HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpinnock@casper.cs.uct.ac.za (M B Pinnock)
Subject: Re: Homophobia is esp. bad in christians
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Cape Town
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:46:50 GMT

In <ksand-101092165854@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.171003.15616@news.yale.edu>,
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) wrote:
>> In article <1b4ec0INNg44@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:

>> >	The majority of Christians are very hate full towards 
>> >Lesbians and Gay men (and Bisexuals too).
>> I'm not at all sure this is true. You have data to support it?

>I agree, speaking from my own experience living in Nordic countries
>Gay men and women have full liberties, even if the Lutheran church
>is the official state church. And the majority of the people belong
>to the church. 

Well here's an opposing piece of anecdotal evidence:

In South Africa (a christian country renowned for intolerance) it is an
offence, punishable by a jail term to engage in various forms of
homosexual activity. This law is rationalised with the usual biblical
references etc.

At a recent gay march in Johannesburg a poster read "Sodomites! Turn or Burn!"

>I think it has more to do with your own private opinion, I know people
>that are non-religious, and still don't accept homosexuality.

Agreed, however these people have at least formed their own opinion on the
subject and are personally accountable for their views and how they act on them.Most religious types take it as their moral right to persecute homosexuals claiming an accountability only to God!


Brian Pinnock

Computer Science Dept.       | Sam! 
University of Cape Town.     | I like green eggs and ham! 
South Africa.                | I do! I like them, Sam-I-am! 
mpinnock@casper.cs.uct.ac.za |                                 Dr. Seuss. 

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: marriage: atheist's alternatives?
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:53:40 GMT

In article <16878946F.FLANAGA@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> FLANAGA@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Scott Flanagan) writes:
> What do atheists, or anyone not desiring a religious wedding ceremony,
>typically do if they otherwise want to have a normal wedding?  I am aware
>that justices of the peace may perform civil services, but I was hoping that
>there are other, LEGAL, alternatives.  I am particularly interested in
>alternatives which have been shown to be legally watertight in Texas, since
>that is where I will be getting married.
>  -Scott Flanagan (flanaga@ricevm1.rice.edu)

My wife and I got married in Dallas 5 years ago. We both wanted a traditional
type wedding with family and friends, and we had it in our home. The ceremony
was conducted by a minister, but we told him we were atheist and wanted no
mention of god, and none of that obey stuff. He understood and conducted a 
very nice secular ceremony for us. I know of no legal requirement that a 
wedding be religious in nature, and suspect any such requirement could easily
be found unconstitutional.

Jeff Achenbach
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 08:35:31 EDT
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: FAQ question

In article <seqXV_O00iV046xMQm@andrew.cmu.edu>, jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jordan M.
Wolbrum) says:
>
>I've read the FAQ file, and I am curious as to how many of the atheists
>that post to this board believe that only specific gods do not exist,
>and how many believe no god exists.  It would seem to me that everyone
>in the world was a member of the first group.
>
>Perhaps, I've missed the point again.  If so, I'll sure I'll be reading
>about it in the next few days on the bboard.

I don't think you've missed the point entirely.  It probably is the case
that very few people believe no god exists.  There are some, however--I've
seen them post here.  This includes a fellow who thinks he has a proof
that no god exists.

It is not the case, however, that all atheists can be placed in one of your
two categories based on belief (in the nonexistence of specific gods or
in gods generally).  An alternative position for atheists is *lack* of belief
in either.  This is in the FAQ file.
Organization: Masters student, Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Thu,  8 Oct 1992 16:19:14 -0400 
From: Jad Nehme <jn1a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
	<ebolog.12@elaine.ee.und.ac.za>

Excerpts from netnews.alt.atheism: 7-Oct-92 Re: Great Proposal ! EDWIN
B. : THIRD@elaine. (2431)



> Think about it. With the existance of a God everything in the universe can 
> be proved, but without Him we do not even know how we can to be. Remember 
> evolution is a theory which is opposed by may scientists.

> So you prove God does not exist! (Or that you came to be without Him).

Well, the problem is: one can make up tons of theories that would
explain everything.  Which one do we choose? Messiah's who have lived on
this earth are uncountable.  Some of them call for the communication
with Aliens.  Why should we follow yours?
  It used to be common belief in Europe that the bible was the truth. 
Came the disproof of what was then the interpretation of the bible (Adam
and Eve, creation in seven days etc...)  Now, in 1992  by merely
changing your interpretation of the bible, merely making it a little
more consistent, you put the burden on agnostics/atheists to prove that
god does not exist! (which by the way cannot be done.  You can easily
make a consistent theory that *anything* exist).

-Jad

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: What an atheist thinks of the biblke.
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 04:47:37 GMT

In article <ksand-101092170809@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>> In article <gj156879.718726566@cunews>, gj156879@prince.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879) writes:
>> >> PEOPLE 2000 YEARS AGO WERE MORONS:
>
>I actually don't agree on this statement. People are people, still today.

	Well, I don't agree with it either, but if it _were_ true, it
sure would explain a lot, wouldn't it?

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: goff@intruder.navo.navy.mil (Victoria Goff)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-17809]: intruder.navo.navy.mil
Reply-To: goff@pops.navo.navy.mil
Organization: POPS Facility Managment
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:19:19 GMT

In article <Aeos5Ku00WBOM6u8Rf@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|> >Ok, you tell me how man came about and do not state the theory of evolution 
|> >since one it is a theory with lots of short comings and one which even some 
|> >scientists do not agree with. Then disprove that the only God the Father and 
|> >his only begotten son Jesus Christ do not exist!
|> 
|> You caught me, I can't prove anything.  But, I ask you how you find it
|> easier to make a blind leap of faith than to consider more logical
|> alternatives.  I'm not insulting you, I'm just curious.  Theism makes no
|> sense to me.  A virgin birth makes no sense to me.  A ressurection makes
|> no sense to me.  Evolution makes sense to me.  I'd like to try and
|> understand you, so I'll give you the opportunity to explain.  Who knows?
|>  You might just convince me.
|> 

I can absolutely prove evolution to be incorrect but the same argument does
not prove the existance of God. Nothing and no one will ever "prove" the
existance of God and isn't it interesting that the bible says this to
be true (the just shall live by faith). Still, there is evidence to prove
a case that Jesus Christ lived and died according to the account given
by the bible. This still does not "prove" God. 

BTW, evolution is NOT a logical alternative by any stretch of the imagination
and don't worry, you can still be an  atheist and a non-evolutionist. All
you have to say is 'I don't know how we got here'. Since atheists don't
care where they go beyond the grave, why would it concern them as to the
origins before their birth???? 

v.goff - "Not an evolutionist, not a creationist. A revelationist"

Disclaimer: My opinions are my own.
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: You're Invited!
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:10:31 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1atc8uINN7j2@bigboote.WPI.EDU> scott@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Scott G Goddard) writes:
>
>    To all Atheists, reading these comments made by you are very upsetting to 
>me.

Tough. This is alt.atheism, a forum for atheists.

>     There shouldn't be a discussion of whether or not God exists, it's not
>about that.

I agree (probably the only time in your posting).

>             It is a fact that God exists, I don't have to prove that because
>when you are a Christian,like me, you know I in you're heart(without a doubt).

On this board you DO have to prove it. You are coming to people who don't
believe in your god, or any of the others. You are making a totally
unsupported assertion about something which makes absolutely no sense and
expecting us to believe it without any evidence. Until you prove it, it
is just a figment of your imagination.
>
>     That's why you are all cordially invited to enjoy the blessing of God and 
>his family for eternity!R.S.V.P.

No comment.

(remainder of Scott Goddard's stupid sermon deleted to save net.bandwidth)


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

This kind of stupid argument only convinces the converted. I just wish
that the fundies would actually think about their arguments sometimes
before using them:

   (1) Find out what an atheist is. An atheist doesn't believe in your
       god, strange as it may seem to you. But then he doesn't believe
       in Allah, Rama, or the gods of any of the other religions either.
       So arguments that presuppose the god will hardly convince an
       atheist.

   (2) An atheist doesn't hold your scriptures in the same kind of esteem
       that you do, because he doesn't believe in the god that they describe.
       But that doesn't mean that the atheist hasn't read these scriptures.
       The atheist probably just regards them as legends, and may also have
       read the scriptures and legends of other religions as well.

   (3) Before you put forward any argument, try and reverse the situation.
       Imagine that somebody with a different religion to yours were to
       make a similar argument to you. How would you react? Try substituting
       another religion's god, prophet, scriptures, followers or creed
       and see whether it sounds sensible to you. If it doesn't, then it
       will hardly sound sensible to people who don't share your belief.

   (4) Remember that people with other religions are just as certain in
       their faith (or lack of it) as you are in yours. A muslim (say)
       is as likely to accept your version of the Truth, as you are to
       accept his version. I know yours is the only "real Truth". But
       then, so is his the "only real Truth"!

Chris Lee
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:04:50 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1b4odmINNmqk@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
> In a previous article, sieferme@carson.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) says:
>>In article <1992Oct9.181919.26472@cs.tulane.edu> goff@pops.navo.navy.mil writes:
>>>I can absolutely prove evolution to be incorrect but the same argument does
>>>not prove the existance of God.
>>
>>OK.  Please post the proof.  You should also post your absolute
>>post to the group "talk.origins"; this group is read by many
>>people who have a very high regard for truth and proof.
> 
> 	Ah, guys, I know you're hot to trot and jump all over this. But, I
> think you've missed the point. I think the real interperation would be
> this: "Supposing I can absolutely refute the theory of evolution, it does
> not imply the existance of God." He's not saying that he CAN in fact refute
> it, but that IF he could, it still doesn't prove the existance of God. That
> is, whether or not the theory of evolution is true, is irrelevent to the
> issue of God's existance. 

   Did you actually read what she said (I'm assuming Victoria is 
a she; on the other hand...Victor/Victoria?)?  She said that she
can *absolutely prove evolution to be incorrect*.  Doesn't sound
like there's any ambiguity there.

   BTW, I'm hanging over my computer waiting for this proof
to be posted.  I'm sure everyone on t.o will get a kick out
of it.

Karl
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:27:58 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <BvptEx.IIH@umassd.edu> rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:

>Question ; (A thorn for the Theists)
>
>-------->There is "evil"in the world.
>
>If this GOD exists then how does he deal with this issue?("EVIL")

This question is a classic problem usually called 'the problem
of evil.' It's not as dramatic a revelation as your post
appears to make out, in part because it's very well known
in both theist and atheist circles.

Educated and thoughtful theists generally have some fairly
good arguments (or, if you prefer, rationalizations) dealing
with it. I don't find them convincing, but then that's part
of what makes me an atheist.

At any rate, the problem of evil isn't likely to sound the
death knell of Christianity (any more than the theistic
defenses are likely to eliminate atheism).
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: e91petmo@odalix.ida.liu.se (Peter Modin; remember that name...)
Subject: Re: ==> Bush On Atheists
Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:41:55 GMT

>   RS: "Surely your recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of
>        Americans who are atheists."

>   GB: "No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens,
>        nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

Suppose he said 'jews' instead of 'atheists'. Now what would that make him?
But he didn't, so he's just a short-sighted, narrow-minded excuse for a
president. 
--
=================================================================
| Peter Modin C92       | EMail: e91petmo@und.ida.liu.se        |
| Rydsvagen 240 B:11    |               -"Come forth and win my |
| S-582 51  LINKOPING   |  \\\  Amiga     eternal love", God    |
| Int. +46 13 17 81 01  |   \\\ user!     said to Moses. But,   |
| SWEDEN                |    \\\ ///      he came fifth and won |
|                       |     \\X//       a toaster.            |
=== Dept. of Computer Science, Linkoping University, Sweden  ====
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 07:17:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.050241.6015@math.utexas.edu> mike@huevos.ma.utexas.edu (Mike Sullivan) writes:
>dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>
>>Rather than being a slave to this conditioning, much of which is destructive
>>and geared to producing mindless warriors, I think it's important to learn
>>as much as you can about human nature, and from that develop a view of how
>>you think a healthy society (this one isn't by a long shot) ought to function
>>in order that each member of society can leave a peaceful and happy life.
>>With this view of society in mind, you can then go on to develop a rational
>>code of ethics.
>
>I disagree with your sequence, first understand "human nature" then devlop
>a "rational code of ethics".  I do not think human nature is understandable
>outside of its (our) historical development. This includes the development
>of moral codes. You can't IMHO seperate the two and then derive one from the
>other. They are too intertwined.

I think we can and must separate the two.  By human nature, I meant those
things that are due to our genetic programming (that may not have been
clear).  I think it's important to understand the raw material we're
working with, and then build a system of ethics around that.  For example,
it might be a part of our genetic makeup that depriving people of sex after
they've reached sexual maturity causes them to become aggressive and violent.
If the goal is a peaceful society, it might then make sense to encourage
sex among adolescents, rather than depriving them of it or making them
feel guilty about it.

Personally, I don't think that our historical development is all that
useful a reference in developing a decent morality, because I think our
society has been sick for thousands of years.  I don't think we've seen
a fraction of what the human race is capable of, and we really have to
make a clean break with the past if we're ever going to find out.

>I also suspect that ethics will always be changing and will never arive at
>some final form. I say this because some people might think a "rational code
>of ethics" is necessarly a perfect fixed system, though you do not say this.

Certainly there will have to be some experimentation, and certainly
it ought to be able to adapt to changing circumstances.  New technology
will probably change things drastically.  Maybe it won't be long before
we can all go and get our brains fixed to get rid of our aggressive
instincts once and for all.

>One popular book I would suggest is "Cows, pigs, wars & witches; the
>riddles of culture" by Marvin Harris.

Thanks, I'll look it up.
--
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: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Dear Bush
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:41:52 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992

George Bush                                                       David Rice
The White House                                      
----------------------1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW                         
Laguna Niguel, California Washington, DC.                                     
              92677-1610 20500


Dear George,


    It  was  a  pleasure seeing you "debating" Mr. Clinton and Mr. Perot.  As 
usual,  you whined and sniveled like a petulant, spoiled child. Whine, 
moan,snivel  whine whine! What with your embracing the hate and propaganda of 
 the Religious Right, and your gleeful blood lust and machinations that  made 
 war against  the children of Iraq inevitable, the abandonment of Kurds 
(AGAIN!),the continued war on people of color (you call it "War On Drugs
[sic]"), your perversion of the Supreme Court, the eradication of civil
easement (reduction of  welfare  and  shelters for the shelterless), the 
removal  of  money  for education  so that you may buy more bombs and other
tools of mass murder  and destruction,  four-and-a-half trillion dollars in
the hole  that  our  great-great-great-grandchildren will still be paying for. 
. . . you will  no  doubt not be surprised when you fail in your re-election
attempt.

   We hear you on the radio ("Whine, whine, whine!" you intone
monotonously),saying that people WANT to be on welfare; saying the men and
women who fought and  died  in  America's name should not be considered 
citizens,  let  alone patriots,  because  they were atheists (O'Hare Airport); 
saying  that  it  is WRONG  to  speak against the butchering of innocent
children, women and  men,just  so YOU can keep the money from YOUR oil
interests flowing in. . . .  Do you really believe enough people will be
deceived by your lies and mendacity,to  get  you  re-elected?! You have a damn 
poor view on the  intelligence  of Americans.

    I  am  not  one  to  believe in evil. Yet you are by far  the  most  evil 
individual  America has ever suffered under. Yes, you can continue  to  whine 
"It's  Their  fault, not mine! (whine, snivel, whine!)" but you do  not  fool 
hundreds  of millions of Americans. REAL Americans, not money lusting,  blood 
lusting fascist butchers like yourself.


--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@carson.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:35:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.181919.26472@cs.tulane.edu> goff@pops.navo.navy.mil writes:
>I can absolutely prove evolution to be incorrect but the same argument does
>not prove the existance of God.

OK.  Please post the proof.  You should also post your absolute
post to the group "talk.origins"; this group is read by many
people who have a very high regard for truth and proof.

>Nothing and no one will ever "prove" the
>existance of God and isn't it interesting that the bible says this to
>be true (the just shall live by faith). Still, there is evidence to prove
>a case that Jesus Christ lived and died according to the account given
>by the bible. This still does not "prove" God. 

We read your "case".  I hope your absolute proof about evolution
is stronger than that.

>BTW, evolution is NOT a logical alternative by any stretch of the imagination
>and don't worry, you can still be an  atheist and a non-evolutionist. All
>you have to say is 'I don't know how we got here'.

In other words, this approach says "I'll ignore all evidence
and arguments, and just not answer the question".
Are you running for public office, by any chance?

>Since atheists don't
>care where they go beyond the grave, why would it concern them as to the
>origins before their birth???? 

We're just silly old humans who have been afflicted
with curiosity.  Please forgive us.

>
>v.goff - "Not an evolutionist, not a creationist. A revelationist"
>
>Disclaimer: My opinions are my own. 


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mmestern@cs1.uct.ac.za (MA MESTERN)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Cape Town
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 09:26:34 GMT

In article <ebolog.12@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:
>Wrong, look around you and tell me that it all just happened by freak 
>accident. That the perfection of natural was accidental.

The human body was produced by a process of natural selection. This is not a 
freak or random accident. Selection by its nature is not random.

>
>Scientists today turn to nature to solve problems. Think about yourself for 
>example, if you where created by a freak accident then why is the human body 
>symmetrical and not deformed with two arms on one side and only one on the 
>other for example.
>
>Think about it. With the existance of a God everything in the universe can 
>be proved, but without Him we do not even know how we can to be. Remember 
>evolution is a theory which is opposed by may scientists.

Evolution is a well established fact. Many biologists debated the method by 
which it occurred. Any many scientists when outside their field of expertise 
know no more than laymen.

>So you prove God does not exist! (Or that you came to be without Him).

Your enthusiastic attempts to draw us to do this are not appreciated as
we feel no great need to change your opinions. Please read the FAQ.

MARK.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop)
Subject: Re: Homophobia
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 19:04:32 EDT

From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
 
>Please, don't give the "God loves you" drek, I
>heard it plenty of times while growing up in the Lutheran church.
>If you say something patronizing like "..you sound like a hurt soul"
>I will not like that.
 
"Don't patronize me, Boy!"
 
DARIST
 
Let the reader understand.

 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism