HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:25:45 GMT
Reply-To: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
In-reply-to: ksand@apple.com's message of 8 Apr 92 19:10:20 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>I think religious discussion could be done using manners teached by
>our parents. I'm always amazed to see how a religious or a Christian
>person ends up using uncivil and otherwise disrespectful comments,
>while many atheists and agnostics, who should be the lost souls,
>seems to keep the discussion on a more constructive level.

I suspect this is because atheists and agnostics are used to defending
their points through rational argument, whereas religious
fundamentalists almost always defend their points by invoking their
sacred texts.  Since the latter cannot expand upon their points
effectively by repeating the process, they instead use diversionary
tactics to avoid having to concede a point.  Often these tactics
involve belligerence.
--
"developmentally challenged arboreal amphibian-American"
	-- PC for "retarded tree frog"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: different planet (was paranoid etc)
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:45:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: goofy.23264
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <Apr.11.04.11.00.1992.20267@dumas.rutgers.edu>,
hedrick@dumas.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
> bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine) writes:
> >  This theme is even more obvious in Romans 13:
> 
> >    "You must all obey the governing authorities.  Since all
> >    government comes from God, the civil authorities wre appointed
> >    by God, and so anyone who resists authority is rebelling against
> >    God's decision, and such an act is bound to be punished."
 
> This passage has never been taken to mean that you should obey the
> authorities when they tell you to murder, nor do I think Paul meant it
> that way.  Many people who take this passage seriously believe that it
> prohibits any kind of revolution or armed resistance.  (Note that I'm
> not sure how common the view I'm outlining is currently.  It is
> associated with some of the Reformers of the 16th Cent., and seems to
> have at least some continuing influence in Lutheranism.)  If the
> government commands you to do something unjust, you are justified in
> refusing to obey those commands, but in all other respects you owe it
> obedience.  Of course this means that you may well be prosecuted for
> refusing the commands that you find immoral.  (In that way, this view
> is closely related to what has been called "civil disobedience".)

You would imply that it is OK to disobey the commandment of not killing,
and also disobeying the Jesus' commandment of loving your neighbor, 
in order to justify Romans 13? Isn't this a contradiction?

Anyway, I don't either think that the Romans 13 has to do with
a positive reflection of slavery. Remember that one major reason
Christianity became a Roman state religion was the growth of the 
religion amongst slaves and people oppressed by the Roman rulers,
and Christianity was suitable as a 'we will ultimately win' people
movement.

Cheers,
Kent
From: davidch@ZIMMER.CSUFRESNO.EDU (David Choweller)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Simpler doctrine
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:42:50 GMT

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Simpler doctrine
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: California State University, Fresno
Keywords: 

In article <1992Apr4.102859.7561@rz-berlin.mpg.de> dabrowski@rz-berlin.mpg.de (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>In <8dqmxz200awCI3ZlVB@andrew.cmu.edu> Stephen Alan Sisson 
>found a simple doctrine:
>
>> There is no heaven; there is no hell; there is no god; 
>> and if there is, he can kiss my ass.
>> 
>Let's make it the simplest of all: There's even no 
>Stephen Alan Sisson; and if there is...  :->
>

That's fine.  For you Stephen Alan Sisson need not exist.  However, the
yeuchy God that most monotheistic religions believe in would take umbrage
at Stephen and send him to hell.  This is my problem with the cruel tyrant.

As I see it, nobody has the right to create me and play games with me
and then judge me according to their arbitrary rules.  Like Stephen said,
God can kiss my <bleep>.
--
                                                 davidch@zimmer.CSUFresno.EDU
And if the dam breaks open many years too soon
And if there is no room upon the hill
And if your head explodes with dark forbodings too
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon
                -- "Brain Damage," Pink Floyd
From: bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie (Bryan O'Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: a few fun lines
Date: 11 Apr 92 16:05:34 GMT
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

In <1992Apr11.014223.1@vax.sonoma.edu> leppo@vax.sonoma.edu writes:

>Whats the point of being atheist if you can't be a little hedonistic as well

>So here's a few quotes from the famous and the unknown to add a little 

>fun to your day. I figured this news group would be one of the few 

>in which my selected humor would find an attentive ear.

>God is the immemorial refuge of the incompetent the helpless,
>the miserable. They find not only sanctuary in His arms, but also
>a kind of superiority, soothing to their macetated egos; He
>will set them above their better. H.L. Mencken

What's this? Who's been playing with 'fortune' too much? :-)

	-- Bryan

--
Bryan O'Sullivan                                                +353-(0)1-973504
Advanced Development Group                                 bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie
Department of Computer Science              "Experience is what you get when you
University of Dublin                         were expecting something else."
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Date: 11 Apr 92 23:56:46 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <GOEHRING.92Apr10152545@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>,
goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring) writes:
> 
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> 
> >I think religious discussion could be done using manners teached by
> >our parents. I'm always amazed to see how a religious or a Christian
> >person ends up using uncivil and otherwise disrespectful comments,
> >while many atheists and agnostics, who should be the lost souls,
> >seems to keep the discussion on a more constructive level.
> 
> I suspect this is because atheists and agnostics are used to defending
> their points through rational argument, whereas religious
> fundamentalists almost always defend their points by invoking their
> sacred texts.  Since the latter cannot expand upon their points
> effectively by repeating the process, they instead use diversionary
> tactics to avoid having to concede a point.  Often these tactics
> involve belligerence.

You're maybe right, theists need to use their emotional aspects in 
order to prove their faith, while agnostics/atheists use logical
reason. One could maybe state that agnostics/atheists don't use
emotions as much as theists, then again I guess this is not always
true.

Still, the truth is objective, there's no reason to raise the voice
for obvious answers.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Organization: University of Louisville
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:01:46 GMT

In article <9204062231.AA17315@CSUFresno.EDU>, davidch@ZIMMER.CSUFRESNO.EDU (David Choweller) writes:
> Newsgroups: alt.atheism
> Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
> Summary: 
> Expires: 
> References: <9204050239.AA03522@CSUFresno.EDU> <5APR199221524542@rosie.uh.edu>
> Sender: 
> Followup-To: 
> Distribution: 
> Organization: California State University, Fresno
> Keywords: 
> 
> In article <5APR199221524542@rosie.uh.edu> cosc143u@rosie.uh.edu (91F9774) writes:
> |In article <9204050239.AA03522@CSUFresno.EDU>, davidch@zimmer.CSUFresno.EDU (David Choweller) writes...
> |>Newsgroups: alt.atheism
> |(original stuff gone)
> |> 
> |>If God is all-powerful, omniscient AND benevolent, he would indeed put
> |>a stop to all the evil in the world.
> |> 
> |How?  The only kind of god who would put an end to all evil behavior summons
> |such a "big brother knows what's good for you" feeling that I would truly
> 
> But God is omniscient, and *indeed* knows what's best for you;  How can he
> not know what's best for you.  He created all the darn rules, he created
> all the calamities you face, he decided what would make you happy, and what
> wouldn't.  Even your desire for free will was created by him.  All this, so
> he could play games with you, and if you don't match up to his arbitrary
> rules, fry you in HELL.   HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

EEAAUUCCHHH!!!  That's not the God of catholicism, which doesn't hold that
all you atheists are gonna burn in hell.
> 
> You should dread the existence of the God of the monotheists, that one 
> day, perhaps because he's bored, decides to create souls, and play games with
> them, inventing purely arbitrary rules and frying them in hell if they don't
> obey the vague rules that he creates.

OOOO, I'm scared.  
                                                 
> The free will that God gives you is worthless, anyway.  You're still buffetted
> by desires that he created, and constricted by your circumstances.  But that's
> a different thread.

If it's totally worthless, it's not free will.
>  
> |
> |Ugh!  This is not the kind of god I'd want.

I agree.
  
> |---
> |Stephen McLeod
> |The Eternal Student
> --
>                                                  davidch@zimmer.CSUFresno.EDU
>     Sam:  How's life treating you?
>     Norm: It's not, Sammy, but you can!

Joe Deasy


Xref: sparky alt.atheism:8325 alt.satanism:1348
From: 00rkspicher@bsu-ucs.uucp (Randall Spicher)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Backward Masking
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:16:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: bsu-ucs.1992Apr13.111605.6217
Distribution: world,local

In article <1992Apr8.230909.5401@willamette.edu>, slambert@willamette.edu (Sean Lambert) writes:
> 
> 
> 	I don't think that I totally understand the meaning of
> 	back-masking, if the only way that you could hear it is by
> 	playing you record/cassette/whatever backwards, then why do so
> 	many religions blow a chunk about it...obviously it is put there
> 	manually and not spiritually, so what is the big deal.  If the
> 	only way that you could hear the stuff is to play it backwords,
> 	then what is the big deal.  Does anyone have any information on
> 	subliminal(sp?) messages, which in my opinion would make a lot
> 	more sense to make a fuss over than back-masking.
> 
> 
> 	sean................................slambert@willamette.edu

Well...

If you are *told* that the message is there, and can recognize
the spot in the song where its at when you play it forwards, then
you think to yourself (perhaps only subconsciencly) "Hey, this is
where that backwards message is ..." If you were not already
aware that a message is there, and what it says, you would never
get any "subliminamal" message from it. 

In fact, if you put "God is great, Jesus is lord" backmasked, and
made it obvious that there is a message there (i.e. hearing
"djxvtr cbhpw tszgk" sounds), in todays CD oriented world (not
many people use LPs which are easily played in reverse anymore)
most people would immediately say to themselves, "Hey! theres a
satanic message there in that song!", despite the fact that they
have no idea what the message actually says. 

Just goes to show what the "popular" image of Rock groups and
heavy metal groups is in todays media-oriented world. 

RKS
From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Canaanites(was Re: Achilles heels for religion?)
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:16:10 GMT
Organization: IBM Research
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In article <1992Apr7.005356.782@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr06.210827.25916@watson.ibm.com> strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
|> >In article <graham.702262529@bizet>, graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
|> >give my contribution with the disclaimer that it's my
|> >personal view, not necessarily the "traditional Jewish view".
|> >Remember, I'm not Orthodox.  If you want traditional Jewish
|> >views, Matthew has already posted two sources which you
|> >can look up.  Since he did post the sources, I disagree
|> >that he's been evasive.
|> Well, I didn't see them, and as far as I can tell he hasn't
|> reposted them on my request. Would you mind doing so?
|> 

No problem.  In article <72257@netnews.upenn.edu> Matthew posts:

>In article <1992Apr1.192518.21913@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>
>>>Excuse me, I gave you *explicit* references.
>
>>I didn't see it. Please post it again.
>
>Artscroll YEHOSHUA and Judaica Press JOSHUA.
>
>
>-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)

-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jackson@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Bruce Jackson(sysadm))
Subject: Re: Is religion necessary for a moral society?
Organization: University of North Texas, Denton
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:37:33 GMT

>In article <2APR199217093163@jane.uh.edu> cosc143u@jane.uh.edu
(91F9774) writes:

>>I recently read Flannery O'Connors "A good man is hard to find."  In it she
>>has the the main villain present the case that without belief in jesus there
>>is no point in being decent to anyone else.  Since there is no definite
>>promise of a big reward for living in a kind fashion, you should take
>>advantage whenever you can.  If you can get away with killing someone
>>and it is to your benefit, Then you do it.  Obviously, it is written
>>from a pretty small point of view 

[material by cosc143u deleted]

In article <4321@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk> martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk
(Martin Gorman) writes:

>It's the other way round. 
>A christian (like those in armies fighting with "god on their side")
>believes that he can kill as many people as he likes provided that
>god approves or he repents and believes in Jesus.

wrt wars, nearly every soldier believes that "God is on their side"
My what a good tool religion for sending people to fight and die.

>An atheist doesn't go round killing people because he has human
>compassion and empathy and knows that cooperation is essential
>to the successful functioning of society. And the cops help a
>little.

In general atheist's do act morally out of a sence of compassion for
their fellow man.  However, atheists are a small segment of society.

Is religious belief necessary for a moral society.  Note that I am
asking about a society in general not at the individual level.
Would people in general be moral for sublime reasons if they did
not fear the wrath of their diety?

Since belief in some sort of religion is almost universal it is
possible that the cohesion of some sort of religion is necesary
for a society's survival.  From the evolutionary point of view,
do religions evolve in such a way that they hold together the
societies that produce believers?  From the same evolutionary
point of view would the relationship of religion to society be
parasitic or symbiotic?

       Bruce Jackson, UNIX Sysadm    | jackson@ponder.csci.unt.edu
       Univ. of N. Tx, Comp Sci Dept.| jackson@csci1.csci.unt.edu
       P. O. Box 13886               | GAB 550E (817)565-2279
       Denton, Tx. 76203-3886        | FAX: (817)565-2799




Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Sadducees (was Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?)
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1992 22:30:28 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Research

In article <1992Apr9.183804.16479@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
|> In article <73423@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
|> >In article <1992Apr8.192549.27194@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
|> >>>There's Josephus, the Talmud, and even the New Testament itself.  One
|> >>>easily accessible and good account is Paul Johnson's book.
|> >
|> >>Well, that's not at all what I see in the New Testament. What I
|> >>see is the Sadducees being dominant.
|> >
|> >The Sadducees were dominant regarding the Temple and upper class power.  The
|> >masses followed the Pharisees.
|> That's not the impression I got.
|> 
|> >  The Pharisees were also dominant outside of
|> >Israel--away from the Temple--which was home for less than 1/3 of the Jews.
|> That's not the impression I got.
|> 

I've changed the subject line because I'd like to see
less metadiscussion about who's paranoid, who's
irrational, etc.

My impression from memory is closer to Matthew's:
the Pharisees and Sadducees were the two "major"
parties, with splinter groups of Essenes and Zealots.
Sadducees were the conservatives, whose interests
coincided with the Temple aristocracy; Pharisees
were the "reformers" who wished to change the focus
of the religion along the lines of the prophets.

Of course since modern Judaism is Pharisaic and
modern Christianity is anti-Pharisaic, spokesmen
of the two religions will likely disagree on
the role of the Pharisees.  Why don't each of
you agree to post more historically neutral sources?

Josephus of course had his own biases, but he's
probably a good place to start.
-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,rec.scouting
From: entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: another greeting
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 13:54:18 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.170955.4294@ncsu.edu> cobra@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Brian Dunphy) writes:
>In article <DKAFFINE.92Apr2190005@worf.east.sun.com> dkaffine@east.sun.com (Dave Kaffine - Sun BOS Hardware) writes:
>
>>Just bacause it cannot be taught doesn't mean that it's not affected by
>>environment.  Can you be taught intelligence?  Can you be taught to be tall?
>
>You are saying that the envirnoment in some way infulence sexuality, correct.
>If this is the case, that is the reason for BSA not providing a homosexual
>role model for people growing up.  MOST parents do not want their children 
>to "learn" to be homosexual.  If the envirnoment can affect someones sexuality,
>then MOST parents would not an envirnoment which could "teach" their children
>to be homosexual.  

What about an environment where they can live with themselves if they are
homosexual?

>I have not heard of anyone finding any conclusive evidence of how one becomes
>homosexual, whether they are born that way, or "learn" it, or a combination 
>of both.  Until Psycologist/biologist/scientist/what-evers decide what
>"causes" homosexuality, the possiblity of it being "taught" exists.  BSA 
>appears like they are not willing to possibly contribute to the "teaching"
>of a young boy homosexuality.

While your taking years searching for this proof 1/3rd of teenage suicides
are by homosexual teens. Your goals are truly twisted if the slight chance
that someone could learn homosexuality outweighs the thousands of lives
that could be saved by allowing children to accept who they are.

-- 
Disclaimer: Opinions are based on logic rather than biblical "fact".   ------
This is a mutated signature virus, if you don't put it in your .sig    \    /
file you may lose your job, your dog may be run over, and you may die.  \  /
If you repent and add the .sig you may win the lottery and get laid.     \/ 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@puffin.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 12:45:38 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor


In article <73224@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
> In article <fzj+=s_@engin.umich.edu>, ingles@cardinal (Ray Ingles) writes:

[deletion]

> >> And what if the lesson you want to teach is don't steal?  Don't gossip?
> >> Sometimes the most effective way to get the message across is to show
> >> the negative effects of stealing/gossiping/etc, and the hardworking
> >> parent presumably has to look elsewhere for this.
> 
> > No, the best way to show "don't steal" is to watch someone who
> >has a good chance to steal and finds another way of dealing with
> >the situation.
> 
> I think this could be quite subtle.

 Sure. You think most 'literature' isn't?

> > There will be plenty of others around to show the negative
> >consequences of stealing; heck, a newspaper is good enough for
> >that.
> 
> Right: a "story".

 Not in the same sense as you (apparently) mean it.

> > Look, I am not saying that literature is *useless* in teaching
> >morals. I am saying that exapmles and thoughtful discussions are
> >*more* useful, *much, much* more useful. This is what I have seen,
> >anyway.
> 
> I'd say we are closer than anything.  I certainly agree that parental
> example is primary.  But do you agree that literature can generate
> numerous examples and thoughtful discussions?
> -- 
> -Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)

 Literature can generate 'examples' and 'thoughtful discussions.' No
problem there. But so can careful observation of everyday life...

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@caen.engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.
From: jn1a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jad Nehme)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: "Where did the universe come from" is an illogical question
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:49:12 GMT
Organization: Masters student, Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.alt.atheism: 13-Apr-92 Re: "Where did the
universe.. David Plumpton@wampyr.cc (2059)

> Loose manipulation of English sentences is no substitute for
>mathematical equations and Quantum Theory.  Most Cosmologists these
>days suspect that Time and Space where created with the Big Bang, i.e.
>the reality that the Universe exists inside was created out of nothing
too.

	 Do people who believe in the Big Bang believe that there was actual
creation?  Or does the theory claim that the whole universe was
contained in a (relatively) small space where
"we-can't-tell-what-was-happening" until the Big Bang occurred which led
to the universe as we know it (with its laws we still try to find)?

Jad Nehme
From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Examined by the judge
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:53:26 GMT
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

In <5305@pdxgate.UUCP> news@pdxgate.UUCP (Net News Account) writes:

>From: allenroy@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (callen roy)
>Path: rigel!allenroy


<Sermon constructively edited>

If you want to preach, do it in rec.religion.sermons or something.
Don't post in alt.atheism unless you have something relevant to say.

In other words
RTFF
--
         ______________________________________________________________
	|  A.G. Williams          |        Plus qu'il n'en faut.       |    
	|  willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie  |                                    |
	|_________________________|____________________________________|
Newsgroups: alt.atheism