HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: FLAME: atheists should mind their own damn business
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:20:25 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24


      WARNING: the following is 100% napalm, and it's ablaze. Not
recommended for sensitive readers.

In <1992Dec12.071137.16343@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us writes:

> I don't have anything against atheists really... just leave me and
> my world alone.

      THIS, you're posting on OUR newsgroup?!? Look who's talkin',
asshole! Matter of fact, if I hadn't seen that one line on top of all
this drivel, I never would have responded - but you asked for it!

> If you don't like "In God We Trust" on US Currency,
> don't look for it - ya know it's there.

      Whaddeheck you talkin' 'bout - "don't look for it, because it's
there"? Do look for the logic in that statement, 'cos it sure ain't
there!

> If a religious symbol in a
> municipal seal is offensive to you, don't seek it out... After all
> it's not a blinking neon sign in your face, you have to look for it.

      I take it you don't support the separation of church and state. I
recommend you pack up your stuff and move to Iran.

> If a book or movie or anything in my environment offends my
> sensibilities, I try to ignore it. Why do y'all have to stir up shit... 

      Why do YOU lot have to put it there for us to stir up? If you
wanna spend your lives in it, go do so; but get it out of OUR lives!

> Most of us kinda like "In God We Trust" on the currency. It's kinda
> folksy and quaint, whether you believe it or not. Just look at it
> as if it were saying "When things are going down the toilet, and we
> can't stand to blame ourselves, we trust in God...

      When things are going down the toilet, I prefer to put my trust in
things that EXIST, thank you.

> 'cuz if there
> ain't one, we're all fucked!". That should put a new face on it...

      There ain't one. That makes me an independent, adult human being -
and you a big child who can't stand on his own legs. Yes, that was meant
to be insulting. So was this whole posting - because so was YOUR
posting.

-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-
 If you think I'm gonna be responsible for this crap, you're madder than I am.
    "No logic here today / Do as you got to, Go your own way..." -- G 'n' R
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: Just how much smarter are atheists?
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:00:02 CST

In article <ednclark.724376578@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>
>In article <910773f.30.724186770@ace.acadiau.ca> 910773f@ace.acadiau.ca  
>(HEATHER LEE FYFFE) writes:
> 
>> slip....?  Everyone, whether they will admit it or not, knows that they  
>have 
>> a soul.  Noone can possibly believe that `I', what makes me `me', my 
>
>Boulderdash. I do not beleive wwe have a soul. There is no evidence for it,
>why should anyone beleive in one? It is obviously a product of atoms jumping
>around in our nervous systems. What most people fail to understand is
>questions of scale. The very best computer (which can sound remarkably
>smart, talked with any recent neural network AI programmes lately) is
>utterly insignificant in comparison to the brain a product of billions of
>years of evolution (here again is another place where people have a problem
>with scale). Your average 486 is utterly insignificant in comparison to the
>best supercomputers we have today in terms of speed and memory and yet these
>supercomputers cannot begin to emulate the super-parallel processing
>capacity of the dumbest humans. Still given that we have only been in the
>process of emulating brains for about 50 years (as opposed to 2,000,000,000
>years which nature has had) we have done a pretty good job.
>
Slight comment on that.  The problems with making a computer to pass
the Turing test is that people learn a myriad of little facts that a computer
doesn't know at all.  It is this base of knowledge, sometimes called
common sense, that is the current stumping block of true AI.  From what I
understand, a project is underway to make a database with all these little
facts that a person knows by the time they are a few years old, and also
give it a good AI program.  Given enough time and memory, their is no
theoretical reason why a computer with a good neural net program can't
learn as much as a human knows.  It doesn't take a supercomputer to 
do AI, it takes a huge database, that is being made today.

At least, that is the current thinking as far as I have heard.
:)M^2
>
From: eknipp@lobo.rmhs.colorado.edu (Ethan R Knipp)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:40:52 GMT
Organization: Rocky Mountain High School, Fort Collins, CO

In article <1992Dec11.022530.23407@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>Don't be stupid.   When the child trips of her own accord and is hanging
>over the cliff, all she has to do is answer "yes" or "no" to God's question:
>"Do you want Me to save you?"   He will not _force_ His saving grace on
>someone who prefers suicide.

When the child is put by a cliff and told 'play around', don't you think that 
MAYBE she might fall off?  Hmm?  Oh, sorry, kiddo, it was YOUR choice to fall 
off the cliff- now suffer in pain down at the bottom.


-- 
Ethan Knipp                   |        ***PANIC NOW-AVOID THE RUSH***
The Unbeliever                |   "It's the end of the world as we know it/
eknipp@lobo.rmhs.colorado.edu |    and I feel fine"-R.E.M.
****************Whatever I say, I say.  Deal with it.**********************
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Colleen
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 05:19:36 GMT

iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.020104.29801@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>>If James Merrit says ...
>
>It must be noted here that James Meritt is known as the God whose name
>is always misspelt by the unbelievers.  (See t.r.m for ample evidence.)
>This identifies B Kendig as a heretic.  Woe to thee, Brother.

You dolt!  *I* was the one who said on t.r.m that James Meritt's name
is always misspelt by the misbelievers!  I made that up, so it doesn't
apply to me!  That's how religions work -- just look at Christianity!

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 20 Dec 92 02:25:49 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

[reply to adams@spss.com]
 
>I'm a Christian, an Evangelical to boot, anti-abortion, yet pro-choice.
>Strange eh?
 
Not so strange.  It was reported either in the Humanist or Free Inquiry
(I get both) that one quarter of all women presenting for an abortion
identify their religion as a form of Christian fundamentalism.

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ttobler@unislc.uucp (Trent Tobler)
Subject: Re: What if there is a god?
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:32:41 GMT

HEATHER LEE FYFFE (910773f@ace.acadiau.ca) wrote:
: In article <05O9CPI@minnie.zdv.uni-mainz.de> haass@mzdmza.zdv.uni-mainz.de writes:
: >From: haass@mzdmza.zdv.uni-mainz.de
: >Subject: Re: What if there is a god?
: >Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 16:56:51 GMT
: 
: >for ourselves, if we are told not to use it, because Big Daddy wants us to
: >follow his will; oh yes, naturally he knews much better than ourselves what's
: >good for us. either - or, decide yourself, because you can't have both sides
: >at the same time. Seems as if we are not free to reject God, if he blesses
: >only those who accept him. What are those blessings? I don't miss any! But
: >what does it matter, if we reject him, since he loves us still? Brrr, I don't
: >want to get his love, I think I don't need a clucking hen. If I would need,
: >why did I become adult?
: 
: 
: He knows what's best for us in the same way that a parent knows what's best 
: for their child...

And how does one determine what's best.  Since 'He' knows, shouldn't 'He' be
the one that tells us, not some christian?  To take your analogy a bit further,
shouldn't it be the parent who tells the child how and what is best, rather
than tell just a few of the children, and then let them tell the others?
And then, since we, the children, don't even know what our 'parent' looks
like, sounds like, feels like, etc... how do we determine if it is 'He' who
is telling us, or some dilusion we are having, or some other force that
is wrong, evil, or other?

: if you let a little kid do whatever they thought was 
: appropriate, they wouldn't live very long, would they.

Are you certain of this?  Some wouldn't make it, but I think many would.

: So the parent, 
: having lived longer, matured, and gotten a bit of intelligence, tells the 
: child, `don't eat all those cookies, you'll get sick'.  The child hollers 
: and screams, the child feels that the parent is forcing their ideals down 
: the child's throat, the child does not believe in the authority of the 
: parent.  Some children will rebel, and eat all the cookies.

And there are, of course, times when the parent is wrong, or worse, abusive.
This is a poor analogy.

: Of course, the 
: child gets sick, because the parent was, of course, right.

The parent is not always right.

: Some children, 
: even if they disobeyed at firt, eventually realise that the parent was 
: right.  Sometimes the realization does not come until years later, when the 
: child says, `hey, the time they told me that, and I thought at the time that 
: it was so illogical and stupid, well it makes sense now.  They were right.'
: God is just the ultimate parent.

How can you show, or even show indication that 1) this god exists, and 2) that
he is always right?

: And someday, we'll all say, gosh, He was 
: right.

If that is what you believe, then so be it.  There's nothing wrong with
people being wrong.

--
  Trent Tobler
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: kavuri@lips.ecn.purdue.edu (Surya N Kavuri )
Subject: Is Gandhi a Messiah ?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:54:52 GMT

 Gandhi seems to have done as much to people as any of the Religious 
   messiahs/prophets.  All the Messiahs have somethings in common.
     * They all came at a time of trouble
     * They all took upon the cause of helping people
     * They knew the psychology of the masses
       - they knew how to get into the heads of the people 
     * They knew how to use the right symbolism to
       make a contact with the masses

     Jesus and Mohammad were at a time and place where 
     the best way they could communicate their ideas
     was through religion.  Gandhi, on the other hand, 
     came at a time when religion did not have that
     much control on the people - he chose the 
     symbolism that related to farmers who made the
     majority of the nation.  He dressed right for
     this and his spinning wheel ... 

     So can we call Gandhi a Messiah and start a religion
     named after him. We can make the religion a little
     more contemporary and cool !!? We could give them
     a Baggy uniform.  They may also look important in 
     the eyes of modern, trendy movements for the 
     environment and peace..



   SURYA KAVURI


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Just how much smarter are atheists?
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:05:34 GMT

>From: 910773f@ace.acadiau.ca (HEATHER LEE FYFFE)
>Religion is not just a way of dealing with life.  Sure, that does come into 
>play.  But it is also a belief in a certain truth, and if you believe in 
>that truth, then what others believe to be true must be wrong, because there 
>can only be one Truth.  So EVERYBODY goes through life trying to convince 
>everybody else that they're wrong.  Christians by evangelizing, atheists by 
>arguing with Christians, even apathetics who say `whatever works'.  Some try 
>more forcibly, some don't really _try_, but just stating your own opinion 
>forces others to consider it.  But if you don't believe in your truth 
>strongly enough to consider it the big-T Truth, then why do you believe in 
>it at all?  
>
>Before you flame me on this point, I know that most of you atheists on this 
>group DO consider your truth to be the big-T Truth and you're not afraid to 
>say so.  These last paragraphs were aimed at those who say `you believe what 
>you believe and I'll believe what I believe and let's not get in other's 
>way, OK?'.  

I have some objection to this, not from my view point (I'm a Big-T'er myself),
but on behalf of the many YBWYBAIBWIBALNGIEWO'ers. (Whew!  I hope you don't
mind, but I sub'ed "eachother's" for "other's")
Just because someone is YBWYBA... uh, that way, that doesn't make them
religiously/spiritualy/philosophy.  For instance, many Hindus center
their religion on the equality of other religions.  I don't think
they are in the "and let's not get in eachother's way" frame of mind,
but it is important to consider their philosophy as being a valid
viewpoint (not ness. true, tho') and not just an "apathetic" stance.

Brian /-|-\

PS (Hey, Buzz.  Is your last name Fyffe? What nationality is that?) 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Religion = Anything that's fun is bad.
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:41:51 GMT

>From: harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus)
>Being an atheist OPENS your mind? What a crock of shit!

If you are saying that the idea that being an atheist automaticaly
makes you have an open mind is false, then I agree with you.
If you are saying that being an atheist closes your mind, then
I think that you should take another look at the definition
of a closed mind, then look in the mirror.

>So organized religion has perpetrated some of the most heinous crimes
>and practices ever... I don't have to be an atheist to get offended
>by the Inquisition. Just remember, not everyone who believes in a
>guiding intelligience subscribes to an organized religion. I think
>kids should be exposed to all kinds of beliefs so they can make
>their own choice. IMHO, telling kids there is NO GOD is just another
>form of indoctrinating them into a almost fanatical belief system -
>an evangelical anti-religion if you please.

True.  People should never be "brain-washed" into believing
ANYTHING.  Even truth should not be forced on people.
(I'm not saying atheism=truth.)

>Frankly, I find the majority of people ballsy enough to publicly
>declare themselves "atheists" are nothing more than troublemakers
>who finally found a mission. They stir up shit, cost the taxpayers
>money and vanish into the woodwork having done nothing constructive.
>If this is you, go soak yer head...
>- Harry

I can do better than that:
Frankly, I find the majority of people ballsy enough to publicly
declare themselves "*" are nothing more than troublemakers
who finally found a mission. They stir up shit, cost the taxpayers
money and vanish into the woodwork having done nothing constructive.

Insert anything into *.

Brian /-|-\
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: YHWH
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:09:58 GMT

pharvey writes:

>Is there really a difference? Who is this "God of the covenant?"

I AM WHO I AM...Thus you shall say...I AM has sent me...

(Exodus 3:14) Incidentally, one of the funniest and most
thought-provoking lines in the Pentateuch (IMO). 

Dano
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ttobler@unislc.uucp (Trent Tobler)
Subject: Re: Atheists should mind their own damn business
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:59:27 GMT

Harold Platypus (harry@timesink.chi.il.us) wrote:
: I don't have anything against atheists really... just leave me and
: my world alone. If you don't like "In God We Trust" on US Currency,
: don't look for it - ya know it's there.

Or, just get a big black marker and cross it off (don't you just love
freedom of speech... ;)

: If a religious symbol in a
: municipal seal is offensive to you, don't seek it out... After all
: it's not a blinking neon sign in your face, you have to look for it.
: 
: If a book or movie or anything in my environment offends my
: sensibilities, I try to ignore it. Why do y'all have to stir up shit... 
: Most of us kinda like "In God We Trust" on the currency. It's kinda
: folksy and quaint, whether you believe it or not.

I personally think that "In Money We Trust" is better... ;)

: Just look at it
: as if it were saying "When things are going down the toilet, and we
: can't stand to blame ourselves, we trust in God... 'cuz if there
: ain't one, we're all fucked!". That should put a new face on it...

No, this isn't how I look at it.  If I don't blame myself, or some
other human, I don't blame anyone.  And, the only new face it puts on
it is a silly one.

--
  Trent Tobler
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sumner@math.scarolina.edu (David Sumner)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  9 Dec 92 22:35:54 GMT


Suzanne Forgach writes in reply to Gordon Storga:
 
>I can point at the evidence forever, Gordon, but if you 
>insist on keeping your eyes closed, it doesn't do either of 
>us much good, does it.
 
Comments like this annoy me. What evidence is it that you 
keep pointing to? Let the rest of us in on it, please.
 
If it is the bible, then I don't think many of us here are 
going to put a lot of stock in that. If you believe 
everything you read, fine. Some of us would like a little 
more substantive evidence than some third-hand reporting from 
people we never knew. 
 
  If I read an article in today's 
newspaper about someone claiming to be god, I would put 
little stock in it. Why would I believe the writings of an 
unknown author from thousands of years ago?
 
> The historical Jesus
 
 
What historical documents are you referring to? Virtually all 
biblical scholars agree that there is little (if any) 
historical evidence for Jesus outside of the writings of the 
Bible and that of Josephus. I do think it is likely that 
there was a man named Jesus,and that he was crucified. But 
that's all I can see much of a case for.
 
David Sumner
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: 910773f@axe.acadiau.ca (HEATHER LEE FYFFE)
Subject: Re: The "Answers": and "Why" .....
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:08:46 GMT

>> 
>> 	What about when they say "the Bible has the answers". I
>> find that really odd. Most of time a lot of us just feel tempted
>> (or at least I used to) to just say the "answers are wrong", but
>> I look at it as they DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT MY QUESTIONS ARE !!!
>> 
>> 	I really resent it when some (not all perhaps) chri$tians
>> say that "they have the answers to my questions". Well, my questions
>>  don't seem to match their answers.....because they don't really
>> know them.....
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> A. TRENT PHILLIPS 


Ok, I'll bite.  What _are_ your questions?

Buzzard
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "Answers": and "Why" .....
Date: 17 Dec 1992 01:32:00 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


From: 910773f@axe.acadiau.ca (HEATHER LEE FYFFE)
Subject: Re: The "Answers": and "Why" .....
Date: Wed Dec 16 16:08:46 1992
|
|>> 
|>>      What about when they say "the Bible has the answers". I
|>> find that really odd. Most of time a lot of us just feel tempted
|>> (or at least I used to) to just say the "answers are wrong", but
|>> I look at it as they DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT MY QUESTIONS ARE !!!
|>> 
|>>      I really resent it when some (not all perhaps) chri$tians
|>> say that "they have the answers to my questions". Well, my questions
|>>  don't seem to match their answers.....because they don't really
|>> know them.....
|>> 
|>> 
|>> -- 
|>> A. TRENT PHILLIPS 
|
|
|Ok, I'll bite.  What _are_ your questions?
|
|Buzzard
 
 
	Well, I don't have many.......
 
	But here are a few minor ones that Chri$tians NEVER can answer
(they try after they pick their jaws up off the floor)
 
 
	(1) Where are all of the good Transvestite bars, I could use a date
 
	(2) How dry is the DRYEST martini
 
 
	But seriously folks  {:-)} I do not have any of these strange,
vauge questions. I do not assume there is a `reason'/`mission' or particular
porpose that we are here, because it assumes a lot. The basis for a lot
of these people having such question is tha we grow up in a thestic 
society and are taught that there is an `afterlife' when young.
 
-- 
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-------
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Challenge to Agnostics
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:49:16 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: alt.atheism

In article <1992Dec16.030300.28523@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) wrote:
> What I was left with was a pragmatic, scientific, probabilistic definition of
> knowledge, somewhat like what  Simon Clippingdale(tm) has espoused here in 
> parts. So we don't have to qualify the fact that we know God doesn't exist
> because it doesn't have to be 100%. How much of any of our knowledge is 100%?

Well, IMHO the issue of 100% knowledge is a holy grail that we could 
never obtain, we have a lot of theories that sustain this concept
(Godel, Heidegger). In other words I do think it's fragile to 
state that certain things are solid facts, however from the empirical
view we do know that gravity works and that the Earth circles the Sun
(finally after thousands of years of astronomy :-).

One issue is that are we able to empirically show that religions are
real. As long as we are not -- I have not seen a single good example
of this -- we have to think about the doctrines as statements and 
examples of metaphors. For instance, if we could measure in laboratories
that religious miracles would heal cancer, then I'm sure most humans
would judge religious miracles as a known fact.


Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: alt.atheism