as a Christian for any Christian who
CMG> has made you feel guilty. We live in America and we can beleive
CMG> ANYthing we want (or not believe). I like to get into to arguments,
CMG> but not with the intention of inflicting guilt. Chris"
 
Don't be inane, please. Who gave you the authority to apologize for
other people? I have withstood the abuse of Christians and Christianity
for thirty years; never onec have they/it generated any "guilt" in me,
even though they tried like hell. The only one that can make another
feel guilt is one's mother (that's her job).
 
Christians thrive on guilt. Atheists see these Christians trying
to pawn off this guilt onto them, and they laugh at the Christians
for their arrogance.
 
>Organization: Project EOS - North Carolina State University
>From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
>Message-ID: 1992Mar31.223900.10363@ncsu.edu
>Reply-To: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)


--  

David Rice
Internet: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Compuserve: >internet:David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism