HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: SIQ Commentary
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 23:25:41 GMT

(Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) provides some commentary:

>Hello.  I followed kalki and Brian right through to the end here.  Very
>lovely.  Radical subjectivism meets radical objectivism.  Result: no

Leaving aside your assessment that kalki33's position
is one of "radical objectivism" (I am assuming this is
your attribution), I do not agree that Brian's is one
of "radical subjectivism", tempting though that may be
in order for you to better arbitrate.

I do not think Brian was arguing for subjectivism, merely
for a standard of proof beyond the simple assertion kalki33
was providing.

I don't see how the alternating points (most deleted here
for space) contradict each other, but perhaps that was your
point.

>3) kalki: Subjective processes yield absolute truths.

3 is ridiculous. What about an insane person's processes?
One would also have to inquire about whether "absolute
truths" exist at all.

>My perception of the situation is that it may be helped by the following:
>
>a) Kalki - Explain why it is that you think that the Vedas, Krishna and
>Bhaktivedanta Praphubananda are reliable sources of authority.
>
>b) Brian - Explain why it is that one must prove something in a consensual
>and empirical manner in order to demonstrate a transcendant truth.
>If it cannot be proven with words but only through processes, then what
>will argumentation yield?

Assuming the truth of (b) for a moment, then it does no good
for kalki33 to post on this subject at all: posts are comprised
of words, not "processes".

>c) kalki and Brian: If you both take the time to learn each other's
>language and come to understand the models of reality that each of
>you are using (in this thread at least), then you'd find, I think, that
>your approaches are not that far apart, nor are your conclusions very
>unorthodox.

I think you overestimate kalki33's willingness to learn.

kalki33 has already indicated that kalki33 has possession of
the "truth" and is willing to verbally "fight" for the 
correctness of kalki33's position. Brian has been the one asking
the questions.

>Enjoy.
>This has been a 30-second announcement from the Tantric corner, where
>we see all coherent points of view as valid yet incomplete expressions of
>ultimate truth. ;>

Including your own, I take it ;)

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W)
Subject: Fundamentalist Secret Society
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41.UAC
Organization: University of Alaska - Fairbanks
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:55:00 GMT

Are fundamentalist so-called "born-again" Christians really nondenominational? 
The reason I ask, it has occurred to me that there could be a secret society
serving the functions of a denomination among these people.  Otherwise, how do
we account for the great uniformity of teachings among them?  Who decides what
publishers, speakers and authors are approved?  Who decides what religious
denominations will be persecuted as "cults?"  Why do so many fundamentalists
themselves manifest the same zeal or fanaticism they fault others for?  Could
these people be dupes of some secret "church?"

Are fundamentalist so-called "born-again" Christians really nondenominational?
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: CONTRADICTIONS About God
Date: 19 Nov 92 01:28:22 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Nov18.050926.11945@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> lungtt@gus19.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:
>In article <11551@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>>In the Bible, what zillions of people "are deprived of
>>>life in a violent fashion" for *no fault* whatsoever?
>
>>[various examples of *seemingly* faultless people]  Shall I go on?
                        *********
>please don't.  i don't think it's necessary.

Welcome to the civilised world.

Seemingly faultless is the same as faultless.  Ever heard of presumption
of innocence?  It is one of the major principles of Roman law.  It says
that the accused is considered not guilty until his guilt is proven.
That's the opposite to the barbaric practice of presuming guilt, and
requiring the accused to prove his innocence.

I gave various examples of people whose guilt has not been proven in a
convincing manner.  If someone can supply the proof and demonstrate that
the punishment they underwent was just and was applied precisely for that
fault, I'm all ears.  Until that happens, I consider them victims of murder.

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 19:23:05 GMT

Mr. Sandvik asks more questions, but still refuses to either retract
or defend his claim that he is morally sound.  I am forced to repeat
myself.

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

>So unless you don't have any issues related to our theme of 
>atheism and moral values, why are you then posting personal
>issues that we could resolve using email?

Simply put, because Mr. Sandvik's claim was posted publicly in support
of an argument on the theme of atheism and moral values, it must be
pursued in the same forum.  (As Mr. Sandvik is aware, I am picking any
more specific nits privately.)

If Mr. Sandvik will simply post a few words such as, "I withdraw my
claim that I am morally sound," I need say nothing more.  Meaningful
discussion cannot continue, though, because at present there is reason
to question whether Mr. Sandvik approaches these discussions with
integrity.

>Anyway, back to some more meaningful discussion. It seems 
>many Christians have the view that primitive barbaric tribes
>were atheist-oriented.

I greet with skepticism the suggestion that many Christian have this
view.  Mr. Lung is the first I have encountered to say anything close,
and even he did not say much more than something about Attila the Hun
being atheist.  (Mr. Lung seems to favor using individuals as
examples, explicitly avoiding generalizations such as the one above.)
Given the present question about Mr. Sandvik's integrity, I do not see
any reason to simply take his word for the existence of these "many
Christians."
--
Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.
From: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM (Frank Farkas)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Problems with Paul's history of Jesus
Date: 21 Nov 1992 00:16:21 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: qual


Paul Harvey wrote regarding my response:


>>Not in my logic. Of course you need to understand that we are speaking about
>>mortal death. That is, the death of the physical body. The spirit doesn't die.
>>This is true for us as well as for Jesus.

>OK, let me see if I understand your interpretation. You say that human
>beings are composed of two parts. Part 1 is the physical body which is
>human and part 2 is the spirit which is God. So when we die, our human
>part, the physical body, dies a mortal death, but our spirit lives on as
>God. Is that right?

1. Yes, human beings are composed of two parts, body and spirit
2. No, our spirit is not God, its is ours (where did you get the idea that
   our spirit is God??????)

With brotherly love,

		Frank


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel)
Subject: Re: Tolerance in general
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology - DSP
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:41:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.204437.6303@news.mentorg.com>, cam@cam.mentorg.com (Cam McMinn @ RLS) writes:

[more worthwhile comments deleted for space]

|> When measure 9 hit Oregon's ballot (the one that would write
|> "wrong, perverse" next to "homosexual" in the Oregon constitution),
|> I wasn't nearly as caught up in thinking about whether or not I 
|> was going to "tolerate" homosexuality as I was in entertaining
|> how much damage the Christian community was doing to its cause
|> (illustrating Christ to the world) by supporting such a measure.  
|> Christians should be down at the AIDS hospice befriending some of 
|> these folks who are sick and dying, not pronouncing judgement from 
|> the pharasaical easy chair.
|> 
|> Cam McMinn  cam@cs.MENTORG.COM
|> Portland, Oregon
|> 

Exactly!!!!

-- 
     The comments and spelling herein are mine and nobody
                     else lays claim to them.
================================================================
Lonnie D. Harvel                 |  ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21496 alt.atheism:21623
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 06:15:40 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

> >Chant Hare Krishna. This is the method of verification.
> 
> Okay, I just did.  Nothing happened except that a cat meowed at me.  I
> suppose this verifies that Krishna does not exist, unless you want to
> say that Krishna has been incarnated as Fluffy.

Too bad. Chant more. Krishna's in the cat, but the cat's not Krishna.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:48:25 GMT

In article <fVq4dmO@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>Though these opposites may seem oppossed, the answer is in the Union.
>Follow the example of Cosmic Physics. The Unified Theory is the Holy
>Grail. We are not separated from the Kingdom by time or distance.

Please don't use the names of physical theories in vain  :-)

There is nothing in the Unified Theories (note the plural) that even resembles
God, religion or anything of the kind, unless severely misinterpreted. Physics
describes how the Universe works, not why it exists. Not even IF it exists.

	Sven

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lungtt@gus22.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 02:47:41 GMT

In article <Bxs8r4.3LD@acsu.buffalo.edu> bobweiss@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>	There is a notable differance that Ivan is overlooking. Richard's 
>point was that the disciples gave their lives for the message of the 
>gospel; and that if the message was false, they would have known it.
>Richard's point is not simply that these men perished for what they
>believed. His point is that these men were in a position to know the
>veracity of what they said.
>
>	This is were the notable differance comes in. People do not 
>throw their lives away for a lie, when the know that it is a lie.

I think it is important to emphasize that this argument can not get
too far.  But maybe this should be spelled out.

At best, it can only categorize these guys in a light similar to the
truck bombers of the Marine barricades in 1982.  

However, at worst, it lessens the likelihood that these guys were conspiring
to *knowingly* propagate a lie.

We MUST go *beyond* this specific argument to see more...according to
the story, these guys were *kinder* and *gentler* indiscriminately for all
(e.g. some widows, the sick, particularly their ENEMIES, etc)  This is 
unlike our truck-bombing and convert-or-die buddies.  I think Peter, 
for one, learned his lesson of violence (cutting off the ear of a soldier
on impulse--for those who don't know this story, Jesus then heals the
soldier, who in turn, proceeds to arrest Jesus).

Terence
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:34:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.235503.13484@u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>My father, during his period of death-bed conversion before
>he died, asked his priest the same question.  The answer was
>"if you need an animal to make Heaven perfect for you,
>then that animal will be in Heaven".  Nice answer, I thought.

Hm.  I wonder what if I need a certain human being to make Heaven perfect for
me, and that human being goes to Hell.  Do I get a robot double?
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21508 alt.atheism:21639
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:43:16 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

<EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>I just wonder:  can an animal sin?  (I mean animals aside from humans)
No.  Animals are not 'free, moral agents.'

>The reason I ask this is because homosexuality exists among other animals just
>as it does with humans.   Are these animals sinning as well?   Will they also
>go to hell even though they have no concept of this human insanity we call
>religion (to our present knowledge )?

Animals do not go to heaven or hell and do not have souls.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Just a seasonal observation.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 02:10:53 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism

In article <1992Nov22.210428.29730@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
lungtt@gus.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) wrote:
> 
> In article <ksand-211192223246@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> >I don't mind about telling children stories about Santa Claus
> >and the Eastern Bunny. They are excellent alarm bells for 
> >a growing skeptical mind.
> 
> Oh, you mean Santa Claus wasn't crucified?

Well, he disappears for 11 months, and suddenly pops up just
before Christmas....

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: spunky@camelot.bradley.edu (Anita Mannes)
Subject: Re: Christmas
Organization: Bradley University
Date: 22 Nov 92 03:56:27 GMT

In <1992Nov21.035933.6630@news.ysu.edu> af027@yfn.ysu.edu (David Anderson) writes:


>With Christmas coming up some of my friends and I were wondering
>how people perceive the bitherth of Jesus Christ>.  Was

>Christ born of a virgin, did God become man in Christi


Well......I am not sure about other christians.......but Catholics
believe that Jesus is God incarnate.......made man....and that HE was
born to a virgin.....Mary......this was made possible by God ( the
Father as we refer to Him.......) through the Holy Spirit. It is what
we refer to as the Trinity......the three parts of one God......it is
a complete mystery ot us how this is......we do not really try to
rationalize it....we see it as something we just can't understand how
this became.......


so we believe both ......

?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:51:09 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Nov18.153533.18225@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> Mr. Sandvik fails to address the following paragraph from my above
> post, in which I state the reason his "moral soundness" is now the
> subject of public scrutiny:
 
> #As to being related to the topic: Mr. Sandvick's last argument relied
> #directly on the claim that he was morally sound.  If this claim is
> #false the argument fails.  Establishing the truth of this claim is
> #therefore relevant, unless Mr. Sandvick wishes to present a different
> #argument.
> 
> I do not wish to incite a war of flames, although Mr. Sandvik has
> certainly fired the first shot with his insults.  I simply object
> to his latest argument in this thread.  Since Mr. Sandvik has
> essentially requested that his moral soundness not be the subject
> of further public scrutiny, I think I can safely assume he withdraws
> the argument that relied on it.  If that is the case, I see no need
> to continue.

Let us go back to the discussion, and use email for personal
attacks. Now, the issue was about moral values and atheist
individuals. Do you Mr. Skinner have any opinions about this issue?

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21446 sci.skeptic:19849
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:24:09 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Nov23.182623.13608@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>,
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Nov23.175235.15512@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
> >I've lost track of how many times I've corrected Mr. Sandvik's
> >revisions of Jesus' claim.  For the sake of clarity, I'll restate it.
> >   Seek first the kingdom of God and its righteousness, and
> >   all these things [food and clothes, from the context] will
> >   be given you.

> It is possible to trivially satisfy the claim.  For instance, if your
> definition of "someone seeking the kingdom of God" is so strict that nobody
> satisfies it, certainly everyone in that (empty) set has food and clothes.

This was the logical trap I fell into. It's impossible to define the
statement as something that could be verified as a true or false
statement. The only way to measure it (now when I've looked at
it more closely) is to use a form of sets where there's a
set S that comprises of all human beings.

Now, a sub-set S' are those who seek for the kingdom of God. If there
is one single entry in this subset S' that seeks/seeked for the
kingdom of God, and this single entity did die of malnutrition
or wasn't provided shelter, nor clothes, then the S' set is
an invalid definition. And I do think this is the case, looking
at various historical references. The problem I have just now
is to dig out enough references so Mr. Skinner would shut up. In
other words lack of time. Then again I do think he's intelligent
enough to realize that there are events that shows clearly
that S' is an invalid set.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 06:49:52 EST
From: <DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible (Long, but filled with information)
 <1992Nov12.033336.13056@athena.mit.edu> <1992Nov11.131233.3887@wkuvx1.bitnet>
 <1992Nov13.033731.17979@microsoft.com>
 <WIGGINS.92Nov21182422@hurricane.cs.odu.edu>

In article <WIGGINS.92Nov21182422@hurricane.cs.odu.edu>,
wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins) says:

>    Yeah.  It has been used for evil.  But, was the Bible being used
>correctly?
>Or, was it just some guys *claiming* to be Christians using religion also
>to prove the morality of their own agenda?

Implicitly you admit that your religion can be used by anyone to prove
the morality of their own agenda. That's a disadvantage, I would say.

>     You say, check out the verses about witches and rebellious sons.  Does
>this mean you support the kind of witchcraft and rebellion the Bible
>condemns?  Here witchcraft meant consulting demons and stuff.  And rebellion

Of course I support it. I believe in freedom of religion, no  matter how
stupid or ignorant it may appear to me.

>     I know the Bible says make the best Christian example in whatever
>station in life you find yourself: slave, second-class citizen, etc.  Where
>does it say, "Slavery, racism, and violence are good"?  It doesn't.  It
>reports these as a matter of record.

The Bible has a LOT to say about what is good/bad. By not condemning
slavery it supports it (especially "slaves, submit to your master...")

>is believed until something better comes along.  These are preached like
>gospel and may be totally erroneous.  Science is like a religion.  You
>rely on faith.

Just because someone claims to be a scientist doesn't make them one.
You haven't been talking to True Scientists. :-)

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven, so kiss my butt
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 06:03:10 GMT

In article <mjenkins.721874244@cunews> mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
>In <11516@hogg.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>
>>How do you know?  Suppose God has decided to damn all Christians and
>>save everybody else.  Or to save all atheists and damn everybody else.
>
>Then God would be going directly against his word:
>
>"God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son, that
>whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting
>life." John 3:16.
>
>Michael

Sorry, but I don't think you've made the point against Mr. Derzhanski.

First of all: "everybody else" isn't mentioned in your quote; secondly,
the Universalists (inter alia) would argue that >everyone< is going
to "heaven"; finally, it is unclear that "Christians" have the correct
relationship in terms of "belives in him" to qualify for "everlasting
life".

D.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lungtt@gus19.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 05:25:16 GMT

In article <ksand-171192135202@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.144213.24758@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
>skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
>
>This is the reason people stop reading newsgroups, silly flame wars
>between people that has nothing to do at all with the subject line.
Seriously!

I'm away for two days; come back; and find this string shot up the creek.

Terence

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc