HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date:  6 Jan 93 00:48:33 GMT

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:

>martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:

>> If Man was created only thousands of years ago, and we are all
>> descended from common stock... why is there such a wide variety
>> in our genetic pool today?

>Man was not created only thousands of years ago, but has existed almost
>since the beginning of the present cycle of creation, some billions of
>years ago.

Can I please see proof of human existence beyond 500,000 years ago!
Good Luck, because there is none!

>> Do you believe that the ancestors of people as diverse as South
>> American forest pygmies, Zulus, Europeans and Japanese were the
>> same as yours only a few thousand years ago?  If you do (and you
>> must, if you take the Bible at all seriously) then you must believe
>> a great deal of evolution has occurred since then.  If not, I 
>> would like to hear your arguments.

>These are not different species. They are all members of a single
>species. There has been no evolution of homo sapiens into different
>species. In fact, there are 400,000 species of human-like beings
>throughout the universe, and they do not evolve into or from one
>another, but have existed separately since the beginning of the kalpa.

S\He never said they were different species (nor wrote it either).  How does
one explain the genetic similarities that correlate so highly with
geographical closeness, chance? design? or is it possibly common ancestry?
How does one explain the modern trend of gene pool leaking (or should I say
outbreaking) between races.  How does one explain the extinction of races?

>> If you do admit this much evolution can take place in such a short
>> time (hundreds of generations) then what objections can you take
>> against the extension of the idea to the theory of Darwinian
>> evolution as it stands today?

>Darwinian evolution means evolution of species. It is a false

S\He wrote "as it stands today", therefore it does not necessarily involve
speciation. Gene pools can change markedly without speciation. I really
beleive you should study a lot more about evolution before casually
dismissing one of the most successful theories of all time.

>explanation of how there came to be many different species. The example
>you gave is not pertinent to Darwinian evolution, for it does not
>describe different species.

>Sincerely,
>Kalki Dasa

You can't go around asserting things without proof. Most of all you can't go
around dismissing things whilst remaining ignorant of them. You could be
right, I don't know, but I'd like to see some proof.

Jeff.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: joann@ariadne.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Jo Ann Malina)
Subject: Re: did I like miss your point?
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 10:45:41 GMT

In article <root.726160682@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>joann@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Jo Ann Malina) writes:
>
>>They weren't calling on the deity of THEIR choice. The reading from the
>>book of Genesis on Christmas by the Apollo 10 astronauts was written
>>into their log by NASA. It was the mandating of this reading by the
>>government that was objected to. (Note that even though it was
>>supposedly an expression of some sort of Christmas spirit, it came
>>from the Old Testament.)
>
>Huh?  Because something is recored in the logs (as it everything should be
>on such a mission), that was 'mandating the reading by the government'?
>Ya know, I'm all for a separation of govt & religion, but this kind of
>complaint is ridiculous, as were O'Hare's attempts to ban ANY public
>display of religion.

Sorry, by log, I meant "list of things you will do on this mission,"
prepared by NASA for the astronauts to follow during their flight.
You know, 12:00:00 Comb hair. 12:01:00 Talk to Walter Cronkite.
12:02:00 Read from Bible. It was made to sound like a spontaneous
effusion of feelings suitable to the season; in fact, they were only
following orders. That is what O'Hair objected to, and so do I.
If it had been spontaneous on their part, it would have been less
offensive (and might even have had something to do with Christmas).


*) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *)!(* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (*
Jo Ann Malina, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Neither Stanford nor the DOE would be caught dead with these opinions.
Nor do they consult me when formulating theirs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.     -Bill Clinton
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: lucio@phyrql.Alt.ZA (Lucio de Re)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Reply-To: lucio@proxima.Alt.ZA
Organization: MegaByte Digital Communications
Distribution: world,public
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 07:31:45 GMT

ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:

>lucio@phyrql.Alt.ZA (Lucio de Re) writes:

>Lucio de Re, though an atheist you be, I cannot tolerate threats being made
>to people on any net newsgroup.  These are open public forums and people can
>talk about their piles if they want to.  Threatening people is just an
>invasion of the most cherished part of net news, the right to say anything
>without fear of reprisal. So John, though I heartily disagree with
>everything you said, and you do frighten me a little (though only as much as
>other ardent fundies have), you have as much right to post on this newsgroup
>as anybody else and don't let anybody frighten you from it. If anybody
>threatens you privately, e-mail me and I'll get on to the right people who
>can help you out.

I'm mortified.  The posting I don't quite have the gall to reproduce
slipped in a fit of anger and is unlikely (but not altogether certain)
to happen again.

My apologies to all those who may have found it offensive, and feel free
to take me to task should it happen again.
-- 
Lucio de Re (lucio@phyrql.Alt.ZA)
The supernatural does not exist, but it gives me the creeps...
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25019 alt.atheism.moderated:497 news.answers:4940
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: Why? (was Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER)
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:06:18 GMT


In article <ano.726497533@reading>, ano@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk (Adrian Ogden) writes:
|> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
|> 
|> >Without free will, we are just robots.  God already has the angels to do
|> >His every whim.  God intended much more for us.  We were meant to be His
|> >companions for eternity.  Could you live an eternity with someone who
|> >didn't want to be with you?  He wanted us to choose to live an eternity
|> >with Him.  He gives us that choice.  He won't force it upon us.
|> 
|> Giving someone the choice between staying with Him and being burned in
|> hell doesn't strike you as trying to force us? If He wanted to know who
|> was truly sincere about wanting to be with Him then why not offer a more
|> palatable alternative for those who don't actually love Him above all
|> other things but would prefer His company to being subjected to horrible
|> pain for all eternity?
|> 
|> <<  Adrian Ogden -- "Sic Biscuitus Disintegrat" -- ano@csres.cs.rdg.ac.uk  >>
People seem to have a misconception of the nature of Hell.  It is not a fire pit
or a torture chamber with chains and hot pokers as society has illustrated it.
Hell is the total abscence of God.  Within each of us resides a small part of
God.  Some people refer to it as their conscience.  For one who is banished to
Hell, God removes His presence entirely.  It is the pain of separation from God
that causes the torment of Hell.  Hell is being without God.

I came to believe in God because I came to realize that I couldn't live without
Him any longer.  And because He loved me first, I came to love Him back.  He has
made my joy complete.
From: news@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: THANKS (Re: An open question on the A.A FAQ/Intro ...)
Date: 4 Jan 93 15:07:24 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


        Since I may not be able to write back to everyone personally, this
    posting is just to say "thanks", en mass, to everyone who either posted
    a reply, or sent me an e-mail reply, to the question I posted.

        All of the replies were well thought out and flame-free.  I
    sincerely appreciate the effort everyone put into expressing their
    thoughts.

        Just to reiterate, my question was:

>        Q:  For anyone (currently an atheist) who has had this experience
>            (having spent time in prayer trying to reach God), what did it
>            mean for you to have tried to reach God?  (In other words what
>            were you praying for and what sort of answer were you hoping
>            to receive?)

         I got several answers that went beyond this question, into why you
    are now an atheist.  I appreciated these answers; and not only that,
    but they made me wish I had also asked the more general question, if
    you believed in God at one time, why are you an atheist now?

         If anyone would care to answer this question by e-mail, again, I'd
    be willing to listen.  I ask mainly because I simply am interested.
    (And yes, I've read the FAQ -- but that's not very personal, and
    doesn't really speak to every atheist's personal experience.)  As
    before, no flames or diatribes, please.  In return, unless you ask me
    to answer some particular question, I guarantee not to use your replies
    as an excuse to blast you with my own views.  (I do, however, think it
    reasonable to reserve the right to ask a followup question or two if
    I'm unclear on anything said.)

                                                            regards,
                                                            -mark.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ehamrick@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Eric N Hamrick)
Subject: Book by Teeple
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:42:55 GMT



          I am curious if anyone here has read Howard M. Teeple's
     book: How did Christianity Really Begin ?   I have it sitting
     on my desk right now and am wondering how much time I should
     devote to it.

                                        Thanks,
                                             Eric
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: petel@sequent.com (Pete Lancashire)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 22:46:09 GMT

mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>Love God.  Love your neighbour as yourself.  Do not murder.  Do not bear false
>witness.  Do not commit adultery.  Do not covet thy neighbour's possessions.
>Do you find fault with any of these?  What is wrong about being a Christian?
>Is your life diminished in any way by following these rules?  What have you got
>to lose?

why do I have to be a christian to have these beleifs ? (except for the
first one) Are not these just examples of being a moral (sp?) person or
society ?

>What do you believe?  Where is your book of life?
Why do I need a 'book of life' ?

-pete
Pete Lancashire
petel@sequent.com
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Please Colleen Please!
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:14:05 GMT

In article <12280@hogg.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
}In article <1993Jan7.151022.14332@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>- count it as one of my miracles, and from that positive evidence
}
}I thought light was positive evidence, and darkness was negative.

Don't listen to fundies much?

}>attribute by dietyhood.
}
}And from Thy inability to spell "deityhood" what shall be attributed?

That, unlike Yahweh, I don't bother about the small stuff.  If you want to
steady a cart, I will not strike you deat, for instance.

}>The proof is much like that or others who make claims of "miracles".
}
}Yes, except that some of them start by claiming that they have created
}everything and then keep very quiet when things such as darkness,
}death, violence, suffering and so on are brought up.  It is refreshing
}to see a God who really admits being at the root of all creation.

See also "who created evil".
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Date: 10 Jan 93 22:22:49 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1993Jan9.191326.22857@arden.linet.org> joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter) writes:
>In article <1es802I931=e01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan8.004445.17608@arden.linet.org> joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter) writes:
>>>
>>
>>Actually you've got it wrong. They just see no reason to believe in any
>>god or religion. Life works just as well without any religion or god, and
>>they don't have the hangups that adherence to a religion often brings.
>
>I see no difference.  

Is there a purple cadillac presently parked in front of 20525
Mariani Avenue in Cupertino, California? I see no reason to
believe so. Thus, I am an a-purple-cadillac-parked-in-front-
of-20525-Mariani-Avenue-Cupertino-California-ist. On the
other hand, I have no particular faith that there is not
such a car parked there, and would not resist the idea if
you were to inform me of it. However, if asked to
bet something of value on the proposition then I would like to
be able to examnine the evidence before making any committment
on the matter. If no compelling evidence either way were
reliable then I would remain an a-purple-etc.-ist and decline
to participate in the bet.

>Non-beleif is Belief in that non-belief.  

No it isn't. It is absence of belief. Do you believe that there
is a group of plastic strips attached to the left leg of the
table my computer rests on? I'll bet you had no belief about
it one way or the other before I asked the question. I don't
know now whether you have any beliefs about it. In fact, I
don't believe that you believe they are there, and I don't
believe that you believe they are not there. How about that;
I am also an a-Joe-believes-in-plastic-strips-on-my-table-leg-ist.

>Sorry to burst yer bubble but your faith that God is
>not there is no different than my faith he is.

I have no faith that God is not. I just have no reason to believe
that God is. Perhaps you should read the FAQ, which has an entry
discussing exactly this point. It would save you lots of time
and effort, if your really only want to understand what atheists
think about matters such as these.

>Heres a bright suggestion!  If you don't want to hear people talking about
>their stupid religion THEN DON'T ASK THEM ABOUT IT!!!!  Pretty simple eh?

It would be if it worked. It doesn't.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 05:25:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.191155.6570@cs.ucla.edu> pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:
>Racism is the pseudoscience (akin to astrology and phrenology) of
>dividing the human species into subspecies called "races", supposedly
>decisively different biologically. Delusions that "race" determines
>psychocultural traits and capacities, that some "race" is inherently
>superior to some other "race", that some "race" has the right to dominate
>other "races", as well as the political systems based on such delusions,
>are a natural chain of symptoms that will only find permanent relief
>in the uprooting of the underlying cause, namely a belief in racism.
>
>-- Brad Pierce --
>
Oriental people tend to be shorter and black people tend to have bigger
cocks.  These are facts.  Facts are not racism.  Buy yourself a dictionary!
Now as for "superiority" and "right", these are non terms.  They don't mean
anything without a reference, and you give nothing.  Do you truly equate 
evolution with racism?  You wouldn't by any chance be a creationist would
you? I'd be impressed if you weren't.  Usually people need strong motivation
to come up with anything as paranoid, rabid, incoherent and policitally
correct as your statement.  Fanatic irrational arguments are truly the bain
of modern man.  If people would judge their beliefs by test of reason instead
of how pink and rosy it makes the world to them, well, hell we wouldn't even
have this newsgroup to keep us occuppied.

Orientals are superior because they have to shave less.
Blacks are superior because they have a great permanent tan.
Women are superior because they are prettier.
Men are superior because they are stonger.
Women are superior because they are weaker and develop brains instead of biceps

Get the point?  Superior needs a reference.

Women have a right to dominance because women are superior.

Get the point?  Right needs a reference.

If you agree with me, CONFESS!!!! If you don't, ARTICULATE!!!!

-Nick
( Hail the Glorious Resolution! )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:42:44 GMT

In article <C0rCyp.46G@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>Why is it that everyone believes that it was God who did the "original sin"?
Huh?
God merely created beings which he knew would sin, and then punished
them for it. 

>Was Adam a mental robot as well as Eve, that God sat up in heaven with his 
>control switches and forced them to do something?
Not necessarily, but God nevertheless knew what he was going to do.
He could have created an Adam that wouldn't do it, (omnipotent, right?)
but chose not to.

>As to God not "atoning" for all of humanity, the beauty is that His payment is
>sufficient to cover all of humanity, if they want it.  God is not a Divine 
>Rapist, He does not force is love on everyone, He gives them a free choice.
He merely visits the most horrible punishment available on those who
do don't want his love. Funny, I always thought threats of violence
in order to obtain sex were considered rape(assuming one had sex).
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reverse FAQ....
Date: 10 Jan 1993 01:03:10 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1inmq0INNp99@gap.caltech.edu>, werdna@cco.caltech.edu (Andrew Tong) writes:
|> To: p00261@psilink.com
|> Subject: Re: Reverse FAQ....
|> Newsgroups: alt.atheism
|> References: <2935682071.0.p00261@psilink.com>
|> 
|> In alt.atheism you write:
|> 
|> >Why do Christians think they have to preach to us in alt.atheism?  And then
|> >criticize us for ridiculing Christians?  Do atheists go into other news
|> >groups and "take on" the believers?  I know you are commanded to spread
|> >the word, but can't we have a little corner of our own for discussion
|> >among atheists?  It only seems polite.  
|> 
|> So you're saying that if Christians stopped posting to alt.atheism, then
|> the atheist participants in the group would stop looking down upon (the
|> majority of) christians?

No, we'd still have Jimmy Swaggart, Tammy Bakker, Pat Robertson and so
on as awful examples.


|> That the people in alt.atheism ridicule Christians only because they are 
|> here? 

No, it's usually because of the arguments they present.


|> That atheists have a common respect for the ideals and beliefs of 
|> Christians? 

When a Christian President says atheists shouldn't even be considered
to be citizens, one wonders what value our respect would have.   But
in any case, no.   My respect goes to good actions, not fancy Group 
names.   I don't feel any necessity to respect a club or a religion
just becasue it exists.

By the way, this "so you're saying XX" style of posting is awfully
rude.   Tell us what you think.   Don't tell us what we think.

jon.
From: wooyoung@bu.edu (WooYoung Chung)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Removing "god" from morality. (was: Moral liberty)
Date: 13 Jan 93 03:36:49 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Ray Ingles (ingles@engin.umich.edu) wrote:
: In article <106524@bu.edu> wooyoung@bu.edu (WooYoung Chung) writes:
: >
: >About your second point, you might be right that religious 
: >people may not be more moral than atheists.  However, what's 
: >important is whether these religious people are more moral 
: >than if they were NOT religious themselves.  
: >
: >WooYoung Chung
: 
:  Well, this is interesting. So, one might predict that theists would,
: on average, be more moral than non-theists. Can you (or anyone) point
: to studies that would indicate this?
: 
: Sincerely,
: 
: Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
:                             || not those of the University of
: ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.

That's not what I meant at all.  To illustrate little more 
on what I said, let's assume both atheists and theists have 
on average the same level of morality.  Atheists got to the 
level of this morality by education, training, rational thinking 
or whatever.  For theists, however, the religion is a part of 
how they reach the level of morality.  In fact, it could play 
a significant role in theists' moral behavior.  Now, if one 
turn these theist into atheist, they lose the some of reasons 
for their moral behavior.  Some of them might have other strong basis 
for moral behavior.  One the hand, some of them might not.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: Nailing Christianity: Sufficient Support for Atheism?
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:24:00 GMT

In article <ksand-060193233341@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>
> [...]
>
> Even if someone found the ultimate killing device for Christianity --
> let us say historical evidence showing that the miracle maker was
> someone else -- I'm not sure that the force of Christianity would
> suddenly die. We are really dealing with something that wants to 
> stay alive -- are we dealing with a philosophical evolutionary force?

I'd go for the term `memetic virus' myself, and have ranted about it
elsewhere on a.a. within the last day or so. So you're spared it here.

> Kent

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Out-of-context quotes from s.r.c #11:
          "We hold that the Lord's return is imminent.
                In our generation. Definitely.
      And if not in our generation then in our children's."
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25526 talk.religion.misc:25688