HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Matthew Spears <mspears@sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Science and dogma
Keywords: atheism
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:33:09 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

Todd Kelley <tgk@cs.toronto.edu> writes:

>You don't indicate what you mean by closed-mindedness, and furthermore,
>you don't indicate what it is about many atheists that leads you to believe
>they are closed-minded.  You hint that you believe many atheists disagree
>with the ``good'' of Christianity, and therefore you consider them
>closed-minded.

>When dealing with something as basic and important as a view of how
>the universe is and how it should be made to become, arbitrariness and
>dogmatism are insidious nemeses.  Dogmatism and arbitrariness define
>religion.  (For example, science is not a religion because it's neither
>dogmatic nor arbitrary.)  Therefore, naturally, truly open-minded persons
>scorn religion.  This does not mean they scorn what religions say; it
>means they scorn what religion is: a set of arbitrary beliefs which
>must be accepted without question.

  Closed-mindedness, to me, is clinging rigidly to a set of views, not even
considering that the other person may be right and you wrong.  I consider 
atheists closed minded if they automatically assume that there is NO good
in christianity whatsoever.  As I said before, I am not a christian, but
I cannot deny that some of the Scriptures have some very good points to them.
 
  Science is not dogmatic or arbitrary?  Do you know what you are talking 
about?  Science is taught in a VERY dogmatic style, leaving little room for
questioning or insight.  There is one right answer, and the goal of 
learning science is to predict the outcome of events successfully - not 
necessarily knowing completely why.  Not all science is like this, but
this is the traditional way of doing things.


  Religion tends to be very dogmatic too, I agree with that.  But not all
of it is.  But it seems we are getting more into definitions than meanings here.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:25 alt.atheism:14481
From: Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sowing the seeds on Xian BBSs
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 06:42:18 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

Elliott Mitchell <mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu> writes:

>It is fun to log into the BBSs and give the resident bigots hell.

  just curious, but are there any reasons for doing this beyond
your own personal enjoyment?
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:59 alt.atheism:14589
From: rodrigo vanegas <rv@cs.brown.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:47:31
Distribution: world
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Brown University

In article <1992Jul28.063335.8435@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mtrevor@nyx.cs.du.edu (Matthew Trevor) writes:

> I personally hold to many of
> Christ's teachings, yet fail to see why he needs to be "divine" for his
> words to have any relevance.

quite simply, the reason he "needs to be divine" is that a major
portion of his "teachings" was the claim that he was in fact divine --
God, no less.

rodrigo

Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:17 alt.atheism:14473
From: David Hammerslag <dhammers@urbana.mcd.mot.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sowing the seeds on Xian BBSs
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:37:49 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Urbana Design Center

In article <27JUL199216062426@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu>, Elliott Mitchell <mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu> writes:
>It is fun to log into the BBSs and give the resident bigots hell.  But one 
>does that in the full faith and assurance that the people who frequent that 
>medium are dweebs with pocket protectors who shrink at the sight of 
>daylight and can relate much better to MS-DOS than to REAL-FOLKS.  
>Sometimes I find myself worrying that they might snap and come after me 
>with a uzi (there seems to be a serious intersection of gun nuts and god 
>nuts on the BBSs).

Funny, I always thought the same thing about atheists.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Hammerslag            | Don't give me facts, I want the Truth.
dhammers@urbana.mcd.mot.com | 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:29 alt.atheism:14485
From: "Mark.Rice" <mrice@churchill.columbiasc.ncr.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:20:36 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Corp

In article <1992Jul28.063335.8435@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> Matthew Trevor <mtrevor@nyx.cs.du.edu> writes:
>
>I was brought up in a strong catholic household, and have only just
>recently "converted" (if you will) to atheism. I agree that religion can
>have some important things to say, but my belief is that many christian
>religions are too interested in enforcing Christ's divinity, and not as
>involved with spreading what he *said*. I personally hold to many of
>Christ's teachings, yet fail to see why he needs to be "divine" for his
>words to have any relevance.
>
>Matthew T.

Bravo!  I like your thinking, in that you separate the linkage that
most seem to have with "christian" and "good".  I believe that if we
think logically, we will see that Jesus had many good teachings.
Whether he's a GOD or not is (for the most part) a separate issue.

mark rice
-- 
-----
mark.rice@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM		H: 803-731-5560
Not necessarily the views of NCR.	W: 803-791-6466
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:28 alt.atheism:14484
From: "Mark.Rice" <mrice@churchill.columbiasc.ncr.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 12:58:36 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Corp

In article <mspears.712252338@sfu.ca> Matthew Spears <mspears@sfu.ca> writes:
>  I am not a fundamentalist christian, or even a christian at all.  (Gave it
>up in childhood), but I dislike the close-mindedness of many atheists.  Yes,
>there is a lot of hypocrisy in Christianity, but there is a lot of good as
>well.  What I dislike about Churches in general is that they tend to say "THIS
>is the truth, take it or leave it."  But I still find that there is a lot
>of Truth in what they say. 
> 
>  If you have a view of the universe, say it, backing it up as best you can. 
>But this cynical denigration of everything religious does no one any good, 
>least of all you.

Good points... and remember, saying "THIS is the truth" can be stereotypical
of a christian but is often said by atheists when they say "I know for sure
there is no such thing as a GOD of any kind."  They're being just as
closed-minded as stereotypical christians.

-- 
-----
mark.rice@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM		H: 803-731-5560
Not necessarily the views of NCR.	W: 803-791-6466
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:70 alt.atheism:14607
From: James Meritt <m23364@mwunix>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sowing the seeds on Xian BBSs
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 12:39:12 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean VA

In article <92316@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
}In article <1992Jul28.163920.13575@news.media.mit.edu> mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!media.mit.edu!minsky@uunet.uu.net (Marvin Minsky) writes:
}
}>Most XIANS do not consider doing such things to be sociable, at least
}>in this particular era, and I have not met any who refuse to denounce
}>such behavior.  However, I have not observed any Muslimss on the net
}>to firmly denounce the murder of unbelievers.  Did I miss some of these?
}
}Of course you have. Killing _anyone_ is against the tenets of Islam
}unless that person has killed someone else (death penalty) or is
}forcibly preventing a community of muslims from practicing their
}religion (praying, meeting at Friday prayers).

Then they do NOT believe that the directions from Yahweh as recorded in the
OT are correct, since many instances other than those you just gave are
used by god to justify killing people.  Serious things like living in
the wrong place at the wrong time, for instance.


Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:43 alt.atheism:14573
From: Jeffrey S Linder <jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:13:07 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Ohio State University

If you identify yourself as an atheist you are saying that you don't believe
in a GOD of any kind.  Therefore the examples are not necessary.

Jeff.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:75 alt.atheism:14672
From: "Jason Goeppinger [Math]" <plains!s21.msi.umn.edu!goepping@uunet.uu.net>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Science and dogma
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:47:52 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: MSI

In article <1992Jul29.162754.29900@cs.utwente.nl> heksterb@cs.utwente.nl (Ben Hekster) writes:

	   However, having observed that there apparently is nothing to
   indicate that deities do actually exist, and seeing that the scientific
   method is already superbly capable of explaining/modeling our world
   without having to resort to omnipotent entities, we have come to the
   conclusion that at the present time there is nothing to support the
   existence of any god, and everything to support that gods are
   superfluous.

I've always been troubled with this argument--the fact that we puny-minded
humans are SO proficient at explaining "our world."  What exactly is "our
world?"  Are we so arrogant to think that what we are able to percieve with
our limited senses is the complete extent of the universe?  It seems to me
that the way in which science approaches "The Nature Of Things" might be a
little short-sighted.  Clearly a diety or anything "super-natural" could be
very evasive of our physical modeling method of science; for example, a
scientist looking for the existence of "spirits" would have a hard time
constructing a model based on physical evidence of something that might
only be perceivable under varying conditions determined by an autonomous
being.  I think the current method of science we practice is incapable of
touching these sorts of things.  

A good book to help a person re-evaluate their notions about science is
Kuhn's _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_.  

Faith in Science smacks strongly of faith in God, I believe.
	
   As ever, open-minded to the hilt,
Alas, if we had the capacity. . .



--

	Jason Goeppinger
	(goepping@s1.msi.umn.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:66 alt.atheism:14596
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sowing the seeds on Xian BBSs
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 11:24:39 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

John Paulus <shadow@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> writes:
> talk to them about this behavior. Elliott (& anyone else, for that matter), I
> strongly suggest that, if you really want to rip on a "Christian"'s behavior,
> I suggest you compare it with the Bible, FIRST & FOREMOST with the Gospels
> (i.e. the words of JESUS) & then the rest of the New Testament, & if you're
> still interested the Old Testament as well. 

The trouble is, every time I compare people's behaviour to the old or new
testament, I'm told I'm "misinterpreting" the Bible, reading it "out of
context" or some such.


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard

Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:3 alt.atheism:14078
From: Josh Adams <lambada.oit.unc.edu!Josh.Adams@mcnc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Atheism vs. Christianity (WHY?)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:33:15 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

It seems to me that we're completely leaving out other religions. Atheism is
not the opposite of Christianity, it's the opposite of believing in god (or
whatever the hell the latest definition of atheism is, you all are so stupid
about the definition - it doesn't matter). So, are there any atheists out
there who have been brought up other than Christian and are now atheist? Why
did you switch?


My biggest reason (well, I think biggest) for not believing in god is that
there are so many religions out there who all believe they are right and
everyone else is wrong (yes I know it's not exactly like that, but most
religions contradict) so how can any one of them be right? You, well, we'll
Christians (randomly, of course) all think that Jesus is gonna come back
or whatever, while the Jews say he won't. You are so set in your thinking
that you don't realize that there are other possibilities than yours. So,
since "God talked" to so many people, I have no other choice than to believe
that whoever he "talked" to just made it up. I hope that made sense, cuz it
sure did to me. Why should one religion be right and another wrong? It's all
bullshit, and there's just no other way...

Josh

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:99 alt.atheism:14706
From: Matthew Trevor <mtrevor@nyx.cs.du.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 06:33:35 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.


I was brought up in a strong catholic household, and have only just
recently "converted" (if you will) to atheism. I agree that religion can
have some important things to say, but my belief is that many christian
religions are too interested in enforcing Christ's divinity, and not as
involved with spreading what he *said*. I personally hold to many of
Christ's teachings, yet fail to see why he needs to be "divine" for his
words to have any relevance.

Matthew T.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:86 alt.atheism:14683
From: Greg Frazier <maxwell!frazier@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheist or Agnostic Part two
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:09:00 GMT
Distribution: world


mrice@churchill.columbiasc.ncr.com (Mark.Rice) writes:
: 
: Do you believe there is no God?
: 
: or...
: 
: that you have insufficient evidence to say there is or is not a God?

I think a *much* more interesting questions is "what would
convince you that there is a god?"  I consider myself to be
an openminded individual, but for the life of me I can't
think of a thing that would convince me that there is a god.
For instance, let's say that I am "instantaneously" transported
out to Catalina Island.  How did I get there?  I dunno, but
"god" would not be my first guess.

--


Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:71 alt.atheism:14622
From: Ron Graham <ecaxron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: sowing the seeds, etc.
Date: 30 Jul 1992 11:08 EDT  
Distribution: world
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

I could not respond to this article via e-mail (which is my preference
due to bandwidth considerations), because of an incomplete e-mail address
given by the author.  My apologies.

In article <1992Jul30.123912.13742@linus.mitre.org>, James Meritt 
     <m23364@mwunix> writes...

>In article <92316@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:

>>In article <1992Jul28.163920.13575@news.media.mit.edu> 
>>     mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!media.mit.edu!minsky@uunet.uu.net 
>>     (Marvin Minsky) writes:

>>>[...] However, I have not observed any Muslims on the net
>>>                                       ^^^^^^^
>>>to firmly denounce the murder of unbelievers.

>>Of course you have. Killing _anyone_ is against the tenets of Islam
>>                                                              ^^^^^
>>unless that person has killed someone else (death penalty) [...]

>Then they do NOT believe that the directions from Yahweh as recorded in the
>                                                  ^^^^^^
>OT are correct, since many instances other than those you just gave are
>used by god to justify killing people.  [...]

Ahem.  Please observe the underlines above, and do let's try not to mix up
the religions we're bashing, shall we?

RG
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Atheism and spiritual feelings (was Re: Atheism and culture)
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 07:00:38 GMT

Graham:
>There is no way that you practice agnostic theism Jarek.

Jarek:
>Let's not begin it from the scratch.You didn't reply to my last post on
>agnostic theism. If you want to go on saying that this position is not
>possible, please dig out your notebook, make a summary of argumentation
>and add your new comment.

Proof that Jarek is either paranoid or does not read that which he
replies to. You say "If you want to go on saying that this position
is not possible ..". But that is not what I said in my comments
above. I said that you do not practice agnostic theism. I made no
comment on whether the position of agnostic theism is possible.

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Crusades? Again??
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 00:51:01 GMT

(silver) writes:
>Graham never claimed to take credit for anything good any atheists have 
>done, nor did he say or imply that he would. In fact, I find it unlikely 
>Graham would take credit for anything anyone besides Graham ever did.
>(good or bad).

Are you accusing me of being an existentialist? :-)

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14211 sci.skeptic:13113
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Praying to Mecca?... and Evangelists
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 12:43:34 BST
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

zafar@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Syed Zafar Kazmi) writes:
> >>>>> "Hossein" == Hossein Bagherzadeh Rafsanjani <ghbr@fmg.bt.co.uk> writes:
> Hossein> In article <1992Jul13.015517.29741@athena.mit.edu> suheil@athena.mit
> > The Muslim may be anywhere at any given time, but at the time of prayer it 
> > certain that he is in the place of prayer if he is a true Muslim.
> Hossein>                ^^                              ^^
> Hossein> Oh, I thought women can be "Muslims" too.  But then, Qoran would rat
> Hossein> men (about "their women" too) than to all believers.
> 
> This has nothing to do with Isla, rather this is a limitation of English. Som
> I find myself irritated with this thing. Can anybody give me a pronoun which
> addreses both men and women alike.

"He".

That Hossein chap obviously isn't a native English speaker.


mathew
[ Followups to alt.usage.english or similar ]
-- 
Down, boy!  There's a good dogma.

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14601 talk.bizarre:23964
From: stoesser@i31s21.ira.uka.de (Achim Stoesser)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Short, shameful confession
Date: 30 Jul 1992 12:33:45 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: i31s21.ira.uka.de

In article <exukjb.35.712445852@exu.ericsson.se>, exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
|> In article <14rfd2INN341@iraul1.ira.uka.de> stoesser@i31s21.ira.uka.de (Achim Stoesser) writes:
[lots of stuff (which had something to do with atheism!) deleted]
|> >                                                                Achim
|> >_____________________________________________________________________
|> 
|> >I'm an anarchist, atheist, pacifist, and vegetarian.  This does _not_
|> >mean that I'd bomb kings, worship Satan, let soldiers bleed to death,
|> >or eat fish.
|> 
|> 
|> Ah, a real live anarchist! Speak to me, speak to me. I'm a blooming 
|> libertarian, theist, nonpacifist, and red meat eater. Where did I go wrong?
|> 
|> 					--(k.b., better in person)

Born on the wrong planet?
								Achim

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty)
Subject: Wowzers
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: The Wall
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:48:21 GMT

Wow. It seems like denying the existence of God would leave so much
confusion about the mysterious spaces of life that one would not have
the chance to enjoy the spaces that we do understand.

Each to his own, I know, but Hell, what a bummer.

peace
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: FAQ File Reminder         Reading FAQ files does not cause cancer
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 14:08:57 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

[ This is a canned posting ]

This is a reminder about the alt.atheism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
file.

The file exists to help new readers avoid embarrassing themselves by asking
questions which have been covered over and over again.  Please read it before
posting.

To find a copy:

1. Check the newsgroup alt.atheism.  There should be a copy of the latest
   version of the FAQ file.  Look for the subject line "Alt.Atheism
   Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)".

2. Check the newsgroup news.answers for the same subject line.

   If you don't find anything in steps 1 or 2, your news system isn't set up
   correctly, and you may wish to tell your system administrator about the
   problem.

3. If you have anonymous FTP access, connect to pit-manager.mit.edu
   [18.172.1.27].  Go to the directory /pub/usenet/alt.atheism, and you'll
   find the latest version of the FAQ file there.

4. If you don't have FTP, send mail to mail-server@pit-manager.mit.edu
   consisting of the following line:

      send usenet/alt.atheism/Alt.Atheism_Frequently_Asked_Questions_(FAQ)

   The FAQ file should be mailed back to you automatically.

5. (Penultimate resort)  Send mail to info-server@mantis.co.uk consisting of
   the following line:

      send atheism/atheism.txt

   and our poor overworked modems will try and send you a copy.


mathew
-- 
Ceci | n'est pas une pipe.
From: kml@cellar.org (Lazlo Hoover Toth)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: lighten up, people
Keywords: faith
Date: 31 Jul 92 12:40:15 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

> >	In Nomine Patris et filiis et Spiritus Sancti....
> >	thomas ehardt
> >	tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
> 

He's one for the ages: How can you say that God is nothing more than a
"spirit of Love", then sign off with the Latin for "in the name of the 
father, son, and Holy Spirit"?  The latter is straight from the Catholic
liturgy, while the former is irreconcilable with Catholic theology.

Be consistent.  Folks out there might start thinking you're a hypocrite,
or a believer in a "Tastes Great, Less Filling" type of religion.

Still waiting on that proof by the way.

Love Ya.


Ob Def: MENSA: An organization for peopld who have never read Steven
               Jay Gould's *The Mismeasure of Man*.


  c/o YoyoDyne Propulsion Systems, maker of the Tri-Wing Fighter
          All parts delivered in big pink boxes.
  kml%cellar@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com  - My other account is a Mercedes.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic