HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - with Dan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Buddhism and the Absolute God
Date: 27 Jan 93 06:30:54 GMT
Organization: Institute Of Systems Science, NUS
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4


Buddhism and the Absolute God

Buddhism is a "Godless" or atheist religion (see posting: Buddhism - A
Religion of Atheists?).  So, what does Buddhism have to say about an
Absolute God?  There is a satire in the Buddhist scriptures that
illustrates the Buddhist attitude towards the Almighty.  Satires are
quite common among Buddist scriptures as the Buddha was known to have
a good sense of humor.  Below is the satire (caution: don't accept
it literally, it's meant to be a story):

Once, the Buddha was visited by a High deva (deva == Heavenly Being) who
happened to be one of the Kings of the Heavens.  They exchanged greetings
and the King said, "I am All-powerful!".
Buddha : "That's very good, but what can you do?"
King   : "I can move mountains and seas, I can cause great storms, I can
         create earthquakes, I can ......... (etc, all the things most
         people say God can do)".
Buddha : "That's good.  But tell me King, what happens to a man who
         indulges in virtue?"
King   : "He goes to Heaven and enjoys the fruits of his actions".
Buddha : "And what happens to a man who indulges in evil?"
King   : "He goes to Hell and suffers the fruits of his actions".
Buddha : "Can you change that?"
King   : "No, I can't."
Buddha : "Can you anhiliate all sufferings in the world?"
King   : "No, I can't."
Buddha : "In that case, you are not All-powerful."


CHADE MENG
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:24:29 CST
From: David James Alexander Hanley <U16244@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Islamic proof of existence of god!!??
 <1993Jan19.144546.18395@bradford.ac.uk>
 <1993Jan22.080000.19786@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
 <1993Jan22.195626.6207@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
 <1993Jan24.000246.3516@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>

In article <1993Jan24.000246.3516@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>,
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) says:
>
>
>>Then all the "monitors" from soc.religion.islam should leave alt.atheism,
>>right, since they're doing the same thing in reverse?
>
>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
>counter falsehoods about Islam that are spread on the net.  I think
>nobody would have any problem if atheists organised themselves to also
>counter the creation of anti-atheist, but invalid, "straw man" arguments.
>

  See?  It is a similar situation.  We are simply trying to correct the
creation of falsehoods.  For example, that there is a god and that
Islam makes any sense at all.  And it is quite insulting to accuse
an atheist of having a holier-than-thou attitude ;)


dave
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.
He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for
protection to his own" - Thomas Jefferson, 1814

SEND E-MAIL TO : hanley1@earth.eecs.uic.edu
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 06:07:07 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <11213@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>  The question then still remains of what to do when I get
>  perpendicular reports of god experiences from two or more 
>  conflicting religions.

To say nothing of mutually contradictory 'god-experiences' in the
same person.
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Strong atheism ought to explain theism (Was: Re: Atheism is dogmatic.
Date: 22 Jan 1993 17:47:47 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (White Rook)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) says:

>In <1jjs2kINN4n3@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>
>

>>>What sorts of arguments can we present to account for these mistaken beliefs?
>>>One of my favorites is that the experiences of people claiming to be "touched
>>>by God" are nearly identical to the experiences of persons with temporal lobe
>>>seizures.  In other words, I can tell someone who says, "I know God exists
>>>because I felt his presence," that what he has described sounds a lot like
>>>an epileptic seizure.
>>>
>[...]
>
>>	To me the "I *FEEL* god's presence & it's *WARM* & *FUZZY* just does
>>NOt cut it, perception alone does not count.
>
>Be careful when you say this.  Most likely you base your general belief
>that the material world exists (I assume you hold this view, like the
>vast majority of people do) on your sense perceptions.
>

	If someone is convinced that the material world is not real and
that all we see, hear, taste and touch then I think they could prove this by
letting me hit their hand with a hammer, since the hammer and the hand are
both not real their should be no problem with this. But yet none have taken
up this chance to prove the material world false.

>Now, many religious people, notably mystics, claim to have "experienced"
>God.  It is certainly possible that their experience of God was just as
>real as our present experience of our respective computer terminals.
>This then puts a belief in God for this particular person on a par with
>the vast majority of people's belief in the real existence of the
>material world.

	Than again someone into Peyote can have the same thing.

>
>Thus, a true "experience" of God may be a very rational reason for that
>particular person to believe in God.  Definitely as rational as the reason
>the vast majority of people have for believing in the existence of the
>material world.

	I think not, *WARM* and *FUZZY* is not as concrete as concrete =-)

>
> Fred Rice
> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au   
>
-- 
A. TRENT PHILLIPS |" A mirror is a negative space with a frame and a place for
  also known as   | your face, it reveals what the rest of us see. It conceals
   WHITE  ROOK    | what you'd like you to be."--Blue Oyster Cult
--------------------------bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu--------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:26878 talk.religion.misc:27336
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Where does Adam and Eve Fit In?  Attn:  Jeff West
Date: 23 Jan 93 03:25:20 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan23.005958.21563@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
|> Jeff West writes:
|> 
|> > Ok, as I understand it you take the creation of Adam and Eve as
|> > described in Genesis literally, correct?  Meaning that we all have
|> > decended from 2 people.
|> 
|> Before a number of people start taking your statement out of 
|> context and begin flaming me, let me restate what I mean by
|> "literally".  :-)
|> 
|> What I mean by literally, is that I try to interpret the passages
|> in the Bible based on their content and the passages' literary form.
|> The literary form can make all the difference on how to interpret
|> a passage.

That's not what most people understand by "literally".   The on-line
Webster says (in part)

	"according with the letter of the scriptures"

and then goes on to talk about "adhering to fact or to the ordinary 
construction or primary meaning of a term or expression"

It looks to me as though what you mean by "literally" has something
to do with literary criticism, and interpretation w.r.t a literary
style or cultural background, but it's not entirely clear what.

jon.
From: mam@mouse.cmhnet.org (Michael A. McAngus)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Where is the good discussion? (a theist writes)
Distribution: world
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:01:38 EST
Organization: Dept. for paying my cat's rent

Wayne, Wayne, Wayne.
The reason that some Atheists bash fundies is the same reason that some fundies
condemn Atheists.  There are individuals on both sides who are convinced that 
their way is the only correct way (though I suspect that the percentage of Xians
who believe they have the one true way far exceeds the percentage of Atheists 
who are convinced of they correctness).

The reason that some Atheists, myself included, are annoyed when people achieve
something and then thank JEEZUS is because we can see the work they did to 
accomplish their feat.

The reason I do not take my discussion to a.a.m is because I like the direct 
challenge to my world view, and I don't want a filter to the arguments that 
others present (although the upstream newsfeed went down again and I lost another
three days worth of news.  I'm beginning to sympathize with Mr. Nyikos.).  I much
prefer to rely on the kill file and the "N" key to filter out the drivel.

--
Mike McAngus                     | Parenthood is too important a responsibility
mam@mouse.cmhnet.org (new addr.) | to force on anyone.
The Truth is still the Truth     |
Even if you choose to ignore it. |  Sarah Weddington (the above is from memory)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
From: pyeatt@Texaco.com (Larry D. Pyeatt)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Organization: Texaco
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:04:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.213756.8012@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan16.215438.18812@msc.cornell.edu> maynard@leah.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley) writes:
|> >then what makes christianity correct in other cases? We can find biblical
|> >tracts that support treating gays badly---does that mean we must accept it
|> 
|> I would be most greatful if you could point out to me the passages in
|> Scripture that support "treating gays badly".
|> 

Expanding a little, we can find biblical references which support treating
everyone badly.

Don't have a Bible on me at the moment, but there is something in Deuteronomy.
I think it is Deu 13, but not sure.  Anyway, the chapter is about what to 
eat and what not to eat.  You can eat things that taste good and are not 
infected and have little chance of containing parasites, but you cannot
eat nasty tasting, parasite-ridden, disease-carrying vermin.  Last but not
least:

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. 

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.

-- 
Larry D. Pyeatt                 The views expressed here are not
Internet : pyeatt@texaco.com    those of my employer or of anyone
Voice    : (713) 975-4056       that I know of with the possible
                                exception of myself.
From: T.G.Nattress@newcastle.ac.uk (Graeme Nattress)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Buddhism - A religion of atheists?
Date: 27 Jan 93 10:25:15 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

Oh dear!  According to the above article on Budhism I'm a sort of Pseudo
Budhist!!!   And I always thought I was a Strong Atheist with Humanist
tendancies...  :-)  :-)

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: Robert Knowles <p00261@psilink.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Wanted: Addresses of more atheist organizations
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 17:31:49 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: I'm on a coffee break now

The FAQ's only list a few atheist organizations and I know there are many
more around.  I would like to compile a list of these organizations, local,
national, international, and at some point have them added to the FAQ's since
we do occasionally get questions about organizations in particular locations
(like the recent request from Chicago).  I will not post the addresses I 
already have just now (but can provide them at request) but I will post the
names of the organizations.  If you of know more, please e-mail me since I 
may miss a posting.  Thank you.

