HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<graham.715148792@galois>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 01:12:25 GMT

In article <graham.715148792@galois> 
graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>I would not call this "faith". You seem to be endowing faith with an
>air of scepticism - as far as I can see this is a contradiction in
>terms.

It most certainly is not a contradiction in terms. Maybe you should try
it out sometime. Who knows what you might learn. Great things are
possible.

>Leaving aside all the rhetoric, faith is the belief in the absolute
>truth of something without justification. 

That is BLIND FAITH! That is the way of no brain required, aka
stupidity! The creator created you with a brain, why not give it some
exercise every now and then? If you are a Jesus freak, why not read of
the temptation of Jesus by the Devil and learn how Jesus had faith, but
not blind faith.

>To claim that you can include scepticism into this is somewhat doubtful.

No it is not doubtful, it is the way of learning and moving foward. Try
it sometime, it won't hurt you, unlike blind faith which can get you
killed. I live in California ten miles from the San Andreas fault, and
yet I have faith that the big one will not come today. But I don't have
blind faith, I know that one day it will and there are somethings I can
do to be prepared. But I have faith that it won't be the end of the
world. Do you see how blind faith is different from faith or is that
distiction just too subtle for you to comprehend? Do you have faith that
your refrigerator and hot water heater will work forever, or do you have
blind faith in these two appliances? If you have any kind of working
brain, you have faith that they will continue working for sometime, but
will one day fail. 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 19:51:36 GMT

In article <1859ulINNdh7@shadow.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@shadow.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>
>In article <laa18gINNpi8@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>In article <182hevINN5sg@sam.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@sam.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>>>
>>>First, I don't see why the people against overpopulation care.  I'm
>>>guessing that they are all from the U.S., which is barely affected by
>>>overpopulation, domestic or foreign.
>>
>>From my perspective, the very fact that you ask this question shows a
>>rather selfish mindset. You are in essence saying, If overpopulation 
>>doesn't effect me, why should I care? 
>
>Of course I have a selfish mind set, ask graham mathews.  If you want to
>start a thread about the virtues of selfishness, just give the word.  

Nothing wrong with selfishness, but I think that there is some benefit
in taking a longer term more enlightened approach to it.  Overpopulation
may not affect you today (I think it does) but you ought to be a little
worried about what it might do to you tommorrow.

>>believe that as a member of a society one has a certain obligation to
>>improving the well being of members of that society. I consider myself
>>to be a world citizen, and as such I believe I have an obligation to
>>try to improve the quality of life of all living creatures of this 
>>world that I'm a member of, if I can do so in some way.
>
>Isn't that sweet.  So, are you a member of peace corps?  Did you cry when
>communism fell?  Are you a member of the socialist party?  Are you really
>going all out to rectify social inequality around the world or do you just
>claim to care to give yourself warm fuzzies?

I'm a bit surprised to hear this kind of drivel coming from an atheist.
Sure, there are plenty of things wrong with the world, and lots of things
that could be done to try to fix it.  One person can't do everything
though.  Therefore, using your "reasoning", nobody should do anything.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 01:02:33 GMT

(Graham Matthews) writes:
>>Leaving aside all the rhetoric, faith is the belief in the absolute
>>truth of something without justification. 
(Paul Harvey) writes:
>That is BLIND FAITH! That is the way of no brain required, aka
>stupidity! The creator created you with a brain, why not give it some
>exercise every now and then? If you are a Jesus freak, why not read of
>the temptation of Jesus by the Devil and learn how Jesus had faith, but
>not blind faith.

Where do you get the "Jesus freak" bit from?

(Graham Matthews) writes:
>To claim that you can include scepticism into this is somewhat doubtful.
(Paul Harvey) writes:
>No it is not doubtful, it is the way of learning and moving foward. Try
>it sometime, it won't hurt you, unlike blind faith which can get you
>killed. I live in California ten miles from the San Andreas fault, and
>yet I have faith that the big one will not come today. But I don't have
>blind faith, I know that one day it will and there are somethings I can
>do to be prepared.

You are mixing propositions here. The first proposition is that "the
big one will not happend TODAY", the second is that "it will NEVER
happen". I doubt that you have what you call "blind faith" in either
of them. You have educated guesses on the subject.

(Graham Matthews) writes:
>But I have faith that it won't be the end of the
>world. Do you see how blind faith is different from faith or is that
>distiction just too subtle for you to comprehend? Do you have faith that
>your refrigerator and hot water heater will work forever, or do you have
>blind faith in these two appliances? If you have any kind of working
>brain, you have faith that they will continue working for sometime, but
>will one day fail. 

Are the insults really necessary?
Think the following		blind faith = faith
						faith = educated guess.

graham

--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
From: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:40:36 GMT
Organization: Society for the Prevention of National Mudding Associations

sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:

>  wrong.  absolute truth can exist.  2+2=4 and it is true.  you can
>make statements that contradict this, but this does not necessarily
>mean 2+2=4 isn't objective or universal.  

What is 2?  What is 4?  What do "+" and "=" mean?

Do some reading in mathematical philosophy.  You'll find that even the
statement 1+0=1 is not defensible except as having been DEFINED (i.e.
accepted as true without proof) as such.

>neither you nor i can show that god being knowable in the bible and
>his truths being absolute are objectively verifiable according to the
>same means we can prove 2+2=4.

2+2=4 requires some (relatively) simple assumptions (special things
about 2, 4, 1, 0, +, and =) to be proven true under those assumptions.
Proving that God exists requires certain assumptions to be made as
well.  Often, these assumptions are not quite as simple.

>so you cannot say that i'm wrong.  i think i'm right and i'm going to
>continue to live based on god existing and his being knowable in the
>bible.

That is, of course, your perogative.  Please note the "I say so"
defense is not particularily convincing, however.
-- 
"If our section was 'Romper Room', our TA would have been great.  I'm just
 surprised she didn't threaten to take recess away from us."
	-- Comment on a course evaluation form, Brown University
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: That garden of eden "thang"
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 20:20:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.212457.8588@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
>Why didn't God create Adam and Eve with enough will-power 
>to withstand the temptation?  He knew when he created them
>that they would fail.  What were the chances that they would
>fail?  50/50?  Why not 75/25?  Why not 99.9/0.1?  Is it more
>than just a matter of will-power?  If so, what?  Why is God
>passing the buck on this?

The answer is very simple. It was the creator's intent that humans
should eat of the fruit of knowledge and thus know of the world, the
good and the bad, and also so that they might assume some responsability
for their actions, instead of always blaiming someone else. That's
fairly straightforward, isn't it? Knowledge is the key and you are the
lock. Knowledge includes knowledge that you have free will and are
responsable for your actions. You ate the fruit, so don't go blaiming it
on someone else, not Eve, not the snake, not the creator, not the Devil. 
Wake Up! Heaven is right here, right now only most don't see it for what 
it is. Hell is not seeing. You are free, but you must act as a free person. 
No more blaiming the slave master anymore.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Free Will / Evil / Creation
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:25:01 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <adams.714938094@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) wrote:
> n5ppm264 (Charlie Board) writes:
> >In article <adams.714855255@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> 
> >> Hmm.  You have an interesting definition of a logical trap.  If God creates
> >> a universe of people with 'free will' who do not sin, there still has to be
> >> the logical possibility of evil.  If there is no possible way to do evil,
> >> then there is no free will.
> 
> >Huh? I don't understand the last sentence.
> 
> If there is no way possible to do a thing, you are not exercising free will
> by not doing it.  If evil were not an actual logical possibility, then not
> doing it would not be an exercise of free will.

Sigh, the issue of free will appears once a month on t.r.m. Well, let's
say this thing. Do computers do the right choice when the execute
a conditional branch? They can't sin, so it means they don't have 
a free will to jump to the right address. That would mean that I would
not be able to type on my keyboard just now.

I think the ultimate problem with the argumentation about free will
and sinning has to do with the assumption that human thinking is the 
only form of 'free will' thinking. We have a huge backlog of automatic
behavior based on our cultural and social background. If we create
another form of thinking mind that don't have all the garbage, we 
are able to suddenly create a machine with a supposedly free will
that don't know anything about sinning.

I know, this is a hot potato in the AI world just now, could you
create a computer that is independent of the programmer? God most
likely had the same problem, and he solved it with the introduction
of sinning (suffering). I hope our computer scientists have better
ideas.

Cheers,
Kent
---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Church/State separation
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 08:52:03 GMT

Most Christians believe you can't have morals without religion as
a basis.  Doesn't this imply they believe Church/State separation
is misguided?  If not, how do you explain this apparent 
inconsistency?
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Allmighty God
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:14:04 GMT
 <fRJgrkL@quack.sac.ca.us> <adams.714836722@spssig> <BtLv2F.Cp7@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:

>pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>Hmm, I guess your God is not so allmighty and powerful then. My God can
>create a 'square' circle and she would call it an n-sided polygon. My
>God is allmighty and can do anything, including create a boulder so
>large that she couldn't lift it. It must be somewhat of a disappointment
>having a God who is not allmighty. :::B^}

>In article <adams.714836722@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>In case one, your god is not creating a circle.  She is creating an n-sided
>>polygon.

>Ah, but my God says that She can make an n-sided polygon be the same as a
>circle. But then again She is allmighty. She has infinity on Her side. She is
>also an expert mathematician. She knows the exact value of Pi, but it would
>take a long time for Her to tell you it.

Yes, I know the math.  An infinite n-sided polygon *IS* a circle.  We're
talking definitions here.  Besides, note well that I said "square", which
means all sides are equal, separated by 90 dgree angles.  Ooops.

As for Pi, the exact value is defined as (circumf)/(diameter).  Given
enough time, and enough compute power, you could print digits of Pi until
the end of the universe.  No different than your God telling you the
number.

>>In case two, your god is not almighty, for there now exists a boulder which
>>she is unable to lift. Not very powerfull....

>Ah, but once created, She would then lift it, thus creating a miracle. 
But then she has violated the test.  The test was to create something so
big she could not lift it.  She couldn't do it!  By lifint the boulder, she
failed!

>Very powerful and allmighty, as a matter of fact, transcendent. 
Not.

>So how do you cope
>with a God who is not allmighty and only knows Pi to one digit? 
I don't believe in plenary verbal inspiration.  Blame the author of the
document who chose to use aproximate values or didn't measure properly.  He
did get darn close, considering.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: self-worship
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:39:44 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <sbuckley.714968230@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
Buckley) wrote:
> 
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik (Hacker)) writes:
> >How does this differ from human religious groups that control how
> >god should be worshipped?
 
>   it doesn't.  it's the same stuff.  human beings have individual, personal,
> internal relationships with god in jesus.  without that, social religious
> influence is meaningless, which is why i at one time and many all the time
> leave the church because they have no personal relationship with god
> and the church is not enough to give someone god.

Your assumption would imply that our world would not need huge religious
sects based on the original teachings of Jesus, and that RC and similar
huge churches are artifacts. You know, they killed people that didn't
belong to a church (or the wrong one) 1500 years ago.

Cheers,
Kent
--
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 2 Sep 92 04:12:00 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Sep1.213445.8989@tc.fluke.COM> emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
>In article <BtLz0w.BBC@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose) writes:
>>I'm sorry, but all religions are the same - they threaten those who don't
>>follow them so that they'll scare people into joining them.  It's Darwinism,
>>really - you Christians try to scare people into joining you, so you gain
>>members.
>
>May I ask, Wulf, are you scared by the gospel message?  What about anyone
>else out there, are you scared of the message right now?  May I dare
>make the statement that I don't believe there are many non-Christians
>out there who are fearful because of the gospel.

Of course there are few non-Christians who are fearful of the gospel
message.  If they believed the tripe enough to be afraid of it, they'd
probably join your cult.  But the fact remains that threats of eternal
damnation for those who are not members of the cult are quite clearly
scare tactics designed to coerce the credulous into signing up.  And
staying signed up.

>I have the wonderful joy of seeing many people come to the Lord.  Yet I
>see joy and freedom rather than fear.  

You should try looking at it from the outside in.  Not a pretty sight
at all.

>What do you see as our motive in gaining members? Money?  In fact, why
>do you think we are believers in the first place?

You are believers because you succumbed to scare tactics and other
psychological manipulation, possibly as a child.  You try to gain members
because that's what the virus which has destroyed your brain tells you to
do.  In words: "Go and make believers of all the nations."  The virus has
rendered you incapable of stopping to consider that by spreading it, you
may be doing far, far more harm than good.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
From: aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Islamic stories...
Date: 26 Aug 1992 12:51:37 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

In article <66938@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <l9nl03INNg6p@pollux.usc.edu> aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah) writes:
>>In article <BtKpJq.35M@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>>>In article <l9ku2fINNe8d@pollux.usc.edu>, aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah) writes...
>are willing, would you (Ahmed) be willing to post the differences or
>even the improvements the Qur'an has over the Bible, especially the 
>New Testament (Matthew-Revelation)?  If so, change the header and post
>then - I'd be interested.

It's a long term project of mine, and when it's done I'll be sure to
post it, God willing.

[stuff deleted - I've been posting for two hours straight now, forgive
my terseness]

>Please, give the name of the one or group of translators for the
>translation you use, since you ask for the same.  How about giving
>a few names and comment on the worthiness of them - I'm not familar
>with the options available.

Muhammad Asad - The Message of the Qur'an.
Yusuf Ali - The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an
Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall - The Meaning of the Glorious Koran

Which do I suggest?  All of them - and that's not a joke.  I speak
Arabic, and each translation has its defects and strengths.  No, I
am not a scholar, but my criticism is simply levelled at styles and
a couple of mistranslations.  Get at least two of the three - my
cautious recommendation is Asad's and one of the other two.

>>Verse [7:28] is speaking on the mentality of some people who sin:
>>
>>	[7:28]
>>	When they do anything that is shameful, they say:
>>	"We found our fathers doing so" and "Allah commanded
>>	us thus".  Say (O Prophet): "Nay, Allah never
>>	commands what is shameful: Do you attribute to Allah
>>	something of which you have no knowledge?"
>
>What do the parenthetical items, '(...)', mean?  Are they in the
>original or are they comments by the translator or by yourself?

They are meanings derived from the context - where context includes
what the Qur'an has clarified in other places, what the Prophet
has said, and far beneath these two are also: the understanding of
ancient scholars, modern scholars, and common sense.


>Sincerely,
>Richard Pitts

Ahmed A. Abd-Allah
From: murraysd@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Stephen D Murray)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Brainwashing
Summary: Request for info
Date: 4 Sep 92 11:05:33 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.



   Does anyone have any info/evidence about brainwashing tactics being used
by cults/revivalist preachers/churches? I have recently come across reports of
such things, and indeed have encountered such sinister methods- I would be
very grateful to receive any information at all about such things; I am particularly interested in the methods uses in brainwashing , neuro-linguistics 
especially. If anyone has any such info I'd much appreciate it if they could
mail it to me.

My address is: <murraysd@dcs.gla.ac.uk>

Stephen D Murray.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15521 alt.atheism:16444
From: yohan@shadow.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Mr. Newton's definition
Date: 3 Sep 1992 09:43:40 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: shadow.ksu.ksu.edu


from: anoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])

I obviously know very few christian theologians? I think it
bit presumptuous for you to say that. I'll just mention one,
a man who taught philosophy and theology and was noted by
Publisher's Weekly as one of the most important thinkers of
the 20th century: Paul Tillich.

me:
1)  There are a number of christian philosophers who are heralded as great
thinkers, but a large part of that is a result of a biased christian population.
2)  What books has Tillich published; I'd like to judge his credibility for
myself.

from: anoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
The fact is that although it is ever so boringly easy to
pick on zealous christian fundamentalists and the fact is
that zealots tend to post more than moderates, modern
christian theology as I understand it is not concerned with 
apologetics towards inerrancy, virgin births, etcetera,
and most of all does encourage doubt.

Me:
Sure, if you say that the entire bible is one big metaphor, you can rationalize
all of its errors.  Do modern christians believe that blind faith in christ is
just a metaphor for critically discovering proof that verifies his claims as the
being the son of god?  Are YOU sure what is the modern christian's view towards
faith?  Do you personally think there is proof of god's existence?  If so, I'd
love to hear the proof.  If not, you are an unthinking christian, whether that be
a modern or classical one.  

from: anoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
I think if you had any understanding of modern christian
theology (by modern I mean anything since say, 1945),
you would not attempt such sweeping generalizations as
you previously posted.

Dano

Me:
I think I do.


Jon Newton