HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: epowers@mccoy (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Buddhism - A religion of atheists?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 08:54:55 GMT

	I guess I'm curious to know which sect of Buddhism you're looking  
at.  Is it Theravada, Mahayana, Nichiren Shoshu...?  Not all sects of  
Buddhism are atheistic, as Buddhism often soaks up the religious beliefs  
around it, although there is every reason to beleive that in original  
form, Buddhism is inherently atheistic.
					Erik Powers
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:26687 talk.religion.misc:27120
From: dyer@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What? (was Re: Why? (was Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER))
Date: 21 Jan 93 20:49:56 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <1jagioINNb35@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>, starr-daniel@yale.edu (Daniel Starr) writes:
> In article <1993Jan16.224449.17941@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>In article <llgpudINNs3f@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>>When studying such religions and philosophys, it is important to
>>>remember that much of what is being said is expressed in term of
>>>metaphore. This is because of our limited ability to comprehend the
>>>true nature of such trancendant reality. Now I realize that this is
>>>being crossposted to alt.athiesm, (because I'm not sure which
>>>group you are on), but even from an athiestic perspective the fact
>>>of the need for metaphore to express trancendant realities is
>>>evident: for example, mathematics is used as metaphore to describe
>>>the trancendant realities of quantum mechanics.
>>
>>I'll leave this to one of the physicist types.  "transcendant
>>realites of quantum mechanics" sounds bogus to me.  Do physicists
>>really talk like that?
>>
> Since you ask... no, they don't.  At least not at Yale or UCSD.  It's
> quite bogus... quantum mechanics is not 'transcendent' at all.  It's true
> (and occasionally very frustrating) that it's impossible to measure things
> beyond a certain level of precision without significantly affecting the
> system you're measuring, and as a result a lot of statements have to become
> probabilistic rather than absolute, but there's nothing 'transcendent' about it.
> 
> And, no, mathematics is not a 'metaphore'[sic]; it's a tool, in quantum
> mechanics as in any other branch of physics or natural science, for 
> manipulating quantitative descriptions.  Mr. Marsh, what on earth are you
> trying to convince people of about quantum mechanics?
> 
> -- 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> |Daniel Starr                | "Wait! Wait! Maybe THIS will work!" |
> |dstarr@minerva.cis.yale.edu |                                     |
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

Try diagraming some of these sentences.  You'll never publish with writing 
like that!





Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: T.G.Nattress@newcastle.ac.uk (Graeme Nattress)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God MUST be bored! (Hypothetically)
Date: 26 Jan 93 09:39:14 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

jjh37997@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (James J. Herlburt) writes:

>gre253@its.csiro.au (Steve Green) writes:


>The good doctor Asimov wrote a short story that somewhat expressed this idea.He stated that the only thing a being, like the supposed God, would want is to
>die. God then went about creating humans (and others) to help him think of a
>way to do it. Good story - wish I rememebered the name.

I think it was called "The Last Man" although this may be just me thinking up a
good title for the story and thinking that Asimov used the title as well.  I
have read it, quite some time ago but didn't read into it the deeper meaning
expressed here, but now I come to think of it the meaning is a good one.

I think that God's boredom as a logical consequence of his eing is one of the
more damming things against his existance and consequently of (if it existed)
the wish of atheists to prefer proper final death to any idea of heaven.

Graeme,
{---    T.G.Nattress@uk.ac.ncl -----------------------------------------}
{-----Hitler is Nibor from the Planet Vashir, the Galactic     ---------}
{---  shape-changing psychopath. ---------------------------------------}
{-----John, The Tomorrow People, Hitler's Last Secret.------------------}
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: To all Atheists
Date: 24 Jan 93 00:20:41 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: The Language Game Inc.

In article <105532@netnews.upenn.edu>, clayton@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Onyx)
wrote:
> 	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 about the bible and church more than anything else?  If not, then ignore them as hypocrites.

A nice classification scheme, the problem -- as I see it -- is that I
have met such wonderful persons, and they are *not* Christians. In other
words I have not personally seen any correlations with particular
brands of religion and goodness.

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND
Private activities on the Net, opinions are not Apple's, they are mine.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Robert Huss)
Subject: Re: From talk.origins; School Board Takeover
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:11:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.005843.17629@netcom.com>, madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
|> Included article follows:
|> 

|> 
|> BIBLES AND THE BOARD -- A SKIRMISH BREWING
|> By Micahel Granberry
|> 
|>    VISTA, Calif. -- At Allen's Alley Cafe, the noontime conversation
|> these days often turns to a hot topic: The city's school board,
|> whose new members make up what many call a right-wing, Bible-beating
|> majority bent on change.

[frightening article deleted]

	Recently, I've noticed that Pat Robertson is pulling out all the
stops in his 700 club shows.  He has been condemning our education system,
and proposing just the sort of changes that the Vista school board is going
for.  I wouldn't be surprised if this is a test case for his movement.  
	He has been linking the experimental unstructured teaching methods
with the removal of school prayer and religious teaching in our schools.  I
don't think this link is valid, but it could be that Vista is one of
these experimental areas where they have been using unorthodox teaching
methods, and a prime target for his accusations. 
	He connects the decline of the American education system compared
to other countries with the removal of religion and 'moral values' from schools.
This connection is completely unwarrented in my mind, but it is a very
effective tactic.  
	If, at the above school, the school board both improves the education
system by going back to structured techniques, stressing the 3 R's, while 
also bringing school prayer back, censoring 'morally wrong' literature, and
reforming sex-education classes, people will see some connection between good
teaching and ther religious right.  This is pretty frightening.  

	Has anyone seen conservative surges in the schools in other areas?

Bob Huss.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: zell@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Joseph Zell)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:18:26 GMT

pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>not one but two arguments.

>First of all, there are statements in the Bible that are demonstrably
>FALSE, such as the indirect implication at one point that PI is equal
>to exactly three, and the apparent claim that the universe is only
>five thousand years old.

That apparent claim is false.  This fact is used over and over again, when
it is completely false.  (This is not a flame, but I am a bit upset that
this myth is allowed to continue as much as it had).
In the later 1800's, some Catholic Bishop guy traced through the lineages
of the Bible, and computed that number. However, he did not take into account
the original translation.  The word "son of" used throughout those lineages,
in the Ancient Hebrew, actually can mean "son of", "grandson of", "great-
great-great grandson of", etc. It more closes resembles "ancestor of" than
"son of".  Therefore, there can be a lot more people in there, and hence a 
lot more time has passed.  My point is that there is no claim anyway that
the Earth is 6000 years old. (I believe the figure is 6000, not 5000). I would
love to see the 'indirect implication' you have mentioned here. It kinda sounds
like you're stretching to me. :) Do you know the verse offhand? Anyway, I just 
wanted to correct the statement about the 5000 years thing. 
Joe

-- 
Joe Zell               *  "I knew Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was my  
zell@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu  *  friend..."
                       *            -Ronald Reagan, 1992 GOP convention speech
From: wilkins@scubed.com (Darin Wilkins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Ontological argument...
Date: 25 Jan 93 09:26:49 GMT
Organization: S-CUBED, A Division of Maxwell Labs; San Diego CA

Alan Blair writes:

>The basic ontological argument for the existence of god goes along
>these lines...

>"God is conceived as being perfect; non-existence would be an
>imperfection; thus God must exist"

>The crux of the matter is getting from the conceptual perfect being to
>the real one, and while the version above is clearly bollocks I
>remember hearing a better phrased one, that needed more thought to
>straighten out just WHY it was wrong.  This post is a request for a
>sounder phrasing... mail or post, take your pick.

>(While it may sound like a stupid argument, the more convoluted forms
>of the ontological argument can really wrap your brain around itself
>trying to unravel them.

I don't know the phrasing of the version that you are looking for.
But instead of wracking your brain trying to unravel some of the more
convoluted forms of it, try replacing the 'God' entity in the argument
with the entity 'Invisible Pink Unicorns'.  For example, in the version
you post above:

"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?

(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?)

darin
wilkins@scubed.scubed.com
________________________________
|                              |
| I will be President for food |
|______________________________|
From: christen@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Carl Christensen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: How much should we read?
Date: 22 Jan 93 03:48:15 GMT
Organization: Temple University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu) wrote:
: A religion is barbaric if it teaches barbaric things.  If it teaches
: non-barbaric things based on misinterpretations of a Bible that, interpreted
: properly, should instead be read as teaching barbaric things...  well, that
: doesn't count.
: If the scholar discovers that the Bible teaches cruelty, all that means is tha
: modern Judaism has made a mistake in giving passages a non-cruel reading, but
: it does _not_ mean that Judaism teaches cruelty.  Anti-semitism probably _is_
: a motive for such a leap.

I don't see how someone could give Deuteronomy, Numbers, etc. (as posted
elsewhere) a 'non-cruel' reading.  Perhaps modern Judaism doesn't follow
the proscribed rules in these books exactly (luckily for us :) ), but these
rules and laws must have been what was once taught and followed.  So this
scholar translating similar scrolls could have found this repugnant (by 
todays standards) and may not necessarily have been steeped in anti-Semitism.


Carl Christensen                       christen@astro.ocis.temple.edu
Department of Computer Science
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA  19122   USA         (215) 735-6787
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov (James L. Felder)
Subject: Re: BELIEVERS: WHAT WOULD MAKE YOU NOT BELIEVE IN GOD?
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Sverdrup Technology, Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:40:32 GMT

In article <1jaa81INNfk1@kralizec.zeta.org.au>, mikeh@kralizec.zeta.org.au
(Michael Hore) wrote:
> 
> He draws an analogy with marriage, which I could paraphrase:
> Say I've got a reasonably healthy marriage relationship, if
> someone tells me they saw my wife flirting with someone else,
> I might be "logical" to start to examine all the evidence,
> but I wouldn't be a very good husband.  I know my wife, and
> know she wouldn't do that.  To entertain those sorts of
> doubts would just mean lack of trust.
>
 
Yes, but to make the anology complete, what if that someone had pictures of
your wife in her birthday suit with some else not you.  This is more the
case with Xianity.  We have the "pictures" of an inconsistent, mean
spirited, genocidal god in the bible.  We don't just say that there are
things in the bible that make the Xian god unbelievable without examples to
back it up, evidence the number of biblical quotations by atheist in this
group.

The come back by the Xians is usually of the order of, well yes that is my
wife, but she's not really having an affair with that guy.  No let me tell
you what those pictures really mean. They mean ....  What follows is
usually a lot of tap dancing trying to put a coherent story together.  When
all else fails, well then its a "mystery" as to what she was doing with
that guy stark naked in that motel room, but it was definitely NOT an
affair.  "I have Faith in my wife, she would never do that". |-(

Like our former president says "trust, but verify".

James L. Felder            (216)891-4019         -My opinions are MINE-
Sverdrup Technology, Inc.  jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov  I think that should
NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland 44135        cover all bases, 
                                                  don't you.

"Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge -
    other people gargle"
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:27060 talk.religion.misc:27640
From: lucio@phyrql.Alt.ZA (Lucio de Re)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Islamic proof of existence of god!!??
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:22:03 GMT
Reply-To: lucio@proxima.Alt.ZA
Organization: MegaByte Digital Communications

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>In article <1993Jan22.080000.19786@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>> [ ... ]          shows that this particular atheist seems to suffer
>>from a "holier-than-thou" attitude.

>Then all the "monitors" from soc.religion.islam should leave alt.atheism,
>right, since they're doing the same thing in reverse?

But they are "holier than thou", aren't they?
-- 
Lucio de Re (lucio@phyrql.Alt.ZA)
The supernatural does not exist, but it gives me the creeps...
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu (Scott C DeLancey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Date: 25 Jan 1993 19:40:24 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: darkwing.uoregon.edu

In article <01050133.ohmnd7@distant.uucp> edw@distant.uucp writes:
>
>In article <1jo4trINNlp1@pith.uoregon.edu> (alt.atheism,sci.skeptic), delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu (Scott C DeLancey) writes:
>> In article <1993Jan20.213756.8012@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>> >
>> >I would be most greatful if you could point out to me the passages in
>> >Scripture that support "treating gays badly".
>> 
>> Well, one that leaps to mind is Leviticus 18, where among the many
>> offences for which the offender is to be "cut off from his people" is
>> for a man to lie with a man as with a woman.
>
>Not to inject reason into this, but could you ask these questions for me?
>
>Assuming, for the sake of argument, that God says homosexuality is immoral,
>can you tell us why He says it's immoral? If it's because He says so, please
>tell us *why* He says so. Now, we have your *real* reason for thinking that
>homosexuality is immoral. Unless you can explain *why* God says homosexuality
>is immoral, you're making your god look pretty arbitrary, or, alternatively,
>you're making morality beyond human comprehension, which would make me wonder
>why we're being held accountable for things that we can't even begin to
>comprehend.
>
>You see, the Divine Command theory of morality doesn't work, even to fellow
>believers. You're going to need to fall back onto some other moral theory.
>
>I'll be looking forward to your *real* justification for condemning
>homosexuality.
>
>Ed
>
>> Scott DeLancey
>
Huh?  Was this addressed to *me*?

Scott DeLancey
From: bew@brahms.udel.edu (Ben Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: contradictory nature of free will and omni-anything
Summary: Why for god's sake do you believe in free will?
Date: 26 Jan 93 14:41:03 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1jng1uINN43q@shelley.u.washington.edu> jeon@carson.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon) writes:
; 
; Attn:
; mikeh@kralizec.zeta.org.au (Michael Hore) and Ray Ingles; 
; 
; I think I have given you both the impression that I don't believe in
; free will. 
; 
; So let me state here once and for all that I do believe in free will.
; 
; I believe even self-consciousness is physical phenomena, putting it
; bluntly, consequence of electro-chemical reactions happening in my
; brain.
; 

Argh, and here you sounded like such a sensible fellow!  Yet you do believe
in free will.  Sigh...

Ben.

-- 
Ben Williams
bew@brahms.udel.edu

               What we got here is a failure to communicate... 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
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: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:40:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.160421.5216@texhrc.uucp> pyeatt@Texaco.com (Larry D. Pyeatt) writes:
>
>What a cruel and immoral thing to do to another human being.  It is made
>all the more worse by the fact that it is found in a book which supposedly
>contains only the word of God.  There are thousands of such references in
>the Bible.  Everything from killing babies to raping women to killing one's
>own children.  All at the commandment of this wonderful God. The Bible is 
>definitely not the word of MY God.  Mine has much higher morals.
>

Well then, why don't you take this boasting to alt. whatever _your_
wonderful God's name and get it out of here?  One thing I'm not really
interested in is reading some self satisfied yuppie boasting about their 
high moral standards.  Reminds me of the person who screams out the back 
door at his neighbors about how happy he is. 
 I vote we somehow break this endless link between alt.atheism and 
alt.skepticism.  There's no end to a "my God's better than your God"
argument.













Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Atheism in pop culture
Organization: none
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:58:00 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>FROM:   Geoff Arnold Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top <geoff@poori.East.Sun.COM>
>
>Try almost anything by Crass (the best punk band that ever was).  Check

[...]
>Actually, a fair amount of the material that's been mentioned in this
>thread is antitheist rather than atheist. It doesn't make much sense

I tried imagining the alternative -- PRO-atheist without reference to 
god or religion.  Couldn't do it.  Null makes for boring artistic 
embellishment! 8^(

I would expect a truly atheistic tune would give no evidence of god, say 
"Mack the Knife".  People getting fit with concrete shoes, blood 
everywhere, death and destruction rampant, and no one saying, "Dear GOD, 
save me from Mack." or "God rest his soul." for the Knife's victims.
Quantum Mechanics: "Five'll getcha ten old Macky's back in town." 8^)
(I picked this particular tune because I think it fits the theistic 
vision of the cruel, amoral atheist.  Without God, we're all just like 
Macky and his crowd, living dirty little lives in the shadowy underworld 
of vice and crime.)

>blaming Jesus for being a "petulant child... wrapped in the bloody
>shroud of churlish suicide" who "scooped the pits of Auschwitz" if you
>don't believe that he was connected in some way to a deity.  The
>assertion "god is evil" is not consistent with atheism.
>

God[any] = X, where X = !null, is inconsistent with atheism for all X.

For the claim, God = !evil, evidence that God = evil shows that, at a 
minimum, God is multiply/improperly defined, if not an extraneous 
variable.  Get in your favorite brain editor, remove all references to 
god in all subroutines, and see if your life doesn't run better. Free up 
resources for other programs (classical guitar, chess, and golf are a lot 
more fun than praying, in my particular case).

Actually, I keep the variable active and define it either: 
God = funny or God = !funny, depending.  I just don't pay the shareware 
fees.

-jim

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Deliberate Ignorance
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:56:52 GMT


   I'm sure (being a charitable man) that the following response makes
at least some sense, could someone tell me in what way ...

Bill

: I have to take exception at your way of describing the atheist handling
: of biblical material. Lots of great minds wasted much time with that dull
: book so I can hit Xians over the head with it!
: 

   What follows next is even more obscure. Am I to take the following
four statements as containing information or are they just random
groupings of letters ...

Bill

: Eg, a combination of these doesn't make an atheist case?
: 
: * Early Xian tradition (<150 AD, as evidenced in non-biblical writings)
: * Biblical support
: * Long tradition in all Xian subcults
: * Xian denying its place in the dogma
: 

   Ah! Here comes a clue. It appears that His Most Ultimate
Non-sequiter, does not speak our native tongue, hence the confusion.
What follows though is strong evidence that logic is not his native
state of mind either ...

Bill

: Eg, lot's of Xians locally in Sweden speek very quitly about hell.
: That pisses me off, since I have to first show them lots of references
: of early writings that really gloats in the punishment for us, the
: unbelievers (and others) before I can give moral arguments for what an
: inhuman religion they are members of! (No smiley. I have done this!)
: 
: Then there are, to me, at least one known case of pure history lie in
: the bible (see Russel: A history of western philosophy (or what it's
: original title is).
: 
: I'd say your post was a half-OK try at an excuse for religious people.
: Soon you'll say that they should be left alone, since they seem happier
: with their religion, and happiness can't be bought for money. My answer
: is that the total happiness in society goes downward with more religion
: (sociological effects of intolerance, if nothing else). Besides, I can't 
: stand when people live happily on lies I can't make myself believe. .)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism