HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: To All Truth Seekers!
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:56:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.210257.3190@src4src.linet.org> joeb@src4src.linet.org (Joe Beiter) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.152208.13379@news.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct9.150735.23962@cs.tulane.edu> goff@pops.navo.navy.mil writes:
>>>JESUS WAS A MYTH-
>>>   Question: The bible, as a history book, is astonishingly correct when
>>>	     used to understand archeological remains and ancient writings.
>>Twaddle. The Bible is astonishingly bad. It gets all sorts of things
>>wrong. E.g. The creation narrative. The flood. There is much doubt
>>about the historicity of the Exodus narrative, and Joshua claims to
>>have conquered cities that didn't exist at the time.
>
>For one, your accusation that the creation narrative is wrong is based on
>a theory.  Isn't that just a leetle presumptuous?
It's not based on a theory. It's based on the FACT that the earth is
4.5 billion years old. I suggest you pop over to talk.abortion for
proof of this, if you don't believe me. There are something like
three independent confirming pieces of data for this.

>What cities (that Joshua conquered) are you saying didn't exist?
Ai. The remains have been found, and it wasn't in existence at the time.
I'll give you a real reference in a day or two.

>What about the flood?  Are you saying there was no flood?  How do you account
>for all the different claims from various cultures about it?
There was certainly no great flood that killed everyone on the
planet modulo Noah and his wife. 

>>>	     in the writing of a story that certainly would have required
>>>             very wicked hearts to produce.
>>Nonsense. If this is true, explain The Gospel of Thomas, The Apochryphon
>>of John, Acts of Thomas....
>
>Explain your problem with them.
They exist. They say things that directly contradict the Bible.
If they can be the product of a horrible lie, why can't the Bible
be? If they're not the product of a horrible lie, but say things
that must be untrue if the Bible is true, then why can't the Bible
be an honest mistake--if they are.

>>The rest of your article is similarly inane. Learn some Biblical
>>history, and then come back.
>
>inane?
Inane.

>I thought it was very good.
Not surprising. It's still inane.

>  As for you tag line, what makes you
>think you were ever a "christian"?  (not ment as a flame, just curious)
I wasn't ever a Christian, but I know a fair bit of Biblical history.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
From: polari@carson.u.washington.edu (Ian Chapman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Morality and Atheism/Agnostism
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:33:35 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
     I recently read many interesting discussions conerning the "morality"


     For those who don't believe in god(s) (or don't know/care), the issue of
morality requires some thought.  I, for one, have actually (by the standards of
my society) become MORE moral since echewing religion.  I suspect that my 
experience is not abnormal.  I (with emphasis) define morality as doing what's
best for myself and as many others in my society as possible (or doing the 
least harm to as few people as possible).  There are of course a couple of
axioms here: 1) Helping society (needs of the many) is beneficial and 2) Harm
is defined using the "golden rule".  This sounds pretty simplistic, but it
works.  My point is this: nonthiests must define for themselves a moral/ethical
system that works (no inconsistancies--or at least very few--are allowed).


                         -nikolai
                                                            |
                                                            |
                                                          \ | /
* Is there no truth in beauty?                         ---- * ----
                                                          / | \
** Truth is beauty                                          |    
                                                            |   
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18634 talk.origins:12762
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
Subject: Re: New Member (me)
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:34:13 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)

Followups directed to t.o only.

In article <1992Oct8.153147.3441@nntpserver.chevron.com>, jviv@usmi01 (John Viveiros) writes:
>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.

So just watch for a few months.  It's a weird one.

>	    Darwin was probably wrong!  This IN NO WAY invalidates the
>physical evidence for evolution.

Congratulations, you've got a working brain.  What of it?  Part of what
goes on in t.o that confuses you is the optional nature of that feature.

>				   As was posted in SCI.Skeptic FAQ,
>Newton's laws of gravitation were found to be wrong (by Einstein).

Newton's laws were not found wrong so much as being less than absolute.

>		     But the evidence for evolution occuring in organisms
>through geologic time is overwhelming (better than the evidence that the
>moon is a sphere).

Again, mucho congratulations.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 16:23:03 EDT
From: <EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: "Jehovah" TRIBE OF SPACE CANNIBALS
 <1992Oct14.152108.6094@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>

Hey Pal, you belong in alt.alien.vistors (or maybe a padded room!)

The Christian god and the Jewish god (and the Islamic god, for that matter) are
all the same god!!!  I will remind you that Jesus was a JEW!  Was he a cannibal
?

Do you any IDEA what ZIONISM is?!  Apparently not.  Let's see if can rub your
two brain cells together and understand this:  the zionist movement believes th
at the land of Israel is the Jewish homeland, and thus rightfully belongs to th
e Jews.

A small history lesson for you: After the slave tribes left Egypt, they conquer
ed what was then called Canaan.  After a few centuries, the Assyrian empire
arose and gave Judea some grief.  Then the Babylonian empire arose, took Assyri
a, including Israel.  The Babylonians exiled the Jews from Judea, and it stayed
that way until the Persian empire came along and conquered all of the Babylonia
n empire.  The Persians allowed the Jews to return to Judea.  Then, along came
the Greeks, who (under Alexander the Great) conquered all Persia (and much more
).  They gave Judea some extemely LIMITED self-governing power, and the guy
sent to look over them (Herod) was a schmuck.  After some time of hostile rule
by the Greek,  the Romans came along and did the best job, out of everyone, of
deporting the Jews from Judea.  In fact, they did such a great job, that the
Jews only officially returned to "Judea" in 1948 A.D.

No aliens,  no cannibalism,  and most important NO GOD!!!!

And as for the your stupid, ignorant claim that the Israelis are killing off
Arabs left and right without a second thought:  You obviously know NOTHING of
what is, and has, happened!  I won't even bother to discuss modern Jewish histo
ry, but I will say that the Arabs have, in the past, tried a hell of lot harder
 to wipe out the Jews than the other way around.

A few suggestions for you:  GET A LIFE!  GET A BRAIN!

     Cordially yours,
            Eylon Geva


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eylon Geva            |   "Somebody please tell me that I'm dreaming,
geva@orville.psu.edu  |    It's not so easy to stop from screaming..."
exg106@psuvm.pdu.edu  |                            Iron Maiden
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: The Simpsons
Date: 9 Oct 1992 00:20:42 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


	Is anyone watching the Simpsons........?

-- 
"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: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: "Teaching atheism"
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 02:23:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.164944.6652@convex.com> tonyp@convex.COM  writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.160506.23515@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh) writes:
>}
>}Recently, I heard my 3-year old son make a reference to "god" for the
>}first time.  This happened the day after he went to church with my
>}wife.  Usually he stays with me (perhaps because I take him to more 
>}
>}I would like to hear suggestions on some good ways to introduce
>}"alternative ideas" to such small children.  
>}
>I would avoid confusing him with your side of the facts - unless he 
>asks. To take a young, impressionable mind and put it in conflict
>with "Mommy says this" and "Daddy says that" will only make matters
>worse.

I dunno about that.  It might teach him a bit of skepticism.

>If he asks "how come you don't go to church, daddy?" find a
>way to side-step the question. I wouldn't tell him that there isn't
>a God until he can fully understand the concept. I'd guess that about
>the time he no longer believes in Santa Claus might be it.

I disagree.  If you wait until he can fully understand the concept,
you'll be waiting forever.  Besides, I think that the time to start
teaching critical thinking is during the early formative years.
Oh, and he should *never* believe in Santa Claus.  It isn't really
too surprising that if you teach kids that it's ok to live in a
fantasy world so long as it makes you feel good, that many grow
up believing exactly that.
--
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: jwest@wisc (Jeff West)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God's existence
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:42:19 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

scott@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Scott G Goddard) writes:

:      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?  Or would that 
: not be good enough?  Well, I hope it would be. 

	Yes I believe this would do it for me!  Would be more than I've seen
	so far.  Can you schedule it?  I'll take vacation time to see it and
	even pay full price airfair to get there.


     Jeff West
From: morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith is illogical
Date: 15 Oct 1992 21:59:49 GMT
Organization: TRIUMF, Vancouver BC
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sitka.triumf.ca

In article <austin.719127043@munagin>, austin@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (timothy james austin) writes:
|> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
|> 
|> >austin@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (timothy james austin) writes:
|> >>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!).
|> 
|> >Okay, ya ready! In the beginning (this is a human term I use loosely) there
|> >was nothing, but nothing is relative. Due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty
|> >Principle nothing cannot remain nothing indefinitely. One theory suggests
|> 
|> This sounds like a new version of the Uncertainty principle to me.
|> From what I rember the uncertainty principle says that you can never know
|> exactly the position and speed of a particle.  Its says nothing about
|> matter appearing from nowhere.

