HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Date: 28 Aug 1992 00:19:00 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <l9qqtmINNs9g@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>(Douglas Graham) writes:

> Our current environmental crisis is due largely because there are too damn
> many people.  Energy shortages will probably become critical soon.  Hell,
> we just had a war over oil.  Acid rain.  Global warming.  Ozone holes.
> Polluted air and water.  Mass extinctions of other species.  Devastated
> rain forests.  etc. etc. etc.  All caused by the cancer which is our
> species.
> 
>That's one perspective.

>Another is that although there are many people, there already
>exists enough food to feed them all and space to house them. 

Actually, according to ZPG there is enough food to feed everyone on
earth, providing that we are all willing to go on a grain diet. However
the margin is not a large one. The same article said that there is 
enough food to feed about 3.2 billion people the diet of the average
American. This is a number about 2.3 billion less than the current
world population.

Even if everyone would go in a straight grain diet, a few more years and
the population will outgrow our current ability to produce food. In
addition, out ability to produce food is declining, due to soil erosion
and a reduction in the use of chemicals that we are now starting to
understand the dangers of using.

>This perspective would say that the problem lies in the
>distribution of resources.

I have heard this most often from the very same conservatives who would
squeal the loudest if we were to try to implement the type of
redistrubution that would be necessary to feed everyone. When you think
about it it won't take long to conclude that only a socialist society
would provide such a redistribution.

>Dano

Eric

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: cc971@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stephen  C. Fitch)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Reply-To: cc971@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stephen  C. Fitch)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 15:18:57 GMT


I think you're missing the point on overpopulation. People have more kids
because infant mortality is high. To get a true picture you must include the
resources consumed per person. When you do this you find that the rich
North "weighs" more heavily than overpopulated 3rd world countries (now
the USSR's gone, do they get promoted to 2nd? :-). The problem will be
solved better by reducing our consumption and not screewing the poorer
countries of the world. This month's "New Internationalist" does a good
examination of this very topic. Birth control is a convenient cover to
hide behind - people should have access to it, but it's not the prime
issue.

Peter	p.edwards@open.ac.uk
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15110 alt.atheism:16076
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The central theme of christianity
Date: 28 Aug 92 07:24:01 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <l9qqj2INNs92@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:

>(Brian Kendig) writes:

>>The central theme of Christianity is that there exists a god who is
>>responsible for creating all people.  Now, of course, this god wants
>>to be loved, but it's easy to create something that loves him by
>>definition, and this kind of love really doesn't mean much.  So he
>>puts people to the test so that they profess their love for him by
>>_choice_,

>Hmm. I don't think so. It seems to me this is an awfully 
>poor reason for accepting any religion: that there exists
>a creator who desires to be worshipped, with no immediate
>impact on an individual if s/he doesn't worship that 
>diety. This seems more like a zookeeper and pet relationship
>than anything else.

I agree.  It seems that the only resonable relationship between God
and Man is one where Man is here in preparation to becomming a God and
that worship is an acknowlgement of the relationship and our life is
learning stage where we can make mistakes and repent and learn.  Maybe
that is asking too much.
-- 
Good-day!

Mark
From: wismith@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (William R. Smith)
Subject: Re: Pliestocene extinctions
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 14:51:46 GMT
Distribution: na

Lee Thomas writes:
>
	
	Petroglyphs in New Mexico done by natives around 1000 AD
	distinctly show mammoths and what appear to be dinosaurs. 
	Several other sites worldwide indicate that mammoths and
	mastodons are only recently extinct, if at all.



Petroglyphs are very difficult to date.  Radiocarbon dates of
Pliestocene North American megafauna have latest dates around
13,000 to 9,000 years ago.  The dates are similar for Siberian
and Northern Europe mastadons and mammoths.

Extensive dung deposits in the American Southwest, Utah or Arizona
if I remember correctly, provide a series of dates and valuable information
about the environment in the area and the diet of the beasties.




William Smith
Intel, SSD

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: test 
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:32:54 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

test
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:48:33 GMT
Organization: Hmmm.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird


 Paal Steinar Berg wondered:
 
  Can one combine these statements:
  
  1.God is allmighty.
  2.God is only good. (i.e. not evil)
  3.Evil things happens.

(Steve Gross) replied:

 ---- Why do they have to be combined?  God IS Almighty.  God IS good.  
 God IS not evil.  And evil things do happen.  
 
 Because there is evil in the world, does not mean that God created it, or
 is the author of it.  The bible plainly says that Lucipher is the father
 of it, and not God.  Why does everyone always blame God?  Imagine God
 creating an angelic being with a mind, and emotions, etc...  could that

This is called "begging the question." If god created everthing,
including satan, then god also created evil; worse, if god is
omniscent, then god knew what god was doing. . .

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll)
Subject: Re: More JW Dishonesty in _Life: _
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:59:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.082509.5855@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	Nevertheless it is false. In this newsgroup there has been  three 
>	non-evolutionist biologist. Also, none of the evolutionists have been 
>	proved to be biologist. 

Antti, this is a very interesting reply to my posting.  How does this
respond to the example I posted?  Are we changing the subject here?

Could you name these three non-evolutionist biologists?

Are you sure that none of the evolutionists are biologists here?

Why don't you take this to talk.origins?  Chris Colby is an evolutionary
biologist, I know that for sure.


>
>	So, if only those that know about things would talk, there would be no 
>	confusion at all. And I am far more biologist than those evolutionists,
>	no matter where I am majoring at. 
>
>-- 
>
>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
>
>	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !

Antti, this makes no sense at all.  Could you please be clearer?

What qualifies you as a biologist?  I think I know more biology than
you do from the quality of your postings!

-- 
"All religions make me wanna throw up!"
"All religions make me sick!" - Dead Kennedys, Religious Vomit

corey@sdf.lonestar.org                       ..!uunet!convex!egsner!sdf!corey
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: skinner@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:01:16 GMT

perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry) writes:

>>Perhaps Mr. Graham simply overstated when he wrote "destroy the
>>planet."  Of course overpopulation will not destroy the planet.  It
>>will make the planet less livable, but the earth will continue to
>>exist regardless of the actions of humans.

>I believe the term you're looking for is "hyperbole", which is
>consistent with the satiric construction of the sentence ("It also
>seems to be a tenet...").  Even the worst scenarios of nuclear war are
>unlikely to literally destroy the planet.

The use of hyperbole in a blanket condemnation is a questionable
practice at best.

[Mr. Graham wrote]
>>>How do you suppose that opposition
>>>to birth control, sex education and abortion jives with this?
>>
>>When you couple it with advocacy of abstinence (as seems to be the
>>case with most who oppose the above), it jives well.  Abstinence would
>>control population as well as anything mentioned above.  (Disclaimer:
>>this is not my own view on population control; however, I am able to
>>understand differing points of view.)
[I replaced the disclaimer.]

>Not at all.  To the best of my knowledge, most of the children born in
>parts of the world suffering from overpopulation are born within
>wedlock, and most of the groups with the attitudes Doug cites do not
>advocate continence within marriage, often quite the opposite.

I mentioned nothing about wedlock.  I'm talking about abstinence as a
form of birth control.  It jives with opposition to artificial means
of birth control, sex education, and abortion.  (Disclaimer: see the
above disclaimer.)

>Certainly successful advocacy of complete sexual continence for all
>would indeed lead to a reduced population, but short of the Shakers I
>haven't heard that being preached lately.

I am not referring to complete sexual continence.
-- 
Gregg Skinner    g-skinner@uiuc.edu         I speak for no organization.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion,alt.romance.chat
From: alc@netcom.com (Chris Stassen)
Subject: Re: Genesis - fact or fiction
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 16:10:24 GMT
Organization: The Lion's Den, San Jose
Followup-To: talk.origins
Reply-To: stassen@alc.com

Followups are set to talk.origins, the proper forum for this topic.

Stephen Buckley writes:
> until 2 days ago, i was quite uninformed about the scientific evidence
> that blew evolution to pieces.  but 2 days ago i found the following book.
> in the book _In The Beginning_ [...]

This book may be news to Mr. Buckley, but it is "old hat" to the t.o
crowd.  When I first joined net.origins in 1984, someone was posting
arguments from an earlier revision of the same work there.  For quite
some time, it was even in the "book recommendations" list.

Mr. Buckley may be impressed by Brown's work, but if he tries to pull any
of Brown's arguments on someone acquainted with the field(s) in question,
he is bound to be disappointed.  Every argument of Brown's that I have
examined in detail is either flatly wrong (e.g., mistaking metals residency
times as a limit to the age of the oceans), badly misleading (e.g., claiming
that an argument for a slow change to the speed of light over several
billion years allows for a 10,000-year-old universe in which we can see
for billions of light-years), or simply irrelevant (e.g., attempting to
draw parallels between "evolution" of languages and biological evolution).

A few years back, I constructed a well-referenced demolition of a dozen of
Brown's "categories of evidence" that someone had seen fit to post.  It is
rather long, but anyone who is interested in a copy may contact me via Email.
I challenge Mr. Buckley (or anyone else who is impressed by Brown's
arguments) to read the article and its references.

> now i haven't gone through all the sources for the 127 points that
> lead to the above conclusions, and i've decided to not bother.

It seems that Mr. Buckley is just asking for a rude awakening.
-- 
Chris Stassen						stassen@alc.com
DISCLAIMER:  My employer's account, but not their opinions.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14575 talk.abortion:33070 alt.romance.chat:17509
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion,alt.romance.chat
Subject: Proof that the USMC is ToolOfTheDevil[tm]
Date: 23 Aug 92 21:40:02 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

rip@sequent.com (Neader"jarHeaded"Man) writes:
] In article <1992Aug16.212132.8582@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >
] >Since I have Yet to find:
] >
] >1. CAS: Close Air Support
] 
] We all *know* that Marine CAS is the best in the World!!

This statement is not correct.

] >2. MAF: Marine Amphibious Force
] >
] >In the Bible, this is therefore Clear Proof
] >that the USMC is a ToolOfTheDevil[tm]?????
] 
] And what is the problem with this?  After all we are also known as
] 'DevilDogs', a nickname we wear with pride...

Along with Fleas, lice, and little things that evolve
upward from single celled organisms and are found
in the Mud....

{ those are the NotYetUSMCthingies.... }

] >A point that is Intuitively Self Evidently Intrinsicly
] >Obvious to the Casual Observer of the 'little green machine.'
] 
] 'Casual'?  When the hell have *you* ever been 'JustaCasualObserver'?
] Not bloody likely...

"Oh I am Just SHOCKED that you would USE such Rude Course language....", he
said, casually observing the rough edges around that neaderthalman.

] >ps: Not that I would wish to suggest or allude to
] >any form of intraservice rivalry.....
] 
] Oh, sure.... Right... I believe ya....
 
does the phrase, 
"go tell it to the marines, 
as the navy isn't buying it." [1]

bring anything to mind?????

] By the way, me and LF kicked some butt on T2 at the MiniGolf place....

"Oh My, Oh My, Oh My!", he said, becoming painfully aware
that this young man suffered from unresolved violent
tendencies and would most likely remain a threat to
those around him......

ciao
drieux

[1] for those who are slow on the uptake,
that IS the quote... and not that hunk of
Junk 'John WayneIsm' that everyone has been
confused about for years....


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Sin
Date: 4 Sep 1992 17:05:36 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Paul Harvey) writes:

 >We must be careful how we use the word "sin". Neither the baby
 >nor the mother "sins" at birth, yet sin is the end result, for
 >estrangement as a requisite condition for the baby's individuation
 >is inevitable.
 
 right? But birth, if it is a sin, is different. It is not good or bad, it
 just is. There are no options, no turning back. As you say, the original
 meaning for sin was estrangement from God, but sin has changed to mean bad
 or against the will of God or not proper conduct, not doing the right thing.
 Estrangement or birth or individuation is not bad, right? Not evil?

Sin is a result of action: being born, etc. If one does "evil", an
inevitable result is turning away from god by "doing" the evil act.
Estrangement, birth, or individuation is not "evil", but it results
in "sin", just as evil actions do; however, estrangement is necessary
for individuation: just as we must leave our family, go out on our
own, and maybe eventually return: we are all "prodigal sons".

The idea of sin meaning only "doing evil" is the popular misconception
of the term, much as -- well, I can't think of a suitable example,
but the idea is that if we use "sin" as a theological term, it may
have a different meaning than if we use it in its popular sense.
At least this is my meaning.

 
 Hmm ... And what is the sound of a snake talking to a naked woman? Does not
 snake say, "Worlds above, worlds below, no one in the world like me" and
 yet the woman hears different? Or does she?

Well, all we have to go on is the text. It may have been as you
describe.

 I think they were already mortal, but did not know it. The clock was already
 ticking, but they did not understand until eating the fruit.

Ah, yes. Much like many animals do not know the concept
of their own finitude. Perhaps the fruit was more than
just knowledge of "good and evil", for as we have shown,
death is not necessarily good or evil.

...Ready for the student when the student is ready to learn. When
 the student is ready, the teacher appears?

Quite.

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Summary: now you've seen the light, you're going to stand up for your right!
Organization: Into the light, not away!
	<1992Aug28.172557.24405@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:02:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.172557.24405@en.ecn.purdue.edu> 
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>I guess what it boils down to is that one _must_ start with a blind faith.

NO! One _must_ open one's eyes and SEE! One can never see by closing one's eyes.
Into the light, where things are clearer, not into the dark where one is misled.
The creator created you with eyes so that you could see, why do you refuse this
gift and use blinders? The Lord delivered us FROM slavery, why do you cling to 
the broken shackles?

>Humility is the key! 

Think, use your mind, as the creator intended. That is the key.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: ccx018@cch.coventry.ac.uk (Leslie Griffiths (Griff))
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Organization: Coventry University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 07:20:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.132553.22606@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:

>When you couple it with advocacy of abstinence (as seems to be the
>case with most who oppose the above), it jives well.  Abstinence would
>control population as well as anything mentioned above.  (Disclaimer:
>this is not my own view on population control; however, I am able to
>understand differing points of view.)

I don't think that the Catholic church advocates celibacy (except in its
priesthood) - in fact quite the contrary. Breeding is the name of the game
(as long as its within marriage of course.)

>Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.

Cheers


-- 
Griff				\\         	ccx018@uk.ac.cov
^^^^^		       		 :-=       	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
		        	//
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine)
Subject: Re: Faith
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University - Chemistry Dept. Programmer
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:16:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.134922.13768@hellgate.utah.edu>, dpugmire%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (David Pugmire) writes...
}>Without "faith" in the unknown and the scarcely believeable,
}>it is unlikely "science" would have progressed as far as it
}>has.
} 
}>Clearly "faith" does not mean "ceasing to think", much
}>as you would like to have it that way; perhaps in one sense,
}>it means being willing to hold as true for a moment, pending
}>further investigation.
} 
}>Dano
} 
}I agree that faith != ceasing to think.
} 
}In the Book of Mormon (a "bible-type" record of the people in 
}the Americas translated in 1830 ) an excellent discourse on faith 
}is given. In Alma Chapter 32, Alma talks of faith and how faith can 
}become knowledge.  Faith is a stepping stone to greater things.  He 
}says that before you can even have faith you have to experiment with
}some principle and see if brings forth good fruit.  If it does, you 
}have faith in that principle - Faith requires some experience, it takes
}thinking and effort.  If no good fruit is borne, the principle is
}to be cast off.

And if both good and bad "fruit" are "borne"?

}If you don't at least assume that something could possibly be true,
}you can never know if it is or not.
} 
}I'm new to the group, and hope I don't repeat what has been discussed
}before, but what would the world be like if no one had dared to think
}that the world was round, or that a spaceship could reach the moon.
}dp

There is a distinct difference in faith on a subject that has the possibility
of being tested and faith in God. The former can be eventually shown to be
valid or invalid while the latter is forever untestable. Scientists do not
have faith everlasting in itself... when a few claimed to have found cold
fusion, there were those who believed and those who doubted... tests were
done, and it was shown to be a false belief. As this is impossible to
apply to the existence or non-existence of God, why should I, as a non-believer
accept your claim to his existence based on faith any more than someone elses
claim that he doesn't exist?

}-IvArch->--------------------------Brett G. Lemoine-------------------->
}-Texas A&M University--------------Chemistry Department Programmer----->
}-Internet: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu-Bitnet: lemoine@tamchem------------->
}------"A person without a god is like a fish without a skateboard."---->
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14801 alt.sex:27575
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: some questions about God(tm)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:18:14 GMT

Kent Sandvik writes:

>Stephen Buckley wrote:
>>   you seem to have completely misunderstood what i was saying.  the contacts
>> i've had spiritually in the past are not of god and i'm saying i don't
>> want conscious contact with spirits, so if i do get spirits invading my
>> life, i'll assume they're not from god.  i understand the gnostic
>> perspective of this danger and i find it [and most gnostic wisdom]
>> absurd.  i value my personal experience with god to be more authentic
>> than gnostic garbage.

>Well, we both agree that Satan is the ultimate deceiver. He could show
>up as a friendly spirit, or even as Jesus. And would lead people to
>disaster. This is the issue I wanted to point out, if you believe
>in Satan and spirits that twist people's minds, you have to also
>accept the fact that he has done it to you as well.

  well this is exactly my point.  and it's the reason why i object to 
any spiritual interference on the conscious level, and why i no longer
meditate, trip our or by any other means enter altered state of 
consciousness where this manifests.

>> >As for pure evidence of Godlike qualities, this happened *frequently*
>> >during the Biblical times, people actually assumed that prophets 
>> >and God's sons should do miracles, and that God should speak from
>> >a burning bush or a cloud now and then. This is missing from our
>> >current world. Christianity desperately needs similar miracles,
>> >otherwise the religion is doomed to disappear due to the more
>> >secular view modern people have.

>>   no christianity *needs* no such miracles.  me and millions of people
>> convert to christianity without them.  

>Not in the beginning. Anyway, people convert to false religions as well
>without the need of any evidence. Christianity is not different in this
>sense.

  yeah, a lot of false religions depend, tho, on numbing a person's
critical capacity to internal inconsistencies in theology/philosohy
and to a person's instincts against the dogma.  christianity can stand
up to open-minded prayerful criticism of a highly intellectual sort.

---                          
     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"                   
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15626 alt.atheism:16533