HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: "What does science tell us about God?" (Time Magazine)
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:57:26 GMT

Time Magazine's latest issue has a cover story on religion versus
science.  I was rather surprised that they'd do a cover story on this,
so I read the article with great interest, and was quite impressed by it!

I think the scholarly approach it takes to the subject will be enough
to discourage many "Sunday believers" from taking it seriously.  ("How
could anybody be so coldly logical about this?  We're talking about
God here!")  But I read it from an atheist viewpoint, and was even
swayed a bit by its religion-independent arguments.

It's entirely possible, I suppose, that some 'prime mover' exists
behind the universe -- I figure it would be naive to say that 'this
universe is all that exists', and leave out the possibility of other
dimensions or other means of existence beyond our comprehension.
Whether this 'prime mover' is an entity or a physical law is
impossible to guess, but I don't feel that this interferes with my
atheism, because I see no need to believe that this 'prime mover' is
sentient.

Christians, unfortunately, tend to make wild leaps of logic in the
face of such arguments.  They somehow manage to get from 'it is
possible that God exists' to 'God exists in precisely this way' in a
single bound.  I have no problem with Christians who have no will or
need to reconcile their beliefs with scientific theory, but some of
the logic I've heard to try to corner me into accepting their idea of
a deity has been laughable at best.  I have little doubt that Time
will soon be printing letters from some starry-eyed Christians quoting
Bible verses in response to this article.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: God's Lil' Buddy
Date: 23 Dec 92 04:30:14 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


/(rpitts)
/With respect to evolution - the Bible tells us that God created what
/we now live among and is not the result of some random process.

You know nothing of evolution if you call it a "random" process.



/(rpitts)
/On the age of the universe, there is more than one school of thought
/on this.  

Wrong.

There is only _one_ SCIENTIFIC school of thought on this; the other school(s)
are religious institutions that are trying to save their particular 
interpretations from the scrap heap of history.

There are still religious people who believe that the earth is flat,
Pitts.  That doesn't make it so.  

You are just like them:  they didn't believe the earth was round until the 
actual photographs came back from the moon.  They hung on to the very last 
hope that their particular flavor of religion was correct; they ignored 
science year after year until one day they couldn't ignore it any more, 
because the proof was so overwhelming that they would look like total
fools to ignore it or to deny it.  You are just like them.  Except they
finally learned.



/(rpitts)
/The two I know of and to which I give some credence both fall way 
/short of the billions of years required by evolutioary thought.  

The age of the universe, no matter how you date it, is considerably
older than the young-earth creationists would like it to be.  No
debate, no argument.  This is one of those things that has been proven
beyond any reasonable doubt.
From: bobweiss@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Summary, Trinity vs LDS View fo the Godhead
Date: 24 Dec 92 21:22:43 GMT
Organization: UB

rob@excalibur.gatech.edu (Rob Lester) writes:

>In article <0cLv02wc30Jx01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:

>>Women being priest can hardly be considered and "essential". I am talking
>>about who God is, "lds=a big man; 

>Actually it should be 
> "lds= a perfect eternal being with a perfect physical body"
> (Of course this is still only a superficial description)
> (As to how "big" He is, I couldn't say )           

	Who was previously a man that eventually became God.
	I thought that this is what Tony meant when he said,
	`a big man.' I.e., the man grew up to be God.

>>And who Jesus is:

>> (lds=brother of Lucifer; Christiandom=Creator of ALL things).  

>Actually LDS doctrine agrees with what you attribute to Christendom.
>We believe that Christ was the Creator (as well as a spirit brother
>of Lucifer, as were we all to be complete. If you study the LDS doctrine
>on the pre-existence this becomes much clearer.)  

	Not really. `Creator of all things' includes *time*.
	The LDS Jesus didn't create time.

>Yet another example of Tony distorting LDS teachings to put the worst
>possible face on them. If you are going to bring these things up in 
>discussion at least get them right.

	If you are going to correct at least give the full picture.
	You are trying to present a certain slant as the complete
	picture, which it isn't.



===============================================================================
bob weiss				              bobweiss@acsu.buffalo.edu
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 00:10:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.125526.19576@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>I also see few "rules" of Christianity, as a religion, that is in 
>conflict with the "rules" practiced by pagans or Witches. In both
>cases, it is a matter of interpretation of what is written.

But what _is_ the "rules" of Christianity?

The only reasonable definition I can think of is "whatever other Christians
say the rules are".  In which case, the rules do really conflict with yours.

Of course, if you pick your own rules for Christianity different from what the
(other) Christians use, then you can find that this version of Christianity
doesn't conflict with paganism--but then, that version of Christianity is
far different from what we usually refer to as Christianity....
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
From: angelai@wam.umd.edu (Angela I.)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:44:44 GMT

In article <30DEC199203090145@elroy.uh.edu> lib1p@elroy.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
>
>That's perfectly fine and I see nothing wrong in it.  If she wants to call
>herself a pagan/christian thats fine.  However, don't you see that what she
>is doing is far more pagan than christian?  A pagan can accept this, but a
>christian never could...not by the definitions of the religion.

Well, it depends on how you define/interpret the teachings....
Honestly, is it fair for pagans to impose the definition of what it
is to be Christian on others?  Wouldn't we be rather incensed if,
whenever we believed or acted in a way that happens to overlap with
someone's Christian beliefs, that person said that we were being
"more Christian than pagan"?  Sorry, but that gets into that gray
area, leading towards "oh, that <ethnic minority member> is okay;
(s)he acts like <ethnic majority>."  

Anyway, paganism can't be defined easily because the individual beliefs
of modern pagans is so incredibly varied...  I would argue that
the same is true for Christianity...  Instead of trying to enforce
that which _divides_ pagan and Christian, perhaps we could try to
look for common ground, so that we can eventually learn to co-exist
in peace.

All I'm saying is that the Christian/pagan Jaguar mentioned is on her own
Path and it is right for her.  Don't force her into your molds, 
or you are perpetuating much of what we tend to resist from others...

Blessed be!!
Angela

-- 
**************************  angelai@wam.umd.edu  ****************************
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: 1/1/93   God's Promise in Revelation 3:20
Date: 3 Jan 93 14:44:54 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <C07LI5.Gp6@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>
>	Behold,
>	I stand at the door, and knock:
>	if any man
>	hear my voice, and open the door,
>	I will come in to him,
>	and will sup with him, and he with me.
>
>	Revelation 3:20

How unbelievably arrogant.  What do you think, folks?
Mind you, the bum has been seen doing that before.

`Zacchaeus, bein a wee man, canny get near oan accoont o the great
 crowd o folk roon aboot Jesus.  So he decides tae sclim up a sycamore
 tree beside the road tae watch.

`When Jesus eventually comes alang, he spies Zacchaeus.  Lookin up,
 he shouts, "Hi there, wee man -- come doon will ye!  Ah've decided
 tae invite masel tae yer hoose for a meal this efternin."'
 *** ****** *****               *** * ****

 (_The Glasgow Gospel_)

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: mtf@vipunen.hut.fi (dalens ande)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Kent's got a hammer :)
Date: 26 Dec 92 13:30:42 GMT
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In <ksand-241292124619@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

>I enjoy art, but in the case of music and art the artists are not
>on a holy mission to convert people to one cause -- instead they want
>people to react and get impressions. If religions would act the same
>way I would not mind about the doctrines. However immediately when
>a doctrine states that this is universally true, then it's the
>responsibility of the doctrine to justify itself.

>If we compare religion with impressionism, the painters wanted us
>to get impressions based on their views, but it was not a 'buy this
>or your are damned' situation.

 You're confusing "religion" with christianity. Not all religions go
around converting people. There is, for example, the large group of
"ethnic" religions (to which one can include most of the modern neo-
pagan religions as well) - can you imagine a native american (for example)
preaching his religious ideas and handing out leaflets with "Great
Manitou (or whoever) Saves!" printed on them? These religions are also 
often marked by the lack of dogma, i.e they don't state that something
is universally true. Some of them may have later become influenced
by christianity (or islam etc.) and adopted the ideas of "spreading
the word", but it's not characteristic of these religions.

 So, religion *can* be very different from what todays major religions 
are. No one can say what religion *should* be like.

--
Antti lahelma		GNOTHI SEAUTON
mtf@saha.hut.fi		 TUNNE ITSESI
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Date: 31 Dec 1992 17:53:54 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Dec31.125526.19576@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:

>If a pagan can be an atheist - a claim I have made that you have not
>denied - then paganism is not a religion. It would be more of a "mindset"
>or way of life. As such, their religion is incidental.

A couple of comments: First of all, I do not cosider paganism to be _a_
religion; rather I consider it to be an umbrella term that can be used
to categorize a group of religions. Secondly, there is no requirement
that a religion be non-athiestic; consider Buddhism as an example.

Eric

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: "What does science tell us about God?"
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 13:31:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.221450.21428@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
}pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
}>Brian Kendig writes
}>
}>>It's entirely possible, I suppose, that some 'prime mover' exists
}>>behind the universe
}>
}>If the universe is the Universe, where is 'behind'? When mover and
}>moved are discerned, they are relegated to membership in a set.
}>Neither can be that set's universe. 
}
}Yes, but what if the universe is to some multiverse as a house is to a
}city?  Maybe we can't conceive of anything outside our self-contained
}'house', but that doesn't mean there's nothing outside...

You mean that you can't.  Check out cosmology.  Condensed to the point
of almost being invalid, look at our universe as a bubble (live on the
surface - no limits but finite) and imagine it as but one bubble in a
"sea" of foam.  Could be...


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Kent's got a hammer :)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 20:50:11 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Dec24.011300.545@midway.uchicago.edu>,
dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell) wrote:
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> >As we all know NNTP and SMTP are fully described, and we could send
> >email and newsentries all around the world. A similar design concerning
> >standards and definitions would have also helped in the case of 
> >the Christian world today. Someone might say that the Bible is the 
 
> Uh, Kent -- your post reminds me of the adage that when one
> has a hammer in one's hand, everything begins to look like
> a nail.

... and you start looking for the anvil, eh, to continue with 
a Nietzsche-based joke?
 
> You might as well complain about music or art in the same way. Perhaps
> you would agree that not everything need be hyper-rational and easily
> explainable; that in fact there is some value in something precisely
> because it is expressed differently. Some people would argue that
> the questions are far more important than a particular given answer.

I enjoy art, but in the case of music and art the artists are not
on a holy mission to convert people to one cause -- instead they want
people to react and get impressions. If religions would act the same
way I would not mind about the doctrines. However immediately when
a doctrine states that this is universally true, then it's the
responsibility of the doctrine to justify itself.

If we compare religion with impressionism, the painters wanted us
to get impressions based on their views, but it was not a 'buy this
or your are damned' situation. Same with music, I enjoy Debussy
but I don't need to accept his Rocicrucian views because he does
not push these down the throat when I'm listening to his piano music.

So yes, I agree the questions are stimulating, but if someone
provides answers, the answers have to be justified. There's a huge
gap between these two attributes.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Torture and the mind: _Star Trek_ vs. _1984_.
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:20:47 GMT

In article <765347d3337986t236@witsend.uucp> "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com> writes:
>In <1993Jan3.050831.26797@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)  wrote:
># 	I think that the concious mind *does* influence the information
># 	it recieves (this is quite easy to prove incidentally, anyone
># 	here see their blind spot?), but I have to think there are limits.
># 	(But perhaps the distinction I am making is irrelavent--if the
># 	*concious* mind believes something, that may be all that is 
># 	important.  Beliefs, political, moral, religious--are not
># 	present at the lower (hardware) level)...
>
>  Don't be so sure you know where the line is.  There are any number
>  of "beliefs" that exist at the instinctive level.  Here I use
>  'belief' to mean a theory relating expected results to actions.



	This is an extremely poor definition of "belief".  



>  Consider hunger->eating, thirst->drinking, sex, and so forth.


	These are drives/hungers and ways to sage them.  They are
	not uncontrollable:  Consider---  anger -> violence


>  There are cases where you can mess up the causality by (for
>  instance) giving someone a dehydrating drink while on IV hydration
>  (this happens sometimes with cholera) and they won't quit
>  drinking even though it makes things worse.  


	However, if you tell them that what they're drinking is doing 
	something to them that is going to kill them, they will
	stop.  Even children do this--stop itching the acne, 
	chickenpox--whatever--or you'll get scars.


>They just aren't
>  capable of UNlearning the instinct.


	No,they're just relying on the machanical nature of
	feelings.  I have no respect for this.  It's like a dumb
	moron drinking booze in the desert.

	Most people learn very early on to control basic drives.
	Want sex?  Well, you can masturbate or try and get sex.  If
	youwere going by drive alone, there would be no objection to
	rape, because morality beyond self-satisfaction cannotcome
	into play at that level.  Your kids irritating you?  Beat them
	to a pulp.  Afriad?  Flee. 

	People learn *control*.  Almost anything can be controlled, 
	and people who claim they are too weak are full of it.  

	People who say they cannot control a drive/urge to do 
	something, especially something clearly elaborate and voluntary
	(i.e. transvestism vs. breathing) are using an empty, 
	pathetic argument.  There are always better avenues, but
	it never fails to amaze me how many people are stupid (or 
	foolish, if you prefer) enough to use the old "if it feels
	good to me it CAN'T be bad!" argument.


-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: PAGAN
Summary: Is a Pagan a Devil-worshipper?
Date: 31 Dec 92 07:47:55 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

>Except that pagan does not mean devil worshipper, and has never
>meant devil worshipper.  A pagan is a polytheist, period.  Anybody
>who uses it to mean devil worshipper should probably invest in a 
>dictionary.

_Living Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language_, Melrose
Park IL, ELA: 1971.  p680.  "pagan...One who worships false gods"

From a Christian point of view, the only God is their God, and all other
gods are really demons or devils, so anyone who is a pagan and worships
these "false gods" is indeed worshipping the devil.

...

Hey, I think it's a bunch o' baloney myself, but that's what many
Christians think, and it IS logically consistent.  Put that in
your pipe and smoke it.

-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Date: Saturday, 2 January 1993 19:32:36 MST
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.15R
From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
Subject: Re: did I like miss your point?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: world

In <1993Jan01.194249.2754@jcnpc.cmhnet.org>, mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)  wrote:
# 
# Tammy Stark Blandino (lib1p@jane.uh.edu) wrote:
# : In article <1992Dec31.183939.3539@radian.uucp>, markbr%radian@natinst.com (ma
# : >Huh? How many "fanatic atheists" have *you* *personally* ever met?
# : >I sure don't know anyone that would qualify as one: certainly none
# : >of them that I've know would think in terms of imposing their will
# : >on the believers, even if they did think the believers were deluded
# : >or stupid. I *sure* have known *plenty* of fanatic believers, who
# : >would impose their will on me, if they could.
# :
# : Does the name Madeleine Murray O'Hare ring any bells?
# 
# How, exactly, is Dr. O'Hare a fanatic.  Because she contested an 
# unconstitutional school prayer practice?  Because she opposes the 
# unconstitutional entanglement of religion in Federal and State government?
# Dr. O'Hare does not prosletize her atheism (yes she does speak before groups 
# who invite her, but if they invite her then they expect to hear her opinions).
# 
# Read the woman's writings and listen to her speak before you start calling her
# a fanatic.

  I did & have.  In one particulary memorable interview, she
  went to some lengths describing her desire to see all public
  religious expression banned.  Particular examples were church
  steeples and religious broadcasts.

  As a personal beneficiary of the *O'Hare* decision, I bear
  her a lasting gratitude.  But that doesn't change the fact
  that she is (was?) half-a-bubble off true and a genuine
  religious fanatic.  It just happens that her religion is
  atheism; this doesn't change the fact that she's a sister
  under the skin to Torquemada.

--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kelly Martin)
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Reply-To: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Organization: Gender Anarchists United
	<TORKEL.92Dec28112115@lludd.sics.se>
	<ksand-281292142215@wintermute.apple.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 03:22:26 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

>So the prime issue is then when do we define that a building block is
>valid for constructing logical statements? If someone has a good
>rule, let me know.

Um, I seem to understand that any proposition whatsoever can be part
of an argument.  I don't think propositions are necessarily
decomposable into elements, although they can be classified (true,
false, contingent, and so forth).

Of course, not all sentences represent a proposition, many sentences
represent more than one proposition, and in many cases two people will
have different ideas what proposition is being represented by a given
sentence...

Perhaps I am missing something here.  

Kelly
--
Standardized tests measure the ability to take standardized tests.
	-- elg@usl.edu (Eric Lee Green), misc.education
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc