HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ikonen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Ian Konen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Pascal's wager
Date: 15 Nov 92 03:05:47 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA

[ Quoting trimmed - moderator ]

In <STUCKI.92Nov13110455@retina.cis.ohio-state.edu> stucki@retina.cis.ohio-state.edu (David J Stucki) writes:
>(1) Christians don't "go to heaven". I challenge you to find a
>scriptural reference in which human beings are going to inhabit
>heaven. Heaven is the throne of God, not a place in which people
>exist. According to the book of Revelation, there will be a new heaven
>and a new earth. It is the new earth that will be inhabited by God's
>people.

Apologies for my ignorance of your religion, but I know I have heard
Christians tell me that accepting Jesus as savior will send you to heaven when
you die.  What about Hell?  I assume that it's not in the old testament, since
Judaism makes no reference to it.  Anyway, as long any religion has its
followers destined for a better eternal fate than its non-followers,it is
statistically advantageous by Pascal's wager.

>(2) Being a Christian does not involve a sacrifice of freedom. Rather, it
>provides access to complete freedom. It is the non-Christians who don't
>enjoy freedom.

Oh, give me a break.  How could you possibly think being a Christian gives you
more freedom?  You are limited by outdated morals that shouldn't have any
place in today's society.  Admitedly, some of "God's" morals are morals that I
too follow, but I have no problems with pre-marital promiscuity,
homosexuality, and obviously, blasphemy.  I enjoy being able to say "Fuck a
duck" when I'm pissed off.  I suppose you're going to tell me that those are 
merely physical freedoms, and they can't add up to the spiritual freedom you
have being a Christian.  Hogwash.  "The Lord is my shepherd." right?  I don't
know about Christians, but I'm no sheep.  You are not free to question God's
judgements, or to explore other moral bases.  I am.  You are oppressed by your
religion.  Please explain how you have more freedom by being a Christian.

>(3) 90% of belief (or faith) is wanting to believe (or have faith).
>Pascal's wager is a starting point for many people that develops over
>time into a more mature faith.

I dunno, I don't buy into "ignorance is bliss."  People who have been atheists
for a reasonably long time (8 years in my case) have already heard all the
arguments for Christianity by people trying to convert them.  Pascal's wager
doesn't make any of those arguments more reasonable.  I have to think the only
way that Pasca's wager would convert an atheist is if he willingly had himself
hypnotized, or took mind-altering drugs to make himself believe.  Als, as I
have said before, there is still no indication by Pascal's wager of which
religion one should hypnotize oneself into.  If someone says "I want to
believe in God." and goes out of his way to have someone change his mind, how
can he be sure the person converting him will be of the right religion?  God's
not going to do it.


>dave...

							Ian Konen
From: amd@mail.ast.cam.ac.uk (Andrew Dunn)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: No Sex in Heaven -- It's Official (was Re: P
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:51:58 GMT
Reply-To: amd@mail.ast.cam.ac.uk
Organization: Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge

In article k550TB5w165w@mantis.co.uk, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> () writes:
>stucki@retina.cis.ohio-state.edu (David J Stucki) writes:
>> (1) Christians don't "go to heaven". I challenge you to find a
>> scriptural reference in which human beings are going to inhabit
>> heaven. Heaven is the throne of God, not a place in which people
>> exist. According to the book of Revelation, there will be a new heaven
>> and a new earth. It is the new earth that will be inhabited by God's
>> people.
>
>How does this tally with the Pope's recent comments, then?
>
>For those who missed the news, the Pope has announced that there will be no
>sex in heaven.  So if you decide to become a Christian, your eternal life
>will be an eternal life of enforced celibacy.
>
Sounds like it tallies reasonably well. If the Pope also maintains that
'Heaven is the throne of God' which only God inhabits, then I guess that
many people would be surprised if there *was* sex in heaven.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jackson@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Bruce Jackson)
Subject: Re: Darwin on Trial
Keywords: darwin evolution fundamentalist false
Organization: University of North Texas, Denton
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:35:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.062603.7927@news.uiowa.edu> cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu (Corey D Minter) writes:

>    He says at one point, "... Professor William Provine, a leading historian
>of science.  Provine insists that the conflict between science and religion
>is inescapable, to the extent tha persons who manage to retain religious
>beliefs while accepting evolutionary biology 'have to check [their] brains at
>the church-house door.' "  (p.124)
>    Now, I would agree with the Proffessor that to understand evolutionary
>biology means that you need to dismiss the supernatural entity business.  I
>don't think they can coexist.  What do you say?

The principal of dualism can be called on to avoid this type of conflict.
One type of dualism states that there can be religious "truths" and
scientific "truths" and that they do not have to be reconciled.

Science can be thought of as that which is expedient and useful.  A
scientific theory or law is simply the best way of explaining observed
phenomena.  Science never claims to represent truth since nothing is
above question.  Most religions, on the other hand, deal with matters
of faith that are unshakable by observed phenomena.  Most religions
declare themselves the actual definition of truth.

So we can have a Biblical literalist who is also a Biologist who
adheres to the theory of evolution.  (S)he can believe that the world
was created in six days several thousand years ago yet still use the
theory of evolution to explain all of the apperantly old fossils that
are dug up.  

I'd refer you to a book on dualism but all of the books I've read
have only mentioned dualism in passing.  Since I've never been that
interested in dualism I havn't investigated it further.

Regards,

Bruce  -  jackson@cs.unt.edu


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:39:12 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

>In article <1992Nov18.173637.23791@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
>(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
>> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes: 
>> >In article <1992Nov16.174430.2817@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>> >On the other hand, you can't prove that I'm not Jehovah.

>> 	If you were Jehovah, then you needn't use computer to tell me 
>> 	that. 

>I'm curious -- what's the secret handshake? Or do you
>somehow meet spiritually somewhere in an inner plane? Curious
>minds want to know...

	Actually the Bible warns to believe to "inspirations" - Jehovah has 
	said everything he wants to say in the Bible, no extra inspiration is
	needed. If He has something to tell to me, He can guide me to find  
	available information for that. There can be Bible passages that I 
	have read before ( I have read the Bible through twice ), but I don't
	remember (99.9 % of them), He can make me remember a passage that I 
	currently need, or in most cases, I remember the passage, but don't 
	understand it's application. Suddenly, just in the right time I 
	just realize the meaning of it. 

	There's nothing peculiar with that.

				Andreas

(...in my religion)

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject:      Holidays And Saints
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 15:20:36 MEZ
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA06908; Sun, 22 Nov 92 06:33:46 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA07048; Sun, 22 Nov 92 06:33:41 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0042; Sun, 22 Nov 92 15:33:10 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

Keith Allan Schneider types:

> Anyway,
>the solstice holiday has a long tradition of non-Christianity.  The
>Christians themselves adopted the holiday, presumable using the
>"if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" strategy.

There is a highly interesting 'paper' by pope gregor i who said that exactly.
It says something like the church should attempt to fit existing gods into
christian belief as well as possible. Same for holidays. Many if not all of
them are older than christianity itself. It is especially obvious for the
winter solstice which has not even got a biblical pointer to it.

The veneration of mary in the catholic church is a christianized version
of the Magna Mater cult. I think I can dig out what became out of some
other gods.
   Benedikt
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: patc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Pat Caldon)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:11:17 GMT

In article <2m0iuB6w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:

>When a few kids tried taunting me by claiming I was gay, I smiled and blew
>kisses at them.  They didn't know how to respond to that.

Evetually they will respond with gas and pink triangles. Be careful.

enjoy,
Pat.


-- 
Pat Caldon.            |  The Mercy Seat is Burning, And I think my Head is 
patc@extro.ucc.su.oz.au| turning, and deep indide I'm longing to be done with
3:714/908.5@fidonet.   | all this weighing up of truth...  -- Nick Cave
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Circumcision (was Re: God Is Unfair)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 20:40:29 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

In article <1992Nov20.000300.2736@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov19.221401.27880@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
|> >Americans have far more "barbaric" practices:  in
|> >our community (Connecticut) it is almost universal
|> >for teenage and pre-teen girls and occasionally
|> >boys to have holes punched through their earlobes
|> >and metallic studs and rings forced through them.
|> >I would say almost 90% of the girls in my daughter's
|> >school class are "victims" of this form of mutilation.

|> I think you're massively overstating the case. I've had my ear pierced
|> and it didn't hurt at all. Do you really mean to maintain that having
|> one's foreskin removed doesn't hurt?
|> -Ekr

No.  I'm maintaining that having one's ears pierced does.
And for the first several months thereafter, replacing
the studs hurts.

While circumcision hurts, so does having silver nitrate
drops in the eyes, and various immunizations, and other
things which are medically necessary and which are routinely
done to infants.  The circumcision doesn't stand out
any more than these other traumas.

-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Chief Justice God (WAS: God unfair)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 02:42:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.231315.27514@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>I find the discussion about whether the biblical God is an unjust sadistic
>killer rather silly.

Then I would say that you're missing the point.

>Judging a 3000 year old text by today's standards just
>doesn't make any sense.

It would certainly be pointless if there weren't large numbers of
people living in the present who use this text as a guide in conducting
their lives.

>The only view that is really challenged by that
>argument is the fundamentalist, but that's a lost case anyway.

Nonsense.  You'll be hard pressed to find one Xian or Jew who will
admit that this God is not a paragon of virtue.  And that skews
their whole idea of morality.

>I think this
>kind of argument is not even consistent with the way of thinking that ought
>to be associated with atheism, i.e. sceptical, rational and with a sense of
>history.

Perhaps you could be a little more precise.  How does pointing out
that Yahweh was a tyrant violate any of your requirements for how
atheists ought to think?  What would be the proper approach to dealing
with the Bible?
--
Should the human race not be extinguished by a nuclear war, it will degenerate
into a flock of stupid, dumb creatures under the tyranny of dictators who rule
them with the help of machines and electronic computers.  This is no prophecy,
just a nightmare.  -- Max Born.   **** dgraham@bnr.ca    My own opinions. ****
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: timf@microsoft.com (Tim Fleehart)
Subject: Re: God Vs. Communication
Date: 23 Nov 92 01:17:01 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation



What I want to know is:  Why is it ok when Abraham said "god told me to kill
my son", and when some modern soul says so it's murder?
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: READ THIS
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 10:19:21 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
> Lack of religious belief.  I say "religious belief" rather than
> "belief in god(s)", because not all religions are based on recognising
> deities (the most striking example seems to be Buddhism, which is not
> dependent on the existence of any sentient beings other than people;
> but it still makes a number of fundamental claims about objectively
> unexplorable domains).

You seem to be equating atheism with science here.  Is that really what you
mean?

> atheist).  That being said, I consider the claims of Theravada
> Buddhism more plausible than those of Mahayana Buddhism or Vedic
> Hinduism, which are more plausible than those of Devotional Hinduism,
> and so on, with Christianity possibly coming last.

Surely Scientology deserves that distinction?


mathew
-- 
Kraftwerk Robert Fripp Negativland Harold Budd LaTOUR Ultravox! Brian Eno Sigue
Sigue Sputnik TELEX Dead Kennedys Steve Fisk Startled Insects Peter Gabriel Art
of Noise LARD Cabaret Voltaire DEVO Durutti Column Ministry Holger Hiller Yello
Fortran 5 Wir Andrew Poppy Nine Inch Nails I Start Counting John Foxx Fischer-Z

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21472 talk.religion.misc:21344
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:15:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.162540.24184@news.cs.brandeis.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>
>Yes, God's existence/non-existence are assumptions rather than conclusions.
>That's a very important distinction and if nothing else comes from this
>discussion, we will have that.  But to further assume that a hypothetical
>god would have no physical consquences on the observable universe is a
>totally unnecessary assumption; one can do science exactly as it has been
>done without making that assumption.  The best way I can demonstrate this
>is by repeating the divine creation vs. Big Bang arguement I mentioned.

How about observable consequences on the physical universe?
Is this a possibility?

In your example (which was deleted) there is no difference to the 
observer which event actually has taken place.  Therefore, there is no
information gained by assuming that God was the cause of the Big Bang.
It is unnecessary.

Answer this if you can:

What would be the difference between the universe we live in and a universe
without God?  How would we know the difference?

Jim CopelanD
-- 

What we really need to do to bring peace to the middle-east
is to get the Jews together with the Muslims
and teach them to act like good Christians.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Nowhere else to go
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:56:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.225130.549@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dbent@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Darrell A Bent) writes:
>
>     I have tried going to quite a few other religious newsgroups to discuss my
>beliefs, but my views don't seem to fall under any of those categories.  As 
>such, I thought that this group might be the only place where I can find 
>tolerance for my beliefs, and perhaps people who have the same beliefs system 
>that I do.  I believe that there is a God, and that God is a rubber band.  I 
>believe that God shoots spitwads and paper clips at his buddies.

I believe this is a schismatic branch of the
Invisible Pink Unicorn cult.

Some questions to ponder:
(1)  Can God make a spitwad so large that he cannot shoot it?
(2)  Is God imminent in the rubber band?

Come back in 2000 years with your answers.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Atheist "philosophy"
Organization: University of Joensuu
Distribution: world, public
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:01:50 GMT

mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:


	True, environmental questions are not simple. But, mining uranium is 
	dangerous, too and protecting nuclear waste on bedrock for millions of
	years almost impossible. Badly built nuclear power-stations are a 
	considerable risk: I have seen two serious nuclear spills near my 
	city: Chernobyl and Sosnovyj Bor, not to mention the smaller ones ....

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheist "philosophy"
Date: 22 Nov 1992 11:15:37 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: world, public
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:

>[lots of crap on enviornmentalism]

[lots more...]

I seem to have missed what this had to do with atheism.

keith

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject:      Does Science Require Faith?
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 15:41:56 MEZ
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA28742; Sun, 15 Nov 92 06:47:15 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA16208; Sun, 15 Nov 92 06:47:09 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)   with BSMTP id 0176; Sun, 15 Nov 92 15:46:34 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet


Scott Aaron typed:

>>No, there are no other words, science does not require faith.

>How can you do science if you don't believe in it?  You're getting bent out of
>shape because I state the obvious.  Why does it bother you for me to say that
you believe in science?  It is truly perplexing.  It's like getting
>upset because I call you a college graduate.
One can easily do science by using the scientific method. Accepting the
results depends on your belief in the basic assumptions behind it.

>>You attempt to
>obfuscate and confuse by claiming that science and religion are on equal
>>footing because they both require "faith."

>Have you actually read my posts?  Apparantly not because my whole point was
>to say the exact opposite.  Science and religion are on seperate playing
>fields and can therefore not be compared.  If they were on the same footing,
>we could compare the two and draw the conclusions you have drawn.

I understand that your assertion that science and religion are on separate
playing fields is implied by that you think that they require faith. It
appears however that they both deal with reality and that religion only
places greater emphasis on 'supernatural' events. It still makes a pathetical
attempt at describing and explaining them.

Most users of the scientific method think that it works even when you don't
believe in it. Events that are one off and cannot be defined are indeed not
the domain of science. But when they are that way they also contain no useful
information besides that they might happen. Yet, observation implies that they
happen rarely, if at all.

Science is a tool for gaining and using information. Saying that it is a mirror
image of reality is a belief, and a very reasonable one, IMO.
   Benedikt
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: FAQ FILE REMINDER  (Have an FAQ.  Take two, they're small.)
Keywords: FAQ
Date: 15 Nov 92 12:28:20 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

[ This is a canned posting ]

This is a reminder about the alt.atheism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
file.

The file exists to help new readers avoid embarrassing themselves by asking
questions which have been covered over and over again.  Please read it before
posting.

If you haven't already done so, reading the posts on news.announce.newsusers
titled "A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community", "Answers to
Frequently Asked Questions about Usenet" and "Hints on writing style for
Usenet" would be a good idea.

To find a copy of the alt.atheism FAQ file:

1. Check the newsgroup alt.atheism.  There should be a copy of the latest
   version of the FAQ file.  Look for the subject line "Alt.Atheism
   Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)".

2. Check the newsgroup news.answers for the same subject line.

   If you don't find anything in steps 1 or 2, your news system isn't set up
   correctly, and you may wish to tell your system administrator about the
   problem.

3. If you have anonymous FTP access, connect to rtfm.mit.edu [18.172.1.27].
   Go to the directory /pub/usenet/alt.atheism, and you'll find the latest
   version of the FAQ file there.

   FTP is a a way of copying files between networked computers.  If you
   need help in using or getting started with FTP, send e-mail to
   mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with
      send usenet/news.answers/ftp-list/faq
   in the body.

4. If you don't have FTP, send mail to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu
   consisting of the following line:

      send usenet/news.answers/finding-sources
      send usenet/alt.atheism/Alt.Atheism_Frequently_Asked_Questions_(FAQ)

5. (Penultimate resort)  Send mail to info-server@mantis.co.uk consisting of
   the following line:

      send atheism/atheism.txt

   and our poor overworked modems will try and send you a copy.  There's
   other stuff, too; interesting commands to try are "help" and
   "send atheism/index".


mathew
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Read the FAQ
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 15 Nov 92 20:51:49 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <9211130835.AA26048@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com>, I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
> James Marcus typed:
> 
>>Also, the name of Jesus is recorded in other Christian and Non-christian
>>texts.  There is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that the name of Jesus is correct, and
>>that He lived on earth.
> 
> You are mistaken. The name that is given is more like Yeshua - not Jesus.
> And the prophecy said that the name of the messiah would be Immanuel.

   Yeshua is Hebrew for Jesus.  There is no "J" sound in Hebrew
(or many other languages for that matter).  Similarly, Joshua is
Yeheshua in Hebrew.

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21343 alt.drugs:18443