HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 21 Nov 92 01:20:34 EST
 <1992Nov19.184936.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> <1992Nov20.223514.15873@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Nov20.223514.15873@midway.uchicago.edu>, hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
> In article <1992Nov19.184936.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>>
>>   Well, there's this guy in talk.origins who says that all living things,
>>including viruses, have souls :-)
> 
> I see the Smiley, but I'm still curious: why is he sure viruses are "living"?

   I don't know, he hasn't given a real answer.  He's a Hare Krishna
and he got started in the group saying that all living things have
consciousness, then later said that the reason viruses are alive
is because they have consciousness.  So far I've gathered 18 points
on the talk.origins scoring system for an unanswered question and a
circular argument.

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21597 talk.abortion:48719
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 20 Nov 92 03:07:12 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Nov19.160202.10439@zeus.franklin.edu> scruggs@zeus.franklin.edu (Kevin Scruggs) writes:
>In article <adams.722185897@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>
>>A (minor) nit...Lutherans are catholic.  And so are Eastern & Greek
>>Orthodox and Anglicans.
>>
>	Your nit needs to be picked a bit more...
>	Evangelical Lutherans are QUITE protestant...
>	Tho, I do agree the Missouri Synod-varieties are Catholics without a pope...

Excuse me? Just why do you think Evangelical Lutherans are 'quite Protestant?'


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:12:12 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Nov23.172155.15183@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> 
> >Perhaps it might be more reasonable to say "a morally sound person
> >acknowledges an error if it is pointed out to him and if he
> >recognizes it as an error".
> 
> Yes, this is my charge against him stated explicitly (before now there
> had been no reason to state the charge in such detail, for the
> discussion had moved in a different direction).
> 
> I believe Mr. Sandvik meets the explicit criteria.  That he recognized
> his error can be established from the following.  He has knowledge of
> hardware design, and thus understands truth tables.  I posted a truth
> table to demonstrate the difference between (~p -> q) and the logical
> inverse.  After he saw it he began to refer to propositional logic as
> "special knowledge" that he did not have.  Something happened to cause
> a change in his perception of his logic skills.  That something was
> recognition of his error.

I admit I didn't have the necessary background information when
I tried to go down the path of logically showing that Mr. Skinner'
statement was logically unsound. Actually, the problem was 
really related to the fact that the assumption itself was 
flawed, and it lead to disorder when I tried to logically show
that something broken was broken indeed. This is what I explained
to him in a private email. Now, I can't do much if he suddenly
started a private vendetta against my moral values based on 
things that were not true. I admitted in a private email I was
wrong, but that didn't hinder Mr. Skinner from attacking me yet
again publicly.

> As a result of his participation in this thread, the case that Mr.
> Sandvik recognized his error is more compelling than when we began.
> He wrote, "...he should also state that I in my private email
> conversation with him said that I was wrong in some of my statements
> concerning logic."  It follows that he had recognized his error.

And so I still wonder why you want to start a flame war in a public
forum, instead of working with rational, constructive and creative
comments? There's always something emotional behind such behavior.
 
> I don't mind saying it would be very easy for Mr. Sandvik to nullify
> my argument that he is not morally sound.  He could simply acknowledge
> his earlier logical errors.  That would diffuse my
> refutation-by-example, taking the wind out of my sails entirely.

Once again, I did this in a private email, but that didn't hinder
Mr. Skinner from making an artificial example to launch a
personal attack. You still have the burden of showing that 
I did something immoral, thx.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Date: 16 Nov 92 04:14:03 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Nov15.062731.19383@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
lungtt@gus1.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) wrote:
> In article <ksand-141192162057@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> >
> >As I stated, maximize your chances, and believe in anything if 
> >you want to get to that mythological place called heaven. It does
> >not hurt, either.
> 
> Although I think Kent may mean this sarcastically [correct me if I'm
> wrong], there seems to be a flaw to this suggestion.  i.e. there's 
> one big problem with "trying to maximize your chances" as soon as 
> you run into Christianity or perhaps either of several other religions.
> It's like joining fraternities.  If you *really* get into one,
> it becomes *unrealistic* to simultaneously be in another.  

Well, actually it was ment to be a real advice, if you want to 
maximize your possibilities to enter a possible Heaven, nothing
hinders you to have multiple views of the possibilities, and in 
the same manner people get involved in many fraternities in order
to maximize their chances in the work place, it should be natural
to get as many blessings from various religions.

In other words, if it's *unrealistic* to join many religions, 
maybe we are more dealing with human feelings concerning hostility
towards other religions, actually? What's so heretical about believing
in many things, instead of one?

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: gmiller@worldbank.org (Gene C. Miller)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Secret Society
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: worldbank.org
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:32:34 GMT

In article <21NOV199209222962@acad3.alaska.edu>, ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu
(REDELSS JOHN W) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Nov20.232050.10789@digi.lonestar.org>, gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes...
> 
 > What could this other explanation be?  Is there a secret society
undergirding
> the fundamentalist "born-again" movement?  Are "born-agains" really
> nondenominational?

A wicked thought, but not quite wicked enough. Fundies, while almost all
Protestant--are less monolithic than you might think. They all believe in
biblical inerrancy, but still manage to disagree venomously on what the
Bible is inerrantly saying. For example, I would guess that Bob Jones and
his ilk think that Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Oral Roberts are all
going straight to hell, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Fundamentalism
has a history just like everything else. Some say that the Scopes trial in
1927 was the apotheosis of f'ism. Certainly it was a high water mark in the
f'ist/modernist controversy. That, and the Volstead Act which inaugurated
the era of Prohibition in this country...Gene
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Fingerprint of God
Date: 22 Nov 92 01:18:21 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

What do y'all think of Hugh Ross' _Fingerprint of God_?

Has anyone been able to cast doubt on the findings presented in this
book?

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: phys224@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Subject: Is Satan evil ? part II
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:20:47 GMT

Come on all you fundementalists! i am still waiting for evidence for the evil
nature of Satan vs. the apparently good nature of god.wheres the proof?
the christian god has done so many horrible things,and apparently will 
continue to do so ,if you take the bible literally.it all boils down to the
bible says Satan is evil.but didn't believers write it? I've read mein kampf,
it doesn't convince me there is anything wrong with jews.
If the hold spirit or whatever you want to call it fills you with such wisdom
and knowledge,why can't you give me a rational answer to any of my questions?

My morality is simply based on trying to enjoy life,whilst simultaneously
attempting to make other people happy as well.that automatically draws me
to feminism,atheism,a personal crusade to remove religion if at all possible,
etc.I don't need any super-powerful entity coming along telling me what to do.
who does?He/she/it can naff off,my personal morality is working.
bits of christianty are o.k. or harmless,other bits are crap e.g. the way women
are thought of,the demand for worship,the infinite punishments our ever kind
god inflicts on our species,etc.

If the amazing "beauty" of the universe somehow convinces you a god created
it,how is it possible to believe the cristian god did it,when it is such
a manefestily hideous being?

l.l.a.p.
stephen botha,christchurch,new zealand.
From: bobweiss@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Date: 17 Nov 92 01:46:56 GMT
Organization: UB

lungtt@gus22.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:

>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.  

	Not precisely. The suicide truck bombers were willing
to give their lives for what they believed in. They had no way
of knowing whether or not there was truthful backing for their beliefs.

	However, if the apostles were preaching a lie, they would
have known it; since they were the ones that were bearing testimony
to the resurrection of Jesus. 

[...]

===============================================================================
bob weiss				              bobweiss@acsu.buffalo.edu
From: zobell@lute.mitre.org (Steve Zobell)
Subject: Re: Revised SIQ test
Reply-To: zobell@lute.mitre.org (Steve Zobell)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:49:38 GMT


In article <ZZq5TB2w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>Here is the second edition of the Spiritual Intelligence Test.
>
>After reviewing the grade curve for the first edition, it was decided
>that the test was probably biased against those who have no spiritual
>intelligence. As a result, the test has been made even easier, so that
>those who previously did not know the answers or were unable to
>understand the questions will now find that this is no barrier to their
>receiving a perfect grade. The format of the test has been changed to
>MULTIPLE CHOICE and the student is now invited to issue his own grade.
>
>Please choose one of the letters as your response.
>
>Question 1) What is the soul?
>
>A.
>B.
>C.

Answer: B
Grade: 0% - The correct answer is A. Student has a point, but if he
wears a hat maybe nobody will notice!

>Question 2) What is the purpose of human life?
>
>A.
>B.
>C.

Answer: C
Grade: 3% - C is the correct answer, but someone lacking spiritual
intelligence like the student could not possibly have arrived at a
correct answer.

Overall grade: 1.5% - Student hasen't got a clue!  Typing and thinking
at the same time is beyond the abilities of this one.

Damn, even with a simplified test spiritual morons like myself cannot
get a descent grade!

>End of test.
>
>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)            |
>       -------------------------------------------------------

Oh Wa Tagoo Siam
Oh Wa Tagoo Siam

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21227 alt.atheism:21370
From: dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reader's Digest on prayer: amusing, or scary?
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:32:34 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

In article <1992Nov12.170931.9764@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.140124.1711@newstand.syr.edu> dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov10.143105.22358@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:
>>>gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>>>: 
>>>: Your observations are well taken.  I have nothing against public schools as
>>>: such, or even schools that present a diversity of views.  Unfortunately,
>>>: public schools do not present a diversity of views.  You will not learn any-
>>>: thing there about Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Quakerism, the Bible,
>>>: the Koran, or the Tao te Ching.  The only references are of an historical
>>>: or anthropological point of view.  This is not necessarily a wrong approach
>>>: for some people, perhaps the majority of them.  But it should not be called
>>>: diversity.
>>>
>>>Believe it or not, there are other types of diversity than just the
>>>religious kind.
>>>-- 
>>If you feel that strongly about it maybe they could teach that "stuff"
>>in English Lit. class, you know under the category of fiction.
>>On second thought there is a whole lot of much better fiction available.
>>So it really is a good thing that we don't have to read inferior and often
>>poorly written moralistic claptrap.
>
>I get the feeling that you have never read the Tao te Ching or the
>Baghavad Gita or the Confessions of St. Augustine.  Or for that matter
>Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua, or the Journal of George Fox or even
>the C.S. Lewis's Screwtape Letters.  You may not agree with them but
>I don't think that even someone as skeptical as you could read them
>and characterize them as "poorly written moralistic claptrap".
>
>I may be wrong on this.
>
>Cordially,
>Gerry Palo

You are right, I did not read those particular texts and the first two 
are considered classics in that subject area.  So I do appologize for
comming down so hard on them.  However I did say "often"
and not "all".  My reasons for not reading a lot of religious/moralistic
texts is that I consider them harmful to a healthy mind.  Sort of like
garbage in garbage out.  When I said "poorly written" I was thinking of
things like "God made the world in six days" (Bible), that the world is
3000 years old, etc. things that we know are outright lies.  
I am not adverse to reading texts that are  
philosophical (works by Kant, Aristotle, etc.).  At least there you
work with reason and you don't get sent to hell for disobeying irrational
"laws".  Also being based on reason they can be checked for fallacies,
contradictions, and even compared with other philosophical systems.
Religion on the other hand is set in stone:  God(s) said this, and
that's the way it is, so there.  I also include mysticism with religion
since it deals with uniting yourself with God. 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: My Views
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:18:10 GMT

alanchem@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Alan Scott Olson) writes:
: 
: I totally understand your need to believe, and you have every right to
: do so.  It is just that with my training, and observations over the years,
: I cannot accept the existance of God.  It is a great concept, but it has no
: base in the real world.  There is no _proof_, and that is the key fact.

Your requirement for _proof_ is unreasonable.  You said you're
a scientist.  Name a single scientific principle for which we
have _proof_.  All induction can provide is a degree of confidence,
not absolute knowledge.

: Since then, I've studied both sides, and came to my own decisions.  As a
: scientist, I strive to understand the mysteries and unravel them so the
: truth is evident.  To find the truth, one needs concrete, undeniable
: proof of a fact.

To find the truth, the best we can hope for is reliable, repeatable
observations.  That's not the same thing as concrete, undeniable proof 
of fact.

:  In science, one cannot just state, "I have faith that this
: fact is the truth...therefore so be it".  That is my stumbling block from
: which my non-belief arises.  Nobody can demostrate to me that there is solid
: proof for God's existance, creationism, etc.  Nothing.

"Nobody can demonstrate", or nobody has demonstrated?  There is a big
difference.

: 
: There is proof for evolution.  Therefore, I have no choice.  One side can
: provide proof, and the other cannot.  I'm sure this discussion has been
: beaten to death on this newsgroup, and if so, I apologize.  I just felt the
: need to state my views.  If anyone wants to expand on this disscussion,
: I'm here.  If you have proof, please share it with me.

It is possible to be an atheist and admit the *possibility* that God
(or unicorns for that matter) might exists.  It hasn't stopped me.
-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 16:10:20 GMT

In article <Petch-191192082841@oboe.gvg.tek.com>
Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch) writes:

>It amazes me how people who know very little about the religion they are
>criticizing manage to be so certain about their opinions.

One thing you can take to the bank is that a lot of the people who
disagree with your position know a lot more about Christianity than
you do, and many of them are Christians.

>Being a fundamentalist simply means getting back to the fundamental
>ideas taught in the Bible without embellishing it with present day
>fads, such as the idea that homosexuality is not morally offensive.

Fundamentalism used to refer to a movement which was defined more
specifically than this.  It now refers to a type of religious
mentality which you exhibit, and is often used in a context more
general than Christianity.

Your idea that there are certain fundamentals which are taught in the
Bible which are naively obvious neglects the fact that you bring to
the Bible certain positions by which you evaluate what it says.  The
idea that fundamentalists, however defined, are those who follow what
scriptures say is simply false, as examination of the scriptures in
question and the fundamentalists in question quickly shows.

Like most fundamentalists, you neglect the parts you want to neglect.
The guiding principle of Christian fundamentalism seems to be just the
same as for Moslems or any other kind.  It appears to be to find an
interpretation which will give the security of being *right*, and
therefore approved by God.  It always seems to be the case that this
"rightness" must be demonstrated by contrast to the "wrongness" of
some other class.

In essence, fundamentalists are the kind of people who used to burn
people at the stake, because it really doesn't matter *where* you get
these ideas of rightness and wrongness, and how they are validated,
but it only that you have them.

If anything ought to be self-evident, it is that the teachings of
Jesus are in direct opposition to fundamentalism in the broad sense I
am using.  That people who consider themselves followers of Jesus so
often think in this way is a testament to the great psychological
importance this kind of religious thinking seems to have for some
people.  My person opinion is that if your religion is based on
hatred, intolerance, and unforgiveness its best not to pretend to
yourself that it isn't.


-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lungtt@gus19.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: world, public
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 05:19:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.193525.26954@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>
>Torquemada
>The Spanish Inquisition
>The Crusades
>etc. etc. etc.
>
>I have read of many theistic barbaric destroyers as well.  By your
>logic I could use these examples to dispute the thesis that religion
>leads to morality.  Some would argue, though that these people weren't
>*true* Christians.  These same people will turn around and cite Stalin
>as a "typical" atheist though.  Go figure.

Yep.  You've got a point.  But I guess some would argue further, though
that some of the atheistic barbaric destroyers weren't *true* atheists.
Go figure.  This argument's hopeless in either direction.

I still think morality has a better chance of instituting morality
than absence-of-morality.

Terence
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christmas
Date: 21 Nov 1992 11:34:39 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.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 Christ?

Everyone celebrates Christmas now.  It is a national holiday, no longer
purely religious.  Oh sure, the Churches try to rake in the money, but
most people now ignore any religious significance the holiday once had.
It seems like most religions have a clebration near the solstice anyway...

How do we perceive Jesus' birth?  Well, one way or another, he succeeded
in getting quite a few followers, nowadays.  His birth is significant for
that reason.  But was the pregnancy or birth supernatural?  Nah...

keith

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc