HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johnsd2@jec322.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What if there is a god?
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:46:20 GMT
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.

In article <1992Nov4.131825.164982@dstos3.dsto.gov.au>, jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
|> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> 
|> >dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:
|> 
|> >>In article <Bx0s7E.9zp@umassd.edu> rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:
|> >>>SupDose there is a god.
|> >>>Then what?
|> 
|> >>Don't know about you, but it wouldn't make much difference to me.
|> 
|> It's made a huge difference to me, in almost every part of my life.  It has
|> shaped my beliefs, morals, actions and priorities.  Having a personal
|> relationship with God changes everything.

For you, I presume. It might do so. (If I were feeling really
crass, Id add: 'delusions often do', but Im not so I wont. :) )

|> >> I've 
|> >>always felt that the existance or nonexistance of a god would have no effect 
|> >>on how I live my life, so why should I care?
|> 
|> Because God first cared for us.

A fairly generic assertion. Can you demonstrate this? Can you
demonstrate that we should care about God if he has cared
for us in the past?

|> >Hear, hear.  Whether or not God actually exists, people will still worship
|> >Him, or not.  Believing in this God does not apear to be in any way beneficial,
|> >providing no motivation to pay any attention to this thing that may or may
|> >not exist.
|> 
|> As they say, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating"!

How is the pudding? Finding it yummy? 

Several years ago, when I was a Christian, I found it to be
full of empty calories. :) Well, actually just empty. Perhaps
I didn't believe good enough. :) But then, that's just the
if you believe, you'll see you were right to believe arguement.
Circular at best. Besides, I dont need religion to do that. I suppress
cognitive dissonance with the best of them! :)

[deletia- odd speculation about God which seems rather unconnected]
|> 
|> >keith
|> 
|> Yours in Christ,
|> James.

Ya know, this "in Christ" phrase give me weird images. Remember,
Christ was supposed to be *fully human*- so that he could die.

So where are you, in Christ? In his digestive tract? In his Almighty
Appendix? How's the view? Does his spleen look nice 'n juicy?

That is the sort of thing that is implied by being IN a human...

I supposed you didn't mean it like that, but its an interesting
thought, no?
-- 
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jwest@wisc (Jeff West)
Subject: Re: "God is unfair" Bible passages.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:20:24 CST

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
: In article <Bx8nwn.8q6@newcastle.ac.uk> J.M.A.Gilman@newcastle.ac.uk (J.M.A. Gilman) writes:
: 
: God did not limit himself to destroying just the gang-rapists in the city.
: Even if every adult man in the city was a rapist, he also destroyed all the
: women and children when he destroyed the city.  This no doubt included a
: number of innocent people.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
:      INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)

You must have missed his line that all of the children were PROBABLY filled
with terrible diseases due to incest and child abuse and hence it was a
mercy killing.   ;-)  uh-huh and it's raing $100 bills here right now.
Even reading from the "Old Hebrew" apparently doesn't stop people from writing
their own version of *history*.

Being a former Christian who went to extreme extremes to justify and verify
my faith I feel for those (no it's not pity) who feel they have to go to this
extreme to validate their faith.  This isn't very much different from the guy
awhile back that came up with the incredible number theory to prove that the
Bible was divinely concieved.  Now this post is telling us that that version
of the Bible was incorrectly translated. Did god then mislead the people that 
rewrote the King James Version?  If so why?  And why would god let so many
people read an incorrect copy of HIS WORD in the first place?  If he has the
power to punish those that need it, certainly he would make sure that a poor
translation of his work wouldn't be so greatly distributed.

And finally if god destroys whole cities of evil people how come New York is
still around?    (ok, ok sorry NY.  still just miffed about having my luggage
stolen there awhile back.)     8-)

I hope Colleen gets back soon!
  Jeff West

p.s. Please continue with your justification of the Bible.  It serves to remind
	me of my roots and how I've gotten to where I am today.
From: boyd@acsu.buffalo.edu (Daniel F Boyd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: possibly a stupid question.
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:03:54 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1992Nov5.211152.759@blurt.oswego.edu> 
hbcs1010@blurt.oswego.edu writes:
>  why would a being of such indescribable power, capable of creating
> the universe in its infinite majesty, turn around and throw a hissy
> fit if some poor slob of a human doesn't believe in it? why would
> any such putative being *CARE*?

Religion answers this question in effectively the following manner: 

    As long as you're going to believe in a God, why not believe in a
    God who cares about you?  Where's the fun in believing in a God
    who doesn't care about people?

You might also look into the book of Job, in which God wrecks this
poor guy's life basically on a bet to see if he can make the guy lose
faith.  The guy never loses faith in God, and then at the end God
gives him his life back.  And the guy says "Why did you do that, God?"
and God basically says, "None of your business."
	So sometimes religion answers the question by begging it and
saying you're not supposed to ask that question.

-- 
Daniel F. Boyd -- boyd@cs.buffalo.edu         -a +X -x -e -m -S -F"> "
----------------------------------------------------------------------
((lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x))) 
 (quote (lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x)))))
From: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: An interesting quote
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:18:52 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b63519.student.cwru.edu

I'm reading Ursula K. Le Guin's _The Left Hand of Darkness_, and I came 
across an interesting quote.

	"If it were proven that there is no God there would be no
	religion...But also if it were proven that there is a God,
	there would be no religion."

I found this quite thought provoking. A good book.
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
| Damien Neil | dpn2@po.cwru.edu | Case Western Reserve University |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: gdr11@phx.cam.ac.uk (Gareth Rees)
Subject: Re: leave us alone!!!!
Reply-To: gdr11@phx.cam.ac.uk (Gareth Rees)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 15:10:01 GMT

In article <geyDAzC00awGACSVtp@andrew.cmu.edu>, Jennifer Lynn Urso <ju23+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|> why on earth, if you're a christian, are you posting on this board.
|> maybe you're even subscribed to it, i don't know.
|> [etc]
|> stop trying to convert.
|> get a hobby.
|> stop posting on this damn board!!!

I'm a atheist but I think it's a good thing for Christians and 
other believers (though we don't see nearly enough of other 
religions) to post to this group.  Firstly because Christians 
deserve the same rights of free speech as everyone else, 
secondly because this group is at its most interesting when 
there's a jolly flame-war going on, and thirdly because the 
only reason for atheists to group together and talk about 
atheism is when we're in opposition to religious people.  
Take away that opposition and I think you'll find that there 
isn't much left to talk about.  My lack of religion is an 
important part of my life, nor, I suspect, that of most 
atheists.

So, Christians, do your damnedest (no pun).

-- 
Gareth Rees <gdr11@phx.cam.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: atheism and morals and dating
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 17:02:10 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Nov10.011336.8574@iscsvax.uni.edu> mccall3080@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>I have been an atheist for
>basically most of my life.
[deletions]
>        We also are very moral people.  I don't drink, do drugs, sleep around,
>or even swear beyond saying the word "shit" occasionally.  I have high morals. 
>You tend to like people who have similar interests and lifestyles as you and
>unfortunately most of those guys are religous, or so it seems.
[deletions]
>I honestly don't see many atheists
>like myself in Northeastern Iowa.   The ones that I have met don't have any
>morals.  So basically I feel like I am one in a million and no one can respect
>my choice.
>...are other atheists running into the same problem?
>
>Melissa

 Well, I haven't really found it to be that much of a problem. I don't know
too many atheists around here, but my friends and the people that I've dated
never seemed to have too many problems with it.
 You say that the atheists you've met generally have no morals. What do you
mean but that? Did they do things like steal, lie, and beat up people, or did
they 'only' swear, drink, or what? The atheists that I've met (and, I guess
I myself) tend to have somewhat unconventional moralities, but that's not the
same as having none.
 There are tolerant religious people out there; one of the happiest couples I
know of is a mixed atheist/Catholic couple. (Well, okay, his parents aren't
thrilled at her atheism, but he doesn't mind.)
 I guess all I can say is, don't give up. There are borad-minded theists and
straight-arrow atheists out there...

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
From: epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Asserting No Gods
Date: 8 Nov 92 22:12:16 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University

In article <92312.020054MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> In article <1992Nov6.164252.27622@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) says:
> >
> >You may not understand this, but when Atheists mention God in the same
> >sentence as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny , the Tooth Fairy, and
> >invisible-pink unicorns, it is because they are ALL silly.  The fact
> >that you treat the God question differently than the others means that
> >you have bought into some of what the theists are selling you.  I know
> >that some religionists get very upset when we do this, but we do it in
> >total seriousness to point out the insanity that is religion.
> 
> Well, I guess you missed my point. I don't treat any of them as different
> from the others. It's just that there are more god-believers running amok
> than invisible-pink-unicorn-believers. You may think they're all just
> silly, but what's so rational about assuming none of them exist? I'm no
> theist, but you seem more than happy to lump me in with them simply
> because I disagree with you. You always want the xians to examine their
> unfounded beliefs critically; I'm telling you to have a look at yours.
> You casually treat theism as "insanity." What is your unfounded belief
> then? Why is it now rational for atheists to assume as well?
> 
> Martin Schulte

	I think it's just because you're stuck.  I've looked everywhere, and I  
can't find alt.a-invisible-pink-unicornism.  Maybe it got taken off due to lack  
of posters.

						Erik Powers
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: possibly a stupid question.
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:06:35 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Nov5.211152.759@blurt.oswego.edu> hbcs1010@blurt.oswego.edu writes:
>
> first we stipulate that there is indeed a god, who created life, the universe, 
>and everything. (sounds pretty damn silly to me, but just for the sake of this
>argument i'll do it)
>

  All those years in the dark!  All of that wasted emptiness,
  yearning for a relationship with my creator!  And, only at this
  late date, to discover that it was Douglas Adams all along.

  Now where'd I put that damn Babel fish...

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Help
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:38:48 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Nov12.192506.26872@samba.oit.unc.edu>,
Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) wrote:
> As a second point, I'd like to assert that no human can even hope to talk
> intellectually about the reality that exists beyond human scope. You have
> no idea whatsoever whether unicorns really do exist or not because you have
> not had the opportunity to visit any other planets in any other solar
> system. So how can you be so bold to discount the existence of anything?

This reminds me of a Voltaire cite:
When he that speaks, and he to whom he speaks, neither of them 
understand what is ment, that is metaphysics.


Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 11 Nov 1992 19:17:29 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


"Adam M. Donshik" <ad2u+@andrew.cmu.edu> on Tue Nov 10 21:19:12 1992 posted:
|
|Seeing how this si a Bulliten Board about atheism, I was wondering if
|anyone can help me by answering these questions:
|
|In the begining of "time" Religion served a purpose to answer questions
|which could not necessarily be answered by the real world  (such as the
|reaason for the earth's movement, where we canme from), but now we have
|a better grasp on what it is that we are dealing with, so, What purpose
|does Religion serve now, in present society?  
|
|Has it just become a control devise over humanity, or is it founded in
|some cosmic truth that we are not aware of?  
 
	You got it right the first time.....now it is a real "...opiate
of the masses..."
 
|
|Also, Does any one believe that religion has been warped into a pathetic
|excuse for a societal control, or is it still puttereing along as it did
|when it was originated?
 
	Again, your first guess is right.
 
|
|I have incredible reservations about religion, but I do not think I can
|just pass it off.  Too many people are swept up in it's wake to have it
|(religion) be similar to a fly buzzing around annoying people. 
 
	Because a lot of people believe in it, does not make it true.
A lot of people used to believe the wold was flat too....
 
|
|If anyone has any responses, please either e-mail me or post it on the
|Bboard.  Thanks a lot.
|
|amd
 
<I'll send you a copy of the FAQ :-) >
 
-- 
"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: Top Ten Reasons to Bash Atheists
Date: 6 Nov 92 02:52:54 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Nov3.212744.3123@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) wrote:
> Oops!  Kent, make sure you point that flamethrower in the right
> direction.  The original post was mine (Steve Matheson), and my
> "personal problem" is with bigots, not atheists.  The post was
> largely ineffective in making this point, although some (see Brian
> Cash's reply) have hinted that they understood my intent.  Although
> the "Top ten ... bash atheists" title could only be interpreted as,
> well, bashing atheists, it was in fact an unfortunate and careless
> mistake.  The post wasn't funny, or factual, but it was intended to
> illustrate the roots of bigotry, which is neither.
> 
> So flame away, but do as I say and not as I did:  be careful.

Sorry, agologies. I read this list, and it sounded in my ears/eyes
like one of those classical cases where it all looked like an
artificial, but deliberate, attempt to smear a certain world view.

I guess the best thing is to place a LABEL at the end of the posting,
stating that this is satire, and not intentional political joking.

I agree, I oppose bigotry, and that includes all kinds of bigotry,
including atheistic one.

Cheers,
Kent



	"The problem with computers is you *play* with them."
					-- Richard Feynman
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:20669 talk.religion.misc:20500
From: austin@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Timothy James AUSTIN)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:39:30 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia

warren@nscf.org (L3 Warren) writes:

>gdr11@cl.cam.ac.uk (G.D. Rees) writes:

>>In article <1992Nov2.212312.23613@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

>>The fate of Galileo isn't as simple as that.  I had always understood
>>that Galileo was a proponent of a particular _religious_ heresy and that
>>the business about his scientific theories was just an excuse to shut
>>him up without the fuss of having to bring the _real_ (in the eyes of
>>the Church which didn't care a fig about astronomy) heresies out into
>>the open.  Not that this excuses the Chrurch or anything.

>I think the Church *DID* care a fig about Galileo's theories. He proposed
>that the Earth was not the center of the universe. The Church beleived that
>Man was at the pinnacle of creation, and was given dominion over it by God.
>Galileo's theories knocked man a step off that pinnacle. How preposterous
>to think that mankind's planet orbited the sun right along with all the
>other planets, especially when the universe existed for man to conquer.
>To suggest earth was just another planet was to deny the divine plan God
>had set out for man.

>Warren

In Galileo's time the dominant view of the universe was an Aristoteliean one.
This view said that the earth was the stationary centre of the universe
and that the rest of the universe was perfect.  None of Galileo's discoveries
directly supported a sun centered (Copernican) universe.  The major new
things that Galileo found was that the moon had mountains and that jupiter(?)
had moons.  Aristotelian physics required the earth to be at the centre
of the universe.  Displacing the earth undermined just about all of
Aristotle's conclusions about physics and the four earthly elements.
Many Catholics of the time supported an Aristotelian world view and were
not willing to see their beliefs undermined without a fight.

Galileo was himself a Catholic and did not find that the sun not being
the centre of the universe a problem.  He gave a theological defence of
this in some of his writings. (I've got it somewhere...) 
This included the specific treatment of biblical passages and their
intepretation.

No one knows for sure why the Church told Galileo to recant on what he had
been teaching.  Some of the contributing factors were no doubt Galileo's
method of making fun of and belittling his rivals.  His writings are quite
amusing, though it would not be especially pleasant if you were on the
receiving end of then.  Another significant event the needs to be looked at
was the reformation.  Copernicus had previously published his theory of the
sun centered universe with very little response, certainly no threats to
make him recant.  By the time Galileo Galilei came along the authority
of the Roman Catholic Church was being undermined by the reformation.
The Pope wanted to assert the authority of the church over any views
that were contrary to official teaching.


Tim.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject:      Proofs Of Existence
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 20:20:46 MEZ
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA14354; Tue, 10 Nov 92 11:27:00 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA25828; Tue, 10 Nov 92 11:26:50 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)   with BSMTP id 0532; Tue, 10 Nov 92 20:26:19 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

There is some argument on how to prove one's existence. Here is an easy one:
1. Axiom: I exist. The proof is trivial then.

The work begins when one tries to build a minimal set of axioms with
the same effectivity without a formal language to use.

But I nevertheless claim that the axiom above is fairly useful.
   Benedikt
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka Ktf92)
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:55:13 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

In <1992Nov10.184658.19188@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi writes:

> 	Atheists commonly ignore that they live in a dream-world by themselves.

      Dreamworld? Have you taken a look at some of the more rabid theism
lately? And, "by ourselves"? Plentiful good company if you ask me! What
makes YOUR worldviev - whichever it happens to be, you forgot to mention
that - so much better than mine? Can you prove your reasons, if you have
any?

> 	Quite common is the belief that you could save this earth. This is 
> 	rubbish. There is no method to save mankind from Greenhouse effect or
> 	lack of Ozone (for decades). People refuse to believe this. 

      This is NOT alt.save-the-earth. This is alt.ATHEISM. Why, oh WHY
do you think we're *all* a bunch of eco-bunnies trying to save the
earth? And if you think it's impossible (which I _also_ happen to
think), can you substantiate that claim with some hard figures? I
can't... Not that it belongs here...

> 	What is the philosophy with atheists ? Consume ! Spend more !

      ...And tell ignorants like you to read the FAQ before they post
here. Thank you...

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
 These aren't really my opinions, but those of my split personality - he's the
       only one of me who's learned how to use the computers properly.
"Don't damn me when I speak a piece of mind, 'cos silence isn't golden when ..."