HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Pascal's Wager / Pitt Bull's Wager
Date: 27 Sep 92 11:01:17 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
> >Pascal's Wager assumes a few things:
> >  1) there is a possibility that God exists
> >  2) if God exists, it is in one's interest to believe so
> 
> Pascal was making his wager from within a decidedly Christian framework.
> That in itself flaws his reasoning, but we should try to be faithful to
> his intended premises, which were probably closer to:
> 
> 1')  there is a possibility that the Christian God exists
> 2')  the Bible gives us a reasonably accurate description of this God
> 
> Your premise 2 follows from my 2'.

If you're assuming those Christian premises, then Pascal's Wager becomes "If
you believe in Christianity, it is best to believe in Christianity".

For Pascal's Wager to be any use at all, it must NOT start by assuming the
tenets of Christianity.


mathew
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: bug in FAQ file
Date: 23 Sep 92 10:41:17 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
> If it had a source other than your fertile imagination, yes.  To a
> medieval peasant, fables about green-striped dragons might be considered
> a valuable source of knowledge about deep caves.  Although their premises
> might be wrong (that fables are a reliable source of knowledge), their
> reasoning would be perfectly sound.

A "valid" argument is one which proceeds logically by inference without
falling into fallacy.  A "sound" argument is one which is valid, and also has
correct premises.  So I think you meant "...their reasoning would be
perfectly valid, but unsound."


mathew
[ Ooer.  I've suddenly come over all pedantic. ]
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 11:09:50 GMT

hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:
>(Kelley Miller) writes:
>> In a previous article, hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi () says:
>>> Hi !
>>> If God is 'Existence' as is defined in the Holy Bible
>>> (in 2nd Moses 3:14-15 and in gospel of Johannes 8:28-29),
>>> then who dares to assert that God does not exist. ?
>>>         Hannu.
>>
>> I would say any thinking person.
>  Then I would say that these thinking persons must be stupid, because
>  they assert at the same time that they themselves does not exist. !


I guess this means that the new year has started and that the eternal cycle 
will reassert itself.  We will have the new Allen Roy posters, and the
new SCIENTIFIC PROOF: posters.

Lets just take a deep breath and get ready for a couple of months of circular
logic.

*sigh*
Gavin

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King)
Subject: Re: atheism
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:09:49 GMT


In article <00csRB1w165w@halcyon.com>, suresh <suresh@halcyon.com>
writes:

|> "God is Dead" Friedrich Nietzsche 19th century


"... but when he was alone Zarathustra said to his heart:
`Could it be that this old saint of the forest has not
yet heard, that ___ __ _____ ?'"

... yeah, yeah, but there are cooler lines later in the story.

L. King
From: jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Gerrrrr! Part two of Two
Date: 1 Oct 92 18:59:06 GMT

David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

[ response part 2 ]

>JM> "Although you probably still disagree, there is so much that
>JM> you *can not know* until you have experienced Christ's love
>JM> for yourself. Its easy to do. He's waiting for YOU [sic]."
> 
>I do not subscribe to the above occult / New Age Jesus nonsense.

I think we need to clarify some definitions here.  The name "occult"
refers mainly to Satanism, and could not be further away from
Christianity.  As for "New Age Jesus", the New Age movement has its
roots in Hinduism.  The phrase "New Age" and Jesus are contradictions
in terms.

>You tell me that crimes have been and are being commited; crimes
>that any sane individual would be horrified over. Yet you tell
>me that the evidence is "belief?!" Is that the best you can do?

Another misunderstanding!  This will be clarified in a later posting.

[ more stuff deleted ]

> 
>Let us do a thought experiment. Let us suppose that you are a woman
>with a small child, a daughter, and that your husband is an evil,
>baby-eatting, torturing Satanist out to sacrifice your daughter.
>Now, please pick the best course of action to follow:
> 
> 1) Fall on your knees. Pray.
> 2) Flee to church. Tell your story to the audience. Pray.
> 3) Run screaming to the nearest police department. Grab a bad-ass
> cop who carries a .38 revolver. Describe your husband-- size,
> weight, colors, what he was last wearing, what he is probably
> driving, where you last saw him, what his intent is, his probable
> route, where he works, names of friends, possible weapons he may
> be carrying.
> 
>Now you're telling me that number two is the best way to protect
>your daughter? That is =EXACTLY= what the woman you report did.
>Now tell me--- did she:
> 
> A) make up the story?
> B) loose her mind?
> C) want her daughter sacrificed =TOMORROW= insead of tonight?
> 
>In all but four cases that I know of, the claimant of Satanic
>Sacrifice and "Satanic Survivors" choose number two above:
                                                 ~~~
Maybe this is saying something!

> they
>go to church and join the lecture circuit, then write books. Of
>the four others, one fled Texas rather than come through on her
>promise to produce evidence--- the others lead law enforcers to
>vacant fields to dig for bodies: none ever found.
> 
>One individual who =refuses= to go to law enforcement is Mike
>Warnke, of Warnke Ministries in Texas. Why does he refuse? He
>said he refuses because his Satanist ex-buddies have infiltrated
>all law enforcement, and to do so would endanger his life. Does
>his answer make sense, when one considers that he goes on the
>lecture circuit, wrote and sold a book, and is as easy to find
>as a bright orange elephant in the bath tub?!?!??!

I don't knoe the situation, and so can't really comment.  However,
I could understand his hesitation if what he says of the law inforcement
were true.

>--- Maximus 2.00

Yours in Christ,
James.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Test For True Christians
Date: 29 Sep 92 05:22:51 GMT
 <92270.102807U55870@uicvm.uic.edu>  
 <1992Sep28.223037.2258@pdnfido.fidonet.org>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Sep28.223037.2258@pdnfido.fidonet.org>
joeb@pdnfido.fidonet.org (Joe Beiter) writes:

> For the sake of the gullible I'll lower myself to respond to this.  The passage
> that proclaimed this was not ment for people to 'test their faith'.  It was
> a prophecy of what would happen.  Paul, when ship wrecked, was bitten by a 
> poisonous viper but did not die as expected and did not even get sick.
> 
> If someone intentionally handles a poisonous snake and gets bitten and dies 
> (which I belive very rarely happens anyway) or gets sick, its not because they
> didn't have faith but because they were stupid.

Do you mean that if I have faith, and I am bitten by a poisonous snake
while hiking, that I will not get sick even if I cannot find medical
treatment?  But that if play "swing the snake by the tail" (and have
faith), that I will get sick?
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Religion & Crime / "Satanic Conspiracy"
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Sep 21 1992
Date: 28 Sep 92  16:28:46

<Continued from previous post>
  
<part 2 of 2>
 
Mr  Baker  had  approached  wealthy  local  people  who  were   mostly 
sympathetic to his own evangelical approach to religion. One such  was 
Mrs Susan Sainsbury, the wife of Mr Timothy Sainsbury, Conservative MP 
or Hove, and  a millionaire member of the supermarket family. She  had 
been "born again" in 1975. Over a period she gave him 79,895.
 
Mr  Michael  Warren,  a farmer, magistrate and  former  High  Sheriff, 
another evangelical Christian gave 36,000. Lord Hampden, a  "committed 
Christian"  paid  39,250.  Mr Gorden Scutt,  a  company  director  and 
officer of a Christian trust, gave 25,000. Other donors included  Lord 
and Lady Brentford and Lord March.
 
It was then that Dr Eric Kemp, Bishop of Chichester, became concerned. 
He met Knight and asked a number of Anglican specialists in the occult 
and Satanism to intervene.
 
Most  of  the  experts were unconvinced.  Several  questioned  Knights 
sincerity.  Even  those who did not throw doubt  upon  Knights  claims 
expressed  disquiet  about whether the best way to save  someone  from 
Satan involved the payment of large amounts of 50 notes for  artefacts 
and regalia.
 
The  reservations  of the experts persuaded tow other members  of  the 
aristocracy, Lord and Lady Ingeby, not to make a donation.
 
But with the exception of Lord March, those who had by now contributed 
heavily  decided  to carry on. Towards the end of 1984 they  formed  a 
donors group.
 
The  Bishop  of Chichester asked the Rt Rev Mark  Green,  the  retired 
Bishop of Aston, to attend one meeting early in 1985 and report back.
 
Bishop  Green  clearly  found  the tone  unchanged,  and  if  anything 
heightened,  at the meeting to which two experts on exorcism had  been 
invited.
 
=================
Special Messages
Came from God
=================
 
At  the  next  meeting the rector produced a  detailed  reply  to  the 
arguments  of  the  exorcists.  His  wife,  Alison,  added  a  lengthy 
memorandum on why the operation should continue.
 
Bishop Green sent the documents to Dr Kemp who contacted the police.
 
On March 13, Knight was arrested and questioned for two days about the 
payments.  Soon  after he was released on bail he got  the  rector  to 
persuade Lord Hampden, to buy a 37,000 Rolls Royce for Knight's use to 
maintain his status in Satanist circles.
 
On May 23, shortly before a further 200,000 was to be handed over  for 
the  purchase  of a Satanic throne, Knight was arrested,  charge  with 
theft and remanded.
 
When court officials came to list the initial hearing before the local 
magistrates they had to send to London for a stipendiary. The chairman 
of the East Sussex Magistrates Association was Mr Michael Warren,  the 
former High Sheriff who had himself donated 36,000.

--- Maximus 2.00
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Date: 4 Oct 92 20:15:43 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <TORKEL.92Oct1141404@isis.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>In article <1992Oct01.115714.26347@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca 
>(Douglas Graham) writes:
>
>   >Yes, it would be possible.  But it wouldn't be what I meant.
>
>  Quite so. You want to utter these predictable tirades and derive
> some satisfaction from delivering them. But they have very little
> point since nothing you say suggests that you know or understand
> anything about religion or religious traditions.

On the contrary, it suggests to me that Doug understands all too well the
continuing tradition among religions of robbing many members of our species
of their ability to analyse, take on board and react [key word follows!]
*rationally* to both their individual and our collective predicaments.

If he sometimes sounds pissed right off, I reckon he's got damn good cause.
Some hundreds of years ago, religiously-inspired pig ignorance was perhaps
halfway excusable: that it persists and even grows on a tide of religious
anti-intellectualism in contemporary society, despite so much survival-
critical scientific information being available with media capable of
disseminating it, is both a f***ing disgrace (just my opinion of course :-)
and a dangerous lunacy.

Instead of learning about and addressing reality, many religious folk
worldwide feel that everything will be OK if they beg forgiveness from
imaginary deities in the sky and brush their teeth, and feel, or are
told, that it is impudent to ask the big emperor's-clothes questions.

If this makes Doug feel like yelling every now and then, good luck to
him, he may just shake something loose in one or two heads and restore
a little desperately-needed sanity.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Out-of-context quotes from s.r.c #8:
   P.S. And I am glad Jesus didn't choose the intellectuals as his disciples.
      "God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God
      chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong." 1 Cor 1:27
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cannon@scs.unt.edu (Dustin Cannon (Lab 3460))
Subject: Re: I still seem to be God
Organization: School of Community Service, UNT
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:57:03 GMT

In article <Buv338.2vq@iat.holonet.net> bwilliam@iat.holonet.net (Bill Williams) writes:
>From: bwilliam@iat.holonet.net (Bill Williams)
>Our kind and Just Colleen has once again shown Her Holy influence into our
>humble mortal lives.
>
>For look, and you shall see that her followers are strong and prosperous.
>Recently one could count amoung her faithful and devoted followers people
>such as:
>
>Apostle Steve
>Apostle Dave
>Apostle Frank
>Apostle Bill
>Apostle Ivan
>Apostle Hans
>Apostle Jessica
> 
>and let us not overlook the legions of devoted followers 
>in the Path of Colleen such as Brother Brian.
> 
>I wake up each bright new day with a new found warm sense of well being
>and peace. Illuminating my perspectives upon my place in this universe and
>the crucial role that God Colleen has set aside for every one of Her
>creations, brings true understanding to the meaning of Life.
>
>I know in my heart that Colleen alone is The One True God, and Ivans
>new viewpoints and testimony lend further foundation to this fact.
>
>Behold, Our God is an active and caring God.
>
>Even I feel no need to kill my ritual Christian every month, for I now
>realize that God Colleen shall deal with the followers of false gods in
>Her own mysterious ways.
>
>yours in God Colleen,
>
>Disciple Bill

	Yeaaa pray hello,
	I am but a humble atheist, who has wandered his whole life in search 
of a kind and just God.  Pray tell me more of Colleen.  Is she a goddess 
worthy of my worship?  Do I still get Christmas off?  How about Sundays?  Is 
alcohol allowed at the services?
	Please, please, tell me more. I am hungry for salvation.
_________________________________________________________________
Dustin W. Cannon      "Just because some of us can read and write
University of          and do a little math, that doesn't mean we
North Texas            deserve to conquer the universe."
                                                -Kurt Vonnegut
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 05:09:49 GMT

acsormd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Randall Desmond) writes:
: 
: Someone please supply a definition of evidence and how one is to determine
: what evidence is and what it is not. Thank you.

You can look this up in the dictionary as well as we can.  You can
tell if something is evidence by whether it fits the definition or
not.  What's your point?
-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Date: 27 Sep 1992 04:55:42 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


	I, WHITE ROOK dares to say that god DOES NOT EXIST !


	Where is your god ? How tall is it ? What is this god made 
of ? how much mass does it have ?  How much volume does god take up ?



	You can take your silly, unfounded notion based on superstition
 and can it !



	so.....


	WHO DARES TO SAY THIS MYTH OF A "GOD" IS TRUE ?


-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Reveal to me the sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips | alias: White Rook | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Date: 27 Sep 92 10:23:55 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson) writes:
> David Irish (dirish@HQ.Ileaf.COM)
> >(1) No problem accepting that there was death before Adam. After all,
> >    what did carnivorous animals eat? Animals in the wild are adapted
> >    for specific roles. Carnivours do not possess teeth that would
> >    work very well if they had a vegetarian diet. Ever see a cat try
> >    to eat grass or non-meat products? They have great difficulty, because
> >    their teeth are not suited for chewing vegetable matter.
>
> (We interrupt this argument for an irrelevant digression on feline dietary
> habits:
> Actually it's not just the teeth: their digestive systems are not built to co
> with vegetation as a normal diet: you need a LONG gut to extract nutrition
> from plant matter.  Cats only eat grass (I have one who's *crazy* about it!)
> for the fiber.

More to the point, cats require taurine in their diet, and taurine can only
be obtained from meat.

Dentition is a bad way to determine whether an animal is "supposed to" eat
meat or not.  Meat-eating humans often argue that humans are "supposed to"
eat meat because we have incisors and little canine teeth; but next time you
get a chance, look at the teeth of a gorilla.


mathew
[ Of course, because of "King Kong" most people probably think gorillas eat
  meat... ]
-- 
Bush/Quayle in '92!
God Bless America!
God Bless Family Values!
From: jack@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (John Stump)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Atheism uber alles?
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:31:04 GMT
Organization: IBM, Austin

(Maybe this should be in talk.origins, but I can only subscribe to so many
 news groups)

Man has always questioned his origins. Almost all children, when they first
learn how to form sentences, ask, "Mommy, where did I come from?" It is that
extra level of intelligence that humans have that allow us to first: 
	realize that we exist, 
and then second: 
	ask why and from where did we come from.

Each year, scientists are making more and more discoveries to help solve
this age old question. Archeologists are digging up fossils of man and other 
animals almost daily and are piecing together the origins of life through 
time. We are exploring the previously unknown depths of the ocean, and are 
stretching out into space.  Genetic DNA, sociological studies of primitive-like
tribes, evolution studies, and on and on. It's a never ending search for the
truth.

Meanwhile, the religious orders continue to be content with an ancient book
which has been interpretted by hundreds of people in hundreds of different ways.
The words are so vague and obsolete, that their meaning has lost all context.
Not to mention the fact that there are hundreds of completely different
religions in the world today.

I don't see how anyone can ignore the vast amount of evidence science has
produced, and yet believe in something with absolutely NO evidence!!!

To me, this is a sign of a weak mind. I call it a sheep mentality, where a
person will follow the masses without thinking. 

I hypothesize that in another century science will have produced so much
undeniable evidence to our origins, as well as discount most of the bible, that
the majority of people will be atheists, while a small, die-hard lot will
cling to their unfounded beliefs. I only hope that I will still be alive when
this happens. Or, at least I can witness it from Heaven. :-) (that was a joke).

What do y'all think? Will atheism rule in the near future?


Jack "I believe in Mother Nature" Stump

--------
   _   Jack Stump   IBM AWD Austin AIX Kernel FV, 11401 Burnet Rd, Bld 905
 _| ~-. auntbea.austin.ibm.com!jack@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com | Austin, TX 78758
 \, *_} Inside IBM:  jack@auntbea.austin.ibm.com        | 512-838-8715
   \(   DISCLAIMER:  Speaking for IBM I am not          | 
-- 
   _   Jack Stump   IBM AWD Austin AIX Kernel FV, 11401 Burnet Rd, Bld 905
 _| ~-. auntbea.austin.ibm.com!jack@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com | Austin, TX 78758
 \, *_} Inside IBM:  jack@auntbea.austin.ibm.com        | 512-838-8715
   \(   DISCLAIMER:  Speaking for IBM I am not          | 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:42:31 GMT

Johnson

According to theists , this is true:

-------->God is omnipotent
-------->God is omniscient
-------->God is the creator of "EVERYTHING"

Question ; (A thorn for the Theists)

-------->There is "evil"in the world.

If this GOD exists then how does he deal with this issue?("EVIL")

If this GOD exists and is apathetic about evil then he is weak. On
the other hand if he can 't do anything about evil then is not omnipotent
whence he is "EVIL"
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 23:20:47 EDT
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism uber alles?

In article <1agi61INNc7u@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M.
Mcgeary) says:
>[ . . .]
>Hence... the world'll be divided between atheists and Pagans.
>Wouldn't THAT spook the fundies?

And atheistic pagans.
Why wait?  Let's start spooking them now.
---------------------------------
John A. Johnson
Atheistic Pagan (explanation available upon request)
Penn State is in this case particularly not responsible for my behavior.
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: URGENTLY NEEDED
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 92 18:29:48 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

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

 Me too, but I'd like references as well.

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:01:32 GMT

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.

Actually, it may be possible, however unlikely, to prove that the God
of the Bible does exist. But only an omniscient being can determine
the universal non-existence of omniscient beings. 

>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. 

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho