HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bluelobster+@CMU.EDU (David O Hunt)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:33:22 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

All first-level quotes From: jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus)


>>	The problem with your position is that demons do not
>>exist.                                                  ~~~
> ~~~~~
> 
>But demons DO exist.  Just because you haven't (or think that you
>haven't) come across them or been influenced by them does not mean
>that they don't exist.

Just because I haven't seen fairies  make flowers grow doesn't mean they
don't exist and make flowers grow, RIGHT???

>Some more research would provide a better description than the above.
>Briefly, they exist in the spiritual realms, which can be reached by
>certain types of meditation (esp. yoga - yes yoga!), seances, ouija,
>and other OCCULT practices.  BUT BE WARNED, DO NOT BECOME INVOLVED IN
>THESE THINGS.  THEY ARE EVIL, AND WILL NOT HELP YOU IN ANY POSITIVE WAY!

I have a couple of friends who claim to be "witches".  I've asked them what
I could do to _deliberately_ invite posession and takeover of myself, and
have done so.  If demons were real (and as opportunistic as you claim) why
am I not foaming at the mouth?



David Hunt - Graduate Slave |     My mind is my own.      | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering      | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>>  | Jewish homeland!
====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=====
Email:  bluelobster+@cmu.edu    Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"

"Out there is a fortune waiting to be had; do you think I'd let it go you're
mad - you got another think coming!" -- Judas Priest
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: The Lord Cometh!
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 00:58:42 GMT

You mean Colleen's coming back?!  Hurrah!  :)

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Date: 27 Sep 92 17:14:53 GMT
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH


In a previous article, hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi () says:

>
>In article <1992Sep26.145623.6825@news.ysu.edu>, ae642@yfn.ysu.edu
>(Kelley Miller) writes:
>>
>> In a previous article, hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi () says:
>>> (in 2nd Moses 3:14-15 and in gospel of Johannes 8:28-29),

   [...]

>>> then who dares to assert that God does not exist. ?
>>>
>>>         Hannu.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I would say any thinking person.
>>
>
>  Then I would say that these thinking persons must be stupid, because
>  they assert at the same time that they themselves does not exist. !

Indeed?  I don't seem to recall ever asserting that I do not exist.
I say there is no god.  If you have evidence that  there is a god,
or evidence that I do not exist, I'll be happy to hear it...


>
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Assembly of God???  Strange.. *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // I was not aware that the diety  *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // was available in source form..." *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<TORKEL.92Oct1110909@isis.sics.se>
	<1992Oct01.115714.26347@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:14:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct01.115714.26347@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca 
(Douglas Graham) writes:

   >Yes, it would be possible.  But it wouldn't be what I meant.

  Quite so. You want to utter these predictable tirades and derive
some satisfaction from delivering them. But they have very little
point since nothing you say suggests that you know or understand
anything about religion or religious traditions. Their effect is
therefore chiefly to diminish the force of any justified criticism
or accurate observation found in your articles.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: michalek@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Libor Michalek)
Subject: god is in all of us
Keywords: god
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 09:03:04 GMT

GOD we all get a picture for most of us its blank. I think that people
have a god because they do not want to take responsibility for what ever
it is they do (is it me or do alot of people in jail become born-again
christians. I don't know... maybe). Most atheists have there shit together
at least compared to others. It seems like when you say "Maybe there is a god"
your really saying "gee wouldn't it be nice if I could do anything then
tell some guy in a funny out fit about what I did and go to the best place
I could think of forever". Dosn't this appear to be what children
do or want. Maybe its just me but athiests appear to have reached a 
higher level of personal mental evalotion. Personally every day I say to
my self "I've only got 0 to 100 years left (not infinity) so I better
make today count". Sure this could be counter productive someone could
say to them self "I could die today so I better do something outragous
like kill as many people as I can". But If you use the same wisdom you
used when becoming an athiest this can be avoided. Maybe being an athiest
isn't ok BY ITSELF but if you apply some of that atheist logic to the
rest of your life you will probablly see an overall improvment in the
rest of your life and you hopefully wont kill someone. I have seen alot of
fear and hate of religious people in this news group. I think we athiests
sould be more understanding and sympathetic to the people who's journey
through life has yet to land them at our door 1) They may not be 
smart, or able to make choices for themselfs. we do not laugh at or hate
children because they cannot spell so why make fun of religious people.
your saying to yourself "there not children though" to that I say 
physical and mental age are two very diffrent things. 2) Why give the wrong
impression after all don't you generally want to help other become 
enlitened( unless your selfish) giving someone a reason to fight is not
going to get them to change there mind (if someone calls you and idiot
and you realize your wrong are you going to say "your right I'm wrong").
 Finally one more thing about hate and fear of religion. Haven't the
crusades tought you enough about what fear of the different can do? Don't
make the same mistake that someone on a lower level has made or you'll
end up below them.

Libor 
lfm54477@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

If you like or disliked my opinions there mine not my schools or my
 employers 

"Hell I could have done that", someone who will always be average
"I've got an idea", someone who will never be average

"How do you do this", someone who is your mental equal
"Your WRONG", someone below you
"Try it this way", someone above you
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Date: 28 Sep 1992 16:16:09 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi sez:
 
 
|In article <1992Sep26.215440.25625@u.washington.edu>,
|sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep25.154002.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi>
|hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:
|>>
|>> Hi !
|>>
|22>>
|>> If God is 'Existence' as is defined in the Holy Bible
|   ^^                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>> (in 2nd Moses 3:14-15 and in gospel of Johannes 8:28-29),
|>> then who dares to assert that God does not exist. ?
|>>
|>>         Hannu.
|>>
|>
|> Me.
|>
|> Next question?
|>
|>
|> --
|> | Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
|> | U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
|
|
| Don't take the trouble, you asserted just that you yourself does not exist.
|
|          Hannu.
 
 
	Again Hannu, that's IF the Bible is correct is the assertion of
the existence of god and the definition of god........if you can prove
yourself true.
 
 
	Or let me put it this way. PROVE that the "IF" part of your state-
ment (IE:PROVE that god exists and that it exists in the way that you say
it does ). PUT UP OR SHUT UP !
 
 
	(heck, while your at it, prove that the Bible is true !)


-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Reveal to me the sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips | alias: White Rook | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: bug in FAQ file
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:56:32 GMT

morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:

>merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:

>>>You are injecting a number of complications into this analogy, but
>>>I fail to see why.
>>
>>To show that you *ARE* making more assumptions than just "my neighbor
>>has a pit bull"; you also drew conclusions on how to avoid it, even
>>though this isn't part of your original assumption.

>It isn't?  Here is the original posting:

>        I am late for my bus.  I can take a short cut through the
>        neighbour's yard, but this will result in being attacked
>        by a 200-pound pit bull if the dog is in the yard.  Since
>        I cannot tell whether the dog is in the house or yard, I
>        decide it is safest to avoid the yard.

>So you see, avoiding the pit bull by avoiding the yard *was* part of
>the original assumption.  Pay more attention before cluttering the
>issue.

I was referring to the initial assumption of the existence of a pit bull;
you are additionally assuming how to avoid such a pit bull.

>>You are "creating" information with your assumptions.

>So?  That's what assumptions are for.

Baloney.

>When it is impossible to derive
>or observe to obtain information, you assume instead.  You have a
>problem with this?

Oh, yes, especially, when you draw unwarranted conclusions.

>>>Information based on assumptions is far from useless;
>>
>>Information based on beings that can have any property is useless;
>>you don't know what properties are valid.
>>
>>Name one assumption you can make about god(s).  Are they good? evil?
>>Will believing in Jesus save you from hell (Christianity)?  Will believing
>>in Jesus condemn you to hell (Islam)?

>Here we go again!  Does anybody around here follow a thread before
>leaping into it?  The assumption is that Christian tradition tells us
>what there is to know about the Christian God.

But Pascal's Wager does not assume the Christian god, it is about god(s)
in general.

>Alternatively, you
>could make an Islamic Pascalian wager, and assume the Koran tells you
>what there is to know about Allah.

>One more time, for everybody still paying attention:  religious lore
>is our source of information about various gods.

It is *a* source; I can also toss off information about god(s).
Show that "religious lore" is more accurate than plain rambling.

>The fact that lore X contradicts lore Y, and we have no means of
>deciding which is right is irrelevant.  All we have to know is that
>god X is described by lore X, and god Y by lore Y.  If god Y exists,
>then lore Y decribes him/her/it, and contradictory lores are
>evidently wrong.

This is more pure baloney.  Couldn't the lore be WRONG!?
Or *must* it be accurate!?

---
Merlyn LeRoy
From: EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism in the future
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:29:16 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

In article <92275.141625CP8219A@auvm.american.edu>, Christopher H. Prokop
<CP8219A@auvm.american.edu> says:
>
>The way I see it there are two major themes people cling to in
>order to reject atheism. 1. Big Bang era of the universe (initial
>creation) and 2. The 'soul'.  More and more people that I talk
>to place some kind of faith in some kind of form in one of those
>two main ideas.  I also think it interesting that those are the two
>main areas left for human comprehension of the world.  Just as
>most people don't believe the Earth is flat due to overwhelming
>evidence, I feel in about 50yrs. MAX the evidence will be so
>powerful that generations growing up then will begin to not
>even think of having a soul.  I see a very fast development
>of biotech. and AI that it will be rather obvious that the
>human body is merely a machine, 100% physical, 0% meta-
>physical, 'soul'ish, fluff.........
>
>                  Chris

I wouldn't be so sure.  People will only believe something if they want to
, i.e. you can't convince a person who doesn't want to be convinced.
Theists (or soul believers in general) will always believe that they (humans
in general) are something special (human arrogance), and that we must have
something unique about us: this "soul".


  my 10^(-100) of a cent,
          Eylon Geva
Newsgroups: alt.religion.messianic,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Object-oriented creation (Was Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!)
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:16:21 GMT

>
>I think the point that was being made was that DNA sequencing data is able
>to confirm/reinforce alleged evolutionary relationships.
>Instead of getting bogged down in words, can I give you an example? 
>
>We happen to be working on a family of proteins, let's call them Y. These
>proteins are found in all vertebrates and even in invertebrates. They have
>a very conserved chemical structure across species. However, if we look at the
>DNA sequences, we see a greater divergence, and that is due (at least in part)
>to the redundancy of the code (since more than one codon specifies an amino acid,
>many mutations have no effect on the protein). The species for which we
>have a sequence are :  frog, mouse, rat, human. Now BEFORE we compared these
>sequences, we had in the back of our mind the established evolutionary
>paradigm which tells us that the mouse and rat are the most closely related in that
>group of four; the human should be closer to the [rat+mouse] than to the
>frog since amphibians diverged earlier. Now the sequence alignment confirmed
>this relationship, ie the frog sequence was more divergent; the rat and mouse
>sequences were very close; the human sequence was closer to the [rat+mouse]
>than to the frog, and the frog sequence was substantially divergent from all
>mammalian sequences. 
>
>Please note that the actual protein sequences of all four are almost identical.
>The divergence in the DNA is consistent with previous evolutionary theory;
>this data confirms that theory; careful though, 'confirms' in this context
>means 'adding evidence'. Please note that the relationship between frogs,
>rodents and humans was known (oh sorry, theorized) before the advent of DNA
>techniques.
>
At last some hard core information!!(read:evidence.)
This whole discussion was due to the lack of examples. And I apologize for not 
coming up with the long awaited evidence and sources for my claims. This is
because I am not familiar with all the details and statistics of genetics. So I
must say that I appreciate when people fill in my gaps with raw data. However,
the pure theories I have a good grasp on. Hope I am of help.  


Onar.
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: morality and religion
Date: 3 Oct 92 19:21:10 GMT
Distribution: dfw
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.


The idea that without God people need not or cannot be moral, or more 
precisely, that morality depends on religion, is not only repeated by
religionists, it is sometimes accepted by atheists and skeptics. The most 
famous expression of this idea is to be found in Doestyevski's famous line 
in the The Brother's Karamov: "If God does not exist, everything is 
permitted."

There are two different ways to interpret this claim that morality depends
on religion:

(A) Moral action requires the incentives and guidances of religion
    in order to provide the necessary motivation to be moral. 

(B) Morality actually depends on God's supreme moral will which is
    determinitive of both the content and meaning of morality itself.

Analysis: 

The existence of ethically responsible and morally sound skeptics and     
atheists straightway refutes (A).  And (B) leads straight to ethical 
absurdities, as many in this group have not tired of pointing out.  On (B), 
if God just willed that I torture innocent babies to death, his merely 
commanding this would make it ipso facto right!  But God's or any being's 
merely willing this or that could not possibly make such an act right.  No 
doubt God or any morally good being would want others to do the right thing. 
But a persons'*wanting* others to do the right is not what *makes* it 
right, and the moral rightness of an action is something that the good 
person himself appreciates and is not something determined by his own moral 
will.  Thus, in no sense does morality depend on religion.  If anything,
religious belief depends on prior independent human standards of value 
and morality, for how are to decide whether a religion is true without
comparing it with our own moral intuitions? 

Any comments?    	
	

//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:09:34 GMT

In article <ebolog.10@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:
>
>Atheists are always saying that God does not exist and laugh away any proof 
>Christians use to prove His existence.

We don't "laugh away" serious attempts at proof.  We point out
the logical falacies and/or factual blunders in all such "proofs".

>So here is my proposal : You prove to us that God does not exist!

AARGH!  The new school year must have started.
Someone send this person the alt.atheist FAQ.

In brief:  we don't have to prove anything, because we
cannot disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist.

>And please don't use your usual irrational logic and childish insults!

Oh fine!  Xtians worship a spook who rewards people who
claim to believe a set of vague, contradictory fairy-tales;
and atheists are called childish and irrational!

>Please post your replies so that other people may also read them or if you 
>feel embarassed mail it directly to us at (TJOHN@ELAINE.EE.UND.AC.ZA).

Embarassed?  BWAAHAAHAA!

>Many Thanks for any logical and well thought out arguments.
>
>	Cheers from E.B.

Read the FAQ.  Let us know what you do not understand.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Date: 27 Sep 92 14:19:53 GMT
 <1992Sep24.020714.8206@hfsi.uucp> <1992Sep25.164552.18420@Princeton.EDU>
 <1992Sep26.031110.20098@hfsi.uucp>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Sep26.031110.20098@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
says:
>
>I guess it's all in the way you look at it.  One can always say
>that if they do evil all their life and they are punished in the
>hereafter, that it was God's fault because he was punishing them.
>Or you can say that their rejection of goodness caused their own
>demise.  Since we have free will, I believe in the latter
>interpretation.  A simple analogoy would be how you would consider
>a parent grounding their child because they broke a well known
>curfew?  Would you blame the child or the parent?  Or another more
>complex example, would you blame the state for putting a murderer
>in jail for life, or would you blame the offender?

One problem with those analogies. One can obviously agree with the
analogies, but not so with god. After all, I can see the parent
who made the rules, and I can comprehend the state governement's
existence (short of visiting the capital), but with god there is
no such obvious evidence. There's none at all that I've seen. So
your god has no excuse; he has to come out of the closet! Tell him
to show himself, would you? He's not listening to me.

Martin Schulte
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 07:35:15 GMT


In article <1992Sep26.215440.25625@u.washington.edu>,
sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
> In article <1992Sep25.154002.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi>
hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:
>>
>> Hi !
>>
>>
>> If God is 'Existence' as is defined in the Holy Bible
>> (in 2nd Moses 3:14-15 and in gospel of Johannes 8:28-29),
>> then who dares to assert that God does not exist. ?
>>
>>         Hannu.
>>
>
> Me.
>
> Next question?
>
>
> --
> | Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
> | U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |


 Don't take the trouble, you asserted just that you yourself does not exist.

          Hannu.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.cascade
From: mfc1493@tamuts.tamu.edu (Michael Frank Caver)
Subject: Re: atheism
Organization: ~/lib/organization
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:27:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.060551.20516@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
>> >"God is Dead" - Friedrich Nietzsche
>> "Nietzsche is Dead" - God
>"Nietzsche is God" - the Dead
..."Nietzsche God dead." - is


Ratboy
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:03:16 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Sep30.133017.164697@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
>
>Some more research would provide a better description than the above.
>Briefly, they exist in the spiritual realms, which can be reached by
>certain types of meditation (esp. yoga - yes yoga!), seances, ouija,
>and other OCCULT practices.  BUT BE WARNED, DO NOT BECOME INVOLVED IN
>THESE THINGS.  THEY ARE EVIL, AND WILL NOT HELP YOU IN ANY POSITIVE WAY!

  1). Anyone know the legal rights a spouse/family member/friend has
  w.r.t. getting a person hauled into a medical facility for the
  purpose of a psychological evaluation?

  2). Does James fit this criteria?

  Enquiring minds want to know.  Besides, I *know* demons don't
  exist.  All those activities attributed to demons are actually the
  work of advanced space aliens.  The same ones in the recent
  photographs shaking Bill Clinton's hand.  Really.

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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

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

"Above all, a god needs compassion"    James T. Kirk