HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rswiftrw@cc.curtin.edu.au (Rod Swift)
Subject: Re: Subject?
Organization: -=[ Curtin University of Technology ]=-  Perth, Australia
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 06:05:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.033644.11972@news.ysu.edu>, ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
> 
> In a previous article, safecrac@west.darkside.com (Chris Colvin) says:
> 
>>Jesus Saves
>>
> Don't tell the republicans...they'll want to tax the interest.

What about ...

Jesus saves.... Not on my salary he don't!

> ****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************

I've seen "Know God, know problems.  No God, no problems."

Rod
-- 
|            . . .   . . . . .        "Dear God.  We paid for all this stuff|
|        +  +  +     +  +  +  +  +        ourselves, so thanks for nothing."|
|    *   *   *       *   *   *   *   *                                      |
|R    o    d         S    w    i    f    t      -- Bart Simpson saying grace|
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Internet: RSwiftRW@cc.curtin.edu.au               School of Social Sciences|
|PSImail : psi%050529452300070::RSwiftRW                   Curtin University|
|Bitnet  : RSwiftRW%cc.curtin.edu.au@cunyvm.bitnet             GPO Box U1987|
|UUCP    : uunet!munnari.oz!cc.curtin.edu.au!RSwiftRW        Perth  WA  6000|
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:00:32 EDT
From: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Beliefs are refusals to check the facts
 <1992Sep11.091927.5057@bradford.ac.uk>

The whole idea here, that all beliefs are nonsense, is absurd. The
difference one could make between religious beliefs and all others
is that there's clearly evidence to support most beliefs (seeing the
sun rise up everyday doesn't hurt at all) while religious ones
come down to completely unsupported beliefs. Those are the ones I
can't deal with...

Martin Schulte
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jspence@cmptrc.lonestar.org (John Spence)
Subject: Re: Jesus & Sin
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:54:55 GMT
Organization: CompuTrac Inc., Richardson TX

In article <18ldivINN2f4@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:
>
>In a previous article, MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu () says:
>
>
>>As far as I know, most of the so-called "atheists" online here qualify
>>their disbelief as more like a skeptic's. Also, The skeptic doesn't just
>>"believe"...he trusts his eyes.
>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>Not always. I don't. I just act on the hypothesis that my eyes are giving
>me an accurate picture of the world.

This is very interesting. I was under the assumption that physical 
observation was the worst form of empirical evidence. Am I wrong?

-- 
jspence@cmptrc.lonestar.org                                (214) 235-7161 x4100
John E. Spence                                                  CompuTrac, Inc.
"I don't speak for CompuTrac, and CompuTrac doesn't speak for me!"
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:16551 talk.religion.misc:15659 sci.skeptic:15944 alt.religion.kibology:3718
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.religion.kibology
Subject: Re: Pythagorean Reform Church
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:40:50 GMT
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

In article <0kmn#3=@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>In article <Bu0BxD.JG3@world.std.com> entropy@world.std.com (Lawrence C Foard) writes:
>>I have a wonderful message to bring to the world!
>
>>Last night the number 4 came to me in a dream and told me that I
>>must bring the pythagorean Gospel to the world!
>
>Ummm...obviously you are an unwashed heathen.
>
>The Pythagoreans respected the divinity of the numbers 5 and 10, not 4.

I asked about this and 4 said that the TETRACTYS was busy that night,
apparently it had been called into interfere in a new calculation of
PI taking place at a heathen computer center :-)

>The number 10, or tetractys, was the holiest of all numbers for it
>represented the universe (1 was the generator and the number of
>reason, 2 is the first even (female) number and the number of opinion,
>3 is the first odd (male) number and the number of harmony being
>composed of unity (1) and diversity (2), 4 is the number of justice or
>retribution indicating the squaring of accounts, 5 is the number of
>marriage being the union of the first true male and female numbers, 6
>is the number of creation, etc.)  

Of course 4 could also represent male+male marriage and 6 represent
lesbian marriage :-)

>And while Greek mathematicians were often put off by irrational
>numbers, they were more put off by inconstructable numbers.  The
>square root of 2 is irrational, but you can construct it.  Pi on the
>other hand....

The reform church will keep the beliefs about irrational numbers,
they are obviously non physical since they cannot be computed and
therefore have no place in a math that accurately represents reality
:-)

-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christianic Sacrifices
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:03:21 GMT
Reply-To: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Originator: cmgrawbu@c00562-1403br.eos.ncsu.edu



>>     But the murders reported were commited as a result of the killers being 
>>Christians.  Ever heard of an atheist killing someone because they believed
>>in "god"?

Ok, but I think everyone sees my point.

You can't judge a group of people---especially a large group of people
b/c of a few bad examples.




Chris------The Fundamentalist
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Another quote
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:09:25 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep9.124254.6597@iscsvax.uni.edu>, 
marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
> Ever hear this one:
> 
>         Without science, Christianity is lame.
>         Without Christianity, science is aimless.

Nope.  Not terribly impressed by it, either.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 16:19:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.175414.15059@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.143608.18514@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>>For your information, most people seem to be using common-sense
>>standards involving what causes harm (as that would be normally
>>understood) to decide what is immoral or not.

>>  For instance, if I were
>>to break into your home, kick you out of you wheelchair, and choke you
>>until you gave me everything of value which was handy, a common-sense
>>perpective would tell us that this is immoral.

>I don't have the slightest clue what you mean by "common sense".

>This strikes me as in precisely the same class as claiming that
>proposition Y is intuitively obvious. I.e. you are totally unable
>to support it and therefore are resorting to merely asserting it.
>Are you able to make a logical argument, or do you think that being
>insulting and irrational will convince me?

What you call my "being insulting and irrational" (but without invoking
any coherent standard deducible from commonly-held axioms as to what
that might mean) was simply bait.  It is gratifying to see you take it,
showing you know damned what we are talking about here.  You object to
my being nasty about disabled people.  Do you have any *reason* for
saying I shouldn't be?  Do you have any basis (other than "common
sense") for even supposing I have been?  What is wrong with the good,
old-fashioned idea that some people are just under God's curse?  And
why should disabled people ask for special rights, like being able to
enter buildings or be treated in general as if they were normal?

Don't get me wrong, I defend the rights of the disabled.  I just don't see
any *logical* basis for the idea that there is something immoral about
beating up people in wheelchairs, laughing at people with multiple
sclerosis, or whatever.  Who is to judge when we call such activities
"immoral"?

>>  You may disagree, but
>>you disagreement has so far failed to achieve any kind of intellectual
>>coherence.

>No, it is your position, sir, which has no intellectual coherence.

Oh, yeah, Bunky?  Care to tell me what it is?  I don't recall having
spelled it out.

Grow up, Rescorla.  This crap is tedious and downright stupid.
-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprect-Karls University 
                gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: assholes
Date: 3 Sep 92 10:28:06 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
> (the more fuckheads I see like this, the more convinced I am that we need 
> a moderated group...<sigh>)

We *have* a moderated group.  alt.atheism.moderated.


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Free will - the "Jarekian" heresy.
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 23:34:02 GMT

In article <dabrowsk.715740324@liveboard10> dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>>>Imagine yourself as such a being.
>>people like you reject the idea that such a being would act any way like me.
>Recall our discussions (eg. about omnipotence) and READ what I said, OK?

Jarek, if I were to say "if I were a good God, I would do so-and-so things.
God doesn't do so-and-so things.  Therefore, there isn't a (good) God", you
would respond that just because I would do something "if I were God" is no
reason to expect God to conform.  You might elaborate and reply that God has
extra knowledge that I don't, or something similar, but that would basically
be your reply.  Yet, you now somehow seem to think that "if I were God, I'd
do so-and-so" is suddenly valid.  Make up your mind.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (4 of 4)
Originator: cmgrawbu@c00558-1403br.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:23:33 GMT


>Fundies say that mere nudity is pornography. That's what the hiding due to
>nakedness in Genesis was all about, wasn't it?
>Personally, any culture that can't stand nudity is in seriious need of help.
>High rapes' some claim. Funny - rape wasn't as common in cultures inwhich
>nudity was as natural as air. If children grow up thinking it's natural, we
>wouldn't have all these problems.
>Christians think any enjoyment without their god is sinful. Guilt is quite
>powerful, especially when your crap-scared about the consequences for being
>even a little bit naughty. (I know I kep saying this, but go see "Abbey and the
>Rose", the one wioth Sean Connery). If religious society didn't have this guilt
>complex, sex would be open and more enjoyed. For all you Scandinavians out
>there, is it true that you and your loved one can make love in public parklands
>and have people go "Aw, isn't that lovely"? How does this compute with the
>local religion?



Be careful about generalinzing us fundies. Nudity is not pornographic and,
as a fundie, I don't think that there is anything wrong with nudity used
in a proper way. Also, the US society has turned nudity into sex.
That's just the way we have been brought up. So to say that Christianity
is responsible for the "problem" people have with nudity is not entirely 
fair. I'm sure that there are Christians in Europe that have no problem with
nudity in its proper form.


Chris
From: dfm2@jaguar.uofs.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: RE; RE: subject?
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:28:51 GMT
Organization: University of Scranton

Don't believe anyone's interpretations of the Dead Sea Scrolls at face value.
Any scrolls which have been "explained" have been so by violating any logical
method which would insist that the entire bulk of the information be read
before its meanings could be told.
The very reason the project teams didn't want any leaks was because they
knew the leaks would give exploiters the jump on "explaining" the scrolls.
Valid research could take decades.
I've heard the dead sea scrolls explained as this:
" Imagine someone shredded up the contents of a newstand into tiny pieces,
mixed them up, and threw the majority away.  That is the data with which
researchers are trying to work with. To make matters worse, the scrolls 
are written in a dead, highly symbolic, highly metaphoric, slang language."
Those who publish "findings"  are those who disagree with the actual results
of the researchers, if what i've heard is true.
The concept that there are "secret" levels of understanding in Christianity
is not new.  There are supposedly gospels that are of higher understanding.  
Thomas supposedly is such a gospel (the Nicene denouncement of Thomas likely
referref to a ludicrous infancy narrative).  Other disciple wrote even higher
gospels, but to state that a religion teaches its initiates one thing, and then
tells them, "well, we didn't mean that literally," is absurd. 
   Sounds like scientology to me.  Modern Christianity does hold many
non-"christine" beliefs, such as people die and "go" to heaven (rather,
they will be resurrected on the last day), but the resurrection is, and
always was, central to >Christianity. WE KNOW THIS.  Read the text more clearly
if anyone challenges this.  Christ died (symptoms indicate a heart attacks),
and was stabbed through by a spear.  Apparently, the spear pierced his
heart.  Not only does this fulfill prophecy, but he bled "blood and water"
indicating that the spear passed through his pericardium which was swollen
due to his heart attack (I get this from a 20/20 show's interview with MDs;
any error is probably my inability to recall the story.  At the time, I had
checked out the diagnosis with a few med students).
    Resurrection explanations date back to the apologists. None have ever
held any water.  If you enjoy them, I've heard that Jesus and Mary fled to
India where they founded Hinduism ( what about ascension? pentacost?),
 that the resurrected Jesus was actually a woman, hence the apostle's failed to recognize him
(Doubting Thomas?), and that he was never killed at all.  All these were
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Undecidability and the FAQ
Date: 7 Sep 92 13:48:14 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
> In article <TORKEL.92Sep4132357@isis.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
> >  You're going in circles. Permit me to quote an earlier posting of
> >yours, in reply to my pointing out that what the FAQ entry states
> >is that it is undecidable "in the formal system" whether an undecidable
> >statement is undecidable:
> 
> Correct.  I am stating that such a statement is incorrect.  Given an
> axiom system assumed to be consistent, there are statements that can
> be shown to be undecidable.

Using only that system?


mathew
-- 
Bush/Quayle in '92!
God Bless America!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: assholes revisited
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 13:44:03 GMT

In article <j1moody-070992012737@lafmacconsultant.lafortune.lab.nd.edu> j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:
>It was amusing to see so many level-headed, objective athiests get so 
>frazzled at being labeled assholes. The vengefully rude, insecure
>and irrational replies to my original post was all I needed to confirm my
>obtrusive assumption.

Heh.  That's a neat trick.  Call a group of people assholes, and if a few
of them bother wasting their time responding in kind, your prejudices are
reinforced.  Now why don't you try the same over in soc.culture.usa to see
if you can prove that all americans are assholes.

>Now imagine all the things they called Jesus, even as the blood poured down
>his brow.   And what was his reply?
>
>"They know not what they do."

That's nice.  Is this relevant?  Was this the correct response to your
initial article?  Or are you supposed to say that to us now?  Or what?

>Maybe you all will figure the spiritual life out some frightful day,
>when you stop figuring.

Well, I figure I'm going to have to be called an asshole at least two or
three more times by a loving Christian before I see the light.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: Colleen Davis <cisc124@jeff-lab.queensu.ca>
Subject: Re: I still seem to be God
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:19:10 GMT

bwilliam@iat.holonet.net (Bill Williams)

Bill is the third disciple and prophet.  Blessed is
Bill, for he has found favour in the eyes of Colleen.

colleen
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:17180 alt.politics.homosexuality:5983
From: infante@acpub.duke.edu (Andrew  Infante)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:25:43 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Spock to Kirk:

'But captain, that is clearly illogical.'
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Take Your God And ....
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 11:40:36 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli
Keywords: God

In article <1992Sep04.154642.25290@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> skaamjm@ucl.ac.uk (Matthew Moore) writes:
>bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>>And it is part of this direct link that makes me think that Persephone
>>is the third of the triad of virgin goddesses of the Greek pantheon.

>'The Golden Fleece' and 'THe Greek myths', bith by Robert GRaves, are
>useful here. He describes the Triple Goddess as the personification of
>three states of womanhood: maiden ("virgin" in your terminlogy),
>mature woman, and crone.

>This is from memory, so apologies for innaccuracies, I am posting to
>point out a useful reference.

Well, I will agree with the "cyclic trinity" of many female gods
(virgin, mother, crone that could be seen in Greek mythologies as
Artemis, Hera/Demeter, Hecate).

However, the Greek pantheon had three seperate goddesses that were
considered virgin...one of which doesn't quite fit in this cycle:
Athena.  If Persephone is, indeed, the third of which I am talking
about, then she might fit in as being the child of Demeter...thus
starting the cycle all over again.

Now, what does this have to do with atheism?  It has to do with
knowing what it is you are claiming to have no/a lack of belief in.

Besides, it's interesting.

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 23:29:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.220303.8589@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Sep15.194712.24771@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>Look, if you don't believe in morality, then it is sheer stupidity to
>>claim that it is logically flawed for somebody to say that, eg., murder
>>is immoral.
>
>It is not stupidity to claim that A does not imply B, even if you don't
>believe in A.

Please substantiate this claim, keeping in mind that I don't believe
in "not stupidity."
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_
From: bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Calling facts "theory"
Date: 15 Sep 92 10:04:00 GMT
	<92257.090253J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool, UK

>>>>> On 13 Sep 92 13:02:53 GMT, J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson) said:

> I don't read talk.origins, but my guess is that if this group has a FAQ
> file, it would include this answer to the stupid question, "is evolution
> a fact or a theory?

It does, but I don't have the precise wording to hand.  Essentially it
says that evolution is both a fact and a theory: that life has and is
evolving is a fact, repeatedly observed and experimentally accessible;
the precise mechanisms of evolution are theory---unusually well
supported theory, but nonetheless theory.

--
Bruce Stephens.  Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Liverpool Univ.
Internet: bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk     JANET: bruce@uk.ac.liv.uxb
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Bar Codes On Foreheads. I Want One!
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992
Date: 15 Sep 92  10:47:38

Tag: John Brownie (jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie))
 
Someone> "Someone, who was obviously much more well versed
Someone> in numerology than I am, noticed that the encoding
Someone> in *every* bar code contained the numbers 6 6 6.
Someone> I don't remember if they were only looking at cans
Someone> of Red Devil(tm) ham or if they started taking every
Someone> n bars so they could always get at least one 6, which
Someone> they would repeat three times (because they would get
Someone> a three in some other random way)."
 
JB> "I actually saw an explanation in a crackpot book. The guy
JB> looked at a UPC barcode, which has guard bars at each end
JB> and in the middle, and noted that they were similar to the
JB> bars for the digit 6. He then made the leap that the guard
JB> bars meant 6, and there were three of them..."
 
This "mark of the beast / number of a Man" nonsense has been applied
to just about everything theists can imagine. Social Security was
just one such evil mechanation of Lucipher (snicker). The 3-of-9 bar
code, which oddly enough reduces to a 6, has front-to-back, back-to-
front bind codes, ASCII-represented by a "*" (at least in the manual
I have here).

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism