HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 20:43:28 GMT

In article <TORKEL.92Oct1180317@bast.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>In article <1992Oct01.144533.29410@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca 
>(Douglas Graham) writes:
>  It isn't a matter of spouting nonsense, but rather of delivering vacuous
>tirades. For example:
>
>  >Most simply divert attention from it by providing primitive and
>  >nonsensical mythology, or by providing thought stoppers like "what is
>  >the sound of one hand clapping." 
>
>  What do we learn from this? That religion to you means "primitive and
>nonsensical mythology". We knew that. It is not very interesting.

What can I say.  I'm a boring guy.  How be if you show us how
a real life-of-the-party would have answered your question:

  #Also, such assertions are very boring. Wouldn't it be
  #more interesting to consider e.g. what Einstein might have meant by
  #saying that "a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot
  #exist", or how different religious traditions have in fact conceived
  #"our place in the universe"?

These are your topics.  Why do you want me to do all the talking?
--
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_
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 10:33:52 GMT


In article <1992Sep26.145623.6825@news.ysu.edu>, ae642@yfn.ysu.edu
(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. !


> --
> *...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Assembly of God???  Strange.. *
> *      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // I was not aware that the diety  *
> *                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // was available in source form..." *
> ****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************


        Hannu.
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Date: 4 Oct 92 14:38:40 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct3.090132.7052@cs.ucla.edu> robert@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Rob Karmolinski) writes:
>
>	1:  God created the Universe.	(by definition)

By whose definition.?

Start with a faulty assumption and your conclusionions ain't worth beans.

Chris Lee
From: jwest@wisc (Jeff West)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Lord Cometh!
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:07:16 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

Us of thee Catholicollenism's faith rejoice!
  (Colleen's mom will be very happy.)

Cardinal Jeff
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Benevolent Rebuttal
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:49:02 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <kelwk3S00WB4B0QJMc@andrew.cmu.edu>
se24+@andrew.cmu.edu (Scott F. Earnest) writes:

>     By stating that God exists, I _do not_ in any way, shape, or form
> mean that God (i.e. the Christian, or any other form of theistic god)
> exists.  [...] This is why I am an atheist [...]

I got it.  You believe that god exists, but not a "theistic god".  It
all would have been clearer from the beginning if, instead of
pronouncing yourself an atheist, you had specified that you are an
atheist theist.  In fact, even "well-read illiterate" would be an
improvement.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.messianic,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:53:55 GMT

onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
: Your statement is true, but your example iswrong.
: 
: The darker form already existed, it never evolved (it evolved, but
: not after the industrial revolution.). However, the majority of the
: moths was white. Then, through natural selection, the darker moths
: gradually became the most successful.
: 
: The moths are an example of natural selection, NOT of evolution. 
: 

Evolution is change in a population's gene pool over time.  This
_includes_ changes in allele frequencies.  The example cited is
correctly called evolution.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  All this time I've been
Rosemount Inc.                                |VIEWING a RUSSIAN MIDGET
                                              |SODOMIZE a HOUSECAT!
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Religious Ignorance
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:49:09 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Sep30.142718.37438@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> csfed@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Frank E. Doss) writes:
>In article <10888@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
[re the pigs whereinto J ben NN chased a legion of daemons]
>>That's a huge lot of good pork wasted.  It could have fed many people.
>
>Jews don't eat pork.

No, but non-Jews are people too, and many non-Jews lived in that area.

>I wonder why a Jew was keeping a herd of pigs.

Why do you think they belonged to a Jew?

>I always thought that pork didn't come into flavor
>until a few centuries later.

The Egyptians kept pigs (witness their writing).  The Babylonians kept
pigs too (witness Codex Hammurabis, paragraph 8 (I think), where they
are listed as a possible object of theft).  What could they have used
them for?  You can't milk a pig, you can't ride it, ...

-- 
 `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
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Saturday, 26 Sep 1992 10:19:15 CDT
From: David James Alexander Hanley <U55870@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Replies to David.Rice (Maximus) stuff
 <MAGUIRE.92Sep16183612@signal.clarkson.edu>
 <1992Sep20.010509.11031@pdnfido.fidonet.org>


In article <1992Sep20.010509.11031@pdnfido.fidonet.org>,
joeb@pdnfido.fidonet.org (Joe Beiter) says:
>
>
>How many people (vs cultures) have been preserved by the humanitarian efforts
>of missionaries?

  Good question.  Let's see.. The spanish slaughtering the native
americans with the blessing of the church..  The same with the english
and the french, the catholic church looking the other way during the
holocaust..  Why, look at all the lives saved by GOD right there!

> Would you be prepared to trade a witch doctor's dance for
>real medicine?

  Assuredly not.  Nor would I be willing to trade christian faith healing
for real medicine.  In fact I would prefer the witch doctor dance to
christian anything, because the dance is interesting to watch while
christian services make me want to vomit.

> Would you turn down digging in the dirt for the days Grub
>cassarole for irragation channels and lessons in agraculture?

  If that was a correct scentence, I might answer it.

>


dave
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Date: 3 Oct 92 10:20:06
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<Lou1RB1w165w@bluemoon.rn.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: darist@bluemoon.rn.com's message of Fri, 02 Oct 92 10:41:56 EDT

In article <Lou1RB1w165w@bluemoon.rn.com> darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) writes:

   >From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
   >Message-ID: <1992Oct01.084647.24107@bmerh85.bnr.ca>

   >Science is telling us that we're insignificant.  Religion
   >tells us that we're not. 

   Science tells *atheists* that they're insignificant.  Science 
   tells theists how wondrously God created the universe.  This also 
   tells theists how significant *people* are because it was all done 
   for them.  The theist wonders why the atheist wants to save a
   species (man) that he believes is so insignificant.

Well, significance is relative.  WRT the universe as a whole, we're
pretty insignificant -- if we could convert the entire solar system to
energy in one giant explosion, it would have precious little effect on
anything more than a few light years away from us; the galaxy would
flash noticeably, but that's about it.  WRT the biosphere we're
certainly significant, and WRT ourselves we're even more important.  To
someone watching from the Andromeda galaxy we're totally irrelevant.

   >The religious meme complex most definitely
   >competes with the scientific meme complex.  Science is the way we learn
   >about the universe.  Among other things, religion is the way we put a cap
   >on how much we learn,...

   The theist views atheism as putting a cap on knowledge about the
   universe because it prevents seeing the universe as the theist sees
   it: with a God.  Do you assume science and atheism are the same?  The
   theist sees science revealing God and thus being a-atheism (!(!God)).

The theist is wrong, then (at least about weak atheists).  I don't claim
that there is no god, but how am I to decide between a god with no
observational consequences and no god at all?  It's interesting how
there's no evidence of external intervention.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Demonic Possession
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992
Date: 02 Oct 92  15:56:44

Tag: James Marcus (jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus))
 
[stuff from A. Trent regretfully removed due to space saving]
 
JM> "But demons DO exist. Just because you haven't (or think
JM> that you haven't) come across them or been influenced by
JM> them does not mean that they don't exist."
 
Just because YOU believe they exist doesn't mean they do.
Just because people believe they have been demonically
possessed does not mean that they were. Just because some
people believe that others have been / are demonically
possessed does not mean they were / are.
 
You made the assertion to the positive. So YOU provide proof.
Thank you. But I won't be holding my breath (smile!).
 
Yours in Lilith,
David Rice

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: suresh <suresh@halcyon.com>
Subject: atheism
Originator: bbs@halcyon.com
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:45:20 GMT

"God is Dead" Friedrich Nietzsche 19th century
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Religious Ignorance
Date: 27 Sep 92 21:10:26 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep24.121552.164633@dstos3.dsto.gov.au>,
jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) wrote:
> His command for the demon to leave the person was all that was required.
> Should it be any different today?  Jesus still has, and always will
> have, the authority and power to do such things.  Christians can still
> use the mighty name of Jesus in such situations, even today!

I don't think animal lover groups would subscribe to the notion of 
casting deamons to pigs, something Jesus gladly did. It seems 
Jesus didn't exactly have high regards of animals, when he used them
as a dumping ground for mean spirits. Poor pigs.

Cheers,
Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Organization: Freshman, H&SS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 00:14:53 -0400 
From: "Scott F. Earnest" <se24+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: A few points to raise . . .

    Okay, being as I am an atheist, I thought that perhaps this message
board would be an interesting one to subscribe to.  Being a full-time
college student, I do not have the time to read every single message
that passes through this way.  I have seen enough, though, to make me
raise a few questions about what other "atheists" believe.

    First, it is not really right to come out and say that God does not
exist without reasonable justification.  In fact, I can state very
simply that God *does* exist.  (Yes, I am a real atheist.)  The point of
fact is, exactly how does this God exist.  If you examine the Bible
carefully enough, you can see fairly easily that it is a story of the
interaction between Humankind and God.  The Judaic and Christian beliefs
interpret this "God" concept as being a greater, all-powerful force, in
control of the entire world.  However, this is where the religions go
wrong.  Yes, this "force" exists, but it is not really a being per se;
it is the human conscience.  Thus, this struggle for what is right or
wrong is between Humankind and each individual's conscience. Each and
every one of us is aware of our own conscience (provided that each of us
is sane), and that conscience can hardly be called dead.  And, if that
conscience equates to God, then God must necessarily exist, though not
in the conventionally thought of form.  I'm sure this could also be
extended to the interpretations of other religious tenets, but the
Judao-Christian concept is the only one I know well enough.

    Second, I've noticed something that concerns me.  People seem to be
claiming themselves as God, and other seem to be calling certain people
God.  This can hardly be called atheism.  Atheism is the belief that no
deified God exists.  What is being acted out here is the deification and
acceptance of deification of individuals.  This is more pagan deism than
atheism!  Could someone explain the rationale to me?! :)

    Finally, for the record, it is my belief that the one true greatest
sin is self-righteousness.  Denial of something as true means an
unwillingness to accept that you are wrong, which is a problem central
to close-mindedness and ignorance.

    Of course, *I* could be wrong about that . . . Hmmmm.

               - Me, Myself, and I
                 a.k.a. "Phydeaux"

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18217 alt.cascade:2220
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.cascade
Subject: Re: atheism
Date: 30 Sep 92 06:05:51 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

> >"God is Dead" - Friedrich Nietzsche
> "Nietzsche is Dead" - God
"Nietzsche is God" - the Dead
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Date: 28 Sep 1992 02:16:25 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


	While many claim both science and religion are both belief
systems. But I would rather put my "faith" (and my butt) in the care
of a science than a book of superstitious bull. For example, if I 
where hurt in a car crash, I would trust a mediocre doctor than a
good priest.


-- 
"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
From: acsormd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Randall Desmond)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: god is in all of us
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:57:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep30.093755.29218@walter.cray.com>, jwest@wisc (Jeff West) writes...
>...  Whenever someone finds out that I'm not a Christian (or any other
>religion) I usually hear: "So you can go out and kill people then."
>Why is atheism so often equated to killing?  Just because one deceides not
>to believe in some organized religion doesn't mean that person doesn't still
>have morals.  The mistake is that you *need* religion to have morals.
>I think it's been proven over and over in the world that just because you
>claim to be a member of some religion you aren't guaranteed morals!
>
>Jeff West

	Jeff brings up a good point. The mistake in people's thinking is
	the dispensing of morals only comes from organized religion.
	While it is true that organize religion presents morals in a
	highly refined manner, every individual has some inherent belief
	structure, whether by birth or enviromental influence, which 
	dictates the individual's morals. 

	I don't think the question "So you can go out and kill people then?"
	is completely understood. This question is not a question of morals
	but of reasoning behind morals. A more complete form of this
	question is "So you can go out and kill people without the fear
	of punishment that comes with violating a inherent moral code
	set by The Deity?"

	And it is true, what Jeff states, that just because you are a
	part of an organized religion you aren't guaranteed morals. Perhaps
	your only guaranteed the outline. It would be your choice to 
	follow, if you found it to be true.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: coylh@eskimo.celestial.com (Ray E)
Subject: Re: Proof that Colleen is not the One True God!
Keywords: COLLEEN IS NOT GOD
Organization: Eskimo North -- Seattle, WA
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:24:54 GMT

In article <Bv372H.DCI@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> csfed@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Frank Doss) writes:
>
>I think you are judging our God Colleen by the standards of the false
>gods of such sources as xianity.  Can Colleen leap tall buildings in a
>single bound?  Does she have x-ray vision?  The futility of comparing a
>real God to ficticious characters is obvious.  Now that we have God
>talking to us, we can now allow Her to define just what a God is.  We
>mere non-gods cannot suppose ourselves to be so great as to be able to
>define God.  In defining God, we then limit Her.  We are not so great as
>to be able to limit Colleen.
> ...

	Your humility has been noted
	Along with it I see you've toted
	The self-appointed right
	To define things as you might

	If this is so, it is you you should praise
	Cause god is the one, who chews the mayonaise
	I think you will see by fanning your night
	In teflon, yo mamma, I too have the right

	Communication forbears, some will say
	To thrice and a sod, twisty payday
	Twinkie a lot and fish from within
	Ferkin tomarlo, c'est Dublin.

	I grass jumpin wonderful
	Mongrel yoda scar lull
	Special sipping nut roll
	Zeeziac woony lapser toll
	

	Everyone can see the futility of the norm
	The typical, the boring, it's waste to conform
	The less intelligent will not understand what I have said
	They are zealots, idiots, fundies -- lexicologicaly dead

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
coylh@eskimo.celestial.com	"Everything you know is wrong."
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Date: 27 Sep 92 15:49:36 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.

In article <1992Sep27.123352.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi> 
  hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep26.145623.6825@news.ysu.edu>, ae642@yfn.ysu.edu
>(Kelley Miller) writes:
>>
>> In a previous article, hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi () says:
>>>
>>> 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. ?
>>
>> 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. !

Okay fine.  Could you please post (or most likely email me) the relevant
passages so I know what you are babb^H^H^H^Htalking about?

>        Hannu.
From: acsormd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Randall Desmond)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: What constitues evidence?
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:37:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


Someone please supply a definition of evidence and how one is to determine
what evidence is and what it is not. Thank you.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: A few points to raise . . .
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:48:45 GMT

In article <welcOx600WB7EOwUVE@andrew.cmu.edu> 
  "Scott F. Earnest" <se24+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

.. deleted ..

>    First, it is not really right to come out and say that God does not
>exist without reasonable justification.

I *have* reasonable justification.  The same justification I have for
assuming Santa Claus doesn't exist.

>In fact, I can state very simply that God *does* exist.  (Yes, I am a
>real atheist.)  

I hate to break it to you, but by the definitions usually bounced around
in this newsgroup you are *not* an atheist if you believe God exists.

.. deleted ..

>And, if that
>conscience equates to God, then God must necessarily exist, though not
>in the conventionally thought of form.  I'm sure this could also be
>extended to the interpretations of other religious tenets, but the
>Judao-Christian concept is the only one I know well enough.

BFDIMHO.  I define God to be Nolan Ryan.  Nolan Ryan exists by inspection
therefore God exists.  You can play word games all you like, it doesn't
really do anything.

>    Second, I've noticed something that concerns me.  People seem to be
>claiming themselves as God, and other seem to be calling certain people
>God.  This can hardly be called atheism.  Atheism is the belief that no
>deified God exists.  What is being acted out here is the deification and
>acceptance of deification of individuals.  This is more pagan deism than
>atheism!  Could someone explain the rationale to me?! :)

It is called humor.  There is a newsgroup dedicated to it that you might
want to check out (rec.humor).

>    Finally, for the record, it is my belief that the one true greatest
>sin is self-righteousness.  Denial of something as true means an
>unwillingness to accept that you are wrong, which is a problem central
>to close-mindedness and ignorance.

Since you have told us that we on this newsgroup are not reasonable, and
that you know for a fact that God exists, I have little doubt who
commits this sin the most.

>    Of course, *I* could be wrong about that . . . Hmmmm.
>
>               - Me, Myself, and I
>                 a.k.a. "Phydeaux"

C Frog
From: bluelobster+@CMU.EDU (David O Hunt)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:52:26 GMT
	<parsons.717994317@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

> Your ignorance will damn you better than I ever could.
> Scott Parish     parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu

To quote Galileo (from memory, so it may not be precise):

"I refuse to believe that God would give us an intellect and capacity for
reason, and then expect us not to use it."




David Hunt - Graduate Slave |     My mind is my own.      | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering      | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>>  | Jewish homeland!
====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=====
Email:  bluelobster+@cmu.edu    Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"

"Out there is a fortune waiting to be had; do you think I'd let it go you're
mad - you got another think coming!" -- Judas Priest
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA