HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov (James L. Felder)
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Sverdrup Technology, Inc.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:14:58 GMT

> -- 
> |-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
> |Joe.Beiter@arden.linet.org               The Long Island Network Project   |
> |The Courts of Chaos Semi-Public Access   Long Island New York: USA         |
> |-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|

Mr Beiter,

I can understand your frustration with the discussions threads that you are
participating in in this group.  It is because they are exactly that - 
"discussions".  They are not logical aurguments.  Logical aurguments (in my
very limited understanding, jump in here anyone with a better background in
logic) require that both sides start from an common set of premises.  We
have not been working from the same set in all these discussions.

That is because it seems that you have included in your set of premises
that God, and specifically the Christian God exits.  We do not share that
premise.  Rather, "God exist" is one possible conclusion that can be drawn
after aurguments are presented starting from the shared set of premises.

I am not saying that we must start out with the premise that God doesn't
exist. That would be as logically unexceptable as the converse, but we must
start out from the same basic set.

Seeing that the Theist and Atheist view points are relatively far apart,
the shared set will, by force, be very small.

If you can not accept to set aside the initial premise that God exist, then
true logical discussions will be impossible.

A few other points.  One, you can not use the Bible in your arguments
because this would be circular reasoning.  Two, as the holder of the
positive (God does, must exist) position, the burden of proof is on you. 
Of course, the same burden would be shared by any atheist that concludes
that God can not exist.  The middle gound, the "I have yet to see
convincing evidence that requires a God to explain" group, need only refute
your arguments.  Sorry, I don't make up the rules of logic.  

Can you work from this starting point Mr Beiter?  If you can then lets go,
I tire of these attacks ad hominem (on both sides!!).

BTW, this thread has really drifted.  My I suggest that with the next
reply, we start a new one.  I, for one will no longer be following this
thread.

James L. Felder            (216)891-4019         -My opinions are MINE-
Sverdrup Technology, Inc.  jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov  I think that should
NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland 44135        cover all bases, 
                                                  don't you.

"Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge -
    other people gargle"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 19:11:55 GMT

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 --

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25605 alt.pagan:15211
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 20:29:43 EST
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.pagan
Subject: Wanted: Lincoln anti-Christian quotes (REPOST)

Got no quotations the first time; let's try again:
_____________________________________________________

Subject line says it all.  A while back someone posted a bunch of
quotations from Abraham Lincoln that demonstrated his disgust with
Christianity.  I would appreciate seeing these reposted or having them
sent to me via email.
Thanks,
John (j5j@psuvm.psu.edu)
From: geoff@poori.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Moron Posts Again!
Date: 11 Jan 1993 18:54:21 GMT
Organization: SunSelect
NNTP-Posting-Host: poori.east.sun.com

First, let me publically thank James for posting his list of studies.
Unlike some, I do not regard it as totally uncool, non-PC,
and crypto-fascistic to post material which refers to the concept
of intelligence and the estimation of the correlation of intelligence
with various factors. For further discussion of this topic, I suggest
that you check out the article in the latest (end-of year double
issue) Economist, which surveys the way in which this whole issue
is unravelling all over again. But I digress...

Quoth "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> (in <2935825268.0.p00168@psilink.com>):
#                                     It's just a hunch, but I'd
#bet there are fewer Xians who say they are atheists than there are 
#atheists that claim that they are Xians.  Also just a hunch, but I 
#suspect that the higher up the hierarchy of a religion one goes, the more 
#likely one is to find an atheist.

Time for another book recommendation. Check out "A Path From Rome" by
Anthony Kenny (Oxford, 1985). In it, Anthony Kenny, the Master of
Balliol and Fellow and Tutor in Philosophy at Oxford, describes how he
became a Catholic priest and what led him to petition Pope Paul VI in
1963 to be allowed to return to the lay state. (You may remember that
some months ago I recommended Kenny's "God of the Philosophers", which
is probably the most concise and elegant demonstration of the
incoherence of simultaneous omniscience, omnipotence, and
omnibenevolence.)
-- 
Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect, Sun Select. (geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Why it sucks to be an atheist...
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 11 Jan 93 01:42:42 GMT


>In <1io51qINNs1a@gap.caltech.edu> lieven@cco.caltech.edu writes:

>> ** Deep brooding mood warning **

>> As an atheist, I usually consider religion as a necessary tool to
>> impose a code of ethics people can live by, and a way to address the
>> fear of what lies beyond death.

>      One possible such tool; not nearly the only one, and definitely
>not a necessary one. "Beyond" death, BTW?

>> And I have wrestled with and accepted the fact that, unfortunately, I am only
>> a complicated physical entity with a few decades of conscious existence.

>> The remaining item which religion has solved and I have not, I humbly submit
>> for discussion among the net.wise:
>> 
>> What, exactly, is the Point? By this, I mean: Is there a goal to be achieved,
>> a level of purity on some standard to be attained, while we live?

This is the secret to a happy life! Humans are only happy when they are
striving for or obtaing successfully something they have convinced themselves
is important to have or acheive. If being like Jesus is your ultimate goal
and you feel you are being successful then you will be happy (regardless of
the myriad inconsistencies which you must ignore in order to maintain your
happiness). If making sure you are a successful gene donator to the gene
pool then going around and having as much sex with as many people and
producing as much progeny is what will make you happy and be your big goal.
If being the greatest harbourer of protein and organic molecules is your
goal then becoming very large by ingesting as much food and passing as
little of it along will be the big Point in your life. However if you see no
point in life (ie you can't fool yourself into thinking anything is
important) then congratulations you have realised the truth but
unfortunately the prize is not eternal happiness but a general feeling of
pointlessness. :-(.

Jeff.

P.S. My big goal is to be as objective as possible and to know as much as
possible. I live in my own personal reality where such goals are important,
though I know that in reality they are not.

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25789 talk.religion.misc:25968
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:17:42 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.98

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>In that case, how would you feel about your children bringing home tracts
>>from the Church of the SubGenius, the Discordians, or the Church of Satan?
>>The Unification Church?  The Scientologists?  The Children of God?
> 
> Does it matter?  I mean really.

I don't think it does, but I suspect that you'd be none too pleased if a
teacher started handing out Children of God tracts to your kids at school.

> The point is, ideas are not dangerous....

Not even, say, Neo-nazism?


mathew
[ For those who don't know, the Children of God are a Christian sect who are
  infamous for their use of casual sex and underage sex as recruitment
  techniques. ]
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Sat,  9 Jan 1993 21:58:55 -0500 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: taste<->religion: connection?

Excerpts from netnews.alt.atheism: 9-Jan-93 Re: Believers: What Would
M.. by Drake@cs.cmu.edu 
> My position almost exactly.  If there is a God, and he doesn't want me
> in heaven, then quite frankly I don't wanna go with the people he DOES
> want there.

    I agree completely with Mr. Drake.  My differences with people who
are serious about theism go far beyond the question of the existence of
a shoddy galatic superhero.  Their insipid taste in cosmology is matched
by their bad taste in food, clothing and literature.  Theists watch tv
and spend their saturdays in shopping malls.  Their bland conversation
never shies far from a few safe subjects: weather, sports, banal local
news, and the requisite politics.
    Of course, there are plenty of people who are apathetic about theism
who are as equally as dull and many an atheist fond of brown polyester
clothing and McDonalds.  However, rather than argue the doubtful
postulate that atheist are more intelligent than christians, I think
could win an argument that we have better taste.  Unfortunately, I don't
believe that there is a Stanford-Binet aestetics quotient (AQ).
    If we could conduct such a test, I would want to exclude Marxists,
Libertarians, SportFans, and other followers of atheists religions from
the the Atheist statistics.  My more precise hypothesis is that liberal
Atheists will have a higher AQ than other groups.

Michael Loomis

ps I am not an interior decorator.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25854 talk.religion.misc:26039
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Am I at fault? (was Re: Why must you act this way?)
Date: 12 Jan 93 23:15:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan11.163903.25150@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes...

>Christians know better than to blame God for
>the woes in their lives.  We know that we are at fault and that it is only through
>our faith in God that things will work out.  

Be very careful with this claim.

Malcolm, last year I had a serious bout with Crohn's disease that could have
killed me.  The disease put me through such indignities that I won't post on
this board due to their (almost Kafkaesque) unpleasantness.  Not only that,
to get myself healed I had to put myself up to further indignities such
as barium enemas, GI series, PET scans, colonoscopies, and drugs with
nasty side-effects. (Not to mention almost losing my job) Eventually, I had to
have my colon removed, and now I live life with a little baggie sitting on my
stomach collecting my stool.

Exactly what did I do to be at fault?  How does the punishment fit the crime?

(Note: This event wasn't the reason for my atheism, which I've held for the
last 10 years or so.)

******************************************************************************
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
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:04:14 GMT

In article <zlsiida.665@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.131824.12539@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>>Yep, that's exactly what I meant. They aren't related in any point-by-point
>>manner. Thus, saying that intelligence > stupidity and => atheism > xianity
>>is totally invalid.
>
>But they MIGHT be related.  The point is that A>B, A!=C, B!=D doesn't say
>not_related(C,D), it says no_information(C,D)

Yes, within those premises, you couldn't make any connection between c and d.
Thus, the original poster's reasoning was invalid.

>
>  No Trespassing: 4/17ths of a haiku.     D.Budd@mcc.ac.uk   fax 6040
>  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England    (44|0)61-275-6033  


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Removing "god" from morality. (was: Moral liberty)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 00:47:50 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <106926@bu.edu> wooyoung@bu.edu (WooYoung Chung) writes:
>Ray Ingles (ingles@engin.umich.edu) wrote:
>: In article <106524@bu.edu> wooyoung@bu.edu (WooYoung Chung) writes:
>: >
>: >About your second point, you might be right that religious 
>: >people may not be more moral than atheists.  However, what's 
>: >important is whether these religious people are more moral 
>: >than if they were NOT religious themselves.  
>: >
>: >WooYoung Chung
>: 
>:  Well, this is interesting. So, one might predict that theists would,
>: on average, be more moral than non-theists. Can you (or anyone) point
>: to studies that would indicate this?
>
>That's not what I meant at all.  To illustrate little more 
>on what I said, let's assume both atheists and theists have 
>on average the same level of morality.  Atheists got to the 
>level of this morality by education, training, rational thinking 
>or whatever.  For theists, however, the religion is a part of 
>how they reach the level of morality.  In fact, it could play 
>a significant role in theists' moral behavior.  Now, if one 
>turn these theist into atheist, they lose the some of reasons 
>for their moral behavior.  Some of them might have other strong basis 
>for moral behavior.  One the hand, some of them might not.

 Of course, before we could conclude that theism is desirable on these
grounds, we must first establish that these people could not be 'trained'
to be moral in some other manner.
 To choose an extreme analogy, some cope with reality by facing up to it,
and some cope with reality by abusing drugs. This does not establish that
using drugs to cope with reality is as good a way as facing up to it
with healthy coping mechanisms.
 I personally am of the opinion that almost anyone could become 'moral'
through education and teaching. Just showing them that moral behavior
is possible and desirable even without a Cosmic Cop looking over one's
shoulder would do a lot. In other words, even the ones who 'lose' one
basis for moral behavior could learn another.

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "Icky icky icky icky fKANG zoop-boing n zowzyin..." -The Knights Who
So Recently Said "NEE!"
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God, what use is it ?
Date: 7 Jan 1993 16:08:56 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In article <C0EF2M.BD0@dale.cts.com> npm@dale.cts.com (Nancy Milligan) writes:
>Even if there was a god, or gods, why would it want to be worshipped?
>I would think that it/they have more interesting things to do than
>muck about with a little mud ball named Earth.  

I don't know either, but I read an explanation recently 
in soc.religion.christian.  It seems that God wants us to
pray because of the beneficial effect on the person who
prays.  This was also the answer to the problem of
God answering prayers;  you don't have to worry about
God answering your prayer, because the fact of your 
praying is the answer.

Reading s.r.c. is so entertaining for atheists, and also
edifying:  it is really amazing to see how goofy
christians sound when they are talking to themselves.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi!  I'm .Siggy, the National .Sig Foundation poster child.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Madalyn Murray O'Hair (a fanatic?)
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:10:02 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

Fanatic:  A person possesseed by an excessive and irrational zeal, especially
for a religious or political cause.  - American Heritage Dictionary.

Madalyn Murray O'Hair (please note spelling!) has built a fairly successful
family business from her early participation in the court case of Abington
School District vs. Schempp in which William J. Murray III v. John N. 
Curlett was a companion case.  Her various organizations have contributed
quite a bit to the cause of Atheism in the U.S. and the world.  In fact,
several other organizations supporting atheist causes have been formed by
people who were either kicked out of or disenchanted with her organizations.

Her name is practically synonymous with atheism to many people and as a
result, she often gets credit/blame for many things.  One thing that some
people will agree with is that she has a fairly abrasive attitude towards
some people.  In the literature her organization produces, she and her
children often claim that they are the "ONLY" true atheist organization
and that all others are not really atheists (starting to sound a little 
irrational, eh?).  

The history of American Atheists is filled with examples of "purges" of
people who were once loyal followers but somehow fell out of favor
and were banished from the "ONLY" true atheist organization in town.
A lot of times lawsuits are filed against ex-officers claiming that 
their "mailing list" has been stolen.  They often file lawsuits which 
ultimately just screw up the ex-members credit (it looks bad if there is a
lawsuit of several hundred thousand dollars filed against you and you go to
get a car loan!).  In fact, if she reads this, she will probably try to sue
me for something, so I have to word all this very carefully.

For an especially intriguing account of one persons wrestle with the first
lady of atheism, I would recommend reading a magazine called "The Match"
published by John Woodruff in Tucson, AZ.  All I can say about it is that
when a local chapter of American Atheists was disenfranchised and several
of its officers sued by MMOH and company, reading this magazine was like
deja-vu all over again.  When you see the pattern it gets a little spooky.

And when you realize how much effort goes into their fight against fellow
atheists it gets a bit ridiculous.

MMOH a fanatic?  I vote yea.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch)
Subject: Child abuse ordered by god.
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1993 11:17:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.080622.6003@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>In article <SCG.93Jan4185701@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu writes:
>>i will point out that the bible encourages the physical abuse of
>>children, something which is said to cause psychological problems.
>
>It doesn't.  Of course, if you define the slightest amount of physical pain
>as "abuse", then I suppose it does.  I'm sorry, but a good spanking is not
      [...stuff deleted....]

>I have been on the wrong end of some pretty good spankings, and I don't
>consider myself abused.  If you can get through to a kid without it, all the
>better!
>
>John M.
>

The first stage in traumatic child abuse is denial.
Here's some bible quotes for you.

                         Deuteronomy 21:18-21
   If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father
and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father
and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate 
of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn
and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 
Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the
evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

                         Proverbs 20:30
   Blows and wounds cleanse away evil, and beatings purge the inmost being.

                         Proverbs 22:15
   Folly is bound up in the heart of the child, but the rod of discipline
will drive it far from him.

                         Proverbs 23:13-16
   Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod,
he will not die.
   Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death.
   My son, if your heart is wise, then my heart will be glad;
   my inmost being will rejoice when your lips speak what is right.

                         Proverbs 29:15
   The rod of correction imparts wisdom, but a child left to himself
disgraces his mother.



                      -John David Munch
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25768 talk.religion.misc:25945