HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 23:16:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.181105.214@newsgate.sps.mot.com>
titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
>
>Bush often says silly thinks in extemporaneous remarks.  Why do you people
>think his silly statement about atheists is important?
 
When people make statements, however silly, about things as important as
rights and citizenship, I think its only natural that some people would
take notice, particularly those most affected by the statement.  The fact
that such a statement was made by a Presidential candidate makes the
situation particularly alarming.
 
>If he repeats the silly statement or makes it during prepared remarks
>or tries to take away atheists voting rights then we should take notice.
 
Take notice: Bush has repeatedly refused to make any sort of apology or
retraction for the infamous statement.  Letters from his aides indicates
that he stands by his comment.  Read Bush's proclamations, and listen to
his speeches, particularly to religious groups, for plenty more of the
same.  The man means it.
 
Wayne Aiken                                            "You can BE what
PO Box 30904            slack@ncsu.edu                  you WON'T!!"
Raleigh, NC  27622                                       --"Bob"
(919) 782-8171          StarFleet BBS: (919) 782-3095
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 12:41:33 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> >God [...] made me in such a way that I am unable to breathe underwater.
> 
> >Why couldn't he have made the authors of the Bible in such a way that they
> >were unable to misrepresent his word?
> 
> Possibly because giving humans the ability to make the choice to
> misrepresent his word was more important to God than the accurate
> transmission of his word.

So it's more important that people be able to intentionally distort the
teachings of the Bible than that God's word should get to all people?  That's
a pretty odd sense of priorities.  I've heard of God moving in mysterious
ways, but that's downright perverse.

> Crucial to what I am saying is the claim that entity can have
> conflicting wants.  Do you agree with this?

In the case of the sorts of entities I'm familiar with, yes.  But omnipotent
omniscient entities aren't something I've ever encountered.

> >> >So... the next question is, why is the freedom to misrepresent God's word
> >> >important when millions of other freedoms aren't?
> 
> Still an important question.  My previous longwinded answer boils down
> to, "Because God decided it was."  Since I only present an explanation
> and make no claim that this is "the way things are" no further answer
> is required.

"God says so" has never convinced me in the past, I'm afraid.

> >But you admit that it must have been his choice?
> 
> Yes.  According to the explanation I present, God arbitrarily made
> humans the way he wanted them.

Then he wanted me to be an atheist -- so who am I to argue?


mathew
-- 
Ceci | n'est pas une pipe.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Atheism and spiritual feelings (was Re: Atheism and culture)
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:19:31 GMT

(Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>This one is a gnostic theism, which should be compared with the gnostic
>atheism. You forget about the agnostic theism (eg. mine) which should be
>compared with the agnostic atheism. This theism says: "I have spiritual
>feelings about God so I MAY believe that there's God".

There is no way that you practice agnostic theism Jarek.
An agnostic would not credit those "spiritual feelings" to "God".
He/she would not credit them to anything.

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Women hating
Keywords: rape
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 11:01:26 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
> Bev Beasly:
> >>And where do you get off using that tone?  Do you think that these
> >>crimes, be it rape, verbal, physical abuse, is the man's fault alone?
> 
> Er, yes. It is the man's fault and the man's fault only.
> In the final analysis no matter what temptation the women may offer,
> the man makes a *choice* to rape. And he, and he alone, is responsible
> for that choice.

...After all, if I forget to lock my door, am I asking to be burgled?  If I
fail to carry a gun, do I deserve it if I get mugged?  If I fail to install
suitable software, is it my fault that my computer gets a virus?


mathew
-- 
Down, boy!  There's a good dogma.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.bizarre
From: ss@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Scott Stuart)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Date: 27 Jul 92 12:17:50 GMT
Reply-To: ss@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Scott Stuart)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <1992Jul25.220613.15611@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
>When was the last time an airplane crashed? And I certainly
>don't recall a bird hit his noze on the ground because there
>was some ice on his wings.


When was the last time that an airplane crashed into a glass plate and 
killed itself while trying to escape from a cat?


scott
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi)
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:53:50 GMT

In article <RLK.92Jul26010419@underprize.think.com> rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:
>
>Have you ever seen the cellular automaton called "life" invented by John
>Horton Conway?  For a system with three very simple rules, on a two
>dimensional plane, with two states and no memory, the complexity is
>impressive.  Gliders, spaceships, glider guns, glider guns that are
>configured to produce space ship factories...all derived from those
>three simple rules.  This simple CA dominated the "Mathematical Games"
>section of Scientific American for years.
>
>Or take the Mandelbrot set.  Based on a simple mathematical formula, it
>produces a fractal of amazing beauty.  And what's more, quite a few
>other things drop out of this set.
>
>The point being that it doesn't take divine design to produce things of
>such sublime complexity.  Many very simple systems can do very nicely.

How do those things compare with the human brain, created by God,
which invented these things in the first place?
>--
>ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
>bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
>harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116
>
>Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Praying to Mecca?
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:53:27 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <graham.711590154@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>
>Nope that is what I am disputing. I may have faith in the existence of
>God but why does that mean I should do everything he/she says?
>

Because He asks you to do so.  Otherwise you don't have faith.

>graham
>--
>Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
>Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
>graham@maths.su.oz.au
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Praying to Mecca?
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:56:40 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <bc6702OZ1ae701@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:
>Personally, I think you have to be pretty stupid to believe all that crap.

  This sentiment has always bothered me.  I think it safe to say
  that we all know at least a few intelligent people who
  nevertheless believe in some form of god.  Additionally, while
  there may exist a correlation between intelligence and lack of
  religion (a dubious suggestion at best), it is painfully obvious
  that stupidity is not a prerequisite to religiosity.  

  Rather, I think it takes an extraordinary person to throw off the
  accumulated weight of years of religious indoctrination.  It may
  only be that atheists possess an unusual resistance to
  inculcation.  Calling the other camp stupid, however, is both uncalled
  for and untrue.  As long as you feel superior to the
  outsider, you can never establish equality in your relations with
  them.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"But writing is a legal way of avoiding work without actually
stealing and one that doesn't take any talent or training."

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: lighten up, people
Keywords: faith 
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 09:57:00 GMT

In article <Brxn7q.Hoy@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mr. Mensa ) writes:

>	Well, tonight was the first time I have ever read this newsgroup, and I
>have a few things to say:

It's considered good netiquette to read a group for a week or two before
posting.

>	1) the idea of God is not illogical.

Given that the only positive thing you say about MrMensaGod is that it
is a "spirit of Love", and given that I don't know what a "spirit of Love"
is, this is rather difficult for me to dispute.

>       I am a scientist (an astronomer),
>	and I believe in God. I believe that He (or whatever pc pronoun you
>	see fit to insert) created the Universe. BUT: I also believe 100% in
>	the natural laws that control the Universe (ie Big Bang, Worm Holes,
>	Black Holes, etc.) I am VERY interested in correspondance with someone
>	who has a differing opinion on this.

That rules me out.  I believe that you are a scientist, and that you believe
in God, and that you believe 100% in the natural laws that control the
Universe.

>	4) the Bible (to me, at least) is not a literal work. Come on, people..
>	who really believes that the Universe was created in SIX DAYS?!?! BUT:

Amazingly enough, there are people who believe this.  But I find that no more
surprising than that there are people who believe that the following carries
any informational content.  What's a "spirit of Love?"  Sounds like brain fuzz
to me.  Be careful, that stuff can lead to insanity.

>       He (see above note) does
>	not have a physical existence. He is a spirit of Love. One will
>	never 'see God' in a physical sense, because that is simply not how
>	He exists.

Do you agree that God is a gfurble of blarfle as well?  I rather think
that that is one of his more important characteristics.  I've been thinking
of writing a volume of theology on this important concept.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: FAQ File Reminder   rednimeR eliF QAF :tcejbuS
Summary: Read it backwards and you get evil messages
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 14:50:59 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

[ This is a canned posting ]

This is a reminder about the alt.atheism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
file.

The file exists to help new readers avoid embarrassing themselves by asking
questions which have been covered over and over again.  Please read it before
posting.

To find a copy:

1. Check the newsgroup alt.atheism.  There should be a copy of the latest
   version of the FAQ file.  Look for the subject line "Alt.Atheism
   Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)".

2. Check the newsgroup news.answers for the same subject line.

   If you don't find anything in steps 1 or 2, your news system isn't set up
   correctly, and you may wish to tell your system administrator about the
   problem.

3. If you have anonymous FTP access, connect to pit-manager.mit.edu
   [18.172.1.27].  Go to the directory /pub/usenet/alt.atheism, and you'll
   find the latest version of the FAQ file there.

4. If you don't have FTP, send mail to mail-server@pit-manager.mit.edu
   consisting of the following line:

      send usenet/alt.atheism/Alt.Atheism_Frequently_Asked_Questions_(FAQ)

   The FAQ file should be mailed back to you automatically.

5. (Penultimate resort)  Send mail to info-server@mantis.co.uk consisting of
   the following line:

      send atheism/atheism.txt

   and our poor overworked modems will try and send you a copy.


mathew
-- 
"That's the letter U, and the numeral 2."

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Subject: Re: Jesus Jokes
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization
	<Bs7L0x.Dnz@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>
	<1992Jul31.101503.27916@maths.tcd.ie> <Bs9Fx0.LCG@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Date: 31 Jul 92 20:53:42

Jesus was hanging on the cross, with Peter just within earshot.
[Stand with arms spread as if on a crucifix.]

"Peter," he said.  "Come here.  Can you do me a favor?"

"What, Lord?"  asked Peter.

"My arms are killing me.  Can you take one of the nails out so i can
stretch a little?"

"But there are Roman soldiers all over the place... They'll kill me!"

"I promise you, no one will see it."

Peter does like Jesus asked him.  Jesus shakes his arm and stretches
it out.  [Shake and stretch arm.]  "Ah, that feels goooooood.  Hey,
Peter, can you do the other one?"

Peter takes the other nail out too.  Jesus starts shaking his other
arm out.  [Shake and stretch other arm, then begin to lean forward,
making small, rapid circles with arms.]  "AAAH!  PETER! THE FEET!  THE
FEET!"

[Visual parts of the joke in square brackets.]

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway
From: rlk@lamby-poo.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Praying to Mecca?
Date: 21 Jul 92 11:49:58
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: lamby-poo.think.com
In-reply-to: mathew's message of Wed, 15 Jul 92 10:19:43 BST

In article <k45XNB4w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:

   > But why 5 times a day? Why not 3? Why not 7?

   It's the LAW OF FIVES, Graham.

   Hail Eris!

All hail Discordia!

Kallisti.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: thrift@ra.csc.ti.com (Phil Thrift)
Subject: Re: atheism
Organization: TI Central Research Laboratories, Dallas
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:52:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.130101.20283@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>
mrice@churchill.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Mark.Rice) writes:

> ... saying "THIS is the truth" can be stereotypical
> of a christian but is often said by atheists when they say "I know for sure
> there is no such thing as a GOD of any kind."  They're being just as
> closed-minded as stereotypical christians.

Are there such atheists who make such quotes? I would be surprised if
even  the "patron saint of atheists"  herself Madeline  O'Hare  would
swear to such a thing.

I hold with the view that atheism is just an application of  Ockham's
Razor: "Plurality must not be posited without  necessity". That is to
say: belief in God is a needless belief.

Philip Thrift
thrift@ra.csc.ti.com

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mrice@churchill.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Mark.Rice)
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Organization: NCR Corp
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 20:20:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.063335.8435@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> Matthew Trevor <mtrevor@nyx.cs.du.edu> writes:
>
>I was brought up in a strong catholic household, and have only just
>recently "converted" (if you will) to atheism. I agree that religion can
>have some important things to say, but my belief is that many christian
>religions are too interested in enforcing Christ's divinity, and not as
>involved with spreading what he *said*. I personally hold to many of
>Christ's teachings, yet fail to see why he needs to be "divine" for his
>words to have any relevance.
>
>Matthew T.

Bravo!  I like your thinking, in that you separate the linkage that
most seem to have with "christian" and "good".  I believe that if we
think logically, we will see that Jesus had many good teachings.
Whether he's a GOD or not is (for the most part) a separate issue.

mark rice
-- 
-----
mark.rice@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM		H: 803-731-5560
Not necessarily the views of NCR.	W: 803-791-6466
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 04:33:38 GMT

(Tony Lezard) writes:
>This bird/plane crap is to the best of my memory the most pointless
>and absurd thread I have ever read on alt.atheism.

This is because people seem to have strayed from the original
point of the thread. I have yet to see, for example, Rhida reply
to my post saying that she was mis-representing what happened
when she said that "men studied birds to learn how to fly, but
birds are more complex than planes, so indeed men do invoke
higher complexity to explain lesser complexity". 

Care to reply to my comments on this claim Rhida and we can
thus keep the thread on the topic.

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14552 soc.culture.pakistan:12878 soc.culture.arabic:2925
From: ghbr@fmg.bt.co.uk (Hossein Bagherzadeh Rafsanjani)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:02:37 GMT
Organization: British Telecom

In article <1992Jul28.081051.1618@cco.caltech.edu> bes@cco.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi) writes:

> Let's see.... in the "fundamentalist" (whatever that word means) country 
> of Iran, you won't find 1/3 of women being sexually assaulted, as is the 
> case in the U.S.  

How do _you_ know?  And why these millions of sexually assaulted women are not
applying en masse for immigration to Iran (or other "Islamic" countries) in
order to live in "safe" environments over there, I wonder.

-hossein
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism and culture
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 11:40:46 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
> In article <Tow2NB3w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
> >mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
> >> reliable; c) the future will resemble the past in all but
> >> matters of detail; d) reasonably reliable communication
> >> is possible.
> >
> >I think I'd count the assumptions of science slightly differently.  I don't
> >quite understand what c) has to do with science.  As I see it, the laws of
> >physics could suddenly change next Tuesday, and science could continue. 
> >(Although it would obviously have a lot of catching up to do.)
> 
> We need c) if we want science to have predictive power.
> If the future is drastically different from the past then
> no prediction is possible. There is no correlation between
> gathered data and what is likely to happen.

I was thinking of a hypothetical situation where the laws of physics change
drastically on exactly one occasion, (say) October 15th 1993.

In such a case, it is not always the case that the future will resemble the
past in all but matters of detail; nevertheless, I contend that science would
continue straight past the event without pause.  We'd have a lot of basic
science to do again on October 16th, but science would continue.

Even if we knew of the event in advance, science would still have predictive
power.  It's just that today's science wouldn't have the power to predict
anything beyond October 15th 1993.

> >I'm not so sure cause and effect is necessary, either.
> 
> I think you're right about cause and effect, although
> I also think that it is a widely held assumption. More
> precisely, I suspect it isn't *strictly* necessary for
> science, but is necessary for much science as usually
> practiced.

Yup.  I'll go along with that.


mathew
-- 
This disclaimer does not represent the views of Mantis Consultants Ltd
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why do I post here (was: prayer)
Date: 26 Jul 92 22:49:52 GMT
Organization: Xerox PARC

In <92208.014517U55870@uicvm.uic.edu> DAVE!!! aka D*A*V*E wrote:

-DAVE!!![garbage deleted]:
>
>
See "Jarek, where are you (with DAVE!!!)" trash bin for a followup in
the relevant style, if you don't have anything else to do tonight.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: free will
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 06:14:02 GMT

Khan:
>You are just a creature of God.
Graham:
>Do you know what the words "fuck off" mean Khan?
Jarek:
>That Khan said something Graham didn't like and that Graham is vulgar.

Think again Jarek. In fact think. It may be a new experience.

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Why do I post here?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 01:22:15 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.160716.200@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:

>    Christianity has made significant contributions to health and
>    education.

Yep, and it's still busy contributing to health and education.  Birth control and
sex education?  Satan's work.  AIDS education?  No way, the fags deserve it.  What
to do when your kids misbehave?  They're possessed; beat the shit out of them to
drive out the demons.  Education about our origins?  Well, see, God did it, and
anybody who says differently is rejecting God.  Education about our decaying
environment?  God predicted it -- who are we to tamper with God's work.  Anybody
who says differently is in league with Satan.  Education about who and what we
are?  We're sinners.  We deserve everything we get.  Any attempt to make life a
little better for people is just a manifestation of that evil humanism stuff, and
isn't God's Will.  Education on tolerance?  The fags and the Jews and fornicators
and the blacks and anybody who isn't exactly like me, are evil.  Education on how
to resolve differences of opinion between people?  Thump your Bible harder.  If
that doesn't work, kill the bastard, he wasn't a True Christian anyway.  Oh
yes, Christianity certainly has made significant contributions to health and
education.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.