HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zink@suite.com (Dan Zink)
Subject: Re: Easter whodunnit
Organization: Suite Software, Dallas, Anaheim, La Mesa.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:59:58 GMT

In article <1ipt02INNcti@wupost.wustl.edu> oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser)  
writes:
> 	Let's assume for the moment that Jesus did not rise from the dead.
> One possible and often repeated explanation of the subsequent events is that
> graverobbers took the body, resulting in an empty tomb.
 [ stuff deleted ]
> 1) Ordinary graverobbers....
> 2) Jesus' disciples....
> 3) Jesus' family....
> 4) Jesus himself....
> 	Any thoughts or theories?

With respect to possibilities 1 through 3, according to the NT, the grave was
guarded and sealed.  Most deduce from the context that the guard was made up
of Roman soldiers rather than being a guard from the temple sent by the Jewish
religious leaders of the time.  As are most soldiers, the Romans were trained
to be very good at killing their opponents.  Also, the penalty for failing to
adequately guard the tomb would be death to them.  So, who overcame the
guards?  Ordinary grave robbers would probably go somewhere where the pickings
were easier.  The disciples were not combat trained killers.  Jesus' family
(at least the men) probably grew up to be carpenters like Joseph was.

For possiblity 1 only: the NT says that Jesus was naked when buried and that
when the disciples went to the tomb after the alleged resurrection the grave
clothes (with the spices used to embalm the body) were still there.  So why
did the graverobbers go there?  There wasn't much to steal and what there
was was left behind.

For possibility 2 only: according to the NT, the disciples (except for John)
scattered during the trial and crucifixion, probably out of fear that the
same would happen to them.  It would be difficult to believe they would then
get the courage to do something that would put them back into a situation
where they might be killed.

For possibility 3 only: according to the NT, Jesus did appear to James after
the resurrection.  And why would James put himself in a life threatening
position like being a leader in the church?  If it was for power, why not join
up earlier?

For possibility 4: who would he hire?  He would have had to hire mercenaries
in order to overcome the Roman guard.  If he could find some one to do it,
how would he have paid them?  If they were ever caught, the penalty would
have been death, so the price would have to have been pretty high and the
going wage for itinerant preachers has never been very much.  If he did
hire some one, why wouldn't they just pocket the money and skip town when
he was dead rather than taking such a big risk?

> -Scott O.

Dan Z.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.abortion
From: raghu@atc1.atc.com (Raghothama Cauligi)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Reply-To: raghu@atc1.UUCP (Raghothama Cauligi)
Organization: Advanced Technology Center, Laguna Hills, CA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:44:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.180446.7730@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>In article <C19 G2F.7GJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
>(Mike Cobb) writes:
>
>>Huh?  Could that be reexplained again so that I understand why
>>contraception is worse than abortion?
>
>If you believe (as you apparently do) that DNA makes a person, then
>you should have no trouble understanding, by your logic, that sperm
>and eggs are human.
>
>Now, if a woman goes in to have an abortion, she kills one potential
>person. If a couple use contraceptives, they're killing hundreds of
>millions of potential people in the form of sperm cells.
>
>So, if you use contraceptives, you're committing mass genocide against
>yourself. :-)
>
>Tep
>-- 
>Mo-bio majors do it between the beta-sheets.

If you abstain from sex, you are guilty of the same. So, what are you
going to do, try to have your every sperm fertilized?
Raghu
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Islamic proof of existence of god!!??
Date: 26 Jan 93 12:44:46 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <1993Jan24.000246.3516@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:

>No, it's not the same thing in reverse.  The "monitoring" is to stop the
>creation of an Islamic "straw man" and then attacking it.  It is to

You mean we're going to have a "Who are the REAL Muslims?" thread?
Like the "Who are the REAL Christians?" thread?
ha!  or do I mean   huh!

    Actually, Occam wore a beard: philosophers kept borrowing his razor
    Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England    (44|0)61-275-6033
From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: A different view of God
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 09:02:44 GMT

In <1993Jan20.095008.17374@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:

>In <1jisf5INNff2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:

>>In a previous article, ahaig@rp.CSIRO.AU (Albert Haig) says:

>[...stuff deleted...]
>>>	this definition that only one such being could exist. Who would
>>>	over-rule who in case of a disagreement? By omniscient I mean that
>>>	He knows everything which it is logically possible to know i.e. He
>>>	believes all true propositions and disbelieves all false ones, and

>>	Does he know how to do the `logically immpossible'.....guess not
>>	since he cannot do it.

>Regarding the "logically impossible"....

>Frithjof Schuon, in his metaphysics, defines God essentially as the "All
>Possible".  

Sorry... "All Possible" here should, I think, be "All Possibility."

>Within this definition he identifies "evil" as the
>"Possibility of the Impossible."  So this is one way one person has
>approached the issue of logical impossibility and the problem of evil
>simultaneously.

>This is contained in Frithjof Schuon's book "Survey of Metaphysics and
>Esotericism" (1986, World Wisdom Books), near the beginning.

 Fred Rice
 darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au   
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: Ontological argument...
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:51:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.092649.6404@scubed.com> wilkins@scubed.com (Darin Wilkins) writes:
>
> [deletia re. Ontological Argument]
>
> "Invisible Pink Unicorns are conceived as being perfect; non-existence
> would be an imperfection; thus Invisible Pink Unicorns must exist"
>
> A convincing argument, wouldn't you say?

A winner.

> (BTW, this idea is not original with me.  Someone on the net - I don't
> recall who - suggested this a couple of years ago.  Does anyone recall
> who it was?)

If you mean the kind of reductio ad absurdum substitution (God <- IPU) which
shows up a special pleading fallacy such as this or Pascal's, I wouldn't know.

The author of the fabulous Invisible Pink Unicorns [Prancing In Maah Walls]
per se, however, is the equally fabulous Doug Graham.

> darin
> wilkins@scubed.scubed.com
> ________________________________
> |                              |
> | I will be President for food |
> |______________________________|

Cheers

Simon
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          "It seems that only the frogs are so ill-mannered as to
             engage in such rude and boorish behavior as this."
                -- Ted `I can see my colon from here' Kaldis
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 19:41:42 GMT

pyeatt@Texaco.com (Larry D. Pyeatt) writes:

>If an animal dies of itself ( disease ) you may not eat it.  You are to
>sell it to a stranger ( alien, non-believer ) that he may eat it. 

Deuteronomy 14:21 appears in the NIV as,

     Do not eat anything you find already dead.  You may give it to
     an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you
     may sell it to a foreigner.  But you are a people holy to the
     Lord your God.
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Strong atheism ought to explain theism (Was: Re: Atheism is dogmatic.
Date: 27 Jan 93 06:05:00 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <11212@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>In article <77482@apple.apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>>In article <11194@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>>>  I personally know of no one who makes the claim that their
>>>  experience of god is on the same sensual level as their day to day
>>>  perception of the world around them (well, maybe one, Jarek
>>>  Dabrowski, but that's another topic).  Most claims of believer-god
>>>  interaction are extraordinarily vague or mystical, with phrases
>>>  like "felt lead to", "had a vision", "had a feeling", etc.
>>
>>I have memories of experiences of beings that I think deserve to be
>>called gods. Of course, maybe I don't count as I am (apparently) an
>>atheist. I suppose it's because I can tell the difference between
>>experiences that (for example) people on the net are going to consider
>>real and ones they aren't, and because I am skeptical by temperament.
>
>  You just shot yourself in the foot.  There was apparently some
>  discernable factor of the experiences you are recalling that makes
>  them of the variety you know we find unconvincing.  Hence, these
>  experiences were not the same as you daily experiences, and don't
>  qualify as the kind to which I was referring.

No I didn't. They are 'daily experiences'. 

I honestly can't tell what the 'kind to which [you were] referring'
means.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
Subject: "So help me god."
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 06:26:48 GMT

The etymology of "inaugurate" is the Latin "inauguratus" a form of
the verb "inaugurare", which literally means "to pratice augury".

-- Brad Pierce --
From: cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - with Dan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Buddhism - A religion of atheists?
Date: 27 Jan 93 03:40:24 GMT
Organization: Institute Of Systems Science, NUS
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

gj156879@alfred.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879) writes:
: Although my knowledge is sketchy on the matter, the Taoist philosophy
: seems to be godless as well.  (Sort of)  From what little I've read,
: they have "gods", but recognize them as an internal manifestation.
: 
:                                         Nik

  I have read the Taoists scriptures, including the Tao Te Ching in
  their original language (I'm a Chinese).  U r right that Taoism is
  godless.  In fact, I was amazed by the similarity of Buddhism and
  Taoism, especially since both began on different sides of the
  Himalayas at roughly the same time (approx 550 BC).  The main
  difference btwn the 2 is that Buddhism placed much more emphasis on
  Spiritual Development while Taoism concentrated on examining Nature
  and "Being at One with Nature" (Tao).  Also, Budda taught for 40 yrs
  and the Buddhist cannon contains 84,000 scriptures while Lao Tzu
  taught only a few years and wrote only the Tao Te Ching before he
  retreated to the mountains.

  Still, I was amazed by the immense breath and depth of Lao Tzu's
  philosophies.  It's one of the most amazing things I ever came across.
  If u r interested, I can explain the essense of Tao (based on the
  original text) sometimes.

  Regards.

  CHADE MENG

  ------------------
  Which came first : Rationality or Atheism?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Let's try these proofs
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:59:42 GMT
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

Let's not.  Read the FAQ, buddy.

1) Watchmaker's Agruement:  The universe is a lot less orderly than you think.
   If you saw a lump of dirt in the yard, would you assume it was man-made?

2) The Rain Tells: an ecosystem is known to be self-regulating and can
arise under the right conditions without any helping hand.

3) The Embryo Witness:  Biology isn't your strong point, is it? Not all
babies are formed correctly.  Was Allah looking the other way at the time?

4) Impossibility:  Proteins form because the chemicals want to form that way.
Proteins can be synthesized in the lab.  Does that mean Allah made the
chemicals want to do this to make us humans?  Don't be so self rightious!

5) The Thinking Process Proves:  Genetics.

6) One Pricipal: Co-leadership can be more productive than individual
leadership, esp. when the leaders are perfect beings.  If the universe
is so complex, why not division of labor?  One god takes care of
gravity, one for light and E-M effects, one for matter, one for life...

"Now when God is the sovereign of the universe, is it 
not logical that you submit willingly to His commands and
 model your life according to the way of life He set for 
mankind?"

No.  I am not sheep: all gods must be moral by my standards (who else
would I use?) or I will not even talk to Him/Her/It.

"You can find that way of life explained fully in 
Islam."

And any other religion.  

Sorry, but I am not convinced.

Brian /-|-\
==========================================================
"Sure, POPCORN is a miracle if you don't know how it works!"
                                     -Paula Poundstone (?)
From: eradm@wbst845e.xerox.com (Erik Radmall)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: religion in general
Date: 20 Jan 93 16:36:22 GMT
Reply-To: eradm@wbst845e.xerox.com
Organization: Xerox Corporation

In article 19729@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
> In <radauto.727421735@cwis> radauto@cwis.unomaha.edu (Theresa J Radin) writes:
> 
> >But the BIG arguement against religion is the simple fact that 
> >there are so damn many.  
> 
> Not really.  Several people, throughout history in fact, have the
> viewpoint that the essential truths within various "authentic" religions
> are one.  This, I understand, was a viewpoint held by several mystics in
> the past.  For example, the Sufi Al-Jili wrote:
> 
> "The [gnostics] are the investigators of the truth upon whom God has
> constructed the foundations of existence.  The spheres of the worlds  
> rotate about them.  They are the centre of God's attention in the world,
> nay, the centre of God's [theophany] in existence.... God has erected
> the foundation of religion, nay, the foundation of all religions upon
> the ground of their gnosis." [1]
> 
> By "gnostic" here is meant those who have direct knowledge of God, also
> sometimes called mystics (although "mystic" is less well-defined).
> 

[stuff deleted]

> Another topic relevant to this is the unity of purpose of various
> mythologies, as expounded in the work of Joseph Campbell.

I might add that Carl Jung is excellent reading in a slightly more
psychological vein. Arthur Schopenhauer is also good reading if you
feel like twisting your brain a little. He presents a view of both
Buddhism and the Hindu Upanishads in a very Western way. By the way,
it seems from the reasearch I've done on the subject, that Islam (Sufism)
Mahayana Buddhism, and Vedantic Hinduism present the most practical
means for attaining "gnosis." And at the core, they do _not_ contradict
each other in any way. They are about as different as God, Gott, Allah,
Nirvana, and the Tao.

> 
> This is good scholarship I'm talking about here -- you can't just
> dismiss it with a wave of your hand.

How true.

> 
>  Fred Rice
>  darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au   



---
Erik Radmall -- eradm.roch803@xerox.com
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Eve Mitochondia?
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:34:44 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993


 
Who: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
ID: <11205@vice.ico.tek.com>
With: system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
 
> From Back to [Blockhead] magazine, Sept/Oct 1992
> WAS THERE AN EVE?
 
RB> What a disappointing article. I licked my lips as I started
RB> in on the first couple of pages, thinking it was going to be
RB> an excellent scientific treatise on a subject that I'm not
RB> terribly well informed on. Only after wading trough the whole
RB> article do I finally discover that it is as mired in mysticism
RB> and religious drek as any creationist story.
 
The "From:" title, "Kalki Dasa" was a good clue. The Kalkii often
posted it/their occult prattle in talk.origins, and refused to back
up the ad hoc assertions it/they make.
 
RB> Oh well. Just goes to show what happens when you hold unrealistic
RB> hopes for alt.atheism. Kind of like firing up 'rn' and watching
RB> half of the posted articles disappear in a single abortion kill
RB> file entry.
 
RB> Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM

--- Maximus 2.01wb
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why God is Hiding
Keywords: Why God is Hiding
Date: 25 Jan 93 03:48:55 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <C1Dzv5.Frs@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, skillian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Seth James Killian) writes:
>
>	[assume God exists, etc]                       Time passes, and the 
>	creator ceases frequent and obvious interaction with his creations.
>	Those who had direct interaction with the creator die, and can leave 
>	only a book as a legacy to future generations.

None of what yuo write is impossible, but I found that this part
caused me a problem.    To believe this, we have to imagine a God
who hangs around - twiddling his thumbs? - for fifteen or so 
billion years - talk about yer Gilligan's Island - while humankind
first evolves, and finally develops thought and consciousness, 
and then, for no apparent good reason, God gets bored and wanders 
away three thousand years ago, at the precise moment when things 
start to get really interesting.

Up to the point when human society developed, the Universe ran
itself in response to natural law, and so presumably your God
could more or less tell what came next.    Then once human
society emerged, human brainpower became a new force of nature,
because for the first time - apparently - a species evolved
which was capable of not merely living in the Universe, but
of reshaping the Universe to suit itself.   Now if I were God,
I don't think I would choose this precise moment in time to
wander off.   Who knows what these creatures are going to do?

There's another problem.   Are we the only intelligent race
to receive a book?     Does God get bored with all intelligent
races?   All at the same time?   One by one?   I wonder what
some of the other books say?    We'd better hope that they
all say that flightless bipeds are unclean, and not to be eaten.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Atheism in pop culture
Organization: none
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:31:33 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>FROM:   John E. Stump <jstump@auntbea.austin.ibm.com>
>
>In article <1993Jan21.174226.63016@cc.usu.edu> slp9k@cc.usu.edu writes:
>>> 
>>> Can you think of any examples of explicit atheism expressed in pop
>>> songs or other pop culture works?
>>> 
>>> -- Brad Pierce 
>>> 
>
>There's a great song by the group "The The" called Armegeddon Days or
>something like that. I'll bring in the lyrics tomorrow.
>
>john
>
>-- 
>John Stump (jstump@netftp.austin.ibm.com)

This was on alt.slack during Xmas.  More like atheism by inference, since 
it's mainly just some good oldtime Xian bashing, but I thought I'd die 
reading this thing.  I have been assured that it is indeed a real group.

Thanks, xine.  Hope you don't mind.

Begin -----

>From: xine@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (the strawberry girl)
>Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
>Subject: RE: jesus songs
>Newsgroups: alt.slack
>Distribution: world
>Lines: 62

>	[various jesus songs deleted]

>	yeah, but the cream of the crop is:

>Jesus Was Way Cool
>King Missile _Mystical Shit_ Shimmy Disc
 
>Jesus was way cool
>Everybody liked Jesus
>Everybody wanted to hang out with him
>Anything he wanted to do, he did
>He turned water into wine
>And if he wanted to
>He could have turned wheat into marijuana
>Or sugar into cocaine
>Or vitamin pills into amphetamines
> 
>He walked on the water
>And swam on the land
>He would tell these stories
>And people would listen
>He was really cool
> 
>If you were blind or lame
>You just went to Jesus
>And he would put his hands on you
>And you would be healed
>That's so cool
> 
>He could've played guitar better than Hendrix
>He could've told the future
>He could've baked the most delicious cake in the world
>He could've scored more goals than Wayne Gretzky
>He could've danced better than Barishnikov
>Jesus could have been funnier than any comedian you can think of
>Jesus was way cool
> 
>He told people to eat his body and drink his blood
>That's so cool
>Jesus was so cool
>But then some people got jealous of how cool he was
>So they killed him
>But then he rose from the dead
>He rose from the dead, danced around
>Then went up to heaven
>I mean, that's so cool
>Jesus was way cool
> 
>No wonder there are so many Christians


>				--xine, really bored and stuck in her room
>				  due to the x, where x>22, inches of snow.
>--
>xine@wpi.wpi.edu... 
>"cos sometimes, i said sometimes, i hear my voice...  and it's been here... 
> silent all these years... years go by, will i still be waiting for somebody 
> else to understand?"		--Tori Amos, *Silent All These Years*

End ----

-jim
From: nightsng@anarky.tch.org (Nightsong)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: To all Atheists
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 21:15:19 PST
Organization: The Canned Ham, San Jose, CA (408) 971-8530

> >	Do not be fooled.  If anyone calls himself christian to you, examine
> >his/her life;  are they fruitful?  Do they bring many to the fold?  Are they
> >generous, kind, graceous, slow to anger, dedicated to God?  Do they talk abo
> >the bible and church more than anything else?  If not, then ignore them as
> >hypocrites.

I just have a few questions for the person who wrote this:

 A. Must a `Good Christian' lose many of his\her friends who are of
    another or no religion because these friends simply get tired of
    listening to someone telling them to be Christian?
 
 B. In the same way, must a `Good Christian' lose these same friends
    for lack of any non-religion-related conversations?

 C. Anger is an emotion which, in my opinion, comes as quickly as it
    feels like in the person it does.  Is it *WRONG* for a `Good
    Christian' to feel angry in any other way than being slow to it
    as you say?  *IS THIS HEALTHY???*

 If your answer to all of these is yes.. 


 Even if I was a Christian, I could never be what you call a good 
 one.

 -Nightsong

 nightsng@anarky.tch.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism