HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.emacs
Subject: Re: Where it came from (was Re: Survey)
Date: 1 Sep 92 11:55:16
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<z+!n1_d.jfh@netcom.com>
	<STDKAP1.92Aug29160913@icarus.spc.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Sep1.094550.1189@walter.cray.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: goldman@orac.CRAY.COM's message of 1 Sep 92 09:45:49 CDT

In article <1992Sep1.094550.1189@walter.cray.com> goldman@orac.CRAY.COM (Matthew D. Goldman) writes:

   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...

Reminds me of the story of someone wearing an old Unix T-shirt in a bar
in Texas.  Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the story...
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
From: bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie (Bryan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (4 of 4)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 23:21:30 GMT

yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:

>Abortion and pornography are too modern for Bible documentation, 
>although nude dancing could probably be included in pornography, and
>it is certainly in the Bible somewhere.

Eric Rescorla pointed out that my original (cancelled) followup
was in error (thanks Ekr).  I meant to cite the Song of Solomon, which
appears in the Song of Songs.  Even this might be wrong, in which case
you are requested to See Figure 1 in true DEC style.  This example
probably comes far too close to "pornography" to be acceptable to
modern-day Biblical literalists/weenies.

	-- Bryan (E&OE)

--
Bryan O'Sullivan                                                 +353-1-767551
Advanced Development Group                               bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie
Department of Computer Science            "No matter how cynical you are, it's
University of Dublin                       hard to keep up." -- Woody Allen
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: In the Infinite Universe
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<1992Aug24.231033.14013@mprgate.mpr.ca>
	<1992Aug25.080155.27593@sics.se> <=1anh+m@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 07:34:55 GMT

In article <=1anh+m@lynx.unm.edu> jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth) writes:

   >Maybe this thread should be redirected to sci.physics.  There are more
   >astro-physicists there that could explain this better.

  It doesn't have anything to do with physics, although you got
that impression from my article. The point, as I explained elsewhere,
was to elicit an elucidation of the nonsensical argument. By the
way, there do exist people, even outside alt.atheism, who hold that
it is not just false but meaningless or a priori refutable that
there are infinitely many atoms in the universe. For example,
there was an article some time ago proving by axiomatic randroid
wisdom that the universe is finite.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Objectivity
Date: 27 Aug 92 00:13:25 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <18339.2a92dc07@levels.unisa.edu.au>,
9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au wrote:
> In article <10176@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine) writes:
> >>What about in a Virtuality virtual reality system?
 
> Virtual reality systems are artificial, positively know to have been
> created by (effectively, that is) gods - us. Hence we make the rules and
> gravity will exist here if we make it so.
> Don't get carried away with yourself here. Nice argument, till that.

This raises an interesting observation. Human cultures have always
had a universe world view based on the current scientific knowledge.
From universes on top of elephants and turtles to the medieval view
of a mechanical clock running above and under us. And during the 
current scientific revolution Big Bang has given us ideas based
on an outside universe creation moment.

Anyway, maybe when we are entering the golden age of Information
sciences we will have new theories about reality and what is happening
behind the curtains. In that sense Virtual reality could provide us
with new insights about what is real and what is not.

Anyway, 100 years from today we have brand new sciences that eventually
could answer these questions more easily than today. This is the curse
of the old religions, they are left behind in the cold due to the 
progress of human thinking.

Cheers,
Kent

---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC? (new vote)
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 15:13:19 GMT

joyce@meaddata.com writes:
>You guys are all mistaken. I don't even own a copy of "Evidence That
>Demands a Verdict."

What do you mean, "mistaken"?  Do you deny that the text you posted is
*identical* to EtDaV?  Are you claiming that what you posted was *your
own* argument, that just happened to be exactly what good-old-Josh
scribbled many years previously!?

joyce: LUNKHEAD, LIAR, or LUNATIC?

I vote for ALL THREE!

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Skinner's statements do not jibe with the facts
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 21:55:22 GMT
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things


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.  Twice he is corrected.  Instead 
of turning to an authority, he reasserts his incorrect usage.  A source
is available to him, but he does not avail himself of it.  Such a source
is commonly known as a "dictionary."  This source describes correct
word usage.  Mr. Skinner, however, considers himself exempt from
the proper use of the English language.

My dictionary lists three definitions for jibe.  The first two are
sailing usages, the third is "to be in accord with; agree."

For jive, it lists: 1. swing music  2.  the jargon of jazz and swing
musicians and devotees  3.  Slang: unintelligible or deceptive talk
4. to play jive 

#3 is a highly appropriate definition for the antics of Mr. Skinner
and his compadres, who will not use logic properly and change the
rules in silly attempts to make their arguments hold water.

I hope this public service alerts you all to the danger of discussing
any topic, no matter how trivial, with the likes of Mr. Skinner.

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

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Preaching in alt.atheism:  Just Say NO!
Date: 2 Sep 92 10:27:35
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<sbuckley.714970082@sfu.ca> <1992Aug28.110921.682@digi.lonestar.org>
	<1992Sep1.213722.9103@tc.fluke.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: emery@tc.fluke.COM's message of Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:37:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.213722.9103@tc.fluke.COM> emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:

   > I am sure that you think that you are doing great service for your
   >god, but please do not continue this preaching here. Why don't you
   >go over to the moslem or another religious newsgroup and talk to
   >people who are already predisposed to believe in non-existant 
   >creatures.

   Perhaps because Stephen is as convinced that God exists as you are
   that He doesn't.

Whether it does or doesn't exist, we're really not interested in
preaching here.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: Paranoid musings on Jesus and the Buddha
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 01:55:42 GMT

torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:

>....According to Conze there are clear indications that
>the authors of the Gospels had been exposed to Buddhist notions -
>perhaps Mike Siemon or somebody knows more about this?

There's some indication of indirect influence on St. Paul, through
Epimenides the Cretan, who was famous for saying "the Cretans are
always liars."  Paul surely knew about Epimenides, for in his letter
to Titus he writes:

     One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are
     always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."  This testimony is
     true.  (Titus 1:12-13)

(If Epimenides spoke the truth when he said Cretans are always liars,
then he, being a Cretan, was also always a liar, so he must have lied
when he said that Cretans are always liars.  So if he told the truth,
he lied.  The Biblical inerrantists ought to address this issue.)

"What does this have to do with Buddhism?" you ask.  Well, legend has
it that Epimenides once journeyed to India, where he met Gautama
Buddha, and asked him the following question:  "What is the best
question that can be asked, and what is the best answer that can be
given?"

To which the Buddha replied, "The best question that can be asked is
the question you have just asked, and the best answer that can be
given is the answer I am now giving."

The influence on early Christianity should be obvious.


Keith
From: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:44:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: keiko.emc.715275858
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University

Anthony Faull (fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za) writes:

>Extract from 'Seal of God' by F.C.Payne (1974):

>BIBLE NUMERICS - FIRST ASPECT

>The New Testament begins with the genealogy of Christ back to
>Abraham. It is interesting to note that this genealogy itself is
>divided into three sets of 14: Abraham to David (14), David to
>Babylon (14), Babylon to Christ (14). See Matt. 1:17. 

Did ever occur to you that 7 was important to the original writers
of the Bible?  You find the seven days of creation, the seven weeks,
the seven holy days, (and amazingly enough, the 14 geneologies), etc.
Other cultures had other numbers that
were important to them, e.g. the Greeks had 3.

>The following now is
>from the Greek, in whick the N.T. is written. The actual numerics are
>by Dr. Panin.
>(standard Numerology follows...)

What  manuscript are you using?  There are a few thousand around each
with different variations on the number of vowels, consonants, and
other numerous copying errors.  Without the original documents, I would
be hard pressed to accept your choice of one among many.

What is listed is standard Numerology.  You will find that it is an
ancient "art" that was used long before the New Testament.  It purports
to extract hidden meaning out of texts.  You will find even more amazing
(or time wasting -- depending on your point of view) stuff with numerology
that the Jews have extracted from the Old Testament.  

Numerology cannot prove God.  At most it says that someone was very
clever in burying these patterns in the text (if you had the original
text).  What it more probably
says is that someone was very clever in pulling them out of the text
with the preconceived notion of seven being important, and ignoring
all of the occurrences of 3,5,9, etc.  I remember a teacher once saying
how amazing it was that 3 was a recurring number in nature and,
with the help of the class proceeded, to pull out hundreds of examples
where 3 could be found.  I was amazed! You can probably do it with
2.

You will find much more of the same garbage in the Scoffield Bible.

--
Eli Chiprout
Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
emc@doe.carleton.ca
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik (Hacker))
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:28:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,soc.motss
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug20.201538.11505@ncsu.edu>, cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu
(CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) wrote:
> I think the whole point of "traditional family values" not including gays
> would be the redefining of the word. As you know, tradional family refers
> to a male-female relationship. With the Liberal approach, tradional family
> would begin to include homosexual relationships which the Republicans (and  myself)
> do not want.

Sigh, another myth that the republicans try to use in order to get votes.
A recent study showed that 25% of the US population falls under the
umbrella
of a 'classical' family (mother-father-child(ren)).

Well, I belong to this group, I'm the most typical family value case 
you should find in this country. I work, my wife is back home taking
care of the child, and we are all blond :-). And I don't subscribe
at all to the narrow view of family values I heard last week. 

Also, we support the notion of the government not messing around 
with how the family should act. This is by the way a very classical
republican notion, in other words the government should not state
rules about families. I sadly note that today's republican party
does no longer follow it's traditional values itself.

In other words, let's keep the government out from the role
of stating 'family values'. Same with religion, the Constitution
should guarantee freedom of choice for individuals, including
families. Each one of us is capable of defining decent family
values. We don't need rules and regulations and even republican
narrow definitions stating what family values are.

Cheers,
Kent
---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Complete proof of Gregg Skinner's dishonesty
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 20:58:26 GMT

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

>In article <BtutJ3.L3n@apollo.hp.com> perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry) writes:
>}In article <7!fn-8_.madhaus@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>}I have to stand by Gregg Skinner here -- I don't think he's done
>}anything dishonest in this thread or elsewhere that I've noted, and I
>}don't think he's the type.

>How about making statements that have a direct logical implication that
>is counter to the rest of his apparent posts?  When directly and repeatedly
>asked about the specific contradiction, he has not given any response.
>Does that count?

I know to what Mr. Meritt refers.  There is no contradiction.  I
presented a hypothetical situation ("Suppose...") in order to suggest
a possibility in a lofty discussion of omnipotence and transmission of
God's will.  For some reason Mr. Meritt took the hypothetical case I
present as a concrete claim.  Then, when I wrote something in an
entirely different thread which was counter to the hypothetical that
Mr. Meritt thought was a claim, he perceived a contradiction.  As the
first was not a claim of mine, there is no contradiction.

Here are the supporting quotatations:

(#>>>me, #>>Mr. Meritt, #>me, #Mr. Meritt)

#>>>Consider a similar scenario for God.  He wants for humans to have free
#>>>will.  Suppose he also wants an accurate Bible, but that conflicts
#>>>with his other want.  He must choose.
#
#>>To one all powerful, why should YOUR (or my) concept of impossible apply?
[...]
#>>Are your limits of imagination your God's limits of capabilities?
#
#>No.
#
#Then why did you claim that it was?  YOU specifically identified something
#that YOU couldn't imagine (declared it impossible) and siad that god couldn't
#do it.

Here is ample evidence here that Mr. Meritt thought I was claiming
something, when I was really presenting a hypothetical possibility
without making any assertion that it represented reality.  I did not
"specifically identify something I couldn't imagine and say that God
couldn't do it."

I presented a hypothetical, not a claim.  My repeated attempts to
clarify this with Mr. Meritt, beginning with my response to the above
post, fell on deaf ears.  I ignored future messages relating to this
"claim" of mine.  As I never made the claim, they did not warrant an
answer.  These messages are what Mr. Meritt refers to when he said
"When directly and repeatedly asked about the specific contradiction,
he has not given any response."  The contradiction relied on the
"claim" Mr. Meritt attributes to me -- a claim I never made.  Thus
there is no contradiction.
--
Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.
From: ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org (Peter Trei)
Subject: Re: Christian USA (was Re: White skin-how did it develope?)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:49:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.142054.22785@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins) writes:

> .......................................... Many of the founding fathers
>of the USA were not Christians at all, but masons and Deists (see quotes
>from Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, etc).

>Scott

      Ho hum, here we go again. 

      Freemasonry is not a religion.  A pre-existing belief in a
monotheistic Deity is a requirement for joining. It is something one
is IN ADDITION to being a Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc.

      While some of the Founding Fathers certainly leant towards
Deism, I don't think any of them would have denied being Christians.

						Peter Trei
						Editor, Masonic Digest
From: nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: assholes
Date: 2 Sep 92 09:11:10 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:
> But for some bag of blood and bones that hasn't lived more than 100 years
> on this blue ball of earth to reject the idea of "god" altogether. . .

I don't reject the idea of "god" altogether.  But before I start to fill
my head with strange ideas I want to see why they are needed.  And I can't
see any need for the idea of "god".  To say that all of the universe is
evidence is a very weak argument: all you do is replace the mystery of the
existence of the universe, which at least we can see and explore, with the
mystery of the existence of something much more mysterious.  Not much of
a bargain.

That's not to say there is no such thing as a god, or unicorns, or the tooth
fairy - but I find these ideas to be confused, nonsensical, and positively
harmful to our understanding of the world we live in.  Worse still, they are
used to justify some of the worst things that people do to each other.

-Norman
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: The universe as "God"
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:47:02 GMT

One Thing I find somewhat interesting is that by many definitions of God the
universe itself could be called God. The laws of the universe don't "think"
in the way we do, but evolution has incredible creative power I'm tempted to
start the church of natural laws & evolution just for fun :-) 

I wonder what a service would look like? 

Healing services:
 Pay a doctor to come in and use the latest technology to treat people
 while the congregation praises the laws that make it possible.

Evangelism:
 Take the wonders of science to the heathen, working "miracles" and
 praising maxwells equations. (I can imagine the look on someones face
 when you hand them a copy of QED in an airport)

Bible study groups:
 Meet every sunday night to discuss the theory of relativity or the
 latest scientific discoveries.

So does any one want to join :-)


-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ydobyns@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (York H. Dobyns)
Subject: Re: A question
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:44:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.080154.308@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>
>> As to you knowing if your friends were gay or not, I had one of the 
>> shocks of my life when my best friend, of 8 years, told me he was
>> gay. I truly had no idea. 
>
>I doubt that any *8 year old* really has any idea either.

This seems to be incredible obtuseness on jbrown's part, but just in case
it's an honest mistake:
	In normal, colloquial English, "My best friend, of 8 years,"
means either "The person who has been my best friend for the past 8
years" or "My best friend, whom I have known for 8 years." It does *not*
mean "My best friend, who is 8 years old" or "My best friend when I was 8."

>Your "notice" of the "gay" community reminds me of Sherlock Holmes
>noticing a flea on his dinner plate using his 5X looking glass.   :)

The gay community exists, and Jim's use of quotation marks above is
a dire insult to every member thereof. What matter if it is 1%, 10%, or
50% of the population? Even the lowest estimate encompasses millions
of individuals in this country alone. Jim: Are you prepared to stand 
in front of a million oppressed individuals and compare them, to their 
faces, with a flea on a plate?

>Regards,
>
>Jim B.

Now I understand why my gay acquaintances keep saying "Silence Equals
Death!"

York Dobyns		ydobyns@phoenix.princeton.edu
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 25 Aug 92 01:34:32 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug21.162258.15081@ncsu.edu>, cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu
(CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) wrote:
> 
> 1) Homosexuality is a choice, consciousness or sub-consciousness. At any rate 
>    can be changed.

Homosexuality is a choice, in the same manner as a religious choice. We
don't push people to become muslims or atheists, or what.

> 2) Homosexuality, as far as I've seen, has never been the issue that it is today.
>    Why hasn't homosexuality been such a debated topic throughout history.

In some ancient cultures it was an accepted fact (Greece). Maybe that's
why it has not been such a debated topic. Also, it seems we are getting
to a historical point of time where the liberties of humans are narrowed
down.

> 3) The Roman Empire was freat and powerful until the extreme moral decay 
>    weakened it.

This has nothing to do with moral decline. Sigh, read any historical
book that analyses the decline of the Roman empire. I've never heard
that homosexuality destroyed the Roman Empire.
 
> 4) Homosexuals were the firing gun for AIDS.

Not originally, we are looking at apes biting people in Africa.

> 5) Looking at the make up of a man and a woman, it is quite apparent that they
>     were made to go together sexually. Not so with male-male or female-female.

Ever heard of hormones?
 
> 7) I doubt very seriously that all the "prejudice" in the world to homo-
>    sexuals is because of Christianity.

Fundamentalist Christianity is one of the strongholds of homophobia.
Check out last weeks Republican convention.

Cheers,
Kent

---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."