HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: End of the World...
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:16:55 GMT

In article <millernw.716075843@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> millernw@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Neal Miller) writes:
>	After a fellow atheist whose name eludes me referred me to take a 
>look at the current trend in soc.christian.religion, I must say that I'm
>mighty shocked.  There are people out there who are utterly sure that the
>world will end, a la Revelation, Judgement Day, the Second Coming, and all
>that jazz... next year.  These people are voting, for crying out loud...  
>Teaching our children with all the wholeheartedness of someone who is spending
>hours each day teaching youths, even though they think the kids will never get
>a chance to use the knowledge, because they'll all be dead in a year or so.
>I, for one, am scared.  Not of October, 1994, but of the decisions that
>people in power might make, in the false knowledge of impeding death.  If
>our next president believes this crap, I think it's a safe bet that the
>environmental agencies won't be seeing much funding.

Remember James Watt?  He did not think that conservation was 
an important goal for the EPA because Jesus was coming soon,
and all would be put right.  Brrrr!

>
>	In any case, anyone interested in forming an alt.atheism party for
>November, 1994?  ;-)

Sign me up!
I also took the suggestion to read soc.religion.christian to examine
this end-of-world thread.  The reactions of other christians were
pretty interesting.  To summarize:

(1)  The guy who thought this up is a respected and influential
radio preacher who has a profound knowledge of the bible.  His
views should be taken very seriously.  And how many heathens
have you brought to the lord, lately?
(2)  The guy who thought this up is becoming a bit befuddled in
his old age, but since he is a respected bible scholar he
should be taken somewhat seriously, because you never know ...
(3)  You should live every moment as if it is you last,
BECAUSE IT JUST MIGHT BE!
(4)  This guy's book should be placed gently on the shelf next
to the books which predicted the second coming in 1988, 1981, ...

I looked in vain for anyone to point out that this guy is 
a babbling idiot.  Since soc.religion.christian is a moderated
group, probably all attempts at personal flames (or humor!)
are ruthlessly purged.

Long live the anarchy of alt.atheist!

> Neal Miller         | "Why not go mad?"  | millernw@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
> Clarkson University |     - Ford Prefect |     dark@craft.camp.clarkson.edu



-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: I still seem to be God
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:05:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.190035.29587@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
}jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary) writes:
}: 
}: No, no, no! Let's get something straight! I'M God! (Well, actually,
}: the Messiah, which in my case isn't quite the same thing.) I would KNOW
}: who God was, and currently Her computer is down, so She's obviously not
}: the one posting on Usenet.
}
}This reminds me I have a book on my reading list I still need to
}check out.  Dr. Milton Rokeach, "The Three Christs of Ypsilanti".
}Apparently, this doc decided to put three mental patients who were
}convinced they were each Christ in the same room to see what happened.

No problem: a Trinity!

BTW:  in talk.religion.misc I'm awaiting Richard Pitts to show that I am
not God.  So far Yahweh hasn't been able to pass his "tests" either...
From: lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I still seem to be God
Date: 12 Sep 92 16:52:29 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <BuDID9.Hyn@knot.ccs.queensu.ca>, Colleen Davis
<3005904@jeff-lab.queensu.ca> writes:

|> Well, despite the number of Virulent Fundies on this
|> newsgroup, none of them seems to have been able to 
|> prove that I'm not God.  I even offered to convert to 
|> Christianity if one of them could come up with the 
|> proof-- privately, mind you, to those who made an 
|> attemp, mind you, so lots of them don't know, I guess.
|> 
|> So, here it is, one final time-- after this, I'm moving to 
|> New Zealand.  If someone can prove that I'm not God, I
|> will convert to Christianity-- or another religion as 
|> appropriate.  Yes, that's right, the stakes have been raised
|> from a mere opportunity for flaming and intellectual 
|> smugness to ONE IMMORTAL SOUL.  But, wait, there's more!
|> If you can prove me wrong, I will even instruct the disciples
|> Steve and Dave to convert and spread the word.  That's *Three
|> Souls for the Price of One!*
|> 
|> colleen
|> (still God)

  Well, if you're God, and you live in Kingston, which is about two hours from
Ottawa, why didn't you just wrap this constitution-thing up in a couple of days? 
Better still, why didn't you nail Mulroney to a cross, or at least have it
arranged for by some fervent Partie Quebecois members?


                          L. King
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 09:02:53 EDT
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Calling facts "theory"
 <BuIJqr.Cnn@iat.holonet.net>

In article <BuIJqr.Cnn@iat.holonet.net>, bwilliam@iat.holonet.net (Bill
Williams) says:
>
>Ahem....
>
>In Science terminology the phrase "THEORY" carries just as much weight as
>the word "FACT" does in laymans terms.
>
>Therefore Pregnancy mechanisms can be called a theory, just as gravity
>effects can be called a "theory"
>
>It seems absurd that an athiest would try to feel the need to offer
>arguments defending _XYZ_ THEORY as a fact (such as the Theory of
>evolution) since a theory can be, when widely accepted as the best model,
>CONSIDERRED A FACT!!!

That evolution has occured is accepted fact among biologists.
There is no _one_ "Theory of Evolution," these days, but, rather,
several alternative models concerning the mechanisms by which
evolution occurs.

I don't read talk.origins, but my guess is that if this group has a FAQ
file, it would include this answer to the stupid question, "is evolution
a fact or a theory?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie)
Subject: Re: Stephen Hawking - National Public Radio
Originator: torrie@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date:  7 Sep 92 17:00:30 GMT

bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk (Bruce Munro) writes:

>>>It also showed that families where the parts have opposite world views
>>>works! Take note, Bush, family values at it's best.

>Oops! Hawking split up with his wife recently and moved in with one his
>nurses! I read it in a Readers Digest article about him. 

  The articles I read indicated that one of the reasons for the
breakup of his marriage was his wife (a devout Christian) could
not tolerate his atheistic world-view.



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Torrie.  Stanford University, Class of 199?       torrie@cs.stanford.edu 
Embrace rationalism, reject superstition.           Break away from the past.
From: jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Discrimination vs. homo/bi: justified?
Date: 12 Sep 92 00:12:38 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


Ok.

I got no problems there. B-)
-- 
Jessica McGeary
jmm25@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University
Remember! Arguments should be FUN!
From: sjs@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (BORCO)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Dealing with theistic relatives
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:52:18 -0500
Organization: Gormenghast

In article <18dlu4INNrcn@wupost.wustl.edu>, oser@fermi.wustl.edu
(Scott Oser) writes:

> How does one breach the subject of being an atheist and deal with the 
> inevitably negative response?

Think positive:

	You:	Ma and Pa, Grandma and Grandpa, I'm really an atheist,
		and I won't be going to church anymore.

	Them:	*Whew*!  So are we!  We only kept up the ruse to humor
		*you*!

Really, if you've been an atheist for N years, how can they say you've
suddenly flipped your lid if you've been acting "morally", on your own,
all along?


Borco.
----
Bitnet:     sjs@ifasgnv              "Precious and fish are the moments we
Internet:   sjs@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu      two can share."          -- Gollum
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Would you do ANYTHING God told you....?
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:32:44 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


	A quick question out there for all you theists out there...



	Would you do anything God told you to do ?

	For example, if God told you to kill a 17 month old baby, would
you do it ? I am not asking IF God would ask you to do such an evil thing,
but would you do it if God told you ?




	I have never heard a decent answer, most say something like "my
God would never ask such a thing". But I am not asking if God would ask,
but if God asked them to do it, would they do it ? So, let me put it this way,



	IF God asked you to buy an Uzi and start shooting children at a
	nearby playground ? WOULD YOU DO ANYTHING GOD TOLD YOU ?

	THE QUESTION IS NOT IF GOD WOULD ASK YOU, BUT IF GOD DID ASK YOU
	TO DO IT, WOULD YOU DO IT.



	I am serious about this question. Note, part of the premise of this
question is that it is CLEARLY God telling you to do this (a voice, a vision
, what ever would convince you....)


-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries, reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips     |personal E-mail:bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
alias:White Rook      |   NWROC E-mail:usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:17062 talk.religion.misc:16093
From: johndunk@planet10.WPI.EDU (John Dunkelberg)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: atheist population
Date: 12 Sep 1992 02:43:28 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: planet10.wpi.edu

In article <3nsnn2b@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>How many atheists?  Good question.
>
>Some of more reliable sources say that it's somewhere around 2% or so
>(and they usually define atheism in a rather strong sense so as to
>weed out "agnostic" views.)

BUZZZZ.... wrong answer.

According to the 1992 Information Please Almanac, a 1990 survey showed
over 14 million people who said that they practiced no religion.  The
total population given by the survey was roughly 175 million, giving
the "non-religious" an 8% of the population.

This is a non-trivial voting block if some certain president makes
a big deal of it....

john


-- 
			John S. Dunkelberg Jr.
 johndunk@wpi.wpi.edu johndunk@sidney.wpi.edu johndunk@maxine.wpi.edu
	  WPI CS GradStudent     WPI CAD LAB SystemAdmin TA
			 Nakitsura ni hatchi
From: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Date: 14 Sep 1992 01:29:48 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) says:

>In article <1992Sep13.044639.10557@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep12.230310.5886@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep12.211622.8055@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>
>>>I'd get VERY worried if you started a movement of Rescorla haters.
>>>If I thought they were really going to kill me, I'd probably either
>>>try to stop it by "whatever means necessary" or run like a son
>>>of a bitch.
>>
>>Please expand on what "whatever means necessary" includes.  I take
>>it that it does not include the accusation that your persecutors
>>are unjust, wrong, immoral, whatever.
>Hmm...I guess if I thought it would be effective, I would accuse
>my persecutors of all those things. However, it would be intellectually
>dishonest, but seeing as I'd be trying to stay alive, and I don't
>believe in morality, I couldn't call it wrong, and probably would do it.
>I do think, however, that it would be most likely logically flawed.
>(I.e. I'd be lying).

Hmm... Y'know, I think I can catch you in a logical fallacy here, Eric.
Let's see... You assert that morality is nonexistant, or at least its
existance is unproven. Therefore, to use it is "intellectually dishonest."
However, you state that "if I thought it would be effective, I would accuse
me persecutors of [immorality]." Therefore, you will do whatever is in your
best interest. In this case, though, wouldn't it be in your best interest
to support Douglas's statement that bigotry is immoral? If you manage to
invalidate his claim, you will be unable to use the same argument to defend
youself should you ever need to. Therefore, you are not being logical about
this. :-)
-- 
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
| Damien Neil | dpn2@po.cwru.edu | Case Western Reserve University |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: not BECAUSE GOD SAID SO, but it is right
Date: 9 Sep 1992 19:08:02 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

An anonymous personage, a.k.a.: dfm2@jaguar.uofs.edu writes:

<an unoriginal diatribe against pre-marital sex>

 (this is not meant to start a debate in alt.atheism about the validity
 of these viewpoints)

Then why post?

 I've got loads of reasons, and I don't have the time to make the one's I've
 supplied airtight.  I'm not interested in debating.  My only point is that
 there are reasons why society created marriages.  No, they weren't designed

Then why are you posting in alt.atheism? If you have reasons 
which are not "airtight", why do you expose your intellectual
weakness and then ask others not to comment? Who are you to
tell others how to live?

If you only have time to speak and not to listen, then the
reception of your "ideas" is moot. Why waste bandwidth?

Dano
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: The Doors
Date: 9 Sep 92 09:23:04 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992

Tag1: Paul Neubauer (00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.uucp (Paul Neubauer))
tag2: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
 
You have been writing to Drew, and said, among a great many
other things:
 
Drew> "If this 'evidence' were not there, would you have any
Drew> choice about accepting the story of the creation?  You
Drew> cannot have a choice unless there is an alternative
Drew> available.  God makes two doors and says, 'Go through
Drew> door #1.' When you go through door #2, you say, 'God
Drew> didn't make this door. It made itself.'"
 
Paul> "Jim Lippard has already responded to this.  (Like I
Paul> have said more than once, my newsfeed is embarrassingly
Paul> slow.)  However, I don't feel that I can let it go by
Paul> without commenting on its extreme perversity. What you
Paul> appear to be claiming in your 2 immediately preceding
Paul> paragraphs is that God has manufactured a second door
Paul> for us, and not content with merely leaving us the
Paul> alternative of simply not accepting your Biblical
Paul> interpretation (which says to choose door #1), He has
Paul> also deliberately created physical evidence for us
Paul> that strongly suggests that door #2 is a better choice.
Paul> How anyone could fail to understand that deliberate
Paul> creation of highly persuasive evidence (*specifically*
Paul> so that we would have a reason to come to a false
Paul> conclusion) would constitute deception is beyond me."
[lots and lots of text deleted to conserve space]
 
One major flaw, which effectively torpedos Drew's argument,
is that he said "God makes two doors and says, 'Go through
door #1.'" How is one to know what God said? He doesn't talk
to humans (because He doesn't exist). If Drew were to say
"Man wrote in the Bible that God said 'Go throught door #1,'"
then he would have a valid point. As it is, any other assertions
Drew makes after his argument is thus specious at best.
 
Suppose, for the sake of killing time, God did create these
"two doors" ["creationism" as in the myth in the bible being
one "door,", the evidence that proves evolution, i.e. the fossil
record, geologic column, ice cores, coral samples, lab
observations, etc., etc., etc. being the other "door"]. Why
would He make the evidence for evolution as so utterly convincing
that it is, if He wanted people to "choose" creationism? Was it
to test humans' faith or their stupidity? To test their piousness
or judge the depths of their abysmal ignorance?

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: End of the World...
Date: 10 Sep 1992 20:58:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


All I have to say about this one is, isn't there something in the Scriptures
they claim to esteem so highly about 'you know not the day, or the hour'?
Wouldn't that kind of immediately exclude all their predicted dates from
being Time Zero, or what?

-- 
Jessica McGeary
jmm25@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University
Remember! Arguments should be FUN!
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cats, dogs, and sheep
Date: 9 Sep 1992 18:25:17 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Mathemagician) writes:

 Where's my Linguistics book when I need it....
 
 In article <yaHqqB2w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
 >bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
 >> People expect other people to reveal all
 >> relevant information.  If I asked you how many pets you had and you
 >> replied, "I have two cats," I'd have every reason to feel deceived if
 >> you also had four dogs and a llama.
 
 >If you ask *how many*, yes.  But if you ask "Do you have any pets?" the
 >answer "I have two cats" is perfectly reasonable, even if the person does
 >have four dogs and a llama.  One might tend to expect a pet owner to
 >enumurate all his pets, but it's not unreasonable not to.
 
 I'd disagree and so would my Linguistics profs.

Then you're both arbitrary.
 
 From _Language:  it's Structure and Use_ by Edward Finegan and Niko
 Besnier:
 
 First, speakers are expected to give as much information as is
 necessary for their interlocutors to understand their utterances but
 to give no more information than is necessary.  If we ask someone

Maybe if one is being questioned by an authority (police, etc), 
but not necessarily in an informal setting.

The above does not take into account something like "privacy".

 whether she has any pets and she answers, "I have two cats," it is the
 *maxim of quantity* that permits us to assume that she has no other
 animals.  If it turned out that she had three dogs and llama as well,
 we would have every reason to feel deceived.  While what she said was
 not false as far as it went, the unspoken commandment not to conceal
 relevant information would have been violated.  Listeners expect

Again this commandment is arbitrary, especially if unspoken.

 The only possible reason the speaker would have for not mentioning the
 dogs and the llama would be if the person didn't consider them to be
 pets.

Or if the speaker didn't feel it was any of the questioner's
business beyond the two cats, etc.
 
 >Consider "Do you have any animals on your farm?"  "I have over five hundred
 >sheep".  Is the farmer deceiving you by failing to mention a sheepdog, two
 >chickens and a farmer's wife?
 
 Yes, it would be perfectly reasonable to feel deceived.  While what he
 said is true as far as it went, it isn't that accurate (whether or not
 we consider the farmer's wife to be an animal).

IMO, that's ridiculous. 

Dano
From: georged@meaddata.com (George Dibos)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: faith vs. reason
Date: 8 Sep 92 12:33:43 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH

Concerning article <920825180820.20204c95@CHEMVX.TAMU.EDU>, #405 in the
archives...

Not only is what Brett says correct, he stopped short:

When one person is out of touch with reality (hears voices, sees visions,
etc.) we call them "psychotic", and get them to a doctor.

When a large enough GROUP of people make the same claims, we call it a
RELIGION, and treat them with deference and privilege...

Excuse me???  Did I miss something?  How is being a "Christian"--which
requires believing in the return to life after death of a human being--
different than believing "The Night of the Living Dead" was a factual
movie?

No flames and/or rhetoric, O religious ones, just an EXPLANATION please.

-- 
+---------------------+--------------------------------+-----------------------+
| George Dibos        | Views expressed are my own.... | (513) 865-1689        | 
| Mead Data Central   +--------------------------------+ Software Engineer     | 
| P.O. Box 933        | Every day I drink a toast to   | NGS Update/Data Svcs. |  
| Dayton, Ohio  45401 | the wonders of beautiful women | georged@meaddata.com  | 
+---------------------+--------------------------------+-----------------------+