HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yohan@chester.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: HERETICS
Date: 20 Nov 1992 14:52:32 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: chester.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <BxzsxI.6xt@acsu.buffalo.edu>, boyd@acsu.buffalo.edu (Daniel F Boyd) writes:
>In article <1eh0ifINN5u4@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu 
>(Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>> Even the most liberal of philosophers will argue that the mandates
>> of the state should take precedence over religious belief when they
>> come into conflict.
>
>Did he really say this?
>-- 
>Daniel F. Boyd -- boyd@cs.buffalo.edu         -a +X -x -e -m -S -F"> "
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>((lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x))) 
> (quote (lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x)))))

Please expound on your brilliant rhetorical question, if you feel your up to it.


Jon Newton
From: jackson@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Bruce Jackson)
Subject: Re: Church of England / Women / Catholics
Organization: University of North Texas, Denton
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 05:17:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.164228.22178@mercury.unt.edu>
jackson@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Bruce Jackson) writes:

> 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.

In article <nancyo.722576254@sfu.ca> nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca
(Nancy Patricia O'Connor) writes:

$ However, the Catholic Church is opposed to literal readings
$ of the Bible, and prefers to interpret Scripture.

Granted that not all Christians are biblical literalists.  However,
I can't immagine how passages like 1 Tim. 2:11-15 could possibly
be "interpeted" much differently than it apprears.  I am taking
a passage out of context which does risk causing it to loose its
meaning.  However, taken as a whole the Bible does not support
equality of women.  The only "interpretation" of the Bible that
would support women as priests would be one where sections such
as this are simply ignored.

Regards,

Bruce  -  jackson@cs.unt.edu
From: percival@qut.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Adam and Eve and Bellybuttons
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:22:03 EST
Organization: Queensland University of Technology

	What I want to know is:  Did Adam or Eve have bellybuttons?
	And if so, Why?

--
'Did you hear about the dylexic, insomniac athiest?
- He stayed up all night wondering if there really was a Dog'
	Andrew Percival   email:percival@qut.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: Help
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:32:08 GMT

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

>The embarassing problem with OOBs is that the subject experiences things
>that are evidentially confirmable.  E.g. going to another part of the
>building or across town and reporting details they could not possibly
>could have known about.  These are not religious or new age cranks who
>report this, but respectable scientifically trained observers.  The
>only way to decide is to really look at the accounts, and there are many
>of them.  Skeptics are always looking for independently verifiable 
>evidence.  Well, there is some, so don't spend your time trying to argue
>apriori why the experiences and accounts thereof can't possibly valid. That
>is dogma, not science.

I challenge you to produce this evidence.  If "there are many" accounts,
as you say, you should have no trouble finding some for us.  And Gerry,
can I ask that you please not get discouraged like Mic Oettinger did
here recently, when she got some angry replies?  Many of us regarded her
subsequent refusal to produce as chickening out.  It's just that we have
seen, on numerous occasions in this forum, people come on and make
extraordinary claims and then fail to produce the evidence.  It gets
frustrating.  So, for the sake of those of us asking politely, can you 
dig up some of these reports for us, please?

Mark Schnitzius
schnitzi@eola.cs.ucf.edu
University of Central Florida
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Chief Justice God (WAS: God unfair)
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 04:24:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.024219.23897@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.231315.27514@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>Judging a 3000 year old text by today's standards just
>>doesn't make any sense.
>
>It would certainly be pointless if there weren't large numbers of
>people living in the present who use this text as a guide in conducting
>their lives.
>
Read my next sentence.

>>The only view that is really challenged by that
>>argument is the fundamentalist, but that's a lost case anyway.
>
>Nonsense.  You'll be hard pressed to find one Xian or Jew who will
>admit that this God is not a paragon of virtue.  And that skews
>their whole idea of morality.

Most Jews don't take the Bible litterally. In Europe, virtually no Xian does
so. In America, it seems that many do, but I see it as a symptom of a more
general disease, ilitteracy. I don't consider rational argument with such
people possible. Religious people with whom you can discuss this do not take
the Bible at face value.

BTW, if there were God - and an anthropomorphic one - I see no reason why
he would have to abide by the same moral standards as humans.

>>I think this
>>kind of argument is not even consistent with the way of thinking that ought
>>to be associated with atheism, i.e. sceptical, rational and with a sense of
>>history.
>
>Perhaps you could be a little more precise.  How does pointing out
>that Yahweh was a tyrant violate any of your requirements for how
>atheists ought to think?

Was Solon a tyrrant? Pericles? Augustus? Kharoun-al-Rashid? Charlemagne?
Suleyman the Magnificent? The Medicis? Frederic the Great? Peter the Great?
Napoleon? Maybe you'll say yes, but that would mean that you have no sense of
history. Yahweh was not a tyrrant to contemporary readers.

	Sven

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 02:22:36 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

In article <Bxn6oy.H1F@umassd.edu>, rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:
|> Helo all
|> 
|> I'd like some comments (if you've read it)
|> on the book by Isaac Asimov calles 
|> Guide to the Bible. I think it deals with
|> the discrepancies' of 
|> the bible.
|> Any comments?
|> 
I've read this book.

Actually, there are two such books, one for
the "Old" Testament and one for the New.
I'm Jewish, so for me the New Testament isn't
the Bible.  I've skimmed Asimov's second book, but
I *own* the first.

I think it's very valuable, both for followers
of Bible-based religions, and for non-followers.

Asimov completely avoids discussing theological
or interpretational issues, and does not try
to compete with Bible scholars or theologians.

Like most of his work, he tries to bring a demystified
understanding of the subject matter to the
intelligent reader.

His emphasis is on history, geography, and linguistics/philology.

His book is valuable, for example, in explaining
exactly where Abraham traveled during his life,
or why there might be a geographical reason explaining
why a particular one of the twelve tribes was unwilling
to help a particular other tribe in their battles.

I don't think you're right in saying that Asimov's
book deals with the discrepancies of the Bible.
The interesting discrepancies in the Bible are
deep philosophical issues, and are way beyond
the scope of Asimov's book.  He just wants to
give the facts, like: where is Beersheba,
who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, what is
the etymology of the name Joshua, etc.

-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 09:23:30 EST
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Paganism & Atheism

In article <+4x1r4+@rpi.edu>, johnsd2@jec324.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman
Johnson) says:
>
>In article 1ecr1vINN664@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu, bx461@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Leo .
>J
>Mauler) writes:
>
>Atheists do not believe in any gods, Pagans believe in them all.
>(how's that for categorical statement of the week?)

It's certainly categorical.

I consider myself an atheistic pagan, so I beg to differ here.
As far as I am concerned, gods and goddesses are metaphorical
personifications of aspects of nature.  What follows is a repost
detailing my position.
----------------------------------------------
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:39:49 EDT
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.pagan,alt.atheism,alt.mythology
Subject: Metaphorical paganism

Anyone else out there in paganland consider themselves a "metaphorical
pagan?"  I don't believe in supernatural deities, but I'm in love with
nature and mythology.  I've been "worshipping" nature gods through
rituals for some 20 years now--not because I believe in the magickal
efficacy of the rituals, but rather for the feeling of connectedness
to nature and to human prehistory.
----------------
John A. Johnson  (j5j@psuvm.psu.edu)
Metaphorical (and Atheistic) Pagan
Penn State is not responsible for my behavior.
Neither am I to blame for Penn State.  Especially the football program.
From: 00brwoodson@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: *TRUE* Christians
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:26:23 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

In article <1992Nov18.044912.22475@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
> In article <1992Nov17.220649.12040@bsu-ucs> 00brwoodson@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
>>Plus,
>>whether Christian or not, you have no right to judge others unless you are
>>wearing a black robe and spend your days in a courtroom.
> 
> Where on earth did you get this strange notion from?

>>What's strange about it.  Don't you understand what I've posted.  Read
man,read.
 --
> Should the human race not be extinguished by a nuclear war, it will degenerate
> into a flock of stupid, dumb creatures under the tyranny of dictators who rule
> them with the help of machines and electronic computers.  This is no prophecy,
> just a nightmare.  -- Max Born.   **** dgraham@bnr.ca    My own opinions. ****
From: Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Kittens!
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 17:59:25 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

> [entertaining joke about christian/atheist kittens deleted]

...but then I realised, this joke would be just as funny to a christian
if you reverse "atheist" and "christian" in the telling of the joke.

Pity really. But I liked it all the same.

--
Tony Lezard IS tony@mantis.co.uk OR tony%mantis.co.uk@uknet.ac.uk OR things
like tony%uk.co.mantis@uk.ac.nsfnet-relay OR (last resort) arl10@phx.cam.ac.uk
       "Christians have Jesus, dogs have Pavlov." -- Bill Berbenich

Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 17:05:34 -0500 
From: David O Hunt <bluelobster+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Question for ex-Christians

On 20-Nov-92 in Question for ex-Christians   
user Michael Wang@adobe.com 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 girlfriend sayeth:

In my own case....

I'm an ex-Catholic, because the beliefs of the Catholic church were beliefs
I couldn't condone for others nor live with for myself (birth control and
homosexuality are two of the topics on which the church and I were
diametrically
opposed). After deciding that the Catholic church was only for those willing
to give up a great deal of themselves and to regularly abase themselves with
"I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy...", I considered myself a Christian.

I'm an ex-Christian because the Bible was filled with too many direct inconsis-
tencies. And every time I attempted to justify the inconsistencies with, "Well,
it's just a book...it's a philosophy, not a word-for-word history...it's a
suggestion for a way of life", I'd be told I was going to hell for doubting the
word of God.

I'm an ex-Deist because I ask questions. I want to be RIGHT. And I want to
make decisions based on FACT, not on conjecture. My ex-boyfriend (I spent
almost five years with him) was a flaming, militant atheist. I asked him
numerous times to explain certain things to me (I was convinced that there WAS
a God simply because a few questions I had concerning creation couldn't be
answered in any other way), and he couldn't answer my questions satisfactorily
so I remained a deist.

I'm an atheist because I finally found someone knowledgeable enough to give me
plausible answers for my last few questions. He made no attempt whatsoever to
"convert" me...he just gave me the answers as he saw them. I examined his
arguments, saw the logic...and here I am!

If I'm wrong, I did the best I could with the facts at hand. I'm not going
to believe in a god just to "hedge my bets". If there is a god, he gave me
intelligence which I used to make my decisions. If he can't understand and
appreciate that, then he's a god I wouldn't have worshipped anyway, even
with proof of his existence. If I'm right...then I guess it doesn't matter
much, does it?

Does that answer your questions?

Lesley

---

David
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 22:19:17 EST
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Paganism & Atheism
 <92323.092330J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992Nov21.052548.28549@midway.uchicago.edu>

In article <1992Nov21.052548.28549@midway.uchicago.edu>, hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu
(sven  hauptfeld) says:
>
>In article <92323.092330J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
>writes:
>>
>>I consider myself an atheistic pagan, so I beg to differ here.
>>As far as I am concerned, gods and goddesses are metaphorical
>>personifications of aspects of nature.  What follows is a repost
>>detailing my position.
>>----------------------------------------------
>>Anyone else out there in paganland consider themselves a "metaphorical
>>pagan?"  I don't believe in supernatural deities, but I'm in love with
>>nature and mythology.  I've been "worshipping" nature gods through
>>rituals for some 20 years now--not because I believe in the magickal
>>efficacy of the rituals, but rather for the feeling of connectedness
>>to nature and to human prehistory.
>>----------------
>>John A. Johnson  (j5j@psuvm.psu.edu)
>
>You do not worship. You "worship".
>
>Therefore, you are not a pagan. You are a "pagan".

Precisely!!!   Because I am a metaphorical pagan, I am a "pagan."
But by the duck principle, it would be quite difficult to distinguish
me from someone who is a pagan-without-quotation-marks.  Furthermore,
Margot Adler describes my brand of paganism as perfectly valid form of
the same.

>
>I think the Bible is a very interesting and inspiring book. That doesn't make
>me Xian. I think Greek myths are very good ethical reading. Doesn't make me
>worship Greek gods. I look forward to reading Qur'an when I find time. Won't
>convert me to Islam. I am fascinated by Lao-Tzu's writings. I'm not a Taoist.
>I think we can learn a lot from Zen Buddhism. But why accept it religiously?
>
>There is a difference between (respecting, studying, enjoying) and
>worshipping.

Sven, are you always this grouchy, or are you having a bad day?

My word processor's thesaurus brings up the following nine terms for worship:
honor, respect, revere, venerate, adore, adulate, deify, glorify, and idolize.
The first five describe quite well the way I worship nature.

-----------------------------------
John A. Johnson (J5J@psuvm.psu.edu)
Atheistic, metaphorical, Taoist-pagan.
Penn State is not responsible for my behavior.
"A ruthless, doctrinaire avoidance of degeneracy is a degeneracy of
 another sort.  Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing
 metaphysics is a part of life."  - from _Lila_ by R. Pirsig
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Question for ex-Christians
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 23 Nov 92 00:23:28 GMT

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

>In article <1el96fINNkpp@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) 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.
>>

Though I personally was not persuaded by an atheist (I bacame more convinced
the more I became aware of what was in the bible) I have persuaded three
others to atheism from Christianity. One of them, my ex-fiance, was the
president of the ISCF for South-east Queensland, Australia, with some 2000
teenage christians as her responsibility. Needless to say she was heavily
involved and her best friends were christians as well as her family.
Unfortunately, I think the thing that broke us up was her reliance upon me
as a crutch (not just emotionally, which would have been fine, but also
financially), most of her friends had deserted her and I had become (over a
number of years) her sole source of emotional support despite enormous
encouragement from me to make other friends. However now she is a confident
happy, well-liked and successful person working in an intellectual field
(agricultural science). It did take her a year or so to get herself off the
floor after us (as it did for me too). So what I'm trying to say is that in
retrospect, the removal of her christianity ended up being a great move for
her eventual emotional and intellectual stability, but it was at great
personal cost for myself, I now wish I had never done it, for I would
probably still be in a relationship whose only problem was different
theistical viewpoints. However the other two worked fine and had an easy
transition, but they were already having problems with the church and it's
views on feminism, environmentalism and justice, so maybe I just helped them
along rather than actually converted them.

Jeff.
From: ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:28:52 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Tx.

In article <kmr4.226.721920985@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>In article <j1moody-161192032049@lafmacconsultant.lafortune.lab.nd.edu> j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:
>
>>Many cases of chemical dependency are the result of the person's searching
>>to fill the spiritual void within us all that no amount of TV, food, sex
>>or any other created thing can fulfill. It's a really sad state of affairs
>>when someone calls the concept of believing in a higher Source a "disease."
>>From someone who has found completion in coming to know my Creator, please
>>don't catagorize a very significant thing in my life and the lives of
>>millions as a disease.
>
>	Do I sense denial? 
>
>	The main reason for people on "chemical dependencies" ( I assume you 
>mean non-medical drugs, and not meaning any kind of vitamin etc, which you 
>were rather careless to include ), IMHO, is they are weak of will. They do 
>not have the willpower to stay off. Taking drugs requires voluntary actions, 
>they conscious make a choice to do drugs. Many need to fill this lack of 
>strength by the belief in an exterior god. Illness? I'll say so.
>

Actually, chemical dependency is neither a religious nor a moral ("willpower")
issue.  Dependency has a physiological basis.  People who become addicted
don't necessarily use drugs any differently from other people.  They are
physiologically different, and this difference eventually results in
addiction.   The addiction causes the weakness of will - a weakness of will
does not cause addiction!

I've heard recently that everybody is in denial.  The proof is simple.
People who admit they are in denial are obviously in denial.  People who
deny being in denial are in denial, since they've just denyed it.

So much psychological and emotional pain in our society and all we can come
up with to deal with it is religious quackery.
-- 
allen@well.sf.ca.us
ethridge@bnr.ca
my opinions are my own
From: yohan@mercury.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: HERETICS
Date: 23 Nov 1992 18:07:03 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: mercury.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <If4014y00awH03BVRW@andrew.cmu.edu>, Jennifer Lynn Urso <ju23+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>sorry, but i don't think you can make such a generalization about all
>religious people because you just don't know.
>have you interviewed every single religious person on earth?
>no, i don't think so.
>now i don't know if you're an atheist or not-i am.
>but as an atheist at least i know that people will believe whatever they
>truly believe.  and it's not your place to judge them, just as it's not
>their place to judge an atheist.
>i mean, i agree that SOME religious fundy preachers are totally full of
>shit, but some of them actually believe in what they're saying and
>actually DO practice what they preach.  if not them, then maybe their
>followers.
>YOU JUST DON'T KNOW.
>that's the whole point.
>so get off your high horse thinking that you're some kind of ultimately
>special being just because you've shaken off the shackles of religion.
>that was your own choice.
>as was mine.
>and it's also their choice to believe in what they feel.
>i respect that.
>jennifer urso:  the oh-so bitter woman of utter blahness(but cheerful
>undertones)


What in particular do you have a problem with?  If you are trying to defend
faith healers who criminaly take advantage of the naive and put their well-being
in jeopardy, then you are wrong.  If so, you should show how the advantages of
allowing this outweigh the harm.  If not, then I doubt anyone will argue with
you.  I think it was such criminal acts that was the original point of contention.

Jon Newton