HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Sat,  3 Oct 1992 15:15:08 -0400 
From: David O Hunt <bluelobster+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: URGENTLY NEEDED

Could some kind person please email me some atheistic-type quotes by the
founding fathers?

Thanks!

David
bluelobster+@cmu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rswiftrw@cc.curtin.edu.au (Rod Swift)
Subject: Re: Cult Infiltrates alt.atheist
Organization: -=[ Curtin University of Technology ]=-  Perth, Australia
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 09:11:06 GMT

In article <n0ab3t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> Tag: Joe Beiter
>  
> JB> "I'm speaking of THIS disgusting world where there are 400
> JB> THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS EVERY DAY IN THE US ALONE."
>  
> Prove your assertion, sir. Did your cult tell you this, and you
> just believe it because you're too dim of wit to question your
> cult masters?
>  
> Last time anyone checked (World Health Organization), 96% of
> abortions occur in first trimester. Less than 0.1% is during the
> last trimester, and that only because of health risk to the
> mother.

Don't worry Dave.  It's obvious that Joe thinks 400,000 abortions
are performed daily, just to support his 400 figure that he pulled out
of the hat.

Maybe he should have been aborted!

Rod
-- 
|            . . .   . . . . .          "It leaves us galloping up Diarrhoea|
|        +  +  +     +  +  +  +  +                  Drive without a saddle."|
|    *   *   *       *   *   *   *   *                                      |
|R    o    d         S    w    i    f    t        -- Kryten from "Red Dwarf"|
+-----------------------------------+---------+-----------------------------+
|  Curtin University of Technology  |  Perth  |  RSWIFTRW@cc.Curtin.edu.au  |
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Buddhist Atheists
Date: 24 Sep 92 10:26:02 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
> Buddhism does not require belief in gods as far as I 
> understand.  But can it really be practice without
> reference to some power, force, mysterious truth, which
> in my opinion are a back door reference to gods?
> 
> Any atheist buddhists out there?

Well, I'm involved in the local Buddhist Society, and I've visited the
Cambridge branch of the Western Buddhist Order.  I'm not really a committed
Buddhist, although it has been a major source of ideas for me.


mathew
[ Also an officially ordained card-carrying SubGenius. ]
-- 
Wanted in four states -- solid, liquid, gas and plasma.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: J024330@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: christ
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 22:39:01 GMT

In article: <pockling.718401164@sfu.ca>Pocklington writes:

>   There has been only one recorded incident of parthenogenetic
>birth in a mammal.  This is odd because it is generally considered impossible
>for mammals to become parthenogenic due to the presence of marker genes that
>are only active if passed from the father.  However, if we have had one
>parthenogenetic birth (that of christ) then there is one thing we have
>missed.  Christ had to have been female.  Parthenogenic animals only give
>birth to other parthenogenic females, male animals don't exist in a
>parthenogenic species.  (By the way this also means that neither christ nor
>mary were Homo sapiens sapiens, as this parthenogenesis event most likely
>would make them be considered a different species (or perhaps subspecies)
>
>        Richard pocklington

1 COR 2:14 - But a natural man (that's you) does not accept the things of
of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot under-
stand them, because they (the issues debated) are spiritually appraised.

JER 29:12-13 Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will lis
ten to you.  (13) And you will seek Me and find Me,  when you search for Me
with all your heart.

If you *truly* want to understand the virgin birth you might want to apply
Jeremiah.  Of course, that's your choice.  Please don't flame me for posting
this.  BC205CS@OPIE.BGSU.EDU from alt.satanism invited me to post over here.
Even sent me the alt.athiest FAQ.  Heck, I was content to keep my mouth
shut.

Chris Colvin
former Athiest
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18251 sci.skeptic:17229 talk.origins:12306
From: bruce@cortex.dixie.com (R. Bruce Rakes)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.messianic,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:27:54 GMT
Organization: Elekta Instruments, Inc.

grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:

>onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>: Your statement is true, but your example iswrong.
>: 
>: The darker form already existed, it never evolved (it evolved, but
>: not after the industrial revolution.). However, the majority of the
>: moths was white. Then, through natural selection, the darker moths
>: gradually became the most successful.
>: 
>: The moths are an example of natural selection, NOT of evolution. 
>: 

>Evolution is change in a population's gene pool over time.  This
>_includes_ changes in allele frequencies.  The example cited is
>correctly called evolution.

Correct.  However, I believe the poster intended to say that the
moth example is is not a valid example of "speciation".

-- 
R. Bruce Rakes, Software Systems Manager
Elekta Instruments, Inc.  1926 Northlake Pkwy, Tucker, GA 30084
Voice:(404)723-0030 FAX:(404)723-0258 email: bruce@cortex.dixie.com
 
-- 
R. Bruce Rakes, Software Systems Manager
Elekta Instruments, Inc.  1926 Northlake Pkwy, Tucker, GA 30084
Voice:(404)723-0030 FAX:(404)723-0258 email: bruce@cortex.dixie.com
From: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Test For True Christians
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:33:31 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

U55870@uicvm.uic.edu (David James Alexander Hanley) writes:

>  I have often asked christians to demonstrate this to me ( drinking poison
>, handling snakes ) and I have yet to have one take me up on the offer.
>I wonder why? :) . Mabye they have weak faith?

Are you familiar with "snake handling" groups?  These are charismatic
churches that use snakes (usually rattlesnakes, I think) in their
services.  I believe they are found primarily in the Appalachians,
e.g. West Virginia.  I've seen a film of one of their services.  They
really do handle the snakes.  People get bitten from time to time.  I
guess you're not asking the right Christians.
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Date: 30 Sep 92 08:48:34 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Sep30.133017.164697@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
>>	The problem with your position is that demons do not
>>exist.                                                  ~~~
> ~~~~~
>But demons DO exist.  Just because you haven't (or think that you
>haven't) come across them or been influenced by them does not mean
>that they don't exist.

I heard from a friend of a friend's brother, that on Jan 13, 1836, all
the angels finally got fed up with those pesky demons.  I heard that
the angels used the power of Christ to kill off the demons once and
for all.  So, the original poster is correct.  There aren't any demons
any more.  Just angels.  But they're nice.

On a completely unrelated note, I hear that they have these padded rooms
where they sometimes put people who are completely bonkers.  Does anybody
know what the difference is between the people residing inside these rooms,
and those residing on the outside?
--
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_
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:17993 talk.religion.misc:17120
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Coexistence of Heaven & Hell
Keywords: Luke 14: 26
Date: 23 Sep 92 09:08:06 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
> In article <10797@spark.ed.ac.uk>, 
> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes...
> >This can't be.  If you are able to love someone who is separated from
> >God, then you obviously can't be united with God yourself.  Remember
> >what Jesus said about hating one's relatives before joining him, and
> >then about loving one's fellow faithful ones?
> 
> In article <1992Sep20.033416.18760@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> 
> rose@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu writes:
> >An atheist would see this as the satire that it is.  A theist might have 
> >more difficulty seeing it as satire, and be misguided.
> 
> I am neither atheist nor theist, but tell me, what is the satire that
> you see? Here is the command from Jesus himself:
> Luke 14:26 [KJV]
> If any man come to me, and HATE not his father, and mother, and wife,
> and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he
> cannot be my disciple.
> Why do you see this as satirical? Isn't it the ABSOLUTE truth?

It certainly doesn't look satirical to me.  Christians have spent much time
praying for the soul of my girlfriend; she left the flock, you see.  I think
I'm thought to be a bad influence on her.

Mind you, as evil fornicators I suppose we'll both go straight to hell
anyway.

But I've known Christians to try to deliberately break up healthy
relationships because one of those involved is not in the church.  This kind
of malign influence from well-meaning Christians is quite commonplace.  So
much for individual choice, eh?


mathew
-- 
"He is heterosexual.  It is a sort of breath of fresh air, isn't it?  The
 indecent assault, an expression of his sexuality." -- Judge Geoffrey Jones
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: joeb@pdnfido.fidonet.org (Joe Beiter)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God is responsible for the death of Jesus
Date: 6 Oct 92 02:27:34 GMT
Organization: The Source for Source Pub Access Unix

In article <1992Oct05.030032.5778@convex.com> tonyp@convex.com (honey bunny) writes:
>STATEMENT:
>
>o God killed Jesus.

Well God's problem was the reason why Jesus had to be killed.  Jesus had
to take the rap of 'our' screwups so 'we' would not have a problem with
God any longer.

>o That's right: God is the *ONLY* one responsible for Jesus' death.

Well not entirely.  Jesus had a choice so he could have decided not to
die.  It was his right to refuse.  He did not sin therefore he did not
have to die.

>
>CHRISTIAN FACTS: 
>
>o God is all-powerful.

At least as far as we're concerned.

>o God knows everything. Everything that has happened, everything
>  that will happen.

So I'm told.

>o God knew that if he put his son here his son would be killed.

No, God knew he would put his son here and that his son would choose
to be killed.

>o Since God knew this, he is an accessory to the crime.

What crime?

>
>  Suppose you have a child, or a "lamb", and you put it out in
>  your fields - where you *know* the wolves will kill it. Who is
>  responsible for its death: the wolves, or you?
>

What if that was the only way you could save the rest of the herd and 
you knew that you could raise the lamb from the dead anyway?

>  The wolves were acting as you *knew* they would. They did *just*
>  what you expected them to do. It's *your* fault the child died.

yea and now arn't they pissed!

>o God gave his only begotten son....

so that whoever shall belive in him shall not perish but have
eternal life!

(BTW: In case you ever wondered about the kooks at ball games that hold
      up posters saying "JOHN 3:16!", thats the verse)

>  Now wait a minute. He's God. He can make *all* the sons he wants.
>  In fact, all the Nuns wear a wedding band, hoping for the Immaculate
>  Conception (didn't he play for the Mets?). He can make 'em all pregnant
>  at once. Don't blame mankind just because he only created one son.

Prehaps he only wanted one son.  But now that you mention it, because he DID
let his son die, he has gained hundreds of thousands of sons (Christians!)
It is however mankind's problem that Jesus died to solve.  I've never read
nor heard that God was out for vengence of the death of his son.

>  A mother of father that gave their only son to war, now that's something
>  to be revered.

ain't gonna touch that.

- JoeB

-- 
-=@=-=@=-=@=-=@=-::
- JoeB           Joe.Beiter@HauppaugeNY.NCR.COM
                 joeb@pdnfido.fidonet.org
-=@=-=@=-=@=-=@=-::
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<1992Oct01.084647.24107@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 10:09:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct01.084647.24107@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca 
(Douglas Graham) writes:

   >Science is the way we learn
   >about the universe.  Among other things, religion is the way we put a cap
   >on how much we learn, and also allows us to compartmentalize our knowledge
   >to avoid having to deal with some humbling truths about ourselves and our
   >place in the universe.

  In your remarks about what religion "is", you are really talking
about how you perceive religion, and mostly how you perceive the role
of Christianity in your own society. Although your perspective has its
own validity, it is very limited perspective. It's quite possible to
criticize the role and effects of religion in society as harshly as
one wishes without making sweeping and untenable assertions about what
"religion is".  Also, such assertions are very boring. Wouldn't it be
more interesting to consider e.g. what Einstein might have meant by
saying that "a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot
exist", or how different religious traditions have in fact conceived
"our place in the universe"?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 14:45:33 GMT

In article <TORKEL.92Oct1141404@isis.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>In article <1992Oct01.115714.26347@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca 
>(Douglas Graham) writes:
>
>   >Yes, it would be possible.  But it wouldn't be what I meant.
>
>  Quite so. You want to utter these predictable tirades and derive
>some satisfaction from delivering them.

Well, you may not have to put up with them much longer.  I use to think
that there was something in humankind worth fighting for.  Slowly, but
surely, due partly to stuffed shirt turds like yourself, I'm changing
my mind on that.  I'm realizing that I really don't like people much.

>But they have very little
>point since nothing you say suggests that you know or understand
>anything about religion or religious traditions.

Heh.  We can sit and bash Christianity all day long, and you say
nothing.  When I generalize the bashing to all religions, you
get upset.  I can only assume that you think that your religion,
and your religious traditions have merit.  Care to explain what
they are?  Personally, I think it is traditions of any kind that
we do not need at this point in time.  If everybody keeps doing
the same things, how is anything going to change?

>Their effect is
>therefore chiefly to diminish the force of any justified criticism
>or accurate observation found in your articles.

I don't suppose that'll be much of a problem, since, as you've
pointed out above, I know nothing about religion and religious
traditions, and therefore couldn't possibly have any justified
criticism or accurate observations to make.

Was this really the best response you could come up with to my
article?  I mean, if I'm spouting nonsense, then why not include
the nonsense in your response, and show me where I went wrong?
--
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: stuart@stipple.seas.upenn.edu (Joseph Stuart)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Star Trek transporters and the soul (Re: faith vs. reason)
Date: 26 Sep 92 14:14:09 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <iuuLRB2w165w@mantis.co.uk> jonathan@mantis.co.uk (Jonathan Egre') writes:
>Brother Redeye <c9221777@cc.newcastle.edu.au> writes:
>
>> In article <1686825B1.PKJAMES@UKCC.UKY.EDU>, PKJAMES@UKCC.UKY.EDU writes:
>> > Interesting...?  I may sound psychotic, but one time watching Star Trek,
>> > I happened to think about what the transporter did.  Did it "copy" with
>> > atoms from the new place or truly "transport" the original ones a a unit
>> > through time and space.  That made me question what "identity" was.  Was
>> > it the dynamic processes the atoms were going through, or the atoms
>> > themself that were my soul-identity, or both?

The dynamic processes and the information contained within the structure of
the body are the important things here.  The atoms in your body are being
replaced all of the time, and the turnaround rate is surprisingly low.
I remember an experiment, sorry I can't remember the researchers, where
a radioactive isotope of carbon was introduced into the brains of mammals.
The radioactive atoms became incorportated into the tissue of the brains,
replacing previously present atoms.  The researchers then monitored the
radioactivity to measure how long the new atoms remained incorporated into
the brain.  I don't remember the numbers, but the results indicated,
from the original concentration of the introduced radioactive isotopes, and
the lenght of time over which they remained in the system, that the material
comprising the brains of the mammals would be completely replaces by
new material (well 99.99%...) every three to four months.  Our bodies are
constantly interacting with the environment, and the physical materials
are constantly changing.  The only thing that really remains constant is
the organisation of the materials into a 'being'.

>Of course, it is impossible (even in a thought experiment) to determine the
>position and movement of every sub-atomic particle in a person, even if we
>were permitted to cut the person up; this is the basis for Heisenberg's (sp?)
>Uncertainty Principle.  Hence, I do not believe that exact duplication is 
>possible even in theory; therefore exact duplication of the soul is also 
>impossible.


One doesn't necessarily have to determine the position and momentum of
every particle to reproduce the body.  If there were some method to
analyse the waveforms produced by the matter (this is science fiction)
then perhaps one could reproduce that, and hence make an exact copy
down to the smallest particle.  You see, the equations which govern
the propagation of the quantum mechanical waves are completely deterministic
There is no uncertainty involved until one tries to interpret the waves
as particles and hence to localise them in space.  Of course, the
waves of QM are not measurable directly, but maybe in a Star Trek world....


scott
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: TV vs Religion
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:26:03 GMT
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN

mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>A couple of nights ago Channel 4 showed a religious programme with a
>difference.  It was presented by secular humanists, and aimed to present the
>case *against* religion.
..
>3. Many religions encourage their followers to mutilate young girls in
>   horrific and painful circumcision rituals, as part of their "historical
>   culture".  (That was the phrase used by a Moslem who tried to argue that
>   it wasn't Islam doing it, it was Islam's historical culture.)  They showed
>   a sickening film of this ritual.

It's an interesting bit of cultural myopia to note that male circumcision
wasn't (apparently) mentioned by either side.  Cutting off part of a boy's
penis is just as irrational as cutting off part of a girl's vagina, but
since the former is more common in western societies, it isn't even seen.

I had sent a similar posting to soc.religion.christian months ago, when female
circumcision was mentioned; my posting was rejected, because female ritual
genital mutilation is bad, while male ritual genital mutilation is normal
and on instructions from god (my paraphrase of the moderator's reasons).

While it's true that there are many different degrees of both male & female
infant genital modification (eunuchs, castrati, cliterectomy, etc), I think
it is a huge mistake to condemn practices of another culture while failing
to condemn a very similar practice in your own culture; both practices
should be severely questioned.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
From: rose@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (Kermit Rose)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Let's get this square circle s**t straight once and for all
Date: 23 Sep 92 16:04:07 GMT
Reply-To: rose@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu
Organization: Florida State University

In article <WORKQUEUE-101.920910092130.480@fs1.manchester-computing-centre.ac.uk>, ZLSIIDA@fs1.manchester-computing-centre.ac.UK (David Budd) writes...
>I get really fed up with all the 'square circle' stuff I see.
>Am I the only one who remembers that the original 'square circle
>problem' was whether or not there is a geometrical construction which
>will give a square and a circle (separate objects!!!) having the same
>perimeter length [or was it   enclosing the same area ?] ???
> 
>The net is the only place I've ever seen a form of words implying
>that a piece of geometry could be both square and circular
>simultaneously.  Maybe it's to do with american and english being
>different languages or something, but I had to get it off my chest...

The Classical problem was indeed to make a circle with the same area as a 
given square.  This problem is equivalent to constructing a line equal in 
length to the square root of pi.  Equally impossible with straight edge and 
compass only would be to construct a square and circle with the same 
perimeter.

I did not see any of the posts that used the phrase 'square circle', so I 
do not know what if anything 'square circle' could have meant in them.  I would 
guess that some valid meaning was meant, and therefore it could not have 
referred to a figure that was at the same time a circle and a square.

rose@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu          To be sure I see your response, use e-mail.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You may post, repost, or publish ANY communication received from me.
Have you made your energy matter today?