HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Scott.Davis@f408.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Scott Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Cure the Believers!
Date: 18 Nov 1992 14:34:56 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


 DG> From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
 DG> Newsgroups: alt.atheism
 DG> Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

 >> In article <1992Nov8.034732.9928@nmsu.edu> epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)  
 >writes:
 
 > You still have not answered my question.  Let's say I not only decide  
 >that the my beliefs should be taught in the classroom but that I will kill  
 >anyone who dares to teach anything else.  What is wrong with this, other than
 >that it is a poor evolutionary strategy because you will probably shoot me if
 >I do this and then I will never pass on my genome?

 DG> Ah, so *that's* what you want to talk about.  What's this business
 DG> about "If the world only stinks ..." all about then?  Anyway, there is
 DG> nothing absolutely wrong with anything.  Now what?

    I think there is something wrong with that.  To teach an entire
generation the beliefs of only one person will surely damage their ability
to adapt to both political and economic stresses, amongst other evils
like making them really borring.  The classroom is an analogy for our
culture, is it not?  If the people in the 'classroom' all learn to think and 
work one way, and optimistically, continue to live happily for
generations into the future using this ideology - there isn't anything
wrong.

    I think, that other classrooms full of students (representing other
nations and cultures) will interact with the origonal classroom, and
force them to change.  It's absurd and obviously impractical to force
any classroom of people to learn ONE belief system, with no intention
of ever adapting their belief system.  When they enter the job
force, and are forced to learn new belief systems or work with other
belief systems, they will find undue stress, which can be found in 
violence (war) and discrimination (racial, against homosexuals, against
women, etc.. that's present in North America today!)

  <Now, Did I jump into the conversation without the slightest idea
of what you were discussing..?> <Grin>

Scott.

--- Blue Wave/TG v2.10 [NR]
 * Origin: The Sixth Dimension (416) 483-5604 (1:250/408.0)
--  
Scott Davis - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: Scott.Davis@f408.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Circumcision (was Re: God Is Unfair)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 20:25:35 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

In article <1992Nov20.151948.215@ncsu.edu>, awmurray@eos.ncsu.edu (ALAN WAYNE MURRAY) writes:
[Jews circumcize boys; Americans pierce the ears of girls and some boys]
|> You drastically overstate the difference between the two.
|> 
|> The small holes created by ear piercing will heal themselves if you
|> don't WORK to keep them open (for example by keeping the piercing
|> studs in for 6 months).  Even after the 6 months, if you don't put
|> ear rings in them occasionaly, they will close up and heal.  Has your 
|> foreskin grown back yet?

No, but it has healed.  It heals in about a week, and then
it never gives pain again.  Pierced ears have to constantly
get poked or else the holes start to close, in which case
it's *really* painful to try to reopen them again.

|>  
|> Ear piercing is optional and usually not done on babies (certainly
|> not the boys).  Couple this with the fact that the pain is superfluous
|> (there are a lot more nerve endings in the penis than in the earlobe!)
|> and there is NO blood if done by professionals.  Now, how can you call
|> circumcision less barbaric than simple ear piercing???   BAH!
|> 
|> You yourself seem to admit that there is no medical benefit.  You're only
|> acting like a loyal robot for God and His word.  Tell me, did you have
|> a burnt offering as well or was that part skipped?  Did your wife stay
|> "unclean" and "touch nothing holy" for the prescribed period of time
|> (30+days)?
|>  

I admit I don't do it *because* of any medical benefit.   In the
past, some doctors claimed there was a medical benefit, and many
non-Jews began to circumcize their children.  Then the doctors
changed their minds again and said there was no medical benefit.
Recently, someone posted that the doctors may be changing their
minds yet again.  There's no significant medical harm, anyway.
That's why I objected to the characterization as "barbaric".

You are being more critical of irrational practices done
in the name of religion than you are of similar irrational practices
done in the name of non-religion.

You don't need to bring God into the picture at all.
It's a Jewish custom to circumcise our children,
even though there may be no medical reason.
It's an American custom to pierce the ears of children
(you call it "optional", but the peer pressure to
do it on girls is as great or greater than the pressure
to follow religious customs).  

Why do Jews get so much more flak for their
"barbaric" custom than Americans get for theirs?

Why do you poke fun at our customs --- Americans
have plenty of equally irrational customs like trick-or-treat,
Thanksgiving turkey, football half-time celebrations, New Year's Eve,
and going to bars, compared to which a pidyon ha-ben
seems relatively sane.  Some of these customs are
observed even more "religiously" than most Jews
observe theirs.


-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: The Sin Of Christianity
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:35:10 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov  5 1992

Who: Bob Surh (RXS127@psuvm.psu.edu)
ID: 92316.015308RXS127@psuvm.psu.edu
 
BS> "I haven't read all the posts on this topic yet, but I'll
BS> try to get my two cents in. Well, the first thing about
BS> becoming a Christian is an acknowledgement of sin. "The
BS> wages of all sin is death." This means that all sin is equal.
 
Bull excreatment if ever there was any. What is a "sin?" Is a
"sin" anything your masters tell you is wrong? If stealing is
a "sin" and killing a dozen little girls is also a "sin," you
are asserting both "sins" are equal.
 
Your comic-book morality, sir, leaves me nauseated.
 
BS> "So don't try to go up to a Christian and say that they did evil
BS> things in the past Because they should know that already."
 
"In the past?" What past? If you mean the millions that Christianity
has BUTCHERED in the past, how can we blaim contemporary Christians?
If you means the thousands of children, old people, and adults that
Christians butcher NOW, that is for law enforcement to fight. Just
because Christianity is the most evil, vile occultism humanity has
ever suffered under (second only to Islan, third only to Nazism),
that does not make ALL Christians evil--- just the ringleaders.
 
BS> "Sin is sin no matter what a Christian is doing. So to say that
BS> Christians err is like going up to a cook and say that he just
BS> cooked something. How dumb is this subject?"
 
"Sin" is what your cult tells you it is. Without your cult, "sin"
would not exist (just like God and Satan wouldn't exist).
 
BS> "It is only secular moralists [sic] like yourselves that try to
BS> blame sin on Christians and get the last laugh in."
 
The "blame" is on Christianity (majority cult in this country), not on
Christians. I hate the sin (Christianity), NOT the sinner (Christians).
You are also confused concering morality--- it is not an issue of "sin"
like you make it out to be. Morality is artificial. I prefer basing my
conduct on ethics, not arbitrary morality: that's why my behavior is
far superior to most Christians I know.
 
Christians didn't invent sin: they stole the concept from Persian
religions, along with the entire Christian mythos.
 
BS> In reality, we don't care what you think. We just care that we
BS> have acknowledged our sins. Haven't you ever done anything wrong
BS> in your life??? Bob Surh"
 
I have never sinned. I have never done "anything wrong." This does
not mean that I would not if the opportunity presented itself. It
is just that I have never been in a position to "sin." The last
time I did anything "wrong" was before I was potty trained (30
years ago).
 
And who cares if you don't care what we think about you? Do we give
a rat's ass? I don't care what kind of dope you take, whether crack
cocain or jesus, to get you high--- just stay away from the children!

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Church of England / Women / Catholics
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:58:54 GMT

In article <722525603.10523@minster.york.ac.uk> aaron@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
>sven  hauptfeld (hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>: BTW, isn't it true that every pope must first be checked to confirm that he
>: really has both testicles?
>: 	Sven
>
>That could well be the case - isn't there a passage in the NT that states
>that those missing testicles cannot rise into heaven?

Well, something would be unable to rise...

Anyway, is it an urban-legend or similar myth that there was once
a female pope?  I heard a story long ago that a woman disguised
herself as a man in order to gain entry to a monestary (this
was sometime in the seventh century or so).  She/he studied hard,
became ordained, rose up through the ranks, and finally became 
Pope, all without her/his secret being known.  The truth was
discovered after her/his death.  This is why the testicles 
test was added to the investiture ceremony for Popes.

I know that this sounds like the sort of story told
by adolescent boys in Catholic school, but I really
read this story just a few years ago.
Anyone else heard it?  True?  False?


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: bx461@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Leo J. Mauler)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: leave us alone!!!!
Date: 18 Nov 1992 08:13:37 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


> why on earth, if you're a christian, are you posting on this 
> board.  maybe you're even subscribed to it, i don't know. 
> but do atheists spend their spare time posting on christian 
> boards(please note that you don't see too many jewish, 
> buddhist, islamic, or hindus posting on the atheism board, 
> trying to show us our faults) 
> why oh why oh why can't you just live your own lives 
> being comfortable in what YOU believe in? 
> being an atheist doesn't mean that you don't believe in 
> anything, right? 
> right. 
> SO. 
> stop trying to convert. 
> get a hobby. 
> stop posting on this damn board!!!

Actually, one of the neat things about being an atheist is that
your beliefs are constantly open to question.  Which is why I
think alt.atheism exists: to constantly leave atheists' beliefs
open to question.

I find the occasional posts from Christians to be refreshing
glimpses of the ignorant, closed-minded, fanatical, intolerant,
and incompetent Xian madness I left behind when I became an
agnostic.  I also think that it reinforces other atheists and
agnostics viewpoints, like exercise strengthens the body or
debate strengthens the wit.

Without the Christians occasionally posting here, we'd all sit
around with nothing but practice vs. the "converted", and 
debating with a constant stream of "God's/Devil's Advocates"
does nothing to prepare you for the real thing.

So we welcome them with open nuclear arms...  ;-)
-- 
Never do this at home.  Look how easily it killed this sig.
/\  ___/\  ___/\  _____________________________________________
  \/     \/     \/  bx461@cleveland.freenet.edu (Leo J. Mauler)
DISCLAIMER: Everything I say is false, including this sentence.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Organization: University of Joensuu
Distribution: world, public
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:40:27 GMT

suopanki@zombie.oulu.fi (Heikki Suopanki) writes:
>claimed the probability is some small number (not even zero).
>That number was bogus, and even if it was true it wouldn't prove anything.

	The number was extremely close to zero. Now there is that Don't_
	forget_to_chant_hare_krishna - guy, who claims the same thing. 

	I didn't misinterpret Dawkins. He himself said that it's a mystery,
	very much fortune was needed, he repeats these words and then 
	changes the subject like nothing had happened. 

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu (Corey D Minter)
Subject: Darwin on Trial
Summary: Atheistic implicatins of book _Darwin_On_Trial_ by Philip Johnson
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:26:03 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Keywords: darwin evolution fundamentalist false

Hi, I just recently started reading this group ( I read the FAQ) and I have
a few questions for you all.  The FAQ is really concise, I like it.  

I just picked up a book at the library called _Darwin_On_Trial_ by
Philip Johnson.  I'm not thrugh reading it yet, but I think it applies to this
group (so don't rail on me and tell me I belong in alt.origins, the bandwidth
argument ignores the idea that interesting threads can result from someone
from alt.pious).  I believe strongly that Darwinism as the best explanation 
for US.  Anyway, I think the book has some serious argument flaws, but that
is just from a quick skimming.  
    He says at one point, "... Professor William Provine, a leading historian
of science.  Provine insists that the conflict between science and religion
is inescapable, to the extent tha persons who manage to retain religious
beliefs while accepting evolutionary biology 'have to check [their] brains at
the church-house door.' "  (p.124)
    Now, I would agree with the Proffessor that to understand evolutionary
biology means that you need to dismiss the supernatural entity business.  I
don't think they can coexist.  What do you say?
-- 
==============================================================================
Internet: cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu | Stimpy: "...what will happen if I push
  Q-Link: EarthsWake (was Chaos0)  |          the button"
===================================|    Ren: "Maaaaybe someting goooood...
Opinions expressed imply nothing   |          Maaaaybe someting baaaaad...
about my employer, why should they?|          But I guess we'll neeever know?"
==============================================================================
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Religions Of The World, appended
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:37:02 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov  5 1992

Who: meyers@soda.berkeley.edu (Rob Meyers)
ID: 1dp77aINNm6c@agate.berkeley.edu
         
[cut went here]         
 
RM> "        Judaism    Why does shit always happen to us.
RM>      Agnosticism    What is this shit.
RM>   "Weak" Atheism    I don't believe this shit.
RM>   Rastafarianism    Lets smoke this shit."
 
"Strong" form of atheism: "There IS no shit!"

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: awmurray@eos.ncsu.edu (ALAN WAYNE MURRAY)
Subject: Re: Jesus Saves
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:56:02 GMT

Or...

Jesus Saves
-----------

You go to church, you kiss the cross
You will be saved at any cost
You have your own reality
Christianity
You spend your life just kissing ass
A trait that's grown as time has passed
You think the world will end today
You praise the lord, it's all you say
 
Jesus saves
Listen to you pray
You think you'll see the pearly gates
When death takes you away
 
For all respect you cannot lust
In an invisible man you place your trust
Indirect dependency
Eternal attempt at amnesty
He will decide who lives and dies
Depopulate Satanas rise
You will be an accessory
Irreverence and blasphemy
 
Jesus saves
No need to pray
The gates of pearl have turned to gold
It seems you've lost your way
 
Jesus saves
No words of praise
No promised land to take you to
There is no other way

[Slayer]
[Reign in Blood]
From: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Iraq Murders
Date: 17 Nov 92 10:33:45 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

I have managed to acquire some interesting information of relevance
to this thread which I will post to alt.desert.storm as soon as the
references have been checked. In the meantime I suggest that this
thread should be considered to have expired as far as alt.atheism is
concerned as it is not relevant. If anyone is desperate to discuss
it then we could take to email or to alt.desert.storm now.

		Aaron Turner		aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:11:45 EST
From: <MHB108@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: HERETICS

     Religious people are full of crap. I have almost never met a supposedly
religious person who practiced what he or she preached. Religious fanatics
have no place in the United States. Especially those weirdo's who pretend that
they can heal people . Overly preachy people really rattle my nerves. Has anyon
e ever seen that guy who preaches on that crazy show called "Manna from Heaven?
He spits all over the place and you can hardly ever even understand what he is
talking about . He ought to take a course in diction and a course on stress-
management before he steps in front of the camera. And he could learn some
English while he's at it. Mr. Manna ought to be committed.
     Yes I am a heretic. I think it is more important to try and be a good
person and treat others with respect than whether or not I am going to
be saved by some entity I am not even sure exists.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jking@socs.uts.edu.au (smathy werp)
Subject: Re: Adam and Eve and Bellybuttons
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date: 19 Nov 92 03:15:29 GMT


percival@qut.edu.au writes:

>	What I want to know is:  Did Adam or Eve have bellybuttons?
>	And if so, Why?

andrew ..
	and MORE to the point .. IF women were created AFTER men .. why
	do men have nipples ?? *8^)

	thats all
--


	| Life: Jason | IRC: elephant | email: jking@socs.uts.EDU.AU |

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ikonen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Ian Konen)
Subject: Re: Blasphemy??
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:21:49 GMT

In <Bxwtp1.1MD@newcastle.ac.uk> T.G.Nattress@newcastle.ac.uk (Graeme Nattress) writes:

>What is the point in having any laws on blasphemy?  I will argue this in two
>ways:

>1:  Atheistic POV.

>God doesn't exist therefore blasphemy means nothing.

>2:  Theistic POV.
>      (from an Atheist's perspective)

>God's a big boy and can look after himself.  If anyone calls him names ,

>1)why should he care

>2)If he does care then he can strike the personn down with a lightening bolt or
>whatever.

>Conclusion:

>Blasphemy laws are wrong and evil etc....

Not at all.  They don't exist to protect God, they exist to protect our
children from people with wrong views.  Remember, Blasphemey includes more
than just showing a disrespectful attitude towards God, it includes any
false-speaking of a religious nature.  If our defenseless children hear
conflicting points of view about God, they might start to think, and that's
the worst thing that could happen.  And we all know how thinking leads to
doubting our shepher-I mean religious leader, and how that leads to evil
things like feminism, and religious tolerance, which in turn leads to more
thinking and doubting...



>Graeme,

			A Good [Generic intollerant religion]ist/ian/um/etc.


>{---    T.G.Nattress@uk.ac.ncl -----------------------------------------}
>{--------------------------------- The Moral of this story is: ---------}
>{---    Never trust a Venusian Floghorn with a Perigosto Stick. --------}
>{-----------------------------------------------------------------------}
P.S.  I find your attitude very disturbing.  I recommend immediate removal of
your tounge, followed by tortu-I mean re-education.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject:      Re: Is Omniscience Possible?
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 19:02:52 MEZ
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA05617; Mon, 23 Nov 92 10:20:14 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA28418; Mon, 23 Nov 92 10:19:30 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0606; Mon, 23 Nov 92 19:18:59 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

Torkel Franzen types:
>  >"The Omniscient does not know this sentence to be true."
>  >If Omniscient knows A then A is true. A says that  Omniscient doesn't know
>  >the sentence, which is contradistion. So Omniscien can't know sentence A.
>  >This means he doesn't know everything. So there can't be Omniscient being.


>I have a proof that is exactly as good that there is an Omniscient being.
>I assert

>   "If this sentence is true then there is an Omniscient being"

>If my asserted sentence is true, then there is an Omniscient being. So it
>is true. So there is an Omniscient being.

And if the sentence is wrong there is no omniscient being. A proof evaluates
to be true under all circumstances. What you posted leads to a similar kind
of paradoxon as that of Kari with booleans reversed.

Kari's conclusion still depends on the premise 'tertium non datur' - something
I never liked in formal logic.

How about the omniscient being does not know how to refute itself?
   Benedikt
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: the Four Dummies
Date: 17 Nov 92 13:07:07 GMT

Benedikt Rosenau writes:

>Christians generally assume that the four guys who wrote down the deeds of a
>certain jesus were not dumb/dishonest/suckers for 'godly' interference with
>their lives. I think they are wrong.

People have been sniping at the gospels for a century now at least--
anything to pry them away from any real experience of Jesus.  For insofar as
that experience is real, it is all over; when Thomas takes the hands and
touches the side of Jesus, no quibbles about illusion or delusion are
tenable.

One can read tons of words of textual analysis of the gospels.  I don't
think a reading of them as dumb or dishonest is reasonable.  The best
counterargument is that they are isolated from orginal sources, an argument
typically argued on the basis of dates.  In my experience, these arguments are
rather speculative, and manuscript discoveries tend to push these dates back.
-- 
C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism