HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: siphon@momad.li.ny.us (Stimpson J. Katz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Reality- What's Probable?   
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 00:59:47 EST
Reply-To: siphon@Momad.LI.NY.US (Stimpson J. Katz)
Organization: Modem Madness BBS    1+516-295-9435

vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN) writes:

> (Written for Alt.Atheism, cross posted to t.r.m)
> 
> An interesting question:
> Can non-existence of a god be proven?
> 
> Absolute proof is almost impossible to come up with in any situation. By 
> absolute proof I mean proof based upon incontivertible observations and
> facts, that fully imply the conclusion presented.  Assumed here is that the
> rules of evidence, and other presuppositions are accepted by all parties.
> This is epecially true for religious debate, where fact is sparse.
> 
> However, if we accept probable proof, as well as absolute proofs, then it is
> pretty easy to "prove" the non-existence of a particular entity.  By
> probable proof, I mean qualititative probability.  Observation and knowledge 
> shows us that certain things are probably not true.  We can't assign a number
> but we know qualitatively that something is very unlikely to be true. Example
> when someone tells you they have talked to a god, and this god wants you to
> give this person all your money, you expect this is probably not true,
> based on your knowledge of the world.  For example, how many doomsday prophet
> who have convinced their followers to sell all there goods and donate the 
> proceeds to their cause, have proven correct? ( Examples are a recent situati
> case in S. Korea, where when the world didn't end, the good reverend said 
> something like "Sorry, I was wrong, lets all go home now".  There was also
> a woman, Mrs. Price (?) who did a similar thing in CA, also giving the date f
> our doomsday.  She was obviously mistaken as well. ) Thus when we encounter
> a doomsday prophet, history, sociology, and psychology are our "proof" that
> this prophet is wrong.   Yet, many people still believe these crackpots. 

        You ask for the unreasonable. One does not attempt to prove a
negative assertion. Standards of evidence apply to positive assertions
about the existence of entities.

SJK

------------------------------------------------------------------
Siphon@Momad.LI.NY.US
Stimpson J. Katz

     Subscribe to the Introduction to Objectivism Mailing List.
Send mail to "Server@Momad.LI.NY.US" containing the phrase
"Subscribe AYN-RAND" in the body of the message.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Religious Taxation (was: Madeleine Murray O'Hare)
Organization: I'm on a coffee break now
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 07:52:35 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

>In article <2935686156.0.p00261@psilink.com> "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
>>Due to the generous tax exemptions they receive, Christians have been
>>able to purchase entire radio and television stations.  Are atheists
>>allowed to respond on those?

"Michael Parks Swaim" <swaim@owlnet.rice.edu> writes:

>  So why not form an athiestic church (yes there have been some) and do the
>same thing?

The other poster was saying that he objected to anti-religious material on
PBS.  I was pointing out that they had plenty of religious TV and radio.
I wasn't the one complaining about access, just pointing out that atheists
are not given any special treatment in the media.  And that christians have
plenty of media outlets to voice their opinions compared to that available
for atheists, so he gets no sympathy from me.  As we all know, freedom of
the press and freedom of speech on radio and TV depends on who owns the
presses and the broadcast facilities.  Someday, I hope atheists will own
radio and television stations, BUT GETTING AND KEEPING AN FCC LICENSE IS
DIFFICULT, especially if you are the least controversial in your subject
matter.  And atheism is an extremely controversial topic.   Our only real
outlet nowadays is through access cable in some cities.  Every atheist
radio program I know of is censored or pre-produced before broadcast.   

There was an atheist radio program which broadcasted live one hour a week on
KPFT in Houston but it was cancelled because the station (part of the Pacifica
Foundation) was trying hard to improve its salability to corporate donors
and "nice" people and so began purging its more "radical" programmers.  Just
couldn't handle that radical commie image they had developed over the years
when it came time to beg for money.  Pacifica is a non-profit corporation
and their stations depend on donors for support.

BTW, If you really know of any atheistic churches, tell me about them because 
I have not heard of any unless you are including Unitarians in that group.



Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: petel@sequent.com (Pete Lancashire)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 17:17:19 GMT

jstump@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (John E. Stump) writes:

>In article <1993Jan5.224453.29435@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>>
>>God wants our love and devotion.  As Christians, we serve God by

Why does (s)he need my devotion ? Why shouldn't I put that energy into
other things that help others living ?

>>tithing and attending services, and giving of ourselves.  But these
>>things come as a result of being a Christian.

Are you saying that my time with helping others, donating material and
time to my community and/or to those that need help (rather than building
another church) etc, etc, that I'm can't successfully do these things
with out being a christian ?

-pete
petel@sequent.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: world,public
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 07:32:31 GMT

petel@sequent.com (Pete Lancashire) writes:

>Are you saying that my time with helping others, donating material and
>time to my community and/or to those that need help (rather than building
>another church) etc, etc, that I'm can't successfully do these things
>with out being a christian ?

No, of course not; he's just saying that you'll probably go to hell if you
do these things and you aren't a Christian.  The Christian God doesn't
care what you do if you aren't a Christian; you are all serving Satan in the
end.

-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: autopsy@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Gregory Baumgartel)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:32:45 GMT

In article <C0L1tA.BHr.1@cs.cmu.edu> drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
>mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes:
>
>>> What are the reasons for emotions?
>>
>>	Trivial.  It seems to me that emotions can easily be
>>understood in an evolutionary context.  Love causes creatures to
>>cooperate with each other, to enhance each other's chance of survival.
>
>I *really* hate to seem like I'm agreeing with this bozo...but yeah,
>let's discuss this.  Love often seems to be anti-survival, to be
>honest.  Example: I love my mother.  Because of that love, I would
>sacrifice my life for her.  Obviously anti-survival for me.  My mother
>is old, cannot have more children, will probably die soon.  Also
>anti-survival for the race.  Yet, I perceive that I would do so, out
>of love.
>
>The other emotions you suggest are easily explained by reason.  Love,
>in my mind, seems to be the sole exception.
>
I was reading Time a couple weeks ago with the article "What does science tell
us about God?" and in it they explained the reasons for love.  They said that
it is, for the most part, caused by a chemical called oxytocin (or something
similar) and works to help organisms reproduce.  However, it did not really
explain non-romantic types of love.  I'm sure there's some psychological or
chemical reason for them, though.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From:  (Michael Snider)
Subject: Re: The Book of Job
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: BNR
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:39:06 GMT

In article <parsons.725779973@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu>,
parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) wrote:
> 
Scott Parris attempt's to reply to David Sumner deleted, except for:


> or humans or angels freedom to do what they will in no way diminishes
> the fact that God is still God.  As someone pointed out in a
> reply to one of the original posts, God made and blessed Job,
> Satan destroyed what Job had, yet God rebuilt all that Job had.
                                    *****************************

Tough luck for the wife ands, huh?  You're as sick as your supposed god.

> -- 
> Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
> parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |

***** Michael Snider ********** alas, no email, so reply by post ******

Talk of fame, honor, pleasure, wealth, all are dirt compared with
affection.
                                                   Charles Darwin
Critics quarrel with other critics. With an artist, no sane man quarrels.  

                                                   George Santayana        
    
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: Why? (was Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER)
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:21:40 GMT


In article <C0FyI0.12q@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan5.223146.29327@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes...
|> 
|> >Sure, when God placed the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil in the Garden, HE
|> >knew that the people would partake of it and be condemned to death as well as 
|> >all the generations that followed them.  GOD knew this!  
|> 
|> And then...
|> 
|> >   That is why He provided a plan for salvation through His one and only Son,
|> >Jesus Christ.  We are living in the age of grace whereby we may be saved IF we
|> >choose to follow Jesus.  There's nothing more to it than that.  
|> 
|> This is exactly my problem.  Only *some* people (true christians) would be
|> saved.  God ostensibly knew this, too.  Sounds like a strange way of testing
|> his creation, no?  Remember, in this worldview, God made up the rules in this
|> Great Board Game.  So if he wanted us all to win, why did he set it up so that
|> some would definitely lose?
|> 
|> ******************************************************************************
|> For God so loved the world that He gave Man Free Will and then got pissed when
|> we didn't meet his arbitrary standards.  Oh, and he had his Son offed when he
|> realized how impossible those standards were.  -- Michael 4:23
|> ******************************************************************************

I hear what you're saying.  This view only holds true if you accept the predestiny
view, that there are those who will be saved and those who will not and that 
there is nothing that can change that.  IMHO, I don't believe that it is written
in stone.  I believe that EVERYONE can be saved, but NOT everyone will be saved
through their own choice.  God already knows who will be saved and who will not
but He did not plan it that way, He exists in all time frames and sees what will
be.  There are no definite losers and there are no definite winners either.  The
fact is that any of us can be saved, it's just that most of us choose not to be.

If you were to die today and you are not a Christian, I couldn't say whether or 
not you would go to heaven.  However, if you are a Christian, your place in
heaven is guaranteed.  What is there that prevents you from being a Christian?
Money is not a requirement.  Fame is not a requirement.  A humble heart is.

God loves, Man kills.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reality- What's Probable?
Date: 13 Jan 1993 02:25:45 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan13.005042.22617@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
> Actually, the problem is that the Christian example is phrased
> something like "looking with an open mind" and it's impossible
> to prove that one has fulfilled THAT condition. But I didn't
> phrase it that way. I phrased it as just looking, and I most
> certainly did look. Hard enough, or open mind, etc. just don't
> enter into it in this case. 

Did you try sending Jimmy Swaggart fifty dollars so that he
could pray for the Lord to open your eyes?

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: The Moron Posts Again!
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:47:00 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>FROM:   Paul Crowley <pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
>
>Quoting p00168@psilink.com (James F. Tims) in article <2935738048.2.p00168@psilink.com>:
>>
>>Intelligence, in the various definitions and methods of measurement in
>>the studies, shows a negative  correlation to belief in the afterlife,
>>belief in god, participation in  religious activities and what have
>>you.  That's all.  That's all there  is to it.  There is no larger
>>inference.  There is no practical significance.
>
>Oops.  Sorry; I can't find the article on my system now, but I inferred
>from some of the comments you appended to the survey list that you felt
>there was something to be concluded from these results.
>
[...]

>\/ o\ Paul Crowley   pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk  \\ //

Not exactly.  I offered a conjecture, which is even weaker than having
an opinion, and which was not directly related to the posted 
studies or to the thread.  My cynicism has reached new heights in the wake
of resurgent Xianity, and I have been wont to wonder lately if the 
Pope might not be an atheist.  I have been doing concept reconstructions,trying 
to recalibrate new default levels for hypocrisy, as revealed 
through corrupt Republican politics,  It seems more likely that Pat Robertson
is a criminal than that he believes in the divinity of Jesus.  To get really 
crazy with this conjecture, it has occured to me that most of the people
who profess to be devout, especially the professionally devout, could 
easily be faking their faith for a variety of reasons.  

It just seems to me that you would have to have some stripped threads to
buy into Jesus or Islam.  Seems as if there must be reasons other than insanity
to do so, since there are so many obviously sane and intelligent people who
say they are Xians.  It's just a hunch, but I'd
bet there are fewer Xians who say they are atheists than there are 
atheists that claim that they are Xians.  Also just a hunch, but I 
suspect that the higher up the hierarchy of a religion one goes, the more 
likely one is to find an atheist.

That might be what you were remembering.

-jim

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rjg@doe.carleton.ca (Richard Griffith)
Subject: Re: Believers: What Would Make You Not Believe In GOD?
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:18:24 GMT

>In article <11JAN199315111090@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>> If I believed there was no GOD, well --- I'd be planning how to cause
>> or be out causing "accidents," which change society and politics. Like
>> poisoning foods and derailing trains. I could become rich, just by
>> jerking with the stock market, and there would be nothing worthwhile
>> in having this discussion.

Any believers out there who are of like mind want to comment on the nature
of atheists who do not do the above mentioned actions.

In <MMEYER.93Jan12121401@m2.dseg.ti.com> mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes:
>	So you NEED belief in God to remain moral?  That's really sad.
>	Doesn't mean God exists, though.

Consider the ten commandments as used by Christians. The commandments are
seen as rules to live by, rules that apply only in certain situations
(do not kill, rape, loot etc. unless engaged in war). 

As an atheist without the view that these things are rules from ``GOD'' and
as rules from ``GOD'' are to be blindly followed, I have a basic respect
for others that results in my morality. When doing interacting with others
I am not considering a rule set as the limit of my behavior, I consider
instead my morality and the rights I share with others.

Atheists draw their morality from within where those with western style 
religons often have documented indexed and cross referenced external
morality sets. As such I believe the atheist is much more adaptable and
extendable to new situations.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Why? (was Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER)
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 14:09:20 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world,public

In article <1993Jan8.050042.6458@julian.uwo.ca> roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts) writes:
>In article <C0I3v7.82E@acsu.buffalo.edu> v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
>>I don't think you're getting my point.  Imagine that you're God and that you're
>>about to create the universe.  Now assume that "we were meant to be his
>>companions" as you claim above.  Then why didn't he create only those who would
>>eventually "choose" to worship him with their Free Will?  If you take your
>
>If he created only those who would choose to be with him, those people would
>not have a choice. 

 Look, you are not not getting what is being said here, and I'm not
sure how to phrase it more simply. Look...
 1) God's omniscient. Among other things, this means...
 2) God knows what people would have done if things had been different.
  From 2, we get...
 3) God knows what people would have done if they had been created.
 4) God knows what people will do before It created them.
  Also, we have...
 5) God's omnibenevolent, so good that It would never do anything bad,
    and never wants anything to suffer.
  Ergo...
 6) God could and would create only those beings that would freely choose
    to follow/accept/praise/whatever It. Making a person that would *not*
    do so would be equivalent to making someone just to be damned, which
    is contrary to 5.

 Secondly, of course, we often see here the assertion that it is 'impossible'
for there to exist a creature with free will that is beyond the possibility
of evil.
 There is but one response:
 According to the specs, God never does and would never do evil. Ergo, God
does not have free will.
 If you say that God *does* have free will, the question becomes: Then why
not make humans with this delightful property of simultaneously having free
will and never doing evil?
 If you agree and say that God does not have free will, then the question
becomes: We are supposed to be like God in every way. Being different from
God is not desirable. (whether we can actually do this is a separate
topic.) Thus, free will can't be anything desirable, since God doesn't
have it, and so why would God make humans with free will?

 Finally, *please* try to trim your quotes. It makes the article so much
shorter and more likely to be read.

 Sincerely,
 
 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know this?" -- Woody Allen
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Nailing Christianity: Sufficient Support for Atheism?
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:51:00 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1993Jan7.192400.28866@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>In article <ksand-060193233341@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Even if someone found the ultimate killing device for Christianity --
>> let us say historical evidence showing that the miracle maker was
>> someone else -- I'm not sure that the force of Christianity would
>> suddenly die. We are really dealing with something that wants to 
>> stay alive -- are we dealing with a philosophical evolutionary force?
>
>I'd go for the term `memetic virus' myself, and have ranted about it
>elsewhere on a.a. within the last day or so. So you're spared it here.

Not ranting, Simon, it was an excellent posting. You summed up what a lot
of us have been trying to say, far more concisely than my long-winded
verbosity ever could!. I really like the term 'memetic virus'.

>
>> Kent
>
>Cheers
>
>Simon
>-- 
>Out-of-context quotes from s.r.c #11:
>          "We hold that the Lord's return is imminent.
>                In our generation. Definitely.
>      And if not in our generation then in our children's."

Chris Lee
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lungtt@gus.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: Christian racism
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 09:51:06 GMT

In article <martin.726133327@marsh> martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:
>You sound like you're arguing my point for me!
I doubt it.  I don't think you've got a point.
More likely, n=1, I don't fit your stereotype.
Start taking a survey here, perhaps your claims,
that many [insert any people group] do one thing
or another, fall apart real fast.

And what is your point by posting publicly mail 
that you've received privately?

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Nailing Christianity: Sufficient Support for Atheism?
Date: 7 Jan 93 07:36:23 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <2935295176.0.p00261@psilink.com>, "Robert Knowles" > You are
correct, it is not.  In fact, as an atheist, I think it is a
> total waste of time to attack Christianity.  We have a lot of work to
> to do to move atheism beyond its debating phase.  It is just good cheap
> fun for atheists to attack religion and a hard habit to break.  I have
> my own concerns about all the Bible debating and such that occurs here
> as well,  just doesn't seem a proper thing for atheists to do :-}.  But
> a good deal of it originates from religious people who monitor this news
> group and yank our chains from time to time, from what I have seen.  Some
> of the cross-postings do not help, either.

Personally I'm fashinated how such idea constructs are created,
mutated, assimilated into other ideas, and finally maybe killed by
a stronger idea construct. This is not only true concerning religions,
we have the same thing going on concerning fashion, music, art,
political ideas, sociology and so on.

Even if someone found the ultimate killing device for Christianity --
let us say historical evidence showing that the miracle maker was
someone else -- I'm not sure that the force of Christianity would
suddenly die. We are really dealing with something that wants to 
stay alive -- are we dealing with a philosophical evolutionary force?

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
Predictions: Soon moving to Newton DTS, bye bye.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism