HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Best Bible translation?
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:44:33 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <BsxFM7.AxM@acsu.buffalo.edu> v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
>
>It's funny that buying a Bible in a bookstore made me feel like an 
>eighteen-year-old buying a Penthouse.
>
  Just turn to the Song of Solomon for the centerfold...

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

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: L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
Date: 18 Aug 92 08:56:46 GMT
Organization: University of Bradford, UK
Originator: 90908502@muser

In article <92230.133733RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com writes:

>Here are some of the passages from the Qur'an which Leonard Newnham wanted
>to be cited as a proof of existence of scientific facts in the Qur'an:
>
>1. On the creation of the universe:
>Awalam erallazina  kararoo
>Annasamawate wal arda
>kanata ratkan
>fafataqna'hooma
>
>Meaning:
>Do not the unbelievers see
>that the heavens and the earth
>were joined together as one unit of creation
>befor We clove them asunder?(Qur'an 21:30)
>

So what are you claiming for this passage?  Is this the Big Bang
theory as seen from 1500 years ago, or loose speculation that can be
made to fit the facts with hindsight.

>2. On the motion of sun and moon:
>        Wa huallazi khalaqal
>lay'la wan-nahara
>wash-shamsa wal qamara
>kullun fee falakee'n yasbahoon. (Qur'an, 21:33)
>
>Meaning:
>And it is He (God) who created
>the night and the day
>and the sun and the moon
>all celestial bodies swim along, each in its rounded courses.
>

It seems obvious to me that anyone watching the sun, moon or stars
would see them as moving in "rounded courses".  They are certainly not
moving in straight lines.  No surprises here.

>3. Creation of living beings from water:
>Wa ja'al'na menal maa'e
>kulla shaiyeen haiyeen
>a'fala yoomenoon. (Qur'an)
>
>Meaning:
>And we made (created) from water
>every living thing.
>Will they then not believe?
>

So here we have Darwin's theory of evolution?  Again it's a bit
vague.

Well to say the least, I am unimpressed.  These are so vague as to be
meaningless.  Nowhere do I see scientific fact.  These passages are
hardly "scientific facts in the Qur'an that were not known and were 
discovered only in the past couple of centuries".

Don't you think that if Allah really wanted to impress the
unbelievers, (as these passages with their "will they then not
believe?" lines seem intended to do), a clear and concise statement of
Newton's Laws of Motion might have been more appropriate?

A final thought.  If I wrote my ideas for my doctoral thesis in such
a manner, do you think I would pass?


-- 

Leonard               e-mail:  L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Not killing as a moral absolute (was Re: Best Bible translation?
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 10:32:07 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:
> In article <BsvKur.5yG@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mik
> |> For example, when confronting my parents recently, my mother claimed that 
> |> "Thou shalt not kill" was actually "Thou shalt do no murder" (as if that m
> |> a large difference).
> 
> Since this "commandment" gets brought up often (in this group) as being 
> an obvious (or unquestionable) moral absolute, I thought I'd thrown in 
> my $0.02.  I think the "do no murder" is better way to state it.  And, 
> yes, there is a large difference, but even that form has its faults.

Large difference?  Pthphthth.

Murder is just killing that the state has made illegal.


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: DOES GOD EXIST?  (different from previous posting).
Date: 15 Aug 92 01:00:52 GMT
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

*sigh*  One more entry for the kill file.
I have no idea how this guy expects to get a
good debate going on topics that have been 
torn to shreads in the past.  If you want
to chalange me, post something new.

(and take it easy on the uppercase letters and exclamation points,
my terminal is very sensitive)

Brian /-|-\
============================================================
CREATION IS THE PROOF OF GOD! - big deal! Now prove CREATION!
From: souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: For all you believers
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:12:15 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Aug17.185213.4380@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>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.


Please read again what Doug said and what I said to see the difference.
He was referring to the probable bombing of Baghdad by Bush to boost
his re-election chances at the expense of Iraqi civilian (slaughter)
. I was just mentioning the mere fact that Bush (and Goug) will die
one day, probably a natural death and this is no wish it is a fact no
human can escape from including you and me.

Ridha
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: A question
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 23:24:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.220051.10641@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>For many people, I think it is more a question of approval. By granting equal
>rights, they feel they are giving their tacit approval of behavior they don't
>approve. I understand the argument about visiting a loved one in the hospital.
>I would think this to be more a matter of hospital regulations than actual law.
>Take it up with the hospital. As far as tax results, I doubt that heteros have 
>thought about it. The real issue is influence. Influence on children. Many feel
>that gays are a threat, not in the sense of sexually molesting their kids, but
>by example. It is not a behavior that most wish their children to emulate, and
>any perceived threat to children will be fought tooth and nail.

Thats odd why arn't people fighting to bring down the high suicide rate
among gbl teens? After all if you have two kids there is a 1 in 5 chance
one of them is queer. Would you play russian roulette with your kids?
If not why would you support policies that will drive them to suicide?

-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: History
Date: 12 Aug 92 12:10:59 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <1992Aug12.043050.1223@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
}
}In a previous article, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) says:
}
}>
}>Has someone put together a list of those events/places mentioned in the
}>bible for which extra-biblical evidence does not exist, or for which there
}>actually exists evidence AGAINST it?  Direct book&verse lists would be best.
}>I'm looking for such things as the flood, exodus, ...
}>
}>Thanks.
}>
}Get any bible.  Open it to page one.  Begin reading, and do not stop until
}you close the last page.
}
}There is your list.
}
};-)

Boy, are YOU arguing from ignorance!
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Subject?
Date: 23 Aug 92 09:30:26 GMT
	<1992Aug23.023129.5205@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: lfoard@Turing.ORG's message of Sun, 23 Aug 1992 02:31:29 GMT

This would make for an amusing entry in the FAQ.

BTW, the first one I remember was "...and Espo scores on the rebound."
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:13:08
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<1992Aug09.145819.26597@digibd.com>
	<1992Aug12.151711.21180@csrd.uiuc.edu>
	<RLK.92Aug12123953@underprize.think.com>
	<1992Aug12.191800.23758@csrd.uiuc.edu>
	<RLK.92Aug12170426@underprize.think.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: rlk@underprize.think.com's message of 12 Aug 92 17:04:26

In article <RLK.92Aug12170426@underprize.think.com> rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:

      I think it's safe to suggest that Mr. LeRoy would say that Judaism
      prescribes the death penalty for homosexual acts as well.  None of the
      following matters to him, as for him one defines a religion without
      regard to the actions or beliefs of its adherents.

   That's an interesting thing for you to say, given that you have
   consistently said that Christianity is defined by the Bible (presumably
   the New Testament, to be specific), not by what those who claim to be
   its adherents say.  Or does my wording "those who claim to be its
   adherents" vs. your "its adherents" make the difference?

I have been informed by jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com that he (jbrown) is the
one who made that statement originally.  In that case, please accept my
apology (if you did not also make that statement).
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Here is your proof=God Exists?
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:39:02 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com wrote:
: In article <1992Aug12.204328.20497@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
: > In article <1992Aug12.110831.253@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
: >>If there is a finite possibility that an all-powerful God could come into
: >>existence over time, then from the standpoint of eternity such a God must
: >>necessarily have come into existence before the universe began.  Therefore
: >>God must now exist.
: > 
: > Where do you get this from?  Are you trying to say that if you add up finite
: > possibilities over an infinite amount of time, you get a certainty?  If so,
: > your math is wrong.
: 
: Yes, that is what I'm saying, and no, my math is not wrong.
: 
: Suppose I'm in Las Vegas and I play the "Super Jackpot Slot Machine".  Given
: an unlimited supply of quarters and infinite time, I will eventually win.  
: It may take me 2 or 3 billion years, but eventually I'll be the Super
: Jackpot Winner.

This is getting to be a hobby horse of mine... trivial interjections
about probability which serve to detract from some main point which
needs to be detracted from :-)

It is quite possible to add up finite probabilities over an infinite
period of time and get less than one, provided that the probabilies
decrease with time.

I usually post this to refute a contention by an atheist that if people
in heaven have the possiblity of sinning, and this possiblity exists
for all eternity, then at some time they must sin in heaven. It is with
real pleasure that I put now put the boot on the other foot.

The counter example is as follows:

Suppose that the probability that a God popped into existence last year
is f(0), and the probability that a God popped into existence the year
before is f(1). and so on, and that these events are independent. The
probability of no God ever having popped into existence is the limit
(1-f(0))(1-(f(1))(1-f(2))...  which is easily set to some non-trivial
probability by having the f(n) decrease fast enough.

Your math is OK only if you make the additional assumption (which
holds, supposedly, for Las Vegas machines) that probabilities are
independent of time. It is a nice simplifying assumption, but you have
no real reason for supposing it to be true or false until you test the
model. Actually, since an all-powerful God is free to play merry hell
with the structures of reality, we can be pretty sure the probabilities
are not independent. At this point, the notion of trying to identify
and test a model of reality which allows all powerful beings to pop
into existence overloads my synapses, and I become enlightened.

Felicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please Read This One!
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 23:00:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.144304.293@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:

>> Anyway, back to the serious stuff.  I'm wondering Jim, if you have
>> any theories on what it is that makes fundies post such obnoxious
>> drivel?  Do you think that the religion might have something to do
>> with it?
>
>Yep.  That's it.  Just like its their perverse nature that makes
>homosexuals break into churches and shout obscenities or pass out
>condoms in schools,

Well, that brings up another point.  Do you think that it's their
religion that makes people do stupid things such as trying to prevent
the distribution of condoms in schools, or are these people just naturally
stupid?  Similarly, do you think that it is their religion which makes
some Catholics so insane that they try to ban all forms of birth control,
or do you suppose that they're insane to start with?

BTW, I'm not sure whether your jab at homosexuals is supposed to be a
jab at me.  It isn't, although I do identify with homosexuals since
they are another group in society which is discriminated against for
the despicable crime of being different.

>or just like its a natural consequence of atheism
>that makes atheists so arrogant, conceited, and close-minded.  ;)
>
>(SATIRE ALERT:  I'm not actually asserting these things about homosexuals
>or atheists in general although its true of some of each.  The point is
>that *people* can be obnoxious, perverse, arrogant, conceited, and
>close-minded regardless of their beliefs, lifestyles, etc.)

Yes, but unless there is a conspiracy to discredit fundies, it certainly
appears as if quite a number of them have no notion of common courtesy.
When was the last time you saw an atheist crossposting a mindless
rant to multiple unrelated groups, and then never being heard from
again?  Surely you must have noticed that there do seem to be quite
a number of religious nuts out there whose idea of a conversation
is to tell us all we're going burn in hell, and then disappear back
into the woodwork.  Don't you agree that there is something seriously
wrong with these people?  Doesn't it seem evident that there isn't
much going on inside their noggins?

There are two explanations that I can think of for this.  One is that
mindless nuts tend to gravitate towards fundamentalism, and the other
is that fundamentalism tends to make people mindless nuts.  Maybe
a combination of the two.  It does seem though, that since these
people claim they derive their morality from their religion, that the
religion may not be teaching the right things.  That is, unless somebody
has decided that mindless nuts are an asset to society.

>I find your opinions very enlightening.  :)

Glad to hear it.  I find some of your opinions terrifying.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: For all you believers
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 20:17:32 GMT

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.

Eh?  That's exactly how gods talk isn't it?  My paragraph might almost
have been copied from the OT (which I think your Q'uran borrows from).
Why is that whenever I say it, I'm evil scum, but when your God says it,
he's merciful and wise and kind and loving and all kinds of other neato
things?  Do I detect a double standard here?  (BTW, I am not advocating
that Bush do what I predicted above.  I hope to hell he doesn't.)

>My God will make Mr. Bush die one day, and you shall die too.

And you?  What plans does your God have for you?

>Then you should know the truth.

Nah, your God doesn't even know the truth, because my God hasn't explained
it to him yet.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi)
Subject: New newsgroup proposal: alt.athiesm
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 07:07:06 GMT

The purpose of the new newsgroup is, as with many other newsgroups, to
provide an appropriate place for traffic that is unwanted in another
newsgroup.  In this case, the purpose is to divert articles from people
who can't spell atheism out of alt.atheism.

Currently, a user who can't spell atheism tries to subscribe, fails,
tries again with the 'i' and 'e' reversed and succeeds.  Then forgets
this spelling lesson when he starts posting to the group.  With
alt.athiesm in place, the user's first attempt to subscribe will
succeed, and he will read and post in a dull and underpopulated
newsgroup until he learns the correct spelling of atheism and notices
that it's misspelled in the name of the newsgroup he's reading.  Thus,
he will learn to spell atheism before he subscribes to alt.atheism
rather than, as so often happens, afterwards, when he has started a
long-lasting thread with "athiesm" in the Subject line, and the damage
is irrevocably done.

The FAQ for alt.athiesm would give separate and contradictory definitions
of atheism and athiesm.  In months with two full moons, the FAQ would
include a question about the generality of the rule "'i' before 'e'
except after 'c'", and the answer would include a list of exceptions to
that rule.
-- 
David Canzi	Prior to the days of Tom Edison, early electric eels had to
		stun their prey with gas. -- C. Abrell & J. Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Subject: Re: Where it came from (was Re: Survey)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 18:19:24 GMT


	Hey...I just realized...those fundies missed alt.atheism/moderated !

	(talk about the clueless !)

-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries, reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips     |personal E-mail:bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
alias: White Rook     |   NWROC E-mail:aphillip@heartland.bradley.edu
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:22:46
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<9208121925.AA28497@csufres.CSUFresno.EDU>
	<1992Aug12.160854.255@doc.bmd.trw.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com's message of 12 Aug 92 16:08:54 MST

In article <1992Aug12.160854.255@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:

   I'm not Greg, but yes, this is correct.  However, one must be careful
   to note that Israel was a "theocracy" at that time, a nation ruled 
   directly by God.  The Law was given, and the nation lived under the Law
   with its strict penalties for transgression.  In this Age of Law, God
   exacted *earthly* judgment for wrongdoing.  For wrongs which could be
   repaid, the Law required compensating the injured party.  For wrongs
   which could not be repaid, and for 'acts against God', death was
   prescribed.

2000 years ago Israel was ruled by Rome, and was not an independent
state.  In any event, while in principle the penalties could be harsh,
in practice the rules governing their application were so tightly drawn
that it was almost impossible to apply them (the person had to know he
was committing such an act and that it was punishable by death; this
meant that there had to be two eyewitnesses, and the eyewitnesses had to
warn the person in advance that he was about to commit such a crime and
furthermore that the crime was in fact punishable by death).

This is roughly what I remember reading a while back; while I don't have
references, if people are interested I will attempt to find some.

   Consider that God sets down a moral law, with certain acts requiring the
   penalty of death.  If those acts so defined actually *deserve* the death
   penalty, then such judgment from God is not barbaric, but just punishment.
   And the penalty, when carried out, is not murder but execution.  Now who
   are we to judge what is moral or immoral from God's point of view?  By
   what standard do we judge God's judgments to be barbaric and harsh?

If god wants to kill someone, let god kill that person.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:15481 sci.skeptic:14735