HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kurtk@ee.ualberta.ca (Kurt Klingbeil)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:42:28 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada


To: brian@lpl.arizona.edu
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc

On the topic of ORIGINAL SIN and how GOD who created ALL doesn't
mete out DEATH and SUFFERING, but rather is content to allow PEOPLE to
CHOOSE it for themselves every day, and wash HIS hands of the whole mess:
                                             ;-)
Oh Boy....

God would condemn an entire species to a previously unintended state of
suffering and death because of the actions of one (two) people, who
admittedly weren't responsible anyway since the 'devil made them do it'?

Think of the quantity of biomass that would exist if no living thing
ever died.  Where would all those lions get all that grass ? (seeing's
how they'd have to share it with all those various and sundry herbivores).

Everything in creation lives and exists in cycles.
Birth and Death,  being fed and becoming food.
Intricacy, beauty, and balance, bestowed by the creator;
an eternally sustainable dance.
[ Perhaps just a hastily tossed-together post-FALL afterthought ? ]

Only people, for all our claims of spirituality, intelligence,
reverence, civilization, religiousity, dare to disregard, disturb,
despoil, and destroy the creator's dance, and those people who
try to dance along.  Only people arrogantly reject creation's ways
as too base for their delicate and oh so reverent sensibilities.

Heaven and Hell are right here, right now.
The most civilized and spiritually-correct things we people can
try to do are to stop bemoaning 'Paradise Lost' or waiting for
'Paradise II' or clawing our way UP to (perceived) higher planes
of existence in all sorts of specie-ist, ethnocentric ways...
and to start getting in touch with where we live, who we live with
and live near, and taking better care of them.

Naive eh?

ttfn, k<Alt-253>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 13:10:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.234815.25495@arden.linet.org> joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter) writes:
[much deletia]
>
>assuming of course God is a figment of my imagination.  Question: if my
>argument and viewpoint are so silly, why are you wasting your time responding
>to me?  You seem to have mistaken me for someone concerned with "Saving You".
>I don't really have an interest in convincing you there is a God.  I'm 
>interested in finding out why Atheists can be so convinced there is no God.
>

If ever there were a reason to read the FAQ before posting, this is it.
When you post meaningless drivel in support of chritianity, the atheist
has no choice but to assume you are prostlatyzing.

By the way, I am extremely interested in finding out why you are so 
convinced that there are no invisible pink unicorns prancing about in
my attic. I am, of course, making here an assumption about your beliefs.
If you believe otherwise, I apologize.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 28 Dec 92 01:02:37 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland

I didn't want to include any quotes, because your statements had degenerated
into pointless babblings. Insulting is an easy way to show weakness, and you
showed it well.

So I just got more supporting info from your post:

1) You do agree that you used your intelligence in attacking the original ideas

2) Apply this kind of cynicism to the Bible and Christianity

3) Denial of the the statements in the Bible is due to intelligence.

No use denying any of this, as you supported these notions well along the
thread. Basically, the original post was an easy lure, to see how cynicism
works among the atheists in this group, and the denial of the Bible became
strong. Or are you saying that your cynicism was out of stupidity?

Being heavy on psychology, I like to see how people's minds work. Thanks for
the posts.

--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24802 talk.religion.misc:24980 alt.pagan:14851
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: did I like miss your point?
Date: 3 Jan 1993 07:15:54 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <3JAN199300413846@elroy.uh.edu>, lib1p@elroy.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
|>
|> Yes what she has done is fine and good...the effect that is...but she is
|> still imposing her will...and btw, I have seen where she has tried to go
|> too far....please refer to my previous post right before this one....

Well, I did read that, and frankly, I'm baffled.

So far as I know, states have legislatures, and legislatures
change laws.    If Dr. O'Hare had some influence in that, fine.
We can all speak out on legislation, get support, urge people
to vote one way or another and so on.   Ultimately, however,
it's a legislative process that effects the change.

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

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: patc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Pat Caldon)
Subject: Re: atheists & agnostics
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 05:28:30 GMT

In article <540RVB1w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>patc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Pat Caldon) writes:
>> In article <u3NiVB15w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> 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."
>> >
>> >Yes, but that's Hinduism.
>> 
>> I believe that there is something of the same concept in Bhuddism. However,
>> I'm not really qualified to say - I've never spoken about Bhuddism to a 
>> Bhuddist.
>
>Well, could you at least learn to spell it?

Oops.

>
>> >Buddhism isn't really derived from Hinduism; in its early years, it was more
>> >of a backlash against Hinduism.  You might as well argue that the Church of
>> >the SubGenius is derived from Christianity.
>> 
>> I meant "derived" in the sense that Islam is derived from Judaism.
>
>Yes, so did I.

I don't think there was the same element of satire in the founding of
Buddism. (SFSF)

>
>> There is a common root, so to speak.
>
>Indeed -- but so what?
>

The question was "Is Bh^Huddhism atheist?" I said that it is derived
from Hinduism, not in the sense of a joke, but in many ways seems (to my
admittedly limited perception) to have a common philosophy, reincarnation
being a prime example. As such it is not inconsistent (IMHO again) to
suggest that Buddism is not atheist. (quadruple negative urrgh) Again
from what I have seen of Buddist ritual (use of prayer wheels, for instance)
it doesn't seem to be atheist. 

A few more IMHOs go in here for further effect.

-- 
Pat Caldon.            |  The Mercy Seat is Burning, And I think my Head is 
patc@extro.ucc.su.oz.au| turning, and deep inside I'm longing to be done with
3:714/908.5@fidonet.org| all this weighing up of truth...  -- Nick Cave
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:14:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.113813.22353@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.015958.19290@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>>Another statistically significant sample.  Not.
>>
>>How *did* you prevent yourself from letting personal bias influence
>>your conclusions, anyway?
>
>Basically I'm indifferent to everything, until there is sufficient evidence
>or rationality to prove it is useful or correct. I've learnt not to let my
>emotions rule anything.

On the basis of your posts thus far, I have no reason to buy this load
of BS.

>>Yeah, and you think that an "emotional attachment" to something
>>you don't agree with, doesn't qualify as a flame.  
>
>It wasn't meant as a flame, and that's what matters.

It was a flame.

>>
>>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 it means you won't even consider the possibility that your
observations *might* be skewed.  Instead you must denigrate those who
question if this might be so.

SD
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24344 alt.pagan:14586 talk.religion.misc:24634
From: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God etc
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 18:39:19 -0500
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation
Distribution: world
Reply-To: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
NNTP-Posting-Host: chaos.intercon.com
X-Newsreader: InterCon TCP/Connect II 1.1b27

ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield) writes:
> A fair definition, but limited in scope.  Many religions believe not in 
> an external god but an internal one.  God is not "out there" rather it 
> is "in here".  

Some folks, in fact, go beyond this and conclude that the distinction itself 
is a non sequitur.



Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 07:20:26 GMT

In article <ofBEMFy00Uh_I2BY9m@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.alt.atheism: 19-Dec-92 iq<->religion: connection? by 
>Iikka Paavolainen@mits.m 
>> Am I seeing wrongly, or is there a connection between one's IQ and one's
>> religiousness? Of all people I know, I know only about 8 exceptionally smart
>> people (IQ>125), and all of them happen to be atheists. On the contrary, the 
>> dumbest people I've seen (eg. unable to use a remote control) are the most
>> religious. Observing other atheists that I don't know (from this group for
>> example) leads me to make a conclusion that on the average, atheists have a
>> much better sense of logic (and thus usually have a higher IQ) and think much
>> more clearly than religious people. From my own experiences, I can say that
>> freeing oneself from the grasp of religion requires a certain level of
>logical
>>  
>> thinking. Coincidentally, all these 8 people are mathematically gifted.
>> When I speak of atheism here, I mean it to be a lack of belief in any god or
>> superstition.
>> Opinions?
>
>    Though I agree with the general idea behind Mr/s. Paavolainen's
>post, that intelligence deters religious belief, I think that when a
>intelligent person is ensnared into a religion that they are most
>devout.  
>    Let me attempt to explain the mechanism that makes them devout. 
>Let's consider christian believers since I am most familar with
>christianity. The Bible has much silliness and contradictions.  The
>intelligent christian will have more ability to conjure up some way of
>making silly passages seem intelligent and some way of reconciling
>seeming contradictions than would a stupid christian.  By the act of
>making the Bible make sense to himself, the intelligent christian has
>reenforced his own belief in the Bible as the truth.  Thus, the
>intelligent christian has a greater stake in christianity than does the
>stupid christian.
>    If my theory is right, then it has implication for atheists who
>argue with chirstians on this bboard or elsewhere.  By poiniting out a
>contradiction in the Bible to the intelligent christian, we may simply
>be conditioning him to have greater faith in christianity.  (Atheist
>should not forget that a clever mind can always find some way to justify
>even the most blatant of contradictions.  This is called apologetics.)
>
>Michael Loomis

Hey, don't you dare introduce these complications into Iikka's lovely
simple correlation!

SD

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Job and Satan
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:04:43 GMT

This discussion keeps reiterating the "Special Pleading" argument.
God didn't torture Job, Satan did.  Why, it's because God, in his
munificence, gives us Free Will, that he gave Satan the Free Will
to attack Job in all those nasty ways.

Of course, when Job questions God, the response is an elaborate
sidestep about how Job wasn't there when God created the heavens.
So I guess Job's gift of Free Will doesn't allow him to question
the raw deal he got.

I remember hearing the Job story as a child, and asking how having
new children replaced the ones that were killed.  Isn't that tale
a frightening one to tell a child?  "You can be replaced."  The story 
was clearly written from a "women and kids are property" mentality,
which is why it so sticks in our craw today.  And I believe this
is a good illustration that the Bible was written by people who
were thoroughly limited in their worldview, not by an omniscient
entity who would have forseen the changes in people's views on
personhood, rights, and property.

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                       |  The Truth is still The Truth, forsooth 
madhaus@netcom.com                   |  Even if believing It you refuse
Centigram Communications Corp        |  Complete disproof's uncouth and moot
San Jose California  408/428-3553    |  A Fundie's brain is dead.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: charlie@kittyhawk.ecn.uoknor.edu (Charlie J Church)
Subject: Re: Atheists in the Military
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:31:47 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec22.192723.19511@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.060818.2936@jcnpc.cmhnet.org>,
>Mike A. McAngus wrote:
>
>[By the way, Mike, thanks for trying to post for me.  We're back up now.]
>
>} I CAN'T STOP THE US ARMY FROM BUYING BIBLES AND DISTRIBUTING THEM TO THE
>} SOLDIERS IN SAUDI ARABIA.
>
>I guess the ideal situation, is to have the church buy the bibles with
>funds on which they have already paid taxes.  Then present them to the
>army for distribution.  I'm as atheist as anyone here, but I'm also an
>officer in the Army.  There is no way that I am going to refuse my men
>the chance to read a bible if they want it (and circumstances allow for
>it, obviously).
>
>This does however bring up a point that I have not thought about for some
>time as I have been on an extended leave of absence from the service.
>When I was receiving my initial officer training, a chaplain would come
>to the field with our unit at times.  Services weren't regular, but every
>now and then an hour would be set aside, and an attempt was made to
>accomodate the various faiths.  However, if you were an atheist, and did
>not want to attend, you were given duties instead of allowed to sit
>around and rest.  After being in the field for weeks, you have to be
>quite the militant atheist (no pun intended) to refuse to attend
>religious services.  I went simply to get a chance at some shut-eye.
>
>This seemed a minor form of discrimination, but discrimination nonetheless.
>
>I'd be interested in hearing any other experiences regarding atheists
>in the military, as I am being activated in three short weeks.
>
>-Mike Noonan

I had the exact same experience in Navy boot camp in 1950.  You could go to 
church services or go to the galley to work during church services. Like,
you I preferred to go to the services and get an extra hour of sleep. Fact 
of the matter is, that was the last time I attended church services other
than a wedding or a funeral. 

Being forced to go to a church service pissed me off then and would piss
me off more now.  I am strictly a live and let live person as far as 
religion is concerned. 


D
than a wedding or a funeral
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: did I like miss your point?
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 19:42:49 GMT

Tammy Stark Blandino (lib1p@jane.uh.edu) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec31.183939.3539@radian.uucp>, markbr%radian@natinst.com (ma
rkbr) writes...
: >In article <1992Dec31.000558.8172@nwnexus.WA.COM> pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D
. Hampe) writes:
: >>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
: >>
: >>>iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
:
: ..stuff deleted....
:
: >Huh? How many "fanatic atheists" have *you* *personally* ever met?
: >I sure don't know anyone that would qualify as one: certainly none
: >of them that I've know would think in terms of imposing their will
: >on the believers, even if they did think the believers were deluded
: >or stupid. I *sure* have known *plenty* of fanatic believers, who
: >would impose their will on me, if they could.
: >
:
: Does the name Madeleine Murray O'Hare ring any bells?
:
: Tammy

How, exactly, is Dr. O'Hare a fanatic.  Because she contested an 
unconstitutional school prayer practice?  Because she opposes the 
unconstitutional entanglement of religion in Federal and State government?
Dr. O'Hare does not prosletize her atheism (yes she does speak before groups 
who invite her, but if they invite her then they expect to hear her opinions).

Read the woman's writings and listen to her speak before you start calling her
a fanatic.
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24727 talk.religion.misc:24893 alt.pagan:14770
From: lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: did I like miss your point?
Date: 1 Jan 1993 03:16 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: jane.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec31.183939.3539@radian.uucp>, markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr) writes...
>In article <1992Dec31.000558.8172@nwnexus.WA.COM> pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe) writes:
>>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>
>>>iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:

..stuff deleted....

>Huh? How many "fanatic atheists" have *you* *personally* ever met?
>I sure don't know anyone that would qualify as one: certainly none
>of them that I've know would think in terms of imposing their will
>on the believers, even if they did think the believers were deluded
>or stupid. I *sure* have known *plenty* of fanatic believers, who
>would impose their will on me, if they could.
> 

Does the name Madeleine Murray O'Hare ring any bells?

Tammy



Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Violence in the bible?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:53:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.200705.22493@arden.linet.org> joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter) writes:
}In article <schnitzi.725571303@eola.cs.ucf.edu> schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes:
}>Interesting!  So, in summary, the Bible calls for the death penalty 
}>in these cases:
}>
}>o  Murder
}>o  Witchcraft
}
}etc...
}
}>
}>Comments, Xians?
}
}This applied to the jews for the jews to carry out.  The jews were to be 
}submissive to the law.  A death sentance is not 'murder' but justice.

Nice distinction for the children upon whom it was carried out.

}It is made clear from book one that the wages for sin is death.

And the sins were such awful things as being born.


Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24564 talk.religion.misc:24771
From: lib1p@elroy.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 3 Jan 1993 00:36 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: elroy.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1i2raqINN8rh@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes...

...stuff from previous posts deleted.....

>|> Does the name Madeleine Murray O'Hare ring any bells?
> 
>I must have missed something.   In what way is Madeleine 
>Murray O'Hare "imposing her will on the believers?"
> 
>Or is this one of those deals where even the existence of
>atheists is counted as a kind of imposition by Christians?
> 
>jon.

I don't know where you live, but I live in the south where the church rules
and blue laws (use to) let you buy a can of beans on sunday, but not a
can opener to open it with.

Madeleine Murray O'Hare and her family has done a great deal to impose
their will on non-atheists....

Not that I object to the end result, just the intent behind the means....

Tammy of Texas


Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: jwest@wisc (Jeff West)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Distribution: world,public
Date: 28 Dec 92 12:28:31 CST

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
: In article <Bzw01t.7ED@dale.cts.com> npm@dale.cts.com (Nancy Milligan) writes:
: >John Muehlhausen (muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu) wrote:
: >> 
: 
: Trusting God means trusting that all things work together for good for those
: that love Him, and they happen for a reason.  I would much rather live a
: short life with cancer and let my increased awareness of my mortality light
: a fire under my butt for God  than to glide through life accomplishing
: nothing with eternal consequence.  God will not give someone something that
: is not good for them in the long run.  If a Christian is not healed of
: cancer, then they have it for a reason that is beneficial to them as a
: spiritual being, as promised in the Bible.  Paul didn't whine about his
: adversity, nor did Jesus himself!  In fact, they seemed to shake a fare
: amount of joy out of it!
: 
: 
: John M.
: 
: 

	I just love these kind of rationalizations.  NOT!  Your a real piece
	of work John.  I have nothing against what you believe. Faith or lack
	thereof in religion and god is a personal thing.  But your above
	statement shows an * Incredible * lack of compassion and humanity!!!
	The statement that finally pushed me over the edge of considering
	myself a Christian anymore was after watching a beautiful 4 year old
	little girl go through the terrible torture of chemotherapy for cancer.
	After a long fight and spending most of her life knowing nothing but
	fear and pain people actually had (have) the gaul to say;
		"It was god's will."
	If this is your god and his idea of; "giving us something that's good
	for us in the long run."  Then you can KEEP him and all of your assinine
	beliefs!

	Jeff "you really hit my hot button" West

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24566 talk.religion.misc:24772