HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Editing money: I LIKE IT! I LIKE IT!
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:08:04 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu

In article <MMEYER.92Dec15085923@m2.dseg.ti.com> mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes:
>In article <1giqhdINN2an@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (
Adam Trent Phillips) writes:>> I thought "defacing" US currency was a crime 
or something like that ?>
>	Only if it is done with intent to defraud, like trimming
>pennies to the size of dimes for use in vending machines.  At least
>that is my understanding.

	Banks and businesses "deface" money all the time. Have you ever come 
acrost a bill with some numbers stamped/burned on them? I suppose this is so 
they can track a bundle of money in their possession. Why they just can't 
use the "unique" number on the bill, I don't know. 
	Heck, even K-mart is doing it. They send "Santa Bills". Its 
basically a $1 bill, but with a picture of Santa glued over Washington.
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: "Keep Christ in Christmas"
Date: 13 Dec 92 02:44:20 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu

sheikh@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu (rizwan a sheikh) writes:

>parsons@is.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:

>>Anyway, when was the
>>last time religion came up as a subject in your local elections?  I can 
>>only speak for my locale, but the issue has never been raised about what 
>>a candidate's religious affiliations are.  Are these "stealth candidates"
>>_actively_ hiding their affiliations...

>Yes, but it is more than hiding religious affiliations, it is concealing the
>fact that they are fundamentalists with fundamentalist beliefs.

So, how does the article define 'fundamentalists' and 'fundamentalist 
beliefs'?  And for that matter, how do you define them?

-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@godel.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Challenge to Agnostics
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 06:45:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.030300.28523@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
>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%?

Of course you're right here.  The problem is that there are a lot of "arguments"
against atheism which really do depend on the 100% part, and whenever someone
uses one of them, we have to keep repeating "it's not 100%" until someone
realizes it....
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
From: cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edmund Joseph Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Non-Religious Definition to Atheism
Date: 12 Dec 1992 02:13:54 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


The term "atheism" is a term that was created by religious  
individuals what "we" lack that they have--which is a belief
in some supernatural force. I'm knew to this list so I'm not
sure when I say "we" if I'm mean the majority of atheists on
this list. So from this point on, I will speak for myself.

I became an atheist because I do not believe that some  
supernatural force or forces are having a potent influence
on happenstance. A human being, in my eyes, has no more       
spirituality than an animal, a plant, or a rock. Yet, a
human being has physical attributes which I would trade
for those of another physical entity...NOT. (I forgot the
"NOT" in the previous line.) A human being is nothing
more than what you obtain from it through your senses.

Also, atheism defines something negatively. Whenever you
define something negatively, it has negative connotations.
Atheism is somewhat connotative of amorality or a lack of
values in popular context. I would suggest a more positive
term. Here are my suggestions:

MATERIALIST
SENSORISTS
MATERIALISTIC UTILITARIANS.

I'm not very versed in philosophy so I think they're might
be more apt terms than these. Once we more or less accept
a term or terms, I would suggest this term be used in
place of the word "atheist."

Virtually,

Edmund J. Ryan
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sheikh@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu (rizwan a sheikh)
Subject: Re: Non-Religious Definition to Atheism
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:15:05 GMT

In article <RLK.92Dec12200706@underprize.think.com> rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.003734.5087@cis.ohio-state.edu> sheikh@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu (rizwan a sheikh) writes:
>
>   In article <Bz5zCI.D5A@news.cso.uiuc.edu> pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j) writes:
>   >>Also, atheism defines something negatively. Whenever you
>   >>define something negatively, it has negative connotations.
>   >>Atheism is somewhat connotative of amorality or a lack of
>   >>values in popular context. I would suggest a more positive
>   >>term. Here are my suggestions:
>   >
>   >>MATERIALIST
>   >>SENSORISTS
>   >>MATERIALISTIC UTILITARIANS.
>   >
>   >I personally use "OBJECTIVIST", but that's an Ayn Rand definition.
>   >Perhaps you could use "RATIONALIST" OR "REALIST".
>
>   How about free-thinker.
>   Jim Copeland
>
>You'd be amazed just how negatively people react to that, too.  Worse,
>it's not because they feel they're being accused of not thinking freely.

That's the idea...

Jim Copeland
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: Editing money: I LIKE IT! I LIKE IT!
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:59:23 GMT

In article <1giqhdINN2an@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
> I thought "defacing" US currency was a crime or something like that ?

	Only if it is done with intent to defraud, like trimming
pennies to the size of dimes for use in vending machines.  At least
that is my understanding.

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.,  Plano TX                       +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
  When an eel bites your thigh / As you're just swimming by / That's a moray...
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Quotes from the Bible.
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:21:41 GMT

Could anyone help me with finding these topics in the Bible:

Pi=3
The earth is flat. 
The sun revolves around the earth.



Thanx in advance.


Onar.




Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: "Keep Christ in Christmas"
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:26:13 GMT

In article <parsons.724175419@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>
> As for the .sig, no matter what I say, the quote will always be true.
>
>-- 
> Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
> parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |


Right on, Scott. Now we're moving along at a *real* rate of knots.

Yes, no matter what you, I, Mickey Mouse or anybody ever says, the quote
will always be true. Yup. That's because it's a tautology. As such it is
entirely devoid of meaning and serves only to irritate and to make you
sound like a pious drongo. But what the heck, I said so before, except
I think I forgot the adjective `smug'. My apologies.

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: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Hilarious Christian Propaganda...
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:19:29 GMT

In article <gDHVVB1w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>hbcs1010@blurt.oswego.edu writes:
>> as i recall, the fundamentalists tried to get webster's dictionary banned in
>> tennessee(?) some years ago. and, i believe, cinderella and a few other fairy
>> tales. says a lot for their mind(?)set, doesn't it?
>
>I bet I can name a book of fairy tales they didn't try to ban...

I still love the fact that a group in California tried to get C.S.
Lewis's Narnia books removed from schools because they were satanic.

--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Editing money: I LIKE IT! I LIKE IT!
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 11:24:46 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

me@vikings.austin.ibm.com (Michael E) writes:
> In article <MMEYER.92Dec14095020@m2.dseg.ti.com> mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark 
> >In article <1992Dec12.071137.16343@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il
> >> If you don't like "In God We Trust" on US Currency,
> >
> >	... cross it out.  This post has inspired me to resume what I
> >had been doing a few years ago - cross out that obnoxious quip on
> >every piece of paper currency that crosses my path.  Thanks.
> 
> What a magnificent protest method! 

I think there would probably be a market for little white and green stickers
saying '"Bob"' or 'Satan' or '666'.


mathew

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Religion = Anything that's fun is bad.
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 01:32:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.233601.26377@bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.222145.3761@bmerh85.bnr.ca>,
>dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>|>Please explain what you think "open-minded" means because I think that
>|>you and I have different definitions, and that difference often leads
>|>me to get a bit pissed at a lot of your articles.
>
>Sorry.  I take 'open-minded' as meaning 'willing to try new ideas;
>unprejudiced viewpoint'.  I'm saying that an open-mined person
>wouldn't think that their viewpoint is the only rational one.

It depends on the subject.  On the subject of gods, the only
rational viewpoint is that there aren't any.  Willingness to
consider new ideas is not the same as granting that those ideas
have any merit.  I might consider the idea that earth is really
flat, and completely reject it.  That doesn't make me closed-minded.
Ditto for gods.

>|>For instance, in talk.religion.misc, you recently responded to Roderick
>|>Moten's rantings about demons and things by calling it "superstitious
>|>drivel" or something similar.  Were you being closed-minded?
>
>?Huh?  I think you have me confused with someone else.
>I went back to my saved articles and only found two
>that involved Rod's posts and neither had anything to
>do with demons.

The exchange went as follows:

  Roderick:
   However, today the devil is binding people to believe in no higher
   being so that it would be hard to reach them.
  You:
   Superstitious drivel. A total lack of evidence is what leads people to
   doubt the existence of both deities and devils.

Here you express an unwillingness to consider the possibility that
the devil is binding people to believe in no higher being.  Does
that make you closed-minded?

>Besides, _I_ never claimed to be open-minded,

Perhaps not, but you must have some idea of what you mean by the
term.  I get the impression that you think it means never asserting
that somebody else is wrong, and never making too much of a fuss
about what you believe.

>I only questioned your claim.

Actually, your interlocutor was Keith Ryan until I butted in.

>(actually, I think you might be
>one of the few posters that are even close to being open-minded:
>I was mainly attacking the statement.)

Must be Keith you're talking about here.  I'm a closed-minded
raving atheist fanatic.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Religion = Anything that's fun is bad.
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 14 Dec 92 01:36:14 GMT

kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:

>In article <b6vd02022e9P01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:
>>>Being an atheist OPENS your mind? What a crock of shit!
>>
>>I agree. Because being an atheist is not the cause of an open mind.

>	I agree. It is the inevitable result of being an open rational mind.
 
 Did any of you eggs read my article?

 Beside the point, being an atheists AIDS you in opening your mind it
 neither gaurantees it nor does it preclude non-atheists from having one.

Jeff.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: is it necessary to hate?
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 02:34:59 GMT

In article <10991@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert
Beauchaine) writes:
|>In article <1992Dec18.031052.26967@bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA
(Brian Cash) writes:
|>>
|>>It's one thing the strike back at someone who has attacked you
|>>or your beliefs in a "impolite" manner, but I don't see what
|>>Heather has done so far to deserve this kind of attack.
|>>I have disagreed with some of the things she has said, but
|>>dropping below your opponent's level of reasoning just
|>>makes your arguement seem weaker.
|>>
|>
|>   Does not!
|>

Does too times infinity.  <*Ptpthhhh!!!*>

Brian /-|-\
==========================================
The .sig is still the .sig
even if you choose to ignore it.
==========================================
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Religion = Anything that's fun is bad.
Date: 13 Dec 1992 07:30:43 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) on Sat 12 Dec 1992 07:56GMT posted:
 
|
|In article <ednclark.724042511@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
|>On my way to work each morning I pass a Learn To Swim School pool. This
[edited to save space-WHITE ROOK]
|>little kids.
|>
|> ... typical example of "religion = no fun" deleted ...
|>
|> ... typical example of fundamentalist barbarism deleted ...
|>
|>Though these things are extremes it does seem to show the trend in religions
[edited to save space]
|>another way that being an atheist opens your mind to the things around you.
|>
|>Jeff.
|>
|
|Being an atheist OPENS your mind? What a crock of shit!
|
|So organized religion has perpetrated some of the most heinous crimes
|and practices ever... I don't have to be an atheist to get offended
|by the Inquisition. Just remember, not everyone who believes in a
 
	Geee..forced circumcision is pretty gross.....perhaps
if you just closed your eyes, it will go away.....NOT
 
|guiding intelligience subscribes to an organized religion. I think
|kids should be exposed to all kinds of beliefs so they can make
|their own choice. IMHO, telling kids there is NO GOD is just another
|form of indoctrinating them into a almost fanatical belief system -
|an evangelical anti-religion if you please.
 
	Is this like an "evangelical anti-beleif" in unicorns ?
 
 
|
|Frankly, I find the majority of people ballsy enough to publicly
|declare themselves "atheists" are nothing more than troublemakers
|who finally found a mission. They stir up shit, cost the taxpayers
|money and vanish into the woodwork having done nothing constructive.
|If this is you, go soak yer head...
|- Harry
 
	Harry,
 
	I feel like I MIGHT be speaking for a lot of people on alt.atheism 
when I give you this advice....
 
	"There are decafenated brands out there with all of the flavor
	 of the regular brands......"
 
			or
 
	"SWITCH TO DECAFF"
 
			or
 
	"GET A LIFE BUB"
 
			or
 
	Let this be a lesson to be taught, this is what happens to
people who are sexually frustrated and refuse to at least <CENSORED>
once in a while, the tension just builds up.
 
 
-- 
A. TRENT PHILLIPS |" A mirror is a negative space with a frame and a place for
  also known as   | your face, it reveals what the rest of us see. It conceals
   WHITE  ROOK    | what you'd like you to be."--Blue Oyster Cult
-------bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu-----aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu-------
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Just how much smarter are atheists?
Date: 12 Dec 92 20:20:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1gbm3tINN73s@gap.caltech.edu>, werdna@cco.caltech.edu (Andrew Tong) writes...
>Just how stupid must one be to believe in a God? 

I won't succumb to the temptation to say "reeeal stupid."  Being intelligent
does not automatically free you from latching onto beliefs that are 
emotionally convenient or socially expected.  I was a bright kid early in life,
but that didn't make me an atheist from the start.  Rather, I feel that my 
intelligence was pretty good at coming up with rationalizations.  To boot,
I remember that whenever my mind started floating toward skepticism, another
part of my brain would say "stop that, stop that."  

>Could it be possible that there are some people doing stupid things out
>there who _aren't_ christian?  Or is the fountainhead of stupidity found
>in belief in God?

Oh, sure, there are stupid, knee-jerk atheists out there.  Just as there are
intelligent, thoughtful christians around.  My experience doesn't give me 
enough data to decide what the demographics are.  Alt.atheism is a horrible
place to come up with data, because its very existence draws the more
rabid (and thus less intelligent) theists.  

>Is this the point to being an atheist: to ridicule those who believe in God?

While it can be fun to ridicule theists (hell, just look at my .sig), just
because it is fun to be iconoclastic, it is not a necessary condition for
atheism.  All you need to do is have a lack of belief in God/s.  What you
*do* with your lack of belief depends on your personality.  

******************************************************************************
For God so loved the world that He gave Man Free Will and then got pissed when
we didn't meet his arbitrary standards.  Oh, and he had his Son offed when he
realized how impossible those standards were.  -- Michael 4:23
******************************************************************************
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Hilarious Christian Propaganda...
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 11:20:51 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

hbcs1010@blurt.oswego.edu writes:
> as i recall, the fundamentalists tried to get webster's dictionary banned in
> tennessee(?) some years ago. and, i believe, cinderella and a few other fairy
> tales. says a lot for their mind(?)set, doesn't it?

I bet I can name a book of fairy tales they didn't try to ban...


mathew
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Religion = Anything that's fun is bad.
Date: 15 Dec 92 10:40:52 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Dec12.075622.16643@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
>Being an atheist OPENS your mind?

No, of course it doesn't open your mind.  It just prevents it from
being closed by religion.

>I think kids should be exposed to all kinds of beliefs so they can
>make their own choice.

I agree.  That's how it worked with me.  The first religion I ever met
(at the age of six or so) was the Sumero-Babylonian one, then came the
Greek one.  I distinctly remember that for a while I considered the
possibility of the existence of Marduk & Co.  But I am an atheist now.

>IMHO, telling kids there is NO GOD is just another
>form of indoctrinating them into a almost fanatical belief system -

No.  The idea of a god is an artifact.  Telling kids that there is no
god is the same thing as telling them that there are no unicorns,
centaurs, winge`d green pigs and 19-dimensional big blue bananas.
They would have no reason to expect any of those things to exist, so
telling them that they don't is not indoctrinating them into a belief
system, never mind an almost fanatical one.

>Frankly, I find the majority of people ballsy enough to publicly
>declare themselves "atheists" are nothing more than troublemakers
>who finally found a mission.

I, too, have an opinion about the majority of those who call
themselves Christians, but I'd rather not express it in public.
I've been taught to mind my language.

>They stir up shit,

We stir up whatever you folks have in your heads.  It is not our fault
if it is not brain matter.

>cost the taxpayers money

Er, you got this one wrong.  Religion costs money.  Atheism doesn't.

>and vanish into the woodwork having done nothing constructive.

This sounds like Jesus of Nazareth.  :-)

>If this is you, go soak yer head...

Likewise,

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Women. . . SHUT UP!
Date: 15 Dec 1992 19:35:41 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


	<Pardon lack of quote, My RAMDisk is down and I cannot
up/download to edit the quotes on>


	SOmeone said that if women would "Shut-Up" everything
would be OK...This is a bunch of sh-t, the ONLY reason why women
have what few rights and gains they have now is because they
DID NOT "shut-up". This is just a bunch of sexist bullsh-t


-- 
A. TRENT PHILLIPS |" A mirror is a negative space with a frame and a place for
  also known as   | your face, it reveals what the rest of us see. It conceals
   WHITE  ROOK    | what you'd like you to be."--Blue Oyster Cult
-------bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu-----aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu-------