HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 07:17:09 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 --

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 04:32:58 GMT

In article <3JAN199300363050@elroy.uh.edu>
lib1p@elroy.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
>
>In article <1i2raqINN8rh@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes...
>....stuff from previous posts deleted.....
>
>>|> Does the name Madeleine Murray O'Hare ring any bells?
>>
>>Or is this one of those deals where even the existence of
>>atheists is counted as a kind of imposition by Christians?
>
>I don't know where you live, but I live in the south where the church rules
>and blue laws (use to) let you buy a can of beans on sunday, but not a
>can opener to open it with.
>
>Madeleine Murray O'Hare and her family has done a great deal to impose
>their will on non-atheists....
>
>Not that I object to the end result, just the intent behind the means....
 
I've met Madalyn O'Hair.  I've heard her and members of her family speak on
several occasions.  I can't look inside her mind any better than you, but
from what I've consistently heard, she champions freedom of speech and the
absolute separation of church and state.  If it can be considered "imposing"
on some people to prevent *them* from imposing *their* views on others,
then so be it.  I'm sure there's no love lost between them and the hard core
believers, but I have yet to hear or see anything to indicate that they do
what they do out of spite or revenge.
 
If you think they're out of line, please give us some examples.
 
Wayne Aiken                                            "You can BE what
PO Box 30904            slack@ncsu.edu                  you WON'T!!"
Raleigh, NC  27622                                       --"Bob"
(919) 782-8171          StarFleet BBS: (919) 782-3095
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Jesus Christ
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 12:37:48 GMT

According to Christianity the only conditions for coming to heaven is to believe:

a) that he died for our sins and rose again.
b) that he is our Lord.



BUT:

What if you are an unlucky bastard which believe both a) and b) but you can't
really stand the guy. You dislike Jesus but are doomed to go to heaven and have
to live with the bloke for an eternity! What then?
You could always try not to believe in Jesus, but that would probably be as hard
as it would be to believe for an atheist. 




Onar.





Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: BIBLE DEBATERS DREAM BOOKS
Organization: I'm on a coffee break now
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:29:26 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

I see whole lotta quotin' goin' on in this news group so I have a few sources 
for BIBLE DEBATERS from a non-christian perspective:

The X-Rated Bible - Ben Akerley
   Lewd, licentious, and vile quotes (specializes in sexual perversions)
   Available from American Atheist Press.

The Bible Handbook - W.P. Ball and G.W. Foote
   Complete  collection of contradictions, absurdities, atrocities,
   and immoralities [written in England over 100 years ago - back when
   people cared about this Bible quotin' stuff }:) ]
   Available from American Atheist Press.

Some other essays by noted BIBLE DEBATERS such as G.W. Foote and Joseph
McCabe may be found in An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism and A Second
Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism edited by Gordon Stein, Ph. D. and 
published by Prometheus Books.  These two books are pretty good for a
classic 19th century look at atheism when BIBLE DEBATING was all the rage.

So for people who want to be bored to tears about what the Bible does and
does not say about things and all the implications of what is and is not
said, check it out!  It's all been said before and I don't recall that a
single thing was accomplished as a result except that a handful of people
were able to avoid real work and make a living from their opinions (I do 
not think the market for such drivel has been all that hot this century!).

Please do not construe this as an endorsement of either American Atheists
or BIBLE DEBATING as I know both to be a waste of time.  It's a phase that
atheism had to pass through (like a case of bad acne).  I'm just passing on
sources for those interested.  There is another book from AAP which has
a title similar to the X-Rated Bible, but the title eludes me.

But for now, I hope atheism has progressed far beyond a mere critique
of Christianity and its silly superstitions.  Time wasted BIBLE DEBATING
could be more productively spent doing absolutely nothing.  It is the
Christians book, let them debate it among themselves.  But if you gotta
do it, no use re-inventing the wheel!

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

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 8 Jan 93 16:06:54 CST

In article <C0Jyxx.L4H@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>I can see why you have difficulty.  I really don't understand how someone
>can hold that abortion is murder, and that it is wrong to commit murder,
>and still hold that it is okay to murder unborn children who are the 
>product of rape or incest.  

Would you refuse the right of abortion to a 14-year-old
rape victim?  You seem to like the emotional charge on the
word, 'children'.  What about children who are pregnant?

>                            Is it okay to exterminate grown adults who
>are the product of rape or incest?  

No. Of course not.  Would the bodily autonomy rights of any 
person be compromised by allowing them to live?

>                                    James Robinson's mother was raped and
>had him.  I am sure that many would agree that the world is a better place
>because of James Robison, especially the thousands of children and adults
>in Angola and other nations whose lives he helped to save.  People who
>are the product of rape have intrinsic value and can make contributions
>to society, too.
>
No argument, here.  The same is true of the rape victim.
That's why _she_ gets to choose whether to contribute
to society by carrying a pregnancy to term, or by having
an abortion so that she can continue to contribute to
society in the same ways she was before the rape.

muriel
standard disclaimer

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25232 talk.religion.misc:25399
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christian racism
Date: 7 Jan 93 06:26:58 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu

martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:

>I notice you conveniently side-stepped my earlier examples of all
>the stuff that's NOT in the bible... in fact, the bible only contains
>information that ordinary scholars of the period might be expected to
>know (or guess).  Since today we know a lot more of their history
>than they did, and we can see how much is NOT mentioned in the bible's
>comprehensive history of the Earth: is not the conclusion that the
>"all-seeing God" in the Bible is extremely limited by today's standards?

Well, I thought I'd butt in here because I haven't seen a response to this
particular charge yet.

The Bible is NOT meant to be a "comprehensive history of the Earth."
The Bible was written for the express purpose of recording God's interaction
with man to bring about salvation through a chosen bloodline (Adam, Noah, 
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.), a chosen nation (Israel), and the Messiah
(Jesus).  The Bible is a record of God's plan of salvation for mankind, 
not a comprehensive history.  So your understanding of the purpose of the
Bible is flawed.  Besides, if the Christian faith is true, then which is
more important:  how the pyramids were built? or how you can be reconciled
to God?

>You don't think it strange that a being outside time and space should
>manifest himself only to a small group of "chosen people" in one corner
>of the mediterranean over a couple of thousand years ago?

If God manifest himself from the begining to Adam & Eve and then to
Noah, then *all* peoples would have *some* knowledge of God.  Whether or
not it was corrupted or perverted over time is another story.  But returning
to the main purpose of why God has interacted with Man over the course of
history...God chose the group of people that would bring about his purpose,
the salvation of mankind, and it was recorded in the Bible.  The scope of 
the plan was never limited to a "chosen people."
 

 
-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: autopsy@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Gregory Baumgartel)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 08:21:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.210120.16162@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>
>Reason cannot explain everything.  I am safe in saying that Mankind does not
>know everything and has not been able to reason everything out.  

No, but we're making progress.......

>What are the
>reasons for emotions?  I know for sure what I have experienced.  I have felt

Emotions, and conscoiusness itself, are just the way that the biochemical
processes within our minds manifest themselves.  There needs to be no divine
or spiritual reason for them.

>God's touch and I've glimpsed what visions He would have me see.  These things
>are not so easily explained but they are nonetheless, real.  I've never taken

Yes, they are real, as far as our perception allows us to tell.  And they're
not easily explained, as the workings of the human mind are far too complex
for modern science to explain.  But we're making progress.

>drugs and I haven't touched a drop of alcohol for the 6 years since becoming
>a Christian, so my experiences were not delusions.  I've stood up in public
>proclaiming the good news of the Word of God.  This is something I would not
>have been capable of before.  Where does this power come from?  
> 
It comes from you.  I think people (believers) need to give themselves more 
credit for what they do.  They need to place faith in what's real: themselves.
Not the abstractions of religion.

>I tell you, it is the power of God's Spirit.
>
I think it's the power of your own spirit that you are mistakenly attributing
to God.  Believe in yourself.  Have some confidence and esteem.



Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Nailing Christianity: Sufficient Support for Atheism?
Date: 7 Jan 93 07:39:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <C0EzJD.H3q@ecf.toronto.edu>, vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu
(VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN) wrote:
> In article <76147@apple.apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
> >In article <1icejnINNqvs@shelley.u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
> Ahh, but to bash easily with logic and reason- now thats the amazing
> part.  Atheists should be the most balanced, content people around.
> After all, we have science, history, psychology, sociology, and almost
> any other -ology you can think of behind us.

But most of us are humans, after all. I read last night a bio
of Wittgenstein, and was amazed to find out about the secret
love affair Bertrand Russell had with a married women, and how
she as a highly religious person influenced Russell to take 
a stint on mysticism as something explainable.

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: chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris Blask)
Subject: The whole topic
Reply-To: chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask)
Organization: Sea Change Corporation, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 21:06:25 GMT

Hi, folks!

First time in this ng, so 'scuse me if i repeat thoroughly trammeled
ground.

I've just been looking through some posts, here, and have a few comments.
First: (Agnostic) vs (Atheist).  I am an agnostic (I question the existence
of 'ag's), not an atheist.  Atheism is a religion in itself, claiming, like
all the rest, that you _know_ the answer to the Big Question; ie, no, there
is no God.  I would die of shock if any of the major religions turned out
to be true, but then anything is possible.

Second:

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
	<1993Jan8.210120.16162@ra.royalroads.ca>
	<MMEYER.93Jan8183430@m2.dseg.ti.com> <C0L1tA.BHr.1@cs.cmu.edu>
Distribution: world,public
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:33:33 GMT

In article <C0L1tA.BHr.1@cs.cmu.edu> drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
> I *really* hate to seem like I'm agreeing with this bozo...

	I hope you meant that affectionately... :-)

> Love often seems to be anti-survival, to be honest.  Example: I love
> my mother.  Because of that love, I would sacrifice my life for her.
> Obviously anti-survival for me.  My mother is old, cannot have more
> children, will probably die soon.  Also anti-survival for the race.
> Yet, I perceive that I would do so, out of love.

	She would probably do the same for you, and I presume you are
still capable of reproduction.  So love never evolved a switch that
shuts off when the object is beyond the age of fertility; it doesn't
surprise me.  Besides, I would think the majority of situations are
not lover-must-die-or-loved-must-die.  I'm thinking of situations like
simply RISKING one's life for a loved one.  Example: that family who
got stuck in a blizzard in Nevada.  The husband risked his life to go
off alone to try to find help, leaving his wife and child behind.  The
gamble paid off: the husband found help, and all three were saved.
Another example, that doesn't involve any danger at all, is a
community collectively giving aid to one of their families who
suffered some loss like a fire.  The other families, by helping their
unfortunate friends, are preserving their community.
	So, while there are cases where love seems anti-survival, I
would say that in the majority of cases it is quite pro-survival.

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.,  Plano TX                       +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
         "If only I could forget her."  "Pretend you owe her a couple hundred."
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25448 talk.religion.misc:25613 alt.pagan:15132
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Religious Taxation (was: Madeleine Murray O'Hare)
Date: 9 Jan 93 00:44:04 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <root.726530815@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>Your comments on theism/atheism and theistic/non-theistic state seem to
>support my point.  If the governemnt *forbids* religion from PBS, that is
>promoting non-religion over religion.  In other words, all views, except
>religious ones are permitted, and religious ones are excluded.  Hardly in
>line with the 1st Amendment.

No, it just isn't mentioning religion. If the government allows programs
that say "we don't believe in god(s)" that would be promoting non-religion.
By not allowing either, they are in line with the first amendment.

Why do some believers think that not mentioning religion at all is the
same as denying religion?

>
> -Steve
>--
>  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
>                         -------------------
>   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
>   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558

Chris Lee
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why it sucks to be an atheist...
Date: 10 Jan 1993 04:54:25 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1io51qINNs1a@gap.caltech.edu>, lieven@cco.caltech.edu (Lieven Pascal Leroy) writes:
|> ** Deep brooding mood warning **

Oh, I don't know.   It seemed like a pretty sensible set of questions
to me.

|> What, exactly, is the Point? By this, I mean: Is there a goal to be 
|> achieved, a level of purity on some standard to be attained, while 
|> we live?

When I used to play Rugby, the point was to make a creditable showing,
not let the team down, and be able to say I'd done my bit.   I don't
remember if we ever won.   Not very often, certainly.

Now that I mostly run, the point is to get out there and do it every
day.   It's pouring outside today, and dark and cold, and I just got 
back from a run.     There wasn't anyone else out there, so there 
certainly wasn't anything standard to meet or goal to attain. 

So I figure - IMHO only - that the point is to end up feeling that you
did some useful stuff, fixed a few bugs, and helped other people along
somewhat.   Those who die feeling that they did something, win.

jon. 
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25025 talk.religion.misc:25196
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why must you act this way?
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:41:41 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1993Jan5.071254.4440@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>
>Right by her side.  Death is a result of sin, and happens from time to time
>and for various reasons in our fallen world.  It has no detrimental significance
>for the children of God, however.  I look forward to meeting my Creator and
>knowing Him even as I am fully known by Him.  You may ask "Why doesn't God
>intervene and end the suffering of this girl?"  He will (and does) both
>miraculously and through modern medicine if it is His will for her to live.
>If it is His will to let a young girl die, then it is for the greater good of
>all those involved that love Him.  I don't see why you are mad at me - I
>didn't make it up, nor can I do a good job defending the One who calls the
>shots.  I suggest you seek Him for your answers.  Read James 1.
>

  How many times have I seen this post?  How many times have I
  wondered at the mentality required to believe this stuff? 

  Perhaps you've already done this, John, and perhaps you haven't,
  but please look carefully at what you wrote and really think about
  it.  Now let's use a test case for comparison.  Take Wesley Allen
  Dodd, executed just last night for violently raping and killing
  several young boys.  What are we left with?  Broken families with
  one or more dead members.  An executed pedophile.  People outside
  the prison chanting songs and lighting fireworks as he hung from a
  rope.  Where exactly is god's will in all of this?  Who exactly is
  better off?  Even if you tell me the dead victims, I can point to
  at least 10 people for every one of them who will likely never be
  as happy or stable as they were before.  
  
  If indeed your god bears any of the blame for *any* of the
  suffering in this world, either by action or negligence, then he
  is the most obscenely vicious criminal of them all.  Too bad we
  can't put him on the stand in Neurenberg.


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25306 talk.religion.misc:25486
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 7 Jan 93 13:19:04 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1993Jan6.175954.3577@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>When A&E ate the fruit from the Tree, the entire human race became
>aware of good and evil.  But we are not born into this world with sin,
>but it is inevitable that we will sin.  It is a part of our nature.

Okay, let's say it is part of our nature.  Who created our nature?
Your god did.  Then, by the same token, he created sin, therefore he
is responsible for its existence.  He could have created our nature so
that sin wouldn't be part of it, but he didn't.  My verdict is "guilty".

>The reason that there is only one truly begotten Son of God is because
>He is God.

This doesn't sound like a sound reason.  If your god can exist in two
persons (Father and Son), then by induction he can exist in as many as
he likes.  He could have a google of sons, and all of them could be god.

>Is Jesus Christ your personal Lord and Saviour?

No.

>God loves, Man kills.

Frankly, I'd much rather be killed by Man than loved by your god.

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc