HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Keywords: God
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:01:18 GMT
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

In <9410@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine) writes:

>In article <1992Apr7.140653.12527@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> zeisset@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Stephan Zeisset) writes:
>>So god thinks about good and evil and both come into 
>>existence. He decides to eradicate the evil and the evil 
>>ceases to exist. But as our human perception is limited
>>in time and space, millions of years of suffering lie
>>in between.

>  And you have actually convinced yourself that this is a good
>  thing?  That the being who creates and inflicts injustice on the
>  world has no direct connection to those consequences?  That
>  millions of years of misery are acceptable because it happens in a
>  split second of god-time?  Think about what you wrote!
I agree!  Now, however, here is another question.....

Why do a lot of theists try to explain things by resorting to
the old, "human perception is limited", or 'god is unknowable and 
therefore beyond our capabilities to comprehend, much less judge'?
--
As usual, JIMHO.
	  Gavin...                  Plus qu'il n'en faut.           
	  willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie                                      
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 00:46:42 GMT

In article <72934@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.184627.26979@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>"I'm responding to some very unpleasant people. You don't notice
>>since you've apparently decided that any unpleasant remarks that
>>attack the right group are not really unpleasant after all," which
>>is a remark which certainly could be interpreted as a mite paranoid.
>
>Especially if the person in question was only reading a.a for the one
>month--as he stated--and is also very ignorant of Judaism--a likely
>prospect--and thus has no idea of how various posters have been mis-
>representing Judaism for quite some time now.
Actually, I was suggesting that the net in general might interpret
it as paranoid. Whether or not we have been misrepresenting Judaism
is irrelevant to whether we are unpleasant or not. Why is it that
you have such a complete and utter inability to distinguish between
intellectual disagreement and personal unpleasantness?

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh?
From: yohan@cutlass.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Date: 7 Apr 1992 17:59:10 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world,local
NNTP-Posting-Host: cutlass.ksu.ksu.edu


I believe it was mentioned in previous responses to the original article that it
is impossible to create an individual with free will who only chooses "good".  I
believe Joe Deasy likened it to making a square a circle.  While I could possibly
see arguing the second point, I'll definitely deal with the first.  

As I sift through the fog of Sunday school and high school youth groups, I
distinctly remember a number of people harping on the fact that Jesus Christ was
a man (for which there are a number of glorious reasons and purposes), he faced
numerous trials, and emerged the absolute ideal of Christianity.  Now, Jesus,
despite being the son of God, was human, limited by his human shell, faced with
free choice, and still remained perfectly good.  Surely, Christians can see the
possibility of good, free willed people.

Furthermore, Adam and Eve committed no sin, while still having free will, until
Satan talked Eve into munching on the forbidden fruit.  It seems that if it
weren't for the interference of the serpent, Eden could have continued a sinless
utopia.  Some might say that Adam and Eve did not have free will, because they
hadn't yet eaten the fruit of knowledge.  Keep in mind, that Satan did not
command Eve to eat the fruit, but he talked her into it.  This is evidence of
free will.


Food for thought,  :)

Jon Newton - Sophomore in Biochemistry - Agnostic
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ehamrick@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Eric N Hamrick)
Subject: logical?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:23:13 GMT

     Is it logical for a perfect creator to create imperfections?
   Perfection implies no mistake is ever made.  So I assume that
   the creator is imperfect, or we are perfect.  And I doubt we
   are perfect.  What are some views on this logic?

          -Eric Hamrick
From: dlyndes@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (David Lyndes)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Clergy Abuse
Date: 13 Apr 1992 02:31:24 GMT
Reply-To: dlyndes@deltahp.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: Barrios Technology @ NASA/JSC; Houston

[David Rice] 
|> In the next few days I'll post a few Clergy Abuse reports. What
|> Christians are doing to little boys would make a hard-core
|> porno enthusist blush with shame.

[Bryan O'Sullivan]
|> Is it just me, or do other people also get the impression that Iain
|> Jameson's and David Rice's interests run a little to the bizarre?
|> 
|> Fellas, if you want to discredit chrisitanity by pointing out the
|> foibles of some of its supposedly repectable members (who are as human
|> as you and I, [...]

Exactly Mr. Rice's point.  He is doing this in response to those who
that christians, and even more shepherds of the church, are morally
superior to the rest of us.  If you make no such claim (as apparently
is the case), then Mr. Rice has no quarrel with you on that score.
-- 
+-------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| David K. Lyndes                     | "Kill the head and the body will      |
| Barrios Technology                  |  die."                                |
| email: dlyndes@deltahp.jsc.nasa.gov |  - Hunter S. Thompson                 |
+-------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer nor of God. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: yohan@doc.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Date: 14 Apr 1992 18:14:02 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: doc.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <mancer.0498@meltdown.chi.il.us>, mancer@meltdown.chi.il.us (Matt Sheahan) writes:
>> Bad is just entropy, and good is the lack of entropy.
>
>I've got to comment on this.  It wasn't the main point of your message, but it
>bears addressing.  I disagree that greater entropy is always bad and lesser
>entropy is always good.  Complete organization would be as difficult a
>situation for most individuals to stomach as complete chaos (though if either
>of those states were reached, there would be no more individuals).  Good, I
>would say, would be a state of balance between the extremes on the entropy
>scale, while bad would be something that moves the situation away from its
>balance (though a new equilibrium could perhaps be established).  Besides,
>don't you enjoy a little chaos in your life?
>
>__   /|  All that glitters has a high refractive index.
>` o.O    Der Gedanke an den Selbstmord ist ein starkes Trostmittel.
>=(___)=  Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
>   U     Rub her feet.
> Ack!!   Don't take life too seriously; you'll never get out of it alive.


I'm sorry, but this strikes me as a little silly.  Are people debating the moral
implications of entropy?  In some of the previous articles, it seems so.  Using
scientific principles to define "good" and "evil" is just stupid.  They are
observed results and no true scientist tries to attach moral sentiments to it. 
Isn't this sort of like people trying to explain social developements by using
the theory of evolution?  (believe me, people have tried).

Jon Newton
From: martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Canaanites(was Re: Achilles heels for religion?)
Date: 8 Apr 92 11:31:00 GMT
Organization: British Telecom

In article <1992Apr06.210827.25916@watson.ibm.com>, strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
> 
> The Canaanites (the mythical ones described in
> the story, not necessarily the real ones) are
> described as being a people of depraved but
> attractive *practices*, not merely beliefs.
> That they fall before the Israelites is expressed
> via God causing them to lose.  There are episodes
> where some from among them appreciate the
> righteousness of the Israelites and help the
> cause.  
> 
I don't doubt your sincerity in believing this to be an alternative
explanation, particularly in the light of your mistrust of holy
wars that you explain later, but this still sounds exactly like
the bible quote, and is morally abhorrent to an atheist in
exactly the same way, and demonstrates why using a religious
book of rules as your source of morality is dangerous in
exactly the same way. The passage is still saying that the
jews massacred a bunch but that was ok because they were
not jews, doesn't it? Its only when you define righteousness
in terms of relious dogma that this sort of act becomes
acceptable, and that's why I don't find religious dogma
acceptable as a source of morality.
From: hedrick@dumas.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: different planet (was paranoid etc)
Date: 11 Apr 92 08:11:00 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine) writes:

>  This theme is even more obvious in Romans 13:

>    "You must all obey the governing authorities.  Since all
>    government comes from God, the civil authorities wre appointed
>    by God, and so anyone who resists authority is rebelling against
>    God's decision, and such an act is bound to be punished."

>  So I guess the Nuremberg trials were nothing more than a sinful
>  rebellion against God, as were the recent trials of the East
>  German border guards accused of shooting attempting defectors, as
>  have been the recent uprisings by the 30 or so million blacks in
>  South Africa.  

This passage has never been taken to mean that you should obey the
authorities when they tell you to murder, nor do I think Paul meant it
that way.  Many people who take this passage seriously believe that it
prohibits any kind of revolution or armed resistance.  (Note that I'm
not sure how common the view I'm outlining is currently.  It is
associated with some of the Reformers of the 16th Cent., and seems to
have at least some continuing influence in Lutheranism.)  If the
government commands you to do something unjust, you are justified in
refusing to obey those commands, but in all other respects you owe it
obedience.  Of course this means that you may well be prosecuted for
refusing the commands that you find immoral.  (In that way, this view
is closely related to what has been called "civil disobedience".)
Only duly consistuted authority is authorized to use arms to rectify
injustice.  When duly constituted authority was itself the problem,
the idea was that the "lesser magistrate" should take up the problem.
That is, princes might try to protect their people from an emperor's
injustice, and do what they can to correct his abuses (or in more
modern terms, a legislature or courts attempt to correct abuses
elsewhere in government).  But private citizens are not authorized to
resist on their own.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Monday, 13 Apr 1992 08:45:27 EDT
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: WEEMBA jests or admits atheism? (Was: Re: WEEMBA and DABROWSKI Ang
Distribution: world,public
 <1992Apr09.223614.33366@watson.ibm.com> <92101.134646J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Apr11.040650.24568@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu>

In article <1992Apr11.040650.24568@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu>,
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) says:
>
>In article <92101.134646J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
>writes:
>>>I know very few Jews who would affirm the above in a literal sense.
>>>Many of us would affirm this in a metaphorical sense --- that is,
>>>we would teach lessons containing language roughly like this.
>>>Does that make most of us atheists?
>>In a word, yes.  Certain rabid, anti-religious atheists might not agree
>>with me, but in my book, any person who regards gods as metaphors is an
>>atheist.  I myself have been know to light candles on Imbolc, and I do
>>not think this makes me any less an atheist.  Welcome aboard.
>
>I think "welcome aboard" may be a bit premature here.  The problem is that
>Matthew hasn't actually _said_ that he believes in gods only as metaphors;

Whoa!  I guess the header threw you off track.  Rob Strom, not Matthew
Wiener was the individual who said that he views God only metaphorically.

To the best of my understanding, Matthew Wiener himself is not sure whether
or not he is an atheist.
-----------------------------------
John A. Johnson (J5J@psuvm.psu.edu)
Department of Psychology Penn State DuBois Campus 15801
Penn State is not responsible for my behavior.
"A ruthless, doctrinaire avoidance of degeneracy is a degeneracy of
 another sort.  Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing
 metaphysics is a part of life."  - from _Lila_ by R. Pirsig
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: kmldorf@utdallas.edu (George Kimeldorf)
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 05:30:20 GMT

In article <sd60cINNfu6@doc.ksu.ksu.edu>, yohan@doc.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W
Newton) says:
>
>Can we please drop the discussion of semantics??!!  That wasn't the main point
>of my article.  It was adressed to those people who believe, not think, that
>God(s) do not exist.

I am a Greenist.  We Greenists believe that the Earth was
colonized many eons ago by little green people, call Greenies,
from another solar system.  (That's why plants are green.)  We
evolved from the original Greenies.  The Greenies control our
lives from afar by means of undetectable electromagnetic
radiation.  We Greenists pray daily to the Greenies, but
especially on St. Patrick's day, which is the Greenist Holy Day. 
The Greenies have powerful telescopes which allow them to observe
us.  Unfortunately, because of increased pollution, they have had
to resort to direct observation through UFO's.

You who don't believe in Greenism are called agreenists. 
But since you agreenists can't disprove Greenism, we accuse you of having
your own faith.  Soon, we are going to start a new newsgroup
called alt.agreenism where Greenists and agreenists flame each
other over the various "proofs" for and against the existence of
Greenies.  Also, we shall question whether it's possible for agreenists
to be moral, since you don't believe in the inerrancy of the holy
green book.
From: dabrowski@rz-berlin.mpg.de (Jarek Dabrowski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: test. please ignore.
Date: 11 Apr 92 20:25:04 +0100
Organization: Rechenzentrum MPG Berlin

Just a test... Seem that the news server went mad...
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: The hell with this!(I'm leaving for a month)
Organization: University of Louisville
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 00:22:11 GMT

For anyone who cares, I won't be reading a.a. for the next month in
order to finish my dissertation.  Also, I've got to get down to the
post office to vote on the Elvis stamp.

I will respond to responses of my last few posts in the next few days.

Keep the faith,
:-)
Joe Deasy
From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 22:27:44 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Research

In article <eePNiB12w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) writes:
|> J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson) writes:
|> > When several atheists here said the Bible "sucks" as a guide
|> > to moral action, I do not think they were rejecting 100%
|> > of its content.  What we find objectionable is (1) the poor
|> > ratio of moral wisdom to moral obscenity (e.g., God murdering
|> > people and having them murdered), and (2) the reason for behaving
|> > morally (God's orders as opposed to genuine value for human
|> > beings).
|> 
|> The interesting thing about the Bible isn't what its moral code prohibits,
|> but what its moral code fails to prohibit...
|> 
|> There's Heinlein's favourite example: where is the commandment against lying? 
|> There's only a commandment against one specific sort of lying, bearing false
|> witness against someone.  Also, the Bible seems none too clear on what
|> constitutes lying.  Compare that with Buddhist teaching, where all kinds of
|> lying are defined and 'disallowed' (*), including 'lying by careful omission
|> of facts', 'lying by failing to correct something someone else says which you
|> know to be false', 'lying by phrasing things in a misleading way', and so
|> on.
|> 

I don't claim to be a Heinlein expert, but if you quote correctly,
then I think Heinlein is misinformed about the Bible and (Jewish) Biblical
tradition.  (I'm assuming that "Heinlein" means Robert Heinlein,
the science fiction writer.)  Does Heinlein write this as himself, or
is this the opinion of some fictional character like Lazarus Long?

There are specific Biblical injunctions against dishonest business
practices, false weights/measures, putting "stumbling blocks before
the blind" by exploiting someone else's ignorance, etc.  And
there are whole books written about lashon ha-ra, which encompasses
slander, gossip, spreading rumors, etc.  There's even a law
which says that it's wrong to go into a shop and pretend
that you're interested in buying something because you'll
falsely raise the hopes of the shopkeeper.

There are also all kinds of Talmudic laws about exactly
how to determine whom to believe when different people
make conflicting assertions and claims.

If you're going to attack the Bible's moral code, I think there
are more fruitful places to start than its failure to regulate
lying.  I don't intend by the above to disparage Buddhist
teaching --- I am sure it contains valuable lessons too.


-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: morleymp@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Matthew P Morley)
Subject: Re: B.S.A. Belief in God Requirement
Reply-To: morleymp@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Matthew P Morley)
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:39:26 GMT

>Chicago Tribune (Sept 25, 1990) says:
> 
>"'On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and
>  my country,' goes the Boy Scout oath. The Boy Scout law
>  also invokes the deity. A Scout, it says, is 'reverent'
>  toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties and he
>  respects the beliefs of others.'
   /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

I have been in scouting for over twelve years, and  I always thought this  
concept was the most important.  This is what kept me in scouting  
eventhough I am an anthiest.  But now, BSA has started to disreguard this.   
So much for respect.  

On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country.  Does  
the fact that I do not have a god make the rest of this oath invaild?  My  
god does not exist, so duty to it would be meaningless.


Matt Morley
morleymp@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Backward Masking
Date: 16 Apr 92 02:35:02 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr12.162142.8775@exu.ericsson.se>, exumfs@exu.ericsson.se (Mark
Steph) writes:
> 
> In article 1@eagle.wesleyan.edu, kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu () writes:
> >In article <22898@goofy.Apple.COM>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >>  
> >> However in the case of Rush this whole issue is really hilarous, anyone
> >> who has followed the lyrics of Peart knows that their world view does
> >> not contain any kinds of references to occult, religion or mysticism.
> >> Quite the contrary, this is one of the few bands who promote secular
> >> humanism.                                                    ^^^^^^^
> >> ^^^^^^^^
> >   GASP!  NOT SECULAR HUMANISM!  You mean they expound that vicious
philosophy
> >preached by the Antichrist himself, Isaac Asimov?
> >   That's probably the reason they were pointed out.  Pity about Isaac.
> >
> >Karl Magnacca
> 
> Actually, I believe they are closer to Objectivism (of Ayn Rand fame).  Their
earlier
> albums contained very explicit Objectivist philosophy and one album was
"dedicated
> to the genius of Ayn Rand".

True, their earlier albums were very much influenced by Rand and Objectivism.
However, IMHO their latest records have taken a small distance from this
movement, and they express more issues related to humanism. Then again
all this is personal, Peart is an expert to create lyrics which could
be interpreted differently by every listener. He's actually one of the
few writes in the rock business I admire, sometimes the lyrics are eventually
too simplified, but they always make sense.

Cheers,
Kent
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org (David Rice)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Clergy Abuse
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 16:56:06 PDT
Organization: Universal Electronics Inc. (Public access BBS)

Tag: Iain Jameson
 
IJ> "I should preface this post by saying that the article I
IJ> shall post was a consequence of a report on sexual abuse
IJ> by the clergy written by an Anglican priest. He reported
IJ> that almost 15% of Anglican priests committed sexual
IJ> offences against woman parishioners. However, his figures
IJ> are questionable, as they are based on American figures.
IJ> He assumes that Australia is following an American trend.
IJ> I should also point out that the American figure is around
IJ> 25% of Anglican priests. He assumes, for some reason, that
IJ> this figure is too high. Until a proper survey is done here,
IJ> I must conclude that his figures are questionable."
 
[important stuff deleted]
 
IJ> "Anyone still care to maintain that clergy are morally superior
IJ> to the rest of us mere mortals?"
 
Hi. I was going to start my reply with "I have extensive files. . ."
but that sounds kinda Nazi to me. I'll say that over the years I
have collected many, many newspaper articles on this. Also,
Ammond Shadowcraft made an excellent anthology called "Clergy
Abuse," available at most FidoNet PODS flag nodes. Most of the
files I have I put on my BBS available for download.
 
Clergy abuse has a pattern. A preacher will molest a few boys
over many years; the boys grow up; one or two tells someone
about the abuse; the preacher gets reassigned by his church;
the cycle repeats.
 
In the next few days I'll post a few Clergy Abuse reports. What
Christians are doing to little boys would make a hard-core
porno enthusist blush with shame.


--  

David Rice
Internet: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Compuserve: >internet:David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org