HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 22:17:15 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

jstump@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (John E. Stump) writes:

>Love, as an emotion, has MANY different levels of abstraction. I love
>my brothers, I love my wife, my dog loves me, but they're all different
>forms of love. In the terms of C++, "love" is an overloaded word. I

All right.  I think the Xians would jump in here and point out that Greek
(which was the language that the BIBLE was written is) had three words for
love: phileo, meaning brotherly love; eros, meaning sexual love; and
agape, meaning the 'self-sacrificing,' pure love.  It is the latter which
I call into question here; only tangentially the first, and certainly
not the second.

>I think it's obvious that humans have evolved so dramatically and
>reached such high levels of thought, that we have conquered the need
>for many of the survival instincts, allowing us to develop higher
>emotions that may sometimes seem counter-productive.
>
>Does this make any sense? It's too early in the morning for this...

Not really, sorry; that undermines the whole argument that love is
essentially a mechanical, pro-survival instinct.  Note the .sig; I
chose the first two terms, 'Love and Laughter,' quite deliberately
to be my 'calling card,' because they are the two things that reason
and logic have difficulty explaining -- at least, MY reason and logic
do.  To the question 'Why do we love,' I would add the question 'Why
do we laugh?'  I think R.A.Heinlein, in SIASL, came close to an answer,
but didn't quite get it.  He failed to explain the pun, for instance.

-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25305 talk.religion.misc:25485
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 7 Jan 93 13:05:50 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1993Jan6.171337.3261@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>I had everything I had
>hoped to achieve in life (education and steady employment) and yet, there was
>still something missing.  I cannot begin to tell you how empty my life felt.
>I had believed in all the things that we were taught would make us
>happy in this world . . . money, money and more money.

This means that you were not only an atheist (if indeed you were one),
but a money worshipper as well (they sometimes use the word "materialist",
but I prefer putting a different meaning into it), and I dare say that
had much more to do with your dissatisfaction than atheism.  There is
no correlation. An atheist or a theist may or may not be a money worshipper.

>It was not until I came to know my Lord and Saviour that I gained a
>sense of purpose and fulfillment in my life.

Nothing surprising.  Note that just because you have a sense of purpose
and fulfilment doesn't mean that you really have a purpose and fulfilment.
Talk to an alcoholic or a drug addict.

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: SPS
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:50:21 GMT

In article 726047840@marsh, martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:
> Christians among you: explain this.
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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.

This is more speculation than argument, since the Bible offers no
explanation of the different physical features of the various races.
[As an aside, I reject the young earth view, and would date the appearance 
of modern man somewhere between 15K and 40K years ago.]

Gen. 1:28 records God giving the order to A&E to multiply and fill the earth.
They seemed to fail in this, as the geographic places mentioned in chapters
1-8 are all in or near the Mesopotamian plains. Then post-flood, to Noah and
sons, the order is given again (9:1). They still don't spread out but remain 
in that region until the Tower of Babel incident (Gen 11). At that point it
records God as confusing their language and spreading them out over the earth. 
It is possible that the physical features of the races were introduced super-
naturally at that point as an additional incentive to promote migration. 

I realize that supernatural appeals are unsatisfactory to atheists, and that 
this is also unfalsifiable. But you "would like to hear" it, so I offer it, 
as an possible explanation for those who "take the Bible at all seriously". 

---
Dave Weaver                | "The impression of design is overwhelming"
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com |       --Paul Davies (on the cosmos)


Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Religious Taxation (was: Madeleine Murray O'Hare)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:17:49 GMT

ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:

>In article <adams.726596783@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>
>>>Why do some believers think that not mentioning religion at all is the
>>>same as denying religion?
>>
>>It's not 'non-mention,' though.  There have been Christian critical
>>programs on PBS.  But the ability of Christians to respond in the same
>>media and same way is limited or non-existant.
>>
>> -Steve
>
> Really? When? I don't watch a lot of TV, but I would think I'd notice
>something like that. Do you have any references?

Two recent occasions that I remember, but I can't provide exact references
(ie dates or shows).  One was on censorship and art, and the other had to
do with Gay issues.  Neither was particularly out of line, but they were
one-sided.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Please Colleen Please!
Date: 8 Jan 93 12:46:25 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1993Jan7.151022.14332@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>I made the darkness

Well, of course Thou didst -- Thou madest everything, didst Thou not?
See below.

>- count it as one of my miracles, and from that positive evidence

I thought light was positive evidence, and darkness was negative.

>attribute by dietyhood.

And from Thy inability to spell "deityhood" what shall be attributed?

>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.

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 5 Jan 93 13:18:24 GMT
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland

In article <zlsiida.656@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
>
>This isn't what you originally said, and it's still not logically valid.
>To state a relationship between 2 things, and then say that 2 other things 
>are not the same as the first 2 things, says nothing about any possible 
>relationship between the second 2 things.  

Yep, that's exactly what I meant. They aren't related in any point-by-point
manner. Thus, saying that intelligence > stupidity and => atheism > xianity
is totally invalid.

>
>  No Trespassing: 4/17ths of a haiku.     D.Budd@mcc.ac.uk   fax 6040
>  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England    (44|0)61-275-6033  


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
From: wooyoung@bu.edu (WooYoung Chung)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: logic, omni-, theism, and atheism
Date: 13 Jan 93 04:56:08 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Sangyong Jeon (jeon@carson.u.washington.edu) wrote:
: 
: If a theist accept the validity of logic, he/she cannot even conceive of
: converting atheists because the (non-) existence god is an axiom.

What logic are you talking about?  

: If a theist does not accept the validity of logic, atheists cannot believe
: a word she/he utters, because there is no way we can attach (deduce) some
: meaning to the words. We might as well look at randomly written text and
: fathom the profound meaning of those randomness.

That's interesting.  If one cannot define something clearly, that does 
not exists?  

: If you think about it a little, the use of language itself is deeply
: rooted in our ability to be logical. How does a theist try to convert an
: atheist? He/She has to argue, persuade, win over, all of which at least
: need this appeal to the logic:
: 
: According to the Bible....
: 
: This very pharase, "according to" presupposes logic. A theist's claim of,
: say the salvation thru Jesus, follows logically if one accepts the authority
: of the Book. If one cannot accept the validity of logic, "according to"
: loses its meaning, therefore any appeal to the authority of the bible
: loses its meaning. 

I do agree that "according to bible" is not a very good argument. 

: Now about omni-potent being, ever heard of
: 
: Russell's paradox? :
: 
: Let S be the set of all sets that are not elements of themselves.
: Then, if S is an element of S, S is not an element of S. If S is not
: an element of S, S is an element of S.
: 
: (Advance apology to serious set theorists for taking this way out of
: context) 
: 
: Now if a being is omni-potent, that being must be able to be
: C, the creator of all creators that are not creatures of themselves.
: Then if C is a creature of C, C is not a creature of C. Contradiction.
: If C is not a creature of C, C is a creature of C, another contradiction.
: 
: If the omni-potent being cannot exist as our C, that being is not
: omni-potent after all. Yet that being cannot exists as C without violating
: logic.

I hope this is not the logic that you were talking about.  Our 
inability to define something logically does not mean something 
does not exists.  Let's say someone explained to me what 
YOU are about (say, what kind of person you are, what is your
appearance etc.)  And I found some logical problems in description 
of you.  Does this mean that you don't exists?  

Curiously,
WooYoung

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:15:36 GMT


In article <2935372445.0.p00261@psilink.com>, "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
|> >DATE:   Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:31:46 GMT
|> >FROM:   Malcolm Lee <mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca>
|> >
|> >But we can have eternal life and the knowledge of good and evil.
|> >Sure, when God placed the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil in the Garden, HE
|> >knew that the people would partake of it and be condemned to death as well as 
|> >all the generations that followed them.  GOD knew this!  
|> >   That is why He provided a plan for salvation through His one and only Son,
|> >Jesus Christ.  We are living in the age of grace whereby we may be saved IF we
|> >choose to follow Jesus.  There's nothing more to it than that.  
|> >    Maybe I'm being too simplistic.  I don't post too often but I am a firm
|> >believer and I just couldn't stand by silent in admidst this debate.  I don't
|> >mean to flame anyone.  After all, Jesus came into this world to save not to
|> >condemn.  And in His likeness, I would not do the same.
|> >    I welcome your response.
|> 
|> From a reader in alt.atheism:
|> 
|> ENOUGH SAID!  I CAN'T STAND TO BE SEPARATED FROM THE TRUTH LIKE THIS ANY
|> LONGER.  PLEASE, JESUS, RIP YOUR BLOOD STAINED HANDS FROM THE CROSS AND
|> TAKE ME INTO YOUR ARMS!
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> ----------------------------------------------------------------
|>            oOoo  |                                            |
|>    ______  ooo   |                                            |
|>   / XIAN \/o     | O.K. !  WHO FARTED?                        |
|>   \______/\      |                                            |
|> ----------------------------------------------------------------
|> 

Praise the Lord!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From:  (Michael Snider)
Subject: Re: The Book of Job
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: BNR
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:39:34 GMT

In article <parsons.725779973@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu>,
parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) wrote:
> 
Scott Parris attempt's to reply to David Sumner deleted, except for:


> or humans or angels freedom to do what they will in no way diminishes
> the fact that God is still God.  As someone pointed out in a
> reply to one of the original posts, God made and blessed Job,
> Satan destroyed what Job had, yet God rebuilt all that Job had.
                                    *****************************

Tough luck for the wife and kids, huh?  You're as sick as your supposed
god.

> -- 
> Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
> parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |

***** Michael Snider ********** alas, no email, so reply by post ******

Talk of fame, honor, pleasure, wealth, all are dirt compared with
affection.
                                                   Charles Darwin
Critics quarrel with other critics. With an artist, no sane man quarrels.  

                                                   George Santayana
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reverse FAQ....
Date: 9 Jan 1993 07:29:18 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, werdna@cco.caltech.edu (Andrew Tong) says:

>Seeing how so much of this alt.atheism group is dedicated to ridiculing
>Christians, I'm proposing to write up some sort of an "anti-FAQ"--something
>that attempts to answer (intelligently) the standard attacks on Christianity.
>The purpose of this FAQ would be the same as the current FAQ: prevent
>redundant arguments.  I personally believe that there are fewer than 10
>distinct arguments against Christianity, all of which could be considered
>one by one.  This should provide a more balanced view of Christianity for
>both Christians and atheists.  (BTW: Most of the atheist FAQ is relevant
>and positively written--if read in a good-natured way.  Commendations
>to whoever was responsible.)
>
>I don't need this to be official or anything.  Just post a message with the
>title "Anti-FAQ", and email me with a single question.  Any lurking Christians
>are free to go ahead and provide preliminary answers.             
>
>Again, I don't care too much if this FAQ is really a FAQ (I don't know the
>orthodox procedure to do something like this.)  So please don't flame me too
>much if doing something like this is a cardinal sin, etc....  
>
>Sample question:
>Don't you Christians ever doubt whether God exists?  (etc. etc.  I won't includethis particular one unless somebody else poses it, though....)
>
>my email: werdna@punisher.caltech.edu
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>
	No worry here....unlike chri$tians we are not bound to defend the
contents of a single book nor the ravings of a mythical being, we can (& have)
shot down any arguments that can be made up on behalf of chri$tianity.
This is has little to do with the individual IQ's of various Atheists and 
chri$tians, but the whole notion that you guys are trying  is so outlandish
that it is harder to argue than Atheism.

	Of course, if your bible was so good and was the word of god
you WOULD NOT NEED AND ANTI-FAQ ! You could just use your bible. Does
this mean that your god's word is not good enough ?



-- 
A. TRENT PHILLIPS |" A mirror is a negative space with a frame and a place for
  also known as   | your face, it reveals what the rest of us see. It conceals
   WHITE  ROOK    | what you'd like you to be."--Blue Oyster Cult
-------bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu-----aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu-------
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: The State and the Churches elsewhere
Date: 4 Jan 93 22:23:25 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA28616; Mon, 4 Jan 93 06:28:20 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA11959; Mon, 4 Jan 93 06:28:15 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0956; Mon, 04 Jan 93 15:27:42 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

Gerry Palo types:

>Germany has a similar law.  You specify protestant or catholic, usually
>when you are born, and the money is taken out of your paycheck.  You
>can leave the church, but it is not easy.  And most people who are
>Christians (a) would not want to leave and (b) would not want to lie
>in order to escape the tax.  The problem is that it is compulsory,
>so there is no free giving in it, and at most a free acceptance of the
>compulsion.

One does not specify if one is Catholic or Protestant at birth. Some
churches have a legal status of being 'institutions of public right',
which means that one can become member without an explicit act of consent.
In this case, the parents usually decide which church the children belong
to by filling in the 'Religion:' field.
Leaving the church is easy, one simply has to notify an authority that
one's membership (including switching to 'none') has changed. It costs
money in some regions, but almost always less than the church tax is in
one year.

Leaving the church is an increasing trend, and many simply say that even when
they believe in a religion they don't want to give money to a church.
A procedure is to donate the amount of the church tax to a charity fund and
to leave the church nevertheless, because one can't be member without having
to pay that tax.


(Deletions)
>Someone told me that the Kirchensteuer was established during the
>Nazi regime as a part of the compromise between Hitler and the churches.
>He agreed to let the established churches alone and even support them
>if they would promise to keep out of politics.  I haven't been able
>to vary this, nor do I know when the church tax was established in
>Finland or other countries -- was it before or after or during that
>time?

Yep, the church tax is part of a treaty of Hitler with the major Christian
churches. It includes further that the state has to offer the opportunity
of religious education in schools to those churches (de jure one can refuse
to participate from the age of 14 - de facto there are problems), the churches
are practically tax exempt, and the state has the right to veto elections
of church officials in Germany (never used to my knowledge).
Hitler used those treaties in order to make the churches approve of his rule,
which worked well.

Every religion can apply for a similar status, but in the case of Sunnite Islam
this was denied on grounds that it was not a homogenous community...
Many people consider the treaties to be anticonstitutional, and it looks as if
they haven't been revoked because of the political power the churches have in
Germany.
   Benedikt
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Christian racism
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 19:27:32 GMT

mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:

>If you want more, why don't you just ask?

Oops.  Yes, I meant to conclude with a request for pointers to the
further evidence.  I'll add that now: Ms. Hausman, please share with
us the scads of evidence of Fundamentalist Christian child abuse or
murder.

(For clarity I'll note again that I'm not skeptical of the claim.  I'm
simply curious to see how her figures compare to those of, say, U.S.
society as a whole.  Lest I be accused of harboring hidden motives
I'll add that I'm also interested in discovering whether she is
willing to "practice what she preaches", so to speak, with regard to
substantiating claims.)


                                    Gregg Skinner
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu (Brad Kepley)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:29:41 GMT

In article <1999@spam.ua.oz> jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.014645.6329@cs.unca.edu> kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
>
>>   You have a real hard time with  "lesser of two evils". How do you
>>feel about Churchill given his "make a deal with the devil himself" to
>>get rid of Stalin?
>
>Which devil was this? Don't you mean that Churchill allied himself with
>Stalin to get rid of the devil himself (aka Adlif Hitler)?
>
>Wishful thinking?
>
>Joseph Askew

Actually I realized after I entered "send" that I had said Stalin when I
meant Hitler but I was pretty sure that everyone would know that.
"Wishful thinking?"  How so?  What difference is there between Stalin
and Hitler other than that Hitler concentrated on certain nationalities while
Stalin wasn't as choosy.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc