HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mrice@churchill.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Mark.Rice)
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Organization: NCR Corp
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 20:36:04 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.063335.8435@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> Matthew Trevor <mtrevor@nyx.cs.du.edu> writes:
>
>I was brought up in a strong catholic household, and have only just
>recently "converted" (if you will) to atheism. I agree that religion can
>have some important things to say, but my belief is that many christian
>religions are too interested in enforcing Christ's divinity, and not as
>involved with spreading what he *said*. I personally hold to many of
>Christ's teachings, yet fail to see why he needs to be "divine" for his
>words to have any relevance.
>
>Matthew T.

I posted this once, but my news reader crashed.  Sorry if this is a repost.
------

Matthew, I like your point, in that you have broken the linkage of "good"
and "christian".  I believe if we think logically about this, we will see
that Jesus tought many things that were very good.  This is (for the most
part) a separate issue from whether or not he was/is devine.

mark rice
-- 
-----
mark.rice@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM		H: 803-731-5560
Not necessarily the views of NCR.	W: 803-791-6466
From: brianc@jekyll.ucsf.edu (Brian Colfer)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Blind Watchmaker...
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:41:13 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Francisco, Dept of Lab Med

In article <graham.711433127@dumas> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:

>(Brian Colfer) writes:
>>Graham lets push it even father ... if you say that the wonderous
>>nature of humans is a testimony to the existence of a creator then if
>>you think that the creator is wonderous then that must be a 
>>testimony that the creator has a creator... and if the creator's
>>creator is wonderous... ad infinitum...
Graham:
>The problem I have with this refutation of the argument from design
>is that it assumes that causality holds everywhere in space and time.
>I don't see why this assumption need be taken.

Is it arbirtrary to apply a proof by design to one set of
circumstances but not to an identical or similar circumstance?  

Or to rephrase the question...

If I say nature is so wonderful then there must be a god and 
by definition god is wonderful... then am consistent to if I do not
apply the same standard to god?



-- 
Brian  Colfer          | UC San Francisco        |------------------------|
                       | Dept. of Lab. Medicine  | System Administrator,  |
brianc@labmed.ucsf.edu | S.F. CA, 94143-0134 USA | Programer/Analyst      | 
BRIANC@UCSFCCA.BITNET  | PH. (415) 476-2325      |------------------------|
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Women hating
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:28:35 GMT

Bev Beasly:
>>BB> "Covering is prescribed for women to protect themselves from
>>BB> men, so that the man will not stare lustfully at the women.
>>BB> Women are to cover all except for the face and hands, some
>>BB> women in other countries cover their face and hands."

David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org         writes...
>DR>Your rationalizations of women being responsible for curbing the
>DR>"lusts" of men is vile, disgusting, and abhorant to me.

Bev Beasly:
>When a woman, such as myself, dresses in a dignified and modest manner,
>she has less of a chance of being verbally or physically abused, note
>the words "less of a chance", I'm not saying 100% all of the time.

I believe you have missed the point Bev. By dressing "in a modest manner"
etc you are putting the responsiblity for not getting molested on the
women, when the responsiblity should be on the men. If a women dresses
in a skimpy bikini this is not an invitation to molest her!

You seem to have somehow reversed the responsibility for things.
That is David's point.

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
From: mrl@st-andrews.ac.uk (  Michael Ladomery)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: lighten up, people
Keywords: faith
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:04:40 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <Bs17E3.Ku1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mr. Mensa ) writes:

...
>	I think what you are getting confused is the notion of a personal
>	relationship with God. For each person this is different. There is 
>	hardly anyone who changes his/her belief in God to 'exclude all the
>	unpleasant or hard stuff.' You see, I think that those who believe in
>	God simply have a better way to deal with the hardships and pain of
>	everyday life. A belief in God does not explain away anything. He is
>	not a magical being who does things on a whim like the Greek and Roman
>	legends of Zeus and company. He will not zap someone for not believing
>	in Him, He will not win someone the lottery just because this person
>	really needs the money. God does things in a very subtle way, and when
>	we (I am referring to those of us who believe in God) realize these
>	things, we realize how beautiful our relationship with Him is. For
>	example, right now I am in love. Now it is hard for me to deny that
>	I can feel God's presence in this relationship...it is through 
>	this realization (you may call it an excuse or cop-out if you wish)
>	that I know how wonderful this girl is and how amazing this whole
>	entire thing is. If you are in the same situation, you probably will
>	not feel this, but then again (I am assuming) you do not believe in
>	God.

Just some friendly comments on the above:
(i) Yes; God can be used as a palliative.
(ii) The alleged Flood is hardly a subtle way to do things;
he doesn't zap non-believers but He allegedly condemns them
to eternal damnation; strange thing for Love Himself to do;
(iii) Felicitations on your love-affair; I can assure you that
when I was in that predicament, I didn't feel His presence: how
do you feel His presence? In the Platonic aspects...? And do
people still feel His presence when they fall out of love??

...
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:43:09 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.221527.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> rswiftrw@cc.curtin.edu.au (Rod Swift) writes:
>From: rswiftrw@cc.curtin.edu.au (Rod Swift)
>Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
>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|

  I'd say that what's evident and what's not depends on other things you 
know.  There's very little that's just evident simpliciter, let alone self-
evident.

  I think the universe is religiously ambiguous. 

			--(k.b.,idunno, maybenot)--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Bell                                    Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc                   You can force any entertainment
P.O. Box 833875                                 on a people except the consistent
Richardson, TX 75083-3875                       pursuit of a topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Praying to Mecca?
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:39:56 GMT

Graham:
>>Nope that is what I am disputing. I may have faith in the existence of
>>God but why does that mean I should do everything he/she says?

(Ridha Souissi) writes:
>Because He asks you to do so.  Otherwise you don't have faith.

Faith in what? I can have faith in God's existence and not do everything
he/she says. You are using faith in two ways - faith in God's existence,
and faith in the rightness of God. Surely I can have one faith and
not the other?

Just to be on the level I am trying to establish what sort of things
you take as axiomatic (on faith) in your religious view. So far
we have established that you have faith that God exists. The above
example suggests that you also have faith that God is right.

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
From: zafar@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Syed Zafar Kazmi)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:16:39 GMT
	<1992Jul27.195256.25341@news.unomaha.edu>
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University
In-reply-to: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu's message of 27 Jul 92 19:52:56 GMT


>>>>> On 27 Jul 92 19:52:56 GMT, trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) said:


trajan> In part you are right when you say man cannot create a bird.  However,
trajan> the modifier placed on the end of your statement should be "yet":
trajan>      
trajan>     "Man CANNOT create a bird, /yet/."
trajan>      
		*****paragraph copied below****

trajan> Also, if I may ask, even if birds do provide an invaluable service to
trajan> the ecosystem (which, I believe, they do), how does this imply a god
trajan> was needed to create them, if created they were?  Please explain.
trajan>      

Didn't you answer this yourself in the your preceding paragraph. (here it is)

trajan>      
trajan> Give humans time-- it may be another hundred years or so, but I think
trajan> man /will/ be able to create life and eventually specific life forms,
        ^^^  ^^^^  ^^ ^^^^
trajan> even birds.

It is going to take someone to create Artificial Birds, isn't it? Or did you 
mean to say that today's "Airplanes" will evolve and become Birds!



trajan>      
trajan> Trajan
trajan>      

Zafar Kazmi
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 11:16:52 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:
> Following multiple suggestions on this group to read _The Blind Watchmaker_
> by Richard Dawkins, I came away suitable impressed by the way he backed
> up his thesis which is that there is no need to invent a "creator" to
> explain life as we know it. I would highly recommend to the original poster
> that he read it also.
> 
> Mathew, perhaps you could add a pointer to this book to #19 of your FAQ?

Consider it done.


mathew

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Ethics -- a quest
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<1992Jul29.145708.4644@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:34:09 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.145708.4644@watson.ibm.com> strom@watson.ibm.com 
(Rob Strom) writes:
   >What about classical philosophy --- e.g. Aristotle's "Nichomachean Ethics",
   >or Plato's dialogues?

  Actually there's plenty of philosophizing about ethics in modern philosophy.
Just look up "ethics" or "moral philosophy" or something similar in any
well-stocked library.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: What Kind of Creator? (was Re: "A Brief History of Time")
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:07:31 GMT


	And there is another embarrassment that seldom gets brought up
in discussions of whether or not the Universe had a creator.

	What kind of creator?

	It could well be that the Universe _did_ have a creator, but
one with no special interest in humanity, perhaps even one that just
creates universes for the fun of it.

	I guess I have in mind a creator who creates the Big Bang and
who just observes what happens next just for the fun of it. A far cry
from the God of the Bible.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Subject: Jarek, where are you (trash bin)
Organization: Xerox PARC
Date: 26 Jul 92 06:31:13 GMT

WARNING: A GIGO exchange. 

Graham Matthews '}' writes to Jarek '>':

MOTTO: Khan: "You are just a creature of God."

}}} Do you know what the words "fuck off" mean Khan?
>>That Khan said something Graham didn't like and that Graham is vulgar.
}Think again Jarek. In fact think. It may be a new experience.
}
To you...


Best wishes,
             Jarek
------------------------------------------------------
 .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
 `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: johndunk@wpi.WPI.EDU (John Dunkelberg)
Subject: Re: free will
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 02:19:17 GMT

In article <graham.712131242@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>Khan:
>>You are just a creature of God.
>Graham:
>>Do you know what the words "fuck off" mean Khan?
>Jarek:
>>That Khan said something Graham didn't like and that Graham is vulgar.
>
>Think again Jarek. In fact think. It may be a new experience.

Graham: you insult Khan for presenting information from his belief,
shouting about how he is out of line in posting to alt.atheist.
Yet you make these insults on the net, cluttering the net... and
contradicting your own implied policy.

Please, if you want to insult, rant, and rave do it by email.  If you
want to discuss the belief or non-belief in God(s) on the Net, do it
in a calm and sensible manner.

Unfortunately, your and Jarek's blood feud continues on and on here at
alt.atheism, ... I think most of us don't care.  but since each of
you occaisonally relents and posts real articles, it's not worth
killing everything with either of your names in it.

So everybody out there, how about waiting just a few seconds before
you flame away.  Insults do not carry any logical weight, and they
sure don't prove your position.  Usually people end up insulting people
for insulting them (Dave's calling Jarek a drunk, insulting him for
insulting him...)

now, back to a discussion of theism and atheism...

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?
From: mrl@st-andrews.ac.uk (  Michael Ladomery)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: lighten up, people
Keywords: faith
Date: 29 Jul 92 11:51:53 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <Bs2zzz.3wG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mr. Mensa ) writes:
>mrl@st-andrews.ac.uk (  Michael Ladomery) writes:
>
>	see my original post for the intro here....
>
>>Just some friendly comments on the above:
>>(i) Yes; God can be used as a palliative.
>	No doubt, God (a God?) CAN be used as a palliative, but I
>	cannot think of any Christian religion that believes in a
>	God of this sort....can you?

No; what may be argued is that the *motivation* for seeking a God
*can* be (nb: in some cases?) the search for a palliative.

>>(ii) The alleged Flood is hardly a subtle way to do things;
>>he doesn't zap non-believers but He allegedly condemns them
>>to eternal damnation; strange thing for Love Himself to do;
>	The alleged Flood, if it did happen (which most Christians do
>	not believe it did, fyi), would not have been a subtle way of
>	doing things. As for God condemning people to eternal
>	damnation, it is not God who damns, but man himself. (Remember
>	that I am speaking from a Catholic perspective here...if anyone 
>	knows the beliefs of other Christian religions, feel free.)
>	Now this is a paraphrase of how the comcept of eternal damnation
>	has been explained to me:
>
>		Because God loves man so much, He gave to us free
>		will to do whatever we wish in life. There is no
>		predestination--we have total free will.  Because He
>		is omniscient, God knows full well what we will do
>		with our free will, and yet He does not directly 
>		intervene in our lives to change our actions. Further,
>		because we have free will, we are also responsible
>		for our actions, and when when we die, we will be sent
>		either up escalator (to Heaven), down escalator (to Hell)
>		or down the hall (to Limbo). Those in Heaven and Limbo, at
>		the end of time, will all be raised up to spend all of
>		eternity with their Creator...those in Hell are forever
>		to stay there.

(a) If God is omniscient, He *already knows* the outcome of our life's
journey; ie He knows what we will end up choosing in this alleged
Free Will.  Sorry if I keep on using "alleged".
Therefore if God already knows what each individual will do, and which
individuals will be condemned to eternal fire, what's the point of
giving us a phoney free will and putting us through this fake choice:
why not zap the naughty ones now (Flood-like) and keep the Good ones.
Anyway, that's the weakest of my answers; I prefer (b):

(b) As I have said elsewhere, what free will does (i) a child born
in absolute poverty who dies at 12 months have (he/she hardly gets a chance
to convert, to hear the Gospel etc etc) and (ii) those billions of people
who were born and lived (and even today) in societies where the
*specific Christian* message is not taught, have? What free will?
At least, to be consistent, God (the alleged Christian God) should
have sent many Christs all over the place. No, sorry. I see inequality,
and little or no free will.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Date: 30 Jul 92 00:55:05 GMT
Organization: Xerox PARC

In <exukjb.37.712446521@exu.ericsson.se> Ken Bell quotes an old article
of Graham (whole!) and comes to an interesting conclusion:

-ken:
>Hey Jerek, this is nice challenge to your theistic evolutionist view. We 
>literally have no way of knowing whether or not we should consider it a 
>serious option for belief if you don't attempt to answer it. Come on, give 
>it a try.
>
Pardon me? There was a challenge somewhere? How nice. Read on, maybe
you'll find the answer as well... :-D

[About one week break, guys. I have to do some real non-a.a work. Don't
forget what we were talking about! Omniscience and free will, negative
and positive assumptions, zero-order assumptions just resurected (such a
nice moment and I have to go), my standards, Jarek as a false prophet,
and maybe something more... I have it saved anyway, it won't get lost.
See you all soon! Bye DAVE!!!] 


Best wishes,
             Jarek
------------------------------------------------------
 .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
 `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
From: martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God's creation (was: Re: Existence of a god.)
Date: 30 Jul 92 09:15:58 GMT
Organization: British Telecom

simon@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Simon) writes:


>A while back, it was said:

>>>"As it is now" - whats so difficult about this. Pick a time - some
>>>point in history - say 5 minutes ago - thats 15:34 Sunday 26 July 1992
>>>my time. Now (assuming the existence of God as per the original poster)
>>>why did God not make the world exaclty as it was on 15:34 Sunday 26 July
>>>1992? Why did God bother making a world way back whenever he made
>>>it and let it evolve to the world of 15:34 Sunday 26 July 1992?
>>>Why did he just not build the world of 15:34 Sunday 26 July 1992
>>>directly?

>Who is to say that he didn't?

For a really way-out extension of "Last-Thursday-ism" try Irsula Leguin's
"The Lathe of Heaven". As a taster, the central character is repulsed
by his aunt attempting to seduce him, and that night he dreams that 
she died in a car accident six years ago. He wakes up, and she HAD
died in a car accident six years ago. Reality constantly retrospectively
updating itself to clear up paradoxes and everything. Wierd!


>################################################################################
># Simon Day @ BT, Angel Centre, London          simon@cyborg.bt.co.uk          #
>################################################################################
Organization: Masters student, Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 12:17:35 -0400 
From: David O Hunt <dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Fwd: Robert Sherman and the water tower


>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
>that.  No particular religious affiliation, and there is a wedding band on the
>man's hand.  Only hands are showing.  Mr. Sherman is now engaged in a lawsuit
>to get those hands removed from the water tower.  As an atheist, do you find
>those hands offensive?  I don't see and reason to remove them, I mean, we are
>a community of churches, pop. 30,000 and over thirty churches.  Would you
>support Sherman's push to get them taken off....and why?  Thanks I'd
>appreciate any replies......Amy
Is it a public water tower?  If so, then IMHO the hands should be removed.

Why?  Because that is an indication, primarily, of christianity.  For example,
jewdaism does not have that expression of faith.  I don't know about the
other religions of the world, but _as_far_as_I_am_aware_, only the christian
faith uses that gesture.  Thus the hands on the water tower could be seen,
and is seen by me, to be advancing one particular faith.



David Hunt - Graduate Slave | My mind is my own.          | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering      | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>>  | Jewish homeland!
============================================================================
Email:  dh4j@cmu.edu            Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"

Democracy is based on the theory that the people know what they want...and
they deserve to get it - GOOD AND HARD!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: imprint@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (IMPRINT -- UW's Student Newspaper)
Subject: Re: Jesus Jokes
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:43:43 GMT


Q:  Why can't Jesus eat M&M's?

A: Because they keep falling through the holes in his hands!

Hahahahahaahahhaha

- Dave T.
- jokes and opinions mine, not imprint's

--