HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: >>> I concede, please don't kill me...
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:05:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.081125.25913@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
>
>Contrary to what most people on the a.a group must think of me by now,
>I'm definately not a theist or a fundie.

>To clear up any misconception...
>I know "In God We Trust" has no place on currency, but it's part of
>US history like it or not. Some people (not me necessarily) need and
>derive strength from these things. Removing it would (IMHO) be like
>defacing a national monument simply because it has a religious symbol
>on it. Yes, I do think that would be a bad thing.
>
>There will always be some vestiges of religion in government because
>it's of the people that make up our country. To sandblast it away in
>the name of some idealist notion of pure seperatism would be a damn
>shame and basically would be a denial of what we really are as a country -
>a majority population of European Christians. I wouldn't expect to see
>"In Mohammed (Allah, Krishna, etc.) We Trust" on money, and no, this
>is not "fair" to the minorities. Sorry, I didn't create this situation.
>The US is a sort of democracy, and the majority rules.
>
>Oh, I can stand the heat of flames... I just wonder how many others
>have been threatened for expressing their views here? I must've wandered
>into a moral as well as a spiritual quagmire. I gladly leave you now,
>stupefied and wanting as I vanish into a puff of smoke... Puffffff...
>- Harry (please don't kill me) Platypus  :-)

You've got to be kidding still. You can't be serious.
Tell me you're joking. You don't actually believe this do you?

Jim Copeland
--
I have looked into the Abyss... And I liked what I saw.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|      Reporter: "Mr. Gandhi, What do you think of Western Civilization?"    |
|      Mr. Gandhi: "I think it would be a good idea!"                        |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve.Hayes@p0.f20.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: frustrations with christianity
Date: 10 Dec 92 14:35:00 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 5:7101/20.0 - Unisa Editorial, Pretoria

During a discussion about Re: frustrations with christianity on 12-08-92  23:34 Wayne Aiken said to All
 WA> From: NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
 WA> Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 13:26:30 GMT
 WA> Organization: North Carolina State University
 WA> Message-ID: <168B776E5.NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu>
 WA> Newsgroups: alt.atheism
 WA> 
 WA> In article <1992Dec7.150009.13488@netcom.com>
 WA> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
 >
 >I know *exactly* how you feel!  Where I work, an awful lot of the
 >employees' cars in the parking garage have "Jesus fish" on their back
 >bumpers, and I've spotted several Catholic crucifixes in peoples'
 >cubicles.  I can't decide whether or not to get a Darwin
 >fish-with-feet for my car; on one hand it would be a good way of
 >asserting what *I* believe, but on the other hand, it wouldn't change
 >anything, and I don't want to run the risk that people I work with
 >forty hours a week would take offense.
 WA> 
 WA> But, at the same time, those people who display all sorts of religious
 WA> symbols certainly don't care about any offense they may cause toward
 WA> atheists!  I once reasoned the same way- that religious people may (and
 WA> often do) take offense at the mere hint of atheism or disbelief, but
 WA> then I realized that this sort of thing works *both* ways.  This is a
 WA> rather deeply ingrained societal thing: that people who wear their
 WA> religion on their sleeves should do so, and that any dissenters must
 WA> forever lurk in the shadows.  So, not only did I put a Darwin-fish on
 WA> my car, I also have an "Apes Evolved from Creationists" bumper sticker.
 WA> Some people have asked about it, and the responses have so far been
 WA> overwhelmingly positive. 

Why should you take offence at what someone else believes?

If people want to display stickers proclaiming their beliefs or loyalties, how does it harm you? But is seem to me that what you are proposing to do is to display stickers aimed at offending those whose beliefs differ from yours.

If that's really how you feel, what about the following for your bumper stickers?

Juden raus
Mohammed is a pig
Krishna guzzles beef
The virgin Mary wasn't

 

--  
INTERNET: Steve.Hayes@p0.f20.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheists should mind their own damn business
Date: 13 Dec 92 00:18:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Dec12.191903.19223@timesink.chi.il.us>, harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes...

>.... stupid corruption of my brilliant paragraph deleted ...

>Oh yes, there is such a striking similarity in the 90's between
>Christianity and Naziism. The analogy between God and Hitler is
>so brilliant I was actually frightened to have antagonized
>such a mammoth's intellect.
>- Harry

Try looking up "reductio ad absurdum" and maybe "argument by counterexample"
with that towering intellect of yours.

Man, if I had a dollar for everytime a member of the majority says, "Oh,
just be quiet, we're not *really* bothering you..."

******************************************************************************
For God so loved the world that He gave Man Free Will and then got pissed when
we didn't meet his arbitrary standards.  Oh, and he had his Son offed when he
realized how impossible those standards were.  -- Michael 4:23
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Ok, truce?
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:18:26 GMT

Thank you for a good post (a kind that's not often seen here).  ;-)

I guess acceptance is the only thing a lot of us want.  Very few
atheists have any problem with 'discreet' Christians -- ones who
recognize alternate viewpoints and don't try to shove their own
opinions down other people's throats.  We just tend to have a
knee-jerk reaction to anyone who posts here under the guise of
Christianity, because we have far too many bible-bashers who would
like to see us all become God-fearing sheep and who just _know_ that
we will come flocking to the churches if we *just* hear all about
Jesus...

We won't be offended by some of the things you've said if you won't be
offended by some of the things we've said.  :-)  Happy Holidays,
whatever you celebrate!

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
From: starr-daniel@yale.edu (Daniel Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Date: 15 Dec 1992 15:02:34 -0500
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu

In article <1992Dec15.064149.11880@bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:

>
>The strong atheist says " I KNOW God doesn't exist!"
>
>The weak atheist says "I don't know for sure, but I BELEIVE God doesn't exist".
>                                   
>The agnostic says "I don't know if God exists or not, so I'm not taking sides".
>               or "We CANNOT know if God exists or not, so it is pointless
>                   to be either atheistic or theistic."
>
>Fine line, I know, but thats the FAQ def.

OK, here are MY definitions.  :)  I hereby challenge anyone to come up
with more useful ones:

Atheist--  anyone who will say:  "I do not believe that a God exists."
Strong atheist--  anyone who will say:  "I am sure that no God exists, at least
as sure as religious people are sure that their God does exist."
Weak atheist--  any atheist who is not a strong atheist.
Agnostic--  anyone who will say:  "It is impossible to know whether God exists."

Thus, an agnostic is not necessarily an atheist -- he's someone who is bugged
by the very nature of the question of God's existence.  He CAN be an atheist
-- "we can't know, but I don't believe there is one" -- or a believer --
"we can't know, yet still I do think there is one".  The basic point about 
an agnostic is that he finds the whole debate more or less futile.

Meanwhile, instead of trying to distinguish between "I believe" and "I know",
we can make the clearer statement that a "strong atheist" has a _positive_
belief in the absence of gods,  and "believes" in that to the same degree
as religious folks believe in their God(s).  Note that this still leaves
some flexibility... you can have 'quietly devout' strong ahteists and 
'fundamentalist' strong atheists... :).  

And a "weak atheist" is just that -- any old atheist, in the literal sense
of the word.  A-theist:  a non-theist, someone who does not believe in a
God.  This includes most people out there with 'no religion' and the like.
I think we do need, to keep the original sense of the word, to include all
absence of belief under atheism, not just that absence of belief that is
willing to stand up and fight about it.  To put it another way:  I'm not
comfortable with a definition of 'atheism' that doesn't include people who
just say 'I don't believe that there is a God.'  Are you?

The only category this leaves out are those who will say:  "You know, I've
never thought about it."  These are the only people who really have no beliefs
of any kind on the subject.  
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|Daniel Starr                | "Wait! Wait! Maybe THIS will work!" |
|dstarr@minerva.cis.yale.edu |                                     |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org (Ian Douglas)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Discrimination?
Date: 16 Dec 92 09:58:05 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 5:7102/119 - Zero 2 Infinity, CT

Hi All!

On 12 Dec 92, Wild and Crazy Kind of Girl wrote to All:

 WaCKoG> Hi! I have a couple questions for all atheists:

 WaCKoG> - Do you tell most people what your beliefs are?

No, I try not to.

 WaCKoG> - If you do profess your lack of belief in a god, do you encounter
 WaCKoG> prejudice or discrimination?

Yes, people think I am kinda nuts or weird, or at least a little odd.
South Africa is supposed to be a 'christian' country, and the company I work for is rather conservative..

Cheers, Ian


--  
INTERNET: Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.sex.wizards,soc.men,misc.kids
From: aberman@cs.washington.edu (Andrew Berman)
Subject: Re: A few facts about circumcision
Followup-To: alt.atheism,soc.men,misc.kids
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 04:09:35 GMT

In article <1glhqeINNi59@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> potts@oit.itd.umich.edu (Paul Potts) writes:
>
>What they really mean is that Daddy doesn't want to admit to himself that
>he is the one who is "different" by virtue of genital mutilation...
>and is willing to inflict the same treatment on son to justify it.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE 

Circumcision discussions are 99.9% irrelevent to alt.sex.wizards


Let's cut this thing short, ok?   :)



I've edited the followup. Please do the same if you respond to
a post on this (rather circular) discussion.



>potts@oit.itd.umich.edu      CI$ 71561,3362 (rarely)


-- 
Andrew P. Berman           |  "I have no idea what White House statement was
Dept. of Computer Science  |  was issued, but I stand by it 100 percent"
University of Washington   |    -- Richard Darman
aberman@cs.washington.edu  |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.sex.wizards,soc.men,misc.kids
From: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Subject: Re: About circumcision
Reply-To: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 23:16:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.015857.25809@colorado.edu>, maman@mars.Colorado.EDU
(Nathan M. Maman) writes:
> 
> By another way, Rambam (Maimonides) explained why Jews are
> circumsized.  The hygienic part is not the main part.  I remember
> (well I hope) he wrote that humans were made perfect by God but as
> they were part mud, they have a moral imperfection: they like sex too
> much.  So to avoid masturbation and lust, they remove this part so the
> penis will irritate easily.


Here's an odd fact I bet you didn't know:  some biblical historians now
believe that Jews began circumcision to correct a medical problem prevelent
in their gene pool...probably a foreskin that wouldn't retract properly.  
They suspect this is behind the story of Abraham's inability to father
children also.  


Marie Coffin
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Hilarious Christian Propaganda...
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:57:29 GMT
Organization: not very organized
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Dec11.025001.27305@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> kachun@spot.Colorado.EDU (Ka Chun Yu) writes:
>
>This is hilarious but what is really scary is an article in today's Denver
>Post.  A public school in the Denver area has been putting the above viewpoint
>in its classrooms by teaching to its students "God holds the atoms and
>molecules together."  There have been also visual aids which include pictures
>of angels taking atoms to heaven, apparently so God can pass his hand over
>them and make them stick together.
>
>One parent with an engineering background discovered what the school was doing
>after a parent-teacher conference.  The school has had the materials relating
>to "God and His molecules" since 1984, and distributes them to the teachers,
>but it's up to the teachers to decide exactly how to present the matter to
>students, i.e., whether to use the God reference or not.
>
>I don't have a copy of the Post with me (and not everything I have recounted
>might necessarily be true), but if there's interest I'll bring it to the
>office and post relevant sections of it.

	Yes! Also, if it is Ap, or the like, could you post the Title and 
the bylines so I may get a copy of it from our library? I would appreciate
this story.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Abortion: When does life begin?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 02:22:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.173106.28170@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <n11b8t@ofa123.fidonet.org> 
>David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>
>> The abortion issue really boils down to a question of CONTROL
>> and DOMINATION by rich, powerful white males, of women, to continue
>
>The polls tend to indicate that 'rich, white males' support  
>abortion rights much more so than the general population.
>If you want to generate a conspiracy theory, perhaps you
>should target some other group.

I think he might be talking about *really rich* white males, who,
since they don't consist of a large percentage of the population,
and since they aren't likely to be forthright anyway, aren't likely
to cause much of blip on your survey.  However, since they own the
instruments of propaganda, they have the ability to make great masses
of other people, especially poorly educated and religious people,
hold the "correct" opinions.
--
The Truth is still the Truth even if you choose to ignore it.

Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Religion = Anything that's fun is bad.
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:01:59 GMT

simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>>
>> -- 
>> Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      | John 14:6
>> parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
>
>
>Boy, now there is a patronising, condescending, righteous, sickening,
>vacuous, tautological, holier-than-thou, whining, irritating, pompous,
>pious and altogether thoroughly obnoxious .signature if I've ever seen one.

No, actually, I rather like it!  I've been seriously thinking of
adding it to my own .sig.  "The truth is the truth even if you choose
to ignore it."  This is especially true for Christians, who ignore the
truth in favor of devoting their lives to cleverly-constructed fairy
tales detailed in a book that also tells them how they should live
their lives -- because, after all, it's easier to try to interpret the
words in a way you like than it is to take responsibility for your own
actions, isn't it?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /  carborundorum.                                               -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: Discrimination?
Organization: SPS
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:37:03 GMT

pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j) writes:
> 
> In the theist's eyes, it may be easier to "convert" an Agnostic 
> than an Atheist. 
>

As a theist, I don't necessarily think this is the case...

From views expressed in this group, it appears that converted theists 
are often among the most committed atheists. And from my experience, it
works both ways, converted atheists are often very committed theists. 
True or not, you could reasonably argue that moving from a committed 
position to it's opposite is a bit easier than abandoning middle ground.

"I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were
either one or the other." (Rev 3:15)  This expresses a desire for solid
commitment, one way or the other. And, in a way, implies some respect 
for a committed dissenting view!

---
Dave Weaver                | "The impression of design is overwhelming"
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com |       -Paul Davies (on the cosmos)
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Abortion: When does life begin?
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 15 Dec 92  13:04:36

Topic: ABORTION: WHEN DOES HUMAN LIFE BEGIN?
Who: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu (Robert E. McElwaine)
ID: <1992Dec8.161458.2696@cnsvax.uwec.edu>
 
ME> "The debate about the abortion issue really boils down to 
ME> a question of when human life begins."
 
The abortion issue really boils down to a question of CONTROL
and DOMINATION by rich, powerful white males, of women, to continue
to beat women into a subserviant position, and keep women from
compeating with men on an equal basis. The so-called "pro-life"
cults assert altruistic intent, but LOOK at what they do, NOT what
they SAY.

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: frustrations with christianity
Date: 11 Dec 1992 18:12:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


[originator of threat mentions religious 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 people
who I generally call friends do not try to "convert" me all of the time.
If they cannot respect me enough to understand I am not interested
in being saved, and their religion forces them to override their respect
for me then I cannot call them a friend.
 
        I remember too when I was little in the church I listened in
on a sermon once (Missouri synod Lutheran). The pastor kept saying
that chri$tins 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 beneath 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-------
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Colleen
Date: 16 Dec 92 10:12:05 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Dec14.180613.23957@newsgate.sps.mot.com> weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
>In article 11993@hogg.ed.ac.uk, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>> I, Ivan, the Fourth Disciple and Prophet of Colleen, bare witness,
>> speaking, `There is no God other than Colleen'.     
>> 
>> I also bare witness, speaking, `There is no God other than James Meritt'.

Exegesis.  The word "bare" as used here was a past tense form of the
verb "bear", an archaic version of "bore".  For I did bear witness to
the non-existence of any God other than Colleen, and I also did bear
witness to the non-existence of any God other than James Meritt.  That
was several months ago, during the Canadian Descent of Our God Colleen.
That is why I used the past tense.  Needless to say, I still do bear
witness to the same effect.

>A word of caution for Ivan...
>For you to bear witness for Colleen and James is fine, but 
>to bare witness in public probably violates indecent exposure laws.

Then down with the laws of the unbelievers.  I proclaim a new age, in
which every Disciple, Prophet and Enlightenee will be free to bear
witness as he sees fit.  The Message I have for you is the very
essence of Good, so exposing it can't possibly count as indecent.

-- 
 `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