HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: Strong atheism ought to explain theism (Was: Re: Atheism is dogmatic.
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 09:13:14 GMT

In <1jjs2kINN4n3@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:


>In a previous article, J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson) says:

>>In article <1jissaINNfjv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam
>>Trent Phillips) says:
>>>
>>[ . . .]
>>
>>Now, it is a fact that the majority of humans believe in some sort of deity.
>>What sorts of arguments can we present to account for these mistaken beliefs?
>>One of my favorites is that the experiences of people claiming to be "touched
>>by God" are nearly identical to the experiences of persons with temporal lobe
>>seizures.  In other words, I can tell someone who says, "I know God exists
>>because I felt his presence," that what he has described sounds a lot like
>>an epileptic seizure.
>>
[...]

>	To me the "I *FEEL* god's presence & it's *WARM* & *FUZZY* just does
>NOt cut it, perception alone does not count.

Be careful when you say this.  Most likely you base your general belief
that the material world exists (I assume you hold this view, like the
vast majority of people do) on your sense perceptions.

Now, many religious people, notably mystics, claim to have "experienced"
God.  It is certainly possible that their experience of God was just as
real as our present experience of our respective computer terminals.
This then puts a belief in God for this particular person on a par with
the vast majority of people's belief in the real existence of the
material world.

Thus, a true "experience" of God may be a very rational reason for that
particular person to believe in God.  Definitely as rational as the reason
the vast majority of people have for believing in the existence of the
material world.

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

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: A point well missed ...
Organization: Still On a Coffee Break
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:12:06 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

>DATE:   Wed, 27 Jan 1993 06:38:38 GMT
>FROM:   Bill Conner <bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu>
>
>   I've had the experience of discussing atheism with atheists before
>and in every case the atheists avoids the questions, "Why are you an
>atheist?" ...
>   I think there are really only two possibilities here: one is that
>the atheist can't explain his position, the other is, if he did he'd
>look like a fool. 
>   Other than sarcasm, ridicule and hyperbole, I've yet to hear an
>atheist's defense of atheism; are you up to it?
>
>Bill

Why am I an atheist?

I was born that way.

Just gettin' back to my roots!
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: 29 Jan 93 00:01:04 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <sandvik-270193174002@17.201.32.75> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <11219@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert
>Beauchaine) wrote:
>>   I want an example of an encounter with god that was in every
>>   detail as real to you as sitting at your terminal typing a reply
>>   to my post.  Ideally, all of the senses would be involved.  If
>>   not, something akin to a conversation with another person will do,
>>   where you hear actual words, and see a complete solid body. 
>> 
>>   I want to hear of something so real to you that you could not tell
>>   it apart from the routine of your daily life.
>
>Descartes used the famous whispering deamon to measure this tricky
>situation. Actually we might add even scientic issues dealing with
>brain stimulation and chemistry. Anyone who's been drunk know what
>I'm hinting at. Reality is what you create around yourself.

  Well, my experience doesn't go beyond alcohol and other very mild
  mind altering substances, but even in those states I don't ever
  remember having any doubt that I was indeed intoxicated.   I have
  never had any difficulty differentiating everyday experience from
  any of the altered states I have managed to put my mind in.
  Perhaps you mileage varies.  I'd be interested in pursuing this
  topic.

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

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!
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Ontological argument...
Date: 27 Jan 93 08:07:46 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1k26nhINNnmr@gap.caltech.edu> werdna@cco.caltech.edu (Andrew Tong) writes:
>
>I believe that most statements of the ontological argument for the    
>existence of God claim that the mere fact that we can imagine an entirely
>perfect being implies that it must exist.                  
>
>Still not very convincing.

I have not yet been convinced that we can, in fact, imagine an
entirely perfect being. Merely splicing together the words
"perfect" and "being" does not count in my book. It may be
that the resulting phrase is no more coherent than "composite
prime".
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
Subject: Who is Billy Graham?
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 06:21:35 GMT

At USA President Clinton's inauguration Billy Graham was given
a prominent role. I seem to recall that Graham hung around
with former USA President Bush on the night that Bush decided to
initiate Operation Desert Storm.

How did this theist gain so much access to the powerful in *both*
major USA political parties?

-- Brad Pierce --
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Was Jesus the Anti-Christ?
Date: 27 Jan 93 13:14:40 GMT
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany

In article <cscope.727987530@camelot>
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?
>--
 
The NTsays that one should judge things by their fruits. When I look at
Christian religion I see only one conclusion possible.
 
It is an interesting ploy in discussions to ask Christians if with all
this evidence of disgusting standards in the OT and the NT as well, as
long with that line, if they can prove from within the system if their
god is not evil.
 
I haven't met one who could.
   Benedikt
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:26957 talk.religion.misc:27474 alt.pagan:15807
From: lance@Circle.Raleigh.NC.US (Lance A. Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Religious Taxation (was: Madeleine Murray O'Hare)
Date: 25 Jan 93 04:18:53 GMT
Organization: The Full Circle BBS, Raleigh NC - DOS/Waffle 1.65

emd@oneb.almanac.bc.ca writes:

> > Lance A. Brown (lance@Circle.Raleigh.NC.US) wrote:
> > : 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 th
> > : 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.

I agree.  I do not like to see churches and religious organizations go tax 
free, nor do I think they should be taxed any harder than anyone else, but 
my point still stands.  The power to tax something _IS_ a power to destroy 
that thing.

Someone else mentioned that attempting to tax a religious organization out 
of existence is unconstitutional.  And it is.  But I do not want to give 
those goofs in Washington D.C., or anywhere else in our country, the power 
to tax religious organizations because SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, maybe in a place 
like Colorado Springs is becoming, WILL try to destroy a religious 
organization they do not like by over-taxing it even if it is 
unconstitutional.

Lance

--
The Full Circle
 Domain: lance@circle.raleigh.nc.us (Lance A. Brown)  [ preferred ]
  Bangs: ...!wolves!circle!lance
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The First Cause argument (again)
Date: 23 Jan 1993 01:25:23 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: syndicoot.engin.umich.edu

In article <1993Jan22.180844.394@newsgate.sps.mot.com> weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
>mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> () writes:
>
>It's my objection, Mark wrote in support of your position.
>
>> Your (Mark Schlegel's) objection is based on a number of assumptions:
>>
>> 1. Time is a single linear dimension.
>> 2. Time proceeds forwards from past to future.
>> 3. An event at time t1 can only cause an event at time t2 if t1 < t2.
>
>Correct, with a slight modification: I accept these assumptions for all
>effects occuring within this universe, excepting #3 for the big bang. 
>I assume causality holds, and since the big bang event occurs at t=0, 
>it's cause would be extra-dimensional.  

 See below.

>> It may be the case that one or more of these assumptions is not the case. 
>> Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", 
>
>"Brief History" is near the top of my "to read" list. But I am somewhat 
>familiar with his arguments, as I have read a couple of commentaries on 
>the work. As physicist Frank Tipler notes,
>   "... a four-dimensional sphere of zero radius forms a boundary to
>    Hawkings universe. ... He [Hawking] has eliminated the classical 
>    singularity -- the beginning of time -- only to have it re-appear 
>    as the "beginning" to the space of all possible four-spheres." 
>A quantum singularity is substituted for a classical singularity, and the 
>problem of "beginning" is not eliminated. 

 Of course, that same Prof. Tipler published a paper wherein he proposed
a design for a time machine. (He had sound relativistic reasons for
doing so, though.)
 What does this say about your case aove?

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - with Dan)
Subject: Buddhism - A religion of atheists?
Organization: Institute Of Systems Science, NUS
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:34:58 GMT

BUDDHISM - A RELIGION OF ATHEISTS?

Is there such thing as an "atheist religion"?  Surprise!  I found the
answer to be "yes".

As a part time social worker, I am keenly aware of the powerful
positive psychology effects of religion.  But, as an atheists, I'm also
keenly aware of the ills of religions:  Holy wars, dogmatism,
Inquisitions, religiously-inspired murders, impedence of science, etc.

To my pleasant surprise, I found one religion which is without any of
the ills.  One of the amazing things about this religion is that many
of its followers, even among its clergy, are atheists!  This "atheist"
religion is Buddhism.

To understand this interesting phenomenon, we have to take a very very
brief look at the central doctorine of Buddhism.  The Central Doctorine
of Buddhism is the "Four Noble Truths":

The First Noble Truth states that sufferings and pain exists, and it
exists in every lifeform.  The Second Noble Truth explores the source
of (psychological) Pain.  Such pain, according to Buddhism, is caused
by the negative states of one's Mind: Greed, Hatred, Delusions,
Ignorant Desires, Jealousy, Anger etc.  All these negative states of
Mind torments the man and causes his experiences to be full of
sufferings.  The Third Noble Truth tells of cessation of Pain.  Since
Pain is caused by the negative states of Mind, the way to cease Pain
would be to develop the Mind such that all these negative states would
cease and be replaced by positive states of Mind like Peace, Love,
Compassion, Kindness, Wisdom etc.  The Fourth Noble Truth, also known
as the Eightfold Path, is a systematic method of developing positive
states of the Mind.  It is a complete package of spiritual and mental
training.

Notice that Spiritual development (instead of Faith) is strongly
emphasized in Buddhism and NOWHERE in its Central Doctrine was the word
"God" even mentioned.  Buddhism is probably the only religion in the
world where the believe in God is not encouraged.  It is also probably
the only religion where followers are encouraged to scrutinize its
teachings and blind faith is frowned upon.  Hence, it was able to avoid
the dogmatism, Holy Wars and other evils that plagued all other
religions.  It is one of very few religions with no conflicts with
Science, even though it is much older than Christianity and Islam.
Indeed, Buddhism has more *positive* impact on modern psychology, for
example, than any religion has on any field of science.

Einstein once said, "If there is any religion that would cope with
modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism ..... [Buddhism] has the
characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the
future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it
covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a
religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and
spiritual, as a meaningful unity."

He must have been as impressed with Buddhism as I am.

C. M. Tan
From: dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Easter whodunnit
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:20:02 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <1993Jan25.234441.4761@nmsu.edu> epowers@mccoy (POWERS) writes:
>In article <C1AGwv.I3B@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>  
>dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:
>> What's the point of trying to account for the empty tomb?  If some
>> people (such as myself) don't believe the Bible when it tells us that a
>> man rose from the dead, why would we be any more inclined to believe it
>> when it tells us that his body disappeared from its tomb?
>
>	Here you have an interesting point.  I'm curious, would you deny  
>equally the validity of all statements made in the Bible?  Archaeologists  
>don't.  If not, how do you distinguish between a true statement and an  
>untrue one?

The word "validity" has multiple meanings, I can't tell which one you
intend here.  You mention archaeologists not denying equally the
"validity" of statements made in the Bible, but without at least an
example I can't tell what you're talking about.  I might be able to
give you a more meaningful response if it was clearer what you were
actually saying.

As for the last (very general) question, I can't give you a general
answer to it.  (See the philosophy section of your local library.)  I
will only mention a few things about this specific case.  The claim is
made that Jesus rose from the dead.  Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence.  We don't have extraordinary evidence.

What you (and Josh McDowell) seem to me to be doing is backing off from
making the extraordinary claim directly by replacing it with a set of
other claims which imply the final extraordinary claim only after a
logical argument.  But this new set of claims you use comes from the
same questionable source as the original claim.  Perhaps some people
will be fooled into believing the conclusion because they see it at the
end of a logical argument, in much the same way that people can be
fooled into believing the output of a computer program even though the
program's input is incorrect.  But "Garbage In, Garbage Out" applies to
logical arguments just as much as to computer programs.
-- 
David Canzi
From: martin@praxis.co.uk (Martin Croxford)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Personal Behaviour (repost)
Date: 22 Jan 93 14:09:54 GMT
Organization: Praxis, Bath, U.K.

I can lurk no more. 

In alt.atheism and talk.religion.misc recently
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote: 

>              Humans prefer to blame God for all the wrongs of this
> world.  Kind of hypocritical when most people don't believe in God in the
> first place .   

Non-believers tend to blame *belief* in God for various "wrongs of this
world", rather than God per se. I'm not just thinking of the "religious
wars" or "Jehovahs witnesses" type of argument here but of every day
situations where people justify their behaviour by referring to their God
I have no problem with the concept of God as a philosophical device, but
I have no time for the use of God (or any other agent) as an excuse for
behaviour (good or bad).  

The behaviour of a "morally mature" person is guided by
judgement/feelings based on experience; this experience may be first-hand
("I'll not be unfaithful to my girlfriend because when I was unfaithful
to my last girlfriend it destroyed our relationship" or "I'll not be
unfaithful because it doesn't feel right") or this experience may be
second hand ("I saw the result of my friend being unfaithful..."). 

The behaviour of a "morally immature" person is *defined* by external agents
("I'll not be unfaithful to my girlfriend because my mum told me not to"
or "I'll not be unfaithful because the Koran tells me not to").

Human beings are born "morally immature" (babies and very young children
act on the rules provided by their parents) and then grow towards a state
of "moral maturity" throughout their lives. But many don't. I'm
fascinated by people I've met who refuse to be guided by their experience
and biological/emotional feelings, preferring to rely on rules imposed
externally ("I can't come to the party; I'm a Muslim...because that's how
I was brought up", "I didn't speak with that girl because I'm attracted
to her but mustn't be because she isn't an orthodox Jew"). Fascinated and
saddened and angry. 

By all means use Wuthering Heights or A Clockwork Orange or The Bible or
Madonna or Jim-down-the-pub or your Mum as *guides* to behaviour. But
don't rely on them. Use your judgement too.

> Thank you for your response.
>
> God loves, Man kills.

(snort)...and "Arsenal Rule OK", "Speed Kills" and "Use a Condom".

I don't see how slogans add to the debate.

--
Martin Croxford 
martin@praxis.co.uk
These are my personal views.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:27129 talk.religion.misc:27700
From: J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Theism and mental disorder (Was: Re: Why Xians Post in Alt.Atheism
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:22:06 GMT
 <930121.123526.8P3.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <930121.123526.8P3.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew
<mathew@mantis.co.uk> says:
>
>nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye) writes:
>> I wonder if anyone has looked at the mental health of atheists versus
>> theists.  Certainly many schizophrenics are excessively and often
>> bizarrely religious, but I wonder about average folks.

I missed Nye's orignal post, probably because the subject line said
nothing about mental health and theism.  I wish people would change the
subject lines of their articles when they change the subject.

At any rate, schizophrenia might be the wrong disorder to look for
parallels to theistic thought disorders.  Temporal lobe epilepsy might
by more appropriate.  Consider the following epileptic signs:

"anxiety or fear, vestibular changes (vibrations or uplifting
sensations), auditory impressions, forced or intrusive thinking,
dreamy states, and sometimes frank hallucinations . . .
deja vu, sensations of 'a presence' (usually with mystical or
religious overtones), leaving the body (mental diplopia; out-
of-body experience), and precognition. . . .
increased concern with religious or philosophical issues that are
paralleled by hypergraphia, the tendency for detailed and extensive
writing . . .  The speech of these patients is dominated by
circumstantiality and there is a concomitant perseveration or
viscosity in social settings.  Anger, diminished sex drive, and
humorless sobriety have been reported . . .
prone to deepened and widened affect that is often manifested by
the 'sense of the personal' (events are explained as signs or
indicators of destiny or the experience of profound, cosmic significance."
from Persinger, M. A., & Makarec, K.  Temporal lobe epileptic signs and
correlative behaviors displayed by normal populations.  _The Journal of
General Psychology_, _114_, 179-195.
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism in pop culture
Date: 22 Jan 1993 17:50:43 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (White Rook)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, jstump@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (John E. Stump) says:

>In article <1993Jan21.174226.63016@cc.usu.edu> slp9k@cc.usu.edu writes:
>>> 
>>> Can you think of any examples of explicit atheism expressed in pop
>>> songs or other pop culture works?
>>> 
>>> -- Brad Pierce 
>>> 
>
>There's a great song by the group "The The" called Armegeddon Days or
>something like that. I'll bring in the lyrics tomorrow.
>
>john
>
>-- 
>John Stump (jstump@netftp.austin.ibm.com)
>
	There are the songs, Lepper Messiah by Metalica, Jesus Saves by Slayer
along with Crooked Cross, Read Between The Lies amungst others by the same
band. And a fav of mine, "God Is Broke" by D.R.I.

	<from memory>

	God is Broke, well is dry 
	Pay up while you can or you'll end up in hell

	=-)

-- 
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