HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka Ktf92)
Subject: Re: Info on bible editions in FAQ
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 08:25:00 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

In <1992Nov16.145252.17504@husc3.harvard.edu> dobrowol@husc8.harvard.edu writes:

> 
> 	I've been wondering whether we shouldn't put some info on the
> different editions of the bible in the FAQ file....?   
> 	Many atheists I know (myself included) have at one time or another
> read a bible and it would have certainly saved me a lot
> of confusion, and time, if I had been able to figure out early on
> that there are different versions (and why they differ).
> 
> 		Maybe the following info could be useful:
> -what different eitions exist 
> -when, and in what circumstances were they created
> 

      This kind of info might be useful to some degree, I agree - but I
think there is a risk that FAQ might balloon too much. After all, this
newsgroup is read all over the world, and there's at least one Bible in
just about every language you can think of. Info on english-language
versions only would be kind of lost on me... Besides, what would limit
us to merely the Bible? This might become one *enormous* FAQ...

 - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - 
           Opinions? What's that, mom - some new kind of dessert?
     "Every day for us, something new / Open mind for a different view /
                       And nothing else matters..."     ---     Metallica
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: johnsd2@jec327.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Judiasm in an atheist
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec327.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:10:57 GMT

In article 1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu, rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu () writes:

[deletia- about celebrations]
>
>It fascinates me that I continually hear sentiments of this nature from
>those of Jewish beckground. Non-believers of Xian background normally
>seem to want to get away from the whole concept of the holidays. I 
>suppose they would prefer to replace them with purely secular "holidays"
>without religious connotations, but I dunno. Maybe they'd prefer to not
>have any. Note I am making a generalization; I do not intend that
>these statements to include all atheists of Jewish or Xian background.
>

I guess Im abnormal or something, but Im an atheist and I think we
have plenty of secular holidays. Thanksgiving. Christmas. (ok, it has
a Christian name. I can live with that.). And so on.

Its not my impression that most unbeliever-types want to do away with
holidays, and I kinda wonder where you get this idea.

---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Prophecies And Word Games
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 00:35:36 GMT

In article <9211221405.AA05422@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>
>Humpty Dumpty again. It said the *name* would be immanuel, nothing more -
>nothing less.
>
>Your use of the bible as a Rorschach groups you among the semantically
>impaired.
>   Benedikt

Unfortunately, you are wrong, Benedikt. Arguably, that is the way 
the Bible was *intended* to be used.

	Sven

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: D.J.Butcher@newcastle.ac.uk (Dave Butcher)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:27:49 GMT
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU.


In article <cdCQ02ia2aAd01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.130951.165091@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
>>dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:
>>Also, the name of Jesus is recorded in other Christian and Non-christian
>>texts.  There is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that the name of Jesus is correct, and
>>that He lived on earth.
>
>OK, give us the evidence. I doubt it until then.
>
>>
>>I think we can safely dismiss your supposition!  (In fact, I think we can
>>safely dismiss all of them.  It all sounds like day dreaming, not fact. :-)
>>
>
>As far as atheists are concerned, yours is the day dream until you have
>given satisfactory evidence.
>
>>
>>Yours in Christ,
>
>But not on this board.
>
>>James.

Considering that the Bible was neither written in English, or Roman
characters I doubt 'Jesus' is exact.
Anyway, How do we know that he was telling the truth about his name.  If other
people support it how do we know they were/are telling the truth?  They could
by lying or Mistaken.

Dave.
Nb.- Witty Quote goes here.

	D.Butcher@ncl.ac.uk
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Circumcision (was Re: God Is Unfair)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 04:14:37 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64746.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Nov19.221401.27880@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>Americans have far more "barbaric" practices:  in
>our community (Connecticut) it is almost universal
>for teenage and pre-teen girls and occasionally
>boys to have holes punched through their earlobes
>and metallic studs and rings forced through them.
>I would say almost 90% of the girls in my daughter's
>school class are "victims" of this form of mutilation.

	How many of these are forced to, without their consent?
There is a substantial difference between personal choice, and forcing
one's will upon unconsenting infants.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat)
Subject: Re: God As Drug
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 13:04:17 EST

In article <62130@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>In the anti-AA line of argument, several people have written along the lines
>of this person:
>
>>Or maybe could it be that the alcoholics are just given a replacement drug,
>>namely some delusionary beliefs = God.  Therefore the alcoholic is still not
>>cured, but rather has now a different problem.  Wonder if that's why there
>>is so much danger from recidivism. 
>
>Besides being a rather facile comeback, this fails a very basic test.  One
>could understand the christian faith along the lines of
>
>(1) People are basically sick.

I do not think that people are basically evil or sick.  I certainly
don't consider the newly born sick (they as yet have never heard
of God.

>
>(2) Cause of illness is alienation from God.

Sorry, but you got it backwards.  The delusion of God is the disease.

>
>(3) Cure is injection of God through baptism and faith in Jesus (wh,. in
>    this scheme, serves as a sort of God-pill).
>
>Therefore, saying God is a drug is weak; the problem from a christian
>perspective is that you refuse to take your medicine! :-)

From an atheist perspective religion/cult is the symptom brought on by the
disease of God.  A healthy mind is a rational mind.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Adam and Eve and Bellybuttons
Date: 18 Nov 92 11:48:08 GMT
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century

percival@qut.edu.au writes:

>	What I want to know is:  Did Adam or Eve have bellybuttons?
>	And if so, Why?

To keep their purple fluff in, silly.

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive  P a u l   M o l o n e y    "I'm pretty witty and you're itty bitty    pe
james  Trinity College, Dublin     And isn't it a pity the city can't see?   vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
Subject: Re: Bible Buying
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:43:16 GMT

In article <1ducc4INNf5@wupost.wustl.edu>
oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser) writes:
>
>I'm considering (gasp!) buying a Bible.  What translations do readers of this
>group recommend, and why?
 
You can get a free King James version from just about any motel room.
 
I'd recommend an electronic version also- its easier to do keyword searches.
 
Wayne Aiken                                            "You can BE what
PO Box 30904            slack@ncsu.edu                  you WON'T!!"
Raleigh, NC  27622                                       --"Bob"
(919) 782-8171          StarFleet BBS: (919) 782-3095
From: huffman@alishaw (Matt Huffman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: sacrilegious catalogs!!
Keywords: atheist, shopping
Date: 21 Nov 92 17:58:42 GMT
Distribution: alt.atheism


Hello, fellow heathens.  For general interest, here are 2 addresses
waahich contain lots of good "sacrilegios" items.  My personal favorite,
available from the second of these addresses, is a mock "christian 
fish"  -- you know, those damn silver fish that have greek letters
inside.  The mock version of this cute little fish has feet and the
letters D-A-R-W-I-N inside.  Anyway, here are the addresses:

FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation)
P.O. BOX 750
Madison, WI 53701
(608) 256-8900

Evolution Designs
7119 Laurel Canyon #4
North Hollywood, CA 91605

I suggest doing all your "christmas" shopping through
these catalogs!

Enjoy!!
--Matt Ted Huffman
huffman@alishaw.ucsb.edu

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Blasphemy??
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:33:25 GMT

T.G.Nattress@newcastle.ac.uk (Graeme Nattress) writes:
>What is the point in having any laws on blasphemy?  I will argue this in two
>ways:
>
>1:  Atheistic POV.
>God doesn't exist therefore blasphemy means nothing.

Which is why atheists don't make laws against blasphemy. ;-)

>2:  Theistic POV.
>      (from an Atheist's perspective)
>God's a big boy and can look after himself.  If anyone calls him names ,
>1)why should he care
>2)If he does care then he can strike the personn down with a lightening bolt or
>whatever.

People who pass laws against blasphemy and other 'immoral' acts are
the people who tend to equate "allowing x" with "condoning/supporting x".

>Conclusion:
>Blasphemy laws are wrong and evil etc....

Ah, but we atheists don't believe in absolute wrongness or evil! ;-)

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /  carborundorum.                                               -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Chief Justice God (WAS: God unfair)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:54:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.231315.27514@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>I find the discussion about whether the biblical God is an unjust sadistic
>killer rather silly. Judging a 3000 year old text by today's standards just
>doesn't make any sense.

I would agree, except that the fans of this ancient document claim
that it is timeless, eternal, unchanging (etc.) and is a reliable
guide to life today.  And one doesn't even need to use "today's"
standards; just compare the actions of JHWH to any of the ethical
codes of the OT or NT.  

>The only view that is really challenged by that
>argument is the fundamentalist, but that's a lost case anyway. I think this
>kind of argument is not even consistent with the way of thinking that ought
>to be associated with atheism, i.e. sceptical, rational and with a sense of
>history.

Is it inconsistent to point out that if there is a creature like
the God of the Bible running amok in the universe, that it is not 
a worthy object of worship but rather a force to be avoided
at all costs?  Sounds like solid skepticism to me.
-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject:      Prophecies And Word Games
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 14:50:23 MEZ
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA05931; Sun, 22 Nov 92 06:05:45 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA05422; Sun, 22 Nov 92 06:05:42 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0035; Sun, 22 Nov 92 15:05:10 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

Scott Parish typed:
>I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:

>>Ridiculous, some verses that fit is not a fulfillment in every detail. And
>>tell me about the prophecy that the name of the messiah would be immanuel.

>Immanuel = "God with us"; Jesus = God, come to earth in the flesh.

>Jesus literally fulfills this typological prophecy of Isaiah.


Humpty Dumpty again. It said the *name* would be immanuel, nothing more -
nothing less.

Your use of the bible as a Rorschach groups you among the semantically
impaired.
   Benedikt
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21969 talk.religion.misc:21959
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 15:49:47 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch) writes:
> That is a ridiculous argument! Hating sin but loving sinners is something
> all of us do everyday, although we might not put it those terms. How many
> of us work with someone whose views we vehemently disagree with, and yet we
> actually like the person and enjoy their company? I've had many friends
> like that. Come to think of it, sometimes I feel that way about my wife! 

I find that "belief compatibility" is important.  For example, as far as
politics goes I can get on with socialists, even though I don't think
Socialism will work, because the motivations and methods of socialism are
acceptable to me.  I can get on with libertarians for similar reasons. 
However, I would find it difficult or impossible to get on with someone who
espoused Fascism.

In a religious context, "woolly" CofE-style Christians and intellectual
Christians (*) are OK, but I would find it difficult or impossible to get on
with Fundies.

> And I'll repeat it again for those who have read my recent posts, the most
> unloving thing you can do for any individual and for society in general is
> to tolerate sin and pretend that there's nothing wrong with it.

I believe in personal responsibility.  Anything consenting adults wish to do
which does not harm others is fine as far as I'm concerned.  I don't consider
it any of my business to forcibly protect others from harming themselves; I'm
happy to give them advice, but if they choose to ignore it I consider that
any consequences are their fault, not mine.

>                                                                    Sin has
> consequences, both in this world and afterwards, and if you ignore it, you
> condemn the sinner to death by your inaction!

No, the 'sinner' (accepting for the moment that such a thing as 'sin' exists
and has the deleterious effects you suggest) condemns himself to death.  So
long as he doesn't harm others, I'm happy that he should be free to do so.
God didn't give the sinner free will just so that I could take it away from
him.

>                                  If you saw a person about to
> jump off a bridge, wouldn't you try to talk him/her out of it?

Yes, but I wouldn't force him to carry on living his life.


mathew
[ (*) Not an oxymoron, believe it or not. ]
From: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:36:26 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b63519.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Nov16.014859.23828@nmsu.edu> epowers@spock.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) writes:
>	The most important thing here is actually that SCIENCE assumes that  
>supernature is not operative.  My problem is that science starts with two  
>assumptions, the validity of logic and the non-interference of the  
>supernatural.  When I start with the validity of logic, I end up with a  
>scientific method that works quite well.  When I assume that nature is a closed  
>system (i.e., the non-interference of the supernatural) I find I can "verify"  
>nothing, as my thoughts are no different than those chemical reactions that do  
>not produce thought, and therefore the scientific method is invalid.  One  
>assumption contradicts the other.  Without looking beyond science, I am afraid  
>I must throw all of science away.  More details available, if you are  
>interested.

I find this claim very interesting. Could you clarify it somewhat? Right 
now, I can make no sense of your argument.

>> I can have
>> no revelation which will convince me that there is *no* supernature, although
>> I *could* be convinced through revelation that there *is* a supernature.
>
>	This is the scientific way of doing things!  The non-scientific way of  
>examining things is to assume the truth of an assertion and follow it to its  
>logical conclusions.  If these conclusions lead you into a circle, or a dead  
>end, or a spiral, you reject the idea.  Science deals with the observation or  
>experience of the researcher.  Boy, this is fun!

Are you saying that it is a valid form of reasoning to believe in anything 
that is not inherantly contradictory? This seems absurd, since it means 
that, to use the classic example, unicornism and aunicornism are both 
equally valid philosophies.

> Boy am I tired!

So am I! Up until 3:40 last night!
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
| Damien Neil | dpn2@po.cwru.edu | Case Western Reserve University |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: morality????????
Date: 19 Nov 92 23:03:46 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <ednclark.722148297@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>
>
>If there was a possibility of her harming innocent members of society then
>she should be restrained from doing so. However she should not be held
>personally responsible, in fact personal responsibility only counts if you
>are interested in retribution, which I most definitely am not. 

  Given that there are means of removing violent criminals from
  society that do not include death, what reason other than
  retribution do you see for allowing capital punishment?

>This is the bleeding heart nonsense which has made our society a haven for
>thugs, rapists, and the like. I know people who have had a hard childhood,
>who have been under severe emotional stress, had poor role models, who have
>been dealt unfair blows by this impersonal world we live in, but they have
>not gone out and committed unprovoked violent acts as a result. 

  I didn't intend to imply a 1 to 1 correspondence between a "hard"
  childhood and violent behavior.  Nor did I say that the offender
  is not responsible for their actions.  We both agree that there is
  some mechanism that creates violent behavior in some individuals.
  I am merely pointing out that the criminal does not grow up in a
  vaccuum, and society is fooling itself if it places the entirity
  of the blame on the individual.

  Had I grown up a black child in the south during the 1950's, I can
  easily see situations where I would have potentially become
  violent.  Can you honestly say that someone in that situation must
  shoulder the blame for their violence alone?

>Only a few
>respond in this manner, some of them don't even have some bad childhood
>excuse. Sure society sucks, but it doesn't say hey your Dad beat up on your
>Mum so it's Okay for you to beat up on your wife. People who commit these
>crimes know they are doing something wrong or at least knew that doing such
>a thing was wrong.

  I think our time would be better spent trying to understand what
  creates this kind of behavior rather than spending millions of
  dollars attempting to execute the criminals.  

  Perhaps you can truthfully state that under no circumstances could
  you perform a violent act.  I can't honestly say the same about
  myself.  What's a senseless act to you may appear to be a matter
  of paramount importance to me.

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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21439 misc.kids:28629
From: petel@sequent.com (Pete Lancashire)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,misc.kids
Subject: duplicating a person/school
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:10:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Nov17.181013.21697
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

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

>"Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>> impulses.  With accurate enough recording/replicating devices, we could
>> basically "install" the old person's memories onto the clone.  School
>> would be pretty useless too.  Why go to school when you can have all
>> this information just uploaded to your brain?

>It's sad that there are people who believe that's the purpose of school...

>mathew
>-- 
>Civilization is just a temporary failure of entropy.

To many 'leaders' creating a society of 'thinkers' is one of the scariest
things that could happen. To allow a 'child' to have a choice or to have
information presented  in a way where he can or has to make his own conclusion
is not what is 'taught' today.

My personal experience is with a 14 year old 'little brother', when helping
him with his 9th grade 'world history' homework. In reading a section of his
text book, I said that what I read was the 'opinion' of the authors, This
statement gave him 'brainlock', he did not understand, and after explaining
what I ment, he just got more 'blank'. I was the FIRST to get across to him
that he could and should, question what he has been taught.

-pete
petel@sequent.com
From: j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Date: 16 Nov 92 08:28:14 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism,alt.drugs
Organization: University of Notre Dame

> In article <1e0v11INNjep@shrike.und.ac.za> dace@shrike.und.ac.za writes:
> >ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge) writes:
 How many people are aware that the most well known
> >: treatment for alcoholism, AA and its Twelve Steps, advocates giving control
> >: of one's life over to God?  Without this God (or Higher Power) some even 
> >: So, the cure for the disease is itself a disease?

Many cases of chemical dependency are the result of the person's searching
to fill the spiritual void within us all that no amount of TV, food, sex
or any other created thing can fulfill. It's a really sad state of affairs
when someone calls the concept of believing in a higher Source a "disease."
From someone who has found completion in coming to know my Creator, please
don't catagorize a very significant thing in my life and the lives of
millions as a disease. The only disease worse than the abuse of religion or
the ignorant condemnation of religion.
Lord knows how many times I tried to fill my void with everything else.

Peace,
Joe
Newsgroups: alt.atheism