HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reverse FAQ....
From: Geoffrey Spear <gspear+@CMU.EDU>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 13:17:14 -0500 
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.alt.atheism: 10-Jan-93 Re: Reverse FAQ.... Michael
Loomis@andrew.cm (3654)

> 1.  Prayer is not banned in schools.  (The state is not allowed to
> direct prayers in public schools.)

> 3.  Mr. Tong claims that atheism seems officially santioned by our
> society.  (This could represent simple paranoia rather than a lack of
> logic.  Mr. Tong:  Satan, the General Motors Corporation, and I plan to
> take demonic posession of your mother.)


	Right.  In fact, what most people who complain about the lack of
organized prayer in schools don't seem to understand is that the
government *cannot* sanction ANY religious belief, including (ok, it's
not a religious belief, but more of an anti-religious belief, but it's
the same general idea) atheism.  For the same reason, to actually *ban*
prayer in public schools would be unconstitutional, for the same reason
that requiring it in schools would be.  For anyone who doesn't
understand why this is so, re-read the First Amendment.  And remember
that if you let the government institute "non-denominational" prayers in
schools now, they could just as easily force to into some religion that
*they* decide is right for you (or even atheism, which most of the
people who want school prayer would think is worse anyway).  
-----------------------------------
Geoff Spear
Carnegie Mellon University
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Class of '96 (I hope...)
-----------------------------------
"You're redlining my bogometer!"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dreamerb@maths.tcd.ie (Dara Breathnach)
Subject: why does Eire get so much press
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:56:59 GMT

I have been reading this thread for the last few days, and while I find
some people's misconceptions about violence levels amazing, my main
comment on the thread has to be that I really do not understand why
it has arrived in alt.atheism.

On the subject of violence levels, it is worth pointing out that in
1992, just over 45 murders (most of which were not related to political
or terrorist activity) occurred in the Irish Republic last year: this is seen
as a serious cause for concern as it is the highest number since 1974, when 30
murders were accounted for by the activities of loyalist paramilitaries in
bomb attacks in county Monaghan, and in Dublin.
This year's total included 15 murders in Dublin, a city with a population
of around one million -- since the population of the republic as a whole
is approximately three and a half million this is not significantly above
the national average.
For the benefit of those who are writing about the troubles in Northern
Ireland within this thread, I should also point out that "Eire" refers
_specifically_ to the Irish Republic, so if terrorism in Northern Ireland
is the axe you have to grind, change the title of the thread.
Moreover, the cause of this violence is not religion -- it is true that
there is a strong correlation between "Nationalist" and "Loyalist"
violence with Roman Catholic and Presbyterian denominations respectively:
however, this is more due to political legacy and the local culture than
specifically religious issues.

However, if anyone is interested in addressing issues such as why the
Roman Catholic church in Ireland has such enormous power in society,
in politics, in education and even within our health service, I'd be very
pleased to hear it, and it would at least be relevant to the news group.

Dara Breathnach.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:44:53 GMT


God has no need for our money.  God has no need of our strength.  God wants our
love and devotion.  As Christians, we serve God by tithing and attending services,
and giving of ourselves.  But these things come as a result of being a Christian.
You do not become a Christian by attending services, or giving your time or your
money.  You become a Christian by the grace of God, not by the labour of your
hands or the sweat of your brow.  It is a gift of God that cannot be taken away.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25263 talk.religion.misc:25427 alt.pagan:15060
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Tax the Church
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:28:18 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <1993Jan02.130632.24844@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>
>I'm in full agreement.  I find it appalling that more and more property gets 
>bought up by religious organizations and taken off the tax rolls.  The general 
>tax exemption for religious organizations must be abolished.  For all the 
>"Followers of alternative religions", yes this means your religion would be 
>taxed on its income and property also.
>
>I can accept tax exemption for non-profit organizations that directly help the
>poor through food, clothing and housing grants; and a tax deduction or 
>exemption for the money donated to directly fund those organizations (i.e. 
>exempt the money United Way gives to other organizations, but tax the portion 
>used for administration costs).

Well, money used for "administrative costs" is mostly salaries,
so it is taxed in the form of income tax.  I agree that churches
should pay for the public services they use (fire, police, roads, etc.).
I don't know about schools, but I also think property taxes are
not a good way to fund schools anyhow.  

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25355 talk.religion.misc:25532
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why? (was Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER)
Date: 8 Jan 93 08:47:37 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1993Jan8.050042.6458@julian.uwo.ca> roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts) writes:
>In article <C0I3v7.82E@acsu.buffalo.edu> v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
>>Then why didn't he create only those who would
>>eventually "choose" to worship him with their Free Will?
>
>If he created only those who would choose to be with him, those people would
>not have a choice. 

Okay, according to you, God wants everyone to choose to be
with him. And according to you, some number of people will
so choose. Presumably, we don't know that actual number.
Perhaps it is equal to the number of all people. In that case,
God is happy, and no one is damned. Everything is hunky dory,
no violation of free will.

Now, suppose the number isn't equal to the number of all people.
God, being all-knowing, would know this in advance. So suppose
he doesn't create those people who wouldn't choose him. What,
you say? And deprive these people of their free will? No, no,
because if he doesn't create them then they never exist,
which means they cannot be deprived of their free will.

Or perhaps you think that God deprived my sister of her free
will? (I don't have a sister).
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Job and Satan
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 05:05:51 GMT

craig sivils (casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: In <1992Dec31.190443.18046@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) wr
ites:
:
: >I remember hearing the Job story as a child, and asking how having
: >new children replaced the ones that were killed.  Isn't that tale
: >a frightening one to tell a child?  "You can be replaced."  The story
: >was clearly written from a "women and kids are property" mentality,
: >which is why it so sticks in our craw today.  And I believe this
: >is a good illustration that the Bible was written by people who
: >were thoroughly limited in their worldview, not by an omniscient
: >entity who would have forseen the changes in people's views on
: >personhood, rights, and property.
:
:      If we are going to hold up logic as the bulkhead of the attack on how
: the bible doesn't make sense and God can't exists, then lets look at the whol
e
: story.
:
: It says that God gave Job multiple times what he had before, yet he has the
: same number of wives and children.  Either
:
:      1.  God shorted Job
:
:      2.  The wives and children were not replacements but additions, this
:          point would beg the question of what happened to the original family
.
:          (I know they were killed, but for a Christian, that does not equate
:          to lost)

   3.  The ancient Hebrews couldn't add.

:
: So once again there is a stalemate.  I will beleive that Jobs family followed
: God, went to heaven and Job ended up with twice the family he had before.
:
: You will beleive that God shorted Job.  You may beleive as you wish, but plea
se
: watch the quantum leaps of logic.

What "quantum leaps of logic"?  Jobs first ten children are dead.  How does 
have new children replace the former children?
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Who knows the mind of God?
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:40:48 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   Fri, 8 Jan 1993 06:36:55 GMT
>FROM:   Robert Johnston <rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu>
>
>In article <1ij4uiINNs73@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>In article <ednclark.726466826@kraken>, ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>>>
>>> So Fundies, Christians or Born Agains (Whatever you want to call yourselves)
>>> what is it: do you know your God intimately, or don't you know him at all?
>>>
>>> Hint: You can't have both and stay out of mental asylums.
>>
>>Which nicely raise the question: what features distinguish religions
>>from lunatic asylums, anyway?
>>
>>jon.
>
>lunatic asylums can be taxed.
>
>Robert Johnston
>
  ,...,.,,
 /666;    ',    jim tims
////;    _~ -   p00168@psilink.com
(/@/----0-~-0
 ;'  . `` ~ \'
  , `    ' , >
;;|\..((   -C---->>Religions cut the drugs with Gullibol. Bad side effects &
;;| >-  `.__),costly. Asylums use the safer, cheaper Thorazine and surgery.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: jimb@rcx1.csd.harris.com (Jim Burmeister)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: MY god
Date: 8 Jan 1993 18:04:49 GMT
Organization: Harris CSD, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com

In article <9300816.10375@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, tovey@mullauna.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Gadget) writes:
> I would be interested to hear some 'atheists' opinions of this.
> I have, for some time, believed in little that I can not see, hear, etc.
> However, having read some of Hofstater's books, notably 'The Mind's Eye',
> especially "Is God a Taoist", Raymond Smullyan, I am quite happy to believe 
> in God as a process, the process of attaining wisdom, and the devil as the
> 'unfortunate amount of time it takes'. As a practitioner of Aikido I 
> have some understanding of what the Zen masters talk about when they talk
> about the void and verything being the same, (mu). I believe that all religions
> have something to contribute to the well-being of people. It seems that the
> old (and obselete) view of Jews concerning not eating Pork is related to the
> fact the pork goes off quickly, just as the Catholic anti-prophylactic rule
> seems to encourage the manufacture of Catholics.
>  However, I am not willing to discard the concept of a god out of hand. I 
> think that the concept of a god can be beneficial to a society for one
> thing (i doubt you would dispute that), but I also believe in the possiblity
> of the existence of a 'cool' god, one who sees everything because he (she)
> (it) is all, one who changes with his (etc) environment. One who does not
> affect the world directly (just as we do not affect our bodies directly) but
> works through agents (as we use hormones as the personification of our wishes
> and white blood cells as the erradicators of corruption). The concept is my
> own (I think), but relates strongly to that of Buddha.
>   Your opinions?

From your post, it appears that you have taken the time to learn about 
some different belief systems, put some thought into it, and then
synthesize a world view which works well for you.  I think this is
great, too bad more people don't do this.  Unfortunately, most religions
tend to be set up as a "package deal"--along with God, you get heaven,
hell, Messiahs, holy books, commandments, taboos, and other myths and 
superstitions.  People tend to accept these packages, because all the 
thinking has been done for them, and if any contradictions arise, they 
just ignore them.

In principle, I believe that your statements that "all religions have 
something to contribute to the well-being of people" and "the concept of 
god can be beneficial to society" are true. They just don't work in practice
because of this "package deal" problem.  The positive aspects that many
religions contain are outweighed by the negative aspects that come along
with the package.

-Jim Burmeister, jimb@csd.harris.com
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 5 Jan 93 09:53:02 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <1993Jan4.185129.29260@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <0PZuwB6w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>>> Intelligence is superior to stupidity, but atheism is not an equate to
>>> intelligence. Thus, atheism is not 'superior' to religion.
>>
>>   A > B            C != A        =>    C <= D

>More like:
> a>b       c!=a     d!=b     =>   c!=d 
ie. they aren't 'related' point by point

This isn't what you originally said, and it's still not logically valid.
To state a relationship between 2 things, and then say that 2 other things 
are not the same as the first 2 things, says nothing about any possible 
relationship between the second 2 things.  

  No Trespassing: 4/17ths of a haiku.     D.Budd@mcc.ac.uk   fax 6040
  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England    (44|0)61-275-6033  
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25234 talk.religion.misc:25400 alt.pagan:15044
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Tax the Church
Date: 7 Jan 93 07:18:00 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu

mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:

>No "explosion", but from the "Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches" 
>years 1989 thru 1991, The number of church buildings reported rose from 
>346,102 in 1988 to 350,337 in 1991.

Definitely not an explosion--1.2% growth rate.  Lower than population
growth.  Not much to get concerned about.  Now if you want to go to
South or Central America, we can really talk growth rates.

-- 
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,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Religious Taxation (was: Madeleine Murray O'Hare)
Organization: I'm on a coffee break now
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 18:23:20 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

>
>It's not 'non-mention,' though.  There have been Christian critical
>programs on PBS.  But the ability of Christians to respond in the same
>media and same way is limited or non-existant.
>

Due to the generous tax exemptions they receive, Christians have been
able to purchase entire radio and television stations.  Are atheists
allowed to respond on those?  They are all regulated by our government
(FCC), even though privately owned.  In the commercial media, atheists
are never allowed to speak without a bunch of rabbi's, priests, and other
religious types to present an "opposing opinion".

Yeah, I guess a couple of programs on PBS which are non-supportive of
religion must have the believers really hopping mad!  Oh, your tax dollars
support these institutions, so you should have a say?  Well, my tax dollars
support the sewers under your churches, so I think you guys should all swim
in your own sewage!.




Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25043 talk.religion.misc:25210 alt.pagan:14976
From: martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: #define fanatic
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:12:26 GMT
Organization: British Telecom

pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe) writes:

>somewhere in my files is the definition
>A fanatic is a person who redoubles his efforts
>having lost sight of the goal.
>
I saw someone post here a quote I think that a fanatic is someone who
does what he knows god would do if god had all the facts.
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: confused
Date: 8 Jan 1993 04:26:52 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, eng10524@nusunix1.nus.sg (RAMASWAMI VISHWANATH) says:

>If 'God' created Adam and Eve and nobody else (except of course the
>apple and the snake )then did 'our ancestors' practice incest ? How else
>could the entire human race come from just two people ? Oh dear I am a
>sinner ( can hear the Xians say 'Join the ranks') ; CLEANSE ME , cleanse
>me ..... oooh the bloood , the Holy Blood from the wounds .....but wait
>a minute - whaddyathink , it is my Fathers blood . Gee , now it all
>makes sense ....!!!!
>
>

	But what is sicker yet is that when I was a *shutter* Lutheran I
used to commune, that is pretend I was drinking human blood and human
flesh........gee, does this mean that are "playing" canable ?

:-/ Hmmmmmm......and net.chri$tians wonder why I am an Atheist


-- 
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: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: The Sin That Is Not Forgiven
Date: 12 Jan 93 04:14:05 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA15798; Fri, 8 Jan 93 13:27:22 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA14719; Fri, 8 Jan 93 13:27:19 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0571; Fri, 08 Jan 93 22:26:55 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

Ok, since more than one asked me what that sin was actually, it is denial
of the Holy Ghost. Doesn't sound so difficult, does it? :-)

To be correct, I have found two translations. One says denial, the other
badmouthing (?). In case you are interested, check out Luke 10:12 and
Marc 3:28-30. John has it a bit different and, as usually, somewhat more
mystic. According to him not acknowledging Jesus (?) in the sense that
men are from below and he is from above (?) is not forgiven.

Weird how something as important as the only big mistake could be subject to
different tradition and wording, isn't it?

By the way, I recall that JWs have edited the HG out of the NT. If so,
it adds a nice little twist to the story.
   Benedikt
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: wendymas@gnu.ai.mit.edu (femme fatale)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: some 'corrections' and thoughts
Keywords: infallible, freewill,C/catholic
Date: 6 Jan 93 09:49:00 GMT
Distribution: alt.atheism
Organization: Free Software Foundation

hi, all. i'm pretty new to the newsgroup but i have noticed a disturbing
trend in some people misunderstanding terms that i thought might useful 
to clear in people's minds. before anyone gets the wrong idea, i'm an
ex-catholic and probably more accurately an agnostic but about 14 years
of CCD (this is what little non-parochial catholics get to attend to 
learn about Christ). i will try to be as brief as possible:

1 - the term catholic or Catholic. small c means universal. big C means
Roman Catholic. ok? my lutheran friend and i once had this discussion and 
she even told me that she wouldn't say the word 'catholic' in one of her 
church prayers cuz she thought it meant 'Catholic'. Her pastor cleared that
up for her.

2 - the term infallible as it refers to the Pope.  Now this might seem 
confusing and if i'm totally off base, Christian readers can correct me.
When the Roman Catholic Church says the Pope is infallible, it does not mean
that in absolutely anything he does, he cannot be wrong. What it DOES mean
is that when it comes to certain tenets that are vital to a Roman Catholics
spirituality, the Pope has the final say. For example, Jesus as the Son of
God, the Virgin Birth, the Emmaculate Conception, Jesus dying on the Cross,
Rising on the Third Day and the Ascension into heaven are infallible. You must
believe these to be Catholic. No one would say that the Pope was wrong in
asserting these matters are true. No Roman Catholic, I should say. Some of 
the more 'modern' things such as not allowing the use of contraceptions,
although interpreted by the Vatican to be discouraged in the Bible, are not
infallibe teachings. In conclusion, 'infallible' refers to the tenet, not
the person. 

3 - the free will argument. I recently had a discussion about this with my
boyfriend and it does not follow that just because God knows what i'm going
to do means that i have no free will. so big deal. God knows what i'm 
going to do. What's the connection between God knowing what i'm going to
do and me knowing what i'm going to do? divine intervention? Highly
Unlikely. God can know what i'm going to do and i can not know. These are NOT
dependent events in any way, shape or form. God may know that i'm going to
choose to become a dentist in 20 years but i certainly do not know and will
not know. it's a choice i am *going* to make but just haven't yet. anyway,
i've made my point.

thanks for listening. o btw, if i sound like a theist, please forgive me -
i know not what i'm doing ;)

wendy
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 6 Jan 93 04:41:11 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

I won't reply to anything further from Tammy Stark Blandino.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A nation chosen by GOD -- New-Israel
Date: 13 Jan 93 03:40:00 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1ivipuINNo93@seven-up.East.Sun.COM>, 
geoff@tyger.East.Sun.COM writes...

[my asking about rubbish]

>On a.a? All the time, unfortunately.....

I'll try to keep my act clean. It was a mistake to participate
in carrying alt.conspiracy stuff and alt.atheism stuff in the same
thread. 

>Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect, Sun Select. (geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM)

   |
-- J --
   |
   |  Stephen
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25856 talk.religion.misc:26040