HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Second Comming, and again, and again!
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:07:22 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992

Tag: Kelley Miller (ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller))
And: x@beyond.one's.understanding (The Messiah)
 
TM> "I bring word from our great Creator! She is given word that
TM> her presence shall be felt by the world! Spread The Word!
TM> Make haste to prepare for Her Second Comming! All ye mortal
TM> souls must be in order! Armageddon is near! She is mercyfull
TM> and gives all yee unbelievers one last chance to repent your
TM> sins, and recognise Her Divinity! The world shakes with thunder
TM> in one week!
 
KM> "WOAH!! ...life's a bitch, I guess..."
 
Last time I worshipped Goddess (Beltane fires) She came -three-
times, and the first time I wasn't even ready (no Messiah to
warn me I guess). But as The Messiah said, second time around
the world -DOES- shake. Third time's a charm.

--- Maximus 2.00
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: marriage: atheist's alternatives?
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:43:10 GMT
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

FLANAGA@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Scott Flanagan) writes:
:  What do atheists, or anyone not desiring a religious wedding ceremony,
: typically do if they otherwise want to have a normal wedding?  I am aware
: that justices of the peace may perform civil services, but I was hoping that
: there are other, LEGAL, alternatives.  I am particularly interested in
: alternatives which have been shown to be legally watertight in Texas, since
: that is where I will be getting married.
:   -Scott Flanagan (flanaga@ricevm1.rice.edu)

Check out some of the Unitarian Universalist churches in your area.
I am an atheist and actually started to attend one here (Ohio)
starting a few weeks ago.  Whatever you want to believe is fine
with them.
-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God's existence
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:14:38 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1b4gs1INNj9v@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, scott@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Scott G Goddard) writes:
> Hi everyone.  I posted something a few days ago, and I got a lot of responses,
> mostly hate mail. 

   Do you call it hate mail when someone points out your stupidity?

> To tell you the truth, that doesn't bother me, actually it
> seems kind of childish. Grow up!  

   HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

   I say that Scott gets the Log In Your Own Eye award for this week.

> I could tell that you all have a wonderful 
> vocabulary, but I could also sense much hatred.  Personally, I don't care if
> I sounded like a "preacher", as some of you put it.  And I also don't care
> what the FAQ states. 

   At least he admits it...

> You're salvation means more to me than that.  I don't know 
> about you, but eternal damnation doesn't sound too appealing to me.  I just 
> pray that one day you are not wishing that you listened to me, or anyone else
> who has tried to get it through to you.  Call me in about a million years at
> 1-800-1HEAVEN. 

   Are you saying there are pay phones in Hell?  Does that mean we
get to take money with us?  Well, never mind, we'll just call collect.

> Now, I'm not trying to make anybody mad, and I'm not 
> condemning anybody either.  What I say is true, "THERE IS A GOD."

   How do you know it's true?  I'm sorry, but stuff like "the
Bible," "I know in my heart," and "personal experience" just
won't cut it.

>      What is it going to take to prove that He does exist?  Is God Himself 
> going to have to come down from Heaven and perform a miracle? 

   What would you prefer?  That we just accept it because you 
told us he exists?  Anyone who does that is even dumber than
you are.


> By the way, this is probably going to be the last news that I post,

   Gee, what a pity.

> but just think about it.

   What?  Your assertions that God exists?

>                               P.S.  Jesus loves you
                                P.S.  Darwin loves you

Karl
------
"By the cold and religious we were take in hand,
 Shown how to feel good, and told to feel bad."
From: morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: PROOF OF GOD (based on atheist's prem.)
Date: 15 Oct 1992 21:39:45 GMT
Organization: TRIUMF, Vancouver BC
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sitka.triumf.ca

In article <92288.234739U52468@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U52468@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
|> In article <6NNNsB1w165w@bluemoon.rn.com>, darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop)
|> >Postulate: Theism can only be learned.
|>
|>   Well, we've been skipping our ligic classes, haven't we?  1 is totally
|> false.  A human being "created" religion for his own purposes, likely
|> one of the following:

You've violated the postulate with that statement.  If theism can only
be learned, then it certainly cannot be created.  Maybe it's you who
should go back to your logic classes...

To any other hapless atheists who feel compelled to respond:  don't bother 
finding the fallacies in this piece of logic.  There are none.  The problem 
is with the postulate, and that was exactly the point of the original 
message.

-- Morgan Burke (morgan@reg.triumf.ca)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Hello All!
Date: 11 Oct 92 00:05:55 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <1b4unhINNr3k@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, cb366@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Mark B. Bendiksen) wrote:
> Hello Atheists:
 
> I am what most of you would probably call a "Jesus Freak".
> 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.). 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.
> 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". 

Mark, you are just now doing the same thing you didn't like,
polarizing Christians against Atheist. No wonder this newsgroup
is in shambles. Please post something related to 'deep philosophical
issues' next time, thanks.

Kent,
who is no atheist, btw.

	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:35:44 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Oct11.073211.12300@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> cochrane@spot.Colorado.EDU (Jim Cochrane) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.213730.14549@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>With this view of society in mind, you can then go on to develop a rational
>>code of ethics.
>
>But how do you keep this code of ethics from becoming just another system
>of rules to be imposed upon others?  (Or are you only talking about a personal
>code of ethics?)

and

>I think there are some moral rules that ring true -- for example, not
>killing -- because they are based on reality.  Or, put another way,
>human beings have the capacity to act in a positive manner as part of
>their nature.  Compassion and intelligence are not qualities that are
>given to us by god or that are forced upon us by society, culture, or
>the church; they are part of us.  The challenge is to discover these
>qualities in ourselves and to cultivate them; and to avoid indulgence
>in ignorance and deception -- qualities [the latter two] which moral
>systems often tend to encourange rather than avoid.

Exactly.  And I think that properly done, there would not need to be any
set of rules that need to be imposed on others, or at least none that
they were conscious of adhering to.  For example, the reason that I
do not run out and start killing people is not because society has
rules against such things, or because a little voice in my head tells
me that it is wrong, but because I have no inclination to do so.
Similarly, I have no inclination to follow the lead of the priesthood
and start sexually abusing little boys.  The key to "morality" is to
cultivate the best in people, not to set down a bunch of arbitrary rules
and then lay big guilt trips on people to get them to follow them.  That
brings out the worst.
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:58:15 GMT
	<TORKEL.92Oct8143844@isis.sics.se>
	<1992Oct8.171236.13629@u.washington.edu>
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <1992Oct8.171236.13629@u.washington.edu> sieferme@milton.u.
washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

   >Actually, this demonstrates the dubious value of zealots
   >who are only interested in propagating their drivel;
   >the FAQ is fine.

  Your comment would make sense if atheists were capable of responding
with a mere "read the FAQ" to zealots who post drivel. But mostly they
are not. They enter into just those endless and repeated arguments that
the FAQ was designed to prevent. Whatever infinite wisdom the FAQ contains,
it is useless if people are not actually prepared to let the FAQ provide
the obvious responses.
From: john.ings@synapse.org (John Ings) 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Hello? Testing 1-2-3
Date: 9 Oct 92 05:33:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SYNAPSE BBS - GATINEAU, QUEBEC - 819-561-4321
Reply-To: john.ings@synapse.org (John Ings) 


Hello hello! Testing 1-2-3 ?

This conference just appeared on my BBS, titled UA-atheism. It seems 
to be echoes from a UNIX net of some sort, with some very peculiar 
(to me anyway ) UUCP style network addresses. I am an agnostic, and 
therefore interested in the conference subject, but I am not sure if 
any responses I make would get through. I see a total of 26 messages 
so far, many of them repetitive, every one addressed to ALL. Several 
seem to be quotes from still another source, whose origin is obscure.

There is a second conference, with identical messages, titled
UA-atheismMod, right next to it in the index. Can anyone read me, or 
is this whole thing a mirage?


---
 . RR 1.60 P001966: IRAN: One nation under God.
                                 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks)
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 17:10:27 GMT

In article <92450@netnews.upenn.edu> stuart@stipple.seas.upenn.edu (Joseph Stuart ) writes:
>
>Since coming to disbieve the existence of god a few months ago, I have
>come pretty far in defining my own personal philosophy.  However, one point
>still bugs me that I can't quite get around: morality.  I feel that there
>are certain things which are immoral.  While I don't expect everyone to
>have the same moral code as me, I still feel a bit disturbed when others
>do things that I consider wrong.  Have any other atheists grappled with
>the question of where morality comes from, and produced any cogent
>thoughts?  If so, I would love to hear them.
>
>scott

Well, for myself, I find that the Golden Rule is a sufficient base for
morality.  Anything that isn't covered by that is a matter of mutual
consent, but then that derives from Rule 1!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: gj156879@prince.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879)
Subject: Interesting Satanic Shennanigans
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 02:29:01 GMT

I was very interested in the posts, and read the lot, but I wonder
"What does it have to do with atheism?"  As a religious individual
pointed out, we seem to be pretty stuck on the concept of critiquing
THEIR beliefs, and ignoring our own (assuming they are "right"?).
 
I suppose when it comes to ignorant satanic weird crap where people
are being screwed over because of what looks like (from an atheist
agnostic point of view) superstitious insanity.
 
I'm not sure what my point is...  Maybe I just would like to see more
discussions like the one on atheist/agnostic morals.  But who am I to
dictate where this group goes?  <grin>
 
Maybe the big question should be asked: does being atheist/agnostic
affect your life in any GRAND way?  As an agnostic, I don't feel like
my life is that bizarre or different from any one else.  What's
different between me and someone who believes in God?  Well, I don't
think we can prove such a beast, so let's live life as best we can
with the uncertainty, or the certainty He ain't there...
 
My fiance' reading over my shoulder just asked me: why do you say
"God" instead of "gods".  Hmm...  The only answer I could think of was
"convention" which she snorted at.  Oh well.  I guess despite being
agnostic, a certain amount of programming sneaks into your brain.  
 
Morals.  This debate is getting weird.  Someone has just suggested
that if we all believe that reality is 100% matter, how can there be
morals?  Being an atheist/agnostic doesn't mean everything is
physical...  I think we could all agree that thought is an immaterial
thing.  I'd stick morals in the same category, a mental phenomena,
immaterial for that reason alone, having nothing to do with God(s).
Why snicker at personal morals?  Should I say it again?: there
is a difference between personal morals and societal morals.  The
majority of personal morals tends to make the societal morals
(something I don't like, sometimes...)
 
This ramble has gone on long enough...
 
                                                 Nik

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: austin@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (timothy james austin)
Subject: Re: morality????????
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 03:25:01 GMT

maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire) writes:

>In article <92289.134045CP8219A@auvm.american.edu> Christopher H. Prokop <CP8219A@auvm.american.edu> writes:

>What is good is what aids your survival.  If you decide it is all right to
>kill people the rest of society will see you as a threat and either lock
>you up or kill you so you kill no more.  When as an individual you decide
>that a killing will aid your survival, you must realize that others might
>make the same decision about you.

Survival does not in any way preclude things such as killing.  In fact, if
killing some would help our personnal survival then by your definition it
would be moral.  Anything that helps our survival or benefits us is then
moral.  The other problem with this is that people are often in positions of
power over other people.  There are many cases where it may be possible to
get away with anti-social behaviour.  The threat of punishment by the rest
of society is only realised there if you get found out.  While you may not
do things against the rest of society, this is not to say that others will
not do such things if they get some benefit from it.

If you want to look at this from an evolutionary point of view, then it is just
survival of the fittest, not contributing to the good of all others.



>>Chris Prokop

>-Bill

Tim.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ttobler@unislc.uucp (Trent Tobler)
Subject: Re: Square Circles
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:32:21 GMT

Keith M. Ryan (kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu) wrote:
: In a previous article, ttobler@unislc.uucp (Trent Tobler) says:
:
: >You forgot to mention that we also are working with Euclidean space, and that
: >the geometric contruction tools imply the operations of a compass (congruent
: >distance constructor), and a straight edge (line constructor).  Given the right
: >tools (ie, a distance measuring tool, ie ruler), one CAN construct a square
: >with area equal to a circle.  Or, step away from Euclidean geometry, and use
: >a geometry where 'squares' and 'circles' can be constructed with equal areas
: >(ie, I believe that taxi-cab geometry provides a way to do this)
: 
: 	I doubt that given any sophisticated instrument that one could do
: that. One can't even get a real circle, let along making a real circle 
: whose real area match a real square! 

You forget, in mathematics you are supposed to pretend that the theory is
correct, not the practical application! ;)

--
  Trent Tobler - ttobler@unislc.slc.unisys.com  ttobler@csulx.weber.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: austin@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (timothy james austin)
Subject: Re: Faith is illogical
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 05:12:14 GMT

jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:


>Heb 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
>things not seen.

>-----------------
>Gratuitous Definition: 

[deleted]

>Many Christians base their belief in God on faith.  I wish to show
>that the Christian God cannot exist if faith is a requirement.

Faith and belief are almost interchangeable.  The basis for Faith in
God (or lack there of) would be what brought to to that belief.

>DEF: Faith as I interpret it is either belief without supporting 
>evidence, or belief that the evidence points to God's existance 
>in spite of naturalistic explainations for the evidence.
>If you disagree with this definition, please provide a counter-example.

Faith, as used in the bible is just a strong belief or certainty in something.
It says nothing about whether the object of faith is "naturalistic" or not.
From this definition you could say that "I have faith that the sun will rise
in the morning" and still be using faith in context.

>1) Faith, by this definition, is the acceptance of the logical 
>fallacy of Special Pleading.  Why should we accept a supernatural 
>explaination over a natural one?

The distinction that you make between naturalistic and supernatural may
seem obvious but I don't think it is that clear.

What is a natural explaination?

If this is just something that the "laws" of science agree with then we
are really just saying that something that we observe is natural.  The laws
of science are just what our observation and thought processes have come
up with.

A supernatural definition would be considered something above nature by many
people.  If God is behind our world and the way it works, then there is
really no distinction between natural and supernatural.  The way nature works
was predetermined by God.  Not that this is an argument for God it just says
that your definitions are rather limited.  Accepting God is not so much a
matter only of rejecting a natural explaination but determining why there
are any explainations at all.

Observing the world and saying what we see is natural does not mean that
there is any reason why the world is like it is.  There is no reason 
why the world is orderly and observable.  A naturalistic explaination
does not say why anything happens it mearly says that it does, and that we
observe it happening according to defined patterns.

As far as I can tell no one knows why the world comforms to reasonable well
defined patterns (If any one has a good answer then let me know!).

>2) God, as defined by Christians, will prevent atheists from entering
>Heaven due to their lack of faith.  This is required because to 
>admit atheists to Heaven reduces Christianity to a mere crutch 
>for life.  (I don't know of many Christians who will willingly admit 
>the crutch purpose.)

>3) God, as defined by Christians, is just.

>4) Requiring atheists to accept a logical fallacy is unjust.

[other stuff deleted]


Tim Austin.

austin@munagin.ee.mu.oz.au.
From: stuart@pixmap.seas.upenn.edu (Joseph Stuart )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Date: 11 Oct 92 16:51:37 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct11.095641.19466@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>In article <92484@netnews.upenn.edu> stuart@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Joseph Stuart ) writes:
>I can see how that phrase "each member of society" might have given
>you that impression, but it isn't the impression I intended.  I don't
>think that each person should strive for the greatest good, but rather
>that they should base their actions on enlightened self interest.  But
>I think it is in my best interest that others are peaceful and happy.
>It's hard for me to be peaceful and happy when my neighbours are violent,
>crazed lunatics.
>

Perhaps I am being naive and idealistic about my own feelings, but I don't
think that I help other people out of enlightened self interest.  Nor do
I want that to be the only reason I help other people.  There are many
people for whom I would definately make sacrifices, and worsen my own
situation in order to better theirs.  


>I think that we could all enjoy a better quality of life if we were to
>cooperate with one another, rather than competing with and exploiting
>each other.  I haven't yet figured out how that would be best implemented
>in practice though.

I agree, but should self interest be the only reason that we cooperate 
with each other?
>
>>I suppose that you could argue that we should be evolutionarily pre-disposed
>>toward helping one another since we have similar genes.  But, that doesn't
>>make it very palatable.
>
>What's not palatable?  Helping one another?

I mean that the idea that helping other people is caused solely by the
biological drive to propagate the human genetic information.


It probably sounds like I am flip-flopping on this issue, but I am just
trying to figure out where I stand, or actually, why I stand where I 
seem to think I do.


scott

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grown-ups never understand anything by themselves, and it is tiresome for
children to be always and forever explaining things to them.
	- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
---------------------------------------------------------------------------