HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccall3080@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Women. . . SHUT UP!
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:42:33 -0600
Summary: feminism
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <n1188t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> In article <1992Dec5.083311.16599@samba.oit.unc.edu> 
> Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes:
>  
> [cut of original article]
>  
> MO> "I am not saying feminism has done all bad. ... What I am saying
> MO> is they are pushing it to the point of thinking men are inferior
> MO> to women, and I think their attitudes are to say the least
> MO> misguided."
>  
> Gee, talk about a wide brush and ad hoc generalizations! And who
> are you to judge another's "attitudes?" I just got an 1967 LSD
> flash-back: you sound like the anti-black biggots we hated with
> such passion--- "those damn niggers and their attitudes, thinking
> whites are inferior to blacks, let alone equal." Feminists DO NOT,
> as a group, assert they are better than men. They assert the fact
> that they are AS GOOD AS men.
>  
> MO> Not to bring up abortion, but I must. Feminists are the reason
> MO> it has become such a contraversy. If they would all just shutup
> MO> and let the world move on, ...."
>  
> What utter inanity. "If them blacks would just shut up. . . ."
> right? You anti-woman biggot! "If women would only just shut up,
> stay barefoot and pregnant, and keep in their proper place. . . ."
>  
> It is the Christian hate groups such as "Opperation 'Rescue'" that
> made abortion an issue. It is the Christian hate groups such as
> "The Vineyard" that use violence, bombs, threats, and intimidation
> to beat women down, keep them oppressed, force them into dependant
> roles to men. Feminists would like nothing better than to have
> these Christian hate groups get the fuck out of their vaginas and
> wombs, and leave them alone!
>  
> If Christian cults would all just shut up and let people live
> their own lives without intervention. . . .
> 
> --- Maximus 2.00

I didn't feel I could cut any of this out without destroying some important
information!  I want to thank David for his response.  I am soooo tired of
feminism getting a bad name.  
        Yes, I think that SOME feminists go too far in their beliefs and DO
think that they are better than men, but that is not the majority.  Whenever
you have a large group of people classified as one thing, there is going to be
some that don't actually believe as the rest do.  Of course those are the ones
that will get all the negative attention and the rest of the organization
suffers.
        I used to consider myself a feminist until I realized that my scope was
larger than that.  Yes, I think that our society is dominated by men, but it is
changing.  My beliefs are that ALL people should be treated with respect and
treated equally.  I suppose that makes me a humanist.  
        Melissa
From: ron_s@verifone.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Dealing with annoying e-mail
Date: 19 Dec 92 18:56:57 -1000
Organization: VeriFone Inc., Honolulu HI

In article <1gga1eINNlm5@wupost.wustl.edu>, oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser) writes:
> 
> Maybe it's just the time of year, but I have been getting an inordinate amount
> of unsolicited e-mail from theists seeking to enlighten me to the One True
> Way.  I usually just mail them a copy of the FAQ.  I was wondering what
> favorite tactics other readers of this group used when dealing with these
> people, or whether they bother to respond at all!
> 
> 	-Scott O.
> 
> P.S.  Merry Saturnalia!

    Scott:  Tell them to send me some.  I called the recent "rapture"
              in Korea for what it was - bogus troll spit - and
             one track thinking always gets my imagination rolling..

              I try to get folks to tell me just what there God
              looks like, smells like, and feels like, and how
              often he pays a visit or pays a bill.
aloha
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheists should mind their own damn business
Date: 12 Dec 92 16:38:04 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec12.071137.16343@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
>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. 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. 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...
>- Harry

I don't have anything against theists really... just leave me and
my world alone. Mind you, you are a theist who has come into our world.
Not a good start. If there were "there is no god" on US currency, you
could just ignore it. Or if it said "In Allah We Trust", you could just
ignore it. Hey, I've got a better idea, why don't we just leave it off
completely.

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...

From the President of The USA when he says that atheists should not be
considered citizens or be patriotic because he doesn't know what the
First Amendment to the Constitution that he has sworn to uphold says.
Through the extremists who want their one particular religion's creation
myths and legends taught as fact in public schools in order to get around
the same First Amendment. To people who want to bring back organised
prayer sessions in the same schools, saying that kids who don't share that
belief don't have to pray when they are there.

"If there ain't a god we're all fucked". How do you know that if there is
a god, it is the god of your particular religion? Should I pray to Krishna
because He might exist? No, I thought not.

And as for ignoring religion and its symbols. Most of us do. But it is
difficult when it is rammed down our throats. Ever tried to find TV programs
without a christmas theme round about the 25th of December? Or without an
easter theme at that time of year? Continuing the Krishna comparison,
would you attend but not join in prayers to Krishna at school or before
a football match? Pledge "one nation under Krishna"? Sing "Krishna bless
America? And if you wouldn't do this, would that make you unpatriotic?

Chris Lee
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: petel@sequent.com (Pete Lancashire)
Subject: Re: Why I became an Athiest (was: frustrations with christianity)
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 23:34:58 GMT

>>>       6' high raised platform with the walls.  I remember deciding
>>>       right then and there that this religion was really stupid.
>>>       Age: 12.
>>
>>From one lecture and the construction techniques of one synagogue this 12
>>year old has the wisdom to categorize?
>>

>Believe it or not, children have the abilities to think, learn, and
>extrapolate. ( Sorry if the big word offends you, Mr. Saal. )
>I am sure this dissapoints you no end.

KIDS HAVE THE ABILITY TO THINK, what an concept. This will have to
stop, we can't have that, what will the world come to. :-)

Sorry, but I just had to let some emotions escape....

-pete
Pete Lancashire
petel@sequent.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: Atheists "stir up shit" (was Re: Religion = Anything that's fun ...)
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:29:17 GMT

ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes: >
harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes: >>

>>I believe "a Big Dickhead" with his own agenda would seize on this
>>opportunity to "stir up shit" using his misguided (and probably
>>brainwashed) progeny as a red herring. "Oh, the poor, rejected lad!".
>
> Actually, since the Scouts don't take gov't money, I think they are
>within their leagal rights in excluding atheists, gays, etc. However..
> 1) This is contrary to the stated intentions of scouting's founder.
> 2) This is contrary to every principle of scouting I learned.
> 3) Since they *do* take United Way money, and the U.W. charter prohibits
>funding organizations that discriminate on such grounds, I think both
>the United Way and the B.S.A. are being hypocritical. (With the sole
>exception of the San Francisco chapter of the U.W. The Chicago chapter
>actually dropped its non-discrimination clause in order to keep funding
>the scouts!!!)

Front page of today's San Jose Mercury News tells of United Way of
Santa Clara County telling the Boy Scouts they will probably drop
their funding unless the B.S. change their discrimination policy.
Atheism was not mentioned; the topic was discrimination against
homosexuals.

The Trustees noted they didn't even have to change their policy,
since the Boy Scouts' stance violates the state's Unruh Civil
Rights Act.  The message to the Scouts was that if they did not
change their policy by 1994, they would lose funding, currently
at $450,000 a year.  (1/4 the BS's budget)

To get funding next year, the Scouts will have to sign a statement
saying that they do not discriminate...and are in compliance with state
federal and local laws.  If they say they are complying and continue
to ban gays, a lawsuit is expected.

I'm proud to live in an area that won't put up with the B.S. from
the B.S.


-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Dealing with annoying e-mail
Date: 14 Dec 92 02:47:41 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser) on Sun Dec 13 16:30 1992 posted:
|
|
|Maybe it's just the time of year, but I have been getting an inordinate amount
|of unsolicited e-mail from theists seeking to enlighten me to the One True
|Way.  I usually just mail them a copy of the FAQ.  I was wondering what
|favorite tactics other readers of this group used when dealing with these
|people, or whether they bother to respond at all!
|
|        -Scott O.
|
|P.S.  Merry Saturnalia!
 
	Hmmm...I used to have a problem with "core dumps" on the Cleveland
FreeNet. I would end up with 8megs of junk in my workfile (along with all
of my other files). I found that 8megs will jam most mailboxes ;-)
 
	Also to, the control codes would mess up their screen real good...
 
 
-- 
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
From: jelliott@athena.mit.edu (Jesse C Elliott)
Subject: Re: Atheists should mind their own damn business
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:39:23 GMT

This whole thing has to be a hack.  Why do you people bother responding
to Harry's ramblings?

(Although that Hitler posting was quite clever...)

Jesse
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:23773 alt.atheism.moderated:471 news.answers:4585
From: mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Did Muslims Ever Forcibly Convert Others to Their Religion?
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:49:53 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Inc., Mountain View, California, USA

In article <renfield.724177368@camelot> renfield@camelot.bradley.edu (Dennis Depalma) writes:
>In <1992Dec12.053123.26553@nmsu.edu> epowers@dante.nmsu.edu (POWERS) writes:
>>David Choweller (David.Choweller@launchpad.unc.edu) wrote:
>>	As far as I know, the beginning of Islam was one of forced
>>conversions, when Mohammed gave the Meccans a choice of Islam or the
>>sword.  But you'll have to look that one up, since I have no reference.
>
>Ehh!! Wrong answer.  According to my Middle Eastern history professor last
>year, one of the basic tenets of the Muslim faith (created by Mohammad to
>prevent conflict with some of the other sects also in existence at the
>time) "people of the book" (Christians and Jews) were not to be molested,
>and other people weren't forcibly converted.  He just set things up so that
>anybody who wasn't a Muslim suffered financially because of it.:wq

You can say the same thing about Muslims since the Koran dictates a
2.5% "poor tax" to be paid by all Muslims who own any sort of wealth.
This money is then redistributed to those who need it most.

Muhammad made very clear that Muslims were to be tolerant of other
religions, "Will you then force men to believe when belief can only
come from God?" I'm not qualified to say how well Muslims have upheld
this ideal, but notice that we don't have Muslims posting to a.a.
trying to convert us to Islam.

-- 
Michael Wang
mmwang@mv.us.adobe.com
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:23986 alt.flame:17031
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.flame
Subject: Re: is it necessary to hate?
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:50:26 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Dec18.031052.26967@bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:
>
>It's one thing the strike back at someone who has attacked you
>or your beliefs in a "impolite" manner, but I don't see what
>Heather has done so far to deserve this kind of attack.
>I have disagreed with some of the things she has said, but
>dropping below your opponent's level of reasoning just
>makes your arguement seem weaker.
>

   Does not!

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

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
From: harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus)
Subject: Re: Atheists should mind their own damn business
Organization: Big Bulging Buffalo Bladders -R- Us
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 06:36:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.175927.20123@unislc.uucp> ttobler@unislc.uucp (Trent Tobler) writes:
>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... ;)
>
What a cool idea!

>: 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.
>
Well strike up the band... someone just lightened up!
Thanks...
>  Trent Tobler

- Harry
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j)
Subject: Re: Agnosticism Response
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 22:21:23 GMT

[stuff deleted, consisting mainly of flames]
   [between an Atheist and an Agnostic]

>>So what are you saying? That certain things can ONLY be described by the
>>existence of God? Refresh my memory, and tell me how "god's existence

>Again you try to throw up a smoke screen. I have made it crystal clear that the
>existence of god COULD coexist with certain events in history such as the
>origin of existence.  I never said that some inexplicable event had to be
>attributed to god, which I'm sure you actually knew in the first place.
		    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Aha! So you are a psychic-agnostic! I'm surprised you are debating, since
you claim to know my beliefs/arguments. This breaks down into metaphysics,
as it did before when I wrote what I'm going to write again.

There doesn't NEED to be a creator to create the universe, because 
"Existence Exists". How does having a creator explain reality better?
Who created the creator? It must end somewhere, and I say that 
"The buck stops here, at existence". Debating the origin of existence
is pointless, because we can not "step outside existence" and see what
it's like without it.

PS: Something else to flame me on: A creator without existence (ie: before
    it created the universe) is unconscious, since there is nothing for 
    the creator to be conscious of.

>>Peter J Nelson
>Jon
Peter J Nelson
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
Subject: Re: frustrations with christianity
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 19:26:58 GMT

In article <3304.2B28DAF8@catpe.alt.za>
Steve.Hayes@p0.f20.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes) writes:
>
> WA> But, at the same time, those people who display all sorts of religious
> WA> symbols certainly don't care about any offense they may cause toward
> WA> atheists!  I once reasoned the same way- that religious people may (and
> WA> often do) take offense at the mere hint of atheism or disbelief, but
> WA> then I realized that this sort of thing works *both* ways.  This is a
> WA> rather deeply ingrained societal thing: that people who wear their
> WA> religion on their sleeves should do so, and that any dissenters must
> WA> forever lurk in the shadows.  So, not only did I put a Darwin-fish on
> WA> my car, I also have an "Apes Evolved from Creationists" bumper sticker.
> WA> Some people have asked about it, and the responses have so far been
> WA> overwhelmingly positive.
>
>Why should you take offence at what someone else believes?
 
Well, when the *explicit* doctrines of such beliefs include such insulting
things as portraying mankind as depraved, powerless, and evil, I can't help
but to take issue with it.  When people claim that one can only be a good,
ethical, and just person by following their mythology, its a slap in the face
to those many good, ethical, and just people who don't follow it.  Many
people simply don't realize how their beliefs, however sacred and holy it may
seem to them, can be patently offensive to others.  It also doesn't help
that I've heard ministers who take such implicit offense and launch into
incredible direct attacks on atheists.  People need to get used to the idea
that displays of religious faith are far from neutral.
 
>If people want to display stickers proclaiming their beliefs or loyalties, how does it harm you? But is seem to me that what you are proposing to do
>is to display stickers aimed at offending those whose beliefs differ from yours.
>
>If that's really how you feel, what about the following for your bumper stickers?
>
>Juden raus
>Mohammed is a pig
>Krishna guzzles beef
>The virgin Mary wasn't
 
If people take *personal* offense at criticisms of their beliefs, thats their
problem.  Note that none of these examples are as personal as, for example,
"Protestants are funny".  Instead, I would prefer to make a statement about
protestantism as such; its similar to a "hate the sin but lover the sinner"
approach, although I think everyone has a borderline where the two become
indistinguishable.
 
Wayne Aiken                                            "You can BE what
PO Box 30904            slack@ncsu.edu                  you WON'T!!"
Raleigh, NC  27622                                       --"Bob"
(919) 782-8171          StarFleet BBS: (919) 782-3095
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: "Keep Christ in Christmas"
Organization: Scoeity for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:22:20 GMT

parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes: >
madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes: >>
>
>[Deletions of numerous citations.]
>
>>Now, will you please retract your totally erroneous statement?
>
>It was not an erroneous statement; there was no "proof" in the first 
>article.  I do thank you for supplying references.  Now, just one
>more question--are these articles implying that this is wide spread
>behavior?  I've heard the Religious Right Conspiracy stuff all before.
>Personally, I think it is Liberal paranoia.

Scott, did you look up any of those references I gave you?  No,
I don't think you did, because if you had, you would have seen
that this is wide-spread, it is going on in almost every State
in the Union, and it is getting funding from the Christian
Coalition (Pat Robertson's group).

The reason I asked you to retract your statement is that 
claim is WELL KNOWN!  It is *YOU* who choose to ignore
the truth, because it was there is every major newspaper.  The only
reason you didn't believe the first poster is because you CHOOSE
TO IGNORE THE TRUTH, pure and simple.

Now, unless you can furnish some evidence that this is not going
on, your ridiculous claims about "Liberal Paranoia" and all are
about as valid as your .sig.  e.g. "NOT!"


-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: God as dark matter
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 23:10:46 GMT

I heard a new one this weekend in a discussion about religion. The claim was 
made that God is actually the unaccounted for mass of the universe known as 
"dark matter."

When I asked why call it God, the response was "Why not?" End of discussion.

What other strange arguments have people encountered in their dealings with
religionists?

Jeers

Jim Copeland
-- 
Have you washed your brain today?
--
|      Reporter: "Mr. Gandhi, What do you think of Western Civilization?"    |
|      Mr. Gandhi: "I think it would be a good idea!"                        |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: st923265@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (Jeff Stein)
Subject: Re: Atheists should mind their own damn business
Reply-To: st923265@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:47:25 GMT

you stupid schmuck!  First off, if you're an atheist you can't pass the buck
to God--you don't believe in one.  Second off, if you really feel that it is 
healthy to refuse to accept the blame for the shit you cause, you're
dead wrong.  Third off, there is supposed to be a separation of church and
state in this country. Atheists are perfectly in their right ot complain about
infringements upon there rights.  Go to an airport and try to tell one of the
endless "convert to -----" squads to mind their own business.  It's not going
to work very well.  If atheist have to put up with endless attempts to either
convert or condemn them, you can put up with a little legitamite discussion
over the legality and morality behind "In God we Trust"!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism