HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: singram@eng.auburn.edu (Scott Ingram)
Subject: Re: The origin of Religion
Reply-To: singram@eng.auburn.edu
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 06:29:44 GMT


>
>    How reasonable is it to expect a person with almost no scientific knowledge
>to spontaneosly come up with the concept of god(s)?  Specifically the person in
>mind is the original person or people who first came up with religion.  Most
>of us atheists will assert that a child brought up without religious influence
>will naturally tend towards atheism, but in this case, the child would have at
>least a basic understanding of science.  For example, even if he couldn't 
>explain why lightening occurs, he would know it was electricity.  To a
>caveman, a god would be a very likely explanation for lightening.  But if the
>caveman had never even heard of the concept of god(s), how likely would it be
>for him to come up with it himself?  Obviously (to an atheist at least) it
>happened at least once, but how (un)lucky was it that it happened.  Did all
>religions then come from this one original (un)lucky guess, or is it actually
>a probable enough circumstance, that there are multiple original religions? 
>If we ever encounter another sentient race, is it probable that they will
>have a religion whether in history only, or still alive, or will the concept
>of religion be completely new to them?
>							Ian Konen

Well, I think you (and all similar posts) are missing something on this
argument. The `original' cavemen did not just postulate Christianity.

What were the oldest gods? Fire. Nature. Animals. The Sun. The Moon. Water.
With these VISIBLE deities before ancient men, the groundwork was laid.
As man advanced, his need for a higher being advanced. As he learned of
the substances around him, and saw that fire and lightning weren't gods, 
he created new gods that controlled these forces.

Religion has evolved just like everything else. Its just many people don't
realize it (Especially fundies. I had someone tell me that the Church of God
was not only the only TRUE form of Christianity, it was also the first. Not 
exactly a fundie (the bible can refute that argument) but ignorant nonetheless.

Orion
From: rdumain@igc.apc.org (Ralph Dumain)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: BLACK ATHEISM
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:03:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1297200004:000:1786
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!rdumain    Nov  4 21:03:00 1992


From: Ralph Dumain <rdumain>
Subject: BLACK ATHEISM

My participation in the USENET conference SOC.CULT.AF.AM, topic 5
-- PRIESTS AND PEDOPHILIA (response 1) brings up an important
issue: the role of religion in retarding the development of
Africans and Black Americans.  It is time to break the taboo in
the black community against this issue once and for all.  Here are
some points for discussion.  Negative responses are not welcome.

(1) I (and some of my colleagues on local echoes) would like to
hear from Black atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, skeptics,
anticlericalists, secular humanists, and others inclined or
sympathetic to such views, regarding your thoughts and personal
experiences regarding religion and unbelief.

(2) There is a new organization (the first of its kind) called
AFRICAN AMERICANS FOR HUMANISM, dedicated to promoting black
secular humanism and uncovering the suppressed history of black
freethought.  There is a quarterly newsletter, AAH EXAMINER.  For
further information, you can contact: Norm R. Allen, Jr.; African
Americans for Humanism; P.O. Box 664; Buffalo, NY 14226.  You may
also be interested in his book AFRICAN AMERICAN HUMANISM: AN
ANTHOLOGY, also the first of its kind.  (I have no proprietary
interest in this enterprise whatever.)

(3) The history of black freethought is extraordinarily difficult
to research, since it is the one area of black history effectively
suppressed by blacks themselves.  (You crybabies out there can't
pin this one on whites.)  We need to supplement the scanty list of
noted black freethinkers found in the anthology mentioned above.
I can add to this list the Black Americans Lorraine Hansberry and
most likely Paul Robeson, and the Trinidadian C.L.R. James.  Those
of you with information please respond.
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
Date: 10 Nov 92 06:14:05 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Nov08.212152.20899@bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:
>How is logical proof different from scientific proof?
>Does science need to deal with the physical to be
>"scientific"?  Is math not scientific?
>Anyone?

Logic and science are not synonymous. Logic is often described as
the science of valid argument, but the connotation of the phrase
'scientific proof' is, I think, unsuitable to describe the
Cogito argument. I think that, rather, the Cogito is essentially
a tautology, valid in the same sense that 1+1=2 is valid; i.e.,
given the definitions of the terms involved in the proposition,
'I think' necessarily implies 'I am'. 

Conventionally, scientific 'proofs' are not tautological in
nature, but are, instead, in the form of data that confirm
or disconfirm predictions made by theories or hypotheses.
One can criticize a scientific proof on the basis of either
the reasoning involved in the predictions or the interpretation
of data, or on the basis of the quality of data or the method
of its gathering. One can criticize a logical proof only
on the basis of the validity of its structure.

The Cogito is logically valid, but we cannot know whether its
conclusion is true unless we define the terms used ('I,'
'think,' 'exist') and find some correspondence between them and
the world about which we purport to reason. At very least,
I think that the notion of 'I' deserves some attention, as
I don't think it's all that well defined. I think that,
scientifically, the best we can say on the basis of the
Cogito is that it shows that, because some process gave rise
to the formulation of the argument, and to its consideration,
there must exist some process capable of giving rise to
such things.
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: what is marantha?
Date: 8 Nov 92 18:13:55 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1992Nov7.212506.6637@nmsu.edu>, by epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS):
> In article <1992Nov2.4600.24754@dosgate> "capsco one" <capsco.one@canrem.com>  
> writes:
>> Does anyone here know anything about a Christian cult named Marantha?

Cult?
[deleted parade report]

>> I had forgotten all about this group until I read a newspaper article
>> about the Rapture that never was.  It listed the names of some groups
>> involved in the "end of time" prediction, and the name Marantha was
>> there.  Who are these people?  How big is this cult?
>> 
>> Joe deSousa                        I don't speak for CAPSCO

> 
> 	I've never heard of it.  Are you sure it is Marantha and not
> MaranAtha?  
> I know "maranatha" means something like "Come again soon, Lord
> Jesus" or something like that.  I was just thinking that it might
> be difficult to find info if the spelling's wrong.
> 
> 						Erik Powers

There is an organization called "Maranatha", which does mean "our
Lord, come!" or "do come quickly, Lord!"  The organization with
which I was familiar here in Tucson, Arizona was a group of zealous
believers that was not, in my judgment, a "cult", although my knowledge
is at least 5 years old, and I cannot ascertain your intent in using
the term "cult".  The people in my church who came from a Maranatha
background would not tolerate anti-biblical teaching that is
characteristic of what we call "cults".  Such teaching would include
predicting the date of the rapture, or the Lord's return.  Jesus 
himself said that even he did not know the date and time.

I do not know anything more about Maranatha, but would agree that
the behavior you described is offensive and obnoxious.


--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The origin of Religion
Date: 4 Nov 92 15:02:10 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <1992Nov2.204911.20068@news.acns.nwu.edu> ikonen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Ian Konen) writes:

>    How reasonable is it to expect a person with almost no scientific knowledge
>to spontaneosly come up with the concept of god(s)?  Specifically the person in
   [munched]
>caveman had never even heard of the concept of god(s), how likely would it be
>for him to come up with it himself?  Obviously (to an atheist at least) it

Our caveman is trying to explain observed phenomena.  Superficially, many 
phenomena look as though some   intent   is involved. This implies 
personality or something like it.  And then it is but a short step.....


  You don't have to work to be mad here      email: d.budd@mcc.ac.uk
  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44|0)61-275-6033  
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rz@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Richard Zach)
Subject: Re: Don't believe anything you hear!
Reply-To: zach@csdec1.tuwien.ac.at
Organization: Technische Universit"at Wien
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:40:39 GMT

In article <19245.2afd9a59@levels.unisa.edu.au>, 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon) writes:
|> In article <Bx7B51.6Dz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, @expert.cc.purdue.edu
|> (adamsma@expert.cc.purdue.edu) writes:
|> 
|> [some crap that Mr Schneider has already dealt with deleted]
|> 
|> > P.S.  If you don't believe that it gets dark at night, does that keep it from
|> > getting dark? 

Yes.


More precisely, it is consistent that it does not get
dark (How do you want to prove the converse to me?).
It would conflict with my (or your, or physics')
well-esteblished model of reality, though, but that
is another matter.

-- 
Richard Zach                         Technische Universitaet Wien
[zach@csdec1.tuwien.ac.at]     Abteilung fuer Formale Logik 185.2
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: morality????????
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 12 Nov 92 03:19:08 EST
 <ednclark.721007809@kraken> <10693@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> <ednclark.721456609@kraken>
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <ednclark.721456609@kraken>, ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
> bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>>In article <ednclark.721007809@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
> 
>>  Unless you catch the criminal with the smoking gun in his hands
>>  and the body on the ground, are you comfortable sending innocent
>>  people to permanent exile?  Or death?  I still say the capital
>>  punishment argument is premised on a perfect justice system which
>>  never makes mistakes.  I'm sure you've heard the argument that our
>>  judicial system is set up so that a few guilty men go free rather
>>  than convict an innocent man.  If only this were true.
> 
> I'm afraid that if it improves the peoples lives to the dramatic extent I
> beleive it would then innocent sacrifice may be necessary. As mentioned in
> another post we accept horrendous numbers of  innocents dying in car
> accidents to have the right to convenient transportation. Why not the
> exilement or execution of some innocents to gaurantee societies protection
> from people who will remove you rights at anytime.

   But does it actually improve society?  Is the death penalty really 
worthwhile as a deterrent or a preventer of repeat offense?  I know 
that there are statistics that go both for and against this argument,
so which do you believe?

>>>No gaurds, no doctors, no tvs, no electricity, no guns,
>>>nothing, just a picket to make sure no-one gets in with a method to get
>>>out and who cares if they get overcrowded.
> 
>>  With this level of compassion, it's no wonder you're pro capital
>>  punishment.
> 
> Exactly, I have no compassion for people who have violated violently the
> rights of innocents. 

   Sorry, this directly conflicts with your previous statements about
accepting execution of some innocent people for the good of society.  
What sort of compassion do you have for the innocents who are executed?
Also, if an innocent person is executed there are no more appeals and 
the real criminal gets off scot free.

   You make a note that you know victims of rape and murder, and about
the emotional damage it has caused.  But what if you were going to be
executed for a crime you didn't commit?  Is that any less of a crime?
I suspect you would change your position pretty quick if that were the
case.

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:32:05 CST

In article <1992Nov10.034324.6934@bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:
>>>I think I understand how you split logic vs. science. My view of
>>>what "science" is might have been too broad.  One question, though...
>>>could you give some examples of mathematical first principles not
>>>dependent (or derived) from observation?
>>>That might clear things up for me.
>
>>The parallel postulate.
>
>Do you mean that the concept of parallel lines does not originate
>from observation, or is it the fact that the postulate is formed
>without using observed phenomenon as part of the proof?
>
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Question: Who was the first non-euclidean geometrist?
Answer: Euclid.

For those mathematically disabled (illiterate) persons out there, the
parallel postulate is one of Euclid's 6 basic postulates on which high
school geometry is formed.  You have a line and a point outside the
line.  How many lines through that point can be drawn, parallel to the
original line?  Euclid said 1.  You can also say 0.  You can also say 2.
If you say 2, you can trivially prove infinitely many.  All three are
equally valid geometries.  (Proven).

A POSTULATE IS NOT PROVEN!!!!!!

Granted that the other 5 of Euclid's postulates of geometry are easy to accept,
but they are accepted without proof.  That is the definition of an axiom or
postulate.  

What the example means is that when you look at the diagram, you will likely
say what Euclid said, that only one new line is possible || to the original
line.  BUT, it is valid to say something else, and you don't have to prove it.
It is very definitely a mathematical foundation.  That one postulate alone
is the dividing point of three different branches of geometry.
:)M^2
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: MMLJ
Date: 13 Nov 92 20:07:39 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA09665; Fri, 13 Nov 92 10:07:57 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA25733; Fri, 13 Nov 92 10:07:40 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)   with BSMTP id 0528; Fri, 13 Nov 92 19:07:00 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

Mathew typed:
>> And though I assume that those who deny the existence of concentration camps
>> do so for selfish motives, there are still many who are simply dumb enough
>> to believe these argumentators.
>Right.  But ignoring the intellectually dishonest and those too stupid to
>understand an argument or examine data, is it possible to argue about whether
>an event of that size actually happened?

My opinion is there is a random factor of dumbness in humanity. Being
intelligent is no safeguard against those fallacies. I have seen people I
appreciate fall for equally dumb/dishonest arguments.

Christians generally assume that the four guys who wrote down the deeds of a
certain jesus were not dumb/dishonest/suckers for 'godly' interference with
their lives. I think they are wrong.
   Benedikt
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:20979 talk.religion.misc:20799
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: atheism and morals and dating
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:23:50 GMT

In article <6LJ5TB7w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> Er, there are western Buddhists too.

	Point taken.  But I don't personally know any.  No, scratch
that - I do know one, but he's already married (like me, he's married
to a Thai wife [what a coincidence!]).

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.                                  +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
                 "When Hell freezes over and I'm invited to the skating party."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:17:17 EST
From: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God Is Silly

In article <n0de5t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org says:
>
> I don't care if I have no evidence that God does
>not exist, though I assert God does not exist. I assert the negative,
>and it is up to the theist, whom asserts the positive, to produce the
>evidence.

