HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Paganism & Atheism
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 05:17:39 GMT

In article <1ecr1vINN664@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bx461@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Leo J. Mauler) writes:
>
>Neo-Paganism, as it exists today, seems to consist entirely of
>people who worship a Deity or Deities without any set form or
>dogma.  Quite a few are like the Buddhists or Taoists who worship
>without Deities whatsoever.
>
>Which is why it seems to me that Atheism is more or less a subset
>of Neo-Paganism, in that Atheists live their lives without
>Supernatural Beings, and not denying others their own beliefs.

Atheists do not worship. So your assertion makes no sense.

>The only Pagan "law" I ever came across in my life has been,
>"As long as you don't hurt anyone else, do as you want."

It is a damnfool dumbass ignorant stupid law. It is absolutely
impossible to abide by it. Whenever you do anything relevant, 
you hurt somebody. You can pretend you don't know that, but that
is cowardice.

>  It
>strikes me that a great many Atheists act in this manner without
>Deific persuasion, so what is there to make this idea false?

NOBODY acts in that manner.

>
>This is not to say, "hey you Atheists!  You're really Pagans, so
>why not own up and admit it," this is just a theory about 
>religions and not-religions.

Your theory sucks. My theory is that neo-paganism is nothing but a
whim of fashion.

>  Besides, another tenet of Paganism
>is more or less, "THERE IS NO 'ONE TRUE WAY'"...

Maybe of some pagan groups. But not of all. And it is not common to
all atheists, either. To me, personally, the statement is neither true
nor false, but meaningless.

	Sven
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Date: 24 Nov 92 00:12:05 GMT
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <9211231312.AA13631@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>Sven Hauptfeld types:
>
>>>
>>>Your use of the bible as a Rorschach groups you among the semantically
>>>impaired.
>>>   Benedikt
>
>>Unfortunately, you are wrong, Benedikt. Arguably, that is the way
>>the Bible was *intended* to be used.
>
>Most interesting. That I am wrong is a strong assertion. To write
>arguably in the next sentence looks like a contradiction to me.

You must be tired. From your other postings, I wouldn't say that your
logic is so bad. Your use of "semantically impaired" (which I  interpret
as a sophisticated insult) implies that you think that there's *no way*
the bible could be so interpretred. So, if it is actually not clear if it
is so or not, your assertion is wrong.

>
>Further (unfortunately, I might add) you do not give any evidence besides
>arguably to back up your claim. And you fail to address who intended what
>with the bible as a Rorschach.

A Jewish poster recently explained how the Jews study the Torah. It is 
consistent with what I have heard before, and I know of no evidence that at
any point in history a majority of Jews thought it should be taken litterally.

>If it have been humans, the claim that jesus has fulfilled every prophecy
>of the Rorschach looks quite silly, doesn't it?

Actually not, because his biographers - or inventors - could have easily
adjusted the biography to fit the prophecies.

>   Benedikt

	Sven
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel)
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology - DSP
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:36:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.041450.2296@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
|> between your so called scientific "faith" and religious faith.  As I said
|> originally, science is based on reasoning from experience, whereas religion
|> can make no such claim.  Religion relies on revelation and belief without
|> reason.  Reason is the realm of science and faith is the realm of religion.

I will certainly agree that science is based on reasoning applied to experience,
but I will claim that many religions are also based on reasoning applied to
experience.  I think the difference which you are alluding to is that the
experiences which science is based on are, repeatable, verifiable and predictable
(as you put so well in one of your other posts), and that religious experiences
are not.

|> 
|> Wrong.  How is the word allowing different from assuming in this case?  The
|> natural world is a given, so any explanation that unnecessarily introduces
|> the supernatural includes an extra assumption which Occam's Razor rules out. 
|> It is up to you to show that the supernatural is necessary.
|>

"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem."
                                 -William of Occam
                                  1285-?1349

The works of Occam are filled with references to God.  Did
he believe in one?  If I say "god is a given", where does that
put the argument?  How about this:

   "Science needs not Religion, for the things of Religion
    are beyond the scope of Science.  Yet Religion needs
    Science, for the Universe is the work of God, and the
    things of God are the concern of Religion."

How about Descarte in all of this?

-- 
     The comments and spelling herein are mine and nobody
                     else lays claim to them.
================================================================
Lonnie D. Harvel                 |  ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor)
Subject: Re: Church of England / Women / Catholics
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 03:37:34 GMT

jackson@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Bruce Jackson) writes:

>In article <1992Nov17.170115.29826@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:

>$ The Church's reasoning is that since all of the disciples were men, it
>$ is God's will that priest be men.

>Actually there is a strong Biblical foundation against women as
>religious leaders.  1 Tim. 2:11-15:

>     Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.  I
>     permit no wowman to teach or to have authority over men;
>     she is to keep silent.  For Adam was formed first, then
>     Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived
>     and became a transgressor.  Yet woman will be saved
>     through bearing children, if she continues in faith and
>     love and holiness with modesty.

>In light of this any group that are biblical literalists could not
>possibily allow women to become preists and would oppose practically
>any feminist positions.

>Bruce  -  jackson@cs.unt.edu

However, the Catholic Church is opposed to literal readings
of the Bible, and prefers to interpret Scripture.
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Question for ex-Christians
Date: 22 Nov 92 13:12:45 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

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.

My experience as a Christian was almost entirely positive. However,
many years of reflection and bible study and experience lead me to the
point where I was able to become an atheist.

No specific discussion with any one atheist helped here.  Some comments
from an orthodox Jewish friend (not a close friend; just a fellow
student) did drive home than an intelligent and well informed person
might have drastically different views to myself.  (Thanks Isaac)

This may be the crucial thing. A fair minded Christian who really takes
in and accepts that intelligent people can reject Christianity has
taken the first step to freedom from faith. The rest of their
personal journey is their own responsibility.

Felicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Church of England / Women / Catholics
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:23:09 GMT

In article <10770@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>  Isn't it obvious?  Women don't have external genitalia.  What more
>  of a reason do you need?
>
BTW, isn't it true that every pope must first be checked to confirm that he
really has both testicles?

	Sven

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: akhan@gab.unt.edu (Arshad Khan)
Subject: Re: God Is Unfair
Organization: College of Arts and Sciences
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:28:16 GMT

>Sven Hauptfeld typed:
>
>> <stuff deleted>
>
>>Was Solon a tyrrant? Pericles? Augustus? Kharoun-al-Rashid? Charlemagne?
>                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Who is Kharoun-al-Rashid ? Are you talking about Haroun-al-Rashid of
Baghdad ?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rex@cyclops.itc.gu.edu.au (Rex Baker)
Subject: Re: God Vs. Communication
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 24 Nov 92 03:14:45 GMT

timf@microsoft.com (Tim Fleehart) writes:
>What I want to know is:  Why is it ok when Abraham said "god told me to kill
>my son", and when some modern soul says so it's murder?

Sorry Tim, but I wasn't aware that SAYING such a thing was considered murder. ;-)

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: vdp@mayo.edu (Vinayak Dutt)
Subject: Re: Monitored by Islam [rerepost]
Reply-To: vdp@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Foundation/Mayo Graduate School :Rochester, MN
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 19:03:40 GMT

In article 12396@blaze.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
:This is a re-repost from soc.culture.europe, originally appearing in
:soc.religion.islam.
:
:I've reposted it here because I haven't seen it yet reposted in these
:groups, and these three newsgroups are groups that I happen to read.  If you
:follow up and discuss something else, please change your newsgroups: line.

:[article from soc.religion.islam follows]

[lots of stuff deleted ]

:The above positions are currently voluntary. If no one responds to this posting,
:we would have no choice but to take on this responsibilty on ourselves.  This
:beats the purpose of being a Brotherhood that serves each other in Islam and
:serves Allah(SWT) first and foremost.
:
:Please respond to the position gallantly, for when the call of Jihad is issued,
:we all have to respond.  Although this is not the proper setting, but it is 
:a practice of what is to come and a test of our faith and loyalty to Allah (SWT)
:
:May Allah guide us on the straight path and protect us from the evil
:acts and intensions of Shaitaan.  Ameen
:
:
:
:Sharaaz Khan
:khan@twg.com

Looks like the fundies are not only going to preach,  but even police the "Shaitaans" :-)
These fanatics are never short of ideas. But I very much doubt it if this monitoring 
will help in anyway.

---
-------------------------------------------------------
                                           vinayak dutt
            Medical Sciences Building (2)   Mayo Clinic
                                     Rochester MN 55905
                                   e-mail: vdp@mayo.edu
Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum --
"I think that I think, therefore I think that I am."
            -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
-------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Circumcision (was Re: God Is Unfair)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:05:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.204029.27449@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.000300.2736@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>|> In article <1992Nov19.221401.27880@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>|> >Americans have far more "barbaric" practices:  in
>|> >our community (Connecticut) it is almost universal
>|> >for teenage and pre-teen girls and occasionally
>|> >boys to have holes punched through their earlobes
>|> >and metallic studs and rings forced through them.
>|> >I would say almost 90% of the girls in my daughter's
>|> >school class are "victims" of this form of mutilation.
>|> I think you're massively overstating the case. I've had my ear pierced
>|> and it didn't hurt at all. Do you really mean to maintain that having
>|> one's foreskin removed doesn't hurt?
>No.  I'm maintaining that having one's ears pierced does.
Empirically false in at least one instance. I've had it done.

>And for the first several months thereafter, replacing
>the studs hurts.
No more than a hangnail, as far as I can tell.
Although, I admit to removing the stud about a week afterwards, after
concluding it looked pretty stupid. I would, however, have no objection
to doing it again if I thought the appearance would be any different.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
From: bx461@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Leo J. Mauler)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: morality????????
Date: 18 Nov 1992 06:57:02 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


> kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes: 
> : In article <1d3nt2INN7m6@shrike.und.ac.za>, 
> : dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace) writes: 
> : > keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: 
> : > : 
> : > : Capital punishment should be administered only if there 
> : > : is no doubt. 
> : > 
> : > IMHO, there is NEVER `no doubt'. 
> : 
> :    Suppose the police catch someone holding a knife, the 
> : sharp end of which is planted in someone else, and the 
> : person does not claim self-defense.  Is there any doubt 
> : there? 
>  
> Well, I can't think of any, so I was wrong. 
 
Don't sell yourself short.  Doubt manifests itself in 
mysterious ways... 
 
[1]  The knife could have been placed there by someone 
       whom the knife-holder wishes to protect, for whatever 
       reasons.  Thus the person currently holding the knife 
       is completely innocent of the crime and does not the 
       death penalty. 
 
[2]  The person holding the knife could be a suicidal 
       person wishing to commit suicide through being  
       given the death penalty, though the murder was 
       committed by someone else entirely.  This has happened 
       in the past, performed by insane persons wishing to  
       commit suicide but unable to accomplish it themselves. 
       Such a person does not deserve the death penalty, 
       and is merely attempting a cry for help.  S/he might 
       also have misguided feelings of being actually needed 
       through their protection of the actual murderer. 
 
[3]  The person could have discovered the body, and stupidly 
       placed his/her hand upon the knife handle at the time the 
       police arrived. 
 
Doubt continues to exist...therefore the application of the death 
penalty cannot be done until a suitable means of resurrection is 
available to people not claiming Deific status. 
-- 
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.
From: mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Question for ex-Christians
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:59:44 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

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.

-- 
Michael Wang
mmwang@mv.us.adobe.com
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Iraq Murders
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:23:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64746.student.cwru.edu

In article <R7TBuB4w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:

>Literally, eh?

	No, its an emphesis; meaning for all intents and purposes, they did.
It's called a "limited war", we withheld using our full forces, for the sake 
of international stability. Sure, we could just nuke everyone- Korea, 
Vietnam, Iraq. We would win that particular war, but at what long term cost?


>>          Tomahawk cruise missiles are EXPENSIVE.
>
>All the more reason to use them.  The US economy is dependent upon war; the
>more high-tech toys you use, the bigger the boost to US industry.

	Sure, but the devestation per unit is much much lower. 

>Whose national security?  What on earth is the national security involved in
>pictures of an Iraqi factory which has already been bombed to bits?  Unless,
>of course, it isn't really a bomb factory...

	I must forgive one if one doesn't understand the need to keep 
surveillance and reconnaissance technology and capabilities secret. It has 
nothing to do with that specific factory, but rather, tipping one's hand on 
how high quality of the surveillance. If you know how they are looking, you 
can better hide. For example, if you knew your enemy was going to track you 
with IR sensors, you can equipt your unit with IR defusers, decoys, etc.

>>mathew
>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Circumcision (was Re: God Is Unfair)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 04:00:49 GMT

> In article <10785@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
> 
> |> 
> |>   Ever witness a circumsion up close?  Lots of blood and
> |>   screaming; truly not a sight for the weak kneed.

You might say I did.  I was circumcised.  I don't remember
any blood and I didn't scream at all.  Not a peep.

I don't think I was even embarrassed at having all those people
assembled to look at my peter.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:31:07 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Nov16.174430.2817@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>>Readers of talk.origins will be aware that deploying logic against him
>>is futile, and that he is best regarded as a source of sheer entertainment.
>
>	I can entertain you, but you can't prove me false. 

On the other hand, you can't prove that I'm not Jehovah.
From: dobrowol@husc8.harvard.edu (Pawel Dobrowolski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Info on bible editions in FAQ
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:52:51 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center


	I've been wondering whether we shouldn't put some info on the

different editions of the bible in the FAQ file....?   

	Many atheists I know (myself included) have at one time or another

read a bible and it would have certainly saved me a lot

of confusion, and time, if I had been able to figure out early on

that there are different versions (and why they differ).


		Maybe the following info could be useful:

-what different eitions exist 

-when, and in what circumstances were they created


Pawel Dobrowolski
dobrowol@husc8.harvard.edu


PS. I know that this newsgroup is named Alt.atheism, and it is precisely

why I made this suggestion, I think that many atheists are/will be interested

in this sort of info.
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Circumcision (was Re: God Is Unfair)
Date: 23 Nov 92 04:30:05 GMT
 <1992Nov22.171943.5907@cs.yale.edu> <1992Nov23.004250.7945@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Nov23.004250.7945@midway.uchicago.edu>, hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
> In article <1992Nov22.171943.5907@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov21.214621.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>>>read a while ago that there has never been a recorded case of 
>>>penile cancer in a circumcised man.  But the chance of getting
>>>it is so small that it's no more than the chance of infection
>>>from circumcision.
>>Hmmm...How many TOTAL cases of penile cancer have there been? If
>>it's small enough, it's certainly possible it's statistical error.
>>
>>
> As far as I know:
> 1) penile cancer is not rare;

   According to the Oxford Textbook of Medicine, it has the lowest
occurence rate of any cancer except for nasopharyngeal and various
obscure cancers, .02%.

> 2) circumcised men get it, too;
> 3) it is significantly less frequent among circumcised men, BUT

   You're right.  From the OTM again, "if carried out within a week or
two of birth, the protection is almost complete; carried out later
in boyhood, the effect is obvious, but less marked."

> 4) it is NOT less frequent among c'ed men than among non-c'ed who
>    maintain proper hygiene.

   Well, this is kind of hard to determine.  There may also be a
correlation with cervical cancer in the man's partner.

   So we were both half-right.  My point stands though; the occurence
rate is so low that it's generally considered insignificant when 
considering circumcision.

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re:  what is this Christian Fishy stuff
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:47:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.202251.28893@bmw.mayo.edu> vdp@mayo.edu writes:
>
>    I hear a lot about Drawin fish to  make fun of some Xian fish concept. 
>Being not of Christian background, I have no idea what this fishy stuff is
>about.  So could some fellow atheist inform me what about this fish
>concept ?
>
>Vinayak.

The explanation I heard (a VERY long time ago) was this:
Take the phrase "Jesus Christ Son of God Savior" and translate
it into ancient Greek, the original language of most of the NT.
Take the first letter of each word of the five-word Greek
phrase.  These five letters form the Greek word for "fish".
Thus, the fish became an icon of early Christianity, along
with the cross.

I remember this explanation because, if true, this pun is the
closest Christianity ever came to exhibiting a sense of humor.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.atheism