HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: randyd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Randall Elton Ding)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: who has the open mind
Date: 22 Nov 1992 02:43:53 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: randyd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

It's somewhat annoying when the christians are passing out their bibles
and other junk, but what really pisses me off is when they get bent out
of shape when you ignore them or refuse to take the stupid thing.
The other day one guy pushed it in my face and said "It's not going to bite". 
Normally I don't get involved in verbal altercations with these people,
especially when I am with my christian friends, but this guy was asking for
it.  I am a little ashamed I couldn't come up with anything more origional
but in the heat of the moment I said "I don't read fiction", The guy
threw up his arms and shouted to the crowd "Hey - come on and have an
Open Mind!" 

Now I was raised in a christian family (sigh) and attended all the
religious schools (arrg) and think I understand the issues pretty well.
What RIGHT do they have telling me I don't have an open mind.  My dear
brother also gives me that crap.  Just to get out of a stupid argument
I tell him "No, I don't have an open mind, now just leave me alone".

I have never really known any other atheists that well.  Maybe I met
one or two in passing, but just never learned what to do in these
situations.  Living here in the bible belt, seems like I'm all alone.
Do you just ignore it and take the abuse, or do you have a fiew snappy
one liners that'll put them back in their place.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Frisbeetologist:  You soul is like a frisbee...    when you die,
		  it goes on the roof and noone can get it down.
                                                          Randy.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: God Is Unfair (?)
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:39:18 GMT

Rob Strom writes, in part, in answer to Ken Arromdee:

>So I agree with you that it's not always clear what to do.
>
>But I disagree about the lesson about arguing with God.
>God is like an upper bound:  if it's OK to argue with
>God on a matter of principle, then it's OK to argue
>with *anyone* --- your boss, your President, etc.  It
>means don't be passive in the face of injustice.
>Of course, it doesn't mean that you can do what
>you please and argue for it.
>
>But if God told me to destroy Amalek, I would argue.
> 
>-- 
>Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641


One could point out that God never condemned Job for arguing
with him, just opened his eyes at a certain point.  Likewise
Abraham.

The destruction of Amalek was even too much for Saul to bear.
But if your own heart told you to destroy Hitler, would you
not do it?  The reasons why Amalek had to be destroyed are
perhaps lost to history.  I am glad that the rabinnical scholars
have found a way to let that commandment lapse in a practical
sense.  Some commands must be seen in terms of a time and
consciousness-space so removed that it is difficult to trans-
late into modern terms.  Some things are presented in the Bible
as simply the relation of historical/spiritual facts and phenomena.

The interesting thing is that the scriptures leave in so much that
is difficult and often embarassing.  If the authors were trying to
fabricate a religious system instead of writing on the basis of what
they experienced directly, one would think that they could have done
a better job of making it appealing. 

Not every commandment recorded was necessarily to be applied forever 
in a literal sense.  While committed to a literal interpretation of
the law, the Rabbis wisely understand this in practice.  The wisdom
of the Law and of the Logos is of bigger dimensions than our micro-
scopic examinations of it.  Some things can only be learned through
meditating on them, rather than through analysis.  Insisght comes in
glimmers and sometimes bursts of light, not in comprehensive theories
of the universe.

I agree that the license to argue with him is also a gift of God.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Atheist "philosophy"
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:34:28 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov  5 1992

Tag: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
ID: 1992Nov10.184658.19188@cs.joensuu.fi
 
Since you tucked your tail between your ass and fled talk.origins,
why must you come here and make us suffer with more of your occult
prattle?
 
AS> "Atheists commonly ignore that they live in a dream-world
AS> by themselves."
 
"By themselves?" How can a billion people be considered to
be "by themselves?"
 
AS> "Quite common is the belief that you could save this earth.
AS> This is  rubbish. There is no method to save mankind from
AS> Greenhouse effect or lack of Ozone (for decades). People
AS> refuse to believe this."
 
Sorry, WRONG. We -can- save humanity. Society just chooses not
to, because society is a hungry, greedy mob of ignorant fools,
mostly Christians in this country, who believe as you do that
we cannot save ourselves, therefore they do not try. There are
a great many things we can do to save Earth, and therefore us.
Theists who believe their gods are going to come and save us
don't give a shit how badly off Earth is, because they place no
stake in the future.
 
AS> What is the philosophy with atheists?
 
There is not atheist philosophy. What is the philosophy of three
plus five?
 
AS> Consume! Spend more!
 
NEVER! You demand that we consume and spend, because you feel there
is no need to conserve, because your gods are going to come and
save us. What utter ARROGANCE. What HUBRIS! You sound just like
the James Watt asshole, who said it would insult his gods if we
did not "use up" all of our natural resources.

--- Maximus 2.00
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Question for ex-Christians
Date: 21 Nov 1992 12:14:07 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu (Corey D Minter) writes:

>mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:

>>Some of you ex-Christians have posted about bad experiences with
>>religion and other such events that caused you to seriously reconsider
>>your beliefs and to eventually give up your belief in God. Others have
>>posted saying they never really believed in God as youths and are
>>atheists by default. I'm curious if there are also ex-Christians out
>>there who became atheists or agnostics (AorA) because of a discussion
>>with an AorA. I know none of us would ever try to convert Christians
>>;-), but I was wondering if this sort of thing ever worked.

This is unlikely?  What do we have to offer?  Only the truth.  And the
truth is insignificant compared to the percieved gains of Christianity.
Besides, Christians rationalize the truth for themselves in one way or
another.  Trying to convert a religious person is a losing battle.  Besides,
I doubt you should try to remove a crutch from the lame unless you have some
other means of support handy.

keith

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21387 alt.drugs:18473
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 16 Nov 92 05:27:23 EST
Followup-To: alt.atheism,alt.drugs
 <1992Nov13.220850.12544@bnr.ca> <j1moody-161192032049@lafmacconsultant.lafortune.lab.nd.edu>
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <j1moody-161192032049@lafmacconsultant.lafortune.lab.nd.edu>, j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:
>> In article <1e0v11INNjep@shrike.und.ac.za> dace@shrike.und.ac.za writes:
>> >ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge) writes:
>  How many people are aware that the most well known
>> >: treatment for alcoholism, AA and its Twelve Steps, advocates giving control
>> >: of one's life over to God?  Without this God (or Higher Power) some even 
>> >: So, the cure for the disease is itself a disease?
> 
> Many cases of chemical dependency are the result of the person's searching
> to fill the spiritual void within us all that no amount of TV, food, sex
> or any other created thing can fulfill. It's a really sad state of affairs
> when someone calls the concept of believing in a higher Source a "disease."

   It is a much sadder state of affairs that people feel such a spiritual
void that they turn to drugs or alcohol; or religion, for that matter.
What is this big thing that people have a need to believe in a Higher
Power(tm)?  I certainly don't feel that there *must* be something more 
spiritually advanced than people; there may be, but I've certainly never
seen one or something directly attributable to one.  The disease is the
void itself; what you fill it with doesn't matter, it's still just filler.

> From someone who has found completion in coming to know my Creator, please
> don't catagorize a very significant thing in my life and the lives of
> millions as a disease. The only disease worse than the abuse of religion or
> the ignorant condemnation of religion.

   I wouldn't say it's worse; maybe about equal.  However, knowledgeable
condemnation of religion is not the same thing.

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu (Corey D Minter)
Subject: Re: Books on Phylosophy of Religion
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:44:19 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

ray@engr.latech.edu (Bill Ray) writes:

>      Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis   A former atheist explains why he
>					   converted to Christianity.

Has anyone read this, and could give a bit more of a synopsis before I try
to find it at the library.  Thanks!

-- 
==============================================================================
Internet: cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu | Horse of Ren&Stimpy:  "No sir, I don't 
       or cdminter@eng.uiowa.edu   |   like it!"
  Q-Link: EarthsWake (was Chaos0)  | Stimpy:  "Happy Happy. Joy Joy."
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:32:40 GMT

In article <nyikos.721972639@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

}So?  It has yet to be demonstrated that your whole life has not been
}a dream and that we are not all just figments of your imagination.

That you live your own (so called) life is not demonstrative to you
that you are not a figment of Muriel's imagination?  Oh, that's right,
I think you said something about philosophy running you in circles...


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:55:19 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: oboe.gvg.tek.com

In article <18NOV199212170243@csa1.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I
CHASE) wrote:
> The new catechism essentially reaffirms the old "hate the sin, love
> the sinner," approach to homosexuality in the mainstream Catholic 
> church.  This is the kind of teaching which resulted in the 
> burning of witches to save their souls.  That's just what we need
> in 1992.  Geesh.

That is a ridiculous argument! Hating sin but loving sinners is something
all of us do everyday, although we might not put it those terms. How many
of us work with someone whose views we vehemently disagree with, and yet we
actually like the person and enjoy their company? I've had many friends
like that. Come to think of it, sometimes I feel that way about my wife! 

Strongly disagreeing with someone and still liking or even loving them is a
normal human response, and it certainly doesn't lead to witch hunts.

And I'll repeat it again for those who have read my recent posts, the most
unloving thing you can do for any individual and for society in general is
to tolerate sin and pretend that there's nothing wrong with it. Sin has
consequences, both in this world and afterwards, and if you ignore it, you
condemn the sinner to death by your inaction! If you saw a person about to
jump off a bridge, wouldn't you try to talk him/her out of it? If you
really understand the consequences of sin, love demands that you speak up!

CHUCK PETCH
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re:      Re: Atheist Philosophy
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison
Date: 23 Nov 92 12:30:01 CST
Originator: mccullou@sun-23.cae.wisc.edu


In article <9211221418.AA06205@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com>, I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
|> Mark McCulloughs types among other misunderstandings:
|> 
|> >Non power: Ozone.  How long has the ozone hole existed?  Noone can answer
|> >because noone knows!
|> 
|> No, a ozone hole has far reaching side effects such as an increase in skin
|> cancer that would have been detected earlier.
|> 
The very ability to detect cancer is a new science.  What about the
ozone cycle that is in direct correlation to sun output cycles?
Also consider this:  Those people who live near the poles get less
candela of light, therefore, less UV light, therefore less rays to
potentially cause skin cancer.  Think!

|> >It could have existed for centuries.
|> It could not.
|> 
Why?  We only in the past 20-30 years had the ability to even begin
to detect it or its absence reliably over the poles.  When we first
went south to chart the ozone, we found the hole.  Now, how long was
this hole here.  You are saying the following.  I went into this new
woods and found a hole in the ground.  Since I just found this hole, it
is very new, despite the fact that I couldn't have seen it earlier.

|> >How do you
|> >create ozone?  Shine UV light on O_2.  What does ozone shield against?
|> >UV light!  Nice isn't it?  Yea, CFCs need to be more controlled, but
|> >the enviornmentalists aren't telling us everything.
|> The first time I read that was in a environmentally concerned Time Life
|> book about twenty years ago. Further, I doubt that you understand how
|> UV light is absorbed and how CFCs (among others) and ozone interact.
|> 
Oh?  Is it unreasonable that I could have actually studied the ideas
and concepts?

|> >Am I suppossed
|> >to reject religion and then turn around and accept everything the
|> >enviornmentalist claims without question?  Sounds like I am to reject
|> >one religion for another.
|> 
|> Accepting claims without question is not exactly how the Scientific Method
|> works. Ever heard of it?
|>    Benedikt
But that is exactly what you are asking me to do, accept claims without
sufficient evidence that anyone can produce.  Yes I know the
scientific method, I use it a lot.  I am questioning your conclusion,
now present some real evidence to support your claim.  Most of your
evidence is questionable and cannot reliably be used to support any
conclusion.
M^2
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Circumcision (was Re: God Is Unfair)
Date: 19 Nov 92 23:40:06 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Nov19.221401.27880@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>
>Americans have far more "barbaric" practices:  in
>our community (Connecticut) it is almost universal
>for teenage and pre-teen girls and occasionally
>boys to have holes punched through their earlobes
>and metallic studs and rings forced through them.
>I would say almost 90% of the girls in my daughter's
>school class are "victims" of this form of mutilation.
>
  
  This is supposed to be an argument in favor of circumcision?  My
  method of mutilation is no worse than this other form?  Forgive me
  if I'm not convinced.



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

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
From: young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh)
Subject: Re: altruism and will to live/ not likely
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:13:21 GMT

From article <1992Nov20.081457.5471@news.uiowa.edu>, by cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu (Corey D Minter):
>I want to argue my belief that we all just act selfishly, and anything that
>seems altruistic is either just a means to selfish goals or an error in
>judgement.  [...]

In his book, "The Selfish Gene", Richard Dawkins explains this very well
in terms of the genes trying to survive.  It's an excellent book.

Young Huh
yhuh@ihlpe.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit)
Subject: articles from Freethought Today
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: alt
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:03:57 GMT

I'm a member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and I
mentioned to Dan Barker, the production assistant of their
monthly newsletter, Freethought Today, that readers of alt.atheism
might be interested to see a sampling of articles from that
newsletter.

He responded by sending me a Macintosh disk with the files in
some strange format.  I had to extract the files, and supply
the missing ligatures (fi, ffi, fl, etc.) and missing quotation
marks.  I'll post five articles, each in a separate posting.
Since I had to do this by hand, I don't guarantee that the
result is perfect, but it should be a close approximation to the
article as it appeared in Freethought Today.

I'd be curious to get your reaction.  If the reaction is reasonably
positive, I will see if Dan can send me one or two articles per
month to be reprinted in this forum.

Jeff Shallit
shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca
From: Gene Naftulyev <naft0001@student.ec.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: Paganism & Atheism
X-Xxdate: Thu, 19 Nov 92 19:21:45 GMT
Organization: U of M
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:19:31 GMT

Well I find that in general Pagans and Atheists get along very
well...That my be because mny Pagans do see the Gods & Goddesses as just
archetypes, or energies, or whatever. The other reason is that both
Pagans and atheists tend to be more open minded and allow others to have
opinions...They may both even believe that they CAN be wrong :-)

I also know of my Pagans that also call temselves atheists...hell, I
belong to the University Atheists and Unbelievers, and also was Chair of
the local Pagan group last year... 

I doubt that I would go as far as to say that all atheists are Pagans
though...in my definition of pagaism a prime requirement for being a
pagan is that a person has to be comfortable with the term and call
themselves a Pagan...otherwise they don't have to be one, even if they
fall into every other requirement..

Gene
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:03:45 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <ednclark.722219787@kraken>, ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
> rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:
> 
>>Helo all
> 
>>I'd like some comments (if you've read it)
>>on the book by Isaac Asimov calles 
>>Guide to the Bible. I think it deals with
>>the discrepancies' of 
>>the bible.
>>Any comments?
> 
>>Frank Pinto
> 
> It is extremely unlikely that Isaac would write a book showing any
> discrepencies with the Bible as unfortunately the late man was a christian
> (though not a fundie).
> 
> Jeff.

Which explains of course why he associated with Free Inquiry, why the
Skeptical Inquirer just did a tribute to him in their last issue, why he
considered himself a secular humanist...oh, and did I forget to mention
his Jewish background?

--Semhaza
From: D.J.Butcher@newcastle.ac.uk (Dave Butcher)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Date: 18 Nov 92 11:59:00 GMT
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU.


In article <1992Nov10.184658.19188@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>
>	Atheists commonly ignore that they live in a dream-world by themselves.
>
>	Quite common is the belief that you could save this earth. This is 
>	rubbish. There is no method to save mankind from Greenhouse effect or
>	lack of Ozone (for decades). People refuse to believe this. 
>
>	What is the philosophy with atheists ? Consume ! Spend more !
>
>-- 
>
>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
>
>	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !

Wibble. Wibble.
Hatstand.

Roger Irrelevant.
Nb.- Witty Quote goes here.

	D.Butcher@ncl.ac.uk
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21341 talk.religion.misc:21197
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Reader's Digest on prayer: amusing, or scary?
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:19:28 GMT
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.

In article <Xi40TB3w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> For instance, can you imagine a Fundie school teaching evolution
> properly? 

	Nope.

> And conversely, can you imagine a strong atheist/sceptic school teaching
> Eastern philosophy properly?

	Well, actually, yes, I can imagine that.  Just because a
philosophy is alien doesn't mean it can't be taught as something that
some people believe.  Furthermore, Buddhism is for all intents and
purposes atheistic.
	For more fun, let's turn the questions around:

> And conversely, can you imagine a strong atheist/sceptic school teaching
> evolution properly? 

	Absolutely!

> For instance, can you imagine a Fundie school teaching Eastern
> philosophy properly?

	*snicker* Yeah, right.

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.                                  +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
  "They say history repeats itself.  But then again, they've said that before."