HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: John Dunkelberg <johndunk@wpi.wpi.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Documentary evidence for Jesus' existence
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:01:05 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute

In article <1992Aug10.144816.5174@linus.mitre.org> James Meritt <m23364@mwunix> writes:
>In article <sbuckley.713158477@sfu.ca> Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca> writes:
>}  jesus said one thing in the bible that is more profound than anything
>}anyone has ever said before, contemporary to him or not.  he said he is
>}the son of god
>
>Since you claim it exists, please provide this.
>Note:  A specific, direct quote.  Not an acknowledgement of what someone else
>said, nor a claim or a claim.

Okay, just for the record:   From the online King James:

JOH 10:23  And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.

JOH 10:24  Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost
 thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.

JOH 10:25  Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that
 I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

JOH 10:26  But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto
 you.

JOH 10:27  My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

JOH 10:28  And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish,
 neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

JOH 10:29  My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is
 able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

JOH 10:30  I and my Father are one.

Sounds pretty definite as a confirmation.  INHO, proves nothing.  So I
publish a book in which I say: "Lo unto you, I am the Son of God".  Now
I am a "profound" writer.  And sorry, I'm pretty certain plenty of religions
have had sons of gods before Jesus came on the picture.  After all, the
Romans and Greek gods had bastards a plenty by pretty mortal women...

-- 
| John S. Dunkelberg Jr. |"The devil went down to georgia, 
| johndunk@wpi.wpi.edu   | an' he was lookin' for a soul to steal.
|------------------------| He was in a bind, he was way behind,
|The Charlie Daniels Band: and he was lookin' to make a deal..."
From: "Jason Goeppinger [Math]" <goepping@s20.msi.umn.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Why theism is widespread
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:00:40 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: MSI

In article <1992Aug7.181110.5243@cis.ohio-state.edu> ahles@cis.ohio-state.edu (mark ahles) writes:

   Why is belief in God almost universal among societies (not individuals)?
   I believe it must be either:

    -A benefit exists evoluutionarily for theistic societies.  This might be
    explained by 'working towards a common goal, self sacrificing, etc'.  But
    I know of NO successful socity that was atheistic.
				     OR
    -God put a belief in God in man.

Are these the only two reasons?

-People like an explanation for the unknown--the workings of natural
phenomena, the workings of society, the workings of human emotions (it
makes them feel more significant.)  Those who offer an explanation of the
unknown can then hold power over people.  The explanations that sound the
most plausible are given, and these are most easily formulated using
gods/spirits/etc. 

Be careful using statements like "There are only two possibilities: blah
blah fluff blah blah."  They're logically unfounded.  Its like saying
"Jesus Christ is either a Lunatic, a Liar, or the Lord"  (alas poor Mr.
Lewis.  Aslan hardly knew ye)

   In either case, I see no advantage to atheism.  It is bad for the individual
   (if divinely inspired) and/or society (if an evolutionary advantage).

Look at this again.  Evolutionary advantages change by the
definition of the concept.  If human-kind's pre-societal chances for
survival were increased by their ability to kill and steal, would this be a
trait that should be cultivated in a civilized society just because it is
an "Evolutionary Advantage?" Au contraire mon frere!!

   Again, I am "new" to these arguments . . . I do not feel they are convincing.
   I just make them fro general input and discussion

Splendid.  Keep questioning everything.  Everything.

--

	Jason Goeppinger
	(goepping@s1.msi.umn.edu)
From: Rick Russell <wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Why theism is widespread
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 3:35:12 CDT
Distribution: world


In article <1992Aug7.181110.5243@cis.ohio-state.edu> ahles@cis.ohio-state.edu (mark ahles) writes:
>Why is belief in God almost universal among societies (not individuals)?
>I believe it must be either:
> 
> -A benefit exists evoluutionarily for theistic societies.  This might be
> explained by 'working towards a common goal, self sacrificing, etc'.  But
> I know of NO successful socity that was atheistic.
>                                  OR
> -God put a belief in God in man.

I see where this is going, but have you tried to apply this reasoning
to other aspects of human endeavor?

Rape is almost universal among societies. It must be either:

 - Rape is an evolutionary benefit (I know of NO succesful society
   that didn't include rapists).

 - Rape is inspired by God

for example.

Torture is almost universal among societies. It must be either... etc.

>In either case, I see no advantage to atheism.  It is bad for the individual
>(if divinely inspired) and/or society (if an evolutionary advantage).

If belief in God is truly divinely inspired, then it certainly would
benefit an individual to believe. Of course, if belief is divinely
inspired, then I have little choice but to believe. I have received no
such inspiration.
 
It would be much harder to argue that religion is evolutionarily
advantageous. Let's suppose, for the moment, that it is. Even so,
there are probably many evolutionarily advantageous behaviours which I
would never engage in. Killing the sick, mentally ill and socially
outcast members of society would no doubt be an evolutionary
advantage, but I don't support it. Trial by combat, physical
competition for mates, and other activities designed to weed out the
weak would fall into this category as well. Child abuse makes for
stronger children, and sexual philandering adds variety to the gene
pool. That doesn't make them acceptable.
From: NEIL MCKINNON <denmckinnon@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Mathematical, Game Theory based ethical systems
Keywords: Where does God enter the moral equation?
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 01:02:54 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University 

In article <1992Aug13.014622.1231@agora.uucp> mehawk@agora.rain.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
>I'm working on the pros and cons of a mathematical, game theory
>approach to ethical dilemmas.

This was very interesting.  I'm interested in understanding more about 
Game Theory some time.  Do you have any references?

Neil.
From: Darren Paul Watchers <u8902001@cs.uow.edu.au>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Date: 10 Aug 92 09:49:06 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia

mtrevor@nyx.cs.du.edu (Matthew Trevor) writes:
>I was brought up in a strong catholic household, and have only just
>recently "converted" (if you will) to atheism. I agree that religion can
>have some important things to say, but my belief is that many christian
>religions are too interested in enforcing Christ's divinity, and not as
>involved with spreading what he *said*. I personally hold to many of
>Christ's teachings, yet fail to see why he needs to be "divine" for his
>words to have any relevance.

I agree. Many Christians are more concerned with the dogma,
and not enough about loving one another.

Darren.
-- 
			Darren Watchers u8902001@cs.uow.edu.au
=============================================================================
 Hi! I am a .signature virus. Watch what I can do to your messages :->
From: Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Two Religions for Atheists
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 17:53:52 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

jeff@tct.com (Jeff Witzer) writes:

> BTW(2), Webster's defines atheism as follows: (yes, we've all seen it before)
> [...]
>     2: UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
>         [well, at least they aren't judging...]

Oh dear. What a wicked thing to say. I propose that we burn all copies
of Webster's we can find, and issue a death sentence on the compilers
of the dictionary.


--
Tony Lezard
 Acting moderator, alt.atheism.moderated (submissions to atheism@mantis.co.uk).
  tony@mantis.co.uk / tony%mantis.co.uk@uknet.ac.uk / arl10@phx.cam.ac.uk
From: John Daly <daly@strawber.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:47:52 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (CFD)

In article <1992Aug10.094906.12035@cs.uow.edu.au>, Darren Paul Watchers <u8902001@cs.uow.edu.au> writes:
|> 
|> I agree. Many Christians are more concerned with the dogma,
|> and not enough about loving one another.

A tragedy from the point of view of a Christian as well.  After
all, Christ only gave two commandments: love God and love your
neighbor as yourself.
From: James Meritt <m23364@mwunix>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Why christianity exists (was Re: evidence for christianity)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:19:42 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA


Of course christianity exists.  I see it.

Now, the WHY is a separate issue.  Perhaps a new subject line would be
appropriate.

[Will this do? - Tony]
From: jeff@tct.com (Jeff Witzer)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Two Religions for Atheists
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:16:39 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

In article <XcXqPB1w165w@mantis.co.uk> Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>Tawit Chitsomboon <fstawit@icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov> writes:
>
>> As far as I know, there are only two established religions that
>> an atheist can subscribe to: Buddhism and Jainism; both deny the
>> existence of personal God.
>
>Now I found this idea confusing. While I don't dispute the claim that
>Buddhism is a religion (don't know enough about Jainism to have an
>opinion), I find the idea of an atheist with a religion contradictory.
>Is it? Should the issue be "Does Buddhism count as a religion?" Is it
>only a system of philosophical ideas? Does religion imply theism, etc.
			    
As much as we all hate dictionary definitions, I thought there might be a 
good place to get an answer to Tony's question...

[from Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1969) (summarized)]:

re-li-gion: 
    1   a:  (1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural  
            (2) commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance  
        b: the state of a religious
    
    2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, 
    beliefs and practices
    
    3: (archaic) scrupulous conformity: CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
    
    4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
    
So....an atheist can have religion.  I have always maintained that atheism IS
a religion (it is a set of beliefs), just not an *organized* religion (where
a few zealously enthusiastic members define what the group as a whole and the
less zealous members believe).  All atheism suggests is a belief system that
does not include a diety.

BTW, Webster's is a rather conservative dictionary, which, in my mind, 
emphasizes my point.

BTW(2), Webster's defines atheism as follows: (yes, we've all seen it before)
Note the breakup of the word...(?)

athe-ism:
    1   a: disbelief in the existance of deity
            [implies there is a God but atheist don't believe that]
        b: the doctrine that there is no deity

    2: UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
        [well, at least they aren't judging...]
From: Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Documentary evidence for Jesus' existence
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:54:21 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

John Dunkelberg <johndunk@wpi.wpi.edu> writes:

>Sounds pretty definite as a confirmation.  INHO, proves nothing.  So I
>publish a book in which I say: "Lo unto you, I am the Son of God".  Now
>I am a "profound" writer.  And sorry, I'm pretty certain plenty of religions
>have had sons of gods before Jesus came on the picture.  After all, the
>Romans and Greek gods had bastards a plenty by pretty mortal women...

  all gods are not created equal.  none of the greek or roman gods asserted
their status as the one god of all creation, higher than all the others.
---                          
     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?"
From: James Meritt <m23364@mwunix>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Documentary evidence for Jesus' existence
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:55:14 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <Bsz9AI.Lz4@wpi.WPI.EDU> johndunk@wpi.wpi.edu (John Dunkelberg) writes:
}In article <1992Aug13.174853.28634@linus.mitre.org> James Meritt <m23364@mwunix> writes:
}>In article <Bsvu1t.DyG@wpi.WPI.EDU> John Dunkelberg <johndunk@wpi.wpi.edu> writes:
}>}In article <1992Aug10.144816.5174@linus.mitre.org> James Meritt <m23364@mwunix> writes:
}>}>In article <sbuckley.713158477@sfu.ca> Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca> writes:
}>}>}  jesus said one thing in the bible that is more profound than anything
}>}>}anyone has ever said before, contemporary to him or not.  he said he is
}>}>}the son of god
}>}>
}>}>Since you claim it exists, please provide this.
}>}>Note:  A specific, direct quote.  Not an acknowledgement of what someone else
}>}>said, nor a claim or a claim.
}>}
}>}Okay, just for the record:   From the online King James:
}>
}>Tsk tsk.  You think JESUS wrote the King James?  Fascinating.
}>For someone who was claimed to be so important AND literate (or so the claims
}>for these are made in the NT), there seems to be a real shortage of anything
}>He wrote.  Now, you have a translation of a synthesis of a copy ... of a claim.
}>NOTE that I specifically requested that it not be a claim of a claim.
}
}Okay, I'll give ya that nobody had a video recorder running on the
}hypothetical Jesus of Nazareth.  Sorry, no 8-tracks for you.

Of course not.  There is no indication that such a recorder existed.  There
is, however, a claim that this Jesus person existed AND that he was literate.
From: Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Why theism is widespread
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:20:45 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

Dan Yergeau writes:
>mark ahles writes:
>|> This is my first post on this subject.  I am no expert on theology, but I do
>|> have this thought on the subject.  Any opinions would be appreciated. 
>|>  
>|> Why is belief in God almost universal among societies (not individuals)?
>|> I believe it must be either:
>|>  
>|>  -A benefit exists evoluutionarily for theistic societies.  This might be
>|>  explained by 'working towards a common goal, self sacrificing, etc'.  But
>|>  I know of NO successful socity that was atheistic.
>|>                                   OR
>|>  -God put a belief in God in man.

>Other possible reasons (aside: why do peoply always only state 
>two possiblities when there are many?)

  yeah, there seem to be many reasons why people may have a belief in god;
but on a larger level there is a polarity exists: we believe in god because
god exists and is knowable, or because of any number of human-made
motivations.  those are the two categories that seem relevant and within
the human-derived set there are many possibilities.

>You stated that you know of no successful society that was
>atheist.  Well, I may be reaching here, but what about the
>United States.  Granted, the US is largely Christian, but there
>is no establishment of religion by the government.  People are
>(relatively) free to believe as they wish, and, hence, do not
>have the common theistic goal that you speak of as being
>beneficial (necessary?) for the survival of a society.

  according to the united nations, under the category of religion, the
united states is listed as pagan.  sociological studies that have 
concluded that while the largest self-professed religious group in the 
united states is christian, the majority of those who claim to be
christian do not know of or understand the basic teachings of jesus, and
even by dictionary definitions cannot be classified as christian.

---                          
     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?"
From: Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Documentary evidence for Jesus' existence
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:57:07 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

Bernt Budde <bug@arachne.udac.uu.se> writes:
>John Nagle <nagle@netcom.com> writes:
>>In article <sbuckley.713158477@sfu.ca> Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca> writes:
>>}  jesus said one thing in the bible that is more profound than anything
>>}anyone has ever said before, contemporary to him or not.  he said he is
>>}the son of god

>>      Too bad the Romans didn't have better therapy for mental disorders
>>back then.

>From my reading on the matter (my interest are largely based in more
>modern crackpot cults that are closer to me...), mad prophets were
>thirteen to the dozen at the time. It wasn't particularly strange to
>howl at the moon and call yourself Messiah then... hardly something
>that rated as a mental problem; just a (dangerous) career...

>And being related to gods, wasn't the Egyptian pharaos that first? But
>Jesse was before the Japanese emperors? I bet, if you studied history,
>that if the first claim rules, like our studied Mr Buckley seems to
>say, we have to join some old South American religion or something...

  that's not what i'm claiming.  i'm claiming that the one god
who claimed to be the supreme god, who backed up his claim with an
autobiography in scripture and in the person of jesus is worthy
of acknowledging as god.  God isn't the *first* to claim to be a god,
but he is the only to claim to be The God.

---                          
     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?"
From: Darren Paul Watchers <u8902001@cs.uow.edu.au>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism openmindedness
Date: 10 Aug 92 09:57:08 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia


mailrus!gatech!unmvax!cfblack@uunet.uu.net (Forrest Black) writes:
>>  If you have a view of the universe, say it, backing it up as best you can. 
>>But this cynical denigration of everything religious does no one any good, 
>>least of all you.

>I have no need (and no way) to back up my view of the Universe.  It is mine, 
>and no one else's.  In the "beginning", "God" said, "I feel sick..."  And then
>"He" blew chunks with such infinite ferocity that many astronomers think
>they can measure the velocity of them today...

I thought he was an atomic physicist from another dimension:
God said: "Don't touch that....." BIG BANG!!!

>Every one must find deity in their own heart.  I *believe* that I have
>an open mind...

And my deity happens to be ..... Oh I don't have one!! Sorry...

>Flame to: cfblack@unmvax.cs.unm.edu

Flames are rarely productive.
-- 
			Darren Watchers u8902001@cs.uow.edu.au
=============================================================================
 Hi! I am a .signature virus. Watch what I can do to your messages :->
From: Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Why theism is widespread
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:33:30 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

JAMES ZAKANY writes:
> mark ahles writes...
>>                                  OR
>> -God put a belief in God in man.

>Not all "Gods" are alike.  It would seem as though He left His definition 
>up to us.  No, I have a third explaination that may not satisfy you...

>  -Man has used his irrational belief in the supernatural to explain 
>   phenomena that he could neither justify nor control.

  well, to believe god left his definition up to us assumes you discount
the bible as god's autobiography.
---                          
     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?"
From: Ken Arromdee <arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: The "civilized" west
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:27:51 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <XDPHPB4w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>In case you missed it, the point of the article was to explain why Moslems
>feel that the West is being two-faced about the Rushdie business.  Moslems
>consider state and religion to be the same thing.  If the USA can bump off an
>enemy of the state like Gaddafi or Castro (or JFK?), why can't Iran do the
>same thing and bump off an enemy of the state like Rushdie?
>
>Oh, so murdering someone in another country, who has committed no crime
>according to the laws of that country, is OK if you have a good reason?
>
>In that case, who decides which are the good reasons?  Why are Iranian
>reasons like "defending Islam against heretics" not as good as American
>reasons like "defending capitalism against communists"?

I'm not going to post a long article on this.  I am going to reply, however:
The Communist party legally exists in the US.  You will not be taken away and
shot merely for being a Communist and saying that you want to overthrow the
US government.

In fact, the freedom of speech that says that people should be permitted to
speak out as Communists in the USA is the _same_ freedom of speech which
Westerners appeal to in saying that Rushdie should not be executed for his
writing.

The argument against executing Rushdie is not an argument against executions
in general (though there may be other arguments for that) and it is a mistake
to turn it into one.  People disapprove of killing Rushdie because his "crime"
does not deserve the punishment.  If Iran merely wanted to lock him away for
40 years, the argument by Westerners would be the same, and I _hope_ nobody
would be saying "well, the USA can put in jail enemies of the state, so why
can't Iran do this to Rushdie"?
--
I am of course experienced in teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.
    -- Ed Nilges

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)