HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 6 Jan 93 10:12:42 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <1993Jan5.131824.12539@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <zlsiida.656@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
>>
>>To state a relationship between 2 things, and then say that 2 other things 
>>are not the same as the first 2 things, says nothing about any possible 
>>relationship between the second 2 things.  

>Yep, that's exactly what I meant. They aren't related in any point-by-point
>manner. Thus, saying that intelligence > stupidity and => atheism > xianity
>is totally invalid.

But they MIGHT be related.  The point is that A>B, A!=C, B!=D doesn't say
not_related(C,D), it says no_information(C,D)

  No Trespassing: 4/17ths of a haiku.     D.Budd@mcc.ac.uk   fax 6040
  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England    (44|0)61-275-6033  
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25086 talk.religion.misc:25254 alt.pagan:14998
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why? (was Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER)
Date: 7 Jan 93 02:49:00 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan6.222140.4549@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes...

[My points on God's "stacking the deck" deleted for brevity]

>I hear what you're saying.  This view only holds true if you accept the predestiny
>view, that there are those who will be saved and those who will not and that 
>there is nothing that can change that.  

As you mention later in your reply, predestination only makes sense when one
is locked by time.  However, God supposedly gave us free will knowing fully that
some people would "abuse" that free will.  Why?  Why would he even care?  Why
would he not make himself absolutely, positively available to all of us if 
such important things as our eternal souls lie in the balance?  Remember, if 
god is omniscient, he knew that people would sin even as he was creating the 
universe.  Doesn't this strike you as odd?

>What is there that prevents you from being a Christian?

Probably my sensory nature.

>Money is not a requirement.  Fame is not a requirement.  A humble heart is.

I certainly don't have the first two :-)...  Can one be humble without 
being a Christian?

******************************************************************************
For God so loved the world that He gave Man Free Will and then got pissed when
we didn't meet his arbitrary standards.  Oh, and he had his Son offed when he
realized how impossible those standards were.  -- Michael 4:23
******************************************************************************
From: jimb@rcx1.csd.harris.com (Jim Burmeister)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Guide for Christians posting to a.a
Date: 7 Jan 1993 21:39:16 GMT
Organization: Harris CSD, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com

Recently, there has been another wave of rabid Christians posting to this
newsgroup who seem to find it necessary to preach the Word of God(tm)
to us poor nonbelievers.  In the interests of cutting down the frequency
of such posts, I decided to create this help sheet.

So, with tongue held firmly in cheek, I present Version 1.0 of the
Guide for Christians Posting to alt.atheism.   :-)  :-)  :-)

The Guide is very simple.  Before posting an article or followup, scan through
it to see if any of the phrases or concepts on the following list appear in
your article.  If any of them do, then you can be pretty sure that we a.a'ers
will consider your article to be "preaching", and flame you accordingly.
You should then edit your article to remove the offending phrases.  If it
is not possible to remove the "preachy" phrases without substantially changing
the meaning of the article, too bad.

The list:

  All humans are sinners
  Begotten Son of God
  Faith in Christ Jesus
  Gaining wisdom through His Spirit
  Gift of God
  God created us
  God filled the great gap that was in my life.
  God has changed my life irrevocably and for the better.
  God is beyond human understanding, but He is real.
  God loves us
  God wants us to...
  Grace of God
  His one and only Son, Jesus Christ
  I came to know my Lord and Saviour
  I have felt God's presence and heard His voice.
  I know that He exists by my experiences with Him.
  I rely on God's strength. 
  Jesus Christ is my personal Lord and Saviour
  Salvation
  Put your faith/trust in God
  Redemption of sin
  Serving God
  Sin is a part of our nature
  The Bible says...
  The one and only God
  We can be saved
  We can have eternal life
  We need Jesus Christ
  Word of God
(end of list)

One additional note: Capitalization of masculine pronouns (He, His) is 
extremely suspect, and should only be done when absolutely necessary.

a.a'ers, feel free to add phrases to this list as you wish.
Special thanks to a recent poster (who shall remain nameless) for providing
most of these phrases.

-Jim Burmeister, jimb@csd.harris.com
Disclaimer: "It's a JOKE, son!"
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25008 talk.religion.misc:25177
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 08:51:09 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:

> If Man was created only thousands of years ago, and we are all
> descended from common stock... why is there such a wide variety
> in our genetic pool today?

Man was not created only thousands of years ago, but has existed almost
since the beginning of the present cycle of creation, some billions of
years ago.

> Do you believe that the ancestors of people as diverse as South
> American forest pygmies, Zulus, Europeans and Japanese were the
> same as yours only a few thousand years ago?  If you do (and you
> must, if you take the Bible at all seriously) then you must believe
> a great deal of evolution has occurred since then.  If not, I 
> would like to hear your arguments.

These are not different species. They are all members of a single
species. There has been no evolution of homo sapiens into different
species. In fact, there are 400,000 species of human-like beings
throughout the universe, and they do not evolve into or from one
another, but have existed separately since the beginning of the kalpa.

> If you do admit this much evolution can take place in such a short
> time (hundreds of generations) then what objections can you take
> against the extension of the idea to the theory of Darwinian
> evolution as it stands today?

Darwinian evolution means evolution of species. It is a false
explanation of how there came to be many different species. The example
you gave is not pertinent to Darwinian evolution, for it does not
describe different species.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Believers: What Would Make You Not Believe In GOD?
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 22:39:10 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

 I stripped several topics out of this thread, as we seem to have been
getting bogged down...

In article <12JAN199316120984@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>In article <GYg=RK+@engin.umich.edu>, 
>ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes...

>> Similarly, I just can't choose to believe in a God that seems completely
>>self-contradictory to me, especially when there is no compelling
>>evidence in It's favor.
>
>God as a physical entity you mean??? { This *is* a question. }

 If such a thing exists, I would expect that it would have detectable
effects on the world. If it has no detectable effects, what do you
mean by saying that it 'exists'?

>...most theisms make very startling claims.
>>Should I not request commensurate evidence? It would at least favorably
>>dispose me towards what they had to say.
>
>When looking for "evidence," the "precense" or separately the "spirit"
>being conveyed is missed -- in my experience. This is not necessarily a 
>theistic concern. If you want a favorable disposition regarding any
>subsequent conversation with "them," I'm surprised you'd make that 
>dependent on evidence, which would be like meeting, before shaking hands.
>Then again, that seems to be the case given, unless touching one's
>head is considered a greeting. 

 Well, it's obvious that not *all* the theisms can be right. Therefore,
I would expect the 'true' one (if any) to stand out...

>>...I don't see where I have any choice but to
>>make do with whatever abilities I have.
>
>Simply being is ok, too. Workaholics generally have a hangup with doing,
>I think. 

 I've tried simply being. I always get hungry sooner or later.

>>>"Making do with only one's own abilities" makes it kinda hard for
>>>others to care for you, yes??
>> 
>> Why?

 [explanation deleted]
 Ah. I don't mean thatI should be totally self-reliant... but *I* need to
make the estimation of where I could use help, don't I?


Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25841 talk.religion.misc:26023
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:40:19 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <C0rCyp.46G@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
|> Why is it that everyone believes that it was God who did the "original sin"?

Not everyone assumes God exists, so it's not true that "everyone believes that 
it was God who did the "original sin".

|> Was Adam a mental robot as well as Eve, that God sat up in heaven with his 
|> control switches and forced them to do something?  If we're going to assume 
|> Adam and Eve, then must we not also assume a perfect beautiful Garden, known as
|> Eden?

Not everyone assume that Adam and Eve existed, so the question hardly
arises.

|> As to God not "atoning" for all of humanity, the beauty is that His payment is
|> sufficient to cover all of humanity, if they want it.  God is not a Divine 
|> Rapist, He does not force is love on everyone, He gives them a free choice.

But does he exist?  Is there any evidence of that?

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov (James L. Felder)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Followup-To: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Organization: Sverdrup Technology, Inc.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:01:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.181801.9242@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca
(Malcolm Lee) wrote:
> Love God.  Love your neighbour as yourself.  Do not murder.  Do not bear false
> witness.  Do not commit adultery.  Do not covet thy neighbour's possessions.
> Do you find fault with any of these?  What is wrong about being a Christian?
> Is your life diminished in any way by following these rules?  What have you got
> to lose?

But I do live by these rules.  They are in no way uniquely Christian, as
you seem to be implying.  Morality != Religion.  It is arrogant,
acknowledged or not, to assume otherwise.

What do I have to loose. My honesty.  Once I can convince myself to believe
in something without compeling evidence or need, then I am on a slippery
slope that can lead anywhere. I can convince myself to believe anything
without need for proof.

(from another tread) Theist aren't necessarily less intelligent, just more
easily duped.  They have already demonstrated they will take something
without proof, so why not that they will get rich if they will just invest
their life savings in my swamp land in Florida, or that they must hate this
group because I say they are against you, or any number of subtle or overt
forms of brain washing.
  
> 
> What do you believe?  Where is your book of life?

Book, what book.  I don't need a book to lead my life.  Actually, mine is a
3x5 card :-) (sorry, I couldn't resist).  The *only* thing I BELIEVE is
that I am alive and that my senses can, but not always, be an accurate
interpretation of reality.  I must make that one leap of faith, since I
have no irrefutable way to prove it.  Past that EVERYTHING must arise
logically from that initial premise.  It doesn't have to give rise to a
purpose or reason for existence.  I have no idea why I exist, I just do. 
That doesn't stop me from making some up,and even trying to live by them,
but not for one minute do delude myself into thinking it is anything more
that the creation of my own mind.
> 
> God loves, Man kills. --- and kills and kills in the name of GOD.

I have no problem with God, having no information on any such entity.  What
I have a problem with is organized religions that commit atrocities in the
name of GOD.  That they don't even live up to their own belief is bad
enough, but that it is written in their Book is too much.

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"
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25865 talk.religion.misc:26050
From: charlie@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Charlie Channel)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 12 Jan 1993 16:31:01 -0800
Organization: Stanford U
Distribution: world,public
NNTP-Posting-Host: lindy.stanford.edu

In article <ll6l9hINN6rv@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>
>First you put a bowl of candy in the middle of the room. Next, you let in
>a couple of three year olds and tell them not to eat the candy. When
>they do, you disown them and throw them out of the house.
>
>Now who's to blame here?

The illustration misperceives the events.  It's more akin to me
telling my teengers to enjoy themselves in the house while I'm on a 2
day holiday, but instructing them to stay out of my booze.  Everything
else in the pad is OK and within limits.  My Coors and Gallo ain't.

Now, some would blame me for leaving the booze in the house and others
might blame me for leaving the teenagers in the house.  Personally,
I'd not leave either the booze or the teenagers in the house if
I didn't think they had the capacity to (1) understand and (2)
obey.  Moreover, I trust my children and they seem to have been able
to make it through a weekend without abusing the priviledges they've
earned, i.e., they've behaved responsibly and I trust that they
can be relied upon.  I just can't imagine that God is less trusting
than I am or other responsible parents.  Now, my parents could and did
trust me in the same way I trust my children.  But, not all parents
are created equal.  

C
From: geoff@tyger.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A nation chosen by GOD -- New-Israel
Date: 12 Jan 1993 16:08:14 GMT
Organization: SunSelect
Distribution: world
Reply-To: geoff@tyger.East.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: tyger.east.sun.com

In article 11JAN199323022824@utarlg.uta.edu, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
##Otherwise, I think you'll find that I write in such
##a way that reminds myself of The Precense. 

W-h-a-a-t-? 

Since I'm not privy to the state of your mind (if any), how
can I determine that you are writing in a way that reminds YOU of
anything? (Much less a misspelled content-free capitalized thingamajig?)

Actually, I find that you write incoherent rubbish. Is that what you
wanted to convey with this sentence?


---
Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect, Sun Select. (geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM)

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: pcrayne@halcyon.com (Peter C. Crayne)
Subject: Re: Why must you act this way?
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 02:47:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.164911.3034@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>
>When one wishes to address the Creator of the universe, it must be done with a 
>humble heart.

Why?

>               You don't just say "Yo dude!  What's shakin?".

Why not? If there truly is a god in the Christian sense, it is surely
capable of understanding what I mean. If it is omnicient, it understands
all about me & my background, and will know my intent, regardless of my
words. Why can't I just say: "Yo supernatural big guy! I'd like a few
things cleared up. Why is there so much suffering in your creation?"

>                                                              That might have 
>been the reason you never got an answer or else you might not have been listening.
>We always expect a powerful being to speak to us in a booming voice that will
>crack the skies and peel back the earth when in fact, IMHO, God speaks to us in 
>a soft whisper.  It is only when we silence all our other thoughts that we can
>truly hear him.

Again I say: Why? I don't expect thunder & lightning, and a booming
voice. But, if it is god, why doesn't he create in me the unequivocal
knowledge that it is him speaking, and not the cold medicine I took that
morning?

>God loves, Man kills.

Man kills, god (if it exists) created killers.
-Pete
pcrayne@halcyon.com
"I can't think of any clever quotes to put here." -Me
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24918 talk.religion.misc:25111 alt.pagan:14928
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Please Colleen Please!
Date: 11 Jan 93 02:19:11 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Edinburgh University

Quoting iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) in article <12280@hogg.ed.ac.uk>:
>>attribute by dietyhood.
>
>And from Thy inability to spell "deityhood" what shall be attributed?

No, it's "dietyhood".  James is on a diet.
  __                                   _____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley   pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk  \\ //
/\__/ Trust me. I know what I'm doing.  \X/ 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Who knows the mind of God?
Keywords: hypocrites backflip Jesus God Christians Jeff Clark
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 06:36:55 GMT

In article <1ij4uiINNs73@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <ednclark.726466826@kraken>, ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>>
>> So Fundies, Christians or Born Agains (Whatever you want to call yourselves)
>> what is it: do you know your God intimately, or don't you know him at all?
>>
>> Hint: You can't have both and stay out of mental asylums.
>
>Which nicely raise the question: what features distinguish religions
>from lunatic asylums, anyway?
>
>jon.

lunatic asylums can be taxed.

Robert Johnston

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25371 talk.religion.misc:25547
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why? (was Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER)
Date: 8 Jan 93 14:21:22 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

In article <ano.726497533@reading> ano@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk (Adrian Ogden) writes:
>mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>
>>Without free will, we are just robots.  God already has the angels to do
>>His every whim.

Why would God, who can do any whim he wants, use angels to do them?

  God intended much more for us.  We were meant to be His
>>companions for eternity.  Could you live an eternity with someone who
>>didn't want to be with you? 

If God didn't want to be with me "I couldn't be with God if God didn't want
to be with me."  God would chose not to be with me.... I have no say or
choice.  

 He wanted us to choose to live an eternity
>>with Him.  He gives us that choice.  He won't force it upon us.
>
>Giving someone the choice between staying with Him and being burned in
>hell doesn't strike you as trying to force us?

Hell is living without God......It is a hard concept for most fundamentalist
to grasp so they have to create a burning hell........

 If He wanted to know who
>was truly sincere about wanting to be with Him then why not offer a more
>palatable alternative for those who don't actually love Him above all
>other things but would prefer His company to being subjected to horrible
>pain for all eternity?


God point.....

>
>
>
><<  Adrian Ogden -- "Sic Biscuitus Disintegrat" -- ano@csres.cs.rdg.ac.uk  >>


Bil Snodgrass
From: joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Date: 8 Jan 93 00:44:45 GMT
Organization: The Courts of Chaos

In article <VcuVwB3w165w@anarky.tch.org> nightsng@anarky.tch.org (Nightsong) writes:
>> hmmm actually no.  Just personal observation.  Science is devoted to
>> that subject isn't it?  Seeking the true nature of things over the perceived
>> one?  Once people said reality was a flat world that the universe revolved
>> around.  Later we found out reality was something quite different.
>> 
>> this could get quite messy but *I* see it as the root of the issue.  Atheism
>> presents one reality while Christianity (at least for me) presents another.
>
>Well...you seem to be a little two-sided on that --
> First, you talk about one reality.
> Next, you talk about differing realities
>

Correct.  One which *I* perceive as the 'real' reality and the other which
I presume to be a false one (Atheism).

>Although I am not sure what reality is, I am pretty sure that there are 
>at least 3--
> 1. What we see
> 2. What we consciously think
> 3. What we dream (subconscious)
>
>However, none of these may be `real' in the first place, but I will 
>not go into detail on that 
>

For myself, I have experienced all three of your examples to be false at 
times.  Thus my reason for being here.  I'm observing the few convincing
champions of the Atheistic reality here to see if I can relate to their
view.  Most don't seem to be any more convinced than the typical 'weekend
christian' when confronted by the hard reality proposed by the Bible.

>> The way I see it, toss out the philosophical 'perspective' crap then only
>> one is right (or both are wrong).
>
>Well, as I see it, that `philosophical "perspective" crap' you are 
>talking about is the basis of much ofthisdiscussion.
>

True, and most of it pointless and useless for myself.  I'm looking for
ultimate truth, not perceived truth.

-- 
 -|:..Joe.Beiter@arden.linet.org          TCOC: Public Access..:|-
  -|:..........................................................:|-
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God's math accuracy
From: Geoffrey Spear <gspear+@CMU.EDU>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 13:22:23 -0500 
Distribution: world
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

	Or you could just go with the canonical theist response "We don't know
why He doesn't do these things for us, but that's because He is infinite
and we couldn't understand him if we tried, so we won't try".  I just
love it when people think that this is *logical*, too.
-----------------------------------
Geoff Spear
Carnegie Mellon University
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Class of '96 (I hope...)
-----------------------------------
"You're redlining my bogometer!"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc