HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Tax the Church
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 13:06:32 GMT

Paul Ciszek (pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
: Didn't O'Hare seek some sort of legal action against some Apollo astronauts
: for praying on a publically funded spacecraft?  (Like three guys millions of
: miles from earth in a machine built by the lowest bidder should be denied the
: right to call on the deity of their choice!)

Cite please.

: As for other fanatical atheists, here in Colorado we have folks who fight
: any sort of publically visible (as opposed to publically funded) religious
: symbols-- crosses on the outside of churches, highway signs saying "Mother
: Cabrini Shrine", displays on private property, and so forth.  At the
: Colorado People's Fair there was a group advocating taxation of religions
: but not other non-profit organizations.  Followers of alternative religions
: should take note of this last-- if it came into practice, either YOUR
: religion would be taxed, or if it wasn't, this would constitute government
: sanctioned religious discrimination.

I'm in full agreement.  I find it appalling that more and more property gets 
bought up by religious organizations and taken off the tax rolls.  The general 
tax exemption for religious organizations must be abolished.  For all the 
"Followers of alternative religions", yes this means your religion would be 
taxed on its income and property also.

I can accept tax exemption for non-profit organizations that directly help the
poor through food, clothing and housing grants; and a tax deduction or 
exemption for the money donated to directly fund those organizations (i.e. 
exempt the money United Way gives to other organizations, but tax the portion 
used for administration costs).
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 00:07:31 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: alt.atheism

Hmm, I've read about 20 entries about IQ and religion today, and the
final conclusion I got was that "don't mix religion and IQ levels,
it ends up in a big flame war".

Sometimes it's also enjoying to read entries that have constructive
and creative ideas/critique concerning the topic... Email is 
also handy concerning personal attacks -- I'm not that interested
in non-associated complaints myself. 

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 12:51:56 GMT

Jon Livesey (livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan01.192802.2370@jcnpc.cmhnet.org>, mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mi
ke A. McAngus) writes:
: |> Jon Livesey (livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com) wrote:
: |> : In article <1992Dec31.020043.25959@arden.linet.org>, joeb@arden.linet.or
g (Jo
: |> e Beiter) writes:
: |> : >
: |> : > Hitler had no right to do what he did.  Hitler is not God.
: |> :
: |> : I'd hate to misunderstand you here.   Is Hitler not
: |> : being God the *reason* why he had no right to do what
: |> : he did?
: |> :
: |> : Would God have the right to do what Hitler did?
: |> :
: |> : jon.
: |>
: |> Of course god would have the right to do what Hitler did, because god is
: |> omnijust and omnibenevolent and therefore if god did it it would be right.
:
: Of course!    It's all so simple when you look at it the right
: way, isn't it?
:
: So now I'm wondering about people who represent God, or who are
: inspired by him.   What do they get the right to do, I wonder.

Why they have the right to bring gods "justice" to the rest of us, silly. (^:
(I have to stand on my head to continue this "logic")
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:23:14 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Dec30.000629.19403@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <11030@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>>  What I'm offended by is
>>  someone who blazes into our newsgroup making a rash of potentially
>>  true statements, but then shows less regard for the scientific
>>  method than does a high school sophomore dissecting his first
>>  frog.
>
>Yes, they are potentially true statements, that's they were to be discussed.
>What do you mean by "showing less regard..."?? Show me where I say so.

   If you knew what I was referring to, we wouldn't need to be
   having this discussion.  A few hints:  proper methodology.  Peer
   review.  Providing access to all of your data.  Other similarly
   trivial points.


>--
> __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
>/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
>\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
>   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'


  What's the matter?  Don't like a fair fight?

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

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
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Science and choice
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: world, public
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 10:34:19 GMT

Robert  Johnston (rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
: In article <BzDr52.3BI@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Sha
wn Green) writes:
: >In article <1992Dec16.030334.20463@nmsu.edu> epowers@spock.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
 writes:
: >  [stuff about science implying determinism deleted]
: >
: >> 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.
: >
: >I will quickly admit that I am way out of my depth here, so maybe someone wh
o
: >knows something can help me out.  Doesn't chaos theory say that not every
: >event could be predicted even if you had perfect knowledge of everything tha
t
: >was happening in the universe at that moment in time?  If this is true, scie
nce
: >would not necessitate a deterministic philosophy.
: >
: >Comments/corrections from any net.physics-types?
: >
: >
: >Shawn Green
: >greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
:
: Not quite right. According to chaos theory, minute fifferences in
: starting conditions will cause completely divergant results. Furthermore,
: accordding to the uncertainty principle, starting positions can't be exactly
: known. From these two we can conclude that whether or not the universe
: is deterministic, we, as observers, can never completely determine what
: will occur.
:
: Robert Johnston
:

So, exactly how does this obviate free will?  If my brain is a chaotic system 
with a built-in feed back loop (which is how I can think about my thoughts) 
then why is this necessarily deterministic?
-- 
Mike McAngus (mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)| Let the raucous sleigh bells ringle   | Tom
The Truth is still the Truth	   | Hail our dear old fried Chris Kringle |Lehrer
Even if you choose to ignore it.   | Driving his reindeer across the sky
I wasn't sure if anyone would join | Don't stand underneath when they fly by.
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 28 Dec 92 19:47:20 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Dec28.003534.15314@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec27.162821.4675@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>>
>>This is still statistically insignificant, anecdotal evidence.
>
>1000 people statistically insignificant?

It is insignificant unless you can show that those 1000 people
were selected according to a rigorous and trustworthy sampling
method, and that there is a corresponding control group to which 
they can be compared (suitably defined in context of the question
under consideration), and, in general, unless all the standard
procedures of scientific sampling are observed.

Certainly, someone's personal opinion about 1 or a thousand or a
million people is statistically insignificant.

>>: >Where is your statistical study of this area of intelligence?
>>:
>>: On my desk.
>>
>>Could you post the results and email a copy to me?
>
>No thanks. Only to a person who does something with them.

I wonder whether you realize that saying this amounts to admitting
that you have no such study? Operationally, if anyone claims to
have documentation that proves something, and then refuses to
produce it when asked to by the people to whom he or she made
the claim, the refusal has the effect of such an admission.

>>Given that Mr. Doe and I are arguing that your personal experiences are not 
>>significant, pointing to your belief and saying that Xians will suppress 
>>evidence is begging the question.
>
>If you don't find my experiences significant, why don't you have some experien
>ces for yourself. This isn't a thesis or anything, just a sincere observation.
>Anybody saying that my 'thesis' is not substatiated or sounds stupid, can say
>what they want, because I don't have a thesis.

You are weakening your own position by engaging in this sort of
mudslinging. Mike and Stephen have questioned your observations
and asked you to produce some evidence that supports them. This
is perfectly reasonable behavior on their part, and a natural
part of reasoned discourse. Your response, on the other hand,
has been to repay reason with snideness and insult, and to decline
to participate in a rational discussion. The longer you
continue in this vein, the more damage you do your own reputation.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24570 talk.religion.misc:24773
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 30 Dec 92 10:33:03 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <parsons.725691151@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
|[Deletions from previous posts.]
|
|>	1.)  Why did your god "deliever into the hands of Satan" such a
|>	     righteous man as Job?  Why did your god need to torture a
|>	     true believer?  Wasn't his obedience and faithfulness enough?
|>	     Or is it just your gods form of entertainment?
|
|Satan was the one coming before God accusing Job of only serving God
|for the cash, land, camels, sheep, etc.  So, to prove Satan wrong He
|allowed Satan to rake Job over the coals.  It wasn't so much to punish
|or torture (as you put it) Job, as to put Satan in his place.  That's 
|just MH interpretation of the story.  And, in the end God blesses Job 
|seven times more than he had to begin with; which just goes to prove
|Romans 8:28, "And we know that all things work together for good to
|them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his]
|purpose."

Uh huh.  And what about the ten sons and daughters, and who knows
how many servants, that were killed over this little challenge?
Don't they count?  Or are they just another kind of possession?
How was good worked out toward them?

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Rabid theists
Date: 22 Dec 1992 20:08:34 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


	I am looking at a dime (American 10 cent or 10% of a dollar coin)
and the front has President FDR , "LIBERTY" and "IN GOD WE TRUST". 
The back has a torch, leaves, the words "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA",
"ONE DIME" and the words (small) E Pluribus Unum.


-- 
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: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A little food for thought (pizza?)
Date: 1 Jan 93 00:03:12 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

[reply to jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu]
 
>Oh wow, I can't seem to get off this durn computer. I posted about ten
>articles tonight, its after three in the morning, and I'm still doing
>it.  Ok, here goes with this one. I think that the meaning of life is
>life itself. Q: LIFE = ?     A: LIFE = LIFE
 
Three in the morning is the right time to be asking such questions.  I
remember debating this and related questions in college into the wee
hours.  I think that at that time the answer really did matter to me.
Now I realize that the question is meaningless.  The more interesting
question to me is why people have to ask what the meaning of life is.
 
When I was going through my adolescent angst or existential crisis or
whatever you want to call it, my main concern was to define myself.  I
had previously been defined by my parents and dependant on them for
everything.  Assuming responsibility for oneself is scary.  So we look
for the "meaning of life" to tell us what to do, how to behave, how to
handle this big shift.  I wanted to know what God's rules were, just as
children are happier when they know their boundaries.
 
In particular, I wanted to know that there was something "big out there"
(the idea of the Christian God was too unpalatable even then).  In
retrospect, it is clear to me that I was trying to perpetuate the
parent-child relationship.  I believe this is the main reason religion
survives in the face of its patent absurdity.  It is just too much for
some people to relinquish the role of the dependant child and take sole
responsibility for themselves.  The use of paternal imagery in religion
is no accident.

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: did I like miss your point?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 13:23:00 GMT

iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
] 
] What amazes me, is that so many people call themselves Christians, but:
] 
] 1) Have never read the Bible (unless forced at school)
] 2) Don't care about most of the commandments
] 3) Go to church only at Christmas, if at all
] 4) Donate little to the church, if at all
] 
] Have people lost the meaning of Christianity? These people could as well
] be atheists, as it wouldn't change their life much.


as Peter Hampe recently pointed out, the whole
notion of having a bible in the vernacular is
in itself a very MODERN HERETICAL NOTION foiseted
by Factions of the ModernSeXularHumanism upon
the True Believers.

Or did you miss the whole section in your shool
days about the middle ages, not to mention, say
history from 30AD to 1560AD?


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24297 talk.religion.misc:24593
From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Keywords: Bible--psychology--fundamentalism
Date: 25 Dec 92 02:09:10 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:

>And for some mysterious reason, the moderator
>of s.r.c has decided to cull my postings. . . ]

I send email asking about the copyright status of the postings, and
got no response.  (It wasn't obvious to me how much was quoted
from the book and how much was written by the reviewer.)
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Tax the Church
Date: 3 Jan 1993 21:43:36 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
> 
> I can accept tax exemption for non-profit organizations that directly help the
> poor through food, clothing and housing grants; and a tax deduction or 
> exemption for the money donated to directly fund those organizations (i.e. 
> exempt the money United Way gives to other organizations, but tax the portion 
> used for administration costs).

In theory, this makes some sense.  But in pratical application, I don't think 
it's really what I'd like to see, anyways.  Take the United Way, for example. 
If we start taxing the money that they spend on admin costs, all that does 
in effect is furthur increase their admin costs; (tax as another expense of 
running the charity) the money will come out of the money that otherwise would 
go to help people. 

On the surface, it might appeal to our sensibilities; and might make us 
feel less 'cheated' by non-profits, the results might not live up to our
expectations... 

Walter
From: joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Date: 3 Jan 93 19:46:20 GMT
Organization: The Courts of Chaos

In article <1993Jan02.213040.26531@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>
>So, are you convinced there are no ipu's in Mr. Johnston's attic?  What do you
>thing the chances are of finding ipu's in my attic?

couldn't tell ya.  Why have you experienced some?

-- 
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
|Joe.Beiter@arden.linet.org               The Long Island Network Project   |
|The Courts of Chaos Semi-Public Access   Long Island New York: USA         |
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I.Q. & Brains
Date: 30 Dec 92 18:21:17 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA29307; Wed, 30 Dec 92 05:12:47 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA03332; Wed, 30 Dec 92 05:11:03 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0898; Wed, 30 Dec 92 14:10:38 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

Fred Rice types:

>Also, another reason an intelligent person may be "religious" (I do not
>necessarily mean Christian, but religious in a general sense) is
>because s/he is comfortable with, say, a belief
>in a God, and with a lack of evidence for or against such a
>belief, chooses the belief that is most comfortable to him/her.  I
>personally see no problem with this reason for religiosity, as it is
>simply a personal choice in what one is comfortable with in a situation
>where there is no evidence either for or against a particular position.

>(I know some will shout "Occam's Razor", but this does not make the
>above reason for religiosity either wrong or illogical.)

Are you going to imply that belief can be harmless? Seems likely, but,
in case that you imply harmless beliefs, you should define them more
strictly.

With the given absence of evidence for the belief it seems appropriate
that: the belief does not demand (by means of making the believer feel
uncomfortable) to be spread to other people, nor that other people should
act according to the belief, nor that it implies other acts (that are not
imbedded in the culture anyway) of harming other people, nor that it
brings people to ignore evidence against itself IF this evidence can
be found.

This form of belief looks like its own reward when it makes people happy.
It can even be that the majority of beliefs are of this kind and that we
do not notice them in other people almost by definition.

However, most religions are not harmless.
   Benedikt
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Strong Atheism vs. Religions
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 08:02:40 GMT

>Hillel E. Markowitz types:
>
>>on that basis.  The original poster did not demonstrate knowledge
>>of Judaism to argue within its own terms.  An analogy may be
>>someone arguing Einsteinean relativity while demonstrating a
>>knowledge of only Newtonian physics.  While a full knowledge of
>>quantum theory may not be required, a certain level is assumed.

Besides being a poor analogy, this is simply false.

First, there is not a single statement of quantum theory that is relevant
for relativity. Relativity is a purely classical theory.

Second (more subtle), one who knows only Newtonian physics would first
find a discrepancy between theory and experiment. So, assuming intellectual
honesty (I know that is too much but it seems already implicitly assumed in
this discussion), they wouldn't be likely to challenge relativity.

	Sven

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: Ok, truce?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:36:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.220213.7492@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes: >
>>
>>One viewpoint is the "perennial philosophy", i.e. that there is one
>>primordial Truth which every religion contains.  The deeper one
>>understands each religion, the more one sees the similarities in the
>>essences of each religion.
>
>Joseph Campbell also discusses this in his works (I'm reading
>the one about Myth that came from the PBS discussions with
>Bill Moyers).  Campbell had a Jungian view of religion that I
>agree with; that the search for the Godhead is really a search
>for one's inner spirit, and that most creation stories are
>parables of this becoming self-aware.  Campbell shows numerous
>instances of commanality among religions and its creation
>stories.  Really fascinating.
>Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com

That is a good book and a good series from PBS. Maddi's post fits into what
I was going to bring up about Joseph Campbell and this topic. Campbell also
says that religions create myths as metaphors for the mystery inherent in
the universe. He goes on to say that problems arise when the metaphors are 
taken literally, as metaphysical reality. Campbell draws the analogy of a
person walking into a restaurant, seeing 'beefsteak' written on the menu,
and proceeding to eat the menu. Does this sound like any fundies you know of?

Jim "JC" Copeland
--
The Devil is in the details
-- 
Have you washed your brain today?
--
|      Reporter: "Mr. Gandhi, What do you think of Western Civilization?"    |
|      Mr. Gandhi: "I think it would be a good idea!"                        |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism