HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: proof
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:16:04 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
Summary: 30 words max
Keywords: Jesus,Proof

In article <casivils.724130930@node_508ba> casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
>An empty grave, It would take take even more faith not to beleive, 
>Historical Accuracy of the bible, Completeness of the Spiritual model given 
>in the bible, personal experiances, Answers.

	[ sorry if I misinterperate the above passage, but the syntax and 
structure is an almost incomprehensible ]

	An empty grave: Yes, I'm sure there are many empty graves. I'm not 
sure how this is evidence for the Christian God and of Jesus.

	It would take more faith to not believe the historical accuracy of 
the bible? There is a multitude of historically inaccurate passages, and 
many which defy both logic and common sense. It's track record is not very 
clean.

	The completeness of the spiritual model: While I agree with Kuhn 
that an explanation, especially either a cosmological or metaphysical one, 
must have some psychologically fullfilling need for society, I see no reason 
to assume that this is an indication of its truth.

	Personal experiences: If I were to use my personal experiences, they 
would all lead against the conclusion that Jesus exists. And, I can never 
know your or anyone elses personal experiences, so the matter is rather moot.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Religion = Anything that's fun is bad.
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 23:36:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.222145.3761@bmerh85.bnr.ca>,
dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
|>In article <1992Dec13.191204.24816@bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA
(Brian Cash) writes:
|>>Um, dude, I was refering to the "open" part of "open rational mind".
|>>Your statement "It is the inevitable result of being an open rational mind."
|>>doesn't sound very open minded.  Hence the contradictions (esp. the 'humble'
|>>part.)  You know, like satire?
|>
|>I'm quite certain that I don't know what the hell you're talking about.
|>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.
I might have taken the idea of 'open-minded' to the extreme, though.
Still, the statement struck me as a little funny.

|>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.  Besides, _I_ never claimed to be open-minded,
I only questioned your claim. (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.)
Sorry if some of my posts piss you off; I write some of them
at the end of my work-day (which can end at various times), and
my caustic side tends to show a bit more.  I usually like
to use humor (or attempt to) to make my point; I really don't
mean to offend anyone.

|>
|>PS: Those goofy smilies don't add much to your articles either.

Sorry. I will try to use less of them in the future ;^)

|>--
|>Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.

Brian /-|-\
From: oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Dealing with annoying e-mail
Date: 13 Dec 1992 21:30:22 GMT
Organization: Washington University Astrophysics
NNTP-Posting-Host: fermi.wustl.edu


Maybe it's just the time of year, but I have been getting an inordinate amount
of unsolicited e-mail from theists seeking to enlighten me to the One True
Way.  I usually just mail them a copy of the FAQ.  I was wondering what
favorite tactics other readers of this group used when dealing with these
people, or whether they bother to respond at all!

	-Scott O.

P.S.  Merry Saturnalia!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Non-Religious Definition to Atheism
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:00:31 GMT

>From: cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edmund Joseph Ryan)
>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.

You want to be called a MATERIALIST!?!  And you thought 'atheist'
has negative connotations!  I like 'REALIST' better, but I think
that is just begging for a flame-war.
Remember, 'Yank' was started as a slur, but those that
are proud to be Americans wear that tag with pride.

Brian /-|-\
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Dealing with annoying e-mail
Date: 14 Dec 92 06:10:02 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1gga1eINNlm5@wupost.wustl.edu>, oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott
Oser) wrote:
> Maybe it's just the time of year, but I have been getting an inordinate amount
> of unsolicited e-mail from theists seeking to enlighten me to the One True
> Way.  I usually just mail them a copy of the FAQ.  I was wondering what
> favorite tactics other readers of this group used when dealing with these
> people, or whether they bother to respond at all!

Well, you could send them a one liner telling them that you are now
converted,
the other end is happy, and you don't get any more evangelistical
emails. Peace on Earth, hehehe.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: y41@aix320a.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (Jeffrey Hazelwood)
Subject: OPERATION RESTORE ATHEISTS
Organization: University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 12:25:24 GMT



Hello,

There has been a WAVE of recent Xtian postings seemingly to convert, impose,
or enforce Xtian beliefs upon Atheists.  I attribute most of these posts
to the good ole "Holiday Spirit". Every year around Xmas time, Xtians start
feeling a bit sentimental and well.....They have to do their duty.  I just
don't know why they have to post to alt.atheists? Aren't there some bells
that need ringing in front of department stores somewhere?? 

There is a hole in everyone of us, unfortunately on some folks it is closed
a bit too tight!  There exists for your pleasure another place to discuss
Xtian issues, it's called soc.religion.christian.  Please go there, NOW!



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey T. Hazelwood                    Universitt Heidelberg
EMAIL: y41@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de       Heidelberg, Germany 

             "Quick, lock the door, some JW's are coming!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why I became an Athiest (was: frustrations with christianity)
Date: 15 Dec 92 10:54:43 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <10931@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>  And if you're feeling particularly pernicious, go to the mass and
>  be sure to get into the communion line.  I've seen what happens if
>  the wafer were to "accidentally" fall on the ground.

Actually, I took the Holy Communion once, at a Christmas service in
Boston to which I went for the sake of the show.  (I wasn't such a
militant atheist at that time.)  I didn't like it, though.  The wine
was sweet and the bread was tasteless.

-- 
 `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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: YHWH
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<fWv0ALH@quack.sac.ca.us> <1992Dec17.030958.2015@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 17 Dec 1992 18:10:44 UTC

In article <1992Dec17.030958.2015@midway.uchicago.edu> 
dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>pharvey writes:
>>Is there really a difference? Who is this "God of the covenant?"
>I AM WHO I AM...Thus you shall say...I AM has sent me...
>(Exodus 3:14) Incidentally, one of the funniest and most
>thought-provoking lines in the Pentateuch (IMO). 

Yes, it is. There's more than most people realize. Why do we desire to
name our Gods? Why do we desire Gods? What is out there and in here? Who
is the one with the hand? To be or not to be, that is *the* question.

And, since you know of this passage, the following might interest you:
JPS(ISBN:0-8276-0252-9)
Exodus 3:13: Moses said to God, "When I come to the Israelites and say
to them `The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me,
`What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" (14) And God said to
Moses, (a-)"Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh."(-a) He continued, "Thus shall you say to
the Israelites, `Ehyeh(b) sent me to you.'" (15) And God said further to
Moses, "Thus shall you speak to the Israelites: The LORD(c), the God of
your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob, has sent me to you:
Thus shall be My name forever,
This My appellation for all eternity.
---
a-a: Meaning of Heb. uncertain; variously translated: "I Am That I Am";
"I Am Who I Am"; "I Will Be What I Will Be"; etc.
b: Others "I Am" or "I Will Be."
c: The name YHWH (traditionally read Adonai "the LORD") is here
associated with the root hayah "to be."
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Just how much smarter are atheists?
Date: 12 Dec 92 15:49:09 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1gbm3tINN73s@gap.caltech.edu> werdna@cco.caltech.edu (Andrew Tong) writes:
>
>Is this the point to being an atheist: to ridicule those who believe in God?
>

No, but it's fun to ridicule those who try to force their religion on
others by using crazy arguments that anybody with an ounce of education,
intelligence or common sense can see through.

Especially when these are second-hand arguments from some ignoramus in a
pulpit (real or televised) which only convince the already-brainwashed,
and the poster did not have the said ounce. nd just reto see through them.

Remember, this is alt.atheism. A forum for atheists. Not a pulpit for
religious believers. Theists are welcome here so long as they are not
here to spread their message. But if they post rubbish then they had
better wear asbestos.

>
>seems so....  And why not?  (might I ask...)  Oh welll....

Chris Lee
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Keywords: Bible--psychology--fundamentalism
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 08:03:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.053417.15150@midway.uchicago.edu> dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec6.113418.19447@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>>Statistics on church membership indicated a continuing decline.  The
>>prevailing opinion was that religion served to explain the origins of
>>the universe, and one's relation to the universe.  As the more
>>competent natural sciences increased man's knowledge of the universe,
>>conventional religion became more and more irrelevant.  Unless
>
>Once I see such (IMO) absurd generalizations as above, I tend
>not to follow the rest of the article, figuring there will be
>similar lapses in logic.
>
>I would argue that anyone who opines that people join religious
>movements in order to "explain the origins of the universe"
>simply does not understand why people DO join religious
>movements.

If you'd bothered to read the articles, you might have noticed that Cohen
is not necessarily agreeing with what used to be the prevailing opinion; he
mentions it for historical context.  The whole point of Cohen's book is to
provide an alternate explanation for the popularity of Christianity.
So please, don't pin the blame for these "absurd generalizations"
on Cohen, and read on.

BTW, you seem to be pretty certain that *you* know why people join
religious movements, which probably explains why you are so anxious
to shoot down Cohen.  Care to let us in on your secret?
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: frustrations with christianity
Date: 11 Dec 1992 18:30:29 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


[originator of threat mentions religious friend trying to convert her]
 
[assorted other conversion that I find interesting]
 
        I have a number of Theist friends, and as I see it, the people
who I generally call friends do not try to "convert" me all of the time.
If they cannot respect me enough to understand I am not interested
in being saved, and their religion forces them to override their respect
for me then I cannot call them a friend.
 
        I remember too when I was little in the church I listened in
on a sermon once (Missouri synod Lutheran). The pastor kept saying
that chri$tians must use their friendships/relationships with people
to convert people- IE: manipulate your friendships and relationships
with others/your SO/ect.. to get then converted. I don't twist and
pervert friendships and relationships like that. I have something
called integrity, and find that beneath me.
 
 
 
-- 
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: robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Bogus TAE reasoning, and why I get caught every time
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:26:11 CST

Broughton, Wayne Jeremy (waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu) wrote:
: and I (Robert Derrick) wrote...

  [long goofy argument (on my part) about time dilation, speed,
   and other fun things, deleted]

I allowed myself to get sucked into this one, and I tread on very
thin ice, playing fast a loose with the concepts.  But as it also happened
just recently in another thread, the real discussion boiled down to
what a third poster had said.  In both cases, the third poster never
once tried to jumped in to defend himself.  He rather let another
defend him.

I think in both cases, it came down to: what was the third guy trying
to say?

In the first case, the third guy was Kalki, and the second case, the 
third guy was Ray Cote.

I guess I have a strong opinion about what these guys are trying to
prove, and so I read freely between the lines.  This may be unsafe,
but I feel that if I were to mistate their position, they would be
the first to correct me.  Neither one ever did.

I think, if anything, they enjoy creating controversy.  It is clear
from TAE writings that they view dissent as contrary evidence, as, if
Gould disagrees with Sagan, this somehow lends credence to Gish and
Sada Puta and Velicrashghi or even Charles Fort.

I believe that when a TAE talks about "time is not constant", they are
doing so solely to, somehow, cram the history of the universe into
6,000 years, with the bulk of it jammed into the first seven days.
Any discussion that otherwise transmutes their position is just adding
to the fire of controversy.

I believe that when a TAE talks about consciousness, they are doing so
solely to, somehow, prove that the supernatural soul exists, and that
life is by it's nature, non-mechanistic.  All other discussion, that 
tries to imply that the TAE didn't actually say that, in a
particular case, does in no way mollify the intent in that case.

In a sense, this does tend to stereotype TAE's, so that when one shows
up that is a little more of a thinker than the usual crowd, they are
trampled underfoot as if they were just more of the same rabble.  And
this is sad.  But it is not tragic.  If someone has a new idea, and
a belief and yes, a faith, in that idea, and convictions, they will
be able to withstand the buffets of criticism until more sober minds
have allowed themselves to cogitate a little more on this new radical
idea.  Strangely enough, that is exactly how science works.  Don't
like it?  Find yourself a congregation and tell them -- they'll believe
anything!  It may not be as satisfying, but it can be a whole lot
more profitible.  And after all, what's more important?
--

rob derrick				robd@cherry.cray.com


NOTE: TAE: Theistic Anti-Evolution(ist)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: The "Answers": and "Why" .....
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:30:42 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   14 Dec 1992 19:18:59 GMT
>FROM:   Adam Trent Phillips <bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu>
>
[...]
>
>	What about when they say "the Bible has the answers". I
>find that really odd. Most of time a lot of us just feel tempted
>(or at least I used to) to just say the "answers are wrong", but
>I look at it as they DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT MY QUESTIONS ARE !!!
>
[...]
The Bible is a mystery, don't you know.  Or don't you?  As the
clues appear, the questions will present themselves, like "Who
dropped the rose in the elevator?" or "Shouldn't I be doing my
laundry instead of watching _Murder at the Gallop_?".  Biblical
mysteries include "Why doesn't God make his own money?" and 
"Why the funny hats?".

-jim tims



Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cfairman@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman)
Subject: Being different
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 00:20:09 GMT

Wow, do you think you could be any more judgemental if you tried?  Did you
ever stop to consider that "being different from everyone else" is probably
every kid's worst fear?  There was a time when nearly every boy in America

Yes. I'm sure he did.  Well, _I_ did.  I was often ostracised because I 
didn't believe in god, like to wear skirts and nice floral prints instead
of my older brother's old jeans, climbed trees and played with boys.  It
helps to have healthy self-esteem and parent who understand that being your 
self is more important than anything else in the world.  period.  Now, it's
possible that since the theme of Aladdin was to be yourself, it might catch
on.  however, just because everyone else does it doesn't mean it's right, nor 
that you must do it.  Shit, that I consider commom sense.

The more children are trained by their parents to bow down to majority rule, the more we loose the ability to think and reason for ourselves.  I like to
think that other Athiests value thinking for themselves, but I may be wrong.

You yourself said that the kids, after laughing some or just being curious, 
moved on.  So what's the point?  If you don't let them bother you, or are
friendly back, they move on.  Worked though high school for me.

Carolyn
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheists should mind their own damn business
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 00:09:33 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Dec12.191903.19223@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
>... stupid corruption of my brilliant paragraph deleted ...
>
>Oh yes, there is such a striking similarity in the 90's between
>Christianity and Naziism. The analogy between God and Hitler is
>so brilliant I was actually frightened to have antagonized
>such a mammoth's intellect.
>- Harry

	It doesn't matter if Christianity in 1990 and Naziism in 1940 are 
similar or not. [ However, I would agree that Christianity in the past was 
similar ] The passage was not making any attempt at drawing a connection 
between the two. I could of used negro slavery, or communism. I choose
Naziism.
	 I object to the idea that we just "live with it". As someone posted 
earlier, if it was just the "In God(tm) We Trust" on coins, I could handle 
that. However, it is not. Our government and society is oppressive. I resent 
this oppression. And, I object to the "Government knows best" stance of your 
post. Regardless of whether or not *you* feel these examples are doing harm 
or not, they have no relevence to my right to speak out. I have the right to 
object to our legal coinage. I have the right to believe what I believe. It 
doesn't matter if it is in letters 1/8" tall, or on a 64' billboard. And, 
the larger their signs become, the louder I will be, to protect my life and 
my rights. 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: Discrimination?
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 12 Dec 92 00:22:29 CST

In article <85058@ut-emx.uucp> shari@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Wild and Crazy Kind of Girl) writes:
>
>Hi! I have a couple questions for all atheists:
>
>- Do you tell most people what your beliefs are?

Whenever I am asked, or people talk about their beliefs on the subject.
If it is okay for people to admit to being theist, or i.p.u. believers, it
is okay to be atheist, or whatever the pc is now.

>- If you do profess your lack of belief in a god, do you encounter prejudice 
>or discrimination?

Used to, mostly in Elementary School, but not much any more.  Now, what I
hear are people who have problems understanding how I can believe that their
isn't a superior being guiding things, like creation.  They ask questions,
so I ask questions that tend to question the core of faith.  This is what
I do if they are nice people.  My friends only bring it up if they are willing
to hear my side, because they know that I will not back down, even if it
means many people trying to "convert" me or accusing me of nonsense.
>
>I would love to hear from you!  
>
>shari@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
:)M^2
>
>
>


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j)
Subject: Re: Discrimination?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 09:31:43 GMT

[...]
> WaCKoG> - If you do profess your lack of belief in a god, do you encounter
> WaCKoG> prejudice or discrimination?

>Yes, people think I am kinda nuts or weird, or at least a little odd.
>South Africa is supposed to be a 'christian' country, and the company
>I work for is rather conservative..

>Cheers, Ian

This may cause some people to call themselves "Agnostics" instead of 
"Atheists" in public. It can be more socially acceptable (to Christians,
at least) to be "searching" or "undecided" for/about God (ie: Agnostic)
than to "not believe at all". In the theist's eyes, it may be easier to
"convert" an Agnostic than an Atheist. Hope this doesn't screw with
public opinion polls....

Peter J Nelson
Newsgroups: alt.atheism