HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mitchell@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (DeWayne Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:20:07 GMT
Organization: National Severe Storms Laboratory

In article <graham.712370351@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>Graham:
>>It is the state of the world and all its parts at that time.
>>Now before you say something like "how do you know this state
>>exists" remember that I am replying to another article in which
>>the assumptions are that :-
>>
>>a) God exists
>>    ^^^^^^^^^^
>>b) God made the world
>>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>and hence the world exists.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>(DeWayne Mitchell) writes:
>> I agree whole heartedly.
>
>I suggest you read the context Dwayne. I am not saying I believe
>these things, I am saying that they were the assumptions of the
>original poster.
>

	Woops!   My apologies for "crossing wires".

>graham
>--
>Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
>Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
>graham@maths.su.oz.au

 DeWayne
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jim@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed)
Subject: Re: Atheist or Agnostic Part two
Reply-To: jimreed@b23b.b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:17:02 GMT

Apologies if you get two of these, my first attempt seems to have
been swallowed.

In article <1992Jul30.120237.24395@news.media.mit.edu>, Marvin Minsky <mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!media.mit.edu!minsky@uunet.uu.net> writes:
|> pmetzger mentions "the world's major religions" which, in my view
|> consume a major portion of the world's human resources -- and this
|> suggest another reason to prefer atheism.   Whenever you observe a
|> widely popular idea with no substantial basis, you must consider the
                                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> possibility that you're observing a group of memes (ideas) that work
   ^^^^^^^^^^^
|> together like the genes of a virus to produce a highly contagious
|> (mental) disease.  In a virus we usually have one part specialized to
|> penetrate a cell wall, another to induce copying (evangelism), others,
|> perhaps, to resist countermeasures (encouragement of faith as a
|> virtue), etc.
|>   In view of the prevalence of such diseases, the atheist position
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> might thus be healthier than the agnostic position.  In other words,
|> it is more a matter of mental hygiene than of reasonable inference in
|> itself.

Obviously you've made the jump from considering the possibility to
accepting it as fact.  No educated person would argue against the
fact that a collection of consistent ideas can be accepted by, and
propagated among a group of people.  That's what education is all
about.

However to label that as a disease is propaganda worthy of a
politician.

Using similar logic, we can easly label every business venture
as an "economic disease".

-- 
James B. Reed                | If at first you don't succeed,
DAZIX, An Intergraph Company | Find out why,
jimreed@b23b.b23b.ingr.com   | **THEN** try again.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Subject: Re: Wowzers
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:43:11

(Before anyone asks, i'm not kidding myself.  I don't expect that this
person is still reading this newsgroup.  However, hope springs eternal
and all that.)

>Wow. It seems like denying the existence of God would leave so much
>confusion about the mysterious spaces of life that one would not have
>the chance to enjoy the spaces that we do understand.

The fact that i was twelve before i understood how a record player
worked did not stop me from enjoying the beautiful sounds that
i could make come out of it.

Nor does the fact that i don't understand how the universe works
stop me from enjoying the beautiful things that i can find in it.

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Crusades?  Again??  was Re: Why do I post here?
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:27:56 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Jul24.085808.208@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>In fact, Stalin was acting more in line with the precepts of atheism and the
>ideas of "social evolution" than the Crusaders were acting in line with the
>precepts of Christianity (Jesus' teachings).

Atheism doesn't have any precepts.
--
Hi! Ani mutacia shel virus .signature. Ha`atek oti letoch .signature shelcha!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Organization: Xerox PARC
Date: 26 Jul 92 06:11:54 GMT

In <graham.712128597@galois> Graham Matthews says I don't touch his
agnosticism: 

-Graham:
>>>Why [didn't God] make everything as it is now?
>Why did [assumed God] just not build the world of 15:34 Sunday 26 July
>1992 directly? [...] Whats more it has nothing to do with agnosticism.
>
What IS the world of 15:34 Sunday 26 July 1992?


Best wishes,
             Jarek
------------------------------------------------------
 .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
 `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14253 talk.bizarre:23191
From: stoesser@i31s21.ira.uka.de (Achim Stoesser)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Short, shameful confession
Date: 24 Jul 1992 11:28:15 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: i31s21.ira.uka.de

In article <1992Jul23.165154.4435@cs.ucla.edu>, jperry@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (John Perry) writes:
|> that comic o' the ages (Achim Stoesser) quips:
|> >Well, my first thought was "Why does he go to a _hospital_, with so many
|> >Catholics praying for him?"
...
|>      Because he's Catholic, not Christian Scientist you nit!  Before

Well, let's assume that he's a Catholic. Catholics go to Lourdes, don't they?
Some kilometers from here Catholics go to a little Bavarian wannabe Lourdes
where trees are "bleeding" ("it's _real_ human blood") and the Virgin Mary is 
seen now and then. 

Besides, why _do_ they pray if it doesn't cure him?

|> you astound us with another witticism displaying your apparent lack of
|> wit or knowledge of any kind, why don't you cut off all of your fingers
|> with a chain saw.  Especially the forefinger on your left hand, as that 
|> is the finger closest to the 'f' key.  While you're at it, go ahead and
|> cut off your toes and other tiny appendages, and eat the whole lot of
|> them for lunch some time.  (does red or white wine go best with your
|> own fingers?  depends if you're white meat or dark)

Could you give me some yummy recipes (you know that I'm vegetarian and,
therefore, don't have meat recipes). And, please, suggest a substitute for the
wine because I don't use drugs.

|>    Now drop for the Pope and give him twenty and an act of contrition.
|> 
|> I altered your .sig a bit for you.  I suggest you adopt this new one:
|> >
|> >I'm an anus, atheist, fudge-pacifist, and vegetable.  This does _not_
|> >mean that I'd arrange flowers, worship Elvis, let virgins breed with bad
|> >breath, or make sense of any kind.  Hugs.

If I wouldn't know better I'd assume that you are trying to insult me. Doesn't
the Bible say "Do not call a man a fool" or something like that ;-) ?
Funny that you didn't change the "atheist" - of course this word is on the same
level as anus, fudge-pacifist, and vegetable. 

 							        Achim
_____________________________________________________________________

I'm an anarchist, atheist, pacifist, and vegetarian.  This does _not_
mean that I'd bomb kings, worship Satan, let soldiers bleed to death,
or eat fish.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
From: guncer@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Selim E. Guncer )
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:30:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.150122.8831@cco.caltech.edu>, bes@cco.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi) writes:
> 
> The idea of "one true belief" bothers Mr. Selim Guncer.  However,

Especially when people are killed because of "true beliefs".

> from the firm and confident tone of his article it seemed that
> he believed what he wrote to be one true belief.
> 

A bit of Islamic philosophy, some history, a little sociology. You should
also be interested in these things.


--
Selim E. Guncer               | Jaca negra, luna grande,
CSSER-ASU                     | y aceitunas en mi alforja.
(602)-965-4096                | Aunque sepa los caminos
guncer@enuxha.eas.asu.edu     | yo nunca llegare a Cordoba.. (FGL)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Wowzers
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:13:29 GMT
Organization: University of Central Florida

j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:

>Wow. It seems like denying the existence of God would leave so much
>confusion about the mysterious spaces of life that one would not have
>the chance to enjoy the spaces that we do understand.

>Each to his own, I know, but Hell, what a bummer.

So let me get this straight -- through your religion, there is nothing
you don't understand?  Or do you just worry about those "mysterious
spaces" less?

To me, the "bummer" would be living life in fear of going to Hell if
I died without my last sins confessed.  Or supplicating to a God who
calls down physical punishment on the evil and good alike.

Being able to say "I don't know" about these "mysterious spaces"
doesn't make me any less happy.

mark
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Oh no, not again
Organization: University of Alaska
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 02:24:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.030200.22578@brtph560.bnr.ca>, n5ppm264 (Charlie Board) writes:
>> 
>> In article <Bs6tKq.J98@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mr. Mensa ) writes:
> Well Don you've stumbled onto the great secret that's been passed down in my
> family for thousands of generations. See, God (an omni-omni entity) did 
> exist and did endow humans with free will. But then one day my great-great-
> great-.......-grandfather Ug actually excersised his free will by coming
> out of his cave and hanging a right. Well, god immediately lost his 
> omniscience and -since knowledge is power- his omnipotence. And of course
> since being omnibenevolence requires total knowledge of all consequences 
> of all actions,well...that went too. This massive chain reaction of omni-
> ruptures had the effect of killing god. So I'm free at last to tell you
> all why I'm really an atheist - I know God doesn't exist because my ancestor
> killed him!


    I knew it!  I knew there was a logical, rational explanation!  Thank
    you!  Why have you kept it from us all these years?

    Don
From: souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Date: 25 Jul 92 22:06:13 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <9997@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine) writes:
>
>  Indeed?  A jumbo jet can carry more payload faster and at a
>  greater altitude than a bird.  When was the last time a jet
>  was sucked into a bird engine intake?  And I certainly don't
>  recall ever having a jet bounce off the windshield of my car.

When was the last time an airplane crashed? And I certainly
don't recall a bird hit his noze on the ground because there
was some ice on his wings.
>
>  You're comparing apples and oranges.  Man has no need to create a
>  bird, since they serve no invaluable purpose and it's been done
>  before.  In fact, the patent probably hasn't even expired on the
>  original design.
>

Man CANNOT create a bird, period.  If you think that birds serve
no invaluable purpose, then you should study more. It has been
done before by who? certainly not by man.  Since the existence
of man till today, where did man reach?  he created superfast
computers that can make millions of calculations a second? it doesn't
come any close to the human mind.

>
>Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14564 soc.culture.pakistan:12884 soc.culture.arabic:2934
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
From: minhaszt@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Zafar T Minhas)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 03:59:09 GMT
Organization: University of Cincinnati

In article <1992Jul29.160237.5820@fmg.bt.co.uk> ghbr@fmg.bt.co.uk (Hossein Bagherzadeh Rafsanjani) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.081051.1618@cco.caltech.edu> bes@cco.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi) writes:
>
>> Let's see.... in the "fundamentalist" (whatever that word means) country 
>> of Iran, you won't find 1/3 of women being sexually assaulted, as is the 
>> case in the U.S.  
>
>How do _you_ know?  And why these millions of sexually assaulted women are not
>applying en masse for immigration to Iran (or other "Islamic" countries) in
>order to live in "safe" environments over there, I wonder.
>
>-hossein

hossein man, there is no logical connection between getting raped and going to
iran, so your point is rather moot (i know you were being sarcastic). but
hey what percentage of the women who get raped actually try do get justice?
an even more poignant question to ask would be what percentage of women change
there lifestyle as a result of being raped? i am not talking about carrying
a mace can or anything like that i am talking taking real preventive measures
in order so that such a thing does not happen again? in iran and other muslim 
countries, there is no denying that rape occurs but there is no way that even
close to 1/3 of the women get raped, i would not even say 1/5 of them do, that
is because the cultures of the muslim coutnries (and many other asian and 
african non-muslim countries) have created a way of thinking that tries to
prevent the situation from happening in the first place.

sincerely

zafar

ps are you in any way related to that hashemi guy?
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 21 Jul 92 13:04:28 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <13028.2a6af4b4@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> hjort@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:

>In article <zlsiida.981@fs1.mcc.ac.uk>, zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
[...do we have free will?]
[...an explanation ]

>I hope this makes sense to you.

Well.....it shows we can't predict what a system will do, but I don't see 
that it shows the system's future state is indeterminate.  That is,
just because we see a person's choice as free, doesn't mean it really is 
free. Or, just because an automaton can't predict what it will do tomorrow, 
doesn't mean its actions tomorrow aren't totally predermined.

+--Great Quotes of our Time-------------------------------------------+
|        You should never have a hobby that eats                      |
+--------------------------------------Amarillo Slim Preston----------+          
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England  (44)061-275-6033   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: atheism
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:50:04 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Keywords: atheism

In article <1992Jul28.130101.20283@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> mrice@churchill.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Mark.Rice) 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.

Good point... except that atheists don't generally say things like
that.  I don't mean to say that nobody has ever said that, but I've
never heard anything even close from an atheist, let alone "often".
One does hear this often in "atheists are closed-minded too" postings
and tracts.

You'd have a hard time getting many of the posters to alt.atheism to
agree with "I know for sure I'm sitting here reading news", let alone
claiming certain knowledge about something as nebulous as "a GOD of
any kind".
-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: lighten up, people
Keywords: faith 
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 23:22:33 GMT

In article <Bs16Ju.KDL@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mr. Mensa ) writes:
>dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>
>	well, Douglas, what I was hoping for was an e-mail discussion/debate
>	with someone who thinks that the idea of God and natural physical
>	laws are mutually exclusive.

Can't really say until you explain what God is or does.  You see, I have
this theory that the word "God" is meaningless.  I have yet to see a
description of this being that is at all coherent, so I must assume that
the people who like talking about it, are really quite confused.

>>What's a "spirit of Love?"  Sounds
>>like brain fuzz to me.  Be careful, that stuff can lead to insanity.
>
>  Spirit of love....hmmm, well how can I explain this...? You know what
>  a spirit is, right?

Not really.

>  Well, God is a spirit that is pure love...you have
>  heard the phrase, 'God is love?' That is what God is....He is the love
>  that exists in the Universe, and He is Who made the Universe....sorry I
>  can't explain it better.

Like I say, this sounds like a lot of fuzz to me.  As far as I know, love
is an emotion that mammals feel towards one another.  It exists as an
arrangement of neurons in the mammal's brain.  I don't understand how
you can speak of Love existing in the Universe.  Are you saying that the
Universe is similar to a brain, and that the arrangement of matter in
the Universe constitutes Love?  What is the Universe in Love with?

>>>       He (see above note) does
>>>	not have a physical existence. He is a spirit of Love. One will
>>>	never 'see God' in a physical sense, because that is simply not how
>>>	He exists.
>
>>Do you agree that God is a gfurble of blarfle as well?  I rather think
>>that that is one of his more important characteristics.  I've been thinking
>>of writing a volume of theology on this important concept.
>
>   YES! I think you see what I am saying....there is no physical form
>   to God: He just is.

Ah, then I can rest assured that at least one person will buy my book.
Actually, what I was trying to point out is that a lot of what constitutes
theology, is just meaningless gibberish and really stands in the way
of true communication between people.  Oh sure, a group of people can
be trained to say "spirit of Love" whenever the cues are right, and another
group of people can be trained to nod their heads and say Hallelujah in
response, but no real information has been transferred.  Then both groups
of people spend a lot of time trying to figure out just what the hell was
meant by "spirit of Love."  I think that this exchanging of gibberish
and subsequent wondering about it, is not good for your mental health.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Atheism and culture
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 92 11:08:28 BST
Followup-To: alt.atheism.moderated
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
> In article <BrGqy7.3pv@cgl.ucsf.edu> brianc@jekyll.ucsf.edu (Brian Colfer) wr
> >In article <70075@apple.Apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
> >>Science does not present an argument for materialism as
> >>against some alternative. 
> >
> >It is based upon an assumption of materialism.
> 
> No. It is based upon the assumptions that a) cause and effect
> obtain; b) memory and other history phenomena are, on the whole,
> reliable; c) the future will resemble the past in all but
> matters of detail; d) reasonably reliable communication
> is possible.

I think I'd count the assumptions of science slightly differently.  I don't
quite understand what c) has to do with science.  As I see it, the laws of
physics could suddenly change next Tuesday, and science could continue. 
(Although it would obviously have a lot of catching up to do.)

I'm not so sure cause and effect is necessary, either.  We can say that a
certain event x is associated with some other event y and do science on that
basis, without actually having to know that x causes y.  In fact, more
subtly, from x being associated with y we tend to infer that x causes y.
I think science could continue without that inference.  (Maybe not all
science, but plenty.)

I think modern science as practised has a number of other assumptions.  One
that springs to mind is the assumption that other scientists do not
deliberately attempt to mislead the scientific community.


mathew
-- 
Civilization is just a temporary failure of entropy.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ury@humus.cs.huji.ac.il (My Friend Of Misery)
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 07:42:01 GMT

In article <dabrowsk.711647565@liveboard10>, dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com
 (Jarek Dabrowski) Pompous:
|> In <1992Jul20.135600.19367@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> My Friend Of Misery
|> provides an example:
|> 
|> -Friend OM:
|> >Why is it so difficult for ppl to understand that There is no god?
|> >
|> This question is a perfect example how some people need to understand
|> some fundamental things about philosophy to understand other people,
|> dear Friend OM. 
|> 
|> 

It seems that this is the only thing you can say by now. Everytime someone posts
something you can't deal with, you say "You don't know any phylosophy". SO:

a) please stop. 
b) Suprise. I DO know some phylosophy. 
c) It is clear that you DON'T when you post strange lines like "  fundamental 
   things about philosophy". If you knew phylosophy, even a little, you would
   understand that there is NO SUCH THING.
d) After all, you faild to present even ONE fundamental thing about philosophy,
   And if you will post one, I bet I'll find a phylosopher who'll disagree with
   you.
e) As for examples, you are good example of religious who tries to hide behind
   Phylosophy.
f) Face it. NO GOD.

|> Best wishes,
|>              Jarek
|> ------------------------------------------------------
|>  .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
|>  `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
|> I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET

-- 
Ury Segal          | The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the 
ury@cs.huji.ac.il  | University or IBM, Digital, Apple, HP or anyone else.
Phone: 02-971187   | They are mine, LO MIN HAHEFKER, as Bialik once said.
DISCLAIMER: I DON'T SPELL AND I DON'T CARE