HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: fatima
Date: 13 Nov 92 20:07:24 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA09203; Fri, 13 Nov 92 09:55:10 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA24959; Fri, 13 Nov 92 09:54:49 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)   with BSMTP id 0522; Fri, 13 Nov 92 18:54:19 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

Mick Oettinger said something like Fatima was proof and that it was before
photography.

Well, I've been brought up in a Catholic family and I have been told the
following by my teacher in Catholic religion (mandatory for Catholics in
Germany) that there WERE pictures taken and that they show nothing miraculous.

I don't doubt that Mick will come up with another miraculous explanation for
it like when god does wonders it can defy all physics. But, as pointed out,
this way everything can be explained, it just does not contain any information,
and secondly did s/he (sorry could not evaluate the gender) bring up the topic
of photography him/herself.

Photography is older than 1916.

And there are those who were there and did not join in the mass hysteria.
Their reports sound slightly different. Food poisoining might be another
explanation.

Weird god by the way. Even if it would exist, believing in it tells a lot about
of those who do.

And since this all is 'proof' (though 10**9 people did not see it and were not
given a chance to), I would like to see PROOF that the miracle was done by
god or maybe mary, and not by one or more of the following:
Brahma, Apollo, Helios, Loki, Odin, Bugs Bunny, the Three Musqueteers, Cthulhu,
Pink Invisible Unicorns, Lakotas From Outer Space, Elvis, Deus Ignotus, or
any other god from every pantheon. Especially, the proof that the last ones
cannot have done it would interest me.

I cannot tell about Fatima, but Bugs Bunny sure does wonders.
  Benedikt
From: hbcs1010@blurt.oswego.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Don't believe anything you hear
Date: 9 Nov 92 12:50:31 GMT
Organization: SUNY College at Oswego, Oswego, NY

In article <1992Nov4.124808.25991@walter.cray.com>, jwest@wisc (Jeff West) writes:
> root@expert.cc.purdue.edu (adamsma@expert.cc.purdue.edu) writes:
> : Okay, so you're an athiest.  Don't believe in any God, Devil, angels, demons,
> : good, evil.  Don't believe in any higher authority then yourself.  That's
> : you right as a human being.  However, your lack of belief doesn't change God's
> : infinite love, power, or being.  It doesn't change the fact that Jesus, the 
> : Son of God, died in a horrible fashion to save you from your sins.  It doesn't
> : change the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead and now reigns in Heaven 
> : at the right hand of God.  It doesn't change the fact that you can have 
> : salvation and eternal life by accepting Him as your personnal savior.  Don't 
> : believe.  It doesn't change anything.
> : 
> : Sincerely, 
> : 
> : Mark    
> 
> 
> 	Oh man, here we go again,,,,



ya know, sometimes i have to wonder whether this mark person actually
*believes* this stuff or if he just posts it to provoke everyone else.....
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:28:49 EST
Distribution: world

In article <6X2LTB6w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> says:

>> I disagree.  The point was that non-existence is better than living a
>certain
>> quality of life.  So, why not end the existences of those who are living
>thes
>> terrible lives, if non-existence is better?

>[...]
>So the answer to "If it's OK to cause a potential person never to exist, why
>isn't it OK to cause an existing person to cease existing?" is simple;
>"causing a person to never have existed" is not the same as "causing a person
>to cease existing".  Hence my original comment.

It's not the same, but the reasons are the same and the outcome is the same.
In either case, we are preventing something terrible from happening in the
future.  In this way, the two are the same.
Hence, -my- original comment, that preventing future misery is not a defen-
sible justification for abortion.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Immortality
Date: 11 Nov 92 10:36:18 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <dpn2.81.721284358@po.CWRU.Edu> dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:

>In article <19233.2afb10ff@levels.unisa.edu.au> 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon) writes:
>>> If you don't so assume, I think that makes you a "Sophist" (sp?), right?
>>> Don't believe ANYTHING wo/ proof, even your senses? Only thing you know
>>> is that you exist?
>>
>>Yeah, if you ask me, that is a VERY self-important view to take, almost
>>downright arrogant.

Isn't that   "Solipsist"   ??  and if not, what's the difference?


        Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty

  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44|0)61-275-6033  
  D.Budd@mcc.ac.uk                                          fax 6040
From: dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: morality????????
Date: 7 Nov 1992 13:20:23 GMT
Organization: University of Natal (Durban), South Africa
NNTP-Posting-Host: shrike.und.ac.za
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
: 
: Precisely, here's a couple of other backing points. If we allow a murderer
: or rapist to continue in this society, they are contributing to the violence
: of the society we live in in more than one way. Not only are they likely
: repeat perpetrators, but they are likely to influence others who may not
: have been violent and also are given the opportunity to reproduce and raise
: kids with a role model murderer or rapist parent. Anyone who commits these
: crimes has forfeited their right to remain within our society. I do not
: beleive in retribution and I beleive these people have gone beyond a second
: chance, they are unsafe to be allowed to live in our society. Many societies
: have exiled particularly nasty offenders rather than execute them, maybe
: this is a solution.

Presumptions don't give you the right to kill another individual.
 
: 	Let's evacuate a few islands in the Pacific and
: Atlantic with massive recompensation to those removed, and just plonk any
: really nasty offenders on this island without any modern convenience and let
: them sort out their livelihoods amongst themselves. This would be a pretty
: good deterrent as who wants to go to a place where there is no bars or walls
: between you and that multi-murderer next door. I vote we just leave them
: there as they have forfeited their right to have anything that society can
: provide for them. No gaurds, no doctors, no tvs, no electricity, no guns,
: nothing, just a picket to make sure no-one gets in with a method to get
: out and who cares if they get overcrowded.

No prejudice against its current occupants, but what country do you live
in?  Perhaps it should be restored to its former purpose.

	-Hal 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Keywords: Cure
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public 
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 05:45:52 GMT


In article <1992Nov6.135913.3366@newstand.syr.edu> dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu
writes:
>> I am interested in making this world a better place to live, and in
>> order to do so I think it would be beneficial if this group would
>> think about ways of helping those who have religious leanings.  I do
>> relize it would be inapropriate to lock up all Christians, Muslems, etc.
>> in insane asylums, but surely there must be some way of stopping this
>> defective mindset(s).

I think you are treading on shaky ground here.  The most you can do is
present the reasons you have for thinking as you do, and letting
people decide for themselves.  I wouldn't support a government that
actively promotes atheism any more than I would support a government
that promotes a particular religion.  And I wouldn't advise you to go
door-to-door preaching the "gospel" of atheism; people would be just
as irritated by as you as they are by the other door-to-door
evangelical types.

By all means make information on atheists available (if only to clear
up misconceptions about atheism) but don't ape the more obnoxious
evangelical tactics.

With these caveats in my mind, I would say that it is a good idea to
promote atheism if that is what you want to do.  It's a big under-
taking though, and nobody is saying that it is something you *have*
to do.  The few responses I have made here to theistic posts has 
shown me just how big a job it could be.  But if you think you can
handle it, then go for it.

BTW, organizations do exist to deal with the harm done by some of the 
more fanatical organizations.  There is, or was, Fundamentalists
Anonymous for instance.  You could get info on that.  Also a book
I found helpful in my "conversion" to atheism is "The Mind of the
Bible Believer," by Edmund Cohen.  Prometheus Books is the publisher.
Dr. Cohen is a psychologist who was also a former fundamentalist;
his book does a lot to explain how biblical Christian belief is so
good at gaining converts (a definite plus for discussions with
Christians who blather on about how Christianity is qualitatively
different from other religions).  These are things you should look 
into.

SD


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Vatican approves Death Penalty
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:03:54 GMT

To a theist, murder is indeed "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being",
but the laws that the theist uses to check to see if something fits this
definition are religious laws, not laws passed by legislatures.  Theists
support the death penalty but not abortion because they believe in religious
laws that allow it.  (Specifically, in this case, their religious laws
prohibit the killing of innocents, and fetuses tend to be innocent more than
convicted criminals do.)

To point to Jesus ordering not to stone someone as evidence that the Bible
prohibits execution is absurd.  The Bible has a lot of messages, many
contradictory.  All you prove by pointing this out is that it says not to
execute in one place, but it still says _to_ execute in another.

Finally, as for life being a gift from God, freedom is a gift from God too,
but we can still lock up criminals.  In fact, _everything_, good or bad, is a
gift from God.  If we were not allowed to interfere with things that are gifts
from God, we wouldn't be allowed to do _anything_.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: THE DIVINE MASTERS VS DUPED CHRISTIANS
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:32:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov11.201137.2273@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes...

>               But there are some very important related facts that 
>          Christians are COMPLETELY IGNORANT of, as are followers of 
>          most other world religions. 

[rest deleted]

Then why'd you post it to alt.atheism?  Try s.r.c or talk.religion.misc.  

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*  "If something about the human	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*   body disgusts you, complain to
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*   the manufacturer." - Lenny Bruce	
******************************************************************************
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Bash Atheists
Date: 6 Nov 92 02:58:31 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

mathew
[ Q: How can you spot the jokes on a Christian TV channel?
  A: They're the bit that isn't funny. ]

Once, when I didn't have cable and I had at least 4 Christian channels
(missing now, hurrah!) there was this sitcom shown on channel
65 late at weekends about a very *artificial* family, with very
*artificial* problems. For instance, one of the young characters 
was requited as a hit man for a mob, and Jesus saved him. Speak
about real life situations. I always wondered why they needed the
extra effort of exaggeration to point out Christian values...

Kent

	"The problem with computers is you *play* with them."
					-- Richard Feynman
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: An apology
Date: 8 Nov 92 22:03:39 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University

In article <40ob021r2a7d01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com  
(Chris Lee) writes:
> In article <1992Nov7.021642.17286@nmsu.edu> epowers@spock.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)  
writes:
> >
> >                                                      I also know plenty of
> >people who claim to be atheists but have never considered the consequences  
of  
> >their beliefs.  So don't assume that someone fits under a particular label  
just  
> >because they claim they do.
> >					
> >					Erik Powers 
> 
> And what beliefs are those?
> 
> Chris Lee

	Careful, I thought I saw your nostrils flare.  Remember, I'm not  
attacking you, as I have no idea what your beliefs might be.  But I have met  
people who claim to be atheists because they don't believe that absolute  
morality exists, but seem quite offended when I suggest that all people of a  
certain race (choose your favorite one, or substitute the student body of your  
favorite university) should be destroyed immediately in order to cut down on  
the world population.  Others I have met claim that no absolute truth exists,  
but are not absolutely sure this is true.
	Now, no one can possibly consider the consequences to every belief they  
hold.  But there have been times I have challenged people who claimed to be  
atheists and found them to actually be polytheists.  I have sometimes  
challenged polytheists and found them to actually be atheists.  I have  
challenged people who have claimed to be Christians and found some of them to  
be gnostics, and even a few agnostics.
	Not everyone who claims to be an atheist is one, and certainly not  
every atheist is an intellectual giant.  Not everyone who claims to be a  
Christian is one, and certainly not every Christian is an intellectual giant.   
No matter what beleif system a person says they adhere to, you still have to  
ask questions to find out what they think on any given issue.  Quick pop quiz:   
How many different major branches of Buddhism exist?

	The moral lesson is:  Don't assume too much.
			
						Erik Powers
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Love
Date: 10 Nov 92 11:58:51 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

Mikel Evins (mikel@Apple.COM) wrote:
: In article <parsons.720996187@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
: 
: >We don't bug you because we hate you; we bug you because we love you.
: 
: Pardon my skepticism, but I really don't think you are in a
: position to love me. You might perhaps love the abstract
: idea of me, for some definition of the word 'love'.

Just wanted to emphasize this excellent and thought provoking
response by Mikel.

Felicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 09:20:00 EST
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The origin of Religion
 <zlsiida.358@fs1.mcc.ac.uk>

In article <zlsiida.358@fs1.mcc.ac.uk>, zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) says:
>
>In article <1992Nov2.204911.20068@news.acns.nwu.edu>
>ikonen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
>(Ian Konen) writes:
>
>>    How reasonable is it to expect a person with almost no scientific        e
>knowledg
>>to spontaneosly come up with the concept of god(s)?  Specifically the person n
>i
>   [munched]
>>caveman had never even heard of the concept of god(s), how likely would it be
>>for him to come up with it himself?  Obviously (to an atheist at least) it
>
>Our caveman is trying to explain observed phenomena.  Superficially, many
>phenomena look as though some   intent   is involved. This implies
>personality or something like it.  And then it is but a short step.....
>
Precisely.  Some anthropologists have suggested that the rapid increase in
our species' brain size was in part an effect of coping with increasingly
complex interpersonal relationships and social structure.  One result is that
our brains are predisposed to perceive and conceive in personal, human terms.
This is evident in anthropomorphic perception (seeing human qualities in
animals) and physiognomic perception (seeing human qualities in nonliving
aspects of nature).  Both, but particularly the latter, indicate that human
beings are vulnerable to religious thinking.

IMHO, this business of children being natural atheists is an unsubstantiated
bit of wishful thinking on the part of some atheists.  And the Jungian ideas
of innate, archetypal, religious images are not just claptrap.  Look around
you at the universality of religion.  We know Neanderthal was religious.
Atheism is a struggle to achieve, as it contradicts certain aspects of human
nature.  I wish that getting rid of religion were as easy as educating people
properly.  It is not.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Keywords: Cure
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:51:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov07.014950.18496@bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.135913.3366@newstand.syr.edu>,
>dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:
>|>I am interested in making this world a better place to live, and in
>|>order to do so I think it would be beneficial if this group would
>|>think about ways of helping those who have religious leanings. 
>            
>We could go door to door, giving out extistential lit.
>Or we could go on TV and preach the joy of atheism
>(big, colorful sets. lots of singing.  We could invite
>maimed people to come forth and not get healed.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        Now this I like!


>How about a theme park?
>
>Brian /-|-\

Does that include a big water slide too?

jc
-- 
I sink like a stone
That's been thrown in the ocean
My logic has drowned
In a sea of emotion                   -- Sting
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Anttidisestablishmentarianism (was Re: Cure the Believers!)
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:44:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov10.184658.19188@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes...
> 
>	Atheists commonly ignore that they live in a dream-world by themselves.
> 
>	Quite common is the belief that you could save this earth. This is 
>	rubbish. There is no method to save mankind from Greenhouse effect or
>	lack of Ozone (for decades). People refuse to believe this. 

For those not familiar with Antti's posts, the most useful reply is:

Evidence, please?

Use for any blatant assertion.  Mix well.

Here's an example:

>	What is the philosophy with atheists ? Consume ! Spend more !

Evidence, please?

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*  "If something about the human	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*   body disgusts you, complain to
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*   the manufacturer." - Lenny Bruce	
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: As if to spite me....
From: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Sat,  7 Nov 1992 02:48:02 -0500 
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

At least four of the last ten posts I read have been second copies of an
earlier post.  I guess God is screwing around with our net AGAIN!

Damn!  Doesn't he have all those prayers to answer?

-JW

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: Is omniscience impossible?
Organization: SPS
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:15:37 GMT

cnc@balboa.eng.uci.edu (Christopher Christensen) writes:
>
>[Fine explanation of how omniscience is impossible for a
>being moving "inexorably forward on the time axis" deleted]

I have no problem with this part of your argument. You don't even
have to appeal to d/c time problem. You can just argue that onmiscience
necessarily includes complete knowledge of the future, and that 
beings bound in time as we are cannot completely know the future.
Apologies to Jean Dixon :)

But, if you postulate at least one additional time dimension, and let  
a being interact within both, then time for this being would be planar 
rather than linear (or spherical for two added dimensions). He could
then have omniscience of events on our timeline, moving independantly
to any and all points on our timeline.  Combine this with extra spacial
dimensions and it makes omniscience a possibility.

>Besides, there is no reason to assume the existence of additional
>dimensions of space or time unless there is some way for us to interact
>with them.  The dimensions that we know of seem to have a great deal of
>interaction between them.  Seeing no evidence for interaction with
>extra dimensions, I have to assume they do not exist.

Basically I agree with you here. I have no evidence for the existence
of additional dimensions of space and time. However, I think it is
interesting that the Bible, which claims it's God is omniscient and 
omnipresent, also strongly implies the existence of these extra space 
and time dimensions which make it a possibility. 

---
Dave Weaver                | "The impression of design is overwhelming"
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com |       -Paul Davies (on the cosmos)

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
From: jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus)
Date: 12 Nov 92 13:09:50 CST
Keywords: Cure

dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:

[ outdated stuff deleted ]

>Seems to me a Believer is a lot like an Alcoholic.  They are both 
>unreasonable and the more drunk they get the more irrational their
>actions become.  After all we do try to help alcoholics and drug
>addicts, so why shouldn't we try to help Believers.  
>Ever play that game where someone tells a word to his neighbor and
>he in turn tells it to the next person until it comes back to the
>first person and often the word is totally different.  Sort of like
>the bible ...  Makes you kinda wonder if they even got the name (Jesus)
>right.  I wouldn't bet on it.  

Todays translations of the Bible (mostly) come from the original Hebrew
and Greek texts, not from word of mouth!  If you compare the different
translations, you will see that they say the same things (although the
wording is often slightly diffferent - but the meaning is the same).

Where there is difficulty with the translation of some words or phrases,
then alternative interpretations are usually given.  Generally, though, the
differences between the interpretations are very trivial, and in no way
change the meaning of the passage.

Also, the name of Jesus is recorded in other Christian and Non-christian
texts.  There is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that the name of Jesus is correct, and
that He lived on earth.

I think we can safely dismiss your supposition!  (In fact, I think we can
safely dismiss all of them.  It all sounds like day dreaming, not fact. :-)


Yours in Christ,
James.