HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: did I like miss your point?
Date: 2 Jan 93 01:32:10 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1JAN199303165318@jane.uh.edu>, lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec31.183939.3539@radian.uucp>, markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr) writes...
|> >In article <1992Dec31.000558.8172@nwnexus.WA.COM> pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe) writes:
|> >>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
|> >>
|> >>>iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
|> 
|> ..stuff deleted....
|> 
|> >Huh? How many "fanatic atheists" have *you* *personally* ever met?
|> >I sure don't know anyone that would qualify as one: certainly none
|> >of them that I've know would think in terms of imposing their will
|> >on the believers, even if they did think the believers were deluded
|> >or stupid. I *sure* have known *plenty* of fanatic believers, who
|> >would impose their will on me, if they could.
|> > 
|> 
|> Does the name Madeleine Murray O'Hare ring any bells?

I must have missed something.   In what way is Madeleine 
Murray O'Hare "imposing her will on the believers?"

Or is this one of those deals where even the existence of
atheists is counted as a kind of imposition by Christians?

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Violence in the bible?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:55:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.145136.8538@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}In article <1992Dec29.214650.8703@nwnexus.WA.COM> pcrayne@halcyon.com (Peter C. Crayne) writes:
}}Hi all. I am posting without first reading the FAQ! At least nobody on
}}this newsgroup is likely to tell me that I'll be smitten down with flame
}}for it. :-) (Except virtual flame, perhaps).
}}
}}Anyway, I was recently discussing religious matters with a friend who is
}}semi-religious. I havn't decided whether I'm a weak athiest or an
}}angnostic. I was relating the story of some prophet or other who, after
}}communing with god in the wilderness comes back into town, wherupon he
}}is teased by children. The prophet calls upon god to punish them, and
}}god send wild animals to kill them, and they are devoured.
}}My friend claims "I've read the whole bible and that story isn't in it".
}
}Check Ezekiel.  Those bibliophiles don't know there own book very well.
}The animals were bears, and he was being teased for being bald...

Dang.  Elisha, not Ezekiel.  oops.  Not my book...
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Proof of Gods
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:32:05 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <1992Dec18.000551.3979@scorch.apana.org.au> lgarde@scorch.apana.org.au (Leon Garde) writes:
}David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
}
}| 
}|Show this atheist (me) said scientific proof of "unique entity"
}|and I most definately will NOT become a theist. If there were
}|such proof, said being would not be supernatural, and not any
}|kind of god. Technologically advanced, perhaps. Alien from
}|space, probably. I'm not some South Pacific islander who will
}|protrate myself in front of a crashed airplane.
}
}
}I like that.
}Is that the same as saying 'show me proof of god, but still i wouldnt
}become theist, as the existance of that proof would disprove the
}existance of god' ?

Babel fish!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 01:59:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.004232.15471@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec27.164624.4808@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>>Well, you and I are attacking hir (I don't know the gender of Iikka) conception
>>of intellectual suOCperiority. I do note that Iikka's arguments are getting 
>>less rational as the debate continues.
>
>Well, you really are getting low to degenerate the discussion into this. Only
>one meaning for this: you are at a loss for words. I never team up to anybody
>in an argument, because I want to have a strong personality.
>
>So far I have had 2 against (you and Doe) and 5 who have had likewise
>observations or ideas.

Another statistically significant sample.  Not.

How *did* you prevent yourself from letting personal bias influence
your conclusions, anyway?

>I have nearly all the info I need to end this discussion. Much of it has come
>from your unthoughtful and unfriendly flamings without you being aware of it.
>Thanks anyway.

Yeah, and saying people have an "emotional attachment" to a position
you don't agree with, doesn't qualify as a flame.  

You know what you sound like?  You sound like Christians who say that
we allow willful pride or arrogance to blind us to the truth.  That's
a very irritating position to take, because it's irrational.  It must
be very comforting, for so many people to make that error.

SD
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: God as dark matter
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 06:50:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.063120.22222@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
>>
>You let this slide? I would've argued that God has no need of mass to exist
>as pure energy. Of course, energy can be converted to mass and vice versa,
>so if God used part of Himself to create the universe, then the missing
>mass could indeed be what is left of Him.
>
There is no such thing as `pure energy'. Energy is a source of gravity just
like mass and thus General Relativity makes no distinction between them. Your
comment shows that you don't know enough physics to use it in your arguments.

	Sven

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Distribution: world,public
Date:  4 Jan 93 01:38:33 GMT

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>Lets clear something up - all things work together for good FOR THOSE WHO
>LOVE THE LORD.  If my daughter was in this circumstance, she would be in
>physical pain, but she would be secure in the knowledge of her eternal life
>through Christ, and though I would also be in much pain - probably more than
>her - God would use it to strengthen my character.  Who are we to argue with
>God?

I feel sorry for your brain-washed daughter, she never had a chance did she?

Jeff. (not Jeff West but Jeff Clark from Orstraalya).

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 01:38:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.225914.1032@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <75972@apple.apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>>Stephen Doe's request for journal citations was perfectly reasonable.
>>His criticism of your reasoning was completely justified, and he is
>>perfectly right to say that, as we are unwilling to accept such
>>feeble reasoning from Christians and other theists, we ought to
>>insist upon sound reasoning from atheists as well. All your snideness
>>in response to Stephen's perfectly justified requests does nothing
>>whatever to improve the quality of your reasoning (though you
>>could improve it whenever you like by complying with his requests;
>
>I am usually very friendly, but I just can't understand people who rush off
>to flame others, completely inconsiderately. And second, what Doe seems to
>have warped badly, is that I have no statements or thesis or premises made
>whatsoever, the post was asking for opinions and what other people could glean
>from their resources. Let's say, as a comparison, that someone asks you what
>if we take this route home instead of the usual one, it is shorter, I believe.
>What kind of psycho goes saying "Give me substatial proof that that route is
>shorter"? Most people would think for themselves and then agree or disagree.

I'll say this once more, in very simple terms:  my first post on the
subject was simply an expression of concern that there *might* be a
potential of using this statement as an ad hominen attack on the
religious.  I didn't attack you, just asked for something a bit more
robust.  Surely you agree we shouldn't just engage in ad hominem on
those we disagree with, but should substantiate any such claims we
make.  (Ah, and I note that now I'm a *psycho* for asking for
substantiation!)  Your response:  to dismiss such concerns out of
hand, and to attack my supposed "emotional attachment" to Christianity
(which doesn't exist.)  That response was very unfriendly,
condescending and inconsiderate.  So do not whine that I have flamed
you, because if I have those are your just desserts.

SD
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 30 Dec 92 00:06:29 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland

In article <11030@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.140219.11488@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>>
>>If you don't like the whole idea of the discussion, why not say so? Are you
>>a Christian who is offended? Do you think I would get angry or lose my temper
>>because of this discussion? What would it benefit me if I went about flaming
>>people? I don't think you'll get anywhere by flaming me, either, as it won't
>>change the topic.
>>
>
>  I rather like the discussion, actually.  It doesn't matter a r.r.a
>  to me whether atheists, christians, or astigmatic bisexual pygmies
>  score better on IQ tests than I do.  What I'm offended by is
>  someone who blazes into our newsgroup making a rash of potentially
>  true statements, but then shows less regard for the scientific
>  method than does a high school sophomore dissecting his first
>  frog.

Yes, they are potentially true statements, that's they were to be discussed.
What do you mean by "showing less regard..."?? Show me where I say so.

>
>  Not to mention that you're the second self proclaimed holder of a
>  high IQ who offended posters at a record pace, while generating
>  endless replies and degrading the SNR to near unity.  I wonder: Is
>  high IQ correlated with poor socialization skills?

More jokes: offended posters at a record pace? I was talking to Doe and
nobody else, and his flames were plentiful.

Yes, wonder. And come back when you have statistics with 1e20 people in the
sample.

>
>  Please don't change the topic on my account.  I'll be killing it
>  soon anyway unless you can, as repeatedly requested by Steve, back
>  up some of your claims with impartial empiricism.  

Sorry, I came here to get info, not to spread it. 

>
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 
>
>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!
>


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Colleen
Date: 21 Dec 92 20:03:07 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Dec21.051936.18698@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>>>If James Merrit says ...
>>
>>It must be noted here that James Meritt is known as the God whose name
>>is always misspelt by the unbelievers.  (See t.r.m for ample evidence.)
>>This identifies B Kendig as a heretic.  Woe to thee, Brother.
>
>You dolt!

It's getting worse.  `Verily I say unto you, [...] Whosoever sayeth to
his brother, You dolt, shall be in danger of hell fire.'  Remember
where it says that -- or something to that effect?  Too bad there is
no hell fire in Colleenianity.  Dinnae ken about Merittism.

>*I* was the one who said on t.r.m that James Meritt's name
>is always misspelt by the misbelievers!

I know.  This doesn't make it any less true.

>I made that up,

No, thou didst not make it up.  It is true.

>so it doesn't apply to me!

The hell it doesn't.  Thou hast pronounced judgement over thyself, and
thou shalt suffer the consequences.  And it's wailing and gnashing of
teeth, gnashing of teeth, / And it's wailing and gnashing of teeth ...
(Sung to the tune of the refrain of _God Bless You Merry, Gentlemen_.)

>That's how religions work -- just look at Christianity!

But I don't bloody want to look at it!  It is bloody ugly!

Besides, even if I do, what I see is a god who is put to temporary but
gruesome death because of the way he made up the rules.  See?  This is
not how religions work.  Repent ere it is too late.

-- 
 `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,talk.religion.misc
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 10:04:11 GMT

In article <parsons.725840086@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>
>mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>
>Someone else writes:
>>: Then we come to the end of the story.  Starting
>>: in 42:7, we read that God restores Job to a position
>>: twice as great as before (42:10), and chastises
>>: Jobs "friends" for giving Job bad advice (42:7).
>
>>Since Xians like parables and metaphores so much:
>>There was a father with two boy children.  The eldest was a bully while 
>>the youngest was as obedient as could be asked.  The father kept the 
>>eldest son from harassing the youngest son and the youngest son grew in 
>>knowledge and contentment.
>>One day the eldest son appeared before the father and sad, "Yo, dude.  
>>The only reason the runt loves you is because you watch over my every 
>>move and don't let me torture him as I will.  If you give me free reign, 
>>your precious little brat will spit in your face."
>>The father said, "No, my youngest son obeys me because he loves me and
>>not because I keep you from hurting him.  Go, have your way with my 
>>youngest son and he will still love me."
>>So the eldest son beats the snot out of the youngest son while the father 
>>stands by, headless of the suffering of the little tyke.
>>When the beating is over, the youngest son asks, "Father, what did I 
>>do to deserve such a beating?"
>>To which the father replies, "How dare you question my motives?  Who 
>>brought you into the world?  Were you there when I made your mother 
>>squeal with glee?  Who supplies food on your table and a roof over 
>>your head?  Who has showered you with presents on your birthdays and 
>>who as bought your books so you could learn?"
>
>Then you ask if we would like that kind of father.  First, I think
>all of our parents have responded in a similar fashion (just maybe 
>not with the same rhetorical questioning).  Who here can say that 
>when you asked your father why he did or did not do something your
>father did not respond, "Because" at least once?  That happened 
>quite often when I was young as I'm sure it happened in others 
>households.  Maybe not exact manner of response Job got, but very 
>similar.  So before you go exaggerating the audacity and "injustice" 
>of the response, take off your blinders and look around.
>
>Next, you completely leave out what happens after the father questions
>his son.  I'll finish your parable for you...
>
>"And after the questioning, the father took his youngest child into 
>the house.  He cleaned up his son's wounds, fed and clothed him--
>restoring what the older brother destroyed.  From that day forward 
>the father blessed his son more than he ever had before."

Until the next time the father gets a wee bit irrational, and he
either lets the elder boy beat the crap out of his sibling again, or
does the job himself. . .  

SD
 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Science and choice
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: world, public
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 10:31:36 GMT

Shawn Green (greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
: 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, scien
ce
: would not necessitate a deterministic philosophy.
:
: Comments/corrections from any net.physics-types?
:
:
: Shawn Green
: greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu

Thanks, I was going to ask this question if noone else did.
-- 
Mike McAngus (mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)| Let the raucous sleigh bells ringle   | Tom
The Truth is still the Truth	   | Hail our dear old fried Chris Kringle |Lehrer
Even if you choose to ignore it.   | Driving his reindeer across the sky
I wasn't sure if anyone would join | Don't stand underneath when they fly by. 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lucio@phyrql.Alt.ZA (Lucio de Re)
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Reply-To: lucio@proxima.Alt.ZA
Organization: MegaByte Digital Communications
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 06:58:35 GMT

joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter) writes:

>In article <1992Dec31.131034.14786@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>>By the way, I am extremely interested in finding out why you are so 
>>convinced that there are no invisible pink unicorns prancing about in
>>my attic. I am, of course, making here an assumption about your beliefs.
>>If you believe otherwise, I apologize.

>Exactly what I mean about interaction.  I respond to this which in turn
>someone else thinks I'm "shoving God down there throut". 

>But if you are serious about your question,  For One: you seem to be the
>only one claiming you have invisible pink unicorns in your attic.

Well, make it two, except the invisible pink unicorns in my attic prance
about silently.  The ones inside my walls, on the other hand...
-- 
Lucio de Re (lucio@phyrql.Alt.ZA)
The supernatural does not exist, but it gives me the creeps...
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Date: 31 Dec 92 23:49:27 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec30.012013.23213@arden.linet.org>, joeb@arden.linet.org
(Joe Beiter) wrote:
> Yes John was put into a cauldron of boiling oil but was not killed.  He was
> then banished to the Isle of Patmos.  All for not shutting his trap about
> Jesus.  The rest were martyred.  Whatever they believed they REALLY believed
> it.

I agree, fanatism is a very powerful force in the life of a human being.
Does not show that things are right or wrong, though.

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: pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j)
Subject: Re: Is Santa Claus God?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 07:54:49 GMT

npm@dale.cts.com (Nancy Milligan) writes:

>What do other atheists think about Santa Claus?  And for that matter,
>how many of us celebrate Christmas?  Should we?  Even if we say
>we're celebrating the winter Soltice, that's still a religious
>holiday for druids.


If atheist's children are told about Santa Claus when they are *young*
and then realize it's just a children's fantasy, maybe they will realize
that there is no *reason* to believe in God. This way, they will "figure
this out" by themselves, and not depend on a higher power (ie: parents)
to tell them about Santa Claus.  At a later point in life, they will 
realize that THEY are the ones who should make a decision about God,
*not* their peers, relatives, TVevangelists, etc.. 

Peter J Nelson
>Nancy P. Milligan 				npm@dale.cts.com
>Titan Linkabit					cts!dale!npm
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Joe Moody)
Subject: Re: The Steve Martin movie "Leap of Faith"
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: University of Notre Dame
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 20:44:26 GMT

In article <martin.725562276@marsh>, martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin
Dougiamas) wrote:
> 
> 
> I don't read this group regularly, I just dip into it on occasion,
> but I consider myself a pretty strong atheist... as far as a God is
> concerned, the universe is innocent 'til proven guilty.
> 
> Tonight I saw the film "Leap of Faith" with some friends of mine 
> who are pretty religious.  I'm a pretty big fan of Steve Martin,
> especially his earlier films, and I'd sort of expected to have a 
> bit of a laugh at evangelism at my friends' expense.
> 
> Was I wrong...  Steve Martin seems to have gone really quite
> sickeningly religious in this movie.
(rest deleted)

You sound like a very bitter person. It's unfortunate your prejudice toward
your fellow human beings' belief in a higher power blinds you so. 

It's amazing how you hide behind 'rationality' and 'open mindedness' to
secure your unbeliefs, but many--including Steve Martin--find your 
definition of objective rationality to be *eternally* lacking.

Joe
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24761 talk.religion.misc:24933
From: alpinist@eskimo.com (David Butler)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: In Job, Lucifer was proved right!
Date: 2 Jan 93 01:49:56 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: =>ESKIMO NORTH (206) 367-3837 SEATTLE, WA.<=

In article <1992Dec30.221033.22612@zeus.franklin.edu> scruggs@zeus.franklin.edu (Kevin Scruggs) writes:
>In article <1hspfdINNl1o@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>>Oh, the morals that can be drawn from this story!  Lucifer was
>>proved right about Job and Yahweh wrong.  Does this mean that we
>>should take Yahweh's attitudes about how people are and what they
>>can be with a grain of salt?  Does the story show that Yahweh
>>does not know as much about the people he created as he thinks he
>>does?  
>	It brings up an interesting question: if one's actions can be 
>predicted with certainty (by even a deity) can it be said that free will
>really exists?...

I can look at my past and see exactly what choices I made.  I know with
certainty what I have already done.  Does that mean I did not have free
will at the time?  If the past can be fixed and free will still exist,
then why would free will not exist just because the future is fixed?
Or in other words, if I know what choices I already made and had free
will at the time - couldn't the choices I will make be known and still
be the result of free will?
 

-- 
Dave                | Truth is the most valuable thing we have.
alpinist@eskimo.com | Let us economize it. - Mark Twain