HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Distribution: world,public
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:16:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.074305.5480@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>In article <SCG.93Jan4184949@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu writes:
>>sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>>
>>it is my opinion that a belief in any cosmology which demands one
>>consider oneself to be without inherent value is inherently
>>self-destructive.  to me, christianity, through its doctrine of
>>original sin and reliance on divine grace, meets this criteria.
>
>Without value?  Why would God bother with us if we are without value in His
>eyes?  There must be something worth saving!  No one deserves fellowship with
>God, but because He deemed us worthwhile, He saved us by grace through faith
>in Christ.
>
>John M.
>

I think the point was "inherent worth", not worth to someone else.  Why
should I care if I'm worthwhile for someone elses reasons- I prefer to be
worthwile for my own reasons ( though that may involve other people ).

-Nick
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:25:42 CST
From: David James Alexander Hanley <U16244@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Catholic church and prophylactics.


  I do think that most churches tell the people that contraception is
wrong because it disobeys the command in genesis--be fruitful and multiply.
Also, remember, you wany members of the congregation to have lots of
children, because this means more future followers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.
He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for
protection to his own" - Thomas Jefferson, 1814

SEND E-MAIL TO : hanley1@earth.eecs.uic.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why it sucks to be an atheist...
Date: 10 Jan 93 16:53:52 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth

In the persuit of inner (one's) happiness
Why must an individual bring in the "grand scale"
the "whole world"?
My happiness is doing Mathematics, as well as 
somebody else's happiness might well be saving lives
which in the end , it results not only  in accomplishing
*my* happiness but also

somebody elses's .
regards

Frank Pinto
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: Why must you act this way?
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:39:03 GMT


In article <1993Jan8.054628.6524@news.acns.nwu.edu>, autopsy@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Gregory Baumgartel) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan7.181314.9181@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
|> > Humans prefer to blame God for all the wrongs of this world.  Kind of 
|> > hypocritical when most people don't believe in God in the first place.
|> >
|> Allocating blame to God seems like a fairly plausable reason why people
|> dreamed him up in the first place.  The notion of a God relieves us
|> (humankind) of responsibliliy, depending on individual beliefs.  IMHO, without 
|> belief in God, humans would accept more responsibility for their own actions.
|> 	I also have another thing that bothered me about the idea of a God. 
|> If God created us, then where did God come from?  
|> 
That depends on your view of God.  Christians know better than to blame God for
the woes in their lives.  We know that we are at fault and that it is only through
our faith in God that things will work out.  This does not mean that Christians
idly sit by and let God do everything, but rather, Christians receive guidance
and spititual fortitude to carry out His will.

But, I do agree with you, that there are people who are not Christians and yet
believe that there is a God whom they can blame for their woes.  When one 
becomes a Christian, bad things will continue to happen in his life but with his
faith in God, he is able to cope with any of life's difficulties . . . even
death.  The Christian does not fear death.

Where did God come from?  I don't know.  God is God.  
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25018 talk.religion.misc:25185
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Date: 5 Jan 1993 17:15:02 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In article <yZuuwB3w165w@kalki33.uucp> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
>martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:
>
>> If Man was created only thousands of years ago, and we are all
>> descended from common stock... why is there such a wide variety
>> in our genetic pool today?
>
>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.
>

Happy New Year, Kalki!

>> 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.

This is a cute Star Trek plot, but really goofy science.

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

A bit of background:  Kalki posted their description of evolution
in talk.origins a few weeks ago, where it was soundly scortched
as bogus science.  It is more appropriate that Kalki has 
returned to post parts of this little tale in t.r.m,
where it belongs (however, try to keep it out of alt.atheism).

>
>Sincerely,
>Kalki Dasa
>
>
       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Where's my picture of God?  |
      |                           Where's my picture of God?  |
      |                           Where's my picture of God?  |
      |                           Where's my picture of God?  |
       -------------------------------------------------------


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi!  I'm .Siggy, the National .Sig Foundation poster child.
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Omniscience
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 14:37:42 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
> Mathew types:
> > From the definitions of my Catholic youth. Omnipotent meant being able to d
> > absolutely everything and anything.
> >
> >Yes, but not absolutely everything and anything for all time.  It's
> >the "for all time" bit I'm asking about.
> 
> No, it included all the time. Omnipotent was restricted by nothing, as
> restrictions and omnipotence (tm) do not go along.

Huh?  But you're restricting omnipotence.  You're saying that omnipotence
cannot exist for finite duration, and that omnipotence cannot destroy itself.

> >> By the way, it applies to me as well that I can't solve problems that
> >> haven't got a solution for me. I am afraid that this implies also that
> >> I am Omnipotent, since I can by definition, solve all problems that have
> >> a solution for me, and the others don't count.
> 
> >OK.  Get me a piece of rock from Phobos.  That problem has a definite
> >solution for you.
> 
> Semantics again. I would say that getting a piece from Phobos has no
> solution for me. I know that you mean that there is a path of events
> conceivable that allows me to get pieces of rock from Phobos, without
> violating any physical assumption, but such things as social physics
> (who would pay everything?) makes it actually impossible.

I don't think it is impossible.  Unlikely to happen, maybe.  Unfeasible.  But
not impossible.


mathew
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A nation chosen by GOD -- New-Israel
Date: 12 Jan 93 02:54:51 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <11JAN199318425836@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
|> In article <1iqg75INNqnd@fido.asd.sgi.com>, 
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes...
|> 
|> >In article <10JAN199316392323@utarlg.uta.edu>, 
|> >b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
|> >>
|> >> Schooling should include a healthy dose of skepticism of anything
|> >> humanly contrived. Do I sound like a religionist or an atheist?
|> > 
|> >Neither.   You just sound out of touch.   
|> 
|> So who can be in touch with more than a couple of hundred schools?
|> (Or perhaps you meant something else?) In other words, who knows,
|> generally speaking? 

Your local school board for one.    Trot down and tell them "We shold
be teaching scepticisim" and I think that the answer will be "We do".

|> 
|> >School Science books that
|> >I've seen explain fairly well how Science makes progress by trying
|> >models out and then discarding them.    They don't present Scientific
|> >progress as an inevitable determinisitc progression.    
|> 
|> What progress? Should I look at medicine, or energy production, or 
|> pollution levels. Best I can tell, most everything is on the slide. 
|> Especially school test scores.

If you think that Science is making no progress, that's your privilege.
Doubtless you can come up with a "christian" definition of progress that
indicates we are going backwards.

I'm using the notion of progress that I think most ordinary people 
would recognize.   More knowledge, more useful techniques, better
drugs, better surgical techniques, and so on.

Your counter-example is unconvincing.   It's not "science" that
produces pollution.   In fact, it's Scientists who are developing
new techniques for dealing with pollution.   Pollution is produced
- broadly speaking - by people who think that making a profit, which
is quite acceptable in itself, of course, entitles them to abuse the
environment.

Similarly, it's not "science" that causes declines in school scores.
In European countries, and Japan, where there isn't quite the same
blind obedience to markets and to hell with society, scores are
holding up quite well.    But that's a topic for discussion elsewhere,
if at all.    I certainly won't discuss it here.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:31:46 GMT


But we can have eternal life and the knowledge of good and evil.
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!  
   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.  
    Maybe I'm being too simplistic.  I don't post too often but I am a firm
believer and I just couldn't stand by silent in admidst this debate.  I don't
mean to flame anyone.  After all, Jesus came into this world to save not to
condemn.  And in His likeness, I would not do the same.
    I welcome your response.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Subject: Re: Religious Taxation (was: Madeleine Murray O'Hare)
Organization: Rice University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 09:38:40 GMT

In article <2935734265.0.p00261@psilink.com> "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
>BTW, If you really know of any atheistic churches, tell me about them because 
>I have not heard of any unless you are including Unitarians in that group.

  No, this was a real athiestic church. It failed after several years because
the members didn't feel that not believing in a god provided that common
a bond. Wish I remember more about it.



-- 
Mike Swaim            | "101 Dalmations? Yeah I saw that."
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu | "You Did! REALLY? The same film?
Disclamer: I lie      | Let's stop driving! We must get out and jump
up and down and up and down and dance around and around!" Matt and Delerium
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25311 talk.religion.misc:25492 alt.slack:3635
From: roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.slack
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 13:00:21 CST
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN

spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) writes:

> I don't care if it rains or freezes,
> As long as I've got my Plastic Jesus,
> Ridin' on the dashboard of my car.

Well, that's that, then.  The only question left is, is Billy Sol Hargis
"BoB"'s illegitimate nephew?

Pretend to send $20 to the First Church of the Gooey Death and Discount
House of Worship, kids.... newly relocated to San Juan, Nebraska.
--
Roy M. Silvernail --  roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu - OR-  cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu
  perl -e '$x = 1/20; print "Just my \$$x! (adjusted for inflation)\n"'
        "What do you mean, you've never been to Alpha Centauri?"
                                               -- Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: world,public
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:29:18 GMT

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

[deletia]

: Love God.  Love your neighbour as yourself.  Do not murder.  Do not bear fals
e
: 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
ot
: to lose?
:
: What do you believe?  Where is your book of life?

But this isn't the whole of the bible.  Did you miss the recent posts about god
mandated genocide and violence?  I can email the list to you if you like.
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |If you'd come today you would have reached a 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |whole nation.  Israel in 4 BC had no mass 
The Truth is still the Truth    |communication.
Even if you choose to ignore it.|                Judas in "JCSS"
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25637 talk.religion.misc:25803 talk.politics.misc:67078
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion.misc
Subject: More Devil Worshiping Antibible Fanatics Step Out
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:34:06 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
] In a previous article, hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) says:
] >In article <1993Jan6.183438.24890@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu> christen@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Carl Christensen) writes:
] >>:                          Deuteronomy 21:18-21
] >>:    If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father
] >>: and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father
] >>: and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate 
] >>: of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn
] >>: and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 
] >>: Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the
] >>: evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
] >>
] >>But it's in the bible so it must be true.
] >
] >I think you are looking at the passage in the wrong way.  The Torah was
] >written in Hebrew so it is not written in the same style we Americans write
] >in.  This seems to describe what kind of son would be rebellious and worthy
] >of death.
] >
] 	Why should ANY kid, even one that is drunken and "wastrel" !
] 
] 	The DEATH sentence for KIDS ! For ANY reason ? Without a TRIAL !
] 
] 	THAT is barbaric !

So other than the fact that you are in League with the DEVIL
adam, what else did you want to mention, other than that this
is but one more clear sign wherein the US Government Has been
Lead into SIN AND CORRUPTION!!!!!


ciao
drieux

ps: nice to see that Link also Agrees that killing
children is a good thing.....

-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 
Just because you are a homicidal maniac
doesn't mean you don't have a sense of humor.
		- Barry Sadler
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25376 talk.religion.misc:25553
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Zen and Dannyism
From: <E03SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Friday, 8 Jan 1993 09:47:25 EST
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

                   WHAT DO YOU THINK?

   "Every Everyday fact
          of Science or Common Sense
    is a Window
          into the Unknown Source
    of All Things."
                                             Cyberpunk Pouggie
                                             January 8th, 1993
---------------------------------------------------------------------
E03SI@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Keeper ot the Danny Pouget On-going
Biography archival effort.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25035 talk.religion.misc:25203
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Date: 5 Jan 93 14:26:22
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<1icfmmINNs6d@shelley.u.washington.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu's message of 5 Jan 1993 17:15:02 GMT

In article <1icfmmINNs6d@shelley.u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

   In article <yZuuwB3w165w@kalki33.uucp> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
   >martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:
   >
   >> If Man was created only thousands of years ago, and we are all
   >> descended from common stock... why is there such a wide variety
   >> in our genetic pool today?
   >
   >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.

   Happy New Year, Kalki!

That's more properly the Kalki hive-organism.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write lpf@uunet.uu.net
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Nailing Christianity: Sufficient Support for Atheism?
Date: 5 Jan 93 00:49:57 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <C0CDAF.LKF.1@cs.cmu.edu> rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Robert Huss) writes:
>
>	There is a great deal of debunking of Christianity going on
>on this group, but is this really sufficient grounds for Atheism?  

Debunking Christianity is not a prerequisite for atheism.
Absence of convincing evidence for the existence of a god
is sufficient grounds for atheism. One need not disprove
the theist hypothesis to be atheist; it is sufficient that
the hypothesis remain in doubt.

>Nailing the inconsistencies in Christianity certainly gives enough
>support to show that it isn't the One Truth as far as religions go,
>but that really doesn't give us enough to deny the existence of a god.

So long as a logically possible rationalization can be advanced
for each inconsistency, it hasn't been shown that Christianity
isn't the One Truth. One's opinion must therefore rest upon what 
one considers plausible, and one man's plausibility is another's 
absurdity.

>	It is evident that all of the religions there are have certain
>inconsitencies within them.  The followers of any given religion may refute
>that the inconsitencies aren't important, but they undeniably exist.  

I consider it likely that there are (at least arguably) logical
inconsistencies in all religions, but I would not make the
positive claim that there actually are such inconsistencies
because 1. I don't know the details of every religion; 2. I
may very well not know what all the religions are; 3. without
such detailed knowledge, such a claim is an overgeneralization.
So, do you have intimate knowledge of all the world's religions,
or do you have lower standards of evidence when making
universal claims about religions? If the former, then could you,
for my edification, point out exactly what logical inconsistencies
distinguish Vajrayana Buddhism, Santeria, and Australian shamanism?

>	Is this enough to say that humans create religion, or just enough
>to say that we shape it to our society?  Is debunking religions enough to
>disprove God?  I'd like to hear what others have to say about this.

No it isn't. On the other hand, disproving God's existence is not necessary
for one to reasonably be an atheist.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:45:15 GMT
 <1992Dec31.183939.3539@radian.uucp> <1iatr1INNij4@fido.asd.sgi.com> 
 <5JAN199322080860@jane.uh.edu> <1if9itINN9j8@travis.csd.harris.com>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

jimb@rcx1.csd.harris.com (Jim Burmeister) writes:

>In article <5JAN199322080860@jane.uh.edu>, lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
>(bunch of stuff deleted)
>> She had the option too, of changing the channel.  But she was trying to take
>> away people's right to even see the broadcasts.  Public television is not
>> federally funded with tax dollars.  They are funded by business advertising.
>> If there are enough people in an area that wish to see a christian sermon
>> on television and the tv stations make enough money off of the commercials
>> to support it, then WHAT RIGHT has O'Hare to tell anybody that they can't.
>
>I don't know anything about the actual facts regarding this petition, but
>if it did refer to Public Television, as in PBS, then you are quite wrong.
>PBS most certainly is funded by the government, and therefore blatantly
>religious shows ("Christian sermons") don't belong on it.

PBS is also funded by my $$ when I give to their pledge drive.  And by
corporations, etc.  Of course, since PBS is funded by the governemt, and
terefore blatantly [conservative|liberal|progay|antiabortion] shows don't
belong on it.  Ever heard of freedom of speech?

>However, if O'Hare was trying to ban religious programming from broadcast TV
>in general, then I agree she was way off base--that's censorship.
So is allowing every group access to PBS except religious ones...

 -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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc