HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: house@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house)
Subject: Re: I still wouldn't worship it.
Organization: University of Southern Queensland
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 03:17:06 GMT

cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk writes:

>ron house (house@helios.usq.EDU.AU) wrote:
>: Surely, any being that acts like a super-powerful being can NOT be god,
>: for that very reason.  God is outside time and space, so anything that acts
>: in a material fashion within t&s cannot be god.  Therefore the behaviour
>: described above would prove to me that it was not god.

>Curious... are you saying God cannot heal? If not, how do you decide
>what actions are "material"?

Most reported cases of healing are due to some other agent (Jesus, etc.).
If a being healed someone, the being cannot be god precisely because it has
revealed itself to be a being, that is, something within time & space.
If someone is healed, it might be god doing the healing, but god cannot be
the being that performs the healing.  Sorry if that sounds bizarre, but to
me, god is a universal, inner reality, not a universal outer reality.

--

Ron House.                 USQ
(house@helios.usq.edu.au)  Toowoomba, Australia.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25367 talk.religion.misc:25544
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christian racism
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 12:20:19 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
> She suggests that there is "scads of evidence of Fundamentalist
> Christian child abuse or murder."  While I am not skeptical of the
> claim itself, it should be noted that the two anecdotes she gave do
> not constitute "scads", at least according to the usual meaning of the
> word.

If you want more, why don't you just ask?

I think this is a cue for David Rice.


mathew
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Why it sucks to be an atheist...
Organization: I'm on a coffee break now
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 18:24:39 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

>DATE:   Sun, 10 Jan 1993 14:19:32 GMT
>FROM:   Mats Andtbacka <MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI>
>
>In <1io51qINNs1a@gap.caltech.edu> lieven@cco.caltech.edu writes:
>
>> ** Deep brooding mood warning **
>
>      Yeh, I have a bit of this perverse liking of the blues myself...
>

Never been a big blues fan.

Yeah, the problem with being an atheist is we just don't have enough
of that snappy gospel music to keep our spirits up.  But I have found
a substitute in the following tunes:

Jesus Is Easy - Martin Mull from Days of Wine and Neurosis
Atheist Tabernacle Choir/Santa Claus is on the Dole - Spitting Image

A spinet piano and a heavy left hand is all you need!

Now sing along!
-------------
Jesus Is Easy 
(to a rousing tent revival beat)

I tried yoga, I couldn't do it,
I tried macrobiotics, couldn't chew it, I blew it.
And Scientology, it made a fool of me,
Now I'm back to thinking things that I thought when I was 3.

(Chorus)
Yeah, Jesus is Easy
Just get down on your knees
He's gonna listen to your every prayer 
(tell the truth now!)
Jesus is easy
Just get down on your knees
He's everywhere, (oh jesus christ!), he's everywhere

I tried reefer, I couldn't roll it,
I tried acid and mescaline, I could not control it
I tried coke I couldn't afford,
My soul was feelin bored,
Now I'm high as a kite,
I'm up in heaven with the lord

etc.

-------------
Atheist Tabernacle Choir

If you don't believe in god (*clap*), clap your hands!
If you don't believe in the lord (*clap*), clap your hands!
If you doubt the possibility of the deity,
then clap your hands
and join the Atheist Tabernacle Choir

Yeah,
Six feet deep(*clap*), that's where we're headin'
Six feet deep, yep, its depressin'
etc.
-------------

But seriously, we are all in the same boat here.  Some people just cannot
admit it and need to pretty their lives up with nice fairy tales and others 
just take it as it comes.

One consolation is that we are living our lives with one less illusion.



Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: s0499528@let.rug.nl (R. Dijkhuis)
Subject: Apology: Re: Faulty IQ reasoning
Organization: Faculteit der Letteren, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, NL
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:44:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.122736.11745@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
>Subject: Re: Faulty IQ reasoning (Was: Re: iq<->religion: connection?)
>Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 12:27:36 GMT
>
>[Lots of obcure language deleted]
>>>
>>>Those are exactly the words I would use to describe statements implying that 
>>>being an atheist makes you smarter
>>>
>I don't think you quite get the picture. What Jim is trying to say here is that
>atheism and the ability to reason very often are induced by common processes.
>Therefore it is natural to assume that there is a statistical relationship
>between atheism and intelligence. Jim is NOT saying that atheism induces greater
>intelligence.
>
>
>Like this:
>
>
>      Common processes  
>          /    \
>         /      \
>        /        \
>     Atheism     Ability to 
>                reason coherently 
>
>
>
>Not:
>'''
>        Atheism ------> greater Intelligence
>
>Onar. 


Actually, I was using the verb "make" as an informal expression of 
inference. What I should have written was "being an atheist means you're 
smarter", which in my book is one of the ways "being X makes you Y" can be 
interpreted. (Admittedly I am not a native speaker of English, and although 
I'm usually pretty confident about my use of expressions I may have been 
completely wrong.) I KNOW that nobody here is suggesting atheism causes 
intelligence. I definitely did not intend to suggest this myself. I 
apologise for any confusion I have caused.


What angers me about the proposition that atheists are more 
intelligent, and about the eagerness with which some people produce 
statistics supporting it is that IMHO it can only be motivated by a desire 
in individual atheists to prove that they individally are smarter than 
Xians. If this is not the case, please tell me, so I'll be able to peruse 
the statistics without causing my blood pressure to rise. 

Reinder


PS. I wish all the responses I got to my posting were as polite as this one.
From: jimb@rcx1.csd.harris.com (Jim Burmeister)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 12 Jan 1993 16:14:39 GMT
Organization: Harris CSD, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com

In article <Jan.12.08.47.56.1993.635@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> If Christianity is to be accorded equal time, then fine, other
> religions can be represented also.  If Christianity is to be banned --
> _AS_IS_CURRENTLY_THE_CASE_ in many public institutions -- then, by
> God, all other religions must be banned also!  You got a problem with
> that, bub?

Sigh.  Once again, the Christians scream, "Help! Help!  We're being repressed!"
Theodore, can you provide any specific examples where Christianity has been
"banned", and other religions were not?  Please do not bring up prayer in
schools or nativity scenes on government property; these have already been
discussed at length, and are _not_ examples of trying to "ban" Christianity.

-Jim Burmeister, jimb@csd.harris.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas)
Subject: Re: BIBLE DEBATERS DREAM BOOKS
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:40:47 GMT

"Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
>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 would just add that I think it's also a phase each individual must 
pass though, as well.

> But if you gotta do it, no use re-inventing the wheel!

But that's half the fun! :-)

Martin
--
Your eyes are weary from staring at the screen.  Your eyelids feel very heavy.
You feel sleepy. Notice how restful it is to watch the cursor blink. Close your
eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt
otherwise.  When you awake you will follow up this post and enthusiastically
agree with it.  Then you will send all your money to martin@cs.curtin.edu.au.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:51:20 GMT

epowers@mccoy.NMSU.Edu (Erik Powers) writes:

>martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:
>> Do you believe that the ancestors of people as diverse as South
>> American forest pygmies, Zulus, Europeans and Japanese were the
>> same as yours only a few thousand years ago?  If you do (and you
>> must, if you take the Bible at all seriously) then you must believe
>> a great deal of evolution has occurred since then.  If not, I 
>> would like to hear your arguments.

>   Most of the objections from my fellow Christians comes from huge  
>misunderstandings about evolutionary theory, and therefore an inability to
>see the real enemy.  Most of the challenges to Christianity from my atheist

Enemy?  Hmmm.  Interesting way of looking at it.  So what is the
"real enemy", in your opinion?

>friends (from an evolutionary standpoint) come from the same misunderstandings
>of evolutionary theory.  Evolutionary theory, in and of itself, contains no
>threat to Christians or anybody else, and it can be freely ignored without
>effect on anyone's life.

As can Christianity.  Unless of course a fanatic wants to kill you. :)
Or possibly I could say that without it you wouldn't even have a life.  :)
But seriously, you say you can freely ignore evolutionary theory (ie 
by freely I take you mean in its entirety).  In that case you must
have an alternate explanation for our regional disparity.  
Again, I would like to hear your alternate explanation.

>                         The challenge to Christianity is not in evolutionary
>theory itself, but in the assumption that all observed phenomena are the
>result of natural occurrences.  You can arrive at a great deal of evolutionary
>theory from either the Christian viewpoint (as you have stated above) or this
>assumption of science.  It is the basic assumptions that are opposed to each
>other.

So are you saying God created the different races of man directly?
Please be more explicit.

Martin
--
Your eyes are weary from staring at the screen.  Your eyelids feel very heavy.
You feel sleepy. Notice how restful it is to watch the cursor blink. Close your
eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt
otherwise.  When you awake you will follow up this post and enthusiastically
agree with it.  Then you will send all your money to martin@cs.curtin.edu.au.
From: sham@cs.arizona.edu (Shamim Zvonko Mohamed)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Nailing Christianity: Sufficient Support for Atheism?
Date: 6 Jan 93 00:38:07 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

I certainly agree that atheists shouldn't just nail Christianity. There are
plenty of other religions that deserve a good nailing just as much. One
common characteristic of just about all religions: they are all
ridiculously easy to refute.

In article <C0E1M3.HrM.1@cs.cmu.edu> rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Robert Huss) writes:

>Some one mentioned
>that India is now 20% Islamic.  India's culture does have strong similarities
>to Middle Eastern culture, especially with regard to women, so I can see the
>compatibility with Islam.

You really don't know much about other cultures, do you? Do you also think
that monkey brains (a la Indiana Jones) are a delicacy in India? That at
the age of 16, kids are allowed to take the family elephant to school?

First: there is no such thing as "Indian Culture." Second: certain Indian
Muslim cultures have "strong similarities to Middle Eastern [Muslim]
culture, especially with regard to women" - surprise surprise! And other
Indian cultures attitudes towards women range from the utterly repressive
to the wonderfully egalitarian.

>	I propose that Christianity is the only religion to change radically,
>due to it's spread, and subsequent change in society.

>	Can anyone show where a religion has spread to different cultures and
>not evolved to match the culture?

Eh? Aren't these contradictory? But what the hell, I can provide examples
for both: Islam as an example of a religion that spread widely and stayed
substantially the same; Buddhism as one that spread and evolved.
Christianity doesn't have an exclusive hold on anything; it isn't special
in any way at all.

And about your point of Christianity changing from fire+brimstone OT god to
love+forgive (but still vengeful and manipulative, eh!) NT god - the Islam
practised in northern India is a little different from the kind found in
Saudi Arabia - for instance few people really believe all the stuff about a
woman's testimony being worth less than a man's, or that women have to have
their faces covered when strangers may be present.

-s
--
  Shamim Mohamed / {uunet,noao,cmcl2..}!arizona!shamim / shamim@cs.arizona.edu
  "Take this cross and garlic; here's a Mezuzah if he's Jewish; a page of the
    Koran if he's a Muslim; and if he's a Zen Buddhist, you're on your own."
   Member of the League for Programming Freedom - write to lpf@uunet.uu.net
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25620 talk.religion.misc:25778
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 10 Jan 93 21:39:21 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1993Jan7.173805.8896@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>In article <12259@hogg.ed.ac.uk>, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>|> [Yahweh] was the one who would sentence Adam, Eve and all their
>|> descendants to death, and he wanted to do it.  The only reason for
>|> which was that he was an unspeakable jerk.
>|> 
>Please continue to follow this thread.  There's been a lot of
>responses similar to yours and I've responded.

I've been following this thread from quite a while now, and I still
haven't learnt who, according to you, made up the laws according to
which (1) the nature of Adam and Eve was such that they would ignore
the prohibition, (2) their transgression would be punishable by death
and (3) their descendants would have to bear the consequences as well.
Who was it that decided that all of this should be so?  No article of
yours (or of anyone else's, for that matter) containing an explicit
response to this question has as yet materialised at my site.

>|> His one and only son?  Whose fault is it that he only has one son?
>|> He could have begotten a google of sons if he wanted, couldn't he?
>|> 
>Technically, we are all sons of God

This is not what we're talking of.

>but Jesus Christ is the only truly begotten Son of God (note the capitals).

<sigh>  Once more.  Why is he the only one?  Why couldn't your god
have truly begotten as many Sons as he liked?

-- 
 `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,alt.pagan
From: novazem@sci.kun.nl (Leonard Lensink)
Subject: Re: Wanted: Lincoln anti-Christian quotes (REPOST)
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.4.19
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:12:43 GMT

John A. Johnson writes:

>Got no quotations the first time; let's try again:
>_____________________________________________________

>Subject line says it all.  A while back someone posted a bunch of
>quotations from Abraham Lincoln that demonstrated his disgust with
>Christianity.  I would appreciate seeing these reposted or having them
>sent to me via email.
>Thanks,
>John (j5j@psuvm.psu.edu)

In a file, posted in alt.atheism some time ago, I found the following
quotes attributed to Lincoln. I hope they are of some use to you.


"The Bible is not my Book and Christianity is not my religion.  I could
 never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma."
                       [Abraham Lincoln]

"I am for liberty of conscience in its noblest, broadest, and highest sense.
 But I cannot give liberty of conscience to the pope and his followers, the
 papists, so long as they tell me, through all their councils, theologians,
 and canon laws that their conscience orders them to burn my wife, strangle
 my children, and cut my throat when they find their opportunity."
                        [Abraham Lincoln]

"I see a very dark cloud on America's horizon, and
 that cloud is coming from Rome."
            [Abraham Lincoln]

Leonard
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faulty IQ reasoning (Was: Re: iq<->religion: connection?)
Date: 6 Jan 93 12:27:36 GMT
Organization: Rogaland University Centre


[Lots of obcure language deleted]
>>
>>Those are exactly the words I would use to describe statements implying that 
>>being an atheist makes you smarter
>>
I don't think you quite get the picture. What Jim is trying to say here is that
atheism and the ability to reason very often are induced by common processes.
Therefore it is natural to assume that there is a statistical relationship
between atheism and intelligence. Jim is NOT saying that atheism induces greater
intelligence.


Like this:


      Common processes  
          /    \
         /      \
        /        \
     Atheism     Ability to 
                reason coherently 



Not:
'''
        Atheism ------> greater Intelligence



Onar. 
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25441 talk.religion.misc:25608
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why? (was Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER)
Date: 9 Jan 93 00:07:22 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1993Jan8.183413.15280@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>Appeal to our senses?  God is all around us.  His handiwork is all the physical
>things we see, hear, feel and touch all around us.  Man cannot even begin to 
>comprehend the physical bonds that make us what we are.  God has breathed life
>into each and everyone of us and lives in each and every one of us.  God is not
>hiding.  Some of us choose not to see Him. 
>

  Well, damn.  I told you guys not to do this, but would you listen?


  You pompous, arrogant, hearing impaired malignancy.  I wave my
  private parts a you!  What near omniscience, what enormous
  perceptive powers you must possess to critically examine my
  reasons for my atheism and conclude that I choose not to believe
  in your petulant, egotistical, childish, misogynistic epic
  evil-doer.  

  And why do you think this?  Because your god said he would answer
  any and all sincere requests to "know" him (carnally?).  If some
  of us claim ignorance of his awe inspiring grace, you're left with
  no alternative but to discredit our claims, call us liars, and
  lump us into the same category as adulterers, murderers, theives,
  and fornicators.  

  Well, fine.  I would expect nothing less from purveyors of hatred,
  intolerance, and a twisted malevolent form of love that leave its
  recipients dubious of the worth of the gift.  Until you can
  realize that there are as many reasons for disbelief as there are
  disbelievers, kindly bugger off.


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

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!

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: The Moron Posts Again!
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 07:27:42 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>FROM:   Paul Crowley <pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
>
>James F Tims posts a list of studies, many of which show a positive
>correlation between atheism and IQ.  In many ways, I'm not very
>impressed, despite being (a) an atheist, and (b) jolly clever.  What is
>this correlation supposed to demonstrate?  It's not surprising that in

An IQ/Religion thread was running amok, with all opiners pining for studies.  
I posted some study summaries.  I am obviously still getting pounded for 
this mistake.  Perhaps the worst mistake I made was to repost the studies 
because people asked me to repost them, which now leads directly to your 
post, complaining about me posting the studies.  Intelligence, in the
various definitions and methods of measurement in the studies, shows a negative 
correlation to belief in the afterlife, belief in god, participation in 
religious activities and what have you.  That's all.  That's all there 
is to it.  There is no larger inference.  There is no practical significance.
There are observations, not even all that well-defined, and nothing 
more.  They all seem to be measuring similar types of things, but that 
is probably only my imagination.

>a society where theism is the default option it's those given to
>thinking who are most likely to change their minds, and in any case
>measuring intelligence by IQ is something akin to measuring digestion
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>by turd length.  It certainly says nothing about whether theism is true
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Actually, I don't think there are any equivalently accurate estimates 
of intelligence, nor anything nearly so CONCRETE to measure.  Even SOFT 
data would be more meaningful with feces than brainpower.  Do I smell an 
unfortunate analogy?
.
>or not, or even for how strong the case for it is.  If only I owned a
>time machine, I'd go and see whether any such correlation existed for
>phrenology.
>  __                                _____
>\/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \\ //
>/\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul."  \X/ 

Done and done.  No correlation.  You don't need a time machine.  People 
still have bumps on their heads.  I have bumps all over mine after this 
disastrous forray into the world of net geniuses.

I will not provide the pertinent studies.  I have learned my lesson.  
Just call it an informed wager.  No correlation.  Call or fold.

-jim

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25585 talk.religion.misc:25754
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
From: emd@oneb.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 13:03:18 PST
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Nanaimo, B.C.

mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:

> Love God.  Love your neighbour as yourself.  Do not murder.  Do not bear fals
> witness.  Do not commit adultery.  Do not covet thy neighbour's possessions.
> Do you find fault with any of these?  What is wrong about being a Christian?
> Is your life diminished in any way by following these rules?  What have you g
> to lose?
> 
> What do you believe?  Where is your book of life?
> 
> God loves, Man kills.


With the exception of the first (Love God) exhortation, atheists can follow 
all the rest of the suggestions just fine, thank you. There's nothing 
inherently "Christian" about being a good person. 

We just happen to believe we can be "good" people without falling for all 
the rest of the mythology you Christians apparently believe (but don't 
appear to practise.)


           emd@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Robert Smits)
     The Old Frog's Almanac  (Home of The Almanac UNIX Users Group)    
(604) 245-3205 (v32)    <Public Access UseNet>    (604) 245-4366 (2400x4)
        Vancouver Island, British Columbia    Waffle XENIX 1.64  
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc