HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Ok, truce?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:19:33 GMT

In article <910773f.43.724643257@axe.acadiau.ca> 910773f@axe.acadiau.ca (HEATHER LEE FYFFE) writes:
>I did not try to imply that all atheists are me-ists.  I got going about me-
>ism (which, by the way, IS rampant in NA, as seen by certain best-selling 
>books which I STUPIDLY have forgotten the titles of but I will get back to 
>you... anyway...), and I still hold to what I said about the negative 
>aspects of selfish me-ism.  It is possible to be an atheist without being a 
>me-ist.  I can see that many of you do care about the world and it's 
>people.  However, it is also obvious that there _are_ some of you who don'
>t... there are people like that in all religions as well, including 
>Christianity.

I'm glad to hear that you learned something about atheists.

>By no means do I agree with `fundies' who yell and scream at atheists, 
>trying to force them to convert.  Nor do I agree with churches that 
>restrict their member's contact with the `outside world'and all that 
>other stuff that's been discussed.  That is counterproductive and, yes, 
>brainwashing.  There are many `Christians' who have no idea what they're 
>doing, who stopped thinking long ago.  I don't believe that I am one of 
>these, though I am finding that I do have some dogmatic material in my head 
>that may not be correct - however, it may be, so I'm looking into it some 
>more, logically and rationally.

You have mentioned several aspects of christianity which you
don't accept (like fundieism); it might be helpful if you
mentioned a bit more of what you do believe in
and (much more interesting) the basis for your belief.  Many of us
recognize several variations of christianity, and it's not
clear which variety you are.

>I do thank those people considerate enough of flames who responded to me via 
>e-mail.  I can't possibly get back to all of you personally, though I did 
>try to answer a few.  Hopefully we can continue with rational discussions 
>and maybe even (*gasp* oh no) become friends.

We love discussions.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
          Everything you know about God is wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: is it necessary to hate?
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:12:53 GMT

I wonder why Heather chose "The Buzzard" for her .signature.
Do you think it's because prosletyzing Christians are the
moral equivalent of carrion-eaters, only feeding upon those
who no longer have the ability to defend themselves?

Just wondering.

                             the
                            TRUTH
                           is still
                          the TRUTH,
                         even if  you
                        ignore it, Scott


-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
From: kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim Gunnar St|vring yhus)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Science and choice
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:37:01 GMT
Distribution: world, public
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology

In article <BzIww4.996@ecf.toronto.edu>, vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN) writes:
 >   Someone who knows please expand on this:  isn't there completely random
 > atomic events ( such as radioactive decay, I think ) that totally DESTROY
 > any notions about the universe being causal ( ie deterministic and, so some
 > conclude, no free will ).  I read this once ( possibly Hawking or Penrose )
 > but can remember the exact claim, or any formal proof.  If this is true, then
 > this has been known since the '30's and why is there this discussion?  

Yes.

As far as it is possible to test for randomness, there really are a lot of
absolutely random processes in nature. F.ex. which of the photons hitting the
film in your camera will make the film darker? (Actually quite few)

It has been known since the 30's, but you know what people think of scientists:
mad, incomprehensible, ivory tower, responsible for pollution, atom-bombs,
nuclear fallout, atheists, closed minded, without human feelings, arrogant,
indecisive.

This makes a lot of inertia to the truths of science.

Seem to me scientists are a prosecuted minority.

Kim0
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Engineering child conversions
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 10:41:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.052615.25030@nmsu.edu> epowers@dante.nmsu.edu (POWERS) writes:
>Scott Oser (oser@fermi.wustl.edu) wrote:
>>	I seem to remember hearing about a practice some Protestant churches
>>practice of "forcing" childhood conversions with scare tactics.  The way it
>>works is this:  you seat a child in a room with a group of church elders,
>>and maybe a parent.  The elders then proceed to preach fire and brimstone
>>to the child, telling him how sinful he is, and about all the awful things
>>that Satan is going to do to them in hell (e.g. set fire to their hair,
>>burn them in molten lava, etc.)  They may promise that the child's wickedness
>>will cause demons to attack Mommy and Daddy.  This goes on until the child
>>is crying and in hysterics (if done right, that shouldn't take long).  Then
>>comes the punch line:  the only way to prevent all of this is for the
>>child to "invite Jesus(tm)" into his life, which of course he immediately
>>does.  The point is to give the child a forceful and emotional bond to
>>Christ.
>
>	Pretty sick, so I have no doubt it goes on.  As to whether it
>happens in some protestant churches or not... I'm sure it does, and I'm
>sure the rest of us want nothing to do with it, except to see if we can
>get those people behind bars.  I know of no specific examples, however.

What, precisely, is it that you object to?  Aside from the business of
concentrating on one person at a time, this sounds pretty much like
the sermonizing I see on TV, which is probably pretty much like what goes
on in a lot of churches.  It's quite an effective means of brainwashing
too.  See William Sargant's _Battle for the Mind: A Physiology of Conversion
and Brainwashing_.  Sargant talks about how John Wesley almost singlehandedly
saved England from the evil scourge of Tom Paine's materialism using
tactics pretty much like these.  I imagine that with a bunch of raving
adults devoting all their attentions on a defenseless child, the child
could be reprogrammed in short order to believe anything.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: God Is Unfair
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 20:17:15 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

In article <kmr4.369.0@po.CWRU.edu>, kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec10.155931.13307@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
|> >|> [Cain and Abel story deleted]
|> >|>  sh> Actually, I'd say that this clearly suggests that the Bible was not
|> >|>  sh> intended to be interpreted literally.
|> >|> 
|> >|> Who gets to decide which bits ARE interpreted literally?
|> >|> 
|> >
|> >Different religious traditions will give different answers,
|> >and that is why there are extremely different religions
|> >all claiming the Bible as their book.
|> 
|> 	Each groups interpretes the passage as it best suits them and 
|> their beliefs. Sometimes this is literally, sometimes they have to 
|> interprete it metaphor-ically. They do not gain the specifics of their 
|> beliefs from the bible, rather, they interperate the bible to support their 
|> beliefs...
|> 

I think you overstate the case.

Think of the Bible as being like a very ambiguous document: 
such as the US Constitution.

Imagine several different countries each with the US Constitution,
but with their own separate system of courts, and their own
separate circumstances and histories.  Allow 3000 years to
pass.  Even ignoring the issue of amendments, I think you'd
get different interpretations.

Is that because each country makes up its own beliefs and
retrofits their interpretation of the Constitution to support
it?  That may be partly true, but I think the interaction
between the document, the tradition, and the beliefs
is more complex.




-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:30:57 GMT

In article <724502633.11062@minster.york.ac.uk> aaron@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
>
> This reminds me of an argument a Christian of my acquaintance used in
> an attempt to prove to me that Jesus must have been a historical figure.
> Basically his argument was that noone would claim to be the Son Of God
> without actually being so as it was so patently ridiculous. As it is
> so unlikely that someone would say that then it must be true that he was
> the Son of God. I was stunned by this lack of logic.
>
> [...]
>
>		Aaron Tuner		aaron@minster.york.ac.uk

Sounds suspiciously like the piffle that flows from the pen of Josh McDowell.

On the subject of stunning illogic, I'm currently reading through the
script of a play called _The Ruling Class_ by Peter Barnes (1969), having
fortunately landed myself a couple of parts in a forthcoming production.

The play rips into the British aristocracy, noted for its small effective
population size and the resulting novel thought and behaviour patterns,
including in this case delusions of divinity. The off-the-wall illogic
all the way through is both hilarious and terrifyingly reminiscent of
certain worldviews I've seen expressed with complete sincerity here and
more usually on talk.religion.misc and soc.religion.christian.

So here comes a bit. The "..." are in the script.


EARL OF GURNEY:	[Long I-am-God rant deleted] I'm sorry. I really must
		apologise. Once I get started I find it damnable difficult
		to stop. They diagnose it as arbitrary discharge from the
		speech centre. Diarrhoea of the mouth. Nobody else gets
		much of a look-in.

CLAIRE:         It's fascinating.

EARL OF GURNEY:	If there's anything you'd like me to explain, fire away.

CLAIRE:		How do you know you're ... God?

EARL OF GURNEY:	Simple. When I pray to Him I find I'm talking to myself.

CLAIRE:		I see. How did it happen? How did you come to be in this
		state ... of grace?

EARL OF GURNEY: Like every prophet I saw visions, heard voices. I ran but
		the voices of St. Francis, Socrates, General Gordon, and
		Tim O'Leary the Jewish Buddha all told me I was God. Pretty
		reliable witnesses -- agreed?



And so it goes on.

Christmas Cheer / Bah Humbug

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheists & Christians
Date: 12 Dec 92 17:27:04 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Dec12.151144.14401@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>Bob Beauchaine writes:
>
>I obviously did not express myself very well. I wrote that the tendency of
>incline in IQ *retards*, not stagnates, which inevitably means that it will
>decline at some point. The last thing I heard was that this peak was a little
>over 29 years and that it was increasing. Hence my two chosen ages, 25 and 35,
>match an average of 30 remarkably well, right? And as far as I know the decline
>in IQ after the peak is not drastically larger than the increase in IQ before the
>peak. Therefore the effect a +/- 5 year period around the peak should cancel each
>other out. Thus, a 35 year old is about equally intelligent as a 25 year old.
>
  Only if you assume the same rate of decline as the rate of
  increase up to age 30.  I don't think you want to say this,
  though, since by implication, a 60 year old should have the same
  IQ as a newborn.  

  Take everything I say on this thread with the appropriate dosage
  of salt; I'm no expert on the human mind, not actually possessing
  one myself.

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

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@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: ktikkane@phoenix.oulu.fi (Kari Tikkanen)
Subject: Re: Omniscience
Organization: University of Oulu, Finland
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:08:39 GMT

I answer to Mathew:

I haven't considered time with my logic or definition and I think 
it is irrelevant. I think Omnipotent means that everything is always 
possible for him.  If you think "not always", then at least sooner or later.
So I can give a new definition:
If B exist, then B is a problem which nobody can solve and nobody has 
solution to it and nobody has ever solved it. You can also add this definition
to my problem A. (And Omni sweats again.)

You can think the following problem with yourself:
  C : " Make a problem D, so that nobody can EVER solve it."

Think  A Special Underground: If somebody walks through left-handed
barrier then there pops up a right-hand barrier which nobody can EVER walk
through. If Special Underground exist , then "Omniwalker" cannot exist.

----------------------- ktikkane@phoenix.oulu.fi -------------------
  Kari Tikkanen      |   .  . -#- |      b        |   begin  
  SF-90550 OULU      |         |  |  I = / f(x)dx |     s:=s+Eq(i);
  FINLAND            | .  .  Vega |      a        |   end
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: frank@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner)
Subject: Re: "Separation of Church and State"
Originator: frank@karner.austin.ibm.com
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:05:22 GMT
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division


In article <parsons.724583764@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu>, parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
> jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:

Much stuff deleted...
> 
> Provide any other evidence from the Founding Fathers or even something
> prior to 1947 (besides the obviously disputed Jefferson quote) that 
> support the _current_ interpretation of the 1st Amendment.
> 
> -- 
> Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
> parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |

This thread has degenerated into a pointless byzantine debate.  What is
more important, the interpretation of what so-called "founding fathers"
meant in the Constitution 200 odd years ago, or the reality of
contemporary America? 

I mean, are obsolete ideas worth preserving?  Were these founding
fathers infallible?  Clearly not!  Legislators and the courts should
strive to make the law of the land applicable to the necessities of the
day, and not engage in the preservation of unfair or anachronistic laws
subject to misinterpretations and ambiguities.

Any form of government that is based on, or endorses any religion or
creed is, by definition, non-egalitarian and basically unfair to people
outside that religion or creed.  Therefore such governments cannot be
considered democratic but rather theocratic.  
-- 

         DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this posting are mine
            solely and do not represent my employer in any way.
       F. A. Karner AIX Technical Support | karner@austin.vnet.ibm.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Rabid theists
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 06:55:29 GMT

kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu wrote:
: In article <1992Dec12.215716.4249@leland.Stanford.EDU>, cfairman@leland.Stanf
ord.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
: >          The motto, as it were, for the U.S. was E pluribus unum (or close)
: >  meaning from many comes one.  Now just think.  Is not this a better, unify
ing
: > motto than one like in god we trust, which arrived during Mc Carthyism arou
nd
: > 1954?
:
:    Actually it's much older than that.  In the "Star-Spangled Banner"
: in one of the later verses that nobody ever sings there is the line
: "and this be our motto, in God is our trust".  It was on coins not too
: long afterward.  What was added in the 50's was the line "under God" in
: the Pledge of Allegiance.

On June 14, 1954 the words "under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance.
On July 11, 1955 the words "In God We Trust" replaced the words "E Pluribus 
Unum" on all currency and coins.  On July 30, 1956 "In God We Trust" replaced 
"E Pluribus Unum" as the national motto.
-- 
Mike A. McAngus	(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org) | The train today to Morrow leaves today
The Truth is still the Truth           | at 8:35.  At half-past ten tomorrow is
even if you choose to ignore it.       | the time it should arrive.
                                       |                    The Kingston Trio
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus)
Subject: Re: Atheists should mind their own damn business
Organization: Big Bulging Buffalo Bladders -R- Us
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:31:42 GMT

In article <10941@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.071137.16343@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
>
>  Speaking of platypuses (platypi?), I like Robin Williams' comments
>  on how the platypus is airtight proof that god smokes some pretty
>  good shit.
>
Oh, rip the shirt... How cliche... Make fun of my name.
A Hairy Platypus, HA HA HA...
It's what I would expect from a bunch of heathen scum. :-)
- Harry

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: yohan@citation.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Agnosticism Response
Date: 11 Dec 1992 15:25:49 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: citation.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <3289.2B263BB3@catpe.alt.za>, Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org (Ian Douglas) writes:
>Hi all
>
>On 05 Dec 92, Jonathan W Newton wrote to All:
>
> JWN> Let's work with this example...
> JWN> Say there is this being, which we will call god, who is curious as to
> JWN> what would happen if he created the universe (parallel this to someone
> JWN> playing around with formulas for fractals).  He creates, and sits back to
> JWN> see what happens.
>
> JWN> How would anything that man has seen contradict this possibility?  How
> JWN> can you still say that the existence of god is impossible?
>
>Where did this god come from?
>What did he create the universe out of?
>How do you know that he did not die of exhaustion right afterwards?


I don't know any of these answers, and neither do you.  Therefore it is still a
possibility as I said so in the first place.


>
>Cheers, Ian
>
>
>--  
>INTERNET: Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org
>via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
>       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.

Jon
From: Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org (Ian Douglas)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Science and choice
Date: 19 Dec 92 12:07:04 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 5:7102/119 - Zero 2 Infinity, CT

Hi All!

On 16 Dec 92, POWERS wrote to All:

 P> physical situation you  will get the same results out.  This, however, does
 P> not allow for free will.   Anything you do or think is the result of the
 P> way energy and matter interact,  and is not affected by any outside force
 P> (eg, the supernatural). So you must "choose":  either you must base an
 P> important part of your  philosophy on science and deny free will, or you'll
 P> have to find something  outside of science to base it on. Hope you
 P> enjoy! Erik I

Heisenburg.

Where does 'consciousness' fit into this equation?

Cheers, Ian


--  
INTERNET: Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.
From: J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Certainty, Sureness, Knowledge, Proof (Was:Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Date: 16 Dec 92 00:29:01 GMT
 <1992Dec15.064149.11880@bnr.ca>
 <1992Dec15.211927.6486@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Penn State University

[ . . .]
>For what it is worth, I am "sure" that God doesn't exist.  I am also
>"certain" of this fact.  I shy away from using the word "know" because
>that implies positive proof (which I don't have, although the lack of
>proof for the other view I feel adds weight to my own).
>
>C Frog

Questions:  1.  How is it that you are certain without positive proof?
            2.  How does "knowing" imply positive proof?
---------------
John A. Johnson
Weak Atheist (and Metaphorical Pagan, too)
"Nature is not a feminist."  -- Cynthia Heimel
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Just how much smarter are atheists?
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:45:11 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu

In article <1gbm3tINN73s@gap.caltech.edu> werdna@cco.caltech.edu (Andrew Tong) writes:
>Just how stupid must one be to believe in a God? (This is the general
>feeling that I get from reading 90% of the messages in this group: that
>atheists must either be super-intelligent or God-fearing, religious
>people must be interminably stupid.)

	Its not the believing so much: A better question is:

	Just how illogical must one be to believe in a proposition as being
unequivacly truth, without having any evidence?



>More specifically, I'm referring to the consistency of the posts to the
>thread "Hilarious Christian Propaganda..."

	Most college educated people, christian or not, will probably agree 
that the Chick publications simply beg to be laughed at. When so many falla-
cious statements about science are used to support the belief in god is 
used, it only shows the utter and complete lack of knowledge by the author. 
There is really no foundation of truth to respond to. You can not have a 
rational discussion with one who understands nothing about what he is saying.
Not knowing about quantum physics is fine, but don't act like you do!



>Could it be possible that there are some people doing stupid things out
>there who _aren't_ christian?  Or is the fountainhead of stupidity found
>in belief in God?

	Sure, all people do stupid things, just some more than others.

>Is this the point to being an atheist: to ridicule those who believe in God?

	You rarely see an atheist ridiculing one who is simply a believer of 
God (tm). However, the "fundies" beg, nay demand, to be addressed. Is 
tearing their arguments to shred, "ridicule"? Some seem to think so.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism