HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman)
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:30:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.060226.19427@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>  
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
> According to the FAQ, atheism is usually defined in this group as 
> the "absence of a belief in any gods" (so-called "weak atheism"), rather
> than the "belief in no god(s)" (so-called "strong atheism").

 [...]
 
> (To say that an atheist believes that God *may* exist seems an alien
> concept to me, as I had always considered atheists and agnostics to be
> distinctly different groups.)

It's not as simple a dichotomy as you seem to think.

For example, I "believe" (on the preponderance of evidence) that there is  
no god. I suppose that makes me a "strong" atheist in your book.

However, I also believe that it is possible that I might be mistaken. For  
some reason, you seem to think it is not possible for a strong atheist to  
hold that opinion. Does that mean I am a "weak" atheist after all?

How about Bertrand Russell, who likewise admitted that it was possible  
that he could be wrong? Was he a weak or a strong atheist?

--
Dave Seaman
ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: Religion = Anything that's fun is bad.
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:53:25 GMT

parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish):
> --
> Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |
> parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |


simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale):
> Boy, now there is a patronising, condescending, righteous, sickening,
> vacuous, tautological, holier-than-thou, whining, irritating, pompous,
> pious and altogether thoroughly obnoxious .signature if I've ever seen one.


Brian Kendig (bskendig@netcom.com):
> No, actually, I rather like it!  I've been seriously thinking of
> adding it to my own .sig.  "The truth is the truth even if you choose
> to ignore it."  This is especially true for Christians, who ignore the
> truth in favor of devoting their lives to cleverly-constructed fairy
> tales detailed in a book that also tells them how they should live
> their lives -- because, after all, it's easier to try to interpret the
> words in a way you like than it is to take responsibility for your own
> actions, isn't it?


mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus):
> I'm game. Let's have all atheists use this line as part of our .sig's. Then 
> we can identify each other in the other news groups. The gays and lesbians 
> have their triangles, we can have this quote.
> -- 
> 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


Well gee whiz and golly gosh and all Mike, but ummm, don't you think that
might just possibly piss Scott right off? We wouldn't want that. Would we?

Christmas Cheer / Bah Humbug

Simon
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Truth is still the Truth even if you choose to ignore it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Rabid theists
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 12 Dec 92 20:12:19 EST
 <1992Dec12.192802.19309@timesink.chi.il.us> <RLK.92Dec12162939@underprize.think.com> <1992Dec12.215716.4249@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Dec12.215716.4249@leland.Stanford.EDU>, cfairman@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
> Well, does their Xmas holiday inspire theists to post here and bother us or
> what.  The post by Harry Platypus comlete with his reply referring
> to "stupid corruption of my brilliant paragraph deleted" really makes me
> wonder.  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, unifying
> motto than one like in god we trust, which arrived during Mc Carthyism around
> 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.

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Just how much smarter are atheists?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:50:54 GMT

In article <1gbm3tINN73s@gap.caltech.edu> werdna@cco.caltech.edu (Andrew Tong) writes:
>Could someone pin this question down for me?
>
>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.)
>
>More specifically, I'm referring to the consistency of the posts to the
>thread "Hilarious Christian Propaganda..."

Let's be generous, and believe that the intelligence level
of an average theist is greater than the intelligence level
of the average sophmoric-net-xtian-salesperson.
>
>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?

Being an atheist merely means that one is not a member of a
particular set of idiocy:  theism.  It is hardly a guarantee 
against holding other goofy ideas.  There are atheists who
think that Rush Limbaugh is a wise and accurate social
commentator, for instance.  The "American Atheist" TV program
is loaded with weird generalities, like:  if it wasn't for
religion, the Roman Empire would have been able to send
men to the moon.

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

Not the point, just one of the benefits.




-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: kachun@spot.Colorado.EDU (Ka Chun Yu)
Subject: Re: Stupid Family Values
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: alt.atheism, alt.atheism.moderated
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:59:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.123130.8507@walter.cray.com> jwest@wisc (Jeff West) writes:
>Having lived in Colorado Springs until recently and still having many
>friends there I can attest to the influx of fundi groups to the Springs.
>Why they have choosen there is anyones guess.  Maybe the beautiful
>countryside and great skiing!  If so that's all we have in common.
>
>There is Much concern by the average citizen in Colorado Springs about
>all these groups now making it their home.  There is a grassroots
>movement of people starting up to take on these people and not let
>them control their city.  It should be a very interesting battle.

Good to hear that.  I would have been worried to find out that no
sane people lived in Colorado Springs.  There is a group that I read
about recently that has started up explicitly to keep tabs on all of
the fundamentalist groups in Colorado Springs.  By last count, there
were quite a number of them.

>
>As an aside, if you look at the voting by county you will see that it
>was Colorado Springs that won the battle for voting in Ammendment 2.
>The majority of Denver, Boulder and Apsen voters voted against it.

The county that Colorado Springs is in (I forget the name) contributed
approximately half of the 100,000 yes votes for Amendment 2.  What is
still disturbing is that still a majority of the people in Colorado
(53%?  57%?) voted for the amendment.  The fundies in Colorado Springs weren't alone.

>
>Want to place any bets on why it passed so overwhelmingly in the Springs!?
>
>It served as a real wakeup call to many of my friends living there.
>They don't like or want the title of "Fundamental Springs".
>
> - Jeff West
>


-- 
*Ka Chun Yu               * Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy       *
*kachun@spot.colorado.edu * Astrophysical, Planetary, and Atmospheric Sciences*
*         --or--          * University of Colorado,  Boulder, CO 80309        *
*kachun@vela.colorado.edu * (303) 492-6857                                    *
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils)
Subject: Re: Agnosticism Response
Organization: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:54:49 GMT


The PS has a logic flaw.  The creator could be consious of the creator.

And it is also true that the statement that before there was anything, there was nothing has a premesis that there exists a point where there was not anything.
I also would point out that you haven't properly defined nothing.

I don't believe in nothing and you can't prove nothing exists.  HA.

(further more I don't want to see any references to nothing on any public
 public property either ) :->

				Craig
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: MUDs and Reality; Mystical Theory (Long)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:32:56 GMT

Well, I really read this essay all the way to the end,
and was still unable to decide if it is a joke.
My ship of reason kept crashing into all of the
floating abstractions.

The acronym MUD seems especially apropriate;
it reminds me of Nietzsch's observation of
people who "muddy the waters to make them
appear deep".
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Truth:  You ignore it, it ignores you.
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Date: 17 Dec 92 01:35:10 GMT
Organization: DigiBoard, Incorporated, Eden Prairie,MN


To add more fuel to the fire, in the book "The Day America Told the Truth",
(a collection of surveys), in the religion section, there are these figures:

                            Percentage who agree
Statement                  Protestants Catholics Jews
Believe in God                 97         98      87
If believe:
 Very sure of God's existence  73         65      27
...
Not at all religious            7          6      30


Looks like there are strong & weak theists, as well.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
From: T.G.Nattress@newcastle.ac.uk (Graeme Nattress)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Discrimination?
Date: 15 Dec 92 09:24:24 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

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?

Yes. I usually gets round into converasations.  But surely I tell people what I
don't believe, not what I do!

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

No, not at all.

>I would love to hear from you!

>shari@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
{---    T.G.Nattress@uk.ac.ncl -----------------------------------------}
{--------------------------------- The Moral of this story is: ---------}
{---    Never trust a Venusian Floghorn with a Perigosto Stick. --------}
{-----------------------------------------------------------------------}
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge)
Subject: Re: Dealing with annoying e-mail: A real life example!
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Tx.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:58:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.070419.9812@phyrql.Alt.ZA> lucio@proxima.Alt.ZA writes:
>ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>
>> Even if it was unsolicited and unwelcome, I still think posting email
>>witohut permission is out of line. A simple pointer to the FAQ would
>>take as much time as posting this would... Just MHO.
>
>It may be that I have a different ethic, but I fail to see why I need
>the sender's permission to post unsolicited, and often offensive personal
>e-Mail.  My permission wasn't requested, so why should I return the
>favour?
>
>I'd like to solicit opinions in this matter, as I think the issue has
>obviously been accepted without discussion for too long...
>
>-- 
>Lucio de Re (lucio@phyrql.Alt.ZA)
>The supernatural does not exist, but it gives me the creeps...

I agree with Lucio.  If a friend sends me email, then it might be a betrayal
of that friendship to make the message public, but if a total stranger sends
me email it's mine to do with as i please.  Why should i feel compelled to
protect someone who may be hostile to me?

Is there a net.manners group where this has been/could be discussed?


-- 
allen@well.sf.ca.us
ethridge@bnr.ca
my opinions are my own
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:26:27 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <P8HVVB3w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>
>> To use the word "atheist" for "weak atheism" can be confusing.  For
>> example, using this definition, an agnostic (one who believes that it is
>> not possible to know if God(s) exist(s) or not) is an atheist.
>
>No.  An agnostic may choose to believe in God.  He just doesn't believe it's
>possible for him to know whether he's right or not.  I think most agnostics
>don't believe in God, but I'm sure they're not all unbelievers.

Indeed; recall Jarek Dabrowski, who on more than one occasion
explained that he was both agnostic and Christian.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: A "DISPROOF" OF GOD ?
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin--Madison
Date: 18 Dec 92 12:44:16 CST

In article <1992Dec18.011439.4871@scorch.apana.org.au> lgarde@scorch.apana.org.au (Leon Garde) writes:
>mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:
>
>|In article <1992Dec09.232704.24838@lobo.rmhs.colorado.edu> eknipp@lobo.rmhs.colorado.edu (Ethan R Knipp) writes:
>|>In article <kmr4.359.723882362@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>|>>
>|>>	Yes, you havn't taken one thing into considerations: maybe god 
>|>>wishes these particular atoms to fly apart?	
>|>>
>|>>	e.g. maybe god is a pyromaniac?
>|>
>|>I know!   Atom's DIDN'T split until Americans (guided by God, of course) 
>|>figured out how to do it, then God *let* them, so they could nuke the hell out 
>|>of those little heathens! |-[
>
>|Actually, the Europeans did it first.  Germans I think but I can't
>|seem to remember their names.  They didn't even realize what they had
>|done at first.
>
>|Now, we were the first ones to have a chain reaction.
>
>
>Hmm... all in context of 'god let them ' split the atoms ...
>
>really, fission occurs naturally, fusion in the stars ...
>those germans were first to mimic nature's fission reactors ...
>(possibly fision warms the inside of the earth ?)
>
>leon

I don't think so, but there is a documented case of a sustained low level
fission reaction millions of years ago.  I don't have the reference with
me here, but basically a certain water supply had abnormally high levels
of U-235.  Some weird bacterial reaction allowed a microwatt level fission
reaction to occur for some time (years), until the levels of U-235
dropped.  Sorry, we weren't the first lifeforms on earth to experience
a nuclear reaction. ;)
:)M^2


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Ignorance is Bliss.
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:42:26 GMT


In a previous article, sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) says:

>In article <1992Dec16.165325.10737@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>>mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus):
>>> I'm game. Let's have all atheists use this line as part of our .sig's. Then 
>>> we can identify each other in the other news groups. The gays and lesbians 
>>> have their triangles, we can have this quote.

But wait!  How about those of us who are both GAY and ATHEIST???  There's
only so much room in a .sig, ya know!!



>>> -- 
>>> 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.
>>
>>Well gee whiz and golly gosh and all Mike, but ummm, don't you think that
>>might just possibly piss Scott right off? We wouldn't want that. Would we?

I WOULD!!  I WOULD!!

>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>The Truth is still the Truth even if you choose to ignore it.
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Here is another variation of the theme:
>
>-- 
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>Truth:  You ignore it, it ignores you.
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

How about this?

TRUTH:It's not only a good I dea, it's the law

or

This is Truth

This is your Brain on Truth

Any Questions?


-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  /\/\   HATE IS NOT A  *         
*                    Kelley L. Miller  / /  \  FAMILY VALUE   *            
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  / /____\                *  
*     GIGO: Gospel In--Garbage Out   /______\                 *
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cfairman@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman)
Subject: Rabid theists
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 21:57:16 GMT

Well, does their Xmas holiday inspire theists to post here and bother us or
what.  The post by Harry Platypus comlete with his reply referring
to "stupid corruption of my brilliant paragraph deleted" really makes me
wonder.  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, unifying
motto than one like in god we trust, which arrived during Mc Carthyism around
1954?  How can I ignore the COnstitution?  Separation of Church and State?
Look, your post didn't say anything interesting.  A weak joke on your name, 
useful only in demonstating your lack of humor, is about it.  Go froth at the mouth
on a religious newsgruop. They'll agree with you, and you'll be happy.

Oooh, heathen scum, missed that.  oooh, it hurts soo much to be called scum.

Carolyn
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: epowers@dante.nmsu.edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Engineering child conversions
Organization: New Mexico State University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:26:15 GMT

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.
[stuff deleted]
: 	Frankly, I can think of few things more scary or sickening
than
: the scenario I describe above.  Unfortunately, I can't remember where I
: heard this, or in what context.  Has anyone else ever heard of this?  Is this
: for real?  Whaddya think?
: 
: -Scott O.
: 

	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.
						Erik Powers
From: yohan@venture.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Agnosticism Response
Date: 12 Dec 1992 19:28:27 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: venture.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <Bz63Fo.F5z@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j) writes:
>[stuff deleted, consisting mainly of flames]
>   [between an Atheist and an Agnostic]

That and a number of questions which you intentionally avoid.

>
>>>So what are you saying? That certain things can ONLY be described by the
>>>existence of God? Refresh my memory, and tell me how "god's existence
>
>>Again you try to throw up a smoke screen. I have made it crystal clear that the
>>existence of god COULD coexist with certain events in history such as the
>>origin of existence.  I never said that some inexplicable event had to be
>>attributed to god, which I'm sure you actually knew in the first place.
>		    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Aha! So you are a psychic-agnostic! I'm surprised you are debating, since
>you claim to know my beliefs/arguments. This breaks down into metaphysics,
>as it did before when I wrote what I'm going to write again.

Another predictable attempt to evade the real issues.

>
>There doesn't NEED to be a creator to create the universe, because 
>"Existence Exists". How does having a creator explain reality better?

Who in the world said anything about there NEEDING to be a god.  It is simply a
possibility.  Have a creator doesn't explain things any better OR any worse.  

>Who created the creator? It must end somewhere, and I say that 

Who says that a creator had to be created; the same applies to the universe.  In
fact questions raised about a universe with or without a creator are very similar
and bnoth seem to make perfect sense.  Either case seems to involve certain
"impossibilities".  At any rate, each case seems equally plausible, so how can
you say one is impossible and the other is possible.  
 
>"The buck stops here, at existence". Debating the origin of existence

We've been dealing with "existence" all along even though you refuse to admit. 
The question we've been dealing with is the origin of the universe.  It doesn't
have to involve or exclude god, and there is no proof one way or the other.  Yet,
you continue to stand by your claim that there is no possible place for a creator
in reality.  You haven't backed this assertion with any reasoning, therefore you
are as bad as a christian having faith.

>is pointless, because we can not "step outside existence" and see what
>it's like without it.
>
>PS: Something else to flame me on: A creator without existence (ie: before
>    it created the universe) is unconscious, since there is nothing for 
>    the creator to be conscious of.
>
>>>Peter J Nelson
>>Jon
>Peter J Nelson

Jon
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 17 Dec 1992 01:34:23 CST
From: <U16244@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Editing money: I LIKE IT! I LIKE IT!
 <MMEYER.92Dec15085923@m2.dseg.ti.com> <kmr4.483.724435684@po.CWRU.edu>

In article <kmr4.483.724435684@po.CWRU.edu>, kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
says:
>        Banks and businesses "deface" money all the time. Have you ever come
>acrost a bill with some numbers stamped/burned on them? I suppose this is so
>they can track a bundle of money in their possession. Why they just can't
>use the "unique" number on the bill, I don't know.
>        Heck, even K-mart is doing it. They send "Santa Bills". Its
>basically a $1 bill, but with a picture of Santa glued over Washington.

  So mabye we could glue on pictures of famous atheists on money?
  Like Madilyn-Murray O'hair? make some Thomas Paine money?


--DAVE!!