HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Hitler (was Re: Christian racism)
Keywords: Christian racism depiction of christ
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:47:25 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1idjveINN58h@titan.ucc.umass.edu> locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (SCOTT C LOCKLIN) writes:
>In article <martin.726049316@marsh> martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:
>
>>I doubt many people associate their bible to the middle-east at all,
>>despite it being completely set there.  I know Christians who 
>>absolutely can't stand Jews, and yet worship the King of the Jews in church.
>>(Come to think of it, same with Hitler)
>
>Hitler was an atheist. Actually, if we think of it a bit, he was the founder
>of a rather virulent form of neo-Paganism. 
>
>He was also (BTW) one of the first animal rights activists, passing some of
>the strictest regulations ever on humane treatment of animals.
>Anyone notice some of the words & actions of his modern compatriots (animal 
>rights activits, not neopagans or atheists)?
>
>-Scott


If you had read the alt.atheism FAQ, you would have found this:

Subject: Hitler was an atheist!

Typical posting:

Hitler was an atheist, and look at what he did!

Response:

Adolf Hitler was emphatically not an atheist.  As he said himself:

   The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in
   his own denomination, of making _people_stop_just_talking_
   superficially_of_God's_will,_and_actually_fulfill_God's_will,_and_
   not_let_God's_word_be_desecrated._[orig. ital.]

   For God's will gave men their form, their essence, and their
   abilities.  Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the
   Lord's creation, the divine will.  Therefore, let every man be
   active, each in his own denomination if you please, and let every
   man take it as his first and most sacred duty to oppose anyone who
   in his activity by word or deed steps outside the confines of his
   religious community and tries to butt into the other.

   [...]

   Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will
   of the Almighty Creator: _by_defending_myself_against_the_Jew,_I_am_
   fighting_for_the_work_of_the_Lord._[orig. ital.]

          -- Adolf Hitler, from "Mein Kampf", trans. Ralph Mannheim.

Of course, someone bad believing something does not make that belief
wrong.

Chris Lee
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JESUS IS GOD (Was: Yeshua the Man...)
Date: 12 Jan 93 12:50:13 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

In article <martin.726771271@marsh> martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:
>ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar) thumps his Bible as evidence:
>
>>The best Messianic prophecy identifying Jesus is in Daniel 9:24-27 where Daniel predicted the timing of Jesus' execution to be 69 x 7 years after a certain date. (Read my advert in alt.messianic)
>
>My version says 7 x 70.  It also completely fails to give the date
>from which this interval starts.  This is your best example?

The prophecy speaks of 70 x 7 periods decreed for the whole of the Jewish
people but then splits up into 7,62,and 1 x 7 year periods.  It clearly states
the anointed one to be cut off after the 62 i.e. after the first 7 and second 62
so 69.  I will be writing in detail about this prophecy in alt.messianic.

>*Even* if prophecies were recorded beforehand, how many of the prophecies
>that *failed* the test of time do you think would have been kept alive by
>High Priests and other historians?  I'd wager very few, if any, would have.

The testimony to the truth of the Bible is not fulfilled prophecy but
UNFULFILLED prophecy, for many believe that you will live to see the rest
of it come true.

Vijay (ucakrvb@uk.ac.ucl)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: tovey@mullauna.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Gadget)
Subject: MY god
Summary: MY god
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 05:54:49 GMT

I would be interested to hear some 'atheists' opinions of this.
I have, for some time, believed in little that I can not see, hear, etc.
However, having read some of Hofstater's books, notably 'The Mind's Eye',
especially "Is God a Taoist", Raymond Smullyan, I am quite happy to believe 
in God as a process, the process of attaining wisdom, and the devil as the
'unfortunate amount of time it takes'. As a practitioner of Aikido I 
have some understanding of what the Zen masters talk about when they talk
about the void and verything being the same, (mu). I believe that all religions
have something to contribute to the well-being of people. It seems that the
old (and obselete) view of Jews concerning not eating Pork is related to the
fact the pork goes off quickly, just as the Catholic anti-prophylactic rule
seems to encourage the manufacture of Catholics.
 However, I am not willing to discard the concept of a god out of hand. I 
think that the concept of a god can be beneficial to a society for one
thing (i doubt you would dispute that), but I also believe in the possiblity
of the existence of a 'cool' god, one who sees everything because he (she)
(it) is all, one who changes with his (etc) environment. One who does not
affect the world directly (just as we do not affect our bodies directly) but
works through agents (as we use hormones as the personification of our wishes
and white blood cells as the erradicators of corruption). The concept is my
own (I think), but relates strongly to that of Buddha.
  Your opinions?

  Gadget

Matt Tovey 	       |  Commpower Engineering	|	
                       |  Melbourne,		| tovey@mullauna.cs.mu.OZ.AU
Voice: 61-3-419-4716   |  Australia.		| "Tomorrow's ideas on
Fax:   61-3-419-4716   |			|       yesterday's technology"
From: wooyoung@bu.edu (WooYoung Chung)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Removing "god" from morality. (was: Moral liberty)
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:28:27 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Chris Lee (czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com) wrote:


: Two points.
: 
: 1) Children can be raised with the "how would you like it if somebody did
:    that to you" ethic. This leads to kind and considerate children who
:    don't help little-old-ladies accross the road just because they're
:    little-old-ladies, but because they would hope that people would help
:    them if they were infirm. But then we live in a very selfish society
:    where kind and considerate people usually get screwed.
: 
: 2) If I had a dollar for every time a religious person had told me that
:    religious people were more moral than atheists because morals come
:    from god and therefore atheists couldn't be moral, I would would be
:    very rich as well as being pissed off.
: 
: Chris Lee

About your second point, you might be right that religious 
people may not be more moral than atheists.  However, what's 
important is whether these religious people are more moral 
than if they were NOT religious themselves.  

Actually, come to think of it there are many other factors 
that need to be considered to make the comparison "fair." 
Not all atheists are atheists for the same reason and 
religious people is not all religious for the same reason.

WooYoung Chung
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject:      Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 14:47:40 MEZ
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA07179; Sat, 9 Jan 93 05:52:48 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA08323; Sat, 9 Jan 93 05:52:45 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0952; Sat, 09 Jan 93 14:52:21 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

I forgot to mention in my previous post that Malcolm Lee edited dubious
commandments such as 'Keep Sabbath holy' out of the Christian commandments.
And asked where the faults are then.

Hardly a sign of integrity,
   Benedikt
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reality- What's Probable?
Date: 13 Jan 93 00:32:45 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan13.000425.22095@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
|> In article <1ivjtdINNh32@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >Don't be silly.   You simply presented self-contradictory attributes.
|> >
|> >What's impossible is to prove the non-existence of something which
|> >is not intrinsically self-contradictory.   An entity that could, at
|> >least in principle, exist.
|> >
|> >Your example has no bearing on that.   
|> That's true. I postulate the existence of a purple tiger such that
|> if I were (at any time) to look under my desk, I would have (at any
|> time following that) a noticeable memory of seeing it.
|> Just looked under my desk. No memory of seeing the tiger. Doesn't exist.

I must remember that.   Christians tell me that if I were just to ask
God, he would answer me.   So now I can say that I have and he doesn't, 
so he doesn't exist, is that right?

You ought try your example on a Christian.    Bet they reply that the
tiger's really under your desk, and you just didn't look "hard enough". 

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 20:25:11 GMT

In article <SCG.93Jan4192236@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu writes:
>brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>
>>It grieves me to hear this kind of discussion.  God gets accused of
>>things that are really not his to begin with.  Both Christians and
>>non-Christians alike attribute the pain and suffering in the world to
>>God.  This is not true.
>
>ye old problem of evil.  the counterargument: if god did not create
>suffering (evil), who did?

The obvious answer is no one/nothing.  The same goes for the rest of the
universe.  Not really a counterargument, just proves our point.

Jim Copeland
--
Have you washed your brain today?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: house@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house)
Subject: Re: I still wouldn't worship it.
Organization: University of Southern Queensland
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:56:37 GMT

wooyoung@bu.edu (WooYoung Chung) writes:

>ron house (house@helios.usq.EDU.AU) wrote:
>: Sorry if that sounds bizarre, but to
>: me, god is a universal, inner reality, not a universal outer reality.

>What's inner and outer reality? (in of, out of what?)

I am an idealist and a realist.  I believe the world is real, but mental.
Its reality is the fact that it presents consistent appearances to
different minds.

God, therefore, is the universal observer, necessary for the reality of
those parts of the universe no normal being can see.  Thus, god is not
an entity to be found objectively within the universe, but rather a
mental entity like myself.  Just as I 'know' other humans by introspecting
how they must feel to produce the behaviour I see, so similarly I must
'know' god only by introspection.  That is different from, say, a stone,
whose reality I grasp through physical effects.  In this sense, god is
similar to mathematical entities such as the number 2, as they too I must
know introspectively.

--

Ron House.                 USQ
(house@helios.usq.edu.au)  Toowoomba, Australia.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject:      Re: God, what use is it?
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 13:50:11 MEZ
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA05481; Sat, 9 Jan 93 05:02:25 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA05619; Sat, 9 Jan 93 05:02:23 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0927; Sat, 09 Jan 93 14:01:58 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

Joe Beiter types:

>>Even if there was a god, or gods, why would it want to be worshipped?
>>I would think that it/they have more interesting things to do than
>>muck about with a little mud ball named Earth.
>>

>*If* there were a god, or gods, what makes you think you'd be able to
>understand it much less relate to it?

If we can't understand it, it is not an useful concept.
There is no way to derive reliable information out of it
because we, by definition, do not understand it.

Note that every reliable information would imply that we
could understand/model it at least partially.

The lack of reliable - not even necessarily communicable -
information implies that I can't even experience it.

The attributes you use are proof that the concept is meaningless.
   Benedikt
From: pcrayne@halcyon.com (Peter C. Crayne)
Subject: Re: Why must you act this way?
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 03:53:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.181314.9181@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>
>I was trying to illustrate the fact that one should be in a humble frame of mind when addressing God.  It's not like talking to one of your surf buddies.  The words don't matter so much as the attitude.  God knows what you are feeling and that is what matters.
>
[Delitia]

>Inside everyone of us is a small part of Him that responds when He speaks.  And so, He did put something in us to do this.
>

I guess what is bothering me is that, in most religions, communicating
with god is some kind of subtle, mystic thing. If god intends for us to
communicate with him, why isn't is easier to do? I might be able to
believe in god if I was able to converse with it in a reasonably normal
fashion. (Ie. not praying & such, but simply talking.) It may sound
frivolous, but really, why? Conversing is the communication medium that
most people can best grasp.

>God loves.  Man kills because he chooses to kill.  God gave us the ability to
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^
Not gonna touch that one. That thread is already raging on...

> create and destroy as we see fit.  What we choose to do is left to us.  Humans prefer to blame God for all the wrongs of this world.  Kind of hypocritical when most people don't believe in God in the first place.

That hypocricy is a large part of what made me first question
christianity. So many religious types use it as an excuse to dodge their
social & moral responsibilities. Why be kind to your neighbor, after all
he's a wicked [punk/alchoholic/whatever] and doesn't deserve their help.
That type of hypocrisy sickens me.

>Thank you for your response.

Likewise.
-Pete
pcrayne@halcyon.com
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:42:52 GMT

In article <11087@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>In article <root.726502852@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>
>>You make the assumption that I don't support true equal access.  You are
>>wrong.  I really don't care who or what is on TV, so long as NOONE is
>>restricted.  You want equal access for everyone EXCEPT Christians.  Nice
>>double standard you have there.
>>
>
>  Then you wouldn't mind a television show that broadcast live
>  infant sacrifices in a Satanic ritual, now would you?

Infant sacrifice is also known in the civil sphere are murder.  No such
practices are extant in xtian ceremonies that are proscribed by civil
law.

Blessings,
Janis
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reverse FAQ....
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 13:37:08 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.98

werdna@cco.caltech.edu (Andrew Tong) writes:
> Seeing how so much of this alt.atheism group is dedicated to ridiculing
> Christians, I'm proposing to write up some sort of an "anti-FAQ"--something
> that attempts to answer (intelligently) the standard attacks on Christianity.

If you look at the existing FAQ, you'll notice that it already answers a
couple of "standard" attacks on Christianity.  The section about Hitler
mentions that Hitler's belief in God doesn't say anything about the general
behaviour of Christians.  The bit about Godel's Theorem trashes the frequent
claim "Godel's theorem proves that the Bible can't be both complete and
without error".

There's no reason why other genuinely fallacious attacks on Christianity
shouldn't go into the FAQ file.

If you want to put together "standard" responses to questions like "How can
the church claim moral authority when it was happy to support Hitler?" then
that might be useful, and would not be appropriate for the existing FAQ. 

Good luck.  I very much doubt you'll come up with convincing answers to most
of the criticisms made of Christianity, but I suppose it's worth a try.

> both Christians and atheists.  (BTW: Most of the atheist FAQ is relevant
> and positively written--if read in a good-natured way.  Commendations
> to whoever was responsible.)

Thanks.  There are a couple of jokes which I suppose could offend (like
listing the Bible under Fiction in the bibliography), but generally I try to
be balanced.

> Again, I don't care too much if this FAQ is really a FAQ (I don't know the
> orthodox procedure to do something like this.)

The orthodox procedure is just to do it.  Some newsgroups have two or more
competing FAQ files from different authors.  Usually this occurs after a
flame war, but sometimes different authors cover different (but overlapping)
areas.  (e.g. rec.games.frp)


mathew
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Date: 9 Jan 93 01:00:30 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: New Mexico State University

In article <martin.726254233@marsh> martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:
>kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
>

>>Darwinian evolution means evolution of species. It is a false
>>explanation of how there came to be many different species.
>
>What evidence do you have that it is false?

Ah, I see Kalki is inflicting himself upon us again.  BTW Kalki, what
about that business of "observed speciations" we were discussing?
(Over in talk.origins, Kalki "dared" us to show him an example of one
species evolving into another.  My response was to e-mail Kalki the
section on "Observed Speciations" from the t.o. FAQ file, which
actually gave some examples of observed speciations.  Kalki did not
even acknowledge receiving this information, which indicates to me
that his question was a rhetorical device, not a request for
information.) 

Kalki has already proved over in t.o. that he has only a vague notion
of what evolution is; his only interest is to validate the mythology
he believes in, and like all Creationists, he twists facts to fit his
doctrine.  I wouldn't waste my time if you're interested in debating
science.
 
SD
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pcrayne@halcyon.com (Peter C. Crayne)
Subject: Re: A nation chosen by GOD -- New-Israel
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 13:37:37 GMT

In article <2935683547.1.p00261@psilink.com> "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
>
>NICE TRY JEFF, BUT SOMETIMES THE SUBTLE WAY AIN'T THE EFFECTIVE WAY.
>
>SO FOR STEPHENS BENEFIT I WILL EXPLAIN:
>
>WHEN PEOPLE CROSS POST PREACHING INTO ALT.ATHEISM AND WE TRY TO GET IT
[Deletia.]

Ouch, my ears! Please don't shout.

-Pete
pcrayne@halcyon.com
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25545 talk.religion.misc:25705
From: joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why? (was Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER)
Date: 9 Jan 93 20:08:19 GMT
Organization: The Courts of Chaos

In article <2935630218.0.p00261@psilink.com> p00261@psilink.com (Robert Knowles) writes:

>HE HAS RECEIVED ABOUT WITNESSING TO ALT.ATHEISM.   ARE THERE ANY SUGGESTIONS
>IN ADDITION TO THE ONE ABOVE FOR HANDLING THIS SITUATION? 

Howabout ignoring him or at least sparing the rest of us with your play by
play comentaries?

>PLEASE, ANYONE OUT
>THERE REPLYING TO THIS BOZO,  ALTER YOUR NEWSGROUP TO REMOVE ALT.ATHEISM AND
>SEE IF HE CAN HANDLE IT.

theres a bright idea!  GO FOR IT!

>
>THE MOST DISGUSTING PART OF ALL THIS IS THOSE STUPID REPLIES OF HIS WITH THE
>"FALSE CHRISTIAN SINCERITY".

Prehaps you're just easy to disgust.

>JUST STOP.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>But just in case you don't, a Usenet Cascade (tm) sounds like a good idea.

here I was thinking your keyboard was stuck in CAPS LOCK.  Are you a 12 year
old or just post like one?

-- 
 -|:..Joe.Beiter@arden.linet.org          TCOC: Public Access..:|-
  -|:..........................................................:|-
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why it sucks to be an atheist...
Date: 10 Jan 93 14:19:32 GMT
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <1io51qINNs1a@gap.caltech.edu> lieven@cco.caltech.edu writes:

> ** Deep brooding mood warning **

      Yeh, I have a bit of this perverse liking of the blues myself...

> 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 possible such tool; not nearly the only one, and definitely
not a necessary one. "Beyond" death, BTW?

> And I have wrestled with and accepted the fact that, unfortunately, I am only
> a complicated physical entity with a few decades of conscious existence.

      OK, so this rather limited existence of ours might not be Utopia.
But, considering that the only open alternative seems to be complete and
utter nonexistence, and that we're all heading down that direction
anyway, I don't think we've lost too much; we all get a bit of life
each, and our respective portions of death too, for free to boot!

> The remaining item which religion has solved and I have not, I humbly submit
> for discussion among the net.wise:
> 
> 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?

      If we create such a standard for ourselves, yes. But an absolute,
pre-defined such standard, that would be applicable to everybody
equally, as opposed to our own individual standards? I can't really
think of a reason for why any such thing should exist in the first
place.

      We are what we make of ourselves, we make our own possibilities,
and we are free to create whatever we can dream up, with the one
limitation of our respective natural lifespans. If, at the end of that
time, we are satisfied with what we achieved; well, then we've won the
game.

-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-
 If you think I'm gonna be responsible for this crap, you're madder than I am.
    "No logic here today / Do as you got to, Go your own way..." -- G 'n' R
     ===>The Truth is still the Truth, even if you choose to ignore it.<===