HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pyeatt@Texaco.com (Larry D. Pyeatt)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:04:51 GMT
Organization: Texaco

In article <C19spw.L9J@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>, sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan22.160421.5216@texhrc.uucp>, pyeatt@Texaco.com (Larry D. Pyeatt) writes:
|> 
|> |> [...] There are thousands of such references in
|> |> the Bible.  Everything from killing babies to raping women to killing one's
|> |> own children.  All at the commandment of this wonderful God. The Bible is 
|> |> definitely not the word of MY God.  Mine has much higher morals.
|> 
|> 	I usually try to stay out of this thread, but I do like to check on 
|> facts every now and then.  Killing babies is certainly commanded (in 
|> connection with the Conquest), but where in the Bible do people rape and 
|> kill their own children at the command of God?  
|> 
|> 	By the way, what makes you think the command about not eating  
|> animals that die of natural causes has anything to do with health?   

If you read the list, it becomes obvious.

|>  After all, 
|> it does occur in the context of regulations about ritual purity.  I'm not 
|> saying it couldn't have been intended as part of a health code, but do you 
|> have any reason for thinking that's what it was?

In Leviticus 22:8 and 22:9, God commands his people not to eat of anything
that dieth of itself or has been gnawed on by an animal, or they will die.  

Obviously, the God of the bible knew about disease and that it could be
passed by saliva and by eating an animal that died of disease.  How 
reassuring to know that God is not an idiot!

Nowadays, we know about disease germs, parasites, and  viruses (viri?).  
But back then, all they knew was that eating certain foods caused one
to die.  Either the ancients attributed their knowledge to God, or God
actually told them what to eat.  Believe whichever makes you most 
comfortable.  In either case, the result is a list of foods that "God" 
will kill you for eating. (through disease)

Add Leviticus to Deuteronomy and look at it in light of what we now know
about health.  It is quite obvious that Deuteronomy is a list of dangerous
foods, except for that odd sentence about not seething a kid in its mother's
milk.

-- 
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.
From: cfaehl@leo.unm.edu (Chris Faehl)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A point well missed ...
Date: 28 Jan 1993 14:52:30 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: leo.unm.edu

In article <C1JuM7.6zB@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
[ deleted ]
>    What I'm curious to know, is what made the difference, why did you
> change, and why atheism? Claiming to be a skeptical person begs the
> question it seems. The change from a child for whom God was at least
> possible, to a cynical adult for whom there is nothing greater than
> Man is radical at least.
> 
> Bill

I gained a few critical reasoning skills and started actually looked at what was
out there ( a google of different dogmas all vying for the same share of pie )
and started LISTENING to what was actually being said in my church. The thing
that struck me most was, I was never given any REASON to believe - merely that
I must. 

I don't know where you get the impression that atheists believe nothing is greater than Man - I've never seen such a posting in this group. 

Chris Faehl
cfaehl@polaris.unm.edu   
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: era@csn.org (Ed Arnold)
Subject: REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE
Originator: era@teal.csn.org
Keywords: Extremists, Christian Right, Amendment 2
Reply-To: era@csn.org (Ed Arnold)
Organization: Citizens Project; Colorado Springs, CO
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:46:49 GMT

We of the Citizens Project (Colorado Springs, CO) are looking for people
who could assist us in re-distributing the Citizens Project Newsletter
to non-Internet computer services.  If you have an account on any such
services (CompuServe, FidoNet, Genie, Prodigy, America Online, and others)
and are willing to help us, please let us know via return email to
era@ncar.ucar.edu.

The Citizens Project is a Colorado Springs, CO - based group of volunteers
who seek to prevent extremists from eliminating our fundamental freedoms,
in the face of growing political and religious intolerance in Colorado.
--
Ed Arnold * Boulder, CO * 303-497-1253(voice,weekday) * 303-494-6949(voice)
internet: era@csn.org * compuserve: internet:era@csn.org * bitnet: era@ncario
-- 
Ed Arnold * Boulder, CO * 303-497-1253(voice,weekday) * 303-494-6949(voice)
internet: era@csn.org * compuserve: internet:era@csn.org * bitnet: era@ncario
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.abortion
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:04:46 GMT

In article <C19 G2F.7GJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
(Mike Cobb) writes:

>Huh?  Could that be reexplained again so that I understand why
>contraception is worse than abortion?

If you believe (as you apparently do) that DNA makes a person, then
you should have no trouble understanding, by your logic, that sperm
and eggs are human.

Now, if a woman goes in to have an abortion, she kills one potential
person. If a couple use contraceptives, they're killing hundreds of
millions of potential people in the form of sperm cells.

So, if you use contraceptives, you're committing mass genocide against
yourself. :-)

Tep
-- 
Mo-bio majors do it between the beta-sheets.
From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:54:07 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1k4ribINNjbq@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU 
(Carl J Lydick) writes:
|> In article <C1HKtA.Lpq@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>, sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:
|> =Sorry, I did read the list before I posted (I anonymous ftp'd a Bible to my 
|> =site), and it's not obvious to me at all.  Why are rabbits unhealthy?  
|> 
|> Tularemia.

Thanks.  Nothing like a short, factual answer, especially when it's right 
(and especially when I have to look it up -- not being a handler of wild 
rabbits, I don't encounter tularemia very often).

-- 
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
	The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC, 
Stanford University, or the DOE.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: long dead
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:44:28 GMT

Yes, John, I can substantiate this. I know I must be dead and in Hell
since I am surrounded on all sides by morons, and they all subscribe
to this news-group ...

Bill (or is that ex-Bill)
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 00:47:33 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1993Jan25.093440.12977@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>
>>  If any of the theists in this group have had encounters of this
>>  kind with their god, please post them.  I for one have never heard
>>  of such a thing.
>
>As for me personally, I am not a mystic or Sufi, but I have spent a
>reasonable amount of my time the past few years reading about Sufism and
>reading the writings of Sufis.  So I have not had such an experience,
>but there are people who do claim to have had such an experience.  This
>type of experience of God, is *most definitely* more concrete and real
>than being just "warm and fuzzy."

  While hearsay is interesting, a first hand account would be more
  to my liking.  Even then, I would probably remain somewhat
  skeptical, since the number of such mystics is probably so small
  as to be statiscally insignificant compared to the number of
  people who claim religious experiences that are not so tangible.

  The question then still remains of what to do when I get
  perpendicular reports of god experiences from two or more 
  conflicting religions.

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

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
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: A point well missed ...
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 15:49:03 GMT

In article <C1JuM7.6zB@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>   Yes, you get a prize; you were both civl and rational - the only
>response that was in fact. It seems odd that I never stated my
>position on the central question, do I believe in the existence of
>God, yet was attacked by all and sundry, what does it mean?

It means that you're an obnoxious asshole, who introduced himself
to this group in a way calculated to raise the hackles of anybody
calling himself an atheist.  You seem to be getting a little more
civil now, but I certainly feel no need to justify myself to
somebody who will probably revert to being an asshole at any
time.

>If atheists are veritable paragons of reason, the intellectual elite,
>the most rational of people, why do they get so hot when someone challenges
>their faith?

Did you ever think that it might have something to with the way you
ask the question?
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: The First Cause argument (again)
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:47:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.212847.28476@newsgate.sps.mot.com>
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
 
>
>
>In article w165w@mantis.co.uk, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> () writes:
>> There's another logical flaw in your argument.  You state that there are two
>> possibilities, that the universe was uncaused, or that the universe was
>> caused by a God who was uncaused.  That is simply untrue; I can think of at
>> least two other possibilities:
>>
>> 1. The universe was caused by itself.
>
>To my understanding, this is not a possibility as it results in a logical
>contradiction. If the existance of the universe is caused by the universe
>itself, then the universe is both creator and creature. The universe would
>have to exist and not exist at the same point in the same relationship.
>As a logical impossibility, this is, therefore, not an option.
>
>If this has been dealt with before, I apologize for bringing it up again.
>
 
It depends on the meaning of cause. I think one point of Mathew's argument
aims at that the original poster has brought up that something might be its
own cause, his example is god. So, if something can cause itself a system
that says there is the universe and it is its own cause is smaller that a
system that says there is a universe, and a god, that is its own cause and
has caused the universe.
 
In a sense, the universe, as it is now, is caused by the universe as it was
a moment before, so it depends on the definition of universe and of cause
if something cannot cause itself.
   Benedikt
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Let's try these proofs
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:29:46 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

yea027@marshall.wvnet.edu writes:
>
>	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?

Would you believe a man if he tells you that there is a river which
flows all by itself, without anybody turning a crank or running a pump
to make the water flow along?

>	Now, if there is no way to persuade you that an 
>ordinary store could run without a storekeeper or a
> salesman, or that a chair could assume its form without a 
>carpenter's skill, could you possibly accept the thesis that
> the universe is without a creator or master?

And if there were no way no persuade you that a river requires a
person running a water pump to make it flow, could you possibly accept
the thesis that everything else in the universe _does_?

[ other arguments deleted for now, because I haven't the time to
  respond to them properly -- read the alt.atheism faq! ]

>	Now when God is the sovereign of the universe, is it 
>not logical that you submit willingly to His commands and
> model your life according to the way of life He set for 
>mankind?  You can find that way of life explained fully in 
>Islam.

This is something I've never understood.  How can you make the jump
from "there must be some sort of Prime Mover that is the source of
existence" to "God exists in precisely the way explained in this
book"?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: How much should we read?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:19:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.012749.28803@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu> christen@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Carl Christensen) writes:
>I remember the series on the Bible on PBS where one of the scholars
>of the Dead Sea Scrolls was said to have 'flipped out' and denounced
>Judaism as a barbaric religion.  They explained this as part of his
>mental problems and underlying anti-Semitism.
>But after the spate of postings about violence in the Bible, etc.,
>I'm beginning to wonder if whether this scholar was right!  Here's
>a guy who studied these texts (scrolls) for years, was a professor
>from some well respected university, and his translations made him
>think that it was barbaric!  So then, this scholar is just swept
>away by saying he lost his mind and/or has anti-Semitic views.

A religion is barbaric if it teaches barbaric things.  If it teaches
non-barbaric things based on misinterpretations of a Bible that, interpreted
properly, should instead be read as teaching barbaric things...  well, that
doesn't count.

If the scholar discovers that the Bible teaches cruelty, all that means is that
modern Judaism has made a mistake in giving passages a non-cruel reading, but
it does _not_ mean that Judaism teaches cruelty.  Anti-semitism probably _is_
a motive for such a leap.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:26736 talk.religion.misc:27160
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Athletes thanking Jesus for victory
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:46:02 GMT
	<1jkjgdINN780@shelley.u.washington.edu>
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization

You know, it's not just athletes who thank God/Jesus for their
successes.  Actors and actresses do it, too, when presented with
awards; same for musicians.

Given the relative lack of success enjoyed by my adoptive countrymen
and -women (did that make sense?) in their attempts to succeed in
these areas, i feel compelled to ask: what are we doing wrong?  Are we
supposed to pay off God or something?  If so, what adress do we send
the bribes too (and what's the postal code for heaven)?

Just wondering...
-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Islamic proof of existence of god!!??
Date: 25 Jan 93 03:35:11 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan24.000246.3516@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>
> Of course, it's A-OK for people to read whatever is in any newsgroup --
> including soc.religion.islam -- and think what they like.  I don't like 
> in general "holier than thou" attitudes, however, whether they come
> from atheists or theists.  (Of course, by my saying this, some may say I
> am displaying a sort of "holier than thou" attitude against people with
> "holier than thou" attitudes.  Hmmm... haven't got an answer to that one
> yet....)

Sure you have an answer.   Address the content of what people post
and stop worrying about their motives for posting.

jon.
From: bocmunro@bnr.co.uk (Bruce Munro)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A point well missed ...
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:10:06 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe, New Southgate, London.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bnsgs179.bnr.co.uk

In article <C1G7ry.HKw@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>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
>the beliefs of others does nothing to validate your own. Tell me then,
>why are you an atheist ...

I should have reasons for lack of a belief? I think you're a bit
backward in your thinking here. I have seen nothing in this world to
convince me that there is a god/many gods in existence. I would therefore
be very stupid to conclude that there was one.

You in your arrogance will no doubt tell us that we should read the
Bible before making up our minds, but have you read the Bhagavad Gita
before deciding that Christianity and not Hinduism is the "true"
religion? What about the Koran, Buddhist scriptures? You mean you
haven't? What a surprise.

-- 
Bruce Munro.  <B.O.C.Munro@bnr.co.uk> (Note new address)
BNR Europe Ltd, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB. 
Phone : +44 81 945 2174 or +44 81 945 4000 x2174
"There are no strangers, only friends we don't recognise" - Hank Wangford
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Langers!!!!!
Date: 27 Jan 1993 23:59:45 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, 9225803@ul.ie () says:

>
>
>Ye pack of wankers,when your on your last legs you'll be praying for your 
>souls like the rest of us!
>
>
>
>

	The above is a damn good reason to GIVE GENEROUSLY to the mental
hospital of your choice =-)



	NOTE: I am sorry that I may have associated the insane with the butt
head who posted this drivel. I should not insult the insane so much =-)


-- 
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--------------------------
From: D.J.Butcher@newcastle.ac.uk (Dave Butcher)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Arguments for the existence of God
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:03:40 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU.


ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN-

If a god is Omnipotent why does he/she need to design a Universe with coherent
physical laws.  It would require infinitesimal effort to `force` things to
happen the way he wants them to.

FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT-

The supposed period before the universe was created is a non-time non-space not
subject to normal laws, there is no way to properly assess the requirements of
ability of the being that supposedly created the universe.

The BOLLOX Paradigm-

(All percentages approximate)

Any argument presented to the net has a greater than 50% chance of being wrong.
There is also a 50% chance of any argument you post that is right being
incorrectly proved wrong, and you believing it (Assuming you have an open mind).
There is also a 50% chance that any remaining arguments are misleadingly or
ambigously phrased, and will come back to haunt you.
There is a further 50% chance that any remaining arguments irrelevant to the
context being discussed.

There is a 99.8% chance that a word in your post is mispelled.
There is a 100% chance that a word in your post looks mispelled to someone
taught a different spelling.


Definition of an Open Mind

Someone who is willing to be proved wrong, discover that the proof was incorrect,
and then ready to change their mind back again, who then discovers that what they
thought was a fallacy in the orginal disproof was actually not, and that they were
wrong when they found it, consequently changing their mind back again, who still
feels no embarrasment, because they know, (even if they are still wrong) at least
they are thinking it through.

DB.
Nb.- Witty Quote goes here.

	D.Butcher@ncl.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism