HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: evidence for christianity
Date: 14 Aug 92 11:39:07 GMT
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney

John Daly writes:
>The text of the Bible is generally given historical credibility because so
>much of its content can be verified archaeologically.  The successions of
>rulers, the locations of cities and battles, descriptions of the lifestyles
>and customs of the people are confirmed by the archaeological record.
>
>Enough of the Biblical record can be confirmed by archaeological evidence
>that before we can discard the Bible we will have to discard a lot of other
>commonly accepted historical facts, like the Gallic Wars, first.

Even if we conceed the historical veracity of the bible I fail to see how
that helps your case. The point in question surely is the interpretation of
these facts (ie. that god exists, did all this stuff, etc). The historical
veracity of the facts of the bible does not add weight to any interpretations.

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
From: James Meritt <m23364@mwunix>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Documentary evidence for Jesus' existence
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:48:53 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <Bsvu1t.DyG@wpi.WPI.EDU> John Dunkelberg <johndunk@wpi.wpi.edu> writes:
}In article <1992Aug10.144816.5174@linus.mitre.org> James Meritt <m23364@mwunix> writes:
}>In article <sbuckley.713158477@sfu.ca> Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca> writes:
}>}  jesus said one thing in the bible that is more profound than anything
}>}anyone has ever said before, contemporary to him or not.  he said he is
}>}the son of god
}>
}>Since you claim it exists, please provide this.
}>Note:  A specific, direct quote.  Not an acknowledgement of what someone else
}>said, nor a claim or a claim.
}
}Okay, just for the record:   From the online King James:

Tsk tsk.  You think JESUS wrote the King James?  Fascinating.
For someone who was claimed to be so important AND literate (or so the claims
for these are made in the NT), there seems to be a real shortage of anything
He wrote.  Now, you have a translation of a synthesis of a copy ... of a claim.
NOTE that I specifically requested that it not be a claim of a claim.
From: Darren Paul Watchers <u8902001@cs.uow.edu.au>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Date: 10 Aug 92 10:07:37 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia

Ben Hekster <heksterb@cs.utwente.nl> writes:
>	That is not being closed-minded, it is being rational.

>	How many theists do you know who will agree to convert to atheism
>when they are confronted with all the lies and inconsistencies of their
>religions?  No, they'd rather sweep such little `details' under the
>rug and pray for more `strength' in their faith.

That is what I used to do! I would have my doubts and when I couldn't
come up with any good reason I would pray for faith. After a while
my faith dried up completely and I left the religion.

>	That is not being open-minded, it is being irrational.


Darren.
-- 
			Darren Watchers u8902001@cs.uow.edu.au
=============================================================================
 Hi! I am a .signature virus. Watch what I can do to your messages :->
From: wayne@tse.uucp (Wayne Hines)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Atheism vs. Christianity (WHY?)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 20:17:46 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Toronto Stock Exchange

In article <1992Jul29.213315.21289@samba.oit.unc.edu> lambada.oit.unc.edu!Josh.Adams@mcnc.org (Josh Adams) writes:
>It seems to me that we're completely leaving out other religions. Atheism is
>not the opposite of Christianity, it's the opposite of believing in god (or
>whatever the hell the latest definition of atheism is, you all are so stupid
>about the definition - it doesn't matter). So, are there any atheists out
>there who have been brought up other than Christian and are now atheist? Why
>did you switch?
>
>My biggest reason (well, I think biggest) for not believing in god is that
>there are so many religions out there who all believe they are right and
>everyone else is wrong (yes I know it's not exactly like that, but most
>religions contradict) so how can any one of them be right? You, well, we'll
>Christians (randomly, of course) all think that Jesus is gonna come back
>or whatever, while the Jews say he won't. You are so set in your thinking
>that you don't realize that there are other possibilities than yours. So,
>since "God talked" to so many people, I have no other choice than to believe
>that whoever he "talked" to just made it up. I hope that made sense, cuz it
>sure did to me. Why should one religion be right and another wrong? It's all
>bullshit, and there's just no other way...

I know what you mean !!  Its' virtually impossible to *prove* which 
religion (if any) is correct. 

Having gone from being raised (early childhood) with no religion, to
being raised (later childhood) in an evangelical Christian setting, 
to becoming agnostic, to cursory (and sometimes deep) examinations of 
various religious beliefs (Christianity, Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism), to 
grudging acceptance of a spiritual dimension (unexplained by science 
thus far), I still don't have any *proof* which could be used to convince 
you of anything. 

There are many believers of various faiths who can give various logical 
reasons, as to why their faith is the correct one. I have heard various 
atheistic arguments as to why all religions are fallacious. I have, even
even heard sound arguments as to why the major relgions are all "correct",
and are not contradictory. I have personally not heard any ONE argument
which I consider to be "proof", or overwhelming enough to consist as 
proof.

However, I NOW know that there is a God, and I know that He has revealed
Himself to some who *were* probably as skeptical as yourself. If you are 
searching, and if you are open then He *may* be revealed to you as well.

(followup by Email only please). 
-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
		Wayne Hines 
		wayne@tse.uucp
From: Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Sunday Liquor Sales
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:18:40 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

Ken Arromdee writes:

>Stephen Buckley writes:

>>nor do i expect
>>to have the totalitarian privelage of being able to revoke your privelege
>>to do something i don't agree with ...
>>  i'd like to prohibit sunday work, which mainly falls into the category
>>of shopping.  ...

>These appear to contradict.  You don't expect to be able to revoke my privilege
>to do something you disagree with.  Yet, you disagree with Sunday work, and
>would like to revoke my privilege to do it.

>(Technically, of course, one can want to do something without expecting it, but
>it doesn't sound like what you mean is "I want to ban Sunday work but don't
>expect you to let me do so.")

  let me be more specific then.  i do not agree with work on sunday and would
like to have the right to try to influence other people that this is right
just like everyone else has the right to influence other people.  i do
not want the right to be able to revoke other people's privilege because
i disagree with them.  i want the right to try to get other people to agree
with me that what i believe is right.  basically i don't want to revoke
people's privileges but i do want people to decide that we shouldn't be
working on sunday and i want the freedom to try to influence them.
From: Tim O'Neill <Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Documentary evidence for Jesus' existence
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 07:06:54 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)

In article <9208131341.AA05458@decsrv.oryx.com>, stephen l favor <xcpslf@decsrv.oryx.com> writes:
> In article <bug.713692389@arachne>, you write:
> |> From my reading on the matter (my interest are largely based in more
> |> modern crackpot cults that are closer to me...), mad prophets were
> |> thirteen to the dozen at the time. It wasn't particularly strange to
> |> howl at the moon and call yourself Messiah then... hardly something
> |> that rated as a mental problem; just a (dangerous) career...
> 
> Most of these people were revolutionaries and did not call themselves
> messiahs to my knowledge.  Seems like Bar Kohkbah (sp?) was refered to as
> the messiah and the Essene's Teacher might have been, too.  Past these,
> I can't recall any other documents with references to people calling
> themselves messiah.  What is your source?

Try Dominic Crossan's 'The Historical Jesus: A Portrait of a Meditteranean
Peasant'. Crossan has an entire chapter devoted to the many and various 
people who claimed to be the Messiah in Jesus' time.
Tim O'Neill
From: yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Why theism is widespread
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 21:53:02 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA

In article <1992Aug14.071906.18669@bernina.ethz.ch>, you write:
|> yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:
|> 
|> >You stated that you know of no successful society that was
|> >atheist.  Well, I may be reaching here, but what about the
|> >United States.  Granted, the US is largely Christian, but there
|> >is no establishment of religion by the government.  People are
|> >(relatively) free to believe as they wish, and, hence, do not
|> >have the common theistic goal that you speak of as being
|> >beneficial (necessary?) for the survival of a society.
|> 
|> I think the US has a Christian government:

Christian influenced, yes.  But, the original poster indicated
that a society could not survive unless it had a common
theistic belief/goal.  The US does not have such a goal.

|>   You don't work on Sunday.

I don't work on Saturday either.  Is that the result of a 
Christian government (i.e. theistic decree)?  Or, is it 
the result of the 40 hour work week that became mandated 
by the goverment because of the abuses of factory owners 
during the industrial revolution?

Back in the days when the US was an agrarian economy, people
worked when they needed to, even on Sunday.  People in service
industries work on Sunday.

|>   You have Christmas.

And the 4th of July, President's day, Thanksgiving, etc.  Are
these Christian?  If not, then why are they holidays (holy days)?

It is natural, in a country that is largely X, to observe
X's tradition.  This is not to say that the country will *only*
observe X's traditions, or that anything in conflict with X
will be prohibited (e.g. divorce).

-- 
Dan Yergeau                         He's dead Jim.  Take his phaser
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU        and I'll get his wallet.
From: Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Two Religions for Atheists
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 09:56:32 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

Tawit Chitsomboon <fstawit@icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov> writes:

> [good reasons why religion is widespread, deleted for space]
>
> I wonder if theistic religions will be as popular as they are if
> we all can live forever?

Now *there's* something to ponder. I think religions would still be
around if we became immortal through the appliance of science, but
if we'd always been immortal, well, society would be so radically
different in all respects anyway, so the issue of what religions would
be present (if any) would have to wait until we could work out what
society would be like as a whole.

> As far as I know, there are only two established religions that
> an atheist can subscribe to: Buddhism and Jainism; both deny the
> existence of personal God.

Now I found this idea confusing. While I don't dispute the claim that
Buddhism is a religion (don't know enough about Jainism to have an
opinion), I find the idea of an atheist with a religion contradictory.
Is it? Should the issue be "Does Buddhism count as a religion?" Is it
only a system of philosophical ideas? Does religion imply theism, etc.

> [talks about Buddhism's beliefs, deleted]

--
Tony Lezard
 Acting moderator, alt.atheism.moderated.
  tony@mantis.co.uk / tony%mantis.co.uk@uknet.ac.uk / arl10@phx.cam.ac.uk
From: kato@leland.Stanford.EDU (Daniel William Roth)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: evidence for christianity
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 20:26:56 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA

In article <1992Aug12.203402.18269@Princeton.EDU> John Daly <daly@strawber.princeton.edu> writes:
>The text of the Bible is generally given historical credibility because so
>much of its content can be verified archaeologically.  The successions of
>rulers, the locations of cities and battles, descriptions of the lifestyles
>and customs of the people are confirmed by the archaeological record.

This says nothing of the validity of the claims of the Bible.  Many stories
and myths are set in historically accurate settings.  This does not mean, 
however, that the storyline itself is true.  Many American Indian myths are
about spirits and gods who visited actual places on the earth, like Mount
Shasta.  Because the descriptions of Mount Shasta in these stories are
geographically accurate does not mean that the spirits and gods in the myths
actually existed or visited Mount Shasta.
From: Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Why theism is widespread
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:13:22 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

"Jason Goeppinger [Math]" <goepping@s20.msi.umn.edu> writes:

>-People like an explanation for the unknown--the workings of natural
>phenomena, the workings of society, the workings of human emotions (it
>makes them feel more significant.)  Those who offer an explanation of the
>unknown can then hold power over people.  The explanations that sound the
>most plausible are given, and these are most easily formulated using
>gods/spirits/etc. 

  that's an intriguing idea, but as christianity has answered questions
for me on the meaning of life caliber, i fail to imagine how that gives me
power over other people.  i've yet to receive worldly praise from my
fellow humans [friends and strangers alike] and i don't expect to ever
be free of the critique [acceptable] and persecution [unacceptable]
of others.  gnostics, on the other hand, who delight in keeping their 
secrets of the universe secret would on the other hand be in a position
to hold power over people.  but i find no biblical precedent to wield
any kind of power over people because of what answers i've chosen to accept
as True.

---                          
     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"
From: Tawit Chitsomboon <fstawit@icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Two Religions for Atheists
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:51:10 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Institute for Computational Mechanics in Propulsion - NASA Lewis

I followed the discussion here in a.a about 'why theism is widespread'
with interest. One major reason for the popularity is, IMO, human's weakness
and selfish desire. We become miserable when we see a dead body and
think about our own death that is sure to come someday. So we created
the idea of immortal soul and the Protector of the soul to console
ourselves that we will continue to exist and exist happily even after
death. The key word is HAPPY. We all want to be happy. This is, one
way or another, the manifestation of selfish desire. Even creating
the idea of atheism can be viewed as a form of toying with happiness
, at a minimum, intellectual happiness.

I wonder if theistic religions will be as popular as they are if
we all can live forever?

As far as I know, there are only two established religions that
an atheist can subscribe to: Buddhism and Jainism; both deny the
existence of personal God. I don't know much about Jainism other
than the fact that the founder's name is Mahavira who was a
contemporary of the Buddha, the founder of Buddhism. 

The following paragraphs are excerpts from:
"What the Buddha Taught", Walpola Rahula, Grove Press, inc.
150 page.


(page 51) (Capitalization to highlight ideas is mine)

------------------Begin excerpt

Two ideas are psychologically deep-rooted in man: self-protection
and self-preservation. For self-protection man has CREATED GOD, on
whom he depends for his own protection, safety and security, just as
a child depends on its parents. For self-preservation man has conceived
the idea of an IMMORTAL SOUL or Atman, which will live eternally.
In his ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire, man needs these two
things to console himself. Hence he clings to them deeply and fanatically.

The Buddha's teaching does not support this ignorance, weakness, fear,
and desire, but aims at making man enlightened by removing and destroying
them, striking at their very root. According to Buddhism, our ideas
of God and Soul are false and empty. Though highly developed as theories
, they are all the same extremely subtle mental projections, garbed in
an intricate metaphysical and philosophical phraseology. These ideas
are so deep-rooted in man, and so near and dear to him, that he does
not wish to hear, nor does he want to understand, any teaching
against them.


------------------End excerpt

fstawit@icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov [Tawit Chitsomboon]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man is the greatest Creator of them all. Among his great creations are:
printing press, flush toilet, sword, plowshare and God.
(Also Atheism, Jainism and Buddhism :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: steube@elroy.sdsc.edu (Ken Steube)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Why theism is widespread
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:17:03 GMT
Organization: San Diego Supercomputer Center @ UCSD

In article <1992Aug7.181110.5243@cis.ohio-state.edu>, ahles@cis.ohio-state.edu (mark ahles) writes:

|>  -A benefit exists evoluutionarily for theistic societies.  This might be
|>  explained by 'working towards a common goal, self sacrificing, etc'.  But
|>  I know of NO successful socity that was atheistic.

|> In either case, I see no advantage to atheism

Buddhism is a form of atheism, and it is widespread and successful. 
It also has a strong moral system that is beneficial to society.

In some forms of Buddhism the Buddha is treated as a god to be
revered, but the Buddha himself says otherwise in several sutras. 
Buddha's idea was to overcome suffering, and to do so involved
avoiding attachments to things, including attachment to a god.  Sounds
like atheism to me.

The moral system in Buddhism is pretty solid.  The thrust of it is to
avoid causing suffering to any living creature.  When pressed by a
layman he formulated a list of 8 or so rules for lay persons to live
by.  They parallel the commandments in christianity and serve to help
the layman avoid causing suffering in other people, and to avoid his
own suffering.

This is a form of atheism that benefits the society that lives by its
ideas.
From: John Nagle <nagle@netcom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Documentary evidence for Jesus' existence
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 16:24:54 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <sbuckley.713158477@sfu.ca> Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca> writes:
}  jesus said one thing in the bible that is more profound than anything
}anyone has ever said before, contemporary to him or not.  he said he is
}the son of god

      Too bad the Romans didn't have better therapy for mental disorders
back then.

					John Nagle
From: JAMES ZAKANY <spzkny@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Why theism is widespread
Date: 13 Aug 1992 09:10 EST  
Distribution: world
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1992Aug7.181110.5243@cis.ohio-state.edu>,
 ahles@cis.ohio-state.edu (mark ahles) writes...

>This is my first post on this subject.  I am no expert on theology, but I do
>have this thought on the subject.  Any opinions would be appreciated. 

>Why is belief in God almost universal among societies (not individuals)?
>I believe it must be either:

> -A benefit exists evoluutionarily for theistic societies.  This might be
> explained by 'working towards a common goal, self sacrificing, etc'.  But
> I know of NO successful socity that was atheistic.

Do ants believe in God??!?  They are certainly self sacrificing and they 
work towards a common goal...does that imply a belief in the supernatural?
If such behavior is instinctive for ants, why not for monkeys and men?
By the way, I know of NO successful society that did not exhibit a belief 
in some form of astrology...

>                                  OR
> -God put a belief in God in man.

Not all "Gods" are alike.  It would seem as though He left His definition 
up to us.  No, I have a third explaination that may not satisfy you...

  -Man has used his irrational belief in the supernatural to explain 
   phenomena that he could neither justify nor control.

                                                  James S. Zakany
From: Eugen Raicu <raicu@netcom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Why theism is widespread
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 03:28:47 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

ahles@cis.ohio-state.edu (mark ahles) writes:
: This is my first post on this subject.  I am no expert on theology, but I do
: have this thought on the subject.  Any opinions would be appreciated. 
:  
: Why is belief in God almost universal among societies (not individuals)?
: I believe it must be either:
:  
:  -A benefit exists evoluutionarily for theistic societies.  This might be
:  explained by 'working towards a common goal, self sacrificing, etc'.  But
:  I know of NO successful socity that was atheistic.
:                                   OR
:  -God put a belief in God in man.
:  
: In either case, I see no advantage to atheism.  It is bad for the individual
: (if divinely inspired) and/or society (if an evolutionary advantage).

This utilitarian observation in no way supports the VERACITY of beliefs
in a divine being. While religions do have many disadvantages, it is also
true that some of the functions they perform are beneficial. Work needs
to be done to find ways to achieve the same positive results in a way
all people of good faith, including atheists, can live with. I hope to
pursue this issue further in a future article.

Disclaimer: I am no expert on theology either.

-- 
Eugen Raicu
raicu@netcom.com