HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 21 Jul 1992 17:52 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Jul21.204225.22026@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, tke@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (thomas.j.epstein) writes...
>In article <kXawNB2w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>>carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>>> There's something wrong here, unless my memory is very badly off.  Unless I'm
>>> very badly mistaken, George Bush was elected to the Presidency in November of
>>> 1988, and inaugurated in January of 1989, yet this entry in the FAQ quotes
>>> Robert Sherman as addressing Bush as "Mr. President" in the interview.
>>
>>Someone's already pointed it out.  Personally I suspect that the interview
>>was transcribed from a TV report, and that the greeting was indistinct enough
>>that the transcriber had to guess at what it was...
>>
>>Until someone has a better suggestion, I plan to delete those two words and
>>leave the rest as is.
>>
>>
>>mathew
> 
>Let me see if I got this right:  The article reports the interviewer 
>addressing the not-as-of-yet President as, "Mr. President."  This
>might be an indication that there was a typographical error, or it
>might be an indication that the entire article was a poorly-done
>hoax. In fact, it could be indicative of many things. The only thing
>it demonstrates with any clarity, is that the original article contains
>an inconsistancy which at the least renders the report suspect.

I have only recently seen the version which contains the words "Mr. President."
The version posted to the net in February 1991 did not contain them, nor
did the version published in _Free Inquiry_ magazine (Fall 1988, p. 16),
which cites _GALA Interim_ as its source (I believe GALA is Gay and Lesbian
Atheists).  The transcript is certainly not inconsistent with other
remarks Bush has made about the United States being "one nation under God"
(see, for instance, numerous examples in the "On the Barricades" column
of _Free Inquiry_ since 1988).  On the other hand, the source of this
interview is, ultimately, the American Atheists organization, one not
particularly well-known for accuracy or trustworthiness (cf. the bibliography
of criticism of American Atheists I posted recently to alt.atheism).

Is there any published, in print version of the transcript which contains
the words "Mr. President"?  It appears to me that it was appended only
after someone transcribed it to the net.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:28:48 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Jul30.143709.19386@cco.caltech.edu> bes@cco.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi) writes:
>
>In other words, I'd have no problem if somebody said that other people
>would have interpretations different from mine.  To concede this point
>is not to imply that the other interpretations are actually correct.
>

  Well, Graham, it's in your court now.  I give up.  

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

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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
From: onf@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (omar.farooq)
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 12:38:21 GMT

---------------------------------------------------
>Article 26314 in soc.culture.pakistan:
>From: stoesser@i31s21.ira.uka.de (Achim Stoesser)
>Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
>Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
>Date: 31 Jul 1992 11:53:23 GMT
>Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
>Lines: 14
>Distribution: world
>NNTP-Posting-Host: i31s21.ira.uka.de
>
>Yesterday in the news: Several hundred women have been publicly whipped 
>in five Iranian cities for not wearing proper clothing.
>
>To protect them from being raped, I guess?
>
>By the way, what is the correct dress for being whipped? 
> 							        Achim
>_____________________________________________________________________
>
>I'm an anarchist, atheist, pacifist, and vegetarian.  This does _not_
>mean that I'd bomb kings, worship Satan, let soldiers bleed to death,
>or eat fish.
>---------------------------------------------------
>

I certainly don't agree with such measures and nobody is claiming that
Iran has a truely Islamic Government.  For all we know, those women could be
prisoners for many reasons, and the gov't could be using religion as a guise
for their own gain and to further subdue the people.  
If Iran had a truely Islamic gov't they wouldn't run around forcing people to
do things, they would follow the example of the Prophet(PBUH) and gain
others' acceptance through providing a practical example of a way of life.
Which in turn would remove the hesitation in the people from observing
strict dress codes.  And since they certainly haven't done that, I doubt
they have legitimacy to their Islamic claims.

Everything is politics!!!  Religion in Iran is a tool in their hands 
just as the need for oil is tool in the hands of the US.  And both sides
mutually ignore the truth, and sacrifice whatever is necessary to gain
what is to be gained.
That universally applies to any powerful establishment anywhere, they each find
their niche and stick to it like glue!

Do you think the Iranian law enforcers care about what others say, when they
enjoy so much power?
Do you think Bush or Baker care what others say after they dropped more bombs
on Iraq in 4 weeks than all of WW II (and claim that it was after "military"
targets)?

Omar
omar.farooq@att.com
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:41:35 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <1992Jul21.185749.2654@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:

>>(Ridha Souissi) writes:
>>>I will try to read this book.  However I suspect that the ideas
>>>contained in it are mere theory, since nobody could go long
>>>enough in the past to verify them.
>>
Ridha doesn't accept evolution OR geology
Let's all give up
If she wants to believe in God, let her
It won't hurt us

+--Great Quotes of our Time-------------------------------------------+
|        You should never have a hobby that eats                      |
+--------------------------------------Amarillo Slim Preston----------+          
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England  (44)061-275-6033   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
From: m21757@mitre.org (G)
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 22:53:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.035929.14028@ennews.eas.asu.edu> 
guncer@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Selim E. Guncer ) writes:
> I normally tend to identify civilizations according to their advancement 
> and collapse periods. For Islam, the turning point of advancement was 
> the "closing of the gates of Ichtihat" by Imam Gazali (12th century?). 
> After that Islamic civilization started a recession and gradual decline. 
> This is an interesting turning point. Throughout history civilizations
> die because of natural causes, corruption, the emergence of more advanced
> civilizations which overtake the other etc.. In the Islamic case 
however, 
> the halting of the inquisitive mind is for the preservation of the 
theocratic
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> status quo. Christian Europe avoided the same fate through reforms and
> numerous blood-shedding. Reform in Islam never took place, hence the
> current situation in the Islamic world. Masses living under authoritarian
> regimes under poverty.  Isn't this much of a clue enough to acknowledge
> that at least "something" is wrong with the system?


Excellent point.  Although I'm not sure that in the discussion everyone is 
talking about the same  "system".   Well that was just an aside.  I 
understand there is a verse in the Quran that forbids 'Bida' or 
innovation.  Does anyone know the context of when this verse was revealed. 
 I've often seen people claiming "You can't innovate like that!  It's 
bida...it's forbidden!!"   However, it maybe that this verse is 
misunderstood.  Could anyone refer me to some information please?  Also 
some background on the closing of the doors of ijtihad also?  Thanks.

G
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:24:14 EDT
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Blasphemy in Greece

In article <i17aoB21w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) says:
>
>stoesser@i31s21.ira.uka.de (Achim Stoesser) writes:
>> In article <emc.711295828@reg>, emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>> |> I believe however that the cross symbol predates Christianity.  Anyone
>> |> know for sure?
>>
>> Yes, definitely. Several kinds of crosses were uses as religious symbols.
>> One of the oldest was the Swastika, if my memory serves (no kidding).
>
>The swastika is a religious symbol in Buddhism, so don't be surprised if you
>see big Buddha statues with swastikas painted on the front.  The arms go in
>the opposite direction to the Nazi swastika, though.
>
>
>mathew

I have also seen a swastika engraved in pottery (approx. 3000 years old)
from the Middle East and in similarly aged Viking artifacts.  Again,
the arms are opposite of the direction of the Nazi swastika.

John
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
Subject: Free Will and responsibility
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 12:38:21 GMT



This posting (diatribe? :-) was sparked by the recent thread on 
free will, and Khan's comment that "You are only a creature of God".


It was sunday mass one day, (at that time I was pretty heavy into 
religion). [Actually I remember a friend in Opus Dei telling me "You ask
a lot of questions, be careful you never lose your faith!":-)]

Anyway I was about 10 years old, and the priest said in his sermon, 
"Remember, everything you have, all you have achieved, all you are is
only through God's will [I kept the capital 'G' as I was quoting .Ed]"
The sermon continued in that vein for a while.

I remember being shocked, and somewhat annoyed.  "Anything I get is 
from, by and through *ME*!!"  I disliked the intimation that I was just
being run by another person.

This was the crux of the matter.  What I feel is one of the worst 
aspects of *any* religion is the removal of responsibility from the 
individual.  If something ever goes wrong in a person's life, they say
"That's him tesing me".  If something ever goes right, they say, "Thank
the Lord.".  The philosophy of predestination, although not so prevalent
today, was the greatest cop out of all.  Whatever you did mattered not.

Religion, especially xian, is *frighteningly* seductive to the underdog.
Blessed are the poor, blessed are the hungry, etc.  I.e. It made the
lower people happy with their lot.  "Ok, we're poor and miserable now, 
while others are rich, but after we've lived our life [the only one they
*get* .Ed], we'll be happy in the next."  A religion of that sort is 
just a cookbook for repression.  In the Eastern countries of the world,
e.g. India, whole masses of people were getting pissed on, *and accepting
it*!!  This was due to a *very* convenient philosophy of, once again,
if you get pissed on in this life, but put up and shut up, maybe it'll
be better the next time around.  This had another side to it also.  \
If you are poor and pissed on in this life, *It's YOUR fault* for 
misdemeanors in another.

The same thread again.  Fatalism.  Belief in the divine power of the
king was an indirect vehicle for serfdom.

THAT is what annoys me.  That religion removes responsibility from 
the individual.  It is too comfortable.

To a very large extent, I believe that a person's fate and achievments
are up to them.  Certainly if a person has worked to get in a better
place, then it is demeaning that person for them to say, "The Lord has
been good to me.", (which, BTW, implies that he did them a favour).
It is equally demeaning to treat misfortune as " It is the Lord's will"

To cut a long article short; man is an end in himself, he should not
look outside himself for anything. Religion encourages man to look
outside himself for an explanation, ergo religion is wrong. IMO :-)
From: ss@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Scott Stuart)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism vs. Christianity (WHY?)
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:00:26 GMT
Reply-To: ss@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Scott Stuart)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

Again, sorry I couldn't post this to a.a.moderated, but it doesn't exit here.

In article <1992Jul29.213315.21289@samba.oit.unc.edu> lambada.oit.unc.edu!Josh.Adams@mcnc.org (Josh Adams) writes:
>                                          You are so set in your thinking
>that you don't realize that there are other possibilities than yours. 


I don't want you think that I am agreeing with any religion in saying that
g*d exists, but this is similar to an argument I've heard many times, and I
think that it isn't well thought out.  When I was struggling with my 
religous beliefs, and deciding whether or not to abandon a belief in religion,
I thought that perhaps religion would be more palatable if it didn't 
have the dogmatic attitude of refusing to accept the possiblity of other's
religions being correct.  But then, I realised that this is a necessary 
part of any strong belief.  If you believe in Christianity, say, then
that is the truth, the only truth, and there is no room to say "This is
OK for me, but Islam or Judiasm might be true for someone else."  It is
inherently part of the belief that no contradictory beliefs can be true.
The desire to spread that belief to others is also part of the belief.
If someone who truly believes that he knows the one and only path to
eteranal happiness, then he is being rather irresponsible and uncaring
toward his fellow humans if he doesn't try to share it with them.
You have to try to look at it from the perspective of someone who really
believes something, rather than from someone who wants the whole world to
get along and be nice to each other.  

Take, as an analogy, a blind man walking toward a cliff.  If you saw a 
blind man about to walk over a cliff and plummet to his death, what 
would you do?  If you are a caring person, I should hope that you would
tell him about the cliff in order to stop him from dying.  What if, after
telling the blind man about the cliff, he said to you, "No, that isn't
true.  I don't believe there is a cliff there.  You may think there is
a cliff there, but there is are no cliffs in my world, and therefore I am
safe."  Would you now just shrug your shoulders and watch the man plummet?
I should hope not!  I certainly wouldn't.

My point is, that I think firm believers in any religion that promises 
eternal salvation to be in the same situation as you watching the
blind man, or impious unbeliever, about to walk over a cliff.  There belief
forces them to deny the possibility of other beliefs being true, and it
forces them to want to share their belief.

Please don't think from the above that I support evangelism or that I am
trying to preach the "right way" to you.  In fact, partly because of the
argument I have just stated, I think religion is a load of bunk.

scott
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:57:46 GMT

>I have been following this discussion for a while and I cannot resist
>intervening at that point.  I can see the extremely high order and
organization
>from the atomic level to that of the galaxy as pure and clearcut evidence for
>the existance of a creator.  They certainly do not suggest habhazardness, or
>do they ?!
>
>Thanks,
>M. A. Rezk
>
>N.B.  Looking for serious discussion, i.e., no sarcasm please.

Actually I DON'T see an extremely high order and orginization from any
level. Does order/orginization imply simple and/or uniform? Or does it
mean "it works well"? As far as the first def goes, uniformity would make
a very boring universe (that we would not even be able to complain about:-})
and I am sure the universe could be simpler (or more complex, for that matter).
It works well?  Well, we are still here: that's good enough for me--but how 
can we rate how "good" the universe is it's only function (IMHO) is to exist?
Also, even if the universe IS organized, I don't think this is due to 
outside intervention, I think that the laws of nature forced it in that
direction.
(A bubble is spherical due to surface tension, not because it looks nice
that way)

Did I get through that without sarcasm? Man, that was hard!
Brian /-|-\
========================================================================
==========
Chaos is Life. Life is Chaos. Your door is ajar.
From: n5ppm264 (Charlie Board)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Burn in the brimstone fires of Heaven
Date: 31 Jul 92 02:16:50 GMT
Organization: bnr

In article <willimsa.712431261@unix1.tcd.ie>, willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams) writes:
> 
> 
> Thought you might find this funny.
> 
> 
> 
>  The temperature of Heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority
> is Isaiah 30:26, "Moreover, the light of the Moon shall be as the light of
> the Sun and the light of the Sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven
> days."  Thus Heaven receives from the Moon as much radiation as we do from
> the Sun, and in addition 7*7 (49) times as much as the Earth does from the
> Sun, or 50 times in all.  The light we receive from the Moon is one
> 1/10,000 of the light we receive from the Sun, so we can ignore that ...
> The radiation falling on Heaven will heat it to the point where the heat
> lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation, i.e.,
> Heaven loses 50 times as much heat as the Earth by radiation.  Using the
> Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiation, (H/E)^4 = 50, where E is the absolute
> temperature of the earth (-300K), gives H as 798K (525C).  The exact
> temperature of Hell cannot be computed ... [However] Revelations 21:8 says
> "But the fearful, and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake
> which burneth with fire and brimstone."  A lake of molten brimstone means
> that its temperature must be at or below the boiling point, 444.6C. We
> have, then, that Heaven, at 525C is hotter than Hell at 445C. -- From
> "Applied Optics" vol. 11, A14, 1972
> 
Na...they have 27 quadrillion fireflies up there. Not too hot, just don't
open your celestial mouth unless you like lightning bug sushi.
From: bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: matthew's and Jim's views of free will
Date: 25 Jul 92 15:18:31 GMT
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool, UK
Nntp-Posting-User: bruce

>>>>> On 23 Jul 92 09:03:07 GMT, zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) said:

> Are your actions predetermined by the laws of physics as applied to
> the biology of humans (in particular their brains and hence minds)?
Yes.  There's also the environment, of course---just analysing my
brain can't tell you what I'll do, because context is very important.

> If they are then you have no free will, whatever it actually feels
> like to you.
That assumes a particular view of free will.

> Do we ever have a totally unconstrained choice of actions?  eg.
> When we ponder a choice of 2 actions, are we really choosing or is
> the choice and the exact path of our pondering on the choice totally
> predetermined?
Assuming a deterministic world, yes.  Assuming the more probable
quantum world, no, but the non-predetermined aspect is random and
therefore not of any value for free will.

> If Jim's right, then our path through life is a one way single lane
> road with no junctions, and whether or not we enjoy the scenery or
> hate it is also totally predetermined.
Essentially, yes.

> In fact, this posting was already predicted by the configuration of
> the Big Bang.  We're reduced to a spark of consciousness trapped in
> a vehicle we can't control.
No, the spark of consciousness is also a part of the vehicle, and is
just as uncontrollable.  After all, what could it possibly be
controlled *by*?  And the spark of consciousness is the thing that
controls the vehicle.

> I don't want this to be true.
Given that there's absolutely no way in which you could tell if it
were or not---i.e., that your experiences will be identical either
way---I don't see any point in worrying about it.

> I'd like somebody to tell me it isn't.
Don't look at me!

Bruce
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:27:42 GMT
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development

mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:

>skinner@sp14.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>> >So, what does that make you when you advocate the Bible without being able t
>> >answer a similar question?
>> 
>> Before I can answer this, I must know what you mean by "when you
>> advocate the Bible."

>Presumably you do advocate the teachings of the Bible, and suggest that it
>represents God's word?

I advocate the teachings of the Jesus Christ.  I use the New Testament
as a source of these teachings.  It is the best source of which I am
aware.  I do not suggest that the Bible represents God's word.
Rather, I think Jesus Christ is the word of God.

As to being able to answer a similar question (about errors; see above
and a previous article), I think I can.  Though the actucal question
was not stated, I think it would be something like "What is that error
doing in the FAQ/Bible?"  The errors in the copies of the Bible we
have available to us are in general the mistakes of the contributors
or the additions and deletions of copyists and editors.  This is
similar to the answer that applied to the FAQ, I think.

As someone pointed out, an error in the account of the interview with
Mr. Bush detracts from the credibility of that story.  This is true
for the books of the Bible as well.  We must each weigh the magnitude
of the errors and the validity of their explanations and come to our
own conclusions about the credibility of the account.

After this examination, I found the four accounts of Jesus' life in
the New Testament credible.  On the other hand, my examination of the
Old Testament book "Jonah" leads me to believe that the account may
be a myth.

But I digress.

>> >Right, but given that position I want to know what the conflicting wants are
>> >and why they conflict.  Otherwise it's just vague guesswork.
>> 
>> Even vague guesswork is enough refute the assertion "surely God
>> wanting an accurate Bible and our not having one says something about
>> God's omnipotence."

>Indeed it is.  Is this relevant?

What is in quotes is IMHO a valid paraphrase of your assertion in this
thread.  (The article appeared about three weeks ago.)  My
hypothetical was intended only as a single possibility which would
refute the above assertion.
--
Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.