HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.motss,sci.physics,talk.religion.newage,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Subject?
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:01:32 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

In article <1992Aug21.022459.11564@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> jon@Turing.ORG (Jon Gefaell (KD4CQY)) writes:
>In article <FeosPB2w176w@west.darkside.com> safecrac@west.darkside.com (Chris Colvin) writes:
>>Jesus Saves
>
>Gretzky Steals, He shoots, He SCORES!

Jesus save, Moses invests.

Jesus saves sinners -- and redeems them for VALUABLE CASH PRIZES!!!

Any more out there?

Blessings,
Janis
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: That Star Trek Episode
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:04:44 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <exukjb.76.713639128@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>
>My point here, though, was that Kirk must have been operating with some noti 
>on of what makes an entity worthy of worship. (I thought Apollo *was* a 
>greek demi-god, god of reason or light, something like that? The same one 
>Nietzche contrasted with Dionysius? I was a bad student.) 

  In "Who Mourns for Adonis", Kirk grapples more with the question
  of what makes worship necessary for the *worshipperrs*, not the
  worshipped.  Working more or less on the premise that "any being
  sufficiently advanced is indistinguishible from God", he informs
  Apollo that perhaps humans were primitive and superstitious enough
  in the past to worship the Greek gods, but had long since matured
  or advanced far enough to realize that such things were not
  necessary.  This is also an oft repeated  message in STTNG, much
  to my amusement.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott)
Subject: Re: Best Bible translation?
Organization: University of Western Australia
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 09:32:50 GMT

Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
: so I checked out its rendering of a few 
: controversial passages. Without exception, the NIV always gives a translation
: which is most in line with a orthodox christian interpretation. Anything which
: may trouble the minds of the faithful is happily translated out. For example
: it translates Luke 2:1 in such a way as to make it say that Quirinius held *two*
: censes, so as to get Luke out of one of his more glaring historical errors, 
: despite the fact that this requires some prodigious twisting of the greek.


Can you provide a fuller list of such historical innaccuray? 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 01:05:20 GMT

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.

stuart@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
>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.

There is one special case you forgot Stuart, namely Northern Ireland.
There is a mechanism for banning a song in Northern Ireland - forgotten
the name of the legislation but it was enacted to muzzle the IRA.

Just nit-picking ..

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: davec@csufres.CSUFresno.EDU (David C. Choweller)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Date: 14 Aug 1992 00:35:01 -0500
Organization: Liverpool Supporters Club
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Aug13.181452.17042@csrd.uiuc.edu> Greg Skinner writes:
:>... I mainly agree with Mr. LeRoy.  Leviticus does
:>prescribe the death penalty for homosexuality.  And Jesus said something
:>about not changing one jot nor tittle of the Law, and that he came
:>not to change the Law, but to uphold it.  And Christians claim that they
:>follow the teachings of Jesus.  Therefore, Christianity prescribes the
:>death penalty for homosexuality.  What's wrong with my logic? 
:
:(In every translation I have seen, the word is "fulfill," not
:"uphold.")
:
:Your logic is fine.  I got nothing so clear from Mr. LeRoy.  He
:himself would have a problem with the last part because it relies on a
:step from "Christians...." to "Therefore, Christianity...."
:
:You logic is clear and we can continue if you like.  I begin by
:stating that Christianity includes most or all of the teachings of
:Paul, one of its founders.  Do we agree?
:
:If so, I note that we have words from Paul to the effect "you are no
:longer under the law, but under grace."  Also, Christianity holds that
:Jesus Christ payed all penalties for moral wrongs with his death.

But the people who were executed for homosexual acts, per orders of
the God Christians believe in, had to pay the ultimate price for their
moral "wrongs."

:This happened before Christianity even existed.  From these I conclude
:that Christianity does not prescribe the death penalty for homosexual
:acts.

Do you mean that it does not prescribe the death penalty for homosexuals
acts, *if* this punishment is administered out by humans?  In and of itself,
the death penalty for homosexuals is just?  Further, why do Christians
consider it allowable for OT followers to execute homoseuxals, while
modern Christians are prohibited from doing this?
-- 
                                            davec@csufres.csufresno.edu
Religion may in most of its forms be defined as the belief
that the gods are on the side of the Government.
				-Bertrand Russell
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arsenic@cs.montana.edu (Michael Hurd)
Subject: Re: priest observes
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, MSU, Bozeman Mt 59717
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 10:46:43 GMT

Subject: priest observes

>I thought that some of you might be interested in hearing from a
>professional observer how the marriage of atheism and communism has worked
>out.  It has been unhappy event for the well intentioned atheist and pure
>hell for a high percentage of the Russian people.

Ah... here's a bit of a problem... The 'Atheism and communism' 
marriage is, if not wildly anachronistic, simply a reversion
to an unhealthy church/state union.  Religious beliefs and 
form of government belong together like Dijon mustard and
ice cream.  Somehow capitalism and Christianity have taken
the same wrong road.

>Yes, the marriage of Communism and atheism  did not produce good
>fruit.  In the name of atheism and progress people were forced, tortured
>and killed.  The effects linger on. 

No no, in the face of being told what they *must* think, the
people revolted.  Granted, the forced atheism was not a good
plan...neither is forced Christianity.

I think you have a rather warped sense of what atheism is
all about.  Its not so much about whether or not god exists
as it is 'Well... I Do exist...' now what?

>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.

So I finally get to the bottom of the article, and I realize
that it must be a hoax.  He wouldn't really ask for money...

Would he?!?!?!
-- 
"Don't speak to me of anarchy or peace or calm revolt man we're in a 
play of slow decay orchestrated by Boltzman...It's entropy..." -- BR
M. W. H.                                   arsenic@fubar.cs.montana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Flames
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 19:16:51 GMT

In article <l8ig6rINN858@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:

>If you believe that "religious mind control is the root cause of
>all that's wrong with the world" then I hope I understand 
>better where you're coming from. Personally, I think reasonably
>intelligent adults who have a minimal self-defense mechanism
>can generally think and decide for themselves about
>how they truly feel in regards to "religious issues". 

I'm not sure what you mean by a "minimal self-defense mechanism."
Personally, I don't think there are many people who can think and
decide for themselves, because they lack the proper self-defense
mechanisms.  I'm speaking of mechanisms such as training in clear
thinking, skepticism, and enough knowledge of psychology and propaganda
to recognize brainwashing techniques when they see them.  These
are things which should be taught to kids as soon as they are old
enough to understand.  And just so they never forget why they are
learning these things, the kids should also be taught the history
of Christianity as an example of the disasterous consequences of
building a society of mindless drones.  Maybe someday.

>I didn't save his original post, but it is my recollection that Kevin
>was talking about his search, his personal quest, his changing opinions
>of atheism and theism and he (implicitly) invited comment. It is my
>opinion that ultimately, if a person seems to be making a sincere
>search into building their own theology (of which atheism is one
>example), that we should treat that process with a certain amount
>of respect, just as we would want our own search respected.

Well, it is my opinion that it is an indication of the madness of our
society, that making a sincere search into building a theology is
considered a respectable activity.  There are no bloody gods.  Or rather,
if there are, they're certainly not the ones cooked up by a bunch of 
superstitious nomads.  And if there are, we're not going to find them
by searching about for some nonsense that we find emotionally appealing.
We'll find them through scientific investigation.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse)
Subject: Re: A question
Organization: U of Chicago, SSPPCC
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:49:03 GMT

In article <21AUG199215151282@chemvx.tamu.edu> lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.162258.15081@ncsu.edu>, cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes...


>
>}6) I do not think that a law should be made against homosexuality b/c I said
>}   so or b/c it is in my religion.
>
>Well, for once we agree. I would go further, and say that the govenment has
>an obligation to ensure that it does not discriminate against homosexuals
>legally. Which it _does_ currently. Homosexuals are not allowed in the
>military. Couples are not allowed the same legal rights that hetero. couples
>are. What possible justification, other than religious, can you possibly give
>for that?
>

Some analogies:  What possible justification can you possibly give for not
allowing prostitutes to practice their trade?  What possible justification
can you possibly give for not allowing brothers and sisters or first
cousins to marry?  What possible justification can you give for not 
allowing children under the age of 18 to have the free choice to engage
in sexual relations with adults?  The point here is that while a just
society may tolerate various activities, it is not always obligated to
do so and is certainly not obligated to legally sanction them.  For
example, most Americans do not worry about and would not interfere with
what two adults do in private.  But do not expect that they will ever
allow the same legal recognition of homosexual "marriages" that they 
grant to heterosexual ones.
 
Roger Shouse, The University of Chicago

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Reply to Gregg Skinner -- Christians and the Law
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 01:00:54 GMT

jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
In article <Aug.14.00.44.18.1992.19112@athos.rutgers.edu>, 
>hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>> But despite these differences in where to draw the line, I think just
>> about all Christians agree that there is a line:
>> 
>>  - that large portions of Leviticus are not binding on Christians
>>  - that there are some principles that are binding on Christians,
>> 	even if they are not described as being part of the Law
>>  - that the NT is basic to finding out where the line lies
>>  - that the Ten Commandments summarize much of what is binding on
>> 	Christians, particularly when they are interpreted in the
>> 	way that Jesus did in the Sermon on the Mount
>....
>I also agree with this summary and conclusion.
>Good post, Charles
>Regards,
>Jim B.

Why is it that this sounds like 'selective morality' - chosing those
parts of the Bible which you agree with and discarding those you
don't. How can you be sure that your choices are correct? How do you
know that by your choices you are not straying from God's intent?
By chosing like this and claiming some force behind your morality (eh: Jim
is a moral absolutist), are you not guilty of intellectual dishonesty?

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: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Here is your proof=God Exists?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 04:40:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.192058.258@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>OK, if I am wrong, please show me my error.  Seriously, I do not see
>what my mistake is.  If I am wrong, I'll be more than happy to retract
>my remarks.
>In statistics I was taught that for an event with a finite (non-zero)
>probability of occurrence, say to roll a six on a six-sided die, that
>the probability of having one or more occurrences approaches one as the 
>number of trials approaches infinity.

This assumes that the probability is the same for each trial, something you
have no reason to believe in the situation where you applied it.  Furthermore,
it assumes that all the trials are independent, and you _certainly_ can't
assume _that_....
--
I am of course experienced in teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.
    -- Ed Nilges

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ian@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Speed Freak)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism and abortion
Date: 3 Aug 92 15:09:36 GMT
Organization: large

martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman) writes:
>Have you not heard of the quote (in quotes though it's not verbatim
>and I don't know who said it, but I'm sure I didn't make it up):

>"I disagree with what you do but I would defend to the death your
> right to do it"

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
to say it" - attributed to Voltaire.

I think you will agree that the actual quote has a *very* different meaning!

Ian.

-- 
The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds;
and the pessimist fears this is true.  -- James Branch Cabell.

Ian Crocker 					ian@cyborg.bt.co.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Here is your proof=God Exists?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:43:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.110831.253@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>Suppose there exists an infinite number of parallel universes.  If it is
>possible for an all-powerful God to exist, then He (assumed for convenience)
>must exist in at least one of them.  And if He exists in one, then He can
>assure that life capable of knowing Him appears only in that one (since He
>is *all-powerful*).  Since we are capable of knowing Him, He exists in our
>universe. 

A -> B does not imply B -> A.

>If there is a finite possibility that an all-powerful God could come into
>existence over time, then from the standpoint of eternity such a God must
>necessarily have come into existence before the universe began.  Therefore
>God must now exist.

Where do you get this from?  Are you trying to say that if you add up finite
possibilities over an infinite amount of time, you get a certainty?  If so,
your math is wrong.
--
I am of course experienced in teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.
    -- Ed Nilges

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Here is your proof=God Exists?
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:20:58 MST

In article <10150@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine) writes:
> In article <1992Aug12.162520.256@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>>In article <1992Aug12.204328.20497@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>> 
>>> Where do you get this from?  Are you trying to say that if you add up finite
>>> possibilities over an infinite amount of time, you get a certainty?  If so,
>>> your math is wrong.
>>
>>Yes, that is what I'm saying, and no, my math is not wrong.
>>
>>Suppose I'm in Las Vegas and I play the "Super Jackpot Slot Machine".  Given
>>an unlimited supply of quarters and infinite time, I will eventually win.  
>>It may take me 2 or 3 billion years, but eventually I'll be the Super
>>Jackpot Winner.
>>
>   Sorry Jim, you should have stuck with purely theological
>   arguments.  That way we might have not so easily seen how foolish
>   you argument was.  Your math is indeed wrong.  Aren't  you aware
>   of convergent infinite series?  Probability thereoms?  Beware,
>   what often seems reasonable to the layman has no bearing on the
>   truth of the matter, especially in the realm of mathematics.
> 
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 
> 
> Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 
> 

OK, if I am wrong, please show me my error.  Seriously, I do not see
what my mistake is.  If I am wrong, I'll be more than happy to retract
my remarks.

In statistics I was taught that for an event with a finite (non-zero)
probability of occurrence, say to roll a six on a six-sided die, that
the probability of having one or more occurrences approaches one as the 
number of trials approaches infinity.

                          
i.e.  lim  P(X:e>0) = 1   where P(X) is the probability of event x occurring,
     n->oo                e is the number of events which have occurred,
                          n is the number of trials, and "oo" is infinity.


If this is incorrect, please let me know.  I do not wish to continue in
mathematical ignorance.

Thanks,

Jim B.
Please e_mail responses to Jim_Brown@oz.bmd.trw.com
Thanks.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
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: Thu, 13 Aug 92 15:47:21 GMT

skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:

>merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:

>>jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>>>    ...Christianity doesn't teach
>>>    war but peace (no Crusades).  It doesn't teach conformity
>>>    but freedom to choose (no Inquisitions).

>>C'mon, it prescribes the death penalty for many things I don't
>>consider crimes, like homosexual acts.  Where's the peace & freedom
>>here?  Or do you ignore that part of the bible?

>In a private exchange, I asked Mr. LeRoy to support for this claim
>(that Christianity prescribes the death penalty for homosexual acts).

Mr. LeRoy has given me permission to point out to everyone that what
he states is [just] his opinion.

If the above is to be taken as pure opinion and not as a statement of
fact, then no retraction is required.  I will point out two things to
the readership, however.

-- Mr. LeRoy attempted to support his "opinion" as fact for several
   days in response to my queries.

-- His instruction that the above is just opinion came just after it
   became apparent to me that two arguments against the validity of
   his "opinion" will remain unanswered by him.

It almost goes without saying that I think Mr. LeRoy's above opinion
does not reflect reality.

To the readership: My apologies for being so inflammatory with Mr.
LeRoy.  I simply find it irresponsible to make offensive statements
like the one above and be unwilling to back them up.
--
Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:15205 soc.motss:35040
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Time to start secular scouts
Date: 14 Aug 92 00:33:22 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1992Aug12.210616.4416@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>Whenever the scouting issue is brought up they (BSA supporters) always
>respond by saying that we should start our own. So why not do it? If its
>better than the boyscouts it will win out in the long run. 

There was a small organization based in Georgia called the Environmental
Scouts.  The kinds of things they did were similar to what the BSA did, with
perhaps a little more emphasis on understanding the environment.  They did not
discriminate on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, religion, or lack 
thereof.

Last I heard, BSA was in the process of suing the living snot out of them for
having the audacity to include the word "scout" in their name.  I'm not sure
whether or how the suit was resolved.

-EMP