HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: che755v@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Subject? + Survey = Suspicion
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:15:28 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

>X-NEWS: vaxc alt.atheism: 27893
>Subject: Survey
>From: 70253.2621@CompuServe.COM (Chris & Susan Colvin)
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Date: 18 Aug 92 17:46:12 GMT
>Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
>
>
>
>If you were to die today, would you go to heaven?
>
>If you were to die today and God asked you, "Why should I let you into my
>heaven?" What would you say?
>
>What is my "agenda" for asking these questions?  Just curious.


>X-NEWS: vaxc alt.atheism: 28027
>Subject: Subject?
>From: safecrac@west.darkside.com (Chris Colvin)
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Date: 20 Aug 92 07:48:14 GMT
>Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
>
>Jesus Saves

Well, well, well...  the mysterious "Colvin" appears again!!!!

Peter D. Thomas
Centre for High Resolution Spectroscopy and Opto-Electronic Technology
Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi)
Subject: Re: For all you believers
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:27:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.204444.22864@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>
>Nah, that's not bloody enough -- it would never make the news.  Tell you
>what.  I'll have my God arrange for Mr. Bush to slaughter a bunch of
>followers of your God pretty soon (before November).  Then you shall know
>that my God is the one true god.  And my God is merciful, wise.

It shows that the lives of humans have no importance to you to
talk about them like that.

My God will make Mr. Bush die one day, and you shall die too.
Then you should know the truth.

>--
>Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mitchell@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (DeWayne Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Whither Song of Solomon?
Organization: National Severe Storms Laboratory
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:14:42 GMT

In article <Bss5ps.190@acsu.buffalo.edu> v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
>I'll make this short:
>
>Many have used the Song of Solomon as an example of "pornography" existing
>between the leather covers of the Bible.  My question is, what Book and what
>verses comprise the SoS?  I'm interested in checking this out for myself.  
>
>******************************************************************************
>Mike Cluff				*      I'm the person that	
>v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*      your president
>UB Language Perception Laboratory	*      warned you about.    
>******************************************************************************

mike, the book that you are inquiring about is The Song of Solomon and
is contained in the Old Testament of the Bible.  Pornographic?  I think
not.  Enjoy :)

DeWayne
From: L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
Date: 21 Aug 92 09:39:50 GMT
Organization: University of Bradford, UK
Originator: 90908502@muser

>L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham) writes:
>(Ridha Souissi) writes:
>>
>>Also there are scientific facts in the Qur'an that were not known
>>and were discovered only in the past couple of centuries.
>>How can these come from a "desert nomad"?
>>
>
>This really is a great claim.  It could be very strong evidence that
>the Koran was written with supernatural guidance.  However, I have
>heard this claim several times before but no one I have talked to has 
>been able to substantiate it.  Please quote the actual passages.  Let's
>see the evidence.
>


Well Ridha, we have had the Koran quoted courtesy of Saddiqui.

>RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com writes:
>
>Here are some of the passages from the Qur'an which Leonard Newnham wanted
>to be cited as a proof of existence of scientific facts in the Qur'an:
>
>.1. On the creation of the universe:
>Awalam erallazina  kararoo
>Annasamawate wal arda
>kanata ratkan
>fafataqna'hooma
>
>Meaning:
>Do not the unbelievers see
>that the heavens and the earth
>were joined together as one unit of creation
>befor We clove them asunder?(Qur'an 21:30)

[ and lots more in the same vein ]

And then several clear and concise articles, (Rohan Oberoi, Mikel
Evins and Leslie Griffiths) showing how the original claim could 
not possibly follow from the quoted Koran passages.  So far there has
been no answer to these refutations of Ridha's original statement.  
Here is a reminder of the flavour of the replies:

mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>
> The other references you mention would have to be more specific
> and more descriptive than the ones you mention here in order
> to be considered to be of scientific interest. These passages
> are sufficiently vague that, even if our scientific understanding
> of the issues you mention were completely changed tomorrow,
> you could still make a case that they are related to the
> scientific facts. In general, a hallmark of scientific description
> is a precise use of language so that we may avoid misinterpretation
> of what is being said. The passages you cite don't even come
> close, and the authority you mention has no bearing on this
> fact.



My question to Ridha or anyone else who still believes that scientific 
fact is contained in the Koran is how can you justify continuing to
hold such a view in the face of such clear contradictory evidence?
Surely it can only be blind faith, and surely a major religion such as
Islam does not see blind faith as a virtue.

Or does it?


-- 

Leonard               e-mail:  L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk
From: lmorris@mdd.comm.mot.com (Larry Morris)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Two Religions for Atheists
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:26:19 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA

In <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.

>> [talks about Buddhism's beliefs, deleted]

theism : belief in the existence of a god or gods.
atheist: one who denies the existence of God.
agnostic: one who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is
	  unknown and probably unknowable.
religion : (1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural.
	   (2) a personal set or institutionalized system of religious
	       attitudes beliefs and practices.


This then leads to a question of what definition (2) means by 'religious'.
Good ol Webster is sorta vague on this one.  I would say that an atheist
might, and an agnostic definitely could be Buddhist.  Just my HO.  Your
beliefs may vary. ;-)


-- 
Internet:    <lmorris@mdd.comm.mot.COM>   |  Larry Morris
 ...uw-beaver!sunup-----\                 |  Motorola/Mobile Data Division
 ...uunet-----------------!mdisea!lmorris |  19807 North Creek Parkway
 ...van-bc!mdivax1------/                 |  Bothell, WA  (206) 487-5810
From: James Meritt <m23364@mwunix>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: evidence for christianity
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:54:44 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <1992Aug12.203402.18269@Princeton.EDU> John Daly <daly@strawber.princeton.edu> writes:
}The text of the Bible is generally given historical credibility because so
}much of its content can be verified archaeologically.  The successions of
}rulers, the locations of cities and battles, descriptions of the lifestyles
}and customs of the people are confirmed by the archaeological record.

That's nice.  And the same text also has items for which there is NO
archaeological verification possible, has things that have been shown
false (as written) by archaeological evidence, has internal inconsistencies,
and claims for nonexistant references.

}Enough of the Biblical record can be confirmed by archaeological evidence
}that before we can discard the Bible we will have to discard a lot of other
}commonly accepted historical facts, like the Gallic Wars, first.

And enough can be shown false to classify it as myth, like a lot of
others, like the Golden Fleece.

}Recall that the primary method of relating information of the day in that
}region of the world was the oral tradition.  The gospels are thought to be
}compiled from a collection of these oral traditions and existing the written
}accounts available to the authors.  Apparently the story of Jesus was fairly
}significant to the people of the time as it was compiled if four separate
}accounts!

Four separate DIFFERENT accounts.  Wonder how many different stories on 
Santa Claus we can find?  If more than four, does that make him more significant
than Jesus?
From: Ken Arromdee <arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: The "civilized" west
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:33:44 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <92230.141350RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com writes:
>In response to Ken Arromdee's statement that in the US Communist Party
>is legal, etc.:
[deleted]
>As such, I doubt Ken's notion that the Communist Party is legal
>in USA.

A statement that the Communist party is legal in the USA is of a factual
nature.  You can gather all the supporting evidence you want, and say that
your evidence supports the idea that the statement is false, but if it's not,
it's not, despite the mountains of evidence "proving" otherwise.

The Communist party is, in fact, legal in the US.

>If USA does not allow any former communist to immigrate,
>and even deports suspected members of communist parties abroad,
>how could it allow the spread of communism within.

How?  I don't know how, either.  But it does, nevertheless.

>There have been several cases of trying alleged communists
>and persecuting them (including killing the suspects)
>as spies for Communist Russia or Communist China.

You could be tried if you're a spy for Israel, too.  That doesn't mean it's
illegal to be a Jew or to be a member of a pro-Israeli party.
--
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)
From: steube@elroy.sdsc.edu (Ken Steube)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Two Religions for Atheists
Date: 20 Aug 1992 17:11:21 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: San Diego Supercomputer Center @ UCSD

In article <1992Aug18.195110.4375@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, Tawit Chitsomboon <fstawit@icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov> writes: (part of excerpt cut)
|> 
|> The following paragraphs are excerpts from:
|> "What the Buddha Taught", Walpola Rahula, Grove Press, inc.
|> 150 page.
|> 
|> 
|> (page 51) (Capitalization to highlight ideas is mine)
|> 
|> The Buddha's teaching does not support this ignorance, weakness, fear,
|> and desire, but aims at making man enlightened by removing and destroying
|> them, striking at their very root. According to Buddhism, our ideas
|> of God and Soul are false and empty. Though highly developed as theories
|> , they are all the same extremely subtle mental projections, garbed in
|> an intricate metaphysical and philosophical phraseology. These ideas
|> are so deep-rooted in man, and so near and dear to him, that he does
|> not wish to hear, nor does he want to understand, any teaching
|> against them.
|> 
|> 
|> ------------------End excerpt

Would Buddhists really claim that God and Soul are mental projections?

The statement "our ideas of God and Soul are false and empty" is difficult
to understand.  I'm sure it doesn't claim that God doesn't exist.  Buddha
had no need to claim such a thing.  When asked if God exists, advanced
practitioners say that they do not know about such things.  They have no
special gift that allows them to know that information.

Instead of being concerned about a god, buddhists seem to focus on other
things.  The Way is a method of living one's life that focuses on being
absorbed fully in the present moment.  If you worry about the past (I can't
believe I did ___) or the future (What if I die and have done nothing
important?) then you create suffering for yourself.  By being fully
absorbed in the present moment you avoid suffering.

I remember times when I was fully absorbed in cooking a meal, taking an
exam in school, and other situations where all my concentration was
focused on the immediate task.  At those times I was not suffering any
worries about the meaning of my existence, I was not thinking about how I
had other things to do that were more important, or anything else.  Zen
meditation helps you to learn to live like that all of the time, not
just when it happens to ocurr.  I think this is a beginning of an
understanding of Zen Buddhism, and how you avoid suffering through
practicing it.

This leaves all sorts of questions, like "Why should I even bother to dress
myself and eat?"  Zen masters tell their students "just dress and eat."  If
the question ocurrs to you, then you are not living the Way.

If a God appeared with wondrous powers I'm sure that Zen Buddhists would be
open-minded and learn from the experience, although it may not make too
much difference in how they experience the world.  Otherwise, they'll just
carry on as they do.
From: Krishnamurthy society <dld@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Krishnamurthy
Summary: Seeking Krishnamurthy society
Keywords: Krishnamurthy society
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 04:25:57 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Computer Science, Monash University, Australia

   Hello.   I am looking for a Krishnamurthy society.   I understand that one
exists.   Any address anywhere in the world would be fine, but I am ultimately
looking for one in Melbourne, Australia.

Thank you.       dld@dibbler.cs.monash.edu.au
From: RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: The "civilized" west
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:13:49 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company

[Followups set to alt.atheism - Tony]

In response to Ken Arromdee's statement that in the US Communist Party
is legal, etc.:
Recently, some of my friends had to go through the US Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) for immigration to the US. They had
to state that they were not members of the Communist Party
and that they never were affiliated (of course, they were not, in any
case). These questions are in the Immigration form (anyone
can check about this). During the interview process, the
Immigration officer again asked the same question. The
lawyer handling the case later explained that INS can deny
anyone having any ties with communism.

A good example is the "LA 7" case, which drew much publicity in
the USA. The case involved the deportation of seven former communist
Party members (most of whom were alleged to be involved with
communist parties in the Middle East). This made a big news
just a few years ago.

As such, I doubt Ken's notion that the Communist Party is legal
in USA. If USA does not allow any former communist to immigrate,
and even deports suspected members of communist parties abroad,
how could it allow the spread of communism within. When did this
process of communist-hunting started in the US, I can't be very
specific, but I think it started in the post-second world war
period (commonly known as the McCarthy doctrine era of combatting
communism). There have been several cases of trying alleged communists
and persecuting them (including killing the suspects)
as spies for Communist Russia or Communist China.
- H. Siddiqui.
From: stephen l favor <xcpslf@decsrv.oryx.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Documentary evidence for Jesus' existence
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 08:41:54 -0500
Reply-To: xcpslf@decsrv.oryx.com
Distribution: world


In article <bug.713692389@arachne>, you write:
|> 
|> 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...
|> 

Most of these people were revolutionaries and did not call themselves
messiahs to my knowledge.  Seems like Bar Kohkbah (sp?) was refered to as
the messiah and the Essene's Teacher might have been, too.  Past these,
I can't recall any other documents with references to people calling
themselves messiah.  What is your source?
From: *** NO NAME SUPPLIED ***
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Religious Experience (was Re: Atheism vs. Christianity)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 13:22:12 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Universite Laval

> 
> In a related note, I saw an article a few years back that the Catholic
> Church(!!) had officially declared that all the visions they got in the
> Phillipines (?) was because they had to little food and that they
> shouldn't report in every angel or saint they saw as miracles...
> 
The Catholic Church is very wary of accepting supernatural phenomena and 
holds very tight investigations before accepting them. But the only reason 
is to distinguish FALSE spiritual phenomena from REAL ones. So the fact
that there are a lot of phenomena based on hysteria and other factors
does not negate the fact that the Church believes in the existence of
such phenomena. If all the harebrained ideas that came from Science 
were put end to end, they would reach from here to the moon, but that 
doesn't prove that there is no valid Science.
Henri
From: John Dunkelberg <johndunk@wpi.wpi.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Documentary evidence for Jesus' existence
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 02:59:05 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute

In article <sbuckley.713822061@sfu.ca> Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca> writes:
>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.

Ah, so the key is to be a braggart.  Hmm.. I'll take it up with Zeus
next time we talk.  I think he considered himself pretty high up the
chain, at least after he got his bros & sisters to off Daddy
Cronos/Saturn.  Mom was still pretty big tho, and The Creator, but not
as active in mortal affairs.

This of course means that a humble god like Budda can't be the answer.
Why not?  Why can't God be humble?

john


-- 
| 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: Tom Schneider <toms@ncifcrf.gov>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Why theism is widespread
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:58:17 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center

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.

There are other possibilities:  religion is a "meme" that self propagates.  If
you didn't agree with the church, you either left, put up with it or were
killed (or worse).  If you were a person in the Americas, you had it forced
upon you.  It could be equivalent to the "selfish" genes that propagate
themselves like a virus in biological systems.

>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).

Atheism has the advantage of not being trapped by earlier primitive thinking.
It has the disadvantage of being rigid.

  Tom Schneider
  toms@ncifcrf.gov
From: Anees Munshi <asm@eecg.toronto.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: A non-Muslim scholar on Islam & Rushdie
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:06:57 -0400
Distribution: world

Islam does N O T condone the killing of someone just because he
insulted God, the prophet, or his companions, or anyone else. If
anyone suggests otherwise, I would quote the Quran:

	Say: Bring forth your evidence, if you are truthful. [2:111]

In fact, as someone else has written in this newsgroup, the
decree of the death penalty is the doing of one man acting on
his own or in company of like-minded people. Where is the
evidence for this position from the Quran?

>In a modern context, how would Jews feel if in the name of creative
>imagination the memory of the Holocaust and its victims, like
>Ann Frank, were distorted or denegerated?
>....
>------ Peace (Salam) -- H. Siddiqui.

	The question is not about feeling bad, but the nature of
the punishment for a given crime. The Quran *itself* talks
about those who opposed Muhammad, calling him a madman and so on.
Yet there is no mention in recorded history of anyone being
attacked or punished for *this reason.*

Islam does not allow the killing of someone because of his/her
opinion.
	There is no compulsion in matters of belief. [Quran 2:256]

Neither Khomeini, Rushdie, nor Esposito define Islam: they only
speak for themselves. Definitions are found in the sources of
things. And the source of Islam is the Quran. 

regards,
Anees Munshi
asm@eecg.toronto.edu
From: steube@elroy.sdsc.edu (Ken Steube)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Two Religions for Atheists
Date: 20 Aug 1992 17:46:55 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: San Diego Supercomputer Center @ UCSD

In article <XcXqPB1w165w@mantis.co.uk>, Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk> 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.

One definition of religion is that it is any system that attempts to
give meaning through a system of beliefs.  That sounds like it could be
compatible with atheism.

Some forms of Buddhism use reincarnation or karma to give meaning to their
lives.  This sounds like a religion.

Others, including Zen Buddhists, just live according to a Way described by
Zen masters without a belief system.  I wouldn't call this religion.

Both seem compatible with atheism.


Anybody want to tell about Jainism?