HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 12 Jan 93 23:33:05 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

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"?  
>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?  If we're going to assume 
>Adam and Eve, then must we not also assume a perfect beautiful Garden, known as
>Eden?  
>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.

First you put a bowl of candy in the middle of the room. Next, you let in
a couple of three year olds and tell them not to eat the candy. When
they do, you disown them and throw them out of the house.

Now who's to blame here?
From: jfrandson@vax.cord.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheists & agnostics
Date: 6 Jan 93 04:17:34 GMT
Reply-To: jfrandson@vax.cord.edu
Organization: Concordia College, Moorhead, MN

In article <1993Jan5.045338.26035@ucc.su.OZ.AU>, patc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Pat Caldon) writes:
>In article <mRXuwB3w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>patc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Pat Caldon) writes:
>>> In article <540RVB1w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>[deleted stuff]
>>>                        As such it is not inconsistent (IMHO again) to
>>> suggest that Buddism is not atheist. (quadruple negative urrgh) Again
>>> from what I have seen of Buddist ritual (use of prayer wheels, for instance)
>>> it doesn't seem to be atheist.
>>
>>The fact that one is praying does not imply that there is a literal
>>supernatural being that one is praying to.
>
>pray v.t. & i. Make devout supplication to (God, object of worship); beseech
>earnestly (God, person /for/ thing, /to/ do, /that/); ask earnestly for
>(permission etc.); engage in prayer, make entreaty (/to/ God or person ...
>         -OED.
>
>How does one do this without a supernatural being?
>
Perhaps Buddist "prayer wheels" are called such because "to pray" is as close
an English equivalant as can be made to describe what they are used for.  We
could use, say, "karma wheels" instead.  Anyone know what the original word for 
those wheels is?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Criticism: "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 7 Jan 93 07:31:26 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <DwZuwB7w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't think that the validity of the argument has anything to do with the
> truth or falsehood of the premises; in particular, I don't believe that it
> depends upon whether we know the truth or falsehood of the premises.
> 
> The premises do, of course, have to be propositions -- that is, they must
> actually have a true or false value.  But we don't have to know it.
> 
> > What I'm aiming at is that my core point is that as long as we can't 
> > even agree upon the premisses, we can't define if the final logical
> > conclusion is true or not.
> 
> That depends.  If you have two premises A and B, you might have an argument
> such that the conclusion C is true iff exactly one of A or B is true.  You
> might argue endlessly over which out of A and B is the true premise, but so
> long as you both agree that they can't both be true the argument does imply
> that the conclusion is true.

Of all the counter comments I've seen so far this is one of the best
one -- in other words one I could associate with and understand. 

My personal dilemma is that I see cases where someone builds a logical
construction, especially in the world of religion, and the premise is a
priori for the believer, false for the non-believer and undefined for an
agnostic. For example any premises that assume that Jesus == God has a
hidden assumption
that makes my life miserable concerning my judgement of the outcome.

I have a hard time qualifying if the statement ends up as a true or
false value because I can't quality the assertion concerning the outcome.
I know of cases where the outcome is not dependent on the premise, but
what about cases where the outcome is highly dependent on *hidden
assumptions*?

We could at least try to use a Popper-style of qualification and define
an anti-statement that ends up in a false state. But yet again we have 
problems with the hidden assumptions concerning the premise.

This is much easier in the case of mathematics where people have 
agreed upon certain a priori definitions without hidden meanings. Sometimes
this hits back as well, as in the case of Euclid geometry, where the
a priori definitions were taken for granted, and nobody dared to look
into multi-plan geometry for a long time...

Anyway, back to Tractatus reading, somehow I hope Wittgenstein will
clear up my dilemma.

Cheers,
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
Predictions: Soon moving to Newton DTS, bye bye.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ron@syacus.acus.oz.au (Ron Williams)
Subject: Re: Child abuse ordered by god.
Organization: ACUS Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Sydney
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 08:55:09 GMT

Robert Beauchaine (bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM) wrote:
> 
>    Then would you care to explain to us in painfully exquisite
>    detail exactly what kind of rebellious child deserves death?

An atheist to the end, I hold _that book_ to be monumentally 
irrelevant, however in the interests of fairness, I should point out that 
the passage says 'son', not child (the other respondents to the thread seem 
to have made a similar assumption).

Still, it's pretty hard on your 21 year old, and as another writer pointed out,
barbaric. The originators of this practice did in fact have beards, as it 
happens (what barbaric means). 

ron

--
Ron Williams                  ACSnet : ron@syacus.acus.oz
Ph : +61 2 390-1366         Internet : ron@syacus.acus.OZ.AU
Fax: +61 2 390-1391             UUCP : uunet!munnari!syacus.acus.oz.au!ron
Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: I could have missed your point?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:57:42 GMT

swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
] In article <1992Dec30.132300.14141@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >as Peter Hampe recently pointed out, the whole
] >notion of having a bible in the vernacular is
] >in itself a very MODERN HERETICAL NOTION foiseted
] >by Factions of the ModernSeXularHumanism upon
] >the True Believers.
] >
] >Or did you miss the whole section in your shool
] >days about the middle ages, not to mention, say
] >history from 30AD to 1560AD?
]   The Vulgate was a translation. The Roman Catholic Church objected to
] later translations because
] a) the RC Church was very much into control, and
] b) information gets lost when you do a translation from a translation.
] The vulgate was from "origional" material. Most translations were from the
] vulgate.


I think you are agreeing with me that it 
was the Forces of the ModernSeXularHumanism,
in this Case the Roman Catholic Church which
has Userped the powers of the Patriachy unto itself....

Or.....

that you think that ABOMINATION which is the latin
tongue is in some way a sufficient medium for 
communicating ideas at the Spear Point of Legions.....


ciao
drieux


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 
Just because you are a homicidal maniac
doesn't mean you don't have a sense of humor.
		- Barry Sadler
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Please Colleen Please!
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:10:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.142746.25455@walter.cray.com> jwest@wisc (Jeff West) writes:
}I call out in the darkness (it's winter here in Wisconsin and therefore
}dark a LOT!) for my God and she hasn't answered me.  * lately * 8v)
}
}Don't be like those other false gods and make us "think" that your talking
}to us.  Send us a divine message in this time of much tumult in alt.atheism.
}We are being sent much theistic hub-bub by those who don't believe in you.
}We tell them we want them to prove their gods, but none can.
}
}Show the pagans here that you exist and do respond to your disciples!
}   ( you didn't fail out of college last semester did you? ;-) )

I made the darkness - count it as one of my miracles, and from that
positive evidence attribute by dietyhood.  The proof is much like that
or others who make claims of "miracles".


Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kelly Martin)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Reply-To: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Organization: Gender Anarchists United
	<1992Dec29.112032.1498@walter.cray.com>
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:29:43 GMT

jwest@wisc (Jeff West) writes:

>As for the rest of you post I only have 2 comments.

>1.)  Why did your god "deliever into the hands of Satan" such a
>righteous man as Job?  Why did your god need to torture a true
>believer?  Wasn't his obedience and faithfulness enough?  Or is it
>just your gods form of entertainment?  "Man I just can't shake this
>guy!  He REALLY REALLY believes in and serves me.  Hey I know, let's
>test him!"

the traditional response to this is "god moves in mysterious ways":
i.e. we limited humans are incapable of knowing the mind of god.
while this may be theologically acceptable to the prebelieving
christian, it's not generally acceptable because it's not
demonstrable.  the theological proposition essentially says "you can't
understand, so don't bother trying".  some of us would prefer to try.

--
As a practical matter, if a trusting and supportive relationship between a
parent and a child has not already been established, it is unlikely that the
state can create in a moment of crisis what the parents were unable to develop
over the course of the preceding years. -- Judge Maxine Chesney (CA Supr Court)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: isc20059@nusunix1.nus.sg (KOH YEN LING)
Subject: Re: confused
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:30:51 GMT

RAMASWAMI VISHWANATH (eng10524@nusunix1.nus.sg) wrote:
>If 'God' created Adam and Eve and nobody else (except of course the
>apple and the snake )then did 'our ancestors' practice incest ? How else
>could the entire human race come from just two people ? Oh dear I am a
>sinner ( can hear the Xians say 'Join the ranks') ; CLEANSE ME , cleanse
>me ..... oooh the bloood , the Holy Blood from the wounds .....but wait
>a minute - whaddyathink , it is my Fathers blood . Gee , now it all
>makes sense ....!!!!
>
I've brought up this issue with many Xtians who came preaching to me,
and their inane response was that the early ancestors didn't have "bad"
genes in their blood so incest was okay, but God condemned incest when
the "bad" genes were found in the blood.  I questioned them how this
"bad" gene came about.  They either kept quiet, or say "Satan did it".
*sigh*

Alison
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faulty IQ reasoning (Was: Re: iq<->religion: connection?)
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 12:05:26 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

"James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:
> What infuriating hubris!  Pompous, pedantic bullshit!  I pounded the 
> keyboard for hours, looked through books, and came up with quite a bit 
> in support of atheists being smarter

I missed it.  Can you re-post?

> Mathew has a solid opinion, too, but he at least didn't claim to have 
> information that he can't produce.  He just implies that measures such as 
> 1)eminence in science, 2)listings in the _Who's Who_, 3)comparing levels of 
> belief between student bodies of different quality, 4)comparing levels of 
> belief among highly accomplished students, and 4) comparing belief and 
> educational attainment, don't mean anything (especially since IQ tests 
> don't work).  

Well, eminence in science depends upon (a) a highly specialised form of
intelligence (b) knowledge and (c) luck.

My general opinion of the sort of people in "Who's Who" is that a lot of them
are merely ruthless bastards rather than geniuses, and many more are
prematurely senile in-bred silver-spoon-in-mouth so-called "important"
people.  This is probably completely unfair, however, and may vary from
country to country; Britain is far from being a meritocracy.

Student bodies correlate with education, not necessarily intelligence.  You
may be a child genius, but if you're born in a council flat in Birmingham to
unemployed parents you're going to have a much harder time getting to
university than a moderately bright son of a London stockbroker.

As for educational attainment (by which I take it you mean exam results), I
could rant for hours about the idiocy of the examination system.


mathew

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: zmbenhal@netcom.com (Zeyd M. Ben-Halim)
Subject: Re: Christian racism
Keywords: Christian racism depiction of christ
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 08:17:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.212325.20817@cs.mun.ca> rumisk@odie.cs.mun.ca (Jonathan Fernandes) writes:
>martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:
>
>..stuff deleted..
>
>>Not once have I seen the point raised that the characters in the 
>>Bible were much more likely to have been dark-haired, dark-skinned
>>and not overly tall, and had the same physical characteristics that
>>most middle-eastern people share today.  I suspect many Christians
>
>..stuff deleted..
>
>Would it be possible for you to confirm these statments with the quotes
>from the Bible? I am curious as to what makes you belive that the characters
>in the Bible were more likely to have had dark-hair, dark skin, etc.

This is just a guess, but could it have anything to do with that they lived
in the middle east where the majority of people have such characteristics?
Can you quote from the bible anything to the contrary?

>
>
>---
> _____________________________________ _______________________________________
>|`Tis strange but true,               |       ________                        |
>|  for truth is often strange-        |___       /   rumisk@odie.cs.mun.ca    |
>|    stranger than fiction'   --Lord Byron|     /---                          |
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\~~/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                                             \/ 


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: MIND OF THE BABBLE BELIEVER
Organization: I'm on a coffee break now
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 01:33:34 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

|> >FROM:   Malcolm Lee <mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca>
|> >

[PAGE AFTER PAGE OF TYPICAL CHRISTIAN DRIVEL MERCIFULLY DELETED FROM THE
VERSION IN ALT.ATHEISM - BUT A SAMPLE TO DULL YOUR WITS STILL REMAINS!]

|> > 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?                        |
|>   \______/\      |                                            |
|> ----------------------------------------------------------------
|> 
|FROM:   Malcolm Lee <mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca>
|Praise the Lord!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

From a reader in alt.atheism (who has hopefully broken the cross-posting!):

WHEW! I'M MUCH BETTER NOW!  I FEEL SO MUCH BETTER AFTER GETTING THAT OUT
OF MY SYSTEM.  I THINK IT MUST HAVE BEEN SOMETHING I ATE!  GAWDDAMNED 
MOLDY BREAD OR SUMTHIN!

------------------------------------------------------------------
   ______        |                                               |
  / XIAN \/      | I THINK ITS TIME TO CLEAN OUT THIS AQUARIUM!  |
  \______/\x     |                                               |
            xx   |                                               |
          xxxxxxx|                                               |
------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't you just love reposts!

Promise it is the last word on this one from me!  No matter how much Babble
quotin', mouth foamin', and snake throwin' this fellow wants to do!


Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 04:45:44 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>FROM:   Lucio de Re <lucio@phyrql.Alt.ZA>
>
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec28.122831.21650@walter.cray.com> jwest@wisc (Jeff West) writes:
>[ ... Jeff, I omit the leader because such pain need not be repeated ... ]
>>>
>>>	Jeff "you really hit my hot button" West

Now get your ass out of alt.atheism fast, before I find out more about
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^          
>you and your family.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>
>-- 
>Lucio de Re (lucio@phyrql.Alt.ZA)
>The supernatural does not exist, but it gives me the creeps...

  ,...,.,,
 /666;    ',    jim tims
////;    _~ -   p00168@psilink.com
(/@/----0-~-0
 ;'  . `` ~ \'
  , `    ' , >
;;|\..((   -C----> Bone-chilling, Mr. Vendetta.  But wait -- don't run away!
 ;| >-  `.__),; I think I hear someone handing you your ass ... any post now.
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Mystery of the Missing Mensans
Date: 4 Jan 93 11:58:54 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <2934824122.0.p00168@psilink.com> p00168@psilink.com (James F. Tims) writes:
>[...]
>>  49% Christian, 3% Unitarian, 9% Jewish, 7% agnostic, 3.6% atheist,
>>  9% no religion
>[...]
>And 19.4% what?  Non-responding?  Unmentionable?  Members on probation?
>Rastafarian, Hindu, Buddhist, and Shinto combined?  Since it's a FAQ,
>why not the whole breakout?  Show a little _noblesse oblige_ for us
>simple folk, will you?  We on the short end of the mental stick need a 
>little help, here.  Of the group responding (80.6%), 4.5% are atheists,
>for example.  Can we assume that none of the missing members are in any of 
>the listed categories?  

Judging from the UK Mensa Magazine, a distressingly high proportion of 
Mensans are into New Age pseudo-religions.  And then of course there are the 
Monetarists.

  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  
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: epowers@mccoy.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Question for theists on fate.
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:15:36 GMT


> 
> In article <1992Dec30.134859.12210@walter.cray.com>, jwest@wisc (Jeff West)  
writes...
> >Since there are many theists obviously reading this newsgroup I would
> >like to sincerely ask the following question.
> > 
> >Do you believe that your god (any religion) controls your destiny?
> >To expand it a bit, do you believe that when, or before, you are
> >born that your life has been all worked out for you by god and that
> >there is nothing you can do to change it?  Is god responsible for
> >what happens to you?
> > 
> >Since I'm the one that's asked the question I promise that *I* won't
> >flame any of your replys.
> > 
> >Yours in Colleen,     (who's been to darn quite lately }8-))
> >  Jeff West


	The thing that makes this such a hard question to answer is that God is  
outside of time.  How do you describe the influence of a being who sees the  
beginning, end, and everything in between all at once, and exerts influence on  
all points of time equally?  Even if I really understood the implications, I'm  
not sure semantics would be up to an adequate description!
						Erik Powers
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25353 talk.religion.misc:25530
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 8 Jan 93 08:16:14 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1993Jan7.181801.9242@ra.royalroads.ca> 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?  

The first one is impossible for me. Any moral imperative that requires
of me an impossibility is absurd.

>What is wrong about being a Christian?

I honestly don't believe the doctrine of Christianity to be true.

>Is your life diminished in any way by following these rules?

Any moral imperative that requires of me an impossibility diminishes
me.

>What have you got to lose?

My integrity.

>What do you believe?  

I believe my experience is authentic.

>Where is your book of life?

My life is my book.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 07:30:15 GMT

In article <C0Ez1K.G2L@ecf.toronto.edu> vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN) writes:
|In article <Hhc=Zk@engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
|>In article <C0D8ED.A9B@ecf.toronto.edu> vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN) writes:
|>>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 --

|Looking at the original post I realize that it is mostly vaporous and not
|clear in what it means.

Or perhaps you should take a remedial reading class.

|Re-reading the post now, I see that it has no clear
|point and one has to guess what the author is trying to say.

No, you *definitely* need to take a remedial reading class.

|I guess thats why I assume the attack was 
|against any mention of race in mankind.

The point is that "race" is a fiction, a fraud, a lie. A racist is
someone who believes in or promotes this fiction, this fraud, this
lie. You are therefore a racist.

-- Brad Pierce --