HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: did I like miss your point?
Date: 31 Dec 92 06:20:13 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

>as Peter Hampe recently pointed out, the whole
>notion of having a bible in the vernacular is
>in itself a very MODERN HERETICAL NOTION foiseted
>by Factions of the ModernSeXularHumanism upon
>the True Believers.
>
>Or did you miss the whole section in your shool
>days about the middle ages, not to mention, say
>history from 30AD to 1560AD?


Huh?  Oh, you must be talking about the churches of the West.  The
Eastern Orthodox Church has always provided a translation of the
Bible in the vernacular to her people.  As early as the 4th
century, St John Chrysostom was encouraging people to spend their
time in Bible reading and study -- even the laity.  The notion
of the Bible being only in Latin and forbidden to the common man
was a mistaken Roman teaching.

-- 
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: alt.atheism
From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
Subject: Re: The Book of Job
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 06:07:11 GMT

In article <parsons.725779973@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>Satan destroyed what Job had, yet God rebuilt all that Job had.

  I thought Job's entire family died? Did "God" bring them back to life?

>3.  God did not hurt Job, Satan did. 

Mr. Parish,

Do you personally believe in the existence of an entity called
"Satan"?  If so, do you believe that said "Satan" is the lord of
evil, and do you believe that it sometimes "possesses" human
beings?

-- Brad Pierce --

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.sex.wizards,soc.men,misc.kids
From: fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars Peter Fischer)
Subject: Re: A few facts about circumcision
Organization: Mathematics and Computer Science, Aalborg University
	<1992Dec8.184606.25561@ncsu.edu> <1992Dec9.210616.27866@crd.ge.com>
	<1glhqeINNi59@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>
	<1992Dec15.163041@IASTATE.EDU>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:29:22 GMT


>>>>> "Marie" == Marie Coffin (mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU)

Marie> Did you ever stop to consider that "being different from
Marie> everyone else" is probably every kid's worst fear?

Yup. It's also *very* important to every single human to learn that it
is *not* necessary to conform in every single details, that conformism
is a Bad Thing, and that you should be what you are and be proud of
it. Society has a problem with this -- changing it depends on the
actions of the individual.

Anyway, to someone like me who lives in a part of the world where
circumcision is more or less unheard of, all the talk has been quite
interesting, if quite puzzling. 

/Lars
--
Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | It takes an uncommon mind to think of
CS Dept., Aalborg Univ., DENMARK. | these things.  -- Calvin
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Removing GOD from morality. (was: Moral liberty)
Date: 4 Jan 93 00:53:41 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

[reply to wooyoung@bu.edu]
 
>I can think of two reasons why we still need to relate morality with
>religion.  The first reason is the natural course of human development.
 
If I follow your argument, you are saying that learning morality the
religious way is best for children and simpletons.  While I agree that
not everyone will get to the point that they can handle a course in
ethics, I still don't see how superstition adds anything to the teaching
of morality.  How is the current method employed by religion superior to
parental teaching and reinforcing of consistent moral behavior without
reference to God?
 
>Well, the second issue is the nature of modern culture...
 
Here I believe you are saying that our society is too materialistic, so
we need religion as an institution to encourage people to think about
larger questions like "What is the meaning of life?", which will in turn
lead them to more moral behavior.
 
I disagree that pondering cosmic questions is necessary or even helpful
to the development of morality.  I believe the question about the
meaning of life is meaningless.  I agree that we don't think enough
about philosophical and ethical questions.  However, thinking about
these things only on Sunday has not done much to make us a more ethical
society.  Much in business and government is immoral.  Bigotry is
rampant.  Ethics and moralty should and can be separated from taboos and
superstition, taught in the home, taught in school (in classes on
philosophy, ethics, civics, etc.), taught by example by our leaders, and
enforced by peer pressure.  By the way, I believe that it is the
parent's responsibility rather than the schools to teach values.
Schools should concern themselves rather with value-neutral teaching of
the philosophy of ethics.  I do think though that if we set aside taboos
(such as regarding sexual activity between consenting adults), there
would be surprising agreement on humanistic values.
 
The basis of morality should be the belief that if we all act ethically,
we can make the world a "heaven on earth", not that one should behave in
order to go to heaven.

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
From: joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fun ways to get rid of fundies...
Date: 31 Dec 92 02:11:59 GMT
Organization: The Courts of Chaos

In article <1hqoqaINNdk0@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>
>Chorus:	I'm a cop killer, better you then me
>	I'm a cop killer, F--- police brutality
>
>	By the time of the second verse, they should turn a very interesting 
>shade of white.

gads I think I'm going to faint from just that much.

><my tape is a copy and the lyrics are not perfect>

hey you got me there ;->

>  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

"The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your
 dreams.  They'll tell you black is really white.  The moon is just the sun
at night Its HEAVEN and HELL"  --Black Sabbath

-- 
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
|Joe.Beiter@arden.linet.org               The Long Island Network Project   |
|The Courts of Chaos Semi-Public Access   Long Island New York: USA         |
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: REQUEST: Quotes of founding fathers concerning religion and government
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 15:30:17 GMT



I am involved in a "discussion" (accually the other party is not discussing,
he is preaching) concerning whether the US is a "Christian" nation.

I remember seeing a list of quotes concerning the founding father's attitudes
on religion, and would be greatful if someone who has downloaded that list
would e-mail it or post it to me.

E-mail at ae642@yfn.ysu.edu

Thank you.

-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  /\/\   These are the REAL  *         
*  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu/Kelley L. Miller  / /__\      Gay 90's!!      *           
*-------------------------------------/____\-----------------------*  
*      Joseph's marriage proposal to Mary:  "You're WHAT!!!"       *
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 31 Dec 92 08:55:32 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Rogaland University Centre

>>>Here the premise is easily disproved by going out and observing
>>>non-pink elephants.  Some Christians make it a bit harder, by making
>>>their God non-disprovable (exists outside space-time, inaccessible to
>>>our five senses, etc.)  Thus they guarantee that we can't disprove his
>>>existence, but also guarantee that they can't prove his existence
>>>either.  So we are reduced to using more circumstantial lines of
>>>reasoning, such as pointing out that the Bible's record of God's
>>>barbarity plays havoc with the notion of a loving God.  Christians
>>>then usually make additional assumptions ("God must know best") to
>>>save their premises.  So I think it is reasonable to conclude doesn't
>>>exist, but that's not the same as disproving him--how can you disprove
>>>something that has been defined in non-disprovable terms?
>>
>>But hat about using reasoning on the premises? They don't bother as they
>>conclude them to be axioms?
>
>I think so.  For example, take the question of God's justice.  The
>Bible records many acts of God that would be deemed wicked, had a
>human committed them.  Since the Christian takes God's justice as
>axiomatic, you'll likely hear a response like "it just seems unjust,
>but because God knows so much more than we do, and is, by definition,
>just, his actions must be just too."  (An interesting thing to do is
>to read the Book of Job from the Bible.  Job makes no bones about God
>being responsible for injustice, and complains about it at great
>length; God's reply is basically that as the Almighty, he can do as he
>wills.)  


In all worldviews which are somewhat skewed from reality there will always be
defencesystems to sustain this skew. In christianity some things are defended
through circular argumentation. Ex.

1. God is always right 

2. If God by any chance should be proven false then statement 1 is automatically
activated.

In some extreme beliefs Satan is the ultimate defence system. Everything which
*seems* incoherent is merely the confusion of Satan.

It is interesting to notice that mentally disturbed people clearly also have
defence systems to sustain irrational beliefs. Religion in general can therefore
be said to be a form of disequilibrium in the brain, but strangely as it may
seem, this disequilibrium seems to be the "normal" state of the mind. 





Onar.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Science and choice 
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Distribution: world, public
Date: 22 Dec 92 07:08:02 GMT

kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim Gunnar St|vring \yhus) writes:

>In article <BzIww4.996@ecf.toronto.edu>, vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN) writes:
> >   Someone who knows please expand on this:  isn't there completely random
> > atomic events ( such as radioactive decay, I think ) that totally DESTROY
> > any notions about the universe being causal ( ie deterministic and, so some
> > conclude, no free will ).  I read this once ( possibly Hawking or Penrose )
> > but can remember the exact claim, or any formal proof.  If this is true, then
> > this has been known since the '30's and why is there this discussion?  

>Yes.

>As far as it is possible to test for randomness, there really are a lot of
>absolutely random processes in nature. F.ex. which of the photons hitting the
>film in your camera will make the film darker? (Actually quite few)

>It has been known since the 30's, but you know what people think of scientists:
>mad, incomprehensible, ivory tower, responsible for pollution, atom-bombs,
>nuclear fallout, atheists, closed minded, without human feelings, arrogant,
>indecisive.

>This makes a lot of inertia to the truths of science.

>Seem to me scientists are a prosecuted minority.

Is it possible that such processes seem random merely because we do not know
every possible causitive factor? IMHO, Radioactive decay seems random merely
because we cannot measure what is happening beneath the level of the event
which has instigated the event. We can't accurately predict weather as we
don't know all the influential factors, however we do know now the dates of
a coming eclipse, and the amount of energy produced by the decay of
sub-atomic particles is proportional to the amount of mass annihilated,
because we understand the mechanisms of such previously wonderous events far
better now (not to say that such events are any less wonderous just more
predictable).

Jeff.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jennyb@triton.unm.edu (Jenny Ballmann)
Subject: Re: Stupid Family Values
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 21:26:26 GMT
Organization: Dark Satanic Mills
Distribution: alt.atheism, alt.atheism.moderated

In article <1992Dec19.015945.6149@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> kachun@spot.Colorado.EDU (Ka Chun Yu) writes:
>There is a group that I read
>about recently that has started up explicitly to keep tabs on all of
>the fundamentalist groups in Colorado Springs.  By last count, there
>were quite a number of them.
>
I have a friend who is a member of this group (the name eludes me at
the moment).  As soon as I get more information from her, I'll post
it.  She feels, and may be able to prove, that the town was targeted
for a governmental takeover by religious right groups.

Jenny
-- 
>   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
>     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
>       Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
>          internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: rahlfs@fh-ulm.de (Dietmar Rahlfs)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Keywords: Bible--psychlogy--fundamentalism
Organization: Fachhochschule Ulm - Rechenzentrum
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 13:48:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec26.032102.6648@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
>Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
>Keywords: Bible--psychlogy--fundamentalism
>Date: Sat, 26 Dec 92 03:21:02 GMT


>What strikes me more than anything is that you have not presented any
>problems associated with Biblical faith.  Rather, the ones you have
>presented are a result of faith which is lacking, and the problems
>would not go away were this faith to be dropped (if it could be).

>For example, hatred of homosexuals is not a Biblical theme.
>Hatred of homosex certainly is, which is not the same thing.  Don't
>go off on some psychological tangent on me here-- THEY ARE NOT THE
>SAME THING, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE.  How do I know?  Because I love
>homosexuals and hate what some of them do.  If I can do it, it can be 
>done.  Jesus certainly had this attitude.

I love the Bible believers, but I hate believing in the Bible. ;-}

But earnestly: What is a Bible believer? Someone who uncritically
takes every statement of the Bible for true; who cites the Bible
before thinking (if at all). Or how would you call such a person?

>Exactly what does the Bible tell us that is harmful to society if
>integrated and accepted?  If there is any harm to be had, it is in
>the clash between acceptance and non-acceptance.  From everything I
>have seen, the Bible believer is generally a happier, more joyful,
>more hopeful, and more successful individual in life than the person
>who rejects Biblical advice and command.  Where is the depression?
>I do not see it in my life or the lives of my fellow BB's.  If our
>"fake" joy is as much, it is more real than any offered by any other
>source, which makes me seriously question the motivation behind these
>postings.  If the whole world had Bible Believing minds, what would
>things be like?  If their are Christians out there who live in fear
>and depression, then maybe you had better try the Bible Brand of
>Christianity! :-)

>_Is_ having the Mind of the Bible Believer damaging to the individual
>or society?  I have yet to see it.

>I am not qualified to comment on the psychological analysis
>presented, but even if it were right on, it is meaningless
>unless it can be shown that there is some other attainable state of
>mind that is superior from an end product view.

>I thank you for presenting this view, penetrating as it is, but I
>hope you see what I am getting at.  

>Happy Christmas!
>John M.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Wednesday, 30 Dec 1992 03:10:07 CST
From: <U16244@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: rewrite a song.....

In article <1hrj6gINNsaj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam
Trent Phillips) says:
>
>Instead of "Cop Killer" by ICE-T, how about "god Killer"
>
>

  You don't even need to write your own song:

Drinking the blood of jesus
Drinking it right from his face
...
Told to suck off the holy ghost
And come in the name of the lord

--Ministry( psalm 69 )

--djh

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:24:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.115039.22563@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.044250.11398@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>>You have IQ scores on 1000 people?  You have an accurate idea of how
>>religious every one of these 1000 people are?  If you've done such a
>>study, great, tell us more.  But I hope these are not just
>>"impressions" you have gained from casual observations.
>
>Being very interested in psychology, I like to 'analyse' people I meet. Using
>the method of elimination on the masses is an easy process.

Try analyzing yourself, oh man of no emotional attachments.


>>>No thanks. Only to a person who does something with them.
>>
>>Why are you afraid to do this?  Afraid we'll steal your thunder?  If
>>it's at all rigorous, then it is just the substantiation your
>>position needs.
>
>So much work.

Sure.

>>>Anybody saying that my 'thesis' is not substatiated or sounds stupid, can say
>>>what they want, because I don't have a thesis.
>>>So what if you prove that intelligence has no effect on atheism? Easy?
>>
>>So we're not to ask for any kind of rigorous substantiation because
>>you haven't presented a "thesis", just some "sincere observations."
>>
>>Is it possible you still don't see the fallacy of your position?
>>
>>You've basically admitted here you have no real proof of your
>>position.  But of course, it's still rational to take your position.
>>That's the sort of "reasoning" most of us live to disabuse Christians
>>of, you know.
>
>Correct. I *don't* have any real proof. "Sincere observations" don't require
>hard proof. You've been imagining thing all along.

Thank you, that's just what I wanted you to state.  My word, but it
was hard work getting you to say so!

Why then did you react in such a hostile manner, when I first observed
this?

>>>And? How true have you found the christians beliefs to be? Did you not use
>>>intelligence to deduce your conclusion?
>>>I am just getting more and more support for the original idea.
>>
>>The point of this discussion is that we are not going to hold you to
>>more lenient standards than we would hold a Christian to, if they made
>>the same sort of arguments in favor of a correlation between
>>intelligence and Christianity.  You seem to admire scientists very
>>much, why don't you go learn how a real scientist would attempt to
>>show if your correlation existed?
>
>You still didn't answer the question.

Oh, you are completely missing the point here!  I do not apply a
double standard to Christians and to non-Christians, when I evaluate
their statements.

I do not think Christian beliefs are true.  A rational analysis lead
me to this conclusion.  Happy?

SD
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: The Book of Job
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 08:04:59 GMT

In article <sumner.725742512@milo.math.scarolina.edu> sumner@math.scarolina.edu (David Sumner) writes:
>
>The book of JOB has been the topic of several messages 
>lately.
>A commonly heard comment from the Xtain side is this:
>(From Scott S Parish )
> 
>> Satan was the one coming before God accusing Job of only
>> serving God for the cash, land, camels, sheep, etc.  So, 
>>to prove Satan wrong He allowed Satan to rake Job over the 
>> coals.  It wasn't so much to punish or torture (as you put 
>> it) Job, as to put Satan in his place.  
> 
>Isn't it strange that God needs to 'prove' something to 
>Satan? Don't the Christians realize how insecure this makes 
>their god appear to be? He  hurts an innocent man just to 
>make a point with the Devil.
>David
> 

But God knows everything - including that Satan is fun to be around.

:-)  Sven

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: I AM NOT A LONELY MAN WITH FALSE BELIEFS!
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:27:39 GMT

harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
>
>Atheists like you alienate themselves. They willfully declare themselves
>different and demand special consideration. In fact, that's not enough...
>they want to tear down historical monuments, deface currency and force
>private institutions to their will. It is NOT right but history has shown
>that those who are different are ostracized and persecuted; especially
>those who purposely offend the sensibilities of others and antagonize
>by attempting to bring down established customs. They knowingly set
>themselves against convention, then act mystified and indignant as if
>*they* were the ones being sought out.

This is a rather chilling statement.

"The minority (atheists, gays, blacks, asians, hispanics, jews,
 whatever) is at fault because they willfully declare themselves
 different and demand special consideration. ... They knowingly set
 themselves against convention, then act mystified and indignant as if
 *they* were the ones being sought out."

In other words, if you do not conform (or at least do your best to
hide your noncomformity), then you are not welcome here.  In many
cases, even that's not enough: Christians want the right to put their
religious icons and values in public places with public money, and to
censure things that go on in bedrooms.

There is a difference between "special" consideration and equal
consideration.  Christians think little of spending the government's
money to put a nativity scene in front of a county government office,
but when an atheist protests, they accuse him of trying to infringe on
their supposed 'rights'.  Look at Colorado, too; it was recently
decided that a heterosexual marriage was 'natural' but a homosexual
one was unthinkable, and even for a gay person to be housed or
employed in that state was a "special privilege" that should not be
protected by law.  When someone protests this political favoritism,
he's not doing it just to stir up the waters.  He's doing it because
he believes that this country stands for more than just one opinion,
and if the 'status quo' holds this opinion, then, the 'status quo'
must be changed.

Another great thing about this country is that you are free to do all
you can to fight for what you believe in, and if you honestly believe
that your beliefs, values, and way of life should be upheld by law and
protected from other people who would rather see other beliefs and
values behind the government, then you can work for your goal.  You
only need fear the day that you find yourself in a minority.

-- 
_/_/_/  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: alt.atheism