HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject:      Re: Omniscience
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 10:57:16 MEZ
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA28711; Wed, 6 Jan 93 02:26:19 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA05044; Wed, 6 Jan 93 02:25:11 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0023; Wed, 06 Jan 93 11:24:26 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

Mathew types:

>>> From the definitions of my Catholic youth. Omnipotent meant being able to d
>>> absolutely everything and anything.
>>>
>>>Yes, but not absolutely everything and anything for all time.  It's
>>>the "for all time" bit I'm asking about.
>>
>>No, it included all the time. Omnipotent was restricted by nothing, as
>>restrictions and omnipotence (tm) do not go along.

>Huh?  But you're restricting omnipotence.  You're saying that omnipotence
>cannot exist for finite duration, and that omnipotence cannot destroy itself.
(Deletions)

I see the point, but I don't think it a valid counterargument. Omnipotence
that is omnipotent all the time is more potent than one that is restricted
by time. The possibility of its existence does not count, yet.
In other words, it is rather a definition than a restriction, because even
the omnipotent must fulfill its definition in order to be a valid concept.
The motives behind such an omnipotent were probably that those who wanted
their god powerful naively extended the definition of omnipotence beyond
possibility.
I haven't seen a better definition of omnipotence in a religious context
so far. And I would say that the naive meaning is directly caused by its
wording. Can do all things means can do all things, and not necessarily
all things possible.

It looks as if you have tried to redefine it in a way, which I tried to
counter by that even I was omnipotent by such a definition. I can do
(not I do) everything that is possible for me.
In case you meant something that can do more than everything else, a)
I must have missed the post where you said so, and b) it looks to me
as if being able to do more induces only a half order, what most
probably implies that we cannot compare conceivable instances of
potency.
Example: A can do c, B can do (something that excludes the possibility
of being able to do c). Which one is bigger?

And does this belong to alt.atheism?
    Benedikt
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ron@syacus.acus.oz.au (Ron Williams)
Subject: Re: I still wouldn't worship it.
Organization: ACUS Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Sydney
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 09:14:52 GMT

cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk wrote:
> 
> Curious... are you saying God cannot heal? If not, how do you decide
> what actions are "material"?
> 
> Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart


God? 

You (and other theist writers) are using an undefined entity as if it were a 
commonly agreed phenomenon.

If your god _has_ been defined because if it has then it is a finite 
being and not, then, omnipotent, and therefore not the 'God' you are probably
talking about. If you want to propose a lesser god, who can avoid the traps
inherent in absolutes, then trot out your evidence, and we'll all listen.

(aside)
Believers have a _qualitatively_ different world view from those of
us who try to see the world in rational terms. There is not a lot of use
arguing, as neither party can agree on the meaning of certain basic terms.
(aside off)

Don't take my criticism personally, Chris, but think carefully about the
whole thing. Don't just swallow a belief system whole, because it's easy,
and predigested. Tackle the hard questions. Even learn quantum mechanics, 
because if a god is hiding anywhere, that's where it'll be found (:)).

ron.

--
Ron Williams                  ACSnet : ron@syacus.acus.oz
Ph : +61 2 390-1366         Internet : ron@syacus.acus.OZ.AU
Fax: +61 2 390-1391             UUCP : uunet!munnari!syacus.acus.oz.au!ron
Standard Disclaimers Apply
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Believers: What Would Make You Not Believe In GOD?
Keywords: So I fixed it
Date: 9 Jan 93 19:00:13 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <9JAN199303004506@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>
>Speaking as a believer, it's easy. Just simply chose not to believe.
>GOD won't stop you. GOD will help if you chose to believe though.


AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

I assume you haven't seen my posts regarding this very issue, so
I'll be gentle.  Please explain to me how anyone can *choose* to
believe something that makes absolutely no sense to them?  I can't,
and I've tried.

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

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!
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: OK, So Beiter Thinks There is a God
Organization: I'm on a coffee break now
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 05:22:58 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

Subject: Beiter thinks there is a God

>I'm attempting the position of "I think I know a real God, I think I'm 
>freaking please help!"  Thus the burden of proof and argument is not on myself
>since I"m not trying to convince you hes there.  I'm seeking help to be
>convinced hes not.

First of all, at some point or another, the burden of proof will have to
fall in your lap.  At some point you will have to tell us what you mean
by God and why you "think" you know a real God.  I would have trouble
understanding why you are "freaking" unless you know that you do not
have evidence for this God and yet still think you know this God.  If
that is the case, you just need a higher R.Q. (Reality Quotient) and
I do not know how to go about giving you one :)

If you are freaking for some other reason, we would have to know what that
is.  Did he threaten to slowly torture you or something?  Do you think
you are hallucinating?  In summary, if you think you know this real God
and have evidence, great, let the world know what it is.  If you don't,
then how do you know this real God?  Surely you are not asking atheists
to disprove the existence of a real God for which you have testable
evidence; now we wouldn't do that, would we? :) 

I personally have never tried to convince someone that God does not exist.  
It is something you just examine the evidence for like UFO's.  When other 
people claim they have evidence, they should present it and then let's see 
where it takes us.  It makes no sense to me to argue the point without
some evidence or proof to consider.  As an atheist, I have no vested interest
in converting people to atheism.  Most of the atheists I have known have
come to that position from their own studies, not through argument with
other atheists from a believers standpoint.  But now that I am an atheist,
I do enjoy the company and thoughts of other atheists.  I can always learn
a few things from them.

My totally honest reaction to this question is that it sounds like some
bit of sophistry to try to trick people into making some ridiculous claims
about how it is impossible for God to exist or something like that.  I really
cannot imagine anyone calling on atheists to help them remove their God
thoughts.  And I do not really think we could help them, either.

BTW, I am not necessarily implying that you are trying to trick people, just
that I think that anyone who sincerely asks about Gods existence from the 
perspective you suggest may be.  I would have trouble accepting their sincerity.
It just seems a little too contrived.  I guess the statement just doesn't 
compute!  Maybe I will try again later, because I am assuming that you are 
sincere.  It's a new twist, though, and may take time.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: Bible translations, or Does God Speak Latin?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 05:15:43 GMT
Keywords: Catholic, Latin, Bible

cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:

>In article <C0B6oF.JC9.1@cs.cmu.edu> drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
>>It may relate somewhat to the use of Hebrew, Latin or Enochian in some
>>rituals of ceremonial magick, as far as "enlightenment" goes.

>Provided the hearer understands it, yes.  Other than that, I see no
>spiritual value in hearing someone make mouth noises at me, no matter
>how beautiful if I don't understand what they're saying.  English is
>also a rhythmic and lyrical language, particularly when it comes to the
>consonant combinations; read Poe's poems.  

This is why I'm going through the effort of creating a system of Ceremonialism
which is all in English.  The whole point of my system is to have something
simple, clear, and meaningful.  I don't have too many good sources to draw on
in CM. :) :(

Enjoy the journey!
                      --Br'anArthur
                                      Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)

******************************************************************************
"We are secretly replacing the fine quartz crystals this medicine pouch maker
usually uses with Folgers crystals.  Let's see what happens...."
                                      --DACCrowell
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (SCOTT C LOCKLIN)
Subject: Hitler (was Re: Christian racism)
Keywords: Christian racism depiction of christ
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:34:06 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <martin.726049316@marsh> martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:

>I doubt many people associate their bible to the middle-east at all,
>despite it being completely set there.  I know Christians who 
>absolutely can't stand Jews, and yet worship the King of the Jews in church.
>(Come to think of it, same with Hitler)

Hitler was an atheist. Actually, if we think of it a bit, he was the founder
of a rather virulent form of neo-Paganism. 

He was also (BTW) one of the first animal rights activists, passing some of
the strictest regulations ever on humane treatment of animals.
Anyone notice some of the words & actions of his modern compatriots (animal 
rights activits, not neopagans or atheists)?

-Scott
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: jstump@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (John E. Stump)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 15:18:42 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: IBM AWD Austin, TX

In article <C0L1tA.BHr.1@cs.cmu.edu> drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
>mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes:
>
>>> What are the reasons for emotions?
>>
>>	Trivial.  It seems to me that emotions can easily be
>>understood in an evolutionary context.  Love causes creatures to
>>cooperate with each other, to enhance each other's chance of survival.
>
>I *really* hate to seem like I'm agreeing with this bozo...but yeah,
>let's discuss this.  Love often seems to be anti-survival, to be
>honest.  Example: I love my mother.  Because of that love, I would
>sacrifice my life for her.  Obviously anti-survival for me.  My mother
>is old, cannot have more children, will probably die soon.  Also
>anti-survival for the race.  Yet, I perceive that I would do so, out
>of love.
>
>The other emotions you suggest are easily explained by reason.  Love,
>in my mind, seems to be the sole exception.
>
>-- 
>Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
>Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
>                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...

Love, as an emotion, has MANY different levels of abstraction. I love
my brothers, I love my wife, my dog loves me, but they're all different
forms of love. In the terms of C++, "love" is an overloaded word. I
think the base level of love is intrinsic to survival and the other
forms simply build off that.

I think it's obvious that humans have evolved so dramatically and
reached such high levels of thought, that we have conquered the need
for many of the survival instincts, allowing us to develop higher
emotions that may sometimes seem counter-productive.

Does this make any sense? It's too early in the morning for this...


john
-- 
John Stump (jstump@netftp.austin.ibm.com)
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Removing "god" from morality. (was: Moral liberty)
Date: 5 Jan 93 21:36:03 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <105955@bu.edu> wooyoung@bu.edu (WooYoung Chung) writes:
>: >
>: Well why not drop religion completely, and still do what you are calling
>: for? We can educate the value of "just" behavior without bringing
>: superstition into it. Society and "just" behaviors are a benefit to
>: every individual within the society. The problem is that children do not
>: always inherently see the benefit to themselves. 
> 
>[some stuff deleted]
>:                        -John David Munch
>
>Well, John, I can think of two reasons why we still need to relate
>morality with religion.  The first reason is the natural course of human 
>development.  For example, you pointed out that we could communicate
>with children on the true value of "just" behaviors.  I am not certain 
>that is all that practical.  It takes certain mental maturity to grasp 
>the the value of justice (not that I am that mature :-)) 
>
>
>What do you think?

Two points.

1) Children can be raised with the "how would you like it if somebody did
   that to you" ethic. This leads to kind and considerate children who
   don't help little-old-ladies accross the road just because they're
   little-old-ladies, but because they would hope that people would help
   them if they were infirm. But then we live in a very selfish society
   where kind and considerate people usually get screwed.

2) If I had a dollar for every time a religious person had told me that
   religious people were more moral than atheists because morals come
   from god and therefore atheists couldn't be moral, I would would be
   very rich as well as being pissed off.

Chris Lee
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas)
Subject: Re: Genital-grabbing
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 09:28:20 GMT

"Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
>>FROM:   Mark Schnitzius <schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu>
>>tp0x+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price) writes:
>>>bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>>>>
>>>>	I think at several points in the OT (if my memory of bible
>>>>class in HS serves me right) putting your hand between someones thighs
>>>>was something they did to "seal" a promise, I think Abraham had ordered
>>>>a servant to make a promise and told his servant to put his hands between
>>>>his legs while making the promise...
>>
>>>Yes. Think of the word "Testimony" -- an oath sworn on the testes.
>>>This concept was apparently not unknown to the Romans either.
>>
>>So, does 'testament' (as in 'New Testament') have the same derivation?
>>
>YES, THE WORDS

>TESTICLE, TESTIFY, TESTIMONY, AND TESTAMENT ALL DERIVE FROM THE SAME LATIN
>ROOT, "TESTIS"

So does this mean that the "New Testament" is just the latest way to
put your hand on your nob?  An intellectual wank, so to speak?  :)

Martin
--
Your eyes are weary from staring at the screen.  Your eyelids feel very heavy.
You feel sleepy. Notice how restful it is to watch the cursor blink. Close your
eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt
otherwise.  When you awake you will follow up this post and enthusiastically
agree with it.  Then you will send all your money to martin@cs.curtin.edu.au.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Date: 13 Jan 93 04:10:47 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan13.022941.14177@cs.unca.edu>, kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
|> In article <1999@spam.ua.oz> jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew) writes:
|> >In article <1993Jan5.014645.6329@cs.unca.edu> kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
|> >
|> >>   You have a real hard time with  "lesser of two evils". How do you
|> >>feel about Churchill given his "make a deal with the devil himself" to
|> >>get rid of Stalin?
|> >
|> >Which devil was this? Don't you mean that Churchill allied himself with
|> >Stalin to get rid of the devil himself (aka Adlif Hitler)?
|> >
|> >Wishful thinking?
|> >
|> >Joseph Askew
|> 
|> Actually I realized after I entered "send" that I had said Stalin when I
|> meant Hitler but I was pretty sure that everyone would know that.
|> "Wishful thinking?"  How so?  What difference is there between Stalin
|> and Hitler other than that Hitler concentrated on certain nationalities while
|> Stalin wasn't as choosy.

Are we back to this again?   How many times?   There was, as far as
I can see, *no* real difference between Stalin and Hitler.

That's not the difference we are talking about.   The difference is 
that Churchill had a military alliance with Stalin, but went right
on denouncing his oppression, and no-one, so far as I know, is
proposing Churchill as a religious or moral teacher.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie)
Subject: Re: Bible translations, or Does God Speak Latin?
Keywords: Catholic, Latin, Bible
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:12:27 GMT

iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:

>In article <2B4771D7.12848@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:

>>Excuse me, but any church is MADE UP of Toms, Dicks, and Harrys, and
>>even a few Janes and Marys,

>No.  Not at all.  It is only the congregation that is made of them.

And what is the difference between a church and a congregation?
--
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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov (James L. Felder)
Subject: Re: Believers: What Would Make You Not Believe In GOD?
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Sverdrup Technology, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:34:05 GMT

In article <9JAN199303004506@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu
(Stephen Tice) wrote:
> 
> In article <1993Jan8.152120.3842@netcom.com>, 
> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes...
>
> >Usually when a theist becomes an atheist it isn't because he's been 
> >shown something he didn't see before, but rather because he grew 
> >disillusioned with his religious teachings and finally realized how 
> >empty they are.        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
> 
> Good point. Believing in religion, rather than simply depending on GOD 
> to help you maintain or deepen your faith, is a sure way to get disil-
> lusioned. Everything human falls apart, since it's part of nature (*).
> 
> (* -- Isn't that the second law of thermodynamics or something?)
> 
> The easiest way to be a believer is just do it like a kid.
> Unbelief for a child is harder, but still just a matter of doubting.

Belief, any belief, is EASY for a child.  What is hard is critical thought.
 Drug pushers are only now learning what organized religion has known for
centuries, hook 'em when they are young!  Get them good enough and they
will never be able to kick the habit.

     "Theism, Just say NO"

> 
> Judas is a good example, and Peter, and Thomas, and Paul... of instances
> of loss of faith. And then the best is Jesus Christ -- my Love and my
> Lord, GOD incarnate, alive now and forevermore, who is Master of the
> flesh, and the human temple of GOD... even Jesus gave up his faith --
> "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34).

Excuse me, God lost faith in God!  And I am supposed to do something that
even 
God, who should be in position to know, can't do!!

I wouldn't hold this up in support of any theist position.  It looks to me
to be one of the best indications in the bible that JC was indeed just a
man.

James L. Felder            (216)891-4019         -My opinions are MINE-
Sverdrup Technology, Inc.  jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov  I think that should
NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland 44135        cover all bases, 
                                                  don't you.

"Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge -
    other people gargle"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (SCOTT C LOCKLIN)
Subject: Re: Violence in other religious texts?
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:40:55 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <3JAN199312313873@vx9000.weber.edu> tscwhitehead@vx9000.weber.edu (Clarke Whitehead) writes:
>The quotes of violence in the Bible were very interesting.  Can anyone tell
>me of other religious works such as the Qur'an or Bhagavad Gita (spelling?)
>have similar types of violent language?  I know the Book of Mormon does.

I dunno about the Qur'an or the "Gita" but some of the other Hindu texts,
such as the rig-veda are ultra-violent. All kinds of missiles, gas warfare,
nuclear weapon-like doohickeys, deaths of 100000s & etc in this one...

Buddist & Taoist texts seem to lack violence.
Interestingly, the arch-rivals of the judeo/xtians, the Satanists seem to have
rather a lack of violence in their book "The Satanic Bible".
The only violence I remember was something about Satan bashing Jehovah in the
melon with a double bladed axe. Since satanists do not believe in either one
of these except as fictional creations, the violence is not equivalent to that
shown in the Bible
>
>Clarke  


Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc