HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: geoff@tyger.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why? (was Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BE
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:59:32 GMT
Reply-To: geoff@tyger.East.Sun.COM
Organization: SunSelect
NNTP-Posting-Host: tyger.east.sun.com

In article 9003@ra.royalroads.ca, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
##I don't think that it's so hard for people to believe that there is a God out
##there who is loving and willing to accept them into Heaven.  Truth is, I think
##people DON'T WANT to believe that there is a God.

I know I'm wasting my time, because you seem to be incapable
of understanding and directly answering the simplest question, but
I'll try anyway. Can you give us one good reason why people
who have absolutely no evidence for the existence of this (in
your own words) incomprehensible entity which you call God
should believe in it? And recognize that any statement which
reduces to a simple assertion that this entity exists is NOT
a "god reason" because it simply begs the question.

Your postings are full of pompous assertions which are singularly
unimpressive to most readers of a.a. Many of us have read more
and in greater depth about these matters than you have (or else
you wouldn't pump out this kind of crap). For (IMHO) the
current "state of the art" on arguments pro and con the existence of
a deity, go and read the following. However, if you don't care to
discuss these questions on the basis of reason, go away and don't
waste our time.

Geoff
-------------------------------------------------------------
%A Richard Swinburne
%T The Existence of God (Revised Edition)
%I Clarendon Paperbacks
%C Oxford
%D 1991
%X This book is the second volume in a trilogy that began with "The
Coherence of Theism" (1977) and was concluded with "Faith and Reason"
(1981). In the present work, Swinburne attempts to construct a series
of inductive arguments for the existence of God. His arguments, which
are somewhat tendentious and rely upon the imputation of late 20th
century western Christian values and aesthetics to a God which is
supposedly as simple as can be conceived, were decisively rejected in
Mackie's "The Miracle of Theism". In the revised edition of "The
Existence of God", Swinburne includes an Appendix in which he makes a
somewhat incoherent attempt to rebut Mackie.

%A J. L. Mackie
%T The Miracle of Theism
%I Oxford
%C Oxford
%D 1982
%X This (posthumous) volume contains a comprehensive review of the
principal arguments for and against the existence of God.  It ranges
from the classical philosophical positions of Descartes, Anselm,
Berkeley, Hume et al, through the moral arguments of Newman, Kant and
Sidgwick, to the recent restatements of the classical theses by
Plantinga and Swinburne. It also addresses those positions which push
the concept of God beyond the realm of the rational, such as those of
Kierkegaard, Kung and Philips, as well as "replacements for God" such
as Lelie's axiarchism.  The book is a delight to read - less
formalistic and better written than Martin's works, and refreshingly
direct when compared with the hand-waving of Swinburne.
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Hitler (was Re: Christian racism)
Keywords: Christian racism depiction of christ
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 12:56:18 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (SCOTT C LOCKLIN) writes:
> Hitler was an atheist.

Please read the alt.atheism FAQ file before posting again.


mathew
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Nailing Christianity: Sufficient Support for Atheism?
Date: 4 Jan 93 21:07:09 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <C0CDAF.LKF.1@cs.cmu.edu>, rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Robert Huss) writes:
|> 
|> 	There is a great deal of debunking of Christianity going on
|> on this group, but is this really sufficient grounds for Atheism?  
|> Nailing the inconsistencies in Christianity certainly gives enough
|> support to show that it isn't the One Truth as far as religions go,
|> but that really doesn't give us enough to deny the existence of a god.

No, of course not, but I don't think anyone is arguing that
debunking Christianity is sufficient to disprove the existence
of God, so that is a straw man.

Now, is there any concrete evidence that I can check *for* the 
existence of God?

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: epowers@mccoy.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re:Will the Real Christians please stand up?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:21:57 GMT

Re the title:

	Sorry, an amazing number of us are hiding out.  The best way to get  
killed and be unable to continue underground ministry in a lot of countries in  
the 10-40 window is to publicly admit that you are a Christian.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:38:05 GMT


In article <12259@hogg.ed.ac.uk>, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan5.223146.29327@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
|> >Sure, when God placed the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil in the Garden, HE
|> >knew that the people would partake of it and be condemned to death as well as
|> >all the generations that followed them.  GOD knew this!
|> 
|> Minor correction.  He didn't just happen to know it.  He made it so.
|> He was the one who would sentence Adam, Eve and all their descendants
|> to death, and he wanted to do it.  The only reason for which was that
|> he was an unspeakable jerk.
|> 
Please continue to follow this thread.  There's been a lot of responses similar
to yours and I've responded.



|> >   That is why He provided a plan for salvation through His one and only Son,
|> >Jesus Christ.
|> 
|> His one and only son?  Whose fault is it that he only has one son?
|> He could have begotten a google of sons if he wanted, couldn't he?
|> 
|> -- 
|>  `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
|> Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
|> * Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
|> * Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK

Technically, we are all sons of God but Jesus Christ is the only truly begotten
Son of God (note the capitals).
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 01:47:51 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world,public

In article <SCG.93Jan4185701@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu writes:
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>
>>For example, hatred of homosexuals is not a Biblical theme.  Hatred
>>of homosex certainly is, which is not the same thing.  Don't go off
>>on some psychological tangent on me here-- THEY ARE NOT THE SAME
>>THING, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE.  How do I know?  Because I love
>>homosexuals and hate what some of them do.  If I can do it, it can be
>>done.  Jesus certainly had this attitude.
>
>i challenge your claim that you love homosexuals.  how do you show
>this love?

 Well, now, I don't claim to agree with this, but I read C. S. Lewis
claiming that it was certainly possible to hate things that you yourself
do while still loving yourself, and Christians are commanded to love
neighbors as themselves...

>i don't recall jesus ever saying anything about homosexuality...

 Nor eating pork, but Christians still do that...

[deletions]

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are going to the
stars!" - Robert A. Heinlein
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:51:49 CST
From: David James Alexander Hanley <U16244@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Believers: What Would Make You Not Believe In GOD?
 <9JAN199303004506@utarlg.uta.edu> <11097@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>
 <11JAN199315111090@utarlg.uta.edu>

>otherwise, if you are actually convinced that there is no GOD? If I
>believed there was no GOD, well --- I'd be planning how to cause
>or be out causing "accidents," which change society and politics. Like
>poisoning foods and derailing trains.

  So, you often get the urge to do this, and the only thing that stops
you is your unbased beleif in this GOD person?  Interesting.  This just
illustrates what a warped mind you, and religious fundementalists of
your ilk have.  Remember, Hitler and Dahmer were very religious.
Lotsa athrists I know 'ud never hurt a flea.  Base your babblings in
fact please.

I could become rich, just by
>jerking with the stock market,

  Go for it.  This should be funny.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.
He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for
protection to his own" - Thomas Jefferson, 1814

SEND E-MAIL TO : hanley1@earth.eecs.uic.edu
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25897 talk.religion.misc:26079
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 13 Jan 93 04:05:31 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1ivqqoINNph5@lindy.Stanford.EDU>, charlie@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Charlie Channel) writes:
|> In article <1ivpfgINNnpa@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >
|> >So is God just "trusting" or is he really omniscient.    When are you good
|> >people going to make up your minds?
|> >
|> >jon.
|> 
|> God's personal attributes include omniscience and other qualities.
|> "We people" may simply see more of those other attributes than "you
|> people" care to admit exists.  That's OK.  But, it's not a matter of
|> making up anyone's mind.

I'm not talking about you making up other people's minds for
them - although that's been tried, of course.    I'm asking
when you will reconcile this little bait-and-switch that seems
to be going on.

Sometimes you say God is omniscient and you draw conclusions
from that.

At other times, you talk about God "trusting" people, and you
draw conclusions from *that*.

I keep hoping that at some point, someone will come right out
and say:

	+ He's omniscient, and he doesn't need to trust.
	+ He's omniscient and he pretend he trusts.
	+ He's omniscient, but he can pretend not to know.
	+ He's omniscient, but in a limited kind of a way.
	+ He's not omniscient.
	+ Never mind, we weren't talking regular English anyway.

It's not the properties of God that bother me, it's the properties
of Christians.   It's the fact that they can stand there and come 
out with apparently contradictory statements without seeming even 
to notice.

And don't tell me "we may simply see more".  I've known people who 
can see more, Senator, and you're no people that can see more.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:16:26 EST
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faulty IQ reasoning (Was: Re: iq<->religion: connection?)
Distribution: world

In article <iiTwwB4w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> says:
>
>John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>> In article <X9yuwB4w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> says:
>> [in response to an incredibly long thread I stopped reading months ago]
>> >The "sincere observation" that high IQ correlates with atheism is certainly
>> >an interesting one.  I'm afraid that the last time I did an IQ test it
>> >indicated that I had an IQ of 68, and so I'm rather predisposed to (a)
>doubt
>> >the correlation you suggest and (b) doubt the usefulness of IQ tests as a
>> >measure of intelligence of any variety.
>>
>> I'd like to suggest that both the "sincere observer" and mathew are
>> conducting pretty shoddy psychological research.  Casual observation,
>> however sincere, lacks the necessary rigor for determining the
>> correlation between intelligence and theistic beliefs.
>
>I wasn't suggesting that my observation constituted any sort of evidence for
>anything whatsoever.  I said that it predisposed me against IQ tests.  That's
>exactly what I meant, no less, no more.

It appeared to me that you had two doubts, (a) and (b) above.

>
>>                        Is one justified in doubting the quality of
>> Honda Accords generally (without checking the available overall repair
>> records) on the basis of your car which doesn't run well?  I think not.
>
>No, but if one buys a Honda Accord and it falls to bits within six months,
>one is unlikely to buy another, and more likely to pick an alternative car.
>
This is indeed the way most human beings behave, but this is not
intelligent behavior if objective statistics say that the Accord's
repair record is better than all other cars.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: Tim.ONeill@utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: The whole topic
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 03:56:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.210625.11610@seachg.uucp>, chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris Blask) writes:
> 
> Hi, folks!
Hello Chris
 
> First time in this ng, so 'scuse me if i repeat thoroughly trammeled
> ground.

Hmmmm . . . see below
> 
> I've just been looking through some posts, here, and have a few comments.
> First: (Agnostic) vs (Atheist).  I am an agnostic (I question the existence
> of 'ag's), not an atheist.  Atheism is a religion in itself, claiming, like
> all the rest, that you _know_ the answer to the Big Question; ie, no, there
> is no God.  I would die of shock if any of the major religions turned out
> to be true, but then anything is possible.

Have you read this group's FAQ Chris? If not, I'd strongly advise that you
do so, otherwise you might get some serious flames. Hint:- your interpretations
of both what both 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' mean are wrong. Read the FAQ.
Cheers,
Tim O'Neill
Tasmanian Devil
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25663 talk.religion.misc:25844
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:44:17 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:

>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:
>>>If they allow christians to meet, then they have to allow the other
>>>religions to meet. If the result of the christian meeting is handing
>>>out leaflets, then they have to allow other religions to hand out
>>>their tracts. How many christian parents would like it when little Johnny
>>>brings home Islamic literature from school?
>>
>> What's the big deal?  I (an evangelical Christian) have two different
>> translations of the Qur'an, and a basic introduction to Islam.  There is no
>> danger in those books...any more than there is in the Bible.  They are on
>> my bookshelf, right next to various theology texts, bibles, etc, etc.
>
>In that case, how would you feel about your children bringing home tracts
>from the Church of the SubGenius, the Discordians, or the Church of Satan?
>The Unification Church?  The Scientologists?  The Children of God?

Does it matter?  I mean really.  My kids are (actually will be - they're
too little now) free to make their own decisions.  All I can do is guide
them along what I feel to be the right path.  If a simple tract from a
group with whom I disagree makes them change their mind, then I have only
myself to blame.

The point is, ideas are not dangerous....

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Criticism: "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 15:37:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> In article <1992Dec23.140717.14360@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
> skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:
[quoting the FAQ]
> > Obviously a valid argument can consist of true propositions.  However, an
> > argument may be entirely valid even if it contains only false propositions.
> > For example:
> > 
> >    All insects have wings (premise)
> >    Woodlice are insects (premise)
> >    Therefore woodlice have wings (conclusion)
> 
> > Here, the conclusion is not true because the argument's premises are false.
> > If the argument's premises were true, however, the conclusion would be true
> > The argument is thus entirely valid.
> 
> Hey, going Aristotlean, are we? Or all men are mortal, and so on...
> In this exellent example you gave both you and I are indirectly assuming
> that all insects have wings, and in this case I don't see any problems
> with this argument.

Ants are insects, but they do not have wings.
Woodlice are not insects, they are crustaceans.
Woodlice do not have wings.

Like I say, every single proposition in the argument is false.  Nevertheless,
the argument is valid.

>                         However in the case of Christian doctrines we can't
> even state if certain premisses are real or not, so you could cook together
> all kinds of statements that are supposedly true or false, but they can't 
> be verified, so as Socrates would state:
> 
> "I only know that I know nothing"

I don't think that the validity of the argument has anything to do with the
truth or falsehood of the premises; in particular, I don't believe that it
depends upon whether we know the truth or falsehood of the premises.

The premises do, of course, have to be propositions -- that is, they must
actually have a true or false value.  But we don't have to know it.

> What I'm aiming at is that my core point is that as long as we can't 
> even agree upon the premisses, we can't define if the final logical
> conclusion is true or not.

That depends.  If you have two premises A and B, you might have an argument
such that the conclusion C is true iff exactly one of A or B is true.  You
might argue endlessly over which out of A and B is the true premise, but so
long as you both agree that they can't both be true the argument does imply
that the conclusion is true.


mathew

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas)
Subject: Re: Christian racism
Keywords: Christian racism depiction of christ
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 06:10:27 GMT

rumisk@odie.cs.mun.ca (Jonathan Fernandes) writes:
>martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:
>..stuff deleted..
>>Not once have I seen the point raised that the characters in the 
>>Bible were much more likely to have been dark-haired, dark-skinned
>>and not overly tall, and had the same physical characteristics that
>>most middle-eastern people share today.  I suspect many Christians
>..stuff deleted..

>Would it be possible for you to confirm these statments with the quotes
>from the Bible?

Of course not... that's my point.  The versions of the bibles most
christians have don't mention physical attributes at all (as far as
I know) and yet are illustrated with anglo-saxon people.  I *do* 
know for a fact that specific art featuring non-white Jesuses (Jesii?)
has been banned by western churches in the past.
At any rate, the bible is not a reliable source of historical facts.

>I am curious as to what makes you belive that the characters
>in the Bible were more likely to have had dark-hair, dark skin, etc.

As someone else said, it's not what I believe, it's what I think.
I'll be happy if someone can prove me wrong.
Take a look at the area of the Middle East and Northern Africa today,
Jonathon... most of those people are descendents of the people in the bible.

What makes you think he was white with blue eyes and blonde hair?

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: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Satanic infant sacrifice (was Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 13:16:33 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.98

cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
> In article <11087@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine
>>In article <root.726502852@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>You make the assumption that I don't support true equal access.  You are
>>>wrong.  I really don't care who or what is on TV, so long as NOONE is
>>>restricted.  You want equal access for everyone EXCEPT Christians.  Nice
>>>double standard you have there.
>>
>>  Then you wouldn't mind a television show that broadcast live
>>  infant sacrifices in a Satanic ritual, now would you?
> 
> Infant sacrifice is also known in the civil sphere are murder.

Gurl pbhyq nyjnlf hfr srghfrf.


mathew
From: wooyoung@bu.edu (WooYoung Chung)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I still wouldn't worship it.
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:10:19 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

ron house (house@helios.usq.EDU.AU) wrote:
: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
: 
: >ron house (house@helios.usq.EDU.AU) wrote:
: >: Surely, any being that acts like a super-powerful being can NOT be god,
: >: for that very reason.  God is outside time and space, so anything that acts
: >: in a material fashion within t&s cannot be god.  Therefore the behaviour
: >: described above would prove to me that it was not god.
: 
: >Curious... are you saying God cannot heal? If not, how do you decide
: >what actions are "material"?
: 
: Most reported cases of healing are due to some other agent (Jesus, etc.).
: If a being healed someone, the being cannot be god precisely because it has
: revealed itself to be a being, that is, something within time & space.
: If someone is healed, it might be god doing the healing, but god cannot be
: the being that performs the healing.  Sorry if that sounds bizarre, but to
: me, god is a universal, inner reality, not a universal outer reality.
: 
: --
: 
: Ron House.                 USQ
: (house@helios.usq.edu.au)  Toowoomba, Australia.

What's inner and outer reality? (in of, out of what?)

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25228 talk.religion.misc:25395 alt.pagan:15042