HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & Sin
Date: 9 Sep 1992 17:51:27 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu () says:


>As far as I know, most of the so-called "atheists" online here qualify
>their disbelief as more like a skeptic's. Also, The skeptic doesn't just
>"believe"...he trusts his eyes.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
Not always. I don't. I just act on the hypothesis that my eyes are giving
me an accurate picture of the world.
-- 
+-------------+------------------+
| Damien Neil | dpn2@po.cwru.edu | 
+-------------+------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Logical Fallacies
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:13:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.095649.19813@st-andrews.ac.uk> nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk
 (Norman R. Paterson) writes:

   >Not everyone accepts this as a valid technique.  It relies on there being
   >no "middle ground", so that everything must be true or false.  I don't
   >know how it relates with incompleteness, for example.

  You instance the classical proof that sqrt(2) is irrational, but
this is a common mistake. This is a direct proof, and accepted as valid
by everybody. It does not presuppose the law of excluded middle. Note
that what is being proved is a negated statement: "it is not the case
that A", and the statement is proved by deriving a contradiction from
the assumption A. This does not conform to your description, which
requires us to prove a statement A by deriving a contradiction from
"it is not the case that A".

  Generally speaking the term "reductio ad absurdum" is commonly
applied to two forms of argument. The first form of argument derives a
contradiction from the assumption A and concludes not-A. This is
universally regarded as unproblematic. The second form, "classical
reductio", derives a contradiction from the assumption not-A and
concludes A. This is the controversial principle.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: End of the World...
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:06:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.002930.22158@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
>We Aussies can beat that. There's a pack of lunatics based in Sydney who
>are sure the Rapture is coming *next month*. Their publicity is greatly
>mirthful, and worth reproducing in full:-
>(I will try to reproduce their idiosyncratic layout and syntax)
>
>THE FINAL WARNING OF GOD

good gads, the nineties are going to be strange.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
From: bwilliam@iat.holonet.net (Bill Williams)
Subject: Re: I still seem to be God
Organization: HoloNet (BBS: 510-704-1058)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 09:48:56 GMT

Yeah, verily I beseach you fellow Brothers and Sisters to join me in
Enlighted Age of Colleen, The One True Messiah. For we shall become
stronger, and our voices will be raised in high spirits for we, and we
alone, on Usenets alt.atheism newsgroup, have been choson to bear witness
on the revelation of Colleens Divinity and accept the noble task of
teaching our offspring of this miracle for generation to come.

The children of Colleen the All Powerful, will become as prosperous as
grains of sand on a beach, for we are the chosen people.

Pray deeply to dear Colleen for she hears your every prayer. Only through
total devotion to her can you truly be saved.

Do not question Her, nor annoy Her with petty tests of Her One True Being
and Existence above the heavens, for surely this will only bring forth
wrath and destruction.

Dearest Colleen, I humbly pray to Your Greatness, to forgive the heretical
few who doubt your sanctity, for your Holiness is above question, and
their wicked and spiteful remarks are surely due to mere ignorance from
being mere mortals. Please allow humankind to continue to prosper, for we
realize that our fates are totally in Your Loving Hands.

I accept with honor your annointment of myself as Colleen's third disciple
and prophet, and shall spread the Word until my very day of death.

If need be I will gladly give my life in the attempt to vanquish the Evil
Foes and Naysayers of Colleens Godliness, such as blasphers "Evan" and
"Loren King". They will renounce their heretical ideas or suffer the
plight of having their tounges and eyes cut out in the proper Manner That
Colleens Law dictates Shall Be Done.

All Hail Colleen the one True Messiah!

Bill Williams "Kill a Christian every month for luck"
From: jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Physics and Morality
Date: 12 Sep 92 00:23:21 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


Because I'd been up way too late, reading Surak and Ayn Rand and my
twelfth-grade theology textbook and Cosmos and TOO MANY OTHER BOOKS
AAAAAGHHHHHHH!!!!!! Sorry.

Term papers. Can't live with 'em, can't live with the folks who assign 
them.

Thanx 4 the opinions.

(D. Carvey/G. Bush: "Message received; message reads:   YOU'RE PISSED")

B-)
-- 
Jessica McGeary
jmm25@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University
Remember! Arguments should be FUN!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: atheist population
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:55:11 GMT

   I wonder if anyone has any idea what proportion of USA citizenry is atheist?
I have a feeling it's much higher than most people imagine. I would guess there
are many in the closet, so to speak, who may not admit to it if a poll were 
taken. Has anyone out there ever seen any estimates? I'm curious as to how 
much political clout we potentially have.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: god is not relevant
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:51:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.190528.4581@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> tino@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (allen.j.tino) writes:
>Since my previous post was garbled, I'll try again....
>
>From article <1992Sep02.193850.1579@bnr.ca>, by ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge):
>> I've been spending way too much time thinking about what i believe and why.
>> I've been especially concerned with the distinction between not believing
>> that god exists and believing that god does not exist.  I started from
>> not believing in the existence of god, but i've come to the conclusion that
>> the god is simply not relevant.  So what difference does it make if he/she/it
>> exists or not?
>> 
>> Now, is it reasonable to call oneself an "atheist" if one's position is that
>> god is not relevant?  I don't think that "agnostic" is correct, since if god
>> is not relevant then the question of god's existence is also not relevant.
>> Is this atheism, and if not then what is it?
>> 
>> Or is god relevant?  If so, how and why?  What's he/she/it needed for?
>
>I use "atheist" to refer to someone who rejects (dis-believes)
>the existence of god, regardless of why.  This is separate from the
>issue of whether god is relevant or not.  (Relevant for what purpose?
>Even if there was a god, would I care?)
>
>A distinction must be drawn between just lacking a belief and actively
>disbelieving a belief.  If atheism means just the lack of a belief in
>god, then my friend's month-old baby and cat are both atheists since
>they certainly lack a belief in god.  That definition would make the
>term pretty useless. 
>
>This is not to say that disbelief in god is the same as belief that
>god does not exist.  Someone who believes that god does not exist
>would be an atheist, but the converse does not follow.

Well now, if a theist is one who believes in gods (an active state) then isn't
anyone else an atheist (the a- simply meaning not a theist)? In a strictly 
literal sense, that is. This distinction between not believing and disbelieving
seems to be more a matter of semantics than a real difference in effect. Of 
course, by my definition, there is no such thing as an agnostic, which probably
is offensive to some who think of themselves as such. Sorry to offend, but 
agnosticism seems to me to be a nonposition, although one which I find quite
acceptable when dealing with a subject as meaningless and irrelevant as
imaginary deities. 

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ccx018@cch.coventry.ac.uk (Leslie Griffiths (Griff))
Subject: Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Organization: Coventry University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 08:02:29 GMT

In article <BuaqqB2w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>It makes sense to me, in the USA and UK at least.  I mean, in the UK
>"religious education" is mandatory for all school children, and so most
>children end up believing in God and Jesus for at least as long as they
>believe in Santa Claus.
>
>
>mathew

In theory, RI isn't intended to push Christianity (although we all know that in
practice the vast majority of RI teachers are Christians and have a vested
interest in pushing it).

Worse than this, I think, is the morning assembly, which (unless things have
changed since I was at school) invariably contained a reading, generally from 
the new testament. Interesting how those with beliefs other than mainstream
Christianity (Jehovahs etc) were excused if requested, but atheists were not. 
Almost as if atheism was not recognised as a serious philosophy. With the
morning assembly, there was no pretence at giving an objective world-view.


Cheers


-- 
Griff				\\         	ccx018@uk.ac.cov
^^^^^		       		 :-=       	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
		        	//
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Dealing with theistic relatives
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:55:38 GMT


In a previous article, oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser) says:

>	Does anyone have any observations on dealing with religious relatives?
>How does one breach the subject of being an atheist and deal with the 
>inevitably negative response?

Why would the response be "inevitably negative"?  Do your relatives not have
respect for you intellect, for your ability to make decisions for yourself?

>	Personally, I still find myself going to church with my parents
>when I visit them, because I know that if I refused and explained why,
>they wouldn't be happy campers, and I'd rather just waste an hour on
>Sunday than deal with the hassle.

This sounds very much like the problem of coming out to your parents when 
you are gay.  Perhaps the same advice would hold here--

While you are your parent's child, you are not them.  You have a right, a
responsibility, to be true to yourself, and your parents have a responsibility
to respect your individuality.  They may not agree with your choice, but it
is up to them to accept you as you are.  If they choose not to, that's on
them, not on you.  

>  And I'm absolutely positive my
>grandparents would flip out if they knew I was an atheist.
>	Is it possible to be openly atheistic without alienating one's
>family?  Is this perhaps why there are so few overtly open atheists?
>	Private e-mail responses are encouraged, although you may wish
>to post anything that would be of general interest.
>

No...the reason there are so few overtly open atheists (more than you think,
though) is that the average atheist sees no need to be forthcoming about 
their philosophy, until it is stepped upon.

And yes, absolutely, it is possible to be openly atheist and still hold on
to their family.  My folks are devout babtist, and while they don't agree 
with my views, they allow me those views without prejudice and without 
browbeating.

Indeed, I think they take a certian pride that their children (3 out of 7)
are freethinkers enough to buck the status quo, and secure enough in their
own beliefs not to hide them...

Good luck!!

-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Peter...PETER!!  I can see    *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // your house from here!"          *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // Jesus Christ, from the cross     *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:17162 alt.politics.homosexuality:5970
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Say again?
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992
Date: 15 Sep 92  10:49:28

Tag: Keith M. Ryan (kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan))
 
KR> "I knoweth not a mortal who knoweth divinity. Nor have
KR> I ever knoweth one who knew a divinial erudith mortal.
KR> I feel I shalt knoweth divinity. I scoff at charlatans
KR> who claimeth to know divinity, yeth canst showeth not;
KR> those who are prodigaleth of mystics and show derisiveness
KR> towards the even minded and the temperate."
 
Whath? Weiths cannotiths understandists thou. Sayith again.

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<AWERLING.92Sep13130703@dante.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Sep13.193924.15943@cs.yale.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 03:06:42 GMT

Having problems with this fucking computer...can't seem to make it go
*down* a line or *up* a line, so I'm forced to send this off without
replying to it.


Actually I will reply...I feel that arguing about moral relativism in
this context is an entire offshoot and irrelevant to the danger the
bigots cause.  Whether or not what I call moral is absolute means
virtually nothing to me, except that I find it disturbing if anybody
would find it moral to incite suicide and self-hate into teen-agers.
It was not my intention of getting into a debate on moral relativism,
which, philosophically I agree with.  But morally, I know where I
stand.  I intend to continue calling what I see as a spade a spade,
whether or not it is some sort of absolute moral.  I *know* that my
morals might not fit into some universal morality (as if such a thing
exists at all).  But it doesn't mean I can't continue in my battles.

So in other words, Eric, point conceded.  I know in my heart that
harming children is wrong, but I cannot prove that it is.  I have no
way to prove that, and anybody who doesn't agree that harming children
is wrong is somebody I have a great fear of.  Society should fear
those people too.

The rest of this article follows, with no further new commentary.

In article <1992Sep13.193924.15943@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

   Xref: nmsu.edu alt.atheism:32910 alt.politics.homosexuality:5727
   Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.homosexuality
Path: nmsu.edu!lynx!umn.edu!spool.mu.edu!nigel.msen.com!yale.edu!cs.yale.edu!rtnmr.chem.yale.edu!rescorla
   From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
   Sender: news@cs.yale.edu (Usenet News)
   Nntp-Posting-Host: rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
   Organization: Rescorla for himself.
   References: <1992Sep12.035348.29757@bmerh85.bnr.ca> <1992Sep12.193139.4493@cs.yale.edu> <AWERLING.92Sep13130703@dante.nmsu.edu>
   Distribution: usa
   Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:39:24 GMT
   Lines: 56

   In article <AWERLING.92Sep13130703@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
   >In article <1992Sep12.193139.4493@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
   >
   >-   >Can you
   >-   >prove that murder is immoral?
   >-   No.
   >
   >So it comes down to moral relativism.  I agree, there is no basis for
   >any kind of moral system...no basis in pure absolutism.  But when I
   >see people telling their kids that who they are is sick, sinful, etc.,
   >I will strike out, I will point out the danger they are causing.  We
   >cannot quibble about moral relativism.  Philosophically, that's the
   >only thing that makes sense.
   What? Why can't we quibble about moral relativism? Why should
   I sit by and watch you wave your hands and pull bogus moral
   claims out of the air? I have no objection, sir, to you pointing
   out the danger that the bigots are causing. What I have an
   objection to is your bogus claim that they are acting in an immoral
   fashion.

   >But hey, unless you are arguing *for* an anarchy, your comments are
   >thoroughly unhelpful and I have no intention of trying to "prove" that
   >*any* moral is "true," or whatever.
   1) I'm not arguing FOR anything. I'm arguing AGAINST foolish claims
   for moral values.
   2) It is not at all clear that lack of moral values implies arguing
   for anarchy.
   3) Why should I be interested in being "helpful"? I am surprised,
   however, that you are not interested in having an argument which
   is correct.

   Sir, you have made a moral assertion. Three options are possible
   here.
   1) You retract it.
   2) You support it.
   3) You simply claim it to be true with no substantiation in reality.

   You have just ruled out option 2. Option three is intellectually
   dishonest. Moreover, it is on precisely the same footing as the
   fundamentalists who have simply attempted to declare their moral
   values by fiat, just as you have done.

   What's it going to be then, eh?
   -Ekr







   -- 
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
   Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
			  I will hack Unix for food.
--
Andrew Werling    awerling@nmsu.edu    yip@acca.nmsu.edu
Transmitting from Planet Yip--where everyone you meet 
			      is already dead.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: assholes
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 21:27:28 GMT

In article <ocTiqB7w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:
>> Wouldn't you really have to see all of existence to make
>> such a pompous claim as "there is no god"?
>
>Wouldn't you really have to see all of existence to make
>such a pompous claim as "there are no square circles"?
This isn't fair and you know it, Matthew.

The nonexistence of God--unless one accepts Brian Evans's proof--is
an empirical question . The claim that square circles
do not exist is a logical one.

The comparison is therefore invalid.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: esposito@uncg.edu (Andrew Joseph Esposito)
Subject: Re: Would you do ANYTHING God told you....?
Organization: chaos mostly
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:27:14 GMT

>	A quick question out there for all you theists out there...
>	Would you do anything God told you to do ?
>	For example, if God told you to kill a 17 month old baby, would
>you do it ? I am not asking IF God would ask you to do such an evil thing,
>but would you do it if God told you ?
>	I have never heard a decent answer, most say something like "my
>God would never ask such a thing". But I am not asking if God would ask,
>but if God asked them to do it, would they do it ? So, let me put it this way,
>	IF God asked you to buy an Uzi and start shooting children at a
>	nearby playground ? WOULD YOU DO ANYTHING GOD TOLD YOU ?
>	THE QUESTION IS NOT IF GOD WOULD ASK YOU, BUT IF GOD DID ASK YOU
>	TO DO IT, WOULD YOU DO IT.

Being an athiest I might not have the answer you want, but IF GOD "told" me 
to do anything, after I picked my scrawny butt up off the floor, I'd do it.  
I do not believe in a God period, let alone a just, forgiving, merciful 
God.  So if he talked to me, like he talked to Abraham and all the rest of 
the people in the bible -- damn right I'd do it.  Without question.  IF he/
she asked it -- I'd do it!

See the problem with modern times is that God doesn't speak to people like 
he used to.  He used to talk to Abraham, Adam, Moses, etc.  Nowadays he 
doesn't speak to anyone, as far as I know.  Or maybe he does.  He's probably 
speaking to those homeless people we see walking around in circles talking 
to themselves saying things like, "No, No, I can't do it.  No, I'm not the 
messiah.  I know who my father was, Damnit." etc.

Thing is, if there is a Godhead, then the bible is correct, God would have 
used a man to write his word like a man would use a pen, and whatever he was 
asking of me was probably a test of my faith.  I think any person to say he 
or she wouldn't would be a fool.  This is, of course, after I made sure I 
was speaking to God and not a broken, torn and deviant psyche; that is I 
would make sure I wasn't going crazy.  I think anyone who knows the story of 
Abraham will attest to the fact that God "would" ask a crazy thing like that 
of his followers.  Wether he'd ask anything of me or not is debatable.
--
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.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dbell@maths.tcd.ie (Derek Bell)
Subject: Re: Dealing with theistic relatives
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:45:35 GMT

bwilliam@iat.holonet.net (Bill Williams) writes:
>Oh yeh... I'll give you some advice so you can answer quick on your feet
>to the question (by a misty eyed Mother) :
>"Well then, if you think there is no god, then whre did Granpa go when he
>died?"
>--- Answer : "I guess he went wherever he thinks he went"

	Mother:"He thought he was going to heaven; so you think there's a
heaven, how can you be an atheist?"
 
>DO NOT SAY HE ROTTED IN THE GROUND, to your mother.

	But your solution allows her to pull the mat from under you in a
debate.
-- 
Derek Bell {dbell%maths.tcd.ie,belld%{unix1,vax1}.tcd.ie}@cunyvm.cuny.edu
From: oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Dealing with theistic relatives
Date: 6 Sep 1992 19:24:52 GMT
Organization: Washington University Astrophysics
NNTP-Posting-Host: fermi.wustl.edu

	Does anyone have any observations on dealing with religious relatives?
How does one breach the subject of being an atheist and deal with the 
inevitably negative response?
	Personally, I still find myself going to church with my parents
when I visit them, because I know that if I refused and explained why,
they wouldn't be happy campers, and I'd rather just waste an hour on
Sunday than deal with the hassle.  And I'm absolutely positive my
grandparents would flip out if they knew I was an atheist.
	Is it possible to be openly atheistic without alienating one's
family?  Is this perhaps why there are so few overtly open atheists?
	Private e-mail responses are encouraged, although you may wish
to post anything that would be of general interest.

	-Scott Oser
Newsgroups: alt.atheism