HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: >>> I concede, please don't kill me...
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:32:40 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: alt.atheism

In article <1992Dec14.081125.25913@timesink.chi.il.us>,
harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) wrote:
> 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. What bugs me are the constant
> news stories about the nearly militant atheists who, in their fervor,
> trample everyone in their path (including their own children) to seperate
> church and state. Do all atheists fit in this class of activists? Of
> course not. They know who they are and there are plenty of them here.
> I know because I've heard from many of them offline and they don't like
> what I'm saying regardless of my eloquence (or lack thereof) in
> expressing myself.

You know, this is interesting. Watching CNN daily with 'pro-life'
people sitting on the streets, and planning military raids to
abortion clinics, and I've so far not seen on TV about atheists
blocking people entering churches, I'm curious to know how you 
got this perception. Could you give us any real life stories?

I'm neither an atheist, but reading/talking with them I have 
a far higher respect concerning their views of private freedom
than talking with fundamentalist theists.

As for the separation of church and state, it's one of the most
fundamental positive actions a state has ever done, in other
words it's the key to the difference between the old world
and the new world. And also a key concept why we don't have any religious
warfare going on in this nice country.


Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: frank@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner)
Subject: Re: Atheists should mind their own damn business
Originator: frank@karner.austin.ibm.com
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:36:37 GMT
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division


In article <MMEYER.92Dec14095020@m2.dseg.ti.com>, mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes:
> In article <1992Dec12.071137.16343@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
> > If you don't like "In God We Trust" on US Currency,
> 
> 	... cross it out.  This post has inspired me to resume what I
> had been doing a few years ago - cross out that obnoxious quip on
> every piece of paper currency that crosses my path.  Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> Mark Meyer 

I like it.  Will start the practice myself!
-- 

         DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this posting are mine
            solely and do not represent my employer in any way.
       F. A. Karner AIX Technical Support | karner@austin.vnet.ibm.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Keep Christ In Christmas
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 16 Dec 92 19:32:58 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <n11b6t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> Topic: "Keep Christ in Christmas"
> Who1: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
> ID: <1992Dec10.053613.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
> With: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
>  
> SP> Substitute "Liberals" or "atheists" or "homosexuals" for
> SP> "Christians" in that first sentence and you can see the similar
> SP> view taken by Christians of the current system of education. What
> SP> do you think the up-roar in New York about the Children of the
> SP> Rainbow curriculum is all about? Many Christians are taking their
> SP> children out of the public school system for just this reason. Many
> SP> Christians are becoming involved in local politics for just this
> SP> reason too.
>  
> K> "Much as I hate to admit it, Scott does have a point here. In 
> K> talking about the Christians as "dangerous" we're using the same
> K> sort of moral absolutism they do in characterizing homosexuals,
> K> etc. I too think it's dangerous and should be countered, but I
> K> don't think it should be put forth in such a preachy, "this way 
> K> is RIGHT" manner.
>  
> But Scott is NOT right. There is no room for Christian occultism,
> superstition, mysticism, willfull ignorance in the education system.
> Scott fails to understand that the education system -is supposed to
> be- atheistic, because our Constitution says so, and the Supreme
> Court says the Constitution says so. If Scott doesn't like it, he
> can go live in Iran, where it -IS- one nation under God.

   I didn't mean he was right, though I suppose my wording was sort
of vague, but that we should realize that we are acting the same way
they are, only in the opposite direction.

> Do you feel that Creationism is not a clear and present danger? I
> sure-as-taxes do!

   Of course, especially the "God is the strong force" thing that
showed up a while ago, which would have uproariously funny if it
hadn't been true.  I didn't mean we shouldn't oppose fundies, but
that the way we oppose them makes us look irrational too and opens
us to the same kind of attacks we make on them (ie closemindedness,
bigotry, etc.).

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.sex.wizards,soc.men,misc.kids
Subject: Re: A few facts about circumcision
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:35:46 GMT
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland

In article <1992Dec18.173018@IASTATE.EDU> mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin) writes:
>Why don't you stop harping about the unfairness of life and settle down
>to enjoy yourself with what you have?  Griping about not having a foreskin 
>is about as stupid as a woman complaining that her genetic heritage didn't 
>give her bigger breasts.  You can't do anything about it, so you might as 
>well not worry.
>

Since when have men been born without foreskins? Circumcision is something
that can be prevented, as opposed to born traits. If someone cuts your arm
off, wouldn't you worry a bit? I don't think it'll help much if I tell you to
stop worrying because you can't do anything about it.


