HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Info on bible editions in FAQ
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:41:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.145252.17504@husc3.harvard.edu>,
dobrowol@husc8.harvard.edu (Pawel Dobrowolski) 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
|>
|>Pawel Dobrowolski
|>dobrowol@husc8.harvard.edu
|>
|>PS. I know that this newsgroup is named Alt.atheism, and it is precisely
|>why I made this suggestion, I think that many atheists are/will be interested
|>in this sort of info.
|> 
                               
I am interested in this info, but I don't think it belongs in the FAQ.
Atheism is not just a-christianism, it is a-all-theism.
This means a-islamism, a-judism, a-hinduism, ...
Putting all the versions (translations) of all the religious
documents in the world (we would want the atheistic religions put
in too, of course!) is a bit much.
However, a post on the subject might be nice (I think there was one here
or in soc.religion.christian a while back)
You might want to ask this to the Christian groups, if they don't
have it in their FAQ by now.  (Atheists CAN read Christian FAQs, you
know. They just don't get the same sense of well being from the
experience ;} )

Brian /-|-\
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ray@engr.latech.edu (Bill Ray)
Subject: Re: Books on Phylosophy of Religion
Organization: Louisiana Tech University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:16:47 GMT


On a more serious response to the request for books on religious
philosophy:

      Philisophy of Religion by J. Hick  An Anglican theologian's work
					   used at at least one Baptist
					   seminary (I know that is not
					   much endorsement in this forum)

      Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis   A former atheist explains why he
					   converted to Christianity.

I hope these suggestions are helpful.
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: *TRUE* Christians
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:51:26 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Nov17.220649.12040@bsu-ucs> 00brwoodson@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
<In article <11494@spark.ed.ac.uk>, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
<> Doing evil things is not the same as sinning.  We don't care whether
<> all sin is equal or not, and whether the Christian has sinned or not,
<> since sin means separation from his god, in which we don't believe.
<> But we may find it necessary to point out that the Christian has done
<> something which can be seen as evil regardless of his religion.
<
<Saying that there is a difference between evil doings and sinning is a
<contradiction in terms.  What constitutes sin?  Isn't sin supposed to be evil?

Sin is doing evil which causes separation from God.  If there is no
God, evil deeds can't cause separation from him, therefore the concept
of sin is void, even though the concept of evil is not.

Furthermore, I call a certain deed evil if that is what my moral
standards suggest; but if I want to know whether it constitutes sin
according to some religion, I would consult the scripture of that
religion.  For example, drinking wine is not evil, and neither is
polygamy, but the first is a sin according to Islam, and the second is
a sin according to Christianity.  On the other hand, slaughtering all
the inhabitants of a conquered city is an evil deed which doesn't
appear to be a sin in either of the two religions.

<> In article <92316.015308RXS127@psuvm.psu.edu> RXS127@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
<>>It is only secular moralists like yourselves that try to blame sin on
<>>Christians and get the last laugh in.
<> 
<> My lack of belief in the Christian god means that I don't believe in
<> sin either, and it would be meaningless for me to blame someone for
<> something that doesn't exist.  Enough about this.
<> 
<>>In reality, we don't care what you think.
<> 
<> Well, then we may have some trouble sharing the planet.
<> 
<>>We just care that we have acknowledged our sins.
<> 
<> Well done.  It would be better if you did something about them, though.
<> (Not that I expect you to.  You're going to hell anyway.)
<
<Goddamn it, you both sound like a bunch of kids.

If you say so.  You are not being too helpful, since you don't say why,
so I can't tailor my style to suit you (though I probably wouldn't,
even if I could).

<How old do you have to be to subscribe to this net?

There is no age requirement, so feel free to talk.

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: T.G.Nattress@newcastle.ac.uk (Graeme Nattress)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Blasphemy??
Date: 19 Nov 92 11:15:45 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

ikonen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Ian Konen) writes:

>In <Bxwtp1.1MD@newcastle.ac.uk> 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.

>>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.

>>Conclusion:

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

>Not at all.  They don't exist to protect God, they exist to protect our
>children from people with wrong views.  Remember, Blasphemey includes more
>than just showing a disrespectful attitude towards God, it includes any
>false-speaking of a religious nature.  If our defenseless children hear
>conflicting points of view about God, they might start to think, and that's
>the worst thing that could happen.  And we all know how thinking leads to
>doubting our shepher-I mean religious leader, and how that leads to evil
>things like feminism, and religious tolerance, which in turn leads to more
>thinking and doubting...

:-) :-) Tres amusing...  I did in fact realise this and hat is why I said that
the 2nd argument was from a theistic/atheistic view, or if you prefer a cynical
theistic POV. But I follow your point.  But really, people who think like your
joke and mean it should be the first against the wall when the revolution comes
:-)  (Power to the People :Wolfie Smith )  Enough Citizen Smith jokes
methinks..

>>Graeme,

>			A Good [Generic intollerant religion]ist/ian/um/etc.


>P.S.  I find your attitude very disturbing.  I recommend immediate removal of
>your tounge, followed by tortu-I mean re-education.

:-)

Graeme,
{---    T.G.Nattress@uk.ac.ncl -----------------------------------------}
{--------------------------------- The Moral of this story is: ---------}
{---    Never trust a Venusian Floghorn with a Perigosto Stick. --------}
{-----------------------------------------------------------------------}
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism and Morals was Re: ...and dating
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:52:54 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <BxvJvt.27K@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> svanegmo@mobius09.math.uwaterloo.ca (Stephen Van Egmond) writes:
>Not all people determine their morals by the trends of the day.

Perhaps, though the ephemeral nature of culturally-defined
moralities suggests that at least most people do.

>Others prefer to start with a basic, simple set of axioms, such as:
>  1. A person has the right to control his/her own life and the products of that life.
>
>  2. No person may act in such a way that prevents another from enjoying their
>life or the products therefrom.

The problem is that, first, these axioms are ill-defined, and second,
given a specific definition, they may still be incomplete with
respect to defining a moral code (unless, by moral code, you simply
mean a set of axiomativ statements from with an apologetic may
be constructed for any arbitrary action).

>From here, one logically deduces one's code of behaviour, ethics, and morality.  This is called objective morality, rather than subjective ("mooshy") morality, which changes as times change.
>
>From objective morality comes such things as it is wrong to murder, rape, or steal from someone.  That if you want something in your life, you must work for it rather than ride on the backs of the people who do work.

Why is it wrong to steal, from these axioms? If I expend the effort,
possibly considerable, to take something from your possession,
have I not worked for it? Is it wrong because I prevent you from
controlling it? If so, then it ought to be wrong for you to own
it in the first place, since your control of it prevents me from
controlling it. Or perhaps you only own those things that you
directly produce by your labor; but if that is so, then you
must not own the raw materials from which you make them.

In addition, in order to accept axiom 1 we must reject the principle
"ought implies can," and such a rejection leads to some very undesirable
moral consequences. It means that one's moral obligations are
not circumscribed by what it is possible to do. That would then imply
such absurdities as the following: that my inability to
survive in vacuum is a moral wrong, and your failure to rectify this
abhorrent situation is a moral failing on your part.

The above axioms are grossly inadequate to form the basis of a
moral system. Suitably defined, they may well be desirable
features of such a system, but certainly, taken by themselves,
they do not serve to define one.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 06:47:56 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: alt.atheism

In article <ednclark.722219787@kraken>, ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au
(Jeffrey Clark) wrote:
> It is extremely unlikely that Isaac would write a book showing any
> discrepencies with the Bible as unfortunately the late man was a christian
> (though not a fundie).

Sigh. I was afraid that someone will start to rewrite history concerning
late Isaac Asimov. He was a true skeptic. Try to read any of his
books for more information about his world views.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:40:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.022236.12881@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>In article <Bxn6oy.H1F@umassd.edu>, rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:
>|> Helo all
>|> 
>|> I'd like some comments (if you've read it)
>|> on the book by Isaac Asimov calles 
>|> Guide to the Bible. I think it deals with
>|> the discrepancies' of 
>|> the bible.
>|> Any comments?
>|> 
>I've read this book.
>
>Actually, there are two such books, one for
>the "Old" Testament and one for the New.
>I'm Jewish, so for me the New Testament isn't
>the Bible.  I've skimmed Asimov's second book, but
>I *own* the first.

There's also a volume out that contains both books.

I've read parts of both books, but have not finished either.  If
you like Asimov's writing style and are interested in Biblical
history from a secular viewpoint, I believe you'll like it.

--
====
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 20 Nov 92 00:36:27 GMT

rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:

>Helo all

>I'd like some comments (if you've read it)
>on the book by Isaac Asimov calles 
>Guide to the Bible. I think it deals with
>the discrepancies' of 
>the bible.
>Any comments?

>Frank Pinto

It is extremely unlikely that Isaac would write a book showing any
discrepencies with the Bible as unfortunately the late man was a christian
(though not a fundie).

Jeff.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu (Corey D Minter)
Subject: Re: Question for ex-Christians
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 11:06:04 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:

>Some of you ex-Christians have posted about bad experiences with
>religion and other such events that caused you to seriously reconsider
>your beliefs and to eventually give up your belief in God. Others have
>posted saying they never really believed in God as youths and are
>atheists by default. I'm curious if there are also ex-Christians out
>there who became atheists or agnostics (AorA) because of a discussion
>with an AorA. I know none of us would ever try to convert Christians
>;-), but I was wondering if this sort of thing ever worked.

Myself, when I try to look back to my childhood.  I never had any 
bad experience that I can say made me realize I was atheist.  In
fact, as far back as I can remember that I contemplated anything
religious (I went to Lutheran church when I was young).  I just 
realized early on that somewhere, it didn't make sense in terms of
what I had seen of the world.  Everyday (figuratively) it is clearer
why it is obvious that need not be any master designer.
-- 
==============================================================================
Internet: cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu | Horse of Ren&Stimpy:  "No sir, I don't 
       or cdminter@eng.uiowa.edu   |   like it!"
  Q-Link: EarthsWake (was Chaos0)  | Stimpy:  "Happy Happy. Joy Joy."
"The universe is unfinished, you know?"  -Dune Messiah
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21476 talk.religion.misc:21346 sci.skeptic:19775 alt.politics.homosexuality:7330
From: bx461@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Leo J. Mauler)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 18 Nov 1992 06:16:44 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


What really bugs me about Fundamentalists bashing Gays is that
they claim to have a deep personal relationship with Jesus,
yet use Old Testament teachings to justify gay-bashing.

As I recall from my days as a Catholic robot, Jesus came along
and started saying, "Hey guys, wouldn't it be a neat idea if
we were nice to people for a change?  Like "Love your neighbor
as yourself"!  Like "If you have to bend a rule to help
someone, DO IT! (Sabbath)" ".  

Those guys who followed the Old Testament LIKE THE FUNDIES 
had Jesus killed for saying things like that.  Makes you
wonder about those televangelists...

Finally, this bit about "love your neighbor as yourself".  I
live in Lawrence, KS, which is just a few dozen miles from
Topeka, KS, the home of the infamous Reverend Fred Phelps.
On nearly every week you can find him organizing some anti-gay
protest, with people carrying lots of signs encouraging people
to hate gays.

If Rev. Phelps is truly a follower of Jesus' teachings, and he
truly "loves his neighbor as himself," the Reverend Fred
Phelps must hate himself a LOT!

-- 
Never do this at home.  Look how easily it killed this sig.
/\  ___/\  ___/\  _____________________________________________
  \/     \/     \/  bx461@cleveland.freenet.edu (Leo J. Mauler)
DISCLAIMER: Everything I say is false, including this sentence.
From: shari@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Wild and Crazy Kind of Girl)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Evidence for God (Proving a negative)
Date: 23 Nov 92 16:30:27 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX


	I think that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that a supreme being does not
exist.  It is like trying to prove that there is no needle in a forest, except
even harder.  Of course, it is equally difficult to prove that some supreme
being does exist.  However, the fact that we and everything else exists will
always make me wonder.  Therefore, I will always be an agnostic until someone
can come up with a real proof as to why or why not a supreme being exists.
	I'm not holding my breath...

Shari



Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: World of Religion
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:26:51 GMT

In article <1dp77aINNm6c@agate.berkeley.edu> meyers@soda.berkeley.edu (Rob Meyers) writes:
>
>	  RELIGIOUS VIEWS OF LIFE  
>
>          Taoism    Shit Happens.
>    Confucianism    Confucius say, "Shit happens."
>        Buddhism    If shit happens, it isn't really shit.
>             Zen    What is the sound of shit happening?
>        Hinduism    This shit happened before.
>           Islam    If shit happens, it is the will of Allah. 
>   Protestantism    Let shit happen to someone else.
>     Catholicism    If shit happens, you deserve it.  
>         Judaism    Why does shit always happen to us.
>     Agnosticism    What is this shit.
>         Atheism    I don't believe this shit.
>  Rastafarianism    Lets smoke this shit.
>		       
>
I have heard an expanded version, containing also:

 Eastern Orthodoxy   Shit happens due to Vatican-Jewish-Masonic conspiracy.
      Hare Krishna   Shit happens, shit happens, happens, shit happens...
     Televangelism   Send me $1,000,000 or shit will happen to you!

	Sven
From: dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:15:31 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

In article <11309@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.170147.8341@news.cs.brandeis.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>>I must also beg to differ.  Nothing science does precludes anything religion
>>teaches.  Science only considers natural phenomena and therefore any acts of
>>God (supernatural) are, BY CONSTRUCTION, excluded from consideration.  One
>>cannot make conclusions from science about God's existence or lack thereof
>>because the two are unrelated.  There can therefore be no interference
>>because there can be no comparison.
>
>That's good so far.  Science deals with certain things.  The one fundamental
>characteristic of these things is that they have to be falsifiable, which
>entails that they be well definied.  Religion deals mostly with that which
>is ill-defined and unfalsifiable, and its borders are infinitely mutable.
>
>>  Science is beautiful but don't abuse
>>it by applying it where it cannot be applied.
>
>Ah.  I see.  So, what happens when someone plays around with science and
>impinges on what the religious establishment decides is Hallowed Ground?
>Well, there are a lot of choices:
>
>1) Nail him to a tree
>2) Burn him at the stake
>3) Tie him down to a grill and burn him there.
>4) Hang him by the neck until dead.
>5) Have lots of people throw stones at him until he dies of internal injuries.
>6) Put a door on top of him and pile stones on him until he is crushed to death.
>7) Just torture him a little and threaten him with 1-6 until he recants.
>
>I have no problem with the notion that science has a certain domain.  I do have
>a problem with a community with a long history of killing people without trial
>defining the boundaries of that domain.  It doesn't make me feel any better 
>that I might be vindicated hundreds of years after my death.
>
>-EMP

Doesn't science also investigate the supernatural, paraspychology deals
with ESP/PK and somesuch.  Also don't scientist investigate ghost and UFO 
sightings.
This implies that many scientists believe that the supernatural _is_ part
of the scientific domain.  Next on the list is God, pink unicorns (that
just won't die), and Elvis (who btw is now a Saint).  
No. 3 with some garlic,..., Oops never mind this isn't alt.canibalism, wow
those believers sure were a mean lot.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:25:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.004124.9838@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>, locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Misquamicus) writes:
>First of all, please excuse my posting style, as I have no terminal emulator.
>Second of all, excuse me all to hell, but science DOES assume the nonexistance
>of god. More exactly, science assumes that, if there is a god, it has
>NO physical consequences on the observable universe. This is a strong
>assumption, which effectively gets rid of the entire argument. As far as
>point #4, there are logical problems with that as well, even disregarding
>my assertion, but, since my assertion happens to be correct, I will waste
>no time demolishing argument #4 (geez; is this a run-on sentance or what?).
>Feel free to attempt an argument against my assertion...

Yes, God's existence/non-existence are assumptions rather than conclusions.
That's a very important distinction and if nothing else comes from this
discussion, we will have that.  But to further assume that a hypothetical
god would have no physical consquences on the observable universe is a
totally unnecessary assumption; one can do science exactly as it has been
done without making that assumption.  The best way I can demonstrate this
is by repeating the divine creation vs. Big Bang arguement I mentioned.

In the past few decades, scientists have observed evidence for universal
expansion which leads to the Big Bang model for cosmology.  This model predicts
the existence of the microwave background which has been observed so that
there is evidence for the model.  Now suppose a hypothetical god actually 
created the universe 10,000 years ago and created it such that the universe
appeared to have evolved from a Big Bang event.  Does this change the
observations or the fact that the Big Bang model explains well the observations?
No.  The universe still appears to have evolved from a Big Bang event 15
billion years ago (actually somewhere between 10 and 20 billion) and is
nicely modeled by the theory.  Lest this become like the discussion I've been
having with Mr. Copelan, I must stress that I'm not advocating any
particular religious view on the creation (the god I mention is hypothetical).

So, the strong assumption you mention above is unnecessary.  Please take the
time to criticize anything here or in the previous post.  I want to discuss
this because I enjoy it.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

	"But God demonstrates His	"I tell you that in the same way,
	 own love for us, in that	 there will be more joy in heaven
	 while we were yet sinners,	 over one sinner who repents, than
	 Christ died for us."		 over ninety-nine righteous persons
					 who need no repentance." 
		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Luke 15:7 [NASB]