HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lieven@cco.caltech.edu (Lieven Pascal Leroy)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Why it sucks to be an atheist...
Date: 10 Jan 1993 03:26:50 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

** Deep brooding mood warning **

As an atheist, I usually consider religion as a necessary tool to
impose a code of ethics people can live by, and a way to address the
fear of what lies beyond death.

Not permitting myself to rely on these ready-made crutches, I have put
together my own moral code (which I feel to be superior to the
commercially available ones, and certainly one which better defines 'me').
And I have wrestled with and accepted the fact that, unfortunately, I am only
a complicated physical entity with a few decades of conscious existence.

Okay.  Groundwork of argument laid.

The remaining item which religion has solved and I have not, I humbly submit
for discussion among the net.wise:

What, exactly, is the Point? By this, I mean: Is there a goal to be achieved,
a level of purity on some standard to be attained, while we live?

My own views so far are that, in the grand scale of things, there isn't any
such ideal to struggle for.  Nothing you can do will last, and even if it
could, you would ultimately gain nothing, because _you_ won't last.
(This doesn't give one unlimited freedom to screw others over.  Detracting
from someone else's experience of life is not acceptable.)

This leaves that the goal of life is simply enjoying oneself as best one
can, and forget about how little it all matters.  I've never been very good
at that one (I have a confession to make...  I have a dark side. :).

If you've ever read 'The Vampire Lestat', by Anne Rice, you may have seen a
more articulate expression of these views.  The overwhelming, mindboggling
futility of it all.

Answers, anyone? I figure alt.atheism is a pretty good place to ask...

--Lieven, old at a young age

(Further discussion on alt.atheism or by email to lieven@leland.stanford.edu.)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr)
Subject: Re: Bible translations, or Does God Speak Latin?
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:56:56 GMT
Organization: n.o.y.b
Keywords: Catholic, Latin, Bible

In article <C0EGor.HGK@lysator.liu.se> ceci@lysator.liu.se (Cecilia Henningsson) writes:
>>>cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>
>>>>How the hell am I supposed 
>>>>to gain enlightenment if I can't understand what the hell is being
>>>>said?
<MUNCH!>
>Who said you were? You shouldn't even want to, pesky peasant! This was
>a time when "meak" was a compliment for common people.
>
Oh, that clarifies something: when they say "the meak shall inherit the 
Earth", what they meant was that the elect would go on to heaven, is that it?
Putting the "meak" in the same catagory as placid bossy? Good peasants that
didn't talk back?

Oh, well, I think there's more "stupid, nasty, and/or greedy" than meek (see 
def: politicians, lawyers), so maybe the rest of us, like the button says, 
will go to the stars, reversing the ship sent out in THGTTG.

	mark


Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 03:38:05 GMT

mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes:

>> I *really* hate to seem like I'm agreeing with this bozo...
>
>	I hope you meant that affectionately... :-)

But of course... :-)

>	She would probably do the same for you, and I presume you are
>still capable of reproduction.  So love never evolved a switch that
>shuts off when the object is beyond the age of fertility; it doesn't
>surprise me.  

No, it WAS evolved.  Humanity evolved away from it.  Certain animals eat
their young when there are too many of them.  In other animal cultures,
the old are killed when they become feeble and infirm.  (Pigs come to mind
for the former, wolves for the latter; I'm not positive on either one, just
going from memory.)  Humans sacrifice themselves rather than another.
Exceedingly irrational.

Yet we still have the stories about the dog sacrificing itself for the
life of its master or the equivalent.  I have not looked into this at
all, really, and will be curious to see how this discussion develops
over time.

>Besides, I would think the majority of situations are
>not lover-must-die-or-loved-must-die.  I'm thinking of situations like
>simply RISKING one's life for a loved one.

If it is a genetic trait, then this is still a strong argument against its
evolution.  Even the comparitively rare case of death because of love would
thin the population of those carrying that gene over the course of
successive generations.  We are left with the speculation, also, as to what
benefit it gave over those without the love-gene.  Cooperation and 
survival are good, yes; but what of the "selfless" love, the giving love?
The kind expressed by, say Mother Teresa or Mahatma Ghandi?  For some
reason, we _admire_ these people.  Why?  Why do we feel that it is somehow
"good" to be like them?

-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
From: starr-daniel@yale.edu (Daniel Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Moron Posts Again!
Date: 8 Jan 1993 21:27:30 -0500
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu

In article <2935465598.10.p00168@psilink.com> "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:
>Paraphrased and summarized from The Effect of Intelligence on Religious Faith, 
>Burnham P. Beckwith, _Free Inquiry_, Spring 1986:
[lots of data deleted]
>I surrender.  Atheists and theists are exactly equal in intelligence.
>That's what you want me to say, so I'll just say it and have done with it.
>I previously stated an agreement with the drift of the above studies.
>Even most atheists stand against me in this, and I don't understand why.

Heck, I can't speak for others, but personally I
(1) really enjoy seeing real data (or at least summaries) at last;
(2) am inclined to agree that one would expect a correlation between
intelligence as typically measured and lack of religious beliefs;
but
(3) get really annoyed when people assert "gee, my friends are atheists
and intelligent" as evidence.  

So if people say "these studies seem to indicate...." or "The reasoning
described below implies...", fine.  But I personally take offense to people
asserting 'facts' about an entire population on purely anecdotal evidence.
As I recall, this whole thread started out as a 'mindfuck' on the part of
Iikka, featuring purely alleged studies and anecdotes.  What you've posted,
James, makes the discussion much more intelligent (poor choice of words?).
Not, perhaps, less trivial, but more intelligent.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|Daniel Starr                | "Wait! Wait! Maybe THIS will work!" |
|dstarr@minerva.cis.yale.edu |                                     |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Where are the Ten Commandments?
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date:  8 Jan 93 04:39:16 GMT

This may display my ignorance but, where are the ten commandments?

I found one place that seemed to give eight of them, or if you read in a
different way eleven. But I can't find for the life of me 10 plainly stated
Commandments, that were written on the tablets by God, that were given unto
Moses (twice). Can someone point me to the right place and also tell me hat
they say and their reference. This way I can ask you why XY or Z is not
considered to be a commandment. Thankyou in advance.

Jeff.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN)
Subject: Re: Exercises in egotism
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 06:58:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.190102.6219@cs.ucla.edu> pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:
>---------------  FORWARDED FROM ALT.CONSCIOUSNESS  --------------------
>From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
>Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
>Subject: Re: Next?
>Message-ID: <1993Jan3.014459.2012@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>
>Date: 3 Jan 93 01:44:59 -0500
>References: <1992Dec21.183816.1986@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> <ljevhgINNp9@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <1992Dec23.190433.1993@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> <lk4tpvINN39i@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
>
>In article <lk4tpvINN39i@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec23.190433.1993@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>>>In article <ljevhgINNp9@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>> 
>> I've been reading a number of books on the subject of mind lately,
>> and several of them have made some rather interesting arguments that
>> mind is capable of having a direct effect on the universe that we
>> exist in. What's more, it appears that there is no small body of
>> research that supports these claims. If these claims are true, then
>> it would imply that mind may have as fundamental a place in the 
>> order of things as gravity and spacetime.
>> 
>> Mind you, I'm not making any statements that such claims constitute
>> fact, but it looks as if there is too much supporting evidence to 
>> dismiss those claims out of hand. On the other hand, I know that 
>

There is no such body of knowledge.  There has never been any claims 
of psychic phenomena reproducible under controlable situations ( ie. in
a laboratory ).  Consider the absolute bullshit put out by Jean Dixon
and such( everything they say is like 'something LIKE this MIGHT happen
to so and so'- make this claim thirty times a year and you'll definitely
hit some! ).  I'm sorry, but I've seen similar claims about 'bodies of
knowledge and research'.  Crap.  Like those subliminal learning tapes- crap.
Its amazing what people can legally claim in North America.  Its amazing what
people with Phd's claim.  I once heard that Sir Isaac Newton thought his 
greatest works were not in science, but in astrology.  To put stuff
like this into perspective, consider the press cold fusion got a few years
back.  I like how Carl Sagan put it in the beginning of Broco's Brain ( the
possible validity of psychic phenomena ).  A book worth reading.
I'll conclude that maybe psychic phenomena does exist, but to date, its just
cold fusion to me, and to science.  And when it comes to truth, science is
the only believable source.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25372 talk.religion.misc:25549 alt.pagan:15101
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 8 Jan 93 14:20:52 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

scruggs@zeus.franklin.edu (Kevin Scruggs) writes:

>In article <root.726418525@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>	The Congress (?) shall make no law supporting the establishment of
>religion or the free exercise thereof...
>
>	Ever heard of an apropriations bill? In other words, any government
>funding can be considered logically equivalent to a law. Therefore, it is 
>illegal for the congress/etc to pass a bill/law that supports religion by 
>subsidizing it.

Hardly.  If the feds supply some of the funding of the local PBS station,
and some portion of that money is used to broadcast a religious program
(lets say it's educational, for sake of argument) that is hardly
'establishment' of religion.  And by the way, if 'subsidizing' religion
were unconstitutional, then churches wouldn't be tax exempt, now would
they?

The establishment clause is meant to protect religious liberty by
disallowing the establishment of a national religion.  Nothing more.
The Supreme Court is dead wrong, cf the founders comments on the purposes
of the BofR.

And finally, PBS is NOT a government agency....

>>Note well that religious groups may meet in school buildings if the school
>>allows other student groups to meet...In other words, you can't discriminate 
>>against a bible study if you allow a chess club.
>>
>	 This point is still under contention. Personally, I find it rather
>silly that religious groups feel the need to congregate in public buildings/
>schools when plenty of churchs/temples/mosques infest the landscape...

A non-denominational bible study?  A group of kids who want to meet to talk
about religion?  Why should they be banned from school property when any
other group may meet?  That is plain and pure discrimination.

And as for being under contention, recent court rulings support my
position.

>	Oh, and a chess club is hardly comparable to a religious group. I 
>wonder if you would be so supportive if it was wiccans that wanted to broadcast
>on PBS...
I see a lot on PBS that I don't agree with.  So what?  I just look at is
diversity.  IF PBS wants to run a program that reflects favorably on
wiccans, so what?  It's a free country...

You make the assumption that I don't support true equal access.  You are
wrong.  I really don't care who or what is on TV, so long as NOONE is
restricted.  You want equal access for everyone EXCEPT Christians.  Nice
double standard you have there.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Nailing Christianity: Sufficient Support for Atheism?
Date: 6 Jan 93 00:47:06 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1icejnINNqvs@shelley.u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>
>Plus, bashing xtianity is so damn easy!

On the other hand, bashing anything is pretty damn easy.
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Moron Posts Again!
Date: 13 Jan 93 02:22:42 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Edinburgh University

Quoting p00168@psilink.com (James F. Tims) in article <2935825268.0.p00168@psilink.com>:

>It just seems to me that you would have to have some stripped threads
>to buy into Jesus or Islam.  Seems as if there must be reasons other
>than insanity to do so, since there are so many obviously sane and
>intelligent people who say they are Xians.  It's just a hunch, but I'd
>bet there are fewer Xians who say they are atheists than there are 
>atheists that claim that they are Xians.

I know what you mean; you get to the state of saying "Surely no-one can
*really* believe this stuff?" to yourself.  But rest assured there
really are people who really believe it, who are highly intelligent, and
who are not insane in any other respect; therefore you need a better
theory to explain why a sane and intelligent person might profess
Christianity.
  __                                  _____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley   pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \\ //
/\__/ Trust me. I know what I'm doing. \X/ 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Who knows the mind of God?
Keywords: hypocrites backflip Jesus God Christians Jeff Clark
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 11 Jan 93 00:58:19 GMT

rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:

>In article <1ij4uiINNs73@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>In article <ednclark.726466826@kraken>, ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>>>
>>> So Fundies, Christians or Born Agains (Whatever you want to call yourselves)
>>> what is it: do you know your God intimately, or don't you know him at all?
>>>
>>> Hint: You can't have both and stay out of mental asylums.
>>
>>Which nicely raise the question: what features distinguish religions
>>from lunatic asylums, anyway?
>>
>>jon.

>lunatic asylums can be taxed.

>Robert Johnston

This is all good fun but will a real christian who, realising that just such
hypocracy is what keeps my soul away from Christ, please explain the
inconsistency and answer the question? How do you eggs expect to convince me
of my sinful ways and accept Christ into my life if you cannot explain the
most simple logical inconsistency in your beleif? Or don't you care that I
will not find everlasting life in paradise?

Jeff.


Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25284 talk.religion.misc:25458
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:49:00 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan7.173515.8834@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes...

>God gave me the gift of an analytical mind but even this
>mind could not answer the questions that plagued me.  Who am I?  What is my
>purpose on this earth?  People that I've grown up with had passed away recently.
>And it didn't matter all the good things they did in their lives, they died all
>the same.  To what purpose?  I read books and asked other people but it seemed 
>they were too caught up in their own interests.  Nobody wants to talk about
>death, after all.  It's a subject that usually drags everyone down.

Look at your questions for just a minute, and you'll see why I suspect your
claim that you didn't want to believe in God.  All of these questions assume
that there's an answer, which an atheist would not assume.  For example, I
don't believe that there's a "reason" for my existence (except perhaps that my
parents decided to go ahead with the pregnancy), nor do I believe that through
good works I will become immortal.  My purpose in life?  To live until I die. 

>Are you saying that it is wrong for me to rely on
>my family and that it is more mentally healthy that I be an orphan alone in
>this world?  

This question seems to be evidence that you *want* god to exist.  Personally,
once I decided my "invisible friend" wasn't there, my mental health went up
a couple notches.  

>God invented sex.  God created man and woman and they were meant to have sex to
>procreate the race.  There was nothing dirty about sex until Satan perverted it into a form of abuse.  Sex was intended by God to be beautiful and it is between
>lovers.  

Okay, why did God create Satan?  He was omniscient and omnipotent, after all.

******************************************************************************
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
******************************************************************************
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What new innovation, software or products do you want to see?
Date: 5 Jan 93 07:32:49 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <sehari.726189448@du139-213.cc.iastate.edu> sehari@iastate.edu (Babak Sehari) writes:
>---
>
>What type of new innovation, software or products do you want to be
>introduced to the market place.  No answer is stupid.  The things
>that might be unachievable to you, might be very easy to produce
>by others.  You could become part of history by initiating the process of
>innovation.
>

  Ok, this is 1993 after all.

  Isn't it about time Microsoft came out with Islam for Windows?
  Something with a "roll your own Jihad" dialog box would do nicely.
  Of course, some Muslims might be offended when they find the
  included prayer mat is emblazoned with a  picture of Allah that 
  bears an uncanny resemblence to Bill Gates.

  Or anything in a GUI (God-User Interface).
  
  I guess it's time for a port of Christianity to X-windows.  Or
  should that be Christ-windows?  What's the worst a little adultery
  could get you?  A core dump?  Hell, I see Unix boxes resurrected
  from the messiest executions daily.

  A network site license would be handy, too.  Save 10 souls for one
  low license fee.  One might need a divine dongle to ensure that
  only the elect were actually saved, though.
  
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

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: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Monitored by islam (repost)
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 14:46:28 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
> In <su8LVB17w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> >If you want to reduce anti-Muslim prejudice, why not stop the public
> >book-burnings and calls for Rushdie's death?  
> 
> Many Muslims do disagree with the calls for Rushdie's death.  Muslim
> leaders with this viewpoint have made their viewpoint public.  The
> popular newspapers in the west have, however, considered these opinions
> to not be "newsworthy" enough to print.  So blame the press for your
> ignorance of the situation, not Muslims.

You miss the point.

Many Germans do disagree with Neo-Nazis.  Many German leaders with that
viewpoint have made their viewpoint public.  But if that had been all they
had done, we would have (quite rightly) condemned them for allowing Neo-nazis
to continue threatening and killing foreigners.

> >Compensate the woman whose shop
> >was burnt down by Muslims because they claimed some shoes she sold had
> >Allah's name written in the pattern on the heel.  Prevent crimes like the
> >case in the Midlands where a Muslim father killed his daughter by strangling
> >her rather than let her date an unbeliever, and claimed that he had shown
> >mercy by sending her to meet Allah.  Compensate the car tyre company who
> >faced death threats and had to withdraw their tyres and destroy them because
> >Muslims claimed the tread pattern looked like the word "Allah".
> 
> I do not know the details of any of these cases, or even if some of them
> exist.  So I do not have the authority to comment here.  If you would
> direct me to any articles in newspapers/magazines regarding these
> incidents, I would be happy to read them and comment on them for you as
> best as I could.

Well, as luck would have it the shop being burnt down and the car tyres are
detailed in the latest issue of Fortean Times.  I can dig out some references
to other newspapers if you like.  As for the murdered daughter, I read it in
the national newspapers here but I didn't keep a reference.  Maybe someone
else can dig it out.


mathew

Newsgroups: alt.atheism