HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Sep12.035348.29757@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
	<1992Sep12.193139.4493@cs.yale.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 20:07:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.193139.4493@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

-   >Can you
-   >prove that murder is immoral?
-   No.

So it comes down to moral relativism.  I agree, there is no basis for
any kind of moral system...no basis in pure absolutism.  But when I
see people telling their kids that who they are is sick, sinful, etc.,
I will strike out, I will point out the danger they are causing.  We
cannot quibble about moral relativism.  Philosophically, that's the
only thing that makes sense.

But hey, unless you are arguing *for* an anarchy, your comments are
thoroughly unhelpful and I have no intention of trying to "prove" that
*any* moral is "true," or whatever.

--
Andrew Werling    awerling@nmsu.edu    yip@acca.nmsu.edu
Transmitting from Planet Yip--where everyone you meet 
			      is already dead.
From: marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christianic Sacrificesdir
Date: 11 Sep 92 11:13:12 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Sep10.194057.5945@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
> In article <1992Sep10.133408.6644@iscsvax.uni.edu> marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
> }It may be so that churches are "seeped in evil", but not all of them. 
> 
> Given that you don't survive an encounter with one that it, how are you
> suppose to know BEFORE they go out and kill the heathen.
> 
> OR whoever they happen to accidently grab and burn?
> 
> The FIRST mistake would be the LAST mistake.  Sorry, but I don't care to
> play such games.  Running fast and far sounds like a VERY reasonable course
> of action.
> 
> 

Please don't "throw the baby out with the bath water".  The point of my answer
was that I don't think that people should push that off on Christianity.  One
of the tenets of Christianity is that you get victory over sin (not saying that
we are completely sinless, but now that we've been born again into the Kingdom
of God, we have the ability to overcome sin).  These people weren't trying to
overcome sin, instead they caused it, and a lot of sorrow with it.  That
doesn't sound very "Christian" to me.

Don't stay away from Christ because of some crazies.


In Him,
Evan

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:38:49 GMT

In article <5344@news.duke.edu> infante@acpub.duke.edu (Andrew  Infante) writes:
>Eric, I've been following this thread for over a week now, and here's what
>I've concluded:
>
>You don't believe in morality.
Yes, I have stated that already.

>Ergo, _you_ cannot be one to decide what is right or wrong because it is
>inherent in morality.
>
>Thus, you have no point arguing right or wrong.  period.
On the contrary. The arguments which have been presented for
the claim that certain actions are immoral are logically flawed.
I have every bit as much status to argue that point as you do.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
From: mikel@gallant.apple.com (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is atheism experimentally refutable?
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:17:31 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <dabrowsk.715565713@liveboard10> dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>In <71921@apple.Apple.COM> Mikel Evins writes:
>
>> There is [a difference between not(believe X) and believe(not X)], 
>> as the thought experiment demonstrates. 
>
>Which thought experiment, and how is this difference relevant to the
>matter under discussion? Do we really have to repeat the old battle
>about beliefs and lack of beliefs? 

Okay, let's do it a different and more pedantic way. The previous
poster hypothesized that 'I don't believe God exists' means
the same thing as 'I believe God doesn't exist'.

Examining my beliefs, I discover that I don't believe God exists.
On the other hand, I don't believe that God deosn't exist
either. Evidently, the first statement doesn't mean the same
thing as the second after all.

This is relevant to the matter under discussion because it *is*
the matter under discussion.

Where's the battle?
From: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 10 Sep 1992 01:52:14 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) says:

>
>No, confessing your sins and believing what Jesus did for you by dying 
>for your sins is sufficient to be forgiven.  Don't worry about all the
>other stuff, Jesus will give you the desire to do the things he has called
>you to.  He will guide you and lead you and share with you His power,
>His resurrection life.  Let Him be Lord and the One who gives you His
>strength to fulfill your individual calling and purpose in this life.
>
Excuse me, but what if I don't WANT Jesus (if he exists) to "forgive" me?
I, personally, DO NOT WANT THE PEACE OF MIND THAT COMES WITH FORGIVENESS.
When I err, I learn from it. My mistakes are what mature me. Every time I
have been ashamed of myself, I have become a better person as a result of
it. I have, in the past, copied software. (Stealing.) I am now very ashamed
of that. If I am forgiven by someone, if my crimes are wiped off the slate,
WHAT STOPS ME FROM DOING IT AGAIN? The reason I do not copy software now is
because of the feelings of shame that I have. There are many other parallel
cases in my life.

>>No atheist hates God. Because we don't even think he's real. 
>
>It is good to hear that.  If the God of the Bible were real, would you
>love Him?
>
>>Sean Hartigan
>>hartigan@ac.dal.ca

Personally, I would hate him. To me, any creature that can look upon the
suffering of a small child and do nothing is evil in the truest sense of
the word. Screw free will. That means nothing to a child in pain. If there
is a god, it is the devil.
-- 
+-------------+------------------+
| Damien Neil | dpn2@po.cwru.edu | 
+-------------+------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty)
Subject: assholes revisited
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Your mother's womb
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 06:33:52 GMT

It was amusing to see so many level-headed, objective athiests get so 
frazzled at being labeled assholes. The vengefully rude, insecure
and irrational replies to my original post was all I needed to confirm my
obtrusive assumption.

Now imagine all the things they called Jesus, even as the blood poured down
his
brow.   And what was his reply?

"They know not what they do."

Maybe you all will figure the spiritual life out some frightful day,
when you stop figuring.
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Christanic Crime
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992
Date: 15 Sep 92  10:44:32

Tag1: Brian Cash (bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash))
Tag2: CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG (cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu)
 
>>??> "But the murders reported were commited as a result of the
>>??> killers being Christians. Ever heard of an atheist killing
>>??> someone because they believed 'god?'"
 
>CG> "Ok, but I think everyone sees my point. You can't judge a
>CG> group of people---especially a large group of people b/c of
>CG> a few bad examples."
 
Alas! If only it were just a few. Child molestation by clergy
is seconded only by molestation by daddy, and running even with
mommy's boyfriend.
 
BC> "Also consider the idea that the reason murderers SAY they
BC> kill people is not the same as the real reason they are
BC> violent. Too many people blame the extranious 'causes'
BC> of crime (D&D(tm), rock and roll, religion, etc) and don't
BC> focus on the true causes (drugs, being abused, mental
BC> illness). Even the crusades and inquisitions had political
BC> impetus. If you charged at me with a pencil-compass, I
BC> wouldn't blame geometry!"
 
One of the more recient cases here was of an entire family
Christanically sacrificing their little girl to Jesus because
she was "demonically posessed." They kept her in a bathroom,
with Crucifixes nailed to the door, slowly starved her, and
eventually drowned her in the bath tub. Then they hauled the
body to the desert and buried her in a shallow grave.
 
Is it your opinion they would have found another excuse? I
imagine that's possible. But killing for Jesus seems to be
more socially acceptable than, say, killing for Satan, or
killing for Money---- results are the same.
 
I've also got files on my BBS concerning maimings for Jesus---
eyes gouged out to drive out demons, deforming and crippeling
burns, bone breaking beatings--- because Jesus told them to do
it, or it's biblical, or they "have the god-given right."
 
For information on the above, contact
 
              Kenneth V. Lanning
              Supervisory Special Agent
              Behavioral Science Instruction and Research Unit
              FBI Academy
              Quantico, Virginia 22135
 
    Or contact
 
              Robert Hicks
              Criminal Justice Analyst/Law Enforcement Section
              Department of Criminal Justice Services
              805 E. Broad Street
              Richmond, Virginia 23219
              804-786-8421
 
    Or contact
 
              Rowan Moonstone
              CultWatch Response, Inc.
              Post Office Box 1842
              Colorado Springs, CO 80901-1842

--- Maximus 2.00
From: jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Discrimination vs. homo/bi: justified?
Date: 13 Sep 1992 07:12:38 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


You did- can't cite chapter and verse, it's a bit late- but I can
also remember seeing in one of the PROPHETS that God was repealing
that policy. This is OLD TESTAMENT. This is the same God that was
telling people to smite and smote and smear goat's blood on their
first-born son or whatever. God is, apparently, not INTO that kind of
thing any more.

Probably because the records got too damn complex. (Okay, let's see...
his dad was out in the field doing oo-oo with goats, but his mother
was stealing money from her neigbors... plus, his grandparents were
murderers... which punishment do we give him?)
##
-- 
Jessica McGeary
jmm25@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University
Remember! Arguments should be FUN!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bwilliam@iat.holonet.net (Bill Williams)
Subject: Re: Dealing with theistic relatives
Organization: HoloNet (BBS: 510-704-1058)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 05:42:07 GMT

Christians always feel comfortable about imposing themselves on others so
I feel no reservations about imposing my knowledge that there is no God on
other people.


IT IS NOT COMFORTABLE IN LARGE MIXED COMPANY.

Never get fiesty at a large gathering of relatives, you will regret it.


Oh yeh... I'll give you some advice so you can answer quick on your feet
to the question (by a misty eyed Mother) :

"Well then, if you think there is no god, then whre did Granpa go when he
died?"

--- Answer : "I guess he went wherever he thinks he went"

DO NOT SAY HE ROTTED IN THE GROUND, to your mother.

BWilliams

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: assholes revisited
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 08:51:27 GMT

(Humpty Dumpty) writes:
>It was amusing to see so many level-headed, objective athiests get so 
>frazzled at being labeled assholes. The vengefully rude, insecure
>and irrational replies to my original post was all I needed to confirm.
>my obtrusive assumption.

I think you meant to say "to confirm my *prejuduces*".

>Now imagine all the things they called Jesus, even as the blood poured.>down his brow.   And what was his reply?
>"They know not what they do."
>Maybe you all will figure the spiritual life out some frightful day,
>when you stop figuring.

Are you always this condascending? You may be surprised to find that
if you act like an adult, you will be treated like one.

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
From: marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: End of the World...
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:39:24 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <millernw.716077329@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, millernw@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Neal Miller) writes:
> millernw@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Neal Miller) writes:
> 
>>I, for one, am scared.  Not of October, 1994, but of the decisions that
> 
> 	Oops... My mistake... I meant September 1994, like it makes a 
> difference.   ;-)
> 
> 
>>--
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Neal Miller         | "Why not go mad?"  | millernw@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
>> Clarkson University |     - Ford Prefect |     dark@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Neal Miller         | "Why not go mad?"  | millernw@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
>  Clarkson University |     - Ford Prefect |     dark@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please have a party and invite me to.  I don't buy that stuff either.  They
don't know the day or the hour...but they know the month and the year... 
That's pure crap to make some bucks.

In Christ,
Evan Marshall

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor)
Subject: Atheist Clubs at universities
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:01:37 GMT


Some friends of mine and I have been considering forming an
'Athiest Club' on campus (as Clubs Day draws near), and are
looking for some imput from people who either have ideas or
experience with this.

I must add that I was inspired to suggest we start such a group
because of the prevalence of Christian groups on campus--it
tends to be a bit intimidating.  Paranoia overcomes me when
the pressure is on, and I envision a 'Handmaid's Tale'esque
future...  And now all this talk of milleniumism.  Eek.

So, are there any individuals out there who have organised/
participated in/ known of such a club on their campuses?

We would like suggestions as to what the goals of this club  
should be, what kinds of activities it should organise, etc.

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:16784 talk.religion.misc:15893
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Atheism and religion
Followup-To: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Date: 8 Sep 1992 18:06:42 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
Summary: The flaw is clear (and purple).

-*----
In article <exukjb.132.715988829@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
> Just the other day a fundamentalist relative of mine made the following 
> argument: To assert the nonexistence of god, one would have to presume 
> omniscience, that is, one would have to claim divinity for oneself. For who 
> else but a god could claim to have scoured the entire universe and, finding 
> no god in it, thus be in a position to affirm this negative existential?  
> But, the argument ran, if one would have to *be* god in order to be in a 
> position reasonably to deny god's existence, it would appear that the 
> the proposition 'no god exists' is either just self-defeating or  
> necessarily false. [A wierd new kind of ontological argument?]

The argument applies to a broad variety of negative existential
claims, including my favorite, that there are no purple unicorns.
But the conclusion is wrong.  What the argument shows is that
certain negative existential claims cannot be evinced, which is
quite different from such claims being "self-defeating or
necessarily false."

It does *not* follow from our inability to disprove the existence
of purple unicorns that purple unicorns exist, nor that believing
in purple unicorns is reasonable.  

Purple unicorns are a great aid to reasoning.  Whenever a
believer offers a meta-argument about why belief in their god is
reasonable, first see if the argument applies to purple unicorns.
Often it does.  If so, one can ask the believer either to add
these colorful beasts to the believer's model of reality (and 
then give the believer the shrift one gives anyone who professes
purple unicorns), or to help one in finding the flaw in the
proferred argument.

Russell
From: dsb@duke.cs.duke.edu (D. Scott Bigham)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism and religion
Keywords: newspaper article
Date: 6 Sep 92 15:38:55 GMT
Organization: n. Arrangement in an orderly or logical fashion.  See "miracle".

From the Holy Book of <B8smqB6w165w@major.panix.com>
  as spake by dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) :

>I've got the tooth fairly in my desk drawer.
>
>You can't prove that I don't.

But I don't believe that you don't.

>Therefore, you are religious.

Nor in fact do I believe that you do.  I believe it to be highly
_unlikely_ that you do, based on the inductive evidence of never having
seen one, but I have no evidence for the two previous statements on
which to base a belief.

>If you can't see the hole in this logic by the time you finish reading
>this post, please take a class in logical reasoning.

There's your hole, no sweat.

[Since this seems to have wandered off of alt.sex, I won't see your
reply, so flame me royally if you choose.]

						-sbigham
-- 
Scott Bigham                   | "This is our path; to fight or die."
dsb@romeo.cs.duke.edu          | "That's what we're paid for, so let's
bigham@hercules.acpub.duke.edu |     do it with some _style_!"
    (but not for long)         |                Dr. Who, "Battlefield"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: End of the World...
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 00:28:16 GMT

In article <millernw.716075843@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> millernw@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Neal Miller) writes:
>	After a fellow atheist whose name eludes me referred me to take a 
>look at the current trend in soc.christian.religion, I must say that I'm
>mighty shocked.  There are people out there who are utterly sure that the
>world will end, a la Revelation, Judgement Day, the Second Coming, and all
>that jazz... next year.  These people are voting, for crying out loud...  
>Teaching our children with all the wholeheartedness of someone who is spending
>hours each day teaching youths, even though they think the kids will never get
>a chance to use the knowledge, because they'll all be dead in a year or so.
>I, for one, am scared.  Not of October, 1994, but of the decisions that
>people in power might make, in the false knowledge of impeding death.

If it's any consolation, these loons have been sure that the end was just
around the corner for 2000 years now, and, amazingly enough, they haven't
managed to make it come true yet.  They keep trying though...
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Paranoid musings on Jesus and the Buddha
Date: 5 Sep 92 02:18:25 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <TORKEL.92Sep3093638@isis.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel
Franzen) wrote:
>     The Christian Gospels have to some extent been influenced by
>     Buddhist doctrines, which were known in Alexandria and other
>     parts of the Mediterranean world. The miraculous side of
>     Buddhism in particular seems to have appealed to the early
>     Christians. Saint Peter, walking on the water, trod in the foot-
>     steps of many Buddhist Saints. 

Larson's excellent book "Story of Christian Origin" mentions that
Buddhist monks worked surprisingly a lot with evangelizing Buddhism
in Middle East long time before Christianity. It would explain some
of the influences.

Cheers,
Kent
From: bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Date: 9 Sep 92 13:46:02 GMT
	<Bu92C5.97p@cck.coventry.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool, UK


(mathew) writes:
>It makes sense to me, in the USA and UK at least.  I mean, in the UK
>"religious education" is mandatory for all school children, and so most
>children end up believing in God and Jesus for at least as long as they
>believe in Santa Claus.
>
>
>mathew

This is not correct.  Schools are required to provide religious
education, (until recently it was one of the few subjects that they
were mandated to provide), but parents can opt their children out of
them.  (I assume this is still the case, anyway.)  I seem to remember
that sex education falls into the same kind of category, but I can't
remember whether schools were required to provide it or not.

--
Bruce Stephens.  Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Liverpool Univ.
Internet: bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk     JANET: bruce@uk.ac.liv.uxb
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 05:14:46 GMT

In <188a45INN6gf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cf603@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Sill) writes:


>[Followups redirected to alt.atheism]

Now *that's* an objective forum for religious discussion! :)
-- 
Matt Marx     mmarx@csli.stanford.edu           
No News (is bad news)
no mail for mmarx (is worse)
From: stuart@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Joseph Stuart )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Would you do ANYTHING God told you....?
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:52:30 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <192basINNl90@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>	For example, if God told you to kill a 17 month old baby, would
>you do it ? I am not asking IF God would ask you to do such an evil thing,
>but would you do it if God told you ?
>	I have never heard a decent answer, most say something like "my
>God would never ask such a thing". But I am not asking if God would ask,
>but if God asked them to do it, would they do it ? So, let me put it this way,

Not only is this a merely evasive answer, but, in the case of Judaism, 
Christianity and Islam, it is a mistaken answer since God asked Abraham to
do just that.  Of course he didn't make Abraham carry through with it, but
he did take the "joke" pretty far.  If he did it once, why couldn't he do
it again?

scott
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.religion.kibology