HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:16:06 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Tx.

In article <j1moody-161192032049@lafmacconsultant.lafortune.lab.nd.edu> j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:
>> In article <1e0v11INNjep@shrike.und.ac.za> dace@shrike.und.ac.za writes:
>> >ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge) writes:
> How many people are aware that the most well known
>> >: treatment for alcoholism, AA and its Twelve Steps, advocates giving control
>> >: of one's life over to God?  Without this God (or Higher Power) some even 
>> >: So, the cure for the disease is itself a disease?
>
>Many cases of chemical dependency are the result of the person's searching
>to fill the spiritual void within us all that no amount of TV, food, sex
>or any other created thing can fulfill. It's a really sad state of affairs
>when someone calls the concept of believing in a higher Source a "disease."
>From someone who has found completion in coming to know my Creator, please
>don't catagorize a very significant thing in my life and the lives of
>millions as a disease. The only disease worse than the abuse of religion or
                                                                         ^is^?
>the ignorant condemnation of religion.
Gee, i just love being accused of ignorance by someone who's never met me.
Would it suprise you if i told you that for many years i was a devout 
Christian, who had "come to know Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior"?
When that didn't work i turned to alcohol, which also didn't work, although
i did get healthier during that time.

>Lord knows how many times I tried to fill my void with everything else.
>
>Peace,
>Joe

If you have a void that needs filling you should consult a psychologist or
psychiatrist.  It is neither normal nor healthy to have such feelings.  Using
religion to fill this "void" is no different from using drugs to fill it.
Yes, i've tried both, with equally destructive results.

Disclaimers:
  1) i did not say that all religion is destructive, only the use of religion
     to mask emotional problems,
  2) i did not say that all drug use is destructive, again only the use of
     drugs to mask emotional problems.
-- 
allen@well.sf.ca.us
ethridge@bnr.ca
my opinions are my own
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 06:59:36 GMT

In article <ednclark.721452810@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>                                In fact there are few printable words  which
>are said with as much sneering hatred as pooftah, and to a thirteen year old
>it is a big worry that you might be one.

I dunno. This argument is so often heard, but such a worry never crossed my
mind. Maybe I was too preoccupied with trying to appeal to girls (in which I
was unsuccessful at that age)...

	Sven

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: God Is Unfair (?)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:43:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.021013.31538@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>Unfortunately, different Jewish commentators resolve these inconsistencies
>in inconsistent ways.  This provides fruit for an entire new layer of
>scholarship and commentary.  In that respect there's a difference between
>Jewish tradition and, for example, Christian tradition.  In Christian
>tradition, where right belief is critical, and the fate of your immortal
>soul depends on it, it's very important to get the credo, and the
>Christology, and all that metaphysical stuff *right*.

The contradiction here is not so much as a contradiction within the Bible
itself as a contradiction in how to interpret it.

We started out with an ordinary contradiction: God is supposed to be just, but
at face value this story says otherwise.  We resolve it by saying that the
true lesson is that one should question even God.

But this gives us _another_ contradiction.  I'm not supposed to question God
elsewhere; instead, I'm supposed to assume that God, who knows all, has a
reason even if I don't understand it.  This contradiction really isn't like
the first one.  For one thing, it affects my actions as well as my beliefs--if
I decide to 'question God' on the issue of keeping kosher, that means my
actions will differ from what Jewish law commands.  [Yes, I'm Jewish.]

God isn't going to tell me when to question him; that's the whole point of
wanting me to question him on my own.  Only I don't have the faintest idea
when I'm supposed to do so.
--
"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: hbcs1010@blurt.oswego.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:29:38 GMT
Organization: SUNY College at Oswego, Oswego, NY

In article <1992Nov16.174430.2817@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>>Readers of talk.origins will be aware that deploying logic against him
>>is futile, and that he is best regarded as a source of sheer entertainment.
> 
> 	I can entertain you, but you can't prove me false. 
> -- 
> 
> 		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
> 
> 	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !


HA!!! typical funnymentalist logical fallacy #4- negative evidence. my dear
sir, lack of evidence to the contrary does not constitute evidence to the
positive. you can't say, for example, "A is true because you can't prove that
it isn't" and expect any halfway reasonable person to believe you. come on, i
haven't even taken a philosophy course and i know this. besides, it's not up to
us to prove you false, but up to you to prove yourself right.
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:44:37 GMT

From article by usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman):
> In forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
>>From article by nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos):
>>> 
>>> I wonder how much of this post-partum depression is due to the artificial
>>> and forced separation of mothers from their newborn children immediately
>>> upon birth, or shortly thereafter.
> 
>>A large part of it, Peter. La Leche League has books and books on the subject.
>>When mother and child are separated at birth by arbitrary hospital nursery
>>policies, the mother's body goes into a hormonal tailspin.  Engorgement
>>causes the mother's body to react as if the baby had died (obviously since
>>he's not nursing enough, or even at all), and so the mother's whole system 
>>shuts down.  What follows is insufficient milk, and then of course a round-
>>the-clock screaming hungry baby once they both escape and get home.   Even
>>though the baby hasn't actually died, the mother's screwed up hormones have
>>now sent her into mourning mode, and then added to that is the exhaustion
>>because the baby can't get enough milk to sleep well.
> 
>>Check into it.  Non-industrialized countries, which have far fewer hosptial
>>births, have a far lower rate of post-partum depression.   Also in these
>>countries, the _infant_mortality_ rate is inversely related to the breast-
>>feeding rate.  All of this is simply because outside of a hospital setting,
>>the breastfeeding relationship is less likely to be tampered with by
>>commercial interests.   (Read "The Politics of Breastfeeding" by Gabriella
>>Palmer.)
> 
> Interesting, considering that of the two women I know who had *severe* 
> post-partum depressions, one of them had a a natural childbirth at home,
> and the other had her kid in a birthing center.  
> 
>>Suzanne Forgach
> 
> Lori Kent Rothman

Well, now the obvious question you left unanswered:  Are they breastfeeding?

SF
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus Saves
From: jgh1+@pitt.edu (John G Hardie)
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:48:02 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


I always liked:

	Jesus Saves but the Mongol Hordes.


Regards,
John
-- 
jgh1@vm1.cis.pitt.edu

	Give me chastity and continency, but do not give them yet.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j)
Subject: Agnosticism Response
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:16:31 GMT

This is a response to the person who wrote claiming "that it is
IMPOSSIBLE to prove that a supreme being does not exist" Therefore,
this person "will always be an agnostic until someone can come up
with a real proof as to why or why not a supreme being exists."

Although I'm sure this has been said before (I'm a new-comer, and
I can't find the FAQ file), it can NOT be the responsibility of the
doubter to prove non-existence.  The atheist is being asked to PROVE
non-existence (quite a job!)  To quote Ayn Rand, the questioner "is
asking you to step into a void...he is asking you to become a zero
gaining knowledge about a zero." (John Galt's speech from the book
"Atlas Shrugged")

As far as agnosticism is concerned, it is essentially saying that
since "we can't prove the claim is true, and we can't prove the claim
is false, the only conclusion must be: we don't know, and we may
never know."  Unfortunately, this is "the enshrinement of ignorance...
the agnostic treats arbitrary claims as matters properly open to
consideration, discussion, evaluation...[the agnostic] believes that
he has avoided taking any controversial position and is thus safe from
attack. In fact, he is taking a profoundly irrational position."
(from "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff)
Since there is no evidence that God exists, I MUST be an atheist.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to pick a fight.  I've read the
last week's worth of notes, and it seems that many people are 
philosophically confused.  I suggest people read "The Fountainhead", and
then "Atlas Shrugged", both by Ayn Rand.  They certainly helped me out
several years ago, when I was a floundering Lutheran (my Grandfather is
a pastor).  Also, I'm an engineer (which explains any spelling errors),
and NOT a philosophy major.

			    |  I swear by my life and my love of it,
     Peter J Nelson	    |  that I will never live for the sake
  University of Illinois    |  of another man, nor ask another man
			    |  to live for mine. (John Galt's Pledge)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Church of England / Women / Catholics
Date: 24 Nov 92 03:35:58 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

>Anyway, is it an urban-legend or similar myth that there was once
>a female pope?  I heard a story long ago that a woman disguised
>herself as a man in order to gain entry to a monestary (this
>was sometime in the seventh century or so).  She/he studied hard,
>became ordained, rose up through the ranks, and finally became 
>Pope, all without her/his secret being known.  The truth was
>discovered after her/his death.  This is why the testicles 
>test was added to the investiture ceremony for Popes.

I heard that she gave birth in a street procession, and was
promptly stoned to death.

The Church officially denies this story.
From: dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:03:27 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

In article <1992Nov14.000459.24324@nmsu.edu> epowers@huey.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.164821.29822@newstand.syr.edu> dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu  
>(Jurkat) writes:
>
>> >
>> >
>> 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.  
>
>	  Find out the methods used to hand copy manuscripts in those days, and  
>then tell us if you think it was that haphazard.  You score high on skepticism,  
>though...
>						Erik Powers

What!??  They didn't have computers in those days?  Or even a laptop?
That would have been a godsend when they were hiding from the Romans.
Too bad God didn't feel they deserved a Mac or I guess even a PC.
BTW thanks for the skepticism rating.  Have a really nice day. :)
From: NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: who has the open mind
Date: 23 Nov 92 02:35:25 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1ems59INNqv9@uwm.edu>
randyd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Randall Elton Ding) writes:
>
>especially when I am with my christian friends, but this guy was asking for
>it.  I am a little ashamed I couldn't come up with anything more origional
>but in the heat of the moment I said "I don't read fiction", The guy
>threw up his arms and shouted to the crowd "Hey - come on and have an
>Open Mind!"
>
>Now I was raised in a christian family (sigh) and attended all the
>religious schools (arrg) and think I understand the issues pretty well.
>What RIGHT do they have telling me I don't have an open mind.  My dear
>brother also gives me that crap.  Just to get out of a stupid argument
>I tell him "No, I don't have an open mind, now just leave me alone".
 
An effective come-back to "have an open mind" is "but not so open that your
brains fall out" or "a functioning mind is better than an open mind".
 
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
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Iraq Murders
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 10:12:03 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
> 	However, you're losing a sense of scale. The US military literally 
> tied one hand behind their back in their attempt to NOT hit civilian 
> targets.

Literally, eh?

>          Tomahawk cruise missiles are EXPENSIVE.

All the more reason to use them.  The US economy is dependent upon war; the
more high-tech toys you use, the bigger the boost to US industry.

> 	Why was there never any listing of this as being a Milk Factory?
> Surely, if it were one, the Iraqi government wouldn't hide the fact from 
> everyone? Why were there never any shipments of the raw material to and from 
> the factory? What about the Keyhole pictures, which are reported to have 
> shown abnormally high levels of activity for a milk factory.
> 
> 	[ note: if anyone has claimed to have seen the actually pictures, 
> 	assume are lying. They are heavily guarded for national security. ]

Whose national security?  What on earth is the national security involved in
pictures of an Iraqi factory which has already been bombed to bits?  Unless,
of course, it isn't really a bomb factory...


mathew
From: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:07:40 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b63519.student.cwru.edu

In article <Petch-181192140829@oboe.gvg.tek.com> Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch) writes:
>Unfortunately, there are many homosexuals who *do* try to influence
>children toward the homosexual lifestyle.

A few? Certainly. Many? Not damn likely.

>I just saw a tv news report last
>Sunday in which a lesbian was talking to a group of 10-year old public
>school children about how wonderful it is to be a lesbian.

OK. You have _one_ case of a person advocating homosexuality.

>I think that's
>wrong, and I have the right to demand that the schools not expose my child
>to that kind of indoctrination.

Agreed. Do so. You can quite easily -- in fact you'll have a much easier 
time of it that those people who don't want their children exposed to 
radical religious propaganda.

>Accordingly, I believe a law preventing
>schools from advocating homosexuality and other forms of immorality is
>entirely reasonable.

No it is NOT! "Homosexuality and other forms of immorality"? This is 
creating a law that labels homosexuality as immoral! What next? 
Concentration camps? Can't have any possibility of our children coming close 
to one of those dirty flaming fags, right?

>My value system (the Bible) is banned from schools;
>why should yours (which I find highly offensive) be permitted?

It should not. It is not. And no one here has said that it should be. You 
will, in fact, find quite a few people who feel that attempting to force 
children into a certain sexual pattern is a disgusting and immoral act. Not 
because they feel that certain sexualities are immoral, but because they can 
see the very real effect that such teaching has had on children. Look up the 
statistics on teenage homosexual suicide sometime.

By the way -- homosexuality is not a "value system". It is a physiological 
and/or psychological condition. I very much doubt that you could teach 
a heterosexual to be homosexual, any more than you can teach a homosexual to 
be heterosexual.
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
| Damien Neil | dpn2@po.cwru.edu | Case Western Reserve University |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:36:37 GMT

mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:

>In article <1992Nov16.174430.2817@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>>>Readers of talk.origins will be aware that deploying logic against him
>>>is futile, and that he is best regarded as a source of sheer entertainment.
>>
>>	I can entertain you, but you can't prove me false. 

>On the other hand, you can't prove that I'm not Jehovah.

	If you were Jehovah, then you needn't use computer to tell me 
	that. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: awmurray@eos.ncsu.edu (ALAN WAYNE MURRAY)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Question for ex-Christians
Date: 23 Nov 92 15:02:39 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos

In article <1992Nov20.225944.20500@adobe.com> mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:
>Some of you ex-Christians have posted about bad experiences with
>religion and other such events that caused you to seriously reconsider
>your beliefs and to eventually give up your belief in God. Others have
>posted saying they never really believed in God as youths and are
>atheists by default. I'm curious if there are also ex-Christians out
>there who became atheists or agnostics (AorA) because of a discussion
>with an AorA. I know none of us would ever try to convert Christians
>;-), but I was wondering if this sort of thing ever worked.
>

Actually, *I* was 'converted' to atheism due to various comments and
beliefs espoused by Christians and other religious groups, not by atheists.
I remember vividly the first time I even realized there could be such a
person who didn't believe in God.  I was in 7th grade, living in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida at the time.  I'd listen to this one AM talk show
nightly from 8-12 pm.  The host's name was Neil Rogers.  One night, I
tuned in and he was having debates all week with preachers/rabbi's or any
religious person who was willing to go on the air.  I tuned in one night
when some rabbi was debating with Rogers.  Let's just say I was shocked
that up to that point, I actually "followed" the same God as this guy
was representing.  Rogers ran the man through on the Great Deluge problems,
the problems of existence of evil, etc., etc..  It was a great laugh.
I even taped most of the show.  One comment in particular that really blew
me away, was when the subject turned to God's Plan.  The rabbi kept saying
over and over that although something appeared wrong, it was all "in God's
Plan".  Eventually, Rogers got tired of hearing this and asked the rabbi
to explain something about "God's Plan".  Rogers brought up a recent news
article in which a young girl (4-5) was playing in the road, and a school
bus struck and killed her.  Rogers wanted to know what role that played in
the cosmos as a whole.  Was this death all part of God's Plan as the rabbi
had asserted for the past 2 hours?  The rabbi's response:  "Yes, it is all
part of God's plan."  Rogers immediately jumped on this:  "Woah!  Wait a
minute, could you please repeat that?  I want to make *sure* everyone out
there heard that".  To which the rabbi calmly restated:  "Yes, it is all
in God's plan."  That's when I realized I should stop taking for fact
everthing I was told about God and search for my own answers.  I found
it.  And look where I'm posting:  alt.atheism.

-alan
 

>-- 
>Michael Wang
>mmwang@mv.us.adobe.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: A victimless crime (was Re: Blasphemy??)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:02:19 GMT

In article <By0FFF.KJs@newcastle.ac.uk> T.G.Nattress@newcastle.ac.uk (Graeme Nattress) writes:
>jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
>
>>Blasphemy laws protect their belief not their god.
>>It is analogous to children who cover their ears and sing "I can't hear you,
>>I can't hear you" when they want to ignore someone, only they use the authority
>>of the government to keep them from hearing impure ideas.
>
>>Jim Copeland
>
>But, any belief that can't respond or face up to open unimpeded critiscism is
>not worth having.  Alt.atheism is an open forum for debating such things and no
>one will do anthng nasty to another becuase of dissagreement over beliefs or
>not.
[chop-chop]

>b)  Is atheism an impure idea?  I think that you implied such from your last
>comment. I would think that it is very pure as it has no internal
>contradictions unlike christianity for example...  Surely this makes religions
>impure....
>
>c) Above all, if a belief is a good one, it don't need protecting by law.
>
>Graeme,

You may not have seen any of my other posts to this group, so you may not
recognize that my .sig is a biting joke.

I also thought that my renaming the subject to "a victimless crime" gave
an indication of my feelings towards blasphemy.

In other words, I agree with you completely.

Jim Copeland
-- 

What we really need to do to bring peace to the middle-east
is to get the Jews together with the Muslims
and teach them to act like good Christians.