HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fsrey@rama.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Rex E. Young)
Subject: Re: Hilarious Christian Propaganda...
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:14:59 GMT

[Much deleted]
> 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.
> 
> In other news concerning the Denver area, there recently has been a  
massive
> Marian convention here, with hundreds of people trotting about trying to
> find signs of the Virgin Mary and the cross in everything.  Some idiot  
of
> course started staring at the Sun and others soon followed his/her  
example.
> A picture in the paper even showed a half dozen women squinting up.  I
> guess there'll be a few score more cases of blindness due to damaged  
retinas
> very soon.

Here in Fairbanks, there was a local fundamentalist group about two
years ago, tried to have a learning series removed from local public
schools because of alleged satanic references.  At about the same time,
a new phone book was issued with a photo of a local landmark on it.  
The background was trees (we have them everywhere up here in cas you
hadn't heard).  In these trees, the expert they had imported to 
testify against the books found three 'Satanic images'.  Mind you, this
was in trees.  I thought trees were god's creation.?  Perhaps I 
misread the bible.  I can't think of any direct quotes right now.
anyone care to give that one a shot?  It's probably pointless to 
say that the books are still in the schools, and the telephone books
weren't recalled.
__________________________________________________________________________
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

Rex Young @ Fairbanks, Ak.
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheists should mind their own damn business
Date: 13 Dec 1992 07:02:05 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) on  Sat Dec 12 02:11 1992 posted:
 
|
|I don't have anything against atheists really... just leave me and
|my world alone. If you don't like "In God We Trust" on US Currency,
|don't look for it - ya know it's there. 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.
 
	 Most of that kind of stuff is purly secondary to me. I do
not like tax $ going to religious education though, but that is a 
different issue than what you are refering to.
 
 
 
|
|If a book or movie or anything in my environment offends my
|sensibilities, I try to ignore it. Why do y'all have to stir up shit... 
|Most of us kinda like "In God We Trust" on the currency. It's kinda
|folksy and quaint, whether you believe it or not. Just look at it
|as if it were saying "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!". That should put a new face on it...
|- Harry
 
 
	My main problem is when fundie nuts like operation <sic> "rescue"
harrass and assault women (yes, I have seen them do it). I have a problem
with religious nuts coming into my bedroom and trying to throw me in jail or
try to harrass me just for sleeping with another man. When I hear a fundie
nut yell about how gays should die or how it was good that OT society
killed gays you better beleive that I am not gonna sit on my butt and 
let it happen. A lot of gay bashing also gets enouraged by the fundies and
when I hear an anti-gay biggot on the street yell "fag" at me and start to 
come after me I am going to defend myself (and NOT count on homophobic cops
to do it for me *)
 
	It's fundies who cause problems for me. If they don't want trouble
from me, then they sould leave me alone, if they want to try to run my life,
then they should not complain when I resist! The whole "in god we trust" thing
is secondary as far as I am concerned.
 
 
 
* recently a Cleveland Cop walked up to a gay literature table and said
"The only thing I have for fags is a bullet." This is not the exception
, but the norm.
 
-- 
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: maf@cray.com (Mike Fenton)
Subject: party ideas
Reply-To: maf@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:24:08 CST


Hello alt.atheists.  I'm organizing a party for friends who like myself
get sick and tired of all the religious dogma we are subjected to during
the holiday season.  My brother found a wonderful bust of jesus candle at
a garage sale so the party has become a "Let's Burn Jesus" party.  
Everybody is bringing a religious icon candle to add to the flames.  I am
soliciting other ideas for the party, such as music (maybe Frank Zappa),
drinks (how about a flaming jesus?), or activities.  I thought that this
newsgroup would be an appropriate place to post.  I apoligize to anyone 
who feels otherwise.  You may respond by posting to this newsgroup or
feel free to send me email directly maf@cray.com
Thanks in advance.
Mike



Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: amorgan@csd-d-3.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Originator: amorgan@csd-d-3.Stanford.EDU
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:19:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.064149.11880@bnr.ca> 
  bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:
>The strong atheist says " I KNOW God doesn't exist!"
>
>Fine line, I know, but thats the FAQ def.

Is it really??  I have read the FAQ and thought that a strong atheist
was one who (like myself) *believes* that God does not exist.  Not
someone who "knows".  Not someone who has "proof".  Someone who
"believes".  A fine point I know, but you started it.

>Brian /-|-\

For what it is worth, I am "sure" that God doesn't exist.  I am also
"certain" of this fact.  I shy away from using the word "know" because
that implies positive proof (which I don't have, although the lack of
proof for the other view I feel adds weight to my own).

C Frog
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Mind (if any) of Bible Believers
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 14 Dec 92  08:25:28

Who: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
ID: <1992Dec8.165715.21147@netcom.com>
 
BK> "Yesterday when I was home on my lunch break, waiting for
BK> a pot of soup to come to a boil, I flipped through the TV
BK> stations and came across some wild evangelist doing his stuff.
BK> I don't know who he was, but I've seen his face frequently --
BK> a thin but very enthusiastic grey-haired man in a pinstripe
BK> suit with a stern look on his face. He had a big mahoghany
BK> desk, but there were pews lined up in front of it, as if it
BK> was the altar in a small chapel.
BK>
BK> He was holding one hand up, palm towards the camera, apparently
BK> trying to cure people of various diseases through the TV set.
BK> "Lungs, BREATHE! Heart, BEAT! In Jesus' name, legs, WALK!
BK> In Christ's holy name, eyes, SEE! Ears, HEAR! Liver, um, WORK!"
BK> He then launched into a rant (that's all it can really be called,
BK> a rant) that disease and infirmity were products of the Devil,
BK> and that if we TRULY BELIEVED, GOD would cure us! And that SATAN
BK> and the MINIONS of the DEVIL were waiting RIGHT OUTSIDE on the
BK> DOORSTEP, and so on and so forth...
 
"Penis, erect!" "Vagina, wet!" Or less popular among the Chriatin
croud: "Brain, think!"
 
BK> As he was growing more and more red-faced in his well-practiced
BK> rage, I couldn't help but laugh out loud. People actually send
BK> MONEY to this jerk?
 
Sure! Even clowns have to eat, yah know!
 
BK> _/_/_/  Brian Kendig         Je ne suis fait comme aucun
BK> /_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com   de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Dealing with annoying e-mail: A real life example!
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 13:13:02 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Dec18.070419.9812@phyrql.Alt.ZA> lucio@proxima.Alt.ZA writes:
>ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>
>> Even if it was unsolicited and unwelcome, I still think posting email
>>witohut permission is out of line. A simple pointer to the FAQ would
>>take as much time as posting this would... Just MHO.
>
>It may be that I have a different ethic, but I fail to see why I need
>the sender's permission to post unsolicited, and often offensive personal
>e-Mail.  My permission wasn't requested, so why should I return the
>favour?

 Generally speaking, the email you get will be a response to something
you posted; that is, something you wanted everyone, even strangers, to
read. Even if the mail you get is offensive, unless you said, "No email,
please," or something like that, it would seem that you have to expect,
or at least be prepared for, a certain amount of unsolicited email.
 Now, what do you do with it? When you consider how often things are
misinterpreted on the net, and how important formal politeness therefore
becomes, it seems to me that what you should do, if it really pisses you
off, it send them a note saying that you don't want the mail, and if
they send you any more you'll post it and ignore it. If they send you
something more, they are well and truly asking for it.
 I suppose I base this on 'do as you would be done by'. I know *I've*
been tempted to belt off a *really* nasty note to someone whose
posting I violently disagreed with, only to later reconsider and
possibly see where I misunderstood the intent. *I'd* like at least one
warning, so that's what I give.
 Again, this is just my opinion. I'm not posting this as a guideline that
everyone must follow.

>Lucio de Re (lucio@phyrql.Alt.ZA)

Sincerely,
Ray Ingles
ingles@engin.umich.edu

 They said there'd be snow at Christmas; They said there'd be peace on Earth.
 Halelujah Noel, be it Heaven or Hell; The Christmas we get we deserve.
      -ELP, "I Believe in Father Christmas"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: "Keep Christ in Christmas"
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:37:31 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu

sheikh@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu (rizwan a sheikh) writes:

>parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:

>> [Excerpts from previous articles deleted.]

>>First example I can think of occured in the Presidential election
>>that we just had.  Liberals certainly weren't supporting Bush.
>>Athiests were not supporting Bush, and were actively campaigning for
>>Clinton.  Homosexuals were promised many things by Clinton and
>>actively sought to elect him.  NOW wasn't supporting Bush.  As for 
>>this occuring on school boards and in other local elections, please 
>>don't tell me it doesn't happen.  After all, that's what campaigning 
>>is all about.  It just may not happen in your local elections.

>You missed the point of the original post, namely that these fundamentalists
>were HIDING the fact that they were fundamentalists.  None of those in your
>example acted in this manner.

Well, the original post was ASSERTING that this is occuring.  The original
article in NO WAY provides sufficient evidence that fundamentalists are
hiding the fact that they are fundamentalists.  So, provide some evidence
and the assertion may carry more weight.  Otherwise, I'll continue to
discuss the similar views "extremists" have of each other.
 
-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
From: rouben@math9.math.umbc.edu (Rouben Rostamian)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: view from a searcher
Date: 21 Dec 92 01:21:15 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus

In article <92355.142149BLD110@psuvm.psu.edu> Betty Lee Dowlin, Choice, AC <BLD110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
:I feel obligated to reveal my beliefs before I post any opinions as it seems
:me that several people have gotten into 'hot water' flying blind.  I was raised
:in a protestant church but found as I grew older that I was disatisfied with
:the lack of real answers I was able to get from anyone I trusted.
                  ^^^^^^^

What were the questions?

--
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Dealing with annoying e-mail
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:28:30 GMT

In article <1gga1eINNlm5@wupost.wustl.edu> oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser) writes:
>
>Maybe it's just the time of year, but I have been getting an inordinate amount
>of unsolicited e-mail from theists seeking to enlighten me to the One True
>Way.  I usually just mail them a copy of the FAQ.  I was wondering what
>favorite tactics other readers of this group used when dealing with these
>people, or whether they bother to respond at all!

If the poster is reasonably polite and literate, I
might give a brief description of my religious background:
Yes, I have been a Christian.
Yes, I have felt the experience you describe.
Yes, I have read Corinthians (or Romans, or whatever).
Yes, I have accepted Jesus as my personal Savior
(at which point, I mention my belief that since some parts
of the NT claim that salvation is by faith alone,
the fact of my previous faithfulness should be sufficient
to get me into heaven; I then ask if any NT passages
clearly state that changing one's beliefs cancels 
salvation.  Since most people who try to net.convert me
are evangelical protestants, this request presents them
with a little problem, and I usually never hear from
them again.)

Of course, if the xtian salesperson is rude, boorish,
inarticulate, or really stupid, I flame away on them.
Or, maybe I tell them about the divine colleen,
Queen of the Antipodes.
-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus)
Subject: Re: Religion = anything that's fun is bad.
Organization: Big Bulging Buffalo Bladders -R- Us
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 06:39:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.173310.13950@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>>>Vote with your feet, leave this newsgroup.
>>>   Benedikt
>>I'll vote with my keyboard and stay as long as I like. Feel free to
>>filter me if you dare... HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...
>
>Oh I'm sure you'll get bored soon enough.  I've seen people like you
>so many times. . .come in, flame people, reveal their ignorance, and
>then "mysteriously" disappear.
>
>SD

Yes... (YAWN) I see yer point...
- Harry
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Religion = Anything that's fun is bad.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:17:22 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Dec16.165325.10737@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>Well gee whiz and golly gosh and all Mike, but ummm, don't you think that
>might just possibly piss Scott right off? We wouldn't want that. Would we?
>
>Christmas Cheer / Bah Humbug
>
>Simon
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>The Truth is still the Truth even if you choose to ignore it.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	We certainly don't want that to happen!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------			The Truth is still the Truth
		      Even if you choose to ignore it.
From: Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org (Ian Douglas)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: is it necessary to hate?
Date: 20 Dec 92 09:23:01 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 5:7102/119 - Zero 2 Infinity, CT

Hi All!

On 17 Dec 92, HEATHER LEE FYFFE wrote to All:

 HLF> What atheists lack, among those who wish to help mankind,

What do you mean by 'those who wish to help mankind'?

 HLF> is the sense of community and support experienced in Christianity.

The inquisition being a good example.

 HLF>   A
 HLF> religion (or non- religion) that teaches complete individualism,
 HLF> separatism, and me-ism can never have the kind of powerful, loving,
 HLF> selfless bondings of friendships which develop in Christianity, powerful
 HLF> friendships which all people need.

How do you know this?  Is this an opinion or a proven fact?

 HLF>  The modern pop psychology is all based
 HLF> on do-it-yourself, be your own boss, how to get ahead of everyone else.
 HLF> Chart your own path, make it to the top.

What is wrong with that?

 HLF>   Can you imagine what the world
 HLF> would be like if everybody did that?

Yes, wonderful.

 HLF>   Take advantage of them before they
 HLF> take advantage of you.  Complete dissappearance of trust, because you
 HLF> know everyone else is out to get ahead of you.  No cooperation, no unity,
 HLF> no true friendships.

Non sequiter (ie, you are assuming too much.)
Do you know the difference between rational selfishness and irrational selfishness?

 HLF>   Everyone just out to better themself.  End result?
 HLF> Need I explain?

Yes please.

 HLF> Love from
 HLF> the Buzzard

Why do you call yourself that? Would you love me if I raped you? (hypothetical question)
It may not seem so, but there is no malice in any of my comments or questions.

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
From: stave@apollo.hp.com (Joel H. Stave)
Subject: Re: Quotes from the Bible.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:07:35 GMT
Reply-To: stave@apollo.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Apollo Division - Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Dec16.002141.5962@hsr.no>, onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
|> Could anyone help me with finding these topics in the Bible:
|> 
|> Pi=3

(quotes are from my online version of the bible)
  1st Kings, 7:23
  "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other:
  it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line
  of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

  If its 10 cubits wide and 30 cubits around then pi = 3.

  BUT - later it says:

  1st Kings, 7:26
  "And it was a hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought
  like the brim of a cup...(blah blah blah)"

  The argument that fundimental believers use is that the "10 cubits
  from one brim to the other" is the distance from the *outside* edge
  of the brim, while the "line of 30 cubits" is the *inside*
  circumfrence.  A cubit is 18 inches and a "hand breadth" could be
  considered 4 inches, so if you do the math using this twisted
  interpretation, pi comes out to just under 3.14 - any diffence can
  be explained away as inconsisancies in "hand breadth".
  Its silly, I know, but this is the argument used.


|> The sun revolves around the earth
Somewhere it mentions that God stops the sun in the sky.  It didn't
say that the sun *seemed* to stop moving in the sky, so it must be
literally moving, so it must go around the earth, rather than the
earth move around a stationary sun.


One thing to note.  In the various arguments that I have had with
people who believe the bible word for word, they invariably interperet
what it says and twist the meanings to fit the facts.  In *no* case
have I ever been able to get them to admit that they are twisting the
words and not taking it literally any more.  The above interpretation
of the pi = 3 problem is a perfect example.

Joel Stave
stave@apollo.hp.com
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheists should mind their own damn business
Date: 12 Dec 92 17:02:36 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Dec12.071137.16343@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:

  Speaking of platypuses (platypi?), I like Robin Williams' comments
  on how the platypus is airtight proof that god smokes some pretty
  good shit.

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

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!
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Religion = Anything that's fun is bad.
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:48:50 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Dec12.223834.25381@bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:
>|>>>Being an atheist OPENS your mind? What a crock of shit!
>|>>
>|>>I agree. Because being an atheist is not the cause of an open mind.
>|>
>|>	I agree. It is the inevitable result of being an open rational mind.
>      
>And humble! Don't forget that!  We atheist's are the most humble on
>the planet! ;)
>And we would never hyperbolize in a hundred years.
>And we never fucking swear.
>And we don't begin everything with "And".
>And...
>
>The "inevitable result of [having] an open rational mind".  Sheesh!

	I would consider that believing a proposition to be true, without 
any evidence to base such a decision to be irrational. To date, no one has 
been able to offer any evidence of such a belief in God. I do not include 
the circular argument pertaining to the bible. I can only concluded that 
since in the history of mankind, no one has found any evidence, which in 
itself is not in question, there are none available. Ergo, there is no 
evidence on which to conclude that god exists. I would also conclude that 
one believing that Pink Invisible Unicorns (tm) live in one's walls is not 
being very rational. Would you disagree? On what basis?

	However, I am not sure there have been many purely rational being, 
if even ever. I am not sure I would ever even want to meet one. Each of us 
has a certain amount of irrationlism. Perhaps its inherent in us. Who knows?

	Nor, have I stated that all, or even most athiests are rational.