HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: "Sin" is a myth
X-Sender: newtout 0.01 Jul 13 1992
Date: 30 Jul 92  14:27:30

Tag1: Graham Matthews (graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews))
Tag2: Bev Beasly:(address unknown)
 
>>>BB> "Covering is prescribed for women to protect themselves from
>>>BB> men, so that the man will not stare lustfully at the women.
>>>BB> Women are to cover all except for the face and hands, some
>>>BB> women in other countries cover their face and hands."
 
 
>>DR> Your rationalizations of women being responsible for curbing
>>DR> the 'lusts' of men is vile, disgusting, and abhorant to me.
 
>BB> When a woman, such as myself, dresses in a dignified and
>BB> modest manner, she has less of a chance of being verbally
>BB> or physically abused, note the words 'less of a chance',
>BB> I'm not saying 100% all of the time.
 
GM> "I believe you have missed the point Bev. By dressing 'in a
GM> modest manner' etc. you are putting the responsiblity for not
GM> getting molested on the women, when the responsiblity should
GM> be on the men. If a women dresses in a skimpy bikini this is
GM> not an invitation to molest her! You seem to have somehow
GM> reversed the responsibility for things. That is David's point."
 
Amen! (Smile.) I am master of my body, ruler of my mind, thoughts,
and deeds--- I refuse to place blame on externals. I do not need a
God, nor a "holy" book, to instill a sense of honor, ethics, and
morals: in most people, such qualities are congenital (I believe,
since humans have evolved within societies where these qualities
were survival traits).
 
For a woman to be so enslaved, so self-prisoned to believe that
it is HER responsibility to "curb" the behavior of 49% of the
entire population. . . . well, that seems to me like she has been
criminally abused. It also assums that men are INCAPABLE of using
their brains instead of their balls, which I also find insulting.
 
It seems Ms. Beasly bases her self-inflicted neurosis on occultism
(he religion), which she probably received FROM HER MALE MASTERS.
Such as woman not only cannot see her chains; she encourages other
women, actively or passivly, to bind themselves "for God."
 
If Ms. Beasly ever finds out how she has been used, do you think
she'll blame the men to enslaved her, or herself for allowing it?
---------
 
On a lighter note:
 
>Adam> "'God loves you. . . .'
>Adam> If this is love, I wonder what hate is!"
 
GM> "*sarcasm on* But Adam the answer is clear - these people that
GM> hate homosexuals and Jews aren't *true believers* (TM). *sarcasm
GM> off*"
 
Naw, the answer invariable is "We hate the sin, love the sinner."
Of sourse calling any innate, natural behavior such as sexuality
a "sin" sounds pretty hatefull to me. Or contrived, controlling,
and manipulative.
 
> Graham Matthews

--- Maximus 2.00
From: marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:02:33 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

> In article <1992Jul28.130101.20283@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>
> mrice@churchill.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Mark.Rice) writes:
> 
>> ... saying "THIS is the truth" can be stereotypical
>> of a christian but is often said by atheists when they say "I know for sure
>> there is no such thing as a GOD of any kind."  They're being just as
>> closed-minded as stereotypical christians.
> 

I agree completely.  Close-mindedness is all in the eyes of the beholder.  I
could say that you are close-minded and you could say the same to me.  After
doing such things, have we not only "cancelled" each other out, but just pissed
each other off too.  We shouldn't chant "close-mindedness" to each other, for
we should realize that with what we believe, we believe it to be the absolute
truth.  So say what you believe to be the truth.  Anyway, you can't change a
person's mind if you are in a flame conversation.  I would love to convert you
all to Christianity, but obviously this will not happen.  But that doesn't mean
that we can't try to convince each other that we are right.

In Christ,
Evan Marshall
marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 14:42:26 GMT

graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:

>mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>>> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>> >God [...] made me in such a way that I am unable to breathe underwater.
>>> 
>>> >Why couldn't he have made the authors of the Bible in such a way that they
>>> >were unable to misrepresent his word?
>>> 
>>> Possibly because giving humans the ability to make the choice to
>>> misrepresent his word was more important to God than the accurate
>>> transmission of his word.
>>
>>So it's more important that people be able to intentionally distort the
>>teachings of the Bible than that God's word should get to all people? 
>>That's a pretty odd sense of priorities.  I've heard of God moving in
>>mysterious ways, but that's downright perverse.

>Its made even more perverse by that fact the God is going to punish
>for all eternity those whom his word never reached.

Hmmm.  If you're talking about the same God I'm talking about,
I don't know how you can be sure of that.
From: ss@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Scott Stuart)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God violates physical laws?
Date: 22 Jul 92 09:01:24 GMT
Reply-To: ss@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Scott Stuart)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <1RNuNB13w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
[stuff about Irn Bru deleted]
>
>The fact that God is omniscient DOES NOT preclude my having free will.  God
>is like the psychic in Australia; so long as he doesn't tell *me* what I am
>going to do, my choice is free.

No, an omniscient god does not preclude free will. However, if you assume that
god created you, and everything about you, having perfect knowledge of 
everything that you will ever do, and having the unbounded power to make 
alterations to your mind/soul/whatever in order to affect your future
actions, then free will is precluded.  If Tony had filled the fridge with
Irn Bru before writing in his envelope, or used a new device of his invention
which allows him to rearrange the atoms in your brain to make you choose Irn
Bru then he has removed your free will to choose between Irn Bru and Lilt.

scott
From: ss@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Scott Stuart)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: 02/alt.atheism fre <cont>
Date: 23 Jul 92 09:25:26 GMT
Reply-To: ss@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Scott Stuart)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <1992Jul23.035909.15984@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>the universe contains some monstrously huge hidden computer, by monstrously
>huge I mean each particle requires trillions of trillions of ... more
>computing power than that available "inside" the universe.
>-- 
>>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
>Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
>in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
>       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/


Why do you think particles require such immense "computing power" to
follow the rules of quantum physics?  Just because we require computational
power to analyse what a system will do, does not mean that that system
requires some sort of hidden computer telling it what it shoucd do next.
I'll agree that it would be nice if the universe followed simple, elegant
laws, but there is no guarantee that that is the case, and if you restrict
the set plausible theories by that sort of unfounded and unnecessary 
assumption, then you run the very real risk of being blind to the truth.

scott
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jeon@milton.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon)
Subject: Re: Oh no, not again
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 04:09:04 GMT

In article <22615@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> frazier@maxwell (Greg Frazier)
writes: 
>Rather, his
>knowledge is not limitted by time, so he is aware of the
>choices you make before you make them.

This is the crux of the matter. Whether or not omniscient being is out
side of the time.

>One game is played in its entirety, and then the second is
>played with the exact same moves.  You are playing the first game,
>God is playing the second.  You have complete freedom in choosing
>your moves, but God gets to have seen the entire game played before
>it starts.
>

Let me be rhetorical for the moment and suppose our "god" follows time
just like us.
Then, the first time when I was playing the game, our god did not
know which move I would make before I made it. Therefore he is not
omniscient. The second time around, god is playing the game not me.
And is it me being played in the second game? If it is me, I have no
free will in the second game whether I am aware or not because god is
making the already determined moves, not me.

>But, God being God and all, the second game does not
>occur temporially after the first.

>
>(1) Since I don't know of anybody who has been told their future,
>this has never been violated.  (2) One might argue that it is not
>the possibility of knowing your future that would destroy free
>will, but the actual knowledge itself.  That is to say, if God
>did tell, then there would be no free will, but since It has
>gifted us with free will, It chooses not to tell.
>

Again, think of my life as a book or a map to god. It does not matter
god chooses tell or not. Or decides to take a look at my ultimate
destination, hell or heaven. It doesn't evan matter whether god wrote
the book or not. Or in your term, when god is playing the second game,
even that god has no choice but to follow the moves I made in the
first game when god was ignorant of my next move.

On the top of my head, there is two kinds of knowledge. One is like
reading a novel and know the fate of a character. The other is
deducing something from those I already know. If there ever is a
question of free will, it is in the second category. But then, if the
subject whom god would like to know has free will, god cannot deduce
everything about the subject. If god can deduce every move, the moves
are determined if not by god but by some rules, like one plus one must
be two. In any of these cases, omniscience rules out the free will or
free will rules out omniscience.

In the sense of a book or a map, god's ability to transcend the flow
of time is irrelevant. 
It is only when god can violate the consequence of logic that all of
these become nothing.

>Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier

Am I making myself clear ? I hope so.

Jeon

Opinions expressed here are my responsibility and mine only.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Subject: Re: OFFENCE
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:28:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.091213.27967@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> ury@humus.cs.huji.ac.il (My Friend Of Misery) writes:
>From: ury@humus.cs.huji.ac.il (My Friend Of Misery)
>Subject: Re: OFFENCE
>Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 09:12:13 GMT

>In article <1992Jul17.080324@scri.fsu.edu>, christodal@scri.fsu.edu writes:

>|> ABOUT DIFFERENT VIEWS  AND ENJOY IT, BUT I DON'T ENJOY CHRISTIANS ATTEMPTING TO
>|> CONVERT ME.  I THINK THAT SO LONG AS NO ON ATTEMPTS TO CONVERTS ANYONE TO ONE
>|> BELIEVE OR ANOTHER THERE SHOULD BE NO OFFENCE.  ANY ONE WHO IS OFFENDED WHEN I
>|> SAY 'I DON'T BELIEVE IN ANY GOD' IS NOT WORTH MY TIME.
>|> 
>|> 
>|>      BECKIE CHRISTODAL

>Damn right. This newsgroup is NOT ment to discuss atheism, not for atheism vs.
>theism. If there is no newsgroup for that, maybe one can be created. Reading
>this newsgroup, ppl should know that it's about the non-existance of god.
>There are a lot of questions, like "So let's define good", but answering 
>"God can tell" is NOT belong to this newsgroup. Jarek, U realy think you can convert
>anyone? Some people here (also me) fight thier socaiety and family so they
>can live their own life. I hope you understand that keeping telling them how
>god is good and strong and know all and logical and nice-looking will make
>them fill better now. I want to start a new life. Why you must keep reminding
>me all the unpleasent fights I had ?
>-- 
>Ury Segal          | The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the 
>ury@cs.huji.ac.il  | University or IBM, Digital, Apple, HP or anyone else.
>Phone: 02-971187   | They are mine, LO MIN HAHEFKER, as Bialik once said.
>DISCLAIMER: I don't spell and I don't care.

Hey, anybody who thinks that without God there can be no morality, doesn't 
know the first thing about morality. There would be no way of evaluating 
any doctrine about God or any way of deciding whether something was a God 
unless we already had some pre-existing and independent criteria for 
deciding if something was good or evil.  A moral understanding is 
necessarily prior to any religious assent.

--- ken, who thinks alone. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Bell                                    Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc                   You can force any entertainment
P.O. Box 833875                                 on a people except the consistent
Richardson, TX 75083-3875                       pursuit of a topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hanlon@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Casey Hanlon (SVER))
Subject: did christ play with himself?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 23 Jul 1992 09:52 EST  

Since the bible makes no mention of christ ever taking a wife, then it stands
to reason that his only sexual outlets were his hands, whores or he was gay.
So you see kahn, I understand what god is all about and I will not polute
the minds of my children with your garbage.

Casey Hanlon  
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 00:43:09 GMT

Graham Matthews plays word games again:
>>Why did God bother with evolution? Why not just make everything 
>>as it is now?

(Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>That is HOW, Oh Graham, my dear 'aGNOStic'?
>Be consequent, please. Or you are an agnostic only when it is useful to
>argue against people who have different BELIEFS? (Yes, I did suggest you  
>believe. No, you know what I mean. Yes, I am malicious. Yes, because you
>are. Yes, I am serious. Yes, please answer. Yes, I think you won't).

I am not sure I can answer since it is not clear what you are asking.
Your words look like this of a drunk in fact.

In fact there is only one question in there that makes something close
to sense and that is "Or you are an agnostic ..". To this I answer
that I see nothing in my original question that contradicts my
agnosticism in any way.

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jdymond@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Jason Dymond)
Subject: Re: Nietzche (sp?)
Organization: University of Western Australia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 12:23:00 GMT

The name of the book that you are after is "Thus Spake Zarathustra.
You will find an excellent translation in "The Portable Nietzsche"
edited by Walter Kauffmann.

The correct spelling of his name (if you hadn't guessed already:) is
Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm.

Jason.
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Date: 27 Jul 92 11:52:42 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
> In article <graham.711862019@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) 
> >>>(Stephen James) writes:
> >>>>> book "The Blind Watchmaker" (I think that is the title). This book
> >>>>> discusses this design argument and indicats how long a time these
> >>                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>>>> things take, such that complexity can be derived from natural 
> >>    ^^^^^^^^^^^
> The above passage seems to advocate evolution. 

I don't think so; it just suggests implicitly that evolution has occurred.

I'd certainly advocate evolution, though.  It's about time we evolved a bit.
I'd also advocate world peace and understanding.


mathew
[ "Are we not men?" ]
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Crusades (Re: RELIGIOUS CONCEIT)
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 03:52:47 GMT

In article <Brqt7M.JnF@apollo.hp.com>, perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Jul20.234103.6084@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
> >Can you cite a case where this occured? Perhaps under the Spanish Inquisition of
> ...
> >Sorry, I didn't realise you were talking about the Spanish Inquisition; in that
> >case what you say may well be true (as I said, it's not my field). The SI is 
> >something of a special case, since there the I was being used as a political tool 
> >by the Spanish monarchs.
> ...
> >Please note that I am *not* defending the Inquisition of the concept of religious error
> >which could be corrected by punishment (how could I? I'm an atheist!). I am reacting
> >to the ignorant use of historical cliches as arguments against christianity.
> 
> I think the point here is that when most people make reference to "The
> Inquisition" as an example of religion/Christianity gone awry, it is
> to the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition, and not as a reference to
> the institution of the Inquisition per se (although the very notion of
> an orthodoxy police contains the seeds of its political abuse, whether
> you call it The Inquisition or the House Un-American Affairs
> Committee).
> 
> Of course as with most historical things popular culture has to some
> extent caricatured the Spanish Inquisition, but it did exist and was
> pretty nasty.  

I think you've summed it up pretty well Jim, and Doug's last posting
contains a couple of extracts that show that the Spanish Inquisition
was, indeed, pretty nasty. There were, of course, serious abuses of the
medieval Inquisition also. There was one German Inquisitor who loved
condemning people so much that noblemen used to use him to get back at
their enemies. If your neighbour pissed you off you simply mentioned to 
this particular Dominican that you felt your neighbour was less than
orthodox and before you knew it, he was up on a heresy charge. This went
on until the Inquisitor was ambushed and assassinated one dark stormy night.
Ah! The joys of religion!
Tim O'Neill
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Solar Worship
X-Sender: newtout 0.01 Jul 13 1992
Date: 25 Jul 92  10:12:14

Tag1: USMAN QAZI (qazi@nevada.edu (USMAN QAZI))
 
>> (Ridha Souissi)
>> In the 7th Heaven, a number of Angels are
>> continously circulating around the Throne of God,
>> and this act of going around the Kaaba...
 
UQ> "What for? And what happens on the eighth heaven?"
 
Seventh heaven: refers to this plane of existance,
as there were seven known planets / luminaries. The
quote above describes the planets circlating the Sun.
It is the same "reason" why there are five times for
prayers; it is based upon the apparent motion of the
five visible planets around the Sun; the sun is the
symbol for what musslems call God. Ra, Ya, Yah, Allah,
are all sun Gods.

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:22:26 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.192132.2974@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
}Before I can answer this, I must know what you mean by "when you
}advocate the Bible."

To make a wild guess, see what you say in the same message...

}I am not one who can satisfy your want.  I think the writing and
}collecting of the Bible was a human endeavor.  I find that the Bible
}points to God, but I don't think it is the direct Word of God, except
}possibly the Law given at Mount Sinai, which is said to have come
}straight from God.  Thus, any translation I read today is certain to
}have errors.  

Gee, YOU seem to be addressing something that YOU call a bible here.

}Rather, I think that the omnipotent God gave us his accurate
}expression of his will in the form of Jesus Christ.

Interesting.  I was under the impression that you advocated the position
that an "accurate expression of His will" was in contradiction to His will.

Which is it: your belief or no Jesus Christ?


Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.bizarre
From: ronwill@sierra.sim.es.com (Ron Williams)
Subject: Re: Short, shameful confession
Reply-To: ronwill@sierra.sim.es.com (Ron Williams)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:50:05 GMT

In article <ZamyNB4w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> When I heard that the Pope was ill, my first thought was "Wouldn't it be
> funny if it turned out that he had caught AIDS through a brief unsafe sexual
> encounter with a prostitute?"
> 
> 
> mathew

Brutal, brutal, brutal, but funny.

-- 
Ron Williams
ronwill@sierra.sim.es.com
Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.
Salt Lake City, UT

	Utah - the state that wants to put a Pizza Hut in the
 	middle of Zion National Park.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.bizarre
From: jperry@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (John Perry)
Subject: Re: Short, shameful confession
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 16:51:54 GMT

that comic o' the ages (Achim Stoesser) quips:
>
> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> confesses:
>|> When I heard that the Pope was ill, my first thought was "Wouldn't it be
>|> funny if it turned out that he had caught AIDS through a brief unsafe sexual
>|> encounter with a prostitute?"
>
>Well, my first thought was "Why does he go to a _hospital_, with so many
>Catholics praying for him?"
>
> 							        Achim
>_____________________________________________________________________

     Because he's Catholic, not Christian Scientist you nit!  Before
you astound us with another witticism displaying your apparent lack of
wit or knowledge of any kind, why don't you cut off all of your fingers
with a chain saw.  Especially the forefinger on your left hand, as that 
is the finger closest to the 'f' key.  While you're at it, go ahead and
cut off your toes and other tiny appendages, and eat the whole lot of
them for lunch some time.  (does red or white wine go best with your
own fingers?  depends if you're white meat or dark)

   Now drop for the Pope and give him twenty and an act of contrition.

I altered your .sig a bit for you.  I suggest you adopt this new one:
>
>I'm an anus, atheist, fudge-pacifist, and vegetable.  This does _not_
>mean that I'd arrange flowers, worship Elvis, let virgins breed with bad
>breath, or make sense of any kind.  Hugs.
>
>

DA POHP `O T.B.,
JOhn

-- 

O-*-O-*-O-*-O-*-O-*-O-*-O-*-O-*-O-*-O-*-O-*-O-*-O-*-O-*-O-*-O-*-o
   Fish die only to be funny!
O-*-O-*-O-*-O-*-O-*-O-*-O-*-O-*-O-*-O-*-O-*-O-*-O-*-O-*-O-*-O-*-o
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic