HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: It's just my opinion...
Date: 31 Jul 92 11:22:58 -0500
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <JOHNSONB.92Jul30205811@uffda.StOlaf.edu>, Benjamin E Johnson <johnsonb@stolaf.edu> writes:
>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:29:04 GMT, MARK DOWE <dowe@ace.acadiau.ca> said:
> 
> MARK> But I find it impossible to believe in anything without a shred
> MARK> of credible evidence. What I really think is a shame is that so
> MARK> many children are fed a religious diet before they have had the
> MARK> chance to learn how to think, and thus are capable of making
> MARK> thier own decisions about the existence of gods.
> 
> On the other hand, I am grateful for my upbringing in a Christian church.
> It would be very difficult to teach a small child altruism for the sake of
> humanity without some reference to a supreme power.
> 
> My youth in the church taught me that I should strive for equality amoung
> humans, peace on earth, and share love with my enemies.  Now that I am 
> capable of further study into our physical world, I see no margin of error
> that an omnipotent being could slip in and alter the world for the benefit of
> his followers or even know the flow of time for eternity.
> 
> For lack of evidence of a "god," and for the incredible evidence against it,
> I choose to deny the existance of an omnipotent creator.  Yet I hold my
> "christian" ideals close to my heart and strive to be a part of making the
> future be like it was promised in my youth.  The strange thing to me is,
> that without the promise of eternal life and unconditional forgiveness, I feel
> a stronger calling to participate in the improvement of the world than I did
> when I believed that God would make everything all right.

I am a Christian and I feel a great motivation to participate in the
improvement of the world AND feel that God has His hand in all that happens.
More Christians should get off their seats and not be closed in by the world. 
The point of salvation was not only to save us from sinful nature, but to also
empower us to do great things in the name of the Lord, one of which should be
the improvement of thing going on in this world.

> 
> ------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
> -benJ			|  the above by no means represents the views of
> johnsonb@stolaf.edu	|  of my employers or school.
> --
> -benJ
> johnsonb@stolaf.edu

In Christ,
Evan Marshall
marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
From: wichmann@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de (Arne Wichmann)
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Organization: Fachschaft Informatik, U of Saarland, FRG
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 07:35:38 GMT

guncer@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Selim E. Guncer) writes:
: In article <1992Jul27.150122.8831@cco.caltech.edu>, bes@cco.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi) writes:
: > 
: > The idea of "one true belief" bothers Mr. Selim Guncer.  However,
: 
: Especially when people are killed because of "true beliefs".
: 
: > from the firm and confident tone of his article it seemed that
: > he believed what he wrote to be one true belief.
: > 
: 
: A bit of Islamic philosophy, some history, a little sociology. You should
: also be interested in these things.

Hmmm... I don't see the answer here. How come that you are confident that
Islam is one true belief?
-- 
Na duw na feistr - o unrhyw fath na chr^ed
Arne Wichmann (wichmann@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de)
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: RFD: Abolishment of Reasonable
Date: 29 Jul 1992 22:18:07 GMT
Organization: Where all the Really Reasonable People Live
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Gavin Williams) writes:
 
 I propose that we abolish the use of the word, 'reasonable' in
 this newsgroup.
 
 Too often it crops up in postings like, "Any REASONABLE person could
 see this." , etc. Or, "If we take a REASONABLE interpretation of it",
 etc.  
 
 Usually what follows the R-word is NOT reasonable.


I have to agree Gavin. I think you are being most reasonable
but that your request is reasonably reasonable, sort of. That
is of course it would be reasonably reasonable for you and I,
but others might not be so reasonable as to leave out the word
"reasonable" in their posts.

Reasonably Yours,

Dano
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie)
Subject: Re: Jesus was married (was: Re: did christ play with himself?)
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 07:14:17 GMT

In <14oo7eINNq3o@iraul1.ira.uka.de> stoesser@i31s21.ira.uka.de (Achim Stoesser) writes:

>Jesus was married, says Theologist Dr. Barbara Thiering (Sydney University)
>in her book "Jesus the Man" (Doubleday, London, to be published soon).
>She studied the Dead Sea Scrolls and found:
>  - His first wife was Mary Magdalene. They had a daughter before crucifixion
>    and two sons after. Then she left him.
>  - At crucifixion Jesus was doped (to simulate death).
>  - After that he lived for 30 years.
>  - His second wife was a Greek woman named Lydia.
>(source: dpa [German press agency]).

>I'd like to hear more, especially on what are Dr. Thiering's conclusions based. 
I guess I'll bite.

Barbara Thiering is rather way-out in her interpretation of the Dead
Sea Scrolls.  No-one else in the field will agree with her, and she
refuses to enter into any sort of dialogue that may suggest that she
might be wrong at any point.

Her argument goes something like the following.  She identifies certain
figures in the DSS as Jesus and John the Baptist, and then makes the
jump that the NT was written by the Qumran community.  She then picks
up on an interpretive technique used occasionally in the DSS, which
reads old documents as coded references to current events.  Her next
leap of logic is to say that, were these people to write their own
scriptures, they would write them in such a way that this
interpretation could be used.  She then claims that she has uncovered
the key to understanding the code used in the NT.  As she would have
it, all of the events take place at Qumran, and refer to the internal
politics of the place.

The leaps of logic are unsupported by anything other than her own
fertile imagination.  No competent scholar who has dealt with the DSS
and the Qumran community will come at what she says.

As one reviewer said, don't waste your money on this
pseudo-scholarship.

Disclaimer: I have not read her books.  My information is based on
press reviews by Christians and non-Christians, and hearing her in
debate on the radio with leading scholars, such as Geza Vermes and Max
Wilcox.
--
John Brownie
School of Mathematics and Statistics   |    Wycliffe Bible Translators
University of Sydney NSW 2006          |    Graham Rd
Internet: jhb@maths.su.oz.au           |    Kangaroo Ground Vic 3097 AUSTRALIA
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Mathematical concepts (Re: Sneezing
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:29:50 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <LV5NoB11w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:

>>   these mathematical concepts are true 

>Ooer.  That feels like a very strong assertion to me.  I can't quite pin down
>what it is about it that makes me uneasy, though...


>mathew

Was it the bit I've not edited away above?  Coz of course mathematical 
concepts are just concepts and have no other reality whatsoever.  Now doesn'
t the definition of 'concept' somehow involve minds, and hence brains, which 
the original poster claimed were unnecessary in this context?



+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  I don't take part in any sport that requires me to change clothes  |
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44)061-275-6033  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: shibe@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Schaible)
Subject: Criterion for Godhood
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 00:58:10 GMT

Hello, netheads.  

I often am confronted with people who believe in God, or in a "higher being".

Now, I asked myself recently what it takes to consider something a "higher
being" in the religious sense.

Consider an alien who came to earth, and seemed substantially more 
intelligent.  A "higher being"?  Perhaps, but not in the sense intended by
theists.

Consider same alien, but give him technology sufficient to create matter out
of energy, and to shape it at will.  A "higher being"?  Perhaps, but again
not in the sense intended by theists.

Consider same alien, but suppose that we discover that this alien was 
responsible for terra-farming planet earth, planting organisms, etc.
Suppose that he even genetically engineered the organisms in his lab.  Say
he is responsible for creation of life on earth.
Nope, not good enough.

Say he comes from another universe, and he actually initiated the big bang.
Do we bow down?  Well, I'd be the first to thank him, but I wouldn't be
inclined to worship him.

Now make him immortal.  Still not good enough for me.  If this immortal
alien father came to me--again, I'd be very grateful, and humble.  Awed--
you bet your boots.  But worshipful?  Why?  This still isn't "God".


So I guess I have two questions:
	1)  What does it take for this alien to enjoy the same status as
"God"?  Does he have to exist before anything else?  Does he have to be the
unmoved mover (existing but uncreated)?
	2)  In this light, I have to ask myself:  if God himself appeared
before me, what would differentiate him from the case of the mega-alien;
in other words,

Even if God exists exactly as Christianity states, why should I worship him?
Without Him, I would not exist, granted--but there's another step involved in
going from gratitude to worship.  Take any being more intelligent and more
powerful than me--I say, ok, I'm not so smart, and I'm not so strong, and
I say this all along as you crank up the intelligence and power.  At no point
during this do I take the extra step:  "therefore, I must abase myself before
you in recognition of the difference between us."  Now drive the difference
to infinity--has this changed?  I do not find that it has.  Is there any
reason for my awe to become worship?  Any reason beyond threats of hell/
promises of heaven?  (=metaphysical blackmail...)  Not that I can see.

In short, I'm sinning the sin of pride in a big way--almost as big as Lucifer.
Why is the sin of pride considered so foul?  And what is involved in this
jump between a mega-alien and a God, that one is worth worshipping and the
other is not?

Eric
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14204 talk.bizarre:22965
From: stoesser@i31s21.ira.uka.de (Achim Stoesser)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Short, shameful confession
Date: 23 Jul 1992 11:47:32 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: i31s21.ira.uka.de


In article <ZamyNB4w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
|> When I heard that the Pope was ill, my first thought was "Wouldn't it be
|> funny if it turned out that he had caught AIDS through a brief unsafe sexual
|> encounter with a prostitute?"

Well, my first thought was "Why does he go to a _hospital_, with so many
Catholics praying for him?"

 							        Achim
_____________________________________________________________________

I'm an anarchist, atheist, pacifist, and vegetarian.  This does _not_
mean that I'd bomb kings, worship Satan, let soldiers bleed to death,
or eat fish.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
From: johndunk@wpi.WPI.EDU (John Dunkelberg)
Subject: Re: a butterfly?
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:01:38 GMT

In article <28JUL199212180687@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> hanlon@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Casey Hanlon (SVER)) writes:
>Saw a news release the other day where some minister somewhere here
>is the USA had captured a butterfly that when its wings were spread
>had a picture of jesus on it.  Hmm, I wonder how they determined it
>was jesus?  It looked more like Charles Manson to me.  But then
>Charles Manson was jesus wasn't he.
>
>Casey Hanlon 

Actually, the butterfly was jesus.  He was cruising around experiencing
the lives of mortals when WHAM, he got cholorformed and stabbed with
a mounting needle.  After discorporating and returning to the gates
of heaven he met Peter, and his first words were:

"Damn, crucified again!"



john

-- 
|  John S. Dunkelberg Jr.      |"They say that looks don't count for much,
|  johndunk@wpi.wpi.edu        | if so there goes your proof ....
|------------------------------| Is she really going out with him?
|           Joe Jackson :        Is she really going to take him home tonight?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rswiftrw@cc.curtin.edu.au (Rod Swift)
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Organization: -=[ Curtin University ]=-  Perth, Australia.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 13:15:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.160354.198@doc.bmd.trw.com>, jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
> In article <1992Jul20.135600.19367@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, ury@humus.cs.huji.ac.il (My Friend Of Misery) writes:

>> Why is it so difficult for ppl to understand that There is no god?

> Because it is self-evident that there is One.  :)
> (Actually, it's not obvious that there isn't One.)

So you are saying g*d exists but is not obvious?

Don't jump to conclusions!

Rod
-- 
|            . . .   . . . . .        "Dear God.  We paid for all this stuff|
|        +  +  +     +  +  +  +  +        ourselves, so thanks for nothing."|
|    *   *   *       *   *   *   *   *                                      |
|R    o    d         S    w    i    f    t      -- Bart Simpson saying grace|
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Internet: RSwiftRW@cc.curtin.edu.au               School of Social Sciences|
|PSImail : psi%050529452300070::RSwiftRW                   Curtin University|
|Bitnet  : RSwiftRW%cc.curtin.edu.au@cunyvm.bitnet             GPO Box U1987|
|UUCP    : uunet!munnari.oz!cc.curtin.edu.au!RSwiftRW        Perth  WA  6000|
From: bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Free will (from Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:30:09 GMT
 <1992Jul13.150750.2593@blaze.cs.jhu.edu><denmckinnon.2.711163361@halls1.cc.mon
 ash.edu.au><1992Jul16.111215.21819@aber.ac.uk> <zlsiida.981@fs1.mcc.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool, UK
Nntp-Posting-User: bruce

>>>>> On 17 Jul 92 09:01:29 GMT, zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) said:
> In article <1992Jul16.111215.21819@aber.ac.uk> jma@aber.ac.uk (Jonathan Michael Ashley) writes:

>>I think the whole concept of free will is cobblers. Any decision or
>>"choice" either has a cause or it doesn't. If it does, then it is an
>>effect of that cause. If it doesn't, then it has no cause: ie. it is a
>>random occurrence.

> Actually I was pondering this last night.  What's the a.a. opinion on free 
> will?
I don't suppose there is a consensus.

> Do we have it?
Yes.  I have the experience of being able to make choices.

> Which bit of us allows us to choose between options without the
> choice being predetermined by the physics of how the world including
> our brains works?
Well, perhaps it is predetermined---my experience of free will doesn't
inform me one way or the other.

In short, I'm a compatibilist (sp?): the world may be deterministic or
non-deterministic, and I have free will either way.

You may feel that the kind of free will possible in a deterministic
world is not the same as the kind possible in a QM type of world, but
I don't think the "free will" provided by random quantum events is
worth having.  (See Daniel Dennett's "The Kinds of Free Will Worth
Having"!)

Bruce
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why do I post here (was: prayer)
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:54:51 GMT
Organization: Xerox PARC

SUMMARY: "Jarek, where are you" thread declared as a permanent trash bin
         for GIGO exchanges with people like DAVE!!!. Thanks, DAVE!!!

In <92204.110359U55870@uicvm.uic.edu> DAVE!!! '}' screwed another test,
this time for his reading ability and for some lesser skills:

} Who do you think you are, god or something???
}
I am Jarek Dabrowski. Hi DAVE!!! Let's look at the results:

} I won't even try to get involved in a philosiphical discussion with you. 
}
I know. You can't. You are even unable to read with understanding, which 
you demonstrated beyond doubt with both your posts sent to this thread:  
Even such an elementary task as reading and understanding simple words
"DON'T REMOVE" in my disclaimer exceeded your abilities. You removed it
and you wrote an aggresive note though my disclaimer was repeated TWICE
and the post was not addressed to you as the thread where it originated
was a calm discussion solely between me and people who I know, who know
me, who can present and defend their views, who can read and understand
what they read, and who can make their points, even when very critical,
without offending anyone.

Then you have proven to be unable to read and understand the reason of
my "please behave' when you did remove what you should not. Your reply
was again offensive, empty-worded, and non-communicative though you
replied to my invitation to discussion, to the invitation which was made
IN SPITE OF your previous extremely hostile attacks on me, attacks which
you are unable to support with any evidence (try it). Congratulations. 

I even don't have to mention what you presented in the "Jarek, where are 
you" thread (though I was clearly mocking at you there, I can support
with SERIOUS evidence every word of my criticism I wrote to you). Now,
you are kindly requested to shut up and to grow up. Or maybe not! Go on
posting, your articles are such a perfect advertisement against atheism.
Thanks for your contribution. God bless you for it! 

}I do think [...]
}
This is a positive assertion for which you presented no evidence. 

If you want to say something to me or about me, please do it in the
old "Jarek, where are you" thread. Since today, I will treat it as a
convenient trash bin - all my comments to people like you will go there.
It will save at least some time of those people who are interested in
normal discussions and will let me play with children without spoiling
reasonable threads. What a good idea! Thanks again, all credit to you. 


Best wishes,
             Jarek
------------------------------------------------------
 .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
 `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: did christ play with himself?
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:03:20
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: hanlon@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov's message of 23 Jul 1992 09:52 EST  

In article <23JUL199209522106@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> hanlon@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Casey Hanlon (SVER)) writes:

   Since the bible makes no mention of christ ever taking a wife, then
   it stands to reason that his only sexual outlets were his hands,
   whores or he was gay.  So you see kahn, I understand what god is all
   about and I will not polute the minds of my children with your
   garbage.

Maybe he just went to bars or whatever they had back then.
--
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 league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: stoesser@i31s21.ira.uka.de (Achim Stoesser)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: a butterfly?
Date: 30 Jul 1992 10:58:56 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: i31s21.ira.uka.de

In article <1565m3INNc27@iraul1.ira.uka.de>, stoesser@i31s21.ira.uka.de (Achim Stoesser) writes:
|> In article <L86NoB15w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
|> |> Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk> writes:
|> |> > Nice going, particularly as no-one knows what Jesus looked like.
|> |> 
|> |> He was blond, with blue eyes and pale white skin.  Must be true, I've seen
|> |> pictures.
|> 
|> Fakes! He was black haired with an ebony skin. I've seen a missionary on TV
|> who showed such a picture where Jesus was carrying a spear and rings in 
|> ears and nose (or were it bones in the hair?) to prove that (as he said)
|> "Jesus was a Maori." To prove it to Maoris, that is.

Oops, sorry, wrong continent. Should have been Massai, not Maori :-) .

|> |> mathew
|> |> -- 
|> |> "He is heterosexual.  It is a sort of breath of fresh air, isn't it?  The
|> |>  indecent assault, an expression of his sexuality." -- Judge Geoffrey Jones
|> |> 
|>  							            Achim
|> _________________________________________________________________________
|> 
|> I'm an anarchist, atheist, pacifist, and vegetarian. If I were homosexual
|> I'd really be in trouble.
|> 
								    Achim

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie)
Subject: Re: Robert Sherman and the water tower
Originator: torrie@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 22 Jul 92 04:57:09 GMT

NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken) writes:

>In article <1992Jul20.154659.21597@news.acns.nwu.edu>
>daphne@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Amy Kruse) writes:
>>
>>HI!  I was looking for some responses to Robert Sherman's latest removal
>>project.  I live in South Holland and the water tower in our town has the
>>saying "A Community of Churches"  and there is a pair of praying hands next to
> 
>Some people say that suits like this are frivolous, nit-picky things; others
>say that it gives atheism as such a bad image.  I tend to disagree with
>this: in my experience, the small, relatively "inconsequential" violations
>the praying hands are inevitably used as a springboard for further and more
>blatant violations.  The slippery slope is alive and well when it comes to
>separation violations.

  I have to agree here.  Especially when the defence used by many of
these religious types when it comes to a court case is "it's 
tradition".  For example, the argument used in the recent
school prayer decision by the defendants really consisted of 
little more than "it's traditional to have a prayer at school
graduation".  Four of the supreme court justices unfortunately
agree.  
  What I think Robert Sherman et al are trying to do is to STOP that
tradition argument (no matter how fallacious it is anyway - there are
such things as BAD traditions).  If it's a tradition to have symbols
of religion on public property, pretty soon, it'll be OK to have the
ten commandments displayed all around the courtroom, or that you have
to make an oath to do your "duty to God" to hold public office - after
all, it's only tradition - a recognition of the heritage of this
Christian nation.  Who could possibly be offended by that?

Side note: The day the prayer decision was released, there was some
outraged Christian parent declaring "What's next?  Are they going
to take the 'under God' out of the pledge of allegiance?"
  The real question is why did they ever put it in?  (For people
who don't know, the original pledge was around for 50 years or so
before the 'under God' phrase was added in the red-scare 50's).

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Torrie.  Stanford University, Class of 199?       torrie@cs.stanford.edu 
Embrace rationalism, reject superstition.           Break away from the past.