HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zeisset@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Stephan Zeisset)
Subject: atheists to hell (was Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof)
Originator: zeisset@hphalle5g.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
Organization: TU M"unchen (FRG)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 11:56:16 GMT


In article <rtdfgINN5kh@cutlass.ksu.ksu.edu>, yohan@cutlass.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
|> 
|> In a followup it was said:
|> 
|> >> But God is omniscient, and *indeed* knows what's best for you;  How can he
|> >> not know what's best for you.  He created all the darn rules, he created
|> >> all the calamities you face, he decided what would make you happy, and what
|> >> wouldn't.  Even your desire for free will was created by him.  All this, so
|> >> he could play games with you, and if you don't match up to his arbitrary
|> >> rules, fry you in HELL.   HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
|> 
|> Respsonse:
|> 
|> >EEAAUUCCHHH!!!  That's not the God of catholicism, which doesn't hold that
|> >all you atheists are gonna burn in hell.
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> Every devoted protestant I've talked to would argue that we (aetheists and
|> agnostics) are going to Hell.  As I've never talked to any devote catholics about
|> religion (not that there aren't any or that any of my catholic friends aren't
|> devout), I'm curious about what catholics feel merits Hell and their theory about
|> the afterlife.
|> 
|> I would have sent this to the author, but I think it would be good if the basic
|> Catholic ideas on this subject were made clear.

The answer is a definitely NO (NO, it doesn't depend on your faith
in god what happens to you on judgement day)
Jesus himself linked our destiny only with the fulfillment of the
one commandment he gave us: Love one another as you love yourself.
(I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, ...)
Also the apostel Paulus mentions in one of his letters that
theres no advantage of believers against those who haven't 
heared the evangelium and says that all are judged by the same
guidelines. If someone is good without explicitely believing
in god then it is evident that god has engraved this goodness
in his heart, he is something like an implicit believer.

However, for those of us who aren't perfectly good, believing
in god should help us to become like those few who are good
by default...


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: different planet (was paranoid etc)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 02:49:06 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Research

In article <1992Apr10.014259.4791@bmerh2.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
|> In article <73404@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

|> >Jewish tradition encourages the questioning of authority.  Constantly.
|> 
|> Which authority?  All authority?  Even that which is purported to
|> from God?  Somehow I very much doubt it.  I could refer to lots of
|> passages in the OT, but yeah, I know, Judaism doesn't use a literal
|> interpretation of the Bible. (whatever that means)

Yes, even that which is purported to come from God.

Remember that Abraham and Job both argue with God
in the Bible.

Just yesterday I read in a Jewish book catalog of
a work entitled "Arguing With God".  I haven't read
it yet, but the blurb quotes the author's belief
that this is a very important part of our tradition.

-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: kmldorf@utdallas.edu (George Kimeldorf)
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:12:31 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.190125.6849@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>
>
>Well, far be it from me to prolong a debate about semantics to the bog-down
>point, BUT....:-)
>
>I *am* one of those folks who is prepared to stick the ol' neck out
>and believe that no gods exist ("strong" atheism if you will).
>
>Before I'm reminded, perfectly correctly, that there can be no proof for this
>contention, and at the risk of disappearing up myself in a puff of gratuitous
>self-reference, let me just quote a bit from a recent article of mine
>explaining my position:
>
>>    [material deleted]
>
>
>And I hope you're still awake.
>
>To take this a bit further and piss everybody off before the "n" key falls
>(the dirty bit comes soon, honest), the implication is that whether one [who
>sees the question in these terms] is an a-theist ("weak") or an athe-ist
>("strong") depends on two subjective factors:
>
>(i)  one's estimate of the probability z, and
>(ii) at what value of z one draws one's personal boundary between
>     the two positions(*).
>
>The curious conclusion is that it is possible under this construct for a
>"strong" atheist to consider the existence of god/s *more* likely (higher z)
>than does a "weak" atheist if their respective personal boundaries are so
>drawn.
>
>Where you draw the line induces the philosophical act of making the "jump";
>it doesn't change your value of z.
>
>This specifically does *not* permit the conclusion that the "strong"
>atheist position is dogmatic and less likely to be swayed by evidence
>which might cause z to be revised upward.
>
>Compare and contrast with certain other belief systems we all know and love.
>
>
Yes. I agree.  I believe that gods do not exist. I also believe that Santa
Claus does not exist, that witches do not exist, that ghosts do not exist,
that Zombies do not exist....  In each case, I admit the possibility that
I am mistaken, but I will retain my belief until I am provided with
sufficient evidence that I am mistaken.  When I was in high school, I was
taught that the mass of an object was constant, and I believed it.  When
I learned about relativity in college, however, I was presented with
sufficient evidence to justify changing my belief.  I now believe in
Einstein's theory of relativity (to the limited extent that I understand
it).  If, in the future, I am presented with contrary evidence, I am
prepared to change my belief again.
From: news@pdxgate.UUCP (Net News Account)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Owning up to Disobedience
Date: 11 Apr 92 21:10:47 GMT
Organization: Portland State University,Portland,Oregon

From: allenroy@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (callen roy)
For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all.
(Rom 11:32)

Why is God so interested in pointing out the universal disobedience of
the human race?  What reason does He have for wanting to make sure that
everyone owns up to being disobedient?  Is this so that no one will try to 
sneak away from the smarting pain of His rebuke?

Paul seems to have another purpose in mind in this text.  He 
recognizes a principle in God's dealings with us sinners:  Those who
admit their disobedience receive mercy; those who do not admit it receive
no mercy.  The problem with those who do not receive mercy is not that
God has held it back, but that they didn't recognize that they needed it.
Those who do not know they have a disease will not reach out to the
Physician.

As priceless as the gift of mercy is to all who know they need it, most 
of those to whom God has made this offer are still suffering outside its
gracious benefit.  It seems stupid to reject healing when the disease is fatal
without treatment.  But that reveals the lengths to which all of us go to
protect our image.  We would rather die championing our innocence than
to risk facing seemingly certain embarrassment and rejection should we
show up at the clinic door and whisper our disease.

When we know in advance, however, that our admission will be met
with mercy it does make the admission easier.  When we learn that the
Physician knows how to keep confidences and that His cures are
effective, we are more likely to risk owning up to our great need.

John said of our Father that if we will confess our sin, He can be
counted on to forgive and to cleanse.  To confess, in this context, means to
agree with God's opinion of us--to say, "yes, You are right in Your
appraisal; I am a sinner, very much in need of help."  The interesting
point, of course, is that God already knows full well what our condition 
is;  we don't confess for His sake, but for ours.

It is so true: the goodness of God leads to repentance.  It can also be
said that this same goodness so surrounds us with security that we are able
to admit our need to repent.  The personal question for us is How can we
stay away from such a warmly drawing Friend?

(from His Healing Love by Dick Winn)


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rjg@doe.carleton.ca (Richard Griffith)
Subject: Re: goedel's proof for existence of god
Keywords: god,goedel
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 14:37:58 GMT

In <atten.702563771@groucho.phil.ruu.nl> atten@phil.ruu.nl (Mark van Atten) writes:

>Axiom 1.
>(dichotomy) A property is positive iff its negation is negative.

>Axiom 2.
>(closure) A property is positive if it necessarily contains a positive property.

>Theorem 1.
>A positive property is logically consistent (i.e., possibly it has some instance).

>Definition.
>Something is God-like iff it possesses all positive properties.

>Axiom 3.
>Being God-like is a positive property.

>Axiom 4.
>Being a positive property is (logical, hence) necessary.

>Definition.
>A property P is the essence of x iff x has P and P is necessarily minimal.

>Theorem 2.
>If x is God-like, then being God-like is the essence of x.

>Definition.
>NE(x): x necessarily exists if it has an essential property.

>Axiom 5.
>Being NE is God-like.

>Theorem 3.
>Necessarily there is some x such that x is God-like.

Cute, lets go back and replace "God-like" with "Twinkie-like". Remember never
use loaded words like "God" as named tokens unless you want to associate 
properties with that token. Who says everyone takes "Something is God-like 
iff it possesses all positive properties." as their definition of god.

The final statement from above proof set should read.
Necessarily there is some x such that x possesses all positive properties.

This is much better than any "God-like" reference and avoids the use of possibly
value loaded symbolic names.
--
"Personalize this message. Put your favorite quotation, quip or quibble here."
From: edw@caligula.cts.com (Ed Watkeys)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Date: 10 Apr 92 04:21:18 GMT
Reply-To: edw@caligula.cts.com (Ed Watkeys)
Organization: Guerrilla Networking Project
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v4


In article <s2rfqINN84@festus.ksu.ksu.edu> (alt.atheism), yohan@festus.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
> 
> In my humble opinion, yes they do.  Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone
> will), but atheist means:  "to conclude that God(s) does not exist", while
> agnostic means:  "to draw no conclusion about the existence of God(s)."  I'm
> sorry if I'm being redundant, but I just want to make sure this is clear. 
> Anyway, it seems to me that atheists are just as assuming as theists, since they
> are "having faith" that there isn't a God, for which, in my opinion, there can be
> no proof.  It seems, that a common arguement that theists and atheists use
> against one another, deals with the origin of the universe.

I won't address the rest of your post because, honestly, I stopped reading
shortly after this point...

To me, being an atheist is very much like calling evolution a fact -- while
there is no way to prove the nonexistence of god or the validity 100%, the
percentage is way up there and there is absolutlely no reason for believing
in any other situation. Technically, I imagine, I'm agnostic, but I'm fairly
sure that if any atheist was confronted with "irrefutable" proof, they too
would admit god's existence.

Also, I think of my atheism in terms similar to calculus: In the last 19 years
of my life, I have not been presented with any evidence supporting the existence
of god, so say the likelyhood of him existing is 5%. Tomorrow, after god doesn't
show himself again, the percentage chance will be 4.98% etc... Using induction
(which I know is totally bogus outside of math), you can predict that god
will never be found etc...

Aside from all of this, the first cause stuff doesn't hold any water, and
the idea of a god seems inelegant when you have to make him hang around forever
and then create the universe... There's no need for god, so why create him?
I don't need morality from god, nor do I need everlasting life (well, I wouldn't
mind...) from him. So, there's no reason to think that a god exists. If you
were to ask Carl Sagan, he'd probably call organized religion reptilian (_The
Dragons of Eden_), and I'm inclined to agree.

Ed

--
Ed Watkeys (Drexel U. Comp Sci)  "...if you wish to strive for peace
edw@caligula.cts.com              of soul and pleasure, then believe;
edw%caligula@phlpa.pha.pa.us      if you wish to be a devotee of truth,
ls.com!phlpa!caligula!edw         then inquire...." -- Nietzsche
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: FAQ file reminder
Date: 14 Apr 92 11:01:05 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

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

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

To find a copy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

   The FAQ file should be mailed back to you automatically.

5. If you're in the UK and don't have access to international mail, send
   mail to info-server@mantis.co.uk consisting of the following line:

      send atheism/atheism.txt

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


mathew
[ Please report any errors in the above instructions to me ]
-- 
Down, boy!  There's a good dogma.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:42:18 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <92101.092218MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>, MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
> Oh well...based on these definitions I can be called an atheist. It is a
> quandary to me, however, that I have seen literature put out by the
> American Atheists group titled "There is no God." This would imply that
> atheism is in fact a belief that there is no god...
> Since all I have is a lack of belief, I am not sure where that puts me.
> Perhaps someone should get out a dictionary, but those were probably written
> by christians anyway. We should just settle on some definitions and get on
> with it.

Personally I don't like labelling, it just locks your mind into a pre-set
configuration concerning world views. This is one of the reasons I 
want call myself atheist, agnostic, theist or -ist or -ian.

We had earlier a discussion going on concerning the concept of 'open mind',
would one reference be that one does not automatically conform to
a known idea without personal thinking and revision of the idea?

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Do Atheists have Thier Own "Faith"?
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 13 Apr 1992 16:35 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <45220@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, gfritz@sage.cc.purdue.edu ("Happy Fun Ball") writes...
>Okay, let me make a statement:  There can be nothing in existence that has
>absolute power ("omnipotent").  Why?  Because being all-powerful would in 
>itself would put limits on that power.  I will post the same question as I did
>to someone who responded to my post via e-mail.  I read this in _The Emperor's
>New Mind_ by Roger Penrose:  "Can God create a stone too big for Him to lift?"
>Either answer limits His power.  It ranks right up there with the Immovable
>Object vs the Unstoppable Force.  What happens when these two collide?  The
>classic answer is an Inconceivable Event.

There are at least two ways out of this.  1. Redefine "omnipotent" to mean
not the power to do anything whatsoever, but the power to do whatever is
logically possible to do.  (Most theists take this route, I believe, and
admit that God cannot create square circles.)  2. Just say yes.  God can
create a stone that he can't lift, but only by limiting his own power and
ceasing to be omnipotent.  (But then, it's not unliftable because it's
too big, but only because God has changed him/her/itself.)

There is a good discussion of paradoxes of omnipotence in J.L. Mackie's
book _The Miracle of Theism_.  Mackie draws a parallel with a sovereign
nation issuing declarations that limit its own sovereignty.

>Geoff

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Backward Masking
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:26:27 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr12.205938.23212@athena.mit.edu>, starpath@athena.mit.edu
(David E. Hollingsworth) writes:
> 	Don't listen to rock music, EVEN MORE SO if the group claims that
> it is "Humanist".  Secular Humanism is of Satan!!!!  In these End Days, Satan
> will be more subtle, and rely less on obvious Satanic groups such as Judas
> Priest and Led Zepplin.  Rush is of Satan!!!  Take away any Rush albums your
> children own; don't listen to them, especially BACKWORDS, or else the Message
> will Take It's Grip!
> 	Hurry, friends, before it is too late!

Is this real, or is it a joke? Anyway, if it's real (don't think so), then
the concept of thinking of Satan and devils have taken over your mind.

Cheers,
Kent
From: amitchell@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Examined by the judge
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:13:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: mac.1992Apr13.101357.2427
Organization: Macalester College

In article <5305@pdxgate.UUCP>, news@pdxgate.UUCP (Net News Account) writes:
> From: allenroy@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (callen roy)
> Path: rigel!allenroy

Please don't sermonize here.  If we wanted to be preached at, we would be
posting to a Christian net, NOT to alt.atheism.  Also, please use your own
words, and don't hide behind the words of others.  Hiding behind the words of
others makes me think you don't have a mind of your own....

> We hide behind our fig leaves when we fear that our nakedness will 
> become the object of derision and scorn.  Adam and Eve hid, leaf-clad, in 
> the bushes of Eden because they had already fallen under the spell of
> Satan's view of God.  They believed God would harshly condemn them
> for their nakedness.  but God went in pursuit of them, holding out an 
> animal skin for clothing--not because His pure eyes were offended by
> their nakedness, but so their shredded self-esteem might not be further
> torn.

This is more relevant to a nudist newsgroup than to alt.atheism!

Allison
amitchell@macalstr.edu
amitchel@math.macalstr.edu

Macalester College does not necessarily agree with my views.

If you want to be sure I see a response, please forward it to me as well as
posting it, as the Director of Computer Services here is threatening to remove
the entire alt.* heirarchy.
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Canaanites(was Re: Achilles heels for religion?)
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:39:06 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)

In article <1992Apr7.005356.782@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>can look up.  Since he did post the sources, I disagree
>>that he's been evasive.

>Well, I didn't see them, and as far as I can tell he hasn't
>reposted them on my request. Would you mind doing so?

I posted them, I posted them at your request the second time.  Here's a
third time: Artscroll YEHOSHUA and Judaica Press JOSHUA.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:23:20 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)

In article <1992Apr6.184627.26979@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>"I'm responding to some very unpleasant people. You don't notice
>since you've apparently decided that any unpleasant remarks that
>attack the right group are not really unpleasant after all," which
>is a remark which certainly could be interpreted as a mite paranoid.

Especially if the person in question was only reading a.a for the one
month--as he stated--and is also very ignorant of Judaism--a likely
prospect--and thus has no idea of how various posters have been mis-
representing Judaism for quite some time now.

>Don't you see a certain irony in that? Now, your response is kind of
>unrelated and a weak insult besides, so it lacks snap. Surely you can
>do better.

Sigh.  The snap has been replaced with velcro after my last lobotomy....
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:44:21 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <72397@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P
Wiener) writes:
> 
> In article <JJqLiB9w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis (From A to B) writes:
> >> When I taught calculus to freshman, I was required to lie my head off.
> >> Telling them the raw truth about derivatives and integrals would have
> >> popped their still developing cerebral cortices.
> 
> >Ah, but did you tell them you were lying?  Our lecturers used to say things
> >like "This is a lie, but it's close enough to the truth for the work you'll
> >be doing".
> 
> Sometimes I told them.  Sometimes it really didn't matter.

So the pupils never got a clear indication of when you told them
the truth and when you cheated. Interesting...

Cheers,
Kent