HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "John J. Wegis" <wedge@valiant.ucr.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:55:27 GMT
Distribution: world


>Then I propose we define a new term - "non-theist" (actually, what I've
>been calling myself for years) as someone who believes Deity is
>irrelevant.  This would distinguish us from the "anti-theists" that 
>Mr. Spears (and, I imagine, most of the rest of us) have grown tired of.
>
>The whole concept of defining "atheist" and "agnostic" is a complete
>waste anyhow, since no one (not even the OED) can create a one-word term
>for an entire system of belief. 
>
>Andrew Gray    agray@starconn.com    agray@spectrox.saigon.com

I have to agree with the statement about defining a new term.  I have never
called myself an atheist because the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" seem to 
carry more meaning than the dictionary definition.

The definitions of atheist:  not believing in a deity, and agnostic:  undecided
about whether a deity exists or not, seem to suggest that a deity exists, but
that person either does not believe in the deity, or is unsure about whether
the deity exists or not.

Now that I think about it, why must people classify themselves at all? 
Classifying separates and alienates.

John Wegis     wedge@constitution.ucr.edu
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:82 alt.atheism:14679
From: gat@forsight.jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What's the point?
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:01:50 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory

In article <33779@cbmvax.commodore.com> Robert Weir - Manuals <weir@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com> writes:
>As I understand it, atheism is the denial of god's existance.
>
>But to get to this point you need to first understand what god is, 
>or at least understand what other people mean when they say "god" and
>then reject that god does exist. This seems rather pointless. By
>denying the existance of something, don't you validate its existance
>and then say simply, "Oh, by-the-by, that which I formally held to
>be true, I now hold as false? Denial is a weak argument.
>
>How can an atheist point of view be argued?

It is not necessary to completely define a thing in order to conclude
that it does not exist.  For example, I do not believe that Unicorns
exist.  This is a reasonable stand despite the fact that I do not know
(nor care) what Unicorn horns are made of, whether they really are
attracted to young virgins, whether their hooves are made of gold.
Likewise, I can reasonably deny the existence of gods in general without
committing myself to exactly what is meant by god.  I deny the existence
of gods on the same grounds that I deny the existence of unicorns,
the validity of astrology, and the divinity of L. Ron Hubabrd: I have
placed my faith in Science, and these there is no place left in my world
view for the supernatural.

Erann Gat
gat@robotics.jpl.nasa.gov

Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:12 alt.atheism:14423
From: Forrest Black <mailrus!gatech!unmvax!cfblack@uunet.uu.net>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Summary: truth?
Keywords: atheism openmindedness
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 10:18:59 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Impossible

In article <mspears.712252338@sfu.ca> mspears@sfu.ca (Matthew Spears) writes:
>
>  I am not a fundamentalist christian, or even a christian at all.  (Gave it
>up in childhood), but I dislike the close-mindedness of many atheists.  Yes,
>there is a lot of hypocrisy in Christianity, but there is a lot of good as
>well.  What I dislike about Churches in general is that they tend to say "THIS
>is the truth, take it or leave it."  But I still find that there is a lot
>of Truth in what they say. 
> 

Churches in the large (Da Pope, Moon, $700M Club, etc.) are massive
organizations with significant financial and political clout.  I scoff
at quite a bit of what is said, being a non-believer, but there is good
in some of the values that are presented by these organizations.  The
scary thing for me is that my ideas of good values and reasonable
conduct conflict in a glaring fashion sometimes with the followers of
major organized religions.  Am I just a misfit?  Do I disqualify myself
as an atheist by watching Gene Scott?

Churches in the small can be quite different -- much more of a community
effort than something handed down from on high by a 'representative of
Holiness...'

>  If you have a view of the universe, say it, backing it up as best you can. 
>But this cynical denigration of everything religious does no one any good, 
>least of all you.

I have no need (and no way) to back up my view of the Universe.  It is mine, 
and no one else's.  In the "beginning", "God" said, "I feel sick..."  And then
"He" blew chunks with such infinite ferocity that many astronomers think
they can measure the velocity of them today...

Every one must find deity in their own heart.  I *believe* that I have
an open mind...

Flame to: cfblack@unmvax.cs.unm.edu

	You cannot separate the just from the unjust
	and the good from the wicked;

	For they stand together before the face of the
	sun even as the black thread and the white
	are woven together.

	And when the black thread breaks, the weaver
	shall look into the whole cloth, and he shall 
	examine the loom also.

		--Kahlil Gibran


-- 
[[[ If your U*ix isn't broken, it's Unik. --cfblack@unmvax.cs.unm.edu ]]]
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:37 alt.atheism:14521
From: Ben Hekster <heksterb@cs.utwente.nl>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Summary: So *who* is being closed-minded?
Keywords: atheism
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:27:54 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Twente, Dept. of Computer Science

In article <199207281258.AA20162@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> "Mark.Rice" <mrice@churchill.columbiasc.ncr.com> writes:
>Good points... and remember, saying "THIS is the truth" can be stereotypical
>of a christian but is often said by atheists when they say "I know for sure
>there is no such thing as a GOD of any kind."  They're being just as
>closed-minded as stereotypical christians.

A/theists of any sort who say they "know for sure that..." regardless
of whatever evidence or arguments are presented to them, are being
closed-minded.  However, I think you will find that many atheists have
very seriously considered the possibility that there may be a god, and
are still very much open to any evidence that there is a god.  Few
theists that I know would *ever* allow themselves to seriously entertain
such the possibility that their god/gods does/do not exist (that would
be blasphemous!).  I, for one, would be first in line every Sunday/Sabbath/
Ramadan/whatever, ready to prostrate myself before any god that would
bother to make Itself known to me.

	However, having observed that there apparently is nothing to
indicate that deities do actually exist, and seeing that the scientific
method is already superbly capable of explaining/modeling our world
without having to resort to omnipotent entities, we have come to the
conclusion that at the present time there is nothing to support the
existence of any god, and everything to support that gods are
superfluous.

	That is not being closed-minded, it is being rational.

	How many theists do you know who will agree to convert to atheism
when they are confronted with all the lies and inconsistencies of their
religions?  No, they'd rather sweep such little `details' under the
rug and pray for more `strength' in their faith.

	That is not being open-minded, it is being irrational.

As ever, open-minded to the hilt,

-- 
Ben `Hackster' Hekster		| "He bides his time and thinks,
heksterb@cs.utwente.nl		|  'There must be more to life than this!'"
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:42 alt.atheism:14572
From: James Meritt <m23364@mwunix>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheist or Agnostic Part two
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:55:09 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean VA

In article <199207291317.AA22006@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> "Mark.Rice" <mrice@churchill.columbiasc.ncr.com> writes:
}My questions are:
}
}Do you believe there is no God?

Not being sure what you mean by "god" sorta leaves this hanging.

}or...
}
}that you have insufficient evidence to say there is or is not a God?

Just that there isn't one SPECIFIC god (Yahweh).  Now, maybe Odin...  :-)


Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:89 alt.atheism:14686
From: otg@csi.compuserve.com (Owen Gwilliam)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Proof
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:06:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: CompuServe Incorporated

One thing I've found interesting about some of these discussions is the
concept of "Proving God Doesn't Exist".

It is not up to the athiest to prove "God" doesn't exist, it's up to the
theist (of whatever variety) to prove that their specific "God(s)" exist. This
is where many folks get confused. There is no solid PROOF of existence. Some
take the Bible as proof, but that's begging the question. The proof that the
Bible is the truth is usually attributed to it being "the word of God" and so
on.

If I claimed gravity was the result of inivisible pixies shoving everything
down, I would be called upon to prove it. I could say "Prove that there AREN'T
invisible pixies", but that doesn't prove anything.

Owen Gwilliam - otg@csi.compuserve.com .. or .. CompuServe: >CSI:OTG

"Oh ... I thought the 'G' was a middle initial."
        - Heard far more times than I can even begin to remember ...
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:62 alt.atheism:14592
From: Adam Trent Phillips <bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: A CORRECTION IN MY POST
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 00:27:03 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)

	I made a typo in my orginal posting.....

	While quoting an antisemitic statement made by Martin Luther
I said.....

>	I was brought up lutheran, and found out that Mertin Luther
>once said...
> 
>	that Jews should have..."all their cash and jewels and silver
>and gold"...............

	the last two lines SHOULD have said........

>	that Jews should have taken from them..."all their cash
>and jewels and silver and gold".......


	Thank you for your time....

-- 
"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     |personal E-mail:bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
alias: White Rook     |   NWROC E-mail:aphillip@heartland.bradley.edu
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:90 alt.atheism:14687
From: Benjamin E Johnson <johnsonb@stolaf.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: It's just my opinion...
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:58:11
Distribution: world
Organization: St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN USA

>>>>> On Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:29:04 GMT, MARK DOWE <dowe@ace.acadiau.ca> said:

MARK> But I find it impossible to believe in anything without a shred
MARK> of credible evidence. What I really think is a shame is that so
MARK> many children are fed a religious diet before they have had the
MARK> chance to learn how to think, and thus are capable of making
MARK> thier own decisions about the existence of gods.

On the other hand, I am grateful for my upbringing in a Christian church.
It would be very difficult to teach a small child altruism for the sake of
humanity without some reference to a supreme power.

My youth in the church taught me that I should strive for equality amoung
humans, peace on earth, and share love with my enemies.  Now that I am 
capable of further study into our physical world, I see no margin of error
that an omnipotent being could slip in and alter the world for the benefit of
his followers or even know the flow of time for eternity.

For lack of evidence of a "god," and for the incredible evidence against it,
I choose to deny the existance of an omnipotent creator.  Yet I hold my
"christian" ideals close to my heart and strive to be a part of making the
future be like it was promised in my youth.  The strange thing to me is,
that without the promise of eternal life and unconditional forgiveness, I feel
a stronger calling to participate in the improvement of the world than I did
when I believed that God would make everything all right.

------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
-benJ			|  the above by no means represents the views of
johnsonb@stolaf.edu	|  of my employers or school.
--
-benJ
johnsonb@stolaf.edu
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:31 alt.atheism:14503
From: James Meritt <m23364@mwunix>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 12:28:44 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean VA

In article <199207281258.AA20162@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> "Mark.Rice" <mrice@churchill.columbiasc.ncr.com> writes:
}In article <mspears.712252338@sfu.ca> Matthew Spears <mspears@sfu.ca> writes:
}>  I am not a fundamentalist christian, or even a christian at all.  (Gave it
}>up in childhood), but I dislike the close-mindedness of many atheists.  Yes,
}>there is a lot of hypocrisy in Christianity, but there is a lot of good as
}>well.  What I dislike about Churches in general is that they tend to say "THIS
}>is the truth, take it or leave it."  But I still find that there is a lot
}>of Truth in what they say. 
}> 
}>  If you have a view of the universe, say it, backing it up as best you can. 
}>But this cynical denigration of everything religious does no one any good, 
}>least of all you.
}
}Good points... and remember, saying "THIS is the truth" can be stereotypical
}of a christian but is often said by atheists when they say "I know for sure
}there is no such thing as a GOD of any kind."  They're being just as
}closed-minded as stereotypical christians.

That's nice.  Since you used "they", it seems that you are aware of more
than one (given the pronoun is plural).  Could you please give at least two
verifiable instances of identified atheists saying "I know for sure there is no
such thing as a GOD of any kind."?  Thank you.


Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:93 alt.atheism:14690
From: Aubrey Yao <ayao@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism vs. Christianity (WHY?)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 03:11:05 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.

What often irks me, is the intense "labeling" of people that occurs.  In this
newsgroup, a "Christian" refers to someone who blindly accepts the basic
tenets of Christianity, not devoting a single second of thought to it.  
On the other hand, an "atheist" or someone who rejects the idea of God is
someone who has devoted much time and thought to "rationalize" the existence
of God.  I sense a double standard of sorts...if I haven't made myself clear,
please feel free to mail me.

AY

Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:72 alt.atheism:14623
From: dave budd <zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Without God, but generally enjoying the hell out of everything
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:40:35 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre


In article <TyZPoB10w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:

>Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca> writes:
>> >is the "not one of us" mentality.
>> 
>mentality, especially in its most common form, "nationalism".

Not forgetting the "I'm a computer professional and you're just an idiot 
undergraduate user" mentality (my normal mind-set)


+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  I don't take part in any sport that requires me to change clothes  |
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44)061-275-6033  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:63 alt.atheism:14593
From: Brian Douglass <anasaz!anasaz.briand@enuucp.eas.asu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:27:17 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <92Jul29.001134edt.62@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> Todd Kelley <tgk@cs.toronto.edu> writes:

[deleted stuff]
>When dealing with something as basic and important as a view of how
>the universe is and how it should be made to become, arbitrariness and
>dogmatism are insidious nemeses.  Dogmatism and arbitrariness define
>religion.  (For example, science is not a religion because it's neither
>dogmatic nor arbitrary.)  Therefore, naturally, truly open-minded persons
>scorn religion.  This does not mean they scorn what religions say; it
>means they scorn what religion is: a set of arbitrary beliefs which
>must be accepted without question.
>

On the surface it may appear such beliefs are arbitrary, but are not quite
so.  For example:
	Christ is Divine, is potential arbitrary belief.  However, as a
proof, churches off up 1) He healed the sick 2) revived the dead 3) was
himself ressurected from the dead and ascended to heaven.  Can this be
scientifically proved?  No (though many try).
	What is arbitrary in the belief that Christ is Divine is believing
that the stories of his work are historically accurate.  This is the part
that is taken on "faith."  It cannot be proved or disproved.  Any church 
doctrine spoken from the pulpit has such "proof" to support it.  Another 
example, "Be fruitful and multiply" is the justification behind the 
Catholic church's position on birth control.  In their eyes, this message 
was given to them from God, and to adhere to it means no birth control.
	I find nothing terribly arbitrary in any such dogmatic policy by any 
church.  The policies are dogmatic typically because the debates have
already taken place within the church.  A ruling is made, and policy is
created.  End of discussion, hence the dogmatism.  But no church simply
summarily decides on a policy without evidence to support such a policy.  If
a church does, then it really a cult instead.  (Everyone drink this
kool-aid, because God told me to tell you so.)

-- 
"Fifty years after Waterloo Napoleon was as much a hero to English school 
children as Wellington.  How do we know our grandchildren won't idolize Von 
Hindenburg? If only we could learn to look on evil AS evil, whether it's clothed
in filth, monotony or magnificence." F. Scott Fitzgerald, This Side of Paradise
Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657

Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:35 alt.atheism:14511
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 10:37:07 -0400
Distribution: world
From: linley@qucis.queensu.ca (Richard Linley)
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Organization: Computing & Information Science, Queen's University at Kingston

In article <199207281258.AA20162@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> "Mark.Rice" <mrice@churchill.columbiasc.ncr.com> writes:
>In article <mspears.712252338@sfu.ca> Matthew Spears <mspears@sfu.ca> writes:
>>  I am not a fundamentalist christian, or even a christian at all.  (Gave it
>>up in childhood), but I dislike the close-mindedness of many atheists.  Yes,
>>there is a lot of hypocrisy in Christianity, but there is a lot of good as
>>well.  What I dislike about Churches in general is that they tend to say "THIS
>>is the truth, take it or leave it."  But I still find that there is a lot
>>of Truth in what they say. 
>> 
>>  If you have a view of the universe, say it, backing it up as best you can. 
>>But this cynical denigration of everything religious does no one any good, 
>>least of all you.
>
>Good points... and remember, saying "THIS is the truth" can be stereotypical
>of a christian but is often said by atheists when they say "I know for sure
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>there is no such thing as a GOD of any kind."  They're being just as
>closed-minded as stereotypical christians.

Often said by atheists?  Gimme a break!  Atheists, in my experience, are gen-
erally VERY CAREFUL about even ADMITTING atheism to anyone they don't know
very well.  I recall one evening several years ago when I was sitting about
having a few beers with some theatre pals when the subject of religion came
up and we discovered, to our mutual surprise, that we were ALL atheists.

I'm glad to see this group, and happy to "come out".

	Richard.

Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:18 alt.atheism:14474
From: Rajendra Nath Datta <rajen@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:50:53 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: CS Dept, University of Oregon


I am new to this group, and I may have missed something. However, I have
yet to see a post which displays close minded atheism. No one said that
religion is bad. I believe it might have been a necessary social institute, 
for lending stability to society. Hoewever, in lending that stability, it
did retard a lot of progressive movements and ideas that were born in
society (this applies to all religions and all societies). That is why I
believe that religions have outlived their time, and are necessary no
longer. This is of course a very simplified and condensed argument.

However, as I said before, I have not seen a post that resorts to "cynical
degradation of averything religious".

Do enlighten me if I am wrong.

Rajen
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:76 alt.atheism:14673
From: Trent Tobler <unislc@unislc.slc.unisys.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What's the point?
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:35:59 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC

weir@cbmvax.commodore.com (Robert Weir - Manuals) writes:
: 
: As I understand it, atheism is the denial of god's existance.

God or gods... atheism is the non-belief in ALL deities, whether those
deities are part of the greek pantheon, or a christian god, etc.
It's not a denial in most cases, rather we just don't believe in it,
whether that be because we actively believe in no gods, or simply don't
hold any religious belief, or even care to.

: 
: But to get to this point you need to first understand what god is, 
: or at least understand what other people mean when they say "god" and
: then reject that god does exist. This seems rather pointless. By
: denying the existance of something, don't you validate its existance
: and then say simply, "Oh, by-the-by, that which I formally held to
: be true, I now hold as false? Denial is a weak argument.
: 

Replace 'god' with 'santa claus', or even better, replace it with
'little blue men who live under the coffee table', and then you may
sort of get the idea of how (many) atheists can 'deny' god.

: How can an atheist point of view be argued?

Even better yet, how can a theist point of view be argued?

Most religious arguements are subjective, and not objective...

--
  Trent Tobler - ttobler@unislc.slc.unisys.com  ttobler@csulx.weber.edu
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:33 alt.atheism:14509
From: jgrape@coos.dartmouth.edu (Johan A. Grape)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Without God, but generally enjoying the hell out of everything
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:22:25 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Hi all.

I guess the fundamental flaw I find in every religion I encounter
is the "not one of us" mentality.

It does, thank the multitudes, take all sorts.

I found this one in a book titled "Graffiti, eller skriften paa veggen"
which was published in Norway some years ago.  I hope all forgive
that I don't remember all the reference info:

(freely translated):

"God is alive and well and working on a less ambitious project"

Johan

try: supreme.being@dartmouth.edu
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:51 alt.atheism:14581