HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:47:16 -0500 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: party ideas

suggestions for silly holidays:  

for an atheist christmas party, i would suggest getting some catholic
communion wafers and making caviar and egg dips to mock the catholic
church stance on abortion.  to celebrate the virgin birth of jesus,
everyone can bring a cockroach, and debate whether any of the specimen
of roach brought were the result of parthenogenisis.  (i would suggest
studiously avoiding any knowledge biology in this manner, it will
detract from the fun of a nonsensical debate.)  another fun thing would
be to come up with fake abortion certificates for Mary from someplace in
ancient isreal.

For a christmas ceremony where christian family are present i would
suggest wearing black and explaining that the black is honor of all
those who have been killed or tortured because of christianity.

(A little off the topic is a an activity for Good Friday.  Good Friday,
the friday before easter when the christians claim jesus was crucified. 
I usually wear a pin that says "nail him" as an expression of approval
for the actions of the Roman government.)

michael loomis
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Atheists should mind their own damn business
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 06:08:18 GMT

Harold Platypus (harry@timesink.chi.il.us) wrote:
: 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.
:
: 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

What was wrong with "E Pluribus Unum?"  Why do all those "religious symbol[s]" 
on the municipal seals deal exclusivly with the christian religion.  WHY DO I 
HAVE TO PAY INCREASINGLY HIGH TAXES BECAUSE THE CHURCHES OF AMERICA ARE BUYING 
UP REALESTATE AND TAKING THAT PROPERTY OUT OF THE TAX ROLES?!?!?!?!?

That book or movie in your environment is not supported by your tax dollars, 
and by not supporting it you are making your own point in the market place.  I 
CAN'T STOP THE US ARMY FROM BUYING BIBLES AND DISTRIBUTING THEM TO THE SOLDIERS
IN SAUDI ARABIA.

Actually, there ain;t a god and so we better start working on making this a 
better place cause there ain't no help.
-- 
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
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:01:12 EST
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Alt.Atheism FAQ: Atheist Resources

In article <3047@ulysse.enst.fr>, ciaran@ulysse.enst.fr (Ciaran O'Donnell) says:
>
>These remarks about faith and free choice are made from the religious
>point of view.
>
>Faith
>-----
>
>The discussion of belief, in the FAQ is about as good as can be expected under
>the circumstances. However, it seems to me that the definition of religious
>faith has been made by someone who does not have a profound knowledge,
>either internal or external, of the subject. I will use an analogy to try and
>explain this remark.
>
>There are many areas of human importance, including music, art, religion,
>dance, and human love that it is impossible to understand just from a outside
>point of view.

[etc., etc.]
If you had read the remaining FAQ files, you might have noticed that
many atheists (if not most) once _were_ on the inside.
[more lecturing deleted]
>Question your own beliefs most of all. Look at your own life -- why do
>things happen to you the way they do. Are you unnecessarily constraining
>yourself (in your work, for money, in your human relations).

Questioning is precisely what drives many from theism.

>Above all, are you asking yourself the right questions?
>Even the wrong answer to the right question has some good in it. This is
>because sincere examination of wrong answer will lead to the right one.
>However, nothing is more useless than the right answer to the wrong question.

Didn't Master Po say this in "Kung Fu?"
-----------------------------------
John A. Johnson (J5J@psuvm.psu.edu)
Department of Psychology Penn State DuBois Campus 15801
Penn State is not responsible for my behavior.
"Cynicism is the first religion.  It is the means by which to discover
 all else, since cynicism implies skepticism.  Skepticism results in
 examination, and examination leads to understanding."  from
 _The Spirit of Shaolin_ by David Carradine
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Religion = Anything that's fun is bad.
Date: 12 Dec 92 16:29:39
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<1992Dec12.075622.16643@timesink.chi.il.us>
	<b6vd02022e9P01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
	<1992Dec12.192802.19309@timesink.chi.il.us>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: harry@timesink.chi.il.us's message of Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:28:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.192802.19309@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:

   In article <b6vd02022e9P01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:
   >In article <1992Dec12.075622.16643@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:

   >Are you just plain stupid, or what. READ THE FAQQING FAQ. Atheism is the
   >absence of belief that a god or gods exist. It is not a belief system.

   Now I'm really mad... (-:  When atheism takes on all the characteristics
   evangelism it IS a belief system. Oh, but if it's in a FAQ then I better
   believe it... I quivering now... NOT!

Oh, foo.  We don't go around posting the FAQ to religion-oriented
newsgroups.  Nor do we go storming onto other newsgroups foaming at the
mouth like other people do to us.

   >Favourite extremist tactic: set up straw-man definitions for people
   >you disagree with, and attack those labels as a way of attacking what
   >you don't understand.

   There are Big Dickheads who would put their little boy on the stand in
   a courtroom against the Boy Scouts of America just to prove a point.
   Pitting the child against his peers and the organization he wants to
   join is really constructive and makes for an emotionally healthy child.
   NOT!

It's more than to prove a point; it's to enable their kids to share in
the same experiences as other kids.  It's the Boy Scouts who insist on
pitting atheists against everyone else.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write lpf@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: zitsky+@CS.CMU.EDU (Mark Ryan Miller)
Subject: Re: Engineering child conversions
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:29:06 GMT

In article <Dec.14.21.15.02.1992.20006@klinzhai.rutgers.edu>, hedrick@klinzhai.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
 
|> Most Christian groups -- even conservative ones -- are pretty
|> sensitive about brainwashing tactics these days.  The <cityname>
|> Church of Christ (the best known one is Boston, but there are others)
|> are widely regarded as "cults", because they are suspected of such
|> tactics.  They are known for supervising the lives of members very
|> tightly, and for attempting to isolate them from previous

Having been associated with the Chicago Church of Christ (branch of Boston)
I can confirm what you said.  It's unintentional, but there's a lot of control of people's lives.  I lived in one apartment building which had about 18 of us
in 3 different apartments.  It was encouraged to live with other members 
rather than by yourself.  People had good intentions, but with other things
it really kept you from making decisions for yourself.  One of the reasons I got away from Xianity is because of the thought control.

--Mark
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: fsrey@cygnus.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Rex E. Young)
Subject: Re: "Keep Christ in Christmas"
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:17:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.151639.11045@digi.lonestar.org>  
gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
> In article <1992Dec9.193907.18048@raven.alaska.edu>  
fsrey@trantor.acf-lab.alas
<some deleted>
> 
> If you want to oppose the "rise" of Christians on school boards,
> shouldn't you also by right oppose any similar rise of atheists -
> or extreme anythingists?

I should have been a bit more clear.  I support variety in any board, etc.
This does cause personal conflicts in and out of such a board or 
government, but it also represents a larger experience base, as well
as differing beliefs.  I would have my children exposed to a wide 
variety, and be thinking people that can make up their own minds in
this respect.
> 
 
> By the way, be careful when you quote Emerson.  As a universalist and 
> transcendentalist and a Unitarian clergyman, he  harbored beliefs that  
any
> self respecting atheist should regard as highly suspect. The cosmos 
> forbid that a majority of people holding such views should ever take 
> over our school boards.  In fact, I wonder whether anyone has  
investigated
> removing his books from school reading lists and library shelves on  
grounds
> of the separation clause of the first ammendment?  At least we could 
> censor out the offending passages.
> 
> Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)

I'm well aware of Emerson's beliefs, and don't quote him because of 
those beliefs, but because I enjoy some of what he said.  Just 
because he held different beliefs than mine doesn't mean that I 
can't agree with some of what he said or did.  That was an incomplete
quote.  You can see the whole one below.

_______________________________________________________
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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Shawn Green)
Subject: Re: Science and choice  
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Distribution: world, public
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:36:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.030334.20463@nmsu.edu> epowers@spock.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) writes:
  [stuff about science implying determinism deleted]

>	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.

I will quickly admit that I am way out of my depth here, so maybe someone who
knows something can help me out.  Doesn't chaos theory say that not every
event could be predicted even if you had perfect knowledge of everything that
was happening in the universe at that moment in time?  If this is true, science
would not necessitate a deterministic philosophy.

Comments/corrections from any net.physics-types?


Shawn Green
greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Date: 17 Dec 92 12:15:13
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: mathew's message of Thu, 17 Dec 92 12:33:38 GMT

In article <ReFXVB9w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:

   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%?

Not necessarily, if the criterion for being religious is observance
rather than faith.  I know a number of people who are somewhat observant
but don't have any significant belief, and some who are the inverse.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write lpf@uunet.uu.net
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Religion = anything that's fun is bad
Date: 13 Dec 92 18:01:55 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA15271; Sun, 13 Dec 92 06:22:42 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA14089; Sun, 13 Dec 92 06:22:33 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0596; Sun, 13 Dec 92 15:21:58 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

Harold Platypus types:

>>
>>Either give evidence for your assertions or switch to another newsgroup.
>>
>Bugger off you pompous windbag... I'll post here if I damn well please!
>

There are standards for posting. These standards are not enforced. But they
are reasonable. If you want to flame, go to alt.flame.

>And you are holding up the fallacy that saying there is no god is a fanatical
>belief system. What if, as many people on this list say, they can actually
>produce rational reason for not believing in gods?
>
>I despise crusading atheists who waste taxpayers time and money and
>subject their little children to public humiliation and media circuses
>all in the name of their BELIEF SYSTEM: seperation of church and state.

You appear to refer to the US of A. It is in the constitution there.
Do you understand what a constitution is for?

>It pisses me off and you'll all hear about it until it's out of my system.
>I may choose not to subscribe to your frickin' FAQ as gospel, but I'll
>air my laundry in this burg of anarchy if I so desire. If you don't like
>this arangement there's a moderated group.

You might even derive some information out of the FAQ. Are you familiar
with the concept of information?

>>Posting incoherent drivel or not reading FAQs costs the money of taxpayers
>>worldwide.
>I don't think it's incoherent at all... and I help pay for this frivolous
>use of taxpayer money like everyone else. This newsgroup is a forum for
>exchange of ideas about atheism... You'll tolerate mine 'cuz you have no
>choice, except that if you don't like it you can leave!

Be prepared that people send mail to your postmaster.
   Benedikt
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 11:47:56 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman) writes:
> In article <1992Dec15.060226.19427@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>  
> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
> > (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.)
[...]
> However, I also believe that it is possible that I might be mistaken. For  
> some reason, you seem to think it is not possible for a strong atheist to  
> hold that opinion. Does that mean I am a "weak" atheist after all?

Are there any atheists who don't believe that it's possible that they might
be mistaken?


mathew
-- 
Lung cancer and arteriosclerosis.
For people who like to smoke.
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Discrimination (was Re: Women. . . SHUT UP!)
Date: 19 Dec 92 02:37:36 GMT
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Daniel M Engholm (mustang@IASTATE.EDU) wrote:

[lots of stuff deleted]

: I'm getting off the subject of the original post, but here goes.  At the last
: national election, Iowa voters were asked to ratify the ERA to the Iowa
: constitution.  Part of the wording was to the effect that no one should be
: discriminated against on the basis of gender.  While they were amending the
: constitution, why not make it more general than just gender?  Why not add
: race, religion (or lack thereof :) and so forth?  Or simply stop at the
: "no one should be discriminated against."
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is a nice sentement, but there are very valid reasons for people to 
discriminate.  An employer should be able to discriminate on the basis of 
ability and experience.  A lender should be able to discriminate on the basis 
of credit history.  A landlord should be able to discriminate on the basis of 
past rental history AND current income.

It is, unfortunately, necessary to state what forms of discrimination are not 
acceptable:
     race
     creed
     lack of creed
     color
     lack of color
     gender
     sexual orientation
     lack of sexual orientation
     physical handicap (unless it directly affects job performance)
     mental handicap (after all, where would we be without the theists?)
     (any others?)

Mike McAngus
-- 
(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org) I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the 
whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law
respection an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise 
thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Jefferson
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Women. . . SHUT UP!
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 14 Dec 92  08:27:10

In article <1992Dec5.083311.16599@samba.oit.unc.edu> 
Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes:
 
[cut of original article]
 
MO> "I am not saying feminism has done all bad. ... What I am saying
MO> is they are pushing it to the point of thinking men are inferior
MO> to women, and I think their attitudes are to say the least
MO> misguided."
 
Gee, talk about a wide brush and ad hoc generalizations! And who
are you to judge another's "attitudes?" I just got an 1967 LSD
flash-back: you sound like the anti-black biggots we hated with
such passion--- "those damn niggers and their attitudes, thinking
whites are inferior to blacks, let alone equal." Feminists DO NOT,
as a group, assert they are better than men. They assert the fact
that they are AS GOOD AS men.
 
MO> Not to bring up abortion, but I must. Feminists are the reason
MO> it has become such a contraversy. If they would all just shutup
MO> and let the world move on, ...."
 
What utter inanity. "If them blacks would just shut up. . . ."
right? You anti-woman biggot! "If women would only just shut up,
stay barefoot and pregnant, and keep in their proper place. . . ."
 
It is the Christian hate groups such as "Opperation 'Rescue'" that
made abortion an issue. It is the Christian hate groups such as
"The Vineyard" that use violence, bombs, threats, and intimidation
to beat women down, keep them oppressed, force them into dependant
roles to men. Feminists would like nothing better than to have
these Christian hate groups get the fuck out of their vaginas and
wombs, and leave them alone!
 
If Christian cults would all just shut up and let people live
their own lives without intervention. . . .

--- Maximus 2.00
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 12:13:28 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
> I have experienced the same.  To the Christians (not fundies) that I've
> encountered in every day life (i.e. not on the net) the term atheism
> always implies strong atheism, and the term agnostic implies weak
> atheism, sort of.  The Christians I know look upon agnosticism as "I'm
> unsure, but open minded or still looking," and atheism as "I've given up
> looking; I believe there is no god."  The point is not whether their
> definitions are right or wrong (although they are obviously wrong), but
> rather that in order to have a conversation that is of any worth with
> these Christians, I must adapt and use their definitions.

Yeah, right.  And if you're arguing gay rights, you should use terms
like "AIDS-infested queers" or "swish pederasts".


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

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils)
Subject: Re: ABORTION: WHEN DOES HUMAN LIFE BEGIN?
Organization: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:43:53 GMT

     Another fine example of broad generalization = universal proof.

I don't have the exact references from memory, but if you want to call me on it
I can find them but....

The exact logical interpretation of that verse would be that then DUST takes its
first breath it becomes human.

As for no verses in the bible, hmm

my favorite is a verse in genesis that states that if a man throws a stone at a
pregnant woman and she loses the baby then he is to be stoned, an eye for an
eye and a life for a life.

but there are others

in Psalms David states that God knew him from when he was conceived,

In the Gospels it speaks of John the Baptist jumping for joy then he was near
Jesus (and still in Elizabeths womb).


As far as the cheap shot (thats what it was) about christians should care as
much about children after they are born as they do before they are born.

1.  Murder is a pretty serious problem.

2.  Recent Gallop pool showed that Christians have twice the rate of
    volunteerism that non christians do.
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Colleen
Date: 11 Dec 92 12:21:18 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Dec8.174544.8045@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>_I_ am a more powerful god!  _I_ said this on talk.religion.misc.
>And Richard Pitts posed his tests - all of which I passed as well as
>or better than this "Jesus Christ" entity.  Hence, I am
>equally worthy of worship.

I, Ivan, the Fourth Disciple and Prophet of Colleen, bare witness,
speaking, `There is no God other than Colleen'.

I also bare witness, speaking, `There is no God other than James Meritt'.

Hark to the words of my testimony, for it is true, and it is hereby
presented so that ye too may believe.

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.atheism