HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
	<MMEYER.93Jan11103333@m2.dseg.ti.com> <C0q23o.MsM.1@cs.cmu.edu>
	<parsons.726825369@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu>
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:18:06 GMT

In article <parsons.726825369@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) quotes Drake+:
>>No, it WAS evolved.  Humanity evolved away from it.  Certain animals eat
>		      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>their young when there are too many of them.  In other animal cultures,
>>the old are killed when they become feeble and infirm.  (Pigs come to mind
>>for the former, wolves for the latter; I'm not positive on either one, just
>>going from memory.)  Humans sacrifice themselves rather than another.
>		      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>Exceedingly irrational.

[rant deleted]

> Now, the post-face this, I realize we were talking about sacrifice in
> the name of "love."  But the comment in the above paragraph begged to
> be answered.

	Not with a long, boring right-to-life-at-all-costs tirade, it
didn't.

> "[T]he old are killed when they become feeble and infirm."  No, in the
> animal kingdom they usually fall prey to other species--wolves generally
> don't off old wolves just because they are feeble.

	This was the only part of your post in which I could see any
relevance.  We were discussing the evolutionary utility of the emotion
of love.  Drake was saying (correct me if I'm wrong, Drake) that love
results in behavior that is actually evolutionarily disadvantageous.
I am saying that that behavior is a not unexpected extension of
behavior that IS advantageous, and the disadvantageous behavior is not
so common that it is selected against.  Do you have anything to
contribute to THIS conversation, Scott?

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.,  Plano TX                       +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
                                            Remember: If you drive - use a car.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: jstump@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (John E. Stump)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:38:34 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: IBM AWD Austin, TX

In article <1993Jan7.181801.9242@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>
>In article <C0HM60.1A7I@austin.ibm.com>, jstump@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (John E. Stump) writes:
>|> In article <1993Jan5.224453.29435@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>|> >
>|> >God has no need for our money.  God has no need of our strength.  God wants our
>|> >love and devotion.  As Christians, we serve God by tithing and attending services,
>|> >and giving of ourselves.  But these things come as a result of being a Christian.
>|> >You do not become a Christian by attending services, or giving your time or your
>|> >money.  You become a Christian by the grace of God, not by the labour of your
>|> >hands or the sweat of your brow.  It is a gift of God that cannot be taken away.
>|> 
>|> You become a Christian when your mind becomes so clouded that you
>|> actually believe this garbage.
>|> -- 
>|> John Stump (jstump@netftp.austin.ibm.com)
>
>Love God.  
I could not love god any more than I could love green elephants on Titan.

>Love your neighbour as yourself.
I am kindly to my fellow man, but I do not "love" him.

>Do not murder.  Do not bear false witness.  Do not commit adultery. 
>Do not covet thy neighbour's possessions. 
I do none of these.

>Do you find fault with any of these?  
No, they seem like common sense to me, except the part about loving god.

>What is wrong about being a Christian?
I do not subscribe to lies, myths, and legends. In my observations, I
see no absolutely no truth in Christianity, or any other religion for
that matter. To be a Christian is wrong because I feel it provides wrong
answers to questions about ourselves.

>Is your life diminished in any way by following these rules?  What
>have you got to lose?
I follow these "rules" by my own choice and WITHOUT religion. What have
I got to lose? You tell me: I could spend my life going to church and
listen to other people tell me how to live my life and ask me to believe
in incredulous things, or I can develop my own personal philosophy that
I am perfectly content with. I think I'll choose the latter, thank you
very much.

>What do you believe?  Where is your book of life? 
I believe only what I can observe. I observe literally hundreds of
conflicting religions worldwide. I see lots of pain, suffering, and
agony. I also see some happiness. I realize that my life is enjoyable
and that I'm a generally good person. None of these observations leads
me to believe in a supernatural deity. "Book of life" is typical
religious babble. I don't need someone else's word to tell me how to
live my life.


>God loves, Man kills.
God has yet to show himself, Animals kill. It's called Nature.

john

-- 
John Stump (jstump@netftp.austin.ibm.com)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: dgray@menudo.uh.edu (Dennis Gray Jr.)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Grander Scale (was: Re: Why it sucks to be an atheist...)
Date: 10 Jan 1993 20:11:07 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer User Services
Reply-To: DGray@uh.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: menudo.uh.edu


ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) posts:

   "Sure, on the Grand Scale, my life doesn't matter. So what? I don't live
   on the Grand Scale. I live on *my* scale, and I'm *dearly* important on
   that level." 

A friend of my uncle has some interesting thoughts on this, but I
might point out in advance that this person has, on occasion, been
known to indulge in some more friendly chemicals.  Anyway, he claims
that You are important ona grand scale, not because you matter to
everyone or because everyone knows you are important, but because you
change the environment in which everyone lives. (The rest is my
elaboration on his thoughts.) In forensics they point out that as soon
as a crime is committed, there is evidence to be found and evaluated.
The reason for this is that as soon as the criminal commits the crime,
he has changed the environment in some observable way.  In the same
way, everything you do effects someone, somewhere at some time and
causes them to behave differently than had you not been here.  Their
reaction in turn effects others and the chain escalates.

This is based on the assumtion that everything you do is a reaction to
the evaluation of the environment around you.  One of the major
inhibitors to AI is the lack of knowledge aquisition and processor
speed to evaluate the enormous quanity of information required to
"think".  I think it will be interesting to see the machines we
develop later and see if they will develop gods and other myths to
explain their rather improbable existence.

Your thoughts are welcome.

-dennis
--
Dennis Gray, Jr.                                        DGray@uh.edu
"You askin' to become a pile of zeros?  I could put you away so good
that Peter Norton couldn't find you with his arms unfolded."
			  - Lincoln Spector
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
	<1993Jan5.224453.29435@ra.royalroads.ca> <C0HM60.1A7I@austin.ibm.com>
	<1993Jan7.181801.9242@ra.royalroads.ca>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:04:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.181801.9242@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:

> Love God.  Love your neighbour as yourself.  Do not murder.  Do not
> bear false witness.  Do not commit adultery.  Do not covet thy
> neighbour's possessions.  Do you find fault with any of these? 

	Do we find fault with any?  You post this on alt.atheism, and
you ask as if you didn't know we'd say "Yes"?  DUH.

> What is wrong about being a Christian?

	For you, nothing.  For me, everything.  I cannot worship
something that I do not believe exists.

> Is your life diminished in any way by following these rules?  

	I cannot follow these rules, as the first and the fourth are
for me inherently contradictory.  I hold the fourth in very high
regard.  Did you know that Buddhism covers most of the above rules
already?  It specifically advises against murder, lying, adultery,
stealing, and immoderate drinking.  PLUS, Buddhism does not have the
added burden of theism.

> What have you got to lose?

	My intellectual self-respect.

> What do you believe?  

	To put it breifly, I am a materialist.  As far as behavior is
concerned, I have three very simple rules.  1: Do nothing to another
that I would not wish done to myself.  2: Rule 1 MAY be suspended if
another violates Rule 1 first, for me or another.  3: Everything that
consenting adults do that doesn't harm me is not my problem.

> Where is your book of life?

	Bertand Russell's _Why I Am Not a Christian_. :-)  

> God loves, Man kills.

	God kills too, sez the Bible.  Or did everyone who wasn't on
the Ark kill themselves before they were drowned? :-)

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.,  Plano TX                       +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
                      "What is 'The Cat in the Hat', anyway?"  "A Korean dish?"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mark@earthview.cms.udel.edu (Mark Pulaski)
Subject: Read any good books?
Reply-To: mark@earthview.cms.udel.edu
Organization: Marine Studies, University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:38:19 GMT

Intersession here at U. of Delaware and I find myself with some free time.  Can anyone
reccomend any good, introductory, material concerning existence of God, and related
topics?

Prefer e-mail.  Thanks.
_____________________________________________________________________________
|Mark Pulaski                |"Sometimes the truth comes nocking on the door|
|College of Marine Studies   | and you say,'Go away, I'm looking for the    |
|University of Delaware      | truth,' and so it does.  Puzzling."          |
|mark@earthview.cms.udel.edu |  -Robert Pirsig                              |
|                            |   Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance  |
|____________________________|______________________________________________|
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 15:33:20 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
> Intelligence is superior to stupidity, but atheism is not an equate to
> intelligence. Thus, atheism is not 'superior' to religion.

   A > B
   C != A
=> C <= D

Love that reasoning.


mathew

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jstump@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (John E. Stump)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:13:11 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: IBM AWD Austin, TX

In article <1993Jan5.224453.29435@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>
>God has no need for our money.  God has no need of our strength.  God wants our
>love and devotion.  As Christians, we serve God by tithing and attending services,
>and giving of ourselves.  But these things come as a result of being a Christian.
>You do not become a Christian by attending services, or giving your time or your
>money.  You become a Christian by the grace of God, not by the labour of your
>hands or the sweat of your brow.  It is a gift of God that cannot be taken away.

You become a Christian when your mind becomes so clouded that you
actually believe this garbage.
-- 
John Stump (jstump@netftp.austin.ibm.com)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Weekly bible lesson (have an open mind!)
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:52:39 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu

dgray@menudo.uh.edu (Dennis Gray Jr.) writes:


>Our lesson this week comes from First Samuel chapter 25:
[Deletions.]
>The story turns out in a "moral victory" for Davis's team, but here's
>the real message in this scripture.  You see, being God's choosed
>people, we have the right to take other people's sheep and other
>goods.  We can especially do this if they do not recognize that we are
>far superior to them and bow at our feet and offer us anything we
>want.  After all, we didn't kill them immediately upon arriving here,
>did we?  Hell, we didn't even take their sheep without demanding them!
>That's right!  And damn it, that's what it says in The Book!

I can see you didn't bother to read any more than what you thought
necessary.  David wasn't demanding Nabal's sheep or anything else.
David was asking Nabal to return the hospitality David had shown to 
Nabal's servants when they were in the wilderness with David's men. 
While out in the wilderness David protected them so that nothing
they had was lost (v.16).  Now, David in a time of need was asking for a
little hospitality.  What David got in return was a resounding insult 
(v.14) -- a bad breach of protocol in those days.  Thanks for sharing 
your opinions, even if they were slightly misinformed.  Next time you 
try to teach a bible lesson you might want to read the whole chapter.

-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25872 talk.religion.misc:26055
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 13 Jan 93 00:58:24 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1ivns5INNot6@lindy.Stanford.EDU>, charlie@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Charlie Channel) writes:
|> In article <ll6l9hINN6rv@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
|> >
|> >First you put a bowl of candy in the middle of the room. Next, you let in
|> >a couple of three year olds and tell them not to eat the candy. When
|> >they do, you disown them and throw them out of the house.
|> >
|> >Now who's to blame here?
|> 
|> The illustration misperceives the events.  It's more akin to me
|> telling my teengers to enjoy themselves in the house while I'm on a 2
|> day holiday, but instructing them to stay out of my booze.  Everything
|> else in the pad is OK and within limits.  My Coors and Gallo ain't.
|> 
|> Now, some would blame me for leaving the booze in the house and others
|> might blame me for leaving the teenagers in the house.  Personally,
|> I'd not leave either the booze or the teenagers in the house if
|> I didn't think they had the capacity to (1) understand and (2)
|> obey.  Moreover, I trust my children and they seem to have been able
|> to make it through a weekend without abusing the priviledges they've
|> earned, i.e., they've behaved responsibly and I trust that they
|> can be relied upon.  I just can't imagine that God is less trusting
|> than I am or other responsible parents.  Now, my parents could and did
|> trust me in the same way I trust my children.  But, not all parents
|> are created equal.  

So is God just "trusting" or is he really omniscient.    When are you good
people going to make up your minds?

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
	<1993Jan6.190706.20382@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
	<1993Jan7.000554.5134@ra.royalroads.ca>
	<1993Jan7.213626.1394@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
	<1993Jan8.210120.16162@ra.royalroads.ca>
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:34:30 GMT


	In another article you said you were going to stop posting to
alt.atheism.  You didn't.  Just thought you should know.

In article <1993Jan8.210120.16162@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
> You are punishing God by rejecting Him.

	Semantic quibble.  Punishment implies intent.  He does not
believe God exists, so he cannot punish God.  He may >inadvertently<
cause God pain - >>>IF<<< God exists.

> Reason cannot explain everything.  

	I would say instead that reason HASN'T explained everything -
yet. 

> I am safe in saying that Mankind does not know everything and has not
> been able to reason everything out.

	Yes, you are safe in saying that.

> What are the reasons for emotions?

	Trivial.  It seems to me that emotions can easily be
understood in an evolutionary context.  Love causes creatures to
cooperate with each other, to enhance each other's chance of survival.
Anger allows one to strike out at an enemy or threat to one's
existence.  Fear is the easiest of all to understand; it gives one the
impetus to run away very fast from danger, and thus live another day.
Love, anger, and fear are the three basic emotions, and without any
one of them one loses a survival tool.
	I've never seen this topic discussed before (How can reason
explain emotion?)  Maybe this warrants a new thread?  

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.,  Plano TX                       +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
                       "We're out of Thunderbird."  "Who drinks THAT?"  "I do."
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25315 talk.religion.misc:25508 alt.pagan:15091
From: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 8 Jan 93 01:56:14 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

Followups directed away from alt.pagan

In article <2B4B7612.22310@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>Nope, no more than disallowing prayer in state-funded schools is
>censorship.  Again, religion is distinct from other things in this
>instance, precisely because the constitution treats it as such --
>REQUIRING that it be distinct from the state and state-funded stuff.

It depends on what you mean.  Disallowing a group of Christians from meeting
on public school property after hours when there is a general policy of 
allowing students to meet for whatever reason would be censorship, IMO.  Well,
not exactly censorship, but certainly violation of 1st amendment rights.

-EMP
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas)
Subject: Re: Faulty IQ reasoning (Was: Re: iq<->religion: connection?)
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:01:54 GMT

[Many hot collars deleted]

If, perhaps, instead of arguing over whether IQ is related to 
believing in a God, the idea was defined as:

       IQ is inversely correlated to believing one particular religion,

...there would be less opposition.  Of course, these are only trends,
so there are always exceptions either way, but it seems to me that
believing in a god would not be related to IQ, whereas believing the
doctrine of any particular fault-ridden religion would be.

This way the atheists still get to think people following religious
doctrine are of generally lower intelligence, and yet are not able to
claim that atheists are more intelligent than theists in general.

How does that sound?

I refuse to write "Just my $0.02."   ....... DAMN, DAMN AND BLASTED!

Martin
--
Your eyes are weary from staring at the screen.  Your eyelids feel very heavy.
You feel sleepy. Notice how restful it is to watch the cursor blink. Close your
eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt
otherwise.  When you awake you will follow up this post and enthusiastically
agree with it.  Then you will send all your money to martin@cs.curtin.edu.au.
From: 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Null Cypher)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Removing "god" from morality. (was: Moral liberty)
Date: 11 Jan 93 05:52:21 GMT

In article <vJf=XY+@engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:

>In article <106524@bu.edu> wooyoung@bu.edu (WooYoung Chung) writes:
>>
>>About your second point, you might be right that religious 
>>people may not be more moral than atheists.  However, what's 
>>important is whether these religious people are more moral 
>>than if they were NOT religious themselves.  
>>
>>WooYoung Chung

> Well, this is interesting. So, one might predict that theists would,
>on average, be more moral than non-theists. Can you (or anyone) point
>to studies that would indicate this?

Not necessarily.  It could be that people who tend to be atheists
also tend to be moral people (whatever THAT means).  So while the
theists have the 'advantage' of an increase in morality due to
religion, the atheists have more to work with and could be more
moral as a whole.

Disclaimer:  I don't believe any of this crap.
--
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Null - 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
                                               --------------------------------
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:43:54 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

In article <11071@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.000554.5134@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>>|> 
>>Christianity is not a disease.  Only those who willingly accept the Gospel are
>>Christians.  No one should be coerced or forced into it.  It is an act of free
>>choice.
>>


Nope, got that wrong baby.....

You are what they call an anti-Christ...you worshop a book....
I have no problem with Athiest.  Strange thing is is that I have
met more Christian Athiest than professed Christian Christians.
I have met more Christ like Athiest on this planet than Christ like
Christians......

Bil Snodgrass III
(hope I haven't offended any athiest out there!!! :-))


>
>  But it takes god to provide for eternal damnation.
>
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 
>
>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