HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com (Jim Cobabe)
Subject: Re: What is a fundie?
Reply-To: jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph 
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 14:50:11 GMT

My cynical remarks regarding this discussion:

Everyone that has ventured an opinion about "fundies" has missed the crucial
point so far.  Currently, a "fundie" is a derogatory characterization of the stereotypical
ignorant, bigoted moron who professes faith in God, attends church regularly, and
reads the Bible with the tiniest shred of credulity.

Of course, the enlighted ones who profess other beliefs are certainly _correct_ to
confer this label, since most of the Christians they know are really some kind
of  benighted and horrible "Jekyl-and-Hyde" creature lurking somewhere in
the dark.  These "fundies" rank alongside the loathsome "homophobe" as the
evil enemy of everything that is logical and "Spock"-like.  "Fundies" and "homophobes"
are the scum of the earth.  They can also be _correctly_ characterized as "anti-
intellectual", since they tend to be less fun at wild parties.

If your neighbor is a "fundie", watch out!  They are _really_ scary people.
They will continually jump up and down while screaming Biblical verses
at the top of thier lungs.  They will try to convert you forcibly at every
opportunity, always trying to ram their beliefs down you throat.  And they
are completely unreasoning about everything.

We understand that "fundies" are pitiable creatures that deserve our sympathy,
albiet from a distance.  Researchers have discovered a fatal flaw in the brain
structures of these miserable people that causes this deplorable condition.  Fortunately,
the aberation is non-communicable, being entirely genetic in character.  Scientists
are hopeful that a treatment may soon be discovered that will ameliorate the symptoms
of "fundie"-ism, thus restoring peace and tranquility to the now-troubled world.


*****************************************************************
| Jim Cobabe                   |  uunet!ingr!b11!cobabe!jimc    |
| Software Consultant          |  jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com      |
| System Utilities Group       |                                |
| Mail Stop: CR1104            |  phone: (205) 730-5625         |
| Intergraph Corporation       |    fax: (205) 730-6011         |
| Huntsville, AL  35894-0001   |                                |
*****************************************************************
From: Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: kids and morals
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 22:35:43 CDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:373/14.0 - The Aviation BBS, Meridianville AL

Thus spake Keith Wilson:
>> At least I think so, but who knows? I might turn out to be a lousy
>> parent someday.. :)
 
>Not unless you follow in the footsteps of the guy who made the
>Sunday Times "Grand Jury Indictments": molestation of a child
>UNDER the age of 12!!!  The paper reported that the incidents
>began when the child was age 5.
 
I saw this one. I don't think I'll be that lousy of a parent :)
 
SETTING RELIGION ASIDE: THIS IS A LOCAL/NATIONAL ISSUE.
 
>What the hell is wrong with the death penalty? This idiot just
>sentenced a perfectly INNOCENT child to life-long agony with
>no chance of parole or "time off for good behavior".
 
I find myself in favor of the death penalty. Sure beats having to spend
thousands of tax dollars per year per convict to keep them breathing.
And if Dahmer gets out of prison someday, how long do you think he'll
live? I won't make it out of the parking lot.
 
I don't know that I'd use the death penalty for child molestation cases.
I think something more creative and exotic may be in order :) Tattooing
"child molester" on his forehead, and make him go to PTA meetings once a
month for the rest of his life :)
 
>Who said "an eye for an eye" was passe?
 
If I remember right, Jesus did. :) Confucius, I think, had a good
saying: to your friends, give love - to your enemies, give justice. I
think Confucius would have liked Clint Eastwood. :)


--  
 * Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: jim@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed)
Subject: Why ask why?
Reply-To: jimreed@b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:56:45 GMT

Here'a a dialogue between two parties: Q (who asks a lot of questions) and
B (who addresses the questions, but fails to satisfy Q (that's why he's
not called A :-)).  By the way, they're discussing something we all understand
quite well.

Q: Why is it that when I flip the switch, the light comes on?

B: Because flipping the switch completed the electrical circuit and
   current can flow.  When enough current flows in the lightbulb,
   it gives off light.

Q: Why does flowing current give off light?

B: The filament is a resistive device.  When current flows in a resistive
   device, electrical energy is turned into heat.  When something gets
   how enough, it gives off light (I could talk about blackbody
   radiation here, but that's probably going to far).

Q: I have two questions now.  But we'll start with the simple one.
   Why does current flowing in a resistive device generate heat?

B: That's a good question.  I don't know enough physics to really explain
   that, but I could speculate.  It might be that the moving electrons
   (that's the current) run into enough atoms and bounce around enough
   that the filament heats up (sort of like friction makes you hands
   heat up when you rub them together).

Q: I can tell you don't understand how it works.  It can't be like
   rubbing my hands together.  I've done that.  No matter how long
   I rub them together, they DON'T GLOW.

B: I didn't say it was exactly the same, I said it was sort of like
   rubbing your hands together.  Nobody can rub their hands enough
   to generate enough heat to make them glow.  Like I said, I can't
   really answer that question, didn't you have another?

Q: Sure, why do hot things give off light?

B: In order to fully explain that I would have to talk about blackbody
   radiation.  That also takes more physics than I understand.  I understand
   that (at least ideally) an object at a given temperature will give off
   electromagnetic radiation (like light) with a frequency distribution
   that varies with the temperature of the object.  I expect that to really
   explain what's happening, you'd have to go into a lot of quantum physics.
   I don't know enough to do that.

Q: So you don't understand that either.  You contend that flipping a light
   switch will turn on the light, but you can't explain why?  How can you
   expect me to believe it when you can't explain it?  How can YOU believe
   it when you can't explain it?  If you can't explain it, then you
   obviously don't understand it.

-- 
James B. Reed                | If at first you don't succeed,
DAZIX, An Intergraph Company | Find out why,
jimreed@b23b.ingr.com        | **THEN** try again.
(205) 730-8874               |
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: jim@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Reply-To: jimreed@b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:00:30 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.140539.1428@nik.b23a.ingr.com>, nik@nik.b23a.ingr.com (Nik Simpson) writes:
|> 	Ok,  I can accept that the Bible has some accurate historical 
|> information,  just as The Illiad has accurate historical information,
|> that doesn't mean that everything its says is true,  particularly when
|> it strays from presenting verifiable historical facts. 

It sounds like you tend toward the point of view that holds "if it can't
be proved, then it must not be true".  By definition that is difficult
to argue against, but that doesn't mean it's correct.

For example, if Mike Tyson came up to me looking like he wanted to beat
someone to a pulp, and said "I'm smarter than you, right?"  I would be
loath to disagree with him, but that doesn't make him right (or wrong).

|> >Much, if not most, of what the Bible presents as "current events" has
|> >been verified by archeology.  True the Bible goes into finer detail than
|> >archeology could ever manage.
|> 
|> 	Or elaborates on the truth !

Again, it sounds like you want to discard everything that can't be
verified.

|> 	As you may have guessed by I'm extremely sceptical about miracles,
|> I don't accept the premise that a Miracle can occur.

Oh well, given that premise I guess everything I might describe as a 
miracle you would describe as either "something I can't explain" or
"an exaggeration".

-- 
James B. Reed                | If at first you don't succeed,
DAZIX, An Intergraph Company | Find out why,
jimreed@b23b.ingr.com        | **THEN** try again.
(205) 730-8874               |
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: lester@naomi.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Les Bartel)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Reply-To: lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Dazix, An Intergraph Company
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:41:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.184112.610@nik.b23a.ingr.com>, nik@nik.b23a.ingr.com (Nik Simpson) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr13.191205.3634@b11.ingr.com> lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com writes:
|> >In article <4412.29E45CCC@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:
|> >|> Les Bartel says:
|> >|> >Many scholars accept the Bible as an accurate and trustworthy source of
|> >|> >history.
|> >|>  
|> >|> I'm not really arguing about the Bible's worth as a journal of events at
|> >|> the time. But being historically accurate does not make it any more
|> >|> inspired by God than a 20th Century political science textbook will be
|> >|> 300 years from now.
|> >
|> >It's historical accuracy adds credibility to its other contents.  I 
|> 
|> 	No it doesn't,  there are many writing from ancient history which
|> have passages and sections that correspond to archeological evidence, those
|> books are also full of the most obvious hogwash.  Its not the historical
|> parts of the Bible that are the problem.

No flame intended...

I said ADD credibility, not give it COMPLETE credibility.  I don't say
this to make me sound wishy washy, but to satisfy those who insist
that some portions of the Bible lack any credibility.  What I'm saying
here, is if your friend Alex has proven himself to be very trustworthy
in the things he has told you, then you would tend to believe him if
he said something of which you knew nothing and could not verify.  You
might not have complete faith in what he said, but at least some.

|> >|> The first chance I get, I will look at his book. It would be unfair of
|> >|> me to discredit him because he is unconvincing in person. :)
|> >
|> >It's refreshing to see an open mind like this.  Unfortunately, too many
|> >people will reject Christianity without even considering the evidence.
|> 
|> 	And equally many people *accept* it without considering the evidence,
|> either position is equally untenable.

Yes.  A person should be able to say why they believe (don't believe)
what they believe (don't believe).  Otherwise they are just a part of
the herd.  Unfortunately, the evidence we have of the Bible seems to be
under widely differing interpretation and will very likely never be
fully resolved.  The Christians intrepret it in a way that makes sense
to them (and lots of different intrepretations at that, mostly minor
differences though) and those opposed in a way that supports their claims.
So, we both have biases to some degree.

|> |  Nik Simpson	Mail : nik@ingr.com                |
|> |  Intergraph Corp.  System Product Marketing	   |

-- 
Les Bartel			lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com
Dazix, An Intergraph Company	uunet!ingr!b23b!naomi!lester
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: wiley@crooks.b11.ingr.com (Dave Wiley)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Reply-To: wiley@wiley.b11.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 13:29:19 GMT

Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters) writes:

>I, myself, care not, because I have found agnosticism to be an
>invulnerable philosophical position. How can you attack someones beliefs
>if he doesn't have any? How can you whittle away his arguments when his
>only answer is "I don't know"? :) Beautiful, ain't it?
> 
>Atheism, on the other hand, I believe (okay, one belief :) ) is
>untenable philosophically. It's not possible to prove there is no God.
>The best atheists can do is argue against certain kinds of gods, but
>since the number of conceivable gods is infinite (more or less :) ),
>this does them very little good.

Now were getting down to the difference between precise and practical
definitions.  "Atheist = one who denies the existence of god" is
precise, but I suspect these critters are rare.  After all it's
essentially just the mirror reverse of "theist."  Like
Satanism, it's just silly and reactionary.  "Agnostic = one
who disclaims all knowledge of god" is probably far more common.
I don't have to deny the existence of smurfs, I just choose not
to worry about it.

More practically speaking, most people I have met who label themselves
"agnostic" choose to spend a portion of their time thinking about
matters spiritual, they just haven't subscribed to any particular
flavor of dogma.  Most people I've met (including me :-) who label
themselves "atheist" feel that matters spiritual don't have any
relevance to conducting one's life.  "Religiously disinclined" may be a
better appellation.  Furthermore most self-described atheists I know
(not including me) avoid religious discussions with people of unknown
orientation to avoid needlessly offending them.  You may have met or
exchanged mail with more of these folks than you realize.

--
david wiley               "To survive and enjoy the Tennessee Valley you
Intergraph Corporation     really have to like mucus.  Winter colds lead
205-730-6390               straight into spring and summer allergies.
wiley@wiley.b11.ingr.com   And then there's okra."   - me
From: Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: pagan holidays
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 23:45:58 CDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:373/14.0 - The Aviation BBS, Meridianville AL

Lawrence Hughes says:
>Date    Celtic Name                     Modern          Christianized
 
>Feb 2   Imbolg                          -------         Candelmas
                                         ^^^^^^^
 
I don't know the origin, but is it mere coincidence that this is also
Groundhog's Day? :) If "Imbolg" is pronounced like it is spelled, then
it sounds a little like "groundhog"...
 
>Jul 31  Lughnasadh                      ---             Lammas
 
Hmmm... I don't know if this one has a parallel now or not. There are so
many cretin holidays like Arbor Day and Flag Day.  This is just a couple
of days before the start of the NFL preseason, though.


--  
 * Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com (Jim Cobabe)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Reply-To: jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph 
Distribution: hsv
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:35:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.130537.26234@b11.ingr.com>, jazz@jazz.b11.ingr.com (J. Jeff Roberts) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr3.194711.15441@infonode.ingr.com>, jimc@cobabe.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Jim Cobabe) writes:
|> |> Arguing about things that are in the Bible is a very good example of my
|> |> point.  You cannot argue with an atheist about religion by quoting from
|> |> scriptures that he does not believe in.   It is not that "this point is hard to
|> |> get past", but that it is impossible.  One cannot begin a successful argument 
|> |> from an unsupportable premise.
|> 
|> "Impossible"?  Is the idea that "God made all this and here's what he has to
|> say about it" so incredibly less defensible than "Well, there was this big
|> explosion millions of years ago and, you know, here we are"?  Why is it we can
|> talk about subatomic particles whose existence we can only infer from their
|> effects but not the idea that all of this intricacy has a purpose and a designer?

I suppose it it because people are not consistent about what they consider to be
logical.  Apparently most atheists and agnostics are as dogmatic about their
position as Christian fundamentalists are about theirs.  Just as "fundies" insist
on arguments that are supported by scriptures, the others insist on proof
supported by scientific research.  We have a serious problem meeting this
requirement, because a lot of the ideas embodied in our religious views are
simply do not lend themselves to application of scientific methods of analysis.

I have mentioned other problems with the "logic only" approach in other posts.
The study of aspects of human behavior is so poorly developed at this time that
a lot of the "science" advanced by researchers in this area gets good competition
from witch doctors.  We don't have any good scientific basis for discussing
things metaphysical in nature.

Many of the people I am aquainted with who profess to be of atheist or agnostic
persuasion are also engineers or technicians who specialize in techical areas of
applied physical sciences.  Most of them assume that areas of research in other
sciences are as credible or well-established as the disciplines they work with and
are familiar with.  

*****************************************************************
| Jim Cobabe                   |  uunet!ingr!b11!cobabe!jimc    |
| Software Consultant          |  jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com      |
| System Utilities Group       | Just My Own Bigoted Opinions |
| Mail Stop: CR1104            |  phone: (205) 730-5625         |
| Intergraph Corporation       |    fax: (205) 730-6011         |
| Huntsville, AL  35894-0001   |                                |
*****************************************************************
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: feeling threatened?
Date: Tue,  7 Apr 92 12:28:37 CDT
Organization: Micro Magic

Paul Deaver says:
>@ >Those I would
>@ > consider radical (homosexual, "fundie", etc.) seem to get thier
>@ > identity from the group they choose to associate with.
 
>@ Point taken, although I don't believe that homosexuals are radicals
>@ by definition. Fundies probably aren't, either. It's just that the
>@ people that are identifiable as either fundies or gays have taken a
>@ vocal tack.
 
>Oops... I should proof my postings more closely.
 
'Salright. I figured that wasn't exactly what you meant :)
 
>What I meant to say
>is that I typically see radicals as getting their identity from the
>groups they associate with rather than simply choosing to associate
>with a group because it's how they believe.
 
What you're describing here is the very spooky and sad phenomenon of the
herd mentality. There are people in the world who don't have the time,
wit, energy, or whatever to figure out their own personal feelings on
the topic at hand, and just join in with whichever gang is most
convenient (or, in situations like the Nazis, whichever gang threatened
more harm if they DON'T join in).
 
These poor souls are easy to spot, because they make a LOT of noise
about their newfound doctrine, but have almost no answers to pointed
questions. I always think of my brother when this subject comes up - he
got lost in religion about 10 years ago, and his bst debate tactic is to
throw Bible verses at me until I give up and go away, thinking dark
thoughts about the trinity :) Have you ever seen the movie "Inherit The
Wind"? The good one with Spencer Tracy and Frederic March, not the
crappy new one from a few years ago. There's a scene near the end where
Tracy's character is grilling March's character about certain "murky
points" in the Bible, and all March can answer is "I have faith in the
Lord" or "The Lord is myt shephard," etc.
 
My brother and I are like that, only louder. Ours is not a peaceful home
when we're both here at the same time :)
 
Whoops! I seem to have strayed off-topic. Well, this ain't exactly the
first time :)
 
Anyway, yes, radicals are scary creatures. No reasoning with them at
all, which is a problem when they're into violent activity. Ever tried
to stop an abortion clinic bomber when his arm is cocked back with the
molotov cocktail?
 
You: Hi, Rick! Did you see the Duke/Indiana game?
Rick: Just a second. *Toss* **Ka-BLOOOOOOIE!**
Rick: Okay. What was the question?
You: Never mind. You didn't see me here, okay?
 
I bet things like this happen all the time.
 
Oops! I grow silly. :) Take care.



--  
 * Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
From: deaverpf@infonode.ingr.com (Paul F. Deaver)
Subject: Re: feeling threatened?
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:04:34 GMT

Christian Walters writes:

> [...]  I always think of my brother when this subject comes up - he
> got lost in religion about 10 years ago, and his best debate tactic is to
> throw Bible verses at me until I give up and go away, thinking dark
> thoughts about the trinity :) 

I think your brother and my older sister have a lot in common.  She found
her version of religion via guilt.  She was *very* wild in her highschool
years.  Now she's the one who considers it her privilage to get arrested 
at the abortion clinics (for harrasment, NOT for protesting).  

I feel really bad for her sometimes.  I'd have a lot more respect for her
views if I had any doubt that they were driven by moral conviction, not by
guilt.

> Anyway, yes, radicals are scary creatures. No reasoning with them at
> all, which is a problem when they're into violent activity. Ever tried
> to stop an abortion clinic bomber when his arm is cocked back with the
> molotov cocktail?

You cannot reason with someone like that.  

> Oops! I grow silly. :) Take care.

Humor is a good way to cope extreme situations (i.e. Christmas with the
*entire* family (:-0).  The best way is to avoid the situations altogether.

I digress.

>--  
> * Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic

--
Paul Deaver  --  deaverpf@infonode.ingr.com
From: Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: Why ask why?
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 21:57:02 CDT
Organization: Micro Magic

James Reed says:
 
[lightbulb discussion deleted]
 
Geez. :) Nothing will suck your self-esteem quite as fast as having a
conversation of yours reduced to one that a 5-year-old may have with its
parents :) (This is assuming, of course, that Q represents me... if I am
wrong, forgive me :) )
 
>Q: So you don't understand that either.  You contend that flipping a
>   light switch will turn on the light, but you can't explain why?  How
>   can you expect me to believe it when you can't explain it?  How can
>   YOU believe it when you can't explain it?  If you can't explain it,
>   then you obviously don't understand it.
 
Ah, what wonders this does for my ego :) Fortunately, it doesn't quite
represent my standpoint.
 
even though we may not completely understand why the light turns on when
you flip a switch, we can at least see that it DOES turn on when we flip
the switch. We note that it does this consistently, and the more often
we flip the switch, the greater the probability that there is a
correlation. After a hundred times, we figure the chances of it being
coincidence that the light CHOSE the same moment to come on are very
very slim indeed. Ditto with the chance that it is being turned on by
aliens orbiting the third moon of Jupiter.
 
Unfortunately, we don't have any clear cause-effect types of
relationships with Christianity.



--  
 * Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic