HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: frustrations with christianity
Date: 11 Dec 1992 17:56:45 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


[originator of threat mentions religous friend trying to convert her]

[assorted other conversion that I find interesting]

	I have a number of Theist friends, and as I see it, the peopel
who I generally call friends do not try to "convert" me all of the time.
If they cannot respect me enought to understand I am not interested
in being saved, andtheir religion forces them to overide theirespect
for me then I cannot call them a friend.

	I remembe too when I was little in the church I listend in
ona sermon once (missouri synod lutheran). The pastor kept saying
that chri$tians must use their friendships/relationships with people
to convert people- IE: manipulate your friendships and relationships
with others/your SO/ect.. to get then converted. I don't twist and
pervert friendships and relationships like that. I have something
called integrity, and find that beneith me.



-- 
A. TRENT PHILLIPS |" A mirror is a negative space with a frame and a place for
  also known as   | your face, it reveals what the rest of us see. It conceals
   WHITE  ROOK    | what you'd like you to be."--Blue Oyster Cult
-------bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu-----aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu-------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: God Is Unfair
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:26:09 GMT

In article <3282.2B263BA3@catpe.alt.za> Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org (Ian Douglas) writes:
>
>On 03 Dec 92, sven  hauptfeld wrote to All:
>
> sh> Actually, I'd say that this clearly suggests that the Bible was not
> sh> intended to be interpreted literally.
>
>Who gets to decide which bits ARE interpreted literally?
>
Why any?

	Sven

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: A "DISPROOF" OF GOD ?
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 15:38:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec09.232704.24838@lobo.rmhs.colorado.edu> eknipp@lobo.rmhs.colorado.edu (Ethan R Knipp) writes:
>In article <kmr4.359.723882362@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>>
>>	Yes, you havn't taken one thing into considerations: maybe god 
>>wishes these particular atoms to fly apart?	
>>
>>	e.g. maybe god is a pyromaniac?
>
>I know!   Atom's DIDN'T split until Americans (guided by God, of course) 
>figured out how to do it, then God *let* them, so they could nuke the hell out 
>of those little heathens! |-[

Actually, the Europeans did it first.  Germans I think but I can't
seem to remember their names.  They didn't even realize what they had
done at first.

Now, we were the first ones to have a chain reaction.

--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sheikh@python.cis.ohio-state.edu (rizwan a sheikh)
Subject: Re: "Keep Christ in Christmas"
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:21:07 GMT

In article <parsons.724214834@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>sheikh@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu (rizwan a sheikh) writes:
>
>>parsons@is.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>
>>>Anyway, when was the
>>>last time religion came up as a subject in your local elections?  I can 
>>>only speak for my locale, but the issue has never been raised about what 
>>>a candidate's religious affiliations are.  Are these "stealth candidates"
>>>_actively_ hiding their affiliations...
>
>>Yes, but it is more than hiding religious affiliations, it is concealing the
>>fact that they are fundamentalists with fundamentalist beliefs.
>
>So, how does the article define 'fundamentalists' and 'fundamentalist 
>beliefs'?  And for that matter, how do you define them?

If you read my last post (the parts you deleted) I suggested that you read the
articles for yourself because I don't have a copy.  Given this, your question
makes little sense.  After you have read them please post a review.

Jim Copeland
on a friend's account
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 18 Dec 92 01:22:10 GMT

mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:

>In the discussion of strong vs. weak atheism, the definition of agnosticism
>has come up many a time.  Here I am forced (under threat of mental
>outrage), to step in and throw in my 12 cents.

>Agnosticism does indeed come in more than one form.  IMNSHO, it is not
>what the FAQ defines it as.  Agnosticism is the attitude of "I don't know
>if there exists a god or not."  It is not saying the question is
>undecidable, that is a militant agnostic.  This refusal to recognize
>the other side of agnosticism is a big mistake because it doesn't
>look at a nice large possiblity.  Yes, I know people who follow this
>other kind of agnosticism which I will for the moment call a relaxed
>agnostic -> "I don't know, and I'm not looking very hard."  The militant
>agnostic can be summed up with one of two statements, 1) -> "I don't know
>and you don't either." 2) -> "It is unknowable."  Note that they are similar.

Actually, I thought an agnostic was someone who didn't beleive in anything.
That is they are not entirely sure that next time they let go of their pencil
that it will definitely fall down even do the said pencil has performed this
behaviour every time that agnostic can remember (remembering of course that
any memory may have been artificially induced). Agnostic is not sure that
New York exists because she has never been there and even if she had it may
have been destroyed or the visit was just a fantasy of hers. A great
description of what I thought was an agnostic is given in the fourth book of
Douglas Adam's trilogy, HitchHiker's Guide To The Galaxy. I don't know if
you Americans have heard of it, but if you haven't, it ranks up their with
Monty Python as the best of British comedy (and I severely recommend you get
hold of a copy). The particular character described was in fact the Ruler of
the Galaxy, though he himself wasn't sure about the fact, and the two main
characters decided that the Galaxy was in good hands.

Therefore an agnostic is not just unsure about the existence of God or Gods
or Goddesses, but is unsure about anything. Of course therefore they would
say that one can never be sure of anything even whether or not other people
can be sure about something. Therefore a true agnostic would not say 
1) -> "I don't know and you don't either"
2) -> "It is unknowable"

but would say

1) -> "I don't know and I don't know if you know either"
2) -> "It is currently unknowable for me"

Of course anyone who actually lived like this would quickly die: The last
breath I took like all the others I remember, were not poisonous, but then
those memories may be artificially induced or the air may change between my
last and next breath.......


Jeff.
From: hedrick@klinzhai.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Quotes from the Bible.
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:32:03 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:

>Pi=3
>The earth is flat. 
>The sun revolves around the earth.

As far as I know, none of them is there.  Pi=3 is claimed on the basis
of I Kings 7:23, where a round object is describe which is 10 cubits
in diameter and 30 in circumference.  The problem is that (1) you
don't find the Bible giving numbers like 31.4159 cubits.  It seems
reasonable to think that these were only accurate to one digit. (2)
It's not necessarily a perfect circle.  It there was a rim, the
diameter could well have included the rim, and the circumference been
measured below the rim, where it would be easier to get a line to
stay.  There's no reason to think that the text was intended to give
the information needed to compute pi, and so no reason for it to be as
precise as all that.

The Bible deals with astronomy naively.  It talks about the sun
rising, standing still during a miracle, etc.  I have no reason to
think that the authors of the Bible knew that the earth orbited the
sun.  But even we talk about sunrise.  Similarly with references to
things like "the circle of the earth."  One assumes this is the
horizon.  As far as I know, the Bible does not have any specific
descriptions of incorrect cosmology.  E.g. it doesn't specifically say
that the earth is a flat circle riding on a turtle's back or something
like that.  If you look at the descriptions and try to figure out what
ideas are behind them, it appears that they envisioned the sky as a
sort of half-spherical vault over a flat earth.  Above the vault was
water, the reservoir from which rain came.  But this you have to infer
this from poetic imagery -- it's not a specific teaching.  Gen 1:6 ff
is a typical example.  (Make sure you use a modern translation -- the
"firmament" is now generally considered to be the vault or dome of the
sky.)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.jewish
From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Summary: don't know yet, haven't written it
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 06:02:26 GMT

According to the FAQ, atheism is usually defined in this group as 
the "absence of a belief in any gods" (so-called "weak atheism"), rather
than the "belief in no god(s)" (so-called "strong atheism").

I had never come across this definition of atheism (i.e. weak atheism)
before seeing it in this newsgroup.  Atheism, as I understood it, always 
meant strong atheism.

To use the word "atheist" for "weak atheism" can be confusing.  For
example, using this definition, an agnostic (one who believes that it is
not possible to know if God(s) exist(s) or not) is an atheist.  Since an
agnostic admits the *possibility* of God existing, when one speaks of 
atheists in general (as we are including "weak atheists"), an
atheist may believe in the possibility of God existing.

I don't know, this definition of atheism to me seems to be one not used
in the general community, at least in my experience.  Am I alone in
thinking that the commonly used definition of "atheism" is assumed to be
"strong atheism"?

(To say that an atheist believes that God *may* exist seems an alien
concept to me, as I had always considered atheists and agnostics to be
distinctly different groups.)

 Fred Rice
 darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au   

==================================================================
=   A poor man said to a rich one:				 =
=     `All my money goes on food.'				 = 
=     `Now that's your trouble,' said the rich man. `I only 	 =
=   spend five per cent of _my_ money on food.'			 = 
=                                        			 =
=                -- Idries Shah, _The Magic Monastery_		 =
==================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: God Is Unfair
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 22:08:37 GMT

Ian Douglas (Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org) wrote:
:
: On 03 Dec 92, sven  hauptfeld wrote to All:
:
:  >> incidentally, where this chapter stops making sense (Cain starts worrying
:  >> that someone will kill him, although there is no one to kill him to boot,
:  >> and he begins his life as an outcast and a vagabond by building a town --
:  >> a highly unusual thing for a vagabond to do, particularly at a time when
:  >> there are hardly half a dozen people on earth).
:
:  sh> Actually, I'd say that this clearly suggests that the Bible was not
:  sh> intended to be interpreted literally.
:
: Who gets to decide which bits ARE interpreted literally?

I do, and it's all fiction.
-- 
Mike A. McAngus	(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org) 

Like I really need another time-consuming hobby.
This Posting Exploits Illiterates.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lgarde@scorch.apana.org.au (Leon Garde)
Subject: Re: Proof of Gods
Organization: Craggenmoore public Unix system , Newcastle , Oz
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:05:51 GMT

David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

| 
|Show this atheist (me) said scientific proof of "unique entity"
|and I most definately will NOT become a theist. If there were
|such proof, said being would not be supernatural, and not any
|kind of god. Technologically advanced, perhaps. Alien from
|space, probably. I'm not some South Pacific islander who will
|protrate myself in front of a crashed airplane.
| 


I like that.
Is that the same as saying 'show me proof of god, but still i wouldnt
become theist, as the existance of that proof would disprove the
existance of god' ?
OR (more correctly)
as that proof could not possible prove god, but would prove the
existance of some supernatural, intellectually advanced ( technology
is inanimate?? , we need a new word for a.i. stuff), etc, being.


|--- Maximus 2.00

leon
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheists should mind their own damn business
Date: 15 Dec 92 10:24:22 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Dec12.071137.16343@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
>I don't have anything against atheists really... just leave me and
>my world alone.

Leave you alone?  Why, this is alt.atheism -- who won't leave whom alone?

Leave your world alone?  Which world is that?  Oh, I see.  That's a deal.
You leave the Earth alone, and we'll leave your Kingdom of Heaven alone.

>If you don't like "In God We Trust" on US Currency,
>don't look for it - ya know it's there.

It is, for the time being.  It is an anachronism which has to go.
So is the "D. G. REG. F. D."  on UK currency.

>If a religious symbol in a
>municipal seal is offensive to you, don't seek it out... After all
>it's not a blinking neon sign in your face, you have to look for it.

Unfortunately, there are zillions of superstitious symbols that are
worse than blinking neon signs in our faces.

>If a book or movie or anything in my environment offends my
>sensibilities, I try to ignore it.

Then what made you write this article?  Why not ignore our group?

But I wish all religious types practised what this one is preaching.
S Rushdie wouldn't have to go into hiding, the Inquisition wouldn't
have happened, ...

>Most of us kinda like "In God We Trust" on the currency.

I bet most of you kinda like lynching niggers.  Doesn't make it acceptable.
Minorities have their rights.

>"When things are going down the toilet, and we
>can't stand to blame ourselves, we trust in God... 'cuz if there
>ain't one, we're all fucked!".

Not all of you, but I know of some that certainly are, whether there
is a god or not.

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheists should mind their own damn business
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 00:01:56 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Dec12.233923.29760@athena.mit.edu> jelliott@athena.mit.edu (Jesse C Elliott) writes:
>This whole thing has to be a hack.  Why do you people bother responding
>to Harry's ramblings?

	Two words: Finals Week.
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: proof
Date: 12 Dec 1992 05:44:36 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) on Fri Dec 11 22:28 1992 posted:
|
|
|I'm new here, so before I take my 30 words let me give the disclaimer.
|
|Yes, I am a Christian, Yes I have a brain, Yes, I ask questions.  
|I hear a number of people who's case against God is:
|I never met a Christian who had an IQ above 40 => God can't exists ( no-one
|would hang around these people )
|(sure, I paraphrased it but you get the point)
|
	Yeah, I see what you mean, but untill recently we had a lot of the
"run-through-the-halls-screaming-but-cover-your-ears-types".
 
 
 
|I am willing to be part of an objective discussion about why I believe in God
|and what the basis for my belief is founded in facts (no, I can't offer concret
|proof in 30 words).  I'm not interested in a flame war, I seriously would like
|a discussion based on analysis.  I can't claim to know everything
 
	ok......sure......
 
 
 
|
|Ok, my 30 words =>
|
|An empty grave, It would take take even more faith not to beleive, Historical
 ^^^^^^^/|\^^^^                 ^^^^^/|\^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  
 ever heard of grave robing.          |
                                      |
		 more faith not to beleive. but I have NO faith
					
|Accuracy of the bible, Completeness of the Spiritual model given in the bible,
 ^^^^/|\^^^^^^^^^^^^^^    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^/|\^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  NOT !                                                 |
                                        There is no such thing as a spirit
					, ghost, ect....
 
|personal experiances, Answers.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^/|\^^  ^^^^/|\
 we will get to that...     |
you missed a good thread    |
on that a while back        |
                            | 
                            |
	I find that funny...answers....but yet many times the preacher
never even understands the questions..............
 
|
|one last note, it would not be fair to criticize my answer for being terse when
|the request asked that it would be in 30 words or less.
|
|				Craig
|
|Still working on some fancy logo
 
 
	I would suggest you back you your 30 words (I thought this 30 words 
bit was a joke) and go into more detail. You are correct...30 words is
just not enough.
 
 
-- 
A. TRENT PHILLIPS |" A mirror is a negative space with a frame and a place for
  also known as   | your face, it reveals what the rest of us see. It conceals
   WHITE  ROOK    | what you'd like you to be."--Blue Oyster Cult
-------bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu-----aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu-------
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: proof
Keywords: Jesus,Proof
Date: 15 Dec 92 10:51:28 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <casivils.724130930@node_508ba> casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
>Yes, I am a Christian, Yes I have a brain, Yes, I ask questions.  
[...]
>Ok, my 30 words =>
>
>An empty grave,

This is in direct contradiction with 1 Cor 15, where Paul explains
that the resurrection body is _not_ the same as the physical body.

>It would take take even more faith not to beleive,

That's "believe".  I would expect someone with a brain to be familiar
with the spelling of so common a word.  How it can take a faith not to
believe in something is beyond me.  It is like drinking more in order
to remain sober.

>Historical Accuracy of the bible,

There isn't any.  It tells a lot of fairy tales about Egypt,
Babylonia, Persia and so on, and we know too much about those
countries from other sources.

>Completeness of the Spiritual model given in the bible,

Can't say anything about this.  My preference goes to Buddhism, though,
with Upanishadic Hinduism as second choice.

>personal experiances,

Can't dispute those either.

>Answers.

That's the 30th word.  Doesn't say much, but then it is not meant to.

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: fsrey@rama.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Rex E. Young)
Subject: Re: Religion = anything that's fun is bad.
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 05:01:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.213637.19852@timesink.chi.il.us>  
harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
> In article <9212121433.AA02595@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com>  
I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
> >Harold Platypus types:
> I despise crusading atheists who waste taxpayers time and money and
> subject their little children to public humiliation and media circuses
> all in the name of their BELIEF SYSTEM: seperation of church and state.
> It pisses me off and you'll all hear about it until it's out of my  
system.

And what right does the public have to humiliate my children?  What 
right does the media have to create a circus around my life and that
of my children?  You're excusing the public and the media because 
somebody disagrees with your BELIEF SYSTEM.  You might as well get as
pissed off as you want.  I don't really think that it will do you much
good here.
> I may choose not to subscribe to your frickin' FAQ as gospel, but I'll
> air my laundry in this burg of anarchy if I so desire. If you don't like
> this arangement there's a moderated group.
>

That's ok.  I don't subscribe to it as gospel either.  Merely as 
guidelines for those that are new to this group.  (Such as myself, 
and you, if I'm not mistaken.)
 
> >>Frankly, I find the majority of people ballsy enough to publicly
> >>declare themselves "atheists" are nothing more than troublemakers
> >>who finally found a mission. They stir up shit, cost the taxpayers
> >>money and vanish into the woodwork having done nothing constructive.
> >>If this is you, go soak yer head...
> >
> >Posting incoherent drivel or not reading FAQs costs the money of  
taxpayers
> >worldwide.
> I don't think it's incoherent at all... and I help pay for this  
frivolous
> use of taxpayer money like everyone else. This newsgroup is a forum for
> exchange of ideas about atheism... You'll tolerate mine 'cuz you have no
> choice, except that if you don't like it you can leave!
> 
> >I understand that you generously allow people to be atheists but when  
they
> >use their right of free expression, you despise them.
> I don't despise atheists... believe what you like.. I'll respect that!
>

You don't despise athiests?  You just said above that you despise 
"crusading athiests".  A contradiction, sir.  And, I have yet to meet
or hear a "crusading athiest";  only "crusading thiests". 

_______________________________________________________
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored
by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency
a great soul has simply nothing to do.

I hate quotations.
May 1849

-Ralph Waldo Emerson