HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: T.G.Nattress@newcastle.ac.uk (Graeme Nattress)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Blasphemy??
Date: 19 Nov 92 09:41:50 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>T.G.Nattress@newcastle.ac.uk (Graeme Nattress) writes:
>>What is the point in having any laws on blasphemy?  I will argue this in two
>>ways:
>>
>>1:  Atheistic POV.
>>God doesn't exist therefore blasphemy means nothing.

>Which is why atheists don't make laws against blasphemy. ;-)
And why there are nasty horrible blasphemy laws in countrys around the world...


>>2:  Theistic POV.
>>      (from an Atheist's perspective)
>>God's a big boy and can look after himself.  If anyone calls him names ,
>>1)why should he care
>>2)If he does care then he can strike the personn down with a lightening bolt or
>>whatever.

>People who pass laws against blasphemy and other 'immoral' acts are
>the people who tend to equate "allowing x" with "condoning/supporting x".

>>Conclusion:
>>Blasphemy laws are wrong and evil etc....

>Ah, but we atheists don't believe in absolute wrongness or evil! ;-)
Ah but, If you agree with my argueing that they are unnecessary, then it is
obvious that a not needed law is a bad one.  Just think if the ten commandments
had a law which said "thou shalt not watch television" .  It is an unnecessary
law 'cos there was no television.  So that woudl have been a bad law.  And how
would televangelists do there work :-)

>--
>_/_/_/  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


Graeme,

{---    T.G.Nattress@uk.ac.ncl -----------------------------------------}
{--------------------------------- The Moral of this story is: ---------}
{---    Never trust a Venusian Floghorn with a Perigosto Stick. --------}
{-----------------------------------------------------------------------}
From: yohan@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: HERETICS
Date: 19 Nov 1992 15:22:23 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kitty.ksu.ksu.edu


From: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
I repeat -- there are relatively few such people. Ignore them. Attempting to 
dispense with freedom of religion will get you nothing. It exists for a 
purpose. Without it, atheists would be far more likely to be descriminated 
against than Christian fundamentalists.


Me:
Your first two sentences are wrong, while the remainder are right on the money. 
To ignore a group, no matter how small, for hurting a segment of society (no
matter how small) on the basis of religious freedom is doing more harm than good.
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.  

In the case of the original post, the crime was fraud by faith healers.  They
should have no more immunity to the law than a murderer who claims that the devil
told him to blow up a pre-school.  You have to weigh the freedoms lost vs. the
freedoms gained, just as you do when making ANY law.  No law is without its
disadvantages.


Jon Newton
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 06:44:20 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: alt.atheism

In article <1992Nov18.173637.23791@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes: 
> >In article <1992Nov16.174430.2817@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
> >On the other hand, you can't prove that I'm not Jehovah.

> 	If you were Jehovah, then you needn't use computer to tell me 
> 	that. 

I'm curious -- what's the secret handshake? Or do you
somehow meet spiritually somewhere in an inner plane? Curious
minds want to know...

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
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 05:25:48 GMT

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".

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

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: God Is Unfair (?)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 21:30:58 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

In article <1992Nov16.044329.23835@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov16.021013.31538@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
|> >Unfortunately, different Jewish commentators resolve these inconsistencies
|> >in inconsistent ways.  This provides fruit for an entire new layer of
|> >scholarship and commentary.  In that respect there's a difference between
|> >Jewish tradition and, for example, Christian tradition.  In Christian
|> >tradition, where right belief is critical, and the fate of your immortal
|> >soul depends on it, it's very important to get the credo, and the
|> >Christology, and all that metaphysical stuff *right*.
...
|> We started out with an ordinary contradiction: God is supposed to be just, but
|> at face value this story says otherwise.  We resolve it by saying that the
|> true lesson is that one should question even God.
|> 
|> But this gives us _another_ contradiction.  I'm not supposed to question God
|> elsewhere; instead, I'm supposed to assume that God, who knows all, has a
|> reason even if I don't understand it.  This contradiction really isn't like
|> the first one.  For one thing, it affects my actions as well as my beliefs--if
|> I decide to 'question God' on the issue of keeping kosher, that means my
|> actions will differ from what Jewish law commands.  [Yes, I'm Jewish.]
|> 
|> God isn't going to tell me when to question him; that's the whole point of
|> wanting me to question him on my own.  Only I don't have the faintest idea
|> when I'm supposed to do so.

Well I agree that it isn't easy.  There are some religions which
give some simplistic answer like "trust Jesus" or "trust the Bible".
If you seek instant salvation or even instant advice, Judaism
isn't the answer.  Of course you can fall back on the
customs of generations and the lessons of the sages, but
you always have to wonder how to extrapolate the old
ways to the new times.  There's no substitute for
study, soul-searching, and, as Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe
would say "intelligence guided by experience".

And as you know, there is division on precisely such things
as keeping kosher.  Orthodox and Conservative tend to
believe that keeping kosher is still required; Reform
tend to believe that it isn't.  And of course even
the definition of "keeping kosher" can't just be taken
from the Bible --- you need the Talmud, commentaries, etc.

So I agree with you that it's not always clear what to do.

But I disagree about the lesson about arguing with God.
God is like an upper bound:  if it's OK to argue with
God on a matter of principle, then it's OK to argue
with *anyone* --- your boss, your President, etc.  It
means don't be passive in the face of injustice.
Of course, it doesn't mean that you can do what
you please and argue for it.

But if God told me to destroy Amalek, I would argue.
 
-- 
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
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Darwin on Trial
Keywords: darwin evolution fundamentalist false
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 19:04:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.153554.1280@mercury.unt.edu> jackson@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Bruce Jackson) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.062603.7927@news.uiowa.edu> cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu (Corey D Minter) writes:
>
>>    He says at one point, "... Professor William Provine, a leading historian
>>of science.  Provine insists that the conflict between science and religion
>>is inescapable, to the extent tha persons who manage to retain religious
>>beliefs while accepting evolutionary biology 'have to check [their] brains at
>>the church-house door.' "  (p.124)
>>    Now, I would agree with the Proffessor that to understand evolutionary
>>biology means that you need to dismiss the supernatural entity business.  I
>>don't think they can coexist.  What do you say?
>
>The principal of dualism can be called on to avoid this type of conflict.
>One type of dualism states that there can be religious "truths" and
>scientific "truths" and that they do not have to be reconciled.

Pinning the name "dualism" on the phenomenon of checking your brain
at the church-house door doesn't go a long ways towards shedding
any light on it.  The term "cognitive dissonance" already exists
to explain what is happening.

>I'd refer you to a book on dualism but all of the books I've read
>have only mentioned dualism in passing.  Since I've never been that
>interested in dualism I havn't investigated it further.

Very wise, IMO.
--
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: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Circumcision (was Re: God Is Unfair)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:01:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b63519.student.cwru.edu

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.

Not a good comparision -- having one's ears pierced is a painless operation, 
as opposed to circumcision.
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
| Damien Neil | dpn2@po.cwru.edu | Case Western Reserve University |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
From: T.G.Nattress@newcastle.ac.uk (Graeme Nattress)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A victimless crime (was Re: Blasphemy??)
Date: 23 Nov 92 11:02:23 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:

>In article <By0FFF.KJs@newcastle.ac.uk> T.G.Nattress@newcastle.ac.uk (Graeme Nattress) writes:
>>jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
>>
>>>Blasphemy laws protect their belief not their god.
>>>It is analogous to children who cover their ears and sing "I can't hear you,
>>>I can't hear you" when they want to ignore someone, only they use the authority
>>>of the government to keep them from hearing impure ideas.
>>
>>>Jim Copeland
>>
>>But, any belief that can't respond or face up to open unimpeded critiscism is
>>not worth having.  Alt.atheism is an open forum for debating such things and no
>>one will do anthng nasty to another becuase of dissagreement over beliefs or
>>not.
>[chop-chop]

>>b)  Is atheism an impure idea?  I think that you implied such from your last
>>comment. I would think that it is very pure as it has no internal
>>contradictions unlike christianity for example...  Surely this makes religions
>>impure....
>>
>>c) Above all, if a belief is a good one, it don't need protecting by law.
>>
>>Graeme,

>You may not have seen any of my other posts to this group, so you may not
>recognize that my .sig is a biting joke.

I did sort of guess that, but I thought I'd treat what you'd wrote as a good
example of what a fundie would say.

>I also thought that my renaming the subject to "a victimless crime" gave
>an indication of my feelings towards blasphemy.

>In other words, I agree with you completely.

>Jim Copeland
>--

>What we really need to do to bring peace to the middle-east
>is to get the Jews together with the Muslims
>and teach them to act like good Christians.
Thanks,

Graeme,
{---    T.G.Nattress@uk.ac.ncl -----------------------------------------}
{--------------------------------- The Moral of this story is: ---------}
{---    Never trust a Venusian Floghorn with a Perigosto Stick. --------}
{-----------------------------------------------------------------------}
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Adam and Eve and Bellybuttons
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:17:53 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64746.student.cwru.edu

In article <jking.722142929@syzygy> jking@socs.uts.edu.au (smathy werp) writes:
>
>>	What I want to know is:  Did Adam or Eve have bellybuttons?
>>	And if so, Why?
>
>andrew ..
>	and MORE to the point .. IF women were created AFTER men .. why
>	do men have nipples ?? *8^)

	Then, the nipple was origionally male. As the female was created, 
and she had to nurse the children she'll bear, the nipple offered a 
conviencient local for placing the "spicket". After all, if the "spicket" 
was on her back, she'll be less able to hold the baby while suckling.
From: T.G.Nattress@newcastle.ac.uk (Graeme Nattress)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: REAL Gods
Date: 18 Nov 92 11:45:34 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Misquamicus) writes:

>>
>>I nominate the following individuals as God. I submit that
>>they are FAR BETTER Gods than any other God that have ever
>>been put forth. I can think of THOUSANDS more than the ones
>>I've listed below, that are FAR more worthy of worship than
>>any religion's deity:
>>
>>1) Larry Niven
>>2) Isack Assimov
>>3) Madam Curie
>>4) Louis Pasture
>>5) Motzart
>>6) Max Plank
>>7) Einstein
>>8) Stephen R. Donaldson
>>9) Louis LaMour
>>A) Frank Herbert
>>B) Shakespear
>>C) Reba McEntire
>>D) Ghandi
>>E) Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
>>F) Mae West
>>G) Susan B. Anthony
>>
>>No doubt you can think of more.

>I prefer CHTULHU myself. Much more honest than Jehovah or the rest...
>-Misquamicus
And add perhaps

H) Stephen Hawking
I) Robert Heinline
J) Mr. Mandelbrot

etc..

Graeme,


{---    T.G.Nattress@uk.ac.ncl -----------------------------------------}
{--------------------------------- The Moral of this story is: ---------}
{---    Never trust a Venusian Floghorn with a Perigosto Stick. --------}
{-----------------------------------------------------------------------}
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Accuracy of Texts
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:53:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.210159.5139@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes: >
>Erik Powers writes: >>
>>This is a settled issue.  Comparison between the Dead Sea Scrolls, the
>>current Masoretic text, and the Septuagint (an ancient translation) show
>>that transmission of the text, at least from NT times to the present, has
>>been incredibly accurate.  Ditto for the NT.
>
>Charley, I don't know if you are naive or deliberately prevaricating,
>but your comment is out-and-out false.  First of all, the Dead Sea
>Scrolls were only recently released.  Part of the reason they were
>not is because they *contradict* a number of current Biblical
>construction, and are more in line with the Gnostic Gospels.  It was
>because of this contradiction that such a tight lid was kept on the
>Dead Sea Scrolls, and, if not for a single person's act of willfully
>disseminating the Scrolls (when told not to do so), no one would
>have had this information.
This is basically garbage.
1) Much of the DSS was released years ago. You can pick it up in any
decent bookstore. The books have titles like "The Dead Sea Scrolls
in English."
2) The DSS reflects a viewpoint of Apocalyptic eschatology. As far as
I know, they don't really contradict anything in the Bible. The
OT texts are quite similar to the MT, although I hear that the Isaiah scroll
is somewhat different.
3) The DSS is not really in line with the Gnostic Texts at all. This
is not surprising, considering that real Gnosticism developed
many years later. (Compare say the War Scroll to The Gospel of Truth).
4) The reason that the portions of DSS which were  not released
were not released is, as far as I can tell, that they were fragmentary
and therefore took much longer than anticipated to translate. This is not
an excuse in and of itself, but combined with a series of academic turf
wars, it managed to prevent release. The conspiracy theories are, to
my knowledge, completely unfounded. It's a simple matter of the
race to publish and academic territorialism.

-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."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:58:12 GMT

In article <1e6qqfINN39m@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>, starr-daniel@yale.edu (Daniel Starr) writes:
>2.  I'm not sure what is meant by "world views conforming".  If one means
>"eliminating contradictions" -- a God about whom there are no testable
>predictions is equivalently a God whose doings do not affect science.

It seems you understand what I've been trying to say.  I'll try to explain
what I mean by "world views conforming."  If I demand that a scientific world
view conform to some religious world view, what I mean is that the results of
science must agree with my religious beliefs; religion is set up as a judge
over science.  Demanding that a religious world view conform to a scientific
world view is to set up science as the judge of religion.  The Vatican
demanded Galileo's views conform to their religious views (I know there is
some dispute on this) which was wrong.  To do the opposite is equally wrong.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

	"But God demonstrates His	"I tell you that in the same way,
	 own love for us, in that	 there will be more joy in heaven
	 while we were yet sinners,	 over one sinner who repents, than
	 Christ died for us."		 over ninety-nine righteous persons
					 who need no repentance." 
		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Luke 15:7 [NASB]
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:24:35 GMT

In article <ednclark.722219787@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>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?
>
>>Frank Pinto
>
>It is extremely unlikely that Isaac would write a book showing any
>discrepencies with the Bible as unfortunately the late man was a christian
>(though not a fundie).
>

Excuse me?  He was most definitely *not* a christian.  He was a Jew,
although non-practicing, and I'm almost 100% certain that he was
an atheist.  I won't say I'm positive because I don't have any
references handy.


--
====
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Help
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:00:53 GMT

In article <62131@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>Eric Rescorla writes:
>
>>I guess not. But I'm pretty doubtful that the events you call "proof"
>>ever happened at all. And you don't seem to be able to prove that
>>they did, or to make ones like them happen again.
>Your doubt doesn't carry a whole lot of weight, nor your insistence on
>miracles on demand.  If you found a skeptic who was converted, would you
>believe him instead?  I do not believe so.  Your standards for witnesses
>here are absurdly high.
On the contrary.  Witnesses are known to be unreliable. Photographic
evidence would be just fine. Why is it that those who make such claims
are unable to present it? Isn't it amazing how all those people have
seen Big Foot, but noone has a picture?

You are correct in that I would not trust I converted
skeptic, but I fail to see the relevance of that. The fundamental principle
of scientific investigation is repeatability of phenomena. Note that
this is even for phenomena which are a member of a general class of phenomena
which are known to exist. Since the sort of miracle that is being claimed
here is not known to exist, it takes even more evidence. I believe the
phrase is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

-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."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism