HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: How much should we read?
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 13:06:44 GMT

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...
>
 
IMO, the point is that they introduce a new and BIG concept. Just have a look
at the secondary literature to each and every holy book. So, how can you
suppose THEY know enough about it that they can tell you about it.
 
And because it is so aweful big, they will not only have you to show that
their holy book has some lines which support their particular view, but
that the rest of the text does not contain anything which would shed
doubt on that particular view also. And I am afraid they will have to
prove that it is not a matter of translation.
 
It is quite common that they refer to authorities or people they consider
to be experts, let them prove again that these experts have necessarily
the right interpretation and that their account of their views is 100%
correct.
 
Let every burden of proof be on them. It is hard to find a claim
about the content of a religion that has not raised opposition
within that religion. The older the religion, the worse.
 
An even easier line might be but 'It says in the bible/quran/etc. ...',
'so what?'
   Benedikt
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh)
Subject: "The White Lie"
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:41:28 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc


I am looking for a book entitled "The White Lie" in which the 
author presents his findings on textual-copying in the writings 
of Ellen G. White of the Seventh-day Adventist church.  
If you know of this book, please post the name of the author and 
the publisher.  Thanks in advance.

Young Huh
yhuh@ihlpe.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: A point well missed ...
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:40:30 GMT
Organization: The Language Game Inc.
Followup-To: alt.atheism

In article <1993Jan27.195335.17753@grouper.mkt.csd.harris.com>,
jimb@rcx1.csd.harris.com (Jim Burmeister) wrote:
> 
> 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?
> > 
> > Bill
> 
> Well, I'm not sure this post deserves a response, but I'll give it a go...
> 
> Of course, I can't speak for all atheists, but here's why I am an atheist.
> 
> I have a skeptical world-view.  In other words, I do not accept something
> as "truth" without some sort of evidence to back it up.  So far, I have
> not received convincing evidence that "god" exists.  Therefore, I live my
> life under the assumption that there is no god.  That makes me an atheist.

You actually used the falsification method, used by science to figure out 
knowledge. I agree, one do not need to use sarcasm, ridicule and hyperbole,
there are many other tools available. Anyway, I've seen use of sarcasm,
ridicule and hyperbole as well when theists justify their case, so this is 
a human way of dealing with certain social conversations, and not
restricted 
to atheists alone.

Kent 
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND
Private activities on the Net, opinions are not Apple's, they are mine.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh)
Subject: Re: Removing "god" from morality. (was: Moral liberty)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:20:46 GMT

From article <108114@bu.edu>, by wooyoung@bu.edu (WooYoung Chung):
> 
>Do you really think mankind will be better off without religion? 
>Let's say we bring up the new generation of kids, without exposing 
>them to any types of religion, would they be better off?  (This 
>is NOT a rhetorical question.)

Religious people commonly think that necessary things of life 
originate from their religion.  There were people, for example,
who thought that the sun would not rise unless they performed 
certain religious ritual every morning.  In a sense, things
have not changed much since then.  Today, many people engage 
themselves in religious rituals of acknowledging some imaginary 
being for the creation and sustainment of the sun and other 
things of life.  What is referred to as "morality" is of no 
exception.  That is, order and predictability in human behavior, 
certain amount of which is beneficial for sustaining a stable 
and productive society, is also thought to have originated from
their religion.

Young Huh
yhuh@ihlpe.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:26956 sci.skeptic:22812
From: edw@distant.uucp (Ed Watkeys)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Date: 25 Jan 93 04:46:59 GMT
Reply-To: edw@distant.uucp
Organization: Distant Software
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v2


In article <1jo4trINNlp1@pith.uoregon.edu> (alt.atheism,sci.skeptic), delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu (Scott C DeLancey) writes:
> In article <1993Jan20.213756.8012@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata - FSO) writes:
> >
> >I would be most greatful if you could point out to me the passages in
> >Scripture that support "treating gays badly".
> 
> Well, one that leaps to mind is Leviticus 18, where among the many
> offences for which the offender is to be "cut off from his people" is
> for a man to lie with a man as with a woman.

Not to inject reason into this, but could you ask these questions for me?

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that God says homosexuality is immoral,
can you tell us why He says it's immoral? If it's because He says so, please
tell us *why* He says so. Now, we have your *real* reason for thinking that
homosexuality is immoral. Unless you can explain *why* God says homosexuality
is immoral, you're making your god look pretty arbitrary, or, alternatively,
you're making morality beyond human comprehension, which would make me wonder
why we're being held accountable for things that we can't even begin to
comprehend.

You see, the Divine Command theory of morality doesn't work, even to fellow
believers. You're going to need to fall back onto some other moral theory.

I'll be looking forward to your *real* justification for condemning
homosexuality.

Ed

> Scott DeLancey

--
Edwin H. Watkeys III                                   edw@distant.uucp
Distant Software                               dsinc!jabber!distant!edw
+1 215 387 7971                                     edw%distant@bts.com
From: radzy@sradzy.uucp (T.O. Radzykewycz)
Subject: Re: Religious Taxation
Organization: The Radzykewycz Clan; Newark, CA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 00:45:32 GMT

lance@Circle.Raleigh.NC.US (Lance A. Brown) writes:
> ... The power to tax something _IS_ a power to destroy that
> thing. ...  Someone else mentioned that attempting to tax a
> religious organization out of existence is unconstitutional.
> ...  But I do not want to give those goofs ...  the power to tax
> religious organizations because SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, ...  WILL
> try to destroy a religious organization they do not like by
> over-taxing it even if it is unconstitutional.

The problem with excempting religious organizations from
taxation is that it currently *is* possible to tax them.
Someone, somewhere is given the authority to determine what
makes an organization religious.

You have to *apply* for religious tax status.  If you say you're
one of the common denominations of Christian and if you have a
church building, then it's pretty much accepted in a
straightforward way (at least in the USA).  If you're one of the
smaller religions, like Wicca or the shamanistic religions of the
native americans, then it becomes a *lot* more difficult to have
your application accepted.

Bear Blessings!

			-- radzy

------------------------------------------------------------
	T. O. Radzykewycz		|  An it harm none,
	The Incredible Radical Cabbage	|  do as ye will.
					|
	radzy%sradzy@jack.sns.com       |
------------------------------------------------------------
  "No, I don't use peyote, and that's *NOT* the reason I want
   my organization certified as religious, anyway."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: Strong atheism ought to explain theism (Was: Re: Atheism is dogmatic.
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 09:43:07 GMT

In <1jpc03INNb8n@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:


>In a previous article, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) says:

>>Now, many religious people, notably mystics, claim to have "experienced"
>>God.  It is certainly possible that their experience of God was just as
>>real as our present experience of our respective computer terminals.
>>This then puts a belief in God for this particular person on a par with
>>the vast majority of people's belief in the real existence of the
>>material world.

>>Thus, a true "experience" of God may be a very rational reason for that
>>particular person to believe in God.  Definitely as rational as the reason
>>the vast majority of people have for believing in the existence of the
>>material world.

>	I think not, *WARM* and *FUZZY* is not as concrete as concrete =-)

Mystics, such as Sufis, claim that this experience of God is very
concrete and real.  Metaphysics to them is a science to be experienced.
Thus, the "warm and fuzzy" so-called "experience" of God that your
average Christian, for example, may have claimed to have had is not what
I was talking about.

Note, however, that mystics (in the sense of the word I mean), such as
Sufis, spend years climbing up the spiritual ladder (so to speak) before
the ultimate goal of "annihilation" in God, the ultimate concrete
experience of God's reality, is achieved.  So your average religious
person, whatever his/her religion is, is most definitely not a mystic in
the sense I am talking about here.

I do not claim to have had such an experience, but having spent a
reasonable amount of time over the past few years reading about Sufism,
I do know that Sufism and other mysticisms are in a sense an
"experimental metaphysics", in that all metaphysical claims are to be
directly experienced and verified by the student, and not just taken on
blind faith.
 
 Fred Rice
 darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au   
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: johnsd2@vccnw06.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: God's Texts
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw06.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:16:31 GMT

In article 728233146@cunews, gj156879@alfred.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879) writes:
>I didn't want to tell anyone, but now the secret must be told.  When
>the Marquis de Sade was writing 120 days of sodom, God was working
>through him.  

