HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What an atheist thinks of the biblke.
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 11 Oct 92 02:02:08 EDT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <ksand-101092170809@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> In article <1992Oct10.212402.11649@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca>,
> cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) wrote:
>> In article <gj156879.718726566@cunews>, gj156879@prince.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879) writes:
>  
>> >> PEOPLE 2000 YEARS AGO WERE MORONS:
>  
>> 	True.  I never really thought of it that way.
> 
> I actually don't agree on this statement. People are people, still today.
> To cite Schiller:
> 
> Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.
> 				Friedrich Schiller
> 				The Maid of Orleans, III, 6.

   Which part don't you agree with?  That people weren't morons then
or that are aren't still stupid now?  Either way, the original premise
still holds, it's just not giving enough information if you believe the
latter.

Karl
From: 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Null Cypher)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:51:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.215854.4477@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

>In article <1992Oct11.200218.29062@math.utexas.edu> mike@huevos.ma.utexas.edu (Mike Sullivan) writes:
>>Sullivan:
>>Let's try this analogy. Genetically humans can use language. But our genes
>>don't tell us beans about what type of language we should have (accept that
>>there are certain sounds we cannot make). People have tried to invent
>>"rational" languages but with no success in getting people to use them.
>>All one can really do is study how languages develop over time and encourage
>>the spread of literacy. As cultures come into contact different language
>>interact. One can gradually push for rational changes here and there.

>Yes, but to do that, you have to have a theory of language, and a "rational"
>language towards which you can aim.

[I am assuming that you are talking about a perfectly "rational" language.
 If you are not, then ignore the following paragraph:]

That smells of Plato's Forms.  I don't see why there would have to be a
perfectly rational language, or even an idea of one.  Is it not sufficient
to observe that Language A is more rational than Language B, and adopt
Language A rather than appealing to some sort of Platonic Form of Language?

[lots deleted]

>I think that it probably won't be long before we understand the human
>nervous system well enough that we'll be able to see that a lot of what
>our culture does to people is very destructive.  I think that we'll begin
>to see what causes things like nightmares, child abuse, misogyny, rape,
>blind obedience to authority, lying, hypocrisy, alienation, stupidity,
>war, short-sightedness, non-organic mental illness, etc. etc.  In fact,
>I think that some people have gotten a pretty good glimpse of the causes
>of a lot these things already.  Practical issues aside, once we have a
>complete theory of human behaviour, I think it will become apparent that
>we need a massive redesign of our culture.

This 'complete theory of human behavior' sounds pretty fishy.  I am of
the opinion that we will never know (or be able to explain) everything,
and that goes for any particular subset of "knowledge".

>--
>Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
--
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Null - 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
                                               --------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Cults
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 08:06:52 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: alt.atheism

In article <Bw2Eoq.9sD@casper.cs.uct.ac.za>, mpinnock@casper.cs.uct.ac.za
(M B Pinnock) wrote:
> In <ksand-101092171336@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >I would also be appalled if there were schools teaching atheism. My
> >educational background was attending religious teaching classes
> >in school (Lutheran tradition, Finland), and yes I don't think it
> >exactly helped me, with the exception of training my skeptical
> >thinking abilities.
> 
> >We should rather place children in classes teaching rational thinking,
> >common sense and personal skeptical judgement.
> 
> Sounds to me like a perfect definition of atheism. This is because all of
> the above are incompatible with emotional, anti-rationalist religious crap
> that is taught in schools around the world.

Sorry, but I don't agree on this statement. We have examples of atheistic
teaching systems (former communist Russia, current communist China) where
the young minds are brainwashed into believing non-religious things, in the
name of atheism. 

Any fanatical, one-sided training is evil, IMHO. I don't actually mind
that children learn a little bit about the religions of this planet -- it's
good
to know how Hinduism is defined for instance . We had one semester general
religion training in high school, and it didn't hurt. 

However constant monotonic doctrine drills are highly evil, whether it's
based on religious or political ideas. And the most bizarre notion I have
is that we place children in school, and spend little time teaching them
*to think*; use
logic and common sense.

Cheers,
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Jehovah's Witnesses and their axioms
Originator: cs911461@a01.ariel.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 20:38:57 GMT




Hello Netland,

I'm just a newbie to this group so please forgive me if the
issue has been beaten to death already! 

I'd like to get your opinions on the following tenet of the
Jehovah's Witnesses (I prefer "Jehovah's Witless" myself)
which they keep throwing at me despite my most valiant
efforts to contradict them.

(I actually like it when they come to my door because it 
gives me an opportunity to get philosophical.)

Now please realise that I'm always polite to them and give
them the dignity that they deserve as fellow human beings
but recently became annoyed at their ever-lovin' axiom of
"if a house has a builder, surely the universe must have
a builder too".  

At the time, I replied that this is not necessary since
matter is merely condensed energy which is something I can
see actually constituting a *finite* universe.  After 
drawing on several examples from basic linear algebra and
binary arithmetic (of which the visitor understood nothing)
I only succeeded in utterly confusing this person who then
led the discussion back to issues of faith, creation and
bla bla bla.

How would y'all answer this question in an infantile manner
that these simple minds could fathom?


C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Date: 15 Oct 92 09:30:05 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <1bfs75INNdsa@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:

>No no.  Morality is not imposed from the outside--it is an instinct.  Of
>course, outside influences can easily overpower your instincs, especially
>since humas are so intelligent.  Other animals are not so easily corrupted.
>Thus, we never observe an immoral animal (nonhuman animal, that is).

Sparrows sleep around.  Males of many species will kill a females young, so 
that she will then be prepared to mate.  I think you have to define 
'morality' a bit before you can say whether non-human animals are 'moral' or 
not.


              Have another day    [Armageddon, the musical] 
  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44|0)61-275-6033
From: bthurman@uncavx.unca.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re:The Devil Important?
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:52:38 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Nntp-Posting-User: bthurman

Can anyone explain why such a strong movement seems underway to emphasize the
femininity of God, but no similar movement seems underway to emphasize the
femininity of the devil?
From: mike@huevos.ma.utexas.edu (Mike Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:31:40 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics



cochrane@spot.Colorado.EDU (Jim Cochrane) writes:

>>>Perhaps it would be wise to scrap the concept of morality altogether.
>>>Morality implies a system of rules imposed upon you from outside --
>>>by parents, religious leaders, political leaders, TV, movies, and
>>>whatever other media can influence one's thinking.

 (Mike Sullivan) writes:

>>The same could be said for language, science and law. Should we scrap them
>>as well?

cochrane@spot.Colorado.EDU (Jim Cochrane) replies:

>My point regarding moral systems was that they were not, on the whole,
>serving a positive purpose; therefore (perhaps) they should be scrapped.
>Language and science, on the whole, do serve a positive purpose (in my
>opinion).  Thus there is no reason to scrap them.

To which (Mike Sullivan) says:

You said two different things: 1) scrap the concept of morality. 2) scrap
moral systems. (2) does not imply (1). (1) is an absurdity as is it based
on the premise that morality is BAD. But "bad" (or "not positive") is a
moral concept. You can say "morality is bad" all you want, and it may be
true, but in saying so, you except the concept of morality. 

As for scraping moral systems, I put forth that since this is not going to
happen any time soon why not focus on making them more consistant?

Indeed I challenge you to describe how modern society, (i.e. one with industry,
trade, art, science etc.) would fuction without any moral codes or principles.
Of course some would argue that we are living in just such a society! Perhaps
we should call the "moral structures" of today, "pre-morality".

Mike Sullivan
mike@math.utexas.edu
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: O'Connor in Saturday Night Live
Date: 8 Oct 1992 13:58:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


	Perhaps we should keep in mind that the Pope recently said
that he supports laws that try to supress me and others like me just
because of our sexual orientaion. As far as I am concerned the Pope
is a fat, rich, old fart who is nothing but a f#@$ing bigot....


	I think she should have bruned the picture of the Pope to the
tune of "Burn baby burn"


-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu | alias: White Rook
aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Homophobia
Date: 10 Oct 92 23:59:42 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Oct9.171003.15616@news.yale.edu>,
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) wrote:
> In article <1b4ec0INNg44@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:

> >	The majority of Christians are very hate full towards 
> >Lesbians and Gay men (and Bisexuals too).
> I'm not at all sure this is true. You have data to support it?

I agree, speaking from my own experience living in Nordic countries
Gay men and women have full liberties, even if the Lutheran church
is the official state church. And the majority of the people belong
to the church. 

I think it has more to do with your own private opinion, I know people
that are non-religious, and still don't accept homosexuality.

Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18486 alt.messianic:3236 alt.pagan:10733 alt.postmodern:2464 alt.prose:1351
From: neerven@cwi.nl (Jan van Neerven)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.messianic,alt.pagan,alt.postmodern,alt.prose
Subject: monograph on existence of Purgatory
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:12:41 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism


                       PURGATORY EXISTS !!!!!
                     ==========================

       A mathematical proof of the existence of Purgatory is
       claimed by a team of Dutch mathematicians from the Centre
       for Mathematics and Computer Science and the University of
       Amsterdam. Their results appear in a monograph entitled

                  "Das Fegefeuer-Theorem"
                       -------------
                       DE PURGATORIO

                  Eschatologische Axiomatik
                            zum
                      transorbitalen
                     Suendenmanagement

       published by Libelle-Verlag, Bottighofen am Bodensee,
       ISBN 3-909081-55-X.
       The authors are J.A.P. Heesterbeek, J.M.A.M. van Neerven
       and H.A.J.M. Schellinx.
       The monograph is written in academic German, with an
       extensive mathematical Appendix in English.

       We cite the English Condensation:

            'This book gives the Deomathematical description
             of Sinning. You, reading this summary in a book-
             shop, should stare into your deepest Ego and
             contemplate whether your Sin-load is bigger than
             10 (jokes about the Royal Family (UK readers) or
             Dan Quayle (US readers) already drive it above
             25) while your Extensional Soulbalance is below
             0. Do not contemplate too long though, the book-
             seller has noticed you and wonders if you really
             will buy. Your Soulsearch reveals that You, Reader,
             are a Sinner. It is then good to know that we
             rigorously prove that Purgatory exists. Buying this
             book will favourably influence your personal
             grill-time.'

       The 'Sommaire Prospective (1758)':

             'Votre Altesse trouvera dans ce Trait'e des matieres
              de Th'elogie, de Philosophie & de Math'ematique,
              mani'ees aved beaucoup d'habilit'e & de d'elicatesse:
              elles sont toutes de votre sphere ces matieres.'

=============================================================================
hees@cwi.nl
-------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: esposito@hamlet.uncg.edu (Andrew Joseph Esposito)
Subject: Re: marriage: atheist's alternatives?
Organization: not affliated with any
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:22:00 GMT

In article <16878946F.FLANAGA@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> FLANAGA@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU
 (Scott Flanagan) writes:

> What do atheists, or anyone not desiring a religious wedding ceremony,
>typically do if they otherwise want to have a normal wedding?  I am aware
>that justices of the peace may perform civil services, but I was hoping that
>there are other, LEGAL, alternatives.  I am particularly interested in
>alternatives which have been shown to be legally watertight in Texas, since
>that is where I will be getting married.
>  -Scott Flanagan (flanaga@ricevm1.rice.edu)

Take a cruise in the Gulf.  Captains of ocean vessals can marry people also.

For me, religion aside, a wedding is a 'rite of passage' and using the 
archaic rituals within the church is an acceptable proposition.  My 
Significant Other and I are both atheists, and we both would like a highly 
ritualized Catholic Wedding.

Maybe it's because of the glitter, and gold.  Maybe because of the cool 
paintings on the ceiling.  Maybe?

comments?
--
Andrew Joseph Esposito                    internet:  esposito@hamlet.uncg.edu
voice (919) 379-8244                      bitnet:    in%"esposito@uncg.bitnet"

--
Disclaimer:  The opinions herein are not necessarily the opinions of any
organization or group of which the author is affiliated.  The preceding 
opinions may not even be the author's.  No guarantees are given and no 
warranties will be honored.
From: ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:32:39 GMT
Organization: Electronic Eng., Univ. Natal, Durban, South Africa
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc56.ee.und.ac.za

In article <1992Oct6.195332.1481@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:

>In article <kmr4.50.718378369@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan ( aka. Wolphgang )) writes:
>>       The major difference between science, and mysticism:
>>
>>       Science: Doesn't always have an answer.
>>       Mysticism: Always has an answer, even if non sequiter.

>        Hey! I'm inclined to mysticism, and I haven't the vaguest idea
>if there's a god or not. Mind your terminology.

>                                                Kayembee

Well, there is! So now you know.

Cheers.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mmestern@cs1.uct.ac.za (MA MESTERN)
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Cape Town
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 07:47:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.132026.164741@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
>From: jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus)
>Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
>Date: 8 Oct 92 19:20:25 GMT
>bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>
>
>> 
>>	Jesus is dead, that would be like saying Sig Freud (spelling ?).
>>How can a dead person help ? Dead people tend to be of little help, their
>>DEAD, KAPUT, STILL, ACHIEVED ROOM TEMPERATURE, 6 FEET UNDER.I still say a 
>>good shrink is better than a corpse
>
>ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!!!!
>
>Jesus is not dead!  He died and was RAISED FROM THE DEAD.  He lives today
>inside all those who accept Him as their Lord and Saviour.  This I KNOW!

How? You seem very sure.

>
>Although I can not prove this by sending words such as these across the
>network, He is as real to me as a person standing next to me.  With the
>communion and fellowship that I have with Him, I know for sure that he is
>ALIVE!  You can have the same relationship with Him if you ask Him
>(and mean it).  Go ahead, you might just supprise yourself.
>
>Look at it this way.  If He doesn't exist, then you have nothing to worry
>about.  If He does exist, then you will be able to really experience the
>presence and love of God through His son (ultimate proof for yourself!).
>I sincerely hope you take up the challenge.
>
>Yours in Christ,
>James.

The ideas in the last paragraph have been discussed to death, and are in the 
faq. Read it before jumping in with them please.

Cheers Mark.
From: mike@huevos.ma.utexas.edu (Mike Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 10 Oct 92 22:56:19 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics

ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:

>Wrong, look around you and tell me that it all just happened by freak 
>accident. That the perfection of natural was accidental.

>Scientists today turn to nature to solve problems. Think about yourself for 
>example, if you where created by a freak accident then why is the human body 
>symmetrical and not deformed with two arms on one side and only one on the 
>other for example.

>Think about it. With the existance of a God everything in the universe can 
>be proved, but without Him we do not even know how we can to be. Remember 
>evolution is a theory which is opposed by may scientists.

>So you prove God does not exist! (Or that you came to be without Him).

Here it goes. If Edwin's god exists, we would be perpectly formed creatures.
We are not. Example: The heart and liver are not symetrically placed in
the body.  We have an organ called the apendix which serves no purpose
(no harms comes when it is removed) and sometimes causes serious problems,
like death.  Many (most?) people's jaws are too small to fit all their
teeth, and need to have their wisdom teeth removed. Are brains are clearly
not perfectly formed as is evidenced by curent events in Somolia, Yugoslavia
and Erwin's own post.

Note: I have only shown that Erwin's silly god does not exist. 

Mike Sullivan
mike@math.utexas.edu
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: FAQ?
Date: 14 Oct 1992 03:56:29 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


	What date was the FAQ last updated ?>


-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu | alias: White Rook
aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God's existence
Date: 13 Oct 1992 02:41:06 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, jwest@wisc (Jeff West) says:

>scott@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Scott G Goddard) writes:
>
>:      What is it going to take to prove that He does exist?  Is God Himself 
>: going to have to come down from Heaven and perform a miracle?  Or would that 
>: not be good enough?  Well, I hope it would be. 
>
>	Yes I believe this would do it for me!  Would be more than I've seen
>	so far.  Can you schedule it?  I'll take vacation time to see it and
>	even pay full price airfair to get there.

	For me, a "miracle" would not persuade me. That is because the 
"miracle" are nothing really special. [ none that I ever have read as
being "miracles" impressed me. ] I only ask that God makes the littlest
hint of his presence to *me*. Not to Joe Smoe down the street, not to
some long lost martyr, but to me, so I would have a "strong" knowledge 
experience. "Weak" knowledge of him will not do.

{ no, "strong", "weak" do not mean in the usual sense of strength, but
rather, in type }

	Since God obviously wishes me not to know his prescence, he must
wish it. Who am I to go against God's wishes?
-- 
	So there I was, snuggled in the leather seat of my brand new Ferreri.
I had the oiled wood gear shift in one hands, and the leather wrapped Momo in
the other. And, I had the stereo cranking _Born to be Wild_...
	Only one problem, I was unside down, under six feet of water...