HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (NO CARRIER)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.flame
Subject: Re: DOES GOD EXIST? (different from previous posting).
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:56:39 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In article <bosullvn.713978482@unix1.tcd.ie> bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie (Bryan O'Sullivan) writes:
poses the question:

"Does God exist?"

   Well, yes, as a matter of fact he does. He lives in Dartmouth, and often
goes by the name Steve. 

steve

-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 13 Aug 1992 01:41:01 CDT
From: David James Alexander Hanley <U55870@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
 <1992Aug6.104752.6088@maths.tcd.ie> <92220.022411U55870@uicvm.uic.edu>
 <1992Aug11.053433.19983@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>

In article <1992Aug11.053433.19983@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) says:
>
>In article <92220.022411U55870@uicvm.uic.edu> David James Alexander Hanley
><U55870@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>... And why do you think that the implemintation of an
>>outdated, luadible book written by an uneducated insane desert nomad
>>like the koran will be superior to a modern scientific system?
>>
>
>Incidently, the people who didn't believe in Mohamed (PBUH) as
>a prophet of God at his time said that he was insane.

  Gee, evidence that people at the time knew he was insane.  What more
evidence do you need?  Why do you persist in your delusion?

> They
>also said that he was a poet and they asked (like you) why
>this Qur'an was reveiled on a poor "desert nomad" man? all
>this is reported in the Qur'an, so it is not new.  Yet there
>is more than one billion people today following this "insane
>nomad man" including millions of educated and intellectual people.

  If this line of arguement is of any value at all, you should be a
christian, as there are more christians than muslims.  Many, many more
chriatins than muslims have made scientific breakthroughs, therefore
christians must be more intellectual.  Why do you persist in your
delusions?

>The Qur'an does not contradict any proven scientific facts.

  Neither does "The wizard of oz." go worship gelinda now.

>I invite you to read and the Qur'an instead of speaking out of ignorance,
>and then tell me if it could have been "written" by an illiterate

  I read some, enough to see how asinaine it was.

  And you admit he was illeterate yourself.  Whah?

  Also:  It was not written by whats-his-name as-is today, but was
modified since to conform to the wishes of those in power.

>God
>challenges anyone to write even one chapter similar to
>the Qur'an.  The challenge is up today.  In 1500 years nobody
>succeeded, not short of trying though.

  Any you say _I_ make claims from ignorance?  I did read segments of it,
and found it poorly written, asinaine, and morally abhorrent.  There
have been many works since that have shared these qualities.  Do you
really claim to have read all the worls produced in the last 1500
years?  I doubt it.  I severely doubt you have read the texts of
another major religion, and am virtually positive that you have not
done so with an open mind.

  [  I make several observations on the stupidity and barbarism of
the islamic moral system.  These are not answered.  I wonder why?
Allah got your tounge? ]



DAVE!!!
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: priest observes
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:33:38 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu

st1lv@rosie.uh.edu (McLeod, Stephen) writes:

>...Indeed, like Ron Hubbard, if I ever wish to get rich I imagine founding a
>religion would be the easiest way.

Though Hubbard is dead? his "religion" does indeed live.  They call it 
Scientology.
 
-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Subject: Re: A question
Originator: cmgrawbu@c00459-313mn.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:15:38 GMT




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.



Chris
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 02:54:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: world,local

In article <1992Aug20.004028.12597@colorado.edu> bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:

[...]
 
>BTW, if you truly want to pay no taxes, that's possible.  Take a vow of
>poverty and live in a state that doesn't charge sales tax on food or
>medicine.  You'll still get hit by Social Security if you earn _any_
>money, but it isn't a tax.  So it _is_ possible to live with your religion.
>It may not be easy, but that's your problem.

Sorry Bear, but Social Security fails the "duck test" for taxes. It looks
like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and yet you claim that
it is not a duck. Would you care to differentiate between a duck, errr,
taxes and SS?   

[...]
 
>Bear Giles
>bear@fsl.noaa.gov

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: re 28363, Does...(differe.)
Date: 18 Aug 92 07:28:12 GMT
Organization: University of South Australia


This wanker assumes that the radium in question actually came
from a peice of uranium, AND that ura the uranium
he has seen was formed at the saame
time as all other matter. Further still, he assumes
that all matter was formed at the same time. Matter
is continually being created from energy and destroyed (converted
back to energy) in the dense interior of stars. Hence,
the GREAT QUESTION mus actually be :
For how long has ENERGY been in existance?
We athiest scientists do not have all the answers. We
don't even have a clue, but that does not 'prrove' that
the firsat thing that came into the mids of frightned apes
is true.

Tell me, what is your opinion on the exoistance of aliens?
The proof is so fucken visible most people see right thru it
and give a stupid religious answer.
J McVey
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Subject: Re: HAVE YOU READ THIS ?.............
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 21:15:32 GMT


       atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu sez.....


>I should finish the Bible, too, but I've read enough to know it
>sucks. Some things are simply a waste of time.




	and then NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu replies.....


>I there a Cliff Notes version.....?


	Let's put it this way, I have read it several times and it
SUCKS !!!!!  now you know dudes !


-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries, reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips     |personal E-mail:bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
alias: White Rook     |   NWROC E-mail:aphillip@heartland.bradley.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Not killing as a moral absolute (was Re: Best Bible translation?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:37:45 GMT

In article <5ZVHPB3w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
}m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}> In article <9ZuFPB1w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
}> }Murder is just killing that the state has made illegal.
}> 
}> And how do you classify that extermination of Homo s. directed by Yahweh?
}
}Diminished responsibility.

In that anyone who would follow guidance from Yahweh should be legally insane?
From: st1lv@rosie.uh.edu (McLeod, Stephen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: priest observes
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:47:00 GMT
Organization: University of Houston
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <parsons.714188187@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu>, parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes...
>st1lv@rosie.uh.edu (McLeod, Stephen) writes:
> 
>>...Indeed, like Ron Hubbard, if I ever wish to get rich I imagine founding a
>>religion would be the easiest way.
> 
>Though Hubbard is dead? his "religion" does indeed live.  They call it 
>Scientology.
> 
And according to TIME (I believe it was), Scientology has jumped into Russia 
with both boots.  They are founding Scientology centers and making large amounts
of new Scientologists.  Sigh...
---
Stephen McLeod         Ah!  My hair is all falling out.  Except my forearm hair.
The Eternal? Student
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: HAVE YOU READ THIS ?.............
Date: 15 Aug 92 02:54:07 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <16841A740.NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu> NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.231925.1@acad2.alaska.edu>
>atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
>>
>>I should finish the Bible, too, but I've read enough to know it
>>sucks.  Some things are simply a waste of time.
> 
>Is there a Cliff Notes version of the Bible for those people who aren't
>masochistic enough to wade through the whole thing?
> 
>Wayne Aiken                                            "You can BE what
>PO Box 30904            slack@ncsu.edu                  you WON'T!!"
>Raleigh, NC  27622                                       --"Bob"
>(919) 782-8171          StarFleet BBS: (919) 782-3095


Yeah, the book of John and/or Romans will give you a good picture.
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:44:45 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <92230.133733RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com writes:
>Here are some of the passages from the Qur'an which Leonard Newnham wanted
>to be cited as a proof of existence of scientific facts in the Qur'an:

The passages you cite are not particularly persuasive of your
point. They are no more descriptive of scientific knowledge than
comparable passages from the Bible, the Tao Te Ching, or
Greek mythology, to name but a few alternatifve sources.
In general, the passages are much too vague to be taken as
specific descriptions or explanations of scientifically
accepted facts about the world. They are better understood as
metaphors that could be interpreted in any of a variety of ways,
perhaps including as references to scientific knowledge.
They are not, however, specific enough to be regarded as
(or even tested against) scientific facts.

In particular,

>Do not the unbelievers see
>that the heavens and the earth
>were joined together as one unit of creation
>befor We clove them asunder?(Qur'an 21:30)

Scientifically speaking, what is a 'heaven' and what would
it mean for it to be 'joined together' with the earth?

