HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 08:14:18 GMT

SCOTT C LOCKLIN writes:

>>
>>>Please, note, you and I are products of our our brain that collects
>>>input every second. To boldly state that one's personal view is
>>>the one and only right one is as impossible as any other statement
>>>done by a human being.
>>
>>  i do not believe that *I*, my identity, is fully a product of my
>>brain.  neither of us can *prove* our assertions, we must believe what
>>we do on faith alone. 

>Perhaps something like this cannot be prooven, but when there is no evidence
>for your assertion, by occam's razor, we assume that it does not exist.
>Blindly saying that because we cannot proove one thing absolutely means that
>all theories are equally valid is foolish and a common ploy of christians
>arguing with atheists. This error in logic was destroyed in the 12th century by
>William of occam...


  is there a faq on occam's razor?  i keep hearing it brought up and i
can't find a source for it.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Islamic stories...
From: <HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET>
Date: Thursday, 27 Aug 1992 11:19:43 MDT
Organization: Brigham Young University

I believe it is safe to say there is no contradiction in the Qur'an concerning
the number of days of creation.  Traditional commentators on the Qur'an
maintain that the two days referred to in 41:9 are part of the four days
of 41:10.  Thus, the total is six days.  I believe that the Qur'anic discussion
of the creation is part of the Judeo-Christian tradition, affirming the
standard six days of creation in Gen. 1.  Finally, note that the Arabic of
41:10 reads, "fi arba'ati ayyamin" which technically means "during four days,"
thus perhaps implying the inclusion of the first two days mentioned.

William J. Hamblin
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Free Will / Evil / Creation
Date: 1 Sep 92 03:36:51 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <adams.715274655@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) wrote:
> 
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >I see, the classical 'everything is black and white'. Well, I could 
> >state that instead of talking about evil and good, we could talk about 
> >zero state and entropy. Same situation, but suddenly we don't need
> >to deal with 'black and white' based logical contradictions. 
> 
> I don't believe this is 'black and white'.  There are clearly degrees of
> actualized evil, from our perspective.

Well, if we look from the human perspective even gravitation is evil,
because it drags humans down and create ugly looking bodies. It's really
in the perspective. I maintain that the Christian concept of evil
and good is very much an artificial one, and could be substituted
with many other similar polarities.

> >Here you assume that free will requires sinning. This also implies
> >that people will not have a free will in heaven -> robots. Also it
> >implies that free will is tied to sinning, and if God also has
> >free will he has to sin in order to make the right choice. Sigh.
> >More logical illusions.
> 
> Free will requires the logical possibility of sin.  Without that logical
> possibility, then there is no free will.

As stated above, if God has free will, he needs to sin. What a concept.

> I don't have an answer for 'robots' in heaven.  Augustine said that in
> heaven it is not possible to sin...I haven't worked this out.  I'll freely
> admit that.  I'm certainly no expert theologian....

Yes, another dilemma, no sinning, no free will. Robots in heaven. Asimov
would have laughted.

Cheers,
Kent
...  this all is theological fun speculation, don't take this seriously,
folks...
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: More on the Adam and Eve Thang
Date: 2 Sep 1992 23:20:55 GMT
Organization: net.cop.who.comes.when.you.miss.the.point
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

 (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:

    I believe God put the tree there NOT to tempt them, but to
    offer them choice.  I know from the rest of the Bible that
    God is not the one who tempts people.  Also, "God is not a
    man that he should lie."  Also I know that God has not only
    given man freedom to choose between good and evil, but also
    to his angels.  Freedom appears to be the 0th law that God
    built into his creation.  God does not interfere with this,
    not because he is unable to, but because he chooses not.   Why? 
 
Unfortunately, this yet again ignores the central point.

If god is omniscent and omnipotent, then god knew how Adam &
Eve would react, knows how history will unfold, knows everything:
past, present, and future: there is nothing s/he does NOT know.

This means god knew in advance how Adam & Eve would react, and
since god created A&E, god could be considered unjust and capricious
in human terms, particularly since god did not HAVE to punish
A&E the way s/he did. 

Dano
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Biblical errors
Keywords: 1 Kings 7: 23 and Pi
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:37:35 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <adams.714835799@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>One of the local skeptics sent me a list of supposed Biblical errors and
>inconsistancies.  In looking through the more than 1800 lines I found so
>many 'proof texts' that if a Christian tried to use them, they'd be creamed
>by the usual gang around here.
>
>The Bible is 100% accurate in what it claims to be : a representation of
>man's state and dealings with God.  It isn't a science book, a math book,
>or a geometry book.  It is inspired, and it is never wrong on the topic it
>addresses. 

  I'll assume I'm the local skeptic you're referring to.  As I
  recall (I don't have the article to reference), I sent you the
  list because you made an unqualified statement to the effect that
  the Bible did not contain errors.

  I've never edited that list; I grabbed it wholesale from another
  newsgroup and indeed I don't agree that everything listed is a
  glaring biblical error.  If you are not a Biblical literalist,
  then I have no problem with your using the Bible as a general
  moral guide.  
  
  I would like to know, however, how you determine
  exactly what is "the topic it addresses" and how you are convinced
  that it contains no errors on said topic.  Any reference to the
  Bible is, of course, circular.


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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: That garden of eden "thang"
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<la7b84INN75s@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 04:16:21 GMT

(Young Jeff) wrote:
>Why didn't God create Adam and Eve with enough will-power 
>to withstand the temptation?  He knew when he created them
>that they would fail.  What were the chances that they would
>fail?  50/50?  Why not 75/25?  Why not 99.9/0.1?  Is it more
>than just a matter of will-power?  If so, what?  Why is God
>passing the buck on this?
 
(Paul Harvey) replies:
>The answer is very simple. It was the creator's intent that humans
>should eat of the fruit of knowledge and thus know of the world, the
>good and the bad, and also so that they might assume some responsability
>for their actions, instead of always blaiming someone else. That's

danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>Since it was the creator's intent, the creator is responsible.
>Although Adam & Eve may have thought they had "free will", from
>god's point of view, they didn't have since he was omniscent.
>He could have given them the gift of knowledge without
>exacting any price whatsoever, yet as he gave, he took away.
>This could be called capricious behavior.

Well, this free will is slippery, I'll give you that. I say that it was
the creator's intent that humans eat the fruit, but that doesn't mean
they had to, although given the situation the outcome is fairly
predictable, so it is somewhat of a slight of hand, similar to the types
of slights of hand parents do when they raise children. But the creator
could have just created humans with knowledge of good and bad from the
start, so the question is why the somewhat elaborate ruse? And the
concept of the transcendent or God or whatever having free will is, hmm
a bit tricky. For example, do you have free will from the standpoint of
the sun? Let's face it, one day the sun will burn out and that will
probably be it for your illusion of free will. And as for a price for the
gift of knowledge, I don't buy that explanation. I don't think there was
any price at all, but I'd like to cover all of this in another thread.
I'm going to start a thread on the interpretation of Genesis3, hopefully
you'll join in, there is plenty of room for just about any
interpretation.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: JW humor
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:42:55 GMT

tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:

>>	Because we (JWs) use it. 

> He,he Andreas made a funny

> Even withing a religious context, any discussion of watchtower theology
> by necessity, requires that logical concepts be ignored.

	Good ! Sometimes I'm afraid of posting dull articles. Read 1 Cor. 2:14, 
	it explains. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Omnipotence, Concepts, Existence
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:16:00 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada



Re: what God can and cannot do


The most amusing story I've ever heard in this connection is the following:

A seminary student was brought before his superiors after his third failure
at his final exams. Upon examining his work, his superiors noted that he
had, each time, refused to acknowlege the omnipotence of God.
	"What's this all about?" they asked the unhappy student. "Don't you
accept that Our Lord and Saviour is omnipotent?"
	The student squirmed nervously, then said: "Well, sirs, I've thought
and thought about it, and I just can't understand how it can be true!"
	"What is your difficulty?"
	"Well, sirs, as far as I can see, even the Lord can't beat a
full house with three-of-a-kind!"

Yuk yuk yuk...!

Seriously, though, any comments?  Does this say anything important about the
concept of omnipotence or not? I can't decide!

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca




Newsgroups: alt.atheists,talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Biblical errors
Keywords: 1 Kings 7: 23 and Pi
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 06:23:51 GMT

>Paul Harvey writes:
>>
>>Notice once again the translation problems the KJV has. The key here is
>>that a "completely round" circle of diameter or distance from brim to
>>brim of 10 cubits would have a circumference of 31.415926... , not 30
>>cubits. This is Pi, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter and
>>it is a unit-less constant, so the exact size of cubit makes no
>>difference, it could just as well be feet or meters or whatever. And so
>>we have just one example of many where the words of the Bible are false,
>>thus the Bible is not 100% true. But most of us already know that, the
>>Bible is in fact a myth. Still a good myth, nonetheless. But not
>>factual.

  well, i've seen a lot of pi=3 and how the bible is geometrically wrong.
and if this issue is enough to disbelieve the bible and its offer of
salvation, go ahead.  but let's not pretend that a whole bunch of people
are on the verge of becoming christians if only the bible didn't
say pi=3.  the reason christians sometimes say this is nit-picking is
because it isn't in the top 50 list of why many people aren't christians.

---                          
     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"                   
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist  (long!)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 04:46:32 GMT

In article <Btt55v.5qp@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> dart@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dartanyan the Witchling) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.161056.29832@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>Exactly.  It certainly looks to me like intelligence, at least our
>>brand of it, has been a disastrous evolutionary failure.  There's no
>>reason to suppose that nature will make the same mistake again.
>
>	Um, If I'm not incorrct, evolution takes a LOOOOONG time.
>	And when it does, you cannot tell all at once.  As in, maybe
>	those with that ayn rand-style of thinking are going to die out, 
>	and the ones who give a damn about the land are not.

I'm not sure I understand what point it is that you are trying to make here.
If you are saying that since not giving a damn about the environment is
a destructive trait, those who possess that trait will die out, then I
wonder if you could explain the mechanism by which that might occur.  As
far as I know, if the lunatics manage to destroy the ecosphere, it won't
only be stupid people who are killed off as a result.  People with brains
need to eat and breathe as well, and I have it on good authority that
they're not immune to nuclear holocausts either.

My comments were based on the unhappy, but fairly realistic, assumption that
we will destroy ourselves.  A few hundred million years ago, evolution
produced huge lizards with tiny brains who dominated the earth for
a couple hundred million years.  A few million years ago, evolution
produced somewhat goofy bipedal mammals with moderate sized but fatally
flawed brains who have dominated the earth for a few million years.  Who
knows what's next.

>	Maybe there are a lot of different types of humans, and the ones that
>	die out are just the old type.
>
>	I would say that we have probably evolved within the last 2000 years,
>	though the diffrence seems small.  At least compared to 20,000,000 years	of human existence.

I don't think that there has been anything that you would call human for 20
million years.  More like 4 million.  6000 years if you've had a lobotomy.

>	Homo Urbanis, if you will, has made a big jump, for example, and it is
>	people who can handle such a life that will be neede to survive on,
>	say, space stations and such.
>
>	Maybe Homo Sapiens (thinking man) is dying out in favor of Homo 
>	Sentientus (WoMankind aware of Hir surroundings)

I think you misunderstand how evolution works.  There is no driving
intelligence behind it that is capable of predicting that it might
be a better survival strategy if we all started using our brains,
and then proceeding to direct our evolution in that direction.  The
only intelligence that might be capable of such a feat, is our own.
Unfortunately, we don't appear to be using it, preferring instead to
while away our days babbling gibberish.  Hence this newsgroup.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: What Questions do folks feel must be answered?
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:51:40 GMT

In article <Bu0q97.GH8@acsu.buffalo.edu> acsormd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Randall Desmond) writes:
> Folks:
>
> Post me a list of questions that you feel must be answered in order to
> decide on the validity of any religion.
>
> Thanks.
> Ismail


1. Are all its claims falsifiable?

2. Is each of its claims as yet unfalsified?

3. What is the procedure for modification of the religion and its claims
   in the event that new evidence falsifies certain of those claims?

Add smileys to taste and laugh it off.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.physics,sci.anthropology
From: pjohnso@triton.unm.edu (Paddy Johnson CIRT)
Subject: Re: Pliestocene extinctions
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 17:29:46 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Distribution: na

In article <1992Aug27.164524.18847@nas.nasa.gov> wismith@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (William R. Smith) writes:
>
>excluding the Bering Strait area.  Several years ago Martin (sorry, I forgot
>his first name) suggested rather strongly that humans were responsiblei
I don't think the last name is Martin, but it is something close.  I believe
this first came out as a Scientific American article.

>
>Larry Agerbaund (I think it was him, and I know I bungled his last name, as
	
Larry Agenbrod
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:15:41 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <sbuckley.714790325@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>Jim Perry writes:
>
>>Although I never saw evidence for myself, I entered into this whole
>>religious debate thing under the assumption that believers did have
>>some evidence, though I hadn't yet seen it.  It is years of this
>>discussion that has led me to the stronger position that there is no
>>evidence for God.  Oddly, a great many of those on the other side seem
>>to agree with me.
>
>  i don't think it's that odd to agree with you.  it wouldn't be faith
>if it were proved.  and faith is what makes the difference.  turning to
>god and devoting my life to him must be total and complete.  

"Oddly" mostly in the context of the assertion that "No evidence for
God" is an atheistic brainwashing mantra.

>and i also
>believe that if god were to present himself as a pillar of fire/cloud
>in front of us for 40 years [like in exodus], there'd still be many who'd
>reject him.

Yes, frequently those believers who agree about the paucity of
evidence feel compelled to drop this other shoe, apparently from a
desire to have it both ways.  It is good to have faith, to believe,
not having seen.  Clearly then it is bad to not believe, having seen;
and since those not like me are clearly bad, then they would surely
not believe even if they did see.  Of course, since we don't have any
evidence we can't make the experiment, so we can believe whatever we
like about the hypothetical situation.  On the whole, since Thomas, or
perhaps Paul, none, or very few, have seen.  Some have believed, and
some haven't.  I am unaware of any account of any who have seen and
not believed.
-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:18:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.213445.8989@tc.fluke.COM> emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
>In article <BtLz0w.BBC@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose) writes:
>>I'm sorry, but all religions are the same - they threaten those who don't
>>follow them so that they'll scare people into joining them.  It's Darwinism,
>>really - you Christians try to scare people into joining you, so you gain
>>members.
>
>May I ask, Wulf, are you scared by the gospel message?  What about anyone
>else out there, are you scared of the message right now?  May I dare
>make the statement that I don't believe there are many non-Christians
>out there who are fearful because of the gospel.
>
>I have the wonderful joy of seeing many people come to the Lord.  Yet I
>see joy and freedom rather than fear.  
>
>What do you see as our motive in gaining members? Money?  

For the more intelligent members, yes. For the rest of you.... listen to 
your own prayers and hyms. Notice how many references there are to you 
being "as little children" and "sheep". Do you really think these are 
admirable qualities? Oh, I'm sorry, answering this may require some simple
form of rational thought. Forget it.

In fact, why
>do you think we are believers in the first place?
>

Sheer stupidity.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
From: aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Quran Translation
Date: 27 Aug 1992 11:47:20 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

In article <l9q7dlINNrkf@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.023510.16291@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu> johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:
>>In article <l9ll70INNt3q@pollux.usc.edu> aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed  
>>Abd-Allah) writes:
>>> In article <1992Aug25.190818.1634@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu>  
>>johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:
 
[stuff deleted]
 
>It may be that translations of the hebrew or greek testaments
>do not have the same problems as translations of the Quran. I
>think this to be so, because practically every introductory
>essay about the Quran I have read (4 or 5 in an anthology)
>written by Muhammad Iqbal, and others who are acknowledged to
>be somewhat of an authority in the western world have stressed
 
Their being real scholars gives their opinions much more weight
than mine.

>that a person will best understand the writings by learning 
>Arabic; and that this is much more of a consideration than 
>in the hebrew or greek testaments. From what I've read, the
>reader won't "really" get the poetry, unless read in the original.
                               ^^^^^^

I think I've already posted before that one should not approach the
Qur'an as poetry.  But enough said.

>Ahmed A. Abd-Allah seems to think otherwise, and even if something
>does get missed by reading a translation, I think one has to
>start somewhere.

This has been my intention all along: it would be difficult to tell
people that the Truth must be read in Arabic ONLY.  To a non-Arab, it
is certainly allowable to read the translation of the Qur'an - but it
is recommended to eventually read it in the original language.

Here is a bit of history you may be interested in:

"We may also mention a case of the translation of the Qur'an.  The Prophet
had prescribed that every Muslim should celebrate his worship [i.e.
formal prayers] in Arabic.  Certain Persians embraced Islam; and they did
not want to put off prayer till the time they should have committed to
memory the Arabic texts or chapters of the Qur'an.  With the approval of
the Prophet, Salman Al-Farsi, a Muslim of Persian origin knowing Arabic,
translated into Persian the first chapter of the Qur'an for the immediate
above mentioned requirements of the Persian converts.  They employed it
till they learned the Arabic text by heart."  -An Introduction To Islam,
Muhammad Hamidullah, pg 25

So not only can one read a translated Qur'an, one can also pray in 
"nonArabic" until he or she can memorize some of the Arabic.  The spirit
is more important than the word of the law, and the Prophet was 
foremost in recognizing this, at least the foremost of humanity.

>Dano
>

Thank you for correcting me.

Ahmed A. Abd-Allah