HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Ok, truce?
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 12:37:04 GMT

Brian Cash (bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA) wrote:

[article deleted so I could respond to the .sig]

: Brian /-|-\
: =============================================
: The Truth is still the Truth
: even if you choose to ignore it.
: =============================================
:
: PS  I took out the Biblical ref to this quote,
:     because (on investigation) I could not
:     find this in all of John (KJV and NIV)
:     Where did this come from?

If I remember correctly, the reference was to John 11:25.  This is simply one
of the many places in the bable where JC is alleged to say that belief in him
is the only way to Nirvana.

In other words, the quote and the bable reference are not related.
-- 
Mike McAngus (mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)| Let the raucous sleigh bells ringle   | Tom
The Truth is still the Truth	   | Hail our dear old fried Chris Kringle |Lehrer
Even if you choose to ignore it.   | Driving his reindeer across the sky
I wasn't sure if anyone would join | Don't stand underneath when they fly by. 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas)
Subject: Re: The Steve Martin movie "Leap of Faith"
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 03:02:13 GMT

weaver@iam.unibe.ch (Dave Weaver) writes:
>martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:
>> 
>> Bitter? No.  Angry, yes, that Hollywood abuses the medium of film 
>> by presenting *opinions* as *fact* using very powerful techniques 
>> like big screens, beautiful people and domineering music.
>>
>If you're serious about this, get prepared to be angry for a *long*
>time. We're you as offended by Oliver Stone presenting opinions as 
>fact in "JFK"? How about in "Last Temptation..."? To be consistant,
>you will have to be angry at every pseudo-documentary feature film.

Yes, I am serious about this.  Leap of Faith angers me because it
is presented in a modern environment using "ordinary fokes" in
what seem to be fairly realistic American small-town conditions.
The whole film gets you under the skin of these people, and then the
very end springs these "miracles" on you much like a mousetrap
springs on a mouse nibbling harmless cheese.  I'm concerned many
people never notice the trap and will happily be caught.

But the examples you cite are not the same thing: the experience
of JFK is so remote from me it might as well be fiction... I couldn't
give a monkey's who shot him, or why.  I haven't seen JFK, but I'm sure
that even if Stone convinced me to his opinions, it wouldn't affect my
larger life in the least.  And "The Last Temptation", well, I quite
enjoyed that film... it too, was obviously fictional since it was so
far removed from our time... one could just enjoy the movie for itself.

Even so, for some years now I avoid seeing Hollywood films as much
as possible, since most of them, if not downright offensive (ie with
extreme violence or reeking conservatism), are downright boring.
There are plenty of innovative non-mainstream films in the rest of the
world to keep up with.

>From the tone of your original post, it appears you wouldn't have 
>objected if the opposite opinions were presented as fact. 

I would love it if you could tell me how this could be done.
Presenting the NON-existence of God as a fact, that is... I don't 
think it's possible.  Lots of movies don't mention religion at all,
is this what you mean?

Martin
--
Your eyes are weary from staring at the screen.  Your eyelids feel very heavy.
You feel sleepy. Notice how restful it is to watch the cursor blink. Close your
eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt
otherwise.  When you awake you will follow up this post and enthusiastically
agree with it.  Then you will send all your money to martin@cs.curtin.edu.au.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: Violence in the bible?
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 00:46:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.173134.4956@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>Iikka Paavolainen (iikkap@mits.mdata.fi) wrote:
>: I remember someone saying (in this newsgroup) that in some part of the old
>: (or was it new?) testament god commanded some people to kill or destroy other
>s.
>: Where was this exactly in the Bible?
>
>Dt 7:1-2, Dt 7:16-26, Dt 21:10-18, Jos 7:20-21 followed by Jos 8:1-2.  There 
>are other references to the populations of entire cities being executed, but 
>these are places where god is reported to actually have commanded the
>slaughter.
>
>Jos 11:16-23 is also relevant.

Thanks. Dammit, just a day too late (not your fault, though, I posted a bit
late). I just had a debate with a very religious relative of mine, and one
thing she said is that there is no God-commanded violence in it.

>-- 
>Mike McAngus 			 | As if I needed Another time consuming hobby.
>(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)		 | 
>The Truth is still the Truth	 | This Post exploits illiterates.
>Even if you choose to ignore it. | 


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/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,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: 30 Dec 92 10:46:55 CST

parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish) writes:
: jwest@wisc (Jeff West) writes:
: 
: [Deletions from previous posts.]
: 
: >As for the rest of you post I only have 2 comments.
: 
: >	1.)  Why did your god "deliever into the hands of Satan" such a
: >	     righteous man as Job?  Why did your god need to torture a
: >	     true believer?  Wasn't his obedience and faithfulness enough?
: >	     Or is it just your gods form of entertainment?
: 
: Satan was the one coming before God accusing Job of only serving God
: for the cash, land, camels, sheep, etc.  So, to prove Satan wrong He
: allowed Satan to rake Job over the coals.  It wasn't so much to punish
: or torture (as you put it) Job, as to put Satan in his place.  That's 
: just MH interpretation of the story.  And, in the end God blesses Job 
: seven times more than he had to begin with; which just goes to prove
: Romans 8:28, "And we know that all things work together for good to
: them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his]
: purpose."
: 
:  
: -- 
: Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
: parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |

So your god was conned by satan into letting him torture (what else
would you call it?) Job?  Are you saying that god wasn't sure if
Job was doing it for the $$$?  Isn't your god all knowing?

Jeff West

---------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not denial.  I'm just very selective about the reality I accept.

    - Calvin & Hobbs
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Criticism: "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 23 Dec 92 02:03:32 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec22.213829.25884@csrd.uiuc.edu>,
skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) wrote:

Hey, this is moving over to alt.atheism!

> In talk.religion.misc, Kent Sandvik suggested that "there's no logic
> in Christianity".  When pressed to back up his statement, he argued
> that because there is not universal agreement on some of the premises
> of Christianity (e.g. all sin; God exists; etc.), Christianity is
> without logic.

The core I tried to point out to Mr. Skinner is that he can't 
justify that the logical statements he showed are valid because
people don't accept the core premisses as true. This is unlike
the case of Eucledian geometrics where people at least could 
agree what a straight line is, and such constructs builds
the foundation wherefrom logical arguments could be constructed.

In the case of Christianity not even all Christians agree what
constitutes trinity, and thus to use Christian building blocks
to create logical statements is in my humble opinion something
that may or may not be true, but that can't be never argued about.
This is a very different situation than in the case of mathematics,
and I hope Skinner would realize this some day.

As a good counter argument, we don't have mathematicians arguing
about the building blocks of logic, but we have theologians 
arguing about the Christian doctrine building blocks.

> 			Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
> 			whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
> 			Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you;
> 			rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Just as a side note, I don't hate Mr. Skinner even if his
emails are sometimes, eh, a little bit too personal for my
taste. Just to cite the Bible once again :-):

LUK 10:21  In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O
Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the
wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for
so it seemed good in thy sight.

Cheers, and have a nice holiday, even you Mr. Skinner!

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Keywords: Bible--psychlogy--fundamentalism
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 92 03:21:02 GMT


What strikes me more than anything is that you have not presented any
problems associated with Biblical faith.  Rather, the ones you have
presented are a result of faith which is lacking, and the problems
would not go away were this faith to be dropped (if it could be).

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

Exactly what does the Bible tell us that is harmful to society if
integrated and accepted?  If there is any harm to be had, it is in
the clash between acceptance and non-acceptance.  From everything I
have seen, the Bible believer is generally a happier, more joyful,
more hopeful, and more successful individual in life than the person
who rejects Biblical advice and command.  Where is the depression?
I do not see it in my life or the lives of my fellow BB's.  If our
"fake" joy is as much, it is more real than any offered by any other
source, which makes me seriously question the motivation behind these
postings.  If the whole world had Bible Believing minds, what would
things be like?  If their are Christians out there who live in fear
and depression, then maybe you had better try the Bible Brand of
Christianity! :-)

_Is_ having the Mind of the Bible Believer damaging to the individual
or society?  I have yet to see it.

I am not qualified to comment on the psychological analysis
presented, but even if it were right on, it is meaningless
unless it can be shown that there is some other attainable state of
mind that is superior from an end product view.

I thank you for presenting this view, penetrating as it is, but I
hope you see what I am getting at.  

Happy Christmas!
John M.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I still wouldn't worship it.
Date: 30 Dec 1992 02:18:00 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


	Hmmm......atheism CAN be deeper than just not holding a
beleif in a "god".

	For me it is just seeing it as more than just "god", sinse
most of the definitions are BS, but it is not holding beleif in
the supernatural.  It is not like we beleive in ghosts, but not god,
but that we tend not take ALL supernatural  and superstitious claims
SERIOUSLY, because there is simply no reason to.


	Also, I think not being tied to a religion is a positive because
you do not end up with the disadvantages of it (there are FEW if ANY
advantages that are REL)



-- 
A. TRENT PHILLIPS |" A mirror is a negative space with a frame and a place for
  also known as   | your face, it reveals what the rest of us see. It conceals
   WHITE  ROOK    | what you'd like you to be."--Blue Oyster Cult
-------bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu-----aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu-------
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24629 talk.religion.misc:24802
From: jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Violence in the bible?
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:05:14 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

In article <1992Dec25.165133.9059@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>I remember someone saying (in this newsgroup) that in some part of the old
>(or was it new?) testament god commanded some people to kill or destroy others.
>Where was this exactly in the Bible?
>
Ah...there are many such examples in the bible. 
My favorite is DEUTERONOMY 20 : 10-18
Most of Deuteronomy is supplemental to the ten commandments.
Someday I'm going to key it in.

                              -John David Munch
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:00:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.140022.649@bradford.ac.uk> L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham) writes:
>Observation:  Atheism is far more common and is accepted to a greater
>extent in Europe (certainly the UK) than the US.  Xian fundamentalism 
>is a far smaller force in Europe.
>
>Does it then follow that the population of Western Europe has a
>significantly greater percentage of persons of high IQ than the
>United States?  :-)

Yes...

>
>
>-- 
>
>Leonard               e-mail:  L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/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: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Scott Locklin )
Subject: Satanism
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 04:23:29 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

I am curious. David Rice challenged some fundie bigot to produce some 
decent example of "Satanic Crime" (i.e. use of fundie children for firewood,
child molestation, snuff-cults etc) other than the examples cooked up by
Mike Warnke & company's collective imagination. He promised it (if we treated
him nicely) by the end of december.

I am curious; did this joker come up with the goods? I'd like to hear the 
"facts"!

-Scott

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24846 alt.pagan:14881 talk.religion.misc:25034
From: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Bible translations, or Does God Speak Latin?
Date: Mon,  4 Jan 1993 00:28:19 -0500
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation
Distribution: world
Reply-To: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
NNTP-Posting-Host: chaos.intercon.com
Keywords: Catholic, Latin, Bible
X-Newsreader: InterCon TCP/Connect II 1.1b31

cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
> I, too, think that Latin is quite melodious and rolling, but I still 
> want to understand what's going on when I'm hearing about something 
> that pertains to my daily life, or purports to.

I do to; my response to this was to learn enough Latin to follow most of it...

> Believe me, I am getting a doctorate in linguistics; I adore language 
> of any stripe.  I think I'm the only person I know who thinks that 
> German and Russian are beautiful languages;

Well, count me in as well.  I minored in linguistics, though, and have a 
language teacher (German, French, Russian) for a father, so I'm biased :).

> English is 
> also a rhythmic and lyrical language, particularly when it comes to the 
> consonant combinations; read Poe's poems.  

Or Coleridge, or Blake, ... sigh.

I need more bookshelves.


Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: Violence in the bible?
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 22:50:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.181231.1671@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.004645.15537@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>}Thanks. Dammit, just a day too late (not your fault, though, I posted a bit
>}late). I just had a debate with a very religious relative of mine, and one
>}thing she said is that there is no God-commanded violence in it.
>
>Guess she doesn't know the bible very well...

Actually, most of the Christians I've met don't either. This makes me wonder...


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/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: brian@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Brian Paquet)
Subject: Re: Atheists in the Military
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:22:44 GMT

Geez Well I am not in yet [I deleted the original message.. read it if ya
must] but speaking as a future weekend warrier.. I would be very temped
to claim I am a Satanist....
But Captian I need this virgin for sacrifices 

[Note  alt.satanists deny that they practice these sort of things..
I am jsut playing on popular ideas.. :):):)]

People are too stupid to bother wasteing a good sig on

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rotella@mardi-gras.Stanford.EDU (francis rotella)
Subject: Re: Searchers
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 21:10:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.013213.2910@cnsvax.uwec.edu> nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye) writes:
> 
>The postings here seem to be mostly from atheists and fundamentalists
>with minds made up.  I'm curious to know if there are many searchers
>lurking.  Perhaps you were raised to believe in God but the facade is
>starting to crack.  Are there people who started reading this group as
>theists and have since become atheists?  Vice versa?  Is the discussion
>here helpful to people struggling with religious doubts?
>
>David Nye
>nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu


well i could be considered one of the searches lurking in the
background. i started reading this group searching for knowledge,
different viewpoints, and answers to questions (some of which i did not 
even know before reading this group).  i must say that the FAQ was superbly 
written and did provide a lot of info. (wow, someone actually read it!!!!)
after reading around the flames, some of the articles proved useful!! 

anyhow, it appears that i'm moving through the same phases a lot
of others have.  to put it bluntly . . . i was raised catholic but 
started questioning the church and organized religion in general until
finally rejecting it. i then started questioning my belief in god and 
essentially became an agnostic.  just recently, i would say that i moved 
from agnosticism to what would be considered weak atheism. i realize 
the meaning of these terms are constantly being scrutinized, but consider 
them in the most general sense.

in summary and in answer to David's questions, i started reading this 
group as an agnostic, both articles and the FAQ were very helpful and i 
have since become a weak atheist.

time permitting, i hope to continue reading this newsgroup and hopefully
find the time to get involved in discussions . . . and i would like
emphasize discussions.  

have a happy holiday season and lots of joy, happiness, and love
for the new year!!!!!

						francis


  +--------------------------+------------------------------------+
  | Francis M. Rotella       | rotella@gloworm.stanford.edu       |
  | 231E AEL Building        | phone:  (415) 725-6240             |
  | Dept. of EE, MC 4055     | fax:    (415) 725-7293             |
  | Stanford University      |                                    |
  | Stanford, CA 94305       |                                    |
  +--------------------------+------------------------------------+
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 28 Dec 92 19:32:43 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: New Mexico State University

In article <1992Dec28.115818.22733@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.072026.2803@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>>In article <ofBEMFy00Uh_I2BY9m@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>>
>>>    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!
>
>Loomis came with a very rational reply to the post, taking many different
>things into notice. You, on the other hand, are starting to look like a jester
>with all your ludicrous posts. Well, at least we have some clown to laugh to?

How was my first reply not rational?  I just questioned how you came
to your conclusions.  Your replies have shown some very weak reasoning
indeed.

SD
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc