HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: HAVE YOU READ THIS ?.............
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:42:56 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <66aY02JO1e5N01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>In article <Bt4t5t.1zD@apollo.hp.com> perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry) writes:
>>In article <2asJ02nA1eC801@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>>In article <16841A740.NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu> NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Aug11.231925.1@acad2.alaska.edu>
>>>>atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>I should finish the Bible, too, but I've read enough to know it
>>>>>sucks.  Some things are simply a waste of time.
>>>> 
>>>>Is there a Cliff Notes version of the Bible for those people who aren't
>>>>masochistic enough to wade through the whole thing?
>>>
>>>Yeah, the book of John and/or Romans will give you a good picture.
>>
>>NOT.  (As the cutesy expression goes).
>>
>>These would be a good place to go for the Reader's Digest version of
>>what modern Christians think the Bible says, but just reading these
>>will form a rather poor idea of what the Bible as a whole, or even the
>>New Testament as a whole, says.
>>-- 
>
>My friend, do you know what the New Testament "as a whole" says?  If you
>did you wouldn't hold the position that you do.

A simple accusation, and I return it gladly: if *you* knew what the
New Testament "as a whole" says, you would not hold the position I
presume you do.  That's slightly satisfying, but piss-poor
argumentation.

It's a bit of a trick question actually, or just bad phrasing on my
part, since the New Testament "as a whole" says nothing whatsoever; it
is a collection of books and letters on a common theme but without a
coordinated message.  Certainly it has been used as if it had such a
message, and the message preached from it is expressed in e.g. John,
but a dispassionate reading does not find that message present in the
bulk of the documents.  Certainly someone who read only the pieces you
mention, and considered those a "Cliff's Notes" guide to the Bible,
would have a very distorted concept of what's in the Bible.  Not that
there aren't millions of people who have exactly that distorted
concept...

-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:07:12 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Aug17.172057.20928@noose.ecn.purdue.edu| souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
|In article <10156@vice.ICO.TEK.COM| bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine) writes:
||In article <1992Aug13.173555.23367@noose.ecn.purdue.edu| souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
|||
|||I am not trying to use this as a proof of the truth of Islam,
|||just showing the person who is mocking prophet Mohamed as a
|||"desert nomad" man that this man is among the top who influenced
|||humanity with the message he brought.
|||
||
||  Ditto for Hitler.
||
|
|Prophet Mohamed did not go about making a genocide of millions of
|people.  On the other hand he did bring a new ideology and a system
|that englobes all aspects of human life.  There is absolutely no
|comparison between Mohamed (PBUH) and Hitler.  I invite you to read
|about the life of prophet Mohamed and judge for yourself.
|

  Perhaps I am being harsh for criticizing you here, Ridha.  I
  don't know what your level of command of the English language is,
  so perhaps irony and satire are lost on you when English is used,
  but I've seen you reply inappropriately to posts with a similar
  tone as mine.

  I was not making a comparison between Hitler and Mohammed.  I was
  attacking your statement that the number or intelligence of
  people affected by an influential historical figure holds any
  meaningful information about the ideals of that figure.

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

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



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

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: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Not killing as a moral absolute (was Re: Best Bible translation?
Date: 14 Aug 92 21:13:38 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Aug14.060912.21399@bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:
>In article <71182@apple.Apple.COM>, mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>|>I thought he was asserting that killing in self-defense and
>|>hacking a few people up with a chain saw are *legally*
>|>equivalent unless the law says they aren't.
>             
>"Legally equivalent unless the law says they aren't."?
>The car is blue, unless the color indicates otherwise:-)

Precisely. Obvious? I thought so too.

>I think you mean *technically* equal. *legally* OK is social 
>permission; *morally* OK is personal permission.   

I think I know what I meant.
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: My own religion
Date: 17 Aug 1992 17:56:18 GMT
Organization: Shoop-de-boop
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Neal Miller) writes:

 	This is a common argument among agnostics, but the flaw is that it is
 impossible to prove that something exists, when the something in question, by
 its own rules, acts like it doesn't exist.  It's like trying to prove that
 a San Diego-sized jelly doughnut, hovering above the earth at an altitude of
 four miles, that does NOT respond to any laws of physics, reflects NO wave-
 lengths of light, and does not respond to any interactions with physical
 matter, exists.  There is simply no experiment that can be done to prove or
 deny it.  However the concept of the flying doughnut is just so preposterous
 that no one in their right mind would believe in it.  The burden of proof
 must rest on those who believe it exists.  No one will ever see proof that
 a god does or doesn't exist.  Therefore, until someone proves otherwise, it
 doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned.  However, now that I think about it,
 the jelly-doughnut is a more plausible concept than any omnipotent being.

My two cents:

It seems to me Mr. Miller asserts that a thing as preposterous
<as religion> bears the burden of proof, to "prove" it to others.

There are two things wrong with this argument as I see it: first,
saying something is "preposterous" is an appeal to majority thinking;
this tends to fall flat when the majority of people on the planet
tend to believe in some religion or another. Secondly, it should be
well known that it is unlikely there will ever be
scientific/rational/empirical (dis)proof for god/creator/flying doughnut,
and that people do not make decisions about religion in terms
of empirical proof (IMO), they do so from a pragmatic basis.

Mr. Miller seems to be saying that it is up to agnostics to
"prove" their agnosticism, precisely the same assertion he
would give to anyone who does not share his beliefs; this 
of course is exactly what agnostics (IMO) wish to avoid:
tedious arguments of (dis)proof. Far more important is what it
all personally means to the agnostic. S/he is not out to
convert anyone, being "undecided" him/her self.

Dano
From: davec@csufres.CSUFresno.EDU (David C. Choweller)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Date: 13 Aug 1992 14:19:12 -0500
Organization: Liverpool Supporters Club
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In article <24783@castle.ed.ac.uk> M Holmes writes:
:Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
:
:>In article <24759@castle.ed.ac.uk>
:>fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:
:
:>> Then again, you had the theory of evolution banned in some schools?
:
:>Not in recent times.  If you go back to the Scopes Trial, you can find
:>examples of individual states banning evolution instruction in school,
:>but in the last 50+ years, courts have routinely disabused states of
:>the notion they can get away with this.
:
:Yes, I may have been getting the Scopes trial mixed up with some more
:recent stuff (sorry, but even my British history isn't that strong...).
:
:I seem to remember something about an "Equal Time Amendment" ? Something
:like folks being required to put notice of the Creationist "theory" into
:biology textbooks? Was this maybe just a fundie campaign, or was it
:actually a law anywhere?


I recently heard that you Brits banned the Phil Collins song "Jesus he
knows me," because it was disrespectful to religion.  Is that true?  That
kind of thing is unthinkable in this country.
-- 
                                            davec@csufres.csufresno.edu
Is there anybody listening?
Is there anyone who sees what's going on?Read between the lines
Criticize the words their selling
Think for yourself and feel the walls
Become sand beneath your feet
                -- "Anybody Listening?" Queensryche
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:15573 alt.politics.bush:2422 alt.politics.clinton:2513 soc.motss:36294
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,soc.motss
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:17:34 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Aug20.201538.11505@ncsu.edu> cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes:
>I think the whole point of "traditional family values" not including gays
>would be the redefining of the word. As you know, tradional family refers
>to a male-female relationship. With the Liberal approach, tradional family
>would begin to include homosexual relationships which the Republicans (and myself) do not want.

If you don't want a homosexual relationship then
don't have one. What has that to do with anybody's
family but your own?
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:15583 soc.motss:36323 sci.physics:13281 talk.religion.newage:3933 alt.pagan:8181 talk.religion.misc:14459
From: stratton@sumax.seattleu.edu (Paul Stratton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.motss,sci.physics,talk.religion.newage,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Subject?
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:31:27 GMT
Organization: Seattle University, Seattle WA

Jesus saves, He uses double off coupons..
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: DOES GOD EXIST?  (different from previous posting).
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:22:10 GMT

In article <tjohn.25@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> 
  tjohn@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (THIAGARAJ JOHN : THIRD) writes:

>I hope we can have a sensible discussion on some of the proofs presented 
>below.

You didn't get off to a very good start.

>		 Can the existence of God be scientifi-
>		cally proved?  Where did the first LIFE
>		  come from? Can we know whether God
>		         possesses MIND power?

Yeah, and waht about Elivs?

>                 I Questioned God's Existence
>
>With me - and I hope with the reader - I wanted to KNOW! I
>wanted to be SURE! I questioned the existence of God! Also I
>questioned the opposing doctrine of evolution. 

It will no doubt come as a big surprise to you that evolution is
*not*, let me repeat that, N O T in opposition to theism any more
than Number Theory is.

Funny that with all your research you didn't notice this.

>There are the two possibilities of origins - special creation
>by a Creator God, and the theory of evolution. It has become 
>intellectually fashionable to accept the evolutionary doctrine. 
>It has won popular acceptance in science and higher education. 
>Even many professing Christian denominations have accepted it, 
>if only passively.

That should be most, but never mind.
    
>Yet, though in the minority, there still remain scientists,
>educators, and fundamentalist religious groups, as well as those
>in Judaism, who cling to belief in the existence of God.
>Don't Assume--KNOW!

I think *all* religious types believe in God, scientists or not.

... much deleted...

For those of you who couldn't wade your way through this posting,
it was argument by design, confusion of biogenesis and evolution,
misrepresentation of cosmology, revelation as proof, and the
usual summary of "any logical person can see that this is true"
(paraphrased).

A waste of time and bandwidth.  I would suggest he take it to
talk.origins, but honestly, after this posting I doubt he has 
the intellectual integrity to survive there (*I* can make a better
argument for the existance of God, and I am an atheist).

C Frog
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:06:07 GMT

In article <Aug.14.00.05.15.1992.17895@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>davec@csufres.CSUFresno.EDU (David C. Choweller) writes:
>
>Thus I'm saying that the early law is barbaric because that's all the
>people were ready to hear.  

Seems far more likely that's all the people were ready to write. Incredible
that people in this day and age can still believe that an ambiguous old 
collection of ignorance can be the "inspired word of god".

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:20:44 GMT

skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>To Mr. LeRoy:

>Perhaps we need to start over.  If you would like to support your
>assertion, let's throw out the past and begin by agreeing on a
>definition for Christianity.  We can proceed from there.  If you
>decide not to support your assertion, then I will gladly accept your
>silent retraction.

I refuse to continue this discussion while you persistently set up
"if you don't do X, I'll assume Y" statements as in your last sentence;
it is a variation of poisoning the well, as I have told you in email.

If I had never seen this particular posting, you would be drawing
conclusions about my position based on my non-response.  This is
clearly invalid, yet you would take it as some sort of debate victory.

When you stop setting up false presumptions, I'll debate you,
but not before.

If you decide not to stop using such statements, I will gladly
accept this as an admission that you have lost the debate.
(see how easy it is to use such statements to "prove" absolutely anything?)

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi)
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:58:40 GMT


Regarding science in the Qur'an, here references to some verses
of the Qur'an which you can read *the translation of their meaning*
and ponder upon.  I recommend the translation of A. Yusuf Ali
or M. Pickthall.

7:54, 20:4, 21:30, 1:1, 25:59, 21:33, 39:21, 78:6-7, 21:30
20:53, 13:3, 16:66, 96:2, 23:14, 22:5, 32:9

- Ridha
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine)
Subject: Re: Famous Atheists?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University - Chemistry Dept. Programmer
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:55:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.151452.26386@nmsu.edu>, amerritt@dante.nmsu.edu (Angela Merritt) writes...
}Sorry if this is a FAQ but does anyone know of any
}famous atheists?  I was thinking more of political
}or historical figures rather than 'movie stars'.

Bertrand Russell - scholar and philosopher is among the most famous.

}I understand that some of our founding fathers
}in america appeared to be non-christian by some
}of the quotes I've read.  

It is widley held that many of our country's founders were actually
Deists. None were known to be self-proclaimed atheists.

}I have also heard that
}the word "God" was not in the original pledge of
}allegiance or printed on our money?  

This is correct. The "In God We Trust" slogan was added to money and the
"under God" was added to the pledge, both (I believe) in this century.
Dont' have the exact dates handy.

}Does anyone
}know about this?  Does anyone have any good books
}to recommend about the history of religion in our
}government (usa)?

I'm still looking for a good one on that... but I've found many good
books on the (generic) atheist philosophy. Russell's in particular are
good if dated.

}Thanks all!
} 
}Angie
} 
}amerritt@dante.nmsu.edu
}-IvArch->--------------------------Brett G. Lemoine-------------------->
}-Texas A&M University--------------Chemistry Department Programmer----->
}-Internet: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu-Bitnet: lemoine@tamchem------------->
}------"A person without a god is like a fish without a skateboard."---->
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cosc16tt@menudo.uh.edu (Dennis Gray Jr.)
Subject: Newsletter -- try again
Reply-To: DGray@uh.edu
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 16:20:12 GMT


Hello all!

I made an attempt about a year ago to start up an Atheist electronic
newsletter.  However, things just didn't work out on this end and not
too many people were interested.  Since that time I have misplaced the
mailing list of the people who were interested.  So, anyone interested
in getting on, or getting back on the list please send me the address
to which you want it mailed.  Also, let me know if you would be able
to contribute articles (etc)...

Send requests to: st11w@jetson.uh.edu

For those who were on the newsletter list, I am very sorry for not
getting it done.  Time restrictions are less now than ever so I will
absolutely be able to get it done this time around.  I also have
several people locally and in austin (American Atheist General
Headquarters) who will help write things for it.

Contributions and suggestions welcome,
-dennis
-- 
Dennis Gray, Jr.                 "What the hell were you doing???"

DGray@uh.edu                   "Attempting the hell to communicate."
                                     -from The Voyage Home
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: British Humanist Association
Date: 17 Aug 92 13:17:46 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

Anybody got anything bad to say about the BHA before I send off my cheque?

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|           It all depends on the size of your ham sandwich           |
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44)061-275-6033  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: st1lv@rosie.uh.edu (McLeod, Stephen)
Subject: Re: priest observes
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:35:00 GMT

Dear Russian Priest:

I am sorry about the people who you are living with.  It is sad that the drive
to remove religion in russia was tied to such evil men.  From what I understand,
when they started, the Church had plenty of money and was spending little of it
on the peasents.  The Vatican could provide your 700,000 donation twenty times
over but I am sure it will not.  My friends who are religious feel it is a shame
that very often when a church starts it wishes to serve the people but in a 
short time it becomes enamored with monuments and treasuries.  I assure you, in
twenty years your church will have spent moneys on velvet curtains that could 
have saved children from starving, educated people on how to heal themselves, 
and so on.
If there is some kind hearted Atheist out there who has the 700,000 dollars why
not set up an *ATHEIST* center.  Show the people there that atheism does not 
equal evil.  I am an agnostic but I have no faith in any worldly religion I have
seen.  Indeed, like Ron Hubbard, if I ever wish to get rich I imagine founding a
religion would be the easiest way.
---
Stephen McLeod         Currently undergoing chemo therapy at M.D. Anderson.
The Eternal? Student   Though unpleasent-- no religious conversion yet.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 03:05:02 GMT

<This didn't quite seem to make it to alt.atheism the first time>
 
Here's an interesting additional piece of information:
 
On Sunday, August 16, American Atheists picketed St. Martin's Episcopal
church in Houston, Texas.  This is the church where George Bush usually
goes when he's in Houston, and he was there last Sunday.  This was
reported on CNN.
 
When asked to comment on the atheist's demands, the head of the church,
Dr. Claude Payne, responded: "Well, I tell you, we *are* one nation under
God."
 
There is now no doubt as to where George Bush got the idea that Atheists
have no rights.  Is this an official part of Episcopalean dogma?
 
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
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:15498 sci.skeptic:14747
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Party...
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Distribution: alt
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 04:06:13 GMT

In article <COSC16TT.92Aug20213839@menudo.uh.edu> DGray@uh.edu writes:
>leaves......... yeah...  not alot.  I can throw my vote away voting
>for perhaps a libertarian, or just not bother to throw it at all.  At
>this juncture I would opt for the latter were it not for congressional
>elections (I am there voting I might as well punch something for the
>presidential post).  So, what do you guys think?

One party tells me they will rob me a little more than they are already,
the other has declared war on me and considers it immoral to even suggest
that I should have any rights.

I'll vote for thieves over psycho killers any day!
-- 
>>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.--          \/