HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 17:17:13 GMT

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:

 ... [a whole lot of stuff deleted] ...

Kalki, my question was specifically directed at those Christians
who give some credence to history as presented in their Bible.
I am not trying to argue for Evolution as a theory, just trying
to make a point about the Bible.

So, regrettably, your religious beliefs are irrelevant to the 
current discussion.

HOWEVER...   the debater in me (and not only maths!) can't let these pass:

>Man was not created only thousands of years ago, but has existed almost
>since the beginning of the present cycle of creation, some billions of
>years ago.

What evidence do you have?

>> 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.

>These are not different species. They are all members of a single
>species. There has been no evolution of homo sapiens into different
>species. In fact, there are 400,000 species of human-like beings
>throughout the universe, and they do not evolve into or from one
>another, but have existed separately since the beginning of the kalpa.

What evidence do you have?  Especially the 400,000 bit, that's a good one.
Bald assertions (if you pardon the visual pun) like this are not
exactly convincing.

>> If you do admit this much evolution can take place in such a short
>> time (hundreds of generations) then what objections can you take
>> against the extension of the idea to the theory of Darwinian
>> evolution as it stands today?

>Darwinian evolution means evolution of species. It is a false
>explanation of how there came to be many different species.

What evidence do you have that it is false?

>The example you gave is not pertinent to Darwinian evolution, for it does
>not describe different species.

Not true.  Darwinian evolution describes the evolution OF species.
It is a general description of how living things change over time,
and need not result in a different "species".  The differentiation
of species is, in any case, an artificial construct, defined by
humans who like to compartmentalise.

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: uhschreg@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Ulrich Schreglmann)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:46:19 GMT
Organization: Student Pool, CSD, University of Erlangen, Germany
NNTP-Posting-Host: faui09.informatik.uni-erlangen.de

>But you are measurable by scientific means and you haven't claimed to
>have created the universe.

Erm, please, this is a cue to something that always bothered me. What do
you mean, "created the universe?" Obviously I must have gotten a wrong
definition of the term "universe" a long time ago. Well, here goes: In
my vocabulary "universe" has always been a term whose meaning contains
everything there is. And naturally such an entity can't be created by
anyone, they having to exist to create something, and therefore already
belonging to the universe, i.e. they'd have to create themselves.

So what do you mean when you say universe? The observable physical uni-
verse? Or some other smaller part of my definition? But even if you said
so, and even if it were true, what's the point of stating that? Then you
simply say: "Where did that being come from, then?" and you're back
where you started. It's like answering the question "Why am I here?"
with "Because I just walked in by the door."

What's the great satisfaction religion gives somebody, by replacing ab-
solutely certain facts, like "I exist, and so do my perceptions (whatev-
er causes them, or doesn't)." which are true by definition, with state-
ments that cannot be proved or disproved ever, and are just as meaning-
less as the former ones?

Maybe it's like the quotation out of "The Last of the Mohicans:"
"Don't try to understand them, or to be understood by them."

Yet I still try.


May the Cool Be with You!

(C)OOL mcmxciii
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 22:23:26 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world,public

In article <C0rE5v.4s6@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>If your mind was not created by a good being, 
>someone who would not make it with errors, then how can you trust that your 
>conclusions are true?

 See my .sig. Let's pretend that I decide that I can't trust my mind.
How can I trust that I've made the correct decision?
 I trust my mind because I would go into an infinite logic loop if I
didn't. Simple, really. Besides, if my mind *is* error-prone, what
could I do about it?

>Also, why is anything good.  Is there a standard?  Why are things 
>good and better and best?  Is there some sort of ideal that they are 
>being created against?  Why are we rightly repulsed by Jeffrey Dahmer, 
>and Wesley Alan Dodd, and Ted Bundy, if they're just doing whatever 
>they want to do?  

 I don't know if things are good in some absolute sense, but I know when
something is really bad for me. Allowing people to go out and randomly
kill is, if nothing else, risky for me. I could die, or my loved ones.
 Most other 'morals' are of this type. It could be argued that from my
point of view, the best world would be one where I could steal, etc.
and no one else did. However, I don't think I could convince everyone
to go along with that. :-> So, I agree not to steal, and others agree
not to steal from me, etc.
 Where's the need for a God?

