HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: Religion = Anything that's fun is bad.
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Scott Parish's .sig
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 02:30:22 GMT

kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes: >
simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes: >>

>>Well gee whiz and golly gosh and all Mike, but ummm, don't you think that
>>might just possibly piss Scott right off? We wouldn't want that. Would we?
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>The Truth is still the Truth even if you choose to ignore it.
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>	We certainly don't want that to happen!
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------			The Truth is still the Truth
>		      Even if you choose to ignore it.

Oh, I do NOT want to get Scott upset, especially after he
refused to retract his BLATANT MISINFORMATION about Stealth
Candidates in the face of INSURMOUNTABLE EVIDENCE.  

          **************************************
          *    The Truth is still the Truth    *
          *  Even if you choose to ignore It.  *
          *              * * * *               *
          *     Have you heard about God?      *
          *          Well, forget it.          *
          **************************************


-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
From: Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org (Ian Douglas)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: ABORTION: WHEN DOES HUMAN LIFE BEGIN?
Date: 16 Dec 92 10:35:06 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 5:7102/119 - Zero 2 Infinity, CT

Hi All!

On 12 Dec 92, mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu wrote to All:

 mue>                This Biblical statement indicates that human life begins
 mue>           (Soul enters its new body) WHEN THE BODY TAKES ITS FIRST
 mue>           BREATH OF AIR OUT-side THE WOMB.  Therefore, if an aborted
 mue>           fetus's lungs are too undeveloped to breathe, or if an older
 mue>           fetus is biologically terminated INside the womb, then that
 mue>           abortion can NOT be called "murder", because NO Soul was
 mue>           present in the fetus.

What is a soul?

 mue>                One of the AURA's main purposes is to shield out
 mue>           discarnate entities from a person's body.  If an AURA becomes
 mue>           weak, because of illness, injury, etc., discarnate entities
 mue>           can sometimes invade and cause insanity, multiple personali-
 mue>           ties, etc..

What is a 'discarnate entity'?
I assume you can prove the bit about 'cause insanity, multiple personalities etc.'

 mue>                THE AURA OF A HEALTHY PREGNANT MOTHER WOULD LIKEWISE
 mue>           PREVENT A SOUL FROM ENTERING THE FETUS INSIDE HER.

Is a soul a discarnate entity? What if God decided to put a soul into the fetus, regardless of what the mother's aura was trying to do? Who's to say he doesn't? Maybe the rules for us mortal humans are different to the rules for the then immortal Adam.

"There are no contradictions. If you find a contradiction, examine your premises. One of them is false"
Francisco d'Anconia in Atlas Shrugged.

Cheers, Ian


--  
INTERNET: Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j)
Subject: Re: Agnosticism Response
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:48:54 GMT

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

No. A consciousness (ie: the creator of the universe/existence) with nothing
to be conscious of is a contradiction. This creator would have to be conscious
of something else, before it could realize that it was a consciousness.
(Conciousness is the faculty of perceiving existence)

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

That is my point; that's why I claim that the proof/disproof of the 
"creator of existence" is pointless. 

>				Craig

Peter J Nelson
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: Just how much smarter are atheists?
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 17:11:06 GMT

pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j) writes:

> I remember reading somewhere that Koko did NOT communicate complex
> thoughts, but rather mimicked and copied her human trainer(s).
> Her language was very, very crude, and did not show abstract thought. 
> As I remember it, the whole "experiment" was blown way out of proportion
> by animal-rights type people. Anybody have a reference?

See the chapter "Two Books on Talking Apes" in Martin Gardner's 'Science --
Good, Bad, and Bogus'.


------------------------------------------------------------
mark schnitzius           |  seeking guitar songbook for the
schnitzi@eola.cs.ucf.edu  |  clash's "london calling".  does
univ. of central florida  |  one even exist?  will pay top $
------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Atheists "stir up shit" (was Re: Religion = Anything that's fun ...)
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:47:29 GMT

Harold Platypus (harry@timesink.chi.il.us) wrote in response to Jeffrey Clark:
: Being an atheist OPENS your mind? What a crock of shit!
:
: 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.
:
: 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...
: - Harry

Who put a bee in your bonnet?  What kind of "shit" are you talking about.
-- 
Mike A. McAngus	(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org) | The train today to Morrow leaves today
The Truth is still the Truth           | at 8:35.  At half-past ten tomorrow is
even if you choose to ignore it.       | the time it should arrive.
                                       |                    The Kingston Trio
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Ignorance is Bliss.
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:19:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.165325.10737@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus):
>> I'm game. Let's have all atheists use this line as part of our .sig's. Then 
>> we can identify each other in the other news groups. The gays and lesbians 
>> have their triangles, we can have this quote.
>> -- 
>> Mike A. McAngus (mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)| The train today to Morrow leaves today
>> The Truth is still the Truth          | at 8:35.  At half-past ten tomorrow is
>> even if you choose to ignore it.      | the time it should arrive.
>
>Well gee whiz and golly gosh and all Mike, but ummm, don't you think that
>might just possibly piss Scott right off? We wouldn't want that. Would we?
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>The Truth is still the Truth even if you choose to ignore it.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is another variation of the theme:

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Truth:  You ignore it, it ignores you.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Keywords: Bible--psychology--fundamentalism
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:17:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.005337.14823@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:

>	I ended Part 1 by asserting that the Bible is primarily a
>psychological document, and that the long and bitter debate over its
>didactic content had missed the point.  To continue in this review, we

And in this, I assert, you are wrong. The hebrew testament is
primarily a document concerning "God's" covenant with a 
particular tribe of hebrews. 

Dano
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: Atheists should mind their own damn business
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:50:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.071137.16343@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
> If you don't like "In God We Trust" on US Currency,

	... cross it out.  This post has inspired me to resume what I
had been doing a few years ago - cross out that obnoxious quip on
every piece of paper currency that crosses my path.  Thanks.

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.,  Plano TX                       +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
                                          Who says I should question authority?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: >>> I concede, please don't kill me...
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:09:30 GMT

harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:

With friends like this, who need enemies?

He reminds me of a quote from Michael Herr's "Walter Winchell", about a
group of Hitler-supporting Jews:

"What's their slogan - 'Down with us!'?"

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive  P a u l   M o l o n e y    "I'm pretty witty and you're itty bitty    pe
james  Trinity College, Dublin     And isn't it a pity the city can't see?   vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24010 alt.sex.wizards:4045 soc.men:21420 misc.kids:30846
From: maman@mars.Colorado.EDU (Nathan M. Maman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.sex.wizards,soc.men,misc.kids
Subject: About circumcision
Date: 19 Dec 92 01:58:57 GMT
Reply-To: maman@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder

Howdy guys,

M.Coffin|>       Griping about not having a foreskin is about as
M.Coffin|>       stupid as a woman complaining that her genetic
M.Coffin|>       heritage didn't give her bigger breasts.  You can't
M.Coffin|>       do anything about it, so you might as well not worry.

I can't do anything about it.  But I'll perhaps have someday to make a
decision concerning my children.  On the opposite, if I want to modify
the breasts size of my daughter, it'll be more difficult :-)

By the way, I believe most people think ``excision'' instead of
circumcision.  Excision is some usage in some parts of Africa that
disallow normal sex life for girls.  For my part, perhaps it would
have been better with the foreskin but like it is, that's okay.  So
claiing it a mutilation is too strong.

By another way, Rambam (Maimonides) explained why Jews are
circumsized.  The hygienic part is not the main part.  I remember
(well I hope) he wrote that humans were made perfect by God but as
they were part mud, they have a moral imperfection: they like sex too
much.  So to avoid masturbation and lust, they remove this part so the
penis will irritate easily.

					Nat

PS: I forgot: I'm Jewish, circumsized and therefore I don't know how
it feels to have foreskin (prepuce?).
--
M. Nathan M. MAMAN,  Campus Box 429,  Boulder COLORADO 80309, USA
EM:maman@boulder.Colorado.EDU TEL:(303)492-4481 FAX:(303)492-4990
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:47:17 GMT

Am I seeing wrongly, or is there a connection between one's IQ and one's
religiousness? Of all people I know, I know only about 8 exceptionally smart
people (IQ>125), and all of them happen to be atheists. On the contrary, the 
dumbest people I've seen (eg. unable to use a remote control) are the most
religious. Observing other atheists that I don't know (from this group for
example) leads me to make a conclusion that on the average, atheists have a
much better sense of logic (and thus usually have a higher IQ) and think much
more clearly than religious people. From my own experiences, I can say that
freeing oneself from the grasp of religion requires a certain level of logical
thinking. Coincidentally, all these 8 people are mathematically gifted.
When I speak of atheism here, I mean it to be a lack of belief in any god or
superstition.
Opinions?

BTW, if this offended you, go to a church instead of coming to alt.atheism.
--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:27:13 GMT

To follow up my own post (Challenge to Agnostics), I think what I am trying to
say is that
"knowledge" = "reason to believe". This is partially in response to the many
Christians who say they "know" God exists, and when asked how they know this
they reply "I just know."

If we apply this to the agnostic/Atheist definition thread, we get:

  I have no reason to believe that God exists.
= I have no knowledge that God exists.
= I don't know that God exists.
This is what I would label as the agnostic's claim, where the negation is on
knowledge.

Similarly:

  I have reason to believe that God does not exist.
= I have knowledge that God does not exist.
= I know that God doesn't exist.
This is what I would label as the Atheist's claim, where the negation is on
God's existence. It includes the agnostic position (implicitly) and goes one
step further.

Jim Copeland
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|      Reporter: "Mr. Gandhi, What do you think of Western Civilization?"    |
|      Mr. Gandhi: "I think it would be a good idea!"                        |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Just how much smarter are atheists?
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:03:05 GMT

Andrew Tong (werdna@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
: Could someone pin this question down for me?
:
: Just how stupid must one be to believe in a God?

I know many intelligent people who are also Xians.  To paraphrase a political 
quote, you don't have to be stupid to be a Xian but stupid people often are 
Xians.  What seems to distinguish the intelligent Xians is that they don't 
appeal to hell and my immortal soul when we discuss the subject.  Essentially, 
most of the Xians that I have rationally discussed the subject with have based 
their faith on a) there must be a first cause or b) too many societies have
believed it and it seems right.  There was one Xian who, after starting the 
subject with me, admitted that he couldn't entertain the alternate possibility 
because he needs the community.

On the other hand, to be an outspoken atheist (as opposed to someone who 
doesn't think about the matter) in this society one must have a modicum of 
intelligence and a strong ego because we are fighting the norm of our species.
This is the only way we could rebutt the arguments made daily that we are 
wrong.
-- 
Mike A. McAngus	(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org) | The train today to Morrow leaves today
The Truth is still the Truth           | at 8:35.  At half-past ten tomorrow is
even if you choose to ignore it.       | the time it should arrive.
                                       |                    The Kingston Trio
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus)
Subject: Atheists should mind their own damn business
Organization: Big Bulging Buffalo Bladders -R- Us
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 07:11:37 GMT

I don't have anything against atheists really... just leave me and
my world alone. If you don't like "In God We Trust" on US Currency,
don't look for it - ya know it's there. If a religious symbol in a
municipal seal is offensive to you, don't seek it out... After all
it's not a blinking neon sign in your face, you have to look for it.

If a book or movie or anything in my environment offends my
sensibilities, I try to ignore it. Why do y'all have to stir up shit... 
Most of us kinda like "In God We Trust" on the currency. It's kinda
folksy and quaint, whether you believe it or not. Just look at it
as if it were saying "When things are going down the toilet, and we
can't stand to blame ourselves, we trust in God... 'cuz if there
ain't one, we're all fucked!". That should put a new face on it...
- Harry
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What if there is a god?
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:05:39 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu

In article <910773f.27.724114539@ace.acadiau.ca> 910773f@ace.acadiau.ca (HEATHER LEE FYFFE) writes:
>He knows what's best for us in the same way that a parent knows what's best 
>for their child... if you let a little kid do whatever they thought was 
>appropriate, they wouldn't live very long, would they.  So the parent, 
>having lived longer, matured, and gotten a bit of intelligence, tells the 
>child, `don't eat all those cookies, you'll get sick'.  The child hollers 
>and screams, the child feels that the parent is forcing their ideals down 
>the child's throat, the child does not believe in the authority of the 
>parent.  Some children will rebel, and eat all the cookies.  Of course, the 
>child gets sick, because the parent was, of course, right.  Some children, 
>even if they disobeyed at firt, eventually realise that the parent was 
>right.  Sometimes the realization does not come until years later, when the 
>child says, `hey, the time they told me that, and I thought at the time that 
>it was so illogical and stupid, well it makes sense now.  They were right.'
>God is just the ultimate parent.  And someday, we'll all say, gosh, He was 
>right.

	And some parents brutally beat and molest their children. What is 
your point?
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Mind of the Bible Believer
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:15:13 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA22377; Fri, 11 Dec 92 10:19:12 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA27032; Fri, 11 Dec 92 10:19:05 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0136; Fri, 11 Dec 92 19:18:29 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

>>>Who created "the big sleep" in the first place?  According to your bible
>>>your god created death to punish Adam and Eve and all of their creations.
>>>It compares to you hanging your kid off a cliff by a rope and when her
>>>arms get too tired to hold on any more and she lets go and falls to her
>>>death you just say, "Well, it was her choice to let go."  You created the
>>>death-situation, then blame her for dying.
>>
>> This is one the best metaphors for the behavior of the God of the
>> Bible I've seen in a long time.


>Don't be stupid.   When the child trips of her own accord and is hanging
>over the cliff, all she has to do is answer "yes" or "no" to God's question:
>"Do you want Me to save you?"   He will not _force_ His saving grace on
>someone who prefers suicide.

Don't be stupd yourself.

Creating a cliff to trip over and putting it in the way of some innocent
people (as presented by the bible) is a nasty thing to do.

How do you like the following: At the moment Adam and Eve were told not to
eat from the tree they did not know what was good and what was evil. So,
they could not know that eating from the tree was an evil thing, could they?

By the way, I would help that child and ask questions later. Your god abuses
the situation for some nasty blackmail.
   Benedikt