HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What brought you to atheism?
Date: 7 Oct 1992 15:24:47 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


	....no one can ever be sure of anything....


	Can you be sure of that ?    :-)

-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu | alias: White Rook
aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 8 Oct 92 10:08:19 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Oct7.201602.3296@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
[to the proselytiser of the day, EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD]
>	Back to the wallow, farmboy - the pigs are gettin' lonely.

Pigs wouldn't care for his company.  They are intelligent animals.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God's existence
Date: 13 Oct 1992 22:27:32 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:


>In a previous article, jwest@wisc (Jeff West) says:

>>scott@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Scott G Goddard) writes:
>>
>>:      What is it going to take to prove that He does exist?  Is God Himself 
>>: going to have to come down from Heaven and perform a miracle?  Or would that 
>>: not be good enough?  Well, I hope it would be. 
>>
>>	Yes I believe this would do it for me!  Would be more than I've seen
>>	so far.  Can you schedule it?  I'll take vacation time to see it and
>>	even pay full price airfair to get there.

>	For me, a "miracle" would not persuade me. That is because the 
>"miracle" are nothing really special. [ none that I ever have read as
>being "miracles" impressed me. ] I only ask that God makes the littlest
>hint of his presence to *me*. Not to Joe Smoe down the street, not to
>some long lost martyr, but to me, so I would have a "strong" knowledge 
>experience. "Weak" knowledge of him will not do.

A high level of technology would seem like magic to us.  I think that I would
find the idea of technologically advanced aliens toying with us more
believable than some sort of supernatural being.  In fact, nothing 
supernatural can exist at all.  If something exists, then it is by definiton
part of nature.

The problem with a supernatural God is that He would violate the 
conservation of energy.  Of course, this may or may not have been violated 
at the beginning of the big bang, so perhaps this violation might as
well be your God.

keith
From: stuart@stipple.seas.upenn.edu (Joseph Stuart )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:25:40 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct12.060137.20127@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> cochrane@spot.Colorado.EDU (Jim Cochrane) writes:

[Lot's of stuff deleted]
>                       Language is perhaps imposed in some sense, but
>I think it also has a natural basis in human physiology and in the way
>the brain and mind work.


I think it has more to do with the simple fact that language must be
common to the people around us, or there is no point in it.  If you
reject accepted language, you have no means to communicate, whether
you develop your own private language or not.

scott

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If anybody wants a sheep, that is a proof that he exists.
	- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 12 Oct 92 03:21:52 GMT

ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:
>>"God is necessary" for those who can't face the fact that they are of no,
>>or so little, importance to the universe that when they die, the universe
>>will go on without them.

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

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

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


>>    Tony J. Podrasky             BIBLE : 

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

Evolution explains it (alon with galactic astronomy and a bit of geophysics)
from start to finish. You may call it a only a theory, so long as you are
willing toi accept that probability and gravity are also just theories then
you can use your argument that evolution is not an acceptable method to
explain the origin of humans. However if you read some real genetics and
evolution texts you will see that the only dissenters are people who were
christians before they were educated or have been through a mind alteringly
horrific life disaster. Then also you will get a chance of learning the full
picture of evolution without the heavy editing, biassed commentary,
hypocracy and even outright lies of the church produced "evolution" texts.
For a general good read I suggest "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan.
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: We'll all burn in hell!
Date: 13 Oct 1992 02:23:19 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


civl097@csc.canterbury.ac.nz sez:
 
 
 
[list of things the church says you will go to hell for]
|
|mineral, and animal resources" to "influencing public opinions against
|                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|moral values", commercial fraud, and producing, distributing or  using
^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
	Gee kids, this one bothers me. Sounds like "god" is trying to
cencor us.......
 
 
 
 
|     Homosexuals must live in chastity, but should be "treated
|
|with respect, compassion, and  delicacy.   Unjust  discrimination
|
|against them is to be avoided."
 
	Wait a sec., didn't the Pope say a while ago that he
was against civil rights laws of Gays ? What about Operation 
Rescue, they are WELL know for their anti-gay position, but yet have
the support of the Catholic church ??????? And why the HELL should I
not be allowed to have sex with who I wish too ????????????????????
 
 
 
|     But the Church shows some understanding  for  such  sinners:   at
|
|confession  priests should consider "psychological and social factors"
|
|that lead to masturbation, while prostitution is  less  of  a  sin  if
|             ^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
	Look, what problem does the church have with 
*VERY LOUD YELL MODE ON*
 
M A S T U R B A T I O N ????????
 
*VERY LOUD YELL MODE OFF*
 
 
 
-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu | alias: White Rook
aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:16:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.132026.164741@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> 
  jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
>
>On the contrary, there is plenty of proof that demons exist.  

And Elvis shops at my 7-11.  Sorry, the only proof I have ever seen of
the existence of demons assumes the reader believes in the existence of
demons.

>You can have the same relationship with Him if you ask Him
>(and mean it).  Go ahead, you might just supprise yourself.

I love this.  The great thing about this argument is that you can't prove
it wrong.  If someone doesn't end up with the "great relationship" thing
then they just didn't mean it.

>Look at it this way.  If He doesn't exist, then you have nothing to worry
>about.  If He does exist, then you will be able to really experience the
>presence and love of God through His son (ultimate proof for yourself!).

Have you ever heard of Pascal's Wager (note: this is a trick question).

>James.

C "Substitute 'wombat' for 'Jesus' above.  Is the argument convincing?" Frog
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God's existence
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:51:23 GMT
Distribution: world, public
Organization: New Mexico State University

In article <1b4gs1INNj9v@bigboote.WPI.EDU> scott@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Scott G Goddard) writes:
>Hi everyone.  I posted something a few days ago, and I got a lot of responses,
>mostly hate mail.  To tell you the truth, that doesn't bother me, actually it

Oh, we don't hate the preacher--just the preaching.

>seems kind of childish. Grow up!  I could tell that you all have a wonderful 
>vocabulary, but I could also sense much hatred.  Personally, I don't care if
>I sounded like a "preacher", as some of you put it.  And I also don't care what
>the FAQ states. 

What's this hatred thing you guys have?  If I came over to
soc.religion.christian, and I posted an inane argument your FAQ had
already dealt with, and you had seen that argument 10^12 times
already, isn't it possible that you might be just a tad bit annoyed?

And if you could offer new insight into the problems stated in the
FAQ, that just might make your case for Christianity a hell of a lot
stronger!  Guess you never thought of *that* now did you?

> You're salvation means more to me than that.

This gives you carte blanche to shove your beliefs down our throats?

>  I don't know 
>about you, but eternal damnation doesn't sound too appealing to me.  I just 
>pray that one day you are not wishing that you listened to me, or anyone else
>who has tried to get it through to you.  Call me in about a million years at
>1-800-1HEAVEN.  Now, I'm not trying to make anybody mad, and I'm not 
>condemning anybody either.  What I say is true, "THERE IS A GOD."

Well, your heaven doesn't sound too great either--the way the Bible
tells it, it sounds like sitting in a church pew for all eternity
watching the faithful lick God's boots.  What a fucking blast.

>     What is it going to take to prove that He does exist?  Is God Himself 
>going to have to come down from Heaven and perform a miracle?

*Perot mode on*
Now I find this fascinatin'. Back when everybody was ready to
believe in all sorts of strange things, God found it necessary to
personally introduce Himself to Moses, David, Elijah etc etc and
perform all these miracles.  Nowadays some people are little more
skeptical, and  we're told to have "faith."  I love these guys, I
really do!  It just doesn't make sense, see? Y'see that?  And yet they
expect people to believe this stuff.  See, they think the American
people are stupid.  It's sad, y'see, just sad.
*Perot mode off*

>  Or would that 
>not be good enough?  Well, I hope it would be. By the way, this is probably
>going to be the last news that I post, but just think about it.
 
This is another thing I like. . . These bozos usually forget to pack
their asbestos underwear for their jaunts to alt.atheism, and so must
beat a hasty retreat. . . 

SD
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Hello All!
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:07:08 GMT

In article <1b4unhINNr3k@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cb366@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark B. Bendiksen) writes:
>
>Hello Atheists:

Oh no, I can see it coming.  Not again!  Mommy!
>
>I am what most of you would probably call a "Jesus Freak".
>I have spent some time reading through many of the posts on
>this newsgroup with much interest. I expected to find much more
>discussion on deeper philosophical issues (i.e. why you
>believe in no God, etc.). Instead, this group seems to be
>mainly a "club" whose members waste time and net space by
>coming up with clever ways to bash "crazy Christians" and
>anyone else who chooses to believe in an almighty creator.

Then you must not have read enough articles.  There has been
an interesting discussion of the meaning of faith / blind faith.
Other serious topics arise from time to time.
There are also many enlightening factual posts, like
the on-going series of articles about the fraudulent
"satanic" conspriacy propagators.
The only time we get to indulge in some entertaining bashing is when
bozos like you drop by.

>If you scan through articles on religious newgroups I dare
>say you'll find little space wasted talking about "those
>nutty atheists who don't believe in God". 

No, they talk about the evil atheists who are going
to burn in hell.  Unless, the discussion is about
how many days will elapse between the Rapture and
the Second Coming; or whether xtians can vote
for Bill Clinton with a clear conscience.
Nope, no waste of bandwidth in the .religion groups (not).

>Please don't get me wrong. I did read many fascinating
>and interesting posts while going through your newsgroup,
>but more often than not many posts consist of nothing more
>than hate for those that believe in God. Is that really
>constructive?

The only hate I've ever seen in alt.atheist is from
people who post notes telling us that we are going
to suffer eternal torment for our beliefs.

>I know I'm inviting flames, and that's okay. But if you
>attack me with namecalling rather than by discussion of
>the issue, you'll just be proving my point.

Got me there.  I retract calling you a "bozo".
Calling you a "bozo" was unfounded.  Most clowns
I know make little sense either, but at least
they are funny.

The "issue" is discussed in the FAQ.  If no one else
sends you a copy, let me know.

>Love in Christ,

Wait 'till colleen gets home. :)


>Mark B. Bendiksen
>cb366@freenet.cwru.edu


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:59:15 -0400 
From: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: EVIL
	<92286.164952EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu>

>More importantly, does evil EXIST?  Evil is relative term, and depends
on one's
> frame of reference.  What is good to one person is evil to another:
>                            What the Nazis did seemed "evil" to whoever
was not
>                            Nazi, But the Nazis felt fully justified in their
>                            actions and probably felt that they were doing
>                            "good."
>I submit that there is no such thing as evil (and for that matter, there's no
>such thing as good).
> 
>        :-|,
>            Eylon Geva

Normally, what is good to one person is good to most others.  Most
people think what the Nazis did was a crime against humanity- and
therefore evil.  I don't think that evil and good are anywhere near
absolute definitions, but they are important in defining what society is
willing to accept.  I agree with you about the fact that evil and good
are relative, but that is not justification for non-existance.  For
example, in mathematics, this sign(>), the greater than sign is
exclusively a relative concept.  And yet there is no doubt that it is
"real" and valid.

\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: cochrane@spot.Colorado.EDU (Jim Cochrane)
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Summary: scrapping morality, science, law, and language
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 06:01:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.193200.28007@math.utexas.edu> mike@huevos.ma.utexas.edu (Mike Sullivan) writes:
>cochrane@spot.Colorado.EDU (Jim Cochrane) writes:
>
>
>>Perhaps it would be wise to scrap the concept of morality altogether.
>>Morality implies a system of rules imposed upon you from outside --
>>by parents, religious leaders, political leaders, TV, movies, and
>>whatever other media can influence one's thinking.
>
>The same could be said for language, science and law. Should we scrap them
>as well?

My point regarding moral systems was that they were not, on the whole,
serving a positive purpose; therefore (perhaps) they should be scrapped.
Language and science, on the whole, do serve a positive purpose (in my
opinion).  Thus there is no reason to scrap them.

Also, regarding my point of morality being imposed from outside, this is
not really true of language and science.  Morality is for the most part
a system of rules that one is expected to follow and that is used to judge
people's actions.  There is (IMO) no sound basis for it, although there
may be a valid basis for some moral rules.  Science is based upon discovery
of truth -- of how the world works and what it is.  When taught, it is not
(again, IMO) really imposed upon the student as a set of rules that must
be believed in or memorized, but rather, it is taught as a system of
knowledge that must be rediscovered by each student (e.g., theorems have
proofs and a student can discover for herself that the proof and therefore
the theorem is valid).  Language is perhaps imposed in some sense, but
I think it also has a natural basis in human physiology and in the way
the brain and mind work.

Regarding law, I suppose that is pretty much like a moral system and
perhaps it should be scrapped :-).  Actually, I think the legal system
in this and other countries does server a positive purpose on the whole.
(Although I wouldn't mind seeing some of our laws scrapped, for example,
the state and federal drug laws.  [If anyone wants to debate this sentence,
please don't do it here in alt.atheism.])
>
>Mike Sullivan
>mike@math.utexas.edu
>

Jim Cochrane
cochrane@spot.Colorado.EDU
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:33:46 GMT
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center

In article <ebolog.10@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:
>
>Atheists are always saying that God does not exist and laugh away any proof 
>Christians use to prove His existence.

What proof? Can't say I've ever seen any.

>
>So here is my proposal : You prove to us that God does not exist!
>

Logically impossible.

>And please don't use your usual irrational logic and childish insults!
>

You mean like this line you just used?

>Please post your replies so that other people may also read them or if you 
>feel embarassed mail it directly to us at (TJOHN@ELAINE.EE.UND.AC.ZA).
>
>Many Thanks for any logical and well thought out arguments.
>

Read the faq.


Jeff Achenbach
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:16:02 GMT

In article <ebolog.16@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:
>Ok, you tell me how man came about and do not state the theory of evolution 
>since one it is a theory with lots of short comings and one which even some 
>scientists do not agree with. Then disprove that the only God the Father and 
>his only begotten son Jesus Christ do not exist!

	Back to the wallow, farmboy - the pigs are gettin' lonely.

>PS : Please read the other messages as well.

	Not unless your English improves.

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
  <1992Oct14.183102.26867@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> 
  <1bigkfINNoq0@gap.caltech.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:14:37 GMT

In article <1bigkfINNoq0@gap.caltech.edu> 
  keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>
>>So, amusingly enough, does celibacy.  Anyway, as I am sure you agree,
>>this definition of morality is a little weak.
>
>But of course you read the REST of my post in which I sort of cleared this
>up.  You forgot to mention the [STUFF DELETED].  If you're going to quote
>me, make sure you include the whole idea.

Sorry, I figured that everyone who read this would have read your previous
post in full (a dangerous assumption I know).

C Frog
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board)
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 14:28:33 GMT

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:
|> 
|> 
|> >jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) sez:
|> >  
|> ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!!!!
|> 
|> Jesus is not dead!  He died and was RAISED FROM THE DEAD.  He lives today
|> inside all those who accept Him as their Lord and Saviour.  This I KNOW!
|> 
|> Although I can not prove this by sending words such as these across the
|> network, He is as real to me as a person standing next to me.  
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How tall is he? What race? Long hair? Big nose? What, you can't answer? Guess he's
not as real as you thought.
                                
|> With the communion and fellowship that I have with Him, I know for sure that he is
|> ALIVE!  You can have the same relationship with Him if you ask Him
|> (and mean it).  Go ahead, you might just supprise yourself.
|> 
|> Look at it this way.  If He doesn't exist, then you have nothing to worry
|> about.  If He does exist, then you will be able to really experience the
|> presence and love of God through His son (ultimate proof for yourself!).
|> I sincerely hope you take up the challenge.
|> 
|> 
|> >-- 
|> >"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
|> > Let me see your sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
|> >A. Trent Phillips | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu | alias: White Rook
|> >aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
|> 
|> 
|> Yours in Christ,
|> James.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism