HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:08:01 GMT

yohan@sam.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:


>In article <la7c5dINN76o@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>>(Jonathan W Newton) emphatically defines christianity:
>> 
>> This is the biblical definition of faith.  You are supposed to have
>> faith that christ is the savior and son of god.  This means that you
>> do not question (think critically) about the subject of god in any way.
>> Furthermore, anything that the bible says is true is not to be
>> questioned; you are simply supposed to have faith and accept it as fact.
>> To put it simply,faith in something means you believe in something
>> without proof or reason.  
>>
>>And this is Mr. Newton's fantasy about how christians
>>define faith. I am unaware of ANY christian theologian
>>who would agree with his view. 
>> 
>>Dano

>You obviously know very few christian theologians.  You are not allowed to 
>doubt that the bible is the word of god, and you are not allowed to doubt 
>christ is the son of god.  You are to simply have faith that these 
>assumptions are correct. Post on christian newsgroups and most will agree 
>that you must have faith in these.  If my views are a fantasy, then we are 
>all being tricked by Descarte's evil demon.

Uhm, have you taken a theology course?  Do you know anything about Process
Theology?  It denies ex-niholo creation.  How about John Hick's universal 
salvation, derived from Iraneaus?  Christian theology is a very broad field.  
There is plenty of room to doubt the literal bible.  Most modern, 
non-evangelical Christian theologians deny 'plenary verbal inspiration.'

Go take a theology class at a good liberal arts college...you'll be quite
surprised what Christian theologians propose.  I know I was.

Heck, my copy of the Oxford NRSV refers to the Deluge as a myth and gives
it's origins as Babylonian myths.  My NIV Study Bible disagrees, but both 
opinions are from Christian theologians.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Allmighty God
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:07:01 GMT
 	<fRJgrkL@quack.sac.ca.us> <adams.714836722@spssig>  
 	<BtLv2F.Cp7@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> <adams.714863644@spssig>  
 	<BtM79E.FEq@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> <adams.714924351@spssig> <Btnto9.Kq@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:

>In article <adams.714924351@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>Sure. And my God fits that.  He is trancendent of time...

>Ah, but is He transcendent also of sex? Can He assume both male and female
>forms? Is He neutral, as a true transcendent would be?

Oh yes.  'God' is totally neuter.  The three persons of the Trinity are the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit, or 'Sophia' is female....at least according to modern
(some would say liberal) understanding of the OT.

The Son is clearly male in incarnation...but not necessarily in essence.

The Father is perhaps better understood as a 'Parent'

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Poker
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:07:45 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

In article <1992Aug25.171600.7127@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>	"Well, sirs, as far as I can see, even the Lord can't beat a
>full house with three-of-a-kind!"

Of course, three of a kind would win if it were low-ball. . .

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Organization: Xerox PARC
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:33:54 GMT

In <17g3d3INNp8o@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu> Jonathan W Newton believes that
faith must be in conflict with thinking:

-Douglas Graham:
>>>This again, points to a defect in the human brain.  People tend
>>>to use it to rationalize rather than to deduce.
-Jonathan W Newton:
>I have to agree with the original post.  IMHO, anything that requires
>man to have faith (i.e. cease to think), has a net result of being
>harmful.  
>
Fine. If "have faith" implies "cease to think". Could you prove this
assertion? Or this is by your private definition of faith? (Or you
accept this statement by faith? :-D)

-Jonathan W Newton:
>Mans intellectual evolution has been severely retarded by religion.
>
As by atheism. Intellectual evolution always slows down when barriers of 
dogmatism are set in wrong places. Religion AND atheism can stimulate or
hinder thinking; actually, the original reason why I decided to believe
in God was that this option gave me more intellectual freedom.


Best wishes,
             Jarek
------------------------------------------------------
 .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
 `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:10:57 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1287@esl.ESL.COM>, markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
wrote:
> I believe that some of the original writings were inspired while
> others may have been observations of events as they were perceived.
> If I understand your comments, no errors have been made in copying or
> translating text from those original authors since the time of the
> Flood, or since the time the events of the Flood were recorded.  I
> also am not suggesting that the Flood was a minor local event, but a
> major event sufficient to destroy human life and much of the animal
> kingdom.  To Noah's family, this may have appeared to be all life on
> Earth and as far as they knew, the water rose above all the mountains,
> or some scribe decided the story wasn't good enough and beefed it up a
> bit.

Concerning the flood myth (yes, I call it myth because it's been
registered with other cultures long before the Jewish records), it 
might have been a catastrophic event, style the hurricane that hit
southern Florida a couple of days ago. From this local event people 
started to tell stories, and rumors float around about a man that had a big
ark
that saved his family and animals, and the ball was rolling in the
traditional human exaggeration style. So we finally end up with 
stories about a man saving the whole humankind with the help of 
external godlike forces. And it also ends up in most major religions. 

The other interesting observation is that it seems humans need
a similar 'man saves the world' myth, either from a flood, or in
recent incarnations from the original sin. The god/human that saves
other humans is not only present in Christianity, many Greek, Nordic,
you name it religious myths have this theme. In that sense
Noah is not the only case.

Cheers,
Kent

---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14929 alt.atheism:15949
From: jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:46:08 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA

In article <sbuckley.714450274@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
Buckley) wrote:
>   both answers are yes.  all sins have been forgiven.  but that was
> just good friday.  on easter sunday, jesus was resurrected and provided
> with eternal life along with all who accept the sacrifice.  with our

"provided with eternal life"?  I didn't think a god needed to be "provided"
with anything...

> free will, we must choose to come to god in jesus for salvation.  so
> an atheist is forgiven, but to receive eternal life, one must accept jesus
> as saviour.

I'm sorry, but all religions are the same - they threaten those who don't
follow them so that they'll scare people into joining them.  It's Darwinism,
really - you Christians try to scare people into joining you, so you gain
members.  Real religions that are in fact loving of their neighbors, etcetera
(the things Christian religions tend to claim but *typically* aren't), die out
since nobody's particularly interested in wasting time bowing and scraping to
gods that may or may not exist and probably don't...  ...flame me if you like,
these are my opinions.

Wulf                    | "Martha, it's another one of those CS majors asking
jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu | if cow chips are pin-compatible with 68040s..."
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 27 Aug 92 08:30:23 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <ksand-260892100022@wintermute.apple.com>
ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>
>Concerning the flood myth (yes, I call it myth because it's been
>registered with other cultures long before the Jewish records), it 
>might have been a catastrophic event, style the hurricane that hit
>southern Florida a couple of days ago. From this local event people 
>started to tell stories, and rumors float around about a man that had a big
>ark
>that saved his family and animals, and the ball was rolling in the
>traditional human exaggeration style. So we finally end up with 
>stories about a man saving the whole humankind with the help of 
>external godlike forces. And it also ends up in most major religions. 
>

That certainly looks believable:  We can explain the complexities of
human existance as a series of myths and at the same time explain all
life by a complex theory that happens to fit the data points as well
as the "myths" do.
-- 
Good-day!

Mark
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Genesis - fact or fiction
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:53:52 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug20.150122.4635@spdc.ti.com>, serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com
(Mike Serafin) wrote:
> I, being a scientist, once believed that evolution had all the answers.  But,
> evolution presents some gross inconsistencies with modern scientific laws. 
> Evolution requires that all matter somehow came together to form life.  The 
> law of entropy states that all systems will tend toward a state of maximum 
> entropy (maximum disorganization).  If this law is valid, then how, without
> some outside force, did matter come together to form life?

As a scientist you should also wonder why simple mathematical building
blocks such as cellular automatas and fractals build complex end results.

You know, I have as a computer screen saver an algorithm that emulates how
the
birds fly around in a flock, and I'm always amazed how a simple mechanical
algorithm could produce such a vivid animation. 

The key to understand evolution and life is that simple building blocks
are able to build complex environments. Same with object oriented design
:-).
Or with words. Or music. Or ...

Cheers,
Kent


---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 11:21:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.230154.8103@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>
> First of all, have any non-Christians expressed the assurance I am calling
> faith (faith==absolute knowledge of unseen)?  I don't recall any...
>
> I don't recall any posts where a non-Christian relates a wholistic assurance
> in their belief (i.e. through all aspects of human thought, including reason,
> emotion, experience, gut feelings, etc, etc.).  None who are as blatantly
> stubborn about their position. :-)  Could it be that they are not as sure?
> They base their beliefs only on reason and intellectual feasability, whereas
> the Christian will acknowledge that reason is an issue, but by far not the
> sum total of religious experience.  There are some on the other end as well.
>
> John M.

I don't believe this. Go and read soc.religion.islam for a while.

And open your eyes first; it may help.

Tears

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14822 alt.atheism:15860
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: 26 Aug 92 02:56:49 GMT
Organization: Xerox PARC

Hi folks! I'm back. Just at time to find this interesting exchange
<1992Aug26.010607.10538@bmerh85.bnr.ca> between Stephen Buckley and
Douglas Graham:  

-Douglas Graham:
>>>This again, points to a defect in the human brain.  People tend
>>>to use it to rationalize rather than to deduce. [...] After that,
>>>they use their brain backwards. They start with whatever they've been
>>>indoctrinated with, and then concoct reasons for believing it. [...]
-Stephen Buckley:
>>like to see you defend it in front of some christian ph.d.'s i know. :)
-Douglas Graham:
>Sounds good.  I'd prefer to do it over the net rather than in person,
>because that way I have time to think. [...] We'll treat the net to a
>bullshit fest the likes of which they've never seen before. :-)
>
Sounds exciting. Well, Douglas? 

I submit that it points to a defect in your brain :-D. And here is the
proof: Your reasoning either assumes that one CAN DEDUCE answers to ALL 
questions, or it can be used against ANY thinking person. In the first
case it is invalid, in the second case it is useless. Congratulations.

Still want to defend your position? I'm waiting... Or maybe I did not
understand you properly? Then please elaborate. Thank you.


Best wishes,
             Jarek
------------------------------------------------------
 .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
 `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Distribution: world,local
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:59:03 GMT

In article <27AUG199209502923@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.000725.3682@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes...
>   My disagreement with this is the second principle:  that anyone
>can do anything they like with whatever they have created.  In my
>opinion, sentience carries with it emergent moral rights, no matter
					     ~~~~~~
There's that undefined word again.  We will probably disagree because
of our interpretation of moral rights.  If Entity A creates Entity B
out of nothing, I see no moral obligation on Entity A to preserve Entity
B.

>how that sentience was formed, or from whose property.  (If person
>A creates a sentient being from the property of person B, without
>person B's permission, person B has lost that property.  Person A

What made you assume that person A could do anything without person
B's permission?

>may be obligated to compensate person B, but person B does not still
>own the property (now a sentient being).)

I don't follow your logic, sorry...I do not mean to be derogatory, but
I really don't follow you.
>
>Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU

-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     hfsi!ata@UUNET.UU.NET
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet.uu.net!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15488 alt.atheism:16414
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:37:43 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Jonathan W Newton (yohan@sam.ksu.ksu.edu) wrote:
: In article <la7c5dINN76o@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
: >(Jonathan W Newton) emphatically defines christianity:
: > 
: > This is the biblical definition of faith.  You are supposed to have
: > faith that christ is the savior and son of god.  This means that you
: > do not question (think critically) about the subject of god in any way.
: > Furthermore, anything that the bible says is true is not to be
: > questioned; you are simply supposed to have faith and accept it as fact.
: > To put it simply,faith in something means you believe in something
: > without proof or reason.  
: >
: >And this is Mr. Newton's fantasy about how christians
: >define faith. I am unaware of ANY christian theologian
: >who would agree with his view. 
: > 
: >Dano
: 
: You obviously know very few christian theologians.  You are not allowed
: to doubt that the bible is the word of god, and you are not allowed to
: doubt christ is the son of god.  You are to simply have faith that
: these assumptions are correct.  Post on christian newsgroups and most
: will agree that you must have faith in these.  If my views are a
: fantasy, then we are all being tricked by Descarte's evil demon.
:
: Jon Newton

Theologians are notorious for being heretics. Posting on a christian
newsgroup is a good way to see what christians who respond to posts on
newsgroups think, but not all Christians are theologians. Take a poll
at a theological seminary, and I predict you will be surprised.

Dano is quite correct.

Felcitiations -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: Moderate Christianity
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:26:26 GMT

jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
: skinner@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
: : jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
: : >  Do you believe
: : >that Christianity has cleaned up its act enough to be given a second
: : >chance (especially considering the fundamentalists seem to be in the
: : >vanguard of such efforts)? 
: : 
: : I'm not sure what is meant by giving Christianity a second chance.  If
: : this means giving it a chance as a state religon, then my answer is
: : no; the kingdom of God is not brought about by forcing it on a
: : population.
: 
: I meant things like school prayer, requiring Presidents to be Christians,
: excluding atheist from public office, creches on public property,
: changing the pledge of allegience to invoke God, requiring "In
: God We Trust" on our currency, etc.

Well, I guess I will make a fool of myself again by following up
my own post, but I need to correct the above reply.  It
doesn't address what it should have.  What I gave was evidence
that Christianity is imposing itself.  What I should have given
was a statement about what I meant by "second chance".  Let me
try again.

Since the beginning of history, religion and state have been intimately
linked.  It wasn't until the founding of the US that a government was
founded on a secular basis.  The evidence of imposition by Christianity
that I provided above indicates that they want to establish it
as the de facto national religion.  Sorry for the miscue.
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Summary: Steve vacilates on the meaning of Luke 14: 26
Keywords: Luke 14: 26
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:27:20 GMT
	<adams.714664427@spssig>
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.

Old Steve, like five minutes ago:
>>>NO! NO! NO!  By ***COMPARISON*** your love for everyone else ***SEEMS***
>>>like hate.  Jeesh.

In article <adams.714664427@spssig> adams@spss.com (New Steve Adams) writes:
>Jeez.  This is purely comparative.  You are to love God with your whole
>heart, whole mind and and whole soul.  And you are to love your neighbors
>as yourself.  I am to treat all men with love, repsect and tolerance.
>That's what Jesus did (with the exception of a certain set of self-righteous 
>local leaders).  
>But, no matter how much I love my fellow man, I must love God more than
>that.  Much more so.

So, I guess you've had a change of conscience. Before you said that your
love for Yesus was so absolute that by "***COMPARISON***" you HATE
everything else. Are you now turning your back on the words of LUKE 14:26? Do
you no longer HATE by any comparison? What caused the change? By the
way, this word Jeez and Jeesh you keep using, what is that short for?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: The Light
Organization: Academic Computing, University of Virginia
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 18:34:11 GMT

Muehlhausen claims:

>I am a sensible person.

Hold that thought...

>There is no such thing as an ex-Christian.  If you claim to be one, then I 
>hold that you never were a Christian to start with.  My experience has been 
>that once you _truly_ give your life to God, He won't let you go.

I leave it to the intended recipient to cut JM's presumption to ribbons,
but earlier...

>I started out on Taoism, then bordered on Satanism, then went for a brand of 
>objectivism, and none of these things held any meaning for my life.

"There is no such thing as an ex-Taoist.  If you claim to be one, then I 
hold that you never were a Taoist to start with.  My experience has been 
that once you _truly_ give your life to the Tao, it won't let you go."

Better take another tack, Sensible Person. Avoid gripping the knife by
the blade.

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:41:02 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:

>In article <adams.715098634@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>It's really immaterial whether or not the Serpent was Satan.  Obviously,
>>the NT writers thought that to be the case.  The Serpent can, if you wish,
>>be simply thought of as a great deceiver, the one who brought down Adam and
>>Eve.

>Who ate the fruit? Let's have a some responsability for a change, OK?
>You were delivered FROM slavery and have free will, you are free, but
>with that freedom comes responsability for your actions. Don't go
>blaiming your failures on Eve or the snake or the Devil or anyone else,
>it is you who is responsable. You ate the fruit of knowledge, now make
>use of it, as was intended.

The entire thrust of my papers on theodicy has been free will and our blame
for falling.  But alas, the ultimate responsibilty must fall upon God,
since he created us ex-nihilo.  What I said above was a comment on whether
or not the serpent *HAD* to be Satan.  You can't draw an entire theology
from that statement.  Go read all my other stuff.

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