>And it is He (God) who created
>the night and the day
>and the sun and the moon
>all celestial bodies swim along, each in its rounded courses.

Why are we to take the 'rounded courses' as a literal
description of the movements of the sun and moon,
but not the reference to swimming? I am not aware of
any oceanic medium in which these bodies could be said
to swim, nor of any means they would have of thus
propelling themselves.

>And we made (created) from water
>every living thing.
>Will they then not believe?

What does it mean for something to be 'made from' water?

The other references you mention would have to be more specific
and more descriptive than the ones you mention here in order
to be considered to be of scientific interest. These passages
are sufficiently vague that, even if our scientific understanding
of the issues you mention were completely changed tomorrow,
you could still make a case that they are related to the
scientific facts. In general, a hallmark of scientific description
is a precise use of language so that we may avoid misinterpretation
of what is being said. The passages you cite don't even come
close, and the authority you mention has no bearing on this
fact.
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: FOR WHATEVER IT'S WORTH
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 02:27:36 GMT

joyce@meaddata.com writes:
>...It's the first (and last) time I will
>ever be in this newsgroup

Good.  You add nothing (which, happily, answers your subject question also).

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
From: bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Organization: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adminstration / Boulder Labs
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:02:24 GMT

In article <11AUG199206402267@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>You may be thinking of the Fourteenth Amendment (which isn't part of the
>Bill of Rights), which says, in its first section:
>
>   Section 1.  Citizenship defined.  All persons born or naturalized
>   in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
>   citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
>   No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
>   privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
>   any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
>   the due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
>   the equal protection of the laws.

(Oops.  I started this thread and thought it had died).

Indian Reservations are sovereign nations.  Amerindians born on reservations
are not U.S. citizens by the Fourteenth Amendment.

(Federal laws (and apparently some state laws) are enforced on reservations
by treaty, not jurisdiction.  That is why a reservation can operate gambling
facilities equal to any others in the state (e.g., $5 limit poker) even if
the state places extreme restrictions on such facilities.  For instance,
Colorado constitutionally limits gambling to three small mountain towns,
but the Amerindian reservation (Utes?) is developing its own facilities via
this clause).

Congress did pass a law specifically granting U.S. citizenship to Amerindians
(I thought it was before the 1930's, but I could be wrong).  I know that a
number of Amerindians were pissed off at that because it was Yet Another 
unilateral act -- Congress did it 'for the Amerindians own good,' in the
same way the Bureau of Indian Affairs oversees the operation of reservations
'for their own good.'

That's what makes the Court's decision to uphold the DEA's ban on peyote
ceremonies more galling -- not only does it violate the Freedom of Religion
clause of the First Amendment (IMHO), it is being enforced in a legally
sovereign nation!  (I haven't read the treaties, but I suspect they require
compliance with U.S. laws, not necessarily U.S. government agencies'
regulations).


Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
Subject: a bad book attacking evolution and atheism
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 13 Aug 1992 11:32 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

I was just cleaning my desk, and came across a note I wrote while
on an airplane flight about a year ago.  Somebody sitting across
the aisle from me was reading a book, and I looked over his shoulder
to read various attacks on evolution, materialism (the philosophical
kind), and atheism.  I wrote down the book's title because I thought
it might be worth looking up for a few laughs some time.

The book is by Ravi Zacharias and is titled _A Shattered Visage: 
The Real Face of Atheism_.  Anybody heard of it or read it?

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Survey..the tables turned !
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:06:48 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:


>	

>	When you are dead, where do you tend to stay ?

	Ecc. 9:5. I'm earth, nonexistent. 

>	If you where to die today, would you go to Cleveland, or 
>Toledo ? (and why ?)

	No.

>	And when you got there, would you figure out that since you
>where still thinking and such, would you realize you where alive ?

	No, because I'm the only one thinking there. 


>	What would god say if you asked him, "Why should I WANT to 
>go into your heaven ?". What would he say ? 

	"You haven't been invited" 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Not killing as a moral absolute (was Re: Best Bible translation?
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:23:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug13.161221.5779@leland.Stanford.EDU>, yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes...
>In article <9ZuFPB1w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:

>|> Murder is just killing that the state has made illegal.

>So, you are asserting that killing in self-defense and hacking
>a few people up with a chain saw are (nearly) morally equivalent.

I think the distinction between personal morality and biblical morality 
should be made here, because most of us here are, after all, atheists. 

*Personally*, I believe that there is a moral difference between the two. 
*Biblically*, the stance on killing/murder/etc is all over the map.  The 
phrase "Thou shalt do no murder" may lead us to believe that "murder" means
"justifiable homicide" given our modern connotations handed to us by the
state.  However, who are we to say that that's what "God" meant?  After all, if
one is trying to use the 10 Commandments as a personal code of ethics, it's
very unclear.  After all, it's easy for just about anyone to say that their own
commission of murder was justified ("But she was sleeping with my *best
friend*!), so I can only claim that justifiability is in the "eye" of "God."  
Thus, the only way to stay safe in "God's eye" would be to remain a pacifist.
Besides, the New Testament strongly suggests that this is the "proper" route.

As a priest put it in my pre-atheist days (when I asked him about this issue --
I desperately wanted to follow in my father's USMC background at the time, and
I couldn't reconcile Biblical pacifism with US militarism):

Him: "As followers of Christ, we use Jesus as our behavioral example, correct?"
Me: "Yes."
Him: "Well, if you can see Jesus pulling the trigger, you go right ahead."

Little did he know, that was yet another drop of oil on the slippery slope I 
took toward atheism...

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*      I'm the person that	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*      the president
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*      warned you about.    
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 18:14:52 GMT

>... I mainly agree with Mr. LeRoy.  Leviticus does
>prescribe the death penalty for homosexuality.  And Jesus said something
>about not changing one jot nor tittle of the Law, and that he came
>not to change the Law, but to uphold it.  And Christians claim that they
>follow the teachings of Jesus.  Therefore, Christianity prescribes the
>death penalty for homosexuality.  What's wrong with my logic? 

(In every translation I have seen, the word is "fulfill," not
"uphold.")

Your logic is fine.  I got nothing so clear from Mr. LeRoy.  He
himself would have a problem with the last part because it relies on a
step from "Christians...." to "Therefore, Christianity...."

You logic is clear and we can continue if you like.  I begin by
stating that Christianity includes most or all of the teachings of
Paul, one of its founders.  Do we agree?

If so, I note that we have words from Paul to the effect "you are no
longer under the law, but under grace."  Also, Christianity holds that
Jesus Christ payed all penalties for moral wrongs with his death.
This happened before Christianity even existed.  From these I conclude
that Christianity does not prescribe the death penalty for homosexual
acts.
--
Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Bush interview (to Jim Brown)
Date: 21 Aug 92 23:24:47 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <173e7oINNfjj@network.ucsd.edu> aplumb@ucsd.edu (Alec Plumb) writes:
>Perhaps of more interest to this particular group is Bush's comment
>during the convention that only a Christian could be President of the
>United States.  I don't know the context of this statement, as I only
>heard a blurb reference to it (again on CNN.)  If anybody knows the full
>context of this speech, please pass it on.
>

  To Jim Brown:

  Does this change your assesment of the likelihood of Bush's quote
  in the FAQ against atheists?  

  ...blessed are they who have not heard, and have yet believed.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
From: RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:30:53 GMT
 <92230.133733RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
 <1992Aug18.085646.29475@bradford.ac.uk> <Bt87G4.J7K@cck.coventry.ac.uk>
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company

In response to Griff's statement regarding the course of celestial bodies:
In the Qur'anic verse the word does not exclusively mean "circular" paths
traversed by celestial bodies. And I did *not* say that either. By rounded,
is meanst the path or trajectory traversed such that after some time the
particle orbitting comes to the same point. As such, circular, elliptical
and other such trajectories are included in "rounded." The problem of
translating the Arabic into equivalent English terms got into the way
of carrying the full meaning. I am sorry about the misunderstanding.
- H. Siddiqui.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism