HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: It's just my opinion...
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:51:49 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Jul31.111202.5892@iscsvax.uni.edu> marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>In article <dowe.1.712456144@ace.acadiau.ca>, MARK DOWE <dowe@ace.acadiau.ca> writes:
>> But I find it impossible to believe in anything without a shred of credible
>> evidence. What I really think is a shame is that so many children are fed a 
>> religious diet before they have had the chance to learn how to think, and
>> thus are capable of making thier own decisions about the existence of gods.
>
>So instead they should be fed an atheistic diet?  No.

No. Don't give them either a theistic or an atheistic upbringing. Let
them make up their own mind later. The fundies don't like this, of course.

My parents never mentioned "God" to me. I had already learnt to speak
and think for myself before I went to infant school. So when they tried
to teach me about "God" there, I thought it was just some silly game.

If a child learns about "God" at the same time as he learns to speak,
which is definitely before he learns to think for himself, then "God"
becomes an axiom. I know plenty of people who taught their children
that "God" exists. I know of none who taught their children that "God
doesn't exist". And I know a few to never mentioned "God" at all unless
their children asked, which they didn't do until they were exposed to
religion at infant school.

Chris Lee
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ttobler@unislc.uucp (Trent Tobler)
Subject: Re: god violates physical
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:30:51 GMT

neal.abrams@execnet.com (neal abrams) writes:
: SL>Religious folk always seem to bring up this 'free will' stuff to
: SL>weasle out of the logical implications of omnipotence &
: SL>omniscience.  But I've yet to figure out just exactly what it is.
: 
:      I suggest that the problem isn't with "religious folk" trying to
: weasle out of anything, but simply the fact that you have trouble with
: the concept.

What concept?  The one of free will?  It may be because it is a very
ambiguous term.  What do you mean by free will?  You mention the
ability to distinguish right and wrong.  What is "right" and "wrong",
something a god defines?  What is a god?  How do you determine among the
wide variety of gods which one is the best to believe in?  Your feelings?
To me, this is a rather weak argument.

: SL>Ex:How does one determine if one has free will or not?
: SL>Perphaps some experiment?
: 
:      What about the human ability to choose between right and wrong?
: Animals don't appear to have such an ability, yet it's apparent that
: humans do.

What makes you say that animals do not have the ability to choose
between right and wrong.  How do you not know that they (animals)
do not say the same thing about humans?  And I know lot's of people
who do not choose between right and wrong, simply because they do not
believe actions can be defined in terms of "right" and "wrong".  I
myself only use these terms in loose settings, for example, murder
is wrong, not because of any implicit "wrongness", but because of
my feelings on murder.

: SL>It seems to me, that if this can't be done then all this talk of
: SL>'free will' is meaningless/moot.
: 
:      What about the human ability to love?  Animals don't love nor do
: they have pride?  Can animals create?  Do they have an imagination? 
: In my opinion all these things add up to free will.

Are you sure animals cannot love?  How much experience do you have with
animals, anyway?  Can animals create?  Have you looked at some of the
termite mounds lately?  Animals don't have an imagination?  How did you
determine this?  I have seen many of the characteristics you say
are nonexistant in animals in animals.

--
  Trent Tobler - ttobler@unislc.slc.unisys.com ttobler@csulx.weber.edu
From: khan@davidsys.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Naqshbandiyya Sufi Master invites all
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:36:19 PST
Organization: DAVID Systems Inc, Sunnyvale CA





              INVITATION TO BASK IN THE LOVE AND 
                        THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUFI MASTERS!


      Whether you are from a Muslim background or a non-Muslim
background [Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, etc.],
you will experience unusual spirituality when you come to
our friendly gatherings. 

      Sufism deals with a universal truth, and cleansing 
of the Spiritual Heart, the Essence of every human being.

                 SHAIKH HISHAM KEBBANI
                 Naqshbandiyya Sufi Order
                 of Bukhara, Central Asia.

                 Phone: [415] 941-7916
                        [408] 425-1382 Dr. Wm. Sperrling
                        [408] 749-8322 Khalid Khan

      Weekly meetings at San Francisco South Bay [Silicon Valley]
and Oakland locations. 

      ALL INVITED, WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION, TO JOIN IN
OUR HALAQA, EVEN IF YOU TEND TO DISAGREE WITH THE SUFI
WAY OF APPRECIATING THIS UNIVERSE.




Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Women hating
Keywords: rape
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:31:31 GMT

Bev Beasly:
>>And where do you get off using that tone?  Do you think that these
>>crimes, be it rape, verbal, physical abuse, is the man's fault alone?

Er, yes. It is the man's fault and the man's fault only.
In the final analysis no matter what temptation the women may offer,
the man makes a *choice* to rape. And he, and he alone, is responsible
for that choice.

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Jesus was married (was: Re: did christ play with himself?)
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 04:51:33 GMT

(Achim Stoesser) writes:
>Jesus was married, says Theologist Dr. Barbara Thiering (Sydney 
>University)
>in her book "Jesus the Man" (Doubleday, London, to be published soon).
>She studied the Dead Sea Scrolls and found:
>  - His first wife was Mary Magdalene. They had a daughter before 
>	crucifixion
>    and two sons after. Then she left him.
>  - At crucifixion Jesus was doped (to simulate death).
>  - After that he lived for 30 years.
>  - His second wife was a Greek woman named Lydia.
>(source: dpa [German press agency]).
>I'd like to hear more, especially on what are Dr. Thiering's 
>conclusions based. 

Gregg Skinner:
>Aren't the Dead Sea Scrolls dated B.C.?

Gregg you hit the nail on the head here in bringing up the issue
of dating. Barbara Thiering's conclusions are based on two things :-

a) a different method of reading the scriptures and the scrolls in
particular in terms of allegorical and *political* meanings.

b) a dating of the scrolls that places them after the birth of
christ.

a) is just plain interesting.
b) however is even more interesting. That carbon dating of the scolls
puts them at 70 B.C (I think from memory), but dating like this is
only accurate to within 150 years either way. This means that the
scrolls could have been written any time between 220 BC and 80 AD,
which means that they *could* have been written after Jesus's
birth. Barbara Theiring justifies her post B.C dating using hand
writing analysis comparing the styles of writing around 70 B.C
(the date the tradition theory uses), and in the scrolls themselves.

The scrolls talk of two men, the "Wicked Priest" and the "Son of
Light". The traditional theory about these two men (based on a B.C
dating) is that they are John and Paul Macabeus. Barbara Thiering
contends that Jesus is the Wicked Priest and that John the Baptist
is The Son of Light.

The really funny thing about this whole thing is that when Barbara
Thiering released her theories in Australia the Church's official
line was that her theories were rubbish because they were based
on a guess as to the dating of the scrolls! I happened at a college
with a religious dean and he was rubbishing Thiering's work saying
that her theory was all guesswork because of this dating problem.
I turned to him and said "well the current theory is also based on
a guess at the dating". Needless to say the dinner was not a great
success! :-)

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Oh no, not again
Organization: University of Alaska
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 02:31:48 GMT

In article <22614@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM>, frazier@maxwell (Greg Frazier) writes:
> atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
> :     Now, I believe that I can walk out my office door right now and freely
> :     choose to turn either left or right.  God knows already, say, that I
> :     will turn left.  Under what circumstances can I exercise my free will
> :     and turn right?
> 
> I don't by this one at all.  Just because God knows which
> way you'll choose doesn't mean that you didn't fundamentally
> make the choice.  Yes, God knows right now what you will
> choose 10 minutes from now, but you still don't make the
> decision until 10 minutes from now, and when you do, it will
> be completely of your own volition.  Remember, the cat isn't
> dead 'til you open the box.
> 
> --
> 
> 
> Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier


    You still didn't answer my question.  You told me how I can step
    outside and "choose" to turn left, but UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES CAN I
    TURN RIGHT?  For if I can't decide to turn right, I have no free will.

    Don

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi)
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 22:11:42 GMT

In article <o189NB3w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
>> In article <graham.711589908@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) 
>> >A bird has higher complexity than an airplane?
>> 
>> No doubt about it.  Wanna bet? even an insect is much more complex
>> than a jumbo jet.  Man is able to construct an airplane, bute
>> he cannot create a bird. He would fail miserably to do so.
>
>We can't create an everlasting $10 bill, but we can create a Cray XMP
>supercomputer.  That doesn't mean a $10 bill is more complex than a Cray XMP.
>

Is the supercomputer everlasting?  probably 10 or 20 years from now
the Cray XMP design will be outdated and you will make fun of it.
But a bird or an insect are wonderful creatures that continue
to amaze man and continue to be studied by him.

>
>mathew
>-- 
>Ceci | n'est pas une pipe.


C'est quoi alors? une cigarette, put etre?
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: My "religous experience"....
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:27:34 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism.moderated
Organization: Boston University Physics Department

In article <1992Jul24.233307.12933@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:

>	I was brought up lutheran, and found out that Martin Luther
>once said...


>	that Jews should have..."all their cash and jewels and silver
>and gold"....and he then wanted "that their synagogues or
>schools be set on fire, that their houses be broken up and destroyed
>....and they be put under a roof or stable like the gypsies.....in
>mysery and captivity as they incessantly lament to God about us"...



Sounds like what Israeli religious right has been saying about the Palestinians
for fifty years now.



Gregg
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Moderated newsgroup
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 19:24:07 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

For those who are interested, 6 articles have gone out to the moderated
newsgroup so far:

1 Welcome to alt.atheism.moderated
2 Down-to-earth atheism
3 "A Brief History of Time"
4 "Agenda for Atheist : Why I am atheist"
5 Re: Atheism and culture
6 Re: Atheism and spiritual feelings (was Re: Atheism and culture)

They were cross-posted to alt.atheism, so you should have seen them.  Let me
know if you didn't; I can re-send stuff.

I've sent out a final attempt at a control message to get sites to create the
group.  Fingers crossed.  In the mean time, where are all the people who said
they wanted a moderated group?  Get mailing postings to
atheism@mantis.co.uk...


mathew
-- 
This disclaimer does not represent the views of Mantis Consultants Ltd

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: OFFENCE
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:35:42 GMT

(ken bell) writes:
>Hey, anybody who thinks that without God there can be no morality, doesn't
>know the first thing about morality. There would be no way of evaluating 
>any doctrine about God or any way of deciding whether something was a God 
>unless we already had some pre-existing and independent criteria for 
>deciding if something was good or evil.  A moral understanding is 
>necessarily prior to any religious assent.

If anybody in the "Islam interpretations" thread is reading this, then
think about it! This is exactly my point. All we have is interpretations
of the written word of the Islamic God, the Christian God, etc ...

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:02:44 GMT

zafar@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu  writes:

> On 27 Jul 92 19:52:56 GMT, trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) said:
> 
> 
>> In part you are right when you say man cannot create a bird.  However,
>> the modifier placed on the end of your statement should be "yet":
>>      
>>     "Man CANNOT create a bird, /yet/."
>>      

> 		*****paragraph copied below****

>> Also, if I may ask, even if birds do provide an invaluable service to
>> the ecosystem (which, I believe, they do), how does this imply a god
>> was needed to create them, if created they were?  Please explain.
>>      

> Didn't you answer this yourself in the your preceding paragraph. (here it is)

>>      
>> Give humans time-- it may be another hundred years or so, but I think
>> man /will/ be able to create life and eventually specific life forms,
>         ^^^  ^^^^  ^^ ^^^^
>> even birds.
> 
> It is going to take someone to create Artificial Birds, isn't it? Or did you 
> mean to say that today's "Airplanes" will evolve and become Birds!

First of all, why would birds created by man (if and when they ever do make
     them) be artificial?  They could/would be living, breathing creatures,
     made up of the same atomic and molecular materials that go into presently
     existing creatures.  Think of it as the vitamin should be thought of:
     yes, vitamins occur naturally in many things (both plants and animals);
     however, man can make /exactly/ the same thing-- you would not be able
     to tell the difference, say, between vitamin C as produced in nature
     and vitamin C as produced by man.  So what makes one vitamin more
     artificial than the other?  Please explain (because I'm tending to
     believe that your faith in a god leads you to differentiate, when there
     is no difference).
     
Secondly, by saying "it is going to take someone to create Artificial Birds"
     does not imply the necessity of a god.  The way I see it, all that man
     is doing is manipulating molecules to come up with the same material
     and processes which nature has already "built".
     
But if nature "built" a bird, as well as other life forms, does this imply
     a god?  Not really.  Nature, as far as we know, has no conscious;
     nature is man's explanation for those things that occur around us, free
     (for the most part) from man's intervention, whether it be life, 
     volcanic eruptions, or atomic collisions.  Thus "nature" may just be
     a process or a part of the universe; this in no way implies a god's
     existence.  If it does imply any deity's existence, I would /love/
     to see this implication.
     
> Zafar Kazmi

Trajan
From: che755v@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Carl's example (was Re: Bush interview)
Date: 28 Jul 92 12:12:53 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

In article <1992Jul27.142127.7867@cco.caltech.edu>,
 carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>
>               Consider an analogy:  If I told you that an astronomer had made
> some observations of the 1988 supernova, you'd have little reason to doubt my
                           ^^^^
> statement.  If, on the other hand, I told you that the astronomer had made the
> observations at Palomar observatory, you'd be damned certain that I'd got part
> of the story wrong, which would cast doubt on the rest of what I reported about
> it.

Do you mean supernova 1987A, which I believe could only be seen from the
southern hemisphere, hence the unlikelyhood of someone observing it from
the Palomar Observatory??

Peter D. Thomas
Centre for  High Resolution Spectroscopy and Opto-Electronic Technology
Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 11:16:14 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

johndunk@wpi.WPI.EDU (John Dunkelberg) writes:
> In article <TaLuNB11w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> >Ah, so now you're saying that God has to do things which he doesn't want to
> >do -- that, given that we are to have free will, he has to allow the book to
> >be transcribed inaccurately even if he doesn't want to.
> >
> >But that contradicts his being "omnipotent", surely?
> 
> Not at all.  You current have the power to pick up a heavy object and
> smash the CRT in front of you.  But you "allowed" the screen not to be
> smashed... however, this does not mean you are not capable of completing
> the action.
> 
> Because an omnipotent being chooses not to act does not mean that they
> are incapable of that action.

So you're saying God chooses to allow the book to be transcribed
inaccurately?


mathew
[ That's actually exactly the position that Gregg Skinner denied with the
  comment that God has to do things he doesn't want to do.  But I'm happy to
  go back a couple of articles and start a new branch off from this thread,
  if you want to defend that position.  Please don't try to evade in
  circles, though. ]
-- 
Down, boy!  There's a good dogma.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mitchell@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (DeWayne Mitchell)
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Organization: National Severe Storms Laboratory
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:11:53 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.181743.25328@leland.Stanford.EDU> yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:
>At the risk of being accused of "denigrating religion"...
>
>In article <1992Jul28.063335.8435@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, Matthew Trevor <mtrevor@nyx.cs.du.edu> writes:
>|> 
        Stuff deleted.....


>
>Would Christianity have survived without the (concept of) 
>divinity for Christ?  The survival of the institution has 
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>become more important than the reason for being of the 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>institution itself.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

However, being OF the institution IS the survival of the institution.

>
>-- 
>Dan Yergeau                         He's dead Jim.  Take his phaser
>yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU        and I'll get his wallet.

DeWayne
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Judgement
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:16:11 GMT

Graham:
>PS: can anyone tell me how to put Khan into my kill file (I
>don't have one at present but ... )

(Bob Beauchaine) writes:
>  What? Knan getting into your kill file before Jarek?  C'mon,
>  Graham, you're slipping!

Jarek was saved from the kill file because at times it can be
hilarious to watch him twist and turn to avoid admitting that he
has got it wrong. Khan is just plain boring.

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
From: tke@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (thomas.j.epstein)
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:42:25 GMT

In article <kXawNB2w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>> There's something wrong here, unless my memory is very badly off.  Unless I'm
>> very badly mistaken, George Bush was elected to the Presidency in November of
>> 1988, and inaugurated in January of 1989, yet this entry in the FAQ quotes
>> Robert Sherman as addressing Bush as "Mr. President" in the interview.
>
>Someone's already pointed it out.  Personally I suspect that the interview
>was transcribed from a TV report, and that the greeting was indistinct enough
>that the transcriber had to guess at what it was...
>
>Until someone has a better suggestion, I plan to delete those two words and
>leave the rest as is.
>
>
>mathew

Let me see if I got this right:  The article reports the interviewer 
addressing the not-as-of-yet President as, "Mr. President."  This
might be an indication that there was a typographical error, or it
might be an indication that the entire article was a poorly-done
hoax. In fact, it could be indicative of many things. The only thing
it demonstrates with any clarity, is that the original article contains
an inconsistancy which at the least renders the report suspect.

You have your own personal guess on the cause of the inconsistency
and seem to find that wild guess so lame that you need to solicit "a
better suggestion" from usenet readers. Armed with no evedence whatsoever,
rather than seeking the truth of the matter, you choose to  delete (falsify,
corrupt, intentionally mis-inform, LIE ABOUT) a portion of the "information"
which you intend to propagate.  Integrety! 

Please be advised of the following:

	1: This puts you on a believability level equal to that of
	   Robert Tilton, W.V. Grant and other less-than-forthright folks.

	2. If you broadcast your intent to lie about things, you 
	   shouldn't be surprised if folks think you are not only
	   a dishonest liar, but a stupid, dishonest liar.

Tom ----------------------- tke@cbnewsg.cb.att.com