>
>Play hard and play safe,
>
>			Marie Coffin


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: frustrations with christianity
Date: 11 Dec 1992 18:02:37 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.
 
 
 
			--W H I T E       R O O K 

-- 
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: pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j)
Subject: Re: Just how much smarter are atheists?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 09:08:36 GMT

[stuff about souls & humans deleted]
>The work with other primates such as the gorilla Koko who was taught to
>communicate in sign language makes it hard to believe that such an
>abrupt discontinuity exists.  If Koko can communicate complex thoughts
>and emotions which appear to demonstrate self-awareness without having a
>soul, why can't we?  If you admit that Koko has a soul, then how about a
>dog or cat?  An insect? 
[...]

 I remember reading somewhere that Koko did NOT communicate complex
 thoughts, but rather mimicked and copied her human trainer(s).
 Her language was very, very crude, and did not show abstract thought. 
 As I remember it, the whole "experiment" was blown way out of proportion
 by animal-rights type people. Anybody have a reference?

>David Nye
Peter J Nelson
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: "Separation of Church and State"
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:42:00 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: alt.atheism

In article <10973@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert
Beauchaine) wrote:
> In article <parsons.724484675@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
> >When the Court excerpted Jefferson's words
> >in the Everson case, it did not bother to present the context in which
> >the phrase had originally been used, nor reveal that it had been applied
> >in an opposite manner in previous Supreme Court cases."  

> >David Bartion, THE MYTH OF SEPARATION, WallBuilder Press, p.41-43, 1992.
> 
>   I had the "privilege" of talking with the author of this book on a
>   fundamentalist christian radio talk show two or three monts ago.  
>   The man was, quite frankly, an asshole. 

I've seen Christian TV broadcasts where they try to rewrite the 
US history by stating that United States was founded on a Christian
foundation. And I'm sure Adams, Jefferson, Franklin et rest are
jumping up and down in their graves...

Anyway, there's a really simple litmus test to verify if US
is founded on Christianity. How much is Christianity mentioned
in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights? If the outcome is NULL,
then the resolution is clear.


Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Science and choice  
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Distribution: world, public
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:46:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.030334.20463@nmsu.edu> epowers@spock.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) writes:
>This, however, does not allow for free will.   
>Anything you do or think is the result of the way energy and matter interact,  
>and is not affected by any outside force (eg, the supernatural).
>	So you must "choose":  either you must base an important part of your  
>philosophy on science and deny free will, or you'll have to find something  
>outside of science to base it on.

What if this outside force does exist?  It wouldn't be any better then.
Instead of tracing your actions down to the way your molecules behave, you've
traced it down to how the soul behaves.  If the soul follows rules that
dictate its behavior the same way molecules follow rules, free will is just as
absent; and if the soul just arbitrarily does things, there is still no free
will because you cannot be said to have _decided_ those things....
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sheikh@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu (rizwan a sheikh)
Subject: Re: Atheists should mind their own damn business
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 00:47:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.193142.19410@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
>In article <10941@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>>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.
>>
>Oh, rip the shirt... How cliche... Make fun of my name.
>A Hairy Platypus, HA HA HA...
>It's what I would expect from a bunch of heathen scum. :-)
>- Harry

At least we didn't make fun of your ORGANization, Hairy.

And don't think that just because some of the newbies on a.a take you
seriously that the rest of us do. You will have to do better than what you
have done so far.  Keep trying.

Jim Copeland
on a friend's account
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: epowers@dante.nmsu.edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Did Muslims Ever Forcibly Convert Others to Their Religion?
Organization: New Mexico State University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:31:23 GMT

David Choweller (David.Choweller@launchpad.unc.edu) wrote:
: 
: I recently had a discussion with a Muslim friend of mine and he claimed
: that throughout history, Muslims have never forcibly converted others to
: their religion, for example, when they conquered other countries.  I find
: this extremely hard to believe, considering the record of other religions.
: I remember reading about forced conversions during the Mughal rule in India,
: but don't remember exactly where I read it.  If anyone knows of instances
: of forced conversions, could you please point me to some references, prefer-
: ably references that can be obtained at a college library.
: --
:    The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
:      North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
:         Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
:            internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80


	As far as I know, the beginning of Islam was one of forced
conversions, when Mohammed gave the Meccans a choice of Islam or the
sword.  But you'll have to look that one up, since I have no reference.
														
Erik Powers
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Women. . . SHUT UP!
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:38:48 GMT

In article <1glc2dINNl98@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>
>	<Pardon lack of quote, My RAMDisk is down and I cannot
>up/download to edit the quotes on>
>
>
>	SOmeone said that if women would "Shut-Up" everything
>would be OK...This is a bunch of sh-t, the ONLY reason why women
>have what few rights and gains they have now is because they
>DID NOT "shut-up". This is just a bunch of sexist bullsh-t
>
>
>-- 
>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-------

I find it quite interesting that we have a man defending women's rights
while a woman (girl?) insists on belittling the female sex. The original 
post was from a woman, though I forget who at the moment.

Why is it that these religious types insist on having an inferiority complex?
At least, the ones who post here do. Maybe this is a needed attitude to 
have in order to be susceptible to religious indoctrination.

Robert Johnston
From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Date: 15 Dec 92 13:35:10 GMT
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <1992Dec15.060226.19427@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au writes:

> 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").

      So I understand also.

> 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.

      I never really knew of the distinction before I started reading
this group either; I just called myself an atheist, being fairly much a
weak one, thinking I was using a misnomer. Nice to find out I wasn't.

> 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.

      Semantics again - it boils down to one's definition of "agnostic",
"atheist" and "believe", not to mention "possible". I don't believe any
god(s) exist, but being a fallible human, I'm aware I might, theoreti-
cally, be wrong. You tell me, am I an atheist?

> 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"?

      Probably not - but I don't think it's much of a problem. If anyone
jumps to conclusions about what I think / not think, explaining this
strong / weak difference doesn't take all that long. Definitions of words
isn't something worth starting wars over...

> (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.)

      Well, you probably caught that flamefest over "which is better,
atheism or agnosticism" a while back - the fuzziness of the difference
was fairly well demonstrated there, I think. But whether a god may exist
- well, so may invisible pink unicorns. Maybe I am an agnostic, how am I
to know...

-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-
 If you think I'm gonna be responsible for this crap, you're madder than I am.
    "No logic here today / Do as you got to, Go your own way..." -- G 'n' R
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Colleen
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 02:01:04 GMT

bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>
> ...
>
>If James Merrit says ...

Eek!  Ack!  I misspelled his name!  Now I've gotta do one thousand
Hail Colleens and dance around a mulberry bush, or I'l suffer eternal
exile to /dev/null!

-- 
_/_/_/  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: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: Religion = Anything that's fun is bad.
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 11:28:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.053503.7352@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>
> Oops.  It was actually the dangerous fanatic Simon Clippingdale who
> wrote the bit that I attributed to you.  The strange quoting style
> screwed me up.  Sorry.

Ha ha ha. "The strange quoting style screwed me up", indeed. Ha ha ha ha ha.

These atheist fools never cease to amuse me with the piffle they come up with
in their desperation to explain away that which the Rod Motens of this world
know as my work. Pass the virgin's blood, BLZ, there's a good chap. <slurp>

Looks like another successful demonic possession experiment, and we all
thought down here that Mr. Graham would be a tough one to crack.

Cheers

S***n
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Religion = Anything that's fun is bad.
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:37:19 GMT

Brian Kendig (bskendig@netcom.com) wrote:
: 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?

I'm game.  Let's have all atheists use this line as part of our .sig's.  Then 
we can identify each other in the other news groups.  The gays and lesbians 
have their triangles, we can have this quote.
-- 
Mike A. McAngus	(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org) | The train today to Morrow leaves today
The Truth is still the Truth           | at 8:35.  At half-past ten tomorrow is
even if you choose to ignore it.       | the time it should arrive.
                                       |                    The Kingston Trio
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: FLAME: atheists should mind their own damn business
Date: 15 Dec 92 06:52:31 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec14.140313.25576@abo.fi>, MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats
Andtbacka) wrote:
> 
> In <1992Dec13.182905.23540@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us writes:

Ho ho, Merry Christmas, forget about semantical issues and be friends!

Cheers,
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 12:33:38 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
> To add more fuel to the fire, in the book "The Day America Told the Truth",
> (a collection of surveys), in the religion section, there are these figures:
> 
>                             Percentage who agree
> Statement                  Protestants Catholics Jews
> Believe in God                 97         98      87
> If believe:
>  Very sure of God's existence  73         65      27
> ...
> Not at all religious            7          6      30

Shouldn't "Believe in God" and "Not at all religious" add up to less
than 100%?


mathew
-- 
Lung cancer and arteriosclerosis.
For people who like to smoke.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism