HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Morals and God is Dead.
Keywords: Morality.
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:10:14 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <gj156879.719001403@cunews> gj156879@prince.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879) writes:
>The most sound personal rule is: "Would I want someone to do this
>thing to me?"  This is NOT an allowance to do what you think you'd
>want done to you (if you follow), but simply a basic rule.

Whee, it's the golden rule argument again!

Suppose I want to do some robbery.  I plan to follow the following procedure:
"check if the person in question owns a million dollars.  If so, threaten them
and take all their money.  If not, leave them alone."

I really wouldn't mind anyone applying this procedure to me, and if I apply
the procedure to other people, I'll be able to steal lots of money.  The
"logical" conclusion is that the golden rule lets me rob millionaires.

Substitute anything you like for robbery.  If I want to murder, I can apply the
prcedure "check if someone's last name starts with A.  If so, leave them alone,
otherwise kill them."  Again, I would not mind anyone applying that to me.

(What?  You mean that I'm not really trying to see if I'd mind someone doing
the same thing to me that I want to do to them?  You mean that I have to
figure out if I'd like someone to "rob" me, instead of figuring out that I'd
like someone to "see if he's a millionaire and rob if so" to me?  Hmm, you
mean the first one is a more fundamental concept?  I smell a grue paradox....

Even not considering grue paradoxes, there really are actions which have what
we would normally call asymmetric effects.  Can I torture heretics until
they repent?  After all, I believe (hypothetically) that heretics are doomed
to Hell.  If I were going to Hell, I would certainly want someone to save me,
so I guess it's OK for me to try to "save" someone else, right?)
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)


--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18663 rec.scouting:3463
From: jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jordan M. Wolbrum)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,rec.scouting
Subject: Re: Jesus vs. Cub Scouts?
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:03:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.wepDOEe00WBOM7segj
	<1992Oct8.185406.1020@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>You KNOW the BSA policy in the area of religion, and you know WHY it's
>a BSA policy.  Trying to equate tolerance toward atheism with tolerance
>towards legitimate religious beliefs and values is like trying to compare
>apples and oranges.  Religion/atheism is a TOTALLY separate issue from
>respecting others RELIGIONS.

I don't know why it's a BSA policy.  I think it's a stupid policy.  I
think you are a hypocrite even if you choose to classify anti-atheism as
a different type of bigotry as anti-christianity.  If I choose to
exclude you because your name is Stan, then I am just as much a bigot as
if I exclude you because of your Christianity.

LAST NOTE:  Engage brain before opening mouth.

\begindata{text,17029828}
\textdsversion{12}
\template{default}
\majorheading{Jordan M. Wolbrum

}\center{\smaller{at jw67@andrew.cmu.edu

}}\enddata{text,17029828}
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Atheism? Really Harold, how gauche...
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 01:44:45 GMT

In article <73348@apple.Apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>In article <1992Oct09.220324.2747@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>In article <5960@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Null Cypher) writes:
>>>Hmmm, could you post some examples of these objective truths, along with
>>>proof?
>>
>>Sure.  It is an objective truth that if you jump in front of a moving
>>train, you will die, or at least make a real mess of yourself.  The
>>proof is trivial and left as an exercise for the reader.  It's an
>>objective truth that Christianity tends to make people mindless fanatics.
>>The proof is trivial and left as exercise for the reader.
>
>You are inferring causal relations from correlation. A venerable
>aphorism of science reminds us that "correlation is not causation."
>The sloppiness of your second allegation calls into question
>your understanding of the nature of scientific inquiry and
>knowledge.

My comment about the proof being trivial was meant to be taken
with a grain of salt, because I know that it isn't evident to
many that my allegation is true.  However, I wasn't confusing
causality with correlation by any means.  Correlation is only
the clue.  There is plenty of other evidence that points to my
conclusion as well.  The Bible for example.
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: amorgan@csd-d-1.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: God's existence
Originator: amorgan@csd-d-1.Stanford.EDU
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:20:54 GMT

In article <1b4gs1INNj9v@bigboote.WPI.EDU> 
  scott@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Scott G Goddard) writes:
>     What is it going to take to prove that He does exist?  Is God Himself 
>going to have to come down from Heaven and perform a miracle?  

Yes, probably.  I have *never* heard any reasonable evidence of why God *should*
exist (only people assuring me that he does.... but there are other people assuring
me that their different God is the right one).  He has done it before (so the
story goes).  He made me, he *knows* I am a skeptic.  If he honestly cares about
me he would give me the proof I need.  If he doesn't supply me that proof I
have to assume he *wants* me to go to hell (or Cleveland, whichever).

>                              P.S.  Jesus loves you
					So does my dog.
C Frog
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: To All Truth Seekers!
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 00:20:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.210257.3190@src4src.linet.org> 
  joeb@src4src.linet.org (Joe Beiter) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.152208.13379@news.yale.edu> 
>  rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct9.150735.23962@cs.tulane.edu> 
>>  goff@pops.navo.navy.mil writes:
>>>JESUS WAS A MYTH-
>>>   Question: The bible, as a history book, is astonishingly correct when
>>>	     used to understand archeological remains and ancient writings.
>>Twaddle. The Bible is astonishingly bad. It gets all sorts of things
>>wrong. E.g. The creation narrative. The flood. There is much doubt
>>about the historicity of the Exodus narrative, and Joshua claims to
>>have conquered cities that didn't exist at the time.
>For one, your accusation that the creation narrative is wrong is based on
>a theory.  Isn't that just a leetle presumptuous?

A theory that we can test.  We have outside confirmation of evolution.
If you want us to provide evidence it is hardly playing fair if you
disallow what we produce and then claim victory.

Your (implied) accusation that the creation narrative is right is based
on a theory (that the Bible is correct).  Since that is what we are trying
to determine, isn't *that* just a leetle presumptuous?

>What cities (that Joshua conquered) are you saying didn't exist?  People 
>claimed the Ammorites didn't exist until archeologists finally dug them up.
>What about the flood?  Are you saying there was no flood?  How do you account
>for all the different claims from various cultures about it?

Easy.  Most ancient civilizations were built around rivers (fact).  Most
rivers flood (fact).  Why wouldn't most cultures have a flood myth?  
Of course, there is not a shred of geologic evidence that there ever was 
a global flood.

>- JoeB

C Frog
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Hello All!
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:53:44 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1b4unhINNr3k@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, cb366@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark B. Bendiksen) writes:
> 
> Hello Atheists:
> 
> I am what most of you would probably call a "Jesus Freak".
> I have spent some time reading through many of the posts on
> this newsgroup with much interest. I expected to find much more
> discussion on deeper philosophical issues (i.e. why you
> believe in no God, etc.). Instead, this group seems to be
> mainly a "club" whose members waste time and net space by
> coming up with clever ways to bash "crazy Christians" and
> anyone else who chooses to believe in an almighty creator.

   Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on whether you read
this group for philosophy or humor), 90% of the theists *are* 
crazy Christians.  Not all by any means, but too many not to 
give the impression that this is alt.flame.

> Please don't get me wrong. I did read many fascinating
> and interesting posts while going through your newsgroup,
> but more often than not many posts consist of nothing more
> than hate for those that believe in God. Is that really
> constructive?

   No, because that's generally not what's said.  What's said 
is contempt for people who ignore facts, believe things for 
which there is no evidence or for which there is contradictory
evidence, and seeing atheists as "lost sheep," with an obligation
on their part to "save" us (Scott Goddard is the most recent example).

> Love in Christ,
> Mark B. Bendiksen

Love in Colleen,
Karl
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: christ
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:20:23 GMT

pockling@fraser.sfu.ca (richard pocklington) writes:
: 	There has been only one recorded incident of parthenogenetic
: birth in a mammal.  This is odd because it is generally considered impossible
: for mammals to become parthenogenic due to the presence of marker genes that
: are only active if passed from the father.  However, if we have had one
: parthenogenetic birth (that of christ) then there is one thing we have 
: missed.  Christ had to have been female.  Parthenogenic animals only give
: birth to other parthenogenic females, male animals don't exist in a 
: parthenogenic species.  (By the way this also means that neither christ nor
: mary were Homo sapiens sapiens, as this parthenogenesis event most likely 
: would make them be considered a different species (or perhaps subspecies)
: .

I seem to remember someone on one of these groups used to have a
.sig that addressed this issue.  It seems that the H. in Jesus H.
Christ stands for Haploid. ;-)
-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
From: gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: soc.religion.christian is moderated.
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 17:09:26 GMT

In article <Oct.11.20.33.25.1992.19402@geneva.rutgers.edu>
hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:

>Actually, in soc.religion.christian, the most consistent problems are
>with anti-Catholics and homosexuality. 

I suppose now is as good a time as any to air my gripes.  These should
all be taken with the caveat that I am not sure if there is anyone out
there able and willing to moderate soc.religion.christian who would do
a better job.
	
One problem I see aside from the above is with "end of thread"
decisions. It is a little annoying to have a posting rejected on the
grounds that a point has already been made, when in fact it hasn't
been.

Another problem is that policy discussions don't happen on the group
itself, which is where (presumably) they belong.

>Homosexuality is a major topic for the Church now.  Various aspects of
>it are quite relevant to the newsgroup.  However every time anyone
>mentions the term in any context, we're in danger of recapitulating
>the basic arguments over interpretations of some of the key Bible
>passages.  A lot of this is because we have new readers all the time,
>and somebody always finds it a shock that any Christian could possibly
>accept homosexuality.  This is a case where an FAQ is the obvious
>answer.

The whole issue involves a bit of a dilemma.  At one time, a big issue
in Christian circles concerned Jewish people. For instance, were Jews
guilty of atrocities such as murdering babies?

Now I can imagine a moderator back then.  Since this is a big
theological issue, there is some reluctance to simply not allow any
postings saying that Jews are Christ-killing userers or whatever.  But
if this gets posted, then you also must post the rebuttal, saying that
Jews aren't Christ-killing userers who make passover wafers with the
blood of unbaptized babies. Now you have a big war on your hands.

It seems to me that you must either allow such threads to run their
course, or ruthlessly prune them at the start.  The moderator's policy
is to compromise on this issue, which I think is unwise.

I would propose that either no posting denigrating people on the
grounds of religious affiliation or sexual orientation be allowed at
all, to any degree no matter how small, or that this whole area be
removed altogether as a reason for rejecting a posting.  Otherwise, one
gets in the position of seeing a "Jews drink the bllod of babies" type
of posting, and then finds that the replies are moderated out. This is
really not a good solution, and it comes of trying to compromise on
this issue.

>It should be clear that my big problem as moderator is not atheists,
>but fights among Christians.

An understatement for certain.
-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop)
Subject: Re: Sigh! Another god?
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 18:19:00 EDT

From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
 
>In article <gL6FsB3w165w@bluemoon.rn.com>, 
>darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) writes:
 
>> From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
>> Message-ID: <10936@scott.ed.ac.uk>
>>>
>>>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>>>You mean Colleen's coming back?!  Hurrah!  :)
>>  
>>>Wait a minute, sir.  Weren't you a Merittist but a while ago?  :-)
>>>
>> Squabbling within the ranks?  Why should I adopt your
>> beliefs?  From your evil behavior I see your god is evil.
>
>   I beg your pardon?  How do you see this as squabbling within
>the ranks?  It's merely clarification of a previous postition.
 
You are quite right.  And exaggerated differences between 
Christians say nothing about God's existence, do they. 
 
DARIST
From: hines@socrates.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: christ
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:41:27 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

J024330@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:

>In article: <pockling.718401164@sfu.ca>Pocklington writes:

>>   There has been only one recorded incident of parthenogenetic
>>birth in a mammal.  This is odd because it is generally considered impossible
>>for mammals to become parthenogenic due to the presence of marker genes that
>>are only active if passed from the father.  However, if we have had one
>>parthenogenetic birth (that of christ) then there is one thing we have
>>missed.  Christ had to have been female.  Parthenogenic animals only give
>>birth to other parthenogenic females, male animals don't exist in a
>>parthenogenic species.  (By the way this also means that neither christ nor
>>mary were Homo sapiens sapiens, as this parthenogenesis event most likely
>>would make them be considered a different species (or perhaps subspecies)
>>
>>        Richard pocklington


>JER 29:12-13 Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will lis
>ten to you.  (13) And you will seek Me and find Me,  when you search for Me
>with all your heart.

>Chris Colvin
>former Athiest

OH HOW i LOVE THE CAPS!!!  WERE they FROM THE ORIGINAL ARAMEIC OR DID 
SOME inspired translator ADD THEM.

-Wade
really an agnostic  "It just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter! ...
-Bill Murry in Meatballs
From: bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:58:54 GMT
	<BRUCE.92Sep30132352@suprenum.supr.scm.liv.ac.uk>
	<1992Oct7.124046.164732@dstos3.dsto.gov.au>
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool, UK

>>>>> On 7 Oct 92 18:40:44 GMT, jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) said:

> bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) writes:

>>Q: What's the best way of encouraging teenagers to take up occult
>>   practices?
>>A: Tell them:
>>     a) They work
>> and b) They're evil, and I forbid you from even considering them

> I stated these other things because many, many people are already involved
> in them, not always realising what they are *really* getting involved with.

If I were trying to encourage teenagers to use Tarot, Voodoo,
meditation, etc., I don't think I could devise a better way than the
fundamentalist (and, except for meditation, the mainstream) Christian
churches.  Saying that the occult is Evil and that it Works, is likely
to be a very successful lure.  

Presumably that's not what Christians want, so why on earth don't they
join with the skeptics and help show that such things have an effect
by quite rational, normal, psychological means, and that for the most
part are not pleasant in the long term for people involved in them.
(I'd take issue with meditation; Christianity has a long tradition of
meditation, and I really don't see what the problem is.  If being led
up of the spirit into the wilderness and fasting for forty days and
forty nights doesn't involve some meditation them I'm a Satanist's
grandson.)

> Yoga and meditation are very common examples, and if you wish, I could
> provide some more information as to what actually happens when you involve
> yourself with them, and why they are inherently evil.

Go on then, give us a laugh.  Send by email if you feel it to be more
appropriate than posting.
--
Bruce Stephens.  Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Liverpool Univ.
Internet: bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk     JANET: bruce@uk.ac.liv.uxb
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,rec.scouting
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Jesus vs. Cub Scouts?
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:04:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.185406.1020@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) silently directs followups to where he can't see them and writes:

>The points I raised do NOT apply to atheists, and I'd wish you'd stop
>cluttering up rec.scouting with your anti-religion agenda!!!

The points you raised DO apply to atheists, and my posting was no
more anti-religious than yours was anti-christian; calling for tolerance
of not-<whatever> members is not the same as being anti-<whatever>.

Your calling for tolerance of the non-christian beliefs of scouts is
just like my calling for tolerance of the non-monotheist beliefs of scouts.

Your appalling bigotry against people who don't agree with your monotheist
religious views is just like the original posters' appalling bigotry against
people who don't agree with his christian views.

I have not called for scouts to be kicked out of scouting based on their
personal religious beliefs; you have.  Time to play Find the Bigot.

>A religious belief is a POSITIVE moral value, and a value that children
>should be encouraged to adopt.

I consider atheism to be a positive moral value; however, unlike you, I don't
think kids should be expelled from scouting if they "fail" some religious test.

>The issue in these postings is that
>a BSA unit adult leader was unable to respect legitimate RELIGIOUS
>beliefs different from his own.

An atheism is somehow not a legitimate religious belief?  You said
buddhists' beliefs should be respected, and many buddhists are also
atheists.  There are also people who identify as both jewish and atheist.
What about these people?  Do they have legitimate or illegitimate beliefs?
Your "policy" is contradictory.

>It had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with atheism.

Yes it did; atheism is yet another religious belief that should be repected.

You seem to have some pathological hatred against anyone that dares disagree
with your faith; is your faith that weak?  Is your intolerance so intense
that you can't even bear to associate with people who don't believe as you
do?  How is this different from people who can't stand e.g. non-christians?

Like I said, your own intolerance can come back to haunt you.  If scouts
have to follow monotheism as official scouting religious orthodoxy, there
is nothing but policy to prevent cranking up the requirements to a belief
in Jesus as god and messiah; it's just a difference of degree, not of kind.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks)
Subject: Re: Please Help
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 23:38:20 GMT

In article <1250029@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse) writes:
>              Please answer these 9 questions and return.
                                                   ^^^^^^^
Why are so many people _posting_ their responses?
Use the big "R" _not_ the "F"


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: soc.religion.christian is moderated.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 00:20:54 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: alt.atheism

In article <1992Oct08.203819.1108@convex.com>, tonyp@convex.com (honey
bunny) wrote:
> Soc.religion.christian is MODERATED!
> 
> I don't believe it!
> 
> On second thought, I shouldn't be surprized: That says it all,
> doesn't it: 
> 
>     As usual, Christianity is censoring postings that they don't
>     want you to see - and keeping their people in the dark, as they
>     usually do. 

Well, decent newsmailers should mail the entry to the moderator, that
might or might not post the entry. Speaking about soc.religion.christian,
I tried to post things on this group earlier, but the moderator didn't
enter
these due to 'already discussed issues'. Sounded like censoring for me,
and even if I do think that newsgroups sometimes should be moderated,
they should not be censored.

Regards,
Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: "Teaching atheism"
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:11:04 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <ednclark.719104427@kraken>, ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
> [...]  I beleive
> that schools should have a compulsory religious education class for probably
> about three years at about two hours a week where the top ten most popular
> schools of religious thought are presented. In my view this should include Islam
> (both types), Hindu, Buddhism, Atheism, Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism
> and maybe one or two tribal religions. 

Good idea.  One problem I see is, who would teach such classes?  
A Christian teacher, for example, may tend to teach it from his/her 
Christian perspective and may find it difficult to remain neutral
when tough questions are raised concerning basic Christian beliefs
or values.  

Young Huh
yhuh@ihlpe.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism