HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Help
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 10:34:45 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
> If someone has a photo of God, make a .GIF and send it here NOW!

table
`!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?
@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_
begin 644 god.gif
M1TE&.#=AQ`"]`(,``````(````"``("`````@(``@`"`@("`@,#`P/\```#_
M`/__````__\`_P#______RP`````Q`"]```$_A#(2:N]..O-N_]@*(YD:9YH
MJJYLZ[YP+,]T;=]XKN]\[__`H'!(+!J/R*1RR6PZG]"H=$JM6J_8K';+[7J_
MX+!X3"Z;S^BT>LUNN]_PN'Q.K]OO^+Q^S^_[_X"!@H.$A8:'B(F*BXR-CH^0
MD9*3E)66EYB9FIN<G9Z?H*&BHZ2EIJ>HJ:JKK*VNK["QLK.TM;:WN+FZN[R]
MOK_`P<+#Q,7&Q\C)RLO,S<[/T-'2T]35UM?8V=K;W-W>W^#AXN/DY>;GZ.GJ
MZ^SM[N_P\?+S]/7V]_CY^OO\_?[_``,*'$BPH,&#"!,J7,BPH<.'$"-*G$BQ
2HL6+&#-JW,BQH\>/`\PB```[
`
end
sum -r/size 6408/556 section (from "begin" to "end")
sum -r/size 11812/333 entire input file

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ckincy@mcs213f.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 13:14:33 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <1ecn4cINN217@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bx461@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Leo J. Mauler) writes:
>
>What really bugs me about Fundamentalists bashing Gays is that
>they claim to have a deep personal relationship with Jesus,
>yet use Old Testament teachings to justify gay-bashing.
>
>As I recall from my days as a Catholic robot, Jesus came along
>and started saying, "Hey guys, wouldn't it be a neat idea if
>we were nice to people for a change?  Like "Love your neighbor
>as yourself"!  Like "If you have to bend a rule to help
>someone, DO IT! (Sabbath)" ".  

I have an interesting theory:  It was fundamentalists that
nailed Jesus to the tree to BEGIN WITH!
 
Suck on that one for a few thousand years.

Now, imagine a world without these people.  Nice place, isn't it?
 
>Those guys who followed the Old Testament LIKE THE FUNDIES 
>had Jesus killed for saying things like that.  Makes you
>wonder about those televangelists...

Oh, shit, you know I honestly didn't see this in your post before
I followed up.  So, I guess we agree on our theories.

Now, I give you another one:  The unrighteous shall perish as a
consequence of their own iniquities.  No, not in heaven or in hell.
Right here on earth.  Just a matter of time, see.

This presents two interesting points:

[1] Suppose it is non-heterosexuals that are not righteous.  Well,
a real follower of Jesus would remember the above paragraph and sigh
a sad sigh.  And that would be sad that people had to be unrighteous,
but (s)he would not act to oppress them.

[2] From what *I* see, it is the fundies that are unrighteous.  You know
what this means. . . . 

>Finally, this bit about "love your neighbor as yourself".  I
>live in Lawrence, KS, which is just a few dozen miles from
>Topeka, KS, the home of the infamous Reverend Fred Phelps.
>On nearly every week you can find him organizing some anti-gay
>protest, with people carrying lots of signs encouraging people
>to hate gays.
>
>If Rev. Phelps is truly a follower of Jesus' teachings, and he
>truly "loves his neighbor as himself," the Reverend Fred
>Phelps must hate himself a LOT!

One wonders.

cpk
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Help
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:45:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov13.163138.15512@digi.lonestar.org>, gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes...
>In article <BxMFuz.4uq@acsu.buffalo.edu> v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:

>Poking the brain to cause an OOB would not prove that OOBs are physical,
>only that they can be induced by a physical stimulus.  

All right, maybe so.  If so, it supports neither theory.  

>The embarassing problem with OOBs is that the subject experiences things
>that are evidentially confirmable.  E.g. going to another part of the
>building or across town and reporting details they could not possibly
>could have known about.  These are not religious or new age cranks who
>report this, but respectable scientifically trained observers.  The
>only way to decide is to really look at the accounts, and there are many
>of them.  

Okay, I'd like to see them.  Name the sources, please.

>Skeptics are always looking for independently verifiable 
>evidence.  Well, there is some, so don't spend your time trying to argue
>apriori why the experiences and accounts thereof can't possibly valid. That
>is dogma, not science.

See above. 

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*  "If something about the human	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*   body disgusts you, complain to
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*   the manufacturer." - Lenny Bruce	
******************************************************************************
From: huffman@alishaw (Matt Huffman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Books on Phylosophy of Religion
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:54:51 GMT

rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:

>Hello all

>I'm a beginner on the subject and group.
>I's like to know if there is any good
>books out there on the subject.

>Thanks in advance

>Frank Pinto

****************************

A classic text is Bertrand Russell's WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN.

I recommend it highly.

--Matt Ted Huffman 
Salad Dressing Well Operative, Hidden Valley Ranch

******************************     
*  huffman@alishaw.ucsb.edu  *
*  6500huff@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu *
******************************

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21290 talk.religion.misc:21147
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Organization: University of Joensuu
Distribution: world, public
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:53:32 GMT

sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>happening, we ought to kick back and let Jesus save the world, since
>we are obviously incapable of doing anything other than standing
>around with our thumbs up our asses.

>And you have the gall to tell us *we* are living in a dream-world.

	I didn't say *only* you. This concerns most fundies, too. 

>BTW, if this is a follow-up to your performance in talk.origins, then
>don't even bother.  You posted nothing but drek when you were posting
>there, and this post indicates that you are following in the fine
>fundie tradition of posting articles here that are pure, unadulterated
>bullshit, untainted by either logic or simple courtesy.

	I disappeared so quickly from t.o. that it needs explanation: My 
	aim was to show that evolutionism was a religion and I showed 
	that some ideas from Dawkins' book are nonsense and the probability
	of abiogenesis is zero. When some people still claimed (for    
	instance Mr. Vonroeschlaub) that according to that probability it
	is slightly (and enough) possible that abiogenesis existed, I 
	thought that this is a clear answer to my request. I was off for 
	a week and when I returned there was nothing left about the line,
	so I guessed the others had realized my point, too. I'm still 
	reading t.o with interest. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Darwin on Trial
Keywords: darwin evolution fundamentalist false
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 19 Nov 92 01:57:35 GMT

cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu (Corey D Minter) writes:

>Hi, I just recently started reading this group ( I read the FAQ) and I have
>a few questions for you all.  The FAQ is really concise, I like it.  

>I just picked up a book at the library called _Darwin_On_Trial_ by
>Philip Johnson.  I'm not thrugh reading it yet, but I think it applies to this
>group (so don't rail on me and tell me I belong in alt.origins, the bandwidth
>argument ignores the idea that interesting threads can result from someone
>from alt.pious).  I believe strongly that Darwinism as the best explanation 
>for US.  Anyway, I think the book has some serious argument flaws, but that
>is just from a quick skimming.  
>    He says at one point, "... Professor William Provine, a leading historian
>of science.  Provine insists that the conflict between science and religion
>is inescapable, to the extent tha persons who manage to retain religious
>beliefs while accepting evolutionary biology 'have to check [their] brains at
>the church-house door.' "  (p.124)
>    Now, I would agree with the Proffessor that to understand evolutionary
>biology means that you need to dismiss the supernatural entity business.  I
>don't think they can coexist.  What do you say?
>-- 

Personally I think you are right coexistance of a good understanding of
history,biology,chemistry,psychology,physics and geology precludes a strict
fundamentalist christian position. However for others they seem to be able
to ignore the obvious conflicts set up by these disciplines toward a
christian outlook. See my other recent article on my Catholic genetics
lecturer.

Jeff.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: ...and Puppies! (WAS:Re: Kittens!)
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:18:07 GMT

One beautiful spring Sunday, Father O'Malley took a walk trough the park. The
Sun was shining, the skies were blue, the flowers were blooming in rainbow
colors... and everything was merry.

Father O'Malley saw a little girl playing with her puppy. With a friendly
smile on his face, he approached the cute kid:

"What is your name, my dear child?"

"Blossom," the girl replied, her blue eyes widely open.

"That is such a beautiful name! How did you get it?" Father O'Malley asked,
admiring the child's innocence.

"While my mother was praying to God to give her a little daughter, a blossom
fell on her hair. So she said she would call her daughter Blossom."

"How beautiful that God was so good to your mother" - exclaimed Father O'Malley
in delight - "and what is your puppy's name?"

"Porkey." Said the girl in her cute voice.

"And how did he get that name?"

"He likes to fuck pigs."


	Sven
From: salter_duke@darwin.ntu.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Darwin on Trial
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:51:27 +0900

In article <1eb926INNdlm@travis.csd.harris.com>, jimb@rcx1.csd.harris.com (Jim Burmeister) writes:
> In article <1992Nov17.153554.1280@mercury.unt.edu>, jackson@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Bruce Jackson) writes:
>> The principal of dualism can be called on to avoid this type of conflict.
> 

[material deleted]

> I guess my point is this: is there anyone out there who fits Bruce Jackson's
> description, or knows someone who does?  When confronted with this conflict
> in their belief systems, how do they respond?
> 
> -Jim Burmeister, jimb@csd.harris.com

Yes, or more-or-less so. St Thomas Aquinas, and also a former neighbour 
of mine who was both a devout Muslim and a high-powered scientist.

The argument goes thus:

1.  We learn the truth from Science.

2.  We learn the truth from the Bible (or the Koran).

3.  On occasions, these truths apparently conflict.

4.  Two truths cannot in reality contradict each other.

5.  Therefore, the source of the apparent conflict lies in our
imperfect human understanding.

6.  Therefore, one can go about one's life as a scientist
and a devout believer knowing that one day these apparent conflicts
will be sorted out. 

7.  Therefore it's Somebody Else's Problem.

Linden

-- 
Linden Salter-Duke		email: SALTER_DUKE@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU
Northern Territory University
Darwin, Australia		Snail: Box 40146, Casuarina, NT 0811
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Misquamicus)
Subject: Re: Church of England / Women / Catholics
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 04:08:42 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1e9o2mINN72s@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> starr-daniel@yale.edu (Daniel Starr) writes:
>Someone with a better knowledge of Catholicism should feel free to correct
>me, but meanwhile:
>
>With the notable exception of the Virgin Mary, women in general, dating
>back from Eve (who plucked the apple and was the first committer of the
>original sin), were traditionally considered inherently less trustworthy
>and more prone to sin.
>
>Additionally, the organized Christian tradition grew out of some of the
>Jewish traditions of the time, which were patriarchal.
>
>Finally, and most importantly from a theological point of view, Eve is
>explicitly created out of Adam, as a "help meet" for him.  Thus Eve is
>at a remove from God (who directly produces Adam) and is ordained (there
>and elsewhere) to be a servant unto Adam.  Eve being the archetypal woman
>and Adam the archetypal man, it is considered in the theology, as I understand
>it, ordained that the direct intercessors with God -- the priests -- should
>be men.  

Besides this; everyone knows the catholic god is a "he", god the father & etc.
Add to this the fact that catholicism claims to be the direct descendant of
the apostles (the MALE apostles).

How can you invoke the powers of a male god when you are not in posession of
a willy? is the basic theological "line of reason".

Cthulhu is neuter (though HPL implied otherwise)
-Misquamicus



Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: *TRUE* Christians
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 04:49:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.220649.12040@bsu-ucs> 00brwoodson@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
>Plus,
>whether Christian or not, you have no right to judge others unless you are
>wearing a black robe and spend your days in a courtroom.

Where on earth did you get this strange notion from?
--
Should the human race not be extinguished by a nuclear war, it will degenerate
into a flock of stupid, dumb creatures under the tyranny of dictators who rule
them with the help of machines and electronic computers.  This is no prophecy,
just a nightmare.  -- Max Born.   **** dgraham@bnr.ca    My own opinions. ****
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: God As Drug
Summary: not the strong argument it seems
Date: 17 Nov 92 12:50:31 GMT

In the anti-AA line of argument, several people have written along the lines
of this person:

>Or maybe could it be that the alcoholics are just given a replacement drug,
>namely some delusionary beliefs = God.  Therefore the alcoholic is still not
>cured, but rather has now a different problem.  Wonder if that's why there
>is so much danger from recidivism. 

Besides being a rather facile comeback, this fails a very basic test.  One
could understand the christian faith along the lines of

(1) People are basically sick.

(2) Cause of illness is alienation from God.

(3) Cure is injection of God through baptism and faith in Jesus (wh,. in
    this scheme, serves as a sort of God-pill).

Therefore, saying God is a drug is weak; the problem from a christian
perspective is that you refuse to take your medicine! :-)
-- 
C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."
From: geoff@tyger.Eng.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Date: 18 Nov 92 13:51:24 GMT
Organization: SunSelect
NNTP-Posting-Host: tyger.east.sun.com

According to a (Catholic) professor of science in the Boston Globe, the
Vatican blamed the original situation on a "mutual misunderstanding".
For 5 points each, you are invited to suggest the most likely
misunderstanding under which each party was labouring....:-)

As the writer (Chet Raymo) also noted, many papers accompanied the
recent announcement with a photograph showing the Pope dressed in 17th
century robes surrounded by other Vaticanites dressed in equally
archaic garb. Makes you think, dunnit?

Geoff
--
Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect, Sun Select. (geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM)
-----------
News software that enforces a four-line .signature limit is responsible for
the fact that these postings just go on and on and on and seem to end in mid-
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu (Corey D Minter)
Subject: Dating, possibly a sad realization?
Summary: Atheism sure makes it hard to keep somone.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 07:22:31 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Keywords: dating 

To follow up on an earlier post about dating.  I don't hide that I am atheist
nor do I flaunt it.  I just think that a lot of society can never understand
my attitudes about it and will pigeonhole me into some sort of preconception
of atheism.  After all if the theists could tolerate my views then they would
have to understand me, and if they really understood me they would be atheist,
also.  That's not a logical argument/proof, hopefully you get the jist of what
I am trying to say.  My friends, know I am atheist.  Because of the experience
I had with the last girl I cared about, I have become very bitter toward the
way religions end up promoting segregation of religion to indirectly keep
themselves strong (selfish memes).  This person was Catholic and I am not, I
am still the same good person but I could never compromise my atheism, though
I see why she will continue to be Catholic, she cannot understand my atheism.
We could be friends but never more in here view (she didn't have to exactly 
say it in those words for me to get it).
    I may have doomed myself to a difficult search by looking deep into my
being to see what I really am, but I can't deny what I've!

(weird I just realized that what I just wrote above sounded like another 
statement in another context, that must be why I empathize with others in a
parallel situation, is atheism a recessive genetic trait or is it learned :)
-- 
==============================================================================
Internet: cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu | Stimpy: "...what will happen if I push
  Q-Link: EarthsWake (was Chaos0)  |          the button"
===================================|    Ren: "Maaaaybe someting goooood...
Opinions expressed imply nothing   |          Maaaaybe someting baaaaad...
about my employer, why should they?|          But I guess we'll neeever know?"
==============================================================================
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: More Claims To Prove
Date: 22 Nov 92 05:56:16 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu

I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:

>James Marcus typed:

>>The New Testament fulfilled the Old Testament.  Many of the prophets
>>(esp. Isaiah) told of the promised Messiah, who was fulfilled
>>in every detail in Jesus.  (I only have a NT with me, otherwise I would
>>quote some verses.)

>Ridiculous, some verses that fit is not a fulfillment in every detail. And
>tell me about the prophecy that the name of the messiah would be immanuel.

Immanuel = "God with us"; Jesus = God, come to earth in the flesh.

Jesus literally fulfills this typological prophecy of Isaiah.

-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Atheist "philosophy"
Organization: University of Joensuu
Distribution: world, public
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:15:39 GMT

sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>We can reduce emissions of CO2, CFCs and other pollutants.  We can
>learn to use energy more efficiently, and start using renewable
>sources of energy (wind, solar, geothermal etc.)  (Gee, do you think
>that if we had spent as much trying to develop solar as we have to
>develop nuclear, that we might have something there?)  We can learn to
>recycle non-renewable resources instead of throwing them in the
>dumper.  

	That has already been done in a large scale. But, it still takes decades
	before our decisions begin to affect, for instance the reduction of 
	CFC. It takes decades until CFC begins to affect ozone, so it will take
	long time before we can enjoy better environment, perhaps it's too late.
	
>The point is that our environmental problems, while very complex, are
>not necessarily intractable and do not necessarily require the
>intervention of a supernatural being whom you people have been expecting
>for the past two thousand years now.  BTW, aren't you people expected
>to be "good stewards?"  Sounds to me like God expects you to care for
>the Earth.  In the U. S. most people are Christians, and yet we have a
>lot of environmental problems.  Go figure.  Oh, that's right, the vast
>majority of those claiming to be Christians aren't *real* Christians.
>I keep forgetting that.

	That's true. I spoke more about greed and materialism in my other
	followups.

>>>did not "use up" all of our natural resources.
>If the vast majority of the population is a) Christian and b)
>materialist, how does Christianity help solve the problem?

	They are not true Christians. They are materialists. Of course I 
	could speak of Armageddon there God would kill people that stubbornly
	disobey him and built a new earh, Paradise, but you atheists don't 
	believe in it, so I don't waste your time. 

>Atheism doesn't prescribe a specific solution for our environmental
>problems.  On the other hand, atheism does not instruct you to rely on
>a God who may not exist.  Since most atheists I know are intelligent
>enough to see where our current environmental trends are taking us,
>and have no belief in an afterlife where "everything is gonna be all
>right," I submit that atheists have MORE motivation to preserve the
>environment than your typical Christian.

	It depends on definitions. My original claim was that atheists 
	commonly believe that we can solve the problems on our own, while 
	(true) Christians know that we can't because we sin (I shouldn't 
	use that word for atheists - we are not perfect: We want to save 
	the earth, but still we exploit it all the time). 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:22:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.173637.23791@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Nov16.174430.2817@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
> >>simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
> >>>Readers of talk.origins will be aware that deploying logic against him
> >>>is futile, and that he is best regarded as a source of sheer entertainment.
> >>
> >>	I can entertain you, but you can't prove me false. 
> 
> >On the other hand, you can't prove that I'm not Jehovah.
> 
> 	If you were Jehovah, then you needn't use computer to tell me 
> 	that. 

No, but he chooses to use a computer to tell you, because
if he did it in some miraculous way then you wouldn't
need faith.  He wants you to come to him of your own free
will, because he loves you.

Isn't that right, Mikel?

Oh, regarding something I saw from Antti elsewhere, if by
your remarks you intended to show that being an atheist
will make you a terrorist, please note that I am not a
terrorist, am an atheist, and am also a bird-watcher.  This
proves, using your version of logic, that atheism does not
produce terrorists, but it does produce bird-watchers.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: revik@camelot.bradley.edu (Gary Achenbach)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus Saves
Date: 18 Nov 92 03:46:51 GMT
Organization: Unconditional, ltd.

Jesus saves...
Wayne Gretzky gets the rebound!  HE SHOOTS HE SCORES!!!

(had to be said.)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism