Upload 2013 files

FinSen_Dataset-main/LICENSE

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2023 EagleAdelaide
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.

FinSen_Dataset-main/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+## Enhancing Financial Market Predictions: Causality-Driven Feature Selection
+
+This paper introduces FinSen dataset that revolutionizes financial market analysis by integrating economic and financial news articles from 197 countries with stock market data. The dataset’s extensive coverage spans 15 years from 2007 to 2023 with temporal information, offering a rich, global perspective 160,000 records on financial market news. Our study leverages causally validated sentiment scores and LSTM models to enhance market forecast accuracy and reliability.
+
+### Technical Framework
+
+![image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/2984d8d1-e827-488e-bc73-ed9677b86b64)
+
+
+
+# Our FinSen Dataset
+[![arXiv](https://img.shields.io/badge/stat.ML-arXiv%3A2006.08437-B31B1B.svg)](https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.01005)
+[![Pytorch 1.5](https://img.shields.io/badge/pytorch-1.5.1-blue.svg)](https://pytorch.org/)
+[![License: MIT](https://img.shields.io/badge/License-MIT-yellow.svg)](https://github.com/EagleAdelaide/FinSen_Dataset/LICENSE)
+
+This repository contains the dataset for [*Enhancing Financial Market Predictions:
+Causality-Driven Feature Selection*](https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.01005), which has been accepted in ADMA 2024.
+
+If the dataset or the paper has been useful in your research, please add a citation to our work:
+
+```
+@inproceedings{wenhao2024enhancing,
+  title={Enhancing Financial Market Predictions:
+Causality-Driven Feature Selection},
+  author={Liang, Wenhao and Li, Zhengyang and Chen, Weitong},
+  booktitle={Advanced Data Mining and Applications},
+  year={2024},
+  publisher={Springer},
+}
+```
+
+### Datasets
+
+**[FinSen]** can be downloaded manually from the repository as csv file. Sentiment and its score are generated by FinBert model from the Hugging Face Transformers library under the identifier "ProsusAI/finbert".  (Araci, Dogu. "Finbert: Financial sentiment analysis with pre-trained language models." arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10063 (2019).)
+
+**We only provide US for research purpose usage, please contact w.liang@adelaide.edu.au for other countries (total 197 included) if necessary.**
+
+![image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f28e670a-7329-409d-81cb-1fe47da22140)
+
+Finsen Data Sample:
+
+<img width="341" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/6ab08486-85b7-4cf6-b4fe-7d4294624f91">
+
+We also provide other NLP datasets for text classification tasks here, please cite them correspondingly once you used them in your research if any.
+
+1. **20Newsgroups**. Joachims, T., et al.: A probabilistic analysis of the rocchio algorithm with tfidf for
+text categorization. In: ICML. vol. 97, pp. 143–151. Citeseer (1997)
+
+2. **AG News**. Zhang, X., Zhao, J., LeCun, Y.: Character-level convolutional networks for text
+classification. Advances in neural information processing systems 28 (2015)
+
+To download the AG News dataset and obtain its DataLoader in PyTorch, you can use the `torchtext` library, which provides convenient access to various text datasets, including AG News. Below is a step-by-step guide to achieve this:
+
+#### Step 1: Install Required Libraries
+
+If you don't have `torchtext` installed, you can install it using pip:
+
+```bash
+pip install torchtext
+```
+#### Step 2: Utilize ag_news.py in Dataloader
+
+  1. **Download the Dataset**:
+     - The `AG_NEWS` dataset is downloaded using `torchtext.datasets.AG_NEWS`. The `split=('train', 'test')` argument returns iterators for the training and test sets.
+  
+  2. **Tokenization**:
+     - The `get_tokenizer('basic_english')` function is used to tokenize the text data.
+  
+  3. **Build Vocabulary**:
+     - The `build_vocab_from_iterator` function constructs a vocabulary from the tokens in the dataset. Special tokens such as `<unk>` (unknown) are added to handle out-of-vocabulary words.
+  
+  4. **Text and Label Pipelines**:
+     - `text_pipeline` converts text into a sequence of token indices based on the vocabulary.
+     - `label_pipeline` converts labels (which are initially strings) into integers.
+  
+  5. **Collate Function**:
+     - `collate_batch` is a custom function that processes batches by padding sequences and converting labels and texts into tensors.
+  
+  6. **DataLoader**:
+     - `DataLoader` is used to create batches of data, shuffle them, and apply the `collate_fn` to each batch.
+
+#### Step 3: Customization:
+
+- You can change the `batch_size` and other parameters in the `DataLoader` to suit your needs. 
+- The tokenizer and vocabulary can be customized for more complex preprocessing.
+  
+3. **Financial PhraseBank**. Malo, P., Sinha, A., Korhonen, P., Wallenius, J., Takala, P.: Good debt or bad debt:
+Detecting semantic orientations in economic texts. Journal of the Association for
+Information Science and Technology 65(4), 782–796 (2014)
+
+### Dataloader for FinSen
+
+We provide the preprocessing file finsen.py for our FinSen dataset under dataloaders directory for more convienient usage.
+
+### Models - Text Classification
+
+1. DAN-3. 
+
+2. Gobal Pooling CNN.
+
+### Models - Regression Prediction
+
+1. LSTM
+
+### Using Sentiment Score from FinSen Predict Result on S&P500
+
+![image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/2d9b4dd7-7f59-425c-b812-2cca57719243)
+
+### Dependencies
+
+The code is based on PyTorch under code frame of https://github.com/torrvision/focal_calibration, please cite their work if you found it is useful.
+
+:smiley: ☺ Happy Research !
+

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51202

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!paladin.american.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!siemens!princeton!ernie.Princeton.EDU!qpliu
+From: qpliu@ernie.Princeton.EDU (q.p.liu)
+Subject: Re: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses
+Message-ID: <1993Apr6.014057.11324@Princeton.EDU>
+Originator: news@nimaster
+Sender: news@Princeton.EDU (USENET News System)
+Nntp-Posting-Host: ernie.princeton.edu
+Reply-To: qpliu@princeton.edu
+Organization: Princeton University
+References: <bskendigC4KD1z.CDC@netcom.com> <1p8v1aINN9e9@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> <16BA5DA01.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> <1993Apr5.091139.823@batman.bmd.trw.com>
+Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 01:40:57 GMT
+Lines: 34
+
+In article <1993Apr5.091139.823@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
+>In article <16BA5DA01.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>, I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
+>> But could you give a definition of free will? Especially in the
+>> presence of an omniscient being?
+
+>"Will" is "self-determination".  In other words, God created conscious
+>beings who have the ability to choose between moral choices independently
+>of God.  All "will", therefore, is "free will".
+
+So these hypothetical conscious beings can ignore any influences of
+their circumstances (their genetics, their environment, their experiences)
+which are not all self-determined?
+
+(Of course, the idea of Hell makes the idea of "free will" dubious.
+On the other hand, the idea of Hell is not a very powerful idea.
+
+	"A Parable for You
+
+	"There was once our main character who blah blah blah.
+	"One day, a thug pointed a mean looking gun at OMC, and
+said, 'Do what I say, or I'm blasting you to hell.'
+	"OMC thought, 'If I believe this thug, and follow the
+instructions that will be given, I'll avoid getting blasted to
+hell.  On the other hand, if I believe this thug, and do not
+follow the instructions that will be given, I'll get blasted to
+hell.  Hmm... the more attractive choice is obvious, I'll
+follow the instructions.'  Now, OMC found the choice obvious
+because everything OMC had learned about getting blasted to
+hell made it appear very undesirable.
+	"But then OMC noticed that the thug's gun wasn't a real
+gun.  The thug's threats were make believe.
+	"So OMC ignored the thug and resumed blah blah blah.")
+-- 
+qpliu@princeton.edu           Standard opinion: Opinions are delta-correlated.

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51203

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!haven.umd.edu!wam.umd.edu!usenet
+From: west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar)
+Subject: Re: Gospel Dating
+Message-ID: <1993Apr6.021635.20958@wam.umd.edu>
+Sender: usenet@wam.umd.edu (USENET News system)
+Nntp-Posting-Host: next15csc.wam.umd.edu
+Reply-To: west@next02.wam.umd.edu
+Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
+References: <kmr4.1433.734039535@po.CWRU.edu>
+Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 02:16:35 GMT
+Lines: 35
+
+In article <kmr4.1433.734039535@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M.  
+Ryan) writes:
+> In article <1993Apr5.163050.13308@wam.umd.edu>  
+west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
+> >In article <kmr4.1422.733983061@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M.  
+> >Ryan) writes:
+> >> In article <1993Apr5.025924.11361@wam.umd.edu>  
+> >west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
+> >> 
+> >> >THE ILLIAD IS THE UNDISPUTED WORD OF GOD(tm)    *prove me wrong*
+> >> 
+> >> 	I dispute it.
+> >> 
+> >> 	Ergo: by counter-example: you are proven wrong.
+> >
+> >	I dispute your counter-example
+> >
+> >	Ergo: by counter-counter-example: you are wrong and
+> >	I am right so nanny-nanny-boo-boo TBBBBBBBTTTTTTHHHHH
+> 
+> 	No. The premis stated that it was undisputed. 
+> 
+
+Fine... THE ILLIAD IS THE WORD OF GOD(tm)  (disputed or not, it is)
+
+Dispute that.  It won't matter.  Prove me wrong.
+
+Brian West
+--
+THIS IS NOT A SIG FILE            *    -"To the Earth, we have been
+THIS IS NOT A SIG FILE            *     here but for the blink of an
+OK, SO IT'S A SIG FILE            *     eye, if we were gone tomorrow, 
+posted by west@wam.umd.edu        *     we would not be missed."-  
+who doesn't care who knows it.    *        (Jurassic Park) 
+** DICLAIMER: I said this, I meant this, nobody made me do it.**

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51204

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!po.CWRU.edu!kmr4
+From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Gospel Dating
+Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 02:34:47 GMT
+Organization: Case Western Reserve University
+Lines: 26
+Message-ID: <kmr4.1445.734063687@po.CWRU.edu>
+References: <kmr4.1433.734039535@po.CWRU.edu> <1993Apr6.021635.20958@wam.umd.edu>
+NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
+
+In article <1993Apr6.021635.20958@wam.umd.edu> west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
+
+>Fine... THE ILLIAD IS THE WORD OF GOD(tm)  (disputed or not, it is)
+>
+>Dispute that.  It won't matter.  Prove me wrong.
+
+	The Illiad contains more than one word. Ergo: it can not be
+the Word of God. 
+
+	But, if you will humbly agree that it is the WORDS of God, I 
+will conceed.
+
+	:-D
+
+
+---
+
+        "One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that 
+        say "Mom", because of the love of their mom.  It makes for more 
+        virile men."
+
+        Bobby Mozumder  ( snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu )
+        April 4, 1993
+
+        The one TRUE Muslim left in the world. 
+

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51205

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:51205 talk.origins:40423
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!crcnis1.unl.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!news.iastate.edu!iscsvax.uni.edu!sunfish!charlie.usd.edu!RFOX
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
+Subject: Re: Americans and Evolution
+Message-ID: <C518Iw.D3G@sunfish.usd.edu>
+From: rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota)
+Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 22:44:55 GMT
+Reply-To: rfox@charlie.usd.edu
+Sender: news@sunfish.usd.edu
+References: <0bXI02tR3doG01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> <C4u51L.8Bv@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>,<1pik3i$1l4@fido.asd.sgi.com>
+Organization: The University of South Dakota Computer Science Dept.
+Nntp-Posting-Host: charlie
+Lines: 26
+
+In article <1pik3i$1l4@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
+>In article <C4u51L.8Bv@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
+>|>
+>|> 
+>|> Why do you spend so much time posting here if your atheism is so
+>|> incidental, if the question of God is trivial? Fess up, it matters to
+>|> you a great deal.
+>
+>Ask yourself two questions.
+>
+>	1.   How important is Mithras in your life today?
+>
+>	2.   How important would Mithras become if there was a
+>	     well funded group of fanatics trying to get the
+>	     schools system to teach your children that Mithras
+>	     was the one true God?
+>
+>jon.
+
+Right on, Jon!  Who cares who or whose, as long as it works for the individual.
+But don't try to impose those beliefs on us or our children.  I would add the
+well-funded group tries also to purge science, to deny children access to great
+wonders and skills.  And how about the kids born to creationists?  What a
+burden with which to begin adult life.  It must be a cruel awakening for those
+who finally see the light, provided it is possible to escape from the depths of
+this type of ignorance.

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51232

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!gatekeeper.us.oracle.com!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
+From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Is Keith as ignorant as he seems?
+Date: 4 Apr 1993 08:33:29 GMT
+Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
+Lines: 16
+Message-ID: <1pm6gpINNm4v@gap.caltech.edu>
+References: <1pa7aeINNsa9@gap.caltech.edu> <mam.03o7@mouse.cmhnet.org>
+NNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu
+
+mam@mouse.cmhnet.org (Mike McAngus) writes:
+
+>>>No, everything wouldn't be OK, but it would be a start.
+>>Now wait, if the religious organizations were no longer tax-exempt, what
+>>other beef could you have?  They would then have as much right to lobby
+>>as would any other group.
+>You asked "would everything be okay".  I answered no.  Everything 
+>encompasses more than just the tax-exempt status of religious 
+>organizations.
+
+Well, if everything wouldn't be okay, then tell us what it is that
+wouldn't be okay.   That is, if religions were no longer tax-exempt, then
+what would be wrong with their lobbying or otherwise attempting to
+influence politics?
+
+keith

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51233

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!wupost!tulane!darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
+From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Keith Schneider - Stealth Poster?
+Date: 4 Apr 1993 08:36:34 GMT
+Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
+Lines: 19
+Message-ID: <1pm6miINNm52@gap.caltech.edu>
+References: <1pa0f4INNpit@gap.caltech.edu> <mam.03od@mouse.cmhnet.org>
+NNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu
+
+mam@mouse.cmhnet.org (Mike McAngus) writes:
+
+>Let me see if I understand what you are saying.  In order to talk 
+>knowledgeably about religion, Atheists must first have been so immersed 
+>in a religion that only the rare individual could have left.  
+
+No, you don't understand.  I said that I don't think people can discuss
+the subjective merits of religion objectively.  This should be obvious.
+People here have said that everyone would be better off without religion,
+but this almost certainly isn't true.
+
+>>But really, are you threatened by the motto, or by the people that use it?
+>The motto is a tool.  Let's try to take away the tool.
+
+But, guns and axes are tools, both of which have been used for murder.
+Should both be taken away?  That is to say, I don't think motto misuse
+warrants its removal.  At least not in this case.
+
+keith

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51234

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
+From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Keith Schneider - Stealth Poster?
+Date: 4 Apr 1993 08:40:32 GMT
+Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
+Lines: 26
+Message-ID: <1pm6u0INNm5o@gap.caltech.edu>
+References: <1pcrriINNrd6@gap.caltech.edu> <1993Apr2.090905.13742@nuscc.nus.sg>
+NNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu
+
+cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - dan) writes:
+
+>I somewhat agree with u.  However, what it comes to (theist) religion, 
+>it's a different matter.  That's because religion is like a drug, once u
+>use it, it's very difficult to get out of it.  That's because in
+>order to experience a religion, u necessarily have to have blind faith,
+>and once u have the blind faith, it's very diffcult for you to reason
+>yourself back to atheism again.
+>Therefore, it's unreasonable to ask people to try religion in order to
+>judge it.  It's like asking people to "try dying to find out what
+>death is like".
+
+Well now, we can't judge death until we are dead right?  So, why should
+we judge religion without having experienced it?  People have said that
+religion is bad by any account, and that it is in no way useful, etc.,
+but I don't totally agree with this.  Of course, we cannot really say
+how the religious folk would act had they not been exposed to religion,
+but some people at least seemed to be helped in some ways by it.
+
+So basically, we can not judge whether religion is the right route for
+a given individual, or even for a general population.  We can say that
+it is not best for us personally (at least, you can choose not to use
+religion--might be hard to try to find out its benefits, as you state
+above).
+
+keith

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51235

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
+From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Political Atheists?
+Date: 4 Apr 1993 08:51:52 GMT
+Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
+Lines: 57
+Message-ID: <1pm7j9INNm66@gap.caltech.edu>
+References: <1p3ta7INNcv9@gap.caltech.edu> <1993Mar31.053836.6236@adobe.com> <1pfv07INN47g@gap.caltech.edu> <1993Apr2.021747.6664@adobe.com>
+NNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu
+
+mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:
+
+>I was looking for a rigorous definition because otherwise we would be
+>spending the rest of our lives arguing what a "Christian" really
+>believes.
+
+I don't think we need to argue about this.
+
+>KS>Do you think that the motto points out that this country is proud
+>KS>of its freedom of religion, and that this is something that
+>KS>distinguishes us from many other countries?
+>MW>No.
+>KS>Well, your opinion is not shared by most people, I gather.
+>Perhaps not, but that is because those seeking to make government
+>recognize Christianity as the dominant religion in this country do not
+>think they are infringing on the rights of others who do not share
+>their beliefs.
+
+Yes, but also many people who are not trying to make government recognize
+Christianity as the dominant religion in this country do no think
+the motto infringes upon the rights of others who do not share their
+beliefs.
+
+And actually, I think that the government already does recognize that
+Christianity is the dominant religion in this country.  I mean, it is.
+Don't you realize/recognize this?
+
+This isn't to say that we are supposed to believe the teachings of
+Christianity, just that most people do.
+
+>Like I've said before I personally don't think the motto is a major
+>concern.
+
+If you agree with me, then what are we discussing?
+
+>KS>Since most people don't seem to associate Christmas with Jesus much
+>KS>anymore, I don't see what the problem is.
+>Can you prove your assertion that most people in the U.S. don't
+>associate Christmas with Jesus anymore?
+
+No, but I hear quite a bit about Christmas, and little if anything about
+Jesus.  Wouldn't this figure be more prominent if the holiday were really
+associated to a high degree with him?  Or are you saying that the
+association with Jesus is on a personal level, and that everyone thinks
+about it but just never talks about it?
+
+That is, can *you* prove that most people *do* associate Christmas
+most importantly with Jesus?
+
+>Anyways, the point again is that there are people who do associate
+>Christmas with Jesus. It doesn't matter if these people are a majority
+>or not.
+
+I think the numbers *do* matter.  It takes a majority, or at least a
+majority of those in power, to discriminate.  Doesn't it?
+
+keith

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51250

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!ira.uka.de!news.dfn.de!tubsibr!dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de!I3150101
+From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
+Subject: Re: An Anecdote about Islam
+Message-ID: <16BA8BDDD.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>
+Sender: postnntp@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (Mr. Nntp Inews Entry)
+Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
+References: <16BA3E537.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> <113751@bu.edu> <16BA5CD1C.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> <114140@bu.edu>
+Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 12:30:04 GMT
+Lines: 74
+
+In article <114140@bu.edu>
+jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
+ 
+>>>>> In cases of prostitution
+>>>>>both the man and the prostitute would be punished in public, quite
+>>>>>severely.
+ 
+(Deletion)
+ 
+>
+>>No Gregg, you cannot say A is lenient and A punishes severely in public.
+>>Unless, of course, it is one of the exceptions implied by "almost all
+>>matters".
+>
+>That depends on the statistics and who is punished in public. If some
+>power (for example, nothing Islamic about it) allows men to rape women
+>five times before blowing the rapist's head off in public then I'd call
+>that leniency, wouldn't you?
+>
+ 
+You have given that example. It is not lenient. End of argument.
+ 
+And chopping off the hands or heads of people is not lenient either. It
+rather appears that you are internalized the claims about the legal system
+without checking if they suit the description.
+ 
+And wasn't the argument that it takes five men to rape a woman according
+to Islamic law?
+ 
+ 
+>>While I don't approve of it, I think both the prostitute and the customer
+>>have the right to do what they do. In other words, punishing them is a
+>>violation of their rights. And to punish them severely in public is just
+>>another pointer to the hysteria connected with sexuality in so many
+>>religions.
+>
+>Believe what you like.
+>
+ 
+No, I even believe what I don't like. Can you give better answers than that?
+Have you got any evidence for your probably opposite claims?
+ 
+ 
+>>In this case, I don't see why I should accept the complex ridden views
+>>of an oriental goatherd.
+>
+>Ah, yes, I forget that the West is historically so much without sexual
+>neurosis :)
+>
+>"Oriental goatherd", _really_ intellectual.
+>
+ 
+A fact, if memory serves. And most will see the connection between the
+primitive machism in the Orient and in Islam.
+ 
+>>If people agree on having sex it is fine. And I would assume that a
+>>god would have a clue of what the detrimental effects of supressing it
+>>are.
+>
+>Huh? Ever heard of AIDs? (Of course you'll probably go on to say that
+>God must be evil because he allows the disease to exist, bla bla).
+>
+ 
+As usually you miss the point. Aids is  neither spread only through sex
+nor necessarily spread by having sex. Futher, the point is, a very important
+point, the urge for sex is stronger than the fear of AIDS. It is even
+stronger than the religious attempts to channel or to forbid sex. The
+consequences of suppressing sex are worse than the consequences of Aids.
+Please note that the idea that everybody would end up with AIDS when sex
+is not controlled is completely counterfactual.
+ 
+ 
+And since you have brought up the point, is your god evil or not?
+   Benedikt

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51256

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!pipex!marble.uknet.ac.uk!warwick!dcs.warwick.ac.uk!simon
+From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
+Subject: Re: islamic authority over women
+Message-ID: <1993Apr6.124112.12959@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
+Sender: news@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Network News)
+Nntp-Posting-Host: nin
+Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
+References: <1993Apr5.023044.19580@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
+Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 12:41:12 GMT
+Lines: 49
+
+In article <1993Apr5.023044.19580@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
+
+> One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that say "Mom",
+> because of the love of their mom.  It makes for more virile men.
+> Compare that with how homos are raised.  Do a study and you will get my
+> point.
+
+Oh, Bobby. You're priceless. Did I ever tell you that?
+
+My policy with Bobby's posts, should anyone give a damn, is to flick
+through the thread at high speed, searching for posts of Bobby's which
+have generated a whole pile of followups, then go in and extract the
+hilarious quote inevitably present for .sig purposes. Works for me.
+
+For the guy who said he's just arrived, and asked whether Bobby's for real,
+you betcha. Welcome to alt.atheism, and rest assured that it gets worse.
+I have a few pearls of wisdom from Bobby which I reproduce below. Is anyone
+(Keith?) keeping a big file of such stuff?
+
+     "In Allah's infinite wisdom, the universe was created from nothing,
+        just by saying "Be", and it became. Therefore Allah exists."
+           --- Bobby Mozumder proving the existence of Allah, #1
+
+     "Wait. You just said that humans are rarely reasonable. Doesn't that
+      contradict atheism, where everything is explained through logic and
+      reason? This is THE contradiction in atheism that proves it false."
+           --- Bobby Mozumder proving the existence of Allah, #2
+
+              "Plus, to the believer, it would be contradictory
+                    to the Quran for Allah not to exist."
+           --- Bobby Mozumder proving the existence of Allah, #3
+
+and now
+
+   "One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that say "Mom",
+    because of the love of their mom. It makes for more virile men. Compare
+    that with how homos are raised.  Do a study and you will get my point."
+         -- Bobby Mozumder being Islamically Rigorous on alt.atheism
+
+Mmmmm. Quality *and* quantity from the New Voice of Islam (pbuh).
+
+Cheers
+
+Simon
+-- 
+Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
+Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
+University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
+Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51257

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:51257 talk.religion.misc:82805 talk.origins:40440
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!gatech!rpi!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!jboxhorn
+From: jboxhorn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Joseph E Boxhorn)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
+Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
+Date: 6 Apr 1993 12:52:55 GMT
+Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
+Lines: 32
+Distribution: world
+Message-ID: <1pruf7INN7a0@uwm.edu>
+NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
+Originator: jboxhorn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
+
+
+In article <1993Apr2.082500.28753@smds.com> rh@smds.com writes:
+
+>                                       If I recall correctly there
+>are protist cells that can divide and multiply quite readily without
+>nuclear DNA.  If memory serves me correctly this is the case with white
+>cells in the blood.  [I rely on some indignant biologist to set me
+>straight.]
+
+As someone who works with protists, this does not strike me as being true.
+Are you confusing this with:
+
+1) Ciliates which have a macronucleus and a micronucleus, each containing
+DNA (but in different amounts). The micronucleus is involved in mitosis 
+and meiosis, the macronucleus seems to be the main "control center" of
+the cell; or
+
+2) Two groups of unrelated protists, euglenoids and dinoflagellates, which
+seem to have permanently condensed chromosomes.  How these groups read
+their DNA is quite a puzzle, as most models of how genes work involve 
+the chromosomes being unwound.
+>-- 
+>Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
+>US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
+>In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
+>Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
+
+-- 
+Joseph Boxhorn (jboxhorn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu)
+Department of Biological Sciences 
+and Center for Great Lake Studies
+University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51259

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:51259 soc.motss:140067 rec.scouting:5334
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!ogicse!uwm.edu!wupost!bigboy.sbc.com!news.mtholyoke.edu!news.amherst.edu!twpierce
+From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.motss,rec.scouting
+Subject: Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts"
+Message-ID: <C52Cw7.I6t@unix.amherst.edu>
+Date: 6 Apr 93 13:16:54 GMT
+Article-I.D.: unix.C52Cw7.I6t
+References: <1993Apr2.144544.19155@midway.uchicago.edu> <1pijbk$1l4@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1993Apr4.063009.7000@csus.edu> <1993Apr6.041343.24997@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
+Organization: Blasny Blasny, Consolidated (Amherst, MA Offices)
+Lines: 37
+
+In article <1993Apr6.041343.24997@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:
+
+>Roger and I have
+>clearly stated our support of the BSA position on the issue;
+>specifically, that homosexual behavior constitutes a violation of
+>the Scout Oath (specifically, the promise to live "morally straight").
+>
+>There is really nothing else to discuss.
+
+Apparently not.
+
+In response to his claim that it "terrifies" gay people not to be able
+to "indoctrinate children to our lifestyle" (or words to that effect),
+I sent Roger a very calm, carefully-written, detailed letter
+explaining simply why the BSA policy does, indeed terrify me.  I did
+not use inflammatory language and left myself extremely open for an
+answer.  Thus far, I have not received an answer.  I can conclude only
+that Roger considers his position either indefensible or simply not
+worth defending.
+
+>Trying to cloud the issue
+>with comparisons to Blacks or other minorities is also meaningless
+>because it's like comparing apples to oranges (i.e., people can't
+>control their race but they can control their behavior).
+
+In fact, that's exactly the point: people can control their behavior.
+Because of that fact, there is no need for a blanket ban on
+homosexuals.
+
+>What else is there to possibly discuss on rec.scouting on this issue?
+
+You tell me.
+
+-- 
+____ Tim Pierce                /  ?Usted es la de la tele, eh?  !La madre
+\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  del asesino!  !Ay, que graciosa!
+ \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /    -- Pedro Almodovar

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51261

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!uunet!math.fu-berlin.de!news.dfn.de!tubsibr!dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de!I3150101
+From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
+Subject: Re: atheist?
+Message-ID: <16BA8D6CC.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>
+Sender: postnntp@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (Mr. Nntp Inews Entry)
+Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
+References: <16BA710729.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> <ePVk2B3w165w@mantis.co.uk>
+Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 14:16:23 GMT
+Lines: 38
+
+In article <ePVk2B3w165w@mantis.co.uk>
+Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk> writes:
+ 
+(Deletion)
+>> In other words, if there were gods, they would hardly make sense, and
+>> it is possible to explain the phenomenon of religion without gods.
+>>
+>> The concept is useless, and I don't have to introduce new assumptions
+>> in order to show that.
+>
+>Yes I fully agree with that, but is it "I don't believe gods exist", or
+>"I believe no gods exist"? As MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
+>pointed out, it all hinges on what you take the word "believe" to mean.
+>
+ 
+For me, it is a "I believe no gods exist" and a "I don't believe gods exist".
+ 
+In other words, I think that statements like gods are or somehow interfere
+with this world are false or meaningless. In Ontology, one can fairly
+conclude that when "A exist" is meaningless A does not exist. Under the
+Pragmatic definition of truth, "A exists" is meaningless makes A exist
+even logically false.
+ 
+A problem with such statements is that one can't disprove a subjective god
+by definition, and there might be cases where a subjective god would even
+make sense. The trouble with most god definitions is that they include
+some form of objective existence with the consequence of the gods affecting
+all. Believers derive from it a right to interfere with the life of others.
+ 
+ 
+(Deletion)
+>
+>Should the FAQ be clarified to try to pin down this notion of "belief"?
+>Can it?
+>
+ 
+Honestly, I don't see the problem.
+   Benedikt

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51266

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!uunet!haven.umd.edu!mimsy!mangoe
+From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses (good grief!)
+Message-ID: <66018@mimsy.umd.edu>
+Date: 6 Apr 93 11:16:55 GMT
+References: too many!
+Sender: news@mimsy.umd.edu
+Lines: 7
+
+The amount of energy being spent on ONE LOUSY SYLLOGISM says volumes for the
+true position of reason in this group.
+-- 
+C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
+                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
+mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
+tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51268

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!uunet!haven.umd.edu!mimsy!mangoe
+From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Gospel Dating
+Message-ID: <66015@mimsy.umd.edu>
+Date: 6 Apr 93 10:48:01 GMT
+References: <kmr4.1406.733939189@po.CWRU.edu>
+Sender: news@mimsy.umd.edu
+Lines: 48
+
+>So then, you require the same amount of evidence to believe that I 
+>a) own a pair of bluejeans and b) have superhuman powers?
+
+Well, I could use the argument that some here use about "nature" and claim
+that you cannot have superhuman powers because you are a human; superhuman
+powers are beyond what a human has, and since you are a human, any powers
+you have are not beyond those of a human.  Hence, you cannot have superhuman
+powers.  Sound good to you?
+
+Anyway, to the evidence question: it depends on the context.  In this group,
+since you are posting from a american college site, I'm willing to take it
+as given that you have a pair of blue jeans.  And, assuming there is some
+coherency in your position, I will take it as a given that you do not have
+superhuman powers.  Arguments are evidence in themselves, in some respects.
+
+>When you say the "existence of [ sic ] Jesus", I assume that you 
+>mean just the man, without any special powers, etc.
+
+Yep.
+
+>Many will agree that it is very possible that a man called Jesus DID 
+>in fact live. In fact, I am willing to agree that there was some man named 
+>Jesus. I have no reason to believe that there wasn't ever a man.
+
+Good.
+
+>However, most of the claims ARE extradinary: eg virgin birth 
+>[ virgin in the sense of not having any sexual intercourse ], resurection, 
+>Son of God, etc. THOSE claims require extra evidence.
+
+"Extra" evidence?  Why don't we start with evidence at all?
+
+I cannot see any evidence for the V. B. which the cynics in this group would
+ever accept.  As for the second, it is the foundation of the religion.
+Anyone who claims to have seen the risen Jesus (back in the 40 day period)
+is a believer, and therefore is discounted by those in this group; since
+these are all ancients anyway, one again to choose to dismiss the whole
+thing.  The third is as much a metaphysical relationship as anything else--
+even those who agree to it have argued at length over what it *means*, so
+again I don't see how evidence is possible.
+
+I thus interpret the "extraordinary claims" claim as a statement that the
+speaker will not accept *any* evidence on the matter.
+-- 
+C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
+                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
+mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
+tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51269

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!wupost!uunet!haven.umd.edu!mimsy!mangoe
+From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: A Remarkable Admission
+Message-ID: <66016@mimsy.umd.edu>
+Date: 6 Apr 93 11:00:27 GMT
+References: <1pikr5$1l4@fido.asd.sgi.com>
+Sender: news@mimsy.umd.edu
+Lines: 19
+
+Jon Livesey writes:
+
+>I'm certainly not going to attempt to distinguish between different
+>flavours of Christian, all loudly claiming to be the One True Christian.
+
+Well, it's obvious that you *don't* attempt, otherwise you would be aware
+that they *don't* all "loudly [claim] to be the One True Christian".
+
+I've tried to avoid using the phrase "is/is not christian" because of these
+ownership issues; instead, I've tried the phrase "Nicene christianity" in an
+attempt to identify the vast majority of "christianity" which has roughly
+similar viewpoints on the core theological issues.  The JWs do not fall
+within this group and in fact espouse a position known as Arianism, which is
+rejected by all the nicene churches and virtually everyone else as well.
+-- 
+C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
+                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
+mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
+tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51292

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!po.CWRU.edu!kmr4
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Gospel Dating
+Message-ID: <kmr4.1456.734125953@po.CWRU.edu>
+From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
+Date: 6 Apr 93 19:52:34 GMT
+References: <kmr4.1370.733757319@po.CWRU.edu> <C4vyFu.JJ6@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>
+Organization: Case Western Reserve University
+NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
+Lines: 64
+
+In article <C4vyFu.JJ6@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
+
+>Keith M. Ryan (kmr4@po.CWRU.edu) wrote:
+>: 
+>: 	Wild and fanciful claims require greater evidence. If you state that 
+>: one of the books in your room is blue, I certainly do not need as much 
+>: evidence to believe than if you were to claim that there is a two headed 
+>: leapard in your bed. [ and I don't mean a male lover in a leotard! ]
+>
+>Keith, 
+>
+>If the issue is, "What is Truth" then the consequences of whatever
+>proposition argued is irrelevent. If the issue is, "What are the consequences
+>if such and such -is- True", then Truth is irrelevent. Which is it to
+>be?
+
+	I disagree: every proposition needs a certain amount of evidence 
+and support, before one can believe it. There are a miriad of factors for 
+each individual. As we are all different, we quite obviously require 
+different levels of evidence.
+
+	As one pointed out, one's history is important. While in FUSSR, one 
+may not believe a comrade who states that he owns five pairs of blue jeans. 
+One would need more evidence, than if one lived in the United States. The 
+only time such a statement here would raise an eyebrow in the US, is if the 
+individual always wear business suits, etc.
+
+	The degree of the effect upon the world, and the strength of the 
+claim also determine the amount of evidence necessary. When determining the 
+level of evidence one needs, it is most certainly relevent what the 
+consequences of the proposition are.
+
+
+
+	If the consequences of a proposition is irrelvent, please explain 
+why one would not accept: The electro-magnetic force of attraction between 
+two charged particles is inversely proportional to the cube of their 
+distance apart. 
+
+	Remember, if the consequences of the law are not relevent, then
+we can not use experimental evidence as a disproof. If one of the 
+consequences of the law is an incongruency between the law and the state of 
+affairs, or an incongruency between this law and any other natural law, 
+they are irrelevent when theorizing about the "Truth" of the law.
+
+	Given that any consequences of a proposition is irrelvent, including 
+the consequence of self-contradiction or contradiction with the state of 
+affiars, how are we ever able to  judge what is true or not; let alone find
+"The Truth"?
+
+
+
+	By the way, what is "Truth"? Please define before inserting it in 
+the conversation. Please explain what "Truth" or "TRUTH" is. I do think that 
+anything is ever known for certain. Even if there IS a "Truth", we could 
+never possibly know if it were. I find the concept to be meaningless.
+
+--
+
+
+       "Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.  
+        They do what god tells them to do. "
+
+        S.N. Mozumder (snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu) 

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51295

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!po.CWRU.edu!kmr4
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Contradictions
+Message-ID: <kmr4.1458.734126770@po.CWRU.edu>
+From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
+Date: 6 Apr 93 20:06:10 GMT
+References: <1993Apr3.185937.14934@proxima.alt.za> <C52oys.2CLJ@austin.ibm.com>
+Organization: Case Western Reserve University
+NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
+Lines: 49
+
+In article <C52oys.2CLJ@austin.ibm.com> yoder@austin.ibm.com (Stuart R. Yoder) writes:
+>: 
+>: Then what would it have to do with "in the universe"?  You theists
+>: cannot understand that inside the universe and outside the universe
+>: are two different places.  Put God outside the universe and you
+>: subtract from it the ability to interact with the inside of the
+>: universe, put it inside the universe and you impose the rules of
+>: physics on it.
+>
+>1.  God is outside the universe.
+>2.  Things outside the universe do not have 'the ability to interact
+>    with the inside of the universe'.
+>3.  Therefore God cannot interact inside the universe.
+>
+>(2) has no basis whatsoever.  You seem to have positive knowledge
+>about this.
+
+	(2) is a corrallary of (1).
+
+	The negation of (2) would contridict (1).
+
+>
+>: Although we do not have a complete model of the physical rules
+>: governing the inside of the universe, we expect that there are no
+>: contradictory events likely to destroy the fabric of modern physics.
+>: On the other hand, your notion of an omnipotent, omniscient and
+>: infinitely benevolent god, is not subject to physical laws: you
+>: attempt to explain this away by describing it as being outside of
+>: them, beyond measurement.  To me, beyond measurement means it can
+>: have no measurable effect on reality, so it cannot interact: ergo,
+>: your god is IRRELEVANT.
+>
+>1.  God is beyond measure.
+>2.  Beyond measurement means it can have no measurable effect on
+>    reality.
+>3.  Therefore God cannot have a measurable effect on reality.
+>
+>(2) has no basis whatsoever.
+
+  (2) Is a corrallary of (1)
+
+  The negation of (2) would contradict (1).
+--
+
+
+       "Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.  
+        They do what god tells them to do. "
+
+        S.N. Mozumder (snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu) 

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53100

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu talk.abortion:120547 alt.atheism:53100 talk.religion.misc:83563
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!ames!olivea!sgigate!odin!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
+From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
+Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
+Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
+Message-ID: <1qknuh$k@fido.asd.sgi.com>
+Date: 15 Apr 93 22:34:57 GMT
+References: <kmr4.1571.734847050@po.CWRU.edu> <1qjbn0$na4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> <1qk1md$6gs@kyle.eitech.com> <1qkjvc$4jv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
+Organization: sgi
+Lines: 32
+NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
+
+In article <1qkjvc$4jv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
+|> In article <1qk1md$6gs@kyle.eitech.com> ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
+|> #In article <1qjbn0$na4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
+|> #>In article <kmr4.1571.734847050@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
+|> #>#	You have only pushed back the undefined meaning. You must now define 
+|> #>#what "objective values" are.
+|> #>
+|> #>Really?  You don't know what objective value is?  If I offered the people
+|> #>of the U.S., collectively, $1 for all of the land in America, would that 
+|> #>sound like a good deal?  
+|> #Well, that would depend on how much we wanted the US and how much
+|> #we wanted the $1, wouldn't it?
+|> 
+|> Yes it would.  Luckily these parameters are fixed by reality.  If I can
+|> predict with almost 100% accuracy that Americans prefer to own their portions of
+|> the US than an infinitesmal portion of $1, in what sense are these values
+|> not objective? 
+
+Not only are they not objective, but they don't even stay constant
+over time.   A young farmer and an old farmer on the verge of 
+retirement have quite different ideas about the relative values of 
+a piece of land and a dollar bill.
+
+Similarly, a person viewing an anonymous piece of land, and a 
+person viewing a piece of land that his family has lived on for
+generations.
+
+These values are essentially subjective, and that's why we have
+markets: to allow people to match their valuations of land and
+dollar bills.
+
+jon.

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53101

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu talk.abortion:120548 alt.atheism:53101 talk.religion.misc:83564
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!ames!olivea!sgigate!odin!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
+From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
+Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
+Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
+Message-ID: <1qkna8$k@fido.asd.sgi.com>
+Date: 15 Apr 93 22:24:08 GMT
+References: <1qie61$fkt@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> <kmr4.1571.734847050@po.CWRU.edu> <1qiore$20b@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1qjclt$nh7@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
+Organization: sgi
+Lines: 31
+NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
+
+In article <1qjclt$nh7@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
+|> In article <1qiore$20b@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
+|> #
+|> #The intended audience is the set of people who *are* convinced
+|> #by those arguments, who therefore finish up as church members.
+|> #It doesn't need to be everyone, just enough to count.
+|> 
+|> This is completely refuted by the evidence that I do not belong to any
+|> church, and am in fact an agnostic. I'm not canvassing for church
+|> members.
+
+Where did I say that you were a Church member?   I just said
+that people who buy your kind of arguments finish up as church
+members.   There's still time.
+
+|> #It's like GM stays in business as long as *some* people buy
+|> #GM cars, so they make their cars for the people who are willing
+|> #to buy GM cars.   And that's why GM cars are GM cars, and why
+|> #Frank's argument are Frank's arguments.
+|> 
+|> Nonsense.  Reality is not a business, and I have nothing to sell.
+
+You undervalue yourself, Frank.   You're one of the slickest
+salesmen I've seen.
+
+Not, of course, The Greatest Salesman in the World.   That was
+Jesus, wasn't it?
+
+[rest of Frank's tantrum mercifully deleted].
+
+jon.

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53106

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!sgigate!odin!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
+From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism
+Date: 15 Apr 1993 22:44:32 GMT
+Organization: sgi
+Lines: 38
+Distribution: world
+Message-ID: <1qkogg$k@fido.asd.sgi.com>
+References: <1qialf$p2m@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1qif1g$fp3@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> <1qimbe$sp@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1qjf31$o7t@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
+NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
+
+In article <1qjf31$o7t@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
+|> In article <1qimbe$sp@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
+|> #In article <1qif1g$fp3@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
+|> #|> In article <1qialf$p2m@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
+|> #|> 
+|> #|> I forget the origin of the quote, but "I gotta use words when I talk to
+|> #|> you".  An atheist is one who lacks belief in gods, yes?  If so, then
+|> #|> it's entirely plausible that an atheist could dig Lenin or Lennon to
+|> #|> such an extent that it might be considered "worship", and still be
+|> #|> an atheist.  Anything else seems to be Newspeak.
+|> #
+|> #Ask yourself the following question.   Would you regard an ardent
+|> #Nazi as a republican, simply because Germany no longer had a Kaiser?
+|> 
+|> No, because that's based on false dichotomy.   There are more options
+|> than you present me.  
+
+And that, of course, is the point.   You can't simply divide the
+world into atheists and non-atheists on the basis of god-belief.
+
+If all you care about is belief in a supernatural deity, and
+have nothing to say about behaviour, then belief in a supernatural
+being is your criterion.
+
+But once you start talking about behaviour, then someone's suscept-
+ibility to be led by bad people into doing bad things is what you 
+are - I assume - worried about.
+
+And in that area, what you care about is whether someone is sceptical,
+critical and autonomous on the one hand, or gullible, excitable and
+easily led on the other.
+
+I would say that a tendency to worship tyrants and ideologies indicates
+that a person is easily led.   Whether they have a worship or belief 
+in a supernatural hero rather than an earthly one seems to me to be
+beside the point.
+
+jon.

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53107

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu talk.abortion:120554 alt.atheism:53107 talk.religion.misc:83570
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!po.CWRU.edu!kmr4
+From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
+Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
+Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
+Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 22:58:24 GMT
+Organization: Case Western Reserve University
+Lines: 28
+Message-ID: <kmr4.1589.734914704@po.CWRU.edu>
+References: <pww-140493214334@spac-at1-59.rice.edu> <1qjahh$mrs@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> <lsr6ihINNsa@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <1qkj31$4c6@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
+NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
+
+In article <1qkj31$4c6@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
+>
+>I'm not willing to attempt this until someone provides an objective
+>basis for the notion that science is useful, worthy, or important in
+>dealing with observed facts.  Alternatively, you could try to
+>demonstrate to me that science is not necessarily useful, worthy
+>or important in any situation.   In other words, I need to know
+>how you use the term "objective".
+
+	One need not have have the notion that science is useful. For 
+example: many Christian scientists do not believe medical science to be 
+usefor or worthy. That does not make medical science subjective.
+
+	In any event, I fail to see what you mean by "subjective" science.
+Are you suggesting that it is, and that if I step of a building, I may fall, 
+while you may not?
+
+	I assure you, it is a very objective conclusion that you will fall 
+( without any other outside means of support ). If you do not believe this, 
+I suggest you step off of a building, and subjectively believe that you will 
+not fall.
+
+
+---
+
+   Only when the Sun starts to orbit the Earth will I accept the Bible. 
+        
+

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53108

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!att-out!cbnewsj!decay
+From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
+Subject: Re: some thoughts.
+Organization: AT&T
+Distribution: na
+Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 19:29:42 GMT
+Message-ID: <1993Apr15.192942.7104@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
+References: <bissda.4.734849678@saturn.wwc.edu> <EDM.93Apr15104322@gocart.twisto.compaq.com>
+Lines: 13
+
+In article <EDM.93Apr15104322@gocart.twisto.compaq.com>, edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:
+> >>>>> On Thu, 15 Apr 1993 04:54:38 GMT, bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) said:
+> 
+> DLB> 	First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian.  It 
+> DLB> makes sense to be one.  Have any of you read Tony Campollo's book- liar, 
+> DLB>lunatic, or the real thing?  (I might be a little off on the title, but he 
+> DLB>writes the book.  Anyway he was part of an effort to destroy Christianity, 
+> DLB> in the process he became a Christian himself.
+> 
+> Here we go again...
+
+Just the friendly folks at Christian Central, come to save you.
+

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53109

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu talk.abortion:120555 alt.atheism:53109 talk.religion.misc:83571
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!po.CWRU.edu!kmr4
+From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
+Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
+Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
+Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 23:04:44 GMT
+Organization: Case Western Reserve University
+Lines: 25
+Message-ID: <kmr4.1590.734915084@po.CWRU.edu>
+References: <rayC5JAK7.D7E@netcom.com> <1qkhju$43c@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> <kmr4.1587.734911207@po.CWRU.edu> <1qkoel$5fr@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
+NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
+
+In article <1qkoel$5fr@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
+
+>Good question, my point was that a world with truth is better than a world
+>with falsehood.  A world in which it were possible to say "yes, I am
+>holding a Jew" (the truth) and you, me, the Jew, and the SS guy all sit
+>down to crack open a bottle of whiskey is better than the grim alternatives 
+>you present. Obviously, this is not possible, and the best alternative seems
+>to be to lie.  That's because other values are involved, such as life.
+>Now that IS just my opinion - don't confuse the claim 'objective morality
+>exists' with the claim 'I have a lock on morals'.
+
+	So then, it is not objectively better to tell the truth. There are 
+some subjective situations within which, it is better to lie.
+
+
+	I agree that it is my subjective opinion that a world without SS 
+troops and the like would be better. It is also when using certain systems 
+to judge the situations, such as unitarianism, that it is objectively better.
+
+
+---
+
+   Only when the Sun starts to orbit the Earth will I accept the Bible. 
+        
+

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53130

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!pipex!sunic!news.funet.fi!butler.cc.tut.fi!lehtori.cc.tut.fi!not-for-mail
+From: a137490@lehtori.cc.tut.fi (Aario Sami)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: note to Bobby M.
+Date: 15 Apr 1993 23:04:48 +0300
+Organization: Tampere University of Technology, Computing Centre
+Lines: 14
+Distribution: sfnet
+Message-ID: <1qkf50$hdq@cc.tut.fi>
+References: <1993Apr10.191100.16094@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
+NNTP-Posting-Host: cc.tut.fi
+
+In <1993Apr10.191100.16094@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
+
+>Insults about the atheistic genocide was totally unintentional.  Under
+>atheism, anything can happen, good or bad, including genocide.
+
+And you know why this is? Because you've conveniently _defined_ a theist as
+someone who can do no wrong, and you've _defined_ people who do wrong as
+atheists. The above statement is circular (not to mention bigoting), and,
+as such, has no value.
+-- 
+Sami Aario         |  "Can you see or measure an atom? Yet you can explode
+a137490@cc.tut.fi  |   one. Sunlight is comprised of many atoms."
+-------------------'  "Your stupid minds! Stupid, stupid!"
+Eros in "Plan 9 From Outer Space"     DISCLAIMER: I don't agree with Eros.

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53131

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!torn!nott!bnrgate!bcars267!NewsWatcher!user
+From:  (Rashid)
+Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie (Re: An Anecdote about Islam
+Message-ID: <1993Apr15.223936.16811@bnr.ca>
+Followup-To: alt.atheism
+Sender: news@bnr.ca (usenet)
+Nntp-Posting-Host: 47.252.4.179
+Organization: NH
+References: <C5563u.G6D@unix.portal.com> <114540@bu.edu> <1q2ehmINNosf@dns1.NMSU.Edu> <C5C7Cn.5GB@ra.nrl.navy.mil> <kmr4.1536.734566811@po.CWRU.edu> <1993Apr14.121134.12187@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
+Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 22:39:36 GMT
+Lines: 31
+
+In article <1993Apr14.121134.12187@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>,
+darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) wrote:
+> 
+> >In article <C5C7Cn.5GB@ra.nrl.navy.mil> khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Umar Khan) writes:
+Stuff deleted
+> >>What we should be demanding, is for Khomeini and his ilk to publicly
+> >>come clean and to show their proof that Islamic Law punishes
+> >>apostacy with death or that it tolerates any similar form of
+> >>coversion of freedom of conscience.
+
+All five schools of law (to the best of my knowledge) support the
+death sentence for apostasy WHEN it is accompanied by open, persistent,
+and aggravated hostility to Islam. Otherwise
+I agree, there is no legal support for punishment of disbelief.
+The Qur'an makes it clear that belief is a matter of conscience. Public
+or private disavowal of Islam or conversion to another faith is not
+punishable (there are some jurists who have gone against this
+trend and insisted that apostasy is punishable (even by death) - but
+historically they are the exception.
+
+Cursing and Insulting the Prophets falls under the category of "Shatim".
+
+> 
+> I just borrowed a book from the library on Khomeini's fatwa etc.
+>Lots of stuff deleted<
+> 
+> And, according to the above analysis, it looks like Khomeini's offering
+> of a reward for Rushdie's death in fact constitutes a criminal act
+> according to Islamic law.
+
+Please see my post under "Re: Yet more Rushdie (ISLAMIC LAW)".

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53136

@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!emory!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!umn.edu!uum1!mac.cc.macalstr.edu!acooper
+From: acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: some thoughts.
+Message-ID: <1993Apr15.151122.4746@mac.cc.macalstr.edu>
+Date: 15 Apr 93 15:11:22 -0600
+References: <bissda.4.734849678@saturn.wwc.edu>
+Organization: Macalester College
+Lines: 100
+
+In article <bissda.4.734849678@saturn.wwc.edu>, bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:
+> 	First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian.  It 
+
+That's okay:  it's what all the rest of them who come on here say...
+
+> makes sense to be one.  Have any of you read Tony Campollo's book- liar, 
+> lunatic, or the real thing?  (I might be a little off on the title, but he 
+> writes the book.  Anyway he was part of an effort to destroy Christianity, 
+> in the process he became a Christian himself.
+
+This isn't the guy who was a lawyer was he?  Could you give more info on this
+guy (never mind- I'm sure there will be PLENTY of responses to this post, and
+it will appear there)
+
+> 	The arguements he uses I am summing up.  The book is about whether 
+> Jesus was God or not.  I know many of you don't believe, but listen to a 
+> different perspective for we all have something to gain by listening to what 
+> others have to say.
+
+This is true.  Make sure it is true for ALL cases.
+  
+> 	The book says that Jesus was either a liar, or he was crazy ( a
+
+Why not both?  ;)
+ 
+> modern day Koresh) or he was actually who he said he was.
+> 	Some reasons why he wouldn't be a liar are as follows.  Who would 
+> die for a lie?  Wouldn't people be able to tell if he was a liar?  
+
+Why not die for a lie?  If you were poverty stricken and alunatic, sounds
+perfecetly reasoable to me.  As to whether the societal dregs he had for
+followers would be able to tell if he was a liar or not, not necessarily.
+Even if he died for what he believed in, this still makes him completely
+selfish.  Like us all.  So what's the difference.
+
+
+People 
+> gathered around him and kept doing it, many gathered from hearing or seeing 
+> someone who was or had been healed.  Call me a fool, but I believe he did 
+> heal people.  
+
+There is no historical proof of this (see earlier threads).  Besides, he (or at
+least his name), have been the cause of enough deaths to make up for whatever
+healing he gave.
+
+
+> 	Niether was he a lunatic.  Would more than an entire nation be drawn 
+> to someone who was crazy.  
+
+SIEG HEIL!!
+
+
+>Very doubtful, in fact rediculous.  For example 
+> anyone who is drawn to David Koresh is obviously a fool, logical people see 
+> this right away.
+>
+
+Who is David Koresh?  I am curious.
+
+ 	Therefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have been the 
+> real thing.  
+
+How does this follow?  Your definition of lunatic (and "disproof" thereof seem
+rather... uhhh.. SHAKY)
+
+> 	Some other things to note.  He fulfilled loads of prophecies in 
+> the psalms, Isaiah and elsewhere in 24 hrs alone.  This in his betrayal 
+> and Crucifixion.  I don't have my Bible with me at this moment, next time I 
+> write I will use it.
+
+Good idea.
+
+> 	I don't think most people understand what a Christian is.  It 
+> is certainly not what I see a lot in churches. 
+
+Naturally, those or not TRUE Christians, right?  ;)
+
+> Rather I think it 
+> should be a way of life, and a total sacrafice of everything for God's 
+> sake.  He loved us enough to die and save us so we should do the 
+> same.  Hey we can't do it, God himself inspires us to turn our lives 
+> over to him.  That's tuff and most people don't want to do it, to be a 
+> real Christian would be something for the strong to persevere at.  But 
+> just like weight lifting or guitar playing, drums, whatever it takes 
+> time.  We don't rush it in one day, Christianity is your whole life.  
+> It is not going to church once a week, or helping poor people once in 
+> a while.  We box everything into time units.  Such as work at this 
+> time, sports, Tv, social life.  God is above these boxes and should be 
+> carried with us into all these boxes that we have created for 
+> ourselves.  	  
+
+
+Someone else handle this, I don't know if it's worth it... *sigh*
+
+
+********************************************************************************
+* Adam John Cooper		"Verily, often have I laughed at the weaklings *
+*				   who thought themselves good simply because  *
+* acooper@macalstr.edu				they had no claws."	       *
+********************************************************************************

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53137

@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!emory!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!umn.edu!uum1!mac.cc.macalstr.edu!acooper
+From: acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: thoughts on christians
+Message-ID: <1993Apr15.162024.4748@mac.cc.macalstr.edu>
+Date: 15 Apr 93 16:20:24 -0600
+References: <sandvik-090493160749@sandvik-kent.apple.com> <1993Apr15.050750.3893@nuscc.nus.sg>
+Organization: Macalester College
+Lines: 94
+
+In article <1993Apr15.050750.3893@nuscc.nus.sg>, cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - dan) writes:
+> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
+> : In article <1q338l$cva@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>, gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric
+> : Molas) wrote:
+> : > Christianity is an infectious cult.  The reasons it flourishes are 
+> : > because 1) it gives people without hope or driven purpose in life
+> : > a safety blanked to hide behind.  "Oh wow..all i have to do is 
+> : > follow this christian moral standard and I get eternal happiness."
+> : 
+> : I agree that in many cases primitive emotional feelings based on
+> : 'haha, you won't laugh in hell' mentalities makes certain religions
+> : very attractive for certain personalities.
+> 
+> I agree with both of u, but I would like to make a small point.  Xtianity, &
+> other dogmatic religions, not only attract people without hope etc but
+> also attract "average" people as well.  I believe that Xtainity, thru
+> its escapist doctrines & absolutist attitudes, provides great psychological 
+> shelter from day-to-day frustrations, unhappiness & fear of uncertainty 
+> & unknown etc.
+>
+
+This is a good point, but I think "average" people do not take up Christianity
+so much out of fear or escapism, but, quite simply, as a way to improve their
+social life, or to get more involved with American culture, if they are kids of
+immigrants for example.  Since it is the overwhelming major religion in the
+Western World (in some form or other), it is simply the choice people take if
+they are bored and want to do something new with their lives, but not somethong
+TOO new, or TOO out of the ordinary.  Seems a little weak, but as long as it
+doesn't hurt anybody...
+ 
+> The Buddha had something to say about the attractiveness of religions:
+> 
+>    "When driven by fear, man worships sacred mountains, sacred stones, 
+> 	and sacred trees." 
+> 
+> However, the Buddha also said,
+> 
+> 	"If somebody finds peace in any religion, let him be".
+> 
+> 
+
+These are good quotes, and I agree with both of them, but let's make sure to
+alter the scond one so that includes something like "...let him be, as long as
+he is not preventing others from finding their peace." or something like that. 
+(Of course, I suppose, if someone were REALLY "at peace", there would be no
+need for inflicting evangelism)
+
+
+> Personally, I feel that since religion have such a poweful
+> psychological effect, we should let theists be.  But the problem is that
+> religions cause enormous harm to non-believers and to humanity as a whole
+> (holy wars, inquisitions, inter-religious hatred, impedence of science
+> & intellectual progress, us-&-them attitudes etc etc.  Need I say more?).
+> I really don't know what we can do about them.  Any comments?
+> 
+Well, it is a sure thing we will have to live with them all our lives.  Their
+popularity seems to come and go.  I remember when I first entered High School,
+I was an atheist (always had been) and so were about 7 of my friends.  At this
+time, 5 of those 7 have converted, always to Christianity (they were all also
+immigrants from Taiwan, or sons of immigrants, hence my earlier gross
+generalization).  Christianity seems a lot more popular to people now than it
+ever has before (since I've been noticing).  Maybe it is just my perceptions
+that are chagning.  Who knows?
+I for one am perfectly willing to live and let live with them, so long as we
+have some set of abstract rights/agreements on how we should treat each other:
+I have no desire to be hurt by them or their notions.  For all the well-put
+arguments on this usenet, it never does any good.  Argumentation does not
+really seem to apply to Christians (or even some atheists)- it must simply be a
+step the person takes naturally, almost, "instinctively"...
+
+
+best regards,
+
+********************************************************************************
+* Adam John Cooper		"Verily, often have I laughed at the weaklings *
+*				   who thought themselves good simply because  *
+* acooper@macalstr.edu				they had no claws."	       *
+********************************************************************************
+>
+--
+> 
+> The UnEnlightened One
+> ------------------+--------------------------------------------------------
+>                   | "Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be 
+> Tan Chade Meng    | expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it
+> Singapore         | transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology;
+> cmtan@iss.nus.sg  | it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is
+>                   | based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience
+>                   | of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful
+>                   | unity"     --  Einstein
+> ------------------+--------------------------------------------------------
+> 
+> 
+> 

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53138

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:53138 talk.religion.misc:83589 talk.origins:40883
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!ncar!uchinews!ellis!sjchmura
+From: sjchmura@ellis.uchicago.edu (steven joseph chmura)
+Subject: Re: The _real_ probability of abiogenesis (was Re: Albert Sabin)
+Message-ID: <1993Apr16.005020.19721@midway.uchicago.edu>
+Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
+Reply-To: sjchmura@midway.uchicago.edu
+Organization: University of Chicago
+References: <1q23qfINN91b@ctron-news.ctron.com>
+Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 00:50:20 GMT
+Lines: 48
+
+In article <1q23qfINN91b@ctron-news.ctron.com> king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
+>
+>
+>adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)writes:
+>
+>>>As I recall the figure for just one of the molecules forming is 1 : 10^-114.
+>
+>If amino acids were somehow formed in an organic soup, they must get out of 
+>it if they are to form larger molecules and evolve toward becoming proteins
+>useful for the formation of life.  But once they get out of the water, they 
+>are in the destructive ultraviolet light.  By the same token, bodies of water
+>are not conducive to the necessary chemistry.  It is hard to see how
+>polymerisation (sp?) could have proceeded in the primitive soup since
+>the presence
+>of water favors depolymerisation .  
+>
+What is your degree in again - or should I say when.  This is a 1960's
+view of abiogenesis.  PLease read something modern like Carle Woose's
+"On the Origins" which he beats these "warm little ponds" into the ground.
+
+Look at archeobacteria - they live in areas so hot you would melt.  
+                        
+And, believe it or not, we use their machinery everday in the pursuit of
+new drugs, therapies, and knowledge.
+`
+>There are many other stubborn problems.  The 20 amino acids needed for 
+>life's proteins are all left handed.  If they formed randomly as the theory 
+>states, what are the chances that all the one's needed for life's proteins
+^^^^^^^^^^^
+You mean your theory.  Again, arguing this point is like telling a child
+that the sky will not fall.  If the child is stubborn you will not get anywhere.
+
+>would be left handed.  
+>
+The P=1.  They are left handed :)  Really, this is not a big deal.  There are
+many problems with abiogenisis but these are really trivial.
+
+>Jack
+Please Jack rad some modern biololgy - i do not mean books by creationists
+about modern biology.  Pick up a text book and read.  I think you
+would like Woose's "On the Origins."  He is an arogant man but his writting
+and research is brilliant.
+
+-- 
+________________________________________________________________________________Steven Chmura				University of Chicago Medical School(M1)
+  "Given enough time, the impossible becomes probable, and the probable
+	inevitable.."  -George Wald, "On the Origins of Life"
+

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53139

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!news2me.EBay.Sun.COM!seven-up.East.Sun.COM!dr-pepper.East.Sun.COM!poori!geoff
+From: geoff@East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Where are they now?
+Date: 16 Apr 1993 00:59:15 GMT
+Organization: SunSelect
+Lines: 22
+Distribution: world
+Message-ID: <1ql0d3$5vo@dr-pepper.East.Sun.COM>
+References: <1qi156INNf9n@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
+Reply-To: geoff@East.Sun.COM
+NNTP-Posting-Host: poori.east.sun.com
+
+Your posting provoked me into checking my save file for memorable
+posts. The first I captured was by Ken Arromdee on 19 Feb 1990, on the
+subject "Re: atheist too?". That was article #473 here; your question
+was article #53766, which is an average of about 48 articles a day for
+the last three years. As others have noted, the current posting rate is
+such that my kill file is depressing large...... Among the posting I
+saved in the early days were articles from the following notables:
+
+>From: loren@sunlight.llnl.gov (Loren Petrich)
+>From: jchrist@nazareth.israel.rel (Jesus Christ of Nazareth)
+>From: mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin)
+>From: perry@apollo.HP.COM (Jim Perry)
+>From: lippard@uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
+>From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
+
+An interesting bunch.... I wonder where #2 is?
+---
+Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect, Sun Select. (geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM)
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------
+"What if they made the whole thing up?            | "The Great Lie" by
+ Four guys, two thousand years ago, over wine..." |    The Tear Garden
+

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53152

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu talk.abortion:120610 alt.atheism:53152 talk.religion.misc:83598
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!uunet!pipex!uknet!uknet!edcastle!dcs.ed.ac.uk!tk
+From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
+Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
+Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
+Message-ID: <C5Jxo5.793@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
+Date: 16 Apr 93 01:04:52 GMT
+References: <kmr4.1571.734847050@po.CWRU.edu> <1qjbn0$na4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> <1qk1md$6gs@kyle.eitech.com> <1qkjvc$4jv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
+Sender: cnews@dcs.ed.ac.uk (UseNet News Admin)
+Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
+Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U
+Lines: 59
+
+In article <1qkjvc$4jv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
+
+>If I can predict with almost 100% accuracy that Americans prefer to own their 
+>portions of the US than an infinitesmal portion of $1, in what sense are 
+>these values not objective?  
+
+Ahhhh.  I see what you mean now.
+
+But in this example it is not the values that are objective, but
+the *existence* of those values.  At least, they are as objectively real
+as anything is.
+
+>I don't think I'm way off beam in saying that "something is
+>better than nothing" is a rational and objective valuation. 
+
+The term 'rational' does not apply to a simple statement like that.
+You would have to include the statement within a syllogism and
+assert the rationility of the syllogism.
+
+A statement is just a statement.  
+
+As to its objectivity - well it depends what you mean.
+
+Values tend to be regarded as good or bad, valid or invalid, true or false,
+and so on.  Objective values are those which must fall into one or other of
+those options for all people - or, if you are prepared for dissent, then
+they are those values which should be accepted by everyone.
+If someone rejects an objective value they are regarded as 'wrong'.
+
+Objective values require a fundamental notion of good versus bad, or at
+least right versus wrong (or even just correct versus incorrect) and
+a way of relating that to specific aspects of human behaviour.
+In my opinion that requires a belief in a deity of some sort.
+
+Suppose you could predict with almost 100% accuracy that Americans
+believed that something is better than nothing.
+You could usefully say that the existence of that value was an
+objective fact.  You could not say that the value itself was
+objective.   You could not do that unless you could prove that the
+value was 'right'.  Showing that everyone happens to accept the value
+as right doesn't show that it is right.
+
+>Do you agree with me then that the assertion "no values are objective" 
+>is false?
+
+Well I am a believer in a God.  So I do believe that some values are
+objective.  But I usually suspend that belief when posting to t.a
+because it immediately invalidates subsequent arguments in the mind
+of many t.a readers.
+
+So, ignoring the idea of a God, I disagree with you.
+I believe, in this limited context, that 'no values are objective'.
+
+But I think that this thread is showing some cross-purpose debate.
+I think I understand your use of the word 'objective' when
+relating it to values.  I think it is an unusual usage, but I
+believe you are consistent given that usage.
+
+tommy

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53155

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:53155 talk.religion.misc:83599 talk.origins:40895
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!bogus.sura.net!darwin.sura.net!udel!news.intercon.com!psinntp!dg-rtp!rambo.atlanta.dg.com!atlanta.dg.com!wpr
+From: wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins)
+Subject: Re: Rawlins debunks creationism
+Sender: usenet@rambo.atlanta.dg.com (Usenet Administration)
+Message-ID: <1993Apr15.223844.16453@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>
+Date: Thu, 15 Apr 93 22:38:44 GMT
+References: <1993Mar29.231830.2055@rambo.atlanta.dg.com> <1993Apr7.073926.9874@engage.pko.dec.com> <1993Apr10.213547.17644@rambo.atlanta.dg.com> <2BC8B03B.29868@ics.uci.edu>
+Organization: DGSID, Atlanta, GA
+Lines: 26
+
+In article <2BC8B03B.29868@ics.uci.edu>, bvickers@net1.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
+|> wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
+|> >Science and the Bible are not in contradiction.  God can supercede the
+|> >scientific "laws" as man understands them.  Creation is a good
+|> >example.  God has the power to create something out of nothing, order
+|> >out of chaos.
+|> 
+|> Precisely why creationism is not science.  Precisely why it should
+|> remain out of science classrooms.
+|> 
+|> No one makes the case for the pseudoscientific nature of creationism
+|> better than the creationists.  Thanks Bill!
+
+    We are talking about origins, not merely science.   Science cannot
+    explain origins.  For a person to exclude anything but science from
+    the issue of origins is to say that there is no higher truth
+    than science.  This is a false premise.  By the way, I enjoy science.
+    It is truly a wonder observing God's creation.  Macroevolution is
+    a mixture of 15 percent science and 85 percent religion [guaranteed
+    within three percent error :) ]
+   
+-- 
+             ==========================================================
+            //  Bill Rawlins            <wpr@atlanta.dg.com>        //
+           //                          "I speak for myself only"   //
+          ==========================================================

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53163

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!uunet!olivea!bu.edu!buphy.bu.edu!jaeger
+From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie
+Message-ID: <115560@bu.edu>
+Date: 16 Apr 93 01:31:01 GMT
+References: <1qctef$r05@fido.asd.sgi.com> <115256@bu.edu> <C5HKv2.Epv@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
+Sender: news@bu.edu
+Organization: Boston University Physics Department
+Lines: 41
+
+In article <C5HKv2.Epv@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
+
+>In article <115256@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
+
+>>Judaism, for one. Maddi has confirmed this for one. And again I
+>>reiterate that one can easily leave the religion at any time,
+>>simply by making a public declaration. If one is too lazy to do
+>>that then the religion cannot be held responsible.
+
+>There are many "Islamic" countries where publically renouncing Islam can be
+>quite dangerous.  These countries might not, according to you, necessarily be
+>practicing "true" Islam, but the danger still remains; one cannot blame
+>failure to publically renounce Islam on "laziness" as opposed to a desire to
+>stay alive and well.
+
+Of course, if you're planning to pull a Rushdie then declaring one's
+leaving the religion is little to be concerned about compared to one's
+other plans.
+
+
+In Rushdie's case, the one under discussion, one can. It is tragic that
+in _some_ "Islamic" countries this is so. There are, however, Islamic
+countries (whose constitutions contains statements that Islamic law is
+to be incorporated), e.g. Kuwait, where one can freely make such
+statements without fear.
+
+
+>Not to mention that it has already been pointed out that Rushdie has said in
+>his books that he's not a Muslim, and there have surely been enough readers of
+>his books to provide the appropriate number of witnesses.
+
+This story has become tiresome. The conditions are clear. If you care to
+make your point clear then make a chronology and show that he had made
+public statements about leaving Islam prior to his writing of _TSV_. If
+he did make such statements then he should have made _that_ clear rather
+than trying to rejoin Islam or go on talking about his personal
+feelings.
+
+
+
+Gregg

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53164

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!uunet!olivea!bu.edu!buphy.bu.edu!jaeger
+From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
+Message-ID: <115561@bu.edu>
+Date: 16 Apr 93 01:42:54 GMT
+References: <114606@bu.edu> <1993Apr10.123858.25059@bradford.ac.uk>
+Sender: news@bu.edu
+Organization: Boston University Physics Department
+Lines: 50
+
+In article <1993Apr10.123858.25059@bradford.ac.uk> L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham) writes:
+
+>Gregg Jaeger (jaeger@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:
+
+>> Khomenei was a jerk and so were plenty of 
+>>British "leaders", so what? 
+
+>>THE QUR'AN is the basis of judgement. Khomenei was clearly a heretic
+>>by the standards of the Qur'an. End of story.
+
+>Could you be a little more specific as to exactly why Khomanei was a
+>heretic and a jerk as judged by the Koran.  I have no liking for the
+>guy, but as far as I know he has done nothing contrary to the teachings
+>of the Koran, or at least so I'm told by several Iranian research
+>students that I share an office with.
+
+>It is easy and convenient for you to denounce him.  But I have the 
+>feeling that your views are not as clear cut and widely accepted as you
+>suggest.
+
+I have made this clear elsewhere but will do so again. Khomeini put a 
+price on the head of someone in another country, this makes him a jerk
+as well as an international outlaw. Khomeini advocates the view that
+there was a series of twelve Islamic leaders (the Twelve Imams) who
+are free of error or sin. This makes him a heretic. In the Qur'an 
+Muhammad is chastised for error directly by God; the Qur'an says that
+Muhammad is the greatest example of proper Islamic behavior; thus
+no muslim is free from error. 
+
+
+>As usual there seems to be almost as many Islamic viewpoints as there
+>are Muslims.  
+
+Perhaps it seems so to you, but this is hardly the case. There is
+widespread agreement about matters of Islam. There certainly are
+many viewpoints on issues which are not particularly Islamic in
+and of themselves, but this is so for any large group of people
+under the same name. 
+
+>It all comes back to the Koran being so imprecise in its wording.
+
+The Qur'an is not particularly imprecise in wording, though it is true
+that several interpretations are possible in the interpretations of
+many words. However, as an entire text the Qur'an makes its meanings
+precise enough for intelligent people free from power lust to come
+to agreement about them. 
+
+
+
+Gregg

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53165

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!uunet!olivea!bu.edu!buphy.bu.edu!jaeger
+From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
+Message-ID: <115563@bu.edu>
+Date: 16 Apr 93 01:49:19 GMT
+References: <114719@bu.edu> <1993Apr10.124753.25195@bradford.ac.uk>
+Sender: news@bu.edu
+Organization: Boston University Physics Department
+Lines: 23
+
+In article <1993Apr10.124753.25195@bradford.ac.uk> L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham) writes:
+
+>Gregg Jaeger (jaeger@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:
+
+>>Well, it seemed slightly incongruous to find the Union Jack flying
+>>at City Hall in Belfast. 
+
+>May I ask why?  It's there not because the British want it there (NI
+>is just one big expensive problem), it's there because that is
+>what the majority of the population of NI want.  Is there some
+>problem with that?
+
+The majority of those who can open their mouths in public perhaps.
+There seems quite alot of incentive for the British to have control
+of NI, like using the North Channel and Irish Sea as a waste dump (I was
+appalled at the dumping I saw in the harbor in Belfast). It is my
+understanding that quite alot of radioactivity enters the water --
+it'd be quite a problem if NI got its independence from Britain and
+then stopped accepting the waste. Are you suggesting that British
+industry isn't making profit off the situation as well?
+
+
+Gregg

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53190

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!olivea!sgigate!sgi!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
+From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
+Message-ID: <1qla0g$afp@fido.asd.sgi.com>
+Date: 16 Apr 93 03:43:12 GMT
+References: <1993Apr10.125109.25265@bradford.ac.uk> <1993Apr14.125122.14037@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> <1qi3l5$jkj@fido.asd.sgi.com> <115565@bu.edu>
+Organization: sgi
+Lines: 31
+NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
+
+In article <115565@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
+|> In article <1qi3l5$jkj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
+|> 
+|> >I hope an Islamic Bank is something other than BCCI, which
+|> >ripped off so many small depositors among the Muslim
+|> >community in the Uk and elsewhere.
+|> 
+|> >jon.
+|> 
+|> Grow up, childish propagandist.
+
+Gregg, I'm really sorry if having it pointed out that in practice
+things aren't quite the wonderful utopia you folks seem to claim
+them to be upsets you, but exactly who is being childish here is 
+open to question.
+
+BBCI was an example of an Islamically owned and operated bank -
+what will someone bet me they weren't "real" Islamic owners and
+operators? - and yet it actually turned out to be a long-running
+and quite ruthless operation to steal money from small and often
+quite naive depositors.
+
+And why did these naive depositors put their life savings into
+BCCI rather than the nasty interest-motivated western bank down
+the street?   Could it be that they believed an Islamically owned 
+and operated bank couldn't possibly cheat them? 
+
+So please don't try to con us into thinking that it will all 
+work out right next time.
+
+jon.

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53191

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!olivea!sgigate!sgi!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
+From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Morality? (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
+Message-ID: <1qla9j$afp@fido.asd.sgi.com>
+Date: 16 Apr 93 03:48:03 GMT
+References: <1q58hlINN95k@gap.caltech.edu> <1q5g93$s0g@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1q5l85INNep8@gap.caltech.edu> <1993Apr10.195342.5151@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> <1q8nttINNk08@gap.caltech.edu> <1qcrai$r05@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1ql5snINN4vm@gap.caltech.edu>
+Organization: sgi
+Lines: 51
+NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
+
+In article <1ql5snINN4vm@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
+|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
+|> 
+|> >>So, you are saying that it isn't possible for an instinctive act
+|> >>to be moral one?
+|> >
+|> >I like to think that many things are possible.   Explain to me
+|> >how instinctive acts can be moral acts, and I am happy to listen.
+|> 
+|> For example, if it were instinctive not to murder...
+
+Then not murdering would have no moral significance, since there
+would be nothing voluntary about it.
+
+|> 
+|> >>That is, in order for an act to be an act of morality,
+|> >>the person must consider the immoral action but then disregard 
+|> >>it?
+|> >
+|> >Weaker than that.   There must be the possibility that the
+|> >organism - it's not just people we are talking about - can
+|> >consider alternatives.
+|> 
+|> So, only intelligent beings can be moral, even if the bahavior of other
+|> beings mimics theirs?
+
+You are starting to get the point.   Mimicry is not necessarily the 
+same as the action being imitated.   A Parrot saying "Pretty Polly" 
+isn't necessarily commenting on the pulchritude of Polly.
+
+|> And, how much emphasis do you place on intelligence?
+
+See above.
+
+|> Animals of the same species could kill each other arbitarily, but 
+|> they don't.
+
+They do.   I and other posters have given you many examples of exactly
+this, but you seem to have a very short memory.
+
+|> Are you trying to say that this isn't an act of morality because
+|> most animals aren't intelligent enough to think like we do?
+
+I'm saying:
+
+	"There must be the possibility that the organism - it's not 
+	just people we are talking about - can consider alternatives."
+
+It's right there in the posting you are replying to.
+
+jon.

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53197

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!pl1u+
+From: Patrick C Leger <pl1u+@andrew.cmu.edu>
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: thoughts on christians
+Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 00:01:22 -0400
+Organization: Sophomore, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
+Lines: 51
+Message-ID: <ofnWyG600WB699voA=@andrew.cmu.edu>
+NNTP-Posting-Host: po3.andrew.cmu.edu
+In-Reply-To: <C5JHBp.55w@portal.hq.videocart.com>
+
+Excerpts from netnews.alt.atheism: 15-Apr-93 Re: thoughts on christians
+by Dave Fuller@portal.hq.vi 
+>    I'm sick of religious types being pampered, looked out for, and WORST
+> OF ALL . . . . respected more than atheists. There must be an end
+> in sight.
+>  
+I think it'd help if we got a couple good atheists (or even some good,
+steadfast agnostics) in some high political offices.  When was the last
+time we had an (openly) atheist president?  Have we ever?  (I don't
+actually know; these aren't rhetorical questions.)  How 'bout some
+Supreme court justices?  
+
+One thing that really ticked me off a while ago was an ad for a news
+program on a local station...The promo said something like "Who are
+these cults, and why do they prey on the young?"  Ahem.  EVER HEAR OF
+BAPTISM AT BIRTH?  If that isn't preying on the young, I don't know what
+is...
+
+I used to be (ack, barf) a Catholic, and was even confirmed...Shortly
+thereafter I decided it was a load of BS.  My mom, who really insisted
+that I continue to go to church, felt it was her duty (!) to bring me up
+as a believer!  That was one of the more presumptuous things I've heard
+in my life.  I suggested we go talk to the priest, and she agreed.  The
+priest was amazingly cool about it...He basically said that if I didn't
+believe it, there was no good in forcing it on me.  Actually, I guess he
+wasn't amazingly cool about it--His response is what you'd hope for
+(indeed, expect) from a human being.  I s'pose I just _didn't_ expect
+it...  
+
+I find it absurd that religion exists; Yet, I can also see its
+usefulness to people.  Facing up to the fact that you're just going to
+be worm food in a few decades, and that there isn't some cosmic purpose
+to humanity and the universe, can be pretty difficult for some people. 
+Having a readily-available, pre-digested solution to this is pretty
+attractive, if you're either a) gullible enough, b) willing to suspend
+your reasoning abilities for the piece of mind, or c) have had the stuff
+rammed down your throat for as long as you can remember.  Religion in
+general provides a nice patch for some human weaknesses; Organized
+religion provides a nice way to keep a population under control.  
+
+Blech.
+
+Chris
+
+
+----------------------
+Chris Leger
+Sophomore, Carnegie Mellon Computer Engineering
+Remember...if you don't like what somebody is saying, you can always
+ignore them!
+

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53199

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!newsfeed.rice.edu!rice!spac-at1-59.rice.edu!user
+From: pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker)
+Subject: Re: Rawlins debunks creationism
+Message-ID: <pww-150493214249@spac-at1-59.rice.edu>
+Followup-To: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
+Sender: news@rice.edu (News)
+Organization: I didn't do it, nobody saw me, you can't prove a thing.
+References: <1993Mar29.231830.2055@rambo.atlanta.dg.com> <1993Apr7.073926.9874@engage.pko.dec.com> <1993Apr10.213547.17644@rambo.atlanta.dg.com> <2BC8B03B.29868@ics.uci.edu> <1993Apr15.223844.16453@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>
+Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 02:47:20 GMT
+Lines: 30
+
+In article <1993Apr15.223844.16453@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>,
+wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) wrote:
+> 
+>     We are talking about origins, not merely science.   Science cannot
+>     explain origins.  For a person to exclude anything but science from
+>     the issue of origins is to say that there is no higher truth
+>     than science.  This is a false premise.
+
+Says who? Other than a hear-say god.
+
+>     By the way, I enjoy science.
+
+You sure don't understand it.
+
+>     It is truly a wonder observing God's creation.  Macroevolution is
+>     a mixture of 15 percent science and 85 percent religion [guaranteed
+>     within three percent error :) ]
+
+Bill, I hereby award you the Golden Shovel Award for the biggist pile of
+bullshit I've seen in a whils. I'm afraid there's not a bit of religion in
+macroevolution, and you've made a rather grand statement that Science can
+not explain origins; to a large extent, it already has!
+
+>             //  Bill Rawlins            <wpr@atlanta.dg.com>        //
+
+Peter W. Walker          "Yu, shall I tell you what knowledge is? When 
+Dept. of Space Physics    you know a thing, say that you know it. When 
+   and Astronomy          you do not know a thing, admit you do not know
+Rice University           it. This is knowledge."
+Houston, TX                     - K'ung-fu Tzu

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53302

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!caen!batcomputer!reed!henson!news.u.washington.edu!carson.u.washington.edu!jimh
+From: jimh@carson.u.washington.edu (James Hogan)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: What's a shit shoveler to do? (was Re: Amusing atheists and)
+Date: 20 Apr 1993 12:52:45 GMT
+Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
+Lines: 38
+Message-ID: <1r0rmtINNk5n@shelley.u.washington.edu>
+References: <timmbake.735278230@mcl>
+NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu
+
+In article <timmbake.735278230@mcl> timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes:
+>
+>James Hogan writes:
+>
+>[fine sentiments]
+>
+>From his very first post Jim assumed an attack of ad hominem, sarcastic
+>innuendo, i.e., shit to be shoveled.  He conveniently forgets this, of course,
+>and then _whines_ about his boredom.
+
+Ad hominem, sarcastic innuendo?  Absolutely.  Forgotten?  Hardly.
+Bored?  Not really.   I try not to confuse "life on a.a." with life.
+
+I just can't overcome the urge to tease/taunt folks who bound FAQ-less
+onto a.a. with such a chip on their shoulder.  To listen to you,
+one might think we belonged to some church!
+
+I appreciate the patience of others who questioned your posting
+on a line-by-line content basis, though it's hard to know what
+impact that might have had, as compared to, say, "shovelling".
+
+>
+>Fact: If he were truly interested in ending the thread he wouldn't have posted
+>his last shit to be shoveled.
+
+I think I only lamented that, whatever the initial satisfactions,
+past a certain point circular abuse-heaping was just that.
+
+>--
+>Bake Timmons, III
+>
+>-- "...there's nothing higher, stronger, more wholesome and more useful in life
+>than some good memory..." -- Alyosha in Brothers Karamazov (Dostoevsky)
+
+Sincere questions:  Why are you here?  What are you looking for?
+
+Jim
+

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53303

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!news.dfn.de!tubsibr!dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de!I3150101
+From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
+Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Theism : Evidence?
+Message-ID: <16BB2CD02.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>
+Sender: postnntp@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (Mr. Nntp Inews Entry)
+Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
+References: <1qfukfINN35m@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> <1qi20n$ciu@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> <1993Apr14.234248.17361@bmerh85.bnr.ca> <1qibo2$f4o@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
+Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 13:34:41 GMT
+Lines: 21
+
+In article <1qibo2$f4o@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
+frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
+ 
+>
+>#>In the absence of some convincing evidence that theist fanatics are more
+>#>dangerous than atheist fanatics, I'll continue to be wary of fanatics of
+>#>any stripe.
+>#
+>#I think that the agnostic fanatics are the most dangerous of the lot.
+>
+>Fair point, actually.  I mentioned theists and atheists, but left out
+>agnostics.  Mea culpa.
+>
+ 
+No wonder in the light of that you are a probably a theist who tries
+to pass as an agnostic. I still remember your post about your daughter
+singing Chrismas Carols and your feelings of it well.
+ 
+By the way, would you show marginal honesty and answer the many questions
+you left open when you ceased to respond last time?
+   Benedikt

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53304

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!news.dfn.de!tubsibr!dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de!I3150101
+From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
+Subject: Re: islamic genocide
+Message-ID: <16BB2CF64.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>
+Sender: postnntp@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (Mr. Nntp Inews Entry)
+Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
+References: <2943656910.0.p00261@psilink.com> <1993Apr14.102810.6059@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> <1qi83b$ec4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
+Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 13:44:51 GMT
+Lines: 23
+
+In article <1qi83b$ec4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
+frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
+ 
+(Deletion)
+>#>Few people can imagine dying for capitalism, a few
+>#>more can imagine dying for democracy, but a lot more will die for their
+>#>Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who Died on the Cross for their Sins.
+>#>Motivation, pure and simple.
+>
+>Got any cites for this nonsense?   How many people will die for Mom?
+>Patriotism? Freedom?   Money?  Their Kids?  Fast cars and swimming pools?
+>A night with Kim Basinger or Mel Gibson?  And which of these things are evil?
+>
+ 
+Read a history book, Fred. And tell me why so many religions command to
+commit genocide when it has got nothing to do with religion. Or why so many
+religions say that not living up to the standards of the religion is worse
+than dieing? Coincidence, I assume. Or ist part of the absolute morality
+you describe so often?
+ 
+Theism is strongly correlated with irrational belief in absolutes. Irrational
+belief in absolutes is strongly correlated with fanatism.
+   Benedikt

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53305

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!po.CWRU.edu!kmr4
+From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Where are they now?
+Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 13:19:13 GMT
+Organization: Case Western Reserve University
+Lines: 34
+Distribution: world
+Message-ID: <kmr4.1595.734966353@po.CWRU.edu>
+References: <1qi156INNf9n@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <1ql0d3$5vo@dr-pepper.East.Sun.COM>
+NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
+
+In article <1ql0d3$5vo@dr-pepper.East.Sun.COM> geoff@East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top) writes:
+
+>Your posting provoked me into checking my save file for memorable
+>posts. The first I captured was by Ken Arromdee on 19 Feb 1990, on the
+>subject "Re: atheist too?". That was article #473 here; your question
+>was article #53766, which is an average of about 48 articles a day for
+>the last three years. As others have noted, the current posting rate is
+>such that my kill file is depressing large...... Among the posting I
+>saved in the early days were articles from the following notables:
+
+	Hey, it might to interesting to read some of these posts...
+Especially from ones who still regularly posts on alt.atheism!
+
+
+>>From: loren@sunlight.llnl.gov (Loren Petrich)
+>>From: jchrist@nazareth.israel.rel (Jesus Christ of Nazareth)
+>>From: mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin)
+>>From: perry@apollo.HP.COM (Jim Perry)
+>>From: lippard@uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
+>>From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
+>
+>An interesting bunch.... I wonder where #2 is?
+
+	Hee hee hee.
+
+	*I* ain't going to say....
+
+--- 
+
+        " Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. "
+
+        John Laws, a man without the honor to keep his given word.
+
+

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53332

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!ousrvr.oulu.fi!phoenix.oulu.fi!kempmp
+From: kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko)
+Subject: Re: Christian Morality is
+Message-ID: <1993Apr20.181359.21627@ousrvr.oulu.fi>
+Sender: news@ousrvr.oulu.fi
+Organization: University of Oulu, Finland
+X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
+References: <4949@eastman.UUCP>
+Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 18:13:59 GMT
+Lines: 79
+
+Dan Schaertel,,, (dps@nasa.kodak.com) wrote:
+
+Since this is alt.atheism, I hope you don't mind if we strongly disagree...
+
+: The fact is God could cause you to believe anything He wants you to. 
+: But think about it for a minute.  Would you rather have someone love
+: you because you made them love you, or because they wanted to
+: love you.     The responsibility is on you to love God and take a step toward
+: Him.  He promises to be there for you, but you have to look for yourself.
+
+Indeed, "knock and it shall be opened to you". Dan, why didn't this work?
+I firmly believed in god for 15 years, but I eventually realised I was
+only deluding myself, fearful to face the truth. Ultimately, the only reason
+what kept me believing was the fear of hell. The mental states I 
+had sillily attributed to divine forces or devil's attempts to 
+destroy my faith were nothing more than my imagination, and it is easy
+to achieve the same mental states at will. 
+
+My faith was just learned fear in a disguise.
+
+: Those who doubt this or dispute it have not givin it a sincere effort.
+
+God is demanding too much. Dan, what was it I believed in for 15 years?
+If sincere effort is equivalent to active suspension of disbelief -
+what it was in my case - I'd rather quit. If god does not help me to
+keep the faith, I can't go on. 
+
+Besides, I am concerned with god's morality and mental health. Does
+she really want us to _believe_ in herself without any help (revelations,
+guidance, or anything I can feel)? If she has created us, why didn't
+she make the task any easier? Why are we supposed to love someone who
+refuses to communicate with us? What is the point of eternal torture
+for those who can't believe?
+
+I love god just as much as she loves me. If she wants to seduce me,
+she'll know what to do. 
+
+: Simple logic arguments are folly.  If you read the Bible you will see
+: that Jesus made fools of those who tried to trick him with "logic".
+: Our ability to reason is just a spec of creation.  Yet some think it is
+: the ultimate.  If you rely simply on your reason then you will never
+: know more than you do now. 
+
+Your argument is of the type "you'll know once you try".
+Yet there are many atheists who have sincerely tried, and believed
+for many years, but were eventually honest enough to admit that 
+they had lived in a virtual reality.
+
+What else but reason I can use? I don't have the spiritual means 
+Christians often refer to. My conscience disagrees with the Bible.
+I don't even believe I have a soul. I am fully dependent on my
+body - indeed, I _am_ this body. When it goes up with flames, so
+does my identity. God can entertain herself with copies of me
+if she wants.
+
+: To learn you must accept that which you don't know.
+
+What does this mean? To learn you must accept that you don't know 
+something, right-o. But to learn you must _accept_ something I don't
+know, why? This is not the way I prefer to learn. It is unwise to
+merely swallow everything you read. Suppose I write a book telling
+how the Great Invisible Pink Unicorn (tm) has helped me in my
+daily problems, would you accept this, since you can't know whether
+it is true or not?
+
+Note that the GIPU is also omnipotent, omnipresent, and loves just
+about everyone. Besides, He (and She) is guiding every writer on this planet,
+you and me, and not just some people who write legendary stories
+2000 years ago.
+
+Your god is just one aspect of His and Her Presence.
+
+Petri
+
+--
+ ___. .'*''.*        Petri Pihko    kem-pmp@          Mathematics is the Truth.
+!___.'* '.'*' ' .    Pihatie 15 C    finou.oulu.fi    Physics is the Rule of
+       ' *' .* '*    SF-90650 OULU  kempmp@           the Game.
+          *'  *  .*  FINLAND         phoenix.oulu.fi  -> Chemistry is The Game.

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53333

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!venice!batman.bmd.trw.com!jbrown
+From: jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Gulf War / Selling Arms
+Message-ID: <1993Apr20.122319.885@batman.bmd.trw.com>
+Date: 20 Apr 93 12:23:19 MST
+References: <1993Apr17.225127.25062@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> <930419.112109.5r4.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> <1993Apr19.180920.9689@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> <930420.113512.1V3.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>
+Lines: 40
+
+In article <930420.113512.1V3.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
+> mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
+
+From a parallel thread.  Much about definitions of bombs, etc. deleted.
+[...]
+
+> 
+>> Aaaahhh.  Tell me, how many innocents were killed in concentration camps?
+>> mm-hmm.  Now, how many more were scheduled to enter concentration camps
+>> had they not been shut down because they were captured by the allies?
+>> mm-hmm.  Now, civilians died in that war.  So no matter what you do,
+>> civilians die.  What is the proper course?
+> 
+> Don't sell the bastard arms and information in the first place.  Ruthlessly
+> hunt down those who do.  Especially if they're in positions of power.
+> 
+
+Mathew, I agree.  This, it seems, is the crux of your whole position,
+isn't it?  That the US shouldn't have supported Hussein and sold him arms
+to fight Iran?  I agree.  And I agree in ruthlessly hunting down those
+who did or do.  But we *did* sell arms to Hussein, and it's a done deal.
+Now he invades Kuwait.  So do we just sit back and say, "Well, we sold
+him all those arms, I suppose he just wants to use them now.  Too bad
+for Kuwait."  No, unfortunately, sitting back and "letting things be"
+is not the way to correct a former mistake.  Destroying Hussein's
+military potential as we did was the right move.  But I agree with
+your statement, Reagan and Bush made a grave error in judgment to
+sell arms to Hussein.  So it's really not the Gulf War you abhor
+so much, it was the U.S.'s and the West's shortsightedness in selling
+arms to Hussein which ultimately made the war inevitable, right?
+
+If so, then I agree.
+
+[more deleted.]
+> 
+> mathew
+
+Regards,
+
+Jim B.

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53334

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!network.ucsd.edu!ucsbcsl!mcl!timmbake
+From: timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics
+Message-ID: <timmbake.735285604@mcl>
+Date: 20 Apr 93 06:00:04 GMT
+Sender: news@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu
+Lines: 32
+
+
+Maddi Hausmann chirps:
+
+>timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes: >
+
+>>First of all, you seem to be a reasonable guy.  Why not try to be more >honest
+>>and include my sentence afterwards that
+
+>Honest, it just ended like that, I swear!
+
+That's nice.
+
+>Hmmmm...I recognize the warning signs...alternating polite and
+>rude...coming into newsgroup with huge chip on shoulder...calls
+>people names and then makes nice...whirrr...click...whirrr
+
+You forgot the third equality...whirrr...click...whirrr...see below...
+
+>Whirr click whirr...Frank O'Dwyer might also be contained
+>in that shell...pop stack to determine...whirr...click..whirr
+
+>"Killfile" Keith Allen Schneider = Frank "Closet Theist" O'Dwyer = ...
+
+= Maddi "The Mad Sound-O-Geek" Hausmann
+
+...whirrr...click...whirrr
+
+--
+Bake Timmons, III
+
+-- "...there's nothing higher, stronger, more wholesome and more useful in life
+than some good memory..." -- Alyosha in Brothers Karamazov (Dostoevsky)

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53335

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!magnesium.club.cc.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!fermi!oser
+From: oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Studies on Book of Mormon
+Date: 20 Apr 1993 18:36:38 GMT
+Organization: Washington University Astrophysics
+Lines: 5
+Distribution: world
+Message-ID: <1r1frm$7jc@wupost.wustl.edu>
+References: <735023059snx@enkidu.mic.cl>
+NNTP-Posting-Host: fermi.wustl.edu
+
+I think that _The_Transcedental_Temptation_, by Paul Kurtz, has a good
+section on the origins of Mormonism you might want to look at.
+
+-Scott O.
+

FinSen_Dataset-main/data.pptx/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/53351

@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!sdd.hp.com!network.ucsd.edu!ucsbcsl!mcl!timmbake
+From: timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and anarchists
+Message-ID: <timmbake.735294667@mcl>
+Date: 20 Apr 93 08:31:07 GMT
+Sender: news@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu
+Lines: 117
+
+mccullou@whipple.cs.wisc.edu writes:
+
+>My turn
+>I went back and reread your post.  All you did is attack atheism, and
+>say that agnosticism wasn't as funny as atheism.  Nowhere does that
+>imply that you are agnostic, or weak atheist.  As most people who post
+>such inflammatory remarks are theists, it was a reasonable assumption.
+
+Sorry, you're right.  I did not clearly state it.
+
+>>Rule *2:  Condescending to the population at large (i.e., theists) will not
+>>win many people to your faith anytime soon.  It only ruins your credibility.
+
+>How am I being condescending to the population at large?  I am stating
+>something that happened to be true for a long time, I couldn't believe
+>that people actually believed in this god idea.  It was an alien concept
+>to me.  I am not trying to win people to my faith as you put it.  I have
+>no faith.  Religion was a non issue when I had the attitude above because
+>it never even occurred to me to believe.  Atheist by default I guess you
+>could say.
+
+The most common form of condescending is the rational versus irrational
+attitude.  Once one has accepted the _assumption_ that there is no god(s),
+and then consider other faiths to be irrational simply because their
+assumption(s) contradict your assumption, then I would say there's a
+lack of consistency here.
+
+Now I know you'll get on me about faith.  If the _positive_ belief that God
+does not exist were a closed, logical argument, why do so many rational
+people have problems with that "logic"?
+
+But you, probably like me, seem to be a soft atheist.  Sorry for the flamage.
+
+>The line about atheists haveing something up their sleeves is what seemed
+>to imply that.  Sorry, been reading too much on the CLIPPER project lately,
+>and the paranoia over there may have seeped in some.
+
+;)  What is the CLIPPER project BTW?
+
+>>Rule #4:  Don't mix apples with oranges.  How can you say that the
+>>extermination by the Mongols was worse than Stalin?  Khan conquered >people
+>>unsympathetic to his cause.  That was atrocious.  But Stalin killed >millions of
+>>his own people who loved and worshipped _him_ and his atheist state!!  >>How can
+>>anyone be worse than that?
+
+>Many rulers have done similar things in the past, only Stalin did it
+>when there was plenty of documentation to afix the blame on him.  The
+>evidence is that some of the early European rulers ruled with an iron
+>fist much like Stalin's.  You threw in numbers, and I am sick of hearing
+>about Stalin as an example because the example doesn't apply.  You
+>managed to get me angry with your post because it appeared to attack
+>all forms of atheism.
+
+It might have appeared to attack atheism in general, but its point was
+that mass killing happens for all sorts of reasons.  People will hate who
+they will and will wave whatever flag to justify it, be it cross or
+hammer&sickle.  The Stalin example _is_ important not only because it's
+still a widely unappreciated era that people want to forget but also
+because people really did love him and his ideas, even after all that he
+had wrought.
+
+>The evidence I am referring to is more a lack of evidence than negative
+>evidence.  Say I claim there are no pink crows.  I have never seen
+>a pink crow, but that doesn't mean it couldn't exist.  But, this person
+>here claims that there are pink crows, even though he admits he hasn't
+>been able to capture one or get a photo, or find one with me etc.
+>In a sense that is evidence to not believe in the existence of pink crows.
+>That is what I am saying when I look at the evidence.  I look at the
+>suppossed evidence for a deity, show how it is flawed, and doesn't show
+>what theists want it to show, and go on.
+
+First, all the pink crows/unicorns/elves arguments in the world will not
+sway most people, for they simply do not accept the analogy.  Why?
+
+One of the big reasons is that many, many people want something
+beyond this life.  You can pretend that they don't want this, but I for
+one can accept it and even want it myself sometimes.
+
+And there is nothing unique in this example of why people want a God.
+Can love as a truth be proven, logically?
+
+>>themselves, namely, a god or gods.  So in principle it's hard to see how
+>>theists are necessarily arrogant.
+
+>Makes no sense to me.  They seem arrogant to make such a claim to me.
+>But my previous refutation still stands, and I believe there may be
+>another one on the net.
+
+John the Baptist boasted of Jesus to many people.  I find it hard to see
+how that behavior is arrogant at all.  Many Christians I know also boast
+in this way, but I still do not necessarily see it as arrogance.  Of course,
+I do know arrogant Christians, doctors, and teachers as well.  Technically,
+you might consider the person who originally made a given claim to be arrogant,
+Jesus, for instance.
+
+>Are you talking about all atheism or just strong atheism?  If you are
+>talking about weak atheism which I believe in, then I refuse such a claim.
+>Atheism is a lack of belief.  I used good ol' Occam's Razor to make the
+>final rejection of a deity, in that, as I see things, even if I
+>present the hypothesises in an equal fasion, I find the theist argument
+>not plausible.
+
+I speak against strong atheism.  I also often find that the evidence
+supporting a faith is very subjective, just as, say, the evidence supporting
+love as truth is subjective.
+
+>I believe I answered that.  I apologize for the (as you stated) incorrect
+>assumption on your theism, but I saw nothing to indicate that you
+>were an agnostic, only that you were just another newbie Christian
+>on the net trying to get some cheap shots in.
+
+No apology necessary.  :)
+--
+Bake Timmons, III
+
+-- "...there's nothing higher, stronger, more wholesome and more useful in life
+than some good memory..." -- Alyosha in Brothers Karamazov (Dostoevsky)