Initial commit with Git LFS models

.gitattributes

@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+*.pkl filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.index filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text

.gitignore

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+# Python cache
+__pycache__/
+*.pyc
+*.pyo
+*.pyd
+
+# Virtual environments
+.venv/
+venv/
+env/
+ENV/
+
+# Python packaging
+build/
+dist/
+*.egg-info/
+
+# Logs
+*.log
+
+# VS Code
+.vscode/
+
+# OS files
+.DS_Store
+Thumbs.db
+
+# Jupyter
+.ipynb_checkpoints/
+
+# Temporary files
+*.tmp
+*.temp
+
+# HuggingFace cache (optional)
+.cache/
+
+# Large training artifacts (if you ever generate new ones)
+*.pt
+*.pth
+*.ckpt

Dockerfile

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+FROM python:3.10
+
+WORKDIR /app
+
+COPY requirements.txt .
+
+RUN pip install --no-cache-dir -r requirements.txt
+
+COPY . .
+
+EXPOSE 7860
+
+CMD ["uvicorn", "api.main:app", "--host", "0.0.0.0", "--port", "7860"]

README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+---
+
+title: Semantic Search Cache API
+emoji: 🔎
+colorFrom: blue
+colorTo: purple
+sdk: docker
+python_version: "3.10"
+app_file: app.py
+app_port: 7860
+pinned: false
+---
+
+# Semantic Search Cache API
+
+This project provides a **semantic search engine with caching and fuzzy clustering**.
+
+It uses:
+
+* Sentence embeddings
+* FAISS vector index
+* Gaussian Mixture Model clustering
+* Semantic caching
+
+The API is built with **FastAPI** and deployed using **Docker** on Hugging Face Spaces.
+
+---
+
+## Features
+
+* Semantic similarity search
+* FAISS vector indexing
+* Semantic cache for faster repeated queries
+* Fuzzy clustering with GMM
+* REST API endpoints
+
+---
+
+## API Endpoints
+
+### POST `/query`
+
+Example request:
+
+```json
+{
+  "query": "space shuttle launch",
+  "top_k": 5
+}
+```
+
+### GET `/cache/stats`
+
+Returns semantic cache statistics.
+
+### DELETE `/cache`
+
+Clears the cache.
+
+---
+
+## Project Structure
+
+```
+semantic-search-cache/
+│
+├── api/
+│   └── main.py
+│
+├── src/
+│   ├── query_engine.py
+│   ├── semantic_cache.py
+│   ├── fuzzy_cluster.py
+│
+├── models/
+│   ├── faiss_index.index
+│   ├── documents.pkl
+│   └── gmm_model.pkl
+│
+├── requirements.txt
+├── Dockerfile
+└── app.py
+```
+
+---
+
+## Deployment
+
+This project is deployed using **Docker** on Hugging Face Spaces.
+
+The container exposes port **7860** and runs a FastAPI server using Uvicorn.

api/main.py

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+from fastapi import FastAPI
+from pydantic import BaseModel
+import sys
+import os
+
+# allow importing from src
+sys.path.append(os.path.abspath("src"))
+
+from query_engine import QueryEngine
+
+app = FastAPI()
+
+engine = QueryEngine()
+
+
+class QueryRequest(BaseModel):
+    query: str
+    top_k: int = 5
+
+
+@app.get("/")
+def home():
+    return {"message": "Semantic Search Cache API running"}
+
+
+@app.post("/query")
+def search(request: QueryRequest):
+
+    result = engine.search(request.query, request.top_k)
+
+    return result
+
+
+@app.get("/cache/stats")
+def cache_stats():
+
+    return engine.cache_stats()
+
+
+@app.delete("/cache")
+def clear_cache():
+
+    engine.clear_cache()
+
+    return {"message": "Cache cleared"}

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/49960

@@ -0,0 +1,307 @@
+Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:49960 alt.atheism.moderated:713 news.answers:7054 alt.answers:126
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!uunet!pipex!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew
+From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.atheism.moderated,news.answers,alt.answers
+Subject: Alt.Atheism FAQ: Atheist Resources
+Summary: Books, addresses, music -- anything related to atheism
+Keywords: FAQ, atheism, books, music, fiction, addresses, contacts
+Message-ID: <19930329115719@mantis.co.uk>
+Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 11:57:19 GMT
+Expires: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 11:57:19 GMT
+Followup-To: alt.atheism
+Distribution: world
+Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
+Approved: news-answers-request@mit.edu
+Supersedes: <19930301143317@mantis.co.uk>
+Lines: 290
+
+Archive-name: atheism/resources
+Alt-atheism-archive-name: resources
+Last-modified: 11 December 1992
+Version: 1.0
+
+                              Atheist Resources
+
+                      Addresses of Atheist Organizations
+
+                                     USA
+
+FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION
+
+Darwin fish bumper stickers and assorted other atheist paraphernalia are
+available from the Freedom From Religion Foundation in the US.
+
+Write to:  FFRF, P.O. Box 750, Madison, WI 53701.
+Telephone: (608) 256-8900
+
+EVOLUTION DESIGNS
+
+Evolution Designs sell the "Darwin fish".  It's a fish symbol, like the ones
+Christians stick on their cars, but with feet and the word "Darwin" written
+inside.  The deluxe moulded 3D plastic fish is $4.95 postpaid in the US.
+
+Write to:  Evolution Designs, 7119 Laurel Canyon #4, North Hollywood,
+           CA 91605.
+
+People in the San Francisco Bay area can get Darwin Fish from Lynn Gold --
+try mailing <figmo@netcom.com>.  For net people who go to Lynn directly, the
+price is $4.95 per fish.
+
+AMERICAN ATHEIST PRESS
+
+AAP publish various atheist books -- critiques of the Bible, lists of
+Biblical contradictions, and so on.  One such book is:
+
+"The Bible Handbook" by W.P. Ball and G.W. Foote.  American Atheist Press.
+372 pp.  ISBN 0-910309-26-4, 2nd edition, 1986.  Bible contradictions,
+absurdities, atrocities, immoralities... contains Ball, Foote: "The Bible
+Contradicts Itself", AAP.  Based on the King James version of the Bible.
+
+Write to:  American Atheist Press, P.O. Box 140195, Austin, TX 78714-0195.
+      or:  7215 Cameron Road, Austin, TX 78752-2973.
+Telephone: (512) 458-1244
+Fax:       (512) 467-9525
+
+PROMETHEUS BOOKS
+
+Sell books including Haught's "Holy Horrors" (see below).
+
+Write to:  700 East Amherst Street, Buffalo, New York 14215.
+Telephone: (716) 837-2475.
+
+An alternate address (which may be newer or older) is:
+Prometheus Books, 59 Glenn Drive, Buffalo, NY 14228-2197.
+
+AFRICAN-AMERICANS FOR HUMANISM
+
+An organization promoting black secular humanism and uncovering the history of
+black freethought.  They publish a quarterly newsletter, AAH EXAMINER.
+
+Write to:  Norm R. Allen, Jr., African Americans for Humanism, P.O. Box 664,
+           Buffalo, NY 14226.
+
+                                United Kingdom
+
+Rationalist Press Association          National Secular Society
+88 Islington High Street               702 Holloway Road
+London N1 8EW                          London N19 3NL
+071 226 7251                           071 272 1266
+
+British Humanist Association           South Place Ethical Society
+14 Lamb's Conduit Passage              Conway Hall
+London WC1R 4RH                        Red Lion Square
+071 430 0908                           London WC1R 4RL
+fax 071 430 1271                       071 831 7723
+
+The National Secular Society publish "The Freethinker", a monthly magazine
+founded in 1881.
+
+                                   Germany
+
+IBKA e.V.
+Internationaler Bund der Konfessionslosen und Atheisten
+Postfach 880, D-1000 Berlin 41. Germany.
+
+IBKA publish a journal:
+MIZ. (Materialien und Informationen zur Zeit. Politisches
+Journal der Konfessionslosesn und Atheisten. Hrsg. IBKA e.V.)
+MIZ-Vertrieb, Postfach 880, D-1000 Berlin 41. Germany.
+
+For atheist books, write to:
+
+IBDK, Internationaler B"ucherdienst der Konfessionslosen
+Postfach 3005, D-3000 Hannover 1. Germany.
+Telephone: 0511/211216
+
+
+                               Books -- Fiction
+
+THOMAS M. DISCH
+
+"The Santa Claus Compromise"
+Short story.  The ultimate proof that Santa exists.  All characters and 
+events are fictitious.  Any similarity to living or dead gods -- uh, well...
+
+WALTER M. MILLER, JR
+
+"A Canticle for Leibowitz"
+One gem in this post atomic doomsday novel is the monks who spent their lives
+copying blueprints from "Saint Leibowitz", filling the sheets of paper with
+ink and leaving white lines and letters.
+
+EDGAR PANGBORN
+
+"Davy"
+Post atomic doomsday novel set in clerical states.  The church, for example,
+forbids that anyone "produce, describe or use any substance containing...
+atoms". 
+
+PHILIP K. DICK
+
+Philip K. Dick Dick wrote many philosophical and thought-provoking short 
+stories and novels.  His stories are bizarre at times, but very approachable.
+He wrote mainly SF, but he wrote about people, truth and religion rather than
+technology.  Although he often believed that he had met some sort of God, he
+remained sceptical.  Amongst his novels, the following are of some relevance:
+
+"Galactic Pot-Healer"
+A fallible alien deity summons a group of Earth craftsmen and women to a
+remote planet to raise a giant cathedral from beneath the oceans.  When the
+deity begins to demand faith from the earthers, pot-healer Joe Fernwright is
+unable to comply.  A polished, ironic and amusing novel.
+
+"A Maze of Death"
+Noteworthy for its description of a technology-based religion.
+
+"VALIS"
+The schizophrenic hero searches for the hidden mysteries of Gnostic
+Christianity after reality is fired into his brain by a pink laser beam of
+unknown but possibly divine origin.  He is accompanied by his dogmatic and
+dismissively atheist friend and assorted other odd characters.
+
+"The Divine Invasion"
+God invades Earth by making a young woman pregnant as she returns from
+another star system.  Unfortunately she is terminally ill, and must be
+assisted by a dead man whose brain is wired to 24-hour easy listening music.
+
+MARGARET ATWOOD
+
+"The Handmaid's Tale"
+A story based on the premise that the US Congress is mysteriously
+assassinated, and fundamentalists quickly take charge of the nation to set it
+"right" again.  The book is the diary of a woman's life as she tries to live
+under the new Christian theocracy.  Women's right to own property is revoked,
+and their bank accounts are closed; sinful luxuries are outlawed, and the
+radio is only used for readings from the Bible.  Crimes are punished
+retroactively: doctors who performed legal abortions in the "old world" are
+hunted down and hanged.  Atwood's writing style is difficult to get used to
+at first, but the tale grows more and more chilling as it goes on.
+
+VARIOUS AUTHORS
+
+"The Bible"
+This somewhat dull and rambling work has often been criticized.  However, it
+is probably worth reading, if only so that you'll know what all the fuss is
+about.  It exists in many different versions, so make sure you get the one
+true version.
+
+                             Books -- Non-fiction
+
+PETER DE ROSA
+
+"Vicars of Christ", Bantam Press, 1988
+Although de Rosa seems to be Christian or even Catholic this is a very
+enlighting history of papal immoralities, adulteries, fallacies etc.
+(German translation: "Gottes erste Diener. Die dunkle Seite des Papsttums",
+Droemer-Knaur, 1989)
+
+MICHAEL MARTIN
+
+"Atheism: A Philosophical Justification", Temple University Press,
+ Philadelphia, USA.
+A detailed and scholarly justification of atheism.  Contains an outstanding
+appendix defining terminology and usage in this (necessarily) tendentious
+area.  Argues both for "negative atheism" (i.e. the "non-belief in the
+existence of god(s)") and also for "positive atheism" ("the belief in the
+non-existence of god(s)").  Includes great refutations of the most
+challenging arguments for god; particular attention is paid to refuting
+contempory theists such as Platinga and Swinburne.
+541 pages. ISBN 0-87722-642-3 (hardcover; paperback also available)
+
+"The Case Against Christianity", Temple University Press
+A comprehensive critique of Christianity, in which he considers
+the best contemporary defences of Christianity and (ultimately)
+demonstrates that they are unsupportable and/or incoherent.
+273 pages. ISBN 0-87722-767-5
+
+JAMES TURNER
+
+"Without God, Without Creed", The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,
+ MD, USA
+Subtitled "The Origins of Unbelief in America".  Examines the way in which
+unbelief (whether agnostic or atheistic)  became a mainstream alternative
+world-view.  Focusses on the period 1770-1900, and while considering France
+and Britain the emphasis is on American, and particularly New England
+developments.  "Neither a religious history of secularization or atheism,
+Without God, Without Creed is, rather, the intellectual history of the fate
+of a single idea, the belief that God exists." 
+316 pages. ISBN (hardcover) 0-8018-2494-X (paper) 0-8018-3407-4
+
+GEORGE SELDES (Editor)
+
+"The great thoughts", Ballantine Books, New York, USA
+A "dictionary of quotations" of a different kind, concentrating on statements
+and writings which, explicitly or implicitly, present the person's philosophy
+and world-view.  Includes obscure (and often suppressed) opinions from many
+people.  For some popular observations, traces the way in which various
+people expressed and twisted the idea over the centuries.  Quite a number of
+the quotations are derived from Cardiff's "What Great Men Think of Religion"
+and Noyes' "Views of Religion".
+490 pages. ISBN (paper) 0-345-29887-X.
+
+RICHARD SWINBURNE
+
+"The Existence of God (Revised Edition)", Clarendon Paperbacks, Oxford
+This book is the second volume in a trilogy that began with "The Coherence of
+Theism" (1977) and was concluded with "Faith and Reason" (1981).  In this
+work, Swinburne attempts to construct a series of inductive arguments for the
+existence of God.  His arguments, which are somewhat tendentious and rely
+upon the imputation of late 20th century western Christian values and
+aesthetics to a God which is supposedly as simple as can be conceived, were
+decisively rejected in Mackie's "The Miracle of Theism".  In the revised
+edition of "The Existence of God", Swinburne includes an Appendix in which he
+makes a somewhat incoherent attempt to rebut Mackie.
+
+J. L. MACKIE
+
+"The Miracle of Theism", Oxford
+This (posthumous) volume contains a comprehensive review of the principal
+arguments for and against the existence of God.  It ranges from the classical
+philosophical positions of Descartes, Anselm, Berkeley, Hume et al, through
+the moral arguments of Newman, Kant and Sidgwick, to the recent restatements
+of the classical theses by Plantinga and Swinburne.  It also addresses those
+positions which push the concept of God beyond the realm of the rational,
+such as those of Kierkegaard, Kung and Philips, as well as "replacements for
+God" such as Lelie's axiarchism.  The book is a delight to read - less
+formalistic and better written than Martin's works, and refreshingly direct
+when compared with the hand-waving of Swinburne.
+
+JAMES A. HAUGHT
+
+"Holy Horrors: An Illustrated History of Religious Murder and Madness",
+ Prometheus Books
+Looks at religious persecution from ancient times to the present day -- and
+not only by Christians.
+Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 89-64079. 1990.
+
+NORM R. ALLEN, JR.
+
+"African American Humanism: an Anthology"
+See the listing for African Americans for Humanism above.
+
+GORDON STEIN
+
+"An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism", Prometheus Books
+An anthology covering a wide range of subjects, including 'The Devil, Evil
+and Morality' and 'The History of Freethought'.  Comprehensive bibliography.
+
+EDMUND D. COHEN
+
+"The Mind of The Bible-Believer", Prometheus Books
+A study of why people become Christian fundamentalists, and what effect it
+has on them.
+
+                                Net Resources
+
+There's a small mail-based archive server at mantis.co.uk which carries
+archives of old alt.atheism.moderated articles and assorted other files.  For
+more information, send mail to archive-server@mantis.co.uk saying
+
+   help
+   send atheism/index
+
+and it will mail back a reply.
+
+
+mathew
+�

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51060

@@ -0,0 +1,663 @@
+Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:51060 alt.atheism.moderated:727 news.answers:7300 alt.answers:155
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!netsys!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew
+From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.atheism.moderated,news.answers,alt.answers
+Subject: Alt.Atheism FAQ: Introduction to Atheism
+Summary: Please read this file before posting to alt.atheism
+Keywords: FAQ, atheism
+Message-ID: <19930405122245@mantis.co.uk>
+Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 12:22:45 GMT
+Expires: Thu, 6 May 1993 12:22:45 GMT
+Followup-To: alt.atheism
+Distribution: world
+Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
+Approved: news-answers-request@mit.edu
+Supersedes: <19930308134439@mantis.co.uk>
+Lines: 646
+
+Archive-name: atheism/introduction
+Alt-atheism-archive-name: introduction
+Last-modified: 5 April 1993
+Version: 1.2
+
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
+
+                          An Introduction to Atheism
+                       by mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
+
+This article attempts to provide a general introduction to atheism.  Whilst I
+have tried to be as neutral as possible regarding contentious issues, you
+should always remember that this document represents only one viewpoint.  I
+would encourage you to read widely and draw your own conclusions; some
+relevant books are listed in a companion article.
+
+To provide a sense of cohesion and progression, I have presented this article
+as an imaginary conversation between an atheist and a theist.  All the
+questions asked by the imaginary theist are questions which have been cropped
+up repeatedly on alt.atheism since the newsgroup was created.  Some other
+frequently asked questions are answered in a companion article.
+
+Please note that this article is arguably slanted towards answering questions
+posed from a Christian viewpoint.  This is because the FAQ files reflect
+questions which have actually been asked, and it is predominantly Christians
+who proselytize on alt.atheism.
+
+So when I talk of religion, I am talking primarily about religions such as
+Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which involve some sort of superhuman divine
+being.  Much of the discussion will apply to other religions, but some of it
+may not.
+
+"What is atheism?"
+
+Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of God.
+Some atheists go further, and believe that God does not exist.  The former is
+often referred to as the "weak atheist" position, and the latter as "strong
+atheism".
+
+It is important to note the difference between these two positions.  "Weak
+atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God.  "Strong
+atheism" is a positive belief that God does not exist.  Please do not
+fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists".
+
+Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their
+atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making
+flat-out denials.
+
+"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?"
+
+Definitely not.  Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe
+it to be true.  Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to
+believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or
+not.  Which brings us to agnosticism.
+
+"What is agnosticism then?"
+
+The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor Huxley at a meeting of the
+Metaphysical Society in 1876.  He defined an agnostic as someone who
+disclaimed ("strong") atheism and believed that the ultimate origin of things
+must be some cause unknown and unknowable.
+
+Thus an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not and cannot know for
+sure whether God exists.
+
+Words are slippery things, and language is inexact.  Beware of assuming that
+you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact
+that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic.  For example, many people
+use agnosticism to mean "weak atheism", and use the word "atheism" only when
+referring to "strong atheism".
+
+Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of meaning, it
+is very difficult to generalize about atheists.  About all you can say for
+sure is that atheists don't believe in God.  For example, it certainly isn't
+the case that all atheists believe that science is the best way to find out
+about the universe.
+
+"So what is the philosophical justification or basis for atheism?"
+
+There are many philosophical justifications for atheism.  To find out why a
+particular person chooses to be an atheist, it's best to ask her.
+
+Many atheists feel that the idea of God as presented by the major religions
+is essentially self-contradictory, and that it is logically impossible that
+such a God could exist.  Others are atheists through scepticism, because they
+see no evidence that God exists.
+
+"But isn't it impossible to prove the non-existence of something?"
+
+There are many counter-examples to such a statement.  For example, it is
+quite simple to prove that there does not exist a prime number larger than
+all other prime numbers.  Of course, this deals with well-defined objects
+obeying well-defined rules.  Whether Gods or universes are similarly
+well-defined is a matter for debate.
+
+However, assuming for the moment that the existence of a God is not provably
+impossible, there are still subtle reasons for assuming the non-existence of
+God.  If we assume that something does not exist, it is always possible to
+show that this assumption is invalid by finding a single counter-example.
+
+If on the other hand we assume that something does exist, and if the thing in
+question is not provably impossible, showing that the assumption is invalid
+may require an exhaustive search of all possible places where such a thing
+might be found, to show that it isn't there.  Such an exhaustive search is
+often impractical or impossible.  There is no such problem with largest
+primes, because we can prove that they don't exist.
+
+Therefore it is generally accepted that we must assume things do not exist
+unless we have evidence that they do.  Even theists follow this rule most of
+the time; they don't believe in unicorns, even though they can't conclusively
+prove that no unicorns exist anywhere.
+
+To assume that God exists is to make an assumption which probably cannot be
+tested.  We cannot make an exhaustive search of everywhere God might be to
+prove that he doesn't exist anywhere.  So the sceptical atheist assumes by
+default that God does not exist, since that is an assumption we can test.
+
+Those who profess strong atheism usually do not claim that no sort of God
+exists; instead, they generally restrict their claims so as to cover
+varieties of God described by followers of various religions.  So whilst it
+may be impossible to prove conclusively that no God exists, it may be
+possible to prove that (say) a God as described by a particular religious
+book does not exist.  It may even be possible to prove that no God described
+by any present-day religion exists.
+
+In practice, believing that no God described by any religion exists is very
+close to believing that no God exists.  However, it is sufficiently different
+that counter-arguments based on the impossibility of disproving every kind of
+God are not really applicable.
+
+"But what if God is essentially non-detectable?"
+
+If God interacts with our universe in any way, the effects of his interaction
+must be measurable.  Hence his interaction with our universe must be
+detectable.
+
+If God is essentially non-detectable, it must therefore be the case that he
+does not interact with our universe in any way.  Many atheists would argue
+that if God does not interact with our universe at all, it is of no
+importance whether he exists or not.
+
+If the Bible is to be believed, God was easily detectable by the Israelites.
+Surely he should still be detectable today?
+
+Note that I am not demanding that God interact in a scientifically
+verifiable, physical way.  It must surely be possible to perceive some
+effect caused by his presence, though; otherwise, how can I distinguish him
+from all the other things that don't exist?
+
+"OK, you may think there's a philosophical justification for atheism, but
+ isn't it still a religious belief?"
+
+One of the most common pastimes in philosophical discussion is "the
+redefinition game".  The cynical view of this game is as follows:
+
+Person A begins by making a contentious statement.  When person B points out
+that it can't be true, person A gradually re-defines the words he used in the
+statement until he arrives at something person B is prepared to accept.  He
+then records the statement, along with the fact that person B has agreed to
+it, and continues.  Eventually A uses the statement as an "agreed fact", but
+uses his original definitions of all the words in it rather than the obscure
+redefinitions originally needed to get B to agree to it.  Rather than be seen
+to be apparently inconsistent, B will tend to play along.
+
+The point of this digression is that the answer to the question "Isn't
+atheism a religious belief?" depends crucially upon what is meant by
+"religious".  "Religion" is generally characterized by belief in a superhuman
+controlling power -- especially in some sort of God -- and by faith and
+worship.
+
+[ It's worth pointing out in passing that some varieties of Buddhism are not
+  "religion" according to such a definition. ]
+
+Atheism is certainly not a belief in any sort of superhuman power, nor is it
+categorized by worship in any meaningful sense.  Widening the definition of
+"religious" to encompass atheism tends to result in many other aspects of
+human behaviour suddenly becoming classed as "religious" as well -- such as
+science, politics, and watching TV.
+
+"OK, so it's not a religion.  But surely belief in atheism (or science) is
+ still just an act of faith, like religion is?"
+
+Firstly, it's not entirely clear that sceptical atheism is something one
+actually believes in.
+
+Secondly, it is necessary to adopt a number of core beliefs or assumptions to
+make some sort of sense out of the sensory data we experience.  Most atheists
+try to adopt as few core beliefs as possible; and even those are subject to
+questioning if experience throws them into doubt.
+
+Science has a number of core assumptions.  For example, it is generally
+assumed that the laws of physics are the same for all observers.  These are
+the sort of core assumptions atheists make.  If such basic ideas are called
+"acts of faith", then almost everything we know must be said to be based on
+acts of faith, and the term loses its meaning.
+
+Faith is more often used to refer to complete, certain belief in something.
+According to such a definition, atheism and science are certainly not acts of
+faith.  Of course, individual atheists or scientists can be as dogmatic as
+religious followers when claiming that something is "certain".  This is not a
+general tendency, however; there are many atheists who would be reluctant to
+state with certainty that the universe exists.
+
+Faith is also used to refer to belief without supporting evidence or proof.
+Sceptical atheism certainly doesn't fit that definition, as sceptical atheism
+has no beliefs.  Strong atheism is closer, but still doesn't really match, as
+even the most dogmatic atheist will tend to refer to experimental data (or
+the lack of it) when asserting that God does not exist.
+
+"If atheism is not religious, surely it's anti-religious?"
+
+It is an unfortunate human tendency to label everyone as either "for" or
+"against", "friend" or "enemy".  The truth is not so clear-cut.
+
+Atheism is the position that runs logically counter to theism; in that sense,
+it can be said to be "anti-religion".  However, when religious believers
+speak of atheists being "anti-religious" they usually mean that the atheists
+have some sort of antipathy or hatred towards theists.
+
+This categorization of atheists as hostile towards religion is quite unfair.
+Atheist attitudes towards theists in fact cover a broad spectrum.
+
+Most atheists take a "live and let live" attitude.  Unless questioned, they
+will not usually mention their atheism, except perhaps to close friends.  Of
+course, this may be in part because atheism is not "socially acceptable" in
+many countries.
+
+A few atheists are quite anti-religious, and may even try to "convert" others
+when possible.  Historically, such anti-religious atheists have made little
+impact on society outside the Eastern Bloc countries.
+
+(To digress slightly: the Soviet Union was originally dedicated to separation
+of church and state, just like the USA.  Soviet citizens were legally free to
+worship as they wished.  The institution of "state atheism" came about when
+Stalin took control of the Soviet Union and tried to destroy the churches in
+order to gain complete power over the population.)
+
+Some atheists are quite vocal about their beliefs, but only where they see
+religion encroaching on matters which are not its business -- for example,
+the government of the USA.  Such individuals are usually concerned that
+church and state should remain separate.
+
+"But if you don't allow religion to have a say in the running of the state,
+ surely that's the same as state atheism?"
+
+The principle of the separation of church and state is that the state shall
+not legislate concerning matters of religious belief.  In particular, it
+means not only that the state cannot promote one religion at the expense of
+another, but also that it cannot promote any belief which is religious in
+nature.
+
+Religions can still have a say in discussion of purely secular matters.  For
+example, religious believers have historically been responsible for
+encouraging many political reforms.  Even today, many organizations
+campaigning for an increase in spending on foreign aid are founded as
+religious campaigns.  So long as they campaign concerning secular matters,
+and so long as they do not discriminate on religious grounds, most atheists
+are quite happy to see them have their say.
+
+"What about prayer in schools? If there's no God, why do you care if people
+ pray?"
+
+Because people who do pray are voters and lawmakers, and tend to do things
+that those who don't pray can't just ignore.  Also, Christian prayer in
+schools is intimidating to non-Christians, even if they are told that they
+need not join in.  The diversity of religious and non-religious belief means
+that it is impossible to formulate a meaningful prayer that will be
+acceptable to all those present at any public event.
+
+Also, non-prayers tend to have friends and family who pray.  It is reasonable
+to care about friends and family wasting their time, even without other
+motives.
+
+"You mentioned Christians who campaign for increased foreign aid.  What about
+ atheists?  Why aren't there any atheist charities or hospitals?  Don't
+ atheists object to the religious charities?"
+
+There are many charities without religious purpose that atheists can
+contribute to.  Some atheists contribute to religious charities as well, for
+the sake of the practical good they do.  Some atheists even do voluntary work
+for charities founded on a theistic basis.
+
+Most atheists seem to feel that atheism isn't worth shouting about in
+connection with charity.  To them, atheism is just a simple, obvious everyday
+matter, and so is charity.  Many feel that it's somewhat cheap, not to say
+self-righteous, to use simple charity as an excuse to plug a particular set
+of religious beliefs.
+
+To "weak" atheists, building a hospital to say "I do not believe in God" is a
+rather strange idea; it's rather like holding a party to say "Today is not my
+birthday".  Why the fuss?  Atheism is rarely evangelical.
+
+"You said atheism isn't anti-religious.  But is it perhaps a backlash against
+ one's upbringing, a way of rebelling?"
+
+Perhaps it is, for some.  But many people have parents who do not attempt to
+force any religious (or atheist) ideas upon them, and many of those people
+choose to call themselves atheists.
+
+It's also doubtless the case that some religious people chose religion as a
+backlash against an atheist upbringing, as a way of being different.  On the
+other hand, many people choose religion as a way of conforming to the
+expectations of others.
+
+On the whole, we can't conclude much about whether atheism or religion are
+backlash or conformism; although in general, people have a tendency to go
+along with a group rather than act or think independently.
+
+"How do atheists differ from religious people?"
+
+They don't believe in God.  That's all there is to it.
+
+Atheists may listen to heavy metal -- backwards, even -- or they may prefer a
+Verdi Requiem, even if they know the words.  They may wear Hawaiian shirts,
+they may dress all in black, they may even wear orange robes.  (Many
+Buddhists lack a belief in any sort of God.)  Some atheists even carry a copy
+of the Bible around -- for arguing against, of course!
+
+Whoever you are, the chances are you have met several atheists without
+realising it.  Atheists are usually unexceptional in behaviour and
+appearance.
+
+"Unexceptional? But aren't atheists less moral than religious people?"
+
+That depends.  If you define morality as obedience to God, then of course
+atheists are less moral as they don't obey any God.  But usually when one
+talks of morality, one talks of what is acceptable ("right") and unacceptable
+("wrong") behaviour within society.
+
+Humans are social animals, and to be maximally successful they must
+co-operate with each other.  This is a good enough reason to discourage most
+atheists from "anti-social" or "immoral" behaviour, purely for the purposes
+of self-preservation.
+
+Many atheists behave in a "moral" or "compassionate" way simply because they
+feel a natural tendency to empathize with other humans.  So why do they care
+what happens to others?  They don't know, they simply are that way.
+
+Naturally, there are some people who behave "immorally" and try to use
+atheism to justify their actions.  However, there are equally many people who
+behave "immorally" and then try to use religious beliefs to justify their
+actions.  For example:
+
+  "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Jesus Christ
+   came into the world to save sinners...  But for that very reason, I was
+   shown mercy so that in me...  Jesus Christ might display His unlimited
+   patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive
+   eternal life.  Now to the king eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God,
+   be honor and glory forever and ever."
+
+The above quote is from a statement made to the court on February 17th 1992
+by Jeffrey Dahmer, the notorious cannibal serial killer of Milwaukee,
+Wisconsin.  It seems that for every atheist mass-murderer, there is a
+religious mass-murderer.  But what of more trivial morality?
+
+   A survey conducted by the Roper Organization found that behavior
+   deteriorated after "born again" experiences.  While only 4% of respondents
+   said they had driven intoxicated before being "born again," 12% had done
+   so after conversion.  Similarly, 5% had used illegal drugs before
+   conversion, 9% after.  Two percent admitted to engaging in illicit sex
+   before salvation; 5% after.
+                                ["Freethought Today", September 1991, p. 12.]
+
+So it seems that at best, religion does not have a monopoly on moral
+behaviour.
+
+"Is there such a thing as atheist morality?"
+
+If you mean "Is there such a thing as morality for atheists?", then the
+answer is yes, as explained above.  Many atheists have ideas about morality
+which are at least as strong as those held by religious people.
+
+If you mean "Does atheism have a characteristic moral code?", then the answer
+is no.  Atheism by itself does not imply anything much about how a person
+will behave.  Most atheists follow many of the same "moral rules" as theists,
+but for different reasons.  Atheists view morality as something created by
+humans, according to the way humans feel the world 'ought' to work, rather
+than seeing it as a set of rules decreed by a supernatural being.
+
+"Then aren't atheists just theists who are denying God?"
+
+A study by the Freedom From Religion Foundation found that over 90% of the
+atheists who responded became atheists because religion did not work for
+them.  They had found that religious beliefs were fundamentally incompatible
+with what they observed around them.
+
+Atheists are not unbelievers through ignorance or denial; they are
+unbelievers through choice.  The vast majority of them have spent time
+studying one or more religions, sometimes in very great depth.  They have
+made a careful and considered decision to reject religious beliefs.
+
+This decision may, of course, be an inevitable consequence of that
+individual's personality.  For a naturally sceptical person, the choice
+of atheism is often the only one that makes sense, and hence the only
+choice that person can honestly make.
+
+"But don't atheists want to believe in God?"
+
+Atheists live their lives as though there is nobody watching over them.  Many
+of them have no desire to be watched over, no matter how good-natured the
+"Big Brother" figure might be.
+
+Some atheists would like to be able to believe in God -- but so what? Should
+one believe things merely because one wants them to be true?  The risks of
+such an approach should be obvious.  Atheists often decide that wanting to
+believe something is not enough; there must be evidence for the belief.
+
+"But of course atheists see no evidence for the existence of God -- they are
+ unwilling in their souls to see!"
+
+Many, if not most atheists were previously religious.  As has been explained
+above, the vast majority have seriously considered the possibility that God
+exists.  Many atheists have spent time in prayer trying to reach God.
+
+Of course, it is true that some atheists lack an open mind; but assuming that
+all atheists are biased and insincere is offensive and closed-minded.
+Comments such as "Of course God is there, you just aren't looking properly"
+are likely to be viewed as patronizing.
+
+Certainly, if you wish to engage in philosophical debate with atheists it is
+vital that you give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are
+being sincere if they say that they have searched for God.  If you are not
+willing to believe that they are basically telling the truth, debate is
+futile.
+
+"Isn't the whole of life completely pointless to an atheist?"
+
+Many atheists live a purposeful life.  They decide what they think gives
+meaning to life, and they pursue those goals.  They try to make their lives
+count, not by wishing for eternal life, but by having an influence on other
+people who will live on.  For example, an atheist may dedicate his life to
+political reform, in the hope of leaving his mark on history.
+
+It is a natural human tendency to look for "meaning" or "purpose" in random
+events.  However, it is by no means obvious that "life" is the sort of thing
+that has a "meaning".
+
+To put it another way, not everything which looks like a question is actually
+a sensible thing to ask.  Some atheists believe that asking "What is the
+meaning of life?" is as silly as asking "What is the meaning of a cup of
+coffee?".  They believe that life has no purpose or meaning, it just is.
+
+"So how do atheists find comfort in time of danger?"
+
+There are many ways of obtaining comfort; from family, friends, or even pets.
+Or on a less spiritual level, from food or drink or TV.
+
+That may sound rather an empty and vulnerable way to face danger, but so
+what?  Should individuals believe in things because they are comforting, or
+should they face reality no matter how harsh it might be?
+
+In the end, it's a decision for the individual concerned.  Most atheists are
+unable to believe something they would not otherwise believe merely because
+it makes them feel comfortable.  They put truth before comfort, and consider
+that if searching for truth sometimes makes them feel unhappy, that's just
+hard luck.
+
+"Don't atheists worry that they might suddenly be shown to be wrong?"
+
+The short answer is "No, do you?"
+
+Many atheists have been atheists for years.  They have encountered many
+arguments and much supposed evidence for the existence of God, but they have
+found all of it to be invalid or inconclusive.
+
+Thousands of years of religious belief haven't resulted in any good proof of
+the existence of God.  Atheists therefore tend to feel that they are unlikely
+to be proved wrong in the immediate future, and they stop worrying about it.
+
+"So why should theists question their beliefs? Don't the same arguments
+ apply?"
+
+No, because the beliefs being questioned are not similar.  Weak atheism is
+the sceptical "default position" to take; it asserts nothing.  Strong atheism
+is a negative belief.  Theism is a very strong positive belief.
+
+Atheists sometimes also argue that theists should question their beliefs
+because of the very real harm they can cause -- not just to the believers,
+but to everyone else.
+
+"What sort of harm?"
+
+Religion represents a huge financial and work burden on mankind.  It's not
+just a matter of religious believers wasting their money on church buildings;
+think of all the time and effort spent building churches, praying, and so on.
+Imagine how that effort could be better spent.
+
+Many theists believe in miracle healing.  There have been plenty of instances
+of ill people being "healed" by a priest, ceasing to take the medicines
+prescribed to them by doctors, and dying as a result.  Some theists have died
+because they have refused blood transfusions on religious grounds.
+
+It is arguable that the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control -- and
+condoms in particular -- is increasing the problem of overpopulation in many
+third-world countries and contributing to the spread of AIDS world-wide.
+
+Religious believers have been known to murder their children rather than
+allow their children to become atheists or marry someone of a different
+religion.
+
+"Those weren't REAL believers.  They just claimed to be believers as some
+ sort of excuse."
+
+What makes a real believer?  There are so many One True Religions it's hard
+to tell.  Look at Christianity: there are many competing groups, all
+convinced that they are the only true Christians.  Sometimes they even fight
+and kill each other.  How is an atheist supposed to decide who's a REAL
+Christian and who isn't, when even the major Christian churches like the
+Catholic Church and the Church of England can't decide amongst themselves?
+
+In the end, most atheists take a pragmatic view, and decide that anyone who
+calls himself a Christian, and uses Christian belief or dogma to justify his
+actions, should be considered a Christian.  Maybe some of those Christians
+are just perverting Christian teaching for their own ends -- but surely if
+the Bible can be so readily used to support un-Christian acts it can't be
+much of a moral code? If the Bible is the word of God, why couldn't he have
+made it less easy to misinterpret? And how do you know that your beliefs
+aren't a perversion of what your God intended?
+
+If there is no single unambiguous interpretation of the Bible, then why
+should an atheist take one interpretation over another just on your say-so?
+Sorry, but if someone claims that he believes in Jesus and that he murdered
+others because Jesus and the Bible told him to do so, we must call him a
+Christian.
+
+"Obviously those extreme sorts of beliefs should be questioned.  But since
+ nobody has ever proved that God does not exist, it must be very unlikely
+ that more basic religious beliefs, shared by all faiths, are nonsense."
+
+That does not hold, because as was pointed out at the start of this dialogue,
+positive assertions concerning the existence of entities are inherently much
+harder to disprove than negative ones.  Nobody has ever proved that unicorns
+don't exist, but that doesn't make it unlikely that they are myths.
+
+It is therefore much more valid to hold a negative assertion by default than
+it is to hold a positive assertion by default.  Of course, "weak" atheists
+would argue that asserting nothing is better still.
+
+"Well, if atheism's so great, why are there so many theists?"
+
+Unfortunately, the popularity of a belief has little to do with how "correct"
+it is, or whether it "works"; consider how many people believe in astrology,
+graphology, and other pseudo-sciences.
+
+Many atheists feel that it is simply a human weakness to want to believe in
+gods.  Certainly in many primitive human societies, religion allows the
+people to deal with phenomena that they do not adequately understand.
+
+Of course, there's more to religion than that.  In the industrialized world,
+we find people believing in religious explanations of phenomena even when
+there are perfectly adequate natural explanations.  Religion may have started
+as a means of attempting to explain the world, but nowadays it serves other
+purposes as well.
+
+"But so many cultures have developed religions.  Surely that must say
+ something?"
+
+Not really.  Most religions are only superficially similar; for example, it's
+worth remembering that religions such as Buddhism and Taoism lack any sort of
+concept of God in the Christian sense.
+
+Of course, most religions are quick to denounce competing religions, so it's
+rather odd to use one religion to try and justify another.
+
+"What about all the famous scientists and philosophers who have concluded
+ that God exists?"
+
+For every scientist or philosopher who believes in a god, there is one who
+does not.  Besides, as has already been pointed out, the truth of a belief is
+not determined by how many people believe it.  Also, it is important to
+realize that atheists do not view famous scientists or philosophers in the
+same way that theists view their religious leaders.
+
+A famous scientist is only human; she may be an expert in some fields, but
+when she talks about other matters her words carry no special weight.  Many
+respected scientists have made themselves look foolish by speaking on
+subjects which lie outside their fields of expertise.
+
+"So are you really saying that widespread belief in religion indicates
+ nothing?"
+
+Not entirely.  It certainly indicates that the religion in question has
+properties which have helped it so spread so far.
+
+The theory of memetics talks of "memes" -- sets of ideas which can propagate
+themselves between human minds, by analogy with genes.  Some atheists view
+religions as sets of particularly successful parasitic memes, which spread by
+encouraging their hosts to convert others.  Some memes avoid destruction by
+discouraging believers from questioning doctrine, or by using peer pressure
+to keep one-time believers from admitting that they were mistaken.  Some
+religious memes even encourage their hosts to destroy hosts controlled by
+other memes.
+
+Of course, in the memetic view there is no particular virtue associated with
+successful propagation of a meme.  Religion is not a good thing because of
+the number of people who believe it, any more than a disease is a good thing
+because of the number of people who have caught it.
+
+"Even if religion is not entirely true, at least it puts across important
+ messages.  What are the fundamental messages of atheism?"
+
+There are many important ideas atheists promote.  The following are just a
+few of them; don't be surprised to see ideas which are also present in some
+religions.
+
+   There is more to moral behaviour than mindlessly following rules.
+
+   Be especially sceptical of positive claims.
+
+   If you want your life to have some sort of meaning, it's up to you to
+   find it.
+
+   Search for what is true, even if it makes you uncomfortable.
+
+   Make the most of your life, as it's probably the only one you'll have.
+
+   It's no good relying on some external power to change you; you must change
+   yourself.
+
+   Just because something's popular doesn't mean it's good.
+
+   If you must assume something, assume something it's easy to test.
+
+   Don't believe things just because you want them to be true.
+
+and finally (and most importantly):
+
+   All beliefs should be open to question.
+
+Thanks for taking the time to read this article.
+
+
+mathew
+
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
+Version: 2.2
+
+iQCVAgUBK8AjRXzXN+VrOblFAQFSbwP+MHePY4g7ge8Mo5wpsivX+kHYYxMErFAO
+7ltVtMVTu66Nz6sBbPw9QkbjArbY/S2sZ9NF5htdii0R6SsEyPl0R6/9bV9okE/q
+nihqnzXE8pGvLt7tlez4EoeHZjXLEFrdEyPVayT54yQqGb4HARbOEHDcrTe2atmP
+q0Z4hSSPpAU=
+=q2V5
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
+
+For information about PGP 2.2, send mail to pgpinfo@mantis.co.uk.
+�

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51119

@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+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!sdd.hp.com!nigel.msen.com!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: Gospel Dating
+Message-ID: <16BA711B3A.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>
+Sender: postnntp@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (Mr. Nntp Inews Entry)
+Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
+References: <16BA1E197.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> <65974@mimsy.umd.edu>
+Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 19:08:25 GMT
+Lines: 93
+
+In article <65974@mimsy.umd.edu>
+mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
+ 
+>>Well, John has a quite different, not necessarily more elaborated theology.
+>>There is some evidence that he must have known Luke, and that the content
+>>of Q was known to him, but not in a 'canonized' form.
+>
+>This is a new argument to me.  Could you elaborate a little?
+>
+ 
+The argument goes as follows: Q-oid quotes appear in John, but not in
+the almost codified way they were in Matthew or Luke. However, they are
+considered to be similar enough to point to knowledge of Q as such, and
+not an entirely different source.
+ 
+ 
+>>Assuming that he knew Luke would obviously put him after Luke, and would
+>>give evidence for the latter assumption.
+>
+>I don't think this follows.  If you take the most traditional attributions,
+>then Luke might have known John, but John is an elder figure in either case.
+>We're talking spans of time here which are well within the range of
+>lifetimes.
+ 
+We are talking date of texts here, not the age of the authors. The usual
+explanation for the time order of Mark, Matthew and Luke does not consider
+their respective ages. It says Matthew has read the text of Mark, and Luke
+that of Matthew (and probably that of Mark).
+ 
+As it is assumed that John knew the content of Luke's text. The evidence
+for that is not overwhelming, admittedly.
+ 
+ 
+>>>(1)  Earlier manuscripts of John have been discovered.
+>
+>>Interesting, where and which? How are they dated? How old are they?
+>
+>Unfortunately, I haven't got the info at hand.  It was (I think) in the late
+>'70s or early '80s, and it was possibly as old as CE 200.
+>
+ 
+When they are from about 200, why do they shed doubt on the order on
+putting John after the rest of the three?
+ 
+ 
+>>I don't see your point, it is exactly what James Felder said.  They had no
+>>first hand knowledge of the events, and it obvious that at least two of them
+>>used older texts as the base of their account.  And even the association of
+>>Luke to Paul or Mark to Peter are not generally accepted.
+>
+>Well, a genuine letter of Peter would be close enough, wouldn't it?
+>
+ 
+Sure, an original together with Id card of sender and receiver would be
+fine. So what's that supposed to say? Am I missing something?
+ 
+ 
+>And I don't think a "one step removed" source is that bad.  If Luke and Mark
+>and Matthew learned their stories directly from diciples, then I really
+>cannot believe in the sort of "big transformation from Jesus to gospel" that
+>some people posit.  In news reports, one generally gets no better
+>information than this.
+>
+>And if John IS a diciple, then there's nothing more to be said.
+>
+ 
+That John was a disciple is not generally accepted. The style and language
+together with the theology are usually used as counterargument.
+ 
+The argument that John was a disciple relies on the claim in the gospel
+of John itself. Is there any other evidence for it?
+ 
+One step and one generation removed is bad even in our times. Compare that
+to reports of similar events in our century in almost illiterate societies.
+Not even to speak off that believers are not necessarily the best sources.
+ 
+ 
+>>It is also obvious that Mark has been edited. How old are the oldest
+>>manuscripts? To my knowledge (which can be antiquated) the oldest is
+>>quite after any of these estimates, and it is not even complete.
+>
+>The only clear "editing" is problem of the ending, and it's basically a
+>hopeless mess.  The oldest versions give a strong sense of incompleteness,
+>to the point where the shortest versions seem to break off in midsentence.
+>The most obvious solution is that at some point part of the text was lost.
+>The material from verse 9 on is pretty clearly later and seems to represent
+>a synopsys of the end of Luke.
+>
+In other words, one does not know what the original of Mark did look like
+and arguments based on Mark are pretty weak.
+ 
+But how is that connected to a redating of John?
+   Benedikt

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51120

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:51120 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1934
+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!pipex!ibmpcug!mantis!news
+From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.constitution
+Subject: Re: university violating separation of church/state?
+Message-ID: <930405.175842.5d8.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>
+Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 17:58:42 GMT
+References: <199304041750.AA17104@kepler.unh.edu>
+Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
+X-Newsreader: rusnews v1.01
+Lines: 29
+
+dmn@kepler.unh.edu (...until kings become philosophers or philosophers become kings) writes:
+>      Recently, RAs have been ordered (and none have resisted or cared about
+> it apparently) to post a religious flyer entitled _The Soul Scroll: Thoughts
+> on religion, spirituality, and matters of the soul_ on the inside of bathroom
+> stall doors. (at my school, the University of New Hampshire) It is some sort
+> of newsletter assembled by a Hall Director somewhere on campus. It poses a
+> question about 'spirituality' each issue, and solicits responses to be 
+> included in the next 'issue.' It's all pretty vague. I assume it's put out
+> by a Christian, but they're very careful not to mention Jesus or the bible.
+> I've heard someone defend it, saying "Well it doesn't support any one religion.
+> " So what??? This is a STATE university, and as a strong supporter of the
+> separation of church and state, I was enraged.
+> 
+>      What can I do about this?
+
+It sounds to me like it's just SCREAMING OUT for parody.  Give a copy to your
+friendly neighbourhood SubGenius preacher; with luck, he'll run it through the
+mental mincer and hand you back an outrageously offensive and gut-bustingly
+funny parody you can paste over the originals.
+
+I can see it now:
+
+                               The Stool Scroll
+         Thoughts on Religion, Spirituality, and Matters of the Colon
+
+                       (You can use this text to wipe)
+
+
+mathew

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51121

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:51121 soc.motss:139944 rec.scouting:5318
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.motss,rec.scouting
+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!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews.watson.ibm.com!watson!Watson.Ibm.Com!strom
+From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
+Subject: Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts"
+Sender: @watson.ibm.com
+Message-ID: <1993Apr05.180116.43346@watson.ibm.com>
+Date: Mon, 05 Apr 93 18:01:16 GMT
+Distribution: usa
+References: <C47EFs.3q47@austin.ibm.com> <1993Mar22.033150.17345@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> <N4HY.93Apr5120934@harder.ccr-p.ida.org>
+Organization: IBM Research
+Lines: 15
+
+In article <N4HY.93Apr5120934@harder.ccr-p.ida.org>, n4hy@harder.ccr-p.ida.org (Bob McGwier) writes:
+
+|> [1] HOWEVER, I hate economic terrorism and political correctness
+|> worse than I hate this policy.  
+
+
+|> [2] A more effective approach is to stop donating
+|> to ANY organizating that directly or indirectly supports gay rights issues
+|> until they end the boycott on funding of scouts.  
+
+Can somebody reconcile the apparent contradiction between [1] and [2]?
+
+-- 
+Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
+IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51122

@@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
+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!sdd.hp.com!nigel.msen.com!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: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses
+Message-ID: <16BA711EF4.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>
+Sender: postnntp@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (Mr. Nntp Inews Entry)
+Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
+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: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 19:24:19 GMT
+Lines: 114
+
+In article <1993Apr5.091139.823@batman.bmd.trw.com>
+jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
+ 
+>> Didn't you say Lucifer was created with a perfect nature?
+>
+>Yes.
+>
+ 
+Define perfect then.
+ 
+ 
+>> I think you
+>> are playing the usual game here, make sweeping statements like omni-,
+>> holy, or perfect, and don't note that they mean exactly what they say.
+>> And that says that you must not use this terms when it leads to
+>> contradictions.
+>
+>I'm not trying to play games here.  But I understand how it might seem
+>that way especially when one is coming from a completely different point
+>of view such as atheism.
+>
+ 
+Take your foot out of your mouth, I wondered about that already when I
+was a Catholic Christian. The fact that the contradiction is unresolvable
+is one of the reasons why I am an atheist.
+ 
+Believe me, I believed similar sentences for a long time. But that shows
+the power of religion and not anything about its claims.
+ 
+ 
+>>>Now God could have prevented Lucifer's fall by taking away his ability
+>>>to choose between moral alternatives (worship God or worship himself),
+>>>but that would mean that God was in error to have make Lucifer or any
+>>>being with free will in the first place.
+>>
+>> Exactly. God allows evil, an evil if there ever was one.
+>>
+>
+>Now that's an opinion, or at best a premise.  But from my point of view,
+>it is not a premise which is necessary true, specifically, that it is
+>an evil to allow evil to occur.
+>
+ 
+It follows from a definition of evil as ordinarily used. Letting evil
+happen or allowing evil to take place, in this place even causing evil,
+is another evil.
+ 
+ 
+>> 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".
+>
+ 
+The omniscient attribute of god will know what the creatures will do even
+before the omnipotent has created them. There is no choice left. All is known,
+the course of events is fixed.
+ 
+Not even for the omniscient itself, to extend an argument by James Tims.
+ 
+ 
+>>>If God is omniscient, then
+>>>clearly, creating beings with free moral choice is a greater good than
+>>>the emergence of ungodliness (evil/sin) since He created them knowing
+>>>the outcome in advance.
+>>
+>> Why is it the greater good to allow evil with the knowledge that it
+>> will happen? Why not make a unipolar system with the possibility of
+>> doing good or not doing good, but that does not necessarily imply
+>> doing evil. It is logically possible, but your god has not done it.
+>
+>I do not know that such is logically possible.  If God restrains a
+>free being's choice to choose to do evil and simply do "not good",
+>then can it be said that the being truly has a free moral choice?
+>And if "good" is defined as loving and obeying God, and avoiding
+>those behaviors which God prohibits, then how can you say that one
+>who is "not good" is not evil as well?  Like I said, I am not sure
+>that doing "not good" without doing evil is logically possible.
+ 
+And when I am not omnipotent, how can I have free will? You have said
+something about choices and the scenario gives them. Therefore we have
+what you define as free will.
+ 
+Imagine the following. I can do good to other beings, but I cannot harm them.
+Easily implemented by making everyone appreciate being the object of good
+deeds, but don't make them long for them, so they can not feel the absence
+of good as evil.
+ 
+But whose case am I arguing? It is conceivable, so the omnipotent can do it.
+Or it would not be omnipotent. If you want logically consistent as well, you
+have to give up the pet idea of an omnipotent first.
+ 
+(Deletion)
+>
+>Perhaps it is weak, in a way.  If I were just speculating about the
+>ubiquitous pink unicorns, then there would be no basis for such
+>speculation.  But this idea of God didn't just fall on me out of the
+>blue :), or while reading science fiction or fantasy.  (I know that
+>some will disagree)  :)  The Bible describes a God who is omniscient,
+>and nevertheless created beings with free moral choice, from which
+>the definitional logic follows.  But that's not all there is to it.
+>There seems to be (at least in my mind) a certain amount of evidence
+>which indicates that God exists and that the Biblical description
+>of Him may be a fair one.  It is that evidence which bolsters the
+>argument in my view.
+ 
+That the bible describes an omniscient and omnipotent god destroys
+the credibility of the bible, nothing less.
+ 
+And a lot of people would be interested in evidence for a god,
+unfortunately, there can't be any with these definitions.
+   Benedikt

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51123

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+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!olivea!sgigate!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
+From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Political Atheists?
+Message-ID: <1pi2qlINNoeh@gap.caltech.edu>
+Date: 2 Apr 93 19:05:57 GMT
+References: <1p39fgINN8f8@gap.caltech.edu> <1p8s7dINNfg1@gap.caltech.edu> <1993Mar30.205434.26115@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1pcol6INNq2s@gap.caltech.edu> <1993Mar31.195807.5467@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
+Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
+Lines: 11
+NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
+
+arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
+
+>>The motto originated in the Star-Spangled Banner.  Tell me that this has
+>>something to do with atheists.
+>The motto _on_coins_ originated as a McCarthyite smear which equated atheism
+>with Communism and called both unamerican.
+
+No it didn't.  The motto has been on various coins since the Civil War.
+It was just required to be on *all* currency in the 50's.
+
+keith

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51124

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+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!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: An Anecdote about Islam
+Message-ID: <16BA7123EF.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>
+Sender: postnntp@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (Mr. Nntp Inews Entry)
+Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
+References: <1pd5nr$89r@s1.gov> <113689@bu.edu> <16BA4AB7F.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> <114127@bu.edu>
+Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 19:45:34 GMT
+Lines: 28
+
+In article <114127@bu.edu>
+jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
+ 
+>>When they are victimized they are Muslims. When they victimize others
+>>they are not True Muslims (tm) or no Muslims at all.
+>
+>>Quite annoying.
+>
+>I don't understand the point of this petty sarcasm. It is a basic
+>principle of Islam that if one is born muslim or one says "I testify
+>that there is no god but God and Mohammad is a prophet of God" that,
+>so long as one does not explicitly reject Islam by word then one _must_
+>be considered muslim by all muslims. So the phenomenon you're attempting
+>to make into a general rule or psychology is a direct odds with basic
+>Islamic principles. If you want to attack Islam you could do better than
+>than to argue against something that Islam explicitly contradicts.
+>
+ 
+It was no criticism of Islam for a change, it was a criticism of the
+arguments used. Namely, whenever people you identify as Muslims are
+the victims of the attacks of others, they are used an argument for
+the bad situation of Muslims. But whenever deeds by Muslim that victimize
+others are named, they do not count as an argument because what these
+people did was not done as a true Muslims. No mention is made how Muslims
+are the cause of a bad situation of another party.
+ 
+Double standards.
+   Benedikt

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51125

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!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: 2 Apr 1993 20:43:17 GMT
+Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
+Lines: 54
+Message-ID: <1pi8h5INNq40@gap.caltech.edu>
+References: <1psrjmINNr9e@gap.caltech.edu> <1pdbej$hio@fido.asd.sgi.com>
+NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
+
+(reference line trimmed)
+
+livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
+
+[...]
+
+>There is a good deal more confusion here.   You started off with the 
+>assertion that there was some "objective" morality, and as you admit
+>here, you finished up with a recursive definition.   Murder is 
+>"objectively" immoral, but eactly what is murder and what is not itself
+>requires an appeal to morality.
+
+Yes.
+
+>Now you have switch targets a little, but only a little.   Now you are
+>asking what is the "goal"?   What do you mean by "goal?".   Are you
+>suggesting that there is some "objective" "goal" out there somewhere,
+>and we form our morals to achieve it?
+
+Well, for example, the goal of "natural" morality is the survival and
+propogation of the species.  Another example of a moral system is
+presented within the Declaration of Independence, which states that we
+should be guaranteed life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  You see,
+to have a moral system, we must define the purpose of the system.  That is,
+we shall be moral unto what end?
+
+>>Murder is certainly a violation of the golden rule.  And, I thought I had
+>>defined murder as an intentional killing of a non-murderer, against his will.
+>>And you responded to this by asking whether or not the execution of an
+>>innocent person under our system of capital punishment was a murder or not.
+>>I fail to see what this has to do with anything.  I never claimed that our
+>>system of morality was an objective one.
+>I thought that was your very first claim.   That there was
+>some kind of "objective" morality, and that an example of that was
+>that murder is wrong.   If you don't want to claim that any more,
+>that's fine.
+
+Well, murder violates the golen rule, which is certainly a pillar of most
+every moral system.  However, I am not assuming that our current system
+and the manner of its implementation are objectively moral.  I think that
+it is a very good approximation, but we can't be perfect.
+
+>And by the way, you don't seem to understand the difference between
+>"arbitrary" and "objective".   If Keith Schneider "defines" murder
+>to be this that and the other, that's arbitrary.   Jon Livesey may
+>still say "Well, according to my personal system of morality, all
+>killing of humans against their will is murder, and wrong, and what
+>the legal definition of murder may be in the USA, Kuweit, Saudi
+>Arabia, or the PRC may be matters not a whit to me".
+
+Well, "objective" would assume a system based on clear and fundamental
+concepts, while "arbitary" implies no clear line of reasoning.
+
+keith

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51126

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+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!news.centerline.com!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
+From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: >>>>>>Pompous ass
+Message-ID: <1pi9btINNqa5@gap.caltech.edu>
+Date: 2 Apr 93 20:57:33 GMT
+References: <1ou4koINNe67@gap.caltech.edu> <1p72bkINNjt7@gap.caltech.edu> <93089.050046MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <1pa6ntINNs5d@gap.caltech.edu> <1993Mar30.210423.1302@bmerh85.bnr.ca> <1pcnqjINNpon@gap.caltech.edu> <kmr4.1344.733611641@po.CWRU.edu>
+Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
+Lines: 9
+NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
+
+kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
+
+>>Then why do people keep asking the same questions over and over?
+>Because you rarely ever answer them.
+
+Nope, I've answered each question posed, and most were answered multiple
+times.
+
+keith

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51127

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+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!news.centerline.com!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
+From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: >>>>>>Pompous ass
+Message-ID: <1pi9jkINNqe2@gap.caltech.edu>
+Date: 2 Apr 93 21:01:40 GMT
+References: <1ou4koINNe67@gap.caltech.edu> <1p72bkINNjt7@gap.caltech.edu> <93089.050046MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <1pa6ntINNs5d@gap.caltech.edu> <1993Mar30.205919.26390@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1pcnp3INNpom@gap.caltech.edu> <1pdjip$jsi@fido.asd.sgi.com>
+Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
+Lines: 14
+NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
+
+livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
+
+>>>How long does it [the motto] have to stay around before it becomes the
+>>>default?  ...  Where's the cutoff point? 
+>>I don't know where the exact cutoff is, but it is at least after a few
+>>years, and surely after 40 years.
+>Why does the notion of default not take into account changes
+>in population makeup?     
+
+Specifically, which changes are you talking about?  Are you arguing
+that the motto is interpreted as offensive by a larger portion of the
+population now than 40 years ago?
+
+keith

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51128

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+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!news.centerline.com!uunet!olivea!sgigate!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?
+Message-ID: <1pia4eINNqjg@gap.caltech.edu>
+Date: 2 Apr 93 21:10:38 GMT
+References: <mam.03kh@mouse.cmhnet.org> <1p6s0cINNhg6@gap.caltech.edu> <1993Mar29.195958.13915@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1p8rajINNf3n@gap.caltech.edu> <1993Mar30.184909.20567@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1pcrriINNrd6@gap.caltech.edu> <sandvik-310393173357@sandvik-kent.apple.com>
+Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
+Lines: 12
+NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
+
+sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
+
+>>To borrow from philosophy, you don't truly understand the color red
+>>until you have seen it.
+>Not true, even if you have experienced the color red you still might
+>have a different interpretation of it.
+
+But, you wouldn't know what red *was*, and you certainly couldn't judge
+it subjectively.  And, objectivity is not applicable, since you are wanting
+to discuss the merits of red.
+
+keith

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51129

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:51129 talk.religion.misc:82761 talk.origins:40400
+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!news.centerline.com!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
+From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
+Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
+Message-ID: <1pi966INNq93@gap.caltech.edu>
+Date: 2 Apr 93 20:54:30 GMT
+References: <1993Mar19.175329.21327@rambo.atlanta.dg.com> <C4BA1q.4pE@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <1993Mar25.225025.16037@rambo.atlanta.dg.com> <C4ICzs.6F@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <1993Mar31.234354.11694@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>
+Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
+Lines: 19
+NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
+
+wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
+
+>>[...] it is patently untrue (as has been demonstrated ad
+>>nauseum) that the complexity of life is a contradiction of the second
+>>law.
+>My point is that order does not come from disorder.
+
+It does not... or it can not?  When you freze water, you've created an
+ordered crystal from a disordered liquid.  Overall, the entropy is
+increased, but locally order is increased.
+
+>... the creation od DNA by random processes is incalculably remote.
+
+And, you find the idea of a god more likely?
+
+Besides, we can apply the anthropic principle to circumvent any
+probablilty problems.
+
+keith

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51130

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+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!news.centerline.com!uunet!olivea!sgigate!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?
+Message-ID: <1pi9uoINNqfv@gap.caltech.edu>
+Date: 2 Apr 93 21:07:36 GMT
+References: <mam.03kh@mouse.cmhnet.org> <1p8rajINNf3n@gap.caltech.edu> <1993Mar30.184909.20567@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1pcrriINNrd6@gap.caltech.edu> <1993Mar31.224831.13186@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
+Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
+Lines: 25
+NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
+
+arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
+
+>>But, if you were to discuss the merits of racism, or its psycholgical
+>>benefits, you would do well to have experienced it personally.
+>When you speak of "experiencing religion" you mean someone should believe in
+>a religion.
+
+That's right, and this is pretty impossible, right?  It would be ideal if
+we could believe for a while, just to try out religion, and only then
+determine which course of thought suits us best.  But again, this is not
+possible.  Not that religion warrants belief, but the belief carries with
+it some psychological benefits.  There are also some psychological
+burdens, too.
+
+>When you speak of "experiencing racism", do you mean that someone should
+>believe in racism, or that they should have racist things done to them?  For
+>parallelism, the former must be what you meant, but it seems to be an odd
+>usage of the phrase.
+
+Well, if there were some psychological or other benefits gained from racism,
+they could only be fully understood or judged by persons actually "believing"
+in racism.  Of course, the parallel happens to be a poor one, but you
+originated it.
+
+keith

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51131

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!sdd.hp.com!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: 2 Apr 1993 21:22:59 GMT
+Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
+Lines: 44
+Message-ID: <1piarjINNqsa@gap.caltech.edu>
+References: <1p9bseINNi6o@gap.caltech.edu> <1pamva$b6j@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1pcq4pINNqp1@gap.caltech.edu> <11702@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>
+NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
+
+bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
+
+>>But, you don't know that capital punishment is wrong, so it isn't the same
+>>as shooting.  A better analogy would be that you continue to drive your car,
+>>realizing that sooner or later, someone is going to be killed in an automobile
+>>accident.  You *know* people get killed as a result of driving, yet you
+>>continue to do it anyway.
+>Uh uh.  You do not know that you will be the one to do the
+>killing.  I'm not sure I'd drive a car if I had sufficient evidence to
+>conclude that I would necessarily kill someone during my lifetime.
+
+Yes, and everyone thinks as you do.  No one thinks that he is going to cause
+or be involved in a fatal accident, but the likelihood is surprisingly high.
+Just because you are the man on the firing squad whose gun is shooting
+blanks does not mean that you are less guilty.
+
+>I don't know about Jon, but I say *ALL* taking of human life is
+>murder.  And I say murder is wrong in all but one situation:  when
+>it is the only action that will prevent another murder, either of
+>myself or another.
+
+You mean that killing is wrong in all but one situtation?  And, you should
+note that that situation will never occur.  There are always other options
+thank killing.  Why don't you just say that all killing is wrong.  This
+is basically what you are saying.
+
+>I'm getting a bit tired of your probabilistic arguments.
+
+Are you attempting to be condescending?
+
+>That the system usually works pretty well is small consolation to
+>the poor innocent bastard getting the lethal injection.  Is your
+>personal value of human life based solely on a statistical approach?
+>You sound like an unswerving adherent to the needs of the many
+>outweighing the needs of the few, so fuck the few.
+
+But, most people have found the risk to be acceptable.  You are probably
+much more likely to die in a plane crash, or even using an electric
+blender, than you are to be executed as an innocent.  I personally think
+that the risk is acceptable, but in an ideal moral system, no such risk
+is acceptable.  "Acceptable" is the fudge factor necessary in such an
+approximation to the ideal.
+
+keith

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51132

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+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!olivea!sgigate!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
+From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
+Message-ID: <1pibj5INNr4t@gap.caltech.edu>
+Date: 2 Apr 93 21:35:33 GMT
+References: <1pa0stINNpqa@gap.caltech.edu> <1pan4f$b6j@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1pcqf3INNqt7@gap.caltech.edu> <11703@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>
+Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
+Lines: 50
+NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
+
+bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
+
+>>I think that about 70% (or so) people approve of the
+>>death penalty, even realizing all of its shortcomings.  Doesn't this make
+>>it reasonable?  Or are *you* the sole judge of reasonability?
+>Aside from revenge, what merits do you find in capital punishment?
+
+Are we talking about me, or the majority of the people that support it?
+Anyway, I think that "revenge" or "fairness" is why most people are in
+favor of the punishment.  If a murderer is going to be punished, people
+that think that he should "get what he deserves."  Most people wouldn't
+think it would be fair for the murderer to live, while his victim died.
+
+>Revenge?  Petty and pathetic.
+
+Perhaps you think that it is petty and pathetic, but your views are in the
+minority.
+
+>We have a local televised hot topic talk show that very recently
+>did a segment on capital punishment.  Each and every advocate of
+>the use of this portion of our system of "jurisprudence" cited the
+>main reason for supporting it:  "That bastard deserved it".  True
+>human compassion, forgiveness, and sympathy.
+
+Where are we required to have compassion, forgiveness, and sympathy?  If
+someone wrongs me, I will take great lengths to make sure that his advantage
+is removed, or a similar situation is forced upon him.  If someone kills
+another, then we can apply the golden rule and kill this person in turn.
+Is not our entire moral system based on such a concept?
+
+Or, are you stating that human life is sacred, somehow, and that it should
+never be violated?  This would sound like some sort of religious view.
+ 
+>>I mean, how reasonable is imprisonment, really, when you think about it?
+>>Sure, the person could be released if found innocent, but you still
+>>can't undo the imiprisonment that was served.  Perhaps we shouldn't
+>>imprision people if we could watch them closely instead.  The cost would
+>>probably be similar, especially if we just implanted some sort of
+>>electronic device.
+>Would you rather be alive in prison or dead in the chair?  
+
+Once a criminal has committed a murder, his desires are irrelevant.
+
+And, you still have not answered my question.  If you are concerned about
+the death penalty due to the possibility of the execution of an innocent,
+then why isn't this same concern shared with imprisonment.  Shouldn't we,
+by your logic, administer as minimum as punishment as possible, to avoid
+violating the liberty or happiness of an innocent person?
+
+keith

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51133

@@ -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!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
+From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Political Atheists?
+Message-ID: <1pibspINNr6j@gap.caltech.edu>
+Date: 2 Apr 93 21:40:41 GMT
+References: <16B9510654.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> <1odn7pINN9nb@gap.caOrganization <1pcrjmINNr9e@gap.caltech.edu> <11704@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>
+Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
+Lines: 26
+NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
+
+bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
+
+>>If I kill this person [an innocent person convicted of murder],
+>>then a murder would be committed, but I would not be the murderer.  At least,
+>>I wouldn't "reasonably" be considered a murderer, with "reasonable" being
+>>introduced as a fudge factor necessary to account for the inability to be
+>>totally objective due to a lack of absolutely true information.
+>If society collective decides to carry the burden of executing
+>it's citizens, then it also carries the blame for their innocent
+>blood.  Each and every voter who casts a ballot in favor of
+>capital punishment is in part guilty of the murder of each and
+>every innocent victim of the system.
+
+Why are only those people in favor of the system to blame.  If society
+accepts such a system, then each member of society is to blame when
+an innocent person gets executed.  Those that are not in favor should
+work to convince others.
+
+And, most members of our society have accepted the blame--they've considered
+the risk to be acceptable.  Similarly, every person who drives must accept
+the blame for fatal traffic accidents.  This is something that is surely
+going to happen when so many people are driving.  It is all a question of
+what risk is acceptable.  It is much more likely that an innocent person
+will be killed driving than it is that one will be executed.
+
+keith

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51134

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!wupost!uunet!news.tek.com!vice!bobbe
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Don't more innocents die without the death penalty?
+Message-ID: <11733@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>
+From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
+Date: 5 Apr 93 19:54:50 GMT
+References: <2942881697.0.p00168@psilink.com>
+Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
+Lines: 26
+
+In article <2942881697.0.p00168@psilink.com> p00168@psilink.com (James F. Tims) writes:
+>
+>By maintaining classes D and E, even in prison, it seems as if we 
+>place more innocent people at a higher risk of an unjust death than 
+>we would if the state executed classes D and E with an occasional error.
+>
+
+  I answer from the position that we would indeed place these people
+  in prison for life.
+
+  That depends not only on their predisposition towards murder, but
+  also in their success rate at escape and therefore their ability
+  to commit the same crimes again.
+
+  In other words, if lifetime imprisonment doesn't work, perhaps
+  it's not because we're not executing these people, but because
+  we're not being careful enough about how we lock them up.
+
+/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 
+
+Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 
+
+They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
+and sank Manhattan out at sea.
+
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51135

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!wupost!uunet!news.tek.com!vice!bobbe
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Ancient islamic rituals
+Message-ID: <11734@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>
+From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
+Date: 5 Apr 93 20:02:06 GMT
+References: <1993Apr3.081052.11292@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
+Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
+Lines: 33
+
+In article <1993Apr3.081052.11292@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
+>I propose
+>that these two trends -- greater level of general depression in society
+>(and other psychological problems) and greater sexual promiscuity -- are
+>linked, with the latter being a prime cause of the former.  I cannot
+>provide any evidence beyond this at this stage, but the whole thesis
+>seems very reasonable to me and I request that people ponder upon it.
+>
+
+  Damn right you can't provide any evidence for it.  
+
+  Rarely are any widespread social phenomenon reducible to such a
+  simple premise.  If they were, psychology would be a hard science
+  with roughly the same mathematical soundness as physics.  
+
+  Your premise may well be right.  It is much more likely, however,
+  that it reflects your socialization and religious background, as
+  well as your need to validate your religious beliefs.  Were I to
+  pretend to have all the answers (and I don't), I would say that the
+  xenophobia, guilt, and intolerance brought about by adherence to 
+  fundamentalist religions play just as large a role in depressing
+  the members of our society.
+
+  Your mileage obviously varies.
+
+/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 
+
+Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 
+
+They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
+and sank Manhattan out at sea.
+
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51136

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!wupost!uunet!news.tek.com!vice!bobbe
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
+Message-ID: <11735@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>
+From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
+Date: 5 Apr 93 20:16:20 GMT
+References: <1993Apr3.045142.28639@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1pj9bs$d4j@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1993Apr3.212139.14076@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
+Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
+Lines: 47
+
+In article <1993Apr3.212139.14076@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
+>In article <1pj9bs$d4j@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
+>>I would say that one innocent person killed is in some sense
+>>as bad as many.   We certainly feel that way when we punish
+>>someone for a single murder.
+>>Now if we reform system X, by reducing the number of deaths
+>>by one, we produce system XX.    I'd say we should not go back
+>>to system X, even though by doing so we would re-introduce only 
+>>a single extra death.
+>
+>Bob seems to think that one is as bad as many in a sense somewhat stronger than
+>the one you indicate.
+>--
+
+  Yes, I do.  
+
+  My argument is that the sole purpose of the death penalty is to
+  kill people.  That is it's primary (and I would argue only)
+  purpose.  To continue to kill people by a practice that has
+  almost no utility, especially when you know you will be killing
+  innocents, is unconscionable.
+
+  At the very least, the existence of the prison system and our
+  transportation system are based on their merits to society, not
+  their detriments.  We are willing to accept a few lost innocent
+  lives because there is an overwhelming benefit to the continued
+  existence of these systems.  One has to stretch the evidence and
+  the arguments to make the same claim for capital punishment.
+
+  Just in case I wasn't clear again:  We maintain a capital
+  punsihment system that kills innocent people and provides us with
+  no net positive gain.  Why?
+
+  Were you to pin me in a corner and ask, I would have to respond
+  that I don't belief the state should have the right to take life
+  at all.  But I won't open that debate, as it seems others are
+  tiring of this thread on a.a anyway.
+
+
+/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 
+
+Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 
+
+They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
+and sank Manhattan out at sea.
+
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51137

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:51137 talk.religion.misc:82762 talk.origins:40404
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!gatech!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu!smullins
+From: smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins)
+Subject: Return of the Abused Creationist thread (was Re: The _real_ probability of abiogenesis)
+Message-ID: <C50yJL.4zC@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
+Summary: Return to a dead thread
+Keywords: Bass Ale, indeed a fine brew.
+Sender: Who else?
+Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
+References: <1phnkoINNbk@ctron-news.ctron.com>
+Distribution: world,local
+Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 19:09:21 GMT
+Lines: 60
+
+In article <1phnkoINNbk@ctron-news.ctron.com> king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
+>To: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
+>>Funny, there's absolutely nothing in these numbers supporting Jack's
+>>implication that "the probability of one protean molecule forming" is
+>>less than 10^-50
+>
+>As I recall the figure for just one of the molecules forming is 1 : 10^-114.
+>
+>>[lists 5 steps for determining probability of abiogenesis]
+>
+>Its going to take a little time for me to do this Andy.  Hope you'll be
+>patient :).
+>
+>Just so you understand where I am coming from, even though I am a theist,
+>I don't totally reject the possibility that this complex creation could have
+>just come together on its own.  Can I assume you are equally as objective?
+>
+>Most of my discussions on this net (which has been very little in recent
+>years), have been with other theists over doctrinal issues.  I have rarely
+>ventured into the "origins" arena, because there is so much speculation 
+>involved.  What hard data there is (e.g. DNA "program" that in proper sequences
+>tells the cells how to divide and form), tells me that there must have
+>been a Designer behind it all.  
+>
+>Nonetheless, I remain open minded.  I wonder how many can claim that on
+>this net.
+
+This is exactly the type of thing I was talking about before. A creationist
+appears on t.o, makes a completely unsupported statement the facts of
+which he/she is completely ignorant, is taken to task, and finally replies
+with a subtle insult. (actually two insults)
+
+Just to make sure I am being fair let's check a few details. Jack, you don't
+know anything about abiogenesis, do you? (this is no sin, I know next to
+nothing about it either) I mean, anything other than this "10^50" 
+probability thing which you got wrong in the first post.
+
+The speculation involved is really your own, isn't it? How much _biology_
+do you know, even apart from abiogenesis? Any classes past high school?
+Read Chris Colby's FAQ? How much paleontology, geology, etc do you know?
+Or are you speculating that its all speculative? Do you have any basis
+upon which to imply that to keep an "open mind" one must allow that
+the earth, universe, and all the creatures in it could have been created
+~10,000 years ago? None of this is intended as a flame. To say that
+you don't know a subject is _not_ the same as calling you an idiot. I
+don't know _much_ about these areas, but then I am not the one
+calling into question all of mainstream science. In other words, where
+do you get off calling it speculative unless by this you also mean that
+all of physics, chemistry, etc are also speculative in some sense?
+
+You may have, in fact, not been implying that the rejection of creationism
+is a sign of close-mindedness, or that the theory of evolution is especially
+speculative, in which case I have merely misinterpreted
+you. In this case the worst thing you could be accused of is unclear
+prose.
+
+>Jack
+
+Scott
+smullins@ecn.purdue.edu

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51138

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu talk.religion.misc:82764 alt.atheism:51138
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pitt.edu!pogo.isp.pitt.edu!joslin
+Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions
+Message-ID: <7912@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
+From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
+Date: 5 Apr 93 20:41:08 GMT
+Sender: news+@pitt.edu
+Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
+References: <bskendigC50tnu.Ino@netcom.com>
+Organization: Intelligent Systems Program
+Lines: 44
+
+Someone writes:
+>I found a list of Biblical contradictions and cleaned it up a bit, but
+>now I'd like some help with it.  
+
+I'm curious to know what purpose people think these lists serve.
+Lists like this seem to value quantity over quality, an "argument
+from article length."  And the list you have here is of poorer
+quality than most.  Since the quotes seem to be taken from an
+on-line bible, I doubt that there will be much problem with
+verses quoted inaccurately.  But that isn't the problem here.
+
+I've known a lot of fundamentalists in my life, but none who
+denied that there were errors in transmission, etc.  And many of
+the contradictions here -- Solomon having 40,000 horse stalls in
+one verse, and 4,000 in another -- are just the sort of
+contradiction that fundies don't have a problem with, in my
+experience.  So how do these sorts of contradictions amount to
+anything more than attacking a straw man?
+
+Some of the others are just silly, or rely on taking quotes out
+of context, or have reasonable explanations.  But even the ones
+that are genuine contradictions need to have more said about
+them than what is given here.  (At the very least, some effort
+should be made to understand and respond to the common replies
+given by fundies.)  Look for example at the research that Dave
+Butler put into an article examining a false prophecy about Tyre.
+That would be an excellent start for an anti-inerrancy list that
+would have some teeth.  (One well-researched and documented
+contradiction is worth more than one hundred quotes taken out
+of context and thrown together in a list.)
+
+Lists like this that just toss a bunch of quotes together to
+make a bible verse salad just don't cut it.  Those of us who
+want to argue against inerrancy should find this sort of thing
+as embarassing as the fundies should find Josh McDowell.
+
+dj
+
+P.S. You can find some good material at ftp.rutgers.edu in
+/pub/soc.religion.christian/others/contradictions.  The quality
+is very uneven on both sides of the argument (it is just a
+compilation of things many people have written), but some of
+it would be useful in an anti-inerrancy FAQ.  After exams, I
+might be willing to help put it together.

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51139

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!pooh!halat
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: There must be a creator! (Maybe)
+Message-ID: <30066@ursa.bear.com>
+From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
+Date: 1 Apr 93 21:24:35 GMT
+Reply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
+Sender: news@bear.com
+References: <16BA1E927.DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU>
+Lines: 24
+
+In article <16BA1E927.DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU>, DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU (Brad Porter) writes:
+>
+>   Science is wonderful at answering most of our questions.  I'm not the type
+>to question scientific findings very often, but...  Personally, I find the
+>theory of evolution to be unfathomable.  Could humans, a highly evolved,
+>complex organism that thinks, learns, and develops truly be an organism
+>that resulted from random genetic mutations and natural selection?
+
+[...stuff deleted...]
+
+Computers are an excellent example...of evolution without "a" creator.
+We did not "create" computers.  We did not create the sand that goes
+into the silicon that goes into the integrated circuits that go into
+processor board.  We took these things and put them together in an
+interesting way. Just like plants "create" oxygen using light through 
+photosynthesis.  It's a much bigger leap to talk about something that
+created "everything" from nothing.  I find it unfathomable to resort
+to believing in a creator when a much simpler alternative exists: we
+simply are incapable of understanding our beginnings -- if there even
+were beginnings at all.  And that's ok with me.  The present keeps me
+perfectly busy.
+
+-jim halat
+

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51140

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!wupost!emory!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!pooh!halat
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Americans and Evolution
+Message-ID: <30069@ursa.bear.com>
+From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
+Date: 1 Apr 93 22:50:11 GMT
+Reply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
+Sender: news@bear.com
+References: <93089.143048IO30436@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> <j0=5l3=@rpi.edu>
+Lines: 10
+
+In article <j0=5l3=@rpi.edu>, johnsd2@jec322.its.rpi.edu (Dan Johnson) writes:
+>In article 143048IO30436@MAINE.MAINE.EDU, <IO30436@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> () writes:
+
+Dan Johnson-
+
+You don't know me, but take this hand anyway.  Bravo for GO(DS) = 0. 
+Beautiful!  Simply beautiful!
+
+-jim halat
+

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51141

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!yale!yale.edu!newsserver.jvnc.net!louie!udel!wupost!uunet!pipex!bnr.co.uk!bnrgate!bmerh85!bmers30!dgraham
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Speculations
+Message-ID: <1993Apr5.211924.18459@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
+From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
+Date: 5 Apr 93 21:19:24 GMT
+Sender: news@bmerh85.bnr.ca (Usenet News)
+References: <1993Apr1.190230.18485@proxima.alt.za> <UfjElCG00Vp3E7i6Vo@andrew.cmu.edu> <930405.172903.4w6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>
+Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
+Lines: 17
+
+In article <930405.172903.4w6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
+>Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
+>> If this god is truly omnipotent as you folks like to claim, then why can't
+>> he terminate eternity?
+>
+>For the same reason he can't flibble glop ork groink.
+>
+>The thing you are demanding that he must be able to do, has no meaning in its
+>own terms.
+
+This is a classic example of excessive faith in reason.  The fact that we
+have trouble talking about something doesn't imply that it is impossible; it
+simply implies that it is hard to talk about.  There is a very good chance
+that God *can* flibble glop ork groink.  Charlie Wingate can flibble glop
+ork groink, and he isn't even God.
+--
+Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51142

@@ -0,0 +1,202 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!sdd.hp.com!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: 2 Apr 1993 22:23:00 GMT
+Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
+Lines: 191
+Message-ID: <1piec4INNrud@gap.caltech.edu>
+References: <1p3bn9INN98r@gap.caltech.edu> <1p5p1j$ijd@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1p6rgcINNhfb@gap.caltech.edu> <1p88fi$4vv@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1p9bseINNi6o@gap.caltech.edu> <1pamva$b6j@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1pcq4pINNqp1@gap.caltech.edu> <1pdhh7$jsi@fido.asd.sgi.com>
+NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
+
+livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
+
+>Much though it might be fun to debate capital punishment itself,
+>this is probably the wrong group for it.  The only relevance here
+>is that you don't seem to be able to tell us what capital punishment
+>actually is, and when it is murder.  That is, when you tell us murder
+>is wrong, you are using a term you have not yet defined.
+
+Well, I've said that when an innocent person has been executed, this is
+objectively a murder.  However, who is at blame is another question.
+It seems that the entire society that sanctions any sorts of executions--
+realizing the risks--is to blame.
+
+>There is a *probability* of 
+>killing an innocent person by shooting at random into the air, and 
+>there is a *probability* of killing an innocent person when the
+>state administers a system of capital punishment.  So when you do
+>either, you know that they actions you are taking will sooner or 
+>later result in the killing of an innocent person.
+
+Yes, but there is also a probablity that you will kill someone doing
+any raondom activity.  Presumably, you had not isolated yourself totally
+from the rest of society because of this.
+
+>>And, driving will kill people, as will airlines, but people continue to do
+>>both.
+>Driving and flying are not punishments inflicted on unwilling
+>prisoners by Courts.  They are risks that we take upon ourselves
+>willingly.
+
+And I argue that our law system is a similar risk.  Perhaps an innocent
+person will be punished someday, but we work to prevent this.  In fact,
+many criminals go free as a result of our trying to prevent punishment
+of innocents.
+
+>If our own driving kills someone else, then sure, there is a moral
+>issue.  I know at least one person who was involved in a fatal
+>accident, and they felt vey guilty afterwards.
+
+But, such accidents are to be totally expected, given the numner of vehicals
+on the road.  Again, the blame is on society.
+
+>>No I'm not.  This is what you said.  You were saying that if there were such
+>>a false witness that resulted in an innocent person being convicted and killed
+>>, it would still be the fault of the state, since it did the actual killing.
+>No, I just commented that the state does the killing.  It does not
+>depend on there being false witnesses.  How could it?  The state
+>does the killing even in the case of sincere mistakes
+
+Yes, but the state is not at fault in such a case.  The state can only do
+so much to prevent false witnesses.
+
+>>It is possible.  So, what are you trying to say, that capital punishment
+>>is always murder because of the possibilty of human error invalidating
+>>the system?
+>I'm saying capital punishment is murder, period.  Not because of
+>this that and the other, but because it involves taking human life.
+>That's *my* definition of murder.  I make no appeals to dictionaries
+>or to "objective" morals.
+
+Okay, so this is what you call murder.  But, the question is whether or not
+all such "murders" are wrong.  Are you saying that all taking of human life
+is wrong, no matter what the circumstances?
+
+>If we, as a society, decide to murder someone, then we should say
+>that, and lists our reasons for doing so, and live with the moral
+>consequences.  We should not play word games and pretend that
+>murder isn't murder.  And that's *my* opinion about how society
+>ought to be run.
+
+But, this is basically how it works.  Society accepts the risk that an
+innocent person will be murdered by execution.  And, every member of
+society shares this blame.  And, most people's definitions of murder
+include some sort of malicious intent, which is not involved in an
+execution, is it?
+
+>>But, we were trying to discuss an objective moral system, or at least its
+>>possibilty.  What ramifications does your personal system have on an
+>>objective one?
+>No, we were not discussing an objective moral system.  I was showing
+>you that you didn't have one, because, for one thing, you were incapable
+>of defining the terms in it, for example, "murder".
+
+Murder violates the golden rule.  Executions do not, because by allowing
+it at all, society implicitly accepts the consequences no matter who the
+innocent victim is.
+
+>>We're not talking about reading minds, we are just talking about knowing the
+>>truth.  Yes, we can never be absolutely certain that we have the truth, but
+>>the court systems work on a principle of knowing the "truth" "beyond a
+>>reasonable doubt."  
+>Sorry, but you simply are not quoting yourself accurately.  Here
+>is what you said:
+>	"And, since we are looking totally objectively at this case,
+>	then we know what people are thinking when they are voting to
+>	execute the person or not.  If the intent is malicious and 
+>	unfair, then the execution would be murder."
+>What you are doing now is to slide into another claim, which is
+>quite different.  The jury being *persuaded* beyond a serious
+>doubt is not the same as us knowing what is in their minds beyond
+>a serious doubt.
+
+Reading the minds of the jury would certainly tell whether or not a conviction
+was moral or not.  But, in an objective system, only the absolute truth
+matters, and the jury system is one method to approximate such a truth.  That
+is, twelve members must be convinced of a truth.
+
+>Moreover, a jury which comes from a sufficiently prejudiced background
+>may allow itself to be persuaded beyond a serious doubt on evidence
+>that you and I would laugh at.
+
+But then, if we read the minds of these people, we would know that the
+conviction was unfair.
+
+>>But, would it be perfectly fair if we could read minds?  If we assume that
+>>it would be fair if we knew the absolute truth, why is it so much less
+>>fair, in your opinion, if we only have a good approximation of the absolute
+>>truth?
+>It's not a question of fairness.  Your claim, which I have quoted
+>above is a claim about whether we can *know* it was fair, so as to
+>be able to distinguish capital punishnment from murder.
+
+Yes, while we could objectively determine the difference (if we knew all
+possible information), we can't always determine the difference in our
+flawed system.  I think that our system is almost as good as possible,
+but it still isn't objectively perfect.  You see, it doesn't matter if
+we *know* it is fair or not.  Objectively, it is either fair or it is not.
+
+>Now there's a huge difference.  If we can read minds, we can know,
+>and if we cannot read minds, we can know nothing.  The difference
+>is not in degree of fairness, but in what we can know.
+
+But what we know has no effect on an objective system.
+
+>>I think it is possible to produce a fairly objective system, if we are
+>>clear on which goals it is supposed to promote.
+>I'm not going to waste my time trying to devise a system that I am
+>pretty sure does not exist.
+
+Why are you so sure?
+
+>I simply want people to confront reality.  *My* reality, remember.
+
+Why is *your* reality important?
+
+>In this case, the reality is that, "ideal theories' apart, we can
+>never know, even after the fact, about the fairness of the justice
+>system.  For every innocent person released from Death Row, there
+>may have been a dozen innocent people executed, or a hundred, or
+>none at all.  We simply don't know.
+
+But, we can assume that the system is fairly decent, at least most likely.
+And, you realize that the correctness of our system says nothing about a
+totally ideal and objective system.
+
+>Now what are we going to do?  On the one hand, we can pretend
+>that we have an 'ideal' theory, and that we can know things we can
+>never know, and the Justie System is fair, and that we can wave a 
+>magic wand and make certain types of killing not murder, and go 
+>on our way.
+
+Well, we can have an ideal system, but the working system can not be ideal.
+We can only hope to create a system that is as close an approximation to
+the ideal system as possible.
+
+>On the other hand, we can recognize that all Justice has a small
+>- we hope - probability of punishing the innocent, and that in the
+>end we do bear moral responsibility even for the probabilistic
+>consequences of the systems we set up, and then say, "Well, here
+>we go, murdering again."  Maybe some of us will even say "Gee, I
+>wonder if all this is strictly necessary?"
+
+Yes, we all bear the responsibility.  Most people seem willing to do this.
+
+>I think that the second is preferable in that if requires people
+>to face the moral consequences of what we do as a society, instead
+>of sheltering ourselves from them by magic ceremonies and word 
+>games.
+
+We must realize the consequences of all our actions.  Why do you keep
+separating the justice system from the pack?
+
+>And lest I forget, I also don't think we have an objective moral
+>system, and I believe I only have to take that idea seriously
+>when someone presents evidence of it.
+
+I don't think our country has an objective system, but I think such an
+objective system can exist, in theory.  Without omniscience, an objective
+system is not possible in practice.
+
+keith

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51143

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!sdd.hp.com!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: 2 Apr 1993 22:25:11 GMT
+Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
+Lines: 12
+Message-ID: <1pieg7INNs09@gap.caltech.edu>
+References: <1p3bn9INN98r@gap.caltech.edu> <1p5p1j$ijd@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1p6rgcINNhfb@gap.caltech.edu> <1p88fi$4vv@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1993Mar30.051246.29911@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1p8nd7$e9f@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1pa0stINNpqa@gap.caltech.edu> <1pan4f$b6j@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1pcqf3INNqt7@gap.caltech.edu> <1pdj7l$jsi@fido.asd.sgi.com>
+NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
+
+livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
+
+>Now along comes Mr Keith Schneider and says "Here is an "objective
+>moral system".  And then I start to ask him about the definitions
+>that this "objective" system depends on, and, predictably, the whole
+>thing falls apart.
+
+It only falls apart if you attempt to apply it.  This doesn't mean that
+an objective system can't exist.  It just means that one cannot be
+implemented.
+
+keith

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51144

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:51144 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1935
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!wupost!uunet!pipex!marble.uknet.ac.uk!uknet!ic.ac.uk!rm03
+From: rm03@ic.ac.uk (Mr R. Mellish)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.constitution
+Subject: Re: university violating separation of church/state?
+Message-ID: <1993Apr5.195143.8740@sys.uea.ac.uk>
+Date: 5 Apr 93 19:51:43 GMT
+References: <199304041750.AA17104@kepler.unh.edu>
+Sender: news@sys.uea.ac.uk
+Organization: Imperial College
+Lines: 33
+Nntp-Posting-Host: 129.31.80.14
+
+In article <199304041750.AA17104@kepler.unh.edu> dmn@kepler.unh.edu (...until kings become philosophers or philosophers become kings) writes:
+>
+>
+>
+>     Recently, RAs have been ordered (and none have resisted or cared about
+>it apparently) to post a religious flyer entitled _The Soul Scroll: Thoughts
+>on religion, spirituality, and matters of the soul_ on the inside of bathroom
+>stall doors. (at my school, the University of New Hampshire) It is some sort
+>of newsletter assembled by a Hall Director somewhere on campus.
+[most of post deleted]
+>
+>  Please respond as soon as possible. I'd like these religious postings to
+>stop, NOW! 
+>
+>  
+>Thanks,
+>
+>  Dana
+>
+>       
+>        
+There is an easy way out....
+Post the flyers on the stall doors, but add at the bottom, in nice large
+capitals,
+
+      EMERGENCY TOILET PAPER
+
+:)
+
+-- 
+------              Robert Mellish, FOG, IC, UK                  ------
+ Email: r.mellish@ic.ac.uk   Net: rm03@sg1.cc.ic.ac.uk    IRC:  HobNob
+------     and also the mrs joyful prize for rafia work.         ------

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51145

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+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!caen!usenet.cis.ufl.edu!usenet.ufl.edu!max.fiu.edu!kilman2y
+From: kilman2y@fiu.edu (Yevgeny (Gene) Kilman)
+Subject: Re: USAToday ad ("family values")
+Organization: Florida International University, Miami
+Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 19:48:45 GMT
+Message-ID: <C510D9.127@fiu.edu>
+References: <C4rzz2.47J@unix.portal.com>
+Sender: news@fiu.edu (Usenet Administrator)
+Lines: 15
+
+In article <C4rzz2.47J@unix.portal.com> danb@shell.portal.com (Dan E Babcock) writes:
+>There was a funny ad in USAToday from "American Family Association".
+>I'll post a few choice parts for your enjoyment (all emphases is in
+>the ad; I'm not adding anything). All the typos are mine. :)
+
+[Dan's article deleted]
+
+I found the same add in our local Sunday newspaper.
+The add was placed in the ..... cartoon section!
+The perfect place for it ! :-)
+
+Y.K.
+
+
+

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51146

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!yale!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!olivea!sgigate!odin!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: islamic authority over women
+Message-ID: <1pq92q$9s2@fido.asd.sgi.com>
+From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
+Date: 5 Apr 93 21:41:46 GMT
+References: <1993Mar30.040813.12364@ultb.isc.rit.edu> <1993Apr2.210133.22377@webo.dg.com> <1993Apr3.214741.14026@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
+Organization: sgi
+NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
+Lines: 11
+
+In article <1993Apr3.214741.14026@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
+>
+> My claim is that a person that committs a crime doesn't believe in 
+> God, for the moment that the crime is committed, at least, whether 
+> they are originally believers or not.  To believe is to do good.  
+> Your statistics indicate people that have declared atheism.
+
+And doubtless, when an atheist does an act of charity
+they temporarily become a Baptist.
+
+jon. 

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51147

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!yale!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!olivea!sgigate!odin!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Ancient islamic rituals
+Message-ID: <1pq9js$9s2@fido.asd.sgi.com>
+From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
+Date: 5 Apr 93 21:50:52 GMT
+References: <1993Apr3.081052.11292@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
+Organization: sgi
+NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
+Lines: 20
+
+In article <1993Apr3.081052.11292@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
+>
+>  I propose that these two trends -- greater level of general 
+> depression in society (and other psychological problems) and 
+> greater sexual promiscuity -- are linked, with the latter being 
+> a prime cause of the former.  I cannot provide any evidence beyond 
+> this at this stage, but the whole thesis seems very reasonable to 
+> me and I request that people ponder upon it.
+
+I pondered it for all of ten seconds when I realised that since
+we don't have any reliable statistics for sexual promiscuity,
+and since the whole issue of "depression" isn't at all well 
+defined for earlier centuries, you are probably talking crap.
+
+Of course, you could pull a Mozumder on us, and say that people
+who are having sex outside marriage are *defined* to be depressed.
+
+I can't say I'd ever noticed, myself.
+
+jon. 

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51148

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:51148 soc.motss:139981 rec.scouting:5323
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!news.bbn.com!noc.near.net!uunet!wupost!CSM560.smsu.edu!umn.edu!lynx.unm.edu!carina.unm.edu!anthropo
+From: anthropo@carina.unm.edu (Dominick V. Zurlo)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.motss,rec.scouting
+Subject: Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts"
+Date: 5 Apr 1993 20:27:59 GMT
+Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
+Lines: 30
+Message-ID: <1pq4ofINNr2i@lynx.unm.edu>
+References: <1osnh5INNllm@hoss.usl.com> <1pc81b$4p7@shrike.und.ac.za> <1993Apr5.011255.7295@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
+NNTP-Posting-Host: carina.unm.edu
+
+In article <1993Apr5.011255.7295@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:
+>Now can we please use rec.scouting for the purpose for which it was
+>established?  Clearly we netnews voters decided that we did not want to
+>provide a scouting newsgroup to give fringe groups a forum for their
+>anti-societal political views.
+
+Ok, this is the only thing I will comment on from Stan at this time...
+part of this forum we call rec.scouting is for policy discussions and
+related topics.  This is a policy discussion, and involves related 
+topics.  this is not a "fringe" group discussion.  obviously, it 
+engenders strong feelings from all sides of the issues at hand. 
+Wether a particular view is anti-societal or not is your opinion, 
+and yours alone, don't try to make it seem otherwise. 
+If you do not wish to engage in this discussion, use a kill file. 
+If you wish to continue in this discussion, please do so, knowing 
+full well the implications that apply.
+I know for myself that I plan on continuing with the discussion when 
+i have the wish to have input.  I for one am tired of people trying to 
+say that this is not a matter significant for this group!  It is, and 
+quite so. Especially for those of us who feel the impact more closely.
+
+
+****************************************************************
+*  Dominick V. Zurlo              *    "If the world's an      *
+*  WWW                            *    oyster, why am I        *
+*  Eagle Scout '87                *    allergic to Mollusks?"  *
+*  blacklisted '88                *                            *
+****************************************************************
+
+

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51149

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!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: 2 Apr 1993 23:00:29 GMT
+Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
+Lines: 8
+Message-ID: <1pigidINNsot@gap.caltech.edu>
+References: <1p9bseINNi6o@gap.caltech.edu> <1pamva$b6j@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1993Mar31.002303.4748@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <930401.111834.4c3.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>
+NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
+
+mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
+
+>As for rape, surely there the burden of guilt is solely on the rapist?
+
+Not so.  If you are thrown into a cage with a tiger and get mauled, do you
+blame the tiger?
+
+keith

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51150

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!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: 2 Apr 1993 23:03:21 GMT
+Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
+Lines: 12
+Message-ID: <1pignpINNsp9@gap.caltech.edu>
+References: <1pan4f$b6j@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1pcqf3INNqt7@gap.caltech.edu> <11703@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> <930401.113200.2K4.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>
+NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
+
+mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
+
+>>Perhaps we shouldn't imprision people if we could watch them closely
+>>instead.  The cost would probably be similar, especially if we just
+>>implanted some sort of electronic device.
+>Why wait until they commit the crime?  Why not implant such devices in
+>potential criminals like Communists and atheists?
+
+Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning.  You are proposing to punish people
+*before* they commit a crime?  What justification do you have for this?
+
+keith

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51151

@@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
+Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:51151 soc.motss:139988 rec.scouting:5325
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornell!batcomputer!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!noc.near.net!transfer.stratus.com!sw.stratus.com!cdt
+From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.motss,rec.scouting
+Subject: Re: EnviroLeague
+Date: 5 Apr 1993 21:31:40 GMT
+Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
+Lines: 117
+Distribution: world
+Message-ID: <1pq8fs$dr@transfer.stratus.com>
+References: <1oghotINNmuf@fido.asd.sgi.com> <93080.190241DB0488A@auvm.american.edu> <C49nnM.Jv1@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> <1993Mar22.044558.17942@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> <C4Evpq.t3I@austin.ibm.com> <1pdlqf$62i@transfer.stratus.com>
+NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com
+
+
+A new alternative to Scouting for those "unacceptable to BSA" for reasons
+of religious or sexual preference:
+
+
+From: "BOYD R. CRITZ, III" <71611.365@CompuServe.COM>
+Subject: EnviroLeague
+
+"Birth Announcement" on March 7, 1993, from EARTH Forum, CompuServe
+                       Information Service
+===================================================================
+ 
+                     FORMAL ANNOUNCEMENT
+                     -------------------
+ 
+                                     (SM)
+                        EnviroLeague
+ 
+A new youth movement,"EnviroLeague," was recently born, according to its
+founder, Boyd R. Critz, III (CIS ID# 71611,365), of Peoria, Illinois.
+EnviroLeague exists for the education of youth, both male and female, in
+matters concerning their values related to and responsibility for our
+environment.
+ 
+Incorporated as an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, its Articles and
+initial applications for a service mark have now been filed.  According to
+Critz, its draft Bylaws contain the following statement of Mission and
+Objectives:
+ 
+                           MISSION
+ 
+   It is the Mission of EnviroLeague and its adult members
+   to foster and implement the improved education of young
+   people in the need to conduct their lives as Stewards
+   of The Earth, to leave The Earth in a better condition
+   than they found it, and to otherwise act as responsible,
+   moral and ethical users of their environment.  To pursue
+   the accomplishment of this Mission, EnviroLeague shall
+   seek to serve as a catalyst, focusing in common cause the
+   separate efforts of all groups desiring the preservation,
+   improvement, and responsible use of the environment in
+   which we must all live.
+ 
+                         OBJECTIVES
+ 
+   In pursuit of the Mission of EnviroLeague, its primary
+   objectives shall be:
+       (1)  To establish a Movement involving as many
+            environmentally concerned organizations as
+            possible, said Movement having as its primary
+            focus the education and participatory
+            involvement of young people in appropriate areas
+            of environmental concern;
+       (2)  To develop and provide to such organizations and
+            their branches a full complement of program
+            materials for their use, including suitable
+            uniforms, insignia and other badges, written
+            ideas, syllabi and information, literature and
+            other items as shall seem appropriate and
+            desirable;
+       (3)  To serve as a "clearing house" for the exchange
+            of program ideas, materials and information
+            among said organizations;  and
+       (4)  To assist environmentally concerned
+            organizations to recruit and train the necessary
+            adult leadership for their youth programs.
+ 
+EnviroLeague will operate through three "Program Divisions" serving youth in
+the elementary, middle and high school grades, respectively.  Service shall be
+through formation of "EnviroLeague Teams," either by EnviroLeague itself or by
+environmentally conscious organizations (or their local branches) wishing a
+charter to use programs developed by EnviroLeague.
+ 
+EnviroLeague, as it develops, will be controlled by the actual adult leaders
+of each local Team, and will have no nationally imposed obstacles to
+membership or adult leadership status not based upon relevant improper
+conduct. Organizations accepting a charter may, however, impose certain
+additional standards for their own use of the program material.  Should such
+organizations do so, EnviroLeague will commit itself to forming, as soon as
+possible, new nearby Teams having no such restrictions, particularly as to
+youth membership.
+ 
+EnviroLeague will operate on the principle that youth will have much to
+contribute to developing its programs.  Thus, the top youth leaders of its
+Teams for middle and high school youth may become involved in governing any
+local administrative groups, and those for its high school youth may be
+involved in similar functions at the national level.
+ 
+Program materials are in development at this time.  Copies of the "draft"
+portions of the Mentor's Manual (manual for adult leadership) will be in the
+EARTH Forum, Library 17. These files will be updated as development takes
+place.
+ 
+CompuServe is particularly proud that EnviroLeague's founder chose this
+electronic medium to make the first public announcement of its formation.
+This announcement is being made simultaneously in both the OUTDOOR and EARTH
+Forums.
+ 
+The electronic home of EnviroLeague is in CompuServe's Earth Forum - GO
+EARTH - message and library areas 17, both named "EnviroLeague."
+============================================================================
+ 
+Subsequently, EnviroLeague's Initial Governance Council has held its first
+meeting.  Boyd Critz was elected as the first EnviroLeague Chief Guardian
+(equivalent to Chairman of the Board or CEO).  He can be reached at home
+(309) 675-4483 in case of real need.  Also, mail can be addressed to:
+       EnviroLeague
+       P.O. Box 418
+       Peoria, IL  61651-0418
+ 
+Those interested in starting an EnviroLeague Team might just establish
+contact, to receive a diskette (IBM DOS, ASCII) with initial information.
+-- 
+
+cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
+OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
+

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51152

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!CSM560.smsu.edu!umn.edu!uum1!mac.cc.macalstr.edu!acooper
+From: acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Idle questions for fellow atheists
+Message-ID: <1993Apr5.124216.4374@mac.cc.macalstr.edu>
+Date: 5 Apr 93 12:42:16 -0600
+Organization: Macalester College
+Lines: 26
+
+
+I wonder how many atheists out there care to speculate on the face of the world
+if atheists were the majority rather than the minority group of the population. 
+It is rather a ridiculous question in some ways, I know, but my newsreader is
+down so I am not getting any new postings for a bit, so I figure I might as
+well post something new myself.
+
+Also, how many atheists out there would actually take the stance and accor a
+higher value to their way of thinking over the theistic way of thinking.  The
+typical selfish argument would be that both lines of thinking evolved from the
+same inherent motivation, so one is not, intrinsically, different from the
+other, qualitatively.  But then again a measuring stick must be drawn
+somewhere, and if we cannot assign value to a system of beliefs at its core,
+than the only other alternative is to apply it to its periphery; ie, how it
+expresses its own selfishness.
+
+Idle thoughts...
+
+
+Adam
+
+********************************************************************************
+* Adam John Cooper		"Verily, often have I laughed at the weaklings *
+*				   who thought themselves good simply because  *
+* acooper@macalstr.edu				they had no claws."	       *
+********************************************************************************

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51153

@@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!enterpoop.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!usenet
+From: bobs@thnext.mit.edu (Robert Singleton)
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Americans and Evolution
+Date: 5 Apr 1993 20:19:09 GMT
+Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
+Lines: 122
+Distribution: world
+Message-ID: <1pq47tINN8lp@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
+References: <1993Apr5.163738.2447@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
+NNTP-Posting-Host: thnext.mit.edu
+
+In article <1993Apr5.163738.2447@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>  
+simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
+[deleted]
+> 
+> ... over on alt.atheism we tend to recognise two
+> categories of atheism. Function format due to mathew@mantis.co.uk, I  
+think:
+> 
+> (i) weak  -  not(believe(gods))
+> 
+> (ii) strong  -  believe(not(gods))
+> 
+[deleted]
+> 
+> 
+> 
+> I ... am [a strong atheist], and I must quibble with your assertion 
+> that the `strong' position requires faith. I believe that no god/s, 
+> as commonly described by theists, exist. This belief is merely an 
+                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+> opinion, formed on the basis of observation, including a certain 
+  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+> amount of introspection.
+  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+> 
+> I fully accept that I could be wrong, and will be swayed by suitably
+> convincing evidence. Thus while I believe that no gods exist, this does
+                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+> not imply *faith* on my part that it is so.
+  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+
+Let me first say that "to believe that no gods exist" is in fact 
+different than "not believing in a god or gods". 
+
+I will argue that your latter statement, "I believe that no gods exist"
+does rest upon faith - that is, if you are making a POSITIVE statement 
+that "no gods exist" (strong atheism) rather than merely saying I don't  
+know and therefore don't believe in them and don't NOT believe in then
+(weak atheism). Once again, to not believe in God is different than saying  
+I BELIEVE that God does not exist. I still maintain the position, even 
+after reading the FAQs, that strong atheism requires faith.
+
+But first let me say the following.
+We might have a language problem here - in regards to "faith" and
+"existence". I, as a Christian, maintain that God does not exist.
+To exist means to have being in space and time. God does not HAVE
+being - God IS Being. Kierkegaard once said that God does not
+exist, He is eternal. With this said, I feel it's rather pointless
+to debate the so called "existence" of God - and that is not what
+I'm doing here. I believe that God is the source and ground of
+being. When you say that "god does not exist", I also accept this
+statement - but we obviously mean two different things by it. However,
+in what follows I will use the phrase "the existence of God" in it's
+'usual sense' - and this is the sense that I think you are using it.
+I would like a clarification upon what you mean by "the existence of
+God".
+ 
+We also might differ upon what it means to have faith. Here is what
+Webster says:
+
+faith 
+1a: allegiance to duty or a person: LOYALTY
+b  (1): fidelity to one's promises
+   (2): sincerity of intentions
+2a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God
+   (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
+b  (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
+        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+   (2): complete trust
+3: something that is believed esp. with strong conviction; esp: a system 
+   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+of religious beliefs
+syn see BELIEF
+
+
+
+One can never prove that God does or does not exist. When you say
+that you believe God does not exist, and that this is an opinion
+"based upon observation", I will have to ask "what observtions are
+you refering to?" There are NO observations - pro or con - that
+are valid here in establishing a POSITIVE belief. All observations
+can only point you in a direction - a direction that we might even
+be predisposed to (by predisposed I mean, for example, people whoes 
+partents "believe in God" also tend to). To actually draw a conclusion
+about the "existence" or "non-existence" of God requires a leap - and
+you have made this leap when you actively say "I believe that God  
+does/does not exist". Personally, I think that both statements are
+misguided. Arguing over the "existence" of God is precisely the wrong way
+to find Him (and yes, I use "Him" because a personal God is the only 
+viable concept (IMO) - if a person wants to use "She" go ahead. Of course 
+God is neither He nor She - but we have no choice but to 
+anthropomorphise. If you want me to explain myself further I'll be 
+glad to.) 
+
+
+
+And please, if someone does not agree with me - even if they violently 
+disagree - it's in no ones advantage to start name calling. If a person 
+thinks I've misunderstood something in the FAQs, or if they they think 
+I have not read them well enough, just point out to me the error of my 
+ways and I correct the situation. I'm interested in a polite and well  
+thought out discussion.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+> 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.
+
+--
+bob singleton
+bobs@thnext.mit.edu

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51154

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!nm0w+
+From: Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism
+Date: Mon,  5 Apr 1993 18:40:31 -0400
+Organization: Sponsored account, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
+Lines: 27
+Message-ID: <gfk=JTa00Vpd0K8HIf@andrew.cmu.edu>
+References: <1993Apr5.020504.19326@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
+NNTP-Posting-Host: andrew.cmu.edu
+In-Reply-To: <1993Apr5.020504.19326@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
+
+snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
+> More horrible deaths resulted from atheism than anything else.
+
+There are definitely quite a few horrible deaths as the result of both
+atheists AND theists.  I'm sure Bobby can list quite a few for the atheist
+side but fails to recognize that the theists are equally proficient at
+genocide.  Perhaps, since I'm a bit weak on history, somone here would like
+to give a list of wars caused/led by theists?  I can think of a few (Hitler
+claimed to be a Christian for example) but a more complete list would
+probably be more effective in showing Bobby just how absurd his statement
+is.
+
+> Peace,
+
+On a side note, I notice you always sign your posts "Peace".  Perhaps you
+should take your own advice and leave the atheists in peace with their
+beliefs?
+
+> Bobby Mozumder
+
+Nanci
+
+.........................................................................
+If you know (and are SURE of) the author of this quote, please send me
+email (nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu):
+Lying to ourselves is more deeply ingrained than lying to others.
+

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51155

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!nm0w+
+From: Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Dear Mr. Theist
+Date: Mon,  5 Apr 1993 18:43:46 -0400
+Organization: Sponsored account, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
+Lines: 31
+Message-ID: <cfk=MWm00VpdQK8Hpi@andrew.cmu.edu>
+References: <dl2021-010493162641@m249-67.bgsu.edu>
+	<1993Apr5.024150.10193@wam.umd.edu>
+NNTP-Posting-Host: po2.andrew.cmu.edu
+In-Reply-To: <1993Apr5.024150.10193@wam.umd.edu>
+
+west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
+> means to me.  The full quote (Michael Crichton, _Jurrasic_Park_) was 
+> something like "The earth has existed quite contently for billions of 
+> years.  We have been here but for the blink of an eye, and if we were gone
+> tomorrow, the earth would not miss us.".  I remember this quote to keep
+> myself humble when thinking that we have progressed so far or that we
+> are masters of this planet.
+  
+Cool quote.
+
+> The earth doesn't need saving, it's existed quite happily with-
+> out us, we are the ones who need saving.
+
+Better watch it.  The theists will jump on you for that... :-)
+
+> 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.**
+
+Nanci
+
+.........................................................................
+If you know (and are SURE of) the author of this quote, please send me
+email (nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu):
+Lying to ourselves is more deeply ingrained than lying to others.
+

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51156

@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!daffy!snake2.cs.wisc.edu!mccullou
+From: mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
+Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
+Message-ID: <1993Apr5.203428.20461@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>
+Sender: news@daffy.cs.wisc.edu (The News)
+Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.
+References: <1psrjmINNr9e@gap.caltech.edu> <1pdbej$hio@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1pi8h5INNq40@gap.caltech.edu>
+Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 20:34:28 GMT
+Lines: 109
+
+
+My turn to jump in! :)
+
+In article <1pi8h5INNq40@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
+>(reference line trimmed)
+>
+>livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
+>
+>[...]
+>
+>>There is a good deal more confusion here.   You started off with the 
+>>assertion that there was some "objective" morality, and as you admit
+>>here, you finished up with a recursive definition.   Murder is 
+>>"objectively" immoral, but eactly what is murder and what is not itself
+>>requires an appeal to morality.
+>
+
+I think you mean circular, not recursive, but that is semantics.
+Recursiveness has no problems, it is just horribly inefficient (just ask
+any assembly programmer.)
+
+>Yes.
+>
+>>Now you have switch targets a little, but only a little.   Now you are
+>>asking what is the "goal"?   What do you mean by "goal?".   Are you
+>>suggesting that there is some "objective" "goal" out there somewhere,
+>>and we form our morals to achieve it?
+>
+>Well, for example, the goal of "natural" morality is the survival and
+>propogation of the species.  Another example of a moral system is
+>presented within the Declaration of Independence, which states that we
+>should be guaranteed life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  You see,
+>to have a moral system, we must define the purpose of the system.  That is,
+>we shall be moral unto what end?
+
+The oft-quoted line that says people should be guaranteed life, liberty
+and the pursuit of happiness as inalienable rights, is a complete lie
+and deception, as the very authors of that line were in the process of
+proving.  Liberty is never free, it is always purchased at some cost, 
+almost always at the cost to another.  Whos liberty is more inalienable?
+Similarly for right of life.  When one person must die if he is to save
+another, or even a group of others, whos life is more inalienable?  
+That leads into the classic question of the value of the death penalty, 
+especially for serial killers.  Whos life and liberty is more valuable,
+the serial killer, or the victim?  According to that beautiful line,
+those two rights should be completely inviolate, that is, noone should be
+able to remove them.  This _includes_ government.  Admittedly the serial
+killer has restricted some people's life and/or liberty, but is not his
+own life/liberty inviolate also?  According to the declaration of independence,
+it is.
+
+>>>Murder is certainly a violation of the golden rule.  And, I thought I had
+>>>defined murder as an intentional killing of a non-murderer, against his will.
+
+Oooh, I like that.  It means that killing an infant is not murder because
+it cannot be against its will.  Reason, an infant has no will as such.
+
+Similarly for people who are brain dead (easier to see), in a coma, etc.
+
+Also, under current law, accidental killing is still murder.  How will you
+include that?
+
+>>>And you responded to this by asking whether or not the execution of an
+>>>innocent person under our system of capital punishment was a murder or not.
+>>>I fail to see what this has to do with anything.  I never claimed that our
+>>>system of morality was an objective one.
+>>I thought that was your very first claim.   That there was
+>>some kind of "objective" morality, and that an example of that was
+>>that murder is wrong.   If you don't want to claim that any more,
+>>that's fine.
+
+The only real golden rule in life is, he who has the gold, makes the
+rules.  I.e. Might Makes Right.  That is survival.  Now what is wrong
+with that?
+
+>Well, murder violates the golen rule, which is certainly a pillar of most
+>every moral system.  However, I am not assuming that our current system
+>and the manner of its implementation are objectively moral.  I think that
+>it is a very good approximation, but we can't be perfect.
+
+If you mean the golden rule as I stated, yes, almost every system as
+implemented has used that in reality.  Sorry, I don't deal as much in
+fiction, as I do in reality.  
+
+>>And by the way, you don't seem to understand the difference between
+>>"arbitrary" and "objective".   If Keith Schneider "defines" murder
+>>to be this that and the other, that's arbitrary.   Jon Livesey may
+>>still say "Well, according to my personal system of morality, all
+>>killing of humans against their will is murder, and wrong, and what
+>>the legal definition of murder may be in the USA, Kuweit, Saudi
+>>Arabia, or the PRC may be matters not a whit to me".
+
+WELCOME TO OZLAND!!!!!!! :)
+
+What is NOT arbitrary?  If you can find some part of society, some societal
+rules, morals, etc. that are not arbitrary, please tell me.  I don't think
+there are any.
+
+>Well, "objective" would assume a system based on clear and fundamental
+>concepts, while "arbitary" implies no clear line of reasoning.
+>
+>keith
+Sounds like euphemisms to me.  The difference seems to be, that objective
+is some reasoning that I like, while arbitrary is some reasoning that
+I don't like OR don't understand. 
+
+M^2
+
+

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51157

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!yale!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
+ cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!portal.austin.ibm.com!awdprime.austin.ibm.com!zazen
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: Radical Agnostic... NOT!
+Message-ID: <C51618.Is2@austin.ibm.com>
+From: zazen@austin.ibm.com (E. H. Welbon)
+Date: 5 Apr 93 21:51:08 GMT
+Sender: news@austin.ibm.com (News id)
+References: <1993Apr2.024324.21438@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
+Organization: Brownian Motion Inc.
+X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
+Lines: 34
+
+The One and Only (jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
+: In article <dl2021-310393180711@m249-66.bgsu.edu> dl2021@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie) writes:
+: [first post I've seen from the ol' Bug-Zoo (BGSU)]
+: >     There is no means that i can possibly think of to prove beyond doubt
+: >that a god does not exist (but if anyone has one, by all means, tell me
+: >what it is).  Therefore, lacking this ability of absolute proof, being an
+: >atheist becomes an act of faith in and of itself, and this I cannot accept.
+: > I accept nothing on blind faith.
+
+: Invisible Pink Flying Unicorns!  Need I say more?
+
+There is also the question of what is meant by "atheist".  A familiar
+example of the importance of the meaning of the word is as follows.
+
+The two statements following ARE consistent:
+
+(1) I do not believe that you are wearing lilac socks
+(2) I do not believe that you are are not wearing lilac socks
+
+The two statements following are NOT consistent:
+
+(3) I do believe that you are wearing lilac socks
+(4) I do believe that you are are not wearing lilac socks
+
+Statements (1) and (2) require no faith, they make no presumptions about
+the nature of reality.  Statements (3) and (4) require belief.  Many
+atheists (myself included) take the following position:
+
+(5) I do not believe that there is a god.
+(6) I do not believe that there is not a god.
+
+That is , I harbor no beliefs at all, there is no good evidence
+for god existing or not.  Some folks call this agnosticism.  It does not
+suffer from "blind faith" at all.  I think of it as "Don't worry, be happy".

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51158

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!yale!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!madhaus
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: So what is Maddi?
+Message-ID: <madhausC5168z.4tA@netcom.com>
+From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
+Date: 5 Apr 93 21:55:46 GMT
+Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
+Lines: 12
+
+As I was created in the image of Gaea, therefore I must
+be the pinnacle of creation, She which Creates, She which
+Births, She which Continues.
+
+Or, to cut all the religious crap, I'm a woman, thanks.
+And it's sexism that started me on the road to atheism.
+
+-- 
+Maddi Hausmann                       madhaus@netcom.com
+Centigram Communications Corp        San Jose California  408/428-3553
+
+Kids, please don't try this at home.  Remember, I post professionally.

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51159

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!yale!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
+ cs.utexas.edu!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!bdunn
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: The wrong and the right.
+Message-ID: <1piv3sINN3fr@gap.caltech.edu>
+From: bdunn@cco.caltech.edu (Brendan Dunn)
+Date: 3 Apr 93 03:08:44 GMT
+References: <93090.141001E62763@TRMETU.BITNET>
+Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
+NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
+Lines: 25
+
+In article <93090.141001E62763@TRMETU.BITNET> <E62763@TRMETU.BITNET> writes:
+>Hi.I'm a Turkish guy who had tried atheism,satenism and buddism at some instant
+>s of hislife.Finally I decided on Islambecause of many facts which I intend to
+> write here.From my point of view,you atheists are people who has dropped to a
+>deep,dark well and thinking the only reality is the dusty walls of the well.But
+> if you had looked a little bit upward you would see the blue skies.You'dsee t
+>he truth but you close your eyes.Allah is the only GOD and Mohammed is his mess
+> ager.now,let's generate some entropy in means of theology and thermodynamics.W
+>hat's your point of view to the problem of the ''FIRST KISS''?That is,the first
+> spark which was generated for the formation of the universe.Has it formed by i
+>tself?You are bothering yourselves with the Big Bang but where is the first spa
+>rk?Please think a bit.Think and return to the only reality of the universe:ISLA
+>M|
+
+Uh oh.  This looks a bit too much like Bobby's "Atheism Is False" stuff.  Are
+we really going to have to go through this again?  Maybe the universe is
+cyclical!  :)  :(
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+--Brendan Dunn

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51160

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!yale!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
+ cs.utexas.edu!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism
+Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
+Message-ID: <1pivdqINN3kd@gap.caltech.edu>
+From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
+Date: 3 Apr 93 03:14:02 GMT
+References: <11700@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> <1993Mar31.230523.13892@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> 
+ <930401.112329.0u1.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> <11710@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>
+Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
+NNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu
+Lines: 17
+
+bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
+
+>  And in the US, even that argument doesn't stand.  It costs far
+>  more to execute a criminal in this country than it does to feed,
+>  clothe, and shelter them for the remainder of their natural life.
+>  Some people believe this is a fault of our judicial system.  I
+>  find it to be one of it's greatest virtues.
+
+I assume that you are talking about the appeals processes, etc.?
+Well, it should be noted that people who are imprisoned for life
+will also tend to appeal (though not quite as much in the "final
+hours."
+
+Anyway, economics is not a very good reason to either favor or oppose
+the punishment.
+
+keith

data/20_newsgroups/alt.atheism/51161

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:51161 talk.origins:40407
+Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!yale!yale.edu!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
+ zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!juliet.caltech.edu!lmh
+Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
+Subject: Re: Americans and Evolution
+Message-ID: <2APR199320114713@juliet.caltech.edu>
+From: lmh@juliet.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.)
+Date: 3 Apr 93 04:11:00 GMT
+References: <1993Mar27.115953@IASTATE.EDU> <31MAR199321091163@juliet.caltech.edu> <1APR199313404295@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
+Distribution: world,local
+Organization: California Institute of Technology
+NNTP-Posting-Host: juliet.caltech.edu
+News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
+Lines: 18
+
+In article <1APR199313404295@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu<, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes...
+<In article <31MAR199321091163@juliet.caltech.edu<, lmh@juliet.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.) writes...
+<<Atheism (Greek 'a' not + 'theos' god)  Belief that there is no god.
+<<Agnosticism (Greek 'a' not + ~ 'gnostein ?' know) Belief that it is
+<<  not possible to determine if there is a god.
+
+<No.  Agnosticism as you have here defined it is a positive belief--a
+<belief that it is not possible to determine the existence of any gods.
+<That's a belief I'm inclined to reject.  You have also defined atheism
+<here as a positive belief--that there is no god.  A fairly large number
+<of atheists on alt.atheism reject this definition, instead holding that
+<atheism is simply the absence of belief in a god.  Michael Martin, in
+<_Atheism: A Philosophical Justification_, distinguishes strong atheism
+
+ My mistake. I will have to get a newer dictionary and read the 
+follow up line.
+
+larry henling   lmh@shakes.caltech.edu