HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: A nation chosen by GOD -- New Israel
Organization: I'm on a coffee break now
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:52:20 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

>In article <1993Jan11.100224.25145@walter.cray.com>, 
>jwest@wisc (Jeff West) writes...
>
>>I'm sure your not here because your thinking about becoming and atheist
>>right?  And we're CERTAINLY not here because we want to be converted.
>>So if you wish to continue posting here please be curtious of what this
>>newsgroup is for.  It doesn't read alt.please.convert.me.
>
Jeff,

I really think these christians are incapable of understanding when they
are preaching in alt.atheism, but we can keep trying, can't we?  BTW, I
am having problems e-mailing you now, but I get your mail.


From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
>Jeff,

[SOME REALLY STUPID PREACHY BULLSHIT LEFT IN TO PROVE IT IS REALLY THERE]

>I'm certain there is nothing I can do to convert you.
>That's between you and GOD <--- Which is ***** my ***** belief >.
>And I don't think GOD will do so unilaterally. 

>Likewise, if GOD won't convert you, then I'm sure 
>not going to mess with that. 

[FURTHER TESTIMONY DELETED]

[FOLLOWED BY AN INCREDIBLY IGNORANT QUESTION ABOUT ALT.ATHEISM]

>So we might have an instance of Second-Hand-God-Lovin' 
>here.=->   Is there a God-Lover's section of the 
>group? You know I might break out in fits of rapture
>at any moment. Could be indecent -- maybe there should
>be a back room?! ....Ah, hem.

Yes, there is a back room.  It is called talk.religion.misc.  It is the
perfect place for babble believers and jeezers of all perversions.

>
>Jeff, there is likely no more greater respect I can 
>extend to you than leave you to work out your own
>concerns. Say so, and I'm gone.
>


Jeff, Please say SO (to whatever he is asking!) and maybe he will really
go!  I'm begging you Jeff, please say "SO".  Please, Please, Please.


FAT CHANCE, RIGHT?

USENET IS CHEAPER THAN A REAL PULPIT FOR THESE TWO-BIT PREACHERS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW,

DOES THIS THING BELOW BLINK OR IS IT NEON?

AND DO YOU THROW IT OUT AFTER CHRISTMAS OR BURN IT ON SOMEONE'S LAWN?

I HAVE TROUBLE REMEMBERING THE OLD TRADITIONS.

>   |
>-- J --
>   |
>   |  Stephen
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


     J
     E
     S
 * S U X *
     S      

     (* Especially in alt.atheism!)



Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25253 talk.religion.misc:25419 alt.pagan:15057
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 7 Jan 93 14:55:25 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:

>In article <root.726363915@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>jimb@rcx1.csd.harris.com (Jim Burmeister) writes:
>>
>>>In article <5JAN199322080860@jane.uh.edu>, lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
>>>(bunch of stuff deleted)
>>
>>PBS is also funded by my $$ when I give to their pledge drive.  And by
>>corporations, etc.  Of course, since PBS is funded by the governemt, and
>>terefore blatantly [conservative|liberal|progay|antiabortion] shows don't
>>belong on it.  Ever heard of freedom of speech?
>
>There is nothing in the constitution that requires separation of 
>[conservativism|liberalism|homosexuality|abortion] and state.  There is,
>however, a stated requirement for separation of *church* and state.  

Want to provide references to such a statement?  The Bill of Rights 
specifically prohibits ONLY the establishment of a religion as the State 
religion.  It does not in any way prohibit government resources from being 
used by religious groups.  Refusing to allow a religious group on PBS is 
analogous to refusing church buses the right to use the roads, since they 
are government funded.  Or refusing churches police and fire protection.

>The
>state also funds public schools, and it is precisely for that reason
>that prayer in schools is such a controversial topic.  This is something
>treated as quite distinct by the constitution, and hence you can't lump
>it in with anything else so facilely.  

Note well that religious groups may meet in school buildings if the school
allows other student groups to meet...In other words, you can't discriminate 
against a bible study if you allow a chess club.

>>>However, if O'Hare was trying to ban religious programming from broadcast TV
>>>in general, then I agree she was way off base--that's censorship.
>>
>>So is allowing every group access to PBS except religious ones...
>
>Nope, no more than disallowing prayer in state-funded schools is
>censorship.  Again, religion is distinct from other things in this
>instance, precisely because the constitution treats it as such --
>REQUIRING that it be distinct from the state and state-funded stuff.

Once again, I point you to the fact that reliious institutions make use of
public roads, police & fire protection, etc.  What is being done is an
attempt to censor Christians by twisting the Constitution.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject:  #define fanatic
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:27:13 GMT

somewhere in my files is the definition
A fanatic is a person who redoubles his efforts
having lost sight of the goal.



-- 
Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
Next Month's Panel: Us and Them - Eliminating Them.
EOF
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25266 talk.religion.misc:25429
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:48:01 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1993Jan7.000554.5134@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>|> 
>Christianity is not a disease.  Only those who willingly accept the Gospel are
>Christians.  No one should be coerced or forced into it.  It is an act of free
>choice.
>

  Is that so?  

  I do not have the choice to be a christian any more than you have
  the choice to become a frog.  I cannot (I did not say *will* not,
  so don't forget the distinction) believe in your mythology.  I'm
  not made that way, I don't think that way, and to be able to have
  the choice to be a christian would require the removal of some
  hundreds of cc's of brain matter that uniquely determine my
  personality.

  But then, your god knew this about me when he created me for
  eternal damnation, didn't he?

>
>|> > It is a gift of God that cannot be taken away.
>|> 

  And what happens when I "blaspheme the spirit", provided you can
  define exactly what that means (check the gospels).  What happens if 
  I am saved and then renounce my salvation (check Hebrews).  It is
  apparently a gift that can most certainly be taken away.

>|> 
>The gift of salvation cannot be taken away but it can be lost, unfortunately.
>I can't say why you lost your faith in God.  If it was because of what someone
>did to you or didn't do, why are you punishing God for it?  God would do nothing
>that wasn't for your own good even if it involves pain.  There are times when we
>ask God to hit us with a 2x4 when we do something wrong, and sometimes, He does.

  And the rape victim asked for rape.  Certainly you can do better
  than this?

>God loves, man kills.

  But it takes god to provide for eternal damnation.

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

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!

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kelly Martin)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Reply-To: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Organization: Gender Anarchists United
	<1992Dec27.073652.5991@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:06:15 GMT

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

>>It depends on the Bible Believer.  I've read that fundamentalists
>>Christians are considerably more likely to be child abusers than
>>non-churched people.

>Bologna! :-)

disbelieve all you like.  i have read an astounding number of accounts
of incest and child sexual abuse by "good christians", many of whom
were pastors or priests.  the antisexual and guilt-ridden environment
of the fundamentalist family is fertile ground for abuse.
--
As a practical matter, if a trusting and supportive relationship between a
parent and a child has not already been established, it is unlikely that the
state can create in a moment of crisis what the parents were unable to develop
over the course of the preceding years. -- Judge Maxine Chesney (CA Supr Court)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov (James L. Felder)
Subject: Alternate Name for Atheism
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Sverdrup Technology, Inc.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:12:09 GMT

I just tuned into all this stuff, but a couple of things strike me.  One is
the name Atheism.  Now one of the meanings ascribed to the prefix a- is
"without".  In this case atheism is then means without theism, which seems
basically true to me.  But why define ourselves in terms of theism.

It seems to me that atheism can be much more that just being without
theism.  Plus, alot of people think of it as being anti-theistic.  I
propose a NEW name

* Logic *  

with the name for theism being redefined while we are at it as

* Alogic *

Hows that for turning the tables :^)


Before dusting off your flame thrower, I am proposing this tongue in cheek.
 I know theist are perfectly capable of crafting logical aurgument, once
they have made a several huge leaps of unsupportable initial assumptions.

My point is that the word atheist come loaded with negative connotations. 
The open hostility of some on this board don't help either.  Why not come
up with a new name.  After all it is just a label, and being logical
thinkers, I would hope that we could see past such a surface detail.

So any suggestion for more emotionally neutral names?


James L. Felder            (216)891-4019         -My opinions are MINE-
Sverdrup Technology, Inc.  jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov  I think that should
NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland 44135        cover all bases, 
                                                  don't you.

"Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge -
    other people gargle"
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25262 talk.religion.misc:25426
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christian racism
Keywords: Christian racism depiction of christ
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:38:16 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <martin.726049316@marsh> martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:
>
>Every Christian bible or movie I've ever seen depicts Christ and his
>followers as very nordic-looking people, for some reason, especially
>Christ.  Even the Turin shroud has an image of a man with a very thin
>face and long nose.  
>
The movie "The Gospel According to St. Matthew" had a very dark,
Spanish, almost Moorish, looking Christ.  I believe the movie
was a Spanish one, but maybe Italian.  I've often wondered about
this, since the lightest of Mediterranean Jews aren't as light
as most of the Christ's in the movies (Willem de Foe, Max Von Sydow,
etc.).  Even the one Zeferrilli picked was a blond Englishman.


>despite it being completely set there.  I know Christians who 
>absolutely can't stand Jews, and yet worship the King of the Jews in church.
>(Come to think of it, same with Hitler)
>
Well, Hitler was hardly a devoted Catholic.  In name only.  He
was more partial to the pagan Northern religions and fancied
himself another Wotan.

>Other things that bother me is the complete absence of any mention
>in the bible of things happening in other great civilizations of
>the world.  Do the Pyramids crack a mention?  Is there a single
>reference to the great achievements of the Chinese?  Not to mention
>the remains of dinosaurs and what-not.  These are undeniable important
>events in the world.

Why should this bother you?  What did the ancient Hebrews know
about the Chinese, and why would they put it in their Bible?
Doesn't make any sense to me.  There is some Egyptian stuff, but
the Egyptians were not exactly the friends of the Hebrews, after
Moses, anyhow.  Dinosaurs weren't discovered until 1500 years after
the Bible was written, so how could there be anything in there
about dinosaurs?

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: house@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house)
Subject: Re: Violence in other religious texts?
Organization: University of Southern Queensland
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:56:30 GMT

christen@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Carl Christensen) writes:

>I know of some violence in the Bhagavad Gita, at least what I consider
>violence.  The warrior, Arjuna, on the eve of battle has a change of 
>heart as he feels bad about battling former friends as well as his own
>relatives such as his grandfatther.

>But along comes Krishna (God) who says it's OK to kill everyone, as we are
>all born again (through reincarnation) and should not mourn this body's 
>passing into its next state.  

>To me, Arjuna's doubts seem very "human" and considerate and Krishna's seem
>pretty bad.  I do not see how killing and violence is bad in this context as one
>could justify it by  saying that their victim is going to be reborn into
>another life form anyhow.  However, animal slaughter is bad according to the
>Gita which is OK by me (I'm a vegetarian).  It stills seems odd that 
>killing man is OK but not animals.

I agree with your sentiments.  One must remember that the Bhagavad Gita is
not an historical document.  My opinion is that the poet Vyasa (the author
of the BV) wrote the work to spread his own religious ideas, and not as an
account of any historical event at all.  But he had to fit it somehow into
the Mahabharat, which was a long story about this war.  By fitting it into
the epic, he would guarantee its preservation.  Hence the introduction and
conclusion, which are quite unrelated to the main content of the BV.

--

Ron House.                 USQ
(house@helios.usq.edu.au)  Toowoomba, Australia.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jstump@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (John E. Stump)
Subject: Re: Nailing Christianity: Sufficient Support for Atheism?
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:10:43 GMT
Organization: IBM AWD Austin, TX

In article <76147@apple.apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>In article <1icejnINNqvs@shelley.u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>>
>>Plus, bashing xtianity is so damn easy!
>
>On the other hand, bashing anything is pretty damn easy.

Especially if you subscribe to Sturgeon's Theory, where: "90% of everything
is complete bullshit."
-- 
John Stump (jstump@netftp.austin.ibm.com)
From: geoff@tyger.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 7 Jan 93 14:15:30 GMT
Reply-To: geoff@tyger.East.Sun.COM
Organization: SunSelect
NNTP-Posting-Host: tyger.east.sun.com

In article 5613@ra.royalroads.ca, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
##You can't de-mystify God.  Even if you could, you wouldn't understand God because
##you would have to have the mind of God to understand Him.  I know this sounds like
##a lot of hokum but that's the way it is. 

You never said a truer word (about it being a lot of hokum, that is) :-)

By the way, since I presume that you don't have "the mind of God", you
obviously don't understand him. (Read what you wrote.) In which case,
you are writing things about which you claim not to understand.  In
fact, you are writing about things which you claim no-one (except the
putative God) can understand. Why should I then pay any attention to
you?

Some people...

---
Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect, Sun Select. (geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM)
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25282 talk.religion.misc:25456
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: A little food for thought (pizza?)
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 01:11:11 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <mtf.726170007@vipunen.hut.fi> mtf@vipunen.hut.fi (Antti Lahelma) writes:
>In <1992Dec31.121657.134706@zeus.calpoly.edu> jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch) writes:
>>  Knowing that my life has no meaning does not depress me or put me in
>>misery. I'm actually quite happy to be alive, and I enjoy living. 
>
> But would you not agree that if you were very strongly convinced that
>your life has a meaning, you'd be less likely to "give up" in a difficult
>situation? Most people enjoy living and are happy to be alive, but there
>may come a period of great depression - your wife leaves you, you lose
>your job, your kids get killed in a car accident etc. If your life has
>no inner meaning, and you lose everything that you've lived for, you may
>find it impossible to get over such a period. Don't be offended; this is
>just the way I see it, but I'm quite sure most psychologists would agree
>with me.

 Some people may need such a belief. I honestly don't think I need such
a belief to cope with life. Honestly. My life has plenty of inner meaning-
I want to have fun. There are very few circumstances that would cause me
to lose all hope of ever having fun again. (Alzheimer's, maybe...)

> Also, would you not agree that the reason behind the current consuming
>hysteria and destruction of environment is the loss of "inner values"
>(compare christmas now and a hundred years ago) and of the emotional
>identity with nature (compare ex-USSR and, say, native american tribes).

 Uh, no, not really. #1, in the U.S., anyway, I'm told it was illegal to close
businesses on Christmas in many areas. Christmas had become such a drunken,
rude, licentious party that a reaction built against it. I'll have to look
it up, but there was at least one respected Christian theologian who argued
that it was a sin to celebrate Christ's birthday, "as if He were a king or
a pharaoh." Only when the merchants recognized the profit potential did
Christmas get big.
 #2, I think that if the people of the middle ages had had the kind of
technology we have, they'd have caused as much environmental damage as we
cause today. I think it's a human thing and not a values thing, and until
we have better, cleaner technology it won't get better. But that's for
another newsgroup...

>Of course it's not quite as simple as that, they are both very complex
>processes. But IMO one of the "real" reasons behind the process is the 
>agressive scientific rationalism of this century, that has labelled eve-
>rything else as "superstition".

 Well, now, let's not be hasty. Look up the Enlightenment, where "aggressive
rationalism" was as heavily advocated, or at least comparably so.
 Anyway, there really *is* a lot of superstition out there to debunk...

>Antti Lahelma
>mtf@saha.hut.fi

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "Icky icky icky icky fKANG zoop-boing n zowzyin..." -The Knights Who
So Recently Said "NEE!"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Reality- What's Probable?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:50:42 GMT

In article <1ivnvdINNm7g@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1993Jan13.000425.22095@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>|> In article <1ivjtdINNh32@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>|> >Don't be silly.   You simply presented self-contradictory attributes.
>|> >
>|> >What's impossible is to prove the non-existence of something which
>|> >is not intrinsically self-contradictory.   An entity that could, at
>|> >least in principle, exist.
>|> >
>|> >Your example has no bearing on that.   
>|> That's true. I postulate the existence of a purple tiger such that
>|> if I were (at any time) to look under my desk, I would have (at any
>|> time following that) a noticeable memory of seeing it.
>|> Just looked under my desk. No memory of seeing the tiger. Doesn't exist.
>I must remember that.   Christians tell me that if I were just to ask
>God, he would answer me.   So now I can say that I have and he doesn't, 
>so he doesn't exist, is that right?
I tend to agree. I think the "you didn't look hard enough"
answer is a complete copout. 

>You ought try your example on a Christian.    Bet they reply that the
>tiger's really under your desk, and you just didn't look "hard enough". 
Actually, the problem is that the Christian example is phrased
something like "looking with an open mind" and it's impossible
to prove that one has fulfilled THAT condition. But I didn't
phrase it that way. I phrased it as just looking, and I most
certainly did look. Hard enough, or open mind, etc. just don't
enter into it in this case. 

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25188 talk.religion.misc:25345