HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: I'd Rather be an Atheist! Was: CHRISTIANS ARE BEING DUPED!
Date: 27 Jan 93 01:31:47 GMT

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: CHRISTIANS ARE BEING DUPED!
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:36:31 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

>
>			 CHRISTIANS ARE BEING DUPED!
>
>	       Most Christians would agree, and correctly so, that
>	  Jesus Christ was a perfect living Master, and a projection of
>	  God into the physical world, God Incarnate.
          
So begins what is essentially a "zero content" post.


>	       But there are some very important related facts that
>	  Christians are COMPLETELY IGNORANT of, as are followers of
>	  most other world religions.
           
This guy is so far out in the Twilight Zone, that no one can even
get a radar fix on him!

[Metaphysical garbage deleted.]

>	  ....	Christians, for example, added
>	  THREATS of "ETERNAL DAMNATION" in Hell, and DELETED the
>	  teaching of REincarnation.
       
This is a totally baseless assertion.  The manuscript evidence for the Bible
in general and the New Testament in particular indicates that no additions or
deletions of important doctrines were performed.  The parts of the Old
Testament found in the Dead Sea Scrolls indicates that the Old Testament
we have today is essentially the same as that in existence before Christ.
And early Christian letters and manuscripts from the 2nd century indicate
that the earliest complete New Testament copies were unchanged.

[More metaphysical garbage deleted.]

>	  ....	[ ALWAYS use the "KING JAMES VERSION".  Later
>	  versions are PER-VERSIONS! ]

Again, totally baseless.  If anything, the newer translations undertaken
in the 70s and 80s are *more* accurate since they include the latest
manuscript finds (like the Dead Sea Scrolls) as baseline documents for
the translation.  Also, the ambiguities of King James English are
corrected, eliminating a major source of confusion in understanding
the text.

[Even more metaphysical garbage deleted.]

>	       The Christian religion demands of its followers an
>	  extraordinary amount of BLIND FAITH backed up by little more
>	  than GOOD FEELING (which is TOTALLY DECEIVING).

Another totally baseless assertion.  Anyone who has a "blind faith"
does not have a faith at all; they have gullibility.  True faith is
based on reasoning, evidence, and scripture.

[The final bit of metaphysical garbage deleted.]


>	       UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
>	  IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.
>

Don't hold your breath!  BTW, what does this post have to do with atheism??

>
>					   Robert E. McElwaine
>					   2nd Initiate in Eckankar

Frankly, if I didn't believe in God, I'd be an atheist --
I certainly wouldn't be a New Age Wacko!

It's simply amazing what some people will swallow!

Regards,

Jim B.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: Islamic proof of existence of god!!??
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:01:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.000246.3516@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>
>Of course, it's A-OK for people to read whatever is in any newsgroup --
>including soc.religion.islam -- and think what they like.  I don't like 
>in general "holier than thou" attitudes, however, whether they come
>from atheists or theists.  (Of course, by my saying this, some may say I
>am displaying a sort of "holier than thou" attitude against people with
>"holier than thou" attitudes.  Hmmm... haven't got an answer to that one
>yet....)

I don't think it is a question of simply a 'holier-than-thou'-attitude.
Different people have different points of view, and some things are funny
in that view, some plausible. Atheists are more of the reasonable type, who
are cynical against most things. A statement made by a muslim might look
funny in atheist's reasoning-point of view, but totally serious in a 
spiritual muslim's world-view.

>
> Fred Rice 
> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au   


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Easter whodunnit
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:17:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.235526.6882@nmsu.edu>
epowers@mccoy (POWERS) writes:
 
>
>In article <12479@sorley.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
>writes:
>
>> The most likely explanation is that the witness is lying.  The reason
>> that there were no guards is that it made no sense for there to be
>> any.  I can't imagine an officer who, short of being out of his mind,
>> would send soldiers to guard the body of an executed criminal, as if
>> it were some object of value or as if the army had nothing else to do.
>>
>
>        The idea that guards were present is too easily verifiable from
>local records, and the locals themselves.  It would be easy to lie to you
>and me, certainly, but how easy would it be to lie about a thing like that
>in the same city where the events occurred?  Lying in this situation about
>something so easily checked out would be beyond dense.
 
 
Come on, the stories about it were not written until a generation passed.
Go and ask Romans in the Judaea of 60 to 70 if they sent guards to a
grave thirty years ago. They would pobably tell that they had about three
messiahs that day only.
 
 
The guards were there at a time noone could see them, that is the point
of the story. All the law abiding people were at home and only Romans and
criminals roamed the country. And Romans could not have cared less for
the corpse of a convicted criminal.
 
 
And when it is so easily verified, how come the authors differ so much?
And anyway, this argument from lack of contradiction seems to come from
the assumption that you could buy 'Jesus, his life, his miracles, his
resurrections' at every corner.
 
In my not so humble opinion, comparing what the guy is supposed to have
done to the numbers of people who have been convinced by it is the
easiest refutation possible.
 
 
And, the usual argument, more than one religion tells this story, all
with supposedly real people, why exactly do you believe in the Christian
myth?
   Benedikt
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Deliberate Ignorance
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:10:39 GMT

In article <C1JvtJ.76M@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu wrote:
>: In article <C1G7CF.HGC@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>: > 
>: 
>:   [lots of meaningless tripe deleted]
>: 
>: 
>: Bill:  Was your post an example of the upper limit of your verbal
>: and logical/mathematical intelligences?  If so, you are about
>: seven notches below the atheists on this group, and a few of the
>: theists as well.  You're a philosophy 101 student, right?
>: 
>: Please come back when you have something to say, but not before.
>: 
>: Don 
>
>
>   Don, I'm sure you are right in every point, but you don't really
>expect me to just take your word for it do you? Or was this an attempt
>at a Flame and not to be construed as a rational argument? Obviously
>my posting offended your exalted intelligence, but isn't it something
>of a civic duty to help those less enlightened than yourself - enumerate
>your objections - if you can ...
>
>Bill
>

If you would only see fit to read the god damned (only a figure of speech)
FAQ, you might see his objections. This is your duty, not Dan's.


Robert Johnston
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Constructing a Logical Argument (long)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 07:25:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.190024.591@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>"A flood as described in the Bible would require an enormous volume of water
>to be present on the earth.  The earth does not have a tenth as much water,
>even if we count that which is frozen into ice at the poles.  Therefore no
>such flood occurred."
>    Your statement above, intended to illustrate Denial of the Consequent
>    (if I have my terms correct), actually includes the fallacy of hidden
>    assumptions.  The hidden assumption is that the topography of the earth
>    has not significantly altered since just before the time of the Flood.
>    Actually, we do not know if such a change occurred or not.

If what you have pointed out is indeed a fallacy, consider that an argument
about the roundness of the earth contains the hidden assumption that light
doesn't bend in exactly the way to make the flat earth look round from space,
the hidden assumption that the people who claim to have circumnavigated it
are not lying, etc.

A hidden assumption that something did _not_ happen is not a hidden assumption
at all; the burden of proof is on you to prove that something happened.

>SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
>The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or
>proposition.  Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad
>ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who
>denies or questions the assertion being made.  The source of the fallacy is
>the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

See?
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:27115 sci.skeptic:22916
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:42:50 GMT
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU

In article <1k4ribINNjbq@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:

   =Why are crabs less healthy than fish?

   That I wouldn't know.

Crabs, and most shellfish, are scavengers.  Eating them is,
indirectly, violating the "law" about eating carrion, diseased
animals, etc.  

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | IX - The enumeration in the Constitution,
Field Robotics Center,          | of certain rights, shall not be construed
Carnegie Mellon University      | to deny or disparage others retained by the
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | people.
(412) 268-3856                  | 
                                | 
The opinions expressed are mine | 
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      | 
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:26709 talk.religion.misc:27135
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why? (was Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER)
Date: 20 Jan 93 22:41:18 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX


 F. A. Karner AIX Technical Support | karner@austin.vnet.ibm.com 
 writes in part, replying to Matt Ivaliotes:

>> >|> >What is there that prevents you from being a Christian?

>I used to be one, then I thought better of it.  Religion has its roots
>in ignorance and superstition.  Over time, religions have built
>incredibly convoluted and implausible scenarios in support of the basic
>premise: the existence of god.  Followers are required to believe, lest
>they be condemned to eternal damnation.  The brainwashing artifices used
>are among others, faith, dogmas, ostracism, discrimination, persecution,
>etc.  Kind of reminds me of that tenet of nazi propaganda: the bigger
>the lie, the more people are inclined to believe it!

Another view is that religion has its origins in light and truth, but,
the human bearers of it being human as they are, over the ages it becomes 
encrusted with corruptions and superstitions, and also becomes sclerotic 
and hardened, closing itself off to the new understanding and enlightenment 
required by the human soul as it grows and evolves.

The difference between true religion and Nazism is that with the former, even 
if its form has become as brittle and crumbled as a dead leaf, you can still 
detect traces of the once living form -- even it the fullness of its original
intricacy and integrity cannot always be clearly discerned -- whereas the
latter was constructed out of artificial, dead substances - lies - in the first 
place and was twisted and ugly from the beginning.  The living plant that 
ages and dies always brings forth a new seed from which it can rise again 
in renewed freshness.  The one that was dead to begin with must be construc-
ted again by force of lies, by those who serve the "father of lies".

Just another view.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
From: wooyoung@bu.edu (WooYoung Chung)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Removing "god" from morality. (was: Moral liberty)
Date: 24 Jan 93 03:46:35 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Ray Ingles (ingles@engin.umich.edu) wrote:
: In article <107305@bu.edu> wooyoung@bu.edu (WooYoung Chung) writes:
: [large-scale deletion]

[ some stuff deleted ]
: 
: >My question is that why is religion, do you think, is so harmful. 
: >Because of wars that people used religion to justify? 
: 
:  Well, now, some wars simply *do* come from religion. Consider the recent
: violence in India, sparked by the defiling of (what I gather was) an
: unused mosque.
:  Also, religions tend to go beyond providing minimal morals, and delve
: into unnecessary dietary laws, rules concerning women's periods, etc.
: Most such rules have no apparent basis in fact and lead to a great waste
: of time, mental anguish, etc.
:  A friend of mine spent some time in Israel, and visited the area where
: the Ethiopian Jews are being settled. Apparently, in Ethiopia, the women
: were required to go into seclusion in a separate hut during their periods.
: No such accomodations were provided in Israel; indeed, the Israeli Jews
: tended to assume that the Ethiopian Jews did things the way they did.
:  Finally, the Israeli Jews started noticing that Ethiopian women would just
: disappear for several days a month. Upon questioning, it was discovered
: that the women had been sequestered in a closet barely big enough to stand
: in for days at a time.
:  As if that weren't bad enough, many of these theist types seem bound and
: determined to ensure that everyone else obeys these types of rules.
:  And I won't do more than mention creationism.
:  I've noticed that lot of theists seem to go flatline when the topic
: of their religion comes up; and people who do things liek that are
: much easier to control if you know the buttons to push.

Ray, you are right.  There is no doubt that religion imposed on us, 
the problems that you mentioned.  However, I think the religion is 
more than just emotional crutches.  Human beings are limited in power, 
mortal, and subject to many painful experience during life.  It is 
almost a part of our humanity to look for a being more powerful 
than us, someone of great power and authority to look over our lives, 
and someone to bring some justice to our existence. 

As I said before, the religion have caused many problems, but it 
wasn't much more than some of ideologies that we have created.  Do
you really think mankind will be better off without religion? 
Let's say we bring up the new generation of kids, without exposing 
them to any types of religion, would they be better off?  (This 
is NOT a rhetorical question.)

WooYoung

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Removing GOD from morality. (was: Moral li
Date: 25 Jan 93 00:52:51 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

[reply to wooyoung@bu.edu]
 
>It is almost a part of our humanity to look for a being more powerful
>than us, someone of great power and authority to look over our lives,
>and someone to bring some justice to our existence.
 
The thought occurs to me that religion may be just an attempt to
rationalize our instincts.  Perhaps we do have an innate need for a
father figure.  That doesn't mean that there is one.  The force of
instinct over reason may for some be so strong however that they have to
invent one.  Opposition to abortion is an even better example.  Most
animals have instincts to preserve their young.  The instinct doesn't
change when circumstances (such as world overpopulation) do.  Opposition
to abortion is just our genes mindlessly crying out "Preserve the
species at any cost!".
 
>Do you really think mankind will be better off without religion?  Let's
>say we bring up the new generation of kids, without exposing them to
>any types of religion, would they be better off?
 
Absolutely.  I seriously doubt that any of the atheists here would think
otherwise.  Religion has, to its credit, inspired some nice music, art
and architecture, but caused a great deal of misery and suppressed a lot
of important thought.  The world would be a better place if all religion
and superstition ceased.  By all means, bring the little tykes up as
atheists.  They can study religion in history class.

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
From: jeon@carson.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: contradictory nature of free will and omni-anything
Date: 22 Jan 1993 00:44:46 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu


Attn:
mikeh@kralizec.zeta.org.au (Michael Hore) and Ray Ingles; 

I think I have given you both the impression that I don't believe in
free will. 

So let me state here once and for all that I do believe in free will.

Actually that is one
reason why I don't believe in all mighty god. (Oh, all right,
not-so-all-mighty-but-mightier-than-us something may exists.)
That is I am choosing the possibility of free will over god, because
my picture of all-mighty cannot coexists with free will.

Do I want to define free will? I'll have to think about it more
carefully, I'll admit, you are asking right questions, Ingles,
and appreciated.

The following is response to Michael Hore;
>
>As I said, I think if you ask physical questions, you'll get physical
>answers.
>

Don't say this to people like me. You know why.
I believe even self-consciousness is physical phenomena, putting it
bluntly, consequence of electro-chemical reactions happening in my
brain. Also, (I am quoting you out of context here.)
>...shouldn't we apply
>Occam's Razor...?
>
my words exactly. No need to postulate god or "soul".

>Cheers,   Mike.
>

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ttobler@unislc.uucp (Trent Tobler)
Subject: Re: A point well missed ...
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 23:34:03 GMT

Bill Conner (bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu) wrote:
: The question, "How much should I read of a religions corpus of sacred
: writings", seems to miss the point. Being atheists it's incumbent on
: you to demonstrate the reasons for your disbelief.

Why is this?  Well, we could be nice, and tell you our own personal reasons,
but why is it incumbent for us to describe to you why we are atheist.

: Merely attacking
: the beliefs of others does nothing to validate your own.

No, it only invalidates theirs, which may be the purpose in the first place.

: Tell me then,
: why are you an atheist ...

Because I believe there is no god(s).  This belief is founded on both theory
(the world can be explained through scientific means), and experience (I
have never had some 'spiritual' feeling that some god exists, is looking
after the universe, etc.. this discounts the possibility of a fair and kind
god who meddles with reality...  the other gods are speculation, and may be
fun to imagine, but realistically, it doesn't matter if you do or do not
believe in them...)

Now, Bill, tell us why you are an (a)theist (you never said which you were),
and why.

--
  Trent Tobler
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Where is the good discussion? (a theist writes)
Date: 21 Jan 93 05:41:59 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <9302115.21332@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, schuller@mullauna.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Wayne Schuller) writes:
|> At the moment, I consider I am very much wondering what the purpose of
|> alt.athiesm[sic] is

[A ton of fairly petty complaints deleted.   Apparently we aren't polite
enough to the nice Christians, or something.]

|> If you have anything positive to contribute, that does have something to
|> do with atheism, then take it to the very quiet alt.atheism.moderated so
|> it can be discussed there.

I'll take my atheism to a moderated group on the day that I can tune
across the TV dial without being blasted by fifteen Christian evangelists.

jon.