HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: D.J.Butcher@newcastle.ac.uk (Dave Butcher)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Dead Sea Scrolls
Date: 1 Sep 92 12:35:12 GMT
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU.


Here follows a translated section of the Dead Sea Scrolls, as printed in
the Independent (Tuesday 1 September 1992)

--

'The son of God he will be proclaimed and the son of the Most High they
will call him.  Like the sparks of the vision, so will be their kingdom.
They will reign for years on the Earth and they will trample all.  People
will trample people and one province another province, until the people
of God will arise and all will rest from the sword.  Their kingdom will be
an eternal kingdom and all their path will be in truth.  They will judge
the earth in truth and all will make peace.  The sword will cease from the
earth, and all the provinces will pay homage to them.  The Great God is
their helper.  He will wage war for them.  He will give peoples into their
hands and all of [the peoples] he will cast before [the people of God].
Their dominion will be an eternal dominion and all their boundaries of...
[ the fragment ends here ].

--

"According to a theory of Davbid Flusser, a former professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem the person is the Anti-Christ, a mythical ruler
of the pagan world"

The fragment is tentatively dated first century BC.

For more read the article, perhaps someone has the time to post the whole
thing.

The basic premise of the article is that Jesus is not unique in being described
as the son of God, ie he isn`t the 'Only Son of God'

--
This don't even represent my opinions, I think, I'm not really sure...
David Butcher - n0404@ncl.ac.uk
--
"Just because I'm holding a gun to your head doesn`t mean I'm a bad person, 
right"-
"Uh.. Yeah.. I'll go along with that.."
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?
Date: 27 Aug 92 00:29:11 GMT
Organization: Society For Feeding Christians to the Lions

In article <1992Aug26.185419.22227@meaddata.com> joyce@meaddata.com writes:
>Ok, everyone, due to the numerous responses to my post, I've changed
>my mind and decided to re-visit this newsgroup. Responses also do not
>need to be e-mailed to me, I just find that I'm repeating myself a lot
>in responding to people individually. So I've decided to save myself
>time and just post and also to explain the arguments I have obtained
>in greater depth than I have in my previous posting.

Actually all you've done is provide quotations from people who
agree with you; you proved absolutely nothing.  Why don't you
respond to the issues raised from your previous posting instead?
That would be far more helpful than this new one.

>William Lecky, one of Great Britain's most noted historians and a
>dedicated opponent of organized Christianity, writes: "It was reserved
>for Christianity to present to the world an ideal character which
>through all the changes of eighteen centuries has inspired the hearts
>of men with an impassioned love; has shown itself capable of acting on
>all ages, nations, temperaments and conditions; has been not only the
>highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice
>... The simple record of these three short years of active life has
>done more to regenerate and soften mankind than all the disquisitions
>of philosophers and all the exhortations of moralists."

Obviosly neither Lecky nor Joyce have heard of the Inquisition,
the exploitation of Native Americans by the Spanish Missionaries,
the Crusades and their attack on innocent people who had the
misfortunate to be Muslims, Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, or Oral
"Give me $32 Million or God is calling me home" Roberts.

People are people.  There are good Christians and bad Christians,
just like there are good and bad <fill in any type here>s.  I don't
believe Jesus Christ has done much good on their behavior; in fact,
there have been some horrible acts perpetrated in his name.

The Buddha has had a much better influence, if we must talk comparative
goodness here.

>--------------To be continued--------------------------------------

Instead, why don't you respond to all the problems with your
earlier post.  This new one only compounds the sin.

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: LIFE GOES ON UNTIL YOU DIE
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 00:38:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.201510.25086@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
>>You are anthropomorphisizing electro-chemical reactions.
>
>oh, no, a Reductionist. Take dagger. Throw.

Is this a Buddhist mantra or what?  What's wrong with being a
Reductionist?

>Your mistaken interpretation of "possess", above, has led you to this
>inference. I'm not anthropomorphizing, but _you_ are reducing
>something timeless and unfathomably complex to a few sketches on
>already-yellowing graph paper.

What is so unfathomingly complex about life?

>Would you call yourself a scientist,
>or scientifically enlightened? Your characteristically-youthful
>clinging to holy mantram like "electro-chemical reaction" would belie
>any such claim. 

Ah, there's that accusation of youthfulness again.  I believe Torkel
Franken (sp?) was tossing around similar accusations a day or two ago.
It saddens me.  It is yet another instance of our Wise Ones teaching
our youth to look at the world through the same blurry glasses that they
wear.  We can't possibly be scientifically enlightened unless we fill
our brains with mystic fog.  Perhaps this is why scientists tend to
do their best work while they are young.  Perhaps it's inevitable that
the fog gets us all in the end, and good science becomes difficult
after that.  (BTW, I'm in my mid thirties, so I guess I don't qualify
as young.  Just unenlightened I suppose)

>>Fear: an unpleasant often strong emotion caused by anticipation of
>>awareness of danger.
>>A little fear is healthy.  A lot of fear is dangerous.
>
>um, so what are you saying? That living your whole life in a
>constant, albeit low level of fear is somehow healthy? I don't quite
>see how your response addresses my previous remark.  

I don't know whether the fear is healthy or not, but I do know that
once I stop feeling it, the fog will have won.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: frisinv@alleg.edu
Subject: A question
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:42:03 GMT

   I have a question for atheists, but first a disclaimer. Yes, this was  
inspired by that incredibly obnoxious Survey post (must you poll every  
irrelevant group?), but my intentions are a bit different. I am a writer  
and part-time philosopher just loves to learn more about folks who  
disagree with me (I'm a nasty theist). If you are so foolish as to believe  
I have the slightest interest in converting you, DON'T FEEL SO SPECIAL!!!
  
The question:
	You die. Oops, you were wrong and there is a god (or more that one  
god or some goddesses or a giant carrot with divine powers...). You were a  
nice guy during your life so this being asks you to join it in heaven. Now  
a day heaven consists mostly of information exchange, practicing various  
artforms and sciences, and lotsa philosophizing on whatever the topic of  
intrest is that day. If your lucky, you might get build a new universe or  
two. Would you accept the invitation even though you spent your life in  
the firm belief that such a place exists (the alterative is to cease to  
exist. Not out of spite, there just isn't an alterative existance)? This  
may sound like a stupid question, but I've gotten very diverse answers  
among my atheist friends.

Again, if you think I'm have any interest in converting you, you're having  
delusions of grandeur! (I include this because I got flamed as a fundie  
the last time I tried to poll you guys.)

-----
Vincent Frisina the Nasty Little Theist Who Likes To Learn New Stuff From  
Those Evil, HellBound Atheists -:)
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Contents of the 'Death Sea Scrolls': claim by Australian scientist
Date: 30 Aug 92 04:47:53 GMT
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney

(Tim O'Neill) writes:
>That about sums it up pretty well Peter. Her entire thesis rests on 
>the idea that the scrolls were written about two hundred years earlier
>than they seem to have been. Thiering has some flawed arguments against
>the accepted paleographical dating, some circular arguments against the
>dating from historical references in the scrolls and she handles the
>recent carbon dating of the scrolls (which confirms the consensus
>position and trashes her ideas) by simply ignoring it. She is a lady
>of little or no credibility.

While I have no comment about Dr Thiering's work, I suggest that Tim you
know very little about carbon dating (or you are making up things). The
carbon dating does not "confirm the consensus position" because the
carbon dating does not give an exact date, it gives a range of dates.
Both Dr Thiering's dates and the dates of the consensus position fall
within this range. 

The dangers of believing things you hear because they are palatable (or
the alternatives unpalatable!) ...

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: In the Infinite Universe
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<exukjb.108.715039120@exu.ericsson.se>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 03:36:59 GMT

In article <exukjb.108.715039120@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se
 (ken bell) writes:

   >Here's an apriori argument for the impossibility of infinite magnitudes. 
   >If an infinite magnitude were possible, then it must be possible for 
   >there to be a greatest number.  But there can't be a greatest number.  
   >Hence, there can't be an infinite magnitude.

  Your argument strikes me as incomplete. How do you derive from the assumption
that an infinite magnitude is possible that it must be possible for there to
be a greatest number?
From: tino@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (allen.j.tino)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: god is not relevant
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:05:28 GMT
Organization: AT&T

Since my previous post was garbled, I'll try again....

From article <1992Sep02.193850.1579@bnr.ca>, by ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge):
> I've been spending way too much time thinking about what i believe and why.
> I've been especially concerned with the distinction between not believing
> that god exists and believing that god does not exist.  I started from
> not believing in the existence of god, but i've come to the conclusion that
> the god is simply not relevant.  So what difference does it make if he/she/it
> exists or not?
> 
> Now, is it reasonable to call oneself an "atheist" if one's position is that
> god is not relevant?  I don't think that "agnostic" is correct, since if god
> is not relevant then the question of god's existence is also not relevant.
> Is this atheism, and if not then what is it?
> 
> Or is god relevant?  If so, how and why?  What's he/she/it needed for?

I use "atheist" to refer to someone who rejects (dis-believes)
the existence of god, regardless of why.  This is separate from the
issue of whether god is relevant or not.  (Relevant for what purpose?
Even if there was a god, would I care?)

A distinction must be drawn between just lacking a belief and actively
disbelieving a belief.  If atheism means just the lack of a belief in
god, then my friend's month-old baby and cat are both atheists since
they certainly lack a belief in god.  That definition would make the
term pretty useless. 

This is not to say that disbelief in god is the same as belief that
god does not exist.  Someone who believes that god does not exist
would be an atheist, but the converse does not follow.
_______
Al Tino
tino@globe2.ATT.COM

> -- 
> allen@well.sf.ca.us                Allen B. Ethridge
> ethridge@bnr.ca                    Bell-Northern Research, Inc.
> my opinions are my own             Richardson, Texas
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: What if there were a god after all? (Was: A question)
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:07:52 GMT

tony@mantis.co.uk (Tony Lezard) writes:
: frisinv@alleg.edu writes:
: 
: > [Implores us not to take this as a preaching post. Ok.]
: > 
: > 	You die. Oops, you were wrong and there is a god (or more that one  
: > god or some goddesses or a giant carrot with divine powers...). You were a  
: > nice guy during your life so this being asks you to join it in heaven. Now  
: > a day heaven consists mostly of information exchange, practicing various  
: > artforms and sciences, and lotsa philosophizing on whatever the topic of  
: > intrest is that day. If your lucky, you might get build a new universe or  
: > two. Would you accept the invitation even though you spent your life in  
: > the firm belief that such a place exists (the alterative is to cease to  
: > exist. Not out of spite, there just isn't an alterative existance)? This  
: > may sound like a stupid question, but I've gotten very diverse answers  
: > among my atheist friends.
: 
: I think it's a valid question. After all, as we all know from reading
: this group, there's no *proof* either way.
: 
: I'd take up the offer. If the "me" that was being asked the question
: was anything like myself now, then my instinct for self-preservation
: would be intact and it would be suicidal not to accept.

So you step through the gates and fall immediately into the fiery
pit.  "But...But...But",  you babble,  "it looked so nice!"
Then God says, "Oh yea, I forgot to tell you.  That was only 
the prototype." :*)
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
From: 3005904@jeff-lab.queensu.ca (Colleen Davis (Dexter))
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God posts again
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:10:53 GMT
Organization: Antipodean Association

In article <tkcn=h_@lynx.unm.edu>, bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
> 
> Colleen, your comment is not that original...I remember when it was
> first made in this group.
> 
> I can't recall the name of the person who first proposed it, but my
> response was that he couldn't be god because I was...so there!  Nyahh!
> 
> And we actually got Jim B. involved in this (which is why he is
> calling you a fool...most probably because he felt foolish trying to
> debate why we couldn't be gods).
> 
> -- 
> Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
> bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
> 
No, it certainly isn't original, nor, I believe, did it first 
appear on alt.atheism.  However, it is still a good demonstration
of the futility of trying to convert atheists to <x> religion.
So far, even Joyce can't seem to prove me wrong...

colleen (God until proved otherwise)
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: LIFE GOES ON UNTIL YOU DIE
Date: 26 Aug 92 00:08:05 GMT
Organization: University of South Australia

In article <1992Aug24.080325.526@maths.tcd.ie>, djohn@maths.tcd.ie (Derek John) writes:
> 
> I'm interested to know how atheists cope with death.If youre like me
> and believe that death means the total extinction of consciousness
> how do you cope with it?I mean it scares the shit out of me to think
> that in say 40 or 50 years time (maybe tomorrow) I am going to cease 
> to exist in the most final and irreversible sense,and that ultimately
> if you pursue atheism to its logical conclusion life becomes ultimately
> futile,meaningless and insignificant.This is something I just cant come
> to terms with and so most of the time I try not to think about it.
> I would be very interested to hear other peoples views on this.
>                      
My .sig says it all.
Since there is no 'meaning of life' (it's just a series of chemical reactions),
your best bet is to do whatever you like with it. You will find that you like
it better if you follow this simple idea: Do anything you like provided it does
not deprive others of this same right. This is the basis of all laws that
are truly just. Others are from religious bullshit, eg nudity. 'Uncivilised'
natives don't have any qualms over this. Indeed, you can make love on a public
lawn in some Europena countries, especially the Scandanavian ones. They have no
social complexes about this. I could go on, talking about France's low
alcoholism or how the states with easiest access to guns have the lowest
violent crime rates etc.
Just ignore religion, and live your life to the fullest.
-- 
John McVey, Whyalla campus, Uni S.Australia
Enic Eng Student & Terror Tekkie G1 (at 19!)
9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au, or try
9051467f@wh.whyalla.unisa.edu.au

Those who believe in an afterlife will not be disappointed.
				--me.
'An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.'
   				--Don Marquis
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: Tim.ONeill@utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: A Critique of Barbara Thiering's 'Jesus the man'
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 03:45:03 GMT

I promised to post something on Thiering's book a long time ago,
and never got around to doing it. For those who have expressed
interest, a copy of the talk I gave on the subject to the 
Tasmanian Branch of the Australian Skeptics last month 
is available from me via E-Mail (It's a bit long to post in full).
Sorry about the delay.
Cheers,
Tim O'Neill
Tasmanian Devil
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:15863 alt.politics.bush:2907 alt.politics.clinton:3002 soc.motss:36977
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,soc.motss
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 26 Aug 92 08:14:51 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Aug24.204716.15720@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> mayne@cs.fsu.edu writes:

>I doubt that, though it is true that in the past the christian church
>endorsed slavery (with a very case built on the Bible),

	In fairness, there were churches on _both_ sides of the issue.

condemned lending
>money for interest,

	That was during the Middle Ages, when the Church was a big
landowner, and did not like having to pay interest on debts. The early
Protestants got a lot of support from businessmen, and thus revoked
this prohibition. The Catholic Church eventually followed.

	High moral principle? No. Economic self-interest? Yes.

/Loren
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:16502 talk.religion.misc:15574 sci.skeptic:15882 alt.religion.kibology:3691
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.religion.kibology
Subject: Re: Pythagorean Reform Church
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:33:51 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <Bu0BxD.JG3@world.std.com>, entropy@world.std.com (Lawrence C Foard) writes:
> I have a wonderful message to bring to the world!
> 
> Last night the number 4 came to me in a dream and told me that I
> must bring the pythagorean Gospel to the world!
> 
> The number 4 said that the message must be spread throughout the
> whole of the world, passed out in Airports, in Harvard Square
> and on the internet. The number 4 was saddened to see that the
> world has reverted to eating BEANS, and belief in false numbers!
> 
> With the divine guidance of 4 I am starting the Pythagorean Reform
> church to spread the Gospel far and wide. With the guidance of 4
> I hope we can soon bring the message to the world over the PBN
> (Pythagorean Broadcasting Network).
>

This is FALSE and UNTRUE! You are obviously under the INFLUENCE of the EVIL
number SQUARE ROOT OF 2!  The TRUE Pythagorean Faith was revealed to me
and 256 of my followers by the DIVINE DODECAHEDRON on December 12, at 
midnight, 1991. 

With the AID and GUIDANCE of this divine HELPER, I have brought forth into
this age a NEW DISPENSATION of PYTHAGOREANISM!!!!

My BOOK is titled :"144 PROOFS THAT THE DIVINE DOECAHEDRON CREATED THE EARTH
IN 12 DAYS - with sundry HERESIES REFUTED!!!!" 

(only $12.12 for a copy!! order now!!)

REJECT the APOSTATE "REFORM" Church!!

The Pythagorean Church NEEDS NO REFORM, having been RESTORED in its FULLNESS
by the DIVINE DODECAHEDRON!!!
    
> -- 
> ----          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!         ----
> \  /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers        \  /
>  \/   and bean eating ways. Accept the #4 into your heart! \/
>      Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568        
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
       !!     servants of the EVIL ONE, Square Root of 2!!!!
___________________________________________

      *  Join the Restored Pythagorean Unreformed Church!
      * Repent of your evil apostasies and bean eating ways!
      * Reject the number 4! Worship the DIVINE DODECAHEDRON, just like
	the Good old days!!
      * Just send a LOVE OFFERING (any amount - but NO irrational amounts!)
      *	to hartigan@ac.dal.ca, PROPHET of D.D. in this degenerate age
From: nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: FAQ please
Date: 2 Sep 92 09:13:53 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.


How do you get hold of the FAQ?  I think I need to do some basic homework
before I go any further :-)

-Norman
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Skinner's statements do not jibe with the facts
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 01:58:43 GMT

In article <+5cn!_r.madhaus@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>
>Here is proof positive that Mr. Skinner is wasting our time.  He
>has no interst in authorities written by humans, only those purported
>to be from the Mind of God.
>
>And here is my proof of this statement.  Mr. Skinner misuses the word
>"jibe" and others challenge his usage.

To be fair to Gregg, I should point out that it was I who first used
the word "jive."  But Gregg made me do it. :-)

>Twice he is corrected.  Instead 
>of turning to an authority, he reasserts his incorrect usage.

This much appears to be true.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.pagan,alt.religion.emacs,rec.games.frp,sci.physics,soc.motss,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage
From: goldman@orac.CRAY.COM (Matthew D. Goldman)
Subject: Re: Where it came from (was Re: Survey)
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 1 Sep 92 09:45:49 CDT

In article <STDKAP1.92Aug29160913@icarus.spc.uchicago.edu> stdkap1@icarus.spc.uchicago.edu (Dietrich Kappe) writes:
>>When you die, where will you go?  (in the ground is not a valid answer)
>
>The answer is obvious. You go in the background.

Naah, just catch the signals and ignore them!  Unix even has undead
processes...

-- 
Matthew Goldman          E-mail: goldman@orac.cray.com
Fax: (612) 683-3099                 Work: (612) 683-3061
"There is nothing wrong with the software that rm won't cure."
		-Arnie Romo