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know this?" - Woody Allen
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Reality- What's Probable?   
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:40:32 GMT

In article <cu87wB6w165w@momad.li.ny.us> siphon@momad.li.ny.us 
(Stimpson J. Katz) writes:

   >Standards of evidence apply to positive assertions
   >about the existence of entities.

  Are you saying that there are no "standards of evidence" except in the
case of "positive assertions about the existence of entities"?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: patc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Pat Caldon)
Subject: Re: atheists & agnostics
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:53:38 GMT

In article <mRXuwB3w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>patc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Pat Caldon) writes:
>> In article <540RVB1w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
[deleted stuff]
>>                        As such it is not inconsistent (IMHO again) to
>> suggest that Buddism is not atheist. (quadruple negative urrgh) Again
>> from what I have seen of Buddist ritual (use of prayer wheels, for instance)
>> it doesn't seem to be atheist.
>
>The fact that one is praying does not imply that there is a literal
>supernatural being that one is praying to.

pray v.t. & i. Make devout supplication to (God, object of worship); beseech
earnestly (God, person /for/ thing, /to/ do, /that/); ask earnestly for
(permission etc.); engage in prayer, make entreaty (/to/ God or person ...
         -OED.

How does one do this without a supernatural being?

-- 
Pat Caldon.            |  The Mercy Seat is Burning, And I think my Head is 
patc@extro.ucc.su.oz.au| turning, and deep inside I'm longing to be done with
3:714/908.5@fidonet.org| all this weighing up of truth...  -- Nick Cave
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was Re: Christian racism)
Keywords: Christian racism depiction of christ
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:28:17 GMT

locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (SCOTT C LOCKLIN) writes:

>In article <martin.726049316@marsh> martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:

>>I doubt many people associate their bible to the middle-east at all,
>>despite it being completely set there.  I know Christians who 
>>absolutely can't stand Jews, and yet worship the King of the Jews in church.
>>(Come to think of it, same with Hitler)

>Hitler was an atheist. 

>-Scott

From the alt.atheism FAQ file:

Adolf Hitler was emphatically not an atheist.  As he said himself:

   The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in
   his own denomination, of making _people_stop_just_talking_
   superficially_of_God's_will,_and_actually_fulfill_God's_will,_and_
   not_let_God's_word_be_desecrated._[orig. ital.]

   For God's will gave men their form, their essence, and their
   abilities.  Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the
   Lord's creation, the divine will.  Therefore, let every man be
   active, each in his own denomination if you please, and let every
   man take it as his first and most sacred duty to oppose anyone who
   in his activity by word or deed steps outside the confines of his
   religious community and tries to butt into the other.

   [...]

   Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will
   of the Almighty Creator: _by_defending_myself_against_the_Jew,_I_am_
   fighting_for_the_work_of_the_Lord._[orig. ital.]

          -- Adolf Hitler, from "Mein Kampf", trans. Ralph Mannheim.


------------------------------------------------------------
mark schnitzius           |  seeking guitar songbook for the
schnitzi@eola.cs.ucf.edu  |  clash's "london calling".  does
univ. of central florida  |  one even exist?  will pay top $
------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Religious Taxation (was: Madeleine Murray O'Hare)
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 12:41:10 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <adams.726599869@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
[deletions]
>>>It's not 'non-mention,' though.  There have been Christian critical
>>>programs on PBS.  But the ability of Christians to respond in the same
>>>media and same way is limited or non-existant.

 I just though of CBN, the Inspirational Network, and all the evangelical
broadcasters. Surely these are sufficient to get the message out?
The 700 Club reaches a lot of people...

>>> -Steve
>>
>> Really? When? I don't watch a lot of TV, but I would think I'd notice
>>something like that. Do you have any references?
>
>Two recent occasions that I remember, but I can't provide exact references
>(ie dates or shows).  One was on censorship and art, and the other had to
>do with Gay issues.  Neither was particularly out of line, but they were
>one-sided.
>
> -Steve

 Discussiong something in a non-condemning (or even favorable) light that
goes against the teaching of a religion is not the same as speaking against
a religion...

 Sincerely,
 
 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know this?" -- Woody Allen
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25287 talk.religion.misc:25462
From: vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN)
Subject: Re: Christian racism
Keywords: Christian racism depiction of christ
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:32:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.212325.20817@cs.mun.ca> rumisk@odie.cs.mun.ca (Jonathan Fernandes) writes:
>martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:
>
>..stuff deleted..
>
>>Not once have I seen the point raised that the characters in the 
>>Bible were much more likely to have been dark-haired, dark-skinned
>>and not overly tall, and had the same physical characteristics that
>>most middle-eastern people share today.  I suspect many Christians
>
>..stuff deleted..
>
>Would it be possible for you to confirm these statments with the quotes
>from the Bible? I am curious as to what makes you belive that the characters
>in the Bible were more likely to have had dark-hair, dark skin, etc.
>
> rumisk@odie.cs.mun.ca    |

How about geography, history, etc?  Would it suprise you if I expected
people from Central Africa 2000 years ago to be black?  Why would you 
want confirmation with quotes from the bible, and how can you be so dim
to be curious as to why he believes this?  Its obvious.  The people in the
book in question are from the middle east.  And knowing human nature I'm
sure the Jews and the Arabs would be inclined to follow a 'honky' messiah.
At most, he would have been stoned, and at least, you would have heard some
mention of the messiah having the colour of outsiders/etc.  Thats as close
as a biblical reference ( by implication of not being in the bible ) that
I personally can give you.   But then again, the bile never stuck as much
in the way of descriptive writing.

-Nick

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25806 alt.pagan:15295
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why must you act this way?
Date: 6 Jan 1993 00:13:49 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) says:

>In article <1993Jan3.082328.11776@phyrql.Alt.ZA> lucio@proxima.Alt.ZA writes:
>
>>>Lets clear something up - all things work together for good FOR THOSE WHO
>>>LOVE THE LORD.  If my daughter was in this circumstance, she would be in
>>>physical pain, but she would be secure in the knowledge of her eternal life
>>>through Christ, and though I would also be in much pain - probably more than
>>>her - God would use it to strengthen my character.  Who are we to argue with
>>>God?
>>
>>Where was your god when a four-year old girl, who would hardly be able
>>to tell the difference, was suffering?  
>
>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.

Well....I have tried to "talk" to god, but I NEVER got an answer.
"He" won't tell me a damn thing ! I for one think he is not there,
He won't speak up when he is being paged =)

>
>>Ch-rist, even my Roman Catholic
>>priests would not be so arrogant!  John, I dislike your type intensely,
>>less arrogance drove me from the RC church and eventually from
>>Christianity.  And I've learnt in the process that your ilk deserves no
>>more than be squashed at the slightest opportunity, which I do with glee.
>>
>>Now get your ass out of alt.atheism fast, before I find out more about
>>you and your family.
>
>My ass, as you would put it, found itself attached to a thread which was
>cross-posted.  Why would I care if you knew about my family?  I can send you
>some cute pictures if you want!  :-)

Naaaaa.....I'll take your word for it =)


-- 
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-----aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu-------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheists & agnostics
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 14:50:57 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

patc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Pat Caldon) writes:
> In article <540RVB1w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> >patc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Pat Caldon) writes:
> >> >Buddhism isn't really derived from Hinduism; in its early years, it was m
> >> >of a backlash against Hinduism.  You might as well argue that the Church 
> >> >the SubGenius is derived from Christianity.
> >> 
> >> I meant "derived" in the sense that Islam is derived from Judaism.
> >
> >Yes, so did I.
> 
> I don't think there was the same element of satire in the founding of
> Buddism. (SFSF)

I have heard it argued that a number of Buddhist texts are similar in style
to Hindu writings, but with the style and wording 'twisted' to express
Buddhist ideas.  I'm not familiar enough with Hindu texts to know whether
this is true or not.

> The question was "Is Bh^Huddhism atheist?" I said that it is derived
> from Hinduism, not in the sense of a joke, but in many ways seems (to my
> admittedly limited perception) to have a common philosophy, reincarnation
> being a prime example.

Yeah, but the Buddhist idea of 'reincarnation' isn't your standard "same
consciousness in new body" deal.

>                        As such it is not inconsistent (IMHO again) to
> suggest that Buddism is not atheist. (quadruple negative urrgh) Again
> from what I have seen of Buddist ritual (use of prayer wheels, for instance)
> it doesn't seem to be atheist.

The fact that one is praying does not imply that there is a literal
supernatural being that one is praying to.
 

mathew
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reality- What's Probable?
Date: 12 Jan 93 23:23:25 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <76569@apple.apple.COM>, mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
|> In article <cu87wB6w165w@momad.li.ny.us> siphon@Momad.LI.NY.US (Stimpson J. Katz) writes:
|> 
|> >        You ask for the unreasonable. One does not attempt to prove a
|> >negative assertion. Standards of evidence apply to positive assertions
|> >about the existence of entities.
|> 
|> It's very common for people to claim that it is impossible
|> to prove the nonexistence of an entity. Given the universal nature
|> of this calim, a single counterexample disproves it. Thus:
|> 
|> (Assuming Euclidean geometry)
|> 
|> A circle has no vertices, by definition.
|> 
|> A rectangle has four vertices, by definition.
|> 
|> Therefore, there is no object in Euclidean space that is both a
|> circle and a rectangle.
|> 
|> Therefore it is possible to prove the nonexistence of an entity
|> (suitably chosen).

Don't be silly.   You simply presented self-contradictory attributes.

What's impossible is to prove the non-existence of something which
is not intrinsically self-contradictory.   An entity that could, at
least in principle, exist.

Your example has no bearing on that.   

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: rumisk@odie.cs.mun.ca (Jonathan Fernandes)
Subject: Re: Christian racism
Keywords: Christian racism depiction of christ
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 11:53:34 GMT

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

>What makes you think he was white with blue eyes and blonde hair?

Absolutely nothing, for I do not believe this.

---
 _____________________________________ _______________________________________
|`Tis strange but true,               |       ________                        |
|  for truth is often strange-        |___       /   rumisk@odie.cs.mun.ca    |
|    stranger than fiction'   --Lord Byron|     /---                          |
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\~~/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                             \/
 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: house@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house)
Subject: Re: Removing "god" from morality. (was: Moral liberty)
Organization: University of Southern Queensland
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:01:51 GMT

wooyoung@bu.edu (WooYoung Chung) writes:

>It takes certain mental maturity to grasp 
>the the value of justice.

>Chidren and "young adults" are not likely to have this maturity.

But why?  One remark I have heard from (very) young children repeatedly
is "It's not fair!".  Children seem very ready to absorb ethical
concepts, but unfortunately, the adults around them usually discourage them.

--

Ron House.                 USQ
(house@helios.usq.edu.au)  Toowoomba, Australia.
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Alternate Name for Atheism
Date: 7 Jan 93 12:56:38 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <jfelder-060193111031@latvia.lerc.nasa.gov> jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov (James L. Felder) writes:
>I just tuned into all this stuff, but a couple of things strike me.  One is
>the name Atheism.  Now one of the meanings ascribed to the prefix a- is
>"without".  In this case atheism is then means without theism, which seems
>basically true to me.

Is it "a-(the-ism)" or "(a-the)-ism"?  I vote for the second, that is,
an ism characterised by the absence of [belief in] theoi (gods).

>But why define ourselves in terms of theism.

But we are not defining ourselves by calling ourselves atheists,
merely stating a feature that we happen to have.

>It seems to me that atheism can be much more that just being without theism.

I think you are wrong.  An atheist can be much more than just an atheist,
but that is an entirely different story.

>Plus, alot of people think of it as being anti-theistic.

Let them.  That's their business.

>My point is that the word atheist come loaded with negative connotations.

Then let's fight those connotations.  I think that they are much more
likely to go away if more people have the dignity to call themselves
atheists in public, and to be proud of it.

-- 
 `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
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25140 talk.religion.misc:25285 alt.pagan:15014