HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reality- What's Probable?
Date: 13 Jan 1993 04:15:32 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan13.024949.23498@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
|> In article <1ivuj9INNa1@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >In article <1993Jan13.005042.22617@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
|> >> Actually, the problem is that the Christian example is phrased
|> >> something like "looking with an open mind" and it's impossible
|> >> to prove that one has fulfilled THAT condition. But I didn't
|> >> phrase it that way. I phrased it as just looking, and I most
|> >> certainly did look. Hard enough, or open mind, etc. just don't
|> >> enter into it in this case. 
|> >
|> >Did you try sending Jimmy Swaggart fifty dollars so that he
|> >could pray for the Lord to open your eyes?
|>
|> No, I most certainly did not. And I don't maintain that I've
|> proved Jimmy Swaggart to be false. Does Jimmy Swaggart maintain
|> that if I send him $50, my eyes will be opened? If not, it's
|> hardly much of a test, is it?

That's because he doesn't care about your purple tiger.   He cares
intensely about opening people's eyes to God.    Least ways, so he
says.   Maybe he just wants the fifty dollars.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 07:43:05 GMT

In article <SCG.93Jan4184949@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu writes:
>sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>
>it is my opinion that a belief in any cosmology which demands one
>consider oneself to be without inherent value is inherently
>self-destructive.  to me, christianity, through its doctrine of
>original sin and reliance on divine grace, meets this criteria.

Without value?  Why would God bother with us if we are without value in His
eyes?  There must be something worth saving!  No one deserves fellowship with
God, but because He deemed us worthwhile, He saved us by grace through faith
in Christ.

John M.

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25204 talk.religion.misc:25364
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:55:11 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1993Jan5.223146.29327@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>Sure, when God placed the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil in the Garden, HE
>knew that the people would partake of it and be condemned to death as well as
>all the generations that followed them.  GOD knew this!

Minor correction.  He didn't just happen to know it.  He made it so.
He was the one who would sentence Adam, Eve and all their descendants
to death, and he wanted to do it.  The only reason for which was that
he was an unspeakable jerk.

>   That is why He provided a plan for salvation through His one and only Son,
>Jesus Christ.

His one and only son?  Whose fault is it that he only has one son?
He could have begotten a google of sons if he wanted, couldn't he?

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: log is NOT OpOrd
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:05:59 GMT


EXCUSE ME DRAFTBAIT!!!!!!

but a log is kept of what occurs,
an OpOrd is promulgated of what one
intends to do. One CAN NOT write a
log entry about future events, save:

0010 Captain Establishes Uniform for the Day will Be Tropical whites.
0015 Weather: -10 f, wind 55 knots wsw, sea 5
0030 Ensign PinHead Redressed for Being Out of Uniform for wearing
	winter foul weather Gear. 

And NEVER believe a 'PIM' as the bloody ship will NEVER
be on the 'Projected Intentions of Movements.'

ciao
drieux

ObMondoReligiousPeeve: Why has NO ONE filed suit against the
			USN as the Quartermaster Rating Insignia
			is a Well Known Buddhist Religious Symbol!

joann@ariadne.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Jo Ann Malina) writes:
] In article <root.726160682@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
] >joann@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Jo Ann Malina) writes:
] >
] >>They weren't calling on the deity of THEIR choice. The reading from the
] >>book of Genesis on Christmas by the Apollo 10 astronauts was written
] >>into their log by NASA. It was the mandating of this reading by the
] >>government that was objected to. (Note that even though it was
] >>supposedly an expression of some sort of Christmas spirit, it came
] >>from the Old Testament.)
] >
] >Huh?  Because something is recored in the logs (as it everything should be
] >on such a mission), that was 'mandating the reading by the government'?
] >Ya know, I'm all for a separation of govt & religion, but this kind of
] >complaint is ridiculous, as were O'Hare's attempts to ban ANY public
] >display of religion.
] 
] Sorry, by log, I meant "list of things you will do on this mission,"
] prepared by NASA for the astronauts to follow during their flight.
] You know, 12:00:00 Comb hair. 12:01:00 Talk to Walter Cronkite.
] 12:02:00 Read from Bible. It was made to sound like a spontaneous
] effusion of feelings suitable to the season; in fact, they were only
] following orders. That is what O'Hair objected to, and so do I.
] If it had been spontaneous on their part, it would have been less
] offensive (and might even have had something to do with Christmas).
] 
] 
] *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *)!(* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (*
] Jo Ann Malina, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
] Neither Stanford nor the DOE would be caught dead with these opinions.
] Nor do they consult me when formulating theirs.
] -----------------------------------------------------------------------
] It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.     -Bill Clinton


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 
Just because you are a homicidal maniac
doesn't mean you don't have a sense of humor.
		- Barry Sadler
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bernt.budde@udac.uu.se (Bernt Budde)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: why does Eire get so much press
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Date: 7 Jan 1993 19:30:23 GMT
Organization: UDAC (Uppsala Univ. Comp. Centre)
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: macbug.udac.uu.se

In article <1993Jan7.135659.16636@maths.tcd.ie>, dreamerb@maths.tcd.ie
(Dara Breathnach) wrote:
> 
> However, if anyone is interested in addressing issues such as why the
> Roman Catholic church in Ireland has such enormous power in society,
> in politics, in education and even within our health service, I'd be very
> pleased to hear it, and it would at least be relevant to the news group.
> 
> Dara Breathnach.

Yes, please. I've never understood that part.

I was in Eire for vacation last summer and plan going there again this
spring (Dublin, Galway (and north of it) and Northern Ireland, btw! We're
thinking about bicycling along the northeastern coastline. Got any tips?).

I really liked the country, *real* Guiness, the people and the music.

It's a bit strange meeting people and talking, knowing that at least half
of them must be (from a pragmatic Swedish view) fanatics. But they don't
*seem* so, from what I expect.

Let's not discuss abortions -- it's too hot. But how can anyone BUT
fanatics oppose prophylactics!? And there are fact arguments for sex
education in schools; USA (I think I can make this claim; don't ask for
references, it's newspapers) have a lower (or about same) starting age for
sex than Sweden and many more teenage pregnancies. We have, compared to USA
and probably Ireland, open education.

On the other hand, the average Irish seems like a lot nicer all-around guy
then your average Swede! (I'm not average; I'm a lot less nice!:-) One of
the religious areas in Sweden would definitely disgust me more to live in
then Ireland would.

You got rid of the English in the twenties, wasn't it? OK, the catholic
church was one of your freedom symbols (18, 19'th century it was very
repressed?) but shouldn't revolutionary fervor have stopped by now? Not
comparing Eire to Iran in *any* way, but...:-)

I'm sorry for mixing in my personal interests in a big way (btw, anyone got
a recommendation for a good beginners book in Gaelic?)

Bernt 'Bug' Budde, UDAC
bernt.budde@udac.uu.se
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bernt.budde@udac.uu.se (Bernt Budde)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why must you act this way?
Followup-To: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Date: 7 Jan 1993 19:44:07 GMT
Organization: UDAC (Uppsala Univ. Comp. Centre)
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: macbug.udac.uu.se

In article <1993Jan7.024748.8687@nwnexus.WA.COM>, pcrayne@halcyon.com
(Peter C. Crayne) wrote:
> 
> In article <1993Jan6.164911.3034@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
> >
> >When one wishes to address the Creator of the universe, it must be done with a 
> >humble heart.
> 
> Why?
> 
> >               You don't just say "Yo dude!  What's shakin?".
> 
> Why not? If there truly is a god in the Christian sense, it is surely
> capable of understanding what I mean. If it is omnicient, it understands
> all about me & my background, and will know my intent, regardless of my
> words. Why can't I just say: "Yo supernatural big guy! I'd like a few
> things cleared up. Why is there so much suffering in your creation?"

Sorry for wasting time and answer a rhetorical question, but the self
suggestion
probably works better; trust him on it, he sounds like an expert. Things
that
throw your body chemistry for a loop is also good; e g ever wondered why
they
often fasted and worked a lot in the convents?

I'm sorry for beating a dead horse. Another of my favorite horses is the
mis-
conception that the hell idea wasn't a big thing among the early Xians. If
you don't all write and complain, I'll pick some references out of a
(Swedish)
book I have and post in a few days.

Bernt 'Bug' Budde, UDAC
bernt.budde@udac.uu.se
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Distribution: world,public
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:49:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.013620.5613@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>
> To use your analogy, God built the airplane and it flies fine. The fact is,
> not everyone wants to ride in it. In fact, most people choose to jump out
> and then curse God for not giving them a parachute. God's plan of salvation
> through Jesus Christ is open to EVERYONE and that means that EVERYONE can be
> saved. Sad fact is, not everyone will be saved. Why is that? Because most
> people choose not to believe. I respect that. It is not for me to choose for
> someone else and I would not wish to impose my beliefs upon another. I am
> delivering a message, that is all. I'll answer questions or else refer you
> to someone who knows the answer. I don't know it all.

Your new analogy is wide of the mark. You neglected to mention that in
this scenario, God created the passengers as well as the plane, in the
full prior knowledge that many of them *would* jump out. "Everyone can
be saved" is not good enough unless everyone *is* saved. Anything short
of this means that God has voluntarily created the whole shooting match 
in the foreknowledge that it *will* inevitably lead to passenger deaths,
which reduces exactly to my original analogy.

Just to repeat something that's been said elsewhere, as an aside, I do
not "choose not to believe". Anybody who calls himself a rationalist
necessarily makes great efforts to divorce belief from desire, and thus
from choice, when it comes to matters of objective fact.


> You can't de-mystify God. Even if you could, you wouldn't understand God
> because you would have to have the mind of God to understand Him. I know
> this sounds like a lot of hokum but that's the way it is. If we could
> prove the existence of God, where is the faith? Nuts and bolts? Logical
> consequences? I can't prove to you that God exists. I know that He exists
> by my experiences with Him. He gives me the strength to do what I could
> never do on my own. He picks me up when I fall down. He has changed my
> life irrevocably and for the better. He has surrounded me with brothers
> and sisters I never knew I had. These things are real. You can't quantify
> the Spirit of God or measure Him on a yardstick. He is beyond human
> understanding, but He is real. My life is proof of that.

At the risk of seeming terse, no it isn't. At least, not to anybody but
yourself. I'll refrain from further comment here, since all that could be
said in response to this has been said elsewhere by me and by others.

>   Thank you for your post, Simon.

Pleasure.

> God loves, Man kills.

Watch out, you may well start a Usenet Cascade (tm) with this.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25625 alt.pagan:15225
From: alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Wanted: Lincoln anti-Christian quotes (REPOST)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 00:19:16 PST
Organization: Tweek-Com Systems BBS, Moraga, CA (510) 631-0615

John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

> Got no quotations the first time; let's try again:
> _____________________________________________________
> 
> Subject line says it all.  A while back someone posted a bunch of
> quotations from Abraham Lincoln that demonstrated his disgust with
> Christianity.  I would appreciate seeing these reposted or having them
> sent to me via email.
> Thanks,
> John (j5j@psuvm.psu.edu)

The only collection of that sort I know of that has been posted was from
me, and there aren't any Lincoln quotes in that file. If anyone has any
good ones, please post or E-mail to me as well. I'll repost what I sent
out anyway... 
Blessings,
A.Lizard
repost ======================
48/50: Here we go!  Name: The Traveller In Black #76 @5278
Date: Mon Jun 01 15:44:56 1992
From: -=ACE*BBS=- (South/Central Texas) [512-258-9553]
Question with boldness even the existance of God; because if
there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather than
that of blindfolded Fear. -----Thomas Jefferson-----
 
During almost 15 centuries has the legal establishment of
Christianity been on trial.  What has been its fruits?  More or
less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance
and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and
persecution.              -----James Madison-----
 
When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and
when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to
support it so that its professors are obligated to call for help
of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad
one.                 -----Benjamin Franklin-----
 
Leave the matter if religion to the family altar, the church, and
the private schools, supported entirely by private contributions.
Keep the church and the state forever separated.
-----Ulysses S. Grant-----
 
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous
debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting
vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it
would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than
the word of God.  It is a history of wickedness that has served
to corrupt and brutalize mankind.          -----Thomas Paine-----
 
I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal
example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has
preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of
grief has produced! ---John Adams-----
------------------------- end repost

-------------------------------------------------------------------
A.Lizard Internet Addresses:
alizard%tweekco%boo@PacBell.COM        (preferred)
[path]!pacbell.COM!boo!tweekco!alizard (bang path for above)
alizard@gentoo.com (backup) alizard@Blue.Kludge.com (if all else fails)
PGP2.0 public key available on request.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: Believers: What Would Make You Not Believe In GOD?
Keywords: So I fixed it
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 22:58:21 GMT

ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:

>>Such as? I'm not sure there is anything anyone could show me including 
>>miracles, irrefutable proof, or heaven that would make me believe. I
>>don't think there is anyone but GOD who could make me believe, either.
>>And GOD won't if I don't want to.
>
> Well, if someone walked up to me, put their hand on my forehead, and
>cried, "In the name of __________ you now have 20/20 vision without
>glasses!" and had it come true, I would be inclined to pay them some
>attention, at least about whatever they used to fill in the _________.

Some attention, but that's about it.  My guess is that you'd come up with
some sort of explanation for it that did not include the premise of God.
I know I would.  I have one already: anybody can do miracles if they just
believe hard enough.  This guy did.  It was his belief that cured you,
even though what he believed in was bogus.

>>Everything human falls apart, since it's part of nature (*).
>>
>>(* -- Isn't that the second law of thermodynamics or something?)
>
> Get a good book on Thermodynamics. The 2nd law of thermo is perhaps
>the most misunderstood scientific concept ever.

I, for one, would like to hear your explanation of this; it's used a lot
by Xian's trying to 'prove' that God created the universe (not realizing
that establishing this as given does absolutely nothing for their
religious theories).  How is it that I can better debate them on this
point?

> I don't see any reasonable option but not to believe. I am quite honest
>about this, though many theists insist that I must be mistaken about my
>own thoughts. If God chooses to damn me because of that, then so be it.
>I wouldn't want to hang out with someone like that, frankly.

My position almost exactly.  If there is a God, and he doesn't want me
in heaven, then quite frankly I don't wanna go with the people he DOES
want there.

-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Child abuse ordered by god.
Date: 9 Jan 93 01:06:22 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1ikt52INNmdk@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> starr-daniel@yale.edu (Daniel Starr) writes:
>In article <11065@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>
>>
>>   Then would you care to explain to us in painfully exquisite
>>   detail exactly what kind of rebellious child deserves death?
>
>>   Flames pending.
>
>Oh, please, give the barbarians a break!
>
>(1)  The passage does not say "child" as in "young and innocent" but
>"child" as in "of the family and authority of the father".  

  Irrelevant.  The actual word in my King James version is "son",
  and no indication of age is mentioned.  And have you never known a
  teenager to get drunk?  Frequently? 

>the Roman republic and empire, the head of the family (paterfamilias) had
>almost total authority over his children NO MATTER HOW OLD THEY WERE until
>he died.  The principle is similar here. 

  Is it?  What relevance are Roman customs to the early Irsaelites?
  What is the *Hebrew* custom regarding authority over offspring?
  That's the only useful comparison.

>
>(2)  LOTS of things deserved death in those days, not just in the eyes of
>the ancient Jews but also in the eyes of the Romans, the Greeks, etc.  The
>environment these laws were enacted for was harsh, and the concept of
>punishment was not for rehabilitation or even emotional vengeance but
>spiritual cleanliness.  

 
  So this is supposed to be a justification?  Of the civilizations you 
  mention, how many of them supposedly got their morality from a
  omnibenevolent god?

>(4) Anyone who claims Deuteronomy perfectly mirrors our own morality without
>injecting context and/or interpretation is being foolish.  Anyone who claims
>it _should_ mirror our own morality may not be foolish, but has some work to
>do.
  
  All true *if* that morality was a human invention.  But that's not
  what christians or Jews claim, is it?

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

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: Bible translations, or Does God Speak Latin?
Keywords: Catholic, Latin, Bible
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 10:45:12 GMT

cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:

>any stripe.  I think I'm the only person I know who thinks that German
>and Russian are beautiful languages; most people go for the Romance
>languages -- which I also love.

Well, there's me...if you consider getting e-mail from me a qualification
for 'knowing' me...<g>

>>It may relate somewhat to the use of Hebrew, Latin or Enochian in some
>>rituals of ceremonial magick, as far as "enlightenment" goes.
>
>Provided the hearer understands it, yes.  Other than that, I see no
>spiritual value in hearing someone make mouth noises at me, no matter
>how beautiful if I don't understand what they're saying.

Not necessarily, in my experience.  There are combinations of simple _sounds_
which some find helpful...in a manner similar to music.  The best music,
I think, is music you don't "understand," but rather music you _feel_ in
your soul.  (Whatever a soul is.)  It requires proper use of intonation
and rhythm as well...hence some modern magicians' emphasis on "intoning"
the words instead of just saying them.

-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc