HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 7 Jan 93 04:56:47 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <5JAN199322080860@jane.uh.edu>
lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
>
>O'Hare has done everything she can to affect the life of many Xtians.  I
>remember when I was a teenager I was asked to sign a petition because O'Hare
>was trying to keep the churches from airing sermons on public tv.  I, for
>one, disagree with this, mainly because there are a number of old folk who
>are too infirm to get out and go to church.  While I am not a Christian and do
>not care to watch these shows, I still have the option of changing the channel
>or even turning the tv off.
>
>She had the option too, of changing the channel.  But she was trying to take
>away people's right to even see the broadcasts.  Public television is not
>federally funded with tax dollars.  They are funded by business advertising.
>If there are enough people in an area that wish to see a christian sermon
>on television and the tv stations make enough money off of the commercials
>to support it, then WHAT RIGHT has O'Hare to tell anybody that they can't.
>
>I guess that is why she wasn't successful.  But she was STILL trying to
>impose her will on a religious sect.
 
Actually, this "petition" is one of the biggest and most blatant LIES to
ever make the rounds.  This story, which churches have been circulating for
years, has resulted in tens of millions of letters and calls to the FCC, all
for absolutely nothing.
 
The story is that in the mid 70s, a couple of men (who, by the way, were
involved in religious programming) became concerned about the intrusion of
religious material into the *educational* part of broadcasting.  They filed
a petition with the FCC to review this; however nothing was done regarding
that petition.
 
A few months after the original petition, rumors were spread that Madalyn
O'Hair had gathered signatures in support of the petition, and was attempting
to use it to block any display whatsoever of religious material on TV.  The
churches ran with it- and such petitions have been distributed for years.  The
fact is that Madalyn O'Hair never had anything whatsoever to do with the
petition other than to protest her name being used falsely.  The whole point
is moot in that the original petition was denied in 1975.  The whole
controversy was nothing more than a vicious rumor which, in the end, has cost
the FCC a ton of money to set straight.
 
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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Date: 9 Jan 93 08:17:55 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1993Jan8.013732.17847@arden.linet.org> joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter) writes:
>In article <1993Jan3.081022.11670@phyrql.Alt.ZA> lucio@proxima.Alt.ZA writes:
>
>>In the context of your beliefs, my atheism states that there is no reason
>>to believe in a primal cause, given that any such primal cause would
>>either itself have to have a cause or could be reduced to reality as
>>we know it (the known universe); 
>
>Or exist in a reality that is beyond our comprehension?  I understand your
>example (and it is very good).  You'll have me chewing on that for quite
>awhile.  In the mean time however, I empathize that it would be very
>difficult conceiving a primal cause without a cause itself but why 
>impossible?  

It isn't that it's impossible; it is that it is arbitrary. If we
grant for the sake of argument that there is an uncaused first cause
then we still don't know that it's God. It could as easily be the universe
itself. While we are going about postulating entities arbitrarily,
why not at least postulate one we can already observe? What do we
gain by postulating another one that we can't observe just so we can
attach the Uncaused First Cause label to it? Even if there were some
reason to suppose that this hypothetical object exists and is a
God, what reason is there to suppose that it's the god described
in somebody's religious book, and why the Bible as opposed to the
Rig Veda?

>The time/space concepts of a Black Hole are much more weird
>than that but many atheists gladly grapple with it.

But Black Holes are theoretical constructs rigorously developed
to explain observed phenomena. As an explanation, the typical
god-model is deficient in theory, rigor, and explanatory power,
not to mention that it's usually superfluous as well (see above).
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why it sucks to be an atheist...
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 21:43:46 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

lieven@cco.caltech.edu (Lieven Pascal Leroy) writes:

>As an atheist, I usually consider religion as a necessary tool to
>impose a code of ethics people can live by, and a way to address the
>fear of what lies beyond death.

One tool, not a necessary one.  Define "religion."  (What does it mean
to YOU, not some Webster's definition.)

>Not permitting myself to rely on these ready-made crutches, I have put
>together my own moral code (which I feel to be superior to the
>commercially available ones, and certainly one which better defines 'me').

Good.  I have also, although my moral code is mainly composed of "this is
what worked for you before, so usually do this; but keep an open mind, and
generally do what you want.)

>What, exactly, is the Point? By this, I mean: Is there a goal to be achieved,
>a level of purity on some standard to be attained, while we live?

*assumption alert*  *assumption alert*

Why do you assume that there is "a" Point?  Myself, my Point is whatever I
want to make it.  Generally, it's enjoying myself.  If there was a goal,
who would set up that goal, and why should it be *my* goal?  If there is
a level of purity, who set up that level, and why should *I* try to attain
to it?

>(This doesn't give one unlimited freedom to screw others over.  Detracting
>from someone else's experience of life is not acceptable.)

Why not?

> (I have a confession to make...  I have a dark side. :).

No.  You're kidding. <g>

-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25207 talk.religion.misc:25367 alt.slack:3624
From: spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.slack
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 6 Jan 1993 23:59:22 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: pitstop.ucsd.edu

In article <fXCBDsY@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>       ...  I don't know about you, but I can never get enough fish! Ah,
>just imagine the average intelligence level, but strangely half the
>people are dumber than that.

Here.  Have a fish.

On second thought, here, have a snake.

Actually half the people are dumber than the *median* intelligence
level.

I don't care if it rains or freezes,
As long as I've got my Plastic Jesus,
Ridin' on the dashboard of my car.
I can go a hunnerd miles an hour,
As long as I've got the Almighty Power,
Right up there with my pair of fuzzy dice.

Say Hallelujah.

		- Don Imus

							spl
-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"Personally, I don't care whether someone is cool enough to quote Doug
Gwyn--I only care whether Doug Gwyn is cool enough to quote." - Larry Wall
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25166 talk.religion.misc:25315
From: christen@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Carl Christensen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Child abuse ordered by god.
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:34:38 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Organization: Temple University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

:                          Deuteronomy 21:18-21
:    If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father
: and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father
: and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate 
: of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn
: and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 
: Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the
: evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

This is my favorite!  If you're rebellious in any way you are condemned as
a drunk and a wastrel!  Can't you be rebellious without being a drunk?
I was a rebellious kid (and still am :) ) but I didn't get loaded in
1st grade.

But it's in the bible so it must be true.

----
Carl Christensen
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What a Hunk We Have in Jesus
Date: 11 Jan 93 02:16:26 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

[reply to mmwang@adobe.com]
 
>Which reminds me of a stand up routine I once saw on television, which
>went something like:
 
>  "Imagine what the world would be like if Jesus was hanged instead of
>   nailed to a cross. Then all the Catholics would be walking around
>   with nooses around their necks!"
 
What if Jesus had been stoned instead of crucified?  Then instead of
crossing themselves, Christians might beat themselves with their fists.
%-)

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Agreement on this implication?
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:53:34 GMT

In article <C0Dyx4.4Dn@sus.edu.eur.nl> bidewolf@sus.edu.eur.nl 
(Ronald de Wolf) writes:

  >If this implication is correct,then logically the imperfectness of the world
  >(on which most people agree,I think) implies the imperfectness 
  >(in the opinion of most people) of God.

  Note, however, that most people probably do not use "perfect" in the sense
of Leibniz. This is the best possible world, according to Leibniz, in the
sense that there is as much existence, form, and variety in it as is at all
possible.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: Nailing Christianity: Sufficient Support for Atheism?
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:24:58 GMT

In article <1iccroINNper@shelley.u.washington.edu> jeon@carson.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon) writes:
>
> It is precisely because there are multiple religions in this world each
> claiming salvation only thru their god that I don't subscribe to the idea
> of a god. [...]


I would take this a stage further and point out that there is very good
evidence in support of the epidemiological transmission of religious belief
(along with all sorts of other cultural mores and `knowledge' in general).

For example, far and away the best predictor of a person's religion
statistically is the religion of his parents (no, I don't have a reference
handy but no doubt I could find one if somebody insists on calling me on this).

Conversely, I know of no case where somebody has pronounced themselves
converted to some existing religion by direct revelation, without having
had prior knowledge of the tenets, the central mythological characters or
even the very existence of that religion.

`Spreading the Word' is exactly what it says: epidemiological transmission.
Let them hear, that they may believe (implying, quite rightly, that they
wouldn't otherwise figure out for themselves the particular nonsensical
twaddle in question in a month of Sundays).

Thus there exists a mechanism, acknowledged even by theists themselves,
for the spread of religions which is *entirely* independent of whether
or not any of them are true. Furthermore, most theists will agree that
`untrue' religions (i.e. not theirs) are spread in this manner (`false
gospel'). The wielder of Ockham's Razor has all he needs to explain the
observed prevalence of religion, and ye gods themselves are superfluous
to the issue.

Of course, this view says nothing about the existence or otherwise of
gods or unicorns. What it does, however, is to set *claims* of theistic
existence in context by identifying them as an integral part of the
epidemiology with *no* status independent of it, and that's the crux.

We already have an epidemic model acknowledged by theists (and of necessity
by *all* evangelicals), in which the claims *are* the transmitting agent,
the spores of belief.

The model which the theist acknowledges thus even *predicts* that such
claims will be made, and to go ahead and actually make such a claim,
despite the implicit acknowledgement that such epidemiology is at work,
strikes me personally as special pleading and as begging the question
at close to deafening volume.

Cheers

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: BELIEVERS: WHAT WOULD MAKE YOU NOT BELIEVE IN GOD?
Date: 9 Jan 93 18:35:30 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1993Jan8.225243.18459@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>
>Sorry this is a little long, but as you said, it is harder for the
>believer to get a hold of the nature of his faith (and its relationship
>to knowledge) than it is for the non-believer to do the corrseponding
>thing.  The problem is that undoing it all would be for me undoing a lot
>more than a single life experience or a rational position.  And for that
>reason, the whole complex of my "reasons for believing" are also not
>necessarily applicable to someone else - though some of them may be.
>

  Well, in all fairness to the posters I have frothed at recently, I
  say "thanks for the post."  It didn't preach, it was honest, it
  didn't insult anyone, and I didn't find even one passage
  objectionable, whether or not I agree.  Keep 'em coming.

  To all theists in a.a: this is the kind of post that won't get
  you flamed, and is actually appreciated here.  Note no consecutive
  uses of the words 'Jesus' and 'saves' anywhere.

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

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: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Who knows the mind of God?
Keywords: hypocrites backflip Jesus God Christians Jeff Clark
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date:  8 Jan 93 04:20:26 GMT

Just reading the thread on "MIND OF THE BIBLE BELEIVER". The christians in
that thread continue to cry:

"Who can know the mind of God?"

They cry this because we ask them why would God create Eden and humans in
such a way that A&E would definitely sin and condemn the rest of humanity to
pain, plague, suffering, starvation etc etc.  They say that God has some
purpose here that is beyond our understanding.

I ask the regulars on this newsgroup to cast their minds back about two
months.  At that point Christianic Crime was the major thread. One
particular story given to us by David Rice invovled a young boy losing his
eyeball because the pastor was attempting to let the evil spirits from his
head by providing an outlet for them during an exorcism. Of course, the
pastor would tell us that he was doing these actions in the name of God and
other atrocities have been committed by people because "God told them to do
it".  When christians cried that these people who committed such acts were
not christians and that their God would never ask people to do such things.
When pushed a couple of them even stated:

"I know my God, with my heart and soul and I can tell you he would
never order such atrocities".

But ask them if God asked these people to commit these acts for purposes
beyond our understanding and they backtrack and say "No way, God would never
advocate such horrendous acts" (I find this particularly funny considering
the number of flagrantly violent, immoral acts that God has not only
condoned but demanded in the Bible).

I'm not sure but can anyone see any inconsistency here? Is there any solid
ground on which they seem to be basing their beleifs? Do Christians just
change their life views every time their is an argument which shows their
current life view is incorrect and just convince themselves that this new
life view is what they thought all along?  

So Fundies, Christians or Born Agains (Whatever you want to call yourselves)
what is it: do you know your God intimately, or don't you know him at all?

Hint: You can't have both and stay out of mental asylums.

Jeff.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Nailing Christianity: Sufficient Support for Atheism?
From: rmathews@zeus.calpoly.edu (Bob Mathews)
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 05:05:38 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Robert Huss) writes:
>	Christianity is really the only religion to extricate itself from
>the society in which it began.  This accents the affect that the originators
>of the Bible had on Christianity.  Hinduism, Buddism, Confusionism, Islam, etc.
>all pretty much remained in the area where they formed.

This is simply not true.  Lumping the territorial extent of Islam together
as "one area" is nothing but ethnocentrism.  Buddhism, as I recall, is no
longer a dominant religion in its place of origin (India).  Its spread
through asia brought it into contact with many societies, and it was
modified to a great extent, particularly by the Chinese.

Of course, neither has a hold on the industrialized parts of today's world
like Christianity, but I tend to regard this as an accident of timing.
It was in Europe when the Europeans decided that they had the technology
and the desire to expand - lucky break.

swehtam bob

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24913 talk.religion.misc:25109
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 4 Jan 93 22:16:29 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Dec31.194541.29880@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>In article <BzyFGu.KJD@dale.cts.com> npm@dale.cts.com (Nancy Milligan) writes:
>>If Christians, or Bible believers, are so happy, so morally well-
>>adjusted wouldn't it stand to reason that most criminals would
>>be atheists?  Well, they aren't.  Something like 95% of them
>>believe in a god, and some percentage of them go to church. 
>
>One can believe in God and go to church and still be far from the
>narrow path.  Also, any hardened criminal can be washed
>clean by the grace of God.
>
>John M.


  Oh, you mean like this?

   "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance:
   Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners....But for
   that very reason, I was shown mercy so that in me...Jesus
   Christ might display His unlimited patience as an example
   for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life.
   Now to the king eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God,
   be honor and glory forever and ever."

--Jeffrey Dalmer, convicted serial killer, in statment to the
court,  Milwaukee, WI, February 17, 1992.


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

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: rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Robert Huss)
Subject: Nailing Christianity: Sufficient Support for Atheism?
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:13:22 GMT


	There is a great deal of debunking of Christianity going on
on this group, but is this really sufficient grounds for Atheism?  
Nailing the inconsistencies in Christianity certainly gives enough
support to show that it isn't the One Truth as far as religions go,
but that really doesn't give us enough to deny the existence of a god.
	It is evident that all of the religions there are have certain
inconsitencies within them.  The followers of any given religion may refute
that the inconsitencies aren't important, but they undeniably exist.  I've 
considered this proof enough that no single religion is exclusively right.
But these discrepencies aren't really enough to disproove the existence of 
god.  
	However, I think maybe by looking at each religion, it's origins, 
and it's errors, that we can see that the errors are due to the
nature of the society in which the religion grew.  Most of the errors or
discrepencies in the Bible show that chauvanistic men wrote it, and that 
the differences between people were used to show superiority of one set
of people over another.  Now, defenders of the Bible will defend this
by saying that the Word of God was given to these men, and they interpreted
it, and wrote it down.  Therefore, they tainted the word of God with their
own humanity.  
	I'm not very schooled in other religions, but I do know that the 
Islamic faith supports the culture in most Islamic country's and it is likely
that the culture was similar when the Koran was written.  
	Christianity is really the only religion to extricate itself from
the society in which it began.  This accents the affect that the originators
of the Bible had on Christianity.  Hinduism, Buddism, Confusionism, Islam, etc..
all pretty much remained in the area where they formed.  This makes it seem
like the religion forms the culture.  However, Christianity has changed greatly
in the past few hundred years, while the Bible has not changed.  This shows
that the culture forms the religion, not the other way around.
	Is this enough to say that humans create religion, or just enough
to say that we shape it to our society?  Is debunking religions enough to
disprove God?  I'd like to hear what others have to say about this.

Bob Huss


Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.slack