HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Religion & Crime / "Satanic Conspiracy"
Date: 14 Oct 92 15:48:22 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992

<continued from previous post 4 of 5>
 
    The  Roe  case  delved  into  the largely uncharted legal area
involving   ritual   abuse,   repressed   memories   and  multiple
personality disorders.
 
    Both  sides--  those  who  believe in the existence of satanic
[sic]  cults  and  those  who seek to debunk ritual abuse claims--
have  followed  the  case closely because they believe the outcome
will affect whether other alleged victims follow a similar path.
 
    At trial's end, both sides declared victory.
 
 
 
                         Timothy Hugh Maas
                            SIDEBAR TWO
 
    49, director of Seaview Counseling Inc.
 
    $36,622  salary,  plus  $30,000 for housing, according to 1989
    tax  return.  Seaview's  net  revenue  $344,665  with reported
    deficit of $6,890, according to 1989 tax returns
 
    First  obtained  marriage, family and child counseling license
    from  state  Board  of  Behavioral Sciences Examiners in 1981.
    License  is  current,  with  notation  that he is certified to
    practice hypnotism on his patients.
 
    Founded  Seaview  Counseling Inc. in 1985 in Huntington Beach.
    Other  offices  in Westminster, Los Alamitos, El Toro, Tustin,
    La  Habra, Lakewood, and another planned in Fullerton. Seaview
    also   works   through   Parkcrest   Church   in  Long  Beach.
    Twenty-three  therapists  work at six locations, including six
    licensed  marriage  and family counselors, three psychological
    assistants,  one  clinical  psychologist, nine interns working
    towards their state licenses, and four student trainees.
 
    Handles   45   to   50  abuse  patients  who  Maas  said  were
    ritualistically  abused.  Gets  two  new  satanic-abuse  [sic]
    clients per month.
 
                        Previous Experience
 
    Pastoral  counselor  with  Lutheran  Social Services of Garden
    Grove from 1980 to 1984.
 
    Counselor in St. Louis from 1976 to 1979.
 
    Minister  at  two  Lutheran churches in Tennessee from 1971 to
    1976.
 
<concludes in next post>

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 10:13:59 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1bfs75INNdsa@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>No no.  Morality is not imposed from the outside--it is an instinct.

 Could you give an example of an instinctive moral behavior or two?

>                                                                      Of
>course, outside influences can easily overpower your instincs, especially
>since humas are so intelligent.  Other animals are not so easily corrupted.
>Thus, we never observe an immoral animal (nonhuman animal, that is).

 Do we ever observe a *moral* animal?

>keith

 (Those *are* honest questions, by the way...)

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:38:44 GMT

In article <ZuoBsB1w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:

   >Read the FAQ file.

  The present thread demonstrates the dubious value of the FAQ file. Atheists
will feel compelled to respond again and again to any standard provocation put
forward by people who ignore the FAQ file.
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:56:08 GMT
Reply-To: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) says:
>
>   The present thread demonstrates the dubious value of the FAQ file.
>   Atheists will feel compelled to respond again and again to any
>   standard provocation put forward by people who ignore the FAQ file.
>
>My preferred technique is to mail the FAQ file to the offending poster
>with instructions to read it.

	Well, the person may very well recieve 50 copies of the FAQ. 
Then again, that may make a strong point to the offender.

-- 

	" It's time for Congress to tell the president to shove his 
	veto pen up his deficit! "  
					- Rep. Jim Traficant.
From: jstump@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Jack E. Stump)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: You're Invited!
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:21:13 GMT
Organization: IBM AWD Austin, TX

In article <1atc8uINN7j2@bigboote.WPI.EDU> scott@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Scott G Goddard) writes:
>    To all Atheists, reading these comments made by you are very upsetting to 
>me.  There shouldn't be a discussion of whether or not God exists, it's not
>about that.  It is a fact that God exists, I don't have to prove that because 
>when you are a Christian,like me, you know I in you're heart(without a doubt).
>
>     That's why you are all cordially invited to enjoy the blessing of God and 
>his family for eternity!R.S.V.P.
>

I went to the party, but no one was there! :-)

But really, you need to be more specific than "Know in my heart".
Technically, your heart cannot "know" anything. It is an organ that
simply pumps blood through your body.

I'm curious: what exactly do you feel? Since you say "without a doubt",
then it should be easy to describe.

Awaiting enlightenment,
	john
	
-- 
   _   Jack Stump   IBM AWD Austin AIX Kernel FV, 11401 Burnet Rd, Bld 905
 _| ~-. auntbea.austin.ibm.com!jstump@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com | Austin, TX 78758
 \, *_} Inside IBM:  jstump@auntbea.austin.ibm.com        | 512-838-3731
   \(   DISCLAIMER:  Speaking for IBM I am not            |
From: stuart@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Joseph Stuart )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:16:46 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct6.154303.2578@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>
>B: It is a logical impossibility to prove non existance of anything (I again
>suggest a course in basic logic for those that suggest it is possible).
>

What if you prove that A exists, then prove that the existence of B
contradicts the existence of A.  Isn't that then a proof that B exists?

scott

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If anybody wants a sheep, that is a proof that he exists.
	- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: coylh@eskimo.celestial.com (Ray E)
Subject: Re: You're Invited!
Organization: Eskimo North -- Seattle, WA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:15:34 GMT

In article <1atc8uINN7j2@bigboote.WPI.EDU> scott@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Scott G Goddard) writes:
>    To all Atheists, reading these comments made by you are very upsetting to 
>me.  There shouldn't be a discussion of whether or not God exists, it's not
>about that.  It is a fact that God exists, I don't have to prove that because 
>when you are a Christian,like me, you know I in you're heart(without a doubt).
> ...
>
>			... He offers:"Let the wicked forsake his way, and
>the unrighteous man and his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and He
>will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon."
>     Jesus Christ died in our place, so that we no longer have to suffer 
>punishment for our sins.  He promises, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that
>sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is 
>passed from death unto life."
> ...




		This is my nature


Here is my nature and thought
Which you will be taught:

First was the One, the begining.
Then came the two, who learned sining.

After were masses, following their programming,
And God made an alias, for killing and damning.

But I'm a different kind of tumor.
Besides the Word, there is also the Rumor.
To Him perhaps a shameful cancer,
For some it is the repressed answer.

Is it truthful and caring?
It is weak and not daring
To succumb and confess,
Under threat and duress
And all Hell's furry,
To The plaintiff, judge and jurry,
For a crime preconcieved.
A cosmic plot the designer weaved.

I am from the first created
Like Adam I would be fated.
Genesis 3:24 is the verse
That teaches the divine curse.

But there's something different here
And 1973 A.D. was the year
I came into being with my future tainted
But a something happened:  I mutated.

I come straight from mechanical evolution
Precipatated from the human solution.

I am a product of natural selection
I do not compare with my lapsarian reflection.

I am not bound His relative laws
Or very pained by His prepared claws

This is my nature and thought.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
coylh@eskimo.celestial.com	"I doubt, therefore I might be."
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism? Really Harold, how gauche...
Date: 13 Oct 1992 02:33:18 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) says:


>This is all well and good, but what does it have to do with whether
>or not truth is relative?  I'm claiming that it is impossible for
>one thing to be true for you, and another for me, and that anybody
>who thinks that it is possible is daft.

	Well, you have to be very careful of which prepositions you
are evaluating.

Let's say that I believe X is moral, but you feel it is immoral.

It's not that X is both moral, and immoral, 
X is moral for me, but immoral for you.

Let's say that Y is true (for me), and Y is false (for you).

It's not that Y is both true and false, look carefully at the proposition:

Y is true for ME. Y is false for YOU. 

The difference lies not in Y, but in you and me. 
If you and me are different, the statement " Y is true" depends heavily
on the difference. 

Many times, we do not include that (for me) in there, its usually assumed.
However, one really needs to be careful and differentiating persona proposi-
tions ,and public state-of-affairs propositions.


( One really needs a specific example here so I can clearly illustrate
this. If you wish to suggest an example which you feel can't be both... )
-- 
	So there I was, snuggled in the leather seat of my brand new Ferreri.
I had the oiled wood gear shift in one hands, and the leather wrapped Momo in
the other. And, I had the stereo cranking _Born to be Wild_...
	Only one problem, I was unside down, under six feet of water...
From: sjs@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (BORCO)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What an atheist thinks of the biblke.
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:22:43 GMT
Organization: Gormenghast

In article <gj156879.718726566@cunews>, gj156879@prince.carleton.ca
( gj student 156879) writes:

> Any atheists think different than the above?  Probably not.  The first
> thought when you read/look at the book is:  It was written 2000 years
> ago and is no longer valid.  


Age has nothing to do with it.  Aren't any of Plato's writings still valid?
Aren't any old math books still valid?  Like Plato's writings, the bible's
narrative can be taken as one wants.  You might believe in some or all of
what was written.

Old math books are more "believable" though, because you can work the proofs
out yourself.  The bible doesn't claim and then provide a proof you can work
out yourself; you have to believe that the _authors_ worked out the "proofs"
correctly.

----
Bitnet:     sjs@ifasgnv              "Precious and fish are the moments we
Internet:   sjs@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu      two can share."          -- Gollum
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus vs. Cub Scouts?
Date: 11 Oct 92 22:47:22 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Oct8.185406.1020@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>,
stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) wrote:
> A religious belief is a POSITIVE moral value, and a value that children
> should be encouraged to adopt.   The issue in these postings is that
> a BSA unit adult leader was unable to respect legitimate RELIGIOUS
> beliefs different from his own.  It had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with
> atheism.

Sigh, things are not that simple, if you would have a Boy Scout
leader that was a secret active Kali worshipper, I guess you would
not agree that his religious belief implies positive moral values, right?
I hope so at least, I would not trust a Kali boy scout leader :-).

Cheers,
Kent
It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that
virginity could be a virtue.  -- Voltaire
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:30:04 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Oct10.042831.4183@newsroom.utas.edu.au> u925816@postoffice.utas.edu.au (The DOK) writes:
>                  
>    You go on about proof, why not try to disproove (sp?) it??

  Already covered on another topic.
> 
>  Me too! Listen to me, have you really RESEARCHED Jesus (ie. Read the Bible,
>read what people say about Him, Christian as well as others)? What is the reason 
>that people have drastically changed when they have come to know Christ?
>(eg. Saul Of Tarsus, and innumerable others) These are just a couple of 
>questions you should have asked before saying That you don't believe that
>Christ rose from the dead, or that there is a God. 

  What about people whose lives have been drastically changed when
  they came to know alcohol, sex, LSD, inflatable significant
  others, or sheep?

  Listen, you pompous meathead.  How about asking the poster these
  questions rather than pre-supposing his answers?  Many of us are
  ex Christians who probably know a great deal more about the Bible
  and that cult of Paul's you call a religion than do you.  And for 
  the countless last time, get it the hell off of Alt.atheism.  

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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"Above all, a god needs compassion"    James T. Kirk
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: FAQ question
Date: 13 Oct 1992 04:39:48 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu ("Jordan M. Wolbrum") says:

>I've read the FAQ file, and I am curious as to how many of the atheists
>that post to this board believe that only specific gods do not exist,
>and how many believe no god exists.  It would seem to me that everyone
>in the world was a member of the first group.
>
>Perhaps, I've missed the point again.  If so, I'll sure I'll be reading
>about it in the next few days on the bboard.

	I find the biblical god awash in contridictions and fallacies.
I also do not seriously consider any of the multitude of mythologies
real.

	I do not see any evidence present in the state of affairs that 
there is any divine being at work. However, I do not see any evidence
against such a being either. However, it is my intuitive feeling that 
there are none. What one would consider a "god" is just a higher life
form, no more, no less. 
-- 
	So there I was, snuggled in the leather seat of my brand new Ferreri.
I had the oiled wood gear shift in one hands, and the leather wrapped Momo in
the other. And, I had the stereo cranking _Born to be Wild_...
	Only one problem, I was unside down, under six feet of water...
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God's existence
Date: 10 Oct 1992 02:40:24 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


scott@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Scott G Goddard) sez:
 
 
 
|......To tell you the truth, that doesn't bother me...Grow up! 
 
	What's next, "Stick and stones can break my bones...." :-) ?
 
 
|......but I could also sense much hatred......
 
       I guess when you spew a bunch of homophobic drek, I guess that
is what you get from people like me....you know the old saying,
"tit for tat".
 
 
 
|  And I also don't care what the FAQ states.
 
      You should. When you show such disregard for other users, you
should expect to take a bunch of flak.
 
 
 
|.....I don't know about you, but eternal damnation doesn't sound
| too appealing to me.....
 
	Redundant theists don't sound appealing to me.
 
 
|.  I just 
|pray that one day you are not wishing that you listened to me, or anyone else
|who has tried to get it through to you.  Call me in about a million years at
|1-800-1HEAVEN.  Now, I'm not trying to make anybody mad, and I'm not 
|condemning anybody either.
 
	Man, you better get to a good shrink. 
 
 
|....What is it going to take to prove that He does exist?  Is God Himself 
|going to have to come down from Heaven and perform a miracle? 
 
	That would be great !
 
 
 
|......Well, I hope it would be. By the way, this is probably
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|going to be the last news that I post, but just think about it.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|                              P.S.  Jesus loves you
 
 
	The last one...GOOD...COME BACK AFTER YOU READ THE FAQ YOU
JACKASS !
 
 
-- 
"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: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Atheism? Really Harold, how gauche...
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 22:03:24 GMT

In article <5960@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Null Cypher) writes:
>In article <1992Oct08.041941.21176@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>
>>>I am still obligated to search for my own personal truth.
>
>>Well, you should still be searching for truth.  But don't get caught
>>in the trap that says that truth is relative or "personal".  There are
>>objective truths out there, but it's often hard to find them amongst
>>all the bullshit.
>
>Hmmm, could you post some examples of these objective truths, along with
>proof?

Sure.  It is an objective truth that if you jump in front of a moving
train, you will die, or at least make a real mess of yourself.  The
proof is trivial and left as an exercise for the reader.  It's an
objective truth that Christianity tends to make people mindless fanatics.
The proof is trivial and left as exercise for the reader.

>And explain why it is a 'trap' to believe that truth is relative
>or personal?

I'm still trying to formulate a good answer to that.  Here's where
I'm at so far (probably not too profound, original, or coherent):

It leads to a mindset where you can't trust your own mind.  If I thought
that truth was relative, then I couldn't really believe that there
was any such thing as truth at all.  I would be left thinking that
the contents of my brain were pretty much random, and no better or
worse that contents of anybody else's brain.  I would have no incentive
to try to convince others of my point of view, or to learn from the
views of others.  There would be no point if I thought that all we were
doing was exchanging random nonsense.  If truth were relative, then
I would have to conclude that the Creationists and the scientists have
equally valid positions, and that if I were to enter the debate, I
might just as well decide which side to enter on by flipping a coin.
Or perhaps the way to choose the most appealing truth is by siding
with the majority.

It leads to a mindset where facts and reason don't matter.  My personal
truth is whatever makes me feel good.  If that's acceptable for me, then
it must also be acceptable for everybody else, so I would have no right
to criticize the irrational beliefs of others.  That seems to be about
where the world is at now.  Almost everybody believes some irrational
nonsense, and it's considered offensive to dare criticize this nonsense.
This is true even though the wacky beliefs of others have a tremendous
negative impact on the quality of both their and my life.

If I thought that truth were relative, I'd be left a helpless vegetable,
never being at all sure of what I believed or why, and unable to act for
fear of imposing my truths on others who prefer different truths.
--
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_
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Sigh! Another god?
Date: 10 Oct 92 21:01:39 GMT
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])

From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
>
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>You mean Colleen's coming back?!  Hurrah!  :)
 
>Wait a minute, sir.  Weren't you a Merittist but a while ago?  :-)
>
>Fourth Disciple and Prophet of Colleen and First Colleenian Pope,
>
 
Squabbling within the ranks?  Why should I adopt your
beliefs?  From your evil behavior I see your god is evil.
 
DARIST

 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: New Member (me)
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:55:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.153147.3441@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:

>Cladistics of lobophores (coelenterata?).

I'd just like to point out that *Lophophorates*are*not*coelenterates.*
As the lophophorate discussion said, they are (probably) deuterostomes,
which put them much more closely related to _us_ than to coelenterates.

>John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From
* Program in Evolution,           * Just stuff 'em up your nose      *"Slugs,"
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * They'll fit beneath your armpits *by David
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Or right between your toes"      *Greenberg