HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 02:02:29 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64746.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Nov12.003007.11189@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
>When combined with our theoretical understanding of physics and our everyday
>experience with gravity, yes we can take this evidence as proof that gravity
>actually exists.  Are you going to deny that gravity exists?  Can you prove
>that it doesn't?  What are these assumptions which are stated without proof?

	In the words of Pirsig, "... and what it means is that the law of 
gravity, and gravity itself exist nowhere except in people's heads!"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible In Minnesota
Date: 11 Nov 92 01:57:22 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu

merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:

>rick@solbourne.com (Rick Gillespie) writes:
>>[Removing the Bible from school deleted...]

>And now, the rest of the story...
>[deletions...]

>Also not mentioned in the 700 Club infotainment report was the MN Civil
>Liberties Union's offer to help oppose the removal (since that would
>contradict Robertson's cartoon portrayal of the ACLU).

Ah, but they have to keep up pretenses that they are defenders of all
American's civil liberties.
 
>It won't get removed, but I don't mind seeing Robertson's organization
>throwing away some money in the meantime, either.  Robertson's new legal
>[deletions...]  
>[The ACLJ will] fight for your religious rights (and then some) as
>long as your religion is the Right One.  Let's see them support, say,
>Santerians in their animal sacrifice court case.  Fat chance.

The ACLJ has defended other religious groups.  The one I can think
of right off hand is the Hare Krishnas in a case in CA involving 
distribution of literature at airline terminals.  So, don't be too
quick to judge.  Besides, Christianity is the religion in question
in the majority of litigation in this country.  They may have looked 
at the Santerians case; can't say.  But I don't see the ACLU, the
faithful defender of American's civil liberties, running down there 
to defend the Santerian's freedom to practice their religion.

-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 02:00:54 EST
From: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Asserting No Gods
 <1992Nov6.164252.27622@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>

In article <1992Nov6.164252.27622@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) says:
>
>You may not understand this, but when Atheists mention God in the same
>sentence as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny , the Tooth Fairy, and
>invisible-pink unicorns, it is because they are ALL silly.  The fact
>that you treat the God question differently than the others means that
>you have bought into some of what the theists are selling you.  I know
>that some religionists get very upset when we do this, but we do it in
>total seriousness to point out the insanity that is religion.

Well, I guess you missed my point. I don't treat any of them as different
from the others. It's just that there are more god-believers running amok
than invisible-pink-unicorn-believers. You may think they're all just
silly, but what's so rational about assuming none of them exist? I'm no
theist, but you seem more than happy to lump me in with them simply
because I disagree with you. You always want the xians to examine their
unfounded beliefs critically; I'm telling you to have a look at yours.
You casually treat theism as "insanity." What is your unfounded belief
then? Why is it now rational for atheists to assume as well?

Martin Schulte
From: frank@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Revenge (was Re: leave us alone!!!!)
Date: 7 Nov 92 00:21:53 GMT
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division
Originator: frank@karner.austin.ibm.com


> 
> Well, for some of us we can't; our motivation is the Great Commission.
> Another reason is because we have found something that is so life changing
> and real in Jesus Christ, that we can't understand why anyone wouldn't 
> want it or can't see it.  For me at least, it is also a learning experience 
> reading and posting here; and I've learned quite a bit about how an atheist
> views religion and life.  I'm sure there are other reasons. 
> 
> -- 
> Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
> parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |

Don't you see it?  You can't overcome the urge to proselytize!  What
arrogant, pedantic, pestering bores you are.  

Unfortunately, just kill files don't seem to do the trick.  One has to
still sift through the crap at least once, and it seems that for each
fundie author that you kill, there is another that takes his place. 

I wish we could retaliate by founding "churches" all over the place and
claiming tax exemption from the government.  
Hmmn, come to think of it, not a bad idea at all!  I heard once of one
such church in California, where the "sabbath service" was an orgiastic
beer bust with sacramental suds purchased tax free at the liquor store.

Maybe the government would take more heed of this supposed separation of
church and state if through negative publicity, reduced revenue,
lawsuits, etc., enough attention is drawn to this unfair subsidy.

The best revenge...
-- 

         DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this posting are mine
            solely and do not represent my employer in any way.
       F. A. Karner AIX Technical Support | karner@austin.vnet.ibm.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:31:30 GMT

ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
: In article <1992Nov9.213948.27071@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:
: >ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
: >
: >What about the ghastly commands of God in the Old Testament?  If
: >I remember right, this is the same God that Christians have faith in.
: >If the Bible is the word of God, I should be able to judge God based
: >on his own actions as depicted in the OT and not just indirectly
: >via his followers.  Is this a fair judgement?  Why not?
: 
: I guess I'm somewhat hazy on what you mean by "judge God based on
: his own actions".  If you mean that you will read the Old
: Testament and determine whether God acted in a manner consistent
: with your belief of how God *should* act (where this belief is
: derived from is another story), then odds are you might be turned
: off.  

Maybe an example will be helpful.  Let's use an example from the
beloved 10 commandments.  Ex 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to
them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, *visiting
the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth
generation of them that hate me*.  God seems to have this nasty habit
of punishing innocent people for the sins of others.  There is page
after page after page of this stuff.  To say I am "turned off" by the
actions of such a sadistic God is a gross understatement.

:  I know, for me anyways, that only when I read the Old
: Testament through the eyes of the New Testament was I able to
: personally make sense out of it.  

I must have missed God's rationalization of his actions when I
read the NT.  Maybe you show me in the NT where God explains 
the Justice of this outrageous policy.

: And I'm still in the process
: today... But that is my experience, as there are other people who
: have had no problem with the OT at all. 

Translation:
There exist people who cannot think for themselves, therefore
the God of the OT is just and loving.  Just a minute, let me
get out my introductory logic book and check the validity of
this syllogism...

-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Don't believe anything you hear
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 6 Nov 92 05:07:29 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <e9FA02nN29zm01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:
> In article <Bx7ACM.27A@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> @expert.cc.purdue.edu (adamsma@expert.cc.purdue.edu) writes:
>>
>>  [the idiot post we're all familiar with deleted]
>
> What purpose does your posting this achieve? What FACT that you think
> that somebody called Jesus existed? FIRST PROVE THIS. The son of god?
> ALSO PROVE THIS. Raised from the dead? DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH. Salvation?
> Eternal life? DON'T TALK RUBBISH.
> 
> UNTIL YOU CAN BACK UP YOUR UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS THEY ARE JUST FIGMENTS
> OF YOUR DELUDED IMAGINATION.
>
>   [etc.]

   Calm down, Chris.  This person is obviously a moron who will, in
all probability, never show up here again.  Not to metion the fact 
that most of the rest of the a.a readership has already responded.

   Exercise some restraint, people.  Even with someone like this it
is not necessary for *everyone* to post the same damned thing.

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:15:08 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <1992Nov10.205513.7604@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka Ktf92) writes:
>In <1992Nov10.184658.19188@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi writes:
>
>> 	Atheists commonly ignore that they live in a dream-world by themselves.
>
>      Dreamworld? Have you taken a look at some of the more rabid theism
> lately? And, "by ourselves"? Plentiful good company if you ask me! What
> makes YOUR worldviev - whichever it happens to be, you forgot to mention
> that - so much better than mine?

Perhaps I can shed some light here.

Antti's worldview is exactly that of a Jehovah's Witness. There is a
good reason for this startling coincidence, and it's the obvious one.

Readers of talk.origins will be aware that deploying logic against him
is futile, and that he is best regarded as a source of sheer entertainment.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Bash Atheists
Date: 6 Nov 92 02:57:35 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <yBVPTB10w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
wrote:
> [ Q: How can you spot the jokes on a Christian TV channel?
>   A: They're the bit that isn't funny. ]

Once, when I didn't have cable and I had at least 4 Christian channels
(missing now, hurrah!) there was this comics program shown on channel
65 late at weekends about a very *artificial* family, with very
*artificial* problems. For instance, one of the young characters 
was requited as a hit man for a mob, and Jesus saved him. Speak
about real life situations. I always wondered why they needed the
extra effort of exaggeration to point out Christian values...

Kent

	"The problem with computers is you *play* with them."
					-- Richard Feynman
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:40:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.061446.25328@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> keb3_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Karin E. Baker) writes:
>In <1992Nov3.160945.5521@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov3.151740.15118@athena.cs.uga.edu> kraig@athena.cs.uga.edu (Kraig Count) writes:
>>>I think that the basic reason some people have a problem with those
>>>of us in the LBG community is do, in part, to a feeling that they
>>>can't believe in their religion unless everybody also follows it.
>>This doesn't make any sense. These people are typically far more
>>venomous against gays than against atheists, and there are a lot
>>of gays who consider themselves Christian, whereas by definition
>>atheists are not Xian. If your theory were right, you would expect
>>to see much more virulence against atheists.
>Two responses to this:
>(A) look back to the who BSA issue where they banned both atheists, and 
>homosexuals.
Yes, but it was my read--though I admit MHO--that they were much more
anti-gay. 

>(B) if you approached a fundie and told them you were atheist, they would 
>argue almost as vehemently. Atheists have closets too!  Gays are just 
>coming out of theirs in droves. 
This just isn't true. I am an atheist, and I have told fundies that
I'm an atheist, and they try to argue to me that I'm wrong, but I
think it's very different than the sort of argument that gays are
EVIL, which I almost never hear about atheists, but which you hear
people like Clayton Cramer saying all the time about gays.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 19:09:52 EST
From: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Don't believe anything you hear!

Okay everyone, simply mark the two files after reading them, flaming
does no good. These fools are coming here in greater frequency these
days. Why don't we migrate over to soc.religion.christian and mess up
their day in return?

Martin Schulte
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Thu,  5 Nov 1992 23:34:20 -0500 
From: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Questions about other stuff(sorry, lousy title!)
	<dpn2.60.720980909@po.CWRU.Edu>

>All these questions are rather pointless. Since we can't get the answers to 
>any of them (except what happens after we die), why waste time >worrying 
>about them?

Does being an atheist mean that you don't have to care about the unknown
at all?  I mean, very few questions are pointless, and you seem to have
the ideal that "if no-one knows, then it's not worth thinking about." 
Don't you ever have the urge to philosophize?  I do.  It's one of the
reasons that I'm an atheist!

If I'm wrong about you, I'm truly sorry.  If not, I would have rather
you left your unthinking, obnoxious answer back at CWRU.

-JW
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:18:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.161932.20172@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk  
(Simon Clippingdale) writes:

[stuff deleted]
> 
> Rather than type in almost exactly the same articles again, have you read
> the stuff I posted in the other branch of this thread, which seems to be
> running more or less parallel to this one?
> 
> Summary -- `strong' atheism is defensible by virtue of constituting
> the (falsifiable) null hypothesis in the absence of [what the individual
> considers to be] evidence for the existence of god/s. Ken's point about
> how certain specific existence claims are falsified trivially  
notwithstanding,
> theistic and atheistic claims are not in general symmetrical with respect
> to falsifiability and are not logically equivalent.
> 
> If you have read any of these posts, I'd be interested to know whether, and
> if so why, you disagree with the arguments therein. 
> 

> 
> Cheers
> 
> Simon
> -- 
> Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
> Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
> University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
> Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 05:36:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.184658.19188@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	Atheists commonly ignore that they live in a dream-world by themselves.
>
>	Quite common is the belief that you could save this earth. This is 
>	rubbish. There is no method to save mankind from Greenhouse effect or
>	lack of Ozone (for decades). People refuse to believe this. 

I suppose then you would say that instead of facing up to the
consequences of our actions in regard to the Greenhouse Effect and the
ozone layer, and trying to prevent even worse catastrophes from
happening, we ought to kick back and let Jesus save the world, since
we are obviously incapable of doing anything other than standing
around with our thumbs up our asses.

And you have the gall to tell us *we* are living in a dream-world.

What a load of crap.

>	What is the philosophy with atheists ? Consume ! Spend more !

For this you deserve a hearty, John McLaughlin-style WRONG!  Try
reading the FAQ sometime.

BTW, if this is a follow-up to your performance in talk.origins, then
don't even bother.  You posted nothing but drek when you were posting
there, and this post indicates that you are following in the fine
fundie tradition of posting articles here that are pure, unadulterated
bullshit, untainted by either logic or simple courtesy.

SD
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:20914 talk.religion.misc:20733
From: mas@Cadence.COM (Masud Khan)
Subject: Re: Satanism: Why It's A Good Idea.?
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:35:03 GMT

Sounds like freemasonary!

-- 
 C I T I Z E N       mas@cadence.com
 _____   _____       
      \_/    
 _____/ \_____
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Don't believe anything you hear!
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon)
Date: 8 Nov 92 22:53:13 +1030
Organization: Oh look, a lifeform!

In article <Bx7B51.6Dz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, @expert.cc.purdue.edu
(adamsma@expert.cc.purdue.edu) writes:

[some crap that Mr Schneider has already dealt with deleted]

> P.S.  If you don't believe that it gets dark at night, does that keep it from
> getting dark? 

We have already had proof that it will get dark since it got dark
the night before, and the night before that, and so on as far as
we can remember, so why should we not believe it now?

Your analogy fails utterly because there is NO PROOF that gods
exist whilst there IS PROOF for it getting dark.

A lesser point but by no means unimportant is that we always
have the choice to question all things around us and come up
with our own conclusions as to wether it's going to get dark
or not. You, my friend, would be abused by your leaders for
doing so.
-- 
John J McVey, Whyalla, Uni S. Australia    9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Electronic Engineering student & Terror Tekkie!
Any email can be posted unless I state explicitly otherwise.
+-----------------------------------------------------+    ________
|  Obligatory disclaimer: UniSA hates my opinions...  |  \/Darwin o\
+-----------------------------------------------------+  /\________/
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. Marquis
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: God Is Silly
Date: 9 Nov 92 09:45:04 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov  5 1992

Who: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
ID: 1992Nov6.164252.27622@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
And: <92311.062359MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
 
Martin Schulte replied to one of my, er, ah, "contributions"
here concerning hypocritical theists positing without evidence,
but I missed his reply. I found it quited in another article.
 
I Said> "To answer my own question, I don't care if people think
I Said> my assertion of no God is "hypocritical." Does my assertion
I Said> that there is no Santa Claus make me thus? Easter Bunny?
I Said> That's for the theist to deal with.
 
Then Martin Schulte replied:
 
MS> "No quotes necessary. Asserting there is no god while attacking
MS> the other side for the opposite assertion is hypocritical, as do
MS> the rest of your assertions. Simply because some of them are silly
MS> isn't going to confuse me. You have no evidence to prove your
MS> assertion, and therefore you have made the same mistake as
MS> theists."
 
That's very true, except "silly" is in the eye of the beholder (you
may quote me on that). You have a valid point, obviously. However,
my "but" here is: I don't care if I have no evidence that God does
not exist, though I assert God does not exist. I assert the negative,
and it is up to the theist, whom asserts the positive, to produce the
evidence.
 
As Jim Copeland added later, -ALL- of my examples I consider equally
silly. God, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Great Pumpkin, Pink yet invisible
unicorns prancing gayly in my walls. . . My intent was not to confuse
with silliness, but to display the absurd with sillyness.
 
Sure, like most atheists I'm willing to look at the evidence of proof
of God(s). I'm far more interested in proof of pink invisible
unicorns, however--- I consider them far more likely than God.
 
Yours in Colleen,

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: Asserting No Gods
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:31:52 GMT

In article <92312.020054MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.164252.27622@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) says:
>>
>>You may not understand this, but when Atheists mention God in the same
>>sentence as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny , the Tooth Fairy, and
>>invisible-pink unicorns, it is because they are ALL silly.  The fact
>>that you treat the God question differently than the others means that
>>you have bought into some of what the theists are selling you.  I know
>>that some religionists get very upset when we do this, but we do it in
>>total seriousness to point out the insanity that is religion.
>
>Well, I guess you missed my point. I don't treat any of them as different
>from the others. It's just that there are more god-believers running amok
>than invisible-pink-unicorn-believers. You may think they're all just
>silly, but what's so rational about assuming none of them exist?
>Martin Schulte


There! You did it again!  You say that you don't treat them any differently
and then say that it's not rational to assume none of them exist.  Don't tell
me that you believe in invisible-pink-unicorns.  If you don't and still think
that the God question is any different then you DO treat them differently.
You missed my point, namely that if you do treat these differently then you
are doing so because of your assumptions, not because the questions are 
different.

Jim Copeland
-- 
I sink like a stone
That's been thrown in the ocean
My logic has drowned
In a sea of emotion                   -- Sting