HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jjh37997@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (James J. Herlburt)
Subject: Re: Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:09:37 GMT

mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:

>In article <ednclark.722219787@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>>rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:
>>
>>>Helo all
>>
>>>I'd like some comments (if you've read it)
>>>on the book by Isaac Asimov calles 
>>>Guide to the Bible. I think it deals with
>>>the discrepancies' of 
>>>the bible.
>>>Any comments?
>>
>>>Frank Pinto
>>
>>It is extremely unlikely that Isaac would write a book showing any
>>discrepencies with the Bible as unfortunately the late man was a christian
>>(though not a fundie).
>>

>Excuse me?  He was most definitely *not* a christian.  He was a Jew,
>although non-practicing, and I'm almost 100% certain that he was
>an atheist.  I won't say I'm positive because I don't have any
>references handy.

He was. Even on his death bed he stated he stated this belief. He said he
didn't mind dying because all his thoughts could be found in his writings.
At least in that way he will live forever.

>--
>====
>Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
>mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
>"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
From: bx461@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Leo J. Mauler)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Bash Atheists
Date: 18 Nov 1992 06:03:57 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Could someone repost the "Top Ten Reasons To Bash Atheists"?

I missed it on the last cutoff date...

-- 
Never do this at home.  Look how easily it killed this sig.
/\  ___/\  ___/\  _____________________________________________
  \/     \/     \/  bx461@cleveland.freenet.edu (Leo J. Mauler)
DISCLAIMER: Everything I say is false, including this sentence.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Darwin on Trial
Keywords: darwin evolution fundamentalist false
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 19 Nov 92 01:40:29 GMT

jimb@rcx1.csd.harris.com (Jim Burmeister) writes:

>In article <1992Nov17.153554.1280@mercury.unt.edu>, jackson@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Bruce Jackson) writes:
>> The principal of dualism can be called on to avoid this type of conflict.
>> One type of dualism states that there can be religious "truths" and
>> scientific "truths" and that they do not have to be reconciled.
>...
>> So we can have a Biblical literalist who is also a Biologist who
>> adheres to the theory of evolution.  (S)he can believe that the world
>> was created in six days several thousand years ago yet still use the
>> theory of evolution to explain all of the apperantly old fossils that
>> are dug up.  

>Well this person certainly would not be me.  I cannot understand how someone
>could be in this position and be completely honest with himself.  This 
>specifically is one of the things which started me on the road to atheism.
>As a child, I was taught the biblical story of creation.  Then in school,
>I was taught evolution theory, and this seemed to be a lot more sensible,
>and eventually I came to "believe" that it was the way things were, and 
>that the biblical account was just a story.

>I guess my point is this: is there anyone out there who fits Bruce Jackson's
>description, or knows someone who does?  When confronted with this conflict
>in their belief systems, how do they respond?

Yes, my genetics lecturer was a true died in the wool catholic. He was an
excellent lecturer. However, whenever I questionned the theological,
philosophical or historical implications of certain parts, he dutifully
reminded me that evolution was a scientific convenience, and then answered
my question from the point of view of the atheist, constantly reminding me
that that is what point of view it was.  He was utterly convinced that the best
students were Christians who wanted to understand evolution from the
platform of the atheist so they may make informed refutations (I've
obviously have not met many of his students or maybe they all became
atheists). The frightening thing was when I asked him about what we should
do in the future, given the lack of present natural selection in our
species, and the increasing reliance on medical resources, hje replied that
the increasing reliance on medical resources was not dependant on the
stalling of natural selection but some other p[rocess he said we had not yet
discovered, therefore action based upon a premise as shaky as evolution is
either wasted of harmful. Other than obvious flaws in his beleif system
which he successfully ignored (we all do this to some extent), he seemed to
handle his dualism well.

Jeff.


>-Jim Burmeister, jimb@csd.harris.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sjs28257@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Stelter)
Subject: Re: Question for ex-Christians
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 00:29:59 GMT

mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:

>Some of you ex-Christians have posted about bad experiences with
>religion and other such events that caused you to seriously reconsider
>your beliefs and to eventually give up your belief in God. Others have
>posted saying they never really believed in God as youths and are
>atheists by default. I'm curious if there are also ex-Christians out
>there who became atheists or agnostics (AorA) because of a discussion
>with an AorA. I know none of us would ever try to convert Christians
>;-), but I was wondering if this sort of thing ever worked.

I'd been feeling rather disenchanted with religion ever since around
eighth grade (right after my confirmation, yet :), but I didn't yet
consider myself an atheist.  Reading the a.a FAQ (particularly the
section on Pascal's Wager) made me "see the light," however.


                           --Steve Stelter
                             sjs28257@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Science vs. Religion (Vatican/Galileio)
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:43:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.155424@is.morgan.com> mpiet@is.morgan.com (Mark Pietrasanta) writes:
>|> In article <1992Nov10.152857.6800@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
>|> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>|>
>|> >Evidence for gravity is not proof of gravity.  One cannot prove anything in
>|> >science because everything in science is based on assumptions which are
>|> >stated
>|> >without proof.
>|> >  -- Scott @Brandeis
>|>
>These last two points seem to get at the heart of the matter.  The issue here
>sounds like one Aristotle brought up quite some time ago.  In science, Scott
>is basically right that we can not _truly_ prove anything exists (happens,
>has a true cause/effect, etc.).  Instead, we use empiracle information to
>justify these conclusions.
>
>The question then becomes, when does this empirical data become enough to
>justify a specific conclusion?  The answer is unknown. 
>
>So my point is that Scott is basically correct, in that science doesn't offer
>_proofs_ of the existence of things, only very strong evidence and seemingly
>reasonable explanations based on that evidence. 

Since Mill, the term 'proof' has not been limited to 'deductive proof'.

If your definition of 'proof' excludes everything except deductive proofs,
you can prove NOTHING outside purely artificial logic systems.

	Sven

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff & Nonsense Division
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:09:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.231117.4927@ucc.su.OZ.AU> patc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Pat Caldon) writes:

>In article <2m0iuB6w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>
>>When a few kids tried taunting me by claiming I was gay, I smiled and blew
>>kisses at them.  They didn't know how to respond to that.
>
>Evetually they will respond with gas and pink triangles. Be careful.

I don't think I believe that.  Yes, I believe there are people who
would have another holocaust, but the children who cry taunts of
"faggot!" are not necessarily they.  They do it because they perceive
it to be hurtful; if there comes a time when it is clear that it is
not, then it will die away.

I was in a Burger King in Danvers shortly before the election buying
breakfast.  Hardly anyone else was there.  There was a table of four
or five guys about ten feet behind me, however, all dressed in
flannels and down vests.  They looked like construction workers on the
way to the site.  They were talking about the various candidates, and
Clinton's policies in particular.  I think they were discussing the
military, because they kept talking about "faggots" and whether
"Clinton says he'd let the faggots in."  "Yeah, but they say they
wanna be called something else.  Homma-seck-shuls or something."  I
glared at them a couple of times while I was waiting for my food, and
it seemed like they noticed, because they glanced at me and started
whispering to each other.  Weirdo with long hair and earrings.

I never know what to say in spur-of-the-moment situations like that.
As I was leaving, I glanced back and saw everyone staring at me.  So I
puckered up and blew them all great big, noisy, wet kisses.

The reaction?  They exploded laughing.  They thought it was
hysterical.  I like it.  Do they think any better of queerness because
of it?  No.  Doesn't matter.  I did it for my sake, not for theirs.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 23 Nov 92 00:08:40 GMT

mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:

>In article <ednclark.722219787@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>>rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:
>>
>>>Helo all
>>
>>>I'd like some comments (if you've read it)
>>>on the book by Isaac Asimov calles 
>>>Guide to the Bible. I think it deals with
>>>the discrepancies' of 
>>>the bible.
>>>Any comments?
>>
>>>Frank Pinto
>>
>>It is extremely unlikely that Isaac would write a book showing any
>>discrepencies with the Bible as unfortunately the late man was a christian
>>(though not a fundie).
>>

>Excuse me?  He was most definitely *not* a christian.  He was a Jew,
>although non-practicing, and I'm almost 100% certain that he was
>an atheist.  I won't say I'm positive because I don't have any
>references handy.


>--
>====
>Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
>mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
>"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)

Well if you can provide some evidence I would be most surprised (and
releived) that he was an atheist. He may have been a Jew rather than a
Christian though. I've read a transcript of a meeting between Arthur C.
Clarke and Isaac Asimov organised by Mensa and the majority of this good
natured discussion centred around the existence of God. Asimov took the
position of beleiver. Also a number of his works involving the far distant
future involve an incidental acceptance by the characters of a God. However
I never met the man to ask him and I can't remember a quote about someone
else actually asking either. He also produced a book about the weakness of
evolutionary theory to explain the origin of life and compared evolution
disfavourably with creation theory. All of this is off the top of my head so
if anyone has any facts out there to the contrary I'd love to read them and
as I said it would make me feel better that a person of such vast knowledge
and intellect could not reconcile both a Judeo-Christian God and science
(whereas at the moment I beleive he could, something that baffles me).

Jeff.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: God Is Unfair
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:30:15 GMT

In article <9211231322.AA14121@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>Sven Hauptfeld typed:
>
>>Most Jews don't take the Bible litterally. In Europe, virtually no Xian does
>>so. In America, it seems that many do, but I see it as a symptom of a more
>>general disease, ilitteracy. I don't consider rational argument with such
>>people possible. Religious people with whom you can discuss this do not take
>>the Bible at face value.
>
>I live in Europe and happen to know quite a lot of students who take the
>bible literally. And I can discuss religion with them. What do you mean with
>Europe?

I grew up in Croatia and have had contacts with many people from all over
Europe - I hardly ever met one who was reasonably educated and took Bible
at face value. Quite unlike America.


>>Was Solon a tyrrant? Pericles? Augustus? Kharoun-al-Rashid? Charlemagne?
>>Suleyman the Magnificent? The Medicis? Frederic the Great? Peter the Great?
>>Napoleon? Maybe you'll say yes, but that would mean that you have no sense of
>>history. Yahweh was not a tyrrant to contemporary readers.
>
>With the exception of Solon I'd say yes. Futher, have you chosen the names
>on purpose? I can find harsh contemporary critics that says that they were
>tyrants for almost all of them. Lowering the life quality of one's subjects
>is no fun when you are the subject. And many people seem to read history only
>because they get kicks out of power worship.

Read my answer in another article in this thread.

	Sven

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:13:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.200022.19896@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
>But the question remains, why would one make this supposition?

Presumably, you are refering to my hypothetical god.  I make such a supposition
to see where it leads.  If I get one result assuming this god's existence and
a contradictory result assuming its non-existence, then making an assumption 
about such a god's existence or non-existence becomes a necessary assumption.  
In the example I gave, assuming a god's existence and then assuming the same 
god's non-existence gave the same scientific results.  So, such assumptions are 
unnecessary.

>You may have missed his point on Occam's Razor.  You have provided two
>explanations of the universe, one with God and one without.  Both are 
>possibilities, but unless there is some compelling reason, logic justifies
>the one without God.

Occam's razor is a tool by which one chooses among various scientific models.
It doesn't apply to choosing between a religious model and a scientific model.  
The two are independant of each other.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

	"But God demonstrates His	"I tell you that in the same way,
	 own love for us, in that	 there will be more joy in heaven
	 while we were yet sinners,	 over one sinner who repents, than
	 Christ died for us."		 over ninety-nine righteous persons
					 who need no repentance." 
		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Luke 15:7 [NASB]
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Chief Justice God (WAS: God unfair)
Date: 23 Nov 92 10:10:59 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Nov21.231315.27514@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>I find the discussion about whether the biblical God is an unjust sadistic
>killer rather silly. Judging a 3000 year old text by today's standards just
>doesn't make any sense.

Primo, yes, it does, because there still are people who want to use
the text as a moral guide here and now.

Secundo, who's talking about today's standards anyway?  What makes you
think that 3000 years ago unjust sadistic killing was something other
than unjust sadistic killing?  Yahweh is a revolting monster by all
times' and all nations' standards.

Look at the annals of the Assyrian kings.  They occasionally
slaughtered the entire population of a rebellious city, but they
didn't expect anyone to call them loving or anything like that --
and no one did.

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: johnch@smaug.West.Sun.COM (John Chandler)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: one lab
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:25:56 GMT
Organization: Impossible Missions Force
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo

In article <kmr4.225.721892539@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.025452.26730@samba.oit.unc.edu> Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes:
>
>
>I'm not interested in a proof from you, I only ask what are your sources and 
>references. I do not expect you to be a part of this "research". However, if 
>you make such claims, I would hope they are not empty ones. I havn't said 
>one nasty remark. 

I haven't kept track of *who* made nasty remarks, but there certainly
has been some heaping of abuse on the original claimant.  Perhaps it
wasn't you.

>I have been so much more kind to you, than your peers 
>would be, if you were to publish such proclamations in a scientific 
>periodical. 

Having read news for a good little while, I see very little similarity
between it and any scientific periodical.

> Nay,

Nay?

>it would not even be considered for publication, as you 
>give neither a complete story, nor cite any refereces.
>
>This is just another example of the fundie's. 

Fundies?  Do you mean Fundamentalists?  She strikes me as somewhat
lacking in Fire and Brimstone, and quite unlike Jimmy Swaggart.

>They make wild statements 
>about the state of affairs, and then, do not offer any shread of evidence, 
>nor of references. When asked for some, 

Looked more to me like, "When dismissively attacked and ridiculed."
Come on -- if the facts are so strong, let them speak.  The decibel
level in this thread doesn't seem to derive from pure rationality.

>they shriek about being bashed, and 
>assaulted, and they sulk away. 
>
>*sigh*

See what she made you do, huh?

>
>Where do they come from?

This attitude of superiority doesn't seem very scientific either.
Certainly wouldn't be allowed in a scientific journal.  You come
across to me as a Defender of the Faith.

-- John C
From: awmurray@eos.ncsu.edu (ALAN WAYNE MURRAY)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Chief Justice God (WAS: God unfair)
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:29:16 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos

In article <1992Nov23.042433.14280@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Most Jews don't take the Bible litterally. In Europe, virtually no Xian does
>so. In America, it seems that many do, but I see it as a symptom of a more
>general disease, ilitteracy. I don't consider rational argument with such
                  ^^^^^^^^^^
>people possible. Religious people with whom you can discuss this do not take
>the Bible at face value.
>

A joke right??  "illiteracy", right??  Hehehhehehehehe.

Anyway, since when does one have to be literate to believe in God.  From my
experiences, it would seem that as far as religion goes:  Ignorance truly is
bliss.  After all, if you question God, it's all over.

>	Sven
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: A victimless crime (was Re: Blasphemy??)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:50:10 GMT

In article <Bxwtp1.1MD@newcastle.ac.uk> T.G.Nattress@newcastle.ac.uk (Graeme Nattress) writes:
>What is the point in having any laws on blasphemy?  I will argue this in two
>ways:
>
>1:  Atheistic POV.
>
>God doesn't exist therefore blasphemy means nothing.
>
>2:  Theistic POV.
>      (from an Atheist's perspective)
>
>God's a big boy and can look after himself.  If anyone calls him names ,
>
>1)why should he care
>
>2)If he does care then he can strike the personn down with a lightening bolt or
>whatever.
>
>Conclusion:
>
>Blasphemy laws are wrong and evil etc....
>
>Graeme,

Blasphemy laws protect their belief not their god.
It is analogous to children who cover their ears and sing "I can't hear you,
I can't hear you" when they want to ignore someone, only they use the authority
of the government to keep them from hearing impure ideas.

Jim Copeland

-- 

What we really need to do to bring peace to the middle-east
is to get the Jews together with the Muslims
and teach them to act like good Christians.
From: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: HERETICS
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:06:38 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b63519.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Nov19.062958.22587@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>In article <dpn2.117.722144700@po.CWRU.Edu> dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:
>>In article <92323.211145MHB108@psuvm.psu.edu> <MHB108@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>Especially those weirdo's who pretend that
>>>they can heal people .
>>
>>There are few of those compared to the rest of the theist population. Ignore 
>>them. They aren't hurting you, so why bother with them.
>
>It may not be so obvious that they hurt unbelievers, but it should be fairly
>obvious that they can do a lot of damage to people who believe the tripe.
>For example, people who should be getting real medical treatment often
>forgo it in favour of treatment by these hucksters.  I believe that there
>are laws against most types of fraud.  Why should fraud suddenly become
>acceptable when it is labeled religion?

I repeat -- there are relatively few such people. Ignore them. Attempting to 
dispense with freedom of religion will get you nothing. It exists for a 
purpose. Without it, atheists would be far more likely to be descriminated 
against than Christian fundamentalists.
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
| Damien Neil | dpn2@po.cwru.edu | Case Western Reserve University |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+