HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sorenj@rpi.edu (Jeffrey S. Sorensen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Observations on the contrary nature of church propaganda
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:35:35 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY



On my way to work at my old job, I used to pass by a church every morning.  
This church had a large billboard upon which they would post various short 
sayings ostensibly related to christian ideology.

One morning, this one caught my eye:

    Life in Christ
      is an endless hope
    Life without Christ
      is a hopeless end

I discussed this my coworkers when I got to my job.  Hope is only good when
eventually what you hope for will come to be.  If you hope for something
impossible then what you have is false hope.  If it is true that my life is
a hopeless end, I can comfortably resign myself to that.  I have not believed
in an afterlife since I learned that Santa Claus doesn't exist (perhaps this
is a deeper conspiracy...another time) and I have always understood that I
will someday die.  I can live without hope, especially if it will end sometime.

But the other choice!  An endless hope?  That sounds like _a delusion_.
Consider how similar "faith" is to an "endless hope".  This sign was perhaps
more apt than was intended.  

-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
    Jeff Sorensen    \ "Beware of first hand  \ My monitor is sooooo small, \
sorensen@ecse.rpi.edu \ ideas!" - E.M. Forster \   when you open a file      \
Work:  (518) 276-8202  \ in "The Machine Stops" \       you break a window.   \
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:56 alt.atheism:14586
From: John Paulus <shadow@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sowing the seeds on Xian BBSs
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:45:57 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.

In article <1992Jul28.163920.13575@news.media.mit.edu> mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!media.mit.edu!minsky@uunet.uu.net (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>In article <27JUL199216062426@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu> Elliott Mitchell <mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu> writes:
>>It is fun to log into the BBSs and give the resident bigots hell.  But one 
>>does that in the full faith and assurance that the people who frequent that 
>>medium are dweebs with pocket protectors who shrink at the sight of 
>>daylight and can relate much better to MS-DOS than to REAL-FOLKS.  
>>Sometimes I find myself worrying that they might snap and come after me 
>>with a uzi (there seems to be a serious intersection of gun nuts and god 
>>nuts on the BBSs).
>
>Most XIANS do not consider doing such things to be sociable, at least
>in this particular era, and I have not met any who refuse to denounce
>such behavior.  However, I have not observed any Muslimss on the net
>to firmly denounce the murder of unbelievers.  Did I miss some of these?

To Marvin Minsky: I'm not sure what you meant by that reply. If you meant that
Christians denounce the foolish behavior that Elliott Mitchell likes to rip
on, I hope that is a true statement. (I can't tell the hearts of Christians).

As for Elliott's message...I would like to know who these people are so I can
talk to them about this behavior. Elliott (& anyone else, for that matter), I
strongly suggest that, if you really want to rip on a "Christian"'s behavior,
I suggest you compare it with the Bible, FIRST & FOREMOST with the Gospels
(i.e. the words of JESUS) & then the rest of the New Testament, & if you're
still interested the Old Testament as well. 
	As someone pointed out (message 33 on this newsgroup, I believe), a
lot of Christians are ignorant about why they believe what they do. They may
disguise it by hyper-reacting, an instance that Elliott (& others) have
sensationalized & exaggerated far too much.
	I really do ask you to please not make generalizations of Christians,
but rather get to know them as people. If one Christian becomes too unbearable
for you to debate or even tolerate, then go to another. Believe it or not,
there are Christians out there who will calmly debate, and even a few who can
be honest at tough questions & say "I don't know."

--JP--

Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:16 alt.atheism:14472
From: Marvin Minsky <mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!media.mit.edu!minsky@uunet.uu.net>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sowing the seeds on Xian BBSs
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:39:20 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory

In article <27JUL199216062426@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu> Elliott Mitchell <mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu> writes:
>It is fun to log into the BBSs and give the resident bigots hell.  But one 
>does that in the full faith and assurance that the people who frequent that 
>medium are dweebs with pocket protectors who shrink at the sight of 
>daylight and can relate much better to MS-DOS than to REAL-FOLKS.  
>Sometimes I find myself worrying that they might snap and come after me 
>with a uzi (there seems to be a serious intersection of gun nuts and god 
>nuts on the BBSs).

Most XIANS do not consider doing such things to be sociable, at least
in this particular era, and I have not met any who refuse to denounce
such behavior.  However, I have not observed any Muslimss on the net
to firmly denounce the murder of unbelievers.  Did I miss some of these?


Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:95 alt.atheism:14692
From: bzthomps@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Zac Thompson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What's the point?
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:47:54 GMT
Distribution: world 
Organization: University of Waterloo

[ Moderator's note:  I've reformatted this posting to (a) make it fit in 80
  columns and (b) make it have paragraphs.  In future I plan to bounce such
  postings, as it takes a surprising amount of work to edit them. ]

In article <33779@cbmvax.commodore.com>, Robert Weir - Manuals <weir@cbmvax.commodore.com> writes:
> As I understand it, atheism is the denial of god's existance.
> 
> But to get to this point you need to first understand what god is, 
> or at least understand what other people mean when they say "god" and
> then reject that god does exist. This seems rather pointless. By
> denying the existance of something, don't you validate its existance
> and then say simply, "Oh, by-the-by, that which I formally held to
> be true, I now hold as false? Denial is a weak argument.
> 
> How can an atheist point of view be argued?
>
> RSW

For some people at least, atheism is not the denial of anything's 
existence, because, as you pointed out, that implies the existence is 
itself in existence ( this is sounding strange. Suffice it to say that
denial _is_ a weak argument. )

For me, it is the disagreement with belief in a god and much, MUCH more
importantly, disapproval in the worship of a god. Rather than denying
anything's existence, I prefer to put forth the idea of its absence. Columbus
might have been told denial was a weak argument if he had only said "I don't
believe in the edge of the world." This "edge" was thought to be in existence
with about as much conviction and reason as "God".

But instead, Columbus demonstrated that the world did not need to have an
edge. There were other options. He believed that the world was edgeless. I
believe that the universe is godless. Unfortunately, I cannot simply go on a
trip towards where a god is supposed to be and show that it isn't there. NASA
tried that and everyone said, well, OK, it 's somewhere else. :) 

Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:84 alt.atheism:14681
From: rowlands@ra.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Jon Rowlands)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Religions as a side-effect of intelligence?
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:17:00 GMT
Reply-To: rowlands@csc.ti.com (Jon Rowlands)
Distribution: world
Organization: Texas Instruments, SPDC, DSP Technology Branch, Dallas

Religions seem to me to be artefacts of the way humans became
intelligent. I think a lot of that mechanism is a simple thing
we call "curiosity" - a need to explain why things are as they
are. This need is like any other of our drives, like hunger -
it delights us when we understand something, and worries us
when we don't.

As far as I know, stories that explain creation exist in all
cultures. That would suggest either that they are true, which
is unlikely since most are inconsistent with each other, or
that we are predisposed to invent them to fill the void, so
to speak.

As for the moral aspects of religion, these are suspiciously
like the necessary rules for a self-preserving community -
don't kill your neighbours, don't break their things, don't
eat more than you have to, etc. They don't have to be divinely
inspired, or even products of human nature. They apply just
as well to communities of animals or cells.

Nothing profound or novel in all that, sure. But it does at
least have the benefit of simplicity.

We've incorporated much of the moral code into our legal
systems. The part that remins unlegislatable is the part that
suggests the kind of people we should be, not just what we
may and may not do. I would really like to keep that part
discard the dangerously divisive mystical fluff.

Jon
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:92 alt.atheism:14689
From: Rudy Zalesak <lambada.oit.unc.edu!Rudy.Zalesak@mcnc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sowing the seeds on Xian BBSs
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 02:22:31 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

Marvin Minsky writes,

>Most XIANS do not consider doing such things to be sociable, at least
>in this particular era, and I have not met any who refuse to denounce
>such behavior.

In fact a New Yorker report on Haiti about 2 years ago said that 
fundamentaliist American and conservative Catholic (from Quebec)
missionaries were encouraging local Christian
youths to capture and burn alive
priests of Haiti's Voudon religion. 

A voudon priest quoted in the article claimed that 1500 people had
been murdered in this way in the last few years (including a 16 year old
boy). 

I haven't seen any followup to this and I don't know how much
credence to give it.

I have unfortunately known Catholics who justify the murder of heretics
in the past (Thomas More had 6 men burned alive, for leading prayer
meetings, for example), but for some reason they don't approve
of it in this era. Most Catholics I know find the Church's history in
this regard troubling, however (and most, I've found, don't know the
above fact about Thomas More).

			-- Rudy Zalesak
--
   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:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:23 alt.atheism:14479
From: Todd Kelley <tgk@cs.toronto.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:11:18 -0400
Distribution: world
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto

In article <mspears.712252338@sfu.ca> mspears@sfu.ca (Matthew Spears) writes:
>
>  I am not a fundamentalist christian, or even a christian at all.  (Gave it
>up in childhood), but I dislike the close-mindedness of many atheists.  Yes,
>there is a lot of hypocrisy in Christianity, but there is a lot of good as
>well.  What I dislike about Churches in general is that they tend to say "THIS
>is the truth, take it or leave it."  But I still find that there is a lot
>of Truth in what they say. 

You don't indicate what you mean by closed-mindedness, and furthermore,
you don't indicate what it is about many atheists that leads you to believe
they are closed-minded.  You hint that you believe many atheists disagree
with the ``good'' of Christianity, and therefore you consider them
closed-minded.

In fact, athiests are not closed-minded.  Religion does not have a monopoly
on ``goodness'', and athiests know this.  If something is good, then it
is good---whether it comes from within or without a religion has no bearing
on its goodness.  This is the only position an open-minded person can hold.
> 
>  If you have a view of the universe, say it, backing it up as best you can. 
>But this cynical denigration of everything religious does no one any good, 
>least of all you.

When dealing with something as basic and important as a view of how
the universe is and how it should be made to become, arbitrariness and
dogmatism are insidious nemeses.  Dogmatism and arbitrariness define
religion.  (For example, science is not a religion because it's neither
dogmatic nor arbitrary.)  Therefore, naturally, truly open-minded persons
scorn religion.  This does not mean they scorn what religions say; it
means they scorn what religion is: a set of arbitrary beliefs which
must be accepted without question.

Todd
-- 
Todd Kelley                                 tgk@cs.toronto.edu
Department of Computer Science              (416)922-9326
University of Toronto
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:50 alt.atheism:14580
From: Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Without God, but generally enjoying the hell out of everything
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:01:28 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

"Johan A. Grape" <jgrape@coos.dartmouth.edu> writes:

>Hi all.

>I guess the fundamental flaw I find in every religion I encounter
>is the "not one of us" mentality.

  do you mean the exclusivity of religions that discriminate and oppress
those that aren't in their flock?  if you do mean this, lemme know if
you want biblically rooted reasons why christians are unjustified in doing
so.

>"God is alive and well and working on a less ambitious project"

  good quote!
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:30 alt.atheism:14490
From: Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Campaigns
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 06:44:22 GMT
Distribution: alt.atheism.moderated
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

Gavin McKay <gav@asgserver.canberra.edu.au> writes:

>For the past year, there has been a Christian Group on campus doing
>their best to 'save us all'.  One method they have been using is a heavy
>poster/billboard campaign.  There two major messages have been:

>	"Know Christ.
>	 Know Life."
>and
>	"No Christ.
>	 No Life."
>which I find rather insulting, for the simple reason that I interpret this as
>without Christ, there can be no fulfillment in your life, and have a nice day.

  well, i guess it depends on how YOU define fulfillment differently from how
they do.

>While not exactly a decisive or very brave step on our part, we still had
>fun, and got the point across that noone should be forcing any ideals down
>anyone's throats, as I believe such an active poster campaign was designed
>to achieve.

  but aren't you similarly forcing your views on others in your responses
to their campaign?  people have freedoms to express themselves and their
beliefs, as you have freedom to reject other people's beliefs.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:41 alt.atheism:14525
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 16:23:38 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca> writes:
> Forrest Black <mailrus!gatech!unmvax!cfblack@uunet.uu.net> writes:
> >in some of the values that are presented by these organizations.  The
> >scary thing for me is that my ideas of good values and reasonable
> >conduct conflict in a glaring fashion sometimes with the followers of
> >major organized religions.
> 
>   can you give an example of one of your ideas of good values and reasonable
> conduct that conflicts with those of religious followers?

Well, one problem with many religious ideas of morality is that they're too
reliant on rules.  Lists of thou shalt nots and thou shalts.

Over the years I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to behave
in a reasonable moral way purely by following lists of commandments.
Given a simple list of rules for moral behaviour, there are always situations
where adhering to the rules results in ludicrous or unpleasant behaviour.

Learning moral behaviour isn't just a matter of learning rules; you have to
understand *why* the rules exist and *when* they are applicable.  Religion in
general seems pretty bad at teaching this; the why is usually given as
"because God says so" and the when as "always".

In a different direction, and more specifically...

Religious followers seem to have a tendency to define people as 'good' or
'bad' based on what kinds of sexual behaviour they enjoy.  I tend to feel
that morality is more a matter of how you treat people.


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard

Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:91 alt.atheism:14688
From: John Paulus <shadow@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sowing the seeds on Xian BBSs
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:25:45 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.

In article <s4ZPoB11w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>John Paulus <shadow@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> writes:
>> talk to them about this behavior. Elliott (& anyone else, for that matter), I
>> strongly suggest that, if you really want to rip on a "Christian"'s behavior,
>> I suggest you compare it with the Bible, FIRST & FOREMOST with the Gospels
>> (i.e. the words of JESUS) & then the rest of the New Testament, & if you're
>> still interested the Old Testament as well. 
>
>The trouble is, every time I compare people's behaviour to the old or new
>testament, I'm told I'm "misinterpreting" the Bible, reading it "out of
>context" or some such.

	First, I would need some specific examples.
	If these examples are just a couple of verses, then, yeah, your
arguments just might be wrong. If you've read a lengthy passage & compared it
to others, however, that's certainly something worthy of rational debate.
--JP--

Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:79 alt.atheism:14676
From: gat@forsight.jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheist or Agnostic Part two
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:49:37 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory

In article <1992Jul30.120237.24395@news.media.mit.edu> Marvin Minsky <mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!media.mit.edu!minsky@uunet.uu.net> writes:

[Stuff deleted]

>   Whenever you observe a
>widely popular idea with no substantial basis, you must consider the
>possibility that you're observing a group of memes (ideas) that work
>together like the genes of a virus to produce a highly contagious
>(mental) disease.  In a virus we usually have one part specialized to
>penetrate a cell wall, another to induce copying (evangelism), others,
>perhaps, to resist countermeasures (encouragement of faith as a
>virtue), etc.
>  In view of the prevalence of such diseases, the atheist position
>might thus be healthier than the agnostic position.  In other words,
>it is more a matter of mental hygiene than of reasonable inference in
>itself.

An interesting notion to pursue: the possibility exists also that this
mental entity is not a parasite but a symbiote.  It could be argued
that the widespread dissemintation of, say, the "thou-shalt-not-kill"
meme is largely beneficial to society.  How do we distinguish the
mental smallpox from the acidophilous?

Erann Gat
gat@robotics.jpl.nasa.gov

Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:24 alt.atheism:14480
From: Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism openmindedness
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 06:39:18 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

Forrest Black <mailrus!gatech!unmvax!cfblack@uunet.uu.net> writes:

>Churches in the large (Da Pope, Moon, $700M Club, etc.) are massive
>organizations with significant financial and political clout.  I scoff
>at quite a bit of what is said, being a non-believer, but there is good
>in some of the values that are presented by these organizations.  The
>scary thing for me is that my ideas of good values and reasonable
>conduct conflict in a glaring fashion sometimes with the followers of
>major organized religions.  Am I just a misfit?  Do I disqualify myself
>as an atheist by watching Gene Scott?

  can you give an example of one of your ideas of good values and reasonable
conduct that conflicts with those of religious followers?

Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:47 alt.atheism:14577
From: Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:28:19 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

Phillip Rzewski <kutcha@lachesis.acm.rpi.edu> writes:

>    Strange. I would think saying "This is the truth, take it or leave it" is
>one of the more civilized methods churches could adopt. For example, there is
>a woman here who I work with who goes out with members of her church once a
>week to accost people on the street, tell them the "truth", and try to talk
>them into going to their church.

>    Then later in the same week some Muslim religious group was putting little
>pamphlets on people's windshields in hope of spreading _their_ "truth". When
>she came across it she came stomping up to the office, as offended as if
>someone just burnt a cross on her lawn. Her claim was that she "hated it when
>people force their ideas on her and then run".

>    _THIS_ is the kind of inconsistency that led me to atheism.

  for every rabidly defensive christian is [i hope at least] one who is
open-minded and respectful enough to recognize when people say no.  this kind
of inconsistency bothers everyone, but is it right to abandon a spirituality
based on the inconsistencies and inadequacies of its members?
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:60 alt.atheism:14590
From: Roy Gary Seven Corey <gseven%leo.unm.edu@lynx.unm.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Morality under duress 
Keywords: coercion
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 04:06:10 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque


  A few articles back mathew@mantis.co.uk touched on something that I
feel strongly about, that there is nothing moral about enforced 
morality.  

  A primary christian tenet is that their religion is moral, that through
the gifts and blessings of god(s) (why isn't there a term for god that
doesn't distinguish pluralcy like in the biblical hebrew) they have attained
morality.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The belief that 
god(s) will reward good behavior or punish poor behavior in a supernatural
and eternal way is obvious coercion, to put it mildly.  True ethical 
behavior must come from willfull concent and understanding.  This is
something I have never seen emphasized in a religious setting (exception,
the unitarian church seems to foster questioning in this direction).

  This has been a key philosophical point for many of my religious friends,
Do they behave ethically because they feel something is right REGARDLESS
OF WHAT GOD AND OR THE CHURCH SAYS, or do they obey commandments.

-- 
			   Live from Carina (@unm.edu)
			   Roy "gseven" Corey

	"Communication is the staple of an advanced society"
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:45 alt.atheism:14575