HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Nailing Christianity: Sufficient Support for Atheism?
Date: 5 Jan 1993 07:38:36 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

"Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:

>>DATE:   Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:13:22 GMT
>>FROM:   Robert Huss <rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU>
>>
>>	There is a great deal of debunking of Christianity going on
>>on this group, but is this really sufficient grounds for Atheism? 

>You are correct, it is not.  In fact, as an atheist, I think it is a
>total waste of time to attack Christianity.  We have a lot of work to
>to do to move atheism beyond its debating phase.  It is just good cheap
>fun for atheists to attack religion and a hard habit to break.  I have
>my own concerns about all the Bible debating and such that occurs here
>as well,  just doesn't seem a proper thing for atheists to do :-}.  But
>a good deal of it originates from religious people who monitor this news
>group and yank our chains from time to time, from what I have seen.  Some
>of the cross-postings do not help, either.

Well, it is all pretty understandable.  Atheists tend to be a pretty informed
bunch.  Most of us value rights and freedoms and knowledge and can't stand
it when we see these principles violated.  But what can we do?  We are such
a minority that our situation is nearly hopeless.  We know we are right and
we wish others would think like us.

However, we must realize that it is almost impossible to wean someone of
religion, since it is so ingrained in one's being.  It is as difficult as
trying to cure someone of brainwashing, or to get a KKK member to admire
a Black man.  We can argue with theists and get some satisfaction out of
verbally trashing them, but that's about it.  Our efforts seem pretty
ineffective on the large scale.  Perhaps things are changing, but the battle
is still uphill.

>Debunking religion does not disprove the existence of god.  We really do
>not have to disprove the existence of god.  We simply do not accept the
>existence of god until that existence is proven.  A little different, but
>more efficient since we would spend our lives disproving every possible
>claim of every possible religion.  If someone has a claim, they should
>provide the proof.  And the thoroughness of the proof should increase as
>the claim grows more spectacular.  God is a pretty big claim, so we would
>expect some pretty good proof.  Some atheists say that since there is no
>proof, just say it ain't so and get it all out of your life.  

I don't know how many people are like me, but I just simply do not believe
that God can exist.  There is just no way at all to prove that a God
exists.  If some being appears and seems to have supernatural powers,
I will think he is merely a technologically advanced mortal being.  This
is not a god.  I think that the laws of nature, whatever they are, are
absolute and cannot be violated.  THe more advanced creature simply knows
more about their limits.

keith

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25874 talk.religion.misc:26058
From: charlie@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Charlie Channel)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 12 Jan 1993 17:18:01 -0800
Organization: Stanford U
Distribution: world,public
NNTP-Posting-Host: lindy.stanford.edu

In article <1993Jan13.004721.22541@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1ivns5INNot6@lindy.Stanford.EDU> charlie@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Charlie Channel) writes:
>But this is where the analogy goes badly wrong. God allegedly is
>omniscient and therefore KNEW that Adam and Eve would disobey.
>
>-Ekr

I'm not knowledgeable enough to assume he KNEW Adam and Eve would
disobey.  God is certainly omniscient to know what the range of
possibilities are.  It's stretching to say he knew that they'd do
wrong.  I know it's a possibility that my children might get into the
booze while I'm gone.  That's not the same as saying I knew they'd get
into it.  I'm cynical enough to assume some might or will get into
what they ought not.  That's far from saying I know with absolutely
and unqualified certainty that everyone will.  Also, since God
possesses the attribute of absolute power, it is clear that God may
choose to not know the outcome.  Therefore, it doesn't wash that he
knew they'd make the choice they made.

c

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: did I like miss your point?
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:27:13 GMT

In article <C041Lq.I1o.1@cs.cmu.edu> drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
>Huh?  Oh, you must be talking about the churches of the West.  The
>Eastern Orthodox Church has always provided a translation of the
>Bible in the vernacular to her people.  As early as the 4th
>century, St John Chrysostom was encouraging people to spend their
>time in Bible reading and study -- even the laity.  The notion
>of the Bible being only in Latin and forbidden to the common man
>was a mistaken Roman teaching.

   That is false.  For one thing, how were people supposed to get
copies of the Bible?  The printing press wasn't even invented until
the 16th Century.  Before that, copies had to be made _by hand_.  How
long does it take one just to _read_ the entire Bible, let alone _copy
it_?  Even after the invention of the printing press, the cost of
printing was still so high, that copies of the Bible would cost
hundreds, or even thousands of dollars in today's terms.

   One story used to support your claim is that of the confiscation
and burning of Bibles, I believe taken from the Catharists.  Well, the
Catharists were heretics who taught that all matter is evil (dualism),
and denied the Incarnation.  Their copies of the Bible were changed in
order to (surprise) include their heretical beliefs.  This is similar
to what has been done by the Jehovah's Witnesses, although I would
venture to guess that the Catharists were more blatant about it.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts)
Subject: Re: Why? (was Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Distribution: world,public
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 04:47:16 GMT

In article <C0GqGn.CwF@acsu.buffalo.edu> v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.222140.4549@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes...
>
>[My points on God's "stacking the deck" deleted for brevity]
>
>>I hear what you're saying.  This view only holds true if you accept the predestiny
>>view, that there are those who will be saved and those who will not and that 
>>there is nothing that can change that.  
>
>As you mention later in your reply, predestination only makes sense when one
>is locked by time.  However, God supposedly gave us free will knowing fully that
>some people would "abuse" that free will.  Why?  Why would he even care?  Why
>would he not make himself absolutely, positively available to all of us if 
>such important things as our eternal souls lie in the balance?  Remember, if 
>god is omniscient, he knew that people would sin even as he was creating the 
>universe.  Doesn't this strike you as odd?

Simply because he chose not to impose His will upon us. God gave us
the right to choose to be with or without Him. He knew that people would
sin and he told them that, as long as they repented, he would forgive.
So what is the problem? Why should God force you to do something that
you do not wish to do?
>
>>What is there that prevents you from being a Christian?
>
>Probably my sensory nature.
>
>>Money is not a requirement.  Fame is not a requirement.  A humble heart is.
>
>I certainly don't have the first two :-)...  Can one be humble without 
>being a Christian?
>
>******************************************************************************
>For God so loved the world that He gave Man Free Will and then got pissed when
>we didn't meet his arbitrary standards.  Oh, and he had his Son offed when he
>realized how impossible those standards were.  -- Michael 4:23
>******************************************************************************


Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 10:43:56 GMT

mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes:

>> What are the reasons for emotions?
>
>	Trivial.  It seems to me that emotions can easily be
>understood in an evolutionary context.  Love causes creatures to
>cooperate with each other, to enhance each other's chance of survival.

I *really* hate to seem like I'm agreeing with this bozo...but yeah,
let's discuss this.  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.

The other emotions you suggest are easily explained by reason.  Love,
in my mind, seems to be the sole exception.

-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas)
Subject: Re: JESUS IS GOD (Was: Yeshua the Man...)
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:54:31 GMT

ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar) thumps his Bible as evidence:
>Again, lack of training.  

Parrots can be trained to talk, too.

>The best Messianic prophecy identifying Jesus is in Daniel 9:24-27 where Daniel predicted the timing of Jesus' execution to be 69 x 7 years after a certain date. (Read my advert in alt.messianic)

My version says 7 x 70.  It also completely fails to give the date
from which this interval starts.  This is your best example?

>Quite simply Jesus knew he was the Messiah and the prophecy in Psalm 2 predicted him to be the BEGOTTEN (not created) Son of God.

Quite simply it does not, since all the verse you quote would have 
been written and rewritten AFTER the event anyway.

*Even* if prophecies were recorded beforehand, how many of the prophecies
that *failed* the test of time do you think would have been kept alive by
High Priests and other historians?  I'd wager very few, if any, would have.

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,talk.religion.misc
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 02:03:27 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

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 --
>>
>Oriental people tend to be shorter and black people tend to have bigger
>cocks.  These are facts.  Facts are not racism.  Buy yourself a dictionary!
>
>If you agree with me, CONFESS!!!! If you don't, ARTICULATE!!!!
>
>-Nick
>( Hail the Glorious Resolution! )

 Okay, you got it. I might be willing to accept the idea that the group
commonly referred to as Orientals has a shorter average height than the
group that is commonly referred to as Caucasian.
 But I defy you to point to a refereed study that says that blacks have
a larger average penis size than other groups. Just one will do. 

 Second point. Take three random people (of the same gender), two from the
same "race" and one from another. Number them 1a, 1b, and 2. Compare
genomes. Define "genetically closer" as "having more matching alleles."
 Now, you will find that it is just as likely that 1a will be 'genetically
closer' to 2 than to 1b as vice versa.
 You can define a 'race' based on any features you want. But you will find
that few if any other genetic traits will correlate with the ones you choose.
 In this sense, there's no such thing as 'race.'

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: joann@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Jo Ann Malina)
Subject: Re: did I like miss your point?
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 12:25:40 GMT

In article <root.726333127@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>joann@ariadne.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Jo Ann Malina) writes:
>
>>In article <root.726160682@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>There are good reasons for scheduling every moment of a space mission,
>especially in those days.  In order to do this, it needed to be in the
>schedule.  If the astronauts themselevs asked for this to be scheduled, and
>none of them objected to it, then there is no reason why it can't be done.
>
>Just because something appears on a schedule for NASA does not in any way
>imply government 'support' for religion.  Unless of course you are a
>fanatic who is grasping at straws...

Right, I suppose if we go back to the moon we can expect some
heart-felt readings from the Bhagavad-Gita, or maybe passages from
The Urantia Book on the long trip to Mars.  Get real.  Someone in
the goverment ordered the astronauts to read from the Christian
Bible on the way to the Moon during a scheduled (of course)
interview with television reporters. Moreover, it was the part that
is most used to opposed science with dim-witted "creationism,"
on a government sponsored scientific mission. I thought it was crappy
then and I still do.

(For the record, I would find mandated readings from other religious
work more astonishing but just as obnoxious, even the collected
works of Gerald Gardner.)


*) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *)!(* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (*
Jo Ann Malina, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
joann@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu  -or-  415/926-2846
Neither Stanford nor the DOE would be caught dead with these opinions.
Nor do they consult me when formulating theirs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.     -Bill Clinton
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas)
Subject: Re: JESUS IS GOD (Was: Yeshua the Man...)
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:33:04 GMT

ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar) writes:

>martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:
>>ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar) thumps his Bible as evidence:
>>
>>>The best Messianic prophecy identifying Jesus is in Daniel 9:24-27 where Daniel predicted the timing of Jesus' execution to be 69 x 7 years after a certain date. (Read my advert in alt.messianic)
>>
>>My version says 7 x 70.  It also completely fails to give the date
>>from which this interval starts.  This is your best example?

>The prophecy speaks of 70 x 7 periods decreed for the whole of the Jewish
>people but then splits up into 7,62,and 1 x 7 year periods.  It clearly states
>the anointed one to be cut off after the 62 i.e. after the first 7 and second 62
>so 69.  I will be writing in detail about this prophecy in alt.messianic.

Don't forget to let us all know what that "certain date" is, too.
And don't just say it was 69 x 7 years before the execution.

>>*Even* if prophecies were recorded beforehand, how many of the prophecies
>>that *failed* the test of time do you think would have been kept alive by
>>High Priests and other historians?  I'd wager very few, if any, would have.

>The testimony to the truth of the Bible is not fulfilled prophecy but
>UNFULFILLED prophecy, for many believe that you will live to see the rest
>of it come true.

Hell, well, I'm completely convinced.  As someone once said here in
alt.atheism : "LORD, RIP YOUR BLOODY HANDS FROM THE CROSS AND TAKE ME NOW!!!!"

--
Your eyes are weary from staring at the screen.  Your eyelids feel very heavy.
You feel very sleepy.  Watch the cursor.  Notice how restful it is to watch it
blink.  Close your eyes.  All the opinions stated above are yours.  You cannot
imagine why you felt otherwise. When you awake, you will feel enthusiastically
indebted to:   Martin Dougiamas, martin@cs.curtin.edu.au / martin@dialix.oz.au
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25145 talk.religion.misc:25292
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Why? (was Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER)
Date: 6 Jan 93 16:45:00 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan5.223146.29327@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes...

>Sure, when God placed the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil in the Garden, HE
>knew that the people would partake of it and be condemned to death as well as 
>all the generations that followed them.  GOD knew this!  

And then...

>   That is why He provided a plan for salvation through His one and only Son,
>Jesus Christ.  We are living in the age of grace whereby we may be saved IF we
>choose to follow Jesus.  There's nothing more to it than that.  

This is exactly my problem.  Only *some* people (true christians) would be
saved.  God ostensibly knew this, too.  Sounds like a strange way of testing
his creation, no?  Remember, in this worldview, God made up the rules in this
Great Board Game.  So if he wanted us all to win, why did he set it up so that
some would definitely lose?

******************************************************************************
For God so loved the world that He gave Man Free Will and then got pissed when
we didn't meet his arbitrary standards.  Oh, and he had his Son offed when he
realized how impossible those standards were.  -- Michael 4:23
******************************************************************************
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Women. . . SHUT UP!
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 05 Jan 93  10:23:40

Who: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
ID: <nyikos.725160159@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
And mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
 
>> "Of course not, consider RCAR (Religious Coalition for
>> Abortion Rights?) and Catholics for Choice.
 
PN> "How about posting stats on membership in these two
PN> organizations?
 
Why don't you just CALL them? Also call "Prayerfully Pro-Choice
Coalition" here in Orange County. There are several large "Catholics
for Choice" groups in Orange County and Los Angeles. Since you wonder
what their membership is, get off your lazy butt and and ask them.
 
PN> "And how about posting documentation that these people are not
PN> atheists?"
 
Gee, you're more dense than usual. Catholics are -NOT- atheists,
they are theists. Most Pro-Choice people are Christians, though
not all Pro-Choice people are Christians, or theists. Several
members in the group I'm associated with are Jewish. The Jews are
there because, as one Holocaust survivor in this Pro-Choice group
put it, she did not want to see Christians bring about another Nazi
Germany here in America. The Christians are there because they are
ashamed of how their errant sisters and brothers of the faith are
behaving--- terrorizing little girls and women, bombing medical
facilities, smashing windows, using "stealth tactics" in local
elections to force their occultism into public education, just
to name a few "worldly" acts of evil.
 
The TRUE Christians are the ones defending a woman's and girl's
rights to be self-determinate, and the right to choose to abort
her pregnancy if she decides to. The anti-Christians are the ones
who seek to destroy these fundamental rights, and bring about another
Age of Darkness, where a woman has no rights save to remain barefoot,
pregnant, and dependent upon her male masters.
 
PN> Anyone can call themselves "Religious" and "Catholic" [note
PN> absence of words like "Roman" and "Greek Orthodox"] in these
PN> free-for-all times."
 
And who the bloody hell are you to say whom is or is not Catholic
and or religious? The Pro-Choice coalition I support has several
dozen Christians as members--- they defend womens' clinics via
not only putting their bodies between their Christofascist brothers
(i.e. people like you and "Operation 'Rescue'") and the girls and
women said Christofascists terrorize, but they also pray that God
will soften the hearts of Christofascists like you, and learn a
little compassion and a lot of ethical and moral behavior.
 
To demand that a girl or woman reproduce, is an utmost EVIL, and
must be countered by any means available.
 
PN> Peter Nyikos
PN> Cc: cash@zeppelin.convex.com, with a request to e-mail me
PN> follow-ups.

--- Maximus 2.01wb
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc