HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Subject: Re: free will
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:01:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.095324.30390@davidsys.com> khan@davidsys.com writes:

>  We are Creations of God. Fortunately, or ` 'unfortunately', He gave
>us a consciousness and a power in the human brain. When this brain is
>not submitting to God, and praying to Him, the brain becomes arrogant
>[I am, I will, I say! etc.]. And so Hanlon asked the question of God
>violating Mary's rights, etc. First, you have to acknowledge your
>position with respect to God, and then you will understand.  You are
>just a creature of God.

So, your contention here is that the question of the conception of
Jesus is the product of a mind which is not submitting to God, and
therefore irrelevant? Do you think the faithful should not (or feel no
need to) ask this question?

Yeah, right. I'll let more capable people with big flamethrowers
handle this one.

Rick R.
-- 
# Rick Russell    | TAMU Meteorology   | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Internet) #
# "If you can't have fun with a dozen inflated rubber hands,                #
# then you're not trying."  - Carla LeBec                                   #
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Hello?
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:32:50 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

>In article <TD99NB4w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>
>>Are my articles not getting out, or is everyone studiously ignoring me?
>>mathew

Your articles are getting out but seem not to be propagating
everywhere; for instance I've noticed all week that I see responses to
your articles but not the originals (the responses, however, seem to
come from various sources, so I don't know what's going on).  Today,
however, I have seen a couple of posts come through...
-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.
From: Robert.Pierce@iphase.UUCP (Robert Pierce)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: on the futility of ra
Date: 21 Jul 92  18:16:00 EST

I'm afraid I don't get the jist of your post.  Are you saying that we should drop the scientific method for some psycho-babble, 'i-luv-jesus' kinda crap one reads about in FATE magazine?  If so, you should try posting in the humor cats.

     Kein Gott!
     Rettung selbstbedienung!

Pope Rob, Pontificus Fickvergnuegen.

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
From: kml@cellar.org (Lazlo Hoover Toth)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Watsonville, CA
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:54:32 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams) writes:

> In <UeRBjeq00WBMI8QmFX@andrew.cmu.edu> ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis) 
> 
> >I am interested in an analysis of what is happening in Watsonville, CA. 
> >There is a reputed resemblence of a pattern on the bark of a tree to the
> >Virgin Mary.  Obviously, the pilgrims to this "miracle" are not the
> >brightest people, but how can such folly be explained in the 20th
> >century?  Would abolishing democracy be a desirable a goal or what? 
> >[Cheer me up about the human condition, please.]
> 
> >Ironic side note:  the pilgrims in their enthuaism for the tree are
> >stripping of its bark and killing it.  Isn't it an excellent metaphor?
> 
> >Michael Loomis
> 
> Gavin -- Firm believer that Opus is the new messiah.


Sorry, but the human condition is in a fairly sad state.  A knot in the 
bark of the tree is said to resemble the profile of Jesus, to which
worshippers have flocked.

The really pathetic thing about all this is that their image of Jesus is
based on artist's renderings.  Artists have, among other things, 
decided on the number, color, and names of the Magi.  Such irrefutable
sources.


  c/o YoyoDyne Propulsion Systems, maker of the Tri-Wing Fighter
          All parts delivered in big pink boxes.
  kml%cellar@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com  - My other account is a Mercedes.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:51:38 GMT

(Steve Timpson) writes:
>        Just so you know where I come from:
>
>        I  am a theistic evolutionist.  In other words I believe that God
>        started the  ball  rolling and evolutions then took over.  I have
>        no arguments to  support  my  belief  and I will not even try.  I
>        couldn't care less whether  anyone  believes  in God or not and I
>        don't believe God cares either.


Why did God bother with evolution? Why not just make everything as it is
now?

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: stoesser@i31s21.ira.uka.de (Achim Stoesser)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: a butterfly?
Date: 29 Jul 1992 13:15:47 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: i31s21.ira.uka.de

In article <L86NoB15w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
|> Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk> writes:
|> > Nice going, particularly as no-one knows what Jesus looked like.
|> 
|> He was blond, with blue eyes and pale white skin.  Must be true, I've seen
|> pictures.

Fakes! He was black haired with an ebony skin. I've seen a missionary on TV
who showed such a picture where Jesus was carrying a spear and rings in 
ears and nose (or were it bones in the hair?) to prove that (as he said)
"Jesus was a Maori." To prove it to Maoris, that is.

|> mathew
|> -- 
|> "He is heterosexual.  It is a sort of breath of fresh air, isn't it?  The
|>  indecent assault, an expression of his sexuality." -- Judge Geoffrey Jones
|> 
 							            Achim
_________________________________________________________________________

I'm an anarchist, atheist, pacifist, and vegetarian. If I were homosexual
I'd really be in trouble.



Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mr. Mensa )
Subject: Re: lighten up, people
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 04:45:28 GMT
Keywords: faith 

dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:


>It's considered good netiquette to read a group for a week or two before
>posting.

	all right, guess I will keep that in mind (kinda new to nn)

>>	1) the idea of God is not illogical.

>>       I am a scientist (an astronomer),
>>	and I believe in God. I believe that He (or whatever pc pronoun you
>>	see fit to insert) created the Universe. BUT: I also believe 100% in
>>	the natural laws that control the Universe (ie Big Bang, Worm Holes,
>>	Black Holes, etc.) I am VERY interested in correspondance with someone
>>	who has a differing opinion on this.

>That rules me out.  I believe that you are a scientist, and that you believe
>in God, and that you believe 100% in the natural laws that control the
>Universe.

	well, Douglas, what I was hoping for was an e-mail discussion/debate
	with someone who thinks that the idea of God and natural physical
	laws are mutually exclusive.

>>	4) the Bible (to me, at least) is not a literal work. Come on, people..
>>	who really believes that the Universe was created in SIX DAYS?!?! BUT:

>Amazingly enough, there are people who believe this.  But I find that no more
>surprising than that there are people who believe that the following carries
>any informational content.  What's a "spirit of Love?"  Sounds like brain fuzz
>to me.  Be careful, that stuff can lead to insanity.

	Spirit of love....hmmm, well how can I explain this...? You know what
	a spirit is, right? Well, God is a spirit that is pure love...you have
	heard the phrase, 'God is love?' That is what God is....He is the love
	that exists in the Universe, and He is Who made the Universe....sorry I
	can't explain it better.
	
>>       He (see above note) does
>>	not have a physical existence. He is a spirit of Love. One will
>>	never 'see God' in a physical sense, because that is simply not how
>>	He exists.

>Do you agree that God is a gfurble of blarfle as well?  I rather think
>that that is one of his more important characteristics.  I've been thinking
>of writing a volume of theology on this important concept.


	YES! I think you see what I am saying....there is no physical form
	to God: He just is.
	

		thomas ehardt
		tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
		Oskee-Wow-Wow!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mr. Mensa )
Subject: Re: Oh no, not again ( was Re: lighten up, people
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 05:50:49 GMT

Hi again:

	Intersting points about free will....I guess maybe I could have
explained MY ideas a little better. For the duration of this post, let us
assume that God does, in fact, exist. I am going to try to explain MY belief
of free will--I am by no means implying that this should be what anyone
else should believe in; it's just what I believe in.
	OK: As for the omniscience of God... "God's knowledge encompasses
everyone and everything, all that is, was, and will be." Now let's take
this and ananlyze it (nb, let me explain what I mean by using this). What
I believe in is that God basically knows everything and everyone. He knows
what we will do, what has been done, and what we are doing right now. For
the sake of argument, just accept this for right now.
	Now: "We are swept by the currents of time, but God dwells in an
eternity to which every moment of all time is always present, and He
watches over all things with unchanging love." OK. What would this imply?
Well, simply that God does not exist in our notion of time. Every part of
the Universe of all of man's notion of time is at once recognizable and
accessible to God.
	Now I come to the free will concept. I totally understand the 
notion that if God knows what we will do, are we really free to do it?
Yes, we are. It is like this: now let's pretend that we know in advance that
a professor is going to put a certain question on an exam. Somehow we have
found out ahead of time--perhaps we have seen a copy of the exam, or maybe
we have heard him/her talking to a colleague about it, or perhaps even we
are just psychic. The point being that we know for a fact that this question
is going to be on the exam. Now...this is just like God knowing what we are
going to do, say, this Friday night at the bars. I ask to you all (and if
you don't agree, please don't hesitate to let me know): isn't the professor
perfectly free to put this question on the exam? Why does our knowing that it
is going to be there make it imperative that it be there? I don't see how a
prior knowledge of an a person's action strips that person of his/her free
will. Maybe I just didn't get the point of everybody's criticism, either.


		keep thinking--it's what keeps us all sane
		thomas ehardt
		tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Subject: Existence of misery (was: Existence of god)
Organization: Xerox PARC
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:08:00 GMT

SUMMARY: No DAVE!!!, no MvA, no Shogun... Who will be 
         my next friend in misery?

In <1992Jul22.074201.23437@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> 
My Friend Of Misery '}' teaches me about phylosophy:

} Everytime someone posts something you can't deal with, you say "You
} don't know any phylosophy". SO: 
}
Every time a theists posts something you can't deal with, you say:
}
}f) Face it. NO GOD.

} a) please stop. 
}
Please stop. (BTW, there are kill files)

} b) Suprise. I DO know some phylosophy. 
}
A suprise indeed. And I know some karate (I took LESSONS!). And some
cooking tricks. (For example I know how to cook eggs. Indeed. Believe
me or not. My wife has shown it once to me. She's an expert). 

}c) It is clear that you DON'T when you post strange lines like 
}   "fundamental things about philosophy". If you knew phylosophy, 
}   even a little, you would understand that there is NO SUCH THING.
}
Hmmm. You seem to have just found one fundamental thing...

}d) After all, you faild to present even ONE fundamental thing about 
}   philosophy, 
}
I disagree. Simply, you have failed to understand even ONE fundamental
thing about philosophy.

}   And if you will post one, I bet I'll find a phylosopher
}   who'll disagree with you.
}
I agree. There's a hell of difference between a phylosopher and a
philosopher. As between AIDS and aids.

}e) As for examples, you are good example of religious who tries 
}   to hide behind Phylosophy.
}
But you will track down, uncover, disable, and eliminate!


Best wishes,
             Jarek
------------------------------------------------------
 .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
 `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
From: sjs@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sneezing birds
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:02:02 GMT

In article <9997@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 
(Bob Beauchaine) writes:

>   Man has no need to create a bird, since they serve no invaluable
>   purpose and it's been done before.

You can bet the military would love to design a bird, able to carry
a powerful weapon in a small, overlooked package.


----
Bitnet:     sjs@ifasgnv              "Precious and fish are the moments we
Internet:   sjs@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu      two can share."          -- Gollum
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Subject: Re: Atheism and spiritual feelings (was Re: Atheism and culture)
Organization: Xerox PARC
Date: 26 Jul 92 16:03:16 GMT

In <graham.711861571@galois> and <graham.712134038@galois> my best
friend Graham Matthews, happy that I didn't get his point, says that I
am probably paranoid and repeats: 

-Graham <graham.712134038@galois>:
> I said that you do not practice agnostic theism.
>
And I said that "I have spiritual feelings about God so I MAY believe
that there's God". To what you replied: 

-Graham <graham.711861571@galois>:
>An agnostic would not credit those "spiritual feelings" to "God".
>He/she would not credit them to anything.
>
This is a negative agnosticism; we will see whether YOU practice this
kind of agnosticism (another thread, mind you). As for me, I stressed
that I *_MAY_* believe that there's God, just as I *_MAY_* believe that
there's Graham. These beliefs are my conscious choices and I KNOW that I
cannot verify them in any absolute way; the only possible verification
is a subjective, non-absolute test against agreement with my intuition
or with my emotional preference. This "know that I don't know" does not
prevent me from believing in things because also "I don't know that I 
know not" (positive agnosticism). Just as discussed in the thread to
which I refered you. Let me then repeat my paranoic statement:

-Jarek:
>>Let's not begin it from the scratch.You didn't reply to my last post on
>>agnostic theism. If you want to go on saying that this position is not
>>possible, please dig out your notebook, make a summary of argumentation
>>and add your new comment.


Best wishes, and I go for my paranoid breakfast,
                                                Jarek
------------------------------------------------------
 .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
 `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14551 soc.culture.pakistan:12877 soc.culture.arabic:2924
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Date: 29 Jul 92 23:14:42 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Jul29.145307.19925@cco.caltech.edu> bes@cco.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi) writes:
>In article <graham.712324379@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>
>>Ok then tell me, say we have two interpretations, I1 and I2, of the
>>"more correct" than the other?
>
>I answered this before.  You take the interpretation that best satisfies
>the definition of Islam.  You will say but other people will disagree
>with you on the choice on interpretation.  Fine, I have no problem with
>that.
>

  Are you being obtuse on purpose?????  How can you have two
  (assumed conflicting on at least one point) interpretations that
  both satisfy the definition of Islam?  One of them is wrong.
  Period.  How do you tell the difference?  You can't.  Re-read the
  last two sentences.  You're just not getting the point!

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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.bizarre
Subject: Short, shameful confession
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 92 16:31:22 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

When I heard that the Pope was ill, my first thought was "Wouldn't it be
funny if it turned out that he had caught AIDS through a brief unsafe sexual
encounter with a prostitute?"


mathew
[ Who was the last Pope to die of tertiary syphilis anyway? ]
-- 
Down, boy!  There's a good dogma.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Positive and negative assertions
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 07:05:26 GMT

(Bruce Stephens) writes:
>My own feeling is that Occam's razor is sufficient justification.
Graham:
> Occam's Razor is not a *justification* of anything. It is a means
> of arbitrarily chosing between certain things. Nothing more nothing
> less.
Bruce:
>You're correct, it is not a justification in the normal sense, and I
>probably should have said "justification" rather than justification.
>Occam's razor *is* a way of arbitrarily choosing between things,
>however, and that's what we're talking about isn't it?  (Assuming the
>evidence is evenly balanced, which I personally don't accept.)

Sure it is a way but then so is a coin!
The whole problem with Occam's razor is the condition under which it
"may" be used, namely the "all things being equal ..". All things are
never equal.

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
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:77 alt.atheism:14674
From: "Jason Goeppinger [Math]" <plains!s21.msi.umn.edu!goepping@uunet.uu.net>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism vs. Christianity (WHY?)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:25:01 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: MSI

In article <1992Jul29.213315.21289@samba.oit.unc.edu> Josh Adams <lambada.oit.unc.edu!Josh.Adams@mcnc.org> writes:

   My biggest reason (well, I think biggest) for not believing in god is that
   there are so many religions out there who all believe they are right and
   everyone else is wrong (yes I know it's not exactly like that, but most
   religions contradict) so how can any one of them be right? You, well, we'll
   Christians (randomly, of course) all think that Jesus is gonna come back
   or whatever, while the Jews say he won't. You are so set in your thinking
   that you don't realize that there are other possibilities than yours. So,
   since "God talked" to so many people, I have no other choice than to believe
   that whoever he "talked" to just made it up. I hope that made sense, cuz it
   sure did to me. Why should one religion be right and another wrong? It's all
   bullshit, and there's just no other way...

Sounds good to me.  We've got all these religions and every one of
them must "work" or nobody would believe in them.  By "work" I mean
have a system of keeping people informed of the workings of reality,
providing guidance for moral questions and responses to every-day
events and giving some sort of pardon for mis-deeds, providing
mechanisms to deflect arguments that would detract from the religion's
credibility, providing a mechanism to strengthen its numbers, etc.  

To me the big religions are just a result of "Spiritual Darwinism," or
the Survival of the Fittest Dogma.  We start out with superstitions
concerning the rising sun and the rain, etc.  So we create impersonal
gods that control natural phenomena.  Then when we started to
cultivate we needed gods that would stay in the same place and make
sure our crops would grow.  Then we built cities and we needed BIG,
justice-oriented gods to protect us and sustain our community.  Then
we found it was easier to unify people (and scare them shitless)
around a single god that controls absolutely everything.  And then we
found out that we really can dig our god if he's personal and can
relate to us.  Thus we have (in an extremely simplified sense) our
western religions.  

It's nothing but successive refinements, baby, and
we've had thousands of years worth of history to refine and tune these
machines that seem to fit humans so perfectly.  OF COURSE THEY FIT,
STUPID BECAUSE _WE_ DESIGNED THEM TO FIT!!!  A lot of bullshit, yes.  But
extremely sophisticated and ruthless bullshit nonetheless.
--

	Jason Goeppinger
	(goepping@s1.msi.umn.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:44 alt.atheism:14574
From: Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:34:42 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

Todd Kelley writes:

>When dealing with something as basic and important as a view of how
>the universe is and how it should be made to become, arbitrariness and
>dogmatism are insidious nemeses.  Dogmatism and arbitrariness define
>religion.  (For example, science is not a religion because it's neither
>dogmatic nor arbitrary.)  Therefore, naturally, truly open-minded persons
>scorn religion.  This does not mean they scorn what religions say; it
>means they scorn what religion is: a set of arbitrary beliefs which
>must be accepted without question.

  not to suggest you're closed minded, but religion is not [by definition]
a set of arbitrary beliefs which must be accepted without question.  a 
christian church community for instance is most often a place of intense
analysis of the facets of christian belief.  the view that religious people
of any persuasion operate solely on blind faith is at best uninformed and
at worst naive and closed-minded.  only you can decide if you're well
informed.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:88 alt.atheism:14685