HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bob@miggins.apana.org.au (Bob Rye)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re:  RELIGION AND PRESIDENTS
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (10.17.92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:09:28 +1100
Organization: Mrs. Miggins' Pie Shoppe

In article <Ze4VXB4w165w@seanews.akita.com>
paulette@seanews.akita.com (paulette brown) writes:

> Freedom of [from] religion ought to extend 
> to Presidents, too...

Most definitely agreed! Why must our leaders exhibit a prescribed set of
religious views when they may not necessarily hold any views at all? The
same thing happens here in Australia with our Prime Minister and Opposition
Leader. All running off to church before this function or that. Sickening
really.

> Am I the only one in the US who thought it 
> was inappropriate -- if not downright 
> distateful -- to have Billy Graham and his 
> church prayers at the Inaugural?

Whether we follow American politics or not (I do), we can't help but notice
these things. You're not the only one who feels that way. Why must these
high-ranking people pray before doing something in public? Fair enough if
they were fanatical before taking office. But then again, they wouldn't be
in office if they didn't grovel to the lord...

-- 
+--------------------------------+---------------------------+
| It was every man's fantasy: to | bob@miggins.apana.org.au  |
| be kept by a woman whose skirt |                           |
| is as short as the lifespan of | FidoNet  3:633/359.7      |
| the man that she chooses...    | TriNet   42:8699/8.7      |
|                     - Al Bundy | AmigaNet 41:300/359.7     |
+--------------------------------+---------------------------+
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:21:58 CST
From: David James Alexander Hanley <U16244@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: RELIGION & PRESIDENTS

  Yeah, me and most of my atheist friends were pretty disgusted about the
whole inaguration.  I seem to remember that one war general who was
considering running for president made some pretty anti-religious
comments and he dropped out of the race soon afterward.  Too bad he
couln't have kept his mouth shut:)

  As a side note, i heard the prime minister of england is an atheist.
Is this true??  Wow, this could never happen here.  Are there any more
freely-elected atheist high-powered officals? ( in the world ? )

dave
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.
He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for
protection to his own" - Thomas Jefferson, 1814

SEND E-MAIL TO : hanley1@earth.eecs.uic.edu
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: My last week on alt.atheism =~(
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:59:36 GMT
Reply-To: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (White Rook)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu



	Well.....this looks like my last week on alt.atheism before I
pack all of my stuff and head up to Detroit Mich. I will be stoping by
every once in a while and checking on things, including my mailbox.

	When a SouthEast Mich. FreeNet opens up I will get on it and
be able to get back on here. Any of you who might want my Snail Mail
address can write to me via Email.




	It has been fun you all............well I promise the following:

	"No matter how weird it gets, I will be the last one off the 
	 embasy roof"



--
A. Trent Phillips     *
  also known as       *                    "Speak to me in many voices,
   White Rook         *                     make them all sound like one.
                      *                     Let me see your sacred mysteries.
                                            Reveal to me the unknown tounge."
               *****  *  *****                           --Blue Oyster Cult
      
                      *      send Email to:  bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
                       *            or---->  aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu
                    *   *        
                     * *                   "We gotta get out of this place
	              *                     if it's the last thing we ever do"
					                      --The Animals


-- 
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--------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cscope@camelot.bradley.edu (William Twentyman)
Subject: Re: Was Jesus the Anti-Christ?
Organization: Bradley University
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:01:24 GMT

In <1993Jan26.082913.19319@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka) writes:
>In <cscope.727987530@camelot> cscope@camelot.bradley.edu writes:

>> This has been one of my biggest problems with Christianity, the possibility
>> that it was a ploy by Satan to draw people away from God.  Can anyone see
>> any flaws in my logic?  Anything I may have missed?

>      Apart from its being a conspiracy theory, not really; the logic is
>- in principle - impeccable, but it's as unfalsifiable as the theory
>you're criticizing, so what do you gain?

I don't gain anything.  But it is disturbing that I was able to see the problem
with that quote almost immediately, yet I never hear anything about why Jesus
couldn't have been the Anti-christ, sent to steer Jews away from God. (I still
haven't come to any conclusion about his/its existence.)

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The following statement is false.  The previous statement is true.
--------------------------- cscope@camelot.bradley.edu -------------------------
From: cfairman@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Anthropologically observerved "super-natural" events?
Date: 27 Jan 93 04:15:10 GMT
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA



 jhigbee@cs.weber.edu (Jonathan C. Higbee) writes about rain dances
working and knives bending about knives bending against sternums in Bali.

He queries:

>No doubt that some things which occur are figments of peoples
>imagination and/or religious frenzy, but is every seemingly
>super-natural occurance to be dismissed? Given sufficient
>experience in the study of different cultures, does one observe
>seemingly super-natural things not currently explainable by
>science?

Many things are not yet properly explained.  Just because you don't under-
stand something does not make it magic or super-natural.  Just weird.
The most likely explaination about the rain dances, etc. is the amazing ability
of humans to _selectively_ remember.  Happens with 'psychics' all the time.
It's the "I saw Jimmy in a terrible car accident and he was in a fender bender
in a parking lot, therefore I have ESP.  The truth is she has these visions 
left and right but only remembers the ones which "prove" she's a psychic.

Works the same with rain.

Carolyn
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism in pop culture
Date: 24 Jan 93 00:37:28 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: The Language Game Inc.

Todd Rundgren had a funny song on "Initiation" called "Estern Intrigue"
where
most God names are mentioned, and in the first chorus he sings "Will the
right
God please stand up?", and in the second chorus "Will the right God please
sit down?".

Then again as I know Todd is no atheist, which would explain the pains to
release maybe "Dead God" by XTC (Todd produced the album where Dear God
wasn't included in the first pressing). Then again this is just rumors :-).


Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND
Private activities on the Net, opinions are not Apple's, they are mine.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:27205 talk.religion.misc:27808
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Where does Adam and Eve Fit In? Attn: Jeff West
Date: 28 Jan 93 05:20:49 GMT
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC

>brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:

>>     I wouldn't mind feeling comfortable with evolution.  But to my
>>knowledge, there is not enough facts to show that that is true either. 

Then your knowledge is woefuly limited; possily a product of your
education?

>>I have more problems with evolution that I have with God's creating
>>the animals.   The following may be a rumor, but did not  Darwin 
>>say that if scientists do not find evidence of transitional species
>>in the fossil record, then his Evolution theory doesn't hold water?

There are a great many very finely graded sequences in the fossil record
(though most of that record was basically unknown in Darwin's time, hence
his remarks count as a prediction -- an unlikely one, perhaps -- that has
been many times verified in the decades since.  This isn't quite the whole
story since the paleontological record (insofar as its inherent spottiness
allows one to judge) does not appear to be one of every thing having an
continuous gradual change more or less uniform across time -- rather, there
is a fairly common pattern of apparent stability of phenotype.  This makes
the details of evolutionary theory complicated, and an arena of some con-
troversy -- but not over the basic prinicples which became very rapidly
well-established within a generation of Darwin, and were only buttressed
when genetics grew up enough to provide a look at detailed mechanism.

Interested parties may inquire in talk.origins for more details. :-)
-- 
Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
			 They built by rivers and at night the water
			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:17:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.014649.15096@cobber.cord.edu> jfrandson@vax.cord.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.020307.17203@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <1ji4r9INN3bh@male.EBay.Sun.COM> birge@guerciotti.EBay.Sun.COM writes:
>>>If we take the Atheist perspective then the individual created at the
>>>point of conception exists only because of the meeting of two gametes.
>>>Thus to abort the zygote, fetus, child ends forever this individuals
>>>chance for existance.
>>Don't be silly.
>>Any given gamete is essentially unique. So, for any given sex act,
>>since there are N sperm and 1 egg involved, using contraception
>>destroys the chance for existence for N individuals. Since
>>N>>1, contraception is much worse than abortion.
>Interesting... this concept would help the catholics uphold
>their ban on contraception.  I would have to say though, it
>doesn't hold up to common sense morals.  It is better, I would
>think, to not have an organism in the first place than to kill
>it (all arguments of a fetus-organism being human or not need
> not apply).  A farmer would keep his cow and bull apart, rather
>than let the bull do his thing and then have to kill the resulting
>calf (if he didn't want it, of course).
It depends how you view the zygote--as an individual or as
a chance for an individual to exist. If the latter, it should
be treated as I indicate. I believe that is a reasonable way
to read Mr. Birge's posting.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: epowers@mccoy (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Easter whodunnit
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:44:41 GMT

In article <C1AGwv.I3B@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>  
dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:
> What's the point of trying to account for the empty tomb?  If some
> people (such as myself) don't believe the Bible when it tells us that a
> man rose from the dead, why would we be any more inclined to believe it
> when it tells us that his body disappeared from its tomb?
> -- 
> David Canzi

	Here you have an interesting point.  I'm curious, would you deny  
equally the validity of all statements made in the Bible?  Archaeologists  
don't.  If not, how do you distinguish between a true statement and an  
untrue one?  Going a little further, would you also toss any other  
documents of comparable age?  I'm afraid you won't be left with much  
knowledge before the printing press if you do!
					Erik Powers			
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: Islamic proof of existence of god!!??
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 00:02:46 GMT

In <1993Jan22.195626.6207@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>In article <1993Jan22.080000.19786@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>>Firstly, note that the article referred to was posted in
>>soc.religion.islam, not in alt.atheism.  This person was interested in
>>getting the reactions of *Muslims* to his arguments.  Muslims did show
>>him where his arguments were quite weak.  Now, for an atheist to call to
>>other atheists to see what a good laugh they can have with a particular
>>posting in S.R.I. shows that this particular atheist seems to suffer
>>from a "holier-than-thou" attitude.

>Then all the "monitors" from soc.religion.islam should leave alt.atheism,
>right, since they're doing the same thing in reverse?

No, it's not the same thing in reverse.  The "monitoring" is to stop the
creation of an Islamic "straw man" and then attacking it.  It is to
counter falsehoods about Islam that are spread on the net.  I think
nobody would have any problem if atheists organised themselves to also
counter the creation of anti-atheist, but invalid, "straw man" arguments.

Of course, it's A-OK for people to read whatever is in any newsgroup --
including soc.religion.islam -- and think what they like.  I don't like 
in general "holier than thou" attitudes, however, whether they come
from atheists or theists.  (Of course, by my saying this, some may say I
am displaying a sort of "holier than thou" attitude against people with
"holier than thou" attitudes.  Hmmm... haven't got an answer to that one
yet....)

 Fred Rice 
 darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
From: Simon.N.McRae@dartmouth.edu (Simon N McRae)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: A point well missed ...
Date: 28 Jan 93 18:18:17 GMT
 <C1JuM7.6zB@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b3@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <C1JuM7.6zB@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>
bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:

> If
> atheists are veritable paragons of reason, the intellectual elite, the
> most rational of people, why do they get so hot when someone challenges their
> faith?

You are annoying.  You initiate this thread with a direct
confrontation, that manages at once to show an expansive lack of
generosity and a thinly masked invective, and then you pounce when the
responses aren't obsequious.  Understand something, Bill: I don't get
hot when someone challenges my "faith" (a poor choice of words on your
part), rather I get frustrated with dirty play.

> My point is
> that we are all born into the same world with pretty much the same set
> of attributes; it seems ridiculous to pretend that some "special"
> people have an advantage, which in the case of the atheists who have
> responded to this posting, is exactly what is being implied.

I've read the posts, and I cannot see where anyone has implied a
"special" advantage.  As for your own implication that we are all born
with the same _weltanschauung_, I'd have to disagree strongly.  We are
all born with vastly different minds and attributes that contribute to
the many approaches we all take to the world.  If not, how do you
explain why some people are lemmings and others are mules?

The responders to your post have merely suggested that their own
analytics do not lead them to acceptance of god. How is this different
from your inability to accept the Upanisads or Chinese Buddhism?  Are
you also implying for yourself some special status?  Why has god shown
you the light, and not the rest of us?

> In my
> experience, skepticism follows belief else of what are you skeptical? 

Did you ever believe in Lamarckian evolution? If not, how can you now
be so skeptical about it?      

In my experience, skepticism usually does not follow belief.  More
importantly, however, there are no requirements that it should.  You
ask, "of what are you skeptical," I say, of anything that doesn't jive
with my experience or understanding.  There's a lot more out there to
be skeptical of than just my own once-held beliefs.  

> why did you
> change, and why atheism?

I was never not an atheist. I shouldn't presume if I were you.

> Claiming to be a skeptical person begs the
> question it seems. 

And claiming to be a believer doesn't?


Simon.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:27141 sci.skeptic:22957
From: pyeatt@Texaco.com (Larry D. Pyeatt)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: RE: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:39:43 GMT
Organization: Texaco

In article <25JAN93.05173422@skyfox>, meagher@skyfox writes:
|> In a previous article, sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner) 
|> WROTE:
|> > 
|> >	I usually try to stay out of this thread, but I do like to check on 
|> >facts every now and then.  Killing babies is certainly commanded (in 
|> >connection with the Conquest), but where in the Bible do people rape and 
|> >kill their own children at the command of God?  
|> > 
|> 
|> I read this quote from a book on sociobiology:
|> 
|> Advice of Moses:
|> 
|> 	"they slew all the males.... Now therefore kill every male among
|> the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.  
|> But all the women children, that hath not known a man by lying with him,
|> keep alive for yourselves."
|> 			Numbers, 31
|> 
|> Maybe not exactly what you were looking for, but in the ballpark.  Moses 
|> was a pretty nasty dude.

Thanks for the rape reference.  There are a few others, but that is 
probably the best.

In addition, read Judges 11:29 to 11:39.  If memory serves, it is about
Jephthah, (or something like that) who was leading his troops into battle.
He was in serious difficulty and promised God that, if he won the battle,
he would sacrifice the first thing that he saw when he returned home.  A
few days later, he sacrificed his only child.

Then there is the story of that fellow whom God wanted to test.  God
told him to sacrifice his son.  So he did.  I don't even remember the 
names on this story, but there are actually two versions with different
names.  In one version, God tortures the father, but eventually lets the
child live.  Anyone want to help me out with this one?

and on the lighter side: Jeremiah 48:10.  "... cursed be he that keepeth
back his sword from blood." -- TLTG (The Lord Thy God)

and don't forget the fabulous Jeremiah 49:2 "... daughters shall be burned
with fire." -- TLTG

-- 
Larry D. Pyeatt                 The views expressed here are not
Internet : pyeatt@texaco.com    those of my employer or of anyone
Voice    : (713) 975-4056       that I know of with the possible
                                exception of myself.
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Who is Billy Graham?
Organization: none
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:48:05 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>FROM:   Brad Pierce <pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu>
>
>At USA President Clinton's inauguration Billy Graham was given
>a prominent role. I seem to recall that Graham hung around
>with former USA President Bush on the night that Bush decided to
>initiate Operation Desert Storm.

And Eisenhower during the Berlin airlift (and Elvis during the Berlin 
airlift!), and Nixon and LBJ and Carter and Reagan...

>
>How did this theist gain so much access to the powerful in *both*
>major USA political parties?
>

Billy Graham is actually in charge.  Has been for about 30 years.  The 
elections are just a scam. The powerful are gaining access to him.

_The New Columbia Encyclopedia_
	Graham, Billy William Franklin Graham), 1918-
	American evangelist, b. Charlotte, NC

	He was a lay preacher as a student (1936-40) at Bob Jones U. and 
	the Florida Bible Seminary.  In 1939 he was ordained a minister
	in the Southern Baptist Church.
	[...]
	The Minneapolis-based Billy Graham Evangelical Assoc., founded
	in the early 1950s, publishes _Decision_ magazine and produces
	weekly radio shows, TV specials, and movies.  Among his many books
	[...]

I guess the BG Crusade [adjectives as appropriate] has missed your 
neighborhood, eh?  Every cloud has a silver lining.

-jim
From: jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A point well missed ...
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:39:03 GMT
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.

In article <C1G7ry.HKw@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>The question, "How much should I read of a religions corpus of sacred
>writings", seems to miss the point. Being atheists it's incumbent on
>you to demonstrate the reasons for your disbelief. Merely attacking
>the beliefs of others does nothing to validate your own. Tell me then,
>why are you an atheist ...

Because my experience has shown me no reason to be otherwise.  Do you have
any reason for me not to be an Atheist?

JC
--
Have you washed your brain today?
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:27142 sci.skeptic:22958