HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:49:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.071709.18804@cs.ucla.edu> pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:
>In article <C0Ez1K.G2L@ecf.toronto.edu> vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN) writes:
>>In article <Hhc=Zk@engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>>>In article <C0D8ED.A9B@ecf.toronto.edu> vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Jan4.191155.6570@cs.ucla.edu> pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:
>>>>>Racism is the pseudoscience (akin to astrology and phrenology) of
>>>>>dividing the human species into subspecies called "races", supposedly
>>>>>decisively different biologically. Delusions that "race" determines
>>>>>psychocultural traits and capacities, that some "race" is inherently
>>>>>superior to some other "race", that some "race" has the right to dominate
>>>>>other "races", as well as the political systems based on such delusions,
>>>>>are a natural chain of symptoms that will only find permanent relief
>>>>>in the uprooting of the underlying cause, namely a belief in racism.
>>>>>
>>>>>-- Brad Pierce --
>
>>Looking at the original post I realize that it is mostly vaporous and not
>>clear in what it means.
>
>Or perhaps you should take a remedial reading class.
>
>>Re-reading the post now, I see that it has no clear
>>point and one has to guess what the author is trying to say.
>
>No, you *definitely* need to take a remedial reading class.
>
>>I guess thats why I assume the attack was 
>>against any mention of race in mankind.
>
>The point is that "race" is a fiction, a fraud, a lie. A racist is
>someone who believes in or promotes this fiction, this fraud, this
>lie. You are therefore a racist.
>
>-- Brad Pierce --
>

You have no respect for language.  You can't invent your own meanings for 
words and expect to communicate.  On top of that, you are being an asshole.
Your slander is quite insulting, and undignified.  I could understand you
being slightly annoyed with my first response- if I had misunderstood it, 
which was quite possible, as I made clear in my second response.  However,
your response here clarifies my initial understanding of your post. I would
even apologize for the pompous tone of my original response- language like
yours tends to get me a little hyper.  However, I think I'll pass on that.
You "*definitely*" need a remedial writing *and* a remedial manners class. .  

-Nick 

-- 


------------------------------------------------------
Nick Vanweerdenburg
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheists & agnostics
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 12:00:05 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

patc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Pat Caldon) writes:
> In article <mRXuwB3w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> >patc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Pat Caldon) writes:
> >> from what I have seen of Buddist ritual (use of prayer wheels, for instanc
> >> it doesn't seem to be atheist.
> >
> >The fact that one is praying does not imply that there is a literal
> >supernatural being that one is praying to.
> 
> pray v.t. & i. Make devout supplication to (God, object of worship); beseech
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> earnestly (God, person /for/ thing, /to/ do, /that/); ask earnestly for
> (permission etc.); engage in prayer, make entreaty (/to/ God or person ...
>          -OED.
> 
> How does one do this without a supernatural being?

You mean you typed that in without reading it?


mathew
From: joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:16:55 GMT
Organization: The Courts of Chaos

In article <1993Jan05.045053.11970@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>
>Angels.  Where are the #$%@!#* angels (or even platonic angels)?  You are the 
>one who said that Mark 8:34-38 was relevant, so where are the angels from Mark 
>8:38?

Let me try this again.  HE WASN'T REFERRING TO THE DAY OF JUDGMENT WHEN HE
SAID 'SOME STANDING HERE WOULD SEE THE KINGDOM OF GOD COME WITH POWER'. IN
VERSE 38 HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE FINAL DAY OF JUDGMENT.  Sorry to 'yell' but
that what I had said before and thought prehaps you were hard of seeing.

>
>And just because there was "alot of power", doesn't mean any reign was 
>established before everyone in the world at that time croaked.  Shoot, people 
>keep talking about the second comin' and the reign of JEEZUS that will result 
>after Armagedon.  What you fail to realize, is this second coming crap was 
>established in the early centuries of christianity and has never died out 
>since.

What you fail to realize is that you're not very convincing.  Shoot you can't
even read one little part of the bible without getting confused and you marvel
that not many people see this "obviously clear fact".

You got any better reasons to dis-believe the Bible?  That one was pretty
lame.


-- 
 -|:..Joe.Beiter@arden.linet.org          TCOC: Public Access..:|-
  -|:..........................................................:|-
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:15:00 GMT

In article <1isoslINNaee@fido.asd.sgi.com>, 
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes...

>Well, then.   Perhaps you had better hire an accountant to balance your
>check book.
> 
>From Mr Tice's answers, I take it that his general method is to set up
>a kind of dichotomoy between "reason" and "something else", and then
>claim that choosing "something else" is a valid choice.    My usual
>response to that is to ask how people run the rest of their lives, and
>if they apply the "something else" choice consistently.  Of course, we
>can turn this into a million line debate, but i think that's the guts of
>it.
> 
>jon.

Checkbook? I balance it about once a quarter. It's really a no-brainer,
since I have no car, no tv, no stereo, no job, no family, no income,
no credit and very few expenses, and I pay for everything besides 
utilities, rent and infrequent large expenses -- with cash. I am also 
"General Boycott" you may recall. 

You're also welcome to have the last word on this since it's a non-a.a 
discussion. Or not. No matter.

-- Sdt  "on extended vacation"

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN)
Subject: Re: The Effect of Relgion
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Distribution: world,public
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:23:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.013223.27747@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> lungtt@gus26.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:
>In article <SCG.93Jan5232029@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu writes:
>>vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN) writes:
>>
>>the only way you can tell if someone is religious is if they wear
>>identifying clothing or jewelry except that doesn't always work...
>
>Actually, it hardly ever works.  If you watch enough TV, you notice
>that religiious clothing or jewelry is an up and coming fashion
>statement.
>
>
>>The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion.  I could never
>>give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma.
>>	-- Abraham Lincoln
>hmmm...
>
>Did you get this from the same flawed quotation book as the one that
>purports Jesus saying "I give you a new commandment that you love
>one another" and leaves it at that, out of context?
>
>The following are also attributed to Abraham Lincoln:

Someone messed up the trimming of the post they were responding to.  These e
are not my statements, as indicated.  Whoever, please be more careful l
in the future ( at least you didn't attribute something really stupid
to me). .

-Nick Vanweerdenburg
g
-- 


------------------------------------------------------
Nick Vanweerdenburg
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25399 talk.religion.misc:25569
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why must you act this way?
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:51:00 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan8.051550.29465@julian.uwo.ca>, roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts) writes...

>Death comes from the original sin, before it man was immortal.

Proof?  "All men were immortal before they died."  Hmm.

******************************************************************************
For God so loved the world that He gave Man Free Will and then got pissed when
we didn't meet his arbitrary standards.  Oh, and he had his Son offed when he
realized how impossible those standards were.  -- Michael 4:23
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: did I like miss your point?
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:05:22 GMT

livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes (of Madalyn Murray O'Hair):

>> I still don't see anything that would justify a charge of
>> imposing her will on anyone.
>>
>> jon

lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:

> You wouldn't.
>
> I don't say that to inflame anyone.  Fact is, you're as fanatical about
> O'Hair as fundies are about Xtianity.
>
> Come back when you've opened up your mind enough to discuss it and not make
> stupid jokes out of peoples comments.
>
> Tammy


Well, this kind of outburst is all too reminiscent of a recent thread and
is exactly the distinguishing feature of a closed-minded fanatic in my book.

Mr Livesey asks you to justify your unsupported assertion that Ms O'Hair
imposes her will on anybody (having made the rather reasonable argument
that lobbying legislatures is normal democratic process and can't be
termed imposition of will), and in response you accuse him of the very
conduct which you so signally exhibit yourself, viz:

Don't address the point, just dismiss it with an admirably closed-minded,
not to say unjustified ad hominem "You wouldn't."

Accuse Mr Livesey, without any grounds as far as I can see, of being a
fanatical O'Hairist, closed-minded and the author of `stupid jokes' which
I must somehow have missed.

Perhaps you should consider accusing Stephen Doe of having an emotional
attachment to Christianity (one of my recent favourites).

Before you tell me that I obviously sleep regularly with Ms O'Hair, let
me say that I am quite prepared to believe that she *is* a fanatic, having
heard various unflattering things about her from within the atheist ranks.

But you need to offer some *evidence* that it is so, and you need to deal
effectively with legitimate criticism such as Mr Livesey's looks like for
all the world to me.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: looking for God
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 17:19:46 GMT


In article <93006.083705BLD110@psuvm.psu.edu> BLD110@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>After wading through many posts on this list I am amazed at two things.  One
>that so many seem to be saying that the behavior of some people has anything
>to do with the existance of God.  Does the fact that someone says they believe
>in God and then behave violently toward others mean that God has failed in
>some way?  Does the fact that the christian religion as a whole does not hold
>up to reasonable inquiry mean that their is no God?  Does the fact that people
>of all religions seem prone to go to war and commit all kinds of violence in
>the name of what they believe to be God mean that there is no God?  It seems to
>me that it would indicate that these view of God are not acceptable to me.

How could an all-powerful and all-loving God allow such things to happen?

>I have a question for those of you who are sure that there is no evidence that
>God exists.  What is the life force?  What is that leaves that body when it
>dies?  When you pick a flower what flows from it that causes it to wilt?  What
>do you use to explain our complex ecosystem which can not operate without the
>full circle of elements, i.e. soil can not produce vegitation without humas.

If I were to take frog, for example, and put it in a blender and then weigh 
the whole thing, then proceed to puree the frog and then finally weigh it 
again, would there be any change in the two measurements? The answer is no.
So, obviously nothing has left after the frog died.  Then what is the 
difference between the frog before and after?  The answer is the order that
the "frog" is in.  We wouldn't commonly refer to just the stuff of the frog
as a frog.  We would require this stuff to be in a certain order, which we
then can label as a "frog."  While life is wonderful, it is not magical or
supernatural.  When somone dies, it is because their body has begun to lose
its order in some way or another.  Like the saying goes, entropy rules.

>It seems to me that most of those writing on this list are blindly posting
>their rhetoric without really listening or considering what the others are
>saying.  There are some exceptions, and I guess they are what keep me reading.
>                          Betty Lee Dowlin

I couldn't tell which of these your post belonged to.

Jim Copeland
--
Have you washed your brain today?
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25879 talk.religion.misc:26062
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 13 Jan 93 01:09:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1ivns5INNot6@lindy.Stanford.EDU> charlie@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Charlie Channel) writes:
>I just can't imagine that God is less trusting
>than I am or other responsible parents.  Now, my parents could and did
>trust me in the same way I trust my children.  But, not all parents
>are created equal.  
>

  I don't have a huge beef with the rules god set up.  What I have a
  real problem with is twofold:

  1.  The punishment.  How do you compare the punishment the
  drinking teenagers will receive to eternal and immutable
  damnation/torment/separation?  My 18 month old is just now
  very actively testing his free will in just about everything he
  does.  Do I feel inclined to punish him?  Absolutely not; I relish
  his growing self awareness and development.  How much more so is
  your god supposed to love each and every one of us?  

  2.  The situation by which we may come to know of him.  It would
  appear that many of us are incapable of believing in this god given 
  our current understanding of his supposed existence, yet it appears 
  he still doesn't provide the evidence he should surely know would
  convince us (your protestations about our "choice"
  notwithstanding).  If this doesn't qualify as an aloof or detached
  god, why not?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!
From: bernt.budde@udac.uu.se (Bernt Budde)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Followup-To: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Date: 8 Jan 1993 00:50:46 GMT
Organization: UDAC (Uppsala Univ. Comp. Centre)
Distribution: world,public
NNTP-Posting-Host: macbug.udac.uu.se

In article <1993Jan7.170653.17723@sequent.com>, petel@sequent.com (Pete
Lancashire) wrote:
> But where would Organized Religion Inc. be without such methods, or any
> other dogma, such as communism ? If say we taught kids to think freely
> until they were say, 10 or 12 then let them decide on there own ? Or
> then at that age, gave an open-minded class in school of all the
> different religions and beleifs in the world, it would be interesting.
> 
> Now if I could just find such a country....

I really hate doing this, holding up my country as an ideal. It isn't. But
there are statistics showing that less than 50% of Swedens population is
religious. A lot of the minority is more of a "mystical orientation" that
it probably is "something out there" (ugh). Another big part are old and
will soon better the statistics even more.:-) A lot of the rest lives in
certain parts of Sweden. Our Xst democratic party is smaller than 10%.

Religious education in Swedish schools is nowadays even called "Religion"
instead of "Kristendom". AND we have a state church. Nothing bad about that
-- we would have a lot more religious people in Sweden without it! (-: A
lot of the more-or-less prosecuted cults emigrated to the USA in the 19:th
century. Now you know where they came from! :-)

I'm not claiming that we teach the small demons to think freely, just that
most people don't teach them religion and (surprise!) they don't become
religious! Private schools has been very few and that probably helps quite
a bit.

Of course we have the standard large groups believing in astrology, etc.
Anyone got any statistics about intellect and astrology, like those fun
figures about atheism and intelligence?

"Most" Swedes are more uninterested in religion than actively religious.
It's just not interesting, for them. This goes for lots of academics. All
this compared to how I *think* it's in USA. But I believe it's an OK
comparision.

Now consider an irritated, angry atheist in that country. I could emigrate
to USA so I find someone to hate! Oh yes, there is a religious movement
called "Livets ord" (Word of life) in this town that is something like your
TV preachers! They should be -- we imported it from USA. But they don't
knock on my door anymore. Sigh. I guess I'm in their data base.

Is it true that there is a Chinese curse that goes "May you get what you
wishes for"? Think before you move.

Bernt 'Bug' Budde, UDAC        How about adding 4 lines to a cross out-
bernt.budde@udac.uu.se         side some church to get a swastika?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: Why must you act this way?
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:13:14 GMT


In article <1993Jan7.024748.8687@nwnexus.WA.COM>, pcrayne@halcyon.com (Peter C. Crayne) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan6.164911.3034@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
|> >
|> >When one wishes to address the Creator of the universe, it must be done with a 
|> >humble heart.
|> 
|> Why?
|> 
|> >               You don't just say "Yo dude!  What's shakin?".
|> 
|> Why not? If there truly is a god in the Christian sense, it is surely
|> capable of understanding what I mean. If it is omnicient, it understands
|> all about me & my background, and will know my intent, regardless of my
|> words. Why can't I just say: "Yo supernatural big guy! I'd like a few
|> things cleared up. Why is there so much suffering in your creation?"
|> 
I was trying to illustrate the fact that one should be in a humble frame of mind when addressing God.  It's not like talking to one of your surf buddies.  The words don't matter so much as the attitude.  God knows what you are feeling and that is what matters.


|> >                                                              That might have 
|> >been the reason you never got an answer or else you might not have been listening.
|> >We always expect a powerful being to speak to us in a booming voice that will
|> >crack the skies and peel back the earth when in fact, IMHO, God speaks to us in 
|> >a soft whisper.  It is only when we silence all our other thoughts that we can
|> >truly hear him.
|> 
|> Again I say: Why? I don't expect thunder & lightning, and a booming
|> voice. But, if it is god, why doesn't he create in me the unequivocal
|> knowledge that it is him speaking, and not the cold medicine I took that
|> morning?
|>
Inside everyone of us is a small part of Him that responds when He speaks.  And so, He did put something in us to do this.

 
|> >God loves, Man kills.
|> 
|> Man kills, god (if it exists) created killers.
|> -Pete
|> pcrayne@halcyon.com
|> "I can't think of any clever quotes to put here." -Me
God loves.  Man kills because he chooses to kill.  God gave us the ability to create and destroy as we see fit.  What we choose to do is left to us.  Humans prefer to blame God for all the wrongs of this world.  Kind of hypocritical when most people don't believe in God in the first place.

Thank you for your response.

God loves, Man kills.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Josh McDowell
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:43:06 GMT

Recently, someone made a snide comparison between a fundie post and the 
writings of Josh McDowell.

My brother (a "born again" fundie) has sent "More Than A Carpenter" to me as an
attempt to win my conversion to the one true faith.

Does any one have any commentary on this book?  I plan on responding with my 
own analysis, but I'm interested in what others have to say about this book.
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |If you'd come today you would have reached a 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |whole nation.  Israel in 4 BC had no mass 
The Truth is still the Truth    |communication.
Even if you choose to ignore it.|                Judas in "JCSS"
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25083 talk.religion.misc:25252 alt.pagan:14997
From: lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Church and congregations (was Re: Bible translations...)
Date: 5 Jan 1993 21:46 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: jane.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <jhb.726199947@monet>, jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie) writes...
>iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
> 
>>In article <2B4771D7.12848@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
> 
>>>Excuse me, but any church is MADE UP of Toms, Dicks, and Harrys, and
>>>even a few Janes and Marys,
> 
>>No.  Not at all.  It is only the congregation that is made of them.
> 
>And what is the difference between a church and a congregation?

Church is the institution
Congregation are the people involved in the institution

Like

University of X is the institution
Student Body are the people involved in the institution


Tammy