HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: frank@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner)
Subject: Re: What if there is a god?
Originator: frank@karner.austin.ibm.com
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:39:18 GMT
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division


In article <910773f.27.724114539@ace.acadiau.ca>, 910773f@ace.acadiau.ca (HEATHER LEE FYFFE) writes:

drivel deleted...
> God is just the ultimate parent.  And someday, we'll all say, gosh, He was 
> right.
> 
> Thanks for your time,
> 
> The Buzzard

Ultimate parent!  The powers of imagination.  I bet that you can
attest to an intimate communion with god and an interaction on par with
your "earthly" parents.

No better believers than those who WANT to believe.  At all costs, and
against all natural evidence to the contrary.  I guess belief really
stands for dulling of the senses and escapism from reality.
-- 

         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
From: dcp@teak05.cray.com (Dennis Parker)
Subject: Re: It's a joke son (was Re: You should be a Christian because):
Originator: dcp@teak05
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:02:56 CST


In article <1992Dec17.200204.4415@cs.cornell.edu>, rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu (Roderick Moten) writes:
> In article <1992Dec15.023056.2115@jcnpc.cmhnet.org>, mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike 
> |> B. What relevance does your question have anyway?
> 
> I want to know whether atheist understand what makes a person 
> a Christian.

Since us Christians can't agree on exactly what makes a person a Christian, how
is an atheist going to know?

- Dennis Parker
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Abortion: When does life begin?
Date: 19 Dec 92 17:31:06 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <n11b8t@ofa123.fidonet.org> 
David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

> The abortion issue really boils down to a question of CONTROL
> and DOMINATION by rich, powerful white males, of women, to continue

The polls tend to indicate that 'rich, white males' support  
abortion rights much more so than the general population.
If you want to generate a conspiracy theory, perhaps you
should target some other group.  Here are some results from 
a 1991 Gallup Poll:

---
  Question: Do you think abortions should be legal under any
  circumstances, legal under only certain circumstances, or
  illegal in all circumstances?

                  Always   Certain         Never   No        No. of
                  Legal    Circumstances   Legal   Opinion   Interviews
Sex
  National        33%      49%             14%     4%        1005
  Male            32       51              13      4         503 
  Female          34       48              14      4         502 
Income
  $50,000 & over  48       41              8       3         235 
  $30,000-49,999  37       53             10      <1%        255
  $20,000-29,999  26       53             17       4         194
  Under $20,000   28       49             18       5         262
Race
  White           33       50             13       4         879
  Non-White       30       48             21       1         117
---


Doug Holtsinger
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 17 Dec 1992 01:27:28 CST
From: <U16244@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Did Muslims Ever Forcibly Convert Others to Their Religion?
Distribution: usa

  Oh, yes, Muslims have NEVER forcibly converted other religions.  All
those religious wars, especially the many invasions and slaugher in
Africa and more notably the indian subcontinent were simply accidential
misdirections of rabid fanatical men who just happened to be armed
with scimitars and decided to pillage and molest the people as long as
they were there.  Of course, that fact that that they would be guaranteed
a spot in heaven if they died in battle in no way affected their opinions.

  Shure, I'm sure your "friend" can point out passeges in the Qu'aran that
make it look like a peace-and-light book, but this has not stopped it
from being one of the bloodiest religions in history, along with
christianity, which also claims to be peace-and-light while fostering
violence.  In fact, IMHO, Islam is quite a bit worse in this regard.


  -CR
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 17 Dec 92 15:58:09 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <ReFXVB9w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>> To add more fuel to the fire, in the book "The Day America Told the Truth",
>> (a collection of surveys), in the religion section, there are these figures:
>> 
>>                             Percentage who agree
>> Statement                  Protestants Catholics Jews
>> Believe in God                 97         98      87
>> If believe:
>>  Very sure of God's existence  73         65      27
>> ...
>> Not at all religious            7          6      30
> 
> Shouldn't "Believe in God" and "Not at all religious" add up to less
> than 100%?

   I suspect that some people who said "not at all religious" meant 
that they don't go to church, not that they don't believe in God.
I'm more curious to know how they put people into these categories;
if someone's not religious how do you tell if they're Protestant or
Catholic?

Karl 
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Atheists should mind their own damn business
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:36:10 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: alt.atheism

In article <1992Dec16.060818.2936@jcnpc.cmhnet.org>, mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org
(Mike A. McAngus) wrote:
> What was wrong with "E Pluribus Unum?"  Why do all those "religious symbol[s]" 
> on the municipal seals deal exclusivly with the christian religion.  WHY DO I 
> HAVE TO PAY INCREASINGLY HIGH TAXES BECAUSE THE CHURCHES OF AMERICA ARE BUYING 
> UP REALESTATE AND TAKING THAT PROPERTY OUT OF THE TAX ROLES?!?!?!?!?

I personally like the Freemason pyramid on the notes. Wonder what 
Roman Catholics think about that when they use dollar bills?

Cheers,
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 18:34:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.202632.9584@raven.alaska.edu>,
fsrey@rama.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Rex E. Young) writes:
|>In article <1992Dec11.054012.10468@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen  
|>Kilmer) writes:
|>> Answer 1:
|>> 
|>> There is a God-shaped hole in every person, and without God, a person
|>> is empty.
|>> 
|>> Answer 2:
|>> 
|>> Christianity is true.
|>> 
|>> -jen
|>
|>What proof do you offer?
|>
Silly Rex!  God is based on Faith!  With Proof, there is no
Faith.  If there is no Faith, there is no God.  Since there
is no Proof (ala Babel fish), then we have Faith.  Therefore,
God Exists.  Wait a minute....isn't that Proof? (*POOF!*)
Damn!  Another concept bites the dust.

;)

Brian  /-|-\   
                          
(Like my fundie-font?  Puts the caps in Just the Right places.
 Well, sometimes.)
From: mccall3080@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: is it necessary to hate?
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:56:48 -0600
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

        I've been reading this group for little under a semester and I have
found some great comfort in reading much of what I have read here on the group
and the responses that I receive in e-mail.  There is one problem that I have.
        I am an atheist and will always be one as I suspect most of you all are
too.  And I too don't like the messages that some Christians send to me.  I
feel they are infringing on  my right to my beliefs, however, I WILL not slam
them for the beliefs that they do have.  I think that I can be better than
that.
        One of the problems I have had with people with religions is that they
don't respect other people's choices.  Catholics dislike Lutherans, Christians
dislike the Jewish, etc.  There is so much religion bashing that I found it
sickening.  So here I am an atheist and I KNOW that the majority of people do
not respect the decision I have made about that, but I will deal with that.  In
my mind I know that I am better than many in that respect.  They may not
respect me, but I will respect them.
        I somehow thought that the majority of atheists would be the same way,
but I see many people who find it necessary to go out of their way to bash
people with religions.  Why is it necessary to do that?  I know that it gets
annoying when people with religions won't leave you alone and it is easy to
retaliate, but it is not doing you or other atheist any good.  You are just
proving to people with religion how irrational and full of anger you really
are.
        So this is my problem and the only think I ask of you, fellow atheists,
is that you think before you flame.  Since we are a minority, everything you
say and do will reflect upon all atheists.  Maybe this isn't the way it should
be, but it is the way it is.

Melissa
An Iowa raised Atheist
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why I became an Athiest (was: frustrations with christianity)
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:35:35 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <Bz2M7A.1nD@acsu.buffalo.edu> boyd@acsu.buffalo.edu (Daniel F Boyd) writes:
>If you're getting dragged to Mass, then you've got trouble; if I were
>your 'atheist pastor' I'd say, "Well... you can go, BUT!  I'd BETTER
>NOT CATCH YOU PRAYING!" ;-)

  And if you're feeling particularly pernicious, go to the mass and
  be sure to get into the communion line.  I've seen what happens if
  the wafer were to "accidentally" fall on the ground.  Worse yet, I
  saw a non-Catholic make the mistake of placing one in his pocket
  for later consumption.  Makes for very bad Karma.

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

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Science and choice  
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:09:08 GMT

In article <BzDr52.3BI@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Shawn Green) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.030334.20463@nmsu.edu> epowers@spock.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) writes:
>  [stuff about science implying determinism deleted]
>
>>	So you must "choose":  either you must base an important part of your  
>>philosophy on science and deny free will, or you'll have to find something  
>>outside of science to base it on.
>
>I will quickly admit that I am way out of my depth here, so maybe someone who
>knows something can help me out.  Doesn't chaos theory say that not every
>event could be predicted even if you had perfect knowledge of everything that
>was happening in the universe at that moment in time?  If this is true, science
>would not necessitate a deterministic philosophy.
>
>Comments/corrections from any net.physics-types?
>
>
>Shawn Green
>greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu

Not quite right. According to chaos theory, minute fifferences in 
starting conditions will cause completely divergant results. Furthermore,
accordding to the uncertainty principle, starting positions can't be exactly
known. From these two we can conclude that whether or not the universe
is deterministic, we, as observers, can never completely determine what 
will occur.

Robert Johnston

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sidney@b11.b11.ingr.com (Sidney Smith)
Subject: Judge Sends Girl To Church
Summary: Judge Sends Girl To Church
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Distribution: alt.atheism
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:29:18 GMT


I was recently watching COURT TV when something very
disturbing happened. They were showing different
juvenile cases in a Texas court room, when the judge
ordered a little girl to go to church and ask her
pastor what church work she should perform for
punishment. The judge gave her a specific number of
hours of "community service" to perform at her church,
and told her to tell her pastor to call the judge up
and report the young girl's progress. I don't see
how the judge can call this "community service".

If anyone is a member of an atheist organization that
would be interested in correcting this obvious
disregard for the constitution, please forward this
information to them. Following is the name of the
offending judge, she may be a great judge otherwise,
but this practice should be stopped.

	Judge Cheryl Cooper
	Beaumont, Texas

--------------------------------
- Sidney Smith                 -
- Huntsville, Alabama          -
- (205) 730-5600               -
- sidney@elvis.b11.ingr.com    -
--------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel)
Subject: commonsense argument for cultural creation of religion
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:38:12 GMT

Here is something for this group to discuss.  Christianity was almost 
certainly invented by Man as deduced from this easily understood argument,

1) There are N religions in the world (where N is some whole number that is 
   pretty large ~100 or 200)

2) Since most religions have exclusive and conflicting tenets to each other,
   only one of the N can be true.
   
3) if one religion is true, then the other N - 1 of them are false

4) the N - 1 false religions then have to be the result of something other
   than revelation from god, i.e. they are invented by Man (or someone other
   than god, Satan?).
   
5) then it would seem MUCH more likely to be true that we are mistaken that
   christianity was from a god since it is simpler to believe that the same
   method that created in the others explains all religions including
   Christianity (Occam's Razor).
   
Mark
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Challenge to Agnostics
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:03:00 GMT

All this defining of Atheism and agnosticism has got my head spinning. Now, 
when I was an agnostic I attempted to come up with a definition of "knowledge"
because agnostics claim that knowledge about God is uncertain or unobtainable.
It seems to me that one must define knowledge before making claims about it.

I found that limiting knowledge to only that which is 100% certain to be rather
like chasing one's shadow, unobtainable and of limited use. You end up with
anything is possible but nothing is certain, and the only thing we know is that
we know nothing. This is what leads people to make outrageous claims like 
babies don't feel pain. This is just a philosophical dead end.

So this counterintuitive concept left me wanting. It failed the common sense
test. I think that any definition of knowledge must fit with what we can
agree that we "know" prior to the definition. In other words, I think that the
definition should be worked backwards from what we say we know. At least for
examination purposes.

What I was left with was a pragmatic, scientific, probabilistic definition of
knowledge, somewhat like what  Simon Clippingdale(tm) has espoused here in 
parts. So we don't have to qualify the fact that we know God doesn't exist
because it doesn't have to be 100%. How much of any of our knowledge is 100%?

To make a long post short (too late), what I want to know from agnostics, or 
anybody for that matter, is how do you define knowledge? To test your 
definition, would you say we know any of the following to exist: black holes,
God, quarks, atoms, electrons, etc...(don' forget our favorite, gravity).

Jim Copeland
--
I have looked into the Abyss... And I liked what I saw.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|      Reporter: "Mr. Gandhi, What do you think of Western Civilization?"    |
|      Mr. Gandhi: "I think it would be a good idea!"                        |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: Dealing with annoying e-mail: A real life example!
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 03:15:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.070419.9812@phyrql.Alt.ZA> lucio@proxima.Alt.ZA writes:
>ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>
>> Even if it was unsolicited and unwelcome, I still think posting email
>>witohut permission is out of line. A simple pointer to the FAQ would
>>take as much time as posting this would... Just MHO.
>
>It may be that I have a different ethic, but I fail to see why I need
>the sender's permission to post unsolicited, and often offensive personal
>e-Mail.  My permission wasn't requested, so why should I return the
>favour?
>
>I'd like to solicit opinions in this matter, as I think the issue has
>obviously been accepted without discussion for too long...

I agree with Ray.  Posting e-mail without permission is a breach of
netiquette.  Whether it's unsolicited e-mail or not, whether it's
*offensive* e-mail or not, is beside the point.  If your correspondent
had meant for us all to read what he had e-mailed you, he would have
just posted it to a newsgroup, no?  

SD
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: s0499528@let.rug.nl (R. Dijkhuis)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: Faculteit der Letteren, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, NL
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 09:34:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.165130.11351@u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
>Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
>Date: 11 Dec 92 16:51:30 GMT
>In article <1992Dec11.054012.10468@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>Answer 1:
>>
>>There is a God-shaped hole in every person, and without God, a person
>>is empty.
>
>What sort of geometry is necessary to construct this
>god-shaped hole, given that god cannot even produce
>a good approximation of pi?
>
>If you mean that every person has some sort of spiritual
>"longing" which only your interpretation of the divine
>can satisfy, you are incorrect, and this can be 
>shown empirically.
>
>>Answer 2:
>>
>>Christianity is true.
>
>What devastating logic!  But, since your first answer
>is demonstrably wrong, there is not a lot of confidence
>that your second answer is any better.
>
>
>-- 
>| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
>| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Hey......didn't you think this poster was kidding? I did, and I'm very 
surprised that at least two people have taken the trouble to follow up on 
this.

I found it so obviously ridiculous, especially Answer 1, that I assumed it 
was a joke, and a good one, too.

Reinder
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: party ideas
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:46:37 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Dec15.142409.14824@hemlock.cray.com> maf@cray.com (Mike Fenton) writes:

>Hello alt.atheists.  I'm organizing a party for friends who like myself
>get sick and tired of all the religious dogma we are subjected to during
>the holiday season.  My brother found a wonderful bust of jesus candle at
>a garage sale so the party has become a "Let's Burn Jesus" party.  
>Everybody is bringing a religious icon candle to add to the flames.  I am
>soliciting other ideas for the party, such as music (maybe Frank Zappa),
>drinks (how about a flaming jesus?), or activities.  I thought that this
>newsgroup would be an appropriate place to post.  I apoligize to anyone 
>who feels otherwise.  You may respond by posting to this newsgroup or
>feel free to send me email directly maf@cray.com
>Thanks in advance.
>Mike

	How about adding some Nietzsche and Einstein posters? 

	Don't forget an old favorite, bible burning bon-fire.
		Relive the inquisition!

		[ make sure you check with local fire codes ]

	All dress up as your favorite religious person, Jesus, the Pope,
Mary, etc...

		

		"God is Dead"  

		- Friedrich Nietzsche
From: Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org (Ian Douglas)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: is it necessary to hate?
Date: 20 Dec 92 09:07:00 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 5:7102/119 - Zero 2 Infinity, CT

Hi All!

On 19 Dec 92, Steve Hayes wrote to All:

 SH> I am a Christian, and moderator of a Christian conference on Fidonet,
 SH> where a couple of atheists have been making propaganda for their cause.
 SH> Well, not really - only one of them is. The other is asking questions.

I suppose I should set the record straight..:-)
At the moment there is only one atheist there (yours truly). The other is an agnostic, and the other (3rd) no longer gets that conference.

 SH> But it's all fairly amicable, and when the propagandist one crossposts
 SH> too much stuff from here, I ask him to think what the response here would
 SH> be if I crossposted a lot of fundamentalist tracts.

Yes it is fairly amicable, due to your laid back style of moderating. :-) What other Christian conference would discuss whether purple exists or not?

I crossposted ONE 'atheist propaganda' message. Is that what you mean by 'too much'? I did crosspost two more, but they were 'Christian propaganda', from the summary of The Mind of the Bible Believer.

I did not cross post it for propaganda purposes, but merely to start a discussion. No body could refute what was said, so they did not.
It seems to me that you don't mind too much when I make 'atheist propaganda' (not that I feel that I do), but if I post something which is TOO good, then you get upset. But that's just my perception, which is no doubt totally erroneous.

Part of the reason that I take part in that conference is to give Christians a feel of what it is like to be bombarded all day every day (ok, hyperbole) by Christian propaganda, via the media. It is insulting to my intelligence to have to put up with that mythology. Wasn't there a quote somewhere about splints and logs in eyes....

 SH> I would expect Christians generally to be a bit more assertive about
 SH> what they believe than atheists. Why? Because I think Christians have
 SH> something more in common.

"Go into all the world, making disciples of all men."

 SH> ... Sudden prayers make God jump

So much for omniscience :-)

Cheers, Ian


--  
INTERNET: Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism