HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: frank@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Revenge (was Re: leave us alone!!!!)
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:59:47 GMT
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division
Originator: frank@karner.austin.ibm.com


In article <parsons.720996187@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu>, parsons@cis.ksu.e
du (Scott S Parish ) writes:

> 
> Well, for some of us we can't; our motivation is the Great Commission.
> Another reason is because we have found something that is so life changing
> and real in Jesus Christ, that we can't understand why anyone wouldn't 
> want it or can't see it.  For me at least, it is also a learning experience 
> reading and posting here; and I've learned quite a bit about how an atheist
> views religion and life.  I'm sure there are other reasons. 
> 
> -- 
> Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
> parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |

Don't you see it?  You can't overcome the urge to proselytize!  What
arrogant, pedantic, pestering bores you are.  

Unfortunately, just kill files don't seem to do the trick.  One has to
still sift through the crap at least once, and it seems that for each
fundie author that you kill, there is another that takes his place. 

I wish we could retaliate by founding "churches" all over the place and
claiming tax exemption from the government.  
Hmmn, come to think of it, not a bad idea at all!  I heard once of one
such church in California, where the "sabbath service" was an orgiastic
beer bust with sacramental suds purchased tax free at the liquor store.

Maybe the government would take more heed of this supposed separation of
church and state if through negative publicity, reduced revenue,
lawsuits, etc., enough attention is drawn to this unfair subsidy.

The best revenge...

-- 

         DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this posting are mine
            solely and do not represent my employer in any way.
       F. A. Karner AIX Technical Support | karner@austin.vnet.ibm.com
From: boyd@acsu.buffalo.edu (Daniel F Boyd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism and morals and dating
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:57:48 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1992Nov10.011336.8574@iscsvax.uni.edu> 
mccall3080@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
> I honestly don't see many atheists like myself in
> Northeastern Iowa.  The ones that I have met don't have any morals.
> So basically I feel like I am one in a million and no one can
> respect my choice.  I realize that I am only 22 and I'm at a
> university, but will I ever find what I am looking for?  This is not
> a personal ad, but more like a question: are other atheists running
> into the same problem?

You seem to be looking for someone with strong ethics but no strong
religious beliefs -- basically someone who won't force their beliefs
on you.  Well, I've never met you and I'm half a country away so I
can't really give you advice, but you might try looking up a Unitarian
Universalist church.  They're ethical and you don't even have to
believe in God.  Seriously!  Atheists are welcome there!

I think.

See, I've never been to one.

So talk to someone who has.



-- 
Daniel F. Boyd -- boyd@cs.buffalo.edu         -a +X -x -e -m -S -F"> "
----------------------------------------------------------------------
((lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x))) 
 (quote (lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x)))))
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Before you reply to Re: THE DIVINE MASTERS VS DUPED CHRISTIANS
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 13 Nov 92 03:34:03 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <BxMI8B.6xB@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
> Before replying to McElwaine's post, check this posting on t.r.m. out.  I
> strongly doubt he's for real.  (Either that, or the acid just hit.) 
> 
> Once again, more evidence for state-sponsored Lithium handouts:
> 
> In:<1992Nov11.205728.2285@cnsvax.uwec.edu>
> 
> 
>>                          CONTRADICTIONS about God
>>
>>   [stuff about Yahweh being a renegade space cannibal deleted]

   Wasn't this exact same message posted here not too long ago?

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: morality????????
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:24:41 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <ednclark.721445752@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>
>
>Drug-dealers are scum, but until they authorise some form of violence
>against a person they have not violated a person's rights. 

  This is at the heart of the argument.  I find very few people to
  be "scum".  I find a lot of misguided, unstable, desparate people.
  My mother has late onset schizophrenia.  Were she to murder
  someone when not on her medication, I would be hard pressed to
  hold her accountable for her actions.  And not because of any
  blood relation.  

>If a
>person has, under no provocation, caused intentional physical harm to
>another person they have forfeited their right to live in our society.

  So if I punch you in the nose for your poor taste in clothes, I
  have forfeited my right to live in society?  Sure, the problem
  needs to be addressed, but are you seriously saying that such an
  occurence is a capital offense?

>I can't see how homosexuals have anything to do with this, what they do is
>between mutually consenting adults there is no physical harm done to anybody
>(in fact quite the opposite).  What am I using murderers and rapists as a
>scapegoat for, murder and rape? Who else is responsible? I don't care what
>form of thought process they go through, unless there is mitigating
>circumstances 

  What I'm saying is that you lack compassion, either through choice
  or ignorance.  Not everyone who has committed a violent crime
  is a bad person.  People are not always responsible for their
  actions, and oftentimes this society you holding in higher regard
  than the individuals that form it is often responsible for how
  they behave.  Like it or not.

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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@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
From: Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger)
Subject: Re: Help
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:02:12 GMT

In article <BxMFuz.4uq@acsu.buffalo.edu> v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.192506.26872@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes...
>[other points already well-rebutted removed]
>

Oh really? Or do you just not want to deal with the questions?


>>I am aware that your wonderful
>>scientists have now discovered a way to tap the area of the brain that
>>triggers out-of-body experiences, and that they now in fact have a laboratory
>>where one (with much money to blow) can experience an OOB. 
>
>I suspect that this is urban legend, but I'll bite for a second...
>

You suspect wrong Sir.


>>Given that
>>after coming back from one of these the person can relay information which
>>occured in other rooms/states/countries/etc while they were 'gone', what
>>do you make of this obvious proof that the human body entails more than
>>its physical being? How would you explain this, and does this not provide
>>a damn good proof that when we die we are only leaving our physical body?
>
>Actually, if this were true, it would be remarkable evidence that the 
>OOB experiences are not mystical.  If one could poke a part of the brain and
>have it trigger an OOB, that's pretty good evidence that OOB experiences 
>are physically based, wouldn't you think?  After all, one brain surgeon (forgot
>his name) would poke (actually, stimulate it with an electrode) people's
>cortexes and ask them what they experienced. Some heard sounds or perceived
>visual objects, depending on where the cortex was poked.  
>
>Are you really prepared to say that if one of these people heard a fire engine
>when their cortex was poked that there was actually a fire engine there? 
>

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, so correct me if I am wrong, but..
What you are asserting is that though these people can tell you in detail
about stuff that was said or done in other rooms/buildings/etc, 
and it can be proven just by asking the person(s) who said/did it what was
said/done, these things really only occured in the person's own head? I think
not.

>******************************************************************************
>Mike Cluff				*  "If something about the human	
>v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*   body disgusts you, complain to
>UB Language Perception Laboratory	*   the manufacturer." - Lenny Bruce	
>******************************************************************************


Michelle
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hbcs1010@blurt.oswego.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The origin of Religion
Date: 4 Nov 92 12:54:41 GMT
Organization: SUNY College at Oswego, Oswego, NY

In article <1992Nov2.204911.20068@news.acns.nwu.edu>, ikonen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Ian Konen) writes:
> I was thinking about this last night, and since I don't think it's been
> discussed here, I figured I'd start a new thread.
> 
>     How reasonable is it to expect a person with almost no scientific knowledge
> to spontaneosly come up with the concept of god(s)?  Specifically the person in
> mind is the original person or people who first came up with religion.  Most
> of us atheists will assert that a child brought up without religious influence
> will naturally tend towards atheism, but in this case, the child would have at
> least a basic understanding of science.  For example, even if he couldn't 
> explain why lightening occurs, he would know it was electricity.  To a
> caveman, a god would be a very likely explanation for lightening.  But if the
> caveman had never even heard of the concept of god(s), how likely would it be
> for him to come up with it himself?  Obviously (to an atheist at least) it
> happened at least once, but how (un)lucky was it that it happened.  Did all
> religions then come from this one original (un)lucky guess, or is it actually
> a probable enough circumstance, that there are multiple original religions? 
> If we ever encounter another sentient race, is it probable that they will
> have a religion whether in history only, or still alive, or will the concept
> of religion be completely new to them?
> 
> 							Ian Konen
>  



my knowledge of religious anthropology is shaky at best, so what i'm about to
post may be entirely wrong.

it's always been my understanding that the concept of "god" didn't just pop
into existence, just like modern humans didn't just "appear". the supernatural
sphere started as a belief in "spirits"- the reasoning running something like:
my mind is behind what i do, so there must be a mind behind what __________
(fill in the blank) does. these spirits then evolved into gods. another
explanation is that the "gods" were personalizations of natural forces- rain,
wind, earthquakes, whatever, in an attempt to make them comprehensible.

of course, i may be totally off the mark. i apologise if i've said anything
unforgivably stupid.


-diedre hauptfuehrer

there's a hell of a universe next door- let's go!
                                                 e.e. cummings
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Help
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:18:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.010212.12292@samba.oit.unc.edu> Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes:
>In article <BxMFuz.4uq@acsu.buffalo.edu> v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
>>Are you really prepared to say that if one of these people heard a fire engine
>>when their cortex was poked that there was actually a fire engine there? 
>Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, so correct me if I am wrong, but..
>What you are asserting is that though these people can tell you in detail
>about stuff that was said or done in other rooms/buildings/etc, 
>and it can be proven just by asking the person(s) who said/did it what was
>said/done, these things really only occured in the person's own head? I think
>not.
You have yet to substantiate that in fact these people can do any such
thing. Until you do so, there is no reason to believe that the phenomena
actually exist, and therefore no need to account for them.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:18:17 GMT

In <83034@ut-emx.uucp> wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester) writes:

>In article <1992Nov3.184912.21957@zeus.franklin.edu> scruggs@zeus.franklin.edu (Kevin Scruggs) writes:
>[
>[	Perhaps mutant-xians percieve homosexuals as totally beyond hope/redemption... Many xians that found out about my god-lessness tended to have this strange idea that I'd end up christian/redeemed in the end... Perhaps this perception is the difference...

>Excuse me? *mutant*-christians? Friend, you must learn the proper phrase
>for mutants. Mutants is politically incorrect nomenclature. The proper term

Hmmm? Why is *mutant* always interpreted as derogatory? Evolution is by
mutation from what I've read.

Just wondered.

>is "Genetically Challenged" or "GC's" for short. <God, I hope Peter_A_David
>is too busy to read these newsgroups> Now get it right or take sensitivity
>training til you can be civil.
>-- 
>Patrick Chester            |----------------------------------------------------
REB
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Before you reply to Re: THE DIVINE MASTERS VS DUPED CHRISTIANS
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:55:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Before replying to McElwaine's post, check this posting on t.r.m. out.  I
strongly doubt he's for real.  (Either that, or the acid just hit.) 

Once again, more evidence for state-sponsored Lithium handouts:

In:<1992Nov11.205728.2285@cnsvax.uwec.edu>


>                          CONTRADICTIONS about God
> 
>               Christians should all HONESTLY and thoroughly 
>          investigate the CONTRADICTIONS between the Old and New 
>          Testaments in terms of their descriptions of God. 
> 
>               The God of the New Testament is described as a God of 
>          LOVE, MERCY, and PEACE. 
> 
>               The god of the Old Testament is described as a JEALOUS, 
>          VENGEFUL god, a WAR-MONGER.  He said "Thou shalt not kill", 
>          and then proceeded to help the Israelites to kill TENS OF 
>          THOUSANDS of Arabs in order to take their land.  [And the 
>          zionist PIG$ from Israel are still doing it today!] 
> 
>               Can the two Testaments POSSIBLY be talking about the 
>          same thing?! 
> 
> 
>               The "god" of the Old Testament was actually a TRIBE OF 
>          RENEGADE SPACE CANNIBALS, with a leader named "Yahweh", who 
>          was the commander of a UFO SPACECRAFT ("pillar of fire", 
>          "pillar of cloud", etc.), and a GENETICIST who CLONED Adam 
>          and Eve FROM HIMSELF and put them on this planet which was 
>          ALREADY INHABITED at that time.  And the "first born sons" of 
>          the Israelites became ROAST DINNER for the "JehovahS". 
> 
>               All of this may sound UN-believable to most Christians.  
>          But try reading the Old Testament with these things in mind.  
>          For example, read the part about one of the Old Testament 
>          characters, Jacob, I think, WRESTLING WITH GOD, AND WINNING!  
>          [ ALWAYS use the KING JAMES VERSION.  Later versions are PER-
>          VERSIONS! ] 
> 
>               See also the book "THE LOST TRIBES FROM OUTER SPACE", by 
>          Marc Dem, 1974, Bantam Books, Inc.. 
> 
> 
> 
>               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
>          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. 
> 
> 
>                                   Robert E. McElwaine
>                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*  "If something about the human	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*   body disgusts you, complain to
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*   the manufacturer." - Lenny Bruce	
******************************************************************************
From: cscope@camelot.bradley.edu (William Twentyman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible In Minnesota
Date: 7 Nov 92 00:54:50 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Bradley University

In <1de7v0INNf4@troi.solbourne.com> rick@solbourne.com (Rick Gillespie) writes:

>I was flipping through the channels on tv this morning, and came across
>the Family Channel (sic) with Pat Robertson and some lawyer fellow.
>They were discussing a case in Minnesota about the American Atheists
>suing to remove bibles from schools and/or classrooms (I didn't see
>the whole discussion). Of course, they weren't too happy about it,
>and complained about how Christians are being repressed these days.
>Anyway, I was wondering if anyone knows of this case, because I'm *sure*
>they weren't telling the whole story (naturally).

Funny, I don't recall ever seeing a bible while I was in school for 12 years
in Minnesota.  I don't see what the problem is or what the point of the 
law suit is.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                "What is the meaning of life?" is the wrong question.
                     Instead ask, "Is there a meaning to life?"
--------------------------- cscope@camelot.bradley.edu -------------------------
From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
Date: 8 Nov 92 23:38:37 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering

In article <1992Nov08.212152.20899@bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:
>How is logical proof different from scientific proof?
>Does science need to deal with the physical to be
>"scientific"?  Is math not scientific?
>Anyone?
A logical proof is in some sense pre-science.  Science is founded basically
on mathematics.  (Physics is applied math, much of chemistry is an applied
physics and applied math, much biology overlaps with chemistry in being
highly mathematical).  Now as some people may know, to define a mathematics,
(not just the one you use in grade school), you require a logic system,
and a set of axioms.  From these axioms and logic system, you define
things, like the numbers.  Then you define operators for these numbers,
and so on until you have mathematics.  Define 0 as the null set.
#define 1 = {0}
#define 2 = {{0}}
etc.

Normally we use Aristillian (sp?) logic to define our mathematics, in
that we use a two valued logic system.  This is not the only system
available to us.  We could also use a three value (TRUE, FALSE,
Non Contradictory) logic system, and a math exists based on that
system.  Redefine your axioms, and you have a new math (like 
Euclid's parrallel postulate).  So a logical proof is very primitive
in comparison to a scientific proof.  Functually however, a logical
proof is different, a logical proof requires no evidence, while a 
perfectly valid scientific explanation is that no evidence gives any
indication that...  See Martin Gardner's book on Paradox (Gotcha!)
for some examples.  However, normally, we use a mass of evidence
as "proof" in science.  It causes some errors, but subsequent revision
isn't too hard.
:)M^2
>
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Bash Atheists
Date: 6 Nov 92 02:48:53 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Nov3.143833.2191@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian
Kendig) wrote:
> >Seems like this Maddi Hausmann has a personal problem with
> >atheists. Reminds me of jokes I've seen on Christian TV channels,
> >they sound very artificial and hateful. Speak about bad taste.
> 
> Huh?  Maddi wrote the original "Top Ten Reasons to Bash Fundies",
> and I thought it was awfully clever and frighteningly applicable.  ;)
> 
> Judging from that list, she appears to be an atheist herself.
> It was another poster who took the list and unsuccessfully tried to
> turn it back on us.

So, someone just took the bash-fundies list, and rewrote it, and 
then cited Maddi as the originator. That's really sick...

Kent
	"The problem with computers is you *play* with them."
					-- Richard Feynman
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 01:53:08 EST
From: <RXS127@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: *TRUE* Christians
 <rex.720772657@cyclops> <1992Nov04.071546.14623@bmerh85.bnr.ca>

I haven't read all the posts on this topic yet, but I'll try to get my two cent
s in.  Well, the first thing about becoming a Christian is an acknowledgement o
f sin.  "The wages of all sin is death."  This means that all sin is equal.  So
don't try to go up to a Christian and say that they did evil things in the past
Because they should know that already.  Sin is sin no matter what a Christian i
s doing.  So to say that Christians err is like going up to a cook and say that
 he just cooked something.  How dumb is this subject?  It is only secular moral
ists like yourselves that try to blame sin on Christians and get the last laugh
 in.  In reality, we don't care what you think.  We just care that we have ackn
owledged our sins.  Haven't you ever done anything wrong in your life???

Bob Surh
rxs127@psuvm.psu.edu