HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Summary: God was with you there.....  
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Distribution: world,public
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 08:42:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.182027.25088@engr.LaTech.edu> mchenry@latech.edu (Michael Q. McHenry) writes:
>(You are fortunate that I am not in the mood to slip on the
>asbestos keyboard cover...)
>
>Hey, this may be fine for you, but please don't shovel this crap out to
>me.  I've read the bible and it _does not_ work for me.  I am a bible
>disbeliever and I would hazzard to say that many fellow atheists also
>see no truth in the biblical tales.  Hey, if you can stand living in
>a shallow world where you cannot take credit or responsibility for
>great or tradgic efents, that's great.  Really.  But realize that not
>all living beings in this world see things your way and that, in this
>group, your scriptures and explanatory words do not fall on blind
>eyes, but on eyes which can see through them.
>
>
>I do not accept your explanation of pain and suffering.  I have spent 
>countless hours in emergency departments and fire depts and have seen
>my share of death and mutilation and tradgedy, but I choose to 
>rationalize it in different ways.  I'll admit that I've become numb
>to most of it, but 2 years ago when a mother brought her 7 y/o 
>daughter into the ED, choking on a piece of jewelery, no pulse, no
>respirations, we worked on her for over an hour, then finally let
>her go.  I could not tell what was sweat and what were tears
>dripping onto my scrubs, but the bottom line is that I did NOT
>blame your god, or any god, or anything that I could not see.  We were
>presented with a situation, we did everything that we could, and a
>little girl died.  I accept death as a part of life, and have
>accepted my own mortality, and do not fear death.  BUT I do not
>accept the roles of fictional characters as a disclaimer for what
>you believe.
>
>-- 
>Quinn McHenry               "If you would be a real seeker after truth, it
>mchenry@engr.latech.edu      is necessary that at least once in your life
>Biomedical Engineering       you doubt, as far as possible, all things."
>Louisiana Tech University                 - Rene Descartes

Quinn, I thhat God was you there in that Emergency Room 2 years ago.
He was not the one that made thele girl choke on the jewelery, e was
with her en it happeneand he was with you when you tried to save her
life.  He was also with the parents when they d for their daughter.
God does not cause the hurs, hurricanes happen.  God is with us as we
suffer, anhe is withs we enjoy.  Life happens, and it is not all
sweetness and life.  But that does not discount the presence of God in
all of this.  He does not cause it and rarely preven   But he shares
our suffering as he shared our humanity and died for us about 2000
years ago.

Shalom, Quinn ( excuse the line noise)

Len Howard

Shalom, Quinn,                                Len Howard OSL
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24800 talk.religion.misc:24977 alt.pagan:14847
From: lib1p@elroy.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: did I like miss your point?
Date: 3 Jan 1993 00:41 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: elroy.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Jan01.194249.2754@jcnpc.cmhnet.org>, mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes...
>Tammy Stark Blandino (lib1p@jane.uh.edu) wrote:
>: In article <1992Dec31.183939.3539@radian.uucp>, markbr%radian@natinst.com (ma
>rkbr) writes...
>: >In article <1992Dec31.000558.8172@nwnexus.WA.COM> pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D
>.. Hampe) writes:
>: >>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>: >>
>: >>>iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:

Boy this has gone on....

>:
>: ..stuff deleted....
>:
>: Does the name Madeleine Murray O'Hare ring any bells?
>:
>: Tammy


> 
>How, exactly, is Dr. O'Hare a fanatic.  Because she contested an 
>unconstitutional school prayer practice?  Because she opposes the 
>unconstitutional entanglement of religion in Federal and State government?
>Dr. O'Hare does not prosletize her atheism (yes she does speak before groups 
>who invite her, but if they invite her then they expect to hear her opinions).
> 
>Read the woman's writings and listen to her speak before you start calling her
>a fanatic.
>-- 

I have.....

Yes what she has done is fine and good...the effect that is...but she is
still imposing her will...and btw, I have seen where she has tried to go
too far....please refer to my previous post right before this one....

And btw, after listening to her speak.....she's a fanatic.....

Tammy


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 01:34:00 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: alt.atheism

In article <1992Dec25.162355.8674@prime.mdata.fi>, iikkap@mits.mdata.fi
(Iikka Paavolainen) wrote:
> In article <Stafford-221292170738@stafford.winona.msus.edu> Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (John Stafford) writes:
> >Consistent in my experience, too.  However, I do find among some of the
> >brightest (and intellectually brave) a compelling interest in
> >transcendental consciousness or the idea of a greater 'mind' but not
> >the conventional notion of a god.
> 
> Environment, personality and idealistics are also important factors, 
> but not as important is logical intelligence. You can also find atheists
> among the dumbest people.

I don't know, I've not personally observed any correlations between
intelligence and atheism. However, from my humble experience I've 
noticed that extrovert people that have experienced a lot of the world
(i.e. travelled, experienced other cultured) seem to have a more holistic
view concerning religion, and where atheism is a valid world view.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
From: twpunix@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Tim Parsons)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: searcher
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:38:01 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <92355.234647BLD110@psuvm.psu.edu> BLD110@psuvm.psu.edu (Betty Lee Dowlin, Choice, AC) writes:
>I looked around me and saw people I loved living in ways that according to the
>church would cause them to be condemned to hell forever.  Now I could see the
>beauty, love, and worth of these individuals and I wondered that I had more
>love and compassion than God.
> [STUFF DELETED]
>lost her in the end anyway.  Now I wondered why.  Why would life be set up in
>such a way that someone seemingly picked at random would have to endure such
>pain.
> [STUFF DELETED]
>And I wondered where is the fairness here?  Where is the everyone is created
>equal?  What kind of a set-up is this?
>
  I can understand exactly what you're saying.  There comes a point where one
must choose (assuming you've been able to see the world with sufficient objec-
tivity) between seeing a God-given order so foreign as to be essentially mean-
ingless, and seeing a total absence of humanly relevant order.  Insofar as it
relates to daily life, I see litte difference.  One order affects us with a
nonrandomness that appears random, the other affects us with true randomness.
Even if my intellectual nature gave me a choice (which it doesn't, given such
paucity of theistic evidence), I would rather believe in a blind universe than
in a god so removed from my concerns as to appear blind.  If we are supposedly
created in God's image, why such disparity between our concerns and its?

Tim Parsons
twpunix@bsu-cs.bsu.edu

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Criticism: "There's no logic in Christianity"
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 14:07:17 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

>Hey, this is moving over to alt.atheism!

Mr. Sandvik deleted the section which specifically related to alt.atheism,
so I will repeat (and elaborate).

Mr. Sandvik has indicated his disagreement with the following section
of the FAQ, "Constructing a Logical Argument".

----begin included text----
It is important to note that the fact that a deductive argument is valid does
not imply that its conclusion holds.  This is because of the slightly 
counter-intuitive nature of implication, which we must now consider more
carefully.

Obviously a valid argument can consist of true propositions.  However, an
argument may be entirely valid even if it contains only false propositions. 
For example:

   All insects have wings (premise)
   Woodlice are insects (premise)
   Therefore woodlice have wings (conclusion)

Here, the conclusion is not true because the argument's premises are false. 
If the argument's premises were true, however, the conclusion would be true. 
The argument is thus entirely valid.
----end included text----

I believe our disagreement as to the accuracy of the above section
lies at the heart of our further disagreement.  I feel the above
section is correct, and can cite sources which agree (e.g.  Morash,
"Bridge to Abstract Mathematics").  Mr. Sandvik suggests that my
sources counter with his texts, but has been unwilling to provide
titles so I may verify this for myself.  I look upon this refusal with
great suspicion.

Mr. Sandvik writes,

>As a good counter argument, we don't have mathematicians arguing
>about the building blocks of logic, but we have theologians 
>arguing about the Christian doctrine building blocks.

We are in this very thread arguing about one of the building blocks of
logic (implication).  However, if Mr. Sandvik is not a mathematician
his statement is technically correct.



                                   Gregg Skinner



P.S.  In t.r.m. I gave a simple counter-example to Mr. Sandvik's claim,
"there's nothing logical about Christianity".  No mention was made of
the trinity in that example.  As a result, the following is a red
herring:

>In the case of Christianity not even all Christians agree what
>constitutes trinity, and thus to use Christian building blocks
>to create logical statements is in my humble opinion something
>that may or may not be true, but that can't be never argued about.

Mr. Sandvik wishes to apply to others a standard for exchange which he
does not apply to himself:

>Just as a side note, I don't hate Mr. Skinner even if his
>emails are sometimes, eh, a little bit too personal for my
>taste.

Pot.  Kettle.  Black.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Ignorance is Bliss.
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 11:27:07 GMT

Kelley Miller (ae642@yfn.ysu.edu) wrote:
:
: In a previous article, sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) says:
:
: >In article <1992Dec16.165325.10737@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.u
k (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
: >>mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus):
: >>> I'm game. Let's have all atheists use this line as part of our .sig's. Th
en
: >>> we can identify each other in the other news groups. The gays and lesbian
s
: >>> have their triangles, we can have this quote.
:
: But wait!  How about those of us who are both GAY and ATHEIST???  There's
: only so much room in a .sig, ya know!!
:

Gee, I don't know.  Make a choice?  Which is more improtant to you.  But man,
being in the camps of two minorities must be a pain in the butt.  Now you've 
got me all depressed

: >>> --
: >>> Mike A. McAngus (mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)| The train today to Morrow leaves
today
: >>> The Truth is still the Truth          | at 8:35.  At half-past ten tomorr
ow is
: >>> even if you choose to ignore it.      | the time it should arrive.
: >>
: >>Well gee whiz and golly gosh and all Mike, but ummm, don't you think that
: >>might just possibly piss Scott right off? We wouldn't want that. Would we?
:
: I WOULD!!  I WOULD!!
:
: >>
: >>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
: >>The Truth is still the Truth even if you choose to ignore it.
: >>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
: >
: >Here is another variation of the theme:
: >
: >--
: >---------------------------------------------------------------
: >Truth:  You ignore it, it ignores you.
: >---------------------------------------------------------------
: >
: >
:
: How about this?
:
: TRUTH:It's not only a good I dea, it's the law
:
: or
:
: This is Truth
:
: This is your Brain on Truth
:
: Any Questions?
:
:
: --
: *...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  /\/\   HATE IS NOT A  *
: *                    Kelley L. Miller  / /  \  FAMILY VALUE   *
: *                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  / /____\                *
: *     GIGO: Gospel In--Garbage Out   /______\                 *

I do like your .sig.
-- 
Mike McAngus (mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)| Let the raucous sleigh bells ringle   | Tom
The Truth is still the Truth	   | Hail our dear old fried Chris Kringle |Lehrer
Even if you choose to ignore it.   | Driving his reindeer across the sky
I wasn't sure if anyone would join | Don't stand underneath when they fly by. 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Violence in the bible?
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 17:31:34 GMT

Iikka Paavolainen (iikkap@mits.mdata.fi) wrote:
: I remember someone saying (in this newsgroup) that in some part of the old
: (or was it new?) testament god commanded some people to kill or destroy other
s.
: Where was this exactly in the Bible?

Dt 7:1-2, Dt 7:16-26, Dt 21:10-18, Jos 7:20-21 followed by Jos 8:1-2.  There 
are other references to the populations of entire cities being executed, but 
these are places where god is reported to actually have commanded the
slaughter.

Jos 11:16-23 is also relevant.
-- 
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: vdp@mayo.edu (Vinayak Dutt)
Subject: Re: The Steve Martin movie "Leap of Faith"
Reply-To: vdp@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Foundation/Mayo Graduate School :Rochester, MN
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 13:15:18 GMT

In article 13860@engr.LaTech.edu, mchenry@latech.edu (Michael Q. McHenry) writes:
:But along the lines of the original post, Steve Martin said he expected
:differences of opinion about the film.. "I'm curious to see if people
:will find it an uplifting movie or a satire on those characters.  Will
:they see it as anti-religous.  Will they see it a pro-religious."
:It is an interesting ambiguity, and I think that someone would have
:to be pretty desperate to seek a comedy for confirmation of belief or
:non-belief.
:
:What's interesting is that Martin studied for his role at a Charismatic
:Ministries Conference in Tulsa.  A former graduate (Ted Haggard) has
:now set up shop here in the Springs (the New Life Church) where they
:"practice" faith healing.  Scary.

   The whole movie goes ok till the end. If the movie could have been ended 5-10
minutes before, it would have been a great one :-) But some how the director
seems to have lost his guts and shabbily ended the movie with the *faith* thing
leaving me doubtful as to if he really wanted to make fun of evangelical crowd or not.
The end pretty much made it *pro-religious* despite steve martin's claims.


--- Vinayak.
-------------------------------------------------------
                                           vinayak dutt
                                   e-mail: vdp@mayo.edu
-------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Summary: Does Satan read this newsgroup? 
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 09:30:00 GMT

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>doesn't do bad things to us - He allows them to happen.  Satan thinks he is
>getting a pretty good deal when he gets to mess with the life of a believer
>(like Job), but in the end good comes of it for those who love the Lord.

It's a really good thing that Satan doesn't read this newgroup, or else he
might find out what an idiot he's being.  He might very well just say "to
hell with it" (sic), go away and make the Lord mess with the lives of the
believers instead.

-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jstump@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (John E. Stump)
Subject: Re: searcher
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:05:31 GMT
Organization: IBM AWD Austin, TX

In article <92356.164258J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <92355.234647BLD110@psuvm.psu.edu>, Betty Lee Dowlin, Choice, AC
><BLD110@psuvm.psu.edu> says:
>>
>[ . . .]
>>
>>I saw a friend of mine struggle to have a child, and finally be blessed with
>>the joy of a daughter of her own.  No child was ever more wanted or loved, and
>>yet she developed a fatal disease that cost her parents everything and they
>>lost her in the end anyway.  Now I wondered why.  Why would life be set up in
>>such a way that someone seemingly picked at random would have to endure such
>>pain.
>
>This presumes that a sentient being picked this couple to suffer.
>
>[.....]
>
>I happen to lean toward (3).  In Nature, there is no fairness or justice (or,
>alternatively, everything that happens is fair and just).  Fairness is a
>concept that applies appropriately only to human social groups.  However,
>we are so indoctrinated with the idea that everything should be fair (we
>are taught from an early age to "play fair") that we think Nature ought
>also be fair.  We go to great lengths to project fairness in Nature,
>inventing concepts like an afterlife where we finally get our rewards
>or karma and reincarnation, where we get additional chances to set things
>right.  Quite a waste of mental energy, if you ask me.  Try living.
>
>John A. Johnson
>Nature is not a feminist -- Cynthia Heimel.

I agree wholeheartedly with John. Man tends to personify and cast human
characteristics upon certain things such as nature (i.e. "Mother
Nature"). There is no conciousness in nature. It just happens.

John E. Stump

-- 
John Stump (auntbea.austin.ibm.com!jstump@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh)
Subject: Re: Christian racism
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 05:44:06 GMT

From article <martin.726049316@marsh>, by martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas):
> Related to my recent post "Evolution implied by the Bible" is
> another question that's always worried me about the racism in
> contemporary Christianity.
> 
> Every Christian bible or movie I've ever seen depicts Christ and his
> followers as very nordic-looking people, for some reason, especially
> Christ.  Even the Turin shroud has an image of a man with a very thin
> face and long nose.  [...]

They seem to be getting better with respect to equal opportunity.
In some of the pictures of heaven, such as those found in bible 
story books, they are including people of various races.  Of course,
this makes good business sense if they were to market heaven 
internationally.  

Young Huh
yhuh@ihlpe.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: brian@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Brian Paquet)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is Santa Claus God?
Date: 23 Dec 92 03:19:09 GMT
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland


   I find Santa to be one more example of the crurility in X-mas
Dupeing little kids, telling poor kids they suck  [after all gifts
are to be given out on the basis off good or bad], in addition
there are the more general complaints, the plight of the lonely
at this time, the big pushing of X-ianism in general....
Chrismas sucks.. and Santa is the worse of it.

People are too stupid for good sigs
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: I.Q. & Brains
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:05:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.135223.11305@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.042959.24862@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Scott Locklin ) writes:
>>There has been some discussion of IQ versus atheistic tendancies.
>>A few points;
>>
>>I.Q. does seem to be a fairly accurate indicator of someone's _ability_
>>to think, however that does not necessarily imply that said person is 
>>using this ability. Quite often high-IQ types end up in rather uninspiring
>>jobs; janitorial & etc. Ask a Mensan what type of person you will meet in this
>>high-IQ org. It is my understanding that you will meet people from all walks of
>>life. Shit, that YoYo in syndicated publication, Marylin vos Savant is an
>>excellent example of a complete & utter _MORON_ with a high IQ. What productive
>>things has she done lately?
>
>Yes, IQ tests have been put down very much, because they don't measure enough
>of one's intelligence. Many people who could solve problems easily when
>having a lot of time to think, are suddenly klutzes when they have to think
>more speedily (like in a conversation, for example). So complex are the niches
>of the brain, that it would be impossible to measure everything at this
>level of technology. Well, some measure is better than no measure.

If the measure is flawed, then it is worse than having no measure at
all, because your measure is then misleading.  You seem to have a very
casual attitude towards these sort of things.

SD
Newsgroups: alt.atheism