HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: A question for Muslims out there
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:14:19 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha

When reading this newsgroup and when talking to Muslims at this school, one
     phrase I often see or hear coming out of the mouths of the Islamic
     faithful is "peace be upon him", or PBUH for short.  I'm curious--
     why is this only stated after the name of a prophet, such as Muhammed
     or Jesus.  Why isn't this phrase stated after the mention of God?  Is
     it that you hold more respect for the prophets (maybe God isn't 
     deserving of peace), or is there another reason?  This may be a dumb
     question, but as I see it there's a discrepency.
     
Trajan

P.S.  Sorry I'm posting on this newsgroup, but the censors at soc.religion.
      islam take far too long to post.
      
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:26:59 GMT

Ridha:
>In article <graham.711589846@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>>(Stephen James) writes:
>>>>Warning, warning, here we have the same old tired theist argument,
>>>>"But, how could you not think that all this was not designed it is 
>>>> all so complex and amazing." I have no problem with this. Read the
>>>> book "The Blind Watchmaker" (I think that is the title). This book
>>>> discusses this design argument and indicats how long a time these
>                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> things take, such that complexity can be derived from natural 
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> phenomenon (often the phrase random chance is used pejoratively)
>>
>(Ridha Souissi) writes:
>>>I will try to read this book.  However I suspect that the ideas
>>>contained in it are mere theory, since nobody could go long
>>>enough in the past to verify them.
>>
>>Exactly what do you mean by this Ridha?
>>
>
>See the phrase I underlined in Stephen's message and I think
>you will understand what I mean.  If still not clear, please let me know.

I still don't get what you mean by this. Please explain - I have a
feeling there is an interesting discussion in this.

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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bes@cco.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi)
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:34:40 GMT

In article <zlsiida.1087@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:

>I think you'll find 1/3 is a slightly high estimate due to extrapolation 
>from small samples; however the true figure IS much too high.  But I dispute 
>that it doesn't happen in Islamic countries - I claim we just don't hear 
>about it, as used to be the case in the 'west'.

Of course, there is rape in Muslim countries.  No body could reasonably
think otherwise.  In addition to rape, you may add other crimes such
as robbery, murder, financial embezzlement, etc.   But the question is
not the existence of a certain crime, but the level of prevalence.

You say:  "I claim we just don't hear about [rape in Islamic countries.]"
I don't know about other Muslim countries, but in Iran instances of rape
are reported in the media.  And women who accuse somebody of rape don't
end up in jail as you seem to have heard [This doesn't mean that the person 
who is accused automatically ends up in jail either].

As for the figure of 1/3 of women being sexually assualted, this is FBI
statistics.  I must admit I suspected this figure to be too high as well.
However, a survey published in LA Times indicated that this figure is
probably under-estimated.

>For example, I hear many reports of Muslim women who were raped, but when 
>they go to the police, it's one woman's word versus more than one man's 
>word, so guess who ends up in jail?  the woman.
>
>The only time my wife has been harassed on the streets of Britain was by 
>Muslims.

I have been mugged twice in the U.S., once by a White man and the other
time by two Hispanic men.  But I don't think I can make any logical
inference from this about the incidence of mugging in terms of the
race of the offenders.  To borrow a phrase from your first paragraph, 
this would amount to "extrapolation from small samples."    Since you
consider such extrapolation as invalid when applied to Westerners, you
must refrain from arriving at conclusions about Muslims based on such
extrapolations, espcially when the size of the sample is just one person.

Behnam Sadeghi
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: god violates physical
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:43:55 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <1992Jul20.280.14286@execnet> neal.abrams@execnet.com (neal abrams) writes:


>     What about the human ability to love?  Animals don't love nor do

Prove it.

>they have pride?  Can animals create?  Do they have an imagination? 
           proof?      yes - esp chimps        yes, many species


>In my opinion all these things add up to free will.

these things are irrelevant to free will

+--Great Quotes of our Time-------------------------------------------+
|        You should never have a hobby that eats                      |
+--------------------------------------Amarillo Slim Preston----------+          
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England  (44)061-275-6033   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14448 soc.culture.pakistan:12846 soc.culture.arabic:2899
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 11:12:32 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> In article <1992Jul27.235350.1065@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> souissi@ec.ecn.purdue
> >>Or take the Mandelbrot set.  Based on a simple mathematical formula, it
> >>produces a fractal of amazing beauty.  And what's more, quite a few
> >>other things drop out of this set.
> >>The point being that it doesn't take divine design to produce things of
> >>such sublime complexity.  Many very simple systems can do very nicely.
> >How do those things compare with the human brain, created by God,
> >which invented these things in the first place?
> 
> The human brain _didn't_ invent these things.  They're inherent in simple
> mathematical concepts, and these mathematical concepts are true whether or
> not there are any brains around.

Ooer.  That feels like a very strong assertion to me.  I can't quite pin down
what it is about it that makes me uneasy, though...


mathew

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: A Christian Who Thinks
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 13:20:34 GMT

tgk@cs.toronto.edu (Todd Kelley) writes:

[Preceeding comments deleted.]
>It is silly that people claim Christians can question
>their beliefs.  To various questions there is only one
>answer which will allow them to remain Christian.

I claim Christians can question their beliefs.  Why is this silly?

(I call myself a Christian; I continue to question my beliefs, and
they have changed in the past and will probably change again in the
future.  If my belief that I should follow the teachings of Jesus
Christ ever change, then I will cease to call myself a Christian.)

>  A
>Christian who believes there is a possibility that
>he or she will in future not be a Christian is not
>a Christian.

Why?  I ask this sincerely, because if I substitute X for Christian in
the above it is clearly not true.  That means there must be something
special about this word "Christian."  What is it?

>  (Of course here we run into the problem
>of defining particular religions.  I once met a person
>who claims to be both a devout Jew and an atheist.)
>You cannot be said to question something if your
>religion has ruled out all but one of the possible
>answers before asking the question.  If there is only
>one answer, there is no question.

Perhaps it would help if you gave some examples of the types of
questions to which you think a Christian must have only one answer.

>If you are secure in your beliefs, why should you
>care whether you are called a philosopher or a Christian?
>A person should be secure in his or her beliefs because
>of rational justifications; a person should not rely on
>an institution to dogmatically assert his or her beliefs.
>Any need to call yourself a Christian indicates that you
>feel you must embrace the institution of Christianity,
>dogmatism and all.

I'm not sure I can agree with the last sentence.  A person could
simply be a follower of Jesus Christ's teachings and probably feel a
need to call himself a Christian.  No institutional dogma is required,
although it is often present.

To clarify your statement for me, please tell me more precisely to
what you refer when you say, "the institution of Christianity."

>  When you remove the dogmatism and
>arbitrariness from Christianity, you no longer have
>Christianity, you have a philosophy whose beliefs are
>consistent with those of Christianity.

It might help to also give your definition of "Christianity."
--
Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
From: yasin@laser.dev.cdx.mot.com (Yasin)
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Organization: Motorola Codex, Canton, Massachusetts
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:25:45 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.123821.19754@cbfsb.cb.att.com> onf@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (omar.farooq) writes:
>---------------------------------------------------
>>Article 26314 in soc.culture.pakistan:
>>From: stoesser@i31s21.ira.uka.de (Achim Stoesser)
>>Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
>>Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
>>Date: 31 Jul 1992 11:53:23 GMT
>>Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
>>Lines: 14
>>Distribution: world
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: i31s21.ira.uka.de
>>
>>Yesterday in the news: Several hundred women have been publicly whipped 
>>in five Iranian cities for not wearing proper clothing.
>>
>>To protect them from being raped, I guess?
>>
>>By the way, what is the correct dress for being whipped? 
>> 							        Achim
>>_____________________________________________________________________
>>
>>I'm an anarchist, atheist, pacifist, and vegetarian.  This does _not_
>>mean that I'd bomb kings, worship Satan, let soldiers bleed to death,
>>or eat fish.
>>---------------------------------------------------
>>


The top page of the ""NEWS"" showed Clinton Shaking hands with
the Alien. These women were mistreated by aliens.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: A. Satish Pai <Pai-Satish@CS.Yale.Edu> 
Subject: Swastika [Re: Blasphemy in Greece]
Originator: pai@opal.CS.Yale.Edu
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven CT 06520, USA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:19:16 GMT


>>> "M" == mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:

M> The swastika is a religious symbol in Buddhism, so don't be surprised if you
M> see big Buddha statues with swastikas painted on the front.  The arms go in
M> the opposite direction to the Nazi swastika, though.

The swastika is a very old symbol of good luck. "Swastika" in Sanskrit
literally means "well-being". Contrary to your statement, this symbol in
Hinduism/Buddhism is (I believe) in the *same* direction as the Nazi 
swastika. Hitler borrowed the same symbol because he believed it was a 
sign of the ancient Aryan culture. The only difference from the Hindu
symbol is that his is rotated by 45 degrees. 

Don't be surprised if you see the swastika prominently painted/drawn on 
*anything* in India, not just statues. 

-Satish
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: Pai-Satish@CS.Yale.Edu                       | A. Satish Pai
UUCP:     ...!{uunet,harvard,decvax,ucbvax}!yale!pai   |
Bitnet:   Pai@YaleCS                                   | +1 203 432 1217 [Off.]
Mail:     Box 2158, Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520  | +1 203 776 7069 [Res.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Praying to Mecca?
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 92 10:19:43 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
> khan@davidsys.com writes:
> >  Replying to Dave Budd, for asking why 5 prayers
> >at specific times during the day, in Islam:
[...]
> But why 5 times a day? Why not 3? Why not 7?

It's the LAW OF FIVES, Graham.

Hail Eris!


mathew
From: ekrem@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Ekrem Saban)
Subject: Re: Extent of omniscience
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Technical University of Vienna
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:58:33 GMT

In article <zlsiida.970@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:

   Just how omniscient is god supposed to be?  I have read postings that imply
   omniscience across time as well as space, and others where this view would
   imho lead to a logical contradiction.  If relativity's 4D space-time
   continuum is a fact and not just a calculational convenience, wouldn't
   omniscience HAVE to include the time dimension?

Relativity shows us which natural laws are existing for matter, or
better, they try to model them. 

God, however, is neither of matter (as the reason of His existence is
He Himself, and as matter is created by Him), nor does He obey to any
law: He is the Exalted in Power, the Irresistable, the Supreme. So,
His power can't be cut by laws or anything else, and He needs nothing
but Himself. 
--

_______  __ ________________________________________________ _ ___________
   /|   |    	A. Ekrem SABAN	       / Technische Universitat Wien
  /_|_  |_  ekrem@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at/Inst.f. Techn. Informatik, HW & VLSI
 /  |     |    "Nu ninda-a ezateni,  /Address: 1040 Wien, Treitlstr. 3/2
/   |__ __|	vadar ma ekuteni"   /Tel:(43-1)58801/8147, Fax:(43-1)569697
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: tgk@cs.toronto.edu (Todd Kelley)
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 29 Jul 92 04:11:18 GMT

In article <mspears.712252338@sfu.ca> mspears@sfu.ca (Matthew Spears) writes:
>
>  I am not a fundamentalist christian, or even a christian at all.  (Gave it
>up in childhood), but I dislike the close-mindedness of many atheists.  Yes,
>there is a lot of hypocrisy in Christianity, but there is a lot of good as
>well.  What I dislike about Churches in general is that they tend to say "THIS
>is the truth, take it or leave it."  But I still find that there is a lot
>of Truth in what they say. 

You don't indicate what you mean by closed-mindedness, and furthermore,
you don't indicate what it is about many atheists that leads you to believe
they are closed-minded.  You hint that you believe many atheists disagree
with the ``good'' of Christianity, and therefore you consider them
closed-minded.

In fact, athiests are not closed-minded.  Religion does not have a monopoly
on ``goodness'', and athiests know this.  If something is good, then it
is good---whether it comes from within or without a religion has no bearing
on its goodness.  This is the only position an open-minded person can hold.
> 
>  If you have a view of the universe, say it, backing it up as best you can. 
>But this cynical denigration of everything religious does no one any good, 
>least of all you.

When dealing with something as basic and important as a view of how
the universe is and how it should be made to become, arbitrariness and
dogmatism are insidious nemeses.  Dogmatism and arbitrariness define
religion.  (For example, science is not a religion because it's neither
dogmatic nor arbitrary.)  Therefore, naturally, truly open-minded persons
scorn religion.  This does not mean they scorn what religions say; it
means they scorn what religion is: a set of arbitrary beliefs which
must be accepted without question.

Todd
-- 
Todd Kelley                                 tgk@cs.toronto.edu
Department of Computer Science              (416)922-9326
University of Toronto
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14143 rec.food.veg:7183
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Praying to Mecca?... and Evangelists
Date: 14 Jul 92 09:40:39 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
> Islam teaches that it is the "natural" religion of man.  According to
> Islamic teaching, objects/plants/animals in nature follow nature's laws
> without choice - they have no free will.  However, humans have free
> will.  Islam teaches that it is the "law of nature" for human beings.
> Thus, one could say that Islam teaches that by following Islam, a person
> will be in harmony with the universe.

You should read Robert Anton Wilson's book "Natural Law" (available from
Loompanics).

If Islam were really comparable to the laws of nature, it would be as
impossible to disobey the laws of Islam as it is to disobey the law of
gravity.

Obviously *real* laws of nature are completely unlike Islam.  Islam is more
like "55 mph speed limit" -- it's a law that only has strength if there's
someone to punish you if you break it.

The attempt to portray Islam as some sort of natural law is just a
smokescreen to try and cover the fact that Islam's proscriptive power is
entirely predicated on the completely unproven existence of some hypothetical
vengeful deity with a fixation on the behaviour of highly developed primates.

Or to put it in shorter sentences, Islam is only a law which must be followed
if God says so.  If I don't accept that this God exists, then Islam is a law
which will never be enforced and therefore has no power over me.  It is
therefore ridiculous to call it "the 'law of nature' for human beings".


mathew
-- 
Down, boy!  There's a good dogma.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 12:46:01 GMT

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

>skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>> >skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>> >> I need to back up to this point.  I'm not saying that God has to do
>> >> things he doesn't want to do.  I'm saying that God cannot fulfill
>> >> conflicting wants.  To allow the book to be transcribed inaccurately
>> >> is not doing anything.
>> 
>> I'm more interested in backing up to this point, but I'll answer the
>> query.
>> 
>> >I'm afraid I'm used to moral codes where allowing something bad to happen
>> >through inaction is still bad.
>> 
>> I don't see how this relates.  The point of contention is whether God
>> has to do things he doesn't want to do.

>You said "To allow the book to be transcribed innacurately is not doing
>anything".  It seemed to me that you were trying to 'excuse' God by saying
>that he wasn't actively causing the errors, just failing to prevent them.

>I just thought I'd make the point that many people would feel that failing to
>prevent something bad when you have the power to do so is as immoral as doing
>the bad thing yourself.

>> >But to get back to the point, am I to take it that you're claiming that
>> >error-free transmission of God's word is incompatible with free will?
>> 
>> No.  It's not incompatible, since everyone with free will could choose
>> to transmit God's word error-free.  I claim that free will allows for
>> the possibility of errors in the transmission.  We have the errors,
>> and God's desire to preserve free will is an explanation for them.

>Sorry, bad phrasing.

>Are you claiming that if transmission of God's word is forced to be
>error-free in any way, free will will be impossible?

No.  The claim quoted above is the claim I am making.

--
Gregg Skinner  g-skinner@uiuc.edu   I do not speak for any organization.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Hmm.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:22:45 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

I was reading a little light fiction last night ("I, Lucifer" by Peter
O'Donnell, a "Modesty Blaise" thriller), and the following passage
lept out at me as being very reminiscent of something...

  'Let me quote Kraepelin to you.  "Paranoia is characterized by the
  furtive development, resulting from inner causes, of a lasting,
  immovable delusion system that is accompanied by the complete
  retention of clearness and order in thinking, willing, and acting."
  Lasting and immovable are the operative words, Collier.  True
  paranoia is incurable.'

  'I see.'  Collier looked out over the blue-grey waves of the sea.
  'But how does he make the normal world fit in with his delusion?'

  'He's created his own delusional set-up which covers all the
  problems, and he can rationalize anything that happens,' said
  Bowker.  'You'd better know his view if you're going to get anywhere
  with him.'
-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.
From: silver@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (silver)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Inquisition
Date: 25 Jul 92 23:04:05 GMT
Organization: The Tally Ho

In article <13201@pogo.wv.tek.com> daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:
>  I would also point out that the Catholic Church of 
>today is not made up of the same people who did the Inquisitions, and is not 
>responsible for them.

and I'm not responsible for the national debt because I voted for the losers
in each election... nor am I to be held responsible for the murder laws in 
this country because they were authored before I was born and I never voted
for them.


I think there would have to be changes in an organization besides change of
membership before it can be utterly exonerated of its crimes. after all,
the new members couldn't be too disappointed with the organization's crimes
if they still wanted to be members w/o serious internal changes.

--silver--                                     | "...Sloooow the plot down,
internet: silver@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu            | we'll scuttle the story
realitynet: silver Harloe@(512)/445-6087       | and run her aground..."
In the Village: Number Eight -- Be Seeing You! |        --MST3k/Mighty Jack

Newsgroups: alt.atheism