HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Alec Plumb <aplumb@ucsd.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Date: 21 Aug 1992 18:55:52 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego, IGPP
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: nlab2.ucsd.edu
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7
X-XXDate: Fri, 21 Aug 92 18:57:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.065044.14840@colorado.edu> Bear Giles,
bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU writes:
>Incidently, there was an editorlal in today's, ah yesterday's, newspaper
>where someone actually counted the 128 times Bill Clinton raised taxes
>in Arkansas in 11 years... and applying reasonable definitions (e.g.,
>a tax increase on road fuels was counted as _two_ tax increases since
>there was a tax increase on gasoline and a 'separate' tax increase on
>diesel fuel) there were only 48 tax increases.  And about 48 tax
>reductions.  Some of the tax increases were even major burdens, like
>the $1.00 (yes, 100 cents!) charge per conviction of criminal charges.
>Overall, Arkansas ranks at the bottom of all states in taxes collected.
>
>George "No New Taxes" Bush, on the other hand, had 133 tax increases
>when you use the definitions he uses in evaluating Clinton's record.
>In 4 years.  Excluding the increase in FICA (which I think last occured
>while Bush was in office).

The CNN talking heads mentioned that over the entire Reagan-Bush Era (a
period equivalent in time to Clinton's governorship) taxes were raised
over 500 times by these criteria.

Perhaps of more interest to this particular group is Bush's comment
during the convention that only a Christian could be President of the
United States.  I don't know the context of this statement, as I only
heard a blurb reference to it (again on CNN.)  If anybody knows the full
context of this speech, please pass it on.

Alec Plumb
University of California, San Diego
aplumb@ucsd.edu
My opinions are certainly not those of the Regents of the University of
California, but they darn well should be.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Subject: Not killing as a moral absolute (was Re: Best Bible translation?)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 16:48:20 GMT

In article <BsvKur.5yG@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
|> For example, when confronting my parents recently, my mother claimed that 
|> "Thou shalt not kill" was actually "Thou shalt do no murder" (as if that makes
|> a large difference).

Since this "commandment" gets brought up often (in this group) as being 
an obvious (or unquestionable) moral absolute, I thought I'd thrown in 
my $0.02.  I think the "do no murder" is better way to state it.  And, 
yes, there is a large difference, but even that form has its faults.

In its usual form, there is no indication of what your shouldn't kill.
Is it any living thing (people, animals, plants, yeast, bacteria)?
Even, as it is commonly assumed, if killing only refers to people, the 
church and governments have invented "legitimate" forms of killing (war,
execution of criminals, etc.).  The dictionary definition of murder 
(i.e. *unlawful* killing of a person) would not include these as moral 
wrongs under the latter form.

The continued use of the TSNK form has caused unnecessary suffering.  
For example, consider medical care.  Is it better for a person to 
suffer than to have their life ended?  Is it better to keep a person 
alive (i.e. heartbeat) at all costs, rather than let their life end 
naturally.  Although many people place the blame for much of this on 
the medical establishment, I believe that the TSNK moral absolute
needs to share the blame as it has come to be interpreted as "TSN 
allow death when preventable."

Other questionable killings include suicide and self-defense.  How
is the TSNK moral absolute usually interpreted in each of these cases?

-- 
Dan Yergeau                         He's dead Jim.  Take his phaser
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU        and I'll get his wallet.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: amerritt@dante.nmsu.edu (Angela Merritt)
Subject: Famous Atheists?
Organization: New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:14:52 GMT

Sorry if this is a FAQ but does anyone know of any
famous atheists?  I was thinking more of political
or historical figures rather than 'movie stars'.
I understand that some of our founding fathers
in america appeared to be non-christian by some
of the quotes I've read.  I have also heard that
the word "God" was not in the original pledge of
allegiance or printed on our money?  Does anyone
know about this?  Does anyone have any good books
to recommend about the history of religion in our
government (usa)?

Thanks all!

Angie

amerritt@dante.nmsu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: skinner@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please Read This One!
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:51:52 GMT

The explanation I think most credible for the "survey" post is that
someone let their password get out or left his account unattended.
This kind of horseplay is not uncommmon.

-- 
Gregg Skinner    g-skinner@uiuc.edu         I speak for no organization.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Here is your proof=God Exists?
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 03:41:07 GMT

jbrown:
>>>If there is a finite possibility that an all-powerful God could come into
>>>existence over time, then from the standpoint of eternity such a God must
>>>necessarily have come into existence before the universe began.  Therefore
>>>God must now exist.
Ken Arromdee:
>> Where do you get this from?  Are you trying to say that if you add up finite
>> possibilities over an infinite amount of time, you get a certainty?  If so,
>> your math is wrong.
jbrown:
>Yes, that is what I'm saying, and no, my math is not wrong.

Sorry Jim but your math is indeed wrong. See later.

jbrown:
>Suppose I'm in Las Vegas and I play the "Super Jackpot Slot Machine".  Given
>an unlimited supply of quarters and infinite time, I will eventually win.  
>It may take me 2 or 3 billion years, but eventually I'll be the Super
>Jackpot Winner.
>
>Of course, I'll also be bankrupt and I'll have to pay taxes on winnings
>that won't even get me out of debt -- but I'll be a Winner! 

Nope - what happens Jim is that the longer you play the smaller your chance
(at any given point in time) of not having won gets. To turn this around the
longer you play the greater you chance (at any given point in time) of having
won gets - BUT that chance NEVER equals 1 - it tends towards 1 but that is
all.

Bad luck Jim - go learn some simple statistics.

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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 15:17:11 GMT

merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:

>jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>>    ...Christianity doesn't teach
>>    war but peace (no Crusades).  It doesn't teach conformity
>>    but freedom to choose (no Inquisitions).

>C'mon, it prescribes the death penalty for many things I don't
>consider crimes, like homosexual acts.  Where's the peace & freedom
>here?  Or do you ignore that part of the bible?

In a private exchange, I asked Mr. LeRoy to support for this claim
(that Christianity prescribes the death penalty for homosexual acts).
He gave me Leviticus.  I countered with Paul ("no longer under the
law, but under grace") and pointed out that for Christianity the new
covenant has replaced the old of which Leviticus is a part.  I
explained that this is straightforward, orthodox Christianity.  He
countered that Paul, being just a human, had no authority to say that
about God's law.  I pointed out that if we throw out the authority of
the apostle Paul, we are no longer talking about Christianity, which
was essentially founded by Paul.  I asked him to differentiate between
Christianity and Judaism.  He had nothing more to say.  I await his
retraction.
--
Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Shroud of Turin (was DOES GOD EXIST?)
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:46:48 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

Paul Kominsky mentions the Shroud of Turin shows Roman coins on the eyes of 
Jesus, and that this is evidence for the shroud's authenticity:

> On the other hand, there is much evidence which suggests
> authenticity, from as a lack of pigments on the Shroud (so
> it's not a painting), to the medical accuracy of the image
> (rather beyond the medical knowledge of a 13th century forger).
> Computer analysis of the image even found a coin over one of 
> the eyes.  The coin was apparently identified as a lepton
> minted between 26 AD and 36 AD.

Excuse me Paul, but coins on the eyes is a Pagan Greek custom, to make sure
the dead had money to pay Chiron for their passage across the river Styx.  As
such it would be an incredibly unlikely custom for orthodox Jews to adopt
(especially once you realize that it is the Jewish custom to bury the body
with no possessions at all, and that the body is simply wrapped in wide strips
of torn fabric, (which in itself is another reason to dismiss the shroud)).  I
doubt you will just take my word for it though, so I will point you to an more
authoritative source.  A very good article on the subject is:

	"Was the coin-on-eye custom a Jewish burial practice in
	the Second Temple Period?" by R. Hachlili and A. Killebrew,
	_Biblical Archaeologist_, Summer 1983 issue, pp. 147-153.

It's conclusions cast great doubt on any shroud which shows coins on the eyes.
Thus if the shroud shows coins on the eyes, that would be evidence against
the shroud.
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

    The historian must not try to know what is truth, if he values his
    honesty; for, if he cares for his truths, he is certain to falsify 
    his facts.
				Henry Adams, American Historian
				"The Education of Henry Adams" 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Beethoven GOD???  Hardly..(was Re: For all you believers)
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 03:55:44 GMT


In a previous article, wilkins@scubed.com (Darin Wilkins) says:


>Sorry Colleen, but you are quite wrong.
>
>It is a well-known fact that Beethoven is God.
>And I am His prophet.
>
BEETHOVEN??!!!  You are quite insane.  EVERYONE knows that the one true
god is Richard Strauss...Just listen to Til Euilenspegiel backwards at 78
speed, and the message is quite clear...

>
>As punishment for your heretical assertions above, I (acting on behalf
>of His Holiness, Ludwig) sentence you to be placed in a sealed room
>for 24 hours, with your hands tied behind your back so you cannot
>cover your ears, while Pachelbel's Canon is played constantly at
>100 db volume level.
>
>THAT will teach you to trifle with Beethoven's divinity!
>
For your blasphamy, your soul shall, at the time of your death, be sentenced to
listen to the soundtrack of "Saturday Night Fever" for eternity!

So there!
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Peter...PETER!!  I can see    *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // your house from here!"          *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // Jesus Christ, from the cross     *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: priest observes
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:18:54 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <ABRsEZgOx9@apm.magadan.su> austin@apm.magadan.su writes:
>I am not out to throw any mud at atheists. My arm would get too tired
>because they are all around me.  I have been living in Magadan, Russia,
>for over a year.  I am the only Catholic priest for thousands of miles.  I
>am living in a  land that professed atheism for the 73 years, a country
>that has spent more money in the pursuit and promotion of atheism than
>any other in any time.

Thanks, we've heard it.  I am sure as an unbiased observer that you
are aware of what you are saying.  To make it clearer, consider such
of your article as it relates to this group:

>I thought that some of you might be interested in hearing from a
>professional observer how the marriage of atheism and communism has worked
>out.  It has been unhappy event for the well intentioned atheist and pure
>hell for a high percentage of the Russian people.

>Yes, the marriage of Communism and atheism  did not produce good
>fruit.

>In the name of atheism and progress people were forced, tortured
>and killed.

>Communism
>and with it atheism is not seen as enlightment but as deception and fraud.

That's about it.  "Atheism" is tagged as a bugbear on top of
"Communism", specifically the Stalinist interpretation of
Marxism/Leninism.  I think we all know by now that that form of
totalitarian state didn't work; that it was atheist was irrelevant.
This sermonette probably sounds good, from the pulpit, to the choir,
but in terms of reason and argument it is empty.

>There are some philosophies and religious traditions that do better
>than others.  We ought to dialogue with an open mind.  I do it all the
>time. We need to humbly approach a subject of supreme importance, the
>existence of God, and we need to be promoting goodness and kindness so
>that people can find hope.

This sounds pretty good, though it contrasts with the body of your
sermon.  Atheists are simply those who, approaching the existence of
God with an open mind find no basis for the belief, and thus do not
consider it of supreme importance.  Promoting goodness and kindness
and hope is a good goal, but atheists consider it completely distinct
from the former question.

>If a kind hearted atheist reads this, who has $700,000 to donate to a
>worthy cause, the Orthodox Bishop here is great need.  He has started two
>buildings to help the people materially and spiritually.  Work has
>stopped.  No money. Magadan should have 50 Orthodox churches in it to
>service it large community.  It has only one.

Nothing personal, but you'd do well to work on your tone before
soliciting money in this way.  I'm sure Magadan, like the rest of
Russia, has a great many needs.  I don't think church buildings are
very near the top of the list.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Subject: Re: priest observes
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 18:38:28 GMT


	Ivan Derzhanski sez:


	.............the erection of another church.
			 ^^^^^^^^

	WAIT A MINUTE !!!!!!!!!!

	I do NOT think Russia would gain ANYTHING by getting a Jimmy
Swaggart or Jim Bakker. Or, does this mean Boris Yeltsin is so horny
that he could change jobs at any time not to become a televangelist ?




	<The devil made me do it :-)      >

-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries, reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips     |personal E-mail:bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
alias: White Rook     |   NWROC E-mail:aphillip@heartland.bradley.edu
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:15450 talk.religion.misc:14313
From: Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Survey
Keywords: fundies
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 10:22:04 BST
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

70253.2621@CompuServe.COM (Chris & Susan Colvin) writes:

> [Their "survey"]

I'm not going to comment on the survey itself as it's clearly low-rate
prosletysing crap but I just thought the Newsgroups: line was interesting.
(By the way, my Newsgroups: and Followup-To: lines are a model of
moderation and I urge others to be careful when replying to large
crossposts.)

Anyway, what have we here?

> Newsgroups: alt.evil,

This sets the tone immediately. Chris & Susan believe that anyone with
different answers to their own to their questions are evil and need help!
The more descerning reader would be able to press 'N' at this point and
saved themselves a lot of bother.

> alt.pagan,

Targetting particular non-christian groups now. Pagans fall naturally
alongside alt.evil, don't they?

> soc.motss,

No surprise here. Homosexuals are satanic deviants etc etc rant rave...

> rec.games.frp,

An interesting one. Ah yes. Fantasy Role Playing encourages devil worship
or something doesn't it? Definitely very un-christian. Save their souls
before it's too late!

> alt.atheism,

Godless Heathens [TM]. Images of rescuing sheep that have gone astray
must have been dancing through their heads at this point. Yawn.

> alt.religion.emacs,

"Gee, Sue, I've just got hold of a list of newsgroups. Let's grep for
every group containing the word 'religion' but not 'christian' and annoy
the hell out of everyone there whilst also wasting as much net.bandwidth
as possible." "Great idea hon, here's one - alt.religion.emacs. Never
heard of emac-ism but it sounds horrifying."

> talk.religion.misc,

At last! An appropriate newsgroup!

> talk.religion.newage,

See alt.religion.emacs. At least they got a few child sacrificers and
ritual rapists this time.

> sci.physics

This is the most interesting of them all. This shows our surveyers to be
not only stupid for reasons indicated above, but also anti-intellectual,
a hallmark of many religions. In their minds physicists are evil because
they question the world around them and try to explain what happens rather
than blindly accept it all as the "work of God". Not a very clever attitude
in fact because I know both Christian and non-christian physicists. But
that doesn't matter. Don't let them even question! Make sure we are all in
fear of the divine! And post pseudo-surveys all over the net trying to
disturb people into believing the One True Religion! Praise the Lord!

--
Tony Lezard
 Acting moderator, alt.atheism.moderated (submissions to atheism@mantis.co.uk).
  tony@mantis.co.uk / tony%mantis.co.uk@uknet.ac.uk / arl10@phx.cam.ac.uk


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: DOES GOD EXIST? (different from previous posting).
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 07:05:06 GMT

(Jeff Achenbach) writes...
>>I'm tired of these lunatic ravings. I think I'll stop here.

(Mike Cluff) writes:
>Agreed.  Has the original poster of these ravings ever replied?  I don't 
>seem to remember any replies.  Guess his posts are the rough equivalent 
>to running into a room with eyes shut and ears covered, and screaming out
>one's views, only to run back out of the room...

I am amazed that anyone bothered to reply to him at all. Practice
self-censorship and hit 'n' for next article when you see junk like
that!

Cheers

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:15457 talk.religion.misc:14329
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please Read This One!
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:55:26 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Aug20.081539.290@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>(To everyone)  Why do you waste bandwidth responding to this type of
>post?  Why legitimize it with your answers?  There must be over a
>hundred "Re: Survey" subject lines on my server!  I read this group
>to get thought-provoking discussions going, not to see crude responses
>to this type of zero-content post.  

Why is it that a post asking what you'd say to God to get into heaven is a
zero-content post, but a post saying that God is in three parts which are
really one except that they're not, isn't?  How am I supposed to tell the
difference between zero-content posts and "real" posts?
--
I am of course experienced in teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.
    -- Ed Nilges

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: vandelhg@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (MCG)
Subject: Re: priest observes
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Vanderbilt
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 13:21:06 GMT

In article <ABRsEZgOx9@apm.magadan.su>, austin@apm.magadan.su (Austin
P.Mohrbacher) wrote:
> 
> I thought that some of you might be interested in hearing from a
> professional observer how the marriage of atheism and communism has worked
> out.  It has been unhappy event for the well intentioned atheist and pure
> hell for a high percentage of the Russian people.
 (DELETED)
> Yes, the marriage of Communism and atheism  did not produce good
> fruit.  In the name of atheism and progress people were forced, tortured
> and killed.  The effects linger on. The people continue to suffer and
> daily I meet people who have been robbed of all hope.  Communism
> and with it atheism is not seen as enlightment but as deception and fraud.
		(DELETED)
> There are some philosophies and religious traditions that do better
> than others.  We ought to dialogue with an open mind.  I do it all the
> time. We need to humbly approach a subject of supreme importance, the
> existence of God, and we need to be promoting goodness and kindness so
> that people can find hope.
		(more Deleted)


		Well, you sound like a nice enough guy, but I think that you still manage
to fall into a sort of Ad Hominem trap.  Remember, just because some of the
Bolsheviks were atheists (and mostly on political grounds), does not mean
that "atheism" itself (as if there were such an organized concept) is in
any way responsible for Stalinism.  Although you tactfully avoid "throwing
mud", you nonetheless are subtly (or not-so-subtly) blaming/faulting
atheism for Stalinism.  And I would tender the proposition that atheism, as
a whole, is a lot less to blame for Stalinism than the RC Church is to
blame for the Inquisition, the Children's Crusade, the "Crusade" of the
English vs. the French over economics, and so on, and so on, and so on
(wow, the Energizer bunny!).
		Yes, some philosophies and religious traditions actually "do better" than
others.  But ask yourself this:  is it because "they" are just
mind-bogglingly great, or because in the past they have *ruthlessly*
crushed any opposition?  I think atheism would "do better" if I were
allowed to exterminate anybody who didn't see everything my way.
		Of course, all of this has been something of an Ad Hominem attack in and
of itself.  Sorry :)


MCG>
Exist?  Who, me?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism