HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Date: 3 Jan 93 19:59:24 GMT
Organization: The Courts of Chaos

In article <1993Jan02.214802.26663@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>Joe Beiter (joeb@arden.linet.org) wrote:
>: In article <1992Dec31.164029.7377@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mik
>e A. McAngus) writes:
>
>[deletia]
>
>: >OK, how about Mark 9:1.  Or are you saying that there is a 2000 year old per
>son
>: >walking around somewhere?
>:
>:
>: "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before
>: they see the kingdom of God come with power".
>:
>: This could be referring to the Transfiguration or maybe even the day of
>: Pentecost.  The verses prior to it (8:34-38) suggest the Transfiguration.
>:
>
>The trasfiguration!?!?!?  Where were the angels? (Mark 8:38)  How has "the 
>kingdom of God come with power"?

There is nothing to even suggest he is saying the people standing there would
witness the return and judgment (which "comes in his Father's glory with the
holy angels" sounds much more like).
Jesus said they'd see the kingdom of God come with power, which they did when
they witnessed the Transfiguration and when they witnessed his death and 
ressurection.
As far as the Transfiguration is concerned, shoot God was there talking to
people from a cloud and two Prophets that have been dead several centuries
are hanging out.  Sounds like alot of power to me.


-- 
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
|Joe.Beiter@arden.linet.org               The Long Island Network Project   |
|The Courts of Chaos Semi-Public Access   Long Island New York: USA         |
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 02:09:02 GMT

Iikka Paavolainen (iikkap@mits.mdata.fi) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec28.015958.19290@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writ
es:

[snip, but note how I leave Mr. Doe's statement to put your response in 
context]

: >You know what you sound like?  You sound like Christians who say that
: >we allow willful pride or arrogance to blind us to the truth.  That's
: >a very irritating position to take, because it's irrational.  It must
: >be very comforting, for so many people to make that error.
:
: Why do you think it's irrational?

Because ad hominem arguments are not based on facts, they are based on the 
prejudiced beliefs that one group holds about another group.  (Note:  since you
have trouble telling us apart, this is Mike McAngus using the word ad hominem, 
not Stephen Doe).

:
: >
: >SD
:
:
: --
:  __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
: /o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
: \__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
:    `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'

It appears that you would only be able to defeat an unarmed opponent.
-- 
Mike McAngus 			 | As if I needed Another time consuming hobby.
(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)		 | 
The Truth is still the Truth	 | This Post exploits illiterates.
Even if you choose to ignore it. |
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Ok, truce?
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:10:49 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Dec21.051029.12270@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>
>One viewpoint is the "perennial philosophy", i.e. that there is one
>primordial Truth which every religion contains.  The deeper one
>understands each religion, the more one sees the similarities in the
>essences of each religion.
>
>I don't know too much about this philosophy yet, however I plan to
>educate myself about as much as possible about this soon.

I'm familiar with this hypothesis, but consider it weak. I have
yet to see a strong defense of it, and my (admittedly not
exhaustive) education in comparative religion and mythography
have rendered me suspicious of it. In fact, so different are
shamanism, Buddhism, and Christianity (for example), that, in my
opinion it is amazing that a single word, 'religion', is used to 
describe them all.
From: davidk@welch.jhu.edu (David Kitaguchi)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:19:35 GMT
Reply-To: davidk@welch.jhu.edu
Organization: Welch Medical Library

In article 11488@prime.mdata.fi, iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <11026@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec28.112747.22088@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:

<whole buch of stuff deleted>

>If you don't like the whole idea of the discussion, why not say so? Are you
>a Christian who is offended? Do you think I would get angry or lose my temper
>because of this discussion? What would it benefit me if I went about flaming
>people? I don't think you'll get anywhere by flaming me, either, as it won't
>change the topic.

A joke....
Turn the other cheek, thus giving you opponent a clear shot at that one too.

;)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
Subject: Re: A nation chosen by GOD?
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 15:54:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.013750.3020@cnsvax.uwec.edu> nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye) writes:
>What was it in the forwarded article that you thought would be of
>interest to us in alt.atheist?

I thought you might like to respond to various of the claims that
were made, such as the USA being "chosen by GOD", about religion
being opposed to war, etc. My apologies for thinking you might
care. 

-- Brad Pierce --

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: npm@dale.cts.com (Nancy Milligan)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Titan Linkabit Corporation
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 22:05:52 GMT

John Muehlhausen (muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu) wrote:
> 
> What strikes me more than anything is that you have not presented any
> problems associated with Biblical faith.  Rather, the ones you have
> presented are a result of faith which is lacking, and the problems
> would not go away were this faith to be dropped (if it could be).

I can see one problem easily summarized in your preceeding paragraph.
I hear so often, especially from New Ageists, there's nothing wrong
with the belief, it's that "something is holding you back", or
"you don't believe enough".  If you REALLY, REALLY believed your
cancer would be cured, or your marriage would be saved.

What a cop out.  That can only lead to putting more guilt and even
greater burden on the "failed" believer.  Thus increasing  their own
particular brand of mental anguish.  

> For example, hatred of homosexuals is not a Biblical theme.
> Hatred of homosex certainly is, which is not the same thing.  Don't
> go off on some psychological tangent on me here-- THEY ARE NOT THE
> SAME THING, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE.  How do I know?  Because I love
> homosexuals and hate what some of them do.  If I can do it, it can be 
> done.  Jesus certainly had this attitude.

Why don't Christians hate fortune tellers and psycis with the same
ferocity as they do homosexuals.  Or, okay, hate what they do.  
Both are considered taboo, and I don't think one was supposed to be
worse than the other, in the Bible.  But I bet the majority of
a fortune tellers customers are religious, and most likely
Christian.  But Christians don't seem to care much about "psychics".
> 
> _Is_ having the Mind of the Bible Believer damaging to the individual
> or society?  I have yet to see it.

It depends on the Bible Believer.  I've read that fundamentalists
Christians are considerably more likely to be child abusers than
non-churched people.

> Happy Christmas!
> John M.

Happy Mid-Winter celebration!  :)

--
Nancy P. Milligan 				npm@dale.cts.com
Titan Linkabit					cts!dale!npm
		  Gravity is no laughing matter.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j)
Subject: Re: I AM NOT A LONELY MAN WITH FALSE BELIEFS!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 07:45:57 GMT

harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
>And what do you think makes us so superior to animals? Physiologically we
>are indeed animals... Just because the human brain reached some "critical
>mass" and the race attained sentience doesn't automatically make us very
>heavy on the intelligience scale. Quite the opposite is true, as we are
>the only species that's determined to destroy itself and its environment.
>If there is truly intelligient life "Out There", it ought to be scared
>shitless at the prospect of the human race escaping its "Prison Earth".

Well, you may live with dolphins and dogs and cats and pigs....
I'll live with people, thank you!

Peter J Nelson
>-Harry
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 02:12:03 GMT

Iikka Paavolainen (iikkap@mits.mdata.fi) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec28.031457.29295@nmsu.edu> usenet@nmsu.edu writes:
: >I don't know if anyone has been following this thread over the last
: >couple of days, but since Iikka has indicated he hasn't much left to
: >say, I have a few comments of my own to make on this discussion.
:
: [Emotional rantings deleted]

Context is important.  Try including a FEW "Emotional rantings" to support your
statement.  I, honestly, don't remember this post being "emotional".

:
: You are making quite a fool out of yourself, not being able to defend your
: point by yourself, and trying to get notice from others. Yuo are showing
: very strong emotional behaviour, yet you said that you aren't. Look at what
: you wrote and find the point. If you think you can't take it publicly, use
: e-mail.

Another logical, non-emotional, non-inflamatory response brought to you by 
IIkka Paavolainen.
-- 
Mike McAngus 			 | As if I needed Another time consuming hobby.
(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)		 | 
The Truth is still the Truth	 | This Post exploits illiterates.
Even if you choose to ignore it. | 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 20:54:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.135019.7768@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec27.120409.1687@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec27.105721.6061@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>>>First tell me what is unclear.
>>>I suppose you have your own sources, too?
>>
>>Look, all I want is for someone, on EITHER side of the issue, to cite
>>some support more substantial than the "me and my friends" argument.
>>That's all I ask.  Refer me to a paper published in some reputable
>>journal, and I'll be happy.  Give us some relevant numbers from that
>>study on your desk, tell us how it was carried out!  That is something
>>no one participating in this discussion has done yet.  
>
>Tell me, how many people do you know? 300? 400? 500? Are those insignificant
>values?
>
>8 people out of 1000 means that the sample was 1000. How come you find it so
>hard to understand anything? Must everything be served to you on a dish?
>
>You want a journal to refer to? How about Synapsia, Volume 3 Number 1, for
>example?

*You* seem to find the concept that anything more than anecdotal
evidence is necessary to be a hard one to understand.  Why was it so
hard to get you to cite a study?  My word, I've had more intelligent
discussions with *Christians*!

Hey folks, Iikka finally cited a study.  Damn, I wish I had brought my
camera!  :)

SD
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I.Q. & Brains
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:39:13 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

[reply to darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au]
 
>Also, another reason an intelligent person may be "religious" (I do not
>necessarily mean Christian, but religious in a general sense) is because
>s/he is comfortable with, say, a belief in a God, and with a lack of
>evidence for or against such a belief, chooses the belief that is most
>comfortable to him/her.  I personally see no problem with this reason
>for religiosity, as it is simply a personal choice in what one is
>comfortable with in a situation where there is no evidence either for
>or against a particular position.
 
I know some intelligent people give this explanation.  The trouble is
that they won't then admit that they are just "making believe".  The
jump from agnosticism ("no one can know whether or not God exists") to
theism ("I choose therefore to believe God exists") is illogical.  It
requires, as Coleridge put it, "that willing suspension of disbelief",
an abandonment of reason on this issue.  Maybe we should have a new
category for the FAQ called playful theism:  "I choose therefore to
pretend that God exists".  :-)

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
From: eradm@wbst845e.xerox.com (Erik Radmall)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheists & agnostics
Date: 28 Dec 92 21:25:58 GMT
Reply-To: eradm@wbst845e.xerox.com
Organization: Xerox Corporation

In article 16831@cbnewsk.cb.att.com, axeman@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (Samir Chopra) writes:
> >patc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Pat Caldon) writes:
> >> >patc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Pat Caldon) writes:
> >> >> I don't know a great deal about Bhuddism, however, the idea that we will
> >> >> attain Nirvana and be incorporated into a god-like figure is at odds
> >> >> with atheism, as stated "the lack of belief in god or gods."
> 
> I don't think there is anything in Buddhim that says that you will
> be incorporated into a god_like figure. There are *no* Supreme Beings
> in Buddhism. None.   

A wandering aspirant who frequently pestered the Buddha with metaphysical
queries was always met with silence. It was the Buddha's policy _never_ to
engage questions of speculation. His reply was to "see for yourself." Pat
is correct also, however. Some Buddhists concerned with the metaphysical do
speculate _to an extent_. In the Tibetan Book of the Dead, for instance,
in the passing of the "body of propensities" (Buddhism flatly denies the
existence of "soul") through the states of after-death experience, one may,
upon recognizing the purity of one's own consciousness, achieve a total "oneness"
and bliss. However, all of the "gods" described in the TBD are "karmic projections"
and though real enough, have no actual substance of their own -- much like
figures in a dream that seem real. The TBD also clearly states (much to its
credit) that beings will see "whomsoever will benefit them most". All of the
"gods" (vestiges of the animistic Tibetan religion of Bonism and Hinduism) are
specific to a Tibetan Bhuddhist initiate. According to the TBD, you or I
would see figures or images beneficial to our own after death progression.
The implications of this are significant. In sum, it's all in your head, but
it's also real.

> 
> Samir
> -- 
> "You guys are gonna smoke in the other room, the smoke will come drifting in
> here..it'll look like rose stems, but there's tiny nooses hanging from them.."
> Support the Freedom of Choice Act | 11/3/92: Restoration of Democracy Day



---
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: Bible quotes to embarrass Christians
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:28:38 GMT

In article <martin.725791214@marsh> martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:
>
> [...]
>
> So my question is: does anyone have an ordered list of all such 
> "embarrassing" passages in the bible?  It would be an indispensable aid.

Jim Meritt (m23364@mwunix) has compiled a file of odd and generally rather
nasty things about the biblical God (281 lines including header), and Loren
Petrich (lip@s1.gov) has compiled a list of "Biblical Satanic Verses" which
runs to 818 lines including header. Neither maintains the biblical ordering.

I'll mail either or both to anyone who wants them (send e-mail).

> Martin

Cheers

Simon
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Out-of-context quotes from s.r.c #2:
  "Since Scripture clearly reveals the full trustworthiness of God, we must
  believe that God cannot err in his statements. Thus, Scripture cannot err."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
Subject: Keep Christ out of Christmas
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:17:51 GMT

The following is the results of my yearly Christmas card survey.  These
figures represent the total cards received by a medium-sized manufacturing
conglomerate in North Carolina.  These cards came from all over the country:
 
Number of cards: 102
 
100% Secular cards: 84
 
  These are cards with no religious symbols or terminology, barring the
  pagan trees and wreaths.  "Season's Greetings" or "Happy Holidays"
  prevailed, with various messages of friendship and goodwill.
 
Mentioned Christmas: 14
 
  These cards, still otherwise completely secular, mentioned the
  particular holiday by name, usually in the context of Santa Claus.
 
Obviously religious: 4
 
  Of these, only 2 mentioned Jesus or Christ by name.  Others simply
  displayed Christian-specific symbols or scenes (3 wise men)
 
 
Combining this with last year's data:
 
                           1991             1992*
                      --------------------------------
      # cards              112              102
 
      100% secular          95 (84.82%)      84 (82.35%)
 
      "Christmas"           11 ( 9.82%)      14 (13.73%)
 
      Religious              6 ( 5.36%)       4 ( 3.92%)
 
 
  * Personal cards received in 1992 also
    closely match this distribution, with the
    exception of (0) religious cards.
 
What does this mean?  At least, it possibly implies that refraining from
declarations of religious belief is good business courtesy.  I think it is
one more piece of data supporting the notion that our society, overall,
is NOT very religious in practice, despite the fact that most people, when
pressed, will admit to some degree of belief.  The evangelicals constantly
rave about this, so maybe there's something to it after all.  I think its
evidence that the Christmas holiday is becoming, if not already, a basically
secular event, despite the propaganda from the churches.
 
Wayne Aiken                                            "You can BE what
PO Box 30904            slack@ncsu.edu                  you WON'T!!"
Raleigh, NC  27622                                       --"Bob"
(919) 782-8171          StarFleet BBS: (919) 782-3095
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: A word from Mark Twain
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:22:08 GMT

In article <j1moody-221292191021@hesmac13.hesburgh.lab.nd.edu> j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Joe Moody) writes:
>"Anti-Catholicism is the Anti-Semetism of intellectuals."
>
>How true old Twain's words ring now.

This, from Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) the Atheist? From where and in what
context?

JC, no the other one...
-- 
Have you washed your brain today?
--
|      Reporter: "Mr. Gandhi, What do you think of Western Civilization?"    |
|      Mr. Gandhi: "I think it would be a good idea!"                        |
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Date: 3 Jan 93 03:45:12 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan02.125156.24758@jcnpc.cmhnet.org>, mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
|> Jon Livesey (livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com) wrote:
|> : In article <1993Jan01.192802.2370@jcnpc.cmhnet.org>, mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mi
|> ke A. McAngus) writes:
|> : |> Jon Livesey (livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com) wrote:
|> : |> : In article <1992Dec31.020043.25959@arden.linet.org>, joeb@arden.linet.or
|> g (Jo
|> : |> e Beiter) writes:
|> : |> : >
|> : |> : > Hitler had no right to do what he did.  Hitler is not God.
|> : |> :
|> : |> : I'd hate to misunderstand you here.   Is Hitler not
|> : |> : being God the *reason* why he had no right to do what
|> : |> : he did?
|> : |> :
|> : |> : Would God have the right to do what Hitler did?
|> : |> :
|> : |> : jon.
|> : |>
|> : |> Of course god would have the right to do what Hitler did, because god is
|> : |> omnijust and omnibenevolent and therefore if god did it it would be right.
|> :
|> : Of course!    It's all so simple when you look at it the right
|> : way, isn't it?
|> :
|> : So now I'm wondering about people who represent God, or who are
|> : inspired by him.   What do they get the right to do, I wonder.
|> 
|> Why they have the right to bring gods "justice" to the rest of us, silly. (^:
|> (I have to stand on my head to continue this "logic")

So I guess that brings us full circle back to Hitler.  Just what
did Hitler have the right to do, claiming as he did to be carrying
out the Lord's work?

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism