HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bwilliam@iat.holonet.net (Bill Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: assholes
Date: 9 Sep 92 05:27:22 GMT
Organization: HoloNet (BBS: 510-704-1058)

This is my first post on this newgroup, but as an American Athiest, I do
realize that the (paraphrased) "majority of athiests don't believe that
their is no god they believe that their is no sufficient evidence
supporting the existence of God."


My opinion is that this is the first stage towards becomming an
"Apologizing Athiest". I have nothing to apologize though....

THERE IS NO GOD.

JESUS IS A EVIL LIE.

Yes, yes, yes, I know that one can not prove that something "does not
exist" except by exhaustive search. Yes I'm aware that concepts such as
Occams razor are already covering half of my arguments, and that I needn't
feel so defensive as to say "THERE IS NO GOD."

But it makes me feel good. Is that too hard to understand? I DO NOT want
to be lumpped in with mobs of secularists, humanists, agnostics,
apologistic athiests, etc. etc. 

THERE IS NO GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!

aaahhhhh,

BWilliams
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Subject: Re: Christianic Sacrifices
Originator: cmgrawbu@c00382-346dan.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:46:58 GMT


>I wonder if these are some of the "Traditional Family Values"
>Kind George "baby butcher" Bush want to force Americans to
>adopt?
>
>--- Maximus 2.00


Be careful about generalizing Christians b/c of some bad apples.
I could no more say that atheists were all incestious (sp) if the
news reported that an atheist raped his/her daughter.



Chris
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: millernw@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Neal Miller)
Subject: Re: End of the World...
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:49:40 GMT

Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:

>We Aussies can beat that. There's a pack of lunatics based in Sydney who
>are sure the Rapture is coming *next month*. Their publicity is greatly
>mirthful, and worth reproducing in full:-
>(I will try to reproduce their idiosyncratic layout and syntax)

<material deleted>

>	Reject The 666 of (sic) computer bar code!

	Sorry, but just how the hell are they integrating computer bar codes
into Revelation?   I *have* to know this one.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Neal Miller         | "Why not go mad?"  | millernw@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
 Clarkson University |     - Ford Prefect |     dark@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: assholes
Date: 8 Sep 92 10:15:59 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> In article <LsHqqB4w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
> >Care to explain why?  It seems to me that I can build an empirical circle
> >using compasses, paper and scissors, and then check experimentally whether i
> >has four corners each of which is a right angle.  No theory is involved.
>
> An "empirical circle" is technically not a circle, but rather a
> physical approximation of a mathematical construct.

I'd say that a physical (or empirical) circle is an approximation to a
mathematical circle myself.  Either that or there are an awful lot of people
misusing the term "circle".

> >How about the claim "No tessalating circles exist"?  I'm willing to let you
> >use empirical circles of a radius x constant to within 1mm, and made out of
> >any material you want.  I'll also let you empirically tile them with your ow
> >hands rather than working out on paper whether they would theoretically tile
> >according to logic.
> Same problem.
> 
> Physical circles do not exist.

An interesting viewpoint which is somewhat at variance with my perceptions.


mathew
-- 
"When nothing's funny it gets easy to laugh 
 at the drop of a hat, or a bomb" -- DEVO
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: 3,000-pound dogs
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992
Date: 11 Sep 92  21:51:12

Tag: "herb sutter" <herb.sutter@canrem.com>
 
HS> "Thanks for the reply, and I have to apologise for my
HS> own tardiness. Not only does it take days before I
HS> receive replies, but when I do receive them I have to
HS> queue them in my backlog of mail where I've fallen
HS> behind... Fortunately, the system reaches an equilibrium:
HS> the less immediate response I am seen to give, the less
HS> people send me mail, and after a time the two rates even
HS> out. I'm not convinced that this is a Good Thing. :-("
 
That's a PERFECT example of natural selection based upon
reward and punishment, where an equilibrium between two
species (one being Mail, the other being Time) share the
same echological nich---- ORDER OUT OF CHAOS! (Tah dah!)
 
HS> "There have been centuries of intelligently directed
HS> breeding of many plants and animals; a short time compared
HS> to thousands of millenniums, but far far more directed.
HS> Is it not surprising that, if evolution does in fact give
HS> rise to different `kinds' by natural selection, genetic
HS> drift, and other methods, that something of the sort has
HS> not been observed in all this intelligently directed
HS> breeding and cross-breeding?  Here again I mean not just
HS> a new species (which has been observed), but something of
HS> a different `kind'."
 
If I may re-phrase what I believe you are asserting here, you
believe that human-directed breeding of dogs in the past 2,500
years (In Japan, I imagine) "should" be enough compensation to
mimic the natural evolution that required many hundreds of
millions of years.
 
To what do you base this supposition? It sounds like Ted's
assertion that falcons "should" be hundreds of pounds in
weight by now because of 3,000+ years of breeding--- it
looks like you don't understand evolutionary science any
better than Ted.
 
Then again, you may have said something totally unlike what
I believe you said.
 
> Reply address "herb sutter" <herb.sutter@canrem.com>

--- Maximus 2.00
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Pope Bush
Date: 9 Sep 92 09:22:00 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992

I heard on the radio today that over 300 war vetrans have
sent in their medals and commendations to the White House,
protesting George "Iraqi Baby Butcher / Brown Baby Butcher"
Bush's "Atheists should not be considered citizens" statement.
 
Most of the vets fought in Viet Nam, where the so-called
"reason" for the war was to protect Viet Nam citizens from
the Goddless Communists. Hundreds of young American atheist men
and women went over there, killed and died serving the leaders
of America, and now they are told that they are not citizens!!!!
And George Bush is not tared and feathered for this?!?!?!?
 
An infantry Sergent in charge of "anti-personnel denial," (the
job of making an area safe for support staff, i.e. non-combatants,
women soldiers, news reporters) in command of 80 GIs was
interviewed. He sounded livid with rage at Bush's comment: his
answers to "how he felt" about his commander-and-chief's (Bush)
statement were along the lines of "How =DARE= that bastard sit
in his nice safe mansion while I was out here fighting =HIS= war
and putting my balls on the chopping block, and call =ME=
unpatriotic! That [beeped] idiot doesn't know what the [beeped]
[beeped] he's talking about!"
 
He then said, to paraphrase: "Viet Nam vets might somehow
find it in their hearts to forgive Johnson for betraying
them [Johnson claimed that the Americans fighting in Viet
Nam were "not doing their best"], but Viet Nam vetran
atheists will NEVER forgive [beeped] Bush!"
 
--------------------------------------------------------
 
Personal note. I pay 32% of my income to income tax--- right off
the top. Then I pay an additional 8.5% in sales tax. 38 cents out
of every dollar I spend for gasoline is state and federal tax. I
have never been in jail or prison, and I lead my life by following
the laws of the land to the best of my ability and to the best of
my knowledge of these laws. I vote every election, as I consider
it not just an honor and privilage, but my duty. I give money to
charities, and do not make deductions on my income tax. I file
with the IRS every year, since I was 13 years old (working in a
garbage truck, standing in filth while trash cans were tossed up
to me, which I emptied and tossed back). I go to community meets.
 
Pope George Bush would strip =ME= of my citizenship?

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Subject: Re: I still seem to be God
Originator: cmgrawbu@c00554-1403br.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:45:08 GMT




The argument is not if we can prove that you aren't God--- but can you
prove that you are.

It will be the fallibility of your argument that will prove itself.



Chris
From: mjm5049@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: faith
Date: 12 Sep 92 01:17:07 GMT
Reply-To: mjm5049@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology

Jarek's basis for the belief in God is scientific, empirical, and legitimate.
I am assuming of course that we can take Jarek at his word when he asserts,
in effect, that he has seen God.  If he has seen God, then surely God's
existence is the simplest way for him to explain the observation. 
Unfortunately

, I have not seen God.  I have also not seen China.  Accounts from other people
about China have a good deal of coherence.  Accounts of various mystics also
have a some coherence.  Russell's book "Religion and Science" gives an
excellent account of this.  The question is, Can the rest of us believe in God
on the basis of the accounts brought back to us from the other-world by a
handful of very unusual people?

A second question I have is to Jarek.  The existence of God is a parsimonious
way to explain your observation, but does the existence of God explain any
other sensibles?

Finaly I would like to point out that the Verification Criterion for Truth
is neither provable nor verifiable.

                        --Hylas
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: End of the World...
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 17:45:05 GMT

In article <davem.48.716235979@county.lmt.mn.org> davem@county.lmt.mn.org (David Mackmiller) writes:
>
>1)  The bar-code inventors or standardizers were atheists who knew how to 
>party.  I'm sure after a few gin & tonics, they came up with the 666 thing 
>and wet themselves laughing.
>
that is obviously what i would like to know.
if it is, then it is truly hysterical.

>2)  If the government actually forces me to have a bar code tattooed on my 
>forehead, I'll blow the dust off of my bible and have a second look at the 
>last part.
>

if it isn't ....

i think i'll contact Symbol Technologies here on Long Island
and ask if the bar codes have an international coding standard
document.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
From: jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Dealing with theistic relatives
Date: 11 Sep 1992 19:45:42 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


What's sad is the way that the really noisy obnoxious groups-
the Jehovah's witnesses- have based their faith on a great big huge
MISTAKE. I do not even refer to whether or not there is a God, or a
God as they claim he is. I refer to the fact that 'Jehovah' came
from some idiot Gentile scribe who was trying to mush the diacritical
marks for 'adonai' in with the consonants for YHWH and came up with 
Jehovah. Sad, very sad. Also, I think if you ask your friendly neighborhood
rabbi, he/she (if it's a Reform congregation) will tell you that the
bit of the Torah that refers to blood doesn't concern blood transfusions,
only what you eat.

Some people. >sigh<
-- 
Jessica McGeary
jmm25@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University
Remember! Arguments should be FUN!
From: 00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.uucp (Paul Neubauer)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: looking for a quote
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:08:05 GMT

In article <9SEP199211285205@zeus.tamu.edu>, 
 pdj7631@zeus.tamu.edu (Unbeliever) writes:
> ok, quiz time.
> "If atheism is a religion, then health is a disease".
> 
> Anyone know who said it?  I know someone has this in their .sig, but I've been
> unable to find it.

I found it attributed to Clark Adams.

-- 
Paul Neubauer   00prneubauer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  00prneubauer@bsuvax1.BITNET
                00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.UUCP       neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: davem@county.lmt.mn.org (David Mackmiller)
Subject: Re: End of the World...
Organization: LaserMaster R&D, Minneapolis, MN  USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:26:19 GMT

In article <millernw.716089780@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> millernw@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Neal Miller) writes:
><material deleted>

>>       Reject The 666 of (sic) computer bar code!

>        Sorry, but just how the hell are they integrating computer bar codes
>into Revelation?   I *have* to know this one.

I've seen this in a couple of tracts from some whacko off-Broadway 
religions.  They've looked at the way some of the longer codes are grouped 
and they usually start with 2 thin lines, have 2 thin lines in the middle 
and 2 thin lines at the end.  These are some kind of synchronization codes, 
which (I guess) also is the code for '6'.  Three of 'em gives you '666'.  So 
OBVIOUSLY bar codes are the SIGN OF THE ANTICHRIST (tm)!

Wait, it gets worse.  Apparently, by the time of the Second Coming (which 
these true believers claim is next month), everyone will be required to have 
a bar code tattooed to his/her forehead.  Kind of a global ID.

We bandied this one around a bit and came up with a couple of conclusions:

1)  The bar-code inventors or standardizers were atheists who knew how to 
party.  I'm sure after a few gin & tonics, they came up with the 666 thing 
and wet themselves laughing.

2)  If the government actually forces me to have a bar code tattooed on my 
forehead, I'll blow the dust off of my bible and have a second look at the 
last part.

DaveMac

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              ...it's not funny 'til someone loses an eye.
------------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------
mail: davem@county.lmt.mn.org | flames: alt.good.news | Opinions=mine alone
------------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: god is not relevant
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 04:50:14 GMT

tino@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (allen.j.tino) writes:

>Since my previous post was garbled, I'll try again....

>From article <1992Sep02.193850.1579@bnr.ca>, by ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge):
>> I've been spending way too much time thinking about what i believe and why.
>> I've been especially concerned with the distinction between not believing
>> that god exists and believing that god does not exist.  I started from
>> not believing in the existence of god, but i've come to the conclusion that
>> the god is simply not relevant.  So what difference does it make if he/she/it
>> exists or not?
>> 
>> Now, is it reasonable to call oneself an "atheist" if one's position is that
>> god is not relevant?  I don't think that "agnostic" is correct, since if god
>> is not relevant then the question of god's existence is also not relevant.
>> Is this atheism, and if not then what is it?
>> 
>> Or is god relevant?  If so, how and why?  What's he/she/it needed for?

>I use "atheist" to refer to someone who rejects (dis-believes)
>the existence of god, regardless of why.  This is separate from the
>issue of whether god is relevant or not.  (Relevant for what purpose?
>Even if there was a god, would I care?)

Well, I take the position that even if there were a God, He doesn't seem
to exhibit much of an effect on the world.  Therefore, if the effect
is the same whether or not He exists, then his existence holds no
relevance.

Of course, others believe in this God, whether or not It exists, so again,
the existence is still not relevant, right?

>A distinction must be drawn between just lacking a belief and actively
>disbelieving a belief.  If atheism means just the lack of a belief in
>god, then my friend's month-old baby and cat are both atheists since
>they certainly lack a belief in god.  That definition would make the
>term pretty useless. 

I think of myself in the same terms as I think about a cat.  Neither
of us have any need for a God.  So, we are both atheists?  I do not
actively disbelieve.  In fact, I don't spend much time at all not
believing in God.  If you don't believe in something, you don't feel
the urge to go out and prove yourself.  Now, if you DO believe in
something, it is worthwhile, I suppose, to try to convince others
that this thing exists.  But can we convince others that God does NOT
exist?  Why bother.  I mean, I don't spend much time trying to convince
people that little green men do not live on Mars.

>This is not to say that disbelief in god is the same as belief that
>god does not exist.  Someone who believes that god does not exist
>would be an atheist, but the converse does not follow.

Again, it is the same in my case.  I think about God as much as my cat or
a baby does. (except on these usenet groups)

keith

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Dealing with theistic relatives
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 04:19:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.172810.14388@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>
>Why should you wish to get in a debate with your mother? If she finds comfort
>in mythology, let her. You do not have to have respect for her beliefs, but
>you can certainly show respect for her and her feelings. 

Because (borrowed from Robert L. Holmes' _On War and Morality_):

   What the people of today's world need first and foremost is ruthless
   honesty about themselves and about their condition -- for it is more
   serious than they want to believe.

Leaving people alone to live in a fantasy world shows no more respect for
them than do the assholes who filled them full of nonsense in the first place.
--
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_
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pdj7631@zeus.tamu.edu (Unbeliever)
Subject: looking for a quote
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:28:00 GMT

ok, quiz time.
"If atheism is a religion, then health is a disease".

Anyone know who said it?  I know someone has this in their .sig, but I've been
unable to find it.
______
\    /___   Illithid  (Paul D. Jones)    Texas A&M, especially the Corps
 \  /   /                                of Cadets, stands staunchly behind
  \/\  /    PDJ7631@zeus.tamu.edu        each and every one of my opinions.
     \/
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Is atheism experimentally refutable?
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 11:51:01 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <1992Sep4.181731.26850@gallant.apple.com> mikel@gallant.apple.com (Mikel Evins) writes:
>In article <dabrowsk.715565713@liveboard10> dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>>In <71921@apple.Apple.COM> Mikel Evins writes:
>>> There is [a difference between not(believe X) and believe(not X)], 
>>> as the thought experiment demonstrates. 

>>Which thought experiment, and how is this difference relevant to the
>>matter under discussion? Do we really have to repeat the old battle
>>about beliefs and lack of beliefs? 

>Examining my beliefs, I discover that I don't believe God exists.
>On the other hand, I don't believe that God deosn't exist
>either. Evidently, the first statement doesn't mean the same
>thing as the second after all.

I would have to say that this is the common meaning of the term when
used in English.  However, it isn't the formal logic meaning.  Not
having a belief, formally, doesn't say anything about whether or not
you have a disbelief.

Suppose I could have a penny or a nickel and I say, "I don't have a
nickel."  Well, that doesn't say whether or not I have a penny, but if
the common usage states that I have a coin, it could be interpreted to
mean that I have a penny.

Most people, I have found, assume that everyone has some strong stance
upon the subject of the existence of supernatural entities...the
concept of "I don't know" doesn't come into play...you either have a
penny or a nickel...the concept of not having either doesn't come into
play.

Thus, I claim that a person who doesn't have a belief in the existence
of supernatural entitties and also doesn't have a belief in the
non-existence of supernatural entities isn't being completely honest
by merely saying, "I don't believe god exists."  Because, in order to
state the true feelings of the person, there needs to be an, "I don't
believe god doesn't exist."  People expect other people to reveal all
relevant information.  If I asked you how many pets you had and you
replied, "I have two cats," I'd have every reason to feel deceived if
you also had four dogs and a llama.

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
From: jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: worthless comic strips
Date: 11 Sep 1992 14:47:16 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


Oh, we're not Christophobes. It's the people who say they're Christ's
followers who scare us (I'm a pretty scary person myself).

And I think I remember there being some complaints a while back about
a teacher in NY somewhere trying to have a class in TM in a public
school (not sure), and parents got upset because of some of the religious
components of the process..
-- 
Jessica McGeary
jmm25@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University
Remember! Arguments should be FUN!
From: jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Discrimination vs. homo/bi: justified?
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:57:34 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


Hell, we can't even tell what causes bleedin' ALZHEIMER'S, or ALS!
Environmental? Genetic? What? Homosexuality is a lot less dangerous,
nonfatal (unless you are stupid enough to have unprotected sex with
an HIV-infected person, or get caught in the path of rampaging Jesus
freaks), and can be dealt with. Most importantly, it ISN'T a disease.
Morality or not, I wish people would stop thinking of it as something
whose causes should be isolated and destroyed, or its 'victims' subjected
to 'cures'. Geez.
-- 
Jessica McGeary
jmm25@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University
Remember! Arguments should be FUN!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic