HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas)
Subject: Re: The Steve Martin movie "Leap of Faith"
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 03:09:18 GMT

j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Joe Moody) writes:
>martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) wrote:
>> 
>> I don't read this group regularly, I just dip into it on occasion,
>> but I consider myself a pretty strong atheist... as far as a God is
>> concerned, the universe is innocent 'til proven guilty.
>> 
>> Tonight I saw the film "Leap of Faith" with some friends of mine 
>> who are pretty religious.  I'm a pretty big fan of Steve Martin,
>> especially his earlier films, and I'd sort of expected to have a 
>> bit of a laugh at evangelism at my friends' expense.
>> 
>> Was I wrong...  Steve Martin seems to have gone really quite
>> sickeningly religious in this movie.
>(rest deleted)

>You sound like a very bitter person. It's unfortunate your prejudice toward
>your fellow human beings' belief in a higher power blinds you so. 

Bitter? No.  Angry, yes, that Hollywood abuses the medium of film 
by presenting *opinions* as *fact* using very powerful techniques 
like big screens, beautiful people and domineering music.
I don't understand your second sentence... What prejudice?  What am I
blinded to?  The only blind people are those who forget that the
movie is a *fictional* account, and only something people may *wish*
were true, rather than something true.

If you refer to my use of the phrase "sickeningly religious" then please
understand I meant that only in the context of this movie.  I do not
conventionally place those two words together.  As I said in the 
original post, these were religious *friends* of mine. It's just that
in this movie, the preaching becomes VERY heavy towards the end.

>It's amazing how you hide behind 'rationality' and 'open mindedness' to
       Not my words, don't 'quote' ^^^^^^^^^^^       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>secure your unbeliefs, but many--including Steve Martin--find your 
>definition of objective rationality to be *eternally* lacking.

Is that so?  I suppose using an obviously faked event (ie the "miracles"
in the movie script) to affirm one's beliefs *is* objectively rational,
is it?

I repeat: the movie is a scam exactly like the show within the
movie, but on a larger scale.  Many people will simply fail to 
notice the larger scam, that's all.

Martin
--
Your eyes are weary from staring at the screen.  Your eyelids feel very heavy.
You feel sleepy. Notice how restful it is to watch the cursor blink. Close your
eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt
otherwise.  When you awake you will follow up this post and enthusiastically
agree with it.  Then you will send all your money to martin@cs.curtin.edu.au.
From: eradm@wbst845e.xerox.com (Erik Radmall)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re:      Re: iq<->religion connection
Date: 30 Dec 92 15:58:27 GMT
Reply-To: eradm@wbst845e.xerox.com
Organization: Xerox Corporation

In article AA22699@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com, I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:

> I think this is going to be another discussion of religion and true religion.
> Like the many we had about christianity and true christianity. To cut it short,
> the common understanding of religion includes more than the mystical state you
> refer to.
> And if the dogmas and contradictions are superficial, why do they exist? Don't
> they serve a purpose? Like for instance telling who is one of us and who is
> one of them?

Dogma, unfortunately, is a normal human phenomenon. To paraphrase Kafka:
"Every revolution leaves behind it the slime of bureaucracy." Religions
have far from exclusive rights to its use. It is as easy to be dogmatically
against a religion as it is to be for one, like the ex USSR. Dogma is a
very cheap substitute for using your gourd.

> 
> >To deny the importance of emotion or the need for self-transcendence can cause
> >to lead a very shallow existence, indeed. You may be able to use logic to win o
> >the debating team, but it hardly helps one to woo women. I can tell you what I
> >prefer to do! :-)
> 
> IMO, people are seeking transcendence because they are not content with their
> lives. I wonder if there are no other tools of addressing that problem. And
> my impression of religion is that it aids people in feeling miserably in order
> to keep them hooked.

IMO, content == complacent, so being content for me is a problem. Self-transcendence
is merely widening your own horizons, not, as some folks might assume, some form
of "escape." I have never met anyone that truly _knows_ for a fact that
existence as they perceive it is all there is. So why not poke around a little?

---
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pcrayne@halcyon.com (Peter C. Crayne)
Subject: Iikka's Claims
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 08:55:53 GMT

Ok, I've been following the debate about IQ vs Religious tendencies, & I
finally am fed up. I hope that this message is directed at the correct
person. Some of the attributions got pretty deep.

Iikka, you claimed to have a study relating to
this topic. In some of your messages you claim that it included 1000
subjects. I want proof! Who conducted it? How was it conducted? Show it
to us! Proof, proof, proof!
Unless you prove that it exists, I will believe that you are a liar!
Your messages have shown sufficient weaseling to make me doubt its
existance.

(Opinions follow)
Also, your bragging about your IQ is crass and unseemly. If your claim
is true (after all, your honesty is in doubt) why do you need to tell
everyone about it? Your attitude is much like people who know their
height down to a tenth of an inch, or men who know the exact lenth of
their penis. People who are comfortable with a certain aspect of
themselves usually are not so proccupied with measuring it exactly.

I know quite a few intelligent people, and some very 
intelligent ones. Not all of them scored high on IQ tests. Also, most of
them don't go around bragging about their test scores. The few that do
are, as a rule, self-important jerks. 
In case there is any doubt: Yes, I am implying that you may be a
self-important jerk. (Although I have not read enough of your messages
to be sure. Maybe an off day :-)

-Pete (Ticked off at blind arrogance)
pcrayne@halcyon.com
"Statistics are no substitute for judgement."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Distribution: world,public
Date:  4 Jan 93 02:17:45 GMT

lucio@phyrql.Alt.ZA (Lucio de Re) writes:

>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>>In article <1992Dec28.122831.21650@walter.cray.com> jwest@wisc (Jeff West) writes:
>[ ... Jeff, I omit the leader because such pain need not be repeated ... ]
>>>
>>>	Jeff "you really hit my hot button" West

>>Lets clear something up - all things work together for good FOR THOSE WHO
>>LOVE THE LORD.  If my daughter was in this circumstance, she would be in
>>physical pain, but she would be secure in the knowledge of her eternal life
>>through Christ, and though I would also be in much pain - probably more than
>>her - God would use it to strengthen my character.  Who are we to argue with
>>God?

>Where was your god when a four-year old girl, who would hardly be able
>to tell the difference, was suffering?  Ch-rist, even my Roman Catholic
>priests would not be so arrogant!  John, I dislike your type intensely,
>less arrogance drove me from the RC church and eventually from
>Christianity.  And I've learnt in the process that your ilk deserves no
>more than be squashed at the slightest opportunity, which I do with glee.

>Now get your ass out of alt.atheism fast, before I find out more about
>you and your family.

>>John M.
>-- 
>Lucio de Re (lucio@phyrql.Alt.ZA)
>The supernatural does not exist, but it gives me the creeps...

Lucio de Re, though an atheist you be, I cannot tolerate threats being made
to people on any net newsgroup.  These are open public forums and people can
talk about their piles if they want to.  Threatening people is just an
invasion of the most cherished part of net news, the right to say anything
without fear of reprisal. So John, though I heartily disagree with
everything you said, and you do frighten me a little (though only as much as
other ardent fundies have), you have as much right to post on this newsgroup
as anybody else and don't let anybody frighten you from it. If anybody
threatens you privately, e-mail me and I'll get on to the right people who
can help you out.

Jeff.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Joe Moody)
Subject: A word from Mark Twain
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: University of Notre Dame
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:12:07 GMT

"Anti-Catholicism is the Anti-Semetism of intellectuals."

How true old Twain's words ring now.

-Joe
From: wooyoung@acs.bu.edu (WooYoung Chung)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Moral Liberty (was Re: I still wouldn't worship it.)
Date: 30 Dec 92 17:47:25 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: wooyoung@acs.bu.edu

John Munch (jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu) wrote:
: 
:   If some entity turned off the force of gravity for half a second today,
: then I would immediately become a theist, in the sense that I would 
: say that god existed. I still wouldn't worship it.

That is a very interesting point.  If a "god" has power 
over us (e.g. power to throw us into hell for eternity) does 
this mean we must follow him (or her)?  Or let say, we accepted 
the notation that a "god" created us, does this obligate us to follow
the teaching of the god, no matter what. 

I do not know a lot of different religions; but, at least in the case of
catholicism, rewards and punishments are signicantly over-emphasized,
IMHO.  I think the reasons behind people's behavior is as important 
as the behavior itself.  

Whether one believes in god or not, he or she cannot deny the fact that 
religion is a social institution that guides the morality of the
society.  Perhaps the religion needs to grow with the society that it serves.
The society that we live in has been going through a very rapid changes 
in recent years.  Overall, there are more educated people than ever before.
There are growing incidences of failure of hierarchical structure that 
focuses on obedience. (e.g. failure of communism or failure of many 
large bureaucratic organizations) 

The religious organizations should learn and adopt to the
societal changes.  They should try to balance Skinnerian approach 
(inducing behavior with positive and negative feedbacks) with
more humanistic approach (e.g. educating the value of "just" 
behavior)


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: IQ scores
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 24 Dec 92 01:12:53 GMT

bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:


>  Seems there's been a lot of posts containing IQ scores recently
>  here.  So here's my input:

>    I don't have clue one as to my IQ score other than knowing it's
>    probably higher than that of the average german shepherd.  Oh, I 
>    do know one other thing:  it's high enough to help me realize
>    that I shouldn't post it unsolicited to the net.

Why, what's wrong with posting IQ scores? What is wrong is implying that
this figure somehow makes you a superior person or that the figure somehow
lends weight to your argument.

Jeff.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: world,public
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 02:42:54 GMT

Stephen Doe (sdoe@nmsu.edu) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec28.115818.22733@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikk
a Paavolainen) writes:
: >In article <1992Dec28.072026.2803@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writ
es:
: >>In article <ofBEMFy00Uh_I2BY9m@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew
.cmu.edu> writes:

[Loomis response deleted]

: >>Hey, don't you dare introduce these complications into Iikka's lovely
: >>simple correlation!
: >
: >Loomis came with a very rational reply to the post, taking many different
: >things into notice. You, on the other hand, are starting to look like a jest
er
: >with all your ludicrous posts. Well, at least we have some clown to laugh to
?
:
: How was my first reply not rational?  I just questioned how you came
: to your conclusions.  Your replies have shown some very weak reasoning
: indeed.

Because you didn't agree with Iikka, The Rational.
-- 
Mike McAngus 			 | As if I needed Another time consuming hobby.
(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)		 | 
The Truth is still the Truth	 | This Post exploits illiterates.
Even if you choose to ignore it. | 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 21:48:02 GMT

Joe Beiter (joeb@arden.linet.org) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec31.164029.7377@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mik
e A. McAngus) writes:

[deletia]

: >OK, how about Mark 9:1.  Or are you saying that there is a 2000 year old per
son
: >walking around somewhere?
:
:
: "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before
: they see the kingdom of God come with power".
:
: This could be referring to the Transfiguration or maybe even the day of
: Pentecost.  The verses prior to it (8:34-38) suggest the Transfiguration.
:

The trasfiguration!?!?!?  Where were the angels? (Mark 8:38)  How has "the 
kingdom of God come with power"?
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: npm@dale.cts.com (Nancy Milligan)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Titan Linkabit Corporation
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: world,public
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 05:34:05 GMT

If Christians, or Bible believers, are so happy, so morally well-
adjusted wouldn't it stand to reason that most criminals would
be atheists?  Well, they aren't.  Something like 95% of them
believe in a god, and some percentage of them go to church. 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: rumisk@odie.cs.mun.ca (Jonathan Fernandes)
Subject: Re: Christian racism
Keywords: Christian racism depiction of christ
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 21:23:25 GMT

martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:

..stuff deleted..

>Not once have I seen the point raised that the characters in the 
>Bible were much more likely to have been dark-haired, dark-skinned
>and not overly tall, and had the same physical characteristics that
>most middle-eastern people share today.  I suspect many Christians

..stuff deleted..

Would it be possible for you to confirm these statments with the quotes
from the Bible? I am curious as to what makes you belive that the characters
in the Bible were more likely to have had dark-hair, dark skin, etc.


---
 _____________________________________ _______________________________________
|`Tis strange but true,               |       ________                        |
|  for truth is often strange-        |___       /   rumisk@odie.cs.mun.ca    |
|    stranger than fiction'   --Lord Byron|     /---                          |
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\~~/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                             \/
From: Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org (Ian Douglas)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: The (in)constancy of the universe
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:40:02 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 5:7102/119 - Zero 2 Infinity, CT

Hi All!

On 19 Dec 92, rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu wrote to All:

 >>
 >>  >>  >> I know I exist.
 >>  >>
 >>  >>  db> What do you mean by 'know', and what do you mean by 'I' ?
 >>  >> Does the terminal in front of you exist?
 >>
 >>  rle> I don't know....
 >>
 >> Why did you answer the question? Did you see it? or merely imagine it :-)
 >> Do you exist?
 >> If you are going to answer, "I don't know", what do you mean by 'I'?

 rle> Cogito me cogitare, ergo cogito me esse.
 rle> Cogito me esse me.

Sorry, never did much Latin past amo amas amat etc ad nauseam.
So please excuse my ignorance and repeat it in English (or Afrikaans :-) )

    Reality doesn't go away, even if you choose to ignore it.

Cheers, Ian


--  
INTERNET: Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: is it necessary to hate?
Date: 26 Dec 92 22:56:23 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: New Mexico State University

In article <3401.2B38AE26@catpe.alt.za> Steve.Hayes@p0.f20.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes) writes:
>During a discussion about Re: is it necessary to hate? on 12-22-92  00:11 
> Kent Sandvik  said to All
>
> KS> Steve.Hayes@f20.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes) wrote:
> > I have come across tolerant and intolerant Christians, and tolerant and 
> > intolerant atheists. Not that I think tolerance arises from a wishy-washy 
> > "it doesn't matter what you believe" kind of thing. But as a Christian 
> KS> 
> KS> I would otherwise agree with the statements. Unfortunately
> KS> Christianity has had its dark ages when the evangelism effort of the
> KS> good message had produced very aggressive and cruel actions. In other
> KS> words Christianity as any other mass movement systems relies on the
> KS> internal inertia, and  sometimes this social force could mutate into
> KS> something that the  original idea opposed.
>
>True indeed. But atheism has also had its dark ages. Just consider the last 70 years or so in the USSR, where some 20 million people perished because they failed to understand the only way to universal happiness. 
>
>Of course you could say that that wasn't your brand of atheism, but I could equally well say that the other wasn't my brand of Christianity. 
>
>The most we can say is that some people feel that it is necessary to hate, and whether they are Christians or atheists seems to make very little difference.
>
>Well, not quite. I don't think there's much difference in the quality of the hate or its effects, but it does make the Christians more hypocritical, because what they believe should make them see hate as wrong, whereas there is no _necessary_ connection between atheism and thinking that hatred is a good or a bad thing.
>

You're not talking about atheism here, you're talking about people
going out and killing in the name of some political ideology.  Atheism
is just lack of belief in god(s).  Period.  End of sentence.  It
doesn't tell you to go out and be nice to people; it doesn't tell you
to go out and kill people.  "I'm going to kill the infidel because No
God told me to!"

So communism isn't a "brand" of atheism in the manner that Calvinsim
is a "brand" of Christianity.  Karl Marx's ideology did not presume
God's existence, but to be an atheist does not mean you must accept
any part of his ideology, whereas most Christians I know would say
that to be a Christian there are some core beliefs, such as the
divinity of Christ, the Resurrection, etc, that one must accept.

The mistake you make here is to assume that atheism is a philosophy
all by itself.  It isn't; at most, the assumption that God doesn't
exist is *one* of the tenets of whatever philosophy the individual
atheist happens to subscribe to.

SD
From: joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Violence in the bible?
Date: 3 Jan 93 20:19:05 GMT
Organization: The Courts of Chaos

In article <1993Jan02.215253.26727@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>Joe Beiter (joeb@arden.linet.org) wrote:
>
>A neat sidestep of the implicit question.  Given my above scenario, am I 
>justified in executing the man who commitied adultery with Mrs. Henderson?  
>Why or why not.

Oh sorry.  I didn't think you were serious.  You are not justified and would
be guilty of murder.

Assuming you are from the USA, you have no legal right to kill someone out
side of some cases of self-protection.  Socially its really none of your
business what Mrs. Henderson does less of course you're Mr. Henderson.

But how about a little equal time?  Why do you find it hard to belive there
is a God who is this interested in the human race?  Solely because you've
"Never seen him"?  If there was a God, how would you expect him to act that
you would know he is real?




: God (of The Bible) is not like us.  You're talking a different set of scal
>: here.
>: >
>: >If the "justice" is immoral by our limited standards, how can it be moral by
>: >"different set of scales"?  From human experience, justice tends to become m
>: >humane as peoples philosophical basis expands.
>:
>: relativity.
>
>Duh!  I must be really stupid, could you expand your one word reply.
>

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply.

I'm thinking of Webster's 2 entry for the word. "the state of being dependent
for existence on or determined in nature, value, or quality by relation to
something else".

What I mean is this, Our sense of justice is corrupted by our environment.
Friends cheat on their spouses (with a wink), Criminals walk free when they
have enough $$s etc...  God is independent of our entire point of view.
Shoot he has existed forever and will exist forever, has a bunch of monsters
floating around him at all hours chanting "Holy Holy Holy" and you're amazed
that his sense of justice is unlike yours?


>The Truth is still the Truth 
>Even if you choose to ignore it.

Nice line.  Mind if I use it on another net?  ;-)



-- 
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
|Joe.Beiter@arden.linet.org               The Long Island Network Project   |
|The Courts of Chaos Semi-Public Access   Long Island New York: USA         |
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Genital-grabbing
Date: 2 Jan 1993 01:23:38 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


	I think at several points in the OT (if my memory of bible
class in HS serves me right) putting your hand between someones thighs
was something they did to "seal" a promise, I think Abraham had ordered
a servant to make a promise and told mis servant to put his hands between
his legs while making the promise...sounds rather kinky to me :^D

-- 
A. TRENT PHILLIPS |" A mirror is a negative space with a frame and a place for
  also known as   | your face, it reveals what the rest of us see. It conceals
   WHITE  ROOK    | what you'd like you to be."--Blue Oyster Cult
-------bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu-----aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu-------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism