HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<TORKEL.92Oct2185504@bast.sics.se>
	<1992Oct03.052754.6338@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 13:31:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct03.052754.6338@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca 
(Douglas Graham) writes:

   >Yes, much of it is nonsensical mythology, and I think you agreed with me
   >on that point.  In fact, you criticized me for being so boring as to
   >bother stating such common knowledge.

  A slight misunderstanding. What I complained that we already knew was that
to you, religion means nonsensical mythology.

   >Am I being accused of being as closed-minded as the fundies?

  A reasonable interpretation, but not quite accurate. When people are
accused of being closed-minded, there is often a suggestion that if
they only opened up and thought about this (or invited Jesus to
enter their hearts, etc), they would see it our way. I don't think
any such attitude is reasonable where religion is concerned. Many
people simply have no interest in religion, and there is no reason to
believe that any exposition or explanation of (or exposure to) any
faith or religious tradition would be of interest to them or benefit
them in any way. That's fine. What I am complaining about are people
who rather seem to be obsessively concerned with religion, but only
for the purpose of making sweeping statements, based, for all we can
see, mostly on ignorance and prejudice, about religion and people who
profess religious beliefs. Similarly with those fundamentalists who
are obsessively concerned with the godlessness of science (as they understand
the term).

  >That's unfortunate, because I'm truly interested in where you're
  >coming from.

  But I thought you were about to give up on humanity in disgust?
From: robert@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Rob Karmolinski)
Subject: Re: god is in all of us
Keywords: god
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 08:15:26 GMT

michalek@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Libor Michalek) writes:

>						 Maybe being an athiest
>isn't ok BY ITSELF but if you apply some of that atheist logic to the
>rest of your life you will probablly see an overall improvment in the
>rest of your life and you hopefully wont kill someone.

This does not make much sense to me.  Atheism is a *lack* of a belief in
supernatural entities.  Atheism "BY ITSELF" = the empty set.  You also
seem to imply that without this imaginary divine guidance, atheists are
more likely to kill people.  I think exactly the opposite is true;
theism has made killing people, and committing other atrocities, much
more palatable, by providing a divine defense:  "Yes, I slaughtered all
these people, but I did it in the name of God, because He told me to..."
(see your own reference to the crusades).

>							I have seen alot of
>fear and hate of religious people in this news group. I think we athiests
>sould be more understanding and sympathetic to the people who's journey
>through life has yet to land them at our door 1) They may not be 
>smart, or able to make choices for themselfs. we do not laugh at or hate
>children because they cannot spell so why make fun of religious people.

These people who "may not be smart, or able to make choices for
themselfs" *are* making choices for the rest of us, and have been for a
*long* time! They are *not* ignorant, powerless children; they are
running our government, passing laws, corrupting education, censoring
our media and entertainment industries, promoting hatred, bigotry, and
ignorance.  They are doing this so that the rest of us can play *their*
game, by *their* rules.  Not all religious people are aware that they
are contributing to this problem; such people really do *mean* well, and
claim (and actually think) that they are willing to let us live in peace,
but they still manage to do as much damage, out of blindness and
ignorance, as those who do it out of malice and lust for power.
Understanding and sympathy are not called for here, as many theists are
blissfully happy in their ignorance, and *insist* on sharing this
blissfulness with everyone; fear and hatred is a perfectly rational
response, for reasons of self-preservation.

> Finally one more thing about hate and fear of religion. Haven't the
>crusades tought you enough about what fear of the different can do? Don't
>make the same mistake that someone on a lower level has made or you'll
>end up below them.

I do not believe that the Crusades were fought because of the "fear of
the different".  I thought it was due to divine self-righteousness, and
spreading the word of God.  There *is* a difference between fearing
those who are different, and fearing those who are dangerous.

>Libor 
>lfm54477@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

--
Rob Karmolinski		(robert@cs.ucla.edu)
My opinions.  No one elses, unfortunately.
From: bwilliam@iat.holonet.net (Bill Williams)
Subject: Re: Proof that Colleen is not the One True God!
Organization: HoloNet (BBS: 510-704-1058)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 11:25:11 GMT

Alas, Our God Collen spake unto us:

>24 Sep 92 16:11:27 GMT            alt.atheism           
>Article 16812                God's Last Posting         
>cisc124@jeff-lab.queensu.ca       Colleen Davis at Queen's University
 
>I'm leaving the net now and taking a trip to New Zealand.
>I can no longer be reached via internet.  When the net is
>ready, I shall return to bring salvation to all.
 
>colleen


......
We humble servants of Kind and Just Colleen the God await the signs of
your second coming with perseverence and unmittigated patience.



Yours in Colleen,

Disciple Bill

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: "capsco one" <capsco.one@canrem.com>
Subject: bar codes, apocalypse,
Reply-To: "capsco one" <capsco.one@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: alt
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:24:42 EST

In 1983, I was working as the Administration Officer for a branch of
Victoria and Grey Trust in Port Credit, Ontario.  V&G had just
introduced a new type of daily interest account, the TOTAL account, and
we were told to push it whenever possible.

One day, about a week after the account launch, a little Latin-American
fellow came to the service counter and told me he wanted to close his
TOTAL account.  "Fine", I said, and proceeded to collect the forms
necessary.  One of the forms has a question on it that asks, "Why is
this account being closed?".  I asked the guy this question and his
answer was:  "This account belongs to Satan.  It has the number of the
Beast".  His account number was 04-666.  He claimed to have lost $20 the
day before and was sure that he would be driven to financial ruin by the
account number we had given him.  I nonchalantly wrote in "Account
number is the number of the Beast", and left it for the people at head
office to figure out.

04-666   The bank account number of the Beast.

Joe deSousa
CAPSCO Software Canada Ltd.
I don't speak for CAPSCO.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18167 sci.skeptic:17123 talk.origins:12194
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.messianic,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Object-oriented creation
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:18:49 GMT
Organization: Rogaland University Centre

>I _am_ familiar with OOPS and and I'm afraid your argument does not address
>the point--in an OOP environment "junk" DNA would be similar no matter what
>the relatedness of the organisms in question, if there was junk at all (not
>very good design, IMHO).  The fact that junk DNA exists and is more similar
>in closely related species than in randomly chosen or distantly related
>species is a prediction of evolutionary theory very nicely confirmed by
>observation, and is difficult to account for in teleological systems like
>special creation. 
>

Thanks for writing such well-chosen words. It produced large amount of warmth in
my heart to read it. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Besides, God`s gotta be extremely sloppy to leave all that junk behind him. Is
this some kind of secret message from God on morale??: `My children. Pollution is
such a nice thing.'


Onar.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ikonen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Ian Konen)
Subject: Re: What is "occult?"
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:20:23 GMT

In <n0b4ft@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

>Whereas most Christians believe in the occult (God / devils /
>angels / demons / etc.) Satanists for the most part do not.
>In fact, most Satanists do not believe in Satan, let alone
>worship it/him, and consider the belief of such things silly.
> 
>If you ask, I will post some info on Satanism, and what
>Satanists really believe.

Please do.  This is not the first time I have heard Satanists refered to as
people who neither worship nor believe in Satan.  What is the difference
between a Satanist and an atheist?
							-Ian Konen
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Saturday, 26 Sep 1992 10:07:15 CDT
From: David James Alexander Hanley <U55870@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Rapturous stuff from s.r.c.

In article <1992Sep22.172047.23888@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>, simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
(Simon Clippingdale) says:
>

 ( Simon quoting someone else )

>
>Folks, this is serious bad news -- people being deluded in droves by a
>false gospel.  When the end doesn't come as they expect, they'll be
>disillusioned and reject everything, including the *true* gospel of
>salvation in Jesus Christ.  PRAY!

  We could only be so lucky.  It is much more likely that anyone stupid
enought to think that the world will end soon , etc, etc. Will also be
stupid enought to keep believing in christ when the world doesn't end.


dave!
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18086 sci.skeptic:17040 talk.origins:12076
From: joeb@pdnfido.fidonet.org (Joe Beiter)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.messianic,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Date: 27 Sep 92 22:03:50 GMT
Organization: The Source for Source Pub Access Unix

In article <1992Sep24.115217.11296@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>
>
>I got a reply earlier doubting the integrity of my facts. I stated that humans
>and chimpanzees were 99% alike. The person who replied had heard that only a
>fraction of the genetic data are actually used to code a human being, the rest is
>junk-DNA. 
>This is true. Only about 10% actually make up human beings (and chimpanzees for
>that matter.) If you compare humans and dogs, for instance, we are genetically 
>about 70% identical. They same goes for chimpanzees. this means that the junk-DNA
> as well as the "real" DNA has changed. And since humans and chimps are STILL
>very much alike.This supports a close relationship. 
>

We're also 90+% made up of water as are watermellons and clouds.  Therefore
we are 80 somthing % identical to watermellons.

Whats your point with the monkeys?

- JoeB



-- 
-=@=-=@=-=@=-=@=-::
- JoeB           Joe.Beiter@HauppaugeNY.NCR.COM
                 joeb@pdnfido.fidonet.org
-=@=-=@=-=@=-=@=-::
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 92 18:37:55 GMT

In article <exukjb.276.718129015@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>In article <1992Oct01.190233.5751@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>In article <exukjb.273.717952506@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>>>And Doug, exactly what do you see in science which tends to show that "man
>>>is insignificant"? Fruedianism? Evolutionism?  Behaviorism? --- what? 
>
>>Evolution, and the grand scale, both in time and space, of the universe.
>
>So Doug, are elephants more "significant" than humans because they're
>bigger!  

No.  Elephants are more significant that people because the Great
Elephant In The Sky created the universe for the sole benefit of
elephants.  People were only created to feed the elephants peanuts.
Unfortunately, in the process of growing and roasting the peanuts,
people are making rather a mess of things, and I hear tell that the
Great Elephant In The Sky is planning remedial action soon.  However,
elephant theologians are having a great deal of trouble agreeing on
what form that action will take, and exactly when it will take place.
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Date: 3 Oct 1992 00:15:40 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


	See Hannu say drek

	See Hannu get question.

	See Hannu sqirm under pressure.


	See hannu run.






-- 
"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 | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu | alias: White Rook
aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: timf@microsoft.com (Tim Fleehart)
Subject: Re: Christanic Crime
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:30:14 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep17.134500.164561@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:

>Just because people say that they do such things because Jesus told them to
>do it, does not mean that *He did* tell them!!

Just because pepole say that the bible was written by devine inspiration
doesn't mean that *it was*.

Tim
From: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth)
Subject: Re: atheism
Organization: University of Michigan ITD Consulting and Support Services
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 05:32:27 GMT

In article <ednclark.717813231@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>suresh <suresh@halcyon.com> writes:
>
>>"God is Dead" Friedrich Nietzsche 19th century
>"Nietzsche is Dead" God 20th Century

Perhaps "Nietzsche lived" would be more appropriate.  The same cannot
be said for "god".

Paul Southworth                    |     ftp redspread.css.itd.umich.edu
Consulting and Support Services    |        Anonymous Political Archives
Information Technology Division    |                     100% 386BSD 0.1
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor  |  Coming soon: mirror of ftp.eff.org

  <Representing myself.  Everything I say is for educational use only.>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pockling@fraser.sfu.ca (richard pocklington)
Subject: christ
Summary: christ
Keywords: christ
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:52:44 GMT

	There has been only one recorded incident of parthenogenetic
birth in a mammal.  This is odd because it is generally considered impossible
for mammals to become parthenogenic due to the presence of marker genes that
are only active if passed from the father.  However, if we have had one
parthenogenetic birth (that of christ) then there is one thing we have 
missed.  Christ had to have been female.  Parthenogenic animals only give
birth to other parthenogenic females, male animals don't exist in a 
parthenogenic species.  (By the way this also means that neither christ nor
mary were Homo sapiens sapiens, as this parthenogenesis event most likely 
would make them be considered a different species (or perhaps subspecies)
.
		Richard pocklington

Newsgroups: alt.religion.messianic,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 19:02:33 GMT

In article <exukjb.273.717952506@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>Whether or not Einstien was a fideist is beside the point. Why listen to 
>what a particle physicist has to say about the nature of religion?  Einstien'
>s authority or reliability on questions of physics should be not allowed to 
>spill over into his views on politics, ethics, or religion; however 
>interesting his opinions might be, and even if they are ultimately shown to 
>be correct or more worthy of belief than the opinions of some theologian or 
>other religious authority, a rational person should consider them secondary 
>to the opinions of religionists and theologians.

You gotta be joking.  See Simin Clippingdale's post concerning asking a
missionary about demons.

>And Doug, exactly what do you see in science which tends to show that "man
>is insignificant"? Fruedianism? Evolutionism?  Behaviorism? --- what? 

Evolution, and the grand scale, both in time and space, of the universe.
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_
From: jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism uber alles?
Date: 2 Oct 1992 04:11:45 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


And those who do stick with theistic views... will be Wiccan. Because,
as you know, the fundies will curl up and die in the light of actual facts-
when the facts are produced, of course. But Pagans, apparently, tolerate
just about any other kind of belief, and will occasionally act in spite
of the facts. Hence... the world'll be divided between atheists and Pagans.
Wouldn't THAT spook the fundies?
-- 
Jessica McGeary
jmm25@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University
Remember! Arguments should be FUN!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: timf@microsoft.com (Tim Fleehart)
Subject: Re: Christanic Crime
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:31:41 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993r6INNfer@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
>
>>A person who really knows the love of Jesus could not possibly do any of the
>>acts described above by David.
>
>I've got two words for you, James.  "Crusades," and "Charlemagne".  I think
>you hear me knocking, false prophet.  And I think I'm coming in.

But all this really means is that there aren't a whole lot of people "who
really know the love of jesus".

Tim
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: donita@scic.intel.com (Donita Thompson)
Subject: Cults
Organization: Intel SCIC, Beaverton, OR
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:17:01 GMT

James Marcus writes:
>>I think we need to clarify some definitions here.  The name "occult"
>>refers mainly to Satanism, and could not be further away from
>>Christianity.

Christianity is the BIGGEST CULT of all! Can you say "Jim Jones"
and "Rashneesh"? Can you say "Jim & Tammy Bakker"? How about
"Robert Tilton" and "Pat Robertson" and all the others? Cristianity
is the biggest brainwashing cult in the world.

My 2 shillings worth...



Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18356 sci.skeptic:17430 talk.origins:12492
From: ed_eck@milkwy.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.messianic,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Date: 2 Oct 92 20:11:40 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Sep24.204237.25841@ims.com>, chapman@ims.com (Dave Chapman) writes...
> 
>John, are you claiming that you can keep a dog alive and healthy on a diet
>of grass and no meat at all? Dave Irish is assuming ( correctly I think ) that
>carnivores need some meat in their diet. The fact that your dog eats
>grass sometimes does not mean that it can survive on a herbivorous diet.
> 
>-- 
>Dave Chapman   	       	       	    | The chickens are in the air.
>Integrated Measurement Systems	    |
>9525 SW Gemini Dr.		    | work 503 626 5373
>Beaverton, Oregon		    | chapman@ims.com



(As usual, I am several hundred notes behind, so if this has been done to
death by now, please ignore me...)


Dogs are a bad example of carnivors adapting to vegetarianism.

I personally have met two dogs who are fed only veggies--they are fed 
no meat at all and have not eaten meat in (in one case) over a decade.
They seem healthy and are certainly active enough. I am told that
most dogs will adapt to a vegetarian diet; cats however will not.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A few points to raise . . .
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:38:35 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <welcOx600WB7EOwUVE@andrew.cmu.edu>
se24+@andrew.cmu.edu (Scott F. Earnest) writes:

> In fact, I can state very
> simply that God *does* exist.  (Yes, I am a real atheist.)

No, you're not.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Christianity is Stupid
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:54:52 GMT

In article <10448@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.135113.9406@cs.ucla.edu> robert@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Rob Karmolinski) writes:
>>
>>FYI, it took unil 1989, (yes, NINETEEN
>>EIGHTY NINE; thanks Elf!), for the Vatican to *pardon* Galileo, for his
>>heretical views that the earth revolved around the sun  (unfortunately,
>>his death sentence could not be commuted).
> 
>   Not to interrupt a perfectly good anti-christian rant, but
>   Galileo wasn't sentenced to death, was he?  I thought he was
>   sentenced to house arrest until his death of natural causes.
>

It was house arrest.  Also, he was forced to recant his earlier
observations under threat of torture from the Inquisition.  
There was a very good article in Scientific American a few
years back on the incidnet.  It's worth tracking down.

"The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go."
Galileo quoting a Cardinal whose name I can remember.


--
In the midst of the word he was trying to say,|McCreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com
     In the midst of his laughter and glee,   |Me, speak for Compaq?  
He had softly and suddenly vanished away---   |Yeah, right.
     For the Snark *was* a Boojum, you see.   |#include <stddisclaimer.h>
From: csfed@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Frank Doss)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: god is in all of us
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:15:13 GMT
Organization: Educational Computing Network

In article <1992Sep30.093755.29218@walter.cray.com> jwest@wisc (Jeff West) writes:
>
>religion) I usually hear: "So you can go out and kill people then."

I think this shows a deep-rooted desire in the part of the Xian who says
this.  They seem to really, deep-down, want to kill someone.  I just
hope their god does not start speaking to them at night.
 
>Jeff West

-- 

Frank Doss 
The above stated words are my opinions and do not reflect the opinions,
attitudes, or policies of my employer or any affilliated organizations.
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:42:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.154002.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi> 
  hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:

> If God is 'Existence' as is defined in the Holy Bible
> (in 2nd Moses 3:14-15 and in gospel of Johannes 8:28-29),
> then who dares to assert that God does not exist. ?

Me and several hundred million other people around the world.

>         Hannu.

C "Duh" Frog
Newsgroups: alt.atheism