Sure it does.  The classic expression of Heisenberg's Uncertaintly Principle
(HUP) says that the product of the uncertainty of the momentum and position
of a particle must always be greater than a certain constant.  An equivalent
expression of the HUP says the same thing about time and energy.  The
consequence is that energy can be created from nothing, provided that it
exists for a sufficiently short time.  Because matter is energy, according 
to Einstein, it can be created in this way;  the phenomenon of virtual 
pair creation is an example of this happening.  If the amount of energy 
created is zero, it can exist indefinitely.  The universe may meet this
criterion, if the sum of all the positive and negative energies due to 
matter and expansion comes to zero.

-- Morgan Burke (morgan@reg.triumf.ca)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sigh! Another god?
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:58:32 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <DuNNsB3w165w@bluemoon.rn.com>, darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) writes:
> Message-ID: <1992Oct12.000406.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
> From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
>
>>In article <gL6FsB3w165w@bluemoon.rn.com>, 
>>darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) writes:
>  
>>> From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
>>> Message-ID: <10936@scott.ed.ac.uk>
>>>>
>>>>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>>>>You mean Colleen's coming back?!  Hurrah!  :)
>>>  
>>>>Wait a minute, sir.  Weren't you a Merittist but a while ago?  :-)
>>>>
>>> Squabbling within the ranks?  Why should I adopt your
>>> beliefs?  From your evil behavior I see your god is evil.
>>
>>   I beg your pardon?  How do you see this as squabbling within
>>the ranks?  It's merely clarification of a previous postition.
>  
> You are quite right.  And exaggerated differences between 
> Christians say nothing about God's existence, do they. 

   I don't see where you're coming from.  Ivan is questioning
whether Brian was recently a Merittist.  I don't see how you 
extrapolate that into Colleen being evil.

   And no, differences between Christians don't say anything 
about God's existence.  What makes you think they do?

Karl
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: FAQ-finding difficulties
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:31:08 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Oct14.203009.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> People here seem to have problems finding the FAQ in record numbers. I only
> seem to be able to find it once every 6 months. When I see three new people
> asking for it in one day I know there's a problem.

   Is there any way to get it to stay up as the first message on 
the group?  I've noticed that several groups have messages that
are still there after several months.  If the FAQ could be stuck 
there permanently (or at least for a long time) it would make it 
much easier to find.

Karl
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: You're Invited!
From: dan@stanton.UUCP (Dan Mahoney)
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:53:45 GMT
Organization: Stanton Public Domain Systems, Stanton, Ca.
Summary: Reply to born-again...


Actually, sir, it is not a universally accepted fact that God exists.  
I have yet to see or hear indisputable proof of this claim.  You attempt
to justify your argument through citation of the Bible is pitifully 
inadequate;  if I am not willing to accept a priori that God exists, then
why should I blindly accept that the current versions of the Bible are
anything more than blind religious speculation and primitive folklore?

I really would welcome some sound, logical, preferably scientifically
acceptable arguments for the existence of God; I won't even bother 
reading Biblical arguments, only logical arguments.  I welcome you to
respond to this via posting to this news group, or via private E-Mail
to dan@stanton.cts.com, or to 70540.3034@compuserve.com.
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Thanks Atheists
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:23:08 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1992Oct12.155725.11030@walter.cray.com> jwest@wisc (Jeff West) writes:
>From: jwest@wisc (Jeff West)
>Subject: Re: Thanks Atheists
>Date: 12 Oct 92 20:57:25 GMT

>cb366@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark B. Bendiksen) writes:
>: 
>: Thanks to all responded to my post last Friday entitled
>: "Hello All!" via E-Mail or posting (I'm sure there's still

>: be found. My post was attempting to address the issue of
>: what I saw as unconstructive posts filled with senseless
>: namecalling. But this namecalling should not exist either
>: by theists or atheists. The purpose of newgroups (to
>: me, at least) are to share ideas and beliefs with others,
>: some who will disagree and others who will agree. It seems


>        If your really here to share ideas and beliefs without
>        trying to 'force' yours upon me then I for one welcome
>        you.


>: openly invite megaflames, and that atheists who respond to
>: these posts will extend the same courtesy I received (for
>: the most part), which is open and frank discussion.


>        There 'logically' should be NO reason people of different
>        faiths can't communicate their thoughts with each other
>        and not be offensive.  To me few things in life are more
>        enjoyable than when people can share ideas with each other
>        from a standpoint of respect for the others point of view.
>        Unfortunately topics such as religion and politics rarely
>        rise to this level.
>        So have at it.  What's your first topic?  I'll be happy to
>        give you any thoughts I have.

>: 
>: Thanks to all,

The problem atheists have, sophisticated principled atheists anyway, are
that god seems irrelevant, internally incoherent, intrinsically improbable,
and religions in which this god is found seem to demand little intellectual
or moral discipline, historically have spawned obscurantism, superstition 
and ignorance on whole populations, and generally foster vicious illusions.

You can respond to these allegations one at a time, in numerous posts if
you like, or you can attempt to briefly answer all of them here. I haven't
numbered them, mainly because I don't know any reasonable principle of 
individuating objections.

//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:04:14 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

matthew@rima.isor.vuw.ac.nz (Matthew Hobbs) writes:


>Keith Schneider wrote:

>> ... Morality
>> entails those things which allow us to successfully live together.

>This is a good statement of what morals result in but it is not a
>definition. A science fiction story could provide a contradiction.
>I think the problem is that you have begged the question by not
>defining "successfully live together". I also suspect the direction
>is: we live successfully together (whatever that is!) _if_ we have
>compatible moral codes.

>On another tack, morality still needs to be defined in terms of the
>individual unless you want:
>  Morality = benefit society as a whole (by what criterion?)
>but there are other versions:
>e.g.
>  Morality = benefit self (self benefit may derive from society benefit
>  to some extent of course)
>There is no apriori reason why a persons morality `must' benefit society
>as a whole so I think your version of morality presumes too much.

Well, morality is sort of vague on the individual basis.  If there were
no other people, morality would have no meaning.  The point of morality
is to enable society.  That is, your morality is for the benefit of others.
You reap no rewards from your own morality other than the fact that others
do the same.  Basically, you do the things that you want other people to do.

There is no strong motivation to be moral other than that you will be excluded
from society if you are not.  Prehistorically, exclusion from society meant
death.  Few humans can survive well on their own in the wild.

Hmm.. perhaps we are not on the same wavelength.  Could you provide some
examples or demonstrantions of what you are saying?

keith
From: ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:38:42 GMT
Organization: Electronic Eng., Univ. Natal, Durban, South Africa
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc56.ee.und.ac.za

In article <1992Oct06.205447.4956@convex.com> tonyp@cnvxla.COM, , Conan - good!) writes:

>In article <1992Oct6.170132.20516@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
>}good, Conan - good! writes
>}
>}>}So here is my proposal : You prove to us that God does not exist!
>}
>}>It is no more possible to prove that God does not exist than it is
>}>to prove that he does exist.
>}
>}>Logic and thinking tell us that the existence of such a being is not
>}>possible. 
>}
>}Logic tells us? But you just said that God's non-existence is
>}unprovable. Thinking tells us? Thinking tells some that God's
>}existence is not only possible, but necessary. Let's not slide into
>}the same sort of arrogance that some theists seem to wallow in. 
>}
>Explain the "not only possible, but necessary".

>Don't use the bible to back up any of your statements. You must use "fact".

>Ambrose Pierce points out that you can not use the bible in the 
>U.S. legal system because there is no one who can verify, first hand (as
>opposed to hear-say) the accuracy of its information. You can, however use
>witches, as there are records of sworn testimony to the existence of witches.
>These have never been reversed from the Salem Witch Trials.

>"God is necessary" for those who can't face the fact that they are of no,
>or so little, importance to the universe that when they die, the universe
>will go on without them.

>"God is necessary" for those who want justice, and can't deal with the
>fact that man can get away with anything he wants and not have to pay
>for it in the end.

>"God is necessary" to make life worth living. It is pretty silly to "live",
>and know it is all for naught. This is the hardest part for me as an atheist.

>I would give anything to be able to believe in God.


>--
>    Tony J. Podrasky             BIBLE : 
>     San Diego , Ca                       BUY BULL ? 
>    tonyp@convex.com                                  ( NO ) 
>QSL? QRU? QRZ? QLZ? QFA?                                      BYE, BULL !


Well, read my other posts and explain to me how you suppose you came about!

Cheers.
From: bailey_j@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: test
Date: 12 Oct 1992 20:50:12 GMT
Organization: Wellington City Council (Public Access), Wgtn, Nz
Reply-To: bailey_j@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: kosmos.wcc.govt.nz

In article <Oct.12.15.20.03.1992.6521@gandalf.rutgers.edu>, bstuart@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Ben Stuart) writes:
>This is just to test multiple group distribution.
I hate these stupid tests ! Why can't they have their own group, alt.tests or
soemthing ?