HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:23:24 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <C18s77.Cq3@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb) writes:
|> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
|> 
|> >First of all, there are statements in the Bible that are demonstrably
|> >FALSE, such as the indirect implication at one point that PI is equal
|> >to exactly three, and the apparent claim that the universe is only
|> >five thousand years old.
|> 
|> The implication that pi=3 is a legitimate evaluation for people who are
|> trying to count before the wide spread understanding of fractions and
|> decimal points. Let alone the use of such things.

What you are doing here is obvious.   You are presenting a series
of arguments that the Bible is a written record of the thoughts and
speculations of an ancient Middle-Eastern culture.

We know that.   That's what many of us here think it is.   What
you havn't done is present any evidence that the Bible has anything
to do with a putative God.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: How much should we read?
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 11:59:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.200438.6715@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
 
>
>It would be trivial to post to soc.culture.jewish and ask how Jews read these
>passages.  (But remember that in this context, saying "you're stretching it"
>and "that's a silly interpretation" are not responses, since the question is
>whether the Jewish interpretation is barbaric, not whether it's wrong or
>right.)
>--
 
Ho hum. You mean one of the interpretations offered. The person who posted
failed to remind that Common Law usually changes the contents of a law
a lot in the span of five hundred years. And what he futher failed to
report is that the interpretation he represented is just one tradition
of many, but one that has survived.
 
As a matter of fact, I doubt that anything but the literal interpretation
was meant at the time Deuteronomium was written. It is concise in its
language, and if you want to have an impression how simple words can
be bent beyond meaning by legal tradition, have a look at the comments
to any codified law. They grow with time, but they have not been there in
the first place.
 
And even then, a death penalty under the refined circumstances of the
'enlightened' interpretation is disgusting.
   Benedikt
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: johnsd2@vccnw06.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: From inferrence to conclusion -
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw06.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:34:20 GMT

In article 8Ex@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu, bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>
>   I posted some follow-ups to my other postings, but it seems that
>the would-be Defenders of the Faith intend to exhaust themselves
>protesting their own futility, so I moved over a notch. I was
>surprised how quickly my postings received attention; it's like a
>multitude of vultures were hovering, waiting for the unwary infidel to
>trespass ...

:D

We do get a lot of practice. That's all.

>   Well here I am.

Well give us some time! Really, such impatience.. :)

> I was also suprised at the vehemence with which my
>propositions were attacked.

Well, you came right out and INSULTED us to our face without any
visible cause. Did you expect we would ignore them?

> I never even stated a position,

Well, so far you have stated that you dont consider
reason a valid tool for getting at truth and falsehood.

That's quite a position if you ask me.

> I merely
>raised some questions,

Name 3.

> atheists it seems are just as aggressive and
>abusive as any theist when they sense their position threatened.

We are very aggressive when someone comes barging into alt.atheism
and starts spewing garbage yeah. And some of us (me for one) are
abusive when someone decides to insult us a bit on the way.

What did you expect?

> What
>hypocrisy.

Where?

> Do you people ever read your own postings or do you content
>yourselves praising your own cleverness (not to be confused with wit).

I read them. You should not be surprised that you are being flamed;
you flamed us.

>Ok, fire at will ...
>


But of coure. :>

---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Date: 22 Jan 93 05:13:59 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <PMETZGER.93Jan21215810@snark.shearson.com>, pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>
> Second, your argument could be used just as easily to demonstrate that
> God doesn't exist, you know. I could simply go out and write up a book
> of thousands of demonstrably correct facts and include in the list the
> assertion "God does not exist", and by your argument I would therefore
> be obligated to disbelieve in God.

Another example: if all the phone numbers listed in the telephone
book turn out to be correct, what does that say about the advertisements?

Answer: nothing.

jon.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Date: 27 Jan 1993 02:20:59 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <C1HKtA.Lpq@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>, sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:
=Sorry, I did read the list before I posted (I anonymous ftp'd a Bible to my 
=site), and it's not obvious to me at all.  Why are rabbits unhealthy?  

Tularemia.

=Why are crabs less healthy than fish?

That I wouldn't know.
=And why is cooking a lamb in its mother's milk unhealthy?

No reason.  But it's supposed to be cruel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bernt.budde@udac.uu.se (Bernt Budde)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Symbol
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Date: 24 Jan 1993 09:10:17 GMT
Organization: UDAC (Uppsala Univ. Comp. Centre)
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: macbug.udac.uu.se

In article <2936553574.3.p00168@psilink.com>, "James F. Tims"
<p00168@psilink.com> wrote:
> 
> >FROM:   Darrin Cullop <dcullop@netlink.cts.com>
> >
> >Is there any particular symbol or sign that is can be used to represent 
> >atheism?  If there is, can anyone send me a rough picture or an 
> >explanation of what it looks like?
> 
> Way beyond my skill level.  Any of you right-brain people want to give 
> this a go?
> 
> -jim

I'm no right-brainer! But I've been thinking about a new sig. But it's too
Xian really. Kind of cute, though...

Bernt 'Bug' Budde, UDAC      |    :  #...    | UDAC is quite a fun place,
but
(Uppsala Univ. Comp. Centre) |    :  #       | they don't necessarily agree
Bernt.Budde@udac.uu.se       |    :#####:    | with my opinions. And they
                             |       #  :    | don't care about religion!
Impeach god                  |       #  :    |
 /Richard M Stallman         |    ...#  :    |
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:27210 sci.skeptic:23010
From: biow@cs.umd.edu (Christopher Biow)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Date: 28 Jan 93 15:07:12 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

In article <1k4ribINNjbq@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <C1HKtA.Lpq@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>, sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:
>=Why are crabs less healthy than fish?

>That I wouldn't know.

Shellfish can harbor bacteria and poisons that will kill/sicken
chordates without killing or sickening the shellfish. They also
spoil more easily.

>=And why is cooking a lamb in its mother's milk unhealthy?

>No reason.  But it's supposed to be cruel.

Disrespectful of life, anyway (sounds sick!).



Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: The First Cause argument (again)
Organization: SPS
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:58:32 GMT

In article 1jq6q3INNm6g@srvr1.engin.umich.edu, 
ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
> weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
> >
> >"Brief History" is near the top of my "to read" list. But I am somewhat 
> >familiar with his arguments, as I have read a couple of commentaries on 
> >the work. As physicist Frank Tipler notes,
> >   "... a four-dimensional sphere of zero radius forms a boundary to
> >    Hawkings universe. ... He [Hawking] has eliminated the classical 
> >    singularity -- the beginning of time -- only to have it re-appear 
> >    as the "beginning" to the space of all possible four-spheres." 
> >A quantum singularity is substituted for a classical singularity, and the 
> >problem of "beginning" is not eliminated. 
> 
>  Of course, that same Prof. Tipler published a paper wherein he proposed
> a design for a time machine. (He had sound relativistic reasons for
> doing so, though.)
>  What does this say about your case aove?

Not much, unless one goofy idea means everything else the guy says is
worthless.  (But I see your point, and will refrain from quoting Tipler
in the future.)

Is it nonsensical that Hawking's imaginary time dimension could be 
bounded? If so, why?

---
Dave Weaver                | "The impression of design is overwhelming"
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com |       -Paul Davies (on the cosmos)



Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: A point well missed ...
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 15:22:14 GMT

In article <C1I2GF.Dnu@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>
>   I've had the experience of discussing atheism with atheists before
>and in every case the atheists avoids the questions, "Why are you an
>atheist?" ...
>   I think there are really only two possibilities here: one is that
>the atheist can't explain his position, the other is, if he did he'd
>look like a fool. 
>   Other than sarcasm, ridicule and hyperbole, I've yet to hear an
>atheist's defense of atheism; are you up to it?

You obviously have never discussed Atheism here before then.  What about
our position is unclear to you?  What needs to be defended?  Please tell.

We simply apply the knife of logic and reason to cut the bullshit
away from reality, and Atheism is what is left.  You appear to be upset
that your beliefs ended up in the bullshit pile.

JC
--
Have you washed your brain today?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: BELIEVERS: WHAT WOULD MAKE YOU NOT BELIEVE IN GOD?
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:43:45 GMT

>I've said something on another thread about
>self-consciousness, and I think that's very significant, but I
>wouldn't try to run that as a logical argument.  It's more like
>an axiom.  It seems obvious to me that self-consciousness isn't just
>a physical thing, but I wouldn't try to prove it.  And even if I could,
>it would just be that something non-physical exists.  It wouldn't be
>an argument for christianity, or even for theism.



Interesting. Could you post some arguments which supports your notion that
self-awareness & consciousness is not a physical thing.




Onar.
From: eradm@wbst845e.xerox.com (Erik Radmall)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: How much should we read?
Date: 20 Jan 93 19:32:50 GMT
Reply-To: eradm@wbst845e.xerox.com
Organization: Xerox Corporation

In article 1jk51aINN9o9@OPAL.SYSTEMSX.CS.YALE.EDU, Pai-Satish@CS.Yale.Edu (A. Satish Pai) writes:
> 
> Hi, all!
> 
>    In several encounters with theists, I have been accused of not knowing the
> contents of various religious texts (the Quran, the Bible, etc.) deeply enough.
> I am reasonably familiar (I think) with the contents of many of these, for
> instance I have read, at various times, most of the Bible, but I have not
> undertaken a deep study of the Bible in all its possible metaphorical
> interpretations. It seems like often the theists will not accept anything less
> than a deep scholarly study of the text in question before listening to
> anything an atheist might have to say.
> 
>    So, my question is, how much is enough? (Obviously for some theists no
> amount of study by an atheist might suffice...) How do the rest of you deal
> with such an accusation, that you have only a shallow understanding of the
> principles of this or that religion, that you have not _understood_, that once
> you really _understand_, then and only then will you believe? And this
> understanding can come only by studying the religious texts in depth...

A lot of multidisciplinary study is your best bet. Do not read only about
the world religions. Also study major philosophies, trends, psychology,
anthropology, sociology, myths and legends, biology, geology, quantum physics,
and the rest of the hard sciences. Most of all, study each with an open
mind unfettered by "what you know." It is especially important to approach the
study of world religions with a desire to understand each from the point of view
of its proponents. This will not only help you to hone your own ontology, it
will serve as a defense for it.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rjb3@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (robert.j.brown)
Subject: Re: Athletes thanking Jesus (BUSH MISQUOTE) 
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:13:20 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Summary: misquote the Bush man will you !!??

> 
> Did you happen to catch Pres. Bush refering to the lastest US v. Iraq
> action as "The Lord's Work" on MacNeil/Lehrer?

Uhhh...atheist brains grinding gears ??

You got your World crises mixed up.  The Bushman said that about
the Marines in Somalia helping the starving folks get the food.

He did not drag the Lord into the Iraq thing...

Bobby - akgua!rjb

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - with Dan)
Subject: Re: Buddhism - A religion of atheists?
Organization: Institute Of Systems Science, NUS
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:07:17 GMT

stave@apollo.hp.com (Joel H. Stave) writes:
: 
: One book I read (I think it was "Three Pillars of Zen") talked
: about this and said that the religion part comes from faith.  With
: Zen Buddhism the faith comes in the form of the concept of
: enlightenment and what needs to be done in order to acheive it.
: 
: Joel Stave
: stave@apollo.hp.com


Just to share some personal feelings & experiences:

When I first decided to become a Buddhist, being a strong Atheist, I
had a lot of problem with this "Faith" thing.  As an Atheist, I
associate "Faith" with superstitions and irrationality.

Fortunately, my Teacher told me that "Faith" in Buddhism is v. different
from "Faith" in other religions.  The "Faith" in Buddhism is more like
having faith in oneself, the "I know I can do it" kind of feeling.  

When it comes to doctrines, when a Christian talks about "Faith", he normally
means "Believing without questioning".  When a Buddhist talks about
"Faith", it means suspending judgement and taking the trouble to verify
it yourself before judgement.  For example, the sutras says meditation
on one's breath can induce calm and reduce anxiety.  A Buddhist may not
believe it, but if he takes the trouble to try it out before making a
judgement, that is the Buddhist "Faith".

So the diff btwn Buddhist and Christian "Faith" is that the latter
discourages further investigations while the former requires it.  I have
no problems with "Faith" of this kind.

Regards.

CHADE MENG

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: skillian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Seth James Killian)
Subject: Why God is Hiding
Summary: Why God is Hiding
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:52:17 GMT
Keywords: Why God is Hiding



		To begin, let us assume the existance of a God.  We assume
	this only because to assume that there is no God is to end the
	argument before it has begun.  So, assuming that there is, in fact,
	a God, he will have necessarily assigned humankind free will, as to
	otherwise would be obviously pointless.  Free will (whatever that
	may entail) is necessary for people to choose to believe in God, 
	and this is the generally assumed reason for any God (still assuming
	he exists at all) to have bothered with creating a universe and
	inhabitants.  With the assignment of free will, the God has also
	assigned humankind the capacity for reason.  Time passes, and the 
	creator ceases frequent and obvious interaction with his creations.
	Those who had direct interaction with the creator die, and can leave 
	only a book as a legacy to future generations.  The descendants of
	the book writers begin to doubt the veracity of their forefathers 
	claims, and begin to search for verification of the creator under an
	empirical system of rational enquiry.  Finding none (or at least
	insufficiently convincing quantities), the descendants cease to
	believe in any creator, thinking the very idea just another foolish
	belief of ignorant ancients.  So there exists no wholly reasonable
	proof of God's existence.  Are the descendants then right in assuming 
	there to be no God?  Not necessarily so.  To accord with the 
	preservation of free will, any God could not allow his own existence
	to be provable with formal logic.  If he were so provable, humankind
	would not have any choice (the critical reason for our creation) but
	to believe in God, thus undermining the nature of our freedom to choose.	Of course this does not lead to the necessary assertion that any God 
	_does_ exist, it only shows that if he were to exist, we, as free 
	humans, have no recourse but faith alone for any belief we might have.
	This is just something that popped into my head the other night, and 
	I may have missed something glaringly obvious, or this argument may 
	be as old as the hills, and have several standard refutations.  Either
	way, additional thoughts would be greatly appreciated, as this line
	of thinking is news to me, if not anyone else.

		Seth Killian 


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: All Atheists hear this!!!
Organization: DigiBoard, Incorporated, Eden Prairie,MN
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:19:01 GMT

tombiv@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Andrew Spencer Tomb) writes:
>In Job 38:2-11 The God of the Universe writes:

What?  You mean GOD came down to this little backwater planet and wrote Job?
Boy!  There must be ALL KINDS of ancient records of GOD HIM/HERSELF arriving
to ACTUALLY WRITE a bunch of words on paper!  I always thought it was written
by some human beings who claimed GOD was dictating, and thus indistinguishable
from the ravings of a lunatic.

>"Who is this that darkens my council with words without knowledge?

I was going to say the same thing about this posting!  Wow, this god
really IS omniscient!!!

>	Brace yourself like a man; I will question you,
>	and you shall answer me."
>"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
>	Tell me, if you understand."

The Earth has a foundation!?  WOW!  This contradicts known astronomy,
which has the odd idea that it's a sphere orbiting around the sun, and
NOT a structure (like a flat earth) that needs a foundation.

>"Who marked out it's dimensions?
>	Surely you know!"

"Who put that apostrophe in "it's", meaning a contraction of "it is"?
	Surely you know!"

>"Who streched a measuring line across it?
>On what were it's footings set, or who laid it's foundations?
>	while all the angels shouted for joy?
>"Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb,

What doors are in the sea?  Where's this "womb"?
Boy, this is confusing!  It's almost as if the author didn't know
HOW THE HELL THE EARTH REALLY WORKS, and instead uses some ANCIENT
FLAT EARTH MODEL WITH A CELESTIAL VAULT OF WATER!!!
What an incredibly STUPID god you have here!

>when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness,
>when I fixed limits for it and set it's doors and bars in place,

Clouds and the atmosphere have doors and bars!?  Wow!
*I* didn't know that!

>when I said, 'This is how far you may come, and no further;
>	here is where your proud waves halt'?"

Since humans have explored FARTHER than the earth's atmosphere,
it seems pretty easy to defy this wimpy god!

Boy, I'm glad you called my attention to this pig-ignorant, bogus
god!  Nothing like a excellent sample of absolutely ridiculous
assertions to show up these so-called "gods" as the intellectual
frauds they are!  I think we all owe you a big load of thanks!

Suggestion for next time: try some of those crazy Norse gods!
They were nutty gods too!

---
Merlyn LeRoy