Atheist Coalition (San Diego)
Atheists of Florida (Miami)
Atheist League of Washington (Seattle)
Atheists of Minnesota (Minneapolis)
Atheist Network (Houston)
Atheists of the San Francisco Region (Guess where?)
Atheists United (Los Angeles)
Atheist Centre (Vijayawada, India)

I may post this message a few times over the next couple of weeks to see if
other people can add to this list.  If you send me e-mail, please include the
address of the organization and a short description if possible.  I will then
post this list with the addresses and possibly a short description of each
organization.

I am assuming that chapters of FFRF and American Atheists can be contacted
through their national organizations, but addresses from their local groups
will be welcome as well.  


Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:508 sci.skeptic:22991
From: <irfan@n3000c.ece.wisc.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: SHORT NOTICE about a posting in alt.religion.all-worlds
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 15:49:03 cst
Distribution: world
Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison; Electrical & Computer Engineering

Anybody interested! 

There is a PART-1 of an article about the EVIDENCES OF EXISTENCE OF ALLAH (THE
GOD)

WHERE?

In    alt.religion.all-worlds 
      talk.religion.misc
Anybody interested! 

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:27143 sci.skeptic:22959
From: pyeatt@Texaco.com (Larry D. Pyeatt)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Me a yuppie? Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up?
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:42:32 GMT
Organization: Texaco

In article <1993Jan23.024015.1978@cs.unca.edu>, kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
|> One thing I'm not really
|> interested in is reading some self satisfied yuppie boasting about their 
|> high moral standards.

Brad,
  Would you mind posting your definition of yuppie?  I would like to see if
I fit the mould that you are trying to force me into.  I reserve the right
to decline your nomenclature if I do not fit at least 50% of your definition. 
However, if your description fits, I will revel in the knowledge that I now
have a label for myself, and can hold my head up high in any yuppie bar.  I
will be castigated by non-yuppies and scorned by the disadvantaged.  I will
finally know the truth about myself and my values.

  Also, please let us all know what you mean by self satisfied.  I think
that you are trying to use it as a derogatory term, but I really don't
understand why being satisfied with one's self or one's accomplishments
or one's beliefs should be necessarily bad.  I am satisfied with many
things in my life, and am quite happy.  However, I am not satisfied with
other aspects of my existence and am working to better myself.  I don't
think that I am any different from anyone else in this regard.

-- 
Larry D. Pyeatt                 The views expressed here are not
Internet : pyeatt@texaco.com    those of my employer or of anyone
Voice    : (713) 975-4056       that I know of with the possible
                                exception of myself.
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why are people atheists?
Date: 21 Jan 93 10:59:35 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Because it's the truth!

            All creatures will make merry   (on pain of death)
    Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England    (44|0)61-275-6033
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism is dogmatic.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 13:12:11 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.98

In <rabjab.27.727501059@golem.ucsd.edu> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (rabjab) writes
>Atheism seems to be guilty of what is proposes to conteract.
> 
>Because atheism represents a belief in the non-existence of God,
>it takes a dogmatic position relative to what could exist.

In case anyone's interested, he posted the above to alt.atheism.moderated
first.  I bounced it, sending him the FAQ overview.


mathew
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jstump@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (John E. Stump)
Subject: Re: Atheism in pop culture
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:17:55 GMT
Organization: IBM AWD Austin, TX

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)
From: starr-daniel@yale.edu (Daniel Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Easter whodunnit
Date: 28 Jan 1993 16:55:58 -0500
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu

In article <1993Jan28.092136.1435@nmsu.edu> epowers@mccoy (POWERS) writes:
>> [I (Daniel Starr) write:  
>> There is an obvious contradiction in the claim that:
>> 
>> A) the soldiers said they fell asleep at their post  and
>> B) they couldn't have been telling the truth because if they had they  
>would
>>    have been put to death.
>> 
>> When the soldiers were (as the NT says) making up an explanation, why on
>> earth would they make one up that would open them up to execution?  THAT
>> is a ridiculous piece of nonsense to swallow.
>  [story about the Jewish priest blackmailing Pilate deleted]
>	In spite of my bantering tone, does this answer your objections?
>						Erik Powers 
>

Well, no.  My objection is that the NT simply baldly says the soldiers said
they were asleep.  It doesn't offer anything to indicate that this is an
unusual story to tell.  Ergo the burden of proof is on the NT-supporter to
show why this story of the (alleged) guards should not in fact be accepted.

Now, if you're just trying to reconcile the text of the Gospels with an 
unwavering belief in the Christian myths -- what the people over in 
rec.arts.comics would call a 'retcon', or retroactive continuity -- then
any story, however improbable, that fits these things that are assumed without
needing proof to be true is satisfactory.  But one can invariably find such
a story [as indeed has been demonstrated...].  The real challenge that has
not been met is to give someone who is not convinced of the NT but willing
to accept it as usually honest an explanation of why one should not believe
the Easter events as told by the (alleged) guards as opposed to the NT's
allegedly non-eyewitness version.

That is, Joe Q. Curious says:  "This Gospel claims there were guards, and
that the body disappeared from the sepulcher, and that the guards said
they were asleep and it must have happened then; and the Gospel author, who
according to his version of events wasn't there, nevertheless says the
guards were lying.  Now, according to the author himself, the guards were
there at the time and he wasn't.  And it's much simpler to believe that
the body was stolen than that it vanished magically.  So why should I believe
his version instead of the guards'?"

Now, Joe isn't asking "why _can_ I believe the author's version and not the
guards'", he's asking "why _should_ I believe the author's version and not
the guards'?"  What answer do you have for him?

-- 
This is NOT a .sig virus do NOT copy me into your .sig file  This is NOT
* Daniel Starr                   *   Ta twn thewn erga                 * 
* dstarr@minerva.cis.yale.edu    *   Hoi psukhwn twn anthrwpwn logoi.  *
a .sig virus do NOT copy me into your .sig file This is NOT a .sig virus
From: nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: contradictory nature of free will and omni-anything
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:05:57 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <1jl1rfINNc91@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>In article <16B5C12448.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>>In article <gTj=6k=@engin.umich.edu>
>>ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>> 
>>(Deletions)
>>> Or do you simply doubt free will? Or what?
>>>
>> 
>>Care to define 'free will'? What form of freedom is meant?
>>Or is it just one of the many non-describables that are
>>usually caused by a another concept that is ill defined?
>> 
>>That means, what use has the the concept?
>>   Benedikt
>
> Actually, the question was asked of Sanyong Jean, who had been stating
>that 'free will' and 'omniscience' couldn't coexist. Then he posted
>something that semed to advocate determinism; hence my question.
> 
> I personally think few people have any clear idea about what 'free will'
>means. I certainly don't claim to have a definition handy. I believe
>that we can make choices, but we can only choose among the options
>available to us; I can't choose to become an avocado, even if I wanted
>to...
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ray Ingles               ingles@engin.umich.edu
>
> "The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are going to the
>stars!" - Robert A. Heinlein

I think free-will is an illusion.  There's also a difference between being
determined and being predictable, as I will try to show.  In the following
I use the term "computer" to mean "hardware + software".

A computer's behaviour is entirely determined (ignoring quantum effects for
the moment).  It's progression from one state to the next is hard-wired.
Computers can have no free-will.

However, it is impossible to _predict_ what a given computer will do.  If
you want to find out, you have to let it run, and wait for it to finish.
(This is the basis of the halting problem: you can't even predict whether
any given computer will halt or not.)

So I think we are determined but unpredictable.

-Norman
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: epowers@mccoy (POWERS)
Subject: Re: A Challenge
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:10:23 GMT

In article <C18Aus.42K@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike  
Cobb) writes:
> For UIUC readers.  Do you think your position is strong enough to face a
> one on one confrontation.  Pick the best guy in the nation to represent
> your position, and who would it be?  WOuld you be interested in trying  
to get 
> money from the campus to fund a meeting between two people on atheism v. 
> theism, or Christianity v. Paganism, or God v No God.  Worth the effort?   
What
> do you think.  Pick your best person, the other side picks their best,  
and we
> see what happens.  The only rule, we actually let both sideq
> mac
> ..

	The only one who could accurately represent my views is me, and  
I'm not always sure I do a good job even there....
				Erik Powers