HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mitchell@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (DeWayne Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: proof
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:45:39 GMT
Organization: National Severe Storms Laboratory
Originator: usenet@kittyhawk.ecn.uoknor.edu

In article <1992Dec12.063157.25941@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>Historical accuracy: The Bible can be considered to be historically
>accurate in many places without having to support a lot of the
>"miracles" it talk about.  On the other hand, the Bible has already
>been demonstrated to be quite _in_accurate in several places.
>



Please provide examples of these inaccuracies.  Just curious.
Send e-mail directly to me unless you deem it significant to the group.
Thanks


>
>-- 
>_/_/_/  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



*************************** Volley This !!!!! *************************
E. DeWayne Mitchell                 _____/~~~\___________________
Nat'l Severe Storms Laboratory      (((((      )   ))oooo-|------              
University of Oklahoma                 (   (      )   ~~   \__ 
mitchell@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu  (~) (  (    )  )        _/  \
(405)3660413                   ___( )((         ))_____    /\
                        (((((((((----/_____\------------   \
				      \_/     \\\\\\\\     /\
*************************** I Dig !!!!!!!!!!! *************************
*************************** I Pass to Kill !! *************************
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.slack,talk.religion.misc
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 14:31:15 -0500 
From: Geoffrey Spear <gs32+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
 <1992Dec09.233339.23836@lobo.rmhs.colorado.edu> <1992Dec11.054012.10468@microsoft.com> <1992Dec11.165130.11351@u.washington.edu>
	<1992Dec11.183641.3054@cs.cornell.edu>

Excerpts from netnews.alt.atheism: 11-Dec-92 Re: You should be a
Christi.. Roderick Moten@cs.cornel (186)

> >What sort of geometry is necessary to construct this
> >god-shaped hole, given that god cannot even produce
> >a good approximation of pi?

> God doesn't have to approximate pi; He knows it.

	Funny that the Bible says it's 3, then, isn't it?  If God was really
responsible for the Bible, you'd think he'd avoid such blantant mistakes.
-----------------------------------
Geoff Spear
Carnegie Mellon University
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Class of '96 (I hope...)
-----------------------------------
"You're redlining my bogometer!"
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Searchers
Date: 18 Dec 92 01:32:13 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

 
The postings here seem to be mostly from atheists and fundamentalists
with minds made up.  I'm curious to know if there are many searchers
lurking.  Perhaps you were raised to believe in God but the facade is
starting to crack.  Are there people who started reading this group as
theists and have since become atheists?  Vice versa?  Is the discussion
here helpful to people struggling with religious doubts?

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: "Keep Christ in Christmas"
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:29:24 GMT

gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes: >

>It sounds like damned if you do, damned if you don't.  If you display your
>religious beliefs during the campaign you are roasted for mixing religion
>and politics.  If you keep them to yourself you are accused of being a
>crypto-fundamentalist.  I wonder how many crypto-atheists are entrenched
>in our school boards, who never breathed a word to the voters about their
>beliefs when they ran for office.

The issue wasn't their beliefs, but the fact that they were running
to enact their beliefs.  For example, they run for local Republican
Central Committees to push the hard-right line, but they never state
that this is how they want the Party to act.  They run for School
Board with the intent of teaching Creationism and instituting
classroom (forced) prayer, but do not state this on their campaign
literature or ballot statements.  Ditto for their positions on
abortion or homosexuality.  They feel strongly about these issues,
but if they admitted it, they would not be elected.  Hence, the
"stealth" of their stated versus actual objectives.

The people running in the other camps are very clear about their
positions.  I have no problem with Religious Rightists, Xian
Funamentalists, or anyone else running for office and stating
their platform for all to see and decide on.

>Indeed, since when does a candidate have to make public confession of his or 
>her religious beliefs?  I thought we settled that issue with the election of
>JFK.

And JFK made it clear he would *not* be taking his orders from the
Vatican.  I do not believe the Stealth Candidates could make the
same claim about their marching orders.

>Gerry Palo  (non-fundamentalist) 

You sure about that?  Some of the stuff you've posted here
has led me to conclude otherwise.

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: "Keep Christ in Christmas"
Date: 12 Dec 92 17:18:52 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <parsons.724175419@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>
>>>Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
>>>parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
>
>As for the .sig, no matter what I say, the quote will always be true.

  Indeed?  Would you care to explain to us in some detail how we're
  supposed to discern this Truth (TM) that you imply we're
  ignoring?  Or better yet, could you please prove that some
  universal objective truth even exists?

  I'll give you the benefit of my standard disclaimer.  If you're
  implying that I am not a christian because I choose to ignore god,
  or because I'd rather be rebellious, then suit up mate, I've got
  some Napalm with your name on it.

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

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Editing money: I LIKE IT! I LIKE IT!
Date: 14 Dec 1992 20:24:12 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


me@vikings.austin.ibm.com (Michael E) on Mon Dec 14 13:36 1992 posted:
|
|In article <MMEYER.92Dec14095020@m2.dseg.ti.com> mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes:
|>In article <1992Dec12.071137.16343@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
|>> If you don't like "In God We Trust" on US Currency,
|>
|>	... cross it out.  This post has inspired me to resume what I
|>had been doing a few years ago - cross out that obnoxious quip on
|>every piece of paper currency that crosses my path.  Thanks.
|>
[edited to save space]
|
|What a magnificent protest method! 
|
|Submit your protest ideas- I nominate this the best idea for 1992 (regardless how long it's been around).
 
 
	I thought "defacing" US currency was a crime or something like that ?
 
	Not that I think there is something wrong with defacing US $

-- 
A. TRENT PHILLIPS |" A mirror is a negative space with a frame and a place for
  also known as   | your face, it reveals what the rest of us see. It conceals
   WHITE  ROOK    | what you'd like you to be."--Blue Oyster Cult
-------bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu-----aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu-------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Rabid theists
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:08:59 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Dec16.065529.19862@jcnpc.cmhnet.org>, mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
> kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu wrote:
>
> :    Actually it's much older than that.  In the "Star-Spangled Banner"
> : in one of the later verses that nobody ever sings there is the line
> : "and this be our motto, in God is our trust".  It was on coins not too
> : long afterward.  What was added in the 50's was the line "under God" in
> : the Pledge of Allegiance.
> 
> On June 14, 1954 the words "under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance.
> On July 11, 1955 the words "In God We Trust" replaced the words "E Pluribus 
> Unum" on all currency and coins. 

   It had been on at least some of them for a long time though, since
the 1800's.  Also "E Pluribus Unum" is still on paper money.

> On July 30, 1956 "In God We Trust" replaced "E Pluribus Unum" as the 
> national motto.

   Are you sure?  I though EPU was still the official motto.

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ktikkane@phoenix.oulu.fi (Kari Tikkanen)
Subject: Re: Finnish Bible Translation
Organization: University of Oulu, Finland
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:03:30 GMT

Alan Feuerbacher asked to translate 12 Dec 92 19:36:59 GMT:
>KR33:
>   Silla nain sanoo Herra: Vasta kun ne seitsemankymmenta
>   Baabelin vuotta ovat tayttyneet, mina katson teidan puoleenne
>   ja panen taytantoon teita kohtaan hyvan lupaukseni ja
>   palautan teidat tahan paikkaan.
>
>KR92:
>   Nain sanoo Herra: Kun Babylonian seitsemankymmenta vuotta
>   ovat kuluneet, mina otan teidat jalleen huomaani.  Mina
>   taytan lupaukseni ja tuon teidat takaisin omaan maahanne.

I am not good in English but I try. I think they both mean the same but
real differences are names Babel and Babylon and that KR92 is easier
to understand.

KR33: Because Lord says : Only after,when those 70 years of Babel 
   has been passed, I notice you and put into practice my good promise 
   as fas as you are concerned and I restore you back here to this place.

KR92: Lord says : When When those 70 years or Babylon has been passed, I
   take charge of you again. I fulfill my promise and I bring you back to
   your own country.
 
----------------------- ktikkane@phoenix.oulu.fi -------------------
  Kari Tikkanen      |   .  . -#- |      b        |   begin  
  SF-90550 OULU      |         |  |  I = / f(x)dx |     s:=s+Eq(i);
  FINLAND            | .  .  Vega |      a        |   end
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: Stupid Family Values
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Distribution: alt.atheism, alt.atheism.moderated
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:00:25 GMT

In a related note, today's San Jose Mercury News has a Page One,
Right-below-the-masthead story about two San Jose pastors
charged with molesting boys.  They are pastor's at the largest
church in the county.  This has gone on for the past four years.
None of the church members interviewed condemned the pastors
or their actions, urging compassion and mercy.  That's not
something we see their ilk encouraging for the falsely named
"Satanist abusers."

Interestingly enough, the church has started a "New Beginnings"
ministry, to convince homowsexuals to change their orientation.

When I read the absolute nonsense about Satanism and ritual
child abuse from the fundies, and then the Real News come out,
it just makes me want to barf.  These people are practicing a
really sick philosophy: blame someone they disagree with, while
abusing children on the quiet.

Remember, it was the Religious Right that didn't want any of
these mandatory child abuse reporting laws.  Bastards.

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Omniscience
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 16:06:56 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
> Mathew types:
> >The point is, the logic you are doing does not take account of the fact that
> >the state of the omnipotent and the solvability of the problems may change
> >with time.
> 
> I thought I have adressed that. Time is resolved by the omnipotent has to be
> omnipotent all the time or it is not omnipotent (tm).

But where did you pull that one from?  That's not part of any definition of
'omnipotent' I'm familiar with.

>                                                      And there are problems
> which are generally accepted not to be a function of time, like A and not A
> in Logic.

Yes, and I'm saying that this isn't one of them.

> I don't see why one should introduce choice. To be able of doing A is not
> directly connected to choosing to do A.

It's not really choice, I just used the word because it seemed a simple way
of explaining it.

It's as though the omnipotent being is standing at the junction of two
corridors, both with turnstiles.  He's fully capable of walking through
either turnstile.  However, once he walks through one, he can't walk through
the other.

I'm in such a situation every time I go on the Underground.  Can I walk
through the left-hand barrier?  Yes.  Can I walk through the right-hand
barrier?  Yes.  I am therefore able to walk through any Underground ticket
barrier.  Protests that I'm not because I can't walk through all of them in
succession are beside the point.

>                                             You say the omnipotent can solve
> A and can solve B. But it cannot (sic) solve both of them one after another.

Yes.  Basically, that's it.  You have defined your problems A and B such that
solving one renders the other insoluble (by rendering the solver
non-omnipotent).

> Another counter example is to demand that it creates the rock it cannot lift
> and to lift it at the same time.

Then you are simply demanding "Solve p = ~p".  We can trivially prove from
the definitions (i.e. meaning) of the question that it has no solution, so it
tells you nothing about whoever you're addressing the problem to.

You can't get profound statements out of the inability to solve problems
which don't have a solution; otherwise you could just say "Solve sj jksdj
sdfj ksjd dfj."

> I prefer (A and not A).

Let me guess -- you're the AntiAynRand, right?


mathew
-- 
You can communicate with me securely via PGP 2.1.  For information, send mail
to pgpinfo@mantis.co.uk.  For a big block of keys, mail pgpkeys@mantis.co.uk.
PGP public key fingerprint = B2 41 30 5F 5B 20 B9 D5  7C 8F 75 88 7C DA D8 C5

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: Just how much smarter are atheists?
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:40:09 GMT

kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:

>In article <1gbm3tINN73s@gap.caltech.edu> werdna@cco.caltech.edu (Andrew Tong) writes:
>>Just how stupid must one be to believe in a God? 

>	Its not the believing so much: A better question is:

>	Just how illogical must one be to believe in a proposition as being
>unequivacly truth, without having any evidence?

Hmmm... I think Godel would have something to say on the matter :-)

mark
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Robert Huss)
Subject: Truth
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:21:57 GMT


	This concept of Truth has been brought up in another discussion, and I think it might be interesting enough to get it's own subject line.  The possibilities are:

1.	There is only one Truth.  One way the universe was created, one
correct way to believe, one way to be Right.  

2.	There is one Big Truth, which allows for some divergence at lower levels,
so there could be more than one way to believe and still be right.  There is still only one way the universe was created, but multiple ways to believe,
and multiple ways to be right.  

3.	There is no such thing as One Truth.  Each person's truth is unique.
There are multiple ways for the universe to have been created, multiple ways to
believe, and multiple ways to be right.


	Agreement on the subject of Truth doesn't mean we have to agree on
what the truth is.  Can anyone provide other possibilities for the existance
of Truth? 
	My personal choice is number 2.  I'm not absolutely sure of the Big Truth, but I think that it doesn't matter a heck of alot which way we believe.
This is because I don't happen to believe in god, so obviously it wouldn't really matter what we believe.  However, there are those who would agree with 2, who
do believe in a god, but don't believe that you have to be Christian to be right.
There could be a god, who encouraged many forms of religion, all with some
common ground.

	I think 3 is kind of neat, although I don't buy it.  There are theories
about multiple universes, mutliple dimensions and such which might allow 3
to flourish.   Perhaps our "souls" are interfacing in this dimension via
these bodies, but there are other possible dimensions, and other possible
creations of the universe.  Therefore, when we die, our "souls" would
return to their respective home dimensions, and the alternate realities would
be experienced.

Bob "I vote for 2" Huss
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A few facts about circumcision
Date: 16 Dec 92 00:31:14 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Dec15.163041@IASTATE.EDU> mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin) writes:
>
>What I'm trying to say is that we are a society obsessed with appearances. 
>Given that, people who are concerned about leaving their sons uncircumcised
>are probably expressing their anxiety quite honestly.  It's not necessary
>to read any hidden agenda into it.  Grow up a little.
>

  One thing this thread has hammered home to me:

  People will go to unbelievable lengths to rationalize/legitimize
  the unnecessary mutilation of their newborn sons.  Honesty and
  agendas aside, that's all cicumcision really is.

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

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: "Separation of Church and State"
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:38:42 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: alt.atheism

In article <724503378.11338@minster.york.ac.uk>, aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
wrote:
> Before we go rushing off discussing just US politics (again) let me remind
> people about the situation on the United Kingdom. Here the head of state,
> the monarch, is also Defender of the Faith. Bishops are appointed by 
> Parliament (at least technically) and have seats in the House of
> Lords (the upper house). The law even requires that all children at school
> take part in Christian religious assemblies.

In Finland (and Sweden, I think) it's not mandatory to attend the 
Christian religious teaching and assemblies in school. Still, it's
part of the school cv, and I've studied Christianity since age 6 :-).

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: alt.atheism
From: harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus)
Subject: Re: Atheists should mind their own damn business
Organization: Big Bulging Buffalo Bladders -R- Us
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:19:03 GMT

In article <kmr4.416.724180273@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.071137.16343@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
>
>>I don't have anything against atheists really... just leave me and
>>my world alone. If you don't like "In God We Trust" on US Currency,
>>don't look for it - ya know it's there. If a religious symbol in a
>>municipal seal is offensive to you, don't seek it out... After all
>>it's not a blinking neon sign in your face, you have to look for it.
>
... stupid corruption of my brilliant paragraph deleted ...
>
>>If a book or movie or anything in my environment offends my
>>sensibilities, I try to ignore it. Why do y'all have to stir up shit... 
>>Most of us kinda like "In God We Trust" on the currency. It's kinda
>>folksy and quaint, whether you believe it or not. Just look at it
>>as if it were saying "When things are going down the toilet, and we
>>can't stand to blame ourselves, we trust in God... 'cuz if there
>>ain't one, we're all fucked!". That should put a new face on it...
>>- Harry

... stupid corruption of my brilliant paragraph deleted ...

Oh yes, there is such a striking similarity in the 90's between
Christianity and Naziism. The analogy between God and Hitler is
so brilliant I was actually frightened to have antagonized
such a mammoth's intellect.
- Harry
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Monitored by islam (repost)
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:21:26 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <su8LVB17w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
<darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred "Rim Dweller" Rice) writes:
<> Many non-Muslims are very poorly informed about Islam.
<> The shocking thing is, they *think* that they know a lot about Islam.
<> They don't even realize how misinformed they are.
<
<This is especially ironic given that in article
<<1992Dec9.080120.28144@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, the very same
<darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
<>
<> To be an atheist you require a positive _belief_ that God *does not*
<> exist.
<
<Well, Fred, looks like Mr Pot is saying things about Mr Kettle.

I disagree.  That is, it is obvious that F Rice is playing Mr Pot, as
he clearly has no clue what atheism is about, but I object against the
part about Mr Kettle.  His assertions that many alt.atheism netters are
deeply misinformed about Islam haven't been substantiated by anything.

<> This is one attempt at reducing unjustified anti-Muslim prejudice in the
<> community.
<
<If you want to reduce anti-Muslim prejudice, why not stop the public
<book-burnings and calls for Rushdie's death?  [...]

Better still (as this may not be in his power), let him tell everybody
here what Islam (that is, his pet interpretation thereof) has to say
about Rushdie, Khomeini, the nature of the conflict and the possible
ways in which it can be solved.  Does Islam as such explicitly approve
or disapprove of burning books?  Or killing people?  This kind of thing.

-- 
 `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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism