HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: religion in general
Keywords: atheism is more than just anti-Christian
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 08:27:14 GMT

In <sumner.727643696@milo.math.scarolina.edu> sumner@math.scarolina.edu (David Sumner) writes:

>Fred Rice writes:
> 
>>Several people, throughout history in fact, have the
>>viewpoint that the essential truths within various 
>>"authentic" religions are one.  
> 
>Several people throughout history have believed just about 
>anything you can imagine. This isn't much of an argument for 
>anything. 

My reason for bringing this up is mainly to show that this viewpoint is
not a newfangled 20th century idea, but it has been at the heart of
various mysticisms for eons.  The reason why this is important is that
if it _was_ a newfangled 20th century idea, it could be argued that this
viewpoint is then illegitimate because the actual adherents of these
religions over the centuries did not believe it.  I was just pre-empting a
possible attack.

>But more to the point, this statement lacks substance. What 
>exactly are a few of the 'essential truths' you refer to 
>here.

Please keep in mind I am just a beginner in this topic.  The main
purpose of my posting was to show that the argument 

    Plurality of religions => Religions are illegitimate

is not really a good argument.  

Anyhow, some of the similarities I am aware of are:

A belief in some sort of single diety among several of these ancient
religions, a non-anthropomorphic one (so in this sense Tao may actually
be a better word than God, since "God" usually has anthropomorphic
connotations in popular Western thought).  For example, within Hinduism
the idea is present that the thousands of gods are really different
aspects of Brahman. 

Some sense of the world being a "reflection" of "God" -- this idea is
prevalent in Sufism and Hinduism, and probably the other religions too.

A sense in which "God" is within each human being.  This, to my
knowledge, is also within Islam/Sufism and Hinduism.  For example, the
Qur'an (Koran) -- the Holy Book of Islam -- talks of God breathing into
Man "something of His Spirit", i.e. there is explicitly, according to the
Qur'an, something of "God's Spirit" in each human.  This may also be the
meaning of the Bible when it speaks of God creating man in "His Image".
(I think it is ludicrous to interpret this particular Biblical passage
literally, since God has no physical image.)

Well, there are a few starters.  To say more I'd have to have my
books with me.  However, I should note I am a beginner in this
particular field, certainly not an expert.  In the past, I have mainly
read about Islam and Sufism.

At the moment, I am not trying to argue that this point of view is
necessarily true -- although I, at present, tend to feel this way --
because I don't yet know enough about various religions to be able to
say this with confidence.  My main intention is to point to the
existence of this point of view.

 Fred Rice
 darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au   

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Was Jesus the Anti-Christ?
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:03:38 GMT

cscope@camelot.bradley.edu (William Twentyman) writes:


>Matthew 12:22-28

>    Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute,
>  and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see.  All the 
>  people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?"
>    But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by
>  Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."
>    Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided
>  against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided
>  against itself will not stand.  If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided
>  against himself.  How then can his kingdom stand?  And if I drive out 
>  demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out?  So then,
>  they will be your judges.  But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of
>  God, then the kingdom of God has come to you.

>This passage poses two possibilities, either Jesus was an agent of God, or
>Satan.  Jesus's quote clearly implies that he is an agent of God, but what
>if the reverse were true?  If Jesus were an agent of Satan, he could simply
>appear to be divided against evil.  This would result in people believing
>he was an agent of God and actually draw people away from God.  If Satan
>were more interested in gathering souls than in leaving a few demons around
>to torment people, he would be making an enormous profit.

>This has been one of my biggest problems with Christianity, the possibility
>that it was a ploy by Satan to draw people away from God.  Can anyone see
>any flaws in my logic?  Anything I may have missed?


Precisely, one of my arguments against Christians always stumps 'em.

Jeff.
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: How much should we read?
Date: 24 Jan 93 00:31:16 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: The Language Game Inc.

In article <2936661256.0.p00261@psilink.com>, "Robert Knowles"
<p00261@psilink.com> wrote:
> I think that people who tell you that you have not studied a religious text
> enough to reject it are basically setting a trap.  They know that there comes
> a point when you must cut your losses or commit your life.  I have heard new
> agers make the same claims about astrology, magic, and other silly things
> as well.

I have the personal view that if you can't explain the core idea of a
religion with one or two simple sentences, then you are dealing with
a secret society :-). Anyway, one might think that the success of a
religion
or a world view is directly applicable to the minimum IQ level one needs
to understand it. In other words I'm quite skeptical that an average
Christian
needs to read the Bible from cover-to-cover 3-4 times, Jesus himself for
instance provided a couple of core messages, and that was it.

In other words, in most cases we are dealing with a court-level attack
trying to level down the critique with the classical statement "You just
don't understand". The other danger with such nitty-pickying of text
has to do with the huge amount of misinterpretations due to
cross-references.
I'm mostly thinking about one particular sect infamous for such work, but
for the sake of politeness I will not mention 'em.


Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND
Private activities on the Net, opinions are not Apple's, they are mine.
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A point well missed ...
Date: 27 Jan 93 07:46:27 GMT
Reply-To: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (White Rook)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu




In a previous article, bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) says:

>The question, "How much should I read of a religions corpus of sacred
>writings", seems to miss the point. Being atheists it's incumbent on
>you to demonstrate the reasons for your disbelief. Merely attacking
	
	I don't beleive in Unicorns, there is NO proof they exist, they
are a myth that was inspired my peoples material realities. How come it is
"incumbent" on -ME- to prove they do not exist ?

>the beliefs of others does nothing to validate your own. Tell me then,
>why are you an atheist ...
>
>
>Bill
>

	I do NOT beleive in god(s) for the same reason I do not beleive in
spirits, it is because we, as humans used to attribute things we did not
understand, like weather and a lot of other things to th esupernatural. As
we have come to understand our world better, we find that MANY of the things
we attributed to the supernatural, have material causes/sources. And there is
the simple fact there is NO real REASON to beleive in the supernatural. We
have learned that the "spirits" do not curse you when you eat grain that has
been in the fields too long, such ideas came because Argot mold grew on the 
grain and people mistaked LSD trips to reality. 

	We know that there is no being that makes the sun rise and set, we 
know that there is no sentient being of some non-material existence that 
controls the weather. There is No reason to beleive in such superstition.

	I am an atheist, because there is NO PROOF of the supernatural being
real. It is just that simple.

	Unicorns and god(s) have something in common, people beleived in them
because they did not really understand their material realities.

	It seems like YOU missed the point of the thread, it is in reguards to
theists who say that since you do not buy into their theism that you have 
simply not read their BOOK (tm) hard enough. I consider this whole premise
sily.


	White Rook <-----Atheist and Aunicornist =-)





-- 
A. TRENT PHILLIPS |" A mirror is a negative space with a frame and a place for
  also known as   | your face, it reveals what the rest of us see. It conceals
   WHITE  ROOK    | what you'd like you to be."--Blue Oyster Cult
--------------------------bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu--------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sumner@math.scarolina.edu (David Sumner)
Subject: Re: religion in general
Keywords: atheism is more than just anti-Christian
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:14:56 GMT


Fred Rice writes:
 
>Several people, throughout history in fact, have the
>viewpoint that the essential truths within various 
>"authentic" religions are one.  
 
Several people throughout history have believed just about 
anything you can imagine. This isn't much of an argument for 
anything. 
 
But more to the point, this statement lacks substance. What 
exactly are a few of the 'essential truths' you refer to 
here.
 
 
David Sumner
From: S.E.Rigden@newcastle.ac.uk (SER)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism in pop culture
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:24:22 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:


>Can you think of any examples of explicit atheism expressed in pop
>songs or other pop culture works?

>-- Brad Pierce

 RELIGIOUS VOMIT by Dead Kennedys :

 All religions make me wanna throw up
 All religions make me sick
 All religions make me wanna throw up
 All religions suck

 They all claim that they have 'the Answer'
 When they don't even know the Question
 They're just a bunch a liars
 They just want your money
 They just want your consciousness

 All religions suck
 All religions make me wanna throw up
 All religions suck
 All religions make me wanna BLEAH

 They really make me sick
 They really make me sick
 They really make me sick
 They really make me sick
 They really make me sick
 They really make me sick
 They really make me ILL

 - SER
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: wesnich@athena.mit.edu (Wesley E Nicholson)
Subject: HOW CAN I GET CHICK COMICS?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:31:24 GMT

How can I get chick comics?  Perhaps I overlooked something,
but I couldn't find an address among all the praise.

Can anybody out there clue me in?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Religious Taxation (was: Madeleine Murray O'Hare)
From: emd@oneb.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 11:04:29 PST
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Nanaimo, B.C.

> Lance A. Brown (lance@Circle.Raleigh.NC.US) wrote:
> : emd@oneb.almanac.bc.ca writes:
> : > According to WHOM are these churches non-profit? As far as I can see,
> : > most of them are religious BUSINESSES, run FOR profit. If they were reall
> : > non-profit, they'd open up their books and show us. Furthermore, they'd
> : > include their real estate assets on their books at market values. And
> : > lastly, why on earth should we exempt religious sects from taxation?
> : > If the church has a fire, the fire department will come to put it out. Wh
> : > should my taxes pay for that? If you've got a building that receives
> : > services, you should pay for those services.
> :
> : This point has been covered before.  Succinctly, the power to tax an
> : organization is a power to destroy it.  I agree that churches should pay
> : any fees levied to provide services such as fire and police protection that
> : cover the whole community and are charged to the _whole_ community.  Any
> : other kind of taxation provides too much power to destroy a religion by
> : taxing it into oblivion.
> 


Nobody, as far as I know, is asking for churches or religious organizations 
to pay EXTRA taxes over and above what everyone else payes. What we'd like 
to see is the ending of the AVOIDANCE of churches and religious businesses 
paying the SAME taxes we all have to pay. Their tax exempt status costs the 
rest of us a hell of a lot of money, as we have to make up for these 
free-loaders.


           emd@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Robert Smits)
     The Old Frog's Almanac  (Home of The Almanac UNIX Users Group)    
(604) 245-3205 (v32)    <Public Access UseNet>    (604) 245-4366 (2400x4)
        Vancouver Island, British Columbia    Waffle XENIX 1.64  
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ahaig@rp.CSIRO.AU (Albert Haig)
Subject: Re: Arguments for the existence of God
Organization: CSIRO Division of Radiophysics/Australia Telescope National Facility
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 04:39:13 GMT


Hi dudes,

Just a short note to say that I'm on holidays for a week, I've just
ducked in for a minute and I've saved as many replies as I can in a file.
I'll post again when I'm back on Monday week.

Cheers,
Albert.

-- 

********************

Albert Haig
CSIRO Radiophysics
Sydney, Australia
ahaig@rp.csiro.au

********************
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: religion in general
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 14:06:34 GMT

In article <sumner.727643696@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
sumner@math.scarolina.edu (David Sumner) writes:
 
>
>
>Fred Rice writes:
>
>>Several people, throughout history in fact, have the
>>viewpoint that the essential truths within various
>>"authentic" religions are one.
>
>Several people throughout history have believed just about
>anything you can imagine. This isn't much of an argument for
>anything.
>
>But more to the point, this statement lacks substance. What
>exactly are a few of the 'essential truths' you refer to
>here.
>
 
The suppression of women, a common trait of religions?
The lack of a declaration of human rights?
The knowledge that one can fool people into believing that
belief is not to be justified?
That people who believe in another religion do not know the full truth?
 
Actually, I wonder what Fred Rice means, too.
   Benedikt
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: religion in general
Date: 22 Jan 93 10:14:26 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

westsh@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:

>re:religion in general
>mostly, i agree with your letter. my problem with it is your comment about
>using religion as a reason of abstaining from the consumption of animal
>flesh. you say instead of worrying about religion, we could be solving
>world hunger. the key to solving world hunger is surprisingly simple.
>if all americans became vegetarians, we would be able to feed the world 
>three times over!!!!! albeit, religion is not a good reason for this, but 
>it works just the same. i agree religion of any kind is bull, but some of
>it has good ideas: like not killing people or animals. i am also glad that
>someone pointed out that christianity is  not the only culprit. all
>religions are is a way to explain things without thinking.
>susan hamilton west
>the info on world hunger can be found in VEGETARIAN TIMES(i'm not sure what
>issue). 

It is well known that vegetarians are often fanatical and like to bend
the truth a little.  Actually, just based on energy concerns, I suppose
we could feed the world if we stopped cycling food to the animals. 
However, the people and animals don't really eat the same kinds of food.
The corn grown for pigs is not meant for human consumption.  I suppose
it could be eaten, but it is rather course.  Also, humans have a hard
time digesting various grasses.  You can't just let a human graze in
the open range.  In fact, most of the land used for cattle probably
couldn't be used for anything else (well, sheep, I guess).  If somehow
you could get humans to eat grass, then I suppose youru statements
might be true.

Anyway, perhaps you should post these sorts of messages to
alt.religion.vegetanarianism or whatever.

keith
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:27144 sci.skeptic:22960
From: pyeatt@Texaco.com (Larry D. Pyeatt)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: God is a Homophobe? Was: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up?
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:56:54 GMT
Organization: Texaco

In article <01050133.ohmnd7@distant.uucp>, edw@distant.uucp (Ed Watkeys) writes:
|> 
|> In article <1jo4trINNlp1@pith.uoregon.edu> (alt.atheism,sci.skeptic), delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu (Scott C DeLancey) writes:
|> 
|> Assuming, for the sake of argument, that God says homosexuality is immoral,
|> can you tell us why He says it's immoral? If it's because He says so, please
|> tell us *why* He says so. Now, we have your *real* reason for thinking that
|> homosexuality is immoral. Unless you can explain *why* God says homosexuality
|> is immoral, you're making your god look pretty arbitrary, or, alternatively,
|> you're making morality beyond human comprehension, which would make me wonder
|> why we're being held accountable for things that we can't even begin to
|> comprehend.
|> 
|> You see, the Divine Command theory of morality doesn't work, even to fellow
|> believers. You're going to need to fall back onto some other moral theory.
|> 
|> I'll be looking forward to your *real* justification for condemning
|> homosexuality.

Could God be a homophobe?  How do we deal with a God who has such
psychological problems?  Classical Freudian analysis is useless because
God has no parents.  Lets just hope that there is a rational explanation
for His dislike of homosexuality.  Could his fear and dislike of Homosexuals
be related to his frequent childish outbursts of jealosy and rage?

BTW - Did you know that Pandas have an extremely high rate of Homosexuality?
Actually, I think Homosexuality is not the correct word for use on non-human
species, but it is the only word we have to describe males who are sexually
attracted to other males.

-- 
Larry D. Pyeatt                 The views expressed here are not
Internet : pyeatt@texaco.com    those of my employer or of anyone
Voice    : (713) 975-4056       that I know of with the possible
                                exception of myself.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: Let's try these proofs
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 10:01:01 GMT

In <1jq0i0INN5rq@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

>In article <1993Jan21.222614.119787@marshall.wvnet.edu>, yea027@marshall.wvnet.edu writes:
>|> Printed by 
>|> Islamic Teaching Center, P.O. box 38
>|> Plainfield, Indiana 46168
>|> Tel. (317) 839-8157
>|> 
>|> How did it happen?
>|> 
>|> 	Would you believe a man if he tells you that there is a
>|>  store which is running smoothly but has no salesman, 
>|> storekeeper or someone to look after it?  Or would you 
>|> believe him if he told you that the chair in front of you 
>|> assumed its present form all by itself?

>Followed by hundreds of line of argument from design, and minor
>variations.

>I have a serious question.   Is this really current stuff in
>Islamic teaching?

>jon.

As a Muslim, I can say "no" -- this is just one style of polemical
writing some Muslims have tried in an attempt to try to "prove" God
"logically".  It is not a fundamental part of Islamic teaching, though
it is probably a characteristic response of many religious people when 
faced with the secular onslaught of today's world.  True Islamic teaching, 
in my opinion, goes far deeper.

I believe the true heart of Islam to be Sufism -- not all Muslims
would agree with me, but many would.  I personally think that Sufism 
["Tasawwuf"] reveals the true metaphysical depth of the religion.

 Fred Rice
 darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Strong atheism ought to explain theism (Was: Re: Atheism is dogmatic.
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:40:58 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <77482@apple.apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>In article <11194@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>>  I personally know of no one who makes the claim that their
>>  experience of god is on the same sensual level as their day to day
>>  perception of the world around them (well, maybe one, Jarek
>>  Dabrowski, but that's another topic).  Most claims of believer-god
>>  interaction are extraordinarily vague or mystical, with phrases
>>  like "felt lead to", "had a vision", "had a feeling", etc.
>
>I have memories of experiences of beings that I think deserve to be
>called gods. Of course, maybe I don't count as I am (apparently) an
>atheist. I suppose it's because I can tell the difference between
>experiences that (for example) people on the net are going to consider
>real and ones they aren't, and because I am skeptical by temperament.

  You just shot yourself in the foot.  There was apparently some
  discernable factor of the experiences you are recalling that makes
  them of the variety you know we find unconvincing.  Hence, these
  experiences were not the same as you daily experiences, and don't
  qualify as the kind to which I was referring.

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

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!

Newsgroups: alt.atheism