HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Monitored by islam (repost)
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:25:16 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Dec15.062531.20628@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>In <12011@spark.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
[_simile_]
>>>>When will the theist morons understand the simple fact that there is
>>>>no such thing as an atheist faith, logical and rational or otherwise?
>
>Strong atheism is a faith.  (Although now someone will probably come up
>with some alternative definition of faith.  Argument by redefinition. 
>Oh well.)

No, seriously, that's a point.  I think someone actually brought it up
a few dozen articles ago.  I'm not convinced strong atheism (believing
that something that you have no good reason to believe exists doesn't)
is a faith in the same way as religions normally are.

Even if I were a weak atheist, I would still be an atheist, but it so
happens that I am a strong atheist.  It is my opinion (call it faith
if you please) that gods don't exist.  It is the twin of my opinion
(or faith) that unicorns, winge`d pigs, 19-dimensional blue bananas
and so on don't exist.  It seems I am a strong a-X-ist for a huge lot
of values of X.

Methinks agnosticism implies weak atheism.

>Eastern European style communism comes with STRONG atheism thrown in as 
>part of the package.  Religious oppression against Muslims, Christians, 
>and Jews in the USSR was a direct result of this state-instituted strong
>atheism. 

This is where you are very much wrong.  It was not a direct result of
strong atheism.  There is nothing about atheism, strong or weak, to
say how non-atheists are to be treated.

Atheists take their attitude towards the concept of god from atheism,
but they take their attitude towards other people from elsewhere.

>>But are you denying that there are views in Islam
>>which are compulsory for all Muslims?  If so, then which is the group
>>of Muslims who believe that Allah exists?  That he is the only god?
>>That Muhammad was his prophet?  That the Qur'an is his word, and if
>>that book says `do this', it must be done?
>
>The posting I was responding to was slandering all Muslims because of
>the actions of certain terrorist groups -- actions which the majority of
>Muslims do not support.  My posting should be considered within the
>context of what I was replying to.

I don't think it matters what the majority of Muslims do or do not
support.  What matters is what Islam says about the issue.  If Islam
can be normally interpreted as leading people to believe that
terrorist actions are advisable or at least justifiable, or even
excusable, then it is fair to blame Islam for them.  Otherwise it is not.

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Religion = Anything that's fun is bad.
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 06:57:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.053503.7352@bmerh85.bnr.ca>,
dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
|>
|>I would say that undogmatic and open-minded mean pretty much the
|>same thing: the willingness to consider new ideas and arguments.
|>However, that doesn't mean that you can't rationally reject those
|>new ideas, and it doesn't mean that you must refuse to brand
|>those ideas irrational just because some other people happen to
|>believe them.
|>--
|>Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
                                         
I can buy that.  I think my original idea of open-minded was
leaning towards 'yes-man' type thinking.  I would like to think
that I am at least somewhat open-minded, but it is hard to find
theists rational when I'm stuck in the middle of so many 
un-thinking ones. (Bible belt,  I can get Dallas TV evangelist
Robert Tilton on three channels incl. the 24 hour Trinity Broadcast
Network.  It seems that the 700 club is on 24 hours a day on one
channel or another.  I'm beginning to wonder about my cable
company.)
I'm willing to listen to reason, but when the post that starts
to talk about FAITH and LOVE and other capitalized fluff words
shows up, it's time to use the Kill Author command.

Brian /-|-\
From: werdna@cco.caltech.edu (Andrew Tong)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Just how much smarter are atheists?
Date: 12 Dec 1992 03:25:49 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

Could someone pin this question down for me?

Just how stupid must one be to believe in a God? (This is the general
feeling that I get from reading 90% of the messages in this group: that
atheists must either be super-intelligent or God-fearing, religious
people must be interminably stupid.)


More specifically, I'm referring to the consistency of the posts to the
thread "Hilarious Christian Propaganda..."


Could it be possible that there are some people doing stupid things out
there who _aren't_ christian?  Or is the fountainhead of stupidity found
in belief in God?

Is this the point to being an atheist: to ridicule those who believe in God?









seems so....  And why not?  (might I ask...)  Oh welll....

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: "Keep Christ in Christmas"
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:28:47 GMT

parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes: >
sheikh@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu (rizwan a sheikh) writes: >>

>>You missed the point of the original post, namely that these fundamentalists
>>were HIDING the fact that they were fundamentalists.  None of those in your
>>example acted in this manner.
>
>Well, the original post was ASSERTING that this is occuring.  The original
>article in NO WAY provides sufficient evidence that fundamentalists are
>hiding the fact that they are fundamentalists.  So, provide some evidence
>and the assertion may carry more weight.  Otherwise, I'll continue to
>discuss the similar views "extremists" have of each other.

San Jose Mercury News, November 8th, Perspective Section, Page P-1.
The San Francisco Chronicle.
The San Francisco Examiner.
The New York Times.
The Wall Street Journal.
The Portland, Oregon Post-Dispatch.
The Washington Post.
The Boston Globe.
The Miami Herald.
The Denver Post.
The Atlanta Constitution.

All the above newspapers had articles about "Stealth Candidates" who
ran for positions on school boards, city councils, and local
Republican Party Committees.  They were Xian fundamentalists, but
nothing in their statements or campaign literature showed this.

The Voice of Liberty, newsletter put out by Americans for Religiou Liberty.
Numerous political discussion groups on usenet; try alt.politics.elections
or talk.politics.misc for more citations.

Find yourself an electric news service and do a search on the
term "Stealth Candidate."  You will find this story.  Search
for the first 2 weeks in November.

Now, will you please retract your totally erroneous statement?
 
>-- 
>Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
>parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |

You know Scott, you really ought to stop using that quote if you
aren't going to practice what you preach.

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus)
Subject: Re: Atheists "stir up shit" (was Re: Religion = Anything that's fun ...)
Organization: Big Bulging Buffalo Bladders -R- Us
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:05:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.031331.25918@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>Harold Platypus (harry@timesink.chi.il.us) wrote:
>
>[response to initial diatribe and ad hominem arguments deleted]
>
>: There are Big Dickheads who would put their little boy on the stand in
>: a courtroom against the Boy Scouts of America just to prove a point.
>: Pitting the child against his peers and the organization he wants to
>: join is really constructive and makes for an emotionally healthy child.
>: NOT!
>
>I've never heard of a rabid Platypus before.
>
>The "little boy" wants to join the BSA but can't because he questions the
>existence of god.  What is a "Big Dickhead" supposed to do,  say "Well son,
>people discriminate against atheists and agnostics and you'll just have to
>accept it."????
>Hell no!  Discrimination on the basis of race, creed, lack of creed, gender, 
>sexual preference or nation of origin is wrong and should be confronted when 
>and where it occurs.
>Mike A. McAngus (mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org) | The train today to Morrow leaves today

Why would anyone want to belong to an organization whose charter and
basic beliefs they oppose? Also, I can't believe a boy of ten:

1) Has a conviction that strong without being coached or encouraged
2) Understands enough about the legal system to seek a remedy
3) Can afford the almost $1000 court filing fees
4) Can afford to retain an attorney -or- has found a shyster with
   ethics to try a principal issue with no monetary award sought.

I believe "a Big Dickhead" with his own agenda would seize on this
opportunity to "stir up shit" using his misguided (and probably
brainwashed) progeny as a red herring. "Oh, the poor, rejected lad!".
- Harry

Maitre D: "And how are we today sir?"
Patron  : "Better..."
Maitre D: "Better?"
Patron  : "Better get a bucket... I'm gonna throw up!"
					- Python Lives!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: ABORTION: WHEN DOES HUMAN LIFE BEGIN?
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison
Date: 14 Dec 92 12:25:58 CST
Originator: mccullou@sun-16.cae.wisc.edu


Simple method to tell when a person is a human in the eyes of the law.
Exactly 18 years after they are born they become human.  Up to that point
they merely have the potential to be human.  Why do you think the laws are
so different for potential humans?
;)

M^2
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheists should mind their own damn business
Date: 14 Dec 92 06:04:46 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec12.071137.16343@timesink.chi.il.us>,
harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) wrote:
> 
> I don't have anything against atheists really... just leave me and
> my world alone. If you don't like "In God We Trust" on US Currency,
> don't look for it - ya know it's there. If a religious symbol in a
> municipal seal is offensive to you, don't seek it out... After all
> it's not a blinking neon sign in your face, you have to look for it.

Sigh, it's a question of tolerance. I'm sure you wouldn't either
mind if the US currency had statements such as "In Allah we
trust", for instance.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: brian@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Brian Paquet)
Subject: Re: Jesus Saves....
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:04:38 GMT

<U16244@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

>  Or,


>  Jesus saves..

>  But the puck goes back to Gretzkey...

But John Kordic comes from the grave and nails Gretzkey to the boards

<Post game interview.. Yeah I saw god, can't take a check at all,
Must of killed him. Sorry.?

Anyways old joke  if you arn't gonna add a new twist to it, don't bother

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Circumcision
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 20:26:36 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   Wed, 09 Dec 92 06:33:07 GMT
>FROM:   Ian Douglas <Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org>
>
>Hi all
>
>On 05 Dec 92, Robert Beauchaine wrote to All:
>
> RB> "Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
> RB> dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
> RB> doing something wrong?"
>
>I don't know.
>
>How high did it bounce?
>
>Cheers, Ian
>
>--  
>INTERNET: Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org
>via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
>       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.


It's whether the cat bounces back at all that's important, not how high.  
The cat should have died 416 independent deaths, but your report indicates
that it merely remained dead after dieing only once.  Since you indicate
that the cat did not die until the third trial, you should probably
review your notes to trials #1 and #2.  Perhaps a longer "bounce back"
period between trials is in order.  You could be rushing things a bit, too,
which could explain the failure of the cat to die in the first two
trials.

Patience goes a long way in any endeavor, especially science. 
Don't hurry things -- you should only be on trial #273, according
to my schedule.  (If you haven't thrown the cat away aready, you may be 
able to start back up at step #2 of trial #1.)  Also, A) be sure it is
a tom and that it is CIRCUMCISED,  B) wait outside the cave for the FULL
THREE DAYS before moving on to the next trial, and C) your prostitute
actually has to care about the cat.  

And a little encouragement.  I don't think it's necessary to repeat the
entire series;  the results have been confirmed in at least one human,
already, and research should probably procede in that direction once a
few successful bounces of the cat have established that you have mastered
the method.  I am currently working with a labiectomized  Mexican
hairless in an attempt to duplicate the results in females, but am only
only on the 6th life of step #1 trial #1.  There have been some good
ideas proposed by our group, including using a mouse to avoid the "start-up"
period of eight deaths incurred using the cat.  The microsurgery is
currently beyond the expertise of our staff, however, so it's just
another idea for the future.

Good Luck!

-jim tims

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dobbs@ast.saic.com (Lynn Dobbs)
Subject: Re: Religion = Anything that's fun is bad.
Organization: SAIC
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:09:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.165325.10737@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>> --
>> Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |
>> parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
>
>Brian Kendig (bskendig@netcom.com):
>> No, actually, I rather like it!  I've been seriously thinking of
>> adding it to my own .sig.  "The truth is the truth even if you choose
>> to ignore it."  This is especially true for Christians, who ignore the
>
>mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus):
>> I'm game. Let's have all atheists use this line as part of our .sig's. Then 
>> we can identify each other in the other news groups. The gays and lesbians 
>> have their triangles, we can have this quote.
>> -- 
>
>Well gee whiz and golly gosh and all Mike, but ummm, don't you think that
>might just possibly piss Scott right off? We wouldn't want that. Would we?
>
I rather like it, also. But, shall we ask Scott why he capitalized truth?
The thiests would also claim this quote if we leave it capitalized.

The truth is still the truth even if
	you choose to ignore it.
	god exists.
	god doesn't exists.
	you don't exists.

--Lynn
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Monitored by islam (repost)
Date: 12 Dec 92 09:41:01 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Dec9.080120.28144@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>In <1992Dec7.103757.15944@news.cs.brandeis.edu> iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ivan Derzhanski) writes:
>>When will the theist morons understand the simple fact that there is
>>no such thing as an atheist faith, logical and rational or otherwise?
>
>To be an atheist you require a positive _belief_ that God *does not* exist.

I require no such thing.  But this subject has been discussed way too
many times here, so I'm not going to take it up right now.

>Don't tell me you don't even understand this at this elementary level.

I don't.  I can't understand how it is possible that after so many
gigalitres of net.ink have been spilt to elucidate the difference
between not believing that G exists and believing that G doesn't exist,
some still don't get it.

>Luckily not all atheists are as thick as you.

What do the thin ones say?  That they have a logical and rational
positive belief that god does not exist?

>>The death sentences pronounced on innocent people in the old
>>"communist" world have nothing to do with atheism.  Get it?
>
>They do for one type of atheism.

What type of atheism?  What types of atheism are there?  In how many
ways can one not believe in gods?

>>It is a question of behaviour based on certain views.  There are no
>>views that all atheists share, therefore atheism _qua_ atheism can't
>>trigger any form of behaviour.  Islam on the other hand can.
>
>There are many views in Islam particular to a specific group of
>Muslims.  Most non-Muslims do not understand this, like yourself and
>the original poster.

On the contrary, I know that (though I might be at a loss giving
specific examples).  But are you denying that there are views in Islam
which are compulsory for all Muslims?  If so, then which is the group
of Muslims who believe that Allah exists?  That he is the only god?
That Muhammad was his prophet?  That the Qur'an is his word, and if
that book says `do this', it must be done?

>The comparison holds,

The hell it does.

>and if you understood Islam more then you would see this.

... and if you had the slightest idea of what atheism is, you would
see the opposite.  This kind of discussion doesn't lead anywhere.

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheists & Christians
Date: 12 Dec 92 15:11:44 GMT
Organization: Rogaland University Centre

Bob Beauchaine writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.111403.6584@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>>When having reached some age, this tendency retards and the IQ no longer
                                              ^^^^^^^
>>reflects a specific age. i.e. A 35 year old is probably equally intelligent as 
>>she was when she was 25. 
>>
>  Two demerits for not doing your homework.  Human raw intelligence
>  and cognitive ability peaks at roughly age 30.  Thereafter, your 
>  brain is in permanent decline.  The effects can be compensated for 
>  over a very long period of time by the proper use of accumulated 
>  experience, but the  average 35 year old is probably not as intelligent as
>  when she was 25.

I obviously did not express myself very well. I wrote that the tendency of
incline in IQ *retards*, not stagnates, which inevitably means that it will
decline at some point. The last thing I heard was that this peak was a little
over 29 years and that it was increasing. Hence my two chosen ages, 25 and 35,
match an average of 30 remarkably well, right? And as far as I know the decline
in IQ after the peak is not drastically larger than the increase in IQ before the
peak. Therefore the effect a +/- 5 year period around the peak should cancel each
other out. Thus, a 35 year old is about equally intelligent as a 25 year old.



Onar.


 
 
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:23775 alt.atheism.moderated:473 news.answers:4587
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Dealing with annoying e-mail
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 03:07:33 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu

In article <1ggskdINNkuf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser) on Sun Dec 13 16:30 1992 posted:
>|
>|
>|Maybe it's just the time of year, but I have been getting an inordinate amount
>|of unsolicited e-mail from theists seeking to enlighten me to the One True
>|Way.  I usually just mail them a copy of the FAQ.  I was wondering what
>|favorite tactics other readers of this group used when dealing with these
>|people, or whether they bother to respond at all!
>|
>|        -Scott O.
>|
>|P.S.  Merry Saturnalia!
> 
>	Hmmm...I used to have a problem with "core dumps" on the Cleveland
>FreeNet. I would end up with 8megs of junk in my workfile (along with all
>of my other files). I found that 8megs will jam most mailboxes ;-)
> 
>	Also to, the control codes would mess up their screen real good...

	I agree. For those really annoying people, who you have repeatedly 
told you wish no further communication, e-mailing them a bunch of junk files 
may do the trick. However, do not mail then in just one letter. If you can, 
mail them in multiple files. Or, for those truley truley annoying ones, mail 
them the alt.sex.rossane.barr.pictures.fluids archive.
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: frustrations with christianity
Date: 13 Dec 92 05:34:59 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

[reply to mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org]
 
>According to the 1992 edition of _Information Please Almanac_, pp
>392-400, the number of U.S. Citezens who identified themselves as
>members of some Christian sect (including fringe groups like LDS,
>Jehovah Witnesses and Christ Scientists) was listed as 151,668,000 in a
>survey conducted in 1989-1990.  This same source quotes the
>_Britiannica Book of the Year, 1991_ as saying that the worldwide
>Christian population was 1,758,778,000.
 
To put these numbers in perspective, that's 86% of the US and 33% of the
world populations identifying themselves as some form of Christian, with
agnostic, atheist, or "no religion" accounting for 8% of the US and 21%
of the world populations [taken from the same source].

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: T.G.Nattress@newcastle.ac.uk (Graeme Nattress)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Happy Holidays (not)
Date: 17 Dec 92 15:14:39 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

Every year now I excercise my right to not celebrate Xmas.  I am an Axmasist (I
don't believe in Xmas :-) :-) )  and I get it almost shoved down my throat.
People make it out that you're just a tight fisted git.
I wish these "do-Gooders" would just leave people alone.
I don't need Xmas to be nice an friendly to people, I try to do that all year
round.  If you're going to give a prezzy to someone then give it when they are
least expecting it, ie not Xmas.
I also get annoyed when people give me Xmas cards.

I am now stepping off my soapbox and a merry holidays to all you netters :-)

Graeme,

{---    T.G.Nattress@uk.ac.ncl -----------------------------------------}
{-----Hitler is Nibor from the Planet Vashir, the Galactic     ---------}
{---  shape-changing psychopath. ---------------------------------------}
{-----John, The Tomorrow People, Hitler's Last Secret.------------------}
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:23777 alt.atheism.moderated:475 news.answers:4589