HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fsjdh@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: My own religion
Date: 15 Aug 92 22:23:44 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

I've never posted in this group, but I thought (out of boredom) that I would
state my opinion and get some responses,and hopefully no flames. Now, I find
the arguments of whether or not there is a God to be interesting,but I really
see no point. There will never be a resolution to the age old question. As far
as my own personal beliefs go, I am what you would probably call an agnostic.
Some people may say that that is just a way of chickening out of making a
decicion; but, I can see no way in which I can make a decicion about such a
subject without solid facts in front of me. There is no one logic equation that
will either deny or confirm the existence of a Supreme Being (notice the
capitol letters). There is no computer that can equate the meaning of the
universe (If anyone has read The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galexy, they will
remember a part where a computer was able to finally compute the meaning of
life, and to philosophers were sent to destroy it because it would put them out
of work). And I'm not ready to take a Kierkeggardian (sp?) leap of faith. I
have juggled arguement upon argument with friends, classmates, professors...,
you name it, and I have'nt come up with proof, and neither has anyone else in
this hole we call earth. The whole dialouge actually sickens me because
athiests and theists are simply trying to indoctrinate each other and convert
each other (I will admit that this is not always the case, but hardcore
followers of each belief do have a tendency to be quite persistent in their
relentless arguments).
If people would have never believed in a god, or started major religeons, that
would not have stopped the holy wars, or any other dammage attributed to
religeon. Humans FIND ways to be destructive, and history would have been the
same, only with different names to the destruction. The whole point to my
argument is that I am undecided in this dispute, and will probably be
undecided till the day I die. All I can do is what I think is best for me. For
me, my religeon is living my life to my own potential in a world that seldom
allows that. 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Here is your proof=God Exists?
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14:08:22 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug12.110831.253@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>Here is another version of the argument:
>
>Suppose there exists an infinite number of parallel universes.  If it is
>possible for an all-powerful God to exist, then He (assumed for convenience)
>must exist in at least one of them.  And if He exists in one, then He can
>assure that life capable of knowing Him appears only in that one (since He
>is *all-powerful*).  Since we are capable of knowing Him, He exists in our
>universe. 
>
>And another:
>
>If there is a finite possibility that an all-powerful God could come into
>existence over time, then from the standpoint of eternity such a God must
>necessarily have come into existence before the universe began.  Therefore
>God must now exist.

In this particular form of argument, I always wonder why we don't just
eliminate the middleman and phrase it as:

    Suppose God exists.
    QED.

It's short, to the point, every bit as logical, and considerably less
confusing.

>please send a copy of any replies/followups to:  Jim_Brown@oz.bmd.trw.com
>as I am unable to read this group regularly and I might miss your reply.

OK.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: wilkins@scubed.com (Darin Wilkins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: For all you believers
Date: 13 Aug 92 02:55:59 GMT
Organization: S-CUBED, A Division of Maxwell Labs; San Diego CA

In article <1992Aug11.171843.16382@ccs.QueensU.CA>
3005904@jeff-lab.queensu.ca (Colleen Davis) writes:

>OK, here it is.
>You've been wrong all along.
>There is no YHWH, Allah, whatever.
>*I'M* GOD!

>Yes, you heard right, I'm God.
>The Supreme Being.
>The Divine Creator.

>Now, if there's anyone who'd like to try to prove me wrong....

>colleen

Sorry Colleen, but you are quite wrong.

It is a well-known fact that Beethoven is God.
And I am His prophet.

As punishment for your heretical assertions above, I (acting on behalf
of His Holiness, Ludwig) sentence you to be placed in a sealed room
for 24 hours, with your hands tied behind your back so you cannot
cover your ears, while Pachelbel's Canon is played constantly at
100 db volume level.

THAT will teach you to trifle with Beethoven's divinity!

darin
wilkins@scubed.scubed.com
-------
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.
But that's the way to bet.
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Objectivity
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:10:50 GMT
Organization: University of South Australia

In article <10176@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine) writes:
> In article <sNBNPB4w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>>bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine) writes:
>>> In article <l8frfdINN3vg@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM| danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Da
>>> |And this argument taken to its logical conclusion would
>>> |seem to suggest that the word "objective" is useless.
>>> |Right?
>>> 
>>>   Not at all.  Take a large rock, say 20 pounds.  Hold it directly
>>>   over your foot.  Now drop it.  You *will* hit your foot.  In any
>>>   culture, at any time, under any circumstances.
>>
>>Hmm.  What about in 2090, in a culture which lives in a space station in
>>geostationary orbit under zero gravity?
>>
>>What about in a Virtuality virtual reality system?

Virtual reality systems are artificial, positively know to have been
created by (effectively, that is) gods - us. Hence we make the rules and
gravity will exist here if we make it so.
Don't get carried away with yourself here. Nice argument, till that.


>>
>>
> 
>   OK, you got me there.  I still maintain, however, that an
>   experiment can be conducted under an appropriate set of guidelines
>   to objectively verify gravity.  The same cannot be said for
>   religious experience.
> 
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 
> 
> Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

J McVey
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: tilo@bernina.ethz.ch (Tilo Levante)
Subject: Re: The "civilized" west
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 07:37:36 GMT

RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com writes:

>[Followups set to alt.atheism - Tony]

>In response to Ken Arromdee's statement that in the US Communist Party
>is legal, etc.:
>Recently, some of my friends had to go through the US Immigration and
>Naturalization Service (INS) for immigration to the US. They had
>to state that they were not members of the Communist Party
>and that they never were affiliated (of course, they were not, in any
>case). These questions are in the Immigration form (anyone
>can check about this). During the interview process, the
>Immigration officer again asked the same question. The
>lawyer handling the case later explained that INS can deny
>anyone having any ties with communism.

The same questions are in the application for visas (even tourist visas)
for the US. (Now Germans need no tourist visa, since 2 years)

Tilo Levante
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: "Denial" [sic]
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:12:38 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug9.074657.10120@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
>From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
>Subject: Re: "Denial" [sic]
>Date: 9 Aug 92 07:46:57 GMT

>>That's where your confusion is. Denial doesn't apply.
>>Atheist do not deny the existance of the gods; we
>>affirm the non-existance of gods. Since god does not
>>exist, it, god, cannot be denied.  [David Rice]

>You are in error.  "Deny" does not mean "to refuse the truth".  "Deny"
>(when used in "deny the existence of god") means "to declare untrue". 
>Thank heavens for the Concise OED.  The unabridged OED, by the way,
>explicitly uses "deny" in it's definition of atheist.  Your claim that
>this is unacceptable is rather suspect.

>-Joe, an atheist who denies the existence of gods.

Whew! I was beginning to wonder whether 'existance' was the correct 
spelling of 'existence'. Thanx people. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        Abstract Arts BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ccx018@cch.coventry.ac.uk (Leslie Griffiths (Griff))
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
Date: 19 Aug 92 10:21:39 GMT
Organization: Coventry University

In article <1992Aug18.085646.29475@bradford.ac.uk> L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham) writes:
>In article <92230.133733RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com writes:
>
>>Here are some of the passages from the Qur'an which Leonard Newnham wanted
>>to be cited as a proof of existence of scientific facts in the Qur'an:
>>        Wa huallazi khalaqal
>>lay'la wan-nahara
>>wash-shamsa wal qamara
>>kullun fee falakee'n yasbahoon. (Qur'an, 21:33)
>>
>>Meaning:
>>And it is He (God) who created
>>the night and the day
>>and the sun and the moon
>>all celestial bodies swim along, each in its rounded courses.
>>
>It seems obvious to me that anyone watching the sun, moon or stars
>would see them as moving in "rounded courses".  They are certainly not
>moving in straight lines.  No surprises here.

And, of course, the orbits are elliptical anyway. Some (such as that of Pluto)
with a high degree of eccentricity. And don't forget the translation of the 
passage refers to 'all celestial bodies'. Some bodies move in hyperbolic
oribts - certainly not 'rounded'. Some binary systems move in orbits around
each other that are far from 'rounded'

>>3. Creation of living beings from water:
>>Wa ja'al'na menal maa'e
>>kulla shaiyeen haiyeen
>>a'fala yoomenoon. (Qur'an)
>>
>>Meaning:
>>And we made (created) from water
>>every living thing.
>>Will they then not believe?
>>
>
>So here we have Darwin's theory of evolution?  Again it's a bit
>vague.

And anyway, you have to take it as a metaphor, otherwise it seems to say that
literally creatures were 'made from water', not evolved from an aquatic
environment.

>Leonard               e-mail:  L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk

Cheers


-- 
Griff				\\         	ccx018@uk.ac.cov
^^^^^		       		 :-=       	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
		        	//
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Best Bible translation?
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 01:03:35 GMT

In article <BsvKur.5yG@acsu.buffalo.edu> v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
>For example, when confronting my parents recently, my mother claimed that 
>"Thou shalt not kill" was actually "Thou shalt do no murder" (as if that makes
>a large difference).  Is there a translation that is sensitive to subtle 
>nuances like this?

	Sounds like an excessively literal translation :-)

	The best modern-English version I've seen is:

	Do not commit murder.

	But that depends on what counts as "murder".

	If it is any killing of a human being that is not supposed to
be done, then the command is a tautology: "Do not perform the killing
of a human being that is not supposed to be done".

	While we're on the subject of Bible translations, my
preference is for any straightforward modern-English version with a
minimum of King-Jamesisms. I would prefer one that is as literal as
possible without sounding like it was done by someone for whom English
was a recent acquisition.
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Religious feeling
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:09:13 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <27936.9208121111@uk.co.lucasauto.eg.lucifer> mikeb@eg.lucasauto.co.uk (Mike Brady) writes:

>In article <l8fs04INN404@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> Dano writes:

>>differently, but since you asked, I would say that a religious
>>feeling is one where a person is gripped by or experiences a
>>personal reaction to something of ultimate concern. And no,

>IMHO religious feeling is the gelling of the different aspects
>of a person in a set of ideas or understanding.  For example,
>personal life experiences and intellectual understanding
>suddenly gell in a moment of profundity when something is
>realised.

>the something that is realised does not have to be true
 ^^^^^approx - i deleted by accident

Reminds me of the time many years ago when I suddenly realised that 1=0 at a 
metaphysical level, and the other time when I discovered Tubular Bells 
isn't actually all that good.  One of those is true!  I don't take LSD 
anymore.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  I've just been drinking Guinness, so can't think of a decent .sig  |
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44)061-275-6033  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 20:34:55 GMT

davec@csufres.CSUFresno.EDU (David C. Choweller) writes:

>In article <1992Aug12.151711.21180@csrd.uiuc.edu> Greg Skinner write:
>>merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>>
>>>jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>>>>    ...Christianity doesn't teach
>>>>    war but peace (no Crusades).  It doesn't teach conformity
>>>>    but freedom to choose (no Inquisitions).
>>
>>>C'mon, it prescribes the death penalty for many things I don't
>>>consider crimes, like homosexual acts.  Where's the peace & freedom
>>>here?  Or do you ignore that part of the bible?
>>
>>In a private exchange, I asked Mr. LeRoy to support for this claim
>>(that Christianity prescribes the death penalty for homosexual acts).
>>He gave me Leviticus.  I countered with Paul ("no longer under the
>>law, but under grace") and pointed out that for Christianity the new
>>covenant has replaced the old of which Leviticus is a part.

>Do you agree, Greg[g], that the God that you believe in, at one time
>prescribed the death penalty for homosexual acts?

Yes.

>  Regardless of
>whether the law was changed later, many people were put to death
>because of what your God laid down as the law.  Would you agree
>with this statement?

I can agree up to the comma.  After that I can neither agree nor
disagree, because I am ignorant of the appropriate history.

>  I know that this is off the main point, but
>I'm curious.  I want to understand liberal Christianity, and how
>it can be justified in the face of the barbarity described in the
>bible.  Mostly I want to understand how liberal Christians can believe
>in a God who laid down a harsh, barbaric law--as a result of which
>many people were murdered--and then turn around and say that the
>actions for which those people were killed are no longer punishable.

I don't know the definition of a liberal Christian, so I can't tell
you if I am one.  I like your tone, and I will gladly answer any
questions you have.  Questions concerning the transition from the old
covenant to the new one are difficult for me to answer in a few
sentences.  Before I can say anything, I need to know what you mean
by punishable.  Do you mean by the state or by the church?
--
Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.
From: lbarrass@phillip.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Words feminists find Demeaning!
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:22:00 GMT
Organization: RMIT (Bundoora Campus)


  Is it not true (and I know I will be corrected if wrong!!) that in Saudi
Arabia (or neighbouring country) that women are not allowed to drive???



-- 
                                               []
                                            [][][][]
                                               []
                                               []
                                               []   2Chron 7:14
================================================================================
lbarrass@phillip.edu.au                     Lindsay     
================================================================================
From: D_NIBBY@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Dana   Nibby)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: atheist literature in Boston?
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:46:17 GMT


 Does anyone know of a good source of atheist literature, such as
the biblical contradictions book put out by the Am. Atheist Press,
in Boston? Anything in Harvard Square? I'd also like to pick-up
a Darwin fish bumper sticker for my car. Please respond
by e-mail, D_NIBBY@UNHH.UNH.EDU, as I won't be checking the newsgroup
for awhile. Thanks.

    Pax,

     Dana
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Not killing as a moral absolute (was Re: Best Bible translation?
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:14:55 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Aug13.161221.5779@leland.Stanford.EDU> yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:
>In article <9ZuFPB1w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>|> 
>|> Murder is just killing that the state has made illegal.
>
>So, you are asserting that killing in self-defense and hacking
>a few people up with a chain saw are (nearly) morally equivalent.

I thought he was asserting that killing in self-defense and
hacking a few people up with a chain saw are *legally*
equivalent unless the law says they aren't.
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Not killing as a moral absolute (was Re: Best Bible translation?
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:12:25 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Aug13.161221.5779@leland.Stanford.EDU> yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:
>In article <9ZuFPB1w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>|> yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:
>
>[Re: "Thou shall not kill" vs. an alternative "Thou shalt do no murder."]
>
>|> > Since this "commandment" gets brought up often (in this group) as being 
>|> > an obvious (or unquestionable) moral absolute, I thought I'd thrown in 
>|> > my $0.02.  I think the "do no murder" is better way to state it.  And, 
>|> > yes, there is a large difference, but even that form has its faults.
>|> 
>|> Large difference?  Pthphthth.
>|> 
>|> Murder is just killing that the state has made illegal.
>
>So, you are asserting that killing in self-defense and hacking
>a few people up with a chain saw are (nearly) morally equivalent.
>
>|> mathew
>
>-- 
>Dan Yergeau                         He's dead Jim.  Take his phaser
>yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU        and I'll get his wallet.
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Hell
Date: 18 Aug 92 06:18:33 GMT
Organization: University of South Australia

This assumes that gaining the world
causes one to lose the eternal soul.

Ain't nuffin wrong with capitalism, mate.
writes:
> 
> 	"What profits a man if he gains the whole world, and
> 	 yet loses his eternal soul"  -- Jesus Christ
> 
> dennis
> kriz@skat.usc.edu
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:24:38 GMT
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development

(Thanks to Mr. Graham for providing me with a copy of his article when
it did not show up at my site.)

He wrote:

>In article <1992Aug13.181452.17042@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>>>... I mainly agree with Mr. LeRoy.  Leviticus does
>>>prescribe the death penalty for homosexuality.  And Jesus said something
>>>about not changing one jot nor tittle of the Law, and that he came
>>>not to change the Law, but to uphold it.  And Christians claim that they
>>>follow the teachings of Jesus.  Therefore, Christianity prescribes the
>>>death penalty for homosexuality.  What's wrong with my logic?
>>
>>(In every translation I have seen, the word is "fulfill," not
>>"uphold.")

>You could be right.  I was speaking from memory.  I'm not sure I
>know what it means to fulfill a law though.  Do you?  Anway, the
>jot and tittle stuff still stands doesn't it?

Christianity holds that Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the Law
with his death.  The Law is still there, but the penalties have been
paid.  Under the new covenant of grace, the only use for the law is as
some indication of what God likes or doesn't like.  This is for those
who are interested having a relationship with God.

>>Your logic is fine.  I got nothing so clear from Mr. LeRoy.  He
>>himself would have a problem with the last part because it relies on a
>>step from "Christians...." to "Therefore, Christianity...."

>Well, I'm at quite a loss as to what to use for a definitive description
>of Christianity.

Without a definition of Christianity, does Mr. LeRoy's assertion have
any meaning?  Perhaps what he really means is "Religion X (which has
no adherents) prescribes the death penalty for homosexual acts."  But
this is not a very useful statement, especially when Mr. Brown was not
talking about religion X when he used the word "Christianity."

>>Your logic is clear and we can continue if you like.  I begin by
>>stating that Christianity includes most or all of the teachings of
>>Paul, one of its founders.  Do we agree?

>I dunno.  What do we do when the teachings of Paul contradict those
>of Jesus?

We'd have to work out any contradictions, giving precedence to Jesus
in the final analysis.

>>If so, I note that we have words from Paul to the effect "you are no
>>longer under the law, but under grace."

>But this directly contradicts the jot and tittle stuff spoken by
>Jesus.  Why should Paul, a mere mortal, be able to override Jesus,
>who was God?  

(Correction: Son of God.)  Christianty holds that he does not override
Jesus.  Jesus said that he would not change the law ("jot and tittle,"
as you say).  Paul says the penalties have been paid.  The law remains
unchanged.  The question is, Does Christianity still prescribe the
penalties associated with the law?  Because Christianity holds that
all penalties have been paid, I think the answer is "No."
--
Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Survey..the tables turned !
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:10:42 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug19.064601.16125@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
> 
> 	
> 
> 	When you are dead, where do you tend to stay ?
Motel 6
> 
> 
> 	If you where to die today, would you go to Cleveland, or 
> Toledo ? (and why ?)
Neither.  I'd go to the beach because the weather is perfect
and the tanning index is 10.  I figure that if I'm already
dead I don't have to worry about skin cancer, and I may as
well look better (I already look good).
> 
> 	And when you got there, would you figure out that since you
> where still thinking and such, would you realize you where alive ?
Uh, I don't know.  Could you ask me something easier?
> 
> 	What would god say if you asked him, "Why should I WANT to 
> go into your heaven ?". What would he say ? 
He'd probably ask me where I got my shoes.  I have some nice shoes.
 
> 	<please send E-mail with your reply to the last question>
No.