HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto)
Subject: Re: Cults
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:44:08 GMT


To:

Joe Beiter, Josef Stuart, Crunchy Frog and Mike Evins

Touche'-----------------------------------------


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop)
Subject: Re: To All Truth Seekers!
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 19:05:33 EDT

From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
 
>In article <1992Oct9.150735.23962@cs.tulane.edu>
>goff@pops.navo.navy.mil writes:
>>JESUS WAS A MYTH-
>>   [a postulate]
>
>There are multiple sources confirming the existence of some  
>historical figures.
>...  What evidence besides the christian bible supports 
>the stories of Jesus? 
 
What would the nature of any such requested evidence be, which 
would support the stories of Jesus, assuming for a moment they 
are true?  They would be religious writings like the Bible.  But 
you reject such religious writings.  Therefore, you ask for 
something which, if supplied, you will reject.  How safe. 
 
You ask for the impossible when you ask for a an account not in 
the Bible when all such accounts were incorporated *in* the 
Bible. Why not ask for a little green man to come out of a flying 
teacup and tell you about God?  That's pretty safe, too. 
 
>>BIBLE ACCOUNT IS INCORRECT:
>>   [another postulate]
>
>Quite self serving, IMO, for the priesthood to rewrite and 
>perpetuate the tales that put and kept them in positions of luxury
>and power, with the ability to terminate anyone who dared disagree.
 
It is your hypothesis (that the Bible we now have was 
fraudulently rewritten).  The burden of proof for it falls to 
you. (Where have I heard *this* before?) 
 
DARIST
From: geoff@East.Sun.COM
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Seeking ref/price/opinion of Antony Flew lecture tapes from Prometheus
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:35:09 GMT
Reply-To: geoff@East.Sun.COM ()
Organization: SunSelect
NNTP-Posting-Host: tyger.east.sun.com

In a recent issue of Unix Review, Stan Kelly-Bootle made enthusiatic
reference to a lecture on theism/atheism by Antony Flew. Stan said
that the book version would be out next year, but that the tapes
were available now from Prometheus and were absolutely essential
listening.

Questions:

(1) Can anyone give me the title (and price) of the tapes?
(2) Can anyone give me the phone # for Prometheus?
(3) Can anyone who bought the tapes (or heard the
    lecture) provide us with a review?

Geoff
--
Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect, Sun Select. (geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM)
-----------
News software that enforces a four-line .signature limit is responsible for
the fact that these postings just go on and on and on and seem to end in mid-
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: What is "occult?"
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 23:55:48 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Oct12.125501.164757@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
>ikonen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Ian Konen) writes:
>
>>In <n0b4ft@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>
>>>Whereas most Christians believe in the occult (God / devils /
>>>angels / demons / etc.) Satanists for the most part do not.
>>>In fact, most Satanists do not believe in Satan, let alone
>>>worship it/him, and consider the belief of such things silly.
>>> 
>>>If you ask, I will post some info on Satanism, and what
>>>Satanists really believe.
>
>>Please do.  This is not the first time I have heard Satanists refered to as
>>people who neither worship nor believe in Satan.  What is the difference
>>between a Satanist and an atheist?
>>							-Ian Konen
>
>This stuff about Satanists NOT worshipping Satan is absolute RUBBISH!
>Of course they worship Satan, and there is PLENTY of proof.  I will not
>elaborate now because there is too much to write here, but it will be
>presented in a later posting.

 Do tell. See below.

>Also, there are differences between Satanists and atheists, with the main
>difference being that atheists do not worship Satan (otherwise they wouldn't
>be atheists!).
>
>More to come later.

 Boy, I hope so. I've seen this kind of posting a lot on talk.origins. Usually,
it's from some Creationist who says they'll have the Theory of Creationism
ready to post "real soon now." And yet, it has ne'er been posted.
 Mind you, I don't *know* that James won't post the stuff he's been
promising to post. But, um, you *have* been promising it for a while
now, James...

>Yours in Christ,
>James.

Your in (or, at least, near) Colleen,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: To All Truth Seekers!
From: dan@stanton.UUCP (Dan Mahoney)
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:52:32 GMT
Organization: Stanton Public Domain Systems, Stanton, Ca.
Summary: FAQ wanted


I haven't seen the FAQ posted in a long time.  Would somebody be so kind as
to post it?
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:07:18 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Oct11.071709.18397@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>
>Certainly there will have to be some experimentation, and certainly
>it ought to be able to adapt to changing circumstances.  New technology
>will probably change things drastically.  Maybe it won't be long before
>we can all go and get our brains fixed to get rid of our aggressive
>instincts once and for all.
>

  Are you sure that this is the problem?  I'm a white male in 1990's
  America, blamed for (as Dave Berry puts it) every atrocious act in
  the last half century plus the death of Bambi's mother.  

  What I'm saying is, should we be concerned with removing our
  agressive instincts (which I'm told a frontal lobotomy does quite
  nicely), or should we be more concerned with understanding our
  nature and impulses?  Just as the homosexual community is striving
  for validation of their lifestyle, perhaps we shouldn't flippantly
  call agressiveness evil or undesirable, but rather stress
  acceptance of what we are.  It may be that channeling this
  agressiveness to more socially appropriate avenues is a better
  solution.  Take away someone's agressiveness, and you take away a 
  substantial part of what makes him strive to do something more with 
  his life.  

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"Above all, a god needs compassion"    James T. Kirk
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:14:45 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

>stuart@stipple.seas.upenn.edu (Joseph Stuart ) writes:

>> Since coming to disbieve the existence of god a few months ago, I have
>> come pretty far in defining my own personal philosophy.  However, one point
>> still bugs me that I can't quite get around: morality.  I feel that there
>> are certain things which are immoral.  While I don't expect everyone to
>> have the same moral code as me, I still feel a bit disturbed when others
>> do things that I consider wrong.  Have any other atheists grappled with
>> the question of where morality comes from, and produced any cogent
>> thoughts?  If so, I would love to hear them.

What were the circumstances involved in your disbelief (if you don't mind my
prying)?

keith
From: mackenir@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Innes MacKenzie - The Littlest Hobo.)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism? Really Harold, how gauche...
Date: 11 Oct 92 08:12:34 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Null Cypher) writes:

>In article <1992Oct08.041941.21176@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

> ...explain why it is a 'trap' to believe that truth is relative
>or personal?

Read '1984'.

>--
>                                               --------------------------------
>                                               Null - 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
>                                               --------------------------------
-- 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Sources of 'Real' Atheism
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 22:59:25 GMT

In article <T54BsB1w165w@bluemoon.rn.com> darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) writes:
>From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
>Message-ID: <exukjb.279.718136930@exu.ericsson.se>
>>
>>There are, I think, 5 main 
>>sources of contemporary atheism:

Hey, this looks interesting.  But I missed the original.
Ken, could you please repost.

>>Part 2 - The Incoherence of Theism
> 
>This part and part 3 was missing in your article.  Please repost this 
>part.

Yeah.  What he said.
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: THE PROOF: The Non-existence of GOD !
Keywords: atheist, atheism, GOD, religion, logic, proof, reality, creator, the one and onl
Date: 15 Oct 92 01:55:12 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <0P1JsB4w165w@bluemoon.rn.com> darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) writes:
> 
>There is a common saying, "What goes around, comes around." (This 
>idiom is usually interpreted to mean, "You get what you give.")  
>So unless one of those who don't love God is perfect in his 
>morals and perfect in the execution of those morals, he is 
>getting what "goes around" when "things" happen to him.  And this 
>is minor compared to what justice demands. 
> 

  And there's something of a common saying here on a.a:  God would
  have to be a piss poor sport for damning his creation to hell for
  bahaving in exactly the manner that he created.  Some sense of
  justice.

  Watch out, I think I smell a heresy in your paragraph above.  It
  sounds to me like you're saying that if someone were only perfect
  in his morals, he would be able to attain heaven by his own
  merits.  That'll put you in deep hooey with the crutch^H^H^H
  church.
> 
>The belief system of the Bible is consistent. 
> 

  Only if you believe grasshoppers have 4 legs.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"Above all, a god needs compassion"    James T. Kirk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:03:38 GMT

In article <ebolog.10@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:
>
>Atheists are always saying that God does not exist and laugh away any proof 
>Christians use to prove His existence.
>
>So here is my proposal : You prove to us that God does not exist!
>
>And please don't use your usual irrational logic and childish insults!
>
>Please post your replies so that other people may also read them or if you 
>feel embarassed mail it directly to us at (TJOHN@ELAINE.EE.UND.AC.ZA).
>
>Many Thanks for any logical and well thought out arguments.
>
>	Cheers from E.B.

Over in alt.vampyres, they are using the same sort of argument against
people who assert vampires don't exist.  "Oh yeah?  You can't prove
vampires *don't* exist, so there!"

The parallel here *ought* to be painfully obvious.

Cheers,

Steve
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Teleological argument
Date: 15 Oct 1992 14:21:20 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) on Thu Oct 15 02:04:40 1992 posted:
 
 
|Subject: The Teleological argument
|             ^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|Ay one have any comment on this argument?
|
|Frank
 
 
	No Frank, why don't you tell us what it is................
never heard of the "Teleological" argument...................
 
	I'm looking forward to it.
 
-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu | alias: White Rook
aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: Morals and God is Dead.
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:18:03 GMT

cochrane@spot.Colorado.EDU (Jim Cochrane) writes:
: 
: It seems a little strange to me that a lot of people assume that if one
: rejects the prevaling moral system(s) and defines one's own rules or
: guidelines of action that they would necessarily act in a selfish
: manner as a result.  I think it is quite possible for such a person to
: act purely out of compassion for someone else without expecting anything
: in return.  In fact, I would bet that in many cases where someone
: performs this kind of action, it is completely spontaneous and has
: nothing to do with the person's moral code, regardless of whether or not
: they have one.  [Note that by quite possible I don't mean likely; this
: type of action is rare -- because it is difficult to do.]

You have a much higher opinion of human nature than I do.  Let's
face it, we are basically in this for ourselves.  Compassion may
play a small part within our immediate social group, but even that
is pushing it.  If you want the real reason why society isn't
in anarchy, look at Rousseau's Social Contract, and Locke's
Natural Law.  We have given up the right to rape and pillage by
accepting the Social Contract.  This is a voluntary agreement that 
every citizen becomes obligated to when he reaches the age of 
reason, whether he acknowledges it or not.  Let's call it 
Enlightened Self-Interest.  By forming a pact with every other
citizen, we are promoting our own self-interest.
-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: To All Truth Seekers!
Date: 12 Oct 1992 01:05:33 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


joeb@src4src.linet.org (Joe Beiter) sez:
 
 
 
|In article <1992Oct9.152208.13379@news.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
|>In article <1992Oct9.150735.23962@cs.tulane.edu> goff@pops.navo.navy.mil writes:
|>>JESUS WAS A MYTH-
|>>   Question: The bible, as a history book, is astonishingly correct when
|>>	     used to understand archeological remains and ancient writings.
|>Twaddle. The Bible is astonishingly bad. It gets all sorts of things
|>wrong. E.g. The creation narrative. The flood. There is much doubt
|>about the historicity of the Exodus narrative, and Joshua claims to
|>have conquered cities that didn't exist at the time.
|
|For one, your accusation that the creation narrative is wrong is based on
|a theory.  Isn't that just a leetle presumptuous?
 
	Creationism saying the earth is only thousands of years old is
a little presumptuous.
 
|- JoeB
-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu | alias: White Rook
aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
From: Ralph Dumain <rdumain@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: 07 Oct 92 20:47 PDT
Subject: Re: FIDONET ECHO?
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1297200001:cdp:1297200002:000:301
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!rdumain    Oct  7 20:47:00 1992


From: Ralph Dumain <rdumain>
Subject: FIDONET ECHO?

I know there are local echoes of many FIDOnet confernces,
including some atheist ones.  Maybe they pick stuff off of
networks like these.  Is any of your stuff echoed via FIDONET?  If
so, I could save money on my network by checking the local BBS.
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 8 Oct 1992 01:26:09 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) says:

>Well God did provide us with a manual that tells us a lot about how we came 
>to be and got to what we are today - yes you guessed it, its the Bible.

	No, I have been told by others it is the Word of God. But, God
hasn't told me that it is His God. Until He does so, I have no reason to
even suppose that it is.


>Now the Christians have proof that He exists, do you have proof that he 
>doesn't - or are you just saying He doesn't because you can not see Him.

	Dah, what a brilliant piece of logic. If you truly had proof,
then you wouldn't even ask if others had proof to the contrary. If they
did, then what you have, isn't proof.

	And, what proof do you offer that the Bible is the Word of God?
Please, don't even try telling me that someone told you. Nor, can use the
faulty logic : " the bible is the word of god, because the bible says so",
nor " the bible is the word of god, because god said so", as you have no
proof that god did.

	But, don't waste you time, you will not come up with something
brilliant when thousands of the likes of you couldn't.

>
>You cannot possibly tell me that you do not believe in something just 
>because you do not understand it! If you are saying that you would have not 
>believed a computer, TV, satellites, etc. existed.

	I am not sure that I ever heard anyone say they did not believe 
in god, solely because one does not understand it.

	And, some of us *do* understand computers, TV's, etc.

-- 

	" It's time for Congress to tell the president to shove his 
	veto pen up his deficit! "  
					- Rep. Jim Traficant.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:01:16 EDT
From: <DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
 <1992Oct8.132026.164741@dstos3.dsto.gov.au>
 <1992Oct10.042831.4183@newsroom.utas.edu.au>

In article <1992Oct10.042831.4183@newsroom.utas.edu.au>,
u925816@postoffice.utas.edu.au (The DOK) says:

>In article <1992Oct8.132026.164741@dstos3.dsto.gov.au>, jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au
>(James Marcus) writes:
>>
>> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>>
>>
>> >jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) sez:
>> >
>> >[ stuff deleted ]
>> >|Briefly, they exist in the spiritual realms, which can be reached by
>> >          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >     Ah, but the "spiritual realm" does not exist. Please PROVE IT !

>    You go on about proof, why not try to disproove (sp?) it??

In other words, you have no proof (which comes as no surprise). And it will
take some heavy proof to make a reasonable person believe something that
contradicts all scientific knowledge.

>  Me too! Listen to me, have you really RESEARCHED Jesus (ie. Read the Bible,
>read what people say about Him, Christian as well as others)? What is the     n
>reaso
>that people have drastically changed when they have come to know Christ?
>(eg. Saul Of Tarsus, and innumerable others) These are just a couple of
>questions you should have asked before saying That you don't believe that
>Christ rose from the dead, or that there is a God.

Hmm...so I should seriously research Jesus, and completely ignore the many
other religious figures? (founders of Islam, Buddism, whatever). Did you
research ALL religious thought that ever existed? If not, you may have missed
the one true religion. Atheism is the only safe choice. If god does not
exist, you have saved yourself enormous aggrevation. If god does exist,
he will understand that you could not choose from the plethora of theist
options and forgive you. (Please no flames; I'm being facetious).
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Dear Bush
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:32:32 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1bmt4dINN186@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
> In a previous article, csfed@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Frank Doss) says:
> 
>>>Dear George,
>>>
>>> [Ranting deleted.]
>>
>>Was this really necessary?
> 
> 	When the President of the United States publically admits that
> he does not feel certain memebers of this society are worthy of U.S 
> citizenship, then it is most definently necessary!
> 	What if he used - Islamic, Morman, Russian Orthadox, Hindu, etc.-
> instead? 
> 	He is clearly showing either his ignorance of or disdain for the 
> first admendment of the Constitution. Do you not feel that that is a 
> serious issue?

   Yes, but we all know this.  We have been listening to the 
constant stream of bullshit from the White House for the past
four years (and earlier, but not under Bush).  We have little
need to be reminded of it.

Karl
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Where's the FAQ? [was Re: FAQ-finding difficulties]
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:59:55 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <bosullvn.719162878@unix1.tcd.ie>, bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie (Bryan O'Sullivan) writes:
> rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> 
>>People here seem to have problems finding the FAQ in record numbers. I only
>>seem to be able to find it once every 6 months. When I see three new people
>>asking for it in one day I know there's a problem.
> 
> Well, mathew used to handle posting it every week or so.  It seems
> that mantis.co.uk has disappeared from the face of the earth (as
> far as net traffic generated from there is concerned) for some
> reason.  Perhaps someone else should take up the job.  There are
> certainly plenty of alt.atheism regulars out there who may not have
> any problem doing so; any thoughts, anyone?

I'd be happy to post it, though I would not be qualified to update it. I'm here
every day anyway so it's no big deal. Unless the kind person who posted it this
morning wants to continue with the job.

> Further, a.a.m is sort of foundering due to the moderator (mathew?)
> not being active.

I wondered what had happened. Yes, I'm pretty sure it was mathew.

--Semhaza
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sources of 'Real' Atheism
Date: 10 Oct 92 13:56:46 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <T54BsB1w165w@bluemoon.rn.com> darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) writes:
> 
>IMO, atheism is largely the result of a person's need to be an atheist. 
>The above are merely excuses.
> 

WRONG. If a child is not taught religion/god etc by his parents at the
       same time as he learns to speak and walk then it is very unlikely
       that he will accept a religion later in life. Although most
       atheists on this group were initially religious and became atheists
       once they had realised how stupid and illogical religion was, I
       was never raised in any religion. And I was not raised as an
       atheist either. I first heard of "God" after I had learnt to think
       for myself, and it was soooo obvious that it was something made up
       by people to explain things that they could not understand.

       The only reason that you believe your religion is because your parents
       taught you when you were young and impressionable. And their parents
       taught them, etc.
> 

Chris Lee
Newsgroups: alt.atheism