HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 09:02:31 GMT

(Ridha Souissi) writes:
>Incidently, the people who didn't believe in Mohamed (PBUH) as
>a prophet of God at his time said that he was insane.  They
>also said that he was a poet and they asked (like you) why
>this Qur'an was reveiled on a poor "desert nomad" man? all
>this is reported in the Qur'an, so it is not new.  Yet there
>is more than one billion people today following this "insane
>nomad man" including millions of educated and intellectual people.
>The Qur'an does not contradict any proven scientific facts.

Why does this sound like "a million drunks can't be wrong" sort of
argument?

Ridha one could use this same kind of argument to support the consumption
of alcohol, the use of drugs, the rightness of Chrisitianity, .... etc

As an argument it doesn't really cut much ice.

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: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:39:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.131651.23594@athena.mit.edu> tcbruno@athena.mit.edu (Tom Bruno) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.064150.21173@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:

>>There are not many alcoholics in the countries populated by Muslims
>>compared to western countries, not because alcohol is banned
>>(like in Iran as or Saudi Arabia).  In fact alcohol is abundunt
>>in most of these countries: it is sold in daylight in the stores.

	But if the majority of Muslims are teetotalers, then how do
these stores stay in business???

>>Just go to any "Muslim" country and check for yourself.  For Saudi
>>Arabia, it is abundant for those who want to get it. 

	What???

	Then how in Hades do they escape the "religious police" there?
Lots of bribes???


>>Also prohibition of alcohol came in different steps until the
>>final order.  You can read about all this if you wish.  So it is

	There is no such prohibition in those that Mohammed claimed as
predecessors -- the Old and New Testaments. Indeed, Jesus Christ not
only drank wine, he allegedly turned water into wine.

>>not the banning from fellow man that will make people stop
>>drinking.  It happens when the order comes from the creator of men.

	Then why didn't this so-successful lawgiver outlaw war?
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Sunday, 16 Aug 1992 00:54:44 CDT
From: David James Alexander Hanley <U55870@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Shroud of Turin (was DOES GOD EXIST?)


In article <+hc-bB-@engin.umich.edu>, paulk@engin.umich.edu (Paul J. Kominsky)
says:
>
>atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
>>I'm too polite to laugh at this, but the Shroud of Turin has been
>>shown to be a fake.
>
>I assume you're referring to the C14 tests?  You know, there
>were a lot of problems with those tests (not C14 itself, just
>its use on the Shroud.)
>
> [ Conjecture that the shroud may be real deleted ]

  You know, don't you, that the roman catholic chruch has now conceded
that the shroud is a hoax?  This is after speding much time, money and
effort promoting it as proof of their faith.  All the supposed authentic
details have been shown
to be fabrications( he,he ) and distortions.  Plus on closer examination
it can be discovered that the shroud is painted.  Hehe.


DAVE!!!
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: priest observes
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:40:52 GMT
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development

>austin@apm.magadan.su writes:
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This address is almost certainly bogus (su = Soviet Union?!?).

% finger austin@apm.magadan.su
unknown host: apm.magadan.su     (Try it for yourself.)

> If a kind hearted atheist reads this, who has $700,000 to donate to a
> worthy cause, the Orthodox Bishop here is great need.  He has started two
> buildings to help the people materially and spiritually.  Work has
> stopped.  No money. Magadan should have 50 Orthodox churches in it to
> service it large community.  It has only one.

Uh, yeah.  And while we're at it why don't we ask the Pat Robertson to
make a large donation to American Atheists.
--
Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: millernw@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Neal Miller)
Subject: Re: My own religion
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 14:59:34 GMT

fsjdh@acad3.alaska.edu writes:

>I've never posted in this group, but I thought (out of boredom) that I would
>state my opinion and get some responses,and hopefully no flames. Now, I find
>the arguments of whether or not there is a God to be interesting,but I really
>see no point. There will never be a resolution to the age old question. As far
>as my own personal beliefs go, I am what you would probably call an agnostic.
>Some people may say that that is just a way of chickening out of making a
>decicion; but, I can see no way in which I can make a decicion about such a
>subject without solid facts in front of me. There is no one logic equation that
>will either deny or confirm the existence of a Supreme Being...

[rest deleted]

	This is a common argument among agnostics, but the flaw is that it is
impossible to prove that something exists, when the something in question, by
its own rules, acts like it doesn't exist.  It's like trying to prove that
a San Diego-sized jelly doughnut, hovering above the earth at an altitude of
four miles, that does NOT respond to any laws of physics, reflects NO wave-
lengths of light, and does not respond to any interactions with physical
matter, exists.  There is simply no experiment that can be done to prove or
deny it.  However the concept of the flying doughnut is just so preposterous
that no one in their right mind would believe in it.  The burden of proof
must rest on those who believe it exists.  No one will ever see proof that
a god does or doesn't exist.  Therefore, until someone proves otherwise, it
doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned.  However, now that I think about it,
the jelly-doughnut is a more plausible concept than any omnipotent being.

- Neal

P.S.  BTW, fsjdh, is there any reason in particular that you capitalized
      "supreme being" in your posting?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Neal Miller         | "Why not go mad?"  | millernw@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
 Clarkson University |     - Ford Prefect |     dark@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: stuart@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Date: 17 Aug 92 10:28:58 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

David C. Choweller (davec@csufres.CSUFresno.EDU) wrote:
: I recently heard that you Brits banned the Phil Collins song "Jesus he
: knows me," because it was disrespectful to religion.  Is that true?  That
: kind of thing is unthinkable in this country.

No, it is not true.

There is no mechanism for banning a song, no government department of
censorship etc. In the case of libel it would be possible to get a court
order preventing distribution/broadcast etc.

BBC Radio 1 (the national pop music station) has two "play lists", the A
list (about 15 plays per week) and B list (7 plays). They decide which of
these lists a new record will go on at weekly meetings. A few years back
some records were not played "for reasons of decency"! (for instance
George Michaels 'I want your sex') but since the publicity generated by
this virtually guaranteed a top-20 place, they've stopped doing this now.
Genesis's (not Phill Collins) song "Jesus He know Me" has been played
extensively on Radio 1, so I guess it's on its A list. The song is in the
charts.

It would (IMHO) be very difficult to get any music/art/film banned on the
basis of "disrespect to religion". The only law I can think of is the
blasphemy law (against Christianity only!), and there would (rightly) be
considerable public unease about such a law being used to protect a single
religion (anyway, there is talk of repealing the law, since incorporating
other religions is not practical).

Stuart
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet:      | And the balance will shift, between the weak and the strong.
stuart@minster.| Once they would beg, and they would plead but now they demand
     york.ac.uk|	-- "Like Flames", Berlin
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:15449 sci.skeptic:14699
From: loki@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Kashko)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Date: 20 Aug 92 10:54:03 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Aug19.201550.15888@newsgate.sps.mot.com > titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
 >My religion says that paying taxes is a sin.  Does the First Amendment protect
 >me?  If not:
 >     why not?
 >     Does the same rule apply to the peyote case?

	Paying taxes can be viewd as payment fot the services the
government provides. Non payment can thus be treated as theft of services.
 Taking Peyote for religious reasons should have
nothing to do with the state.
 >
 >Mr. Giles earlier claimed that the Supreme Court's decision in the peyote case
 >somehow resulted from a mis-statement made by George Bush in 1988 while cam-
 >paigning for President.  How did a mis-statement in extemporaneous remarks
 >cause this ruling?

	Because the off the cuff statements of powertful people are often
treated as commands by the less powerful ("Who will rid me of this
troublesome priest?")
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cosc16tt@menudo.uh.edu (Dennis Gray Jr.)
Subject: Fundamentalist Party...
Reply-To: DGray@uh.edu
Organization: /posole/cosc16tt/.organization
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 02:38:45 GMT


Well, this morning, I and two other atheist freinds attended George
Bush's Prayer Breakfast on the University of Houston Campus.  I must
say that these guys are really serious about this 'one nation uder
god' -- never mind the fact that they do not specify which god we are
under.  Dan Quayle's prayer was just terrible (and will be printed in
its entirety in the first newsletter).  Bush's remarks were even
worse.  It is truely disturbing that Bush will likely be re-elected.

The proceedings were interupted twice.  The first time was by this
fundy freek who wanted to stop the performance to have a
"testimonial".  He was escorted off by Houston Police Officers.  The
second time was by some lady shouting something.  I couldn't
understand what she was shouting, and I cannot make it out on the tape
that we made.  She too was escorted off by HPD, but continued
shouting.  The funny part of this was the reaction by the republican
attendees.  It seems that it is now their only recourse to chant "Four
More Years" regarless of what the protest is about.

I am not sure what other nonreligous folks are thinking of all of
this.  I want to make clear that a Clinton Administration would not be
the baby-killing, free-thinking bunch that Bush would have us believe.
We are once again faced with the problem of choosing the less of
evils.  I don't feel that personal freedoms are safe by casting a vote
for Bush, and yet, Clinton's economic policy (which I would ask you
not discuss here) scares the daylights out of me.  Which
leaves......... yeah...  not alot.  I can throw my vote away voting
for perhaps a libertarian, or just not bother to throw it at all.  At
this juncture I would opt for the latter were it not for congressional
elections (I am there voting I might as well punch something for the
presidential post).  So, what do you guys think?

-dennis
--
Dennis Gray, Jr.                 "What the hell were you doing???"

DGray@uh.edu                   "Attempting the hell to communicate."
                                     -from The Voyage Home
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Best Bible translation?
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:44:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug13.182657.89750@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>, che755v@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes...

>Of the three mentioned by DeWayne I've only perused the New International
>Version (NIV).  I think it is reasonably readable (actually they also
>produce a real thumper of a version called the NIV Study Bible that has
>lots of notes etc.).  The other "favourite" of mine is the "Good News Bible"
>(officially the Today's English Version, TEV) which I reckon is the
>most readable, but (and you've probably already guessed this) it gets
>continually attacked by people I know for not having a "correct"

After responses over the net and over email, I decided to pick up a copy of the 
NIV Student Bible (which I had seen, and liked, the day before I posted).  In
it, there are introductions to each chapter, many side-bars, and interjected 
material.  All of these "extras" are, of course, geared for the Christian
reader, but they seem thoughtful, rather than reactionary.  In addition, there
are "reading plans" that suggest a different reading schedule depending on how
much of the Bible you intend to read.  

By the way, the NIV translates the disputed 10 Commandments line as "You shall
not murder."  

It's funny that buying a Bible in a bookstore made me feel like an eighteen-year
-old buying a Penthouse.

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*      I'm the person that	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*      the president
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*      warned you about.    
******************************************************************************
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
Date: 18 Aug 92 01:16:34 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Aug17.173611.23729@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
>
>Top in the sense of the book written by a western writer who
>ranks 100 personalities who influenced the history of humanity
>most and Mohamed (pbuh) was number 1 on the list.  Sorry I don't
>recall the name of the book; maybe some readers can help.

_The_One_Hundred_
I forget the author's name, but it's a pretty interesting read.
Jesus, Aristotle, and the Chinese person who invented paper
are prominent in the book too, along with many other familiar
and some not so familiar faces.

(I presume you realize that the book is a list of _influential_
people, and not a list of people who the author thinks were
*positive* influences, necessarily.)
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 13:42:35 GMT

merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:

>I refuse to continue this discussion while you persistently set up
>"if you don't do X, I'll assume Y" statements as in your last sentence;
>it is a variation of poisoning the well, as I have told you in email.

I will endeavor not to make such statements.  If you see any, please
ignore them.  Now, please define Christianity so we can begin our
discussion.
--
Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.
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: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 07:58:45 GMT

(Douglas Graham) writes:
>> What's wrong with this picture?  A fundie in alt.atheism telling us
>> what type of articles are appropriate?
jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>Who?  Me?  Fundie?   Com'on Doug, you can do better than applying 
>misappropriated labels.  What if I labelled you as a godless-pinko-
>commie-atheist?  Would that be an accurate assessment of who you are?

Its funny Jim but I have always thought of you as a fundie ..

Douglas Graham
>> any theories on what it is that makes fundies post such obnoxious
>> drivel?  Do you think that the religion might have something to do
>> with it?
jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>Yep.  That's it.  Just like its their perverse nature that makes
>homosexuals break into churches and shout obscenities or pass out
>condoms in schools, 

Why is this perverse. Sounds sensible to me.

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: L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
Date: 17 Aug 92 09:58:46 GMT
Organization: University of Bradford, UK
Originator: 90908502@muser

(Ridha Souissi) writes:
>
>Also there are scientific facts in the Qur'an that were not known
>and were discovered only in the past couple of centuries.
>How can these come from a "desert nomad"?
>

This really is a great claim.  It could be very strong evidence that
the Koran was written with supernatural guidance.  However, I have
heard this claim several times before but no one I have talked to has 
been able to substantiate it.  Please quote the actual passages.  Let's
see the evidence.


-- 

Leonard               e-mail:  L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: More on history
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
	<1992Aug14.174125.21274@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <adams.713821896@spssig>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:36:45 GMT

In article <adams.713821896@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>No, it is recognized that the date of the year '0' and the date of Jesus'
>birth do not coincide.  He is said to have been born about 4BC...The
>persons adopting the calander blew it.

Now wait a minute, there is another problem. The Romans, those great warrior
bruts, did not grasp the concept of 0. They didn't have a Roman Numeral to
represent it. Notice that we call our number system Arabic even though it 
actually comes from the Persians who may have gotten it from Indus valley. So 
the year 1 BC, (or B.C.E), was followed by the year 1 AD. And there were a 
few other problems that showed up later in the Gregorian calender. The Romans 
actually only had ten months in the year with a break during the begining of 
the new year, or something silly like that. That is why we have october(8), 
november(9) and december(10). Anyone care to shed more light on the Roman idea 
of calender.

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:15556 talk.religion.newage:3923 alt.pagan:8172 alt.sex:27245 talk.religion.misc:14427
From: cowan@aqua.ocunix.on.ca (D. Cowan (Postmaster))
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.newage,alt.pagan,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Subject?
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 12:06:11 GMT
Organization: The Aquarium, Ottawa, Ontario

safecrac@west.darkside.com (Chris Colvin) writes:

> Jesus Saves

But Gretzky gets the rebound.


==============================================================================
                      cowan@aqua.ocunix.on.ca
  The Aquarium BBS  (613)736-1481  2400-14400 bps  V.32bis  V.42bis  HST
==============================================================================
From: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Here is your proof=God Exists?
Date: 12 Aug 92 10:46:50 MST

In article <1992Aug11.231239.1@acad2.alaska.edu>, atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
> In article <1992Aug9.123331.27472@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, zrubek@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (ZRUBEK PETER F) writes:
>> 
> 
>> Some explanation from me...
>> If it is possible for God to exist..  
> 
> It may be possible for a god to exist, but for God--Yahweh--to be
> real we must suspend reality, which is a contradiction in itself
> already.  

 	This conclusion does not follow, nor is it self-evident.

> It has been shown time and again 

  	Really?  It may have been *asserted* time and again, but
	not "shown" in the sense of "undeniably proved".

> that the attributes
> given Yahweh are such that they make it impossible for It to
> exist, for omnipotence conflicts with itself 

  	No, omnipotence is not self contradictory.  Unless you
	are defining it in a (non-Christian) sense where it is
 	bound to be self contradictory.  The problem then is with
	your definition and not with omnipotence itself.

> and with
> omniscience; 

	Omnipotence and omniscience are not contradictory but
	complementary.  Again, your definitions may be the culprit.

> omniscience conflicts with free will (an important
> characteristic of humans under Yahweh); 

	I agree that "free will" is an important concept in 
	Christianity, but the term has suffered from the many
	attempts to (mis)define it that I've seen in this group.
	Properly defined within the context of Christian theology,
	it does not conflict with omniscience at all.  And if you
	reject the Christian concept and sense of free will, then
	you are only arguing from a strawman position.


> and omnieuence (my word
> for "all-goodness") 

	Try "omnibenevolence" on for size.

> conflicts with the other two and is in
> serious conflict with our observations of reality.  

  	True enough, (you got one right), but Christianity does not
	claim that Yahweh is "*omni*-benevolent".  God is certainly
	benevolent to some, but He is not benevolent to all, and such
	is never claimed in the Bible.

> So perhaps
> there is a god, but it ain't Yahweh.
> 

	If there is a God, you've a long way to go yet to prove that
	it's not Yahweh -- to show that Yahweh is outside the bounds
	of possibility.


> 
> 
>> John
> 
> Don, and I don't even have a sister.

	Jim, and so what?

	Periodic disclaimer:  My opinions happen to be correct, but few
		seem to recognize it.  :)    

		My employer disavows any responsibility for my opinions.
From: jstewart@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: For all you believers
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:13:56 GMT
Organization: Wright State University

In article <1992Aug19.163956.5333@ccs.QueensU.CA>, 3005904@jeff-lab.queensu.ca (Colleen Davis) writes:
> In article <1992Aug16.182030.1520@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
>> 
>> In article <1992Aug11.220433.6859@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>> >
>> >	NO !    I'm God !!!!!!!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >	I'll tell you all what......if ANY of you can perform a 
>> >mirical I can prove I am God by toping it (performing a better
>> >mirical !)  !!!!!!
>> >
>> 
>> Forget the spelling test.
>> 
>> My God makes the sun rise from the east.  Can you make it rise from the west?
>> 
>> 
> O thou of little faith!  It is only the weak 
> who require a sign.  I will perform no miracles 
> to impress the unbelievers!
> 
> colleen
	A scourge on you all.  I the one true Gawd(you can't even spell it
right, Jesus) make the moon change phases.  CHanging the shape and moving
around an object in the sky is a much more impressive undertaking then just
making it move. HAH!

					GAWD

email to GAWD@heaven.org