HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov (James L. Felder)
Subject: Re: Violence in the bible?
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Sverdrup Technology, Inc.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:48:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.174526.915@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James
Meritt) wrote:
> 
> Exodus 31:14
> Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you. every one
> that defileth it shall surely be put to death...
> 
> Exodus 35:2
> Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a
> holy day, a sabbath of rest to the lord: whosoever doeth work therein
> shall be put to death.

A lot of Christian literalist should be thankful that we don't live in a
country ruled by REAL believers in the full Word (like Saudia Arabia where
they still stone people for stuff like this).  If they truely believed
every single word, then why aren't they out stoning shopkeepers,
firefighters and everyone else that break the sabbath.  How many of them
break the sabbath by working on Sunday or causing other people to work like
by going out for breakfast after church?  But of course what they Really
mean is that they want everyone else to believe their interpretation, which
of course is the only Right one. Lets be practical after all, right.

Well they can't have it both ways.  Either this is the word of their God,
and they are obligated to cary out His (or Her) commandments, no matter the
consequences to them personally, or the Bible is open to interpretation and
there is no single absolute truth.  So which is it?  Either your faith says
do things that will land your ass in jail, or it is just a illustrative
story and not the literal word of God. It can't be both ways.

I am sure that some will come back that all this barbarism is countermanded
elsewhere in the Bible.  Well bring up inconsistencies is hardly an
effective way to prove this is the word of an all powerful and knowing
being.

Lot of blood and gore deleted

> 
>   Exodus   -   God kills the first born of Egypt to force them
>                to let his people go.  (Weren't Egyptians his people, too?)
>

No they are not!  Christians are no different than anyother tribe of people
that have ever existed.  They are the one and only true people.  Everyone
else some how falls just short of being real people. Their mythology is
full of good words, but generally they get applied to only other true
believers.  The edge of the sword is reserved for all the sub-humans.

And its not good enough to be Christian, you have to be the right brand of
Christian or "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't hold. Just look at Northern
Ireland or Croatia and Bosnia for one brand of "Christian" killing another
brand of "Christian".
> 
> 
> Good enough?

No, sad enough.

James L. Felder

"Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge -
    other people gargle"
From: joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 31 Dec 92 14:01:23 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: The Courts of Chaos

In article <1992Dec30.131418.1353@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>
>Where I live, I have met only a few atheists. Thus, I find it hard to talk
>to someone with differing views.

Sounds sorta like our "Bible Belt".  I've known Agnostics from there though.
I very rarely meet someone who will argue pure atheism.

>>>>their grip on reality.  You do not have sufficiant proof that there is no
>>>>God so I find intelligence (or lack of) has little bearing on the valid-
>>>>ity of any religion (much less Jesus Christ).
>>>>                                                          ^
>>>                                                           |
>>>2) This was meant as a poll for opinions, NOT an argument  |
>>                                                            |
>>    Ok.. that is my opinion then ----------------------------
>
>Yes, but you have to substantiate it/say what made you think so.


How should I do that? (by analogy or detailing the logic??)  By 'sufficiant
proof', I mean some kind of intervention from the Dude Himself.  Something
outside of personal logical deduction that lets one know 'yes there is a God'.
I don't really think (I could be wrong) that stupid people are more inclined
toward self deception than intelligent people.  Rather I would expect the
Real REAL intelligent people to be MORE inclined toward self-deception (Because
they're so smart they outwit themselves).  Anyone can see through the
deception of some other person and usually with the help of another.

Its self deception that will do one in.   Then again, I may not be very
smart myself and this could all just be warped line of thought. :-).



-- 
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
|Joe.Beiter@arden.linet.org               The Long Island Network Project   |
|The Courts of Chaos Semi-Public Access   Long Island New York: USA         |
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: world,public
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 01:32:10 GMT

Iikka Paavolainen (iikkap@mits.mdata.fi) wrote:
: I didn't want to include any quotes, because your statements had degenerated
: into pointless babblings. Insulting is an easy way to show weakness, and you
: showed it well.
:
: So I just got more supporting info from your post:
:
: 1) You do agree that you used your intelligence in attacking the original ide
as

Granted.

:
: 2) Apply this kind of cynicism to the Bible and Christianity

I am cynical about the bible, so?

:
: 3) Denial of the the statements in the Bible is due to intelligence.

Huge leap.  "Denial of the statements in the bible" can also be due to 
socialization or apathy (Hindus and a woman I used to live with are good 
examples of each).

:
: No use denying any of this, as you supported these notions well along the
: thread. Basically, the original post was an easy lure, to see how cynicism
: works among the atheists in this group, and the denial of the Bible became
: strong. Or are you saying that your cynicism was out of stupidity?

Just for fun, try the reverse post on alt.religion.christianity (though you 
will have to get a different account since Xians to read this newsgroup).

:
: Being heavy on psychology, I like to see how people's minds work. Thanks for
: the posts.

Ha, I was right.  You did lie about having a study supporting your hypothesis.
-- 
Mike McAngus 			 | As if I needed Another time consuming hobby.
(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)		 | 
The Truth is still the Truth	 | This Post exploits illiterates.
Even if you choose to ignore it. |
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A few facts about circumcision
Date: 21 Dec 92 03:29:10 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

[reply to polly@iastate.edu]
 
>AAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGG!!!!!!!  I have heard enough about circumcision...
>maybe this discussion should go to misc.kids or even have a group
>discussion formed called misc.circumcision.
 
I'll second that.  Circumcision seems to rear its ugly head :) in every
conference on the net at some point.  I have forgotten what it ever had
to do with atheism.  How about it guys?  Mind pointing that follow-up
line at somebody else?  Where are the topic police when you need them?

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: Violence in the bible?
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 13:45:18 GMT

[In reply to Scott Locklin's post on a Bible debate]

And they say that you should read the Bible for a good time?

--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheists "stir up shit" (was Re: Religion = Anything that's fun)
Date: 22 Dec 92 20:26:35 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Dec21.120310.20489@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>Harold Platypus (harry@timesink.chi.il.us) wrote:
>: Why would anyone want to belong to an organization whose charter and
>: basic beliefs they oppose?
>
>Because we are social animals.  If the boys friends are scouts, then he wants 
>to be part of the group.

Hold it.  This makes no sense whatsoever.  Every organisation imposes
certain requirements on its potential members.  If someone doesn't
meet those requirements, he has no business in the organisation, no
matter how social an animal he is and how many friends he has there.
I might as well demand to be admitted as a member of a women's choir,
because I like the company there.  :-)

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 07:26:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.135856.5629@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <ofBEMFy00Uh_I2BY9m@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>
>>    Though I agree with the general idea behind Mr/s. Paavolainen's
>>post, that intelligence deters religious belief, I think that when a
>>intelligent person is ensnared into a religion that they are most
>>devout.  
>>    Let me attempt to explain the mechanism that makes them devout. 
>>Let's consider christian believers since I am most familar with
>>christianity. The Bible has much silliness and contradictions.  The
>>intelligent christian will have more ability to conjure up some way of
>>making silly passages seem intelligent and some way of reconciling
>>seeming contradictions than would a stupid christian.  By the act of
>>making the Bible make sense to himself, the intelligent christian has
>>reenforced his own belief in the Bible as the truth.  Thus, the
>>intelligent christian has a greater stake in christianity than does the
>>stupid christian.
>
>More often than not, the intelligent person will be drawn away from Christian-
>ity after discovering these contradictions. Thus, he/she is 99% sure that the
>stuff in the bible is false. Only if he/she wants to create a 'false God',
>try to convince himself of the existence of God, to give a sense of security
>and happiness, will he/she revert to Christianity.
>As the saying goes, people want to make themselves believe the better more than
>the worse, no matter how irrational it might seem.

You have stats to back this up too, I presume?

What they usually do is to make additional assumptions about the
nature of God, reality etc. to harmonize these biblical
contradictions.  I'm not saying it's right to do this, but it must
take some smarts to cook up some of these remarkable concoctions. . .

>>    If my theory is right, then it has implication for atheists who
>>argue with chirstians on this bboard or elsewhere.  By poiniting out a
>>contradiction in the Bible to the intelligent christian, we may simply
>>be conditioning him to have greater faith in christianity.  (Atheist
>>should not forget that a clever mind can always find some way to justify
>>even the most blatant of contradictions.  This is called apologetics.)
>>
>
>For an intelligent person to achieve this state, he/she must have an extra-
>ordinary personality/will. Believe me, this kind of person is rare.

I. e., Calvin, Luther etc.

SD
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: world,public
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 19:17:45 GMT

Scott S Parish (parsons@cis.ksu.edu) wrote:
:
: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:

[most of the parable deleted]

: >To which the father replies, "How dare you question my motives?  Who
: >brought you into the world?  Were you there when I made your mother
: >squeal with glee?  Who supplies food on your table and a roof over
: >your head?  Who has showered you with presents on your birthdays and
: >who as bought your books so you could learn?"
:
: Then you ask if we would like that kind of father.

No I didn't.  I asked "How would you answer such a father?"

:                                                     First, I think
: all of our parents have responded in a similar fashion (just maybe
: not with the same rhetorical questioning).  Who here can say that
: when you asked your father why he did or did not do something your
: father did not respond, "Because" at least once?

I can (or maybe it's just selective amnesia :^) ).  Seriously, my father went
out of his way to explain things to his children and demanded that we explain
our actions to him ("I don't know" was never a valid response wrt our own
actions).

 Who here can say that

:                                                   That happened
: quite often when I was young as I'm sure it happened in others
: households.  Maybe not exact manner of response Job got, but very
: similar.  So before you go exaggerating the audacity and "injustice"
: of the response, take off your blinders and look around.

The response is arrogant, not unjust.  The action (or inaction) was unjust.

:
: Next, you completely leave out what happens after the father questions
: his son.  I'll finish your parable for you...
:
: "And after the questioning, the father took his youngest child into
: the house.  He cleaned up his son's wounds, fed and clothed him--
: restoring what the older brother destroyed.  From that day forward
: the father blessed his son more than he ever had before."

Because the father had a guilty concience.
You still don't answer my question "How would you respond to such a father?"

:
: --
: Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
: parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |

My parable is a true parallel of Job, even if you choose to ignore it.
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Ok, truce?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:57:43 GMT

In article <BzME6q.8rJ.2@cs.cmu.edu> zitsky+@CS.CMU.EDU (Mark Ryan Miller) writes:
>Well, I've only been in this group for a few weeks.  I thought it might be a source of information and support for atheists who need information about atheist
>organizations, etc.  But unfortunately, it seems to be full of flames.  That's the problem of both the Christians and atheists who flame back instead of JUST IGNORING these people.  (Do atheists have incredibly thin skins?)  I thought we were atheists because we didn't see the need to prove ourselves?  This newsgroup could be much more beneficial for "young" atheists, and could help as a support group for people just struggling to overcome Xianity.
>
>So... What do people think?  Would you rather have people unsubscribing to the newsgroup, because of the constant flames, or would we like to see this more for the benefit of the atheists and less for the benefit of the Christians.
>Maybe I should pay more attention to the atheist.moderated group???
>
>--Mark

Yours is one of several messages received in a.a recently which
complain of the flamage here.  Well, there is quite a bit of
information about atheism posted here (mainly in response to
questions and evangelizing from xtians), and occasionally
sharing of personal stories of intellectual growth.

However, some of us like the flame wars (up to a point).  They can
be wildly entertaining.  Along with the education value of a.a,
some of us enjoy the opportunity to release our frustrations
with living in a semi-theocracy.  As long as the flames are
witty, insightful, and no more than slightly personal,
let 'em burn, IMHO.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
       A Lie is still a Lie, even if you believe it.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: usenet@nmsu.edu
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Summary: That's all, folks
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 06:25:35 GMT


Well, I just posted part 5 of the series, which is the final article.
(On Xmas Eve yet!  But if I hadn't finished it now, I probably never
would have.)  It occurs to me that many who might be interested in
this series may miss some of the articles, due to being away during
Xmas.  If you let me know I'll e-mail you copies of any of the
articles you might require; or perhaps I should re-post the relevant
articles after the beginning of the new semester, for those who won't
return until then.  At any rate, I'm looking forward to any comments
people might have on the ideas contained in this summary.

SD
From: eradm@wbst845e.xerox.com (Erik Radmall)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 28 Dec 92 14:59:06 GMT
Reply-To: eradm@wbst845e.xerox.com
Organization: Xerox Corporation

In article 20420@nmsu.edu, sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
> In article <1992Dec22.172158.11967@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
> >In article <1992Dec19.224717.1993@prime.mdata.fi>, iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:

...

> I become very uneasy when I see people say "Oh the religious are
> dumber (or smarter) than others on average."  It can too easily 
> degenerate into an ad hominem attack, in which one dismisses beliefs
> one disagrees with because one believes one's opponent lacks
> intelligence.  Being intelligent is no guarantee that one is right.
> 
> SD

Agreed -- and that kind of thinking also leads to the slippery-slope of
determining superiority of one "type" of person over another. It has been
successfully employed by demagogues to butcher or oppress others of a
different ilk for purely personal gain.

If one attempts to use such a ridiculous standard as the IQ test to validate
one's own belief system, any revisions of what constitutes "intelligence"
will weaken the argument in the future. An interesting side note to the IQ
test is that many individuals with _very_ high IQs are unable to perform
other than "menial" work to earn a living.

My personal opinion of what constitutes "intelligence" is: "The ability to
successfully adapt to changing circumstances."

---
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 01:22:38 GMT

Iikka Paavolainen (iikkap@mits.mdata.fi) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec27.164624.4808@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mik
e A. McAngus) writes:
: >Well, you and I are attacking hir (I don't know the gender of Iikka) concept
ion
: >of intellectual suOCperiority. I do note that Iikka's arguments are getting 
: >less rational as the debate continues.
: 
: Well, you really are getting low to degenerate the discussion into this. Only
: one meaning for this: you are at a loss for words. I never team up to anybody
: in an argument, because I want to have a strong personality.
: 
: So far I have had 2 against (you and Doe) and 5 who have had likewise
: observations or ideas.
:
: I have nearly all the info I need to end this discussion. Much of it has come
: from your unthoughtful and unfriendly flamings without you being aware of it.
: Thanks anyway.
:
Hey Stephen Doe, do you think we are going to be used as evidence of stupid 
Xians?
-- 
Mike McAngus 			 | As if I needed Another time consuming hobby.
(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)		 | 
The Truth is still the Truth	 | This Post exploits illiterates.
Even if you choose to ignore it. | 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: In Job, Lucifer was proved right!
Date: 3 Jan 1993 03:51:27 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world,public
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan2.014956.6474@eskimo.com>, alpinist@eskimo.com (David Butler) writes:
|> 
|> I can look at my past and see exactly what choices I made.  I know with
|> certainty what I have already done.  Does that mean I did not have free
|> will at the time?  If the past can be fixed and free will still exist,
|> then why would free will not exist just because the future is fixed?
|> Or in other words, if I know what choices I already made and had free
|> will at the time - couldn't the choices I will make be known and still
|> be the result of free will?

I don't think that past and future are symmetrical here.

When you look back at the past from the now, the past is fixed,
because you know about it, but the present and future are not
fixed.

If the future is fixed, on the other hand, everything you are
going to experience is also fixed *including* the experience of
recalling the past or the present.   In this sense, fixing the 
future fixes our experience of the past and present also.

jon.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24808 talk.religion.misc:24991