HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:51:19 GMT

In article <ebolog.13@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:
>
> You cannot possibly tell me that you do not believe in something just 
> because you do not understand it!

You seem to find your obvious ignorance of evolutionary theory no
such impediment to screaming that it is false.

I would point you at talk.origins, but firstly you'd get roasted, and
secondly, no matter how pleasant it may be to see idiots taken to task,
they will doubtless just be wading through the annual deluge of posts
from wide-eyed newbie psychotics over there too.

Instead I'll mail you the talk.origins outline-of-evo FAQ in the forlorn
hope that you might actually learn something. If you really want to know
what evolutionary theory says (smarter people than you are aware that to
attack a position, it helps if you have at least the first glimmerings of
a clue as to what that position is), you might try _Evolutionary Biology_,
2nd edition, Douglas J. Futuyma, Sinauer, 1986 which is a standard
undergraduate text, available at a college library near you. Be warned
that you may be required to think in order to comprehend it.

> Cheers.

Cheers indeed

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."
From: Ralph Dumain <rdumain@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: 07 Oct 92 19:20 PDT
Subject: FIDONET ECHO?
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1297200001:000:137
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!rdumain    Oct  7 19:20:00 1992


From: Ralph Dumain <rdumain>
Subject: FIDONET ECHO?

Does tyhis confernce or part of it ECHO via FIDONET?? If so, I can save some money.
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:56:16 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <ebolog.18@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:
>
>Well, do you really think it is right?! I mean the main purpose of sex is 
>reproduction - even though there is a level of enjoyment involved. Any 
>emotional feelings you have for a person of the same sex must just be as a 
>friend and not be confused with lust. There is nothing wrong with loving a 
>person of the same sex as long as you do not have any sexual desires for him.

How do you know what the 'main purpose' of sex is? Surely you can't
decide that unless you first specify a context in which a purpose
would be meaningful.

Why is lust not an 'emotional felling'?

Why does the 'wrong'ness of sexual desire depend on the gender of
its object?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: <tonyp@cnvxla.COM> (good, Conan - good!)
Subject: Re: You're Invited!
Reply-To: tonyp@convex.COM 
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 18:13:24 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

}
}In a previous article, scott@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Scott G Goddard) says:
}
}>    To all Atheists, reading these comments made by you are very upsetting to 
}>me.
}
That is good. This means that you haven't been absorbed yet. You can be
saved and made better. You *do* doubt his existence. Our belief of his
non-existence shakes your faith. *Real Xtians* can't be swayed: they are
so far gone that they can't be reasoned with. You are still in possession
of your senses. 

RELAX, relax,relax - I need some information, first,: just the basic facts,
can you show me where it hurts?

--
    Tony J. Podrasky             BIBLE : 
     San Diego , Ca                       BUY BULL ? 
    tonyp@convex.com                                  ( NO ) 
QSL? QRU? QRZ? QLZ? QFA?                                      BYE, BULL !
From: Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (John Stafford)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Atheists and Immortality
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:53:21 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: MSUS

While glancing at this group a few weeks ago, I saw a
passing reference to some contemporary scholars who
proposed (or discussed) the possibility of immortality
within the atheist belief.  Could someone repost the
names of these authors?  thanks

jjs
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 19:03:35 EDT

From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
 
>   Possibly.  Paul wasn't known for keeping faithful to what Jesus
>actually said (or at least was reputed to say).
 
Please expand on this thought.
 
DARIST

 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: FYI: God and Aids
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:50:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.173823.9141@cs.ucla.edu>, Billi Goldberg 
<bigoldberg@igc.apc.org> writes:

(Actually Mr. Goldberg is forwarding this material from other sources)

>                          AIDS Daily Summary
>                           October 6, 1992 

           [...read sci.med.aids to see the whole summary...]
> 
> "Supreme Court Allows Religious Role in AIDS Curriculum" United Press 
> International (10/05/92)  (Henderson, Greg)
>      Washington--The Supreme Court Monday upheld New York state's  
> policy of mandating that religious figures act as advisors when  forming 
> the public school district's AIDS curriculum.  The court, without 
> comment, refused to examine the policy, which has been  enacted 
> statewide since 1988 and has been upheld by three lower  courts.  But 
> adversaries argue that it infringes upon the  Constitution's mandate of 
> a separation between church and state.  The state education commissioner 
> demanded that public schools  adopt some form of AIDS education in 1988.  
> The policy calls for  all New York state school districts to implement 
> their own AIDS  advisory councils to make recommendations to local 
> school boards  on what should be included in AIDS-awareness curricula 
> for  students.  The rule requires that each advisory council consist  of 
> "parents, school board members, appropriate school personnel,  and 
> community representatives, including representatives from  religious 
> organizations."  The New York State School Boards  Association contested 
> the policy, saying it breaches the First  Amendment by requiring 
> religious participation in public  education, and by mandating that 
> local officials in some  instances choose one religion over another for 
> a seat on an  advisory panel.  However, the state courts decided the 
> role of  the religious figures--working as advisors with no direct role 
> in actually establishing the curriculum--does not go so far as to  
> illegally impose religious beliefs on public schools. 

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18599 talk.origins:12736
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
Subject: New Member (me)
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:31:47 GMT
Organization: Chevron

I've been reading this group for about a week now, and I can't figure
out what the point of most of these discussions are.  There's something
about a 200,000 lb. sauropod (or human?).  Some strange physics about
the sun being wome kind of electromagnetic (definition?) star.
Cladistics of lobophores (coelenterata?).  Farewells to some obvious
creationist called Annti.  What's going on?  Can someone fill me in.  I
will continue to look for the FAQ (don't send it to me, I don't want
multiple copies).  It just seems like the discussions have gone off on
tangents so much that their original purposes are unknowable.

On to my own post:
I hear talk on this group about XXX's theory of TTT, and RRRR's first
law of JJJ, and I'm getting tired of the discussion of decades old
theories.  Darwin was probably wrong!  This IN NO WAY invalidates the
physical evidence for evolution.  As was posted in SCI.Skeptic FAQ,
Newton's laws of gravitation were found to be wrong (by Einstein).  This
did not cause gravity to cease to be, it simply meant a small
modification in the theory.
A Creationist coould validly argue that God created DNA.  There is no
evidence against this.  Similarly, human evolution (as far as I
understand it as a geologist who reads quite a variety of technical
journals on other subjects as well) is not well defined, and if someone
wants to believe that God did some special tinkering, well, that's a
question of faith.  But the evidence for evolution occuring in organisms
through geologic time is overwhelming (better than the evidence that the
moon is a sphere).

It all comes down to the fact that the creationist interpretation of the
bible does not match the physical evidence.  Does that mean that I'm
saying the bible is wrong?  No, there are three possibilities.

1)  The Bible is wrong.
2)  The creationist interpretation is wrong.
3)  The physical evidence is wrong.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but the answer is number 2.  I think
the real problem is not that a creationist has wrongly interpreted the
bible, but that he's been told by church leaders that creationism is the
only interpretation that is allowed.

Okay, I've gone on long enough.
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Hello All!
Date: 10 Oct 1992 02:59:05 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


cb366@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark B. Bendiksen) sez:
 
|Hello Atheists:
 
  Good evening....
 
|I am what most of you would probably call a "Jesus Freak".
 
I'll take your word on it.
 
|I have spent some time reading through many of the posts on
|this newsgroup with much interest. I expected to find much more
|discussion on deeper philosophical issues (i.e. why you
|believe in no God, etc.).
 
     Good, I look forward to it.
 
| Instead, this group seems to be
|mainly a "club" whose members waste time and net space by
|coming up with clever ways to bash "crazy Christians" and
|anyone else who chooses to believe in an almighty creator.
 
   Well...the idea of gods and ghosts does sound a bit weird....
 
 
|If you scan through articles on religious newgroups I dare
|say you'll find little space wasted talking about "those
|nutty atheists who don't believe in God". 
 
	Yeah, they just say it in church instead of the net.
Besides, we get lumped in a lot with other they do not agree 
with anyhow.
 
|Please don't get me wrong. I did read many fascinating
|and interesting posts while going through your newsgroup,
 
    Thank you.
 
|but more often than not many posts consist of nothing more
|than hate for those that believe in God. Is that really
|constructive?
 
	......"Hate the theism, love the theist"....well........
......not really...I try not to get too personal unless they show
disreguard for others in the newsgroup, by refusing to read the FAQ
and trying to reach to us...
 
|I know I'm inviting flames, and that's okay. But if you
|attack me with namecalling rather than by discussion of
|the issue, you'll just be proving my point.
 
 
	Well Mark, you can send me Email right here on CFN* if you
wish.....
 
 
 
|Love in Christ,
 
|Mark B. Bendiksen
|cb366@freenet.cwru.edu
 ^^^^^	
	Ahhhhh....a fellow Cleveland Freenet user.....
looks like a newbie to me...:-)   <don't worry, I was a newbie once>
 
 
{ *= <C>leveland <F>ree-<N>et , a public access system in Cleveland}
 
-- 
"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: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Anyone heard of Cliffe?
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:18:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


"Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu> on Thu Oct 15 16:03:12 1992:
 
|The intervarsity Christian assoc here at CMU got someone named Cliffe to
|come speak.  I went to listen to him, and while there was much he said
|that I disagreed with, I went away respecting him.  He challenges all
|people, including Christians, to not accept Christ's divinity on faith
|alone.  He said the gospels could be vieved as a historically viable
|source.  Having not read the gospels, I couldn't add anything to that
|discussion, but wonder if anyone here has an effective arguement against
|the gospels' validity. 
 
	I studied them when I was young. The best thing is to get the
book in the FAQ file on biblical contrdictions.
 
 
|                        I don't know how to approach this with my
|limited knowledge of the New Testament.
|Cliffe said "there is more than enough evidence, nobody has a right not
|to believe in God."  I didn't agree, but I didn't know what to say
|without sounding like some closed-minded moron.
 
	The "evidence" sometimes can be made to look good, but it
is so flimsy...What does he mean by "...nobody has a right not to 
believe in God...." ? People have a right to think as they want. This
statement is soaked with an arogant odor. (perhaps it is the context..)
 
 
|                                            Needless to say, some
|students here just attacked Cliffe and went away looking like assholes. 
|Others actually made him think, and he was reasonably open-minded- a
|trait I have rarely evidenced before in theists strong in their
|convictions.
|Any comments?  I thought it was about time for a new thread anyway!
|
 
|\begindata{text,17029828}
|\textdsversion{12}
|\template{default}
|\majorheading{Jordan M. Wolbrum
|
|}\center{\smaller{at jw67@andrew.cmu.edu
|
|}}\enddata{text,17029828}
 
	PLEASE take this garbage off of your posts, it is a terrible waste
of bandwidth. It is also annoying. Thanks :-)


-- 
"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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Morals and God is Dead.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 18:50:44 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Keywords: Morality.

In article <parsons.719126406@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>cochrane@spot.Colorado.EDU (Jim Cochrane) writes:
>
>>It seems a little strange to me that a lot of people assume that if one
>>rejects the prevaling moral system(s) and defines one's own rules or
>>guidelines of action that they would necessarily act in a selfish
>>manner as a result.  I think it is quite possible for such a person to
>>act purely out of compassion for someone else without expecting anything
>>in return.

 [deletions]

>This does pertain to selfish/unselfish actions but is not directly related
>to the above paragraph.  I was watching Dateline NBC last night, and a
>program about a 7 year-old girl with a severe form of cancer came on.
>They discussed a St. Jude's research hospital where the experimentally
>treat children with cancer with new drugs and treatments.  They mentioned
>a statistic that was interesting and relevent.   Eighty percent of children 
>would volunteer to be used in new treatments and use new drugs so research 
>could be done, only 2% of adults would volunteer for experimental treatment.
>Who is more moral?  Unselfish?  Knoble?  (I believe these are terminal
>patients.)

 I've talked to Christians who point to children as evidence of 'original
sin'.. "Kids are selfish, willful, and rarely pay attention to anything
but their own wants and needs" etc. I take it this is not your position?

>It seems that selfishness is a learned behavior, and we only get more
>selfish as time goes by.  It would also seem that unselfish behavior 
>is the exception and not the rule in many (most?) cases. 
 
 I think a definition of 'selfishness,' along with more than one study,
is needed before we conclude this...

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


Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:44:56 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1992Oct6.195332.1481@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
>Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
>Date: 6 Oct 92 19:53:32 GMT

>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
These are egregious and obscene oversimplications. I most emphatically
agree other posts here that there is a presumption, as Flew has noted,
of atheism. The burden of proof clearly lands on the theist to make
good his positive existential claims.  But in the interest of stimulating
some reflection among atheists about the possibility of a demonstration 
of God's non-existence, perhaps even of God's necessary nonexistence, 
consider the following argument for God's nonexistence.

	(a) God is the greatest conceiveable being (GCB).

	(b) The existence of the GCB is necessary, for if it were only
	    contingent, it would be possible for the GCB not to exist, 

	(c) But necessary being is "more perfect" than "contingent" 	    
	    being.  

	(c) Hence, the GCB is a necessary being, since by definition there 
	    cannot be a being "more perfect" than the GCB.

	(e) But there can be no being the non-existence of which is 
 	    logically impossible, because no "matter of fact or existence"
	    is knowable a priori. 

	(f) Therefore, if the GCB is by definition a necessary 
	    being, then the GCB is necessarily nonexistent.
			
Whew!  Hack on that one for awhile. See what you come up with. I know it
will be attacked, even by some philosophically sophisticated atheists as
showing at most that a certain definition of God is incoherent or involves
logical error.  But it may be pointed out, to anticipate some of these
objections, that the idea of God as "maximal reality", a being "supreme
and unsurpassible in all possible worlds" is at bottom essential to
traditional protestant and catholic conceptions of divinity.  So, if this
argument demolishes this conception, much of interest will have been
accomplished thereby, I think.
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: A Theory of Creation (first draft)
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 00:03:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.145110.4600@hemlock.cray.com> robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
>Darren Michael Forbes (dmf@aber.ac.uk) wrote:
>: 
>:                         A Theory of Creation,
>:                                 by
>:           Darren M. Forbes BSc. and Jonathan M. Ashley BSc.
>:           dmf@aber.ac.uk                     jma@aber.ac.uk
>
>Hoot!
>
>Oh, people!  I can't remember how many points were given in the t.o.
>home game, but this one is so precious that it deserves many points.
>
>Pay attention kids!  This is humor without a smiley.  I know that 
>really bothers some people, but trust me, there really was humor
>before smileys, and people got along just fine.  I did not believe
>anyone would be caught by this one.  Well I hoped no one would.
>I thought about posting a warning, but I did not want to appear
>patronizing.

Kinda scary, how seriously people can take themselves, huh?

>: [5] Private communication
>:     The LORD, various dates.
>
>Give me peace!  This is inspired hilarity.
>
>: [7] Software Engineering Environments, vol. 3
>:     ed. F. Long, Wiley 1992.
>
>This noted reference is not even referenced in the article!
>My sides are aching.
>
>:                           ... In particular, we would like to see more time
>: spent gathering contradictory supporting evidence, viz. fossils, geological
>: dating, etc.
>
>Oh, it hurts, stop it!

[From the original post]
>>Keywords: creationist God LORD Darwin fish chips wood carpenter

If you didn't guess from all the other dead giveaways in the original
"theory," a glance at the Keywords:  line would have given it away.

My personal favorite, though, has to be:
>>Furthermore, much evidence directly contradicting the theory has been
>>observed, again as predicted[4,5].

Any "evolutionist" who missed the humor of this needs to relax his/her
itchy trigger finger.

>My compliments to Forbes and Ashley for laying an absolutely transparent
>trap for unwary "evolutionists" to fall into.  Please t.o.'ers, you
>can't fight against real ignorance if you are totally credulous yourself.

Hear, hear!

>rob derrick				robd@cherry.cray.com

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From
* Program in Evolution,           * Just stuff 'em up your nose      *"Slugs,"
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * They'll fit beneath your armpits *by David
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Or right between your toes"      *Greenberg
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: ....
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:46:48 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Oct8.171612.14039@u.washington.edu>, sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
> In article <92282.102833AMS176@psuvm.psu.edu> <AMS176@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>Beware of GOD
>>                         Antony Mikael Schiffbauer
> 
> Curb Your GOD.

   From now on all Gods must be kept on a leash in public.
Also, a dogma-scooper is required if you're going to spew out
sh*t in its name.

Karl