Where do you get this? Does no one understand that there are more than
two sides to this? Anyone who asserts something had better be prepared
to back it up. I don't understand why you think that the other side has
to prove you wrong. As if you can assert a belief and get away with it.
Both sides, since they are asserting something, need to prove their
assertions. Otherwise, I'm left with nothing at all--my present stance.

Martin Schulte
From: J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Archetypes and Genetics (Was: Re: The origin of Religion
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:21:10 GMT
 <1992Nov06.094608.20334@bmerh85.bnr.ca> <92311.135304J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Nov07.205415.18185@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Nov07.205415.18185@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca
(Douglas Graham) says:
>
>In article <92311.135304J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
>writes:
[much interesting discussion deleted to save space]
>>It would be presumptuous of me to attempt a proper summary of the theory
>>of archetypes in a brief post.  But, essentially, archetypal symbols
>>represent issues of universal human concern (birth, initiation into
>>adulthood, marriage, death, etc.).  When shared by a group in the form
>>of myths, legends, and religious rituals, archetypes provide a
>>psychological linkage among the group members, leading to solidarity
>>and, for the individual, reassurance and comfort.  I think all properly
>>educated persons should read some Jung.  Give it a go.
>
>I shall give it a go.  But I've got one more question.  I thought that
>these archetypes were supposed to be things that we inherited genetically
>rather than culturally.  You can't really be saying that there is some
>information in our genes about initiation into adulthood or marriage
>can you?  If I'm mistaken in my assumption that we're talking about
>genetic inheritance, then I have no quarrel with any of this.  I have
>no doubt that I've got a lot of cultural baggage in my head that I
>don't know about.  But if that's the case, I can't see how cultural
>inheritance is relevant to whether or not people are naturally atheists.

Jung is not a clear writer and appears at times to be a Lamarkian rather
than a Darwinian, so he is of little help in answering the questions
about genetics.  I wouldn't say that genes program an archetype for
*marriage* per se, but rather for pair-bonding.  Also, I don't think
we have a genetically based archetype for specific adult initiation
rituals, but rather an archetype for competition and cooperation within
a dominance hierarchy.  I think we have both genetic and cultural
baggage to deal with in achieving atheism.  I continue to regard
atheism as a real intellectual achievement, not something we are born
with or that comes naturally.  If atheism were that easy, there would
be more of us.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat)
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Keywords: Cure
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 16:48:21 EST



>|> I am interested in making this world a better place to live, and in
>|> order to do so I think it would be beneficial if this group would
>|> think about ways of helping those who have religious leanings.  I do
>|> relize it would be inapropriate to lock up all Christians, Muslems, etc.
>|> in insane asylums, but surely there must be some way of stopping this
>|> defective mindset(s).  Perhaps we should start with the most severly
>|> disturbed individuals, such as priests and other religous leaders.
>|> I think maybe someone could establish an anonymous "Believer" line.
>|> This should be staffed by a psychologist and would give the Believer a
>|> reality check (sort of a first step towards mental health).
>|> I would like to hear some other suggestions - something that an individual
>|> could do to cure a Believer.  Lets see some action please!  
>
>Whoa! Down boy! Live and Let Live!
>
>
Seems to me a Believer is a lot like an Alcoholic.  They are both 
unreasonable and the more drunk they get the more irrational their
actions become.  After all we do try to help alcoholics and drug
addicts, so why shouldn't we try to help Believers.  
Ever play that game where someone tells a word to his neighbor and
he in turn tells it to the next person until it comes back to the
first person and often the word is totally different.  Sort of like
the bible ...  Makes you kinda wonder if they even got the name (Jesus)
right.  I wouldn't bet on it.
From: hbcs1010@blurt.oswego.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: re: Homosexuality - genetic?
Date: 4 Nov 92 20:23:46 GMT
Organization: SUNY College at Oswego, Oswego, NY

how can homosexuality be genetic? forgive me if i'm diplaying my ignorance
here, but isn't it a bit difficult for a homosexual to be the biological parent
of a child? the last time i checked, the most likely cause of homosexuality, at
least for males, was abnormally high estrogen levels in the mother during
pregnancy. but then again, that was a while ago.

 just thought i'd toss that in.........

-diedre hauptfuehrer

there's a hell of a universe next door- let's go!
                                                 e.e. cummings
Newsgroups: alt.atheism