HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jwest@wisc (Jeff West)
Subject: Re: is it necessary to hate?
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:07:32 CST

:  What atheists lack, among those who wish to help mankind, is the sense of 
: community and support experienced in Christianity.  A religion (or non-

How are you so sure of this statement?  Do you have any proof of this or is
is just something that seems to make sense to you?  I for one have become
much more involved in "helping mankind" since I've become atheist.  If you
believe this is your one chance at life, helping others in thiers holds much
more meaning.

: religion) that teaches complete individualism, separatism, and me-ism can 
: never have the kind of powerful, loving, selfless bondings of friendships 
: which develop in Christianity, powerful friendships which all people need.
: The modern pop psychology is all based on do-it-yourself, be your own boss, 
: how to get ahead of everyone else.  Chart your own path, make it to the 
: top.  Can you imagine what the world would be like if everybody did that?  
: Take advantage of them before they take advantage of you.  Complete 
: dissappearance of trust, because you know everyone else is out to get ahead 
: of you.  No cooperation, no unity, no true friendships.  Everyone just out 
: to better themself.  End result?  Need I explain?  Not too pretty, is it.
: Unfortunately, that's where we're heading, and none too slowly, either.
:   Well, there's my dollar's worth for today.  Thanks for reading me!

This whole section is pretty out of touch with reality.  I especially dislike
assumptions that no one but Xtians can enjoy the full bonds of love, selfless
ness and friendship.  BULL!
Drop the paranoia and hollywood psychology.

: 
: 
: Love from 
: the Buzzard


Jeff
From: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Quotes from the Bible.
Date: 18 Dec 92 10:41:17 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk wrote:
: This atheist is embarassed everytime the pi=3 point comes up.
: It is absurd to claim that this is any kind of evidence against
: the bible being written by God. Especially when there are perfectly
: reasonable arguments that could have been used.

This atheist agrees with his colleague on this point. Thank you for having
the courage to post as it has spurred me to add my voice to yours. 

		Aaron Turner		aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Re: Hilarious Christian Propaganda...
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 03:45:07 GMT

s0499528@let.rug.nl (R. Dijkhuis) writes:

>In article <kmr4.333.723754963@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>>From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
>>Subject: Hilarious Christian Propaganda...
>>Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 19:02:44 GMT
>>
>>	I found this while reading one of the various "Books of Truth and 
>>Wisdom":
>>
>>	As a proof of creationism over evolution:
>>
>>	"What is the binding force of the atom? We know that the electrons 
>>of the atom whirl around the nucleus billions of times every millionth of a 
>>second. Also that the nucleus of the atom consists of particles called 
>>neutrons and protons. The neutrons have no electrical charge and therefore 
>>neutral. But- the protons have positive charges. One law of electricity is 
>>that: like charges repel each other! Being that all of the protons in the 
>>nucleus are positively charged- they should repel each other and scatter 
>>into space. Therefore, by physics very own laws, molecules can not exist. 
>>The only possible binding force is God and Christ... The proof of this can 
>>be found in Col.1:17 "[Christ] is before all things, and by him all things 
>>consist ( are held together)" and John 1:3 "All things were made by him, and 
>>without him was not anything made that was made. " Since God exists, we have 
>>prooved that God created man, and he was not evolved..."
>>
>>	The author is not quoted. However, there is this: "My deepest 
>>appreciation to Dr. Davidheiser, Pd.D, John Hopkins University, for helping 
>>to make this book possible....
>>
>>
>>	Count the inaccuracies for fun...
>>	
>>	And if you think too long about this, shame on you! :-)

>OK, I'm ashamed. I'd love to count the inaccuracies, but my physics is as 
>rusty as Jesus's nails. "The only possible binding force..." is a non 
>sequitur, but as far as the molecular theory goes, I'd appreciate it if 
>someone listed the inaccuracies  for me.

>Reinder

May the Strong Force be with you !

Conan the Libertarian

-- 
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheists & Christians
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:06:29 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Dec11.111403.6584@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>When having reached some age, this tendency retards and the IQ no longer
>reflects a specific age. i.e. A 35 year old is probably equally intelligent as 
>she was when she was 25. 
>
  Two demerits for not doing your homework.  Human raw intelligence
  and cognitive ability peaks at roughly age 30.  Thereafter, your 
  brain is in permanent decline.  The effects can be compensated for 
  over a very long period of time by the proper use of accumulated 
  experience, but the  average 35 year old is probably not as intelligent as
  when she was 25.

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

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A "DISPROOF" OF GOD ?
Date: 13 Dec 1992 18:28:39 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


	My original posting was using the flawed logic of theists
against them.........it was SARCASM...


-- 
A. TRENT PHILLIPS |" A mirror is a negative space with a frame and a place for
  also known as   | your face, it reveals what the rest of us see. It conceals
   WHITE  ROOK    | what you'd like you to be."--Blue Oyster Cult
-------bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu-----aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu-------
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Hilarious Christian Propaganda...
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:04:20 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
Summary: Religion in School Lesson

In article <1992Dec12.080949.27888@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> kachun@spot.Colorado.EDU (Ka Chun Yu) writes:
>The article about God and molecules appeared on page 1A (front page) of
>the December 10, 1992 issue of the Denver Post.  It's by a Post writer,
>so I don't know if it ever got onto the AP wire.  Here it is.

	Thank you, it was a priceless article to add to the 'ol collection.
I think I may post it in the physics hall...
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Keywords: Bible--psychology--fundamentalism
Date: 17 Dec 92 00:25:53 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: New Mexico State University

In article <BzA8GM.y4A@austin.ibm.com> frank@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec12.053417.15150@midway.uchicago.edu>, dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec6.113418.19447@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>> 
>> A deconstruction:
>> 
>> Sociologists are often the last to know; remember they spend
>> more time trying to explain, than predict. Your "geocentric model"
>> quote is particularly suspect as we shall see below:
>> 
>> >Statistics on church membership indicated a continuing decline.  The
>> >prevailing opinion was that religion served to explain the origins of
>> >the universe, and one's relation to the universe.  As the more
>> >competent natural sciences increased man's knowledge of the universe,
>> >conventional religion became more and more irrelevant.  Unless
>> 
>> Once I see such (IMO) absurd generalizations as above, I tend
>> not to follow the rest of the article, figuring there will be
>> similar lapses in logic.
>> 
>> I would argue that anyone who opines that people join religious
>> movements in order to "explain the origins of the universe"
>> simply does not understand why people DO join religious
>> movements.
>> 
>> In that case, it is no wonder such people are taken by surprise.
>> 
>> Dano
>
>A deconstruction you say?  Absurd generalisations?  Lapses in logic?  
>Pretty pompous and self-aggrandizing words...
 
[A lot deleted about the origins of religion]
>
>Do your words ring a little hollow?  Yeah, thought so.  Now go out and
>be fruitful.  Educate yourself, don't just assimilate all the crap in the
>"good book."
>-- 
>
>         DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this posting are mine
>            solely and do not represent my employer in any way.
>       F. A. Karner AIX Technical Support | karner@austin.vnet.ibm.com

Actually, on reflection I don't blame Dano for mis-interpreting what I
wrote--a quick glance over the opening paragraph could lead to the
impression he got.  I don't have as much time as I'd like to polish
these articles.

Religions in general may indeed have started out as the previous
poster implied--ie, as prescientific explanations for natural
phenomena.  But religions evolve too, no matter what religionists of
the fundamentalist variety may tell you.  The point of my articles is
that evangelical Christianity is an interesting and unique
psychological phenomenon; those who expected it to wane simply because
science marches on had a rather naive viewpoint on the matter.  My
apologies if this point was ambiguous in my first article.

SD
From: geoff@tyger.Eng.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Science and choice
Date: 17 Dec 1992 17:50:07 GMT
Organization: SunSelect
Distribution: world, public
NNTP-Posting-Host: tyger.east.sun.com

Quoth epowers@spock.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) (in <1992Dec16.030334.20463@nmsu.edu>):

#	So you must "choose":  either you must base an important part of your  
#philosophy on science and deny free will, or you'll have to find something  
#outside of science to base it on.

The flaw here is in your unadorned use of the term "free will".  Free
from what? (Or perhaps to mean "Free to ...." :-)  Just as (in my
experience) every theist interprets "atheist" as "not believing in MY
deity", so most theists use "free will" when they mean "free from
interference from some supernatural agency - usually MY deity".  The
trouble is, this interpretation simply begs the question. For an
atheist (certainly for THIS atheist) the term "free will" so
interpreted is incoherent.


--
Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect, Sun Select. (geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM)
****************** Please reply to the above address (or geoff@east.sun.com).
* BOGOSITY ALERT * Our netnews software is currently generating bogus sender
****************** addresses. I'll get them to fix it is soon as possible...
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheists should mind their own damn business
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:32:54 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Dec14.175927.20123@unislc.uucp>, ttobler@unislc.uucp (Trent Tobler) writes:
> Harold Platypus (harry@timesink.chi.il.us) wrote:
> : 
> : 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.
> 
> I personally think that "In Money We Trust" is better... ;)

   There was a run of gold coins in the U.S. in the 1870's that said
"In Gold We Trust".

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
From: jimb@rcx1.csd.harris.com (Jim Burmeister)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: "Separation of Church and State"
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:25:39 GMT
Organization: Harris CSD, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
NNTP-Posting-Host: rcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com

This topic has been discussed on alt.atheism before, but I have never seen a
definitive answer.  Could someone provide one?

Occasionally we hear someone point out that the words "separation of church
and state" don't appear in the U.S. Constitution--the wording is something 
like "Congress shall pass no laws restricting the free exercise of religion"
(inexact quote).  My question is, who first came up with the phrase "Separation
of Church and State" and in what context was it used?  I would like as exact
a reference as possible.

-Jim Burmeister, jimb@csd.harris.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Colleen
Date: 20 Dec 92 08:55:53 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Dec17.020104.29801@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>If James Merrit says ...

It must be noted here that James Meritt is known as the God whose name
is always misspelt by the unbelievers.  (See t.r.m for ample evidence.)
This identifies B Kendig as a heretic.  Woe to thee, Brother.

>Now I've gotta do one thousand Hail Colleens

Not nearly enough.  Make that seventeen hundred and twenty-eight.

>and dance around a mulberry bush, or I'l suffer eternal
>exile to /dev/null!

<sigh>  Thou oughtst to have become a Colleenist in the first place.

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 16 Dec 92 00:17:09 GMT

darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:

>According to the FAQ, atheism is usually defined in this group as 
>the "absence of a belief in any gods" (so-called "weak atheism"), rather
>than the "belief in no god(s)" (so-called "strong atheism").

>I had never come across this definition of atheism (i.e. weak atheism)
>before seeing it in this newsgroup.  Atheism, as I understood it, always 
>meant strong atheism.

>To use the word "atheist" for "weak atheism" can be confusing.  For
>example, using this definition, an agnostic (one who believes that it is
>not possible to know if God(s) exist(s) or not) is an atheist.  Since an
>agnostic admits the *possibility* of God existing, when one speaks of 
>atheists in general (as we are including "weak atheists"), an
>atheist may believe in the possibility of God existing.

>I don't know, this definition of atheism to me seems to be one not used
>in the general community, at least in my experience.  Am I alone in
>thinking that the commonly used definition of "atheism" is assumed to be
>"strong atheism"?

>(To say that an atheist believes that God *may* exist seems an alien
>concept to me, as I had always considered atheists and agnostics to be
>distinctly different groups.)

Good to have some intelligent questions on the group. Unfortunately they
normally get ignored because it's so much more fun to flame fundies.

Basically, there are so many brands of atheism (ie of not beleiving in a god
or gods) that we have decided to use the most defensible definition of
atheism as our definition. Atheism (ie strong type), is basically
indefensible. Note that this is our newsgroup and we resort to shoring up
our defenses whilst exploiting the weakest of the christian ones (ie
fundamentalism). I think the majority of us are here for the rare feeling of
fellowship not enjoyed by thinking atheists generally and the opportunity to
logically pulverise and artistically flame those poor fundamentalist sods
who to their horror discover an atheism newsgroup and decide it is their
duty to (ho hum) give us the good word.

So getting back to your question, we in no way say this is the legal
definition (or gospel definition if you like :-)), just the one that will
make sure we win the most arguments.

Jeff.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: fsrey@rama.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Rex E. Young)
Subject: Re: "Keep Christ in Christmas"
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:04:39 GMT

 > First example I can think of occured in the Presidential election
> that we just had.  Liberals certainly weren't supporting Bush.
> Athiests were not supporting Bush, and were actively campaigning for
> Clinton.  Homosexuals were promised many things by Clinton and
> actively sought to elect him.  NOW wasn't supporting Bush.  As for 
> this occuring on school boards and in other local elections, please 
> don't tell me it doesn't happen.  After all, that's what campaigning 
> is all about.  It just may not happen in your local elections.
> 
> -- 
> Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John  
14:6
> parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |

I wasn't talking about large elections where issues abound and promises
are made that may not be kept.  I was talking about EXTREME religious
groups that take advantage of low voter turnout in (schoolboard, etc.)
elections to elect members of their particular group to this schoolboard,
etc.  These people when elected to a schoolboard tend to work on pushing
this one issue at the expense of all else. (Including quality education.)
The presidential election was another matter.  Clinton promised support
to a lot of different groups, not just one thought, or one issue.


A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored
by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency
a great soul has simply nothing to do.

I hate quotations.
May 1849

-Ralph Waldo Emerson
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: epowers@spock.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: The "Answers": and "Why" .....
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:10:44 GMT

In article <1gimn3INNssq@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam  
Trent Phillips) writes:
> 
> 	I have seem a few times recently in posts and have heard it
> a number of times before. Theists say things like "the Bible has the
> ANSWERS" or "Haven't you ever wondered WHY ?" or stuff like that.
> 
> 	The question of "Why are we where/ What are we here for".
> implies that there is a specific reason why we are here. For me
>  as an atheist, I feel that there is no "reason" or "mission" that
> we are "here" (as opposed to "there" ?) for.
> 
> 	What about when they say "the Bible has the answers". I
> find that really odd. Most of time a lot of us just feel tempted
> (or at least I used to) to just say the "answers are wrong", but
> I look at it as they DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT MY QUESTIONS ARE !!!
> 
> 	I really resent it when some (not all perhaps) chri$tians
> say that "they have the answers to my questions". Well, my questions
>  don't seem to match their answers.....because they don't really
> know them.....
> 
> 
> -- 
> A. TRENT PHILLIPS 

	Don't be offended, it's just a typical, human, unthinking response.  If  
I got offended every time a theist or an atheist has read my stuff and  
misunderstood because they didn't read carefully, I'd would have to evolve into  
an organism with much thicker skin.  There are arrogant idiots in all  
philosophies.			Erik
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 02:57:39 GMT

>>[stuff deleted, consisting mainly of flames]
>>   [between an Atheist and an Agnostic]

>That and a number of questions which you intentionally avoid.

Do you expect me to include the entire thread? I don't think that
I've avoided any questions, but since you insist, PLEASE LIST ALL 
THE QUESTIONS WHICH I HAVE "INTENTIONALLY" AVOIDED. I only have
a week left of school, so you better hurry!

>>"The buck stops here, at existence". Debating the origin of existence

>We've been dealing with "existence" all along even though you refuse to admit. 
>The question we've been dealing with is the origin of the universe.  It doesn't
>have to involve or exclude god, and there is no proof one way or the other.
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How did my Atheistic response to an Agnostic's post devolve into something
that "doesn't" have to involve or exclude god"?

>Yet, you continue to stand by your claim that there is no possible place for a
>creator in reality.  You haven't backed this assertion with any reasoning,
>therefore you are as bad as a christian having faith.

I say that the proof of such a creator has no place in reality.

>>Peter J Nelson
>Jon
Peter J Nelson
From: hedrick@klinzhai.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Engineering child conversions
Date: 15 Dec 92 02:15:02 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser) writes:

>	I seem to remember hearing about a practice some Protestant churches
>practice of "forcing" childhood conversions with scare tactics.  The way it
>works is this:  you seat a child in a room with a group of church elders,
>and maybe a parent.  The elders then proceed to preach fire and brimstone
>to the child, telling him how sinful he is, and about all the awful things
>that Satan is going to do to them in hell (e.g. set fire to their hair,
>burn them in molten lava, etc.) ...

Most Christian groups -- even conservative ones -- are pretty
sensitive about brainwashing tactics these days.  The <cityname>
Church of Christ (the best known one is Boston, but there are others)
are widely regarded as "cults", because they are suspected of such
tactics.  They are known for supervising the lives of members very
tightly, and for attempting to isolate them from previous
acqaintances.  This isn't the place to discuss whether they are guilty
-- it appears that in at least some cases they have been, but maybe
not all the time.  But the point is that there's a widespread
concensus, even among fundamentalists, that this this sort of thing
has no place in the Church.  It's often hard to draw the line.  Many
people in this group might consider preaching about hell in itself to
be coercive, particularly in an emotional setting such as a revival.
But I don't know of anything quite like you describe being used
anywhere in what I'd call mainstream evangelical Christianity, nor of
course among the more liberal churches.  That doesn't mean it doesn't
happen -- Jonestown (and other less well publicized events) shows what
extremes can occur.  But a group practicing it would be denounced as a
"cult" by the "Bible-bangers" that frequent the net.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism