HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Steve Martin movie "Leap of Faith"
Date: 29 Dec 92 07:03:08 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <ksand-281292155048@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>
>In other words faith is the glue that binds together the tribe. Same
>concerning faith in 3am hacks, or faith in Joe Montana :-).
>

  But Joe is the Messiah!  I saw it myself, as did millions of my
  fellow believers, on Monday Night Football!  Joe was resurrected
  from almost three years of near death to fight the mighty Satan of
  Detroit, replacing the anti-christ Steve Young. The holy elbow is 
  healed.  Though I must admit, what I saw of his performance lacked, 
  shall we say, a certain omnipotence?



/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A nation chosen by GOD -- New-Israel
Date: 2 Jan 93 23:45:13 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

[reply to b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu]
 
>And my opinion is that GOD doesn't care about non-entities, such as
>governments, education, churches, fads, and the like... only individual
>people, each directly and individually...[Slavery, imperialistic wars,
>hogging of natural resources] is another non-entity.  Why would GOD
>care?
 
Wait a minute, you mean that your God cares about people but not their
behavior?  I thought morality was one of the principle concerns of any
religion.

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: scruggs@zeus.franklin.edu (Kevin Scruggs)
Subject: Re: In Job, Lucifer was proved right!
Organization: Franklin University (Columbus, OH)
Distribution: world,public
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:10:33 GMT

In article <1hspfdINNl1o@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>-*----
>parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish) writes:
>> Satan was the one coming before God accusing Job of only serving God
>> for the cash, land, camels, sheep, etc.  So, to prove Satan wrong He
>> allowed Satan to rake Job over the coals.  It wasn't so much to punish
>> or torture (as you put it) Job, as to put Satan in his place. ...
>
>Job is a much more subtle and interesting story than most
>Christians realize.  Because the plot does not well serve 
>simplistic morals, many Christians tend to forget how the story
>goes (assuming they had ever read it in the first place).
>
>In the story, after his last tribulation, when Job is suffering
>disease, loss of loved ones, and poverty, he curses and rebukes
>Yahweh.  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.  Only then
>does Job once again sing his god's praise. 
>
>Oh, the morals that can be drawn from this story!  Lucifer was
>proved right about Job and Yahweh wrong.  Does this mean that we
>should take Yahweh's attitudes about how people are and what they
>can be with a grain of salt?  Does the story show that Yahweh
>does not know as much about the people he created as he thinks he
>does?  
	It brings up an interesting question: if one's actions can be 
predicted with certainty (by even a deity) can it be said that free will
really exists?...

>
>It is also curious that Yahweh gets pissed off at Lucifer rather
>than Job after Job curses him.  Does this mean that Yahweh
>realized he had been unfair to Job?  (What does this say about
>some of the other ways the Old Testament records Yahweh treating
>people?  Perhaps Yahweh's followers should not accept his
>treatment so blindly.) Job is restored to good graces despite his
>ultimate disloyalty.  Perhaps the moral is that one should only
>take so much shit from one's god before complaining. 
>
>Any of these conclusions are consistent with the tale.  But the
>story does *not* support the typically Christian conclusions:
>that Lucifer was wrong (in the story, he was right), that Yahweh
>knows what will happen (in the story, he didn't), and that one
>should always be loyal to Yahweh (in the story, Job wasn't).  
>
>Russell


-- 
	|||				...Your future hasn't been written yet.
       / | \				   No one's has. Your future is what 
    =Mysh+Krysa=			   you make it...    
							   -Emmet L. Brown-
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: "A nation chosen by GOD"?
Date: 31 Dec 1992 06:00:58 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


Joe Gaut posted:

<MORONIC ASSININE DRIVE DELETED IE: THE WHOLE POSTING >

	It's almost the 21st century........let go of silly
superstitous beleifs in the supernatural.....



-- 
A. TRENT PHILLIPS |" A mirror is a negative space with a frame and a place for
  also known as   | your face, it reveals what the rest of us see. It conceals
   WHITE  ROOK    | what you'd like you to be."--Blue Oyster Cult
-------bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu-----aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu-------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: I praise the lord and so do I.
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 03:50:04 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

  ,...,.,,
 /666;    ',    jim tims
////;    _~ -   p00168@psilink.com
(/@/----0-~-0
 ;'  . `` ~ \'
  , `    ' , >
;;|\..((   -C---->>Rarely have I been so completely baffled by a 
;;| >-  `.__),;;   SUBJECT line, and yet I was baffled at the same time.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: did I like miss your point?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 10:20:09 GMT

In article <1JAN199303165318@jane.uh.edu> lib1p@jane.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.183939.3539@radian.uucp>, markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr) writes...
>>In article <1992Dec31.000558.8172@nwnexus.WA.COM> pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe) writes:
>>>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>>
>>>>iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>
>..stuff deleted....
>
>>Huh? How many "fanatic atheists" have *you* *personally* ever met?
>>I sure don't know anyone that would qualify as one: certainly none
>>of them that I've know would think in terms of imposing their will
>>on the believers, even if they did think the believers were deluded
>>or stupid. I *sure* have known *plenty* of fanatic believers, who
>>would impose their will on me, if they could.
>> 
>
>Does the name Madeleine Murray O'Hare ring any bells?
>

Ayn Rand would probably have qualified too.  On the other hand, I
don't see atheist organizations that are on the same scale as the
major churches.  

SD
From: aaronk@county.lmt.mn.org (Aaron S. Kurland)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:38:23 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: LaserMaster R&D

In article <1992Dec27.034512.22314@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>In article <1992Dec25.161954.8588@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec22.172158.11967@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>>n>Although I think that you are right in general, I wanted to add that all (6)
>>>the exceptionally smart people  I know (IQ>125), including myself, are Christians 
>>>
>>
>>What if we lift the limit to 160?
>
>Or 200?  What, are we talking about eligiblity for Mensa or something?
>
>SD

From The MENSA FAQ (note religious affiliation below):

* MENSA DEMOGRAPHICS (USA)

  64.4% male, 35.4% female (0.2% won't say)

  54% between 30-49 years of age, 14% under 29, 0.32% over 80

  31.2% in first marriage, 29.82% never married, 13.32% divorced once,
  9.53% in second marriage after a divorce

  Just over half have no children, 12.4% have one child, 18.66% have 2,
  9.95% have 3, 4.37% have 4, 1.29% have 9+

  about 30% earn $20-40,000, 10% earn $50-75,000, 9% earn $40-50,000
  and about 0.5% earn more than $250,000.

  17.93% Master's degree or equivalent, 17.56% four year graduates,
  one in 11 are Ph.D.s.

  41% work in private industry, 13% in government, 13% self employed.

  88% European ancestry.

  49% Christian, 3% Unitarian, 9% Jewish, 7% agnostic, 3.6% atheist,
  9% no religion

  14% only children, 19+% older of two, 12.5% younger of two,
  11.5% oldest of three, 6.8% middle of three, 5.8% youngest of three,
  9.7% oldest of more than three, 10.8% middle of four or more,
  4.4% youngest of four or more

  Computer related occupations 10%, 3.75% own their own business,
  Electrical Engineers are 2.6%, 7.5% are in education, 3% lawyers,
  0.11% judges, 0.02% are in astronomy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our job is to make the questions so painful
 that the only way to make the pain go away is by thinking."
                                        - Fred Friendly

  My company has not yet accepted my application for Corporate Spokesmodel.

        Mail: aaronk@county.lmt.mn.org       Flames: alt.dev.nul
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: world,public
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 19:55:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.122831.21650@walter.cray.com> jwest@wisc (Jeff West) writes:
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>: In article <Bzw01t.7ED@dale.cts.com> npm@dale.cts.com (Nancy Milligan) writes:
>: >John Muehlhausen (muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu) wrote:
>: >> 
>: 
>: Trusting God means trusting that all things work together for good for those
>: that love Him, and they happen for a reason.  I would much rather live a
>: short life with cancer and let my increased awareness of my mortality light
>: a fire under my butt for God  than to glide through life accomplishing
>: nothing with eternal consequence.  God will not give someone something that
>: is not good for them in the long run.  If a Christian is not healed of
>: cancer, then they have it for a reason that is beneficial to them as a
>: spiritual being, as promised in the Bible.  Paul didn't whine about his
>: adversity, nor did Jesus himself!  In fact, they seemed to shake a fare
>: amount of joy out of it!
>: 
>: 
>: John M.
>: 
>: 
>
>	I just love these kind of rationalizations.  NOT!  Your a real piece
>	of work John.  I have nothing against what you believe. Faith or lack
>	thereof in religion and god is a personal thing.  But your above
>	statement shows an * Incredible * lack of compassion and humanity!!!
>	The statement that finally pushed me over the edge of considering
>	myself a Christian anymore was after watching a beautiful 4 year old
>	little girl go through the terrible torture of chemotherapy for cancer.
>	After a long fight and spending most of her life knowing nothing but
>	fear and pain people actually had (have) the gaul to say;
>		"It was god's will."
>	If this is your god and his idea of; "giving us something that's good
>	for us in the long run."  Then you can KEEP him and all of your assinine
>	beliefs!
>
>	Jeff "you really hit my hot button" West


Lets clear something up - all things work together for good FOR THOSE WHO
LOVE THE LORD.  If my daughter was in this circumstance, she would be in
physical pain, but she would be secure in the knowledge of her eternal life
through Christ, and though I would also be in much pain - probably more than
her - God would use it to strengthen my character.  Who are we to argue with
God?

John M.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24338 talk.religion.misc:24628
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: I still wouldn't worship it.
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date:  4 Jan 93 03:25:06 GMT

jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch) writes:


>  If some entity turned off the force of gravity for half a second today,
>then I would immediately become a theist, in the sense that I would 
>say that god existed. I still wouldn't worship it. My first reaction
>would be to figure out how I might be as powerful as this god. If I knew
>there was some way to turn off gravity, I would want to know how to turn 
>it off. Knowing how to turn it back on again would be helpful too.
>  If this god said he wanted my "soul", I would ask him what the heck is
>a soul, and I'd tell him to keep his grubby hands away from mine. If this 
>god said there is an afterlife and I had to choose between living in hell
>or heaven for all of eternity, I'd tell him that in this afterlife I would
>come and go as I pleased to where ever I pleased, and any entity that 
>tried to keep me confined to only one place would get their ass kicked.
>  I am not a violent person, but I am an individual. I will never submit
>myself to any other entity, no matter how much more powerful they are than
>me. If this god threatened my life, then I would do my best to kill god.
>I am saying all of this to point out that my atheism is much deeper than
>merely not believing in god. Thoughts?

Hey, I'd be cheering, I always like to go for the underdog!

Jeff.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:58:39 GMT

In article <u7kg1ss@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>---
>In article <1992Dec28.212253.19558@arden.linet.org>, joeb@arden.linet.org writes:
>|npm@dale.cts.com (Nancy Milligan) asks:
>|>Why don't Christians hate fortune tellers and psycis [sic] with the same
>|>ferocity as they do homosexuals.[...]
>
>|*I* don't hate homos nor do any Christians I know!  Prehaps you are confusing
>|our rage that our children are being taught in public school that its
>|acceptable behavior and we have to pay for it!
>
>Liar.
>
>People like you are why I despise much of Christianity.
>
>---
>cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
>"Oh, you're a bigot all right, you just feel that saying you have the 
>right to be one means you're liberal.  If it didn't happen so often, 
>it would be funny."  Mark Sobolewski, in talk.religion.misc

And people like you will not address other wonderful questions that I as
a single and a gay person would like answers to.....

1.  Why must I pay taxes to feed children whose parents won't feed them?
2.  Why do I have to support a juvinale court system, set up to protect us
    from Children who are not raised right?
3.  Why do I have to pay a higher premium on my health insurance just
    so hets. can pop another baby out of the oven.  I mean if they
    cannot afford to have it born, they should really think about 
    having it....
4.  Why do I as a tax payer have to pay insurance for spouses.  I feel
    that it is that families responsiblility to fund there own health.
5.  Why do I as a tax payer have to pay for day-care of children
    people cannot afford to have?
6.  Why should I as a tax payer have to pay for a childs education?

There is lots more, but that should give you a start.

Bil Snodgrass III

I am pro-family and pro most of the above, but this other person 
wanted to know why it should pay for us gay people.....just wanted
to flip the questions into his court......
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: BE GLAD YOUR CIRCUM...
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 03:18:32 GMT

In <1992Dec21.133500.13113@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> y41@aix320d.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (Jeffrey Hazelwood) writes:


>Keywords: 

>Folks this is the last comment on circumcision! (I hope!)

>Be glad your circumsized!  A man without foreskin can have sex longer than
>non circumsized people.  This is because the foreskin protects the head of
>the penis and keeps it sensitive.  But, with circumsized people the head of
>the penis is not as sensitive, therefore they can do the NASTY longer!!!!!!
>If you don't believe me, ask DR. RUTH!!

Just on a note of interest....

Because of the above point, if I remember right, I think Elizabeth Gould
Davis in her book "The First Sex" argues that male circumcision was started
by the prehistoric matriarchal society (whose existence she argues in
favour of) for the pleasure and benefit of women....

Just food for thought,

 Fred Rice
 darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au   
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24744 talk.religion.misc:24916
From: jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Removing "god" from morality. (was: Moral liberty)
Date: 2 Jan 93 01:22:09 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

In article <105796@bu.edu> wooyoung@acs.bu.edu (WooYoung Chung) writes:
>
>That is a very interesting point.  If a "god" has power 
>over us (e.g. power to throw us into hell for eternity) does 
>this mean we must follow him (or her)?  Or let say, we accepted 
>the notation that a "god" created us, does this obligate us to follow
>the teaching of the god, no matter what. 
>
>I do not know a lot of different religions; but, at least in the case of
>catholicism, rewards and punishments are signicantly over-emphasized,
>IMHO.  I think the reasons behind people's behavior is as important 
>as the behavior itself.  
>
>Whether one believes in god or not, he or she cannot deny the fact that 
>religion is a social institution that guides the morality of the
>society.  Perhaps the religion needs to grow with the society that it serves.
>The society that we live in has been going through a very rapid changes 
>in recent years.  Overall, there are more educated people than ever before.
>There are growing incidences of failure of hierarchical structure that 
>focuses on obedience. (e.g. failure of communism or failure of many 
>large bureaucratic organizations) 
>
>The religious organizations should learn and adopt to the
>societal changes.  They should try to balance Skinnerian approach 
>(inducing behavior with positive and negative feedbacks) with
>more humanistic approach (e.g. educating the value of "just" 
>behavior)
>
Well why not drop religion completely, and still do what you are calling
for? We can educate the value of "just" behavior without bringing
superstition into it. Society and "just" behaviors are a benefit to
every individual within the society. The problem is that children do not
always inherently see the benefit to themselves. What is needed is two
way communication between children and adults. Children are born with
self interest. I don't think any values should be taught that don't in
some way benefit the individual child. So all that is needed is to show 
the child how this behavior will benefit him or her. This may take a lot
of explaining, visits to the library, or even consulting experts in some
fields. I maintain that telling the truth is preferable to using religion
as a basis for values.

                       -John David Munch
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24842 talk.religion.misc:25028 alt.pagan:14877
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Bible translations, or Does God Speak Latin?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Keywords: Catholic, Latin, Bible
Date: 4 Jan 93 04:13:43 GMT

In article <C0B6oF.JC9.1@cs.cmu.edu> drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
>cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>
>>Are you nuts?  Where the hell is the beauty in hearing someone babble
>>gibberish at you and sitting there bored for an hour while he does it,
>>with his back turned to you all the time?  How the hell am I supposed
>>to gain enlightenment if I can't understand what the hell is being said?
>
>If you ask the question, I can't explain it to you.  I'm not schooled
>in the intricate terms of aesthetics.  I find the old Latin masses to be
>beautiful.  I also think that the Orthodox liturgies, particularly in
>Russian or Syrian, are also beautiful.  I guess I'm strange.  I like the
>old Gregorian chants too.

I, too, think that Latin is quite melodious and rolling, but I still
want to understand what's going on when I'm hearing about something that
pertains to my daily life, or purports to.  Not doing dso makes it seem
like spiritual spoonfeeding; I want to be a participant and contributor,
damn it!  

I also like Gregorian chants as well.  I think that music theory is one
of the few mental arts that actually benefitted from the ages of
"faith."

Believe me, I am getting a doctorate in linguistics; I adore language of
any stripe.  I think I'm the only person I know who thinks that German
and Russian are beautiful languages; most people go for the Romance
languages -- which I also love.  I just don't think that deliberate
obscurity equals power -- especially when doing away with it helps
people to understand just what's going on.  If people who are now
hearing what the priests are saying don't like it, that's the breaks.
I'd rather know what they are saying than just listen to babble and
effectively be shut off from any real participation.  

>It may relate somewhat to the use of Hebrew, Latin or Enochian in some
>rituals of ceremonial magick, as far as "enlightenment" goes.

Provided the hearer understands it, yes.  Other than that, I see no
spiritual value in hearing someone make mouth noises at me, no matter
how beautiful if I don't understand what they're saying.  English is
also a rhythmic and lyrical language, particularly when it comes to the
consonant combinations; read Poe's poems.  

Blessings,
Janis 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: BE GLAD YOUR CIRCUM...
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:31:12 GMT

y41@aix320d.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (Jeffrey Hazelwood) writes:

>Be glad your circumsized!  A man without foreskin can have sex longer than
>non circumsized people.  This is because the foreskin protects the head of
>the penis and keeps it sensitive.  But, with circumsized people the head of
>the penis is not as sensitive, therefore they can do the NASTY longer!!!!!!
>If you don't believe me, ask DR. RUTH!!

Hell, go one better. Before sex, inject your glans with a strong anaethetic,
and strap a splint to your dong. You'll be able to keep at it for hours 
and hours and hours and ...

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive  P a u l   M o l o n e y    "I'm pretty witty and you're itty bitty    pe
james  Trinity College, Dublin     And isn't it a pity the city can't see?   vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Scott Locklin )
Subject: I.Q. & Brains
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 04:29:59 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

There has been some discussion of IQ versus atheistic tendancies.
A few points;

I.Q. does seem to be a fairly accurate indicator of someone's _ability_
to think, however that does not necessarily imply that said person is 
using this ability. Quite often high-IQ types end up in rather uninspiring
jobs; janitorial & etc. Ask a Mensan what type of person you will meet in this
high-IQ org. It is my understanding that you will meet people from all walks of
life. Shit, that YoYo in syndicated publication, Marylin vos Savant is an
excellent example of a complete & utter _MORON_ with a high IQ. What productive
things has she done lately?

A better judgement would be the ratio of Succesful scientists, engineers,
doctors & etc. who are atheist vs. fundie & weather they base their religion on
reason or emotion...

-Scott


Newsgroups: alt.atheism