:)

>This would explain a lot.  The book contains so much evil twisted
>stuff, I have no doubt that it was directly inspired by our heavenly
>father.  

Yeah, I'd by that. Only God could be so twisted... :D

>Has anyone heard of the church that holds that there are two universes
>and that each has the other's god?  This was alluded to in the film
>"Prince of Darkness" and a couple of Philip K Dick novels.
>(Gnosticism?)  If anyone has a clue as to what I'm talking about, or
>if I'm confusing "creative license" with reality, please say so.

You are confusing ME anyway. Whatdayamean?

---
			- 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: RELIGION & PRESIDENTS
Date: 22 Jan 1993 00:53:01 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan21.102041.7378@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>, y41@aixterm1.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (Jeffrey Hazelwood) writes:
|> Ok, I just watched Clinton's swearing in ceremony and I couldn't believe how
|> religious is was.  Since I'm in Germany, we saw it live but with German
|> news anchors.  They couldn't believe how religious the whole thing was
|> and found it amusing that the government could carry on in such a way.

Have you considered the possibility that what you are seeing is caused
by an unacknowleged nostalgia for monarchy, and the trappings thereof?

The USA is supposedly a republic, and a good deal of its official life
is carried out by rather dull people in ill-fitting suits.   Monarchies
have a certain style to their public ceremonies, and this is attractive
to a certain kind of American.   You only have to go to Disneyland, or 
recall Ron and Nancy Reagan's hobnobbing with the Queen to see it.

So perhaps one of the functions of religion in public life is to supply
the missing panoply and ceremony.   All those robes and sonorous voices.
The choirs and fanfares.   The references to a Heavenly King - oops, I 
mean father figure, don't I.

jon.
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A point well missed ...
Date: 27 Jan 93 11:11:37 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.98

bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
> The question, "How much should I read of a religions corpus of sacred
> writings", seems to miss the point. Being atheists it's incumbent on
> you to demonstrate the reasons for your disbelief.

I'm an officially ordained SubGenius Meta-Pope.  Do you believe that J.R.
"Bob" Dobbs is the GOD OF SALES?  The agent of the SPACE GOD JHVH-1?  An
emaculated high epopt who has been killed several times but REFUSES TO DIE?

If not, then it's incumbent on you to demonstrate the reasons for your
disbelief.  I demand that you rush out and buy a copy of the Book of the
SubGenius and read it now.  Remember, you only have until 1998.


mathew
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A point well missed ...
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:17:12 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <C1I2GF.Dnu@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>   Other than sarcasm, ridicule and hyperbole, I've yet to hear an
>atheist's defense of atheism; are you up to it?
>
>Bill

  You up to proper netiquette?  Read the FAQ.  You may then, at your
  leisure, argue it's contents at great length with any one or all
  of us.  

  Although, judging from your post, sarcasm, ridicule, and hyperbole
  are the forms of argument in which you are well versed.


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: From talk.origins; School Board Takeover
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:58:43 GMT

Included article follows:

Article 30539 of talk.origins:
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Tax the Church
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:08:08 GMT

"James F. Tims" (p00168@psilink.com) wrote:
: >FROM:   Mike A. McAngus <mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org>
: >
: [...]
: >Now I have a more complete reply that I compiled from statistics sent to me
by
: >Carol D. Davis of the Congressional Reference Division.  These statistics we
re
: >compiled from _The World Almanac and Book of Facts_ for the years 1973, 1983

: >and 1993.
: >
: >                          1972               1982              1992
: >Number of churches:    288,856            324,555           346,634
: >
: >Hope this satisfies Mr. Ciszek.  Now, if I could receive that citation
: >concerning Dr. O'Hair.
: >--
: >Mike McAngus                    |If you'd come today you would have reached
:
: 200/240 = ~.83    Ballpark growth in population (no reference)
: 289/347 = ~.83    Church growth.
:
: The growth in the number of churchs does not represent the problem.
: Congregations do not normally rotate through a cycle of alternate
: prayer sights.  If they only owned churches, they wouldn't do much to the
: tax base because they don't just keep buying up church buildings.

My data shows that the number of churches is growing.  I did not add the growth
in other church property because the tax status of such property is a matter of
local legislation (according to my research).  Even if the number of new 
churches is keeping up with the growth in population, there are more and more 
churches and their property is being taken out of the tax rolls.

[rest of the post deleted]
-- 
Mike McAngus                     | Parenthood is too important a responsibility
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org             | to force on anyone.
The Truth is still the Truth     |
Even if you choose to ignore it. |  Sarah Weddington (the above is from memory)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: From inferrence to conclusion -
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 15:54:53 GMT

In article <C1K0zG.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 ...
>   Well here I am. I was also suprised at the vehemence with which my
>propositions were attacked. I never even stated a position, I merely
>raised some questions, atheists it seems are just as aggressive and
>abusive as any theist when they sense their position threatened. What
>hypocrisy. Do you people ever read your own postings or do you content
>yourselves praising your own cleverness (not to be confused with wit).
>
>Ok, fire at will ...

Yawn.  Go away, Bill.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Arguments for the existence of God ...
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:01:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan18.035249.27834@rp.CSIRO.AU> ahaig@rp.CSIRO.AU (Albert Haig) writes:
}I have decided to put the cat among the pigeons (or maybe it's the pigeon
}among the cats) and post two traditional arguments for the existence
}of God. YES I *have* read the FAQs but I don't think either argument is done
}justice there. I will try to answer responses!

New at this, aren't you?

}INTRODUCTION: Arguments for the existence of God fall into two general
}categories.
Right off the bat you take off on aristotle.  with no particular reason.

}THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN: 

More an argument from the anthrophomorphic principle.  Good thing, too, since
this particular argument has been tried to death on talk.origins.

Doesn't work there, either...

}THE `FIRST CAUSE' ARGUMENT: 

Like Aristotle, right?  See no particular reason for there to be a cause, or
that a "cause" is necessary or even definable.
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Consciousness and the soul
Date: 25 Jan 93 00:51:47 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

[reply to kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi]
 
Nice post.  As a neurologist, I also enjoy thinking about these
questions.  I think you are right that consciousness may be an
"afterthought" at times, but it may also initiate brain events.  The
different parts of the brain are all interlinked but not strictly
subservient to one another.  There is usually significant activity in
many different parts at once.  The ascending reticular activating
system, under control mainly of the prefrontal cortex via the thalamus,
appears to enable one area of the cortex at a time, allowing us to
select which activity to attend to.  Thus, a thought can develop in one
area of the brain before we are conscious of it (when the neural
activity has progressed along sufficiently, it requests the attention of
the prefrontal cortex).  On the other hand, the development of a thought
can take place in the area already enabled by the ARAS, as might occur
when we are trying to solve a problem on a test.
 
>It was also claimed that science can never disprove the existence of
>soul.  This is true, but somewhat misleading - by its very nature,
>science can never really _prove_ (or disprove) any hypothesis
 
Actually, science has nothing at all say about the soul, since it is
by definition supernatural.

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: johnsd2@lib107.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: A point well missed ...
Reply-To: johnsd2@lib107.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:27:32 GMT

In article 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?" ...

That's a shame. But it can be fixed. Now.

>   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.

I think there's a third, namely that the atheists are more interested
in showing you whats wrong with the question rather than answering it.

But I wont take that tack now, since you aren't interested in that
sort of thing.

>   Other than sarcasm, ridicule and hyperbole,

And flames! Don't forget flames! (now I'm depressed. I don't usually
intentionally flame people. And when I do, they don't notice. Such
a bummer.)

> I've yet to hear an atheist's defense of atheism; are you up to it?
>
>Bill

I am.

I am an atheist for lack of anything better to be.

In the face of no evidence for any Gods (and some evidence against
some Gods) I cannot reasonably believe in these beings.

And that's all there is to it, when you get down to the core of the
thing. The rest is all just refutation of the various proofs of God's
existance, disproof of very specific Gods which few people
believe in anyway, and commentary about the consequences of
theism, if it is true.

There it is; that's what you wanted. Do you like it?
---
			- 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.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism