HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gmiller@worldbank.org (Gene C. Miller)
Subject: Re: Circumcision (was Re: God Is Unfair)
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: worldbank.org
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:50:12 GMT

In article <akhan.10.722275713@gab.unt.edu>, akhan@gab.unt.edu (Arshad
Khan) wrote:

> Muslims do have this ritual (if you consider them outside Judeo-Christian
> tradition though, personally I feel that all three have same the roots).

Ishmael was no less a son of Abraham than Isaac.
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Help
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:55:41 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64746.student.cwru.edu

In article <schnitzi.722107928@eola.cs.ucf.edu> schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes:
> And Gerry,
>can I ask that you please not get discouraged like Mic Oettinger did
>here recently, when she got some angry replies?  Many of us regarded her
>subsequent refusal to produce as chickening out.  

	Oh, we don't have to be so personally judgemental. I don't think she 
was "chickening out" of producing proof. 
	Rather, she didn't have any evidence in the first place, and choose 
not to admit the lack of substance to her claims.
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Kittens!
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:30:48 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov  5 1992

Did you hear the one about the little girl who was wheeling a wagonful
of kittens down the street. A woman approached her, admiring the
kittens and said, "what kind of kittens are they, little girl?"
 
The little girle replied "they are Christian kittens, ma'am."
 
A few days later the little girl again had the litter of kittens in her
wagon. The same woman came by and once again admired them by saying "my
your Christian kittens are sure getting cute."
 
The little girl said, "no, ma'am, they're not Christian kittens, they're
atheist kittens."
 
"But, just the other day you told me they were Christian kittens. Why
are they now atheist? the woman asked.
 
"Because," the little girl replied, "now they have their eyes open."

--- Maximus 2.00
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Date: 18 Nov 92 23:29:27 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <BxxM4K.By7@acsu.buffalo.edu> v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
>
>Ahh, but you weren't listening.  However, I was listening, and I received the
>call.  You nonbelievers are all alike.
>
>By the way, I'll be writing my memoirs on my visitation by the Archangel
>Mikel...

  Yeah, he visited me too.  I'm having a hell of a time explaining
  this pregnancy thing to my wife, though.  She *knows* I'm a
  virgin.  

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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Chaotic brain behaviour and its influence on duplicating a perso
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 22:32:19 GMT

In article <of1g_dC00iUy02t807@andrew.cmu.edu> "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>>"Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>> impulses.  With accurate enough recording/replicating devices, we
>>> could basically "install" the old person's memories onto the
>>> clone.  School
>>> would be pretty useless too.  Why go to school when you can have all
>>> this information just uploaded to your brain?
>>>
>>It's sad that there are people who believe that's the purpose of school...
>
>Why?  What else is there to school than learning that cannot be better
>accomplished elsewhere today, with our current technology.  

Rather a lot.  When I look back upon my undergraduate career (ah,
being a Senior was 3 of the best years of my life) I remember hazy
Friday nights of alcoholism, trips up into the Berkeley hills, offensive
music, bad food, beautiful and intelligent women who had the good sense
not to get involved with me, etc.  Classes don't really stand out.  Even 
if I had learned nothing at school (which is far from the case), the social 
interaction would have made it all worth while.

C Frog
From: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is omniscience impossible?
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:27:49 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

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 :-)
From: percival@qut.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Adam and Eve and Bellybuttons
Date: 21 Nov 92 11:31:51 EST
Organization: Queensland University of Technology

In article <jking.722142929@syzygy>, jking@socs.uts.edu.au (smathy werp) writes:
> 
> percival@qut.edu.au writes:
> 
>>	What I want to know is:  Did Adam or Eve have bellybuttons?
>>	And if so, Why?
> 
> andrew ..
> 	and MORE to the point .. IF women were created AFTER men .. why
> 	do men have nipples ?? *8^)
> 
> 	thats all
> --

	Hmmmm, Actually I was looking for some serious discussion ( as far
as that is possible in his group :-) ). 
	Andrew
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Date: 19 Nov 92 08:34:38 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Nov18.173637.23791@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov16.174430.2817@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>>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. 
>
>>On the other hand, you can't prove that I'm not Jehovah.
>
>	If you were Jehovah, then you needn't use computer to tell me 
>	that. 

On the other hand, if I'm Jehovah, I am allowed to use a computer
to tell you that. That wasn't your attempt at disproof, was it?
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21473 talk.religion.misc:21345
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:13:04 -0500 
From: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Judiasm in an atheist
	<1992Nov20.092110.18934@bmerh85.bnr.ca>


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
From: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Church of England / Women / Catholics
Date: 23 Nov 92 13:33:23 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

sven  hauptfeld (hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: BTW, isn't it true that every pope must first be checked to confirm that he
: really has both testicles?
: 	Sven

That could well be the case - isn't there a passage in the NT that states
that those missing testicles cannot rise into heaven?

		Aaron Turner		aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus Saves
Date: 18 Nov 92 11:39:31 GMT
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century

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

>Someone had written "Jesus Saves" on the recycling bin down the 
>hallway from my office.  Just below it someone else had written in
>"True, but does he recycle?"

...or then there's:

"He couldn't on my salary."

 or

"But Lineker scores on the rebound!"

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive  P a u l   M o l o n e y    "I'm pretty witty and you're itty bitty    pe
james  Trinity College, Dublin     And isn't it a pity the city can't see?   vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Don't believe anything you hear!
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:43:01 GMT

In article <10711@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>>
>>We have already had proof that it will get dark since it got dark
>>the night before, and the night before that, and so on as far as
>>we can remember, so why should we not believe it now?
>>
>>Your analogy fails utterly because there is NO PROOF that gods
>>exist whilst there IS PROOF for it getting dark.
>>
>
>  No, you do not have proof that the sun will set tonight.  You
>  have a long history of sunsets that would suggest a pattern.  The
>  fact of darkness falling every previous night of your life is not
>  proof that it will get dark tonight.  From a utilitarian
>  perspective, it does you well to make that assumption.  Don't for
>  one minute assume that this is proof, however.  Ultimately, there
>  is little if anything we can really prove in the strictest sense.
>
While he used a wrong proof, he was right that there was proof that
it would get dark at night. (What it is is left as an exercise to the
reader.)

	Sven
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Help
Date: 17 Nov 92 12:55:51 GMT

Eric Rescorla writes:

>I guess not. But I'm pretty doubtful that the events you call "proof"
>ever happened at all. And you don't seem to be able to prove that
>they did, or to make ones like them happen again.

Your doubt doesn't carry a whole lot of weight, nor your insistence on
miracles on demand.  If you found a skeptic who was converted, would you
believe him instead?  I do not believe so.  Your standards for witnesses
here are absurdly high.

(n.b.: not that I am a Fatima believer myself...)
-- 
C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Circumcision (was Re: God Is Unfair)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 20:33:17 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

In article <10811@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:

|> 
|>   Thank you for inserting the word ritual; that's all it is.  Ritual
|>   mutilation.  The AMA also has a word for practices on children
|>   that 
|>   1.  cause pain
|>   2.  have no medical benefit.
|> 
|>   It's called abuse.
|> 
|>   (BTW, I include ear piercings in that category if the child does
|>   not choose to have it done.)  But that's just one circumcised
|>   gentile's opinion.

Can you document this??

I am skeptical that the AMA lumps performing medically
unnecessary procedures --- e.g. cosmetic surgery, or
religious rituals like circumcision --- with child abuse.
I'd like a source.


-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Organization: Freshman, Art, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:48:52 -0500 
From: Jennifer Lynn Urso <ju23+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: HERETICS

sorry, but i don't think you can make such a generalization about all
religious people because you just don't know.
have you interviewed every single religious person on earth?
no, i don't think so.
now i don't know if you're an atheist or not-i am.
but as an atheist at least i know that people will believe whatever they
truly believe.  and it's not your place to judge them, just as it's not
their place to judge an atheist.
i mean, i agree that SOME religious fundy preachers are totally full of
shit, but some of them actually believe in what they're saying and
actually DO practice what they preach.  if not them, then maybe their
followers.
YOU JUST DON'T KNOW.
that's the whole point.
so get off your high horse thinking that you're some kind of ultimately
special being just because you've shaken off the shackles of religion.
that was your own choice.
as was mine.
and it's also their choice to believe in what they feel.
i respect that.
jennifer urso:  the oh-so bitter woman of utter blahness(but cheerful
undertones)
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:50:07 -0500 
From: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Asserting No Gods

>In article <Uf0ohPW00awL8r7FRq@andrew.cmu.edu>, you say:
>>
>>Here, I've got a question.  Do you think that there is any chance that
>>invisible pink unicorns exist?  If the answer is yes, you can't defend
>>it with proof, and if the answer is no, you can't defend it with proof.
>>How do you answer such a question.
> 
>I say, I don't know. Why, do you know?
> 
>>PS: Maybe won't work.  Either you do think there's a chance or you don't.
> 
>There, I didn't use "maybe," although who knows why you decided that
>it "doesn't work." Why do you think I must take a stand? Why should I
>if I have no clue. What is so wrong with admitting that to atheists?
>What do you not believe in anyway? Is it the idea of a god in general,
>or simply the xian god?
> 
Martin Schulte

Maybe you missed how I deliberately phrased the question.  I asked Do
you think there is a chance that invis. unicorns exist, NOT Do invisible
unicorns exist.  Maybe is not an acceptable answer to my question
because it asks if the possibility exists.  Either there is some chance
that invisible unicorns exist, or there is no chance that they do. 
There's nothing between the two, no matter how hard you look.  I
deliberately phrased the question in such a way as to prohibit sitting
on the fence.  I didn't want you to weasel out of this one like the
other questions you have responded to.  I don't know means that you
don't know what you think, and I'll give you more credit than that. 
Please just answer the question, it's an exercise in the need to make a
choice.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject:      Re: Fundamentalist's Nightmare
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 19:20:09 MEZ
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA06420; Mon, 23 Nov 92 10:36:30 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA29136; Mon, 23 Nov 92 10:35:50 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0611; Mon, 23 Nov 92 19:35:19 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet


Steve Adams types:

>I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>>In article <adams.722381228@spssig> >adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>
>>>But, if we take the Bible as the basis for the argument, then the statement
>>stands.  Man was the only creature created in God's image and with a soul.
>>>
>>
>>I see. I always knew god does not mind my vivisections. What the animal
>>shows is just an emulation of pain. Is the emulation one of the tricks
>of Lucifer?
>Non sequiter.

>Of course not.  The abitlity to feel pain has nothing to do with having a
>soul.  What do the two have to do with each other?

Dunno, I don't believe in souls. Thought that conscience - which is more or
less implied though the ability to feel pain  - would be connected with a
soul. What's your definition?

It is connected with the 'god is unfair' thread. Why does god let animals
be hurt when they have no spiritual payoff for it?
Rephrased: why did god create pain for animals when they are not involved
in the good/evil game? Hardly a nice thing to do.


As an interesting side note: the pope must have given animals some kind
of backstage pass to heaven. Saw it on the news yesterday. It was reported
that animals will have another cloud than the angels, but near to them.
It was followed by pictures from a service were dogs (all animals?) were
allowed to participate. Reality beats Monty Python.
   Benedikt
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheist "philosophy"
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:19:45
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<1992Nov19.023238.24370@bnr.ca> <1992Nov23.165447.24522@cs.joensuu.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi's message of 23 Nov 92 16:54:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.165447.24522@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

   I used to saw the problem (in singular) as philosophical, now I see it
   as religious. Atheism says "No gods for me, period", there's no NEED to
   think world as being in a religious crisis. Greed is behind famine and
   environmental problems. The only atheist attempt to control greed has
   miserably failed (Communism). In Capitalist economies greed is seen as
   a POSITIVE power. Proudhon has written about greed in economy more, so 
   I refer to him. 

Atheism doesn't say a damned thing.  It's notable for not saying
anything at all, in fact (modulo strong atheism, which is a different
kettle of fish).  Besides, most of the Communist regimes were at best
superficially atheistic -- Lenin and Stalin had their cults of
personality, as did Mao, Ceaucescu, Tito, etc. -- and I find it hard to
distinguish between a cult built around Mao and one built around Jesus
or Madonna or who have you.

Anyway, enlightened self-interest is a useful motivating force for
people, and religions use it as much as anyone (if you do X you'll go to
heaven; if you do Y you'll go to hell).  And then there are the
televangelists, who are both greedy themselves and prey on other
people's greed.

   When greed is seen bad and exploiting, it should be controlled. To 
   control greed we must know where it comes from. Materialism. Materialism
   is strongly emphasized among those, who doesn't follow Jesus Christ 
   (includes many so-called "Christians"). In Jesus' time Pharisees used to
   boast with their material wealth. Jesus himself was very poor and also
   his disciples were and are poor (with exceptions, though). So, this is
   the way you can save the earth. 

Humpf.  I figure that the Saducees (the temple priests) would have had
the material wealth.  I thought that the Pharisees were the populists,
and Jesus was an ultra-Pharisee (I don't remember where I read that
theory).

I'm not convinced, by the way that atheism and desire to acquire
material wealth have any significant correlation.
--
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 lpf@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:45:00 GMT

ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:
>>I'd like some comments (if you've read it)
>>on the book by Isaac Asimov calles 
>>Guide to the Bible. I think it deals with
>>the discrepancies' of 
>>the bible.
>>Any comments?

>It is extremely unlikely that Isaac would write a book showing any
>discrepencies with the Bible as unfortunately the late man was a christian
>(though not a fundie).

BZZZZZT!  Thanks for playing.  We'll send you off with a copy of our
home game, though.

Azimov was a sworn atheist to the end.  No deathbed recounts or anything.

------------------------------------------------------------
mark schnitzius           |  seeking guitar songbook for the
schnitzi@eola.cs.ucf.edu  |  clash's "london calling".  does
univ. of central florida  |  one even exist?  will pay top $
------------------------------------------------------------
From: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Info on bible editions in FAQ
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:59:52 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b63519.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Nov17.082500.14611@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka Ktf92) writes:
>This might become one *enormous* FAQ...

And we _have_ to keep it at the current 666 lines, don't we? :-)
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
| Damien Neil | dpn2@po.cwru.edu | Case Western Reserve University |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Chief Justice God (WAS: God unfair)
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 23:13:15 GMT

I find the discussion about whether the biblical God is an unjust sadistic
killer rather silly. Judging a 3000 year old text by today's standards just
doesn't make any sense. The only view that is really challenged by that
argument is the fundamentalist, but that's a lost case anyway. I think this
kind of argument is not even consistent with the way of thinking that ought
to be associated with atheism, i.e. sceptical, rational and with a sense of
history.

	Sven

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Vatican approves Death Penalty
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 09:26:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.120705.17690@cs.nott.ac.uk> lpzsml@unicorn.nott.ac.uk (Steve Lang) quotes:
>In article <1992Nov5.160707.1189@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> you wrote:
>>It is not "thou shall not kill", it is "thou shall not murder".  This might
>>deserve a FAQ, it turns up so often, even if it is a FAQ of a bad argument
>>used by atheists against theists, instead of the reverse.
>
I'd like to see some linguistic support for this, e.g. what is Hebrew for
'kill' and for 'murder' and related, and what word is in fact used.

As I understand, the reason for not killing is that God created life and only
God has the right to take it. I don't see how killing (except accidental) and
murdering are different in this respect.

	Sven