HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is .moderated dead?
Date: 2 Sep 92 12:44:13 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
> > What is happening with alt.atheism.moderated?  Is it
> > dead or is it just our site that is not receiving it?
> > I was seeing articles untill about a week ago.
> 
> Well it's alive at this end. Prior to today, about 8 articles went
> out on the 28th and about 6 the day before, and so on. If the silence
> keeps up, mail me. Actually use atheism-request@mantis.co.uk because
> I'm going on holiday(*) in a couple of days and mathew's coming back
> from his holiday and taking over the moderation of .moderated.

I'm back.  (Whew, Italy's hot!)

I've archived all the articles sent out whilst Tony was moderating.  Send a
mail message to archive-server@mantis.co.uk saying

   help
   send atheism/index

for more information.

As for why some people can't get the .moderated group... dunno, beats me. 
The articles look OK, and since replies are coming in I assume they're
getting out to some sites.  Presumably some big site has decided to drop the
group and downstream sites are suffering as a result.  The best thing to do
is probably to contact whoever runs the news system at your site, and ask him
what he can do.  Point out that the newsgroup is mentioned in Spaf's list of
newsgroups in news.announce.newusers, which makes it about as official as an
alt group can get.

Traffic is bound to be low at this time of year, with people off on holiday
and the .edu sites mostly deserted.  It'll probably pick up again over the
next month or so.


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: assholes
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 08:41:59 GMT


In a previous article, j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Some complete and total
dickhead) vomits,

>Wouldn't you really have to see all of existence to make
>such a pompous claim as "there is no god"?
>
>I don't give two shits if you reject religion.
>
>
>But for some bag of blood and bones that hasn't lived more than 100 years
>on this blue ball of earth to reject the idea of "god" altogether. . .
>
>You'd have to be an asshole.
>

Speaking of assholes...

Look, asshole, if you took the time to read the group, or the FAQ, you
would realize that _MOST_ atheists NEVER make the claim "there is no
God"(except for humor or emphasis).  Instead, we say "There is a lack of
evidence concerning the existance of a god".

Even a dickwad like you can make that distinction, can't you?

(the more fuckheads I see like this, the more convinced I am that we need 
a moderated group...<sigh>)

-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Peter...PETER!!  I can see    *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // your house from here!"          *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // Jesus Christ, from the cross     *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
From: mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Bush no friend of atheists (but Clinton no better)
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:17:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1992Aug31.150321.13807@mcc.com> amck@mcc.com (Alan McKendree) writes:
>*IF* atheism were the one and only thing I cared about, I might vote
>for Clinton.  I might even do so enthusiastically.  But in addition to
>being an atheist, I am a capitalist and individual-rightsist, which
>takes Clinton right out of the running for my vote.  It was reported
>on the radio yesterday that he's promised to install some kind of
>"national health plan" within the first 100 days of his administration
>:-(, for an example of _one_ specific grandiose "in your face and in
>your wallet" scheme.

Whoa, back up a bit. If you are in favor of individual rights, voting
Republican is not the way to go! Republican presidents have been
systematically stripping away our individual rights and protections
(mostly by stacking the court systems) for the last twelve years. Just
look at the War on Drugs fiasco for an indication of how far the
Republicans are willing to go to regulate our behaviour.

-- 
Michael Wang
mmwang@adobe.com
From: yohan@sam.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:32:06 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: sam.ksu.ksu.edu


1)  This crap belongs on a christian newsgroup
2)  It is just that: crap.  You can do the same play with numbers on just about 
anything.  People do similar things with Lincolns death and other famous events.
3)  Start thinking for yourself.


Jon Newton
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Possible Real World Evidence for why Religions Exist
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 21:33:53 GMT

In article <29AUG199212365870@elroy.uh.edu> st1lv@elroy.uh.edu (McLeod, Stephen) writes:
>I have thought for some time that possibly religions exist because they make 
>their followers somehow more 'fit' than non-religious folks.

But a parasite doesn't have to make its host more fit, only itself. 

>Obviously, 
>having a group of people available who you can count on is one benefit but 
>I recently saw on CNN some 'real world' evidence.  Now, it very well could 
>be biased and so on so put on your eye-glasses of true seeing before 
>reading on.  I'm merely relating, not espousing anything.
>CNN reported that insurance data indicated that Nevada had the worst health 
>data in the country, due to its 'party' atmosphere towns, smoking, 
>drinking, staying up all night and so on.  On the other hand, Utah had the 
>best health data.  Lower incidence of disease, longer lifespans, etc.  The 
>implication was that abstinance made the populace as a whole live 
>healthier, longer lives.  

But scientific evidence can also cause the same effect. People cut there
intake of red meat because expermental evidence says its bad for you, not
because the bible says so.

>CNN pointed out the implications on national 
>health policy of this and reported that companies in Nevada were now trying 
>to coerce their employees into living 'healthier' lives.

I can see different insurance rates for smokers and nonsmokers, but I
don't see that its the companies place to force people to be healthy.

>While I'm thinking about it, you know religion also is quite handy for 
>dehumanizing other human beings (who don't believe in your religion).  Look 
>at all those nice people in Serbia and Bosnia who believe it is perfectly 
>okay to kill, and systematically rape muslims.  
>A religious society seems more internally cohesive and perhaps internally 
>moral (honest and kind to others who follow the same religion) while 
>capable of external inhuman cruelty.  

True. However one must count the costs. A society where everyone was
handcuffed to the nearest object would have no crime problem either :-)
Religious people are in mental bondage, even if this has some benefits
I don't see being a slave as a worthy goal.
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:28:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.185419.22227@meaddata.com> joyce@meaddata.com  writes:

   >Many will say that Jesus was a good moral teacher. Let's be realistic.
   >How could he be a great moral teacher and knowingly mislead people at
   >the most important point of his teaching -- his own identity?

  There isn't anything particularly "realistic" about your point of view.
If we disregard questions about who is or is not God as so much irrelevant
blather, there is nothing strange at all about a lunatic being a good
moral teacher.
From: ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:59:17 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Tx.


You're argument is typical of christian arguments and very frustrating for
people of a rational bent to argue against.  To simplify your argument, you
say "Here are my assumptions, here's my reasoning.  Show me the flaw in my
reasoning, but my assumptions are off limits."  There probably isn't a flaw
in your reasoning, but your assumptions aren't valid, and you won't let us
argue about that.

Apart from the fact that i have never seen a notarized statement in Jesus
own handwriting asserting that he was god (the Gospels are basically hearsay)
even such a statement may not mean what you interpret it as.  More
specifically, Shirley Maclaine (sp?) has made the statement, on film and
in writing i believe, "I am god."  I don't believe this makes her either
"Lord (in the christian sense), Liar, or Lunatic."  Under her religious
beliefs, which i believe are based on far eastern religious teachings, that
statement would be true about everybody - we all are one with the godhead.
God is not another being, ruler, entity seperate from us, as christians
(and western religions in general) maintain, but god is every one of us,
the universe and more (or something like that).

Now, there are those who claim, with evidence, that between the ages of 13
and 30 Jesus lived in India and studied and taught as a Hindu saint.  It is
likely then that he would have had a Hindu (and Shirley Maclaine-like)
conception of god.  He would then probably say "I am god" and mean pretty
much what Shirley meant, and he would not disagree with Shirley's statement.
This would not be the claim to godhood that christians claim and would provide
a fourth alternative to "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic."

It is interesting to compare Jesus teachings to older far eastern religious
teachings.  I don't think his teachings are quite as original as christians
claim, but since Jesus didn't write down his beliefs we'll probably never
know for sure what he really believed.

It's also possible that the eastern religions are the "TRUE" ones and Jesus
managed to achieve "TRUE" enlightenment without traveling east and taught
eastern-like teachings to people too steeped in their own false traditions to
understand him.

Question your assumptions and the whole world falls apart!

-- 
allen@well.sf.ca.us                Allen B. Ethridge
ethridge@bnr.ca                    Bell-Northern Research, Inc.
my opinions are my own             Richardson, Texas
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: space@ncc1701.stgt.sub.org (Lars Soltau)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Date: 26 Aug 92 11:41:06 GMT
Organization: United Federation of Planets
NNTP-Posting-Host: ncc1701.stgt.sub.org
In-reply-to: Geoff@equinox.gen.nz's message of 24 Aug 92 23:54:47 +1200

>>>>> On 24 Aug 92 23:54:47 +1200, Geoff@equinox.gen.nz (Geoff Mccaughan) said:

> Lars Soltau (space@ncc1701.stgt.sub.org) wrote:
>>I've never been able to follow this scape-goat argument. I like to pay for
>>my *own* "sins", whatever they are, thank you. Someone insisting on a random
>>guy, one supposedly of the highest possible moral standards at that, being
>>tortured to death before being willing to forgive someone long death looks
>>like the biggest jerk on earth to me.

> Have you ever read Ursula LeGuin's story "The Ones Who Walk Away From
> Omelas"?

No, why? Care to give a short review? I'm always interested in good books.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Complete proof of Gregg Skinner's dishonesty
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:47:07 GMT

In article <BtutJ3.L3n@apollo.hp.com> perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry) writes:
}In article <7!fn-8_.madhaus@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
}I have to stand by Gregg Skinner here -- I don't think he's done
}anything dishonest in this thread or elsewhere that I've noted, and I
}don't think he's the type.

How about making statements that have a direct logical implication that
is counter to the rest of his apparent posts?  When directly and repeatedly
asked about the specific contradiction, he has not given any response.
Does that count?
From: EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:03:34 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

Of course I would accept the offer to go on "living."  It would be nothing shor
t of fascinating to do something like that.  It would also come as quite shock
to find that a supreme being exists.

But, this is irrelevent, as believing in a god, to me, is on the same level as
blelieving in the tooth fairy!  (And, NO, I don't believe in the tooth fairy!)
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:03:23 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug26.185419.22227@meaddata.com> joyce@meaddata.com  writes:
>Ok, everyone, due to the numerous responses to my post, I've changed
>my mind and decided to re-visit this newsgroup. Responses also do not
>need to be e-mailed to me, I just find that I'm repeating myself a lot
>in responding to people individually. So I've decided to save myself
>time and just post and also to explain the arguments I have obtained
>in greater depth than I have in my previous posting.

Or, to phrase it another way, to copy large chunks of text
unattributed from Josh McDowell.  We know Josh here, and he is held in
the lowest possible esteem.  He is intellectually dishonest (you seem
to be learning from him).

>LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?

AKA mad, bad, or god.  This argument begins with the assumption that
Jesus was exactly as conservative Christianity currently paints him to
have been and that the words of the gospels accurately reflect not
only what Jesus said, but with the interpretation of later
Christianity.  In particular, it presupposes that Jesus unambiguously
claimed to be God.  This point alone is highly debatable (you can
probably find this very debate raging in talk.religion.misc).

>--------------To be continued--------------------------------------

Please don't bother, unless you have something original to contribute.
We've seen Evidence_That_Demands_a_Verdict, and found it lacking.  

For some original thought, try applying this same line of reasoning to
Joseph Smith, Mohammed, and Jim Jones (Prophet, Liar, or Lunatic).

-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?
Date: 27 Aug 92 20:24:14 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Since I flamed joyce for her previous preach-and-run, and since she
has requested response to be posted rather than mailed, I'll post
this. I realise most people are not interested in this thread, but
presume they can skip over postings like this.

I'm sorry if joyce is a surname and I have your gender wrong. I'll also
retract my previous flame -- if you want to discuss further, you are
welcome as far as I am concerned.

joyce@meaddata.com wrote:
: Ok, everyone, due to the numerous responses to my post, I've changed
: my mind and decided to re-visit this newsgroup. Responses also do not
: need to be e-mailed to me, I just find that I'm repeating myself a lot
: in responding to people individually. So I've decided to save myself
: time and just post and also to explain the arguments I have obtained
: in greater depth than I have in my previous posting.
: 
: LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?

The implication is that these are mutually exclusive and together
exhaustive: this is fallacious.

: The distinct claims of Jesus to be God eliminate the popular ploy of

Jesus made no distinct claim to be God. There as places (most notably
the confession of Thomas in John's gospel) where he misses the chance
to deny that he is God, but his own distinct and explicit claims as
recorded in the gospels consistently make him subordinate to God.

In my experience, most (but not all) of the passages presented by
Christians to support the hypothesis that Jesus claimed to be God are
refuted without any need to refer to context; frequently they are the
very same passages I would use to conclude that Jesus saw himself as
subordinate to God.

I think this is a good a place as any to open a diaglogue. Can you
cite any "distinct claim of Jesus to be God"?

You have a number of other people responding: rather than try to take
on everyone at once I would recommend you focus on one point at a
time. Hence I will not be in the least offended if you choose to ignore
this post in order to take up some of the criticisms raised by others.

Felicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: LIFE GOES ON UNTIL YOU DIE
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:22:09 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
NNTP-Posting-Host: de5.ctd.ornl.gov

In article <6750@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk>, martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman) writes:
>
>Death itself, oblivion, the end, nothingness etc doesn't bother me at
>all. The pain and suffering that may well accompany the last few moments
>does! Still, there's no way round it.

Sure there is!  There are plenty of entirely pleasant, painless ways to cause
one's own death.  I'm not willing to sacrifice the rest of my natural
life--however long or short it my be--to avoid a possibly unpleasant exit.

I totally agree with everything else you said, though.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Paranoid musings on Jesus and the Buddha
Date: 2 Sep 92 01:20:46 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada




Just reading the posts on Jesus' claims to be God...especially the quotation:

"Before Abraham was, I am!"

Has anybody but me noticed that that sounds remarkably like the kind of
statements attributed to the Buddha? 
      
Example:

"In all the heavens and the earth, I alone am the Honored One!"

Also, there is a Zen Buddhist koan that goes: 

"Show me your face before your parents were born." (or something like that)   
     
It is of interest that in many sects of Buddhism, the historical Buddha 
has become a mythological figure who supposedly exists in Heaven, and that
one prays to.  Seems you can't make that kind of statement without somebody
starting a church!

Any Christian comment? Any comment from anybody?

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Founder: Deus Absconditus Search and Rescue Squad (new members welcome)

"Are you a sceptic, then?"
"Never, my dear. Scepticism is the beginning of Faith."  - Oscar Wilde
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Subject: Re: Subject?
Originator: cmgrawbu@c00033-118dan.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 21:14:18 GMT


To further explain and discuss the issue of homosexuality and to respond
to some of the letters I have received.

I would first like to thank the people who have the ability to discuss
something in a mature fashion when the sides are strongly opposed and
I would ask the people who wish to hurl insults to please stop sending
me letters.

1) Homosexuality is a choice, consciousness or sub-consciousness. At any rate
   can be changed.

1a) As someone metioned to me, social, conditions also affect a persons sexual
    desires. A friend of mine is an admitted homosexual. It is quite obvious
    where it comes from. He was picked on throughout shcool because of a
    physical problem. Being in high school, and seeing people being picked
    on girls had nothing to do with him. His parents, especially his father
    had nothing to do with him when he was growing up, therefore he lacked
    a male figure. The only friends he had were younger boys (6 years younger)
    who accepted him. My friend needed someone to have a relationship with
    and that was all that was there.

    Now that he is 22, he is coming to terms with his childhood, although
    he is still very bitter, and is moving away from homosexuality.

    It must also be stated that medicine has NOT PROVEN that homosexuality
    is genetic. There is no stronger basis for that than there was that
    oat bran lowered blood pressure. (Remember, at one time not long ago, that
    was scientifically "proven" as well.)

4) Homosexuals were the firing gun for AIDS.

4a)  NOW, heterosexuals are as much to blame as homosexuals for the spread
     of AIDS. Homosexuals are moer promiscous(sp) than heterosexuals, probably
     b/c gay marraiges are not allowed. Nevertheless, it is this promescuity(sp)
     that caused AIDS to spred so quickly
     
5) Looking at the make up of a man and a woman, it is quite apparent that they
    were made to go together sexually. Not so with male-male or female-female.

5a)  I was referring to sexual compatibility as far as intercourse in concerned.
     It is quite apparent that the male penis has a purpose, that is to fit
     into the female vagina. 

Someone also said that no one knows the reason God made people homosexual.
My point is this: he obviously didn't make them that way--if he did-- why
is it spoken against in the Bible?

If I missed a point that some one asked me and you'd like a responce,
please post again. As you can imagine----I got a lot of mail from this.

Chris

     
Newsgroups: alt.atheism