HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arturo@alcor.bellcore.com (A. Cisneros)
Subject: Stephen Hawking - National Public Radio
Reply-To: arturo@nyquist.bellcore.com
Organization: Network Technology Research Lab, Bellcore
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 15:45:27 GMT


There was a story this morning on National Public Radio (U.S.)
on Stephen Hawking. It ended with what appeared to be a quote
attributed to him: "Then we will know the mind of God".

What concerms me about this is that it tends to attribute
to Hawking a belief he apparently does not hold. I read
"A Brief History of Time" and it is pretty clear to me that
he does not believe in a personal god. Is there anyone who
knows him that can tell us whether Hawking uses "God"
metaphorically for Nature? Is the NPR report inaccurate?

Richard Feynman, for example, did use "God" metaphorically for
Nature. But he did not believe in a personal god. I knew him
personally, I was a teaching assistant for him when I was
a graduate student at Caltech. I heard him make this point
clear more than once.

It appears to me that many theist reporters, when confronted
with people like Hawking, try desperately to attribute to
them religious inclinations they do not have. They refuse to
admit that highly positively influential people can be
atheists. They want to find something, the flimsiest piece
of evidence, that will win them to the theists' side.

Bill Moyers shows his uneasiness when interviewing atheists.
He will almost always plug in a commercial for the "spirit".


Arturo Cisneros

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Survey
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:01:33 GMT

In article <920818174611_70253.2621_CHC74-1@CompuServe.COM> 
  70253.2621@CompuServe.COM (Chris & Susan Colvin) writes:

First off kids, posting to 200 newsgroups will not endear you to anyone.
rec.games.frp???? come on, get real.

>When you die, where will you go?  (in the ground is not a valid answer)

In the air?  Is this a multiple choice test?  What percentage
of my grade is this worth?

>If you were to die today, would you go to heaven?

No one would be more surprised than me.

>If you were to die today and God asked you, "Why should I let you into my
>heaven?" What would you say?

"I'm cute.  Plus I have naughty photos of you and that God two universes
over, nuff said?"

>What is my "agenda" for asking these questions?  Just curious.

Yeah, right.  I'm surprised you didn't post to any test groups,
that would have been a whole heap of laughs.

>CDC

C Frog
From: souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:25:18 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <10178@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine) writes:
>
>  I do not want to waste my time reading about Mohammed, Budha,
>  the Bagwhan Shree Rajneesh, or any other of a nearly infinite list
>  of religious zealots.  If your religion were so vastly and
>  obviously superior to all the others, we would not be having this
>  conversation as the entire world would have long ago been
>  converted.  When and if you finally let go of your ethnocentric
>  prejudice, you will see that Islam is just another in an endless
>  parade of world religions.  

The Qur'an talks about Christians, Jews and disbelievers ...
since it is the last message from God which shall be valid
until today (my belief), then it ackgnowleges the presence of
these groups who will always be there.  Maybe it is meant this
way.  As a Muslim, I am commanded to live my life according
to Islam and try to explain the message to others.  Whether
they accept it or not, it is not my business.

>
>  What's most interesting about this post is that I would have felt
>  too uninformed about Islam to say these things a few months ago.
>  Thanks to yourself, Benham, and others, I have seen enough 'bout
>  your religion assure myself that it is no particular way special
>  or unique.  It is most certainly not worth my time.
>

If you think that you know enough about Islam in a few months
of usenet discussions, then you are mistaken my friend.  I don't
expect that these discussions will change anyone, but hopefully
will make us better informed and mabe leve an impact.
Thank you for your compliment anyway :)

Ridha
>
>
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 
>
>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
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Reply to Gregg Skinner
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:54:22 GMT

>merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>>jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>>>    ...Christianity doesn't teach
>>>    war but peace (no Crusades).  It doesn't teach conformity
>>>    but freedom to choose (no Inquisitions).
>
>>C'mon, it prescribes the death penalty for many things I don't
>>consider crimes, like homosexual acts.  Where's the peace & freedom
>>here?  Or do you ignore that part of the bible?
>
>In a private exchange, I asked Mr. LeRoy to support for this claim
>(that Christianity prescribes the death penalty for homosexual acts).

Actually, he first challenged me to point out any christians who
advocate the death penalty for homosexual acts; I pointed out that
wasn't what I claimed.

>He gave me Leviticus.  I countered with Paul ("no longer under the
>law, but under grace") and pointed out that for Christianity the new
>covenant has replaced the old of which Leviticus is a part.  I
>explained that this is straightforward, orthodox Christianity.

I pointed out that not all christians agree with this, and that
many christians today still quote Leviticus as a reason to condemn
homosexual acts (while usually ignoring the penalty prescribed by it).

>He countered that Paul, being just a human, had no authority to say that
>about God's law.  I pointed out that if we throw out the authority of
>the apostle Paul, we are no longer talking about Christianity, which
>was essentially founded by Paul.

I'd say this is a false dichotomy; Paul could be the founder of christianity
AND be wrong about no longer being under the law.  I don't see where, *within
christianity*, Paul has the authority to say these laws no longer apply.
He claims this, but the laws were supposedly handed down by god, and
Paul is just an imperfect human being according to christianity, so I
don't see how his opinion is supposed to be convincing in this matter.
How is it more than the opinion of one man?

>I asked him to differentiate between
>Christianity and Judaism.  He had nothing more to say.

What I had done at this point was point out some christians who
quote Leviticus (Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell), and some who still
obey (at least parts of) Leviticus (7th day adventists, Amish),
implying that Leviticus isn't null and void according to some
christians.  I also pointed out that Paul does not have the authority
to rescind laws of god.  Skinner's question was irrelevant (but I would
distinguish Cs from Js in that Cs believe Jesus was the son of god and
the messiah, Js don't.  Notice this doesn't require Paul being accurate,
or Leviticus being in effect or not.  Like I said, irrelevant).

>I await his retraction.

And Skinner keeps harping on a "retraction" of some sort; I see no
reason to retract what I've said.  I keep telling him this, and
he keeps whining about a retraction.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
From: souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:11:19 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Aug18.180613.19320@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
>
>Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I meant in the Qur'an prohibition
>of alcohol came in 3 or 4 steps.  First it ordered the people not to
>approach prayers, then it said that there is some good in wine, but

I meant do not approach prayers while drunk. (so that they know
what they are saying).

Ridha
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reply to Gregg Skinner -- Christians and the Law
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:46:03 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Aug20.153700.294@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>
>    Having an absolute moral standard, even if imperfectly interpreted,
>    is better than having no absolute standard at all, and being adrift in
>    a sea of humanistic moral choices.
>

  Rough week, Jim?  Just when I'd lost all hope of ever flaming you
  again; you've been so bearable these last few weeks.

  Fortunately, I've got my Humanistic life preserver strapped on
  securely: it's called a brain.  Don't leave home w/o one.

  Anyway, aren't we all perfect examples of people who feel that no
  moral standard is better than one based on genocide, sexism,
  petulance, and a rash of other decidedly tasteless practices?  And
  even if the old Law is not applicable to Christians, remeber that
  the author of the new law is the same old autocrat. 

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

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: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:49:36 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Aug13.191901.5444@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>
>I dunno.  What do we do when the teachings of Paul contradict those
>of Jesus?
>
>>If so, I note that we have words from Paul to the effect "you are no
>>longer under the law, but under grace."
>
>But this directly contradicts the jot and tittle stuff spoken by
>Jesus.  Why should Paul, a mere mortal, be able to override Jesus,
>who was God?  One might almost think that the religion has been
>corrupt right from the beginning.

  I have always thought that Christianity would be much more
  palatable without the influence of Paul on the early church.  Paul
  appears to be a homophobic anti-sexual zealot who stepped way out
  of bounds with his additions to the teachings of the church.  If
  Christians stuck to only the words of Jesus as their guide, we
  wouldn't suffer from all of the intolerance amongst it's
  believers.


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

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: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: HAVE YOU READ THIS ?.............
Date: 18 Aug 92 01:59:05 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <Bt4t5t.1zD@apollo.hp.com> perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry) writes:
>In article <2asJ02nA1eC801@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>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?
>>
>>Yeah, the book of John and/or Romans will give you a good picture.
>
>NOT.  (As the cutesy expression goes).
>
>These would be a good place to go for the Reader's Digest version of
>what modern Christians think the Bible says, but just reading these
>will form a rather poor idea of what the Bible as a whole, or even the
>New Testament as a whole, says.
>-- 

My friend, do you know what the New Testament "as a whole" says?  If you
did you wouldn't hold the position that you do.
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:28:54 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <10156@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.173555.23367@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
>>
>>I am not trying to use this as a proof of the truth of Islam,
>>just showing the person who is mocking prophet Mohamed as a
>>"desert nomad" man that this man is among the top who influenced
>>humanity with the message he brought.
>>
>
>  Ditto for Hitler.

Or Genghis Khan.  Or Caesar and Alexander.  Education and literacy
aren't everything, influencing-humanity-wise.
-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 11:57:31 EDT
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please Read This One!
 <1992Aug19.182201.28629@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
 <1992Aug20.081539.290@doc.bmd.trw.com>

In article <1992Aug20.081539.290@doc.bmd.trw.com>, jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com says:
>
>(To everyone)  Why do you waste bandwidth responding to this type of
>post?  Why legitimize it with your answers?  There must be over a
>hundred "Re: Survey" subject lines on my server!  I read this group
>to get thought-provoking discussions going, not to see crude responses
>to this type of zero-content post.

I may disagree with Jim Brown on minor matters (such as whether or not
gods exist), but I agree 100% with him here.  I'm just about ready to
give up on a.a and stick strictly with a.a.moderated if this kind of
space-wasting garbage continues.


Later,
John
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi)
Subject: Re: FOR WHATEVER IT'S WORTH
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:43:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.201052.21811@meaddata.com> joyce@meaddata.com writes:
>It's the first (and last) time I will
>ever be in this newsgroup

Translation:  I'm farting, then getting off the elevator.

>...He claimed to be God. There are 3 possibilities to His
>claim, 1) He was not telling the truth and He knew it which makes Him
>a liar; 2) He was not telling the truth and He did not know it which
>makes Him a lunatic; and 3) He was telling the truth.

4) The Biblical reports of his life, and the lives of his apostles,
are false or exaggerated.
-- 
David Canzi
From: jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jennifer S Broekman)
Subject: Re: Time to start secular scouts
Reply-To: jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (jenneke)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:48:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.210616.4416@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>Whenever the scouting issue is brought up they (BSA supporters) always
>respond by saying that we should start our own. So why not do it? If its
>better than the boyscouts it will win out in the long run. 

Or you could start with something already in existence, with gov't funding,
namely 4-H. Yes, it was started via the land-grant colleges. Yes, it started
as not much more than what the Future Farmers of America is. But, there are 
groups in New York City. Since it's US gov't funded, it can't enforce religious
values. Since it depends strongly on the adult leaders, you can make your 
group as supportive as you like for whatever you want. And, because one of the
very few requirements for being a member is a yearly 'public presentation', it
can do wonders for the self-esteem. It's *certainly* much better than the 
Girl Scouts, IMHO.

-jenneke, throwing grammar to the wind.

My biggest budget problem is food:
My stomach wants four meals a day.
My budget wants two.
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: a bad book attacking evolution and atheism
Date: 18 Aug 92 07:03:19 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of South Australia

Sounds like one of those books
writtten purely to get
attention.
(James J. Lippard) writes:
> 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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine)
Subject: Re: Bush quote?(not the FAQ atheist one)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University - Chemistry Dept. Programmer
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:35:00 GMT

In article <5khy1r+@rpi.edu>, mcgead@jacob.its.rpi.edu (Darren McGeary) writes...
}    I could have sworn that I just heard on the radio that George Bush has
}said something to the effect that 'You cannot be President if you don't
}believe in god'.  Has anyone else heard this?  I'm sure that they weren't  
}referring to the 'atheist quote' from years back.
}-- 
}Darren McGeary -  mcgead@rpi.edu          Freedom of religion means freedom 
}PRO-CHOICE - THE AMERICAN WAY             FROM religion!!
}Banish religion from government!          -These are my opinions. They just
}Atheists Unite!!                           happen to also be the right ones.

He did say this in a speech this morning during a prayer breakfast. I 
almost threw a brick through the TV... fortunately there wasn't a brick
handy.

}-IvArch->--------------------------Brett G. Lemoine-------------------->
}-Texas A&M University--------------Chemistry Department Programmer----->
}-Internet: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu-Bitnet: lemoine@tamchem------------->
}------"A person without a god is like a fish without a skateboard."---->
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Subject: Re: Not killing as a moral absolute (was Re: Best Bible translation?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 17:00:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.185337.19907@vaxeline.ftp.com>, clennox@vaxeline.ftp.com (Systems Anarchist) writes:
|> Issues of morality generally center around *reasons* for actions
|> rather than the actions themselves.
|> 
|> For example, suppose A kills B.  What is the morality of the action?
|> Is it different if A genuinely thinks his/her life is in danger from
|> B, than if A merely gets intense enjoyment out of killing people?
|> What if *both* conditions are true; can the same action simultaneously
|> be moral and immoral?  Does the morality of the situation change if A
|> is delusional, and genuinely, but mistakenly, believes his/her life to
|> be in danger from B?  How about if A kills B just for fun, unaware
|> that B really *was* about to take A's life?
|> 
|> The problem, therefore, in defining an objective morality, is that the
|> issues we are dealing with (perceptions, emotions, cognitive
|> processes) are inherently subjective.  

No arguments with any of the above.

|> Essentially, an action is moral
|> or immoral only if the person performing the action *believes* it to
|> be so.

This, however, I cannot buy.  Why aren't the beliefs of those 
who are affected by the actions also considered?  Since most
moral issues deal with social interaction, it seems to me that
the determination of whether an action is right or wrong must 
include viewpoints from all parties involved.  I'm not trying
to assert that there are moral absolutes, or even that there
is always a mutually agreeable moral action.  I'm just trying 
to find a middle ground between the extremes of moral absolutes, 
and complete personal morality.

-- 
Dan Yergeau                         He's dead Jim.  Take his phaser
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU        and I'll get his wallet.
From: vandelhg@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (MCG)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Shroud of Turin
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:17:15 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Vanderbilt

In article <YTd-J2_@engin.umich.edu>, paulk@advection.engin.umich.edu (paul
kominsky) wrote:
> 
	(a bunch deleted, on Shroud)

		Actually Paul, the Shroud of Turin *was* in fact revealed to have been an
early medieval fake, through such fun & exciting methods as Mass
Spectroscopy and with equally arcane scientific equipage.  While I cannot
at the moment recall the precise references you seem to require (sorry,
I've failed again), rest assured that I am not attempting deception.  In
fact, if you go back through the archives for the past 2-3 years, I believe
that you may find what you need.
		My faded memory seems to recall a priest saying "Well, even if it is a
fake, it sure makes some people religious, so we'll just keep it on display
anyway) (or words to that effect -- I'm serious).
		Now then, can we drop this Turin thing?  It's all over and done with as
far as the RC Church is concerned.  The Shroud is not considered by any
worthwhile expert to be anything more than a really "cool fake" done be
medieval monks.  The blood, while old, isn't old enough.  The image on the
cloth, while interesting, is also not old enough.  The cloth itself, again,
while of considerable age, is not old enough to be genuine.  The Church
didn't want to subject the Shroud to examination because they feared it
might be proved a fake, but more enlightened elements of the RC Church
decided to have done with it and -- much as some people feared, the Shroud
has been disproven.
			Again, apologies for lack of references, but check your local
high-powered library.  Or if you can find it, check the TV News Archive for
ABC, CBS, NBC coverage (circa 1985 - 1990).



MCG>
I don't exist.
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: For all you believers
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:52:13 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <1992Aug17.172701.22284@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
}In article <1992Aug16.204444.22864@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
}>
}>Nah, that's not bloody enough -- it would never make the news.  Tell you
}>what.  I'll have my God arrange for Mr. Bush to slaughter a bunch of
}>followers of your God pretty soon (before November).  Then you shall know
}>that my God is the one true god.  And my God is merciful, wise.
}
}It shows that the lives of humans have no importance to you to
}talk about them like that.
}
}My God will make Mr. Bush die one day, and you shall die too.
}Then you should know the truth.

Amusing.  If Doug says it, he is showing that human lives are not important.
If Ridha says the same thing, it is a demonstration of truth.