HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stoesser@i31s21.ira.uka.de (Achim Stoesser)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Blasphemy in Greece
Date: 21 Jul 1992 11:42:43 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: i31s21.ira.uka.de

In article <emc.711295828@reg>, emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
|> >Recently a Greek judge ordered a shoe manufacturer to stop producing
|> >shoes, because these shoes were blasphemous. A priest had sued him [the
|> >manufacturer], because the soles showed x-shaped patterns; those wearing
|> >the shoes trampled upon this Christian symbol.
|> >May Christians who innocently bought such shoes wear them? Yes, says the
|> >priest. They simply have to cut off one of the beams of each + with a razor
|> >blade to make it a T.
|> >Strange, I always thought that the _real_ devices used for crucifixion were
|> >T-shaped (any historians or time travelers out there?).
|> 
|> Not so strange.  I grew up in Israel and my particular schoolteacher (not
|> a reflection on everybody) taught us to change the + in 1+2 into an upside
|> down T.  This was to avoid any references to Christianity.
|> 
|> I believe however that the cross symbol predates Christianity.  Anyone
|> know for sure?

Yes, definitely. Several kinds of crosses were uses as religious symbols.
One of the oldest was the Swastika, if my memory serves (no kidding).
 
 							        Achim
_____________________________________________________________________

I'm an anarchist, atheist, pacifist, and vegetarian.  This does _not_
mean that I'd bomb kings, worship Satan, let soldiers bleed to death,
or eat fish.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hanlon@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Casey Hanlon (SVER))
Subject: jesus jokes
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 30 Jul 1992 08:45 EST  

Seems jesus walked into town one day just in time to see the women of the
town ready to stone the local whore to death.  So jesus says "yea that 
hath not sin cast the first stone".  Well the women were suddenly stricken
with shame and one by one dropped their rocks, bowed their heads in shame
and walked off.  All but one that is.  Well this one old woman dropped her
rock, found a larger one from those dropped by the other women, threw it
and hit the whore in the head and killed her.  Well jesus just stood
there for a moment shaking his head.  After a few moments had passed he
said to the old woman, "GOD DAMMIT MOM, SOMETIMES YOU PISS ME OFF".

Casey Hanlon 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Subject: Re: 'Nuther g*d joke
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 23:09:39 GMT


	Why does the writer put an asterisk in the word "god"
	E.G. "g*d" ?

-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries, reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips     |personal E-mail:bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
alias: White Rook     |   NWROC E-mail:aphillip@heartland.bradley.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: phantom@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (James Choi)
Subject: What is Dead Sea Scroll and was it released?
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 17:46:56 GMT

I could not find this in FAQ.  Pardon me if this was discussed before.  I
am new in this group.

What is Dead Sea Scroll?  It is an early version of Bible?
Is it released from Harvard now?

James Choi
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rswiftrw@cc.curtin.edu.au (Rod Swift)
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Organization: -=[ Curtin University ]=-  Perth, Australia.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 13:23:16 GMT

In article <graham.711863498@galois>, graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:

> (Steve Timpson) writes:

>>        I  am a theistic evolutionist.  In other words I believe that God
>>        started the  ball  rolling and evolutions then took over.  I have
>>        no arguments to  support  my  belief  and I will not even try.  I
>>        couldn't care less whether  anyone  believes  in God or not and I
>>        don't believe God cares either.
> 
> Why did God bother with evolution? Why not just make everything as it is
> now?

Prolly for the same reason that he gave us free choice, when he could have
made us to religiously serve him like mindless newts.

ObAltAtheist:  Christians are mindless newts.

Rod
-- 
|            . . .   . . . . .        "Dear God.  We paid for all this stuff|
|        +  +  +     +  +  +  +  +        ourselves, so thanks for nothing."|
|    *   *   *       *   *   *   *   *                                      |
|R    o    d         S    w    i    f    t      -- Bart Simpson saying grace|
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Internet: RSwiftRW@cc.curtin.edu.au               School of Social Sciences|
|PSImail : psi%050529452300070::RSwiftRW                   Curtin University|
|Bitnet  : RSwiftRW%cc.curtin.edu.au@cunyvm.bitnet             GPO Box U1987|
|UUCP    : uunet!munnari.oz!cc.curtin.edu.au!RSwiftRW        Perth  WA  6000|
From: che755v@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Memes and belief (was Re: Why do I post here?)
Date: 24 Jul 92 12:01:13 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

In article <1992Jul23.032716.15681@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>
> meme arn't necessarily bad, they are subject to natural selection, some
> have there power to "infect" from fear and force, some like science continue
> because they reward the "believer".

I feel that my Christianity is "rewarding"

>
> The religious meme's are generally parasites that rule through fear and
> disable there victims inorder to maintain there hold, often they are
> not freely chosen, but rather chosen under duress (you will burn in
> hell if you don't believe).

I didn't choose to become a Christian through fear of "burning in hell"
(But yes, I do believe that refusing to acknowledge God won't go down
well)

>
> Choosing to believe science and logic is a freely made choice.

I don't really agree with this.  My reading of your posting is that
you are saying "People are brow-beaten, forced, cajoled, dragooned, etc.
into believing in religions but believing in science and logic is a free
choice."  It is my belief that many people feel equally forced into
"believing" science, not necessarily because they are religious but
because they fear being branded "ignorant".  It seems to me that
there is a kind of "intellectual elitism" around the words
"science" and "scientific" such that if these words can't be
associated with an idea ("scientific proof", "scientific theory") it
becomes "second class", "inferior" somehow deficient.

> The reward side of the reason/science meme is the ability to predict
> the future, and gain some understanding. On the otherhand it makes
> you aware that you are ignorant of many things.
>
> The reward side of the religion meme is the ability to ignore your
> ignorance and to be comfortable believing that you have the answers.
> On the otherhand it makes it impossible for you to see the real
> answers.

I don't believe that I have all the answers but I don't see that it
is obvious that the "real answers" will all be provided by science.
You on the other hand seem conditioned to believe that the only
valid answers are "scientific" ones.  (see above)

Peter D. Thomas
Cenre for High Resolution Spectroscopy and Opto-Electronic Technology
Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Oh no, not again ( was Re: lighten up, people
Date: 29 Jul 92 12:43:16 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <Bs2zzz.3wG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mr. Mensa ) writes:

>               Because God loves man so much, He gave to us free
>               will to do whatever we wish in life. There is no
>               predestination--we have total free will.  Because He
>               is omniscient, God knows full well what we will do
>               with our free will,

Think of it this way:
God is omniscient = God knows every action of every object in the 
                    universe throughout all of time.
This is equivalent to saying that there exists a map which details your 
exact path through life - before you even begin to travel that path.
The map must be correct, or God would not be omniscient.
Can you, at any point on the map, affect the path of your life?
You cannot, for this would change the map, making the old version 
incorrect, which would mean God is not omniscient.
Therefore, either:
God is omniscient but we do not have free will;
God is not omniscient and we may have free will;
The definition of omniscience is incorrect, and we may have free will;
There is no God, and we may have free will.
Note the use of 'may have': I feel that the laws of physics also perhaps 
preclude the possibility of free will.
NB.  I am undecided as to whether a God exists.  What I'm interested in at 
the moment is the free will question only.


+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  I don't take part in any sport that requires me to change clothes  |
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44)061-275-6033  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Praying to Mecca?
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:05:45 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <RLK.92Jul21114958@lamby-poo.think.com> rlk@lamby-poo.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:
>In article <k45XNB4w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>
>   > But why 5 times a day? Why not 3? Why not 7?
>
>   It's the LAW OF FIVES, Graham.
>

Oh yeah, it's the law of fives, Graham.  I forgot to mention it :))

>ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Wednesday, 22 Jul 1992 11:03:59 CDT
From: <U55870@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why do I post here (was: prayer)
 <dabrowsk.710210067@liveboard10> <9907@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>
 <dabrowsk.711462319@liveboard10> <92201.004656U55870@uicvm.uic.edu>
 <dabrowsk.711533515@liveboard10>

In article <dabrowsk.711533515@liveboard10>, dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek
Dabrowski) says:
>
>         ORGANIZATIONAL NOTE

  Who do you think you are, god or something???

>
>You are welcomed to any of 'my' threads, DAVE!!!. But remember, there's
>only one "Jarek, where are you" game. In other places, please behave.

  Listen, I won't even try to get involved in a philosiphical discussion
with you.  I do think many of those points about you I brought up were,
in fact true.  I have yet to see any kind of rational discussion with you
on the net.  Basically, you make silly semantic arguements state things
'are so' and claim you've won, rarely appearing to notice anything anyone
else has said.  I would killfile you, but I am still subjected to your
pathetic babble when I view the articles of others.

  Mabye I should just avoid 'your' threads.  Mabye everyone should...


  --DAVE!!
From: marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: It's just my opinion...
Date: 31 Jul 92 11:12:02 -0500
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <dowe.1.712456144@ace.acadiau.ca>, MARK DOWE <dowe@ace.acadiau.ca> writes:
> But I find it impossible to believe in anything without a shred of credible
> evidence. What I really think is a shame is that so many children are fed a 
> religious diet before they have had the chance to learn how to think, and
> thus are capable of making thier own decisions about the existence of gods.

So instead they should be fed an atheistic diet?  No.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ury@humus.cs.huji.ac.il (My Friend Of Misery)
Subject: Re: OFFENCE
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 09:12:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul17.080324@scri.fsu.edu>, christodal@scri.fsu.edu writes:

|> ABOUT DIFFERENT VIEWS  AND ENJOY IT, BUT I DON'T ENJOY CHRISTIANS ATTEMPTING TO
|> CONVERT ME.  I THINK THAT SO LONG AS NO ON ATTEMPTS TO CONVERTS ANYONE TO ONE
|> BELIEVE OR ANOTHER THERE SHOULD BE NO OFFENCE.  ANY ONE WHO IS OFFENDED WHEN I
|> SAY 'I DON'T BELIEVE IN ANY GOD' IS NOT WORTH MY TIME.
|> 
|> 
|>      BECKIE CHRISTODAL

Damn right. This newsgroup is NOT ment to discuss atheism, not for atheism vs.
theism. If there is no newsgroup for that, maybe one can be created. Reading
this newsgroup, ppl should know that it's about the non-existance of god.
There are a lot of questions, like "So let's define good", but answering 
"God can tell" is NOT belong to this newsgroup. Jarek, U realy think you can convert
anyone? Some people here (also me) fight thier socaiety and family so they
can live their own life. I hope you understand that keeping telling them how
god is good and strong and know all and logical and nice-looking will make
them fill better now. I want to start a new life. Why you must keep reminding
me all the unpleasent fights I had ?
-- 
Ury Segal          | The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the 
ury@cs.huji.ac.il  | University or IBM, Digital, Apple, HP or anyone else.
Phone: 02-971187   | They are mine, LO MIN HAHEFKER, as Bialik once said.
DISCLAIMER: I don't spell and I don't care.
From: aa485@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Strekal)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: god violates physical
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:14:43 GMT
Reply-To: aa485@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Strekal)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

In a previous article, neal.abrams@execnet.com (neal abrams) says:
 
>     What about the human ability to choose between right and wrong?
>Animals don't appear to have such an ability, yet it's apparent that
>humans do.
 
It is?
 
>     What about the human ability to love?  Animals don't love nor do
>they have pride?
 
Do you know this with 'certainty'?  Can you substantiate this claim?
 
> Can animals create?
 
They seem to be rather successful in creating their own kind.
 
> Do they have an imagination? 
 
I don't know, do you?
 
John Strekal
From: bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Positive and negative assertions
Date: 23 Jul 92 10:40:28 GMT
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool, UK
Nntp-Posting-User: bruce

>>>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 1992 07:38:14 PDT, Jarek Dabrowski <dabrowsk.PARC@com.xerox> said:

> In <graham.711333327@galois> Graham Matthews replies to Bruce Stephens's
> remark on the Occam Razor and the justification of atheism:

> -Bruce:
>>>My own feeling is that Occam's razor is sufficient justification.
> -Graham:
>>Occam's Razor is not a *justification* of anything. It is a means
>>of arbitrarily chosing between certain things. 
>>
> Indeed. But some people say "I cut here BECAUSE it looks TO ME simpler
> and nicer after the operation". The Razor is only a tool, but its USAGE
> must be justified by subjectively fixed though objectively arbitrary
> criteria. Otherwise... To behead without any justification =:-|?  

True.  I suspect most theists would argue that their beliefs explain
their experiences better; that is, they are not choosing the simpler
explanation of two equally supported hypotheses, they are choosing the
one which seems to them superior in its evidential support.

If one doesn't have such supportive evidence (I'm thinking of
receiving unexpected help just after praying, and that sort of thing)
or one is happy to accept materialistic explanations, then I really
think that the hypothesis of a world without an omnipotent, omniscient
being *is* objectively simpler than a hypothesis of a world with one.

> Best wishes,
>              Jarek
> ------------------------------------------------------
>  .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
>  `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
> I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET

Bruce
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Electronic Matchmaker
Date: 28 Jul 92 09:38:05 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <1992Jul27.010803.1@acad2.alaska.edu> atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu writes:

>    you ever get so many women you need to recruit some old married guys,
>    let me know.

Tsk!  Isn't that just typical of those degenerate Godless atheists!?*!
(yes i know 'godless atheist' is a needlessly repetitive tautology)

Bring back Family Values!
(starring Meredith Baxter Birney ???!)


;->

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  I don't take part in any sport that requires me to change clothes  |
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44)061-275-6033  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 18:38:43 GMT

mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:

>skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>> Free will is best defined (IMO) by what it is not.  Free will is the
>> opposite of will that is forced, coerced, or compelled.  For instance,
>> if I tell my son that he'd better clean his room, OR ELSE _______
>> (fill in the blank), he does not have free will w.r.t. cleaning his
>> room.

(Aside: I am working on a cleaner definition.)

>So I do not have free will.  For example, I don't have free will with respect
>to breathing underwater.  God chose to deny me that choice.

I'm not clear on this.  Who is forcing, coercing, or compelling you
not to breathe underwater?

I could say that, yes, you do have that choice, with its definite
consequences, but I don't think that is what you mean.  I think you're
talking about free will w.r.t. doing what is humanly impossible.
Based on that assumption I will answer your question.

>So... the next question is, why is the freedom to misrepresent God's word so
>important when millions of other freedoms aren't?

Free will is important only w.r.t. things that are possible for us.
As God chooses what things are possible for us, what makes up our free
will is entirely an arbitrary decision on God's part.  So, I might
paraphrase your question as, "Why did God give us the freedom to
misrepresent his word?"  I don't know his motivations there.
--
Gregg Skinner  g-skinner@uiuc.edu   I do not speak for any organization.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14614 soc.culture.pakistan:12900 soc.culture.arabic:2942 talk.politics.mideast:17398
From: m21757@mitre.org (G)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:08:19 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <11131@crackers.clearpoint.com> martillo@stars.clearpoint.com 
(Joachim Martillo) writes:

>  Islam must be consigned to the garbage dump of
> history, and those who cling to Islam are culties who must be
> deprogrammed.

It appears you feel it is the root or basis of Islam that is pure evil, 
and this is why 'bad' things happen within Muslim countries.  Is it just 
Islam that you have a problem with or is it patriarchical societies?  How 
much of what goes on in 
"Islamic countries" is a result of a patriarchical society's 
interpretation of Islam, and how much of it is Islam itself?  Are there 
other systems in which no 'bad' things happen?  Thanks for any replies.

G
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Mathematical concepts (Re: Sneezing
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 12:41:00 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
> In article <LV5NoB11w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
> >>   these mathematical concepts are true 
> 
> >Ooer.  That feels like a very strong assertion to me.  I can't quite pin dow
> >what it is about it that makes me uneasy, though...
> 
> Was it the bit I've not edited away above?

No, I think it was the bit about mathematical concepts being true whether
we're here or not.

>                                                  Coz of course mathematical 
> concepts are just concepts and have no other reality whatsoever.  Now doesn'
> t the definition of 'concept' somehow involve minds, and hence brains, which 
> the original poster claimed were unnecessary in this context?

Yeah, that's it.  I'm uneasy about claims that mathematical truths would
still be true in any conceivable universe, with or without the presence of
human beings.


mathew

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: lighten up, people
Keywords: faith
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:25:06 GMT

In article <18@genco.bungi.com> rad@genco.bungi.com (Bob Daniel) writes:
>In article <Bs17E3.Ku1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mr. Mensa ) writes:
>>duncan@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Duncan McCardle) writes:
>>	and I believe in God. I believe that He (or whatever pc pronoun you
>>	see fit to insert) created the Universe. BUT: I also believe 100% in
>>	the natural laws that control the Universe (ie Big Bang, Worm Holes,
>>	Black Holes, etc.) I am VERY interested in correspondance with someone
>>	who has a differing opinion on this.
>
>Not illogical perhaps, but it certainly is speculation.  Is this god a being?
>How could one know.  I have some semi-Deistic tendancies of thinking there
>is a creator of some sort but I recognize it as speculation w/out basing any
>metaphysical beliefs on it.  Applying any attributes to 'the cause' can 
>lead into a series of speculations which increase exponentially and (likely)
>further away from the "truth".
>
>I noticed you say "believe".  Does this mean you have faith in the Big Bang,
>Worm Holes, etc., actually occurring?  I'm not a scientist but read up on
>the latest in cosmology in Scientific American and am beginning to realize
>how faith based cosmology is becoming (not as objective as science should be).
>This is intended to be an observation and not a bash as my only major source
>of the science is just one magazine.  I'd be interested in hearing from you 
>any beliefs or certainties to validate the claims in cosmology.  I'm just 
>as much a skeptic of claims of cosomology as I am skeptic of theistic claims.
>guess that makes me the truely objective; to be objective towards cosmology 
>("objective science?"). :-)  Do you feel most cosmologists are psuedo-
>scientists?

If I may butt in here, I have to reply that no, I don't think most
cosmologists are pseudo-scientists.  There is a great deal of
convincing evidence for standard Big-Bang cosmology.  In particular:

1)  The redshifts of other galaxies;

2)  The cosmic microwave background (take a look at the recent COBE
results too);

3)  The primordial abundances of light elements (H, He, Li and Be).

Any competing theory must explain these phenomena as well as Big Bang
theory.  Would also be nice if in addition the theory could account
for phenomena the Big Bang may not account for.  No theory is perfect;
in the future the Big Bang model may be superseded or modified.  At
present, however, Big Bang is the best theory.

Cheers,




----------------------------------------------------------------
 Stephen M. Doe     |         E=mc^2            |    Send me
 sdoe@nmsu.edu      | It's not just a good idea |     money
 Dept. of Astronomy |      It's the law.        |  you bastards
Newsgroups: alt.atheism