HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: D.J.Butcher@newcastle.ac.uk (Dave Butcher)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God Is Silly
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:21:38 GMT
Distribution: world, public
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU.


In article <1e07g1INN78f@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>rswiftrw@cc.curtin.edu.au (Rod Swift) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov11.114355.14940@nmsu.edu>, sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>>> In article <92315.021717MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>>In article <n0de5t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org says:
>>> 
>>> It's like this:
>>> 
>>> Weak atheism: "I do not believe that a God exists."
>
>>Bzzzzt.  This is more like agnosticism....
>> 
>>> Strong atheism: "There is no God."
>
>>Correct!  This is atheism.....
>
>Huh?  That *is* a pretty strong assertion.  I believe you when you say
>that you don't believe in God, but your beliefs have no bearing on the
>actually existence (or lack thereof) of this being.
>
>I freely admit to not believing in God.  I choose to do so independent
>of whether or not there actually is a god.
>
>keith

I know of no significant evidence that God exists.  Therefore I operate on the
assumption that God does not exist.
This concedes the possibility that God may exist, but places the balance of
probability strongly in the nonexistence camp.

Dave.
Nb.- Witty Quote goes here.

	D.Butcher@ncl.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Jesus Saves
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:31:07 GMT

Someone had written "Jesus Saves" on the recycling bin down the 
hallway from my office.  Just below it someone else had written in
"True, but does he recycle?"

jc
-- 

What we really need to do to bring peace to the middle-east
is to get the Jews together with the Muslims
and teach them to act like good Christians.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:52:09 -0500 
From: Jennifer Lynn Urso <ju23+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: HERETICS

sorry, but i don't think you can make such a generalization about all
religious people because you just don't know.
have you interviewed every single religious person on earth?
no, i don't think so.
now i don't know if you're an atheist or not-i am.
but as an atheist at least i know that people will believe whatever they
truly believe.  and it's not your place to judge them, just as it's not
their place to judge an atheist.
i mean, i agree that SOME religious fundy preachers are totally full of
shit, but some of them actually believe in what they're saying and
actually DO practice what they preach.  if not them, then maybe their
followers.
YOU JUST DON'T KNOW.
that's the whole point.
so get off your high horse thinking that you're some kind of ultimately
special being just because you've shaken off the shackles of religion.
that was your own choice.
as was mine.
and it's also their choice to believe in what they feel.
i respect that.


jennifer urso:  the oh-so bitter woman of utter blahness(but cheerful
undertones)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: one lab
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:17:38 GMT

In article <1e9e6kINNt7n@pongo.West.Sun.COM> johnch@smaug.West.Sun.COM (John Chandler) writes:
>In article <kmr4.225.721892539@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>>I have been so much more kind to you, than your peers 
>>would be, if you were to publish such proclamations in a scientific 
>>periodical. 
>
>Having read news for a good little while, I see very little similarity
>between it and any scientific periodical.
I think John Baez said it best:
  Dale was not implying that science gets done on usenet; it quite
  obviously doesn't.  Nonetheless it is a tradition on usenet to back up
  ones statements when it is requested to do so.  This is crucial because
  all usenet is is a bunch of invisible people chatting, many of whom have
  never heard of each other, so that argument by authority is worthless.
  If one knows articles that say X, but are not in a position to argue for
  X oneself, it's best not to assert "X" but simply to say "I read X in
  such-and-such place but I am not competent to evaluate this article."

  <1992Jul27.214942.11095@galois.mit.edu>  

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
From: mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Any value in religion?? WAS Re: A Reply to "Sources of 'Real' Atheism
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:53:44 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:
>>bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>>>shari@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Wild and Crazy Kind of Girl) writes:
>>>>	One thing I am interested in finding out is how many athiests or
>>>>agnostics actually think religion has any value??  My dad is an athiest,
>>>
>>>  A quick trip down to your local food bank or soup kitchen is all
>>>  the evidence one needs to see that religion has some practical
>>>  value.  Or walk into the nearest hospital and the odds are good
>>>  that it's run by a religious organization.  
>>
>>It is not enough to show that religion is doing some good. You need be
>>able to show that the good aspects outweigh the bad aspects.
>
>  I need do no such thing.  I answered the question as posed.

I may have missed some of the context in the original question but if
you don't weigh the good and the bad, then I could just as easily say
that murder is of value to society because the now deceased person
won't compete with the rest of us for scarce resources.


>>But what is "Christian" morality. Is it hating everybody that is
>>different than you like homosexuals and blacks? Is it believing that
>>violence and war is the solution to all of our problems? Some of the
>>readers of this group will say, "But those aren't REAL Christians!"
>>Yeah, right. The fact remains that for many people, the Bible teaches
>>them to be racists, bigots, violent, and many other things that I
>>consider to be wrong.
>
>  I think your view of religion has been somewhat tainted by the
>  very vocal minority.  The majority of the mainstream christians I
>  know (Catholics, Protestants, Jews, etc) are no more hateful or
>  bigoted than their non-religious counterparts, this extraordinaly
>  enlightened bulletin board notwithstanding.  *People* are bigoted
>  and hateful, and while religion make give them an excuse or
>  justification, I'm of the opinion that it actually creates these
>  problems in a small minority of its adherents.  It's the chicken or
>  the egg, I think.

Maybe. But I get very worried when I hear about situations like Prop 9
in Oregon (supposedly a very progressive state) where 44% of that
state voted for the anti-homosexual bill. A proposition in Colorodo
similiar to Prop 9, with slightly less anti-gay rhetoric did in fact
pass. I get worried by the rise in political power of people like Pat
Buchanan, Pat Robertson, David Duke, etc. It distresses me that more
than a century after the Civil War (how's that for an oxymoron) and a
generation after the Civil Rights Movement, racism is alive and well
in this country. Maybe not as overtly as before, but it is still with
us nonetheless.

-- 
Michael Wang
mmwang@mv.us.adobe.com
From: yohan@mercury.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: HERETICS
Date: 23 Nov 1992 18:01:33 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: mercury.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <By4tq0.B56@acsu.buffalo.edu>, boyd@acsu.buffalo.edu (Daniel F Boyd) writes:
>In article <1eh0ifINN5u4@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu 
>(Jonathan W Newton) writes: 
>> Even the most liberal of philosophers will argue that the mandates
>> of the state should take precedence over religious belief when they
>> come into conflict.
>
>Before I go arguing about this, I'd like to ask what you really meant
>by 'mandates of the state'.  A mandate can be either: a command FROM
>the state or permission given TO the state by the people.  If you are
>saying that state-originated orders always take precedence over
>religious beliefs, I think that's wrong.  You would be saying that the
>state can regulate or outlaw any religious practice it feels like for
>whatever reason it feels like supplying.
>
>If by mandate you mean the people's mandate to the state (the
>permission that the people give to the state so that the state has
>legitimate authority) then I have no problems with your statement.  In
>that case, it's implying that a religious belief can't take precedence
>over the social contract between the people and the government --
>which makes more sense.
>
>-- 
>Daniel F. Boyd -- boyd@cs.buffalo.edu         -a +X -x -e -m -S -F"> "
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>((lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x))) 
> (quote (lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x)))))

I meant the second example, and I had hoped that my statements after the original
quote in the original article clarified that.

Jon Newton
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Misquamicus)
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:36:05 GMT
Distribution: na
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Nov16.211310.29954@news.cs.brandeis.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>
>>You may have missed his point on Occam's Razor.  You have provided two
>>explanations of the universe, one with God and one without.  Both are 
>>possibilities, but unless there is some compelling reason, logic justifies
>>the one without God.
>
>Occam's razor is a tool by which one chooses among various scientific models.
>It doesn't apply to choosing between a religious model and a scientific model.  
>The two are independant of each other.

Circular reasoning. This is what you are trying to proove, no?
You have yet to demonstrate this. Science has much to say about religion, and
I daresay the example of L.Ron Hubbard's Dianetics is a good example of a
highly succesful example of a religion designed using various sciences (i.e.
psychology).

Not that I particularly like scientology, I think it is as full of shit as 
christianity. I do admire its success.

-Misquamicus

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject:      Re: God Is Unfair
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 14:13:16 MEZ
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA02449; Mon, 23 Nov 92 09:35:06 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA14121; Mon, 23 Nov 92 05:22:58 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0387; Mon, 23 Nov 92 14:22:27 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

Sven Hauptfeld typed:

>Most Jews don't take the Bible litterally. In Europe, virtually no Xian does
>so. In America, it seems that many do, but I see it as a symptom of a more
>general disease, ilitteracy. I don't consider rational argument with such
>people possible. Religious people with whom you can discuss this do not take
>the Bible at face value.

I live in Europe and happen to know quite a lot of students who take the
bible literally. And I can discuss religion with them. What do you mean with
Europe?

>BTW, if there were God - and an anthropomorphic one - I see no reason why
>he would have to abide by the same moral standards as humans.

Assuming that God refers to the Judaeo-Christian goddess. The bible says that
standards of good and evil come from god. Most would not like to be the
follower of a god that is evil by its own standards.


>Was Solon a tyrrant? Pericles? Augustus? Kharoun-al-Rashid? Charlemagne?
>Suleyman the Magnificent? The Medicis? Frederic the Great? Peter the Great?
>Napoleon? Maybe you'll say yes, but that would mean that you have no sense of
>history. Yahweh was not a tyrrant to contemporary readers.

With the exception of Solon I'd say yes. Futher, have you chosen the names
on purpose? I can find harsh contemporary critics that says that they were
tyrants for almost all of them. Lowering the life quality of one's subjects
is no fun when you are the subject. And many people seem to read history only
because they get kicks out of power worship.
   Benedikt
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: svanegmo@mobius09.math.uwaterloo.ca (Stephen Van Egmond)
Subject: Atheism and Morals was Re: ...and dating
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:09:28 GMT

Not all people determine their morals by the trends of the day.

Others prefer to start with a basic, simple set of axioms, such as:
  1. A person has the right to control his/her own life and the products of that life.

  2. No person may act in such a way that prevents another from enjoying their
life or the products therefrom.


From here, one logically deduces one's code of behaviour, ethics, and morality.  This is called objective morality, rather than subjective ("mooshy") morality, which changes as times change.

From objective morality comes such things as it is wrong to murder, rape, or steal from someone.  That if you want something in your life, you must work for it rather than ride on the backs of the people who do work.

It is a highly effective and (compared to morality by decree from a god) much more comfortable to live by.

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Van Egmond (Power Station)        svanegmond@descartes.uwaterloo.ca
| "Important to remember when dealing with people: it's `I think, therefore
|  I am,' and not `I am, therefore I think.'"
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: World of Religion
Date: 23 Nov 92 21:40:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Nov21.022651.22679@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1dp77aINNm6c@agate.berkeley.edu> meyers@soda.berkeley.edu (Rob Meyers) writes:
>>
>>	  RELIGIOUS VIEWS OF LIFE  
>>
>>          Taoism    Shit Happens.
>>    Confucianism    Confucius say, "Shit happens."
>>        Buddhism    If shit happens, it isn't really shit.
>>             Zen    What is the sound of shit happening?
>>        Hinduism    This shit happened before.
>>           Islam    If shit happens, it is the will of Allah. 
>>   Protestantism    Let shit happen to someone else.
>>     Catholicism    If shit happens, you deserve it.  
>>         Judaism    Why does shit always happen to us.
>>     Agnosticism    What is this shit.
>>         Atheism    I don't believe this shit.
>>  Rastafarianism    Lets smoke this shit.
>>		       
>>
>I have heard an expanded version, containing also:
>
> Eastern Orthodoxy   Shit happens due to Vatican-Jewish-Masonic conspiracy.
>      Hare Krishna   Shit happens, shit happens, happens, shit happens...
>     Televangelism   Send me $1,000,000 or shit will happen to you!

Don't forget:

           Nihilism   No shit.
          Shamanism   HOLY SHIT!!
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Jesus predicted? (was Re: Cure the Believers!)
Date: 16 Nov 92 09:24:05 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

James Marcus (jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au) wrote:
: dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:
: 
: >In article <1992Nov12.130951.165091@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
: >>dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:
: >>
: >>> [ more stuff deleted ]
: >>
: >>Todays translations of the Bible (mostly) come from the original Hebrew
: >>and Greek texts, not from word of mouth!  If you compare the different
: >>translations, you will see that they say the same things (although the
: >>wording is often slightly diffferent - but the meaning is the same).
: 
: >Only problem is the bible wasn't written until well after the fact/fiction.
: 
: The Old Testament was written before the birth of Christ, which foretold
: His birth, life, death and resurection which was to come (i.e. before the
: fact).  The New Testament was the fulfilment of the Old Testament, and was
: written (mostly) by those who were alive when Jesus was alive.  They witnessed
: the events, and the events were nothing minor, they dramatically influenced
: society at the time - rather difficult to forget!  Continuing after the
: following short words..

Present for us some of these predictions, and let's consider them together.

Felicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: HERETICS
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 06:29:58 GMT

In article <dpn2.117.722144700@po.CWRU.Edu> dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:
>In article <92323.211145MHB108@psuvm.psu.edu> <MHB108@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>Especially those weirdo's who pretend that
>>they can heal people .
>
>There are few of those compared to the rest of the theist population. Ignore 
>them. They aren't hurting you, so why bother with them.

It may not be so obvious that they hurt unbelievers, but it should be fairly
obvious that they can do a lot of damage to people who believe the tripe.
For example, people who should be getting real medical treatment often
forgo it in favour of treatment by these hucksters.  I believe that there
are laws against most types of fraud.  Why should fraud suddenly become
acceptable when it is labeled religion?

Recommended reading:  James Randi's _The Faith Healers_
--
Should the human race not be extinguished by a nuclear war, it will degenerate
into a flock of stupid, dumb creatures under the tyranny of dictators who rule
them with the help of machines and electronic computers.  This is no prophecy,
just a nightmare.  -- Max Born.   **** dgraham@bnr.ca    My own opinions. ****
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Nipples or bellybuttons
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:10:47 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Nov23.024713.13676@massey.ac.nz>, G.A.Arias@massey.ac.nz (G A Arias) writes:
> Someone writes:
> 
>>As the female was created, 
>>and she had to nurse the children she'll bear, the nipple offered a 
>>conviencient local for placing the "spicket". After all, if the "spicket" 
>>was on her back, she'll be less able to hold the baby while suckling.
> 
> In that case I think that the most convinient place for the "spicket"
> would be the bellybutton. After all, we have just one so the female
> wouldn't have to change from one side to the other (as with nipples)
> which makes her really clumpsy... I think it's more relaxed for the arms too.

Nah. You have to be prepared for twins. As for relaxing the arms, try holding
a heavy child that low, and see how relaxing and less clumsy it is. And bear
in mind, if you are male, that women tend to have much less upper-arm strength.

See? God's still being logical :)

--Semhaza
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh)
Subject: Re: Question for ex-Christians
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 20:57:25 GMT

From article <1992Nov20.225944.20500@adobe.com>, by mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang):
>Some of you ex-Christians have posted about bad experiences with
>religion and other such events that caused you to seriously reconsider
>your beliefs and to eventually give up your belief in God. Others have
>posted saying they never really believed in God as youths and are
>atheists by default. I'm curious if there are also ex-Christians out
>there who became atheists or agnostics (AorA) because of a discussion
>with an AorA. I know none of us would ever try to convert Christians
>;-), but I was wondering if this sort of thing ever worked.
>
>-- 
>Michael Wang
>mmwang@mv.us.adobe.com

Christianity seems to be "good" for certain types of people, at least 
for a while.  The following are two such types that I have seen:

1. First Generation Christians -- those who "accepted TLJC as their 
personal savior" through some impressionable personal experience with
significant effects on their lives.  These people live every moment
of their lives for "TLJC".  It would be almost impossible for these 
people to get converted, that is, to give-up "TLJC", except perhaps 
through some extraordinary event, such as a great disappointment.

2. N-th Generation Christians -- those who were born into a family
that had been Christians for N generations and much of their social 
ties are built within their church and around their church people's
norms.  These people are comfortable where they are.  They have too 
many friends to lose by leaving the church.  These people would not 
even consider getting converted, unless perhaps they notice that 
the fanaticism and/or hypocracy around them went too far into the
extremes for them to live with.

Now, the "best" or "worst" things could happen to a person who has 
BOTH of the above types of Christians as parents.  
Such is the story of my life.

Young Huh
yhuh@ihlpe.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: gmiller@worldbank.org (Gene C. Miller)
Subject: Re: Circumcision (was Re: God Is Unfair)
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: worldbank.org
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:42:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.151948.215@ncsu.edu>, awmurray@eos.ncsu.edu (ALAN
WAYNE MURRAY) wrote:
> 
> You're only
> acting like a loyal robot for God and His word.  Tell me, did you have
> a burnt offering as well or was that part skipped?  Did your wife stay
> "unclean" and "touch nothing holy" for the prescribed period of time
> (30+days)?
>  
To begin to answer my own earlier query, the 15th Britannica (always a fun
place to start) says re: circumcision: "...The origin of the practice is
unknown. The widespread ethnic distribution of circumcision as a ritual and
the quite widely preferred early use of a stone knife rather than a metal
one suggest the great antiquity of the operation. Only the Indo-Germanic,
the Mongol, and the Finno-Ugrian peoples were unacquainted with the
practice..." So it would seem that the Judeo-Christian tradition has no
special claim to it; therefore both defenses of it and attacks upon it from
that basis may be rather parochial. Gene
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mudge@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (MUDGE BRIAN WAYNE)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 03:27:04 GMT

Sombody posted:

>>Evetually they will respond with gas and pink triangles. Be careful.

  Which reminds me of something interesting I found out the other day.
  Remember all those homosexuals rounded up by the Nazis?  Well, I found out
that the ones who survived the death/prison camps were not set free
when the camps/prisons were "liberated".
  Seems homosexuality was still considered a crime under german law, and the
occupiers let it stand.
                            Bri...