HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: REAL Gods
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:12:58 GMT

In article <n0e87t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>I've just waded through several dozen religionists articles here
>in alt.atheist. In these various articles four deities were up
>for sale--- Jehovah, Krishna, Jesus, and some bizzare New Age
>"Ascended master" stuff that was mostly indecipherable.
> 
>I've looked over dozens of Gods, ever since high school when
>I became enamoured with Greek mythology. I went on to Hebrew
>mythology, Jewish mythology, and Christian mythology. I guess
>in my next life (SMILE!) I'll have time for Chinese mythology.
> 
>I have found the deities above, Jehovah, Krishna, and Jesus,
>to be utterly lacking in any redeeming qualities. Krishna is
>a Drunken God and a Divine Madness God, much like Dyonysis.
>Jehovah, the "Earth Shakerer" (Poseidon, Neptune, Chronos)
>is a bloodthirsty butcher, drunk on arrogance. Jesus (Zeus,
>Horus, Apollo) the solar God, required his followers to hate
>their families, then lied to them every chance He got.
> 
>Since all these Gods were created, why not create some GOOD,
>VALID, socially responsible Gods WORTHY of worship?!
> 
>I nominate the following individuals as God. I submit that
>they are FAR BETTER Gods than any other God that have ever
>been put forth. I can think of THOUSANDS more than the ones
>I've listed below, that are FAR more worthy of worship than
>any religion's deity:
> 
>1) Larry Niven
>2) Isack Assimov
>3) Madam Curie
>4) Louis Pasture
>5) Motzart
>6) Max Plank
>7) Einstein
>8) Stephen R. Donaldson
>9) Louis LaMour
>A) Frank Herbert
>B) Shakespear
>C) Reba McEntire
>D) Ghandi
>E) Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
>F) Mae West
>G) Susan B. Anthony
>  
>No doubt you can think of more.
>
>--- Maximus 2.00


The very strange characteristics of those old gods, which you well noted,
might imply that they were in fact not created but experienced and written 
about, not for what people wanted them to be but for what they were. It is 
the enumerated gods on your list that would be fictitious creations.  

On the other hand, that you can entertain the notion of human beings one 
day becoming divine themselves is a sign that you are at least moving
in the right direction.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
From: T.G.Nattress@newcastle.ac.uk (Graeme Nattress)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A victimless crime (was Re: Blasphemy??)
Date: 20 Nov 92 10:21:15 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:

>In article <Bxwtp1.1MD@newcastle.ac.uk> T.G.Nattress@newcastle.ac.uk (Graeme Nattress) writes:
>>What is the point in having any laws on blasphemy?  I will argue this in two
>>ways:
>>
>>1:  Atheistic POV.
>>
>>God doesn't exist therefore blasphemy means nothing.
>>
>>2:  Theistic POV.
>>      (from an Atheist's perspective)
>>
>>God's a big boy and can look after himself.  If anyone calls him names ,
>>
>>1)why should he care
>>
>>2)If he does care then he can strike the personn down with a lightening bolt or
>>whatever.
>>
>>Conclusion:
>>
>>Blasphemy laws are wrong and evil etc....
>>
>>Graeme,

>Blasphemy laws protect their belief not their god.
>It is analogous to children who cover their ears and sing "I can't hear you,
>I can't hear you" when they want to ignore someone, only they use the authority
>of the government to keep them from hearing impure ideas.

>Jim Copeland

But, any belief that can't respond or face up to open unimpeded critiscism is
not worth having.  Alt.atheism is an open forum for debating such things and no
one will do anthng nasty to another becuase of dissagreement over beliefs or
not.

A few more points....

a) Laws should be fair and of equal value to everyone.  They should protect
everyone equally as everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law.  Any
blasphemy law does not aggreee with this.  It inherently asserts that there is
a difference between people with beliefs of a religious nature and those
without.  And in England it is only the christian belief that the law is
worried about.
    I am not offended by televangelists, door to door bible bashers etc.  I
come to no harm if someone thrusts god at me.  I might be amused or annoyed at
their stupidity, but it doesn't actually harm me.
    SO why should me saying anything against their beliefs harm them??  This is
especially true when theists don't hold a monopoly on truth.
    The only way to make a fair blasphemy law is to make it an offense to
affend others beliefs.  Including atheist beliefs and beliefs of contradictory
religions.  It would be an unworkable law.  Therefore the only good blasphemy
law is a dead one!

b)  Is atheism an impure idea?  I think that you implied such from your last
comment. I would think that it is very pure as it has no internal
contradictions unlike christianity for example...  Surely this makes religions
impure....

c) Above all, if a belief is a good one, it don't need protecting by law.

Graeme,
{---    T.G.Nattress@uk.ac.ncl -----------------------------------------}
{--------------------------------- The Moral of this story is: ---------}
{---    Never trust a Venusian Floghorn with a Perigosto Stick. --------}
{-----------------------------------------------------------------------}
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: atheism and morals and dating
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 05:01:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.163635.25898@doug.cae.wisc.edu> mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>
>|> > That is a fairly easy one.  Culture has placed certain standards on individua
>|> > behavior.  These standards define what is moral and what is immoral.  They
>|> > define what is right and wrong.  These standards may not make much sense
>|> > to an outsider, but within that society, that societies standards define
>|> > the collective morality.  So if society decided that reading internet
>|> > was very bad.  (Note I mean the collective society, not just a few individual
>|> > , then it would become immoral or in some way wrong to read internet.  Things
>|> > do change.  Look at relations between people of different skin pigmentation
>|> > in the past 50 years to see how fast "wrong" can change.
>|> 
>|> I see.  So in the context of Germany around 1940, it is entirely moral to gas
>|> Jews?
>|> 
>|> I'm not entirely sure I like your definition of morality...
>|> 
>|> 
>|> mathew
>
>Why not?  I siad the society as a whole, not just a few people didn't I?
>You will find that many people claimed to have no knowledge of what
>was happening in the concentration camps, even though they lived a few
>miles away only.  People didn't want to know.  
>
>COME UP WITH A BETTER ONE.

How about beating up the Jews and taking their property?

	Sven

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:44:30 GMT

simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>Readers of talk.origins will be aware that deploying logic against him
>is futile, and that he is best regarded as a source of sheer entertainment.

	I can entertain you, but you can't prove me false. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: jimb@rcx1.csd.harris.com (Jim Burmeister)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Darwin on Trial
Keywords: darwin evolution fundamentalist false
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:10:30 GMT
Organization: Harris CSD, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
NNTP-Posting-Host: rcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com

In article <1992Nov17.153554.1280@mercury.unt.edu>, jackson@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Bruce Jackson) writes:
> The principal of dualism can be called on to avoid this type of conflict.
> One type of dualism states that there can be religious "truths" and
> scientific "truths" and that they do not have to be reconciled.
...
> So we can have a Biblical literalist who is also a Biologist who
> adheres to the theory of evolution.  (S)he can believe that the world
> was created in six days several thousand years ago yet still use the
> theory of evolution to explain all of the apperantly old fossils that
> are dug up.  

Well this person certainly would not be me.  I cannot understand how someone
could be in this position and be completely honest with himself.  This 
specifically is one of the things which started me on the road to atheism.
As a child, I was taught the biblical story of creation.  Then in school,
I was taught evolution theory, and this seemed to be a lot more sensible,
and eventually I came to "believe" that it was the way things were, and 
that the biblical account was just a story.

I guess my point is this: is there anyone out there who fits Bruce Jackson's
description, or knows someone who does?  When confronted with this conflict
in their belief systems, how do they respond?

-Jim Burmeister, jimb@csd.harris.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: suopanki@zombie.oulu.fi (Heikki Suopanki)
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Reply-To: heikki.suopanki@phoenix.oulu.fi
Organization: Unixverstas Olutensin, Finlandia
	<1992Nov10.184658.19188@cs.joensuu.fi> <1992Nov12.053606.7047@nmsu.edu>
	<1992Nov16.175332.3263@cs.joensuu.fi>
Distribution: world, public
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:39:28 GMT

>>>>> On Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:53:32 GMT, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) said:

Antti> 	I disappeared so quickly from t.o. that it needs explanation: My 
Antti> 	aim was to show that evolutionism was a religion and I showed 
Antti> 	that some ideas from Dawkins' book are nonsense and the probability
Antti> 	of abiogenesis is zero. 

You didn't show anything. You misinterpreted Dawkins' ideas and
claimed the probability is some small number (not even zero).
That number was bogus, and even if it was true it wouldn't prove anything.

-Heikki
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Judiasm in an atheist
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 10:15:32 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <gf3S60q00WBL48ptEg@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> 
> I'd like to see what people think about my personal views on religion. 
> I enjoy celebration and family unity(who doesn't) and feel that as an
> atheist, I shouldn't be excluded from those joys.  My parents have
> always stressed that they are "observant" not "religious" and I do think
> that there's a major distinction.  Perhaps mere reading of Biblical text
> does not stress education and family unity, but a mere glance at Jewish
> culture shows this explicitly.  I am proud to be a Jew, just as I am
> proud to be an atheist.  Even if I choose to relinquish the religion of
> my roots, I cannot relinquish my blood.  I talk about "Jewish blood" as
> if it is a tangible thing, but I am speaking metaphorically.  
> When I have my own children, I will celebrate the holidays I choose to
> celebrate.  Surprisingly, I want to celebrate Christmas, even though I
> completely disbelieve any divinity of Christ, because I feel it is a
> tremendously beautiful experience(musically and artistically).
> Any comments?  This was prompted by a Jew's post of how the scholar is
> praised.  If you're really interested in how this ideaology is pervasive
> in Jewish lore, I suggest a read of the Talmud.  Even the few brief
> excerpts that I seen or heard quoted, seem far more acceptable than any
> biblical quotes.
> -JW

It fascinates me that I continually hear sentiments of this nature from
those of Jewish beckground. Non-believers of Xian background normally
seem to want to get away from the whole concept of the holidays. I 
suppose they would prefer to replace them with purely secular "holidays"
without religious connotations, but I dunno. Maybe they'd prefer to not
have any. Note I am making a generalization; I do not intend that
these statements to include all atheists of Jewish or Xian background.

--Semhaza
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ktikkane@phoenix.oulu.fi (Kari Tikkanen)
Subject: Re: Is omniscience impossible?
Organization: University of Oulu, Finland
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:18:36 GMT

Aaron Turner writes  19 Nov 92 15:27:49 GMT :
>Surely you would have to know everything before you could be
>sure whether or not omniscience is impossible?
>
>		Aaron Turner	aaron@minster.york.ac.uk :-)
>
Why? I do not think it is necessary. It is enough to give only one fact which
Omniscient does not know. What do you think about following sentence A:

   "The Omniscient does not know this sentence to be true."

If Omniscient knows A then A is true. A says that  Omniscient doesn't know
the sentence, which is contradistion. So Omniscien can't know sentence A.
This means he doesn't know everything. So there can't be Omniscient being.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Kari Tikkanen               |         |  |      b        | for i:=1 to n do
  Kelotie 37                  |   .  . -+- |      /        |   begin  
  SF-90550 OULU               |         |  |  I = | f(x)dx |     s:=s+Eq(i);
  FINLAND                     |       Vega |      /        |   end
  ktikkane@phoenix.oulu.fi    | .  .       |     a         | Writeln('s=',s);

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: what is marantha?
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:10:24 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1992Nov15.4600.25387@dosgate>,
by capsco.one@canrem.com (capsco one):
> Steve Matheson <sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu> writes:
>>> "capsco one" <capsco.one@canrem.com> writes:
>>> Does anyone here know anything about a Christian cult named Marantha?
>>
>>Cult?
> ....
>>There is an organization called "Maranatha", which does mean "our Lord,
>>come!" or "do come quickly, Lord!"  The organization with which I was
>>familiar here in Tucson, Arizona was a group of zealous believers that
>>was not, in my judgment, a "cult", although my knowledge is at least 5
>>years old, and I cannot ascertain your intent in using the term "cult".
>>The people in my church who came from a Maranatha background would not
>>tolerate anti-biblical teaching that is characteristic of what we call
>>"cults".
> 
> I hate discussing semantics, but I don't understand your definition of
> cult.  I went to the American Heritage dictionary (pocket edition) and
> found the following definition:
> 
> cult:  1. A system or community of religious worship.
>        2. Obsessive devotion to a person or ideal.
> 
> You imply that a cult is a group of people who indulge in worship which
> differs from yours.  Is it only a cult if it's anti-biblical?  Isn't
> what you call "anti-biblical" simply a question of interpretation?
> 

I agree that the term "cult" is extremely ambiguous.  I, too, looked
the word up in the dictionary before making my original reply, and read
the same thing you did; hence I wasn't sure if your use of the term
referred to a religious sect of any bent, or to a particularly zealous,
dangerous or offensive nature.  My response was intended to distinguish
the Maranatha group that I knew from sects involved in particularly
bizarre or dangerous behavior.  I realize that this distinction is
not as clear to atheists who might regard any Christian group as
"dangerous" and certainly "bizarre".  And that's cool.

>>Jesus himself said that even he did not know the date and time.
> 
> Whatever happened to omniscience?  Was Jesus lying?

Who said Jesus was omniscient?  Respond if you are truly interested
in discussing this.  No, Jesus wasn't lying.

> Joe deSousa                      I don't speak for CAPSCO.

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Question for ex-Christians
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 16:19:04 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64746.student.cwru.edu

In article <1el96fINNkpp@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>>>Some of you ex-Christians have posted about bad experiences with
>>>religion and other such events that caused you to seriously reconsider
>>>your beliefs and to eventually give up your belief in God. Others have
>>>posted saying they never really believed in God as youths and are
>>>atheists by default. I'm curious if there are also ex-Christians out
>>>there who became atheists or agnostics (AorA) because of a discussion
>>>with an AorA. I know none of us would ever try to convert Christians
>>>;-), but I was wondering if this sort of thing ever worked.
>
>This is unlikely?  What do we have to offer?  Only the truth.  And the
>truth is insignificant compared to the percieved gains of Christianity.
>Besides, Christians rationalize the truth for themselves in one way or
>another.  Trying to convert a religious person is a losing battle.  Besides,
>I doubt you should try to remove a crutch from the lame unless you have some
>other means of support handy.
>
>keith
>
	For me, my beliefs were solidified during my confirmation classes. 
Ironic, isn't it? When I hadn't sufficiently studied the bible, I did not 
think about it in a critical manner. The more I studied, the stronger I felt 
that this was NOT the word of god. And, as I studied the developement of 
the Church, especially the period of the reformation [ we studied 
extensively on the beginnings of the Lutheran Church ], I began to feel that 
organized religion does not the worship of God. That is neither the goal, 
nor reason for the Church, only the outer trappings to appeal to people. To 
sum up my beliefs in one sentence : If God exists, then the bible and the 
religious institutions are the work of Lucifer.
From: randyd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Randall Elton Ding)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Noah's ark (was: Re: who has the open mind)
Date: 24 Nov 1992 01:32:16 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: randyd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

I would like to thank the individuals who responded to my origional
post, the comments on the open mind come-backs were great.  Hope you don't
mind if I change the subject a little.

>>but in the heat of the moment I said "I don't read fiction", The guy
>>threw up his arms and shouted to the crowd "Hey - come on and have an
>>Open Mind!"
  ^^^^^^^^^
awmurray@eos.ncsu.edu (ALAN WAYNE MURRAY) writes...

>You're not the only one! .....so I asked her if she "believed in evolution."
>....... If you don't believe that animals evolve, then you must believe that
>Noah took a *huge* amount of animals on board his ark............ She
>came back with "Noah took one male and one female of each animal that was
>on the earth at the time."

 [ lots of good stuff deleted for conciseness, sorry ]

I agree with Alan, the ark story is so silly I don't know how x-ians
can accept it.

If I understood the material in my Intro to Anthropology class correctly,
it is essential to maintain a large gene pool with plenty of variations to
ensure the survival of a species.  This model completely breaks down
if one believes in the Noah's ark story.  Doesn't it?

If a god (or humans) would cause the population of a single species
to dwindle to only a fiew remaining animals, most of the good
recessive genes that took millions of years to evolve would be lost forever.
Even if the species made a come-back, it may only be temporary, sence their
ability to adapt has been severely hampered.

But this is moot to the "open minded x-ians" if they refuse to accept
biology, math, and physics too.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Frisbeetologist:  Your soul is like a frisbee...   when you die,
                  it goes on the roof and noone can get it down.
                                                          Randy.
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: More Claims To Prove
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:47:35 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA19317; Wed, 18 Nov 92 06:02:56 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA10982; Wed, 18 Nov 92 06:02:52 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0086; Wed, 18 Nov 92 15:02:24 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

James Marcus typed:

>The New Testament fulfilled the Old Testament.  Many of the prophets
>(esp. Isaiah) told of the promised Messiah, who was fulfilled
>in every detail in Jesus.  (I only have a NT with me, otherwise I would
>quote some verses.)

Ridiculous, some verses that fit is not a fulfillment in every detail. And
tell me about the prophecy that the name of the messiah would be immanuel.
Further, jesus postponed a lot of the prophecies (esp the interesting ones
like the kingdom of god). Hardly a fulfillment. And that jesus says that he
fulfills them is no proof unless he does so too.

Would you give up your belief when it could be shown that your assertions
are wrong? If not, switch to a religious newsgroup.
  Benedikt
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Date: 21 Nov 92 18:04:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <By12Mp.5Ep@newcastle.ac.uk>, D.J.Butcher@newcastle.ac.uk (Dave Butcher) writes...
> 
>In article <1992Nov18.173637.23791@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

>>	If you were Jehovah, then you needn't use computer to tell me 
>>	that. 

>He doesn't need to, but is perfectly capable and entitled to choose to use
>a computer to tell you.

And it's much better than the old ways -- burning bushes and the like.  Can't
get those at the local mini-mall, either.

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*  "If something about the human	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*   body disgusts you, complain to
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*   the manufacturer." - Lenny Bruce	
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism and morals and dating
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 10:28:20 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
> In article <1992Nov13.233958.17643@nmsu.edu> epowers@huey.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) w
> >	Just curious, I'm not attacking you.  What's "immoral" or "wrong" (or  
> >whatever word with negative connotations you want to use) about drinking, do
> >drugs, or sleeping around?  What do you use to distinguish "moral" vs.  
> >"immoral"?
> 
> That is a fairly easy one.  Culture has placed certain standards on individua
> behavior.  These standards define what is moral and what is immoral.  They
> define what is right and wrong.  These standards may not make much sense
> to an outsider, but within that society, that societies standards define
> the collective morality.  So if society decided that reading internet
> was very bad.  (Note I mean the collective society, not just a few individual
> , then it would become immoral or in some way wrong to read internet.  Things
> do change.  Look at relations between people of different skin pigmentation
> in the past 50 years to see how fast "wrong" can change.

I see.  So in the context of Germany around 1940, it is entirely moral to gas
Jews?

I'm not entirely sure I like your definition of morality...


mathew
-- 
"... A socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to
 leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy
 capitalism and become lesbians." -- Pat Robertson on Feminism