HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
From: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 16:52:05 -0400 
 <ebolog.12@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> <mmestern.5.718536394@cs1.uct.ac.za><1992Oct9.183402.3997@cs.tulane.edu>
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

V Goff writes:
(paraphrased)  Evolution can be soundly disproven.

I'll listen to you, and I can't get talk.origins, so here seems a good
place.  I'd like to hear how you are so sure evolution is non-factual.

Eagerly awaiting a reply on the board,

\begindata{text,17029828}
\textdsversion{12}
\template{default}
\majorheading{Jordan M. Wolbrum

}\center{\smaller{at jw67@andrew.cmu.edu

}}\enddata{text,17029828}

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: gj156879@prince.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879)
Subject: What an atheist thinks of the biblke.
Keywords: Bible? SHMIBLE.
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 14:16:06 GMT

Sheesh, some guy just posted a whole bunch of different "logical"
positions towards the bible, and he left out the most important one:
 
PEOPLE 2000 YEARS AGO WERE MORONS:
 
Back then, everything was a mystical experience.  The writers of the
bible weren't being evil devious swine, they were writing what they
believed, WHICH DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN IT HAPPENED.  My position:
sure there may be a lot of historical truth in the book, but Jesus is
not the son of god.  He was some dangerous rebel among the people, so
they took his sorry ass and nailed it to a tree.  That's all.  Jesus
was just some shmoe who had the gift of gab.  How do I account for the
miracles, etc?  Well, a lot of people see Elvis now a days, and claim
to be kidnapped by UFOs and see bigfoot, and...  Back 2000 years ago,
everyone was seeing "Elvis", every single occurence was an omen, a
mystical experience, etc.
 
Furthermore, the bible isn't exactly an unbiased objective view of
Christ, is it?  How do we know if these people fudged the facts or not
to make a better saviour and religion?  Maybe Jesus used to be a gay
biker (or the ancient equivalent) and that was left out?  Maybe he
used to snort opium?  The people who wrote the book would sure as poo
leave that sort of stuff out.
 
Any atheists think different than the above?  Probably not.  The first
thought when you read/look at the book is:  It was written 2000 years
ago and is no longer valid.  

                              Nik
                           Burning his bible at both ends.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rana@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Nabeel Ahmad Rana)
Subject: Looking for AHMADI MUSLIM netters!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:52:01 GMT




Dear Friends:

This posting is addressed to AHMADI MUSLIM netters. If you are an Ahmadi and have access to this network, please respond to the bellow e-mail address:

rana@rintintin.colorado.edu

Include you full name, your profession, the name of your Jamaat if any, and any other details you might want to provide in order to introduce your self. I am an Ahmadi student at the Univerisity of Colorado, Boulder. 



Sincerly,

Nabeel Ahmad Rana
E-mail: rana@rintintin.colorado.edu

Electrical and Computer Engineering;
University of Colorado, Boulder,
Colorado.


-- 


Sincerely,
From: joeb@src4src.linet.org (Joe Beiter)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Satanic hysteria ?
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:26:01 GMT
Organization: The Source for Source Pub Access Unix

In article <1992Oct6.162452.8247@mercury.unt.edu> jackson@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Bruce Jackson) writes:
>
>I guess that the more gullable Christians are receptive to the idea
>of a Satanic conspiracy and tend to quickly jump to the conclusion
>that juvenile mischief is Satanism.
>
>I wonder how widespread the idea is amongst Christians that there
>are large numbers of Satanists?  Any ideas?
>
Well, I'm a Christian and I know a decent # of them.  We don't think there
are many more Satanists than any non-Christians that I know.  Furthermore,
I would not be very concerned if there were and there was some kind of 
'Satanic uprising' of any kind (nor would the majority of Christians I know).

I do know some fellow 'belivers' that might get a little freaked out if there
were sudden stories of local satanic activity, but I know some non-Christians
that would react the same.

By definition of my situation, a 'satanist' is the last person I would have
to be concerned about.

Regards,

- JoeB


-- 
-=@=-=@=-=@=-=@=-::
- JoeB           Joe.Beiter@HauppaugeNY.NCR.COM
                 joeb@pdnfido.fidonet.org
-=@=-=@=-=@=-=@=-::
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 10 Oct 92 18:56:08 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Oct10.042831.4183@newsroom.utas.edu.au>, u925816@postoffice.utas.edu.au (The DOK) writes:
> In article <1992Oct8.132026.164741@dstos3.dsto.gov.au>, jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
>> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>> > 
>> >	Ah, but the "spiritual realm" does not exist. Please PROVE IT !
>                   
>     You go on about proof, why not try to disproove (sp?) it??

   *Groan* Not another one...

   Okay, but first you try to disprove the existence of the Great
Green Arkleseizure, the Giant Blue Banana, pink unicorns, etc.
Get the point?  You can't disprove the existence of something unless
you are omniscient.  Despite the plethora of gods on alt.atheism I 
doubt that you are one.

>> >	Jesus is dead, that would be like saying Sig Freud (spelling ?).
>> >How can a dead person help ? Dead people tend to be of little help, their
>> >DEAD, KAPUT, STILL, ACHIEVED ROOM TEMPERATURE, 6 FEET UNDER.I still say a 
>> >good shrink is better than a corpse
>> 
>> ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!!!!
>    (fully agree!!!!!)

   So you'd rather undergo therapy with a corpse than a good shrink?

>   Me too! Listen to me, have you really RESEARCHED Jesus (ie. Read the Bible,
> read what people say about Him, Christian as well as others)?

   I'm no Biblical scholar, but I've done enough.

> What is the 
> reason that people have drastically changed when they have come to know 
> Christ? (eg. Saul Of Tarsus, and innumerable others) These are just a couple
> of questions you should have asked before saying That you don't believe that
> Christ rose from the dead, or that there is a God. 

   What is the reason that people are so drastically changed when they 
smoke opium?  They become much more relaxed and at ease with themselves,
and say that it's an integral part of their lives.  Hmmm...sound familiar...

>> Yours in Christ,
>> James.
>        and the DOK

Yours in Colleen,
Karl
------
"By the cold and religious we were taken in hand,
 Shown how to feel good and told to feel bad."
                             --Roger Waters
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:59:27 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <ebolog.17@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:
>
>Ok, just tell us all the Biblical errors and a logical explanation on how 
>you came about. No, do not quote the THEORY of evolution I said proof - your 
>own personal ideas on why the human body is symmetrical and does not have 
>two arms on one side and only one on the other for example. Also explain why 
>if human life came about by freak accident why only we are intelligent. Why 
>not, as logic would point out, some creature with a different shape to the 
>human being with the gift of intelligence.
>
>It is logical isn't it - and please do not ignore or laugh at the question.

The faults in your logic are that you assume that your own religion is
the only one. And that anybody who doesn't accept your creation myth with
all its flaws and gaping errors is an atheist.

Atheists don't believe in your god. But then they don't believe in Krishna
or Zeus either. Or any of the others claimed by the other religions.

If you really have questions about evolution and SERIOUSLY want answers I
suggest you go to talk.origins. But don't go in the same stupid way you
did here, by attacking from a position of ignorance.

ALL religions make the same sort of claims that your one does. How do you know
that yours is the correct one?

Other points:

 - Most christians realise that much of the old testament is just myth and
   allegory. There are more christians who accept the FACT of evolution
   than there are atheists. The THEORY of evolution is an attempt to
   understand the mechanisms that cause the FACT of evolution.

 - All the biblical errors? There isn't enough bandwidth. Besides, if you
   are one of the people who are stupid enough to claim that the bible
   is 100% inerrant, all I need to do is post a single error. This
   proves that it is NOT 100% inerrant.So the question becomes: how
   do you know which bits to believe?

I don't intend to get into any kind of argument over biblical inerrancy:
if you claim it's totally accurate then you are sadly deluded. Just like
the fanatics who make the same claim for the writings of the other religions.

But for starters: How did Judas die? The two stories differ. I don't give a
toss about it. Neither do most christians. But if YOU claim biblical
inerrancy, it should matter to YOU.

Chris Lee
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:09:43 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Oct11.171027.11763@eskimo.celestial.com> wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks) writes:
>
>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!

It's been some time now, but there was a bit of discussion about
this topic long ago.  One of the statements I particularly liked was
that the golden rule is too self centered; it pre-supposes that
what's good for you is automatically good for others.

A (IMHO) better version is "do unto others as they would have you do
unto them".

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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"Above all, a god needs compassion"    James T. Kirk
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:45:48 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <exukjb.292.718487096@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>But in the interest of stimulating
>some reflection among atheists about the possibility of a demonstration 
>of God's non-existence, perhaps even of God's necessary nonexistence, 
>consider the following argument for God's nonexistence.
>
>	(a) God is the greatest conceiveable being (GCB).
>
>	(b) The existence of the GCB is necessary, for if it were only
>	    contingent, it would be possible for the GCB not to exist, 

	...etc. Formally known as Anselm's argument, as I recall. Dates
from the Middle Ages, never taken seriously by anybody, though not
formally disrpoven until the 20th century, by Bertrand Russell, using
set theory. If this one ain't in the FAQ, someone should probably add
it.

						Kayembee
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: morality????????
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:31:21 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

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

>OK, consider it crazy, but what do any of you mean by morality??
>This is alt.atheism right?  How can anyone possibly reject god

I didn't reject God.  I just do not believe in what does not exist.

>and start to build some kind of moral ontological system???

We didn't build a moral system.  Morality exists and has existed since the
birth of humanity.  Morality is not defined by religion.

>If anyone is going to tell me what is good/bad either for the
>population at large or even for their own little personal 'code'
>don't they also have to start answering some fundamental questions
>such as "What is good, and what makes the good good (Socrates)??"

Maybe.  Morality developed as a means through which societies and thus
human beings would survive.  It is a little more complicated now.

>It seems as if plenty of people (not necc. on this board) are
>willing enough to give up a formal definition of the word 'god'
>and even 'soul' but can't let go of the notions for which they
>stand.  I think trying to establish any kind of morality requires
>some fundamental postulates which I really consider semi-theist.

I don't think so.  Other animals are moral.  What postulates do the
animals follow?  Other animals don't go out of their way to commit
a bad deed.  You can't be immoral by accident.

>I believe the entire world is 100% physical.  Nothing else.

Well, not all particles are massive.

>Matter and only matter. To suppose some kind of 'moral' law
>seems to me to be doing the same as imposing some kind of theistical

No one is imposing a moral low.  I'm just saying that there is a natural
morality that most animals instinctively follow.  Humans probably have this
instinct too, but we are too intelligent for out own good.

>'thing' floating about, mandating right and wrong.  Now if not
>everyone believes the world is purely physical, (belief in existence
>of nonphysical things, like souls, ghouls, and gods) well then I
>can see how they would base morality on these nonphysical 'things'
>By atheistic I do not consider these valid explanations of the
>way the world works.  Without such things I find it rather difficult
>if not impossible to try and establish any kind of moral heirarchy.
>Tell me, what is true goodness?  I would say there is no such thing,

I can certainly show what is bad.  I guess the good things are those that
aren't bad.  Seems simple enough to me.

>and there cannot be any TRUE moral or ethical code of behavior.
>                     Correct?

I don't think it would be all that difficult to codify it.  Of course,
it may be a bit difficult to generalize it.

keith
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: markg@county.lmt.mn.org (Mark Gilbert)
Subject: Re: URGENTLY NEEDED
Organization: LaserMaster R&D, Minneapolis, MN  USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:58:48 GMT

>In article <IenT4wa00WB68DnlBT@andrew.cmu.edu>, David O Hunt
><bluelobster+@CMU.EDU> wrote:
>> 
>> Could some kind person please email me some atheistic-type quotes by the
>> founding fathers?

I read somewhere that Thomas Jefferson edited a version of the new 
testament, removing all reference to miracle.  Has anyone heard of this or 
know where to find it?

Mark Gilbert
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Lord Cometh!
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:00:51 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <XVNNsB4w165w@bluemoon.rn.com>, darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) writes:
>  
> From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
> Message-ID: <1b4bcuINNe2c@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
>  
>>In a previous article, darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) says:
>  
>>>From: x@beyond.one's.understanding (The Messiah)
>>>Message-ID: <x.35.718245257@beyond.one's.understanding>
>  
>>>You assert that you have been in contact with "someone."
>>>The burden of proof is on you to prove what you say is true.
>  
>>        I think you have missed the point. This was obviously a 
>>joke. Look at this person's "address". Come on, doesn't it reek 
>>of humor?
>  
> I'm sorry I was not sufficiently clear in what I was doing.  I
> *did* understand the joke nature of the article.  I enclose part
> of my article as evidence that I saw the address: (did you read
> that far?)
>
>  [evidence deleted]

   Well, it sure as hell looked a lot like a real post.  If
you're going to make something satirical you can't make it 
*too* much like the real thing, otherwise there's no difference.

Karl
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism? Really Harold, how gauche...
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:53:29 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <5989@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Null Cypher) writes:
>In article <1992Oct09.220324.2747@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>>And explain why it is a 'trap' to believe that truth is relative
>>>or personal?
>
>>I'm still trying to formulate a good answer to that.  Here's where
>>I'm at so far (probably not too profound, original, or coherent):
>
>>It leads to a mindset where you can't trust your own mind.  [etc]
>>It leads to a mindset where facts and reason don't matter.  [etc]
>
>>If I thought that truth were relative, I'd be left a helpless vegetable,
>>never being at all sure of what I believed or why, and unable to act for
>>fear of imposing my truths on others who prefer different truths.
>
>So I suppose you don't support the idea of lumping all of the things that
>overwhelmingly seem to be true into "Pretty Damn Sure" as opposed to 
>"Definitely Is True"?
>
>Let me supply some alternate desciptions:
>[1] Probability = 1 - epsilon
>[2] Probability = 1

This is all well and good, but what does it have to do with whether
or not truth is relative?  I'm claiming that it is impossible for
one thing to be true for you, and another for me, and that anybody
who thinks that it is possible is daft.
--
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: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What is "occult?"
Date: 13 Oct 92 04:10:29 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Oct12.125501.164757@dstos3.dsto.gov.au>, jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:

> This stuff about Satanists NOT worshipping Satan is absolute RUBBISH!
> Of course they worship Satan, and there is PLENTY of proof.  I will not
> elaborate now because there is too much to write here, but it will be
> presented in a later posting.
> 
> Also, there are differences between Satanists and atheists, with the main
> difference being that atheists do not worship Satan (otherwise they wouldn't
> be atheists!).
> 
> More to come later.
> 
> Yours in Christ,
> James.

**SNORT!**

You don't know much about Satanists, do you?

There is an alt.satanism, with a representative sample of resident Satanists.
Anyone can check it out and discover for themselves that *you* are *wrong*.

If the promised article on Satanism (from the rational side) isn't forthcoming
in the near future and if there is still any interest, I can post a little
about the topic.

Yours in Azazel,
--Semhaza
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:49:01 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 <zlsiida.231@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
>From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
>Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
>Date: 15 Oct 92 09:30:05 GMT

>In article <1bfs75INNdsa@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:

>>No no.  Morality is not imposed from the outside--it is an instinct.  Of
>>course, outside influences can easily overpower your instincs, especially
>>since humas are so intelligent.  Other animals are not so easily corrupted.
>>Thus, we never observe an immoral animal (nonhuman animal, that is).

>Sparrows sleep around.  Males of many species will kill a females young, so 
>that she will then be prepared to mate.  I think you have to define 
>'morality' a bit before you can say whether non-human animals are 'moral' or 
>not.


>              Have another day    [Armageddon, the musical] 
>  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44|0)61-275-6033  

Most of the posts I read seem to be just assuming without argument that some 
form of noncognitivism in ethics is true, and proceding from there to 
defend some sort of sociobiology account of morality. But without an argument
against cognitivism, I'm not buying it.
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
From: mike@huevos.ma.utexas.edu (Mike Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists (A reasonable theory)
Keywords: morality ethics instincts intuition evolution
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:43:01 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics

michaell@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Michael A. Lowry) writes:

[stuff delated as others comments of problem with his use of evolution]


>					 My favorite philisophical
>theory is "Rule Utilitariansm", based on the Utilitarian theory of
>John Stuart Mill. Essentially, it says that a society should make laws
>such that a society with those laws will be a society in which
>happiness is maximized, and unhappines is minimized. I like this
>theory because it recognizes the basic pleasure-seeking nature of
>humans (we are animals), but it allows for laws which protect the
>individual's rights, even if doing so in a particular instance means a
>temporary greater unhappiness for others. Therefore, this theory is in
>agreement with my instincts, and my reasoning.
 
Utilitarianism is an interesting idea, but has problems. There are many
kinds of happiness and none of them can be discribed by functions which
can be maximized. In partice it is used to rationalize results already
arrived at by other means. First, some say "we like this law" and then
they "show" it is really good for society. While thinking about what will
make the most people the most happy can be useful, it can be twisted
around, because happiness to a vague concept to apply to others. A standard 
paradox is, would it be OK to drug everyone into a state of happiness? 

Mike Sullivan
mike@math.utexas.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: esposito@hamlet.uncg.edu (Andrew Joseph Esposito)
Subject: Atheist cable TV show
Keywords: Greensboro NC cable 
Organization: not affliated with any
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:36:04 GMT

Well, it's done.  Thursdays at 3:30pm the Atheist Cable TV show out of 
Austin will be shown on Greensboro Cable.  I sponsored it and I'd like 
everyone out there in net land to think about doing the same.  There is 
nothing on TV that directly contradicts the preaching, and sermons that are 
broadcast throught the week.  This is one small way you can do your part in 
balancing the scales.

The shows in G-boro start next Thursday.  The time again is 3:30pm.

--
Andrew Joseph Esposito                    internet:  esposito@hamlet.uncg.edu
voice (919) 379-8244                      bitnet:    in%"esposito@uncg.bitnet"

--
Disclaimer:  The opinions herein are not necessarily the opinions of any
organization or group of which the author is affiliated.  The preceding 
opinions may not even be the author's.  No guarantees are given and no 
warranties will be honored.