HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: Monitored by islam (repost)
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 00:56:45 GMT

In <1992Dec13.111626.1@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> phs179b@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Dien Rice) writes:

>>>To be an atheist you require a positive _belief_ that God *does not*
>>>exist.  
>> 
>> 	AHEM.  I'm an Atheist, and I don't believe in stong atheism (i.e. 
>> saying that there IS NOT a god, rather than saying that it's EXTRMELY 
>> unlikely that there is one).  I imagine that few would take the position of 
>> strong atheism.  Luckily, most atheists are not as thick as most fanatical 
>> muslims.

>Dictionary definition: 

>Atheism, n.  The doctrine or belief that there is no God or that the assertion
>of his existence is meaningless.

Oopsy-daisy, difference between strong atheism and weak atheism noted.

Thanks for pointing that out, those who did.

I take your point about atheism above, Jon.

However, I still do not accept your blanket insult of Muslims.  It is
not in retaliation of anything I have said, for I have _not_ made any
blanket insult of atheists.

Perhaps, Jon, you need a more open-minded approach to those who are in
some way different from you.

 Fred Rice
 darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au   

***********************************************************
	One can either take the time
	to learn about the Islamic faith,
	or one can defer to the wisdom of
	broadcast television and hollywood
	and fail to understand it, completely.

				     Gerard Vignes
	[quoted with permission]
***********************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus)
Subject: Re: Religion = Anything that's fun is bad.
Organization: Big Bulging Buffalo Bladders -R- Us
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:28:02 GMT

In article <b6vd02022e9P01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.075622.16643@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
>>
>>Being an atheist OPENS your mind? What a crock of shit!
>
>I agree. Because being an atheist is not the cause of an open mind.
>
This is the most intelligient thing I've seen in the group yet.

>>
>>So organized religion has perpetrated some of the most heinous crimes
>>and practices ever... I don't have to be an atheist to get offended
>>by the Inquisition. Just remember, not everyone who believes in a
>>guiding intelligience subscribes to an organized religion. I think
>>kids should be exposed to all kinds of beliefs so they can make
>>their own choice. IMHO, telling kids there is NO GOD is just another
>>form of indoctrinating them into a almost fanatical belief system -
>>an evangelical anti-religion if you please.
>
>Are you just plain stupid, or what. READ THE FAQQING FAQ. Atheism is the
>absence of belief that a god or gods exist. It is not a belief system.
>
Now I'm really mad... (-:  When atheism takes on all the characteristics
evangelism it IS a belief system. Oh, but if it's in a FAQ then I better
believe it... I quivering now... NOT!

>
>NOBODY TELLS KIDS THERE IS NO GOD. I am an atheist. My parents never
>exposed me to religion. By the time I firts heard of "God" at school, I
>had learnt to think for myself. I thought it was just the same as Iggy,
>my kid sister's pretend friend, ie just a silly game. It took me another
>few years to discover that people actually believed it.
>
>Favourite extremist tactic: set up straw-man definitions for people
>you disagree with, and attack those labels as a way of attacking what
>you don't understand.
>
There are Big Dickheads who would put their little boy on the stand in
a courtroom against the Boy Scouts of America just to prove a point.
Pitting the child against his peers and the organization he wants to
join is really constructive and makes for an emotionally healthy child.
NOT!

>>
>>Frankly, I find the majority of people ballsy enough to publicly
>>declare themselves "atheists" are nothing more than troublemakers
>>who finally found a mission. They stir up shit, cost the taxpayers
>>money and vanish into the woodwork having done nothing constructive.
>>If this is you, go soak yer head...
>
>And you wonder why atheists need to "come out of the woodwork"? Substitute
>"fundie" for "atheist" and that makes more sense.
>
Sniff... I am NOT a fundie... sniff, sniff...

>Go soak your own head.

Splush... Ahhhh, that was refreshing...
- Harry
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Religion = anything that's fun is bad.
Date: 12 Dec 92 20:04:55
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<1992Dec12.213637.19852@timesink.chi.il.us>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: harry@timesink.chi.il.us's message of Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:36:37 GMT

BTW, a machine named "timesink" is somehow appropriate here, I think.

BBTW, perhaps we should consider a boycott a la the Clayton Cramer
boycott under consideration on sci.skeptic and alt.sex, given what he
says about liking an argument.

In article <1992Dec12.213637.19852@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:

   In article <9212121433.AA02595@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
   >Harold Platypus types:
   >>Being an atheist OPENS your mind? What a crock of shit!
   >
   >Either give evidence for your assertions or switch to another newsgroup.
   >
   Bugger off you pompous windbag... I'll post here if I damn well please!

Well, buddy, you have one little point there...your original assertions
were so devoid of content that it's essentially impossible to present
any evidence for them.

   >You must be an idiot. We have a FAQ file defining an atheist as someone who
   >does not necessarily believe in no gods. It has been discussed recently, but
   >your cognitive equipment must have fouled up.
   >
   I just tuned in... but I love a good argument. I especially enjoy rousting
   complacent fixtures like yourself. So prepare... I might just like it here.

Quite frankly, I don't see why you give a damn.  If complacent fixtures
such as ourselves keep to our newsgroup, why could you care less what we
think?

   I despise crusading atheists who waste taxpayers time and money and
   subject their little children to public humiliation and media circuses
   all in the name of their BELIEF SYSTEM: seperation of church and state.
   It pisses me off and you'll all hear about it until it's out of my system.
   I may choose not to subscribe to your frickin' FAQ as gospel, but I'll
   air my laundry in this burg of anarchy if I so desire. If you don't like
   this arangement there's a moderated group.

Hey, that's one of the joys of our political system, that people can
crusade for what they like.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write lpf@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ttobler@unislc.uucp (Trent Tobler)
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:38:14 GMT

Brian Cash (bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA) wrote:
: 
: The strong atheist says " I KNOW God doesn't exist!"
: 
: The weak atheist says "I don't know for sure, but I BELEIVE God doesn't exist".
:                                    
: The agnostic says "I don't know if God exists or not, so I'm not taking sides".
:                or "We CANNOT know if God exists or not, so it is pointless
:                    to be either atheistic or theistic."
: 
: Fine line, I know, but thats the FAQ def.

No.. silly! ;)

The agnostic says "I don't believe it is possible to know"... he doesn't say
anything about taking sides, and if he refuses to take sides, by default he
becomes an atheist, because if one is not a theist, one must be an atheist.
He could be a theist (I beleive in God, but I believe it is impossible to
know if he exists), or an weak atheist (I don't believe in God, and I believe
it is impossible to know if he exists), or a strong atheist (I believe there
is no god, but I believe it is impossible to know this)

Note, there is a distinction between belief and knowledge.  (a)theism makes
a statement on belief, (a)gnostism makes a statement about knowledge.  One
could also be a gnostic theist (not only do I believe in God, but I know!) and
a gnostic atheist (not only do I believe in no God, but I know!)..

hmm.. I wonder if it is possible to be a gnostic weak atheist. ;)

: 
: When you begin looking at a group of people up-close, you find
: it gets harder and harder to put them in nice, neat piles.

No, it is really easy.  Ask them to answer the question... "Do you
believe in god(s)?"  If a positive response, then theist you are, anything
else, including fuzzy responses (I don't know) is an athiest.

--
  Trent Tobler
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Religion = anything that's fun is bad.
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 06:44:00 GMT

harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
>>
>I despise crusading atheists who waste taxpayers time and money and
>subject their little children to public humiliation and media circuses

How are we wasting taxpayers' time and money?  What sort of public
humiliation and media circuses are we subjecting our children to?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /  carborundorum.                                               -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: You should be a Xtian because
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 03:52:09 GMT

Christianity hits the spot
Twelve Apostles thats a lot
Jesus Christ and Virgin too
Christianity's the faith for you

Conan the Libertarian

-- 
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: something to the chri$tians
Date: 12 Dec 1992 03:18:31 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


	You god does not hold atoms together...my book says


	"ye thee who art thou thee for thou art thee"

	And then...

	"I, the GOD `ORGASME' (yes, his name has an E at the end)
	hold atoms together"...


	YOUR god never even comes out and says it...mine does...



	WELL...DISPROVE IT !!!!!!

-- 
A. TRENT PHILLIPS |" A mirror is a negative space with a frame and a place for
  also known as   | your face, it reveals what the rest of us see. It conceals
   WHITE  ROOK    | what you'd like you to be."--Blue Oyster Cult
-------bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu-----aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu-------
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: proof
Keywords: Jesus,Proof
Date: 12 Dec 92 06:59:40 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <casivils.724130930@node_508ba> casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
>I'm new here, so before I take my 30 words let me give the disclaimer.
>
>An empty grave, It would take take even more faith not to beleive, Historical
>Accuracy of the bible, Completeness of the Spiritual model given in the bible,
>personal experiances, Answers.
>

  Hope you've got a thick skin.  Not a subject up there that hasn't
  been beat to death on this group before, and not a single
  conversion to date.  I've seen too many of these posts to whack
  this one piece by piece, and besides, there's too many frothing
  freshmen out there hovering like buzzards over their terminals
  waiting for "volcano-bait" (thanks mathew) posts like this.  Have
  at it, boys.  Throw me a bone when you're done.

>
>Still working on some fancy logo

  How about "Gullible's Travels"?

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

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: skillian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Seth James Killian)
Subject: Re: A "DISPROOF" OF GOD ?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 08:03:16 GMT

bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:


>	Hmmmmm......
>	
>	There are some chri$tians who claim that god holds atoms together..


>	But then they claim that god is all powerfull (omnipotent).
>	
>	God=omnipotent
>	God=force that holds atoms together
>	then....
>	the force that holds atoms together=omnipotent=God

>	WAIT !!!!!!!

>	Atoms  can be split. There for therefore the force that holds them
>together can be overcome !

>	then.....
>	
>	God=the overcomeable force that holds atoms together.

>	if the force of god holding atoms together can be overcome, then 
>you can overcome god, at least at that one thing. If you can overcome god
>at ANYTHING then he/she/it (god) is not PERFECT !

	Wow.  A truly stunning piece of philosophical wizardry.  Just putting
	the incredibly silly nature of this argument aside for a moment, your
	disproof itself is flawed.  The word atom is actually Greek and it 
	originally meant "the smallest possible unit" or something like that.
	This is not what is today meant by the term atom, as there are   
	obviously smaller components than the atom itself, and some would 
	say that there exist an infinite number of divisions to any whole.
	Mathematically speaking, this is true.  In physical terms, it is crap.
	There is a size (I forget the number, so small it would escape  
	comprehension anyhow...) that is the absolute smallest that anything
	can physically be.  Anything smaller than this size, and the matter
	collapses in upon itself due to quantum gravitational forces and 
	, in laymans terms (which I think are more than appropriate here...),
	it basically ceases to exist.  So, if we look at the true meaning of
	the word "atom", then it cannot be split and you have failed to 
	disprove one of the silliest arguments for the existence of God that
	I have ever heard.  A truly misguided logical progression; it's 
	frightening that people such as yourself are actually allowed to
	continue to eat the food that could be going to feed starving brine
	shrimp population of the world.

		Seth Killian

>	Well...I know it is flawed, but I might as well take theistic logic
>to a consisten concludion :-)


>-- 
>"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
> Let me see your sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
>A. Trent Phillips | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu | alias: White Rook
>aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Shouting Match
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 14 Dec 92  08:26:12

Who1: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
ID: <8useVB3w165w@mantis.co.uk>
With : bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie (Bryan O'Sullivan)
And: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
 
2: Most of us would like nothing better than to stop arguing theology.
 
1: Having read and posted to this group for a little over a year now,
1: I have seen very little evidence to support this statement. Around
1: 8 months ago, Jim Thompson established a Secular Humanist mailing
1: list (contact secular-humanist-request@sugar.neosoft.com for further
1: information), the purpose of which was to allow discussion of purely
1: secular and atheistic issues, without any interference from religious
1: types. Several alt.atheism regulars "jined up," and for the first
1: few weeks, there was a reasonable amount of traffic (around 200K
1: in total).
1:
1: However, things went downhill rather quickly. I noticed that,
1: well, nobody had anything terribly controversial to say; we were
1: all broadly in agreement on most issues. It seems to me, then,
1: that if alt.atheism were populated solely by atheists, it would be
1: as dead as the proverbial doornail.
 
M> "Although alt.atheism.moderated does not exclude non-atheists, it's
M> still very quiet. Lots of people said they wanted a moderated group
M> to cut out the preaching, the definition wars and the stuff covered
M> by the FAQ, but now that it's actually around, traffic is light.
M>
M> My conclusion is that the people here actually like the stupid
M> preaching articles and the flame wars. It's why they're here.
 
Mathew, you are most definately right, though perhaps the reason
is not just that folks like a "good" argument, but that during
those arguments, now and then a real gem of an article pops up, that
is fuled by the heat. There are quite a few articles by folks here
that I save, which show clarity of thought and wisdom (rising out of
the flames).
 
One FidoNet echo (the "CB radio of newsgroups") is called "HOLYSMOKE"
and it is dedicated to theological and atheological flamewars. Some
such flamewars are epic, such as the Born Against (er, I mean "Again")
Christian who said that it is okay to kill Witches / Wiccans because
God said they should not be "suffered to live." HOLYSMOKE also gets
a good number of Creationists, though there is a microbiologist that
posts there refuting and utterly demolishing the Creationists claims.
 
Point is, folks -LOVE- a shouting match (and theists love getting
their butts kicked, I've noticed). For worthwhile articles, there
is the A_THEIST echo, where gods are not allowed, nor sellers of
gods. alt.atheist provides hours of entertainment, listening to
theists' absurd assertions--- some keep me on the floor laughting
my guts out.
 
M> mathew
M> -- 
M> Lung cancer and arteriosclerosis.
M> For people who like to smoke.

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Just how much smarter are atheists?
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:16:11 GMT

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

Mm, you might have something there...  Sure, I know a lot of nice
Christians, but the vast majority of the ones who have tried to impose
it on me have seemed to be rather dim-witted and superstitious.  For
example, I don't see how anyone could say "There is a God-shaped hope
in everyone" with a straight face unless that person had put
absolutely no thought into religious differences at all.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /  carborundorum.                                               -- Rousseau
From: jimb@rcx1.csd.harris.com (Jim Burmeister)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Why God Never Received Tenure
Date: 18 Dec 92 20:22:49 GMT
Organization: Harris CSD, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
NNTP-Posting-Host: rcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com

A bit of humor...apologies if you have seen this one before.


WHY GOD NEVER RECEIVED TENURE
-----------------------------
 
1)  Because He had only one major publication.
2)  And it was in Hebrew.
3)  And it had no references.
4)  And it wasn't in a refereed journal.
5)  And there is even some doubt as to whether He wrote it Himself.
6)  It may be true that He created the world, but what has He done or
    published since?
7)  His collaborative efforts have been minimal.
8)  Moreover, the scientific community has been unable to reproduce His
    results.


-Jim Burmeister, jimb@csd.harris.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:11:46 GMT

In article <6geXVB6w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
|> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
|> > I have experienced the same.  To the Christians (not fundies) that I've
|> > encountered in every day life (i.e. not on the net) the term atheism
|> > always implies strong atheism, and the term agnostic implies weak
|> > atheism, sort of.  The Christians I know look upon agnosticism as "I'm
|> > unsure, but open minded or still looking," and atheism as "I've given up
|> > looking; I believe there is no god."  The point is not whether their
|> > definitions are right or wrong (although they are obviously wrong), but
|> > rather that in order to have a conversation that is of any worth with
|> > these Christians, I must adapt and use their definitions.
|> 
|> Yeah, right.  And if you're arguing gay rights, you should use terms
|> like "AIDS-infested queers" or "swish pederasts".

Well, just as the Christians I talk to say "atheist" instead of "godless
heathen scum", so too do they say "gay" and "homosexual" instead of "AIDS-
infested queers" and "swish pederasts".  In fact, I am not even famailiar
witn the second term you mention.  I'm not sure what your driving at
here.  If they insisted on refering to me as "godless heathen scum", I'm
sure I would take offense.  I don't normally like to think of myself as
scum.

I merely was commenting on the different definitions used for the same
word.  Since I am usually outnumbered by theists, and since I do under-
stand their definitions (and I don't happen to find them offensive), it
is easier to use theirs than to have them all switch.  Understand, this
is just for the sake of debate.  Perhaps this is wrong of me.

|> mathew
|> -- 
|> Lung cancer and arteriosclerosis.
|> For people who like to smoke.
|> 

-Mike Noonan
Newsgroups: alt.atheism