HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:52:05 GMT

Jim Perry writes:

>Although I never saw evidence for myself, I entered into this whole
>religious debate thing under the assumption that believers did have
>some evidence, though I hadn't yet seen it.  It is years of this
>discussion that has led me to the stronger position that there is no
>evidence for God.  Oddly, a great many of those on the other side seem
>to agree with me.

  i don't think it's that odd to agree with you.  it wouldn't be faith
if it were proved.  and faith is what makes the difference.  turning to
god and devoting my life to him must be total and complete.  and i also
believe that if god were to present himself as a pillar of fire/cloud
in front of us for 40 years [like in exodus], there'd still be many who'd
reject him.

---                          
     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"                   
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14959 talk.religion.newage:4088 sci.physics:13641 sci.anthropology:784
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.physics,sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: Facts and Values (was Where it came from)
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:40:41 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Aug26.221814.5016@colorado.edu>, bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes...
> 
>Humans enter Europe and virtually all other large predators are eliminated.
>Saber-tooth tigers, extinct.  Cave bears, extinct.  (The bears remaining
>in Europe originated in Asia, but I don't know when they migrated).  Wolves
>remained for awhile, but they were cross-bred with domesticated wolves
>(which became dogs).  Lions apparently remained until early historical
>times.

I'm not convinced.  In the Americas, Saber-tooth tigers and other large
carnivores underwent a rather sudden extinction around something like 50K 
years ago.  Meanwhile, the earliest human remains are roughly 25K years old.
I have been able to verify the human data (it's "Los Angeles Man")
but not the timing of the extinction.  But if my numbers are correct,
then these animals died out on their own, with no assist from us, at least
on this continent.

Anybody out there with some real knowledge?

-Scott

--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: liahona@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner)
Subject: Religious Freedom & Churches
Organization:  University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center
Date:  2 SEP 92 20:04:31    

A friend of mine, really it's not me, is interested in gathering material
on situations where churches have restricted freedom of speech or academic
freedom by their members.  Examples would include:

 - Dismissing college faculty for teaching "heretical" ideas.
 - Disciplining or excommunicating members for speaking "heretical" thoughts.
 - Encouraging members to report other members' unorthodox actions.

Preferably this material should come from the last 100 years.  If you are
aware of books, articles, newspaper stories, ..., etc. of events of this ilk,
I would appreciate it if you would drop me a message at

liahona@macc.wisc.edu

Thank you
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:35:38 GMT

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>The silly part is that God forgives me for rejecting him, than damns me to
>eternal Hell anyway.   If my attitude is irrelevant, as you admit above,
>saying that I have "described just how it is..." then I am forgiven
>no matter what I do. God holds nothing against me, whether I accept his
>forgiveness or not. If I am forgiven *regardless* of my attitude, then
>WHY am I going to Hell?   

  god is loving because *we* were the ones who failed him and he forgave
us and sent his son to die for us so all we needed to do is accept the
sacrifice to know god.  that's love.  meanwhile the punishment for sin
is death and to be just he must enact judgement for all who've not been
saved by jesus' sacrifice.  if you don't want god to be just and loving,
worship someone else.  you are forgiven no matter what you do.  yet
god still demands we turn back to him.  of what good to me would forgiveness
be if i didn't care to know god?  still i'm forgiven, but if i don't want
to accept that, i won't know god.  but it's not that god holds nothing
against you.  he holds against everyone the sins we commit.  but accepting
his offer for forgiveness redeems us.

>And DON'T say that I have to ACCEPT the forgiveness to make it real. That is
>just utter nonsense, as you have already admitted. 
>              
>If I forgive somebody, I DON'T punish them anyway. If I do, then I never
>really forgave them, did I?

  but if god forgives someone and they don't accept it and they don't
want a relationship with him, how can god be just and accept those who
do accept them as well as those who don't want a relationship with god.
why should god bring to heaven one who doesn't want his forgiveness
and his life?  god is respecting the will of the person who doesn't
want god's forgiveness.

>In caps:

>THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION/DAMNATION IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE DOCTRINE OF
>A LOVING GOD. SORRY TO ANYONE OFFENDED BY THIS UNFORTUNATE FACT.

  well, it's an opinion reconcilable enough for christians to live with it.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 11:10:58 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <1992Sep02.064420.9689@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>In article <l=knl5=.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>
>>	This really isn't worth my time, but...
>
>So sorry to bother you old chap.  I know it's much easier to scream and
>yell rather than to provide some cold hard reasoning, but the former
>leaves quite a bad taste in my mouth.

	Get over it. Yer damn straight it's easier to be sarcastic; also
more appropriate, when maybe 6 people from an audience of thousands are
the only ones who actually need the point explained.

>>	Eric quoted a figure from ZPG about there being "enough" food to
>>feed something like 3.2 gigafolk. Does it really take much thought to
>>see this is a meaningless statement, a pseudo-statistic?
>
>Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my impression that there is only
>a finite amount of arable land on which to grow crops.

	OK, I'll correct you: you're wrong. Not only is "arable land"
another variable, the yield from land is variable, and even the _need_
for land to grow food is pragmatic rather than theoretical. There is no
theoretical limit to how much food the world can produce, only practical
limits, which vary with time.

>Eric pointed out
>that the amount of this land is decreasing due to soil erosion, and the
>yield of the remaining land is decreasing because of the reduced use of
>fertilizer.  I don't think it does take a great deal of thought to see
>that our ability to produce food is decreasing.  Perhaps you disagree
>with one or more of the premises, but if so, I wish you'd say so rather
>than just ranting and raving.

	Pay attention. The stuff mentioned from ZPG was _stupid_. That's
what I said, that's what I meant, that's my objection, and I've even
explained why. What is your problem? Perhaps you'd like to defend the
statement that the world can only feed 3.2 billion, when the present
population is ~5 billion, and growing all the time? What do you think
they all eat, sand?

	There's a difference between having a point, and having an axe
to grind. Go grind yours elsewhere.

>ZPG and Eric say food supply is not a constant, but rather is decreasing.
>You say that is this is a ludicrous argument for zero population growth.
>I agree.  I think it's an airtight argument for negative population growth.
>But we've got to start somewhere.

	I have a suggestion where you and the rest of the elitists can
start...

						Kayembee
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.atheists,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Biblical errors
Keywords: 1 Kings 7: 23 and Pi
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:47:51 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

>In article <adams.714835799@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>}Wrong.  Why couldn't the author have used aproximate measurements?

>OK.  Why couldn't the authors of the rest of the bible be approximately
>right?

There is a big difference in relating the size/diameter/circumfrence of an
object and reporting information about God and our relationship with him.

>}The Bible is 100% accurate in what it claims to be : a representation of
>}man's state and dealings with God.  It isn't a science book, a math book,
>}or a geometry book.  It is inspired, and it is never wrong on the topic it
>}addresses. 

>VERY good.  Sounds a lot like one of the Pope's statements.  A shame that
>there exists Fundamentalists who seem to confuse what the bible _IS_ with
>what they _WANT_ it to be..   :-(

I really couldn't care less what the Pope says.  My conclusions have
nothing to do with his opinion...they are exactly that...my conclusions.

Plenary verbal inspiration causes no end of problems...the Bible then dies 
the death of a thousand qualifications...at least in my opinion.  Denying
strict literalism doesn't deny the power of the message.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik (Hacker))
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some questions about God(tm)
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:03:04 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <sbuckley.714253889@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
Buckley) wrote:
> Gordon Storga writes:
> >Why does an omnipotent being need worship?
 
>   he doesn't need it, he deserves it.  worship is extreme gratitude
> to the creator for being created. [my definition :) other def'ns exist]

Standard dogma answer. It is in total opposition of the notion that
omnipotent beings are able to create whatever, including admiration.
Or in other words omnipotent beings don't need something silly such
as worshipping. The Christian God is a jealous God, need I say more.

> >Why is it ok for god to slaughter millions of people?
 
>   when god kills people in the old testament, he is enacting judgement.
> each instance is given context and explanation.  is god not allowed to
> judge disobedience?  if so, who are we to judge him?  our initial 
> commandment in eden was to obey one command [don't eat the apple]
> or face death.  he has the right to judge transgression.

Yet again, the issue of omnipotence clearly states that a being
is able to create whatever, including perfect situations. God was
not able to create a perfect situation. That implies that he's not
omnipotent.

> >Why doesn't god speak to me?
>   god has presented an autobiography and a personal manifestation to
> tell us about himself.  both jesus and god's word live and work today.

Note that this is true of most other mythological beings, such as Zeus
or Oden. A true omnipotent God should manifest itself to any intelligent
being.
This is not the case, even worse, there are many other gods that 
are true for many human beings. In my humble opinion we are really
looking at a combined social/psychological state, and we are not
dealing with objective reality.

As you saw, I answered all three points using the notion of true
omnipotence. It is the best weapon against doctrines that both
use it as a notion, and also forget the logical conclusions when
it does not make sense.

Cheers,
Kent
...personal comments...

---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:20:57 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird


 hartigan@ac.dal.ca wrote:
 
 >Because God did NOT do that (apparently), he MUST want evil to exist.
 >He must WANT people to sin, and fail, and be separate from Him. 
 >Because that is the kind of universe he created. And omnipotent beings
 >ALWAYS get what they want. 
 
(Stephen Buckley) replied:

   this only works if you presume that people did not choose to sin
 out of free will, that god somehow causes us to sin all the time.


This seems to say that god is not ultimately responsible for 
what he has created. If god is omniscient, and if god created
humans and others with free will, then god knew some would
choose evil, god allowed evil to exist in the world, hence
I believe hartigan@ac.dal.ca argument stands.

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 08:23:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.155956.2039@col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>> I am not talking about closing ones eyes, I am talking about opening ones
>> spiritual eyes on a trial basis - one is then free to close them again if one
>> so chooses.  You cannot prove your way to God; knowledge of Him must depend
>> on faith - which does mature into certainty if given a chance (and the faith
>> is true).  
>
>John,
>
>A few thoughts:
>
>1) If I'm reading that right, you're saying the faith will mature into
>   certainty, if the faith in question is "true" and you give it a real
>   chance.  If that is what you mean, how do you explain people with
>   different faiths, either within Christianity or in other religions,
>   who have faith in different things?  Especially those of other faiths
>   that don't even believe in Christ.  

Easy.  Christians have 100% assurance through their (mature) faith, while
others are hoping for the best.  This is true across the board, and not just
because I want it to be.  Doesn't that mean anything?  The fact that I am
more sure that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life than that I will be
alive after this keystroke?  (I am, BTW :-)  It wasn't always that way...
God won't let me go though, and through a personal knowledge of Him I can say
for sure that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him (that's
some verse too - can't remember which).  I still have a long way to go, but I
have also come a long way.  (I mean in loving Him the way He loves me..)

>2) When one decides to take his "spiritual eyes" out for a test drive
>   like that, how does he decide on which road to take?  How did you
>   decide on yours?  

It doesn't really matter... I started out on Taoism, then bordered on
Satanism, then went for a brand of objectivism, and none of these things held
any meaning for my life.  For a long time Christianity was just another thing
to try, but it has made me whole.

>3) You say "knowledge of Him must depend on faith".  Faith in what
>   things?  Just that there is a God, or faith in the inerrancy of
>   the Bible, that it is giving you the "right knowledge"?  

That is for you to decide!  What I think doesn't really matter for your
life...  If you are talking Christianity, I think a good place to start is
faith that there is a God and that Jesus is the only way to Him.  I am not
just talking about acknowledging (sp?) these things in ones mind, but rather
_living_ as if they are true.

>
>Walter Smith
>smithw@cs.itc.hp.com

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: 27 Aug 92 03:38:34 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <w4bn84q.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>Christianity teaches that sex before marriage is wrong because it
>belittles the importance of the act.

Chapter and verse, please.

-EMP
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 11:43:20 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik (Hacker)) writes:
>I would like to know if this is really the case -- do JWs believe
>that there was never any rain on Earth before the Flood? This is 
>getting more and more crazy... This issue opens a huge new can
>of worms, all crawling all over the JW logic.

	Gen. 2:6
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Think of that
Date: 2 Sep 92 00:48:20 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug31.155444.18537@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> 
> 
> 	To a smart person simple things are too complicated. 

  "The truth is rarely pure and   
          never simple"          - Oscar Wilde 

Or:
-One of the biggest obstacles to communication is our tendency
to evaluate, to pass judgment on, to agree or disagree with 
statements before we find out what is meant. -Thomas Nilsen


Or, as Lao Tzu said:
Beautiful words are not truthful
Truthful words are not beautiful.

Or:
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat,
and wrong.
                -- H. L. Mencken

Cheers!
Kent
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Noah's Ark Apologetics (was Laura questions)
Date: 27 Aug 92 00:00:03 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <6656@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M
Feuerbacher) wrote:
> Any naturalistic explanations of this always neglect certain very basic
> physical laws or geological observations, and reduce to the idea that God
> must have created the water out of nothing or performed so many miracles to
> get around the physical problems that one must ask, Why bother?

I would even take a step further and state that God killed a lot of 
living beings, not only humans but also innocent animals that don't have
the know-how to sin. In other words it was one of the most bloody
butcher event in the history of humankind.

However, many of us feels it's a myth anyway so we are not accusing
God for animal cruelty. However, those who love animals and believe
in the Flood should think a little bit about this issue.

Cheers,
Kent

---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: One True Faith (was: Why I am not a Muslim)
From: dcs@witsend.tnet.com (D. C. Sessions)
Date: 27 Aug 92 05:35:56 GMT
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.04

In <1992Aug25.124732.7122@ac.dal.ca>, hartigan@ac.dal.ca wrote:
# Besides on this net alone, I can find you
# 
# a Mormon
# a fundamentalist
# a Muslim (you! :) )
# an atheist
# a Buddhist
# 
# ..who can all prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their religion is the One
# True Faith. What's a guy to do? 

  Since you ask, "That which is harmful to you, do not do to others."
  The rest is commentary, and well worth study [1].

  As for proving that I have the golden ticket, sorry.  I can't, and
  even if I could have no reason to try.  Rude at best.  More likely
  counterproductive.

[1] BTW, I must point out that our era's technological advances hardly
    assure us of moral supreiority over our ancestors.  They were
    neither stupid, foolish, nor blind.  Some of them were geniuses by
    any standards and devoted themselves wholeheartedly to questions
    (such as ethics) which haven't changed a whit.  Dismissing them
    unexamined reflects a degree of foolish arrogance almost beyond
    belief, and yet seems to be in fashion.
---
--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                    dcs@witsend.uucp ---
--- And if that doesn't work:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- There never was any correspondence between my views and SCI's ---
From: yohan@maico.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: 29 Aug 92 21:26:23 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: maico.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <dabrowsk.714864834@liveboard10>, dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>In <17g3d3INNp8o@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu> Jonathan W Newton believes that
>faith must be in conflict with thinking:
>
>-Douglas Graham:
>>>>This again, points to a defect in the human brain.  People tend
>>>>to use it to rationalize rather than to deduce.
>-Jonathan W Newton:
>>I have to agree with the original post.  IMHO, anything that requires
>>man to have faith (i.e. cease to think), has a net result of being
>>harmful.  
>>
>Fine. If "have faith" implies "cease to think". Could you prove this
>assertion? Or this is by your private definition of faith? (Or you
>accept this statement by faith? :-D)

This is the biblical definition of faith.  You are supposed to have faith that
christ is the savior and son of god.  This means that you do not question (think
critically) about the subject of god in any way.  Furthermore, anything that the
bible says is true is not to be questioned; you are simply supposed to have faith
and accept it as fact.  To put it simply,faith in something means you believe in
something without proof or reason.  


>
>-Jonathan W Newton:
>>Mans intellectual evolution has been severely retarded by religion.
>>
>As by atheism. Intellectual evolution always slows down when barriers of 
>dogmatism are set in wrong places. Religion AND atheism can stimulate or
>hinder thinking; actually, the original reason why I decided to believe
>in God was that this option gave me more intellectual freedom.

Believing in god does give you intellectual freedom.  It takes away the burden of
thinking about alot of important subjects.  Furthermore, atheism is not a
dogmatism.  The only thing atheism is is a lack of belief in god(s), nothing more
and nothing less.  There is alot of variability in the opinions of atheists, but
these are all conclusions the reached by thought rather than faith.  There is
also alot of concensus among atheists which is incredibly reassuring.  All these
atheists from different backgrounds reached many of the same conclusions about
philosophy all from their own individual efforts of thinking about the subject. 
Compare this to all the differences in christianity who have the "word of god" to
work with.  It seems to me that the "word of god" is a poor replacement for
rational thought.

Christianity is appealing to you as well as many people because it is the easiest
way to dodge intellectual responsibility.  Christians just say "we cannot
question the divine wisdom of our lord", and don't have to make any efforts to
resolve the questions they face.

>
>
>Best wishes,
>             Jarek
>------------------------------------------------------
> .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
> `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
>I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET



Jon Newton
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc