HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 23 Dec 92 08:43:32 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

[reply to adams@spss.com]
 
>I oppose abortion.  I *personally* believe abortion to be wrong, and to
>be killing unborn children.  That view is based PURELY on religious
>belief, and my understanding of the process and meaning of conception
>in light of my Christian  belief.  What I *REFUSE* to do is impose that
>view on any other person.  Our system of government is NOT meant to be
>religious, and is meant to protect the *INDIVIDUAL* rights of each
>person, as defined under our Constitution.  Under our laws, a fetus is
>NOT a person.
 
>That said, abortion is legal, and is *A* responsible action in
>response to an unwanted pregnancy.  As such, since I am commanded by
>the Bible to follow the laws passed by the leaders of this country, I
>follow the laws.  I truly believe that it is improper to enforce my
>version of morality on society.  As such, although I have religious
>beliefs about such issues as abortion, gay rights, etc, etc, my
>position is that I will NEVER impose such rules on society, and that I
>will treat each and every person as an equal and with compassion.  The
>only people who need to be concerned about my moral beliefs are my
>family and my church.
 
I commend your resolve not to let your religious beliefs interfere with
others' rights.  If members of all religions felt this way, the world
would be a better place.  So don't take what follows as an attempt to
dissuade you from this position but as, well, philosophical recreation.
 
If you believe that abortion is murder then it must be morally wrong at
all times for everyone.  It would be inconsistent to hold that it would
be immoral for you if you were a woman to have an abortion but not for
someone else to.  Don't we all have an obligation to prevent an immoral
act from occurring if we can do so without causing greater immorality?
If so, to be morally consistent, you should do all that is legal to
oppose abortion, such as voting against pro-choice candidates and
voicing in public your opposition to abortion.  You should not say that
whether another has an abortion is their own business unless you believe
that it is more immoral to try to influence the affairs of others than
to allow murder.
 
We atheists of course avoid this problem because we deny the existence
of a soul or any other kind of mind/body duality.  Killing is wrong in
our view not because it deprives a soul of its human body but because it
deprives a sentient being of the esperience of life.  The more sentient
the being, the worse the crime.  Killing an adult ape is thus worse than
killing a fetus which is not yet capable of any self-awareness.  In our
eyes, it is morally inconsistent to be against abortion unless one is
also a vegitarian.

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24663 talk.religion.misc:24839
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: In Job, Lucifer was proved right!
Date: 31 Dec 92 06:40:10 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:

>In the story, after his last tribulation, when Job is suffering
>disease, loss of loved ones, and poverty, he curses and rebukes
>Yahweh.

Curses, I don't think so.  Rebukes, yes, he does do that, doesn't he?

>Yahweh gets pissed off at Lucifer -- because Lucifer had
>fooled him or because Lucifer was correct about Job? -- and
>restores Job to health, familial love, and wealth.  

Huh?  Lucifer is never even *mentioned* is the book.  Satan is, but he
doesn't show up after the end of the first chapter, and Job doesn't
start to bitch about God until chapters 29-31.

-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: patc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Pat Caldon)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 12:49:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.224717.1993@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>Am I seeing wrongly, or is there a connection between one's IQ and one's
>religiousness? Of all people I know, I know only about 8 exceptionally smart
>people (IQ>125), and all of them happen to be atheists. On the contrary, the 
>dumbest people I've seen (eg. unable to use a remote control) are the most
>religious. Observing other atheists that I don't know (from this group for
>example) leads me to make a conclusion that on the average, atheists have a
>much better sense of logic (and thus usually have a higher IQ) and think much
>more clearly than religious people. From my own experiences, I can say that
>freeing oneself from the grasp of religion requires a certain level of logical
>thinking. Coincidentally, all these 8 people are mathematically gifted.
>When I speak of atheism here, I mean it to be a lack of belief in any god or
>superstition.
>Opinions?
>

It's quite probable that it's because to become an atheist, one has to
question the existing norm, and has to apply and train oneself in logic.
(Well not _have_ to, but to be a rational atheist, as most are, you do.)
On the other hand to be a christian all you need is "faith", and no
skill with logic at all. As such you may be quite intelligent, but
without the skill in logic either to appear logical or to pass tests
based on logic. (Like IQ tests) "But isn't logic the same as intelligence?"
To which the answer is moot.

>BTW, if this offended you, go to a church instead of coming to alt.atheism.

I find it objectionable, and most churches aren't too keen on my presence...

-- 
Pat Caldon.            |  The Mercy Seat is Burning, And I think my Head is 
patc@extro.ucc.su.oz.au| turning, and deep inside I'm longing to be done with
3:714/908.5@fidonet.org| all this weighing up of truth...  -- Nick Cave
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is Santa Claus God?
Date: 22 Dec 92 21:19:16 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <BzMv94.KpG@dale.cts.com> npm@dale.cts.com (Nancy Milligan) writes:
>There was an article in "Free Inquiry" about a woman who strongly
>believed it was wrong to tell your children about Santa Claus.
>First of all, you're lying to them and what is more devastating
>to a child than to find that their own parents are liars.

There is lying and lying.  Just because you tell someone something
that you know is not true doesn't necessarily make you a liar.
There was a time when my parents told me that my gifts came from
Father Frost (the secular counterpart of Santa Claus).  I soon
realised that this was not exactly the case, but I never thought that
my parents were liars, just that we had been playing a game.

>Secondly, it gives precedence to believing in patently impossible things. 
>Maybe it paves the way to believing in other impossible things 
>later in life -- like God, fer instance.

Or maybe it doesn't.  Later in life the child's mind won't be the same.
I used to enjoy living in all kinds of fairy-tale worlds, and here I am,
a strong atheist, at your service.  One can grow out of believing in
patently impossible things, just as one grows out of feeding on one's
mother's milk or locomotion by crawling.  (Some never do, though.)

>What do other atheists think about Santa Claus?

Keep him in if you find him helpful.  Which you may or you may not.
I vaguely remember that it was a good thing to discover that the
gifts came from my very own parents, not from some unknown old man.

>And for that matter, how many of us celebrate Christmas?  Should we?

Well, my family used to, as a tradition -- a part of our culture.
Naturally, all religious overtones were out.  My grandmother used to
sing a song which said that God had a baby, but that was not meant to
be taken literally.  It was just an occasion for a special family meal.

I'm away from my family now, so I probably won't celebrate this year.
Might as well skip it.  One fewer reason to be taken for a Christian.

>Even if we say we're celebrating the winter Soltice, that's still a
>religious holiday for druids.

Would we also celebrate the summer solstice?  Do the Druids?

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: giamomj@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu (Mike G.)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.sex.wizards,soc.men,misc.kids
Subject: Re: About circumcision
Date: 23 Dec 92 14:46:01 GMT
     <1992Dec20.204221.20222@prime.mdata.fi>
     <1992Dec21.133835.47907@watson.ibm.com> <house.725078735@helios>
Organization: Drexel University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1b2

Re: A few facts about circumcision
In article <house.725078735@helios> ron house, house@helios.usq.EDU.AU
writes:
>But a woman might well complain if some mindless parent had cut one of
>her breasts off.  The point is not what we are born with, but whether we
>have been deliberately mutilated - THAT is something everyone would have
>a perfect right to feel aggrieved about.
>
>--
>
>Ron House.                 USQ
>(house@helios.usq.edu.au)  Toowoomba, Australia.

Ron - 

Please tell me here in America if the Australians circumcise with such
ferocity as your American counterparts. Thanks for picking up the threads
on this post. I don't know your status, but I'm cut and regret what might
have been. I think it's just plain unfair to mutilate a penis for no good
reason.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: did I like miss your point?
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 17:06:05 GMT

popec@freeside.com (PopeC) writes:

>Madeline Murray O'hare is afanatic.  I have been a member of American 
>Atheists.  I am an atheist.  But being a fanatic is nOT a bad thing in 
>and of itself. What is bad is being a fanatic about things that are 
>wrongheaded or false.   What we need are more fanatics about things worth 
>being fanatiocal about, and less fanatics trying to jam nonsense down our 
>throats, whether it is religous, speudoscintific, or political nonsense 
>down our throats.

This entire paragraph cancels out!  By definition, every fanatic believes
their cause to be worth being fanatical about, and those who oppose them
to be wrongheaded and false.  A fanatic does what he knows God would do if
God knew the facts of the case.  Being a fanatic IS a bad thing in and of
itself.

Paul Ciszek                      When we are planning for posterity, we
                                 ought to remember that virtue is not
pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu            hereditary.     --Thomas Paine
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge)
Subject: Re: searcher
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Tx.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:39:04 GMT

In article <92357.110824BLD110@psuvm.psu.edu> <BLD110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>The post that John A. Johnson answered on the unfairness of life, was in answer
>to someone who asked what questions had caused me to leave the church and to
>search for answers.  John gave three reasons why these injustices might exist.
>>(1) the creator does not care about fairness; (2) we are to dim to perceive
>>the fairness; or (3) there is no creator being.
>
>I would put forth a fourth alternative - our religious forefathers just
>didn't get it and their idea of God which we have been indoctrinated with
>has made it extremely difficult to perceive beyond rejecting what is
>absolutely unacceptable to us.  Not only do we hold God up to show how
>His presence is detectable physically - but we hold Him up to the old
>paradigm.  Talk about shoting ourselves in the foot.
>                              Betty Lee Dowlin
>                 92355.234647BLD110@psuvm.edu.

Everytime i read one of your posts i get more confused.  You seem to want to
reject conventional notions of god but still retain a god-concept.  You think
it's a mistake that we should expect god to be physically or scientifically or
logically verifiable, but if so then how do we distinguish between knowledge
of this god and delusion, hallucination or mental illness?  What other
criteria can we use to know of this god and what does it mean to say that
such a god exists?  What is the new paradigm we should be considering in
place of the old one and why should we call it god?
-- 
allen@well.sf.ca.us
ethridge@bnr.ca
my opinions are my own
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: davidk@welch.jhu.edu (David Kitaguchi)
Subject: Christmas, Santa Claus, Quanza?
Reply-To: davidk@welch.jhu.edu
Organization: Welch Medical Library
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:22:47 GMT

Well as far as I know, Christmas is a conglomeration of several different cultures and has nothing to do with Christ except the Romans threw him in later.  Originally it was a celebration of the Mid-winter Soltice by the Druids, hence the tree.  After that it seemed there were a few other cultures that had a celebration period around this time of year so the Roman put them all together effeciently and started Christmas.  Aside from that it would seem the birth of Christ would have taken place in the spring


 anyway.  Santa Claus is a product of Coke.  Those people in advertising.
	Also I have been told by several people that the African Christmaslike Holiday "Quanza" (I hope the spelling is correct) was actually named by two students at Berkely on a bet to see who would be first to invent a holiday.  I heard that it was based on a event which may have occured during this time of year, but the name "Quanza" is entirely ficticious.  Anyone else no any more details on this?

-= David =-

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24498 talk.religion.misc:24741
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 29 Dec 92 23:56:29 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland

In article <schnitzi.725649775@eola.cs.ucf.edu> schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes:
>
>Gee, what was the topic?  It's been so long...
>
>That's it.  I'm killing this whole thread.  Change the title if you want
>to start discussing the subject again.  I'm sick of this arguing about 
>arguing.

Yeah, well it has degenerated quite much. So many 'discussions' or 'debates'
turn out into guys pointlessly picking each other's noses without even
taking into consideration the original topic.

BTW, you a moderator or something?

>
>mark


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: BLD110@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: searcher
Date: 22 Dec 92 16:08:24 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

The post that John A. Johnson answered on the unfairness of life, was in answer
to someone who asked what questions had caused me to leave the church and to
search for answers.  John gave three reasons why these injustices might exist.
>(1) the creator does not care about fairness; (2) we are to dim to perceive
>the fairness; or (3) there is no creator being.

I would put forth a fourth alternative - our religious forefathers just
didn't get it and their idea of God which we have been indoctrinated with
has made it extremely difficult to perceive beyond rejecting what is
absolutely unacceptable to us.  Not only do we hold God up to show how
His presence is detectable physically - but we hold Him up to the old
paradigm.  Talk about shoting ourselves in the foot.
                              Betty Lee Dowlin
                 92355.234647BLD110@psuvm.edu.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: The Book of Job
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 11:05:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.060711.26225@cs.ucla.edu> pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:
>In article <parsons.725779973@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>>Satan destroyed what Job had, yet God rebuilt all that Job had.
>
>  I thought Job's entire family died? Did "God" bring them back to life?

Satan let the wife live.  Apparently it suited him better to let Job
keep her.  :)

SD
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 28 Dec 92 11:58:18 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland

In article <1992Dec28.072026.2803@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>In article <ofBEMFy00Uh_I2BY9m@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>
>>    Though I agree with the general idea behind Mr/s. Paavolainen's
>>post, that intelligence deters religious belief, I think that when a
>>intelligent person is ensnared into a religion that they are most
>>devout.  
>>    Let me attempt to explain the mechanism that makes them devout. 
>>Let's consider christian believers since I am most familar with
>>christianity. The Bible has much silliness and contradictions.  The
>>intelligent christian will have more ability to conjure up some way of
>>making silly passages seem intelligent and some way of reconciling
>>seeming contradictions than would a stupid christian.  By the act of
>>making the Bible make sense to himself, the intelligent christian has
>>reenforced his own belief in the Bible as the truth.  Thus, the
>>intelligent christian has a greater stake in christianity than does the
>>stupid christian.
>>    If my theory is right, then it has implication for atheists who
>>argue with chirstians on this bboard or elsewhere.  By poiniting out a
>>contradiction in the Bible to the intelligent christian, we may simply
>>be conditioning him to have greater faith in christianity.  (Atheist
>>should not forget that a clever mind can always find some way to justify
>>even the most blatant of contradictions.  This is called apologetics.)
>>
>>Michael Loomis
>
>Hey, don't you dare introduce these complications into Iikka's lovely
>simple correlation!

Loomis came with a very rational reply to the post, taking many different
things into notice. You, on the other hand, are starting to look like a jester
with all your ludicrous posts. Well, at least we have some clown to laugh to?

>
>SD
>


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Fun ways to get rid of fundies...
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 03:01:35 GMT

In article <30DEC199213211569@cc.weber.edu>, tscwhitehead@cc.weber.edu (Clarke Whitehead) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Dec30.035249.23858@newsroom.utas.edu.au>, Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes...
> >In article <1hqoqaINNdk0@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 	A good one is that if you see them coming to your house,
> >> take a copy of ICE-T's "Body Count" and put in your stereo, cranking it
> >> on the song "Cop Killer".
> > 
> >Very true Kent, though I think that 'KKK Bitch' would do just as well. I live
> >next door to the Full Gospel Church and when I'm felling silly on Sunday
> >mornings I put on Ministry's 'Psalm 69' and sit on my balcony with a
> >malevolent grin on my face. They probably can't make out the lyrics
> >( I can't either), but it sounds diabolical enough to make the worshippers
> >walk a little faster as they pass my house.
> > 
> >Tim O'Neill
> >Tasmanian Devil
> >'You wanna ban the AK? I got ten of em stashed and a case of hand-grenades!'
> >Bodycount
> 
> Jeez',  have you guys considered a more civil and direct approach like
> telling them you're not interested?!  Why do you need to resort to violent
> talk or music?
> 
> Clarke

When they come to my house, Clarke, that's exactly what I do. But when they go
into their church next door and disturb me with *their* violent talk (ie frenzied
threats of hellfire) and *their* bloody music (usually delivered at ear-splitting
volume) then I feel slightly justified in responding in kind. Besides, I did say
I only did it when I was feeling silly.

Tim O'Neill
Tasmanian Devil
'Jesus built my car. It's a love-affair: mainly Jesus, and my hotrod."
Ministry
From: jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 31 Dec 92 11:08:47 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Dear Iikka Paavolainen,
In article <1992Dec28.010237.15761@prime.mdata.fi> you write:
>
>1) You do agree that you used your intelligence in attacking the original ideas
>
>2) Apply this kind of cynicism to the Bible and Christianity
>
>3) Denial of the the statements in the Bible is due to intelligence.
>
None of this gets anywhere close to your original statement that atheists
are more intelligent. You have shown that SD has used rationality to deny
the bible, but you have failed to show that everyone who denies the bible 
used rationality. I am an intelligent atheist, but what lead me to atheism
was my extreme fear of god. I was so scared of god that I tried to get as
far away as possible. It wasn't until I linked up with a atheists' 
association that I saw that rationality could be used to deny the bible.
Even if you *HAD* shown that everyone who denies the bible used rationality,
you still would not have shown that all rational people deny the bible.
There is no guarantee that a person with above average rationality will use 
it to deny the bible. In this country people are free to hold false beliefs, 
if they want to.

I agree with you 100% from an emotional viewpoint. From my rational side,
I see you as being very weak in rational thought, and I observe that you
use arrogance to hide your weakness in rationality. 

SD has -->NOT<-- disagreed with your statement that atheists are more 
intelligent. I get the feeling that SD thinks christianity is stupid.
All he wants is for you to get to this conclusion using strong logic 
or rationality. Ad hominem argument is fallacious logic.
I want you to be right, and I think that SD wants you to be right too,
but this doesn't make you right. Peace.

                     -John David Munch
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: npm@dale.cts.com (Nancy Milligan)
Subject: Re: Women. . . . SHUT UP!
Organization: Titan Linkabit Corporation
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:59:34 GMT

David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org wrote:
>  
> Bottom line is, I read and hear several orders of magnatudes more
> hate, lies, and propaganda by men against women, than I do women
> against men. I wonder why Mic doesn't address THAT issue first. One
> always works on the life-threatening wounds (hate from men) before
> patching up the tiny scratches (hate from women).
>  
> M> Melissa
> 
> --- Maximus 2.01wb

Excellent post!  As a woman I find it a little bit difficult to feel 
equal with men.  Certainly in terms of violence and agression, men have 
it all over women.  :>  

But thanks for that post.  Hearing a man speak up for women is
a remarkable and wonderful thing.
--
Nancy P. Milligan 				npm@dale.cts.com
Titan Linkabit					cts!dale!npm
		  Gravity is no laughing matter.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism