HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism? Really Harold, how gauche...
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:55:15 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1bdcheINNkgd@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
>Subject: Re: Atheism? Really Harold, how gauche...
>Date: 13 Oct 92 02:33:18 GMT


>In a previous article, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) says:


>>This is all well and good, but what does it have to do with whether
>>or not truth is relative?  I'm claiming that it is impossible for
>>one thing to be true for you, and another for me, and that anybody
>>who thinks that it is possible is daft.

>        Well, you have to be very careful of which prepositions you
>are evaluating.

>Let's say that I believe X is moral, but you feel it is immoral.

>It's not that X is both moral, and immoral, 
>X is moral for me, but immoral for you.

>Let's say that Y is true (for me), and Y is false (for you).

>It's not that Y is both true and false, look carefully at the proposition:

>Y is true for ME. Y is false for YOU. 

>The difference lies not in Y, but in you and me. 
>If you and me are different, the statement " Y is true" depends heavily
>on the difference. 

>Many times, we do not include that (for me) in there, its usually assumed.
>However, one really needs to be careful and differentiating persona proposi-
>tions ,and public state-of-affairs propositions.


>( One really needs a specific example here so I can clearly illustrate
>this. If you wish to suggest an example which you feel can't be both... )
>-- 
>        So there I was, snuggled in the leather seat of my brand new Ferreri.
>I had the oiled wood gear shift in one hands, and the leather wrapped Momo in
>the other. And, I had the stereo cranking _Born to be Wild_...
>        Only one problem, I was unside down, under six feet of water...

I don't what this business about "true for me" "true for you" is doing
in here. I missed something somewhere.  But always glad to step in and
mess things up. There is only one sensible way to construe the statement "X 
is true for me", and this is as "I believe X". If it is said that "it is 
true for S" [S=some 14th century Spaniard, we'll say] that the world is
flat but not "true for us" [enlightened moderns], all this means is that
we hold a different belief than those other people.

If I may be permitted a diagnostic remark.  What is likely to cause
this slide from the use of belief-language to -- what? this crypto-
Protagorean relativistic degenerate "true for S"-language, is the 
logical fact that to believe p is to think that p is *true*. It is
impossible--and not just psychologically?--to believe p and yet think
that p is false.
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: Jehovah's Witnesses and their axioms
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 11:55:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.203857.11259@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca> cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes (of JWs):
>
> [...]
>
> Now please realise that I'm always polite to them and give
> them the dignity that they deserve as fellow human beings
> but recently became annoyed at their ever-lovin' axiom of
> "if a house has a builder, surely the universe must have
> a builder too".  
>
> [...]
>
> How would y'all answer this question in an infantile manner
> that these simple minds could fathom?

"If a house has a car parked outside, surely the universe must have a car
 parked outside too."

"If a house has doors, windows and a chimney, surely the universe must
 have doors, windows and a chimney too."

"If all the people in a house are thoroughly pissed off at being pestered by
 lunatic JWs with no grip on logic, surely all the people in the universe must
 be thoroughly pissed off at being pestered by lunatic JWs with no grip on
 logic too."

>C. Armour-Kidson
>cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Sigh! Another god?
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 23:42:13 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <DuNNsB3w165w@bluemoon.rn.com> darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) writes:
>Message-ID: <1992Oct12.000406.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
>From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
> 
>>In article <gL6FsB3w165w@bluemoon.rn.com>, 
>>darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) writes:
> 
>>> From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
>>> Message-ID: <10936@scott.ed.ac.uk>

[the Most Holy Colleen, etc.]

>>> Squabbling within the ranks?  Why should I adopt your
>>> beliefs?  From your evil behavior I see your god is evil.
>>
>>   I beg your pardon?  How do you see this as squabbling within
>>the ranks?  It's merely clarification of a previous postition.
> 
>You are quite right.  And exaggerated differences between 
>Christians say nothing about God's existence, do they. 
> 
>DARIST

 Of course, one could argue that the Xtian God is supposed to be a
lot more active and interested...

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are going to the
stars!" - Robert A. Heinlein
From: jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jordan M. Wolbrum)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Chastity vs Celibacy
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:16:01 GMT
 <1992Oct14.183102.26867@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> <1992Oct14.183419.27049@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Oct15.001002.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

In modern times, celibacy and chastity tend to blend together into
equivalent meaning.  However, in the Middle Ages, these terms were much
more distinct.  Basically, someone taking a vow of celibacy would not
marry, but could engage in sexual activity if they wanted(of course this
was not sanctioned by the Church!).  An example of a celibate that fits
this apparent contradiction is the gallant, who beds many women, yet
swears to never tie himself down to marraige.(Sounds like a good life!)
On the other hand, chastity is the naughty one.  No sexual activity at
all!  I can't think of someone being chaste but not celibate, unless
they were repulsed by their SO, and married for money!

Modern priests and nuns take vows of both celibacy and chastity.  Hope
the intersparsed humor didn't offend anyone, but if so, tough!

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

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

}}\enddata{text,17029828}
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Love -in- Christ
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:35:58 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992

Tag:  Mark B. Bendiksen (cb366@cleveland.Freenet.Edu)
 
> Message-ID: 1b4unhINNr3k@usenet.ins.cwru.edu
 
MB.B> "I am what most of you would probably call a 'Jesus Freak.'"
 
What I have always found most mind-boggling and utterly bizzare
is that theists post in an atheist newsgroup, fully aware of that
fact, and yet stumble blythly on, undaunted---- Folks such as this
Mark person is so utterly ARROGANT, so drunk on HUBRIS that he
assumes he has something to contribute in an atheist conference.
 
Well SHIT! We've hear IT ALL so many time before!
 
MB.B> I have spent some time reading through many of the posts on
MB.B> this newsgroup with much interest. I expected to find much 
MB.B> more discussion on deeper philosophical issues (i.e. why 
MB.B> you believe in no God, etc.). "
 
As Bombastus Paracelcius is said to have said, "Ask the better
question!" The issue is not why atheists do not believe in the
Gods, but why, rather, theists believe in Them. The theists' 
answer, after much prattle, sophistry, rationalzations, and 
whinning, eventually boils down to the fact that they need a
tit to suck, and cannot face life and reality without a tit
comforting them.
 
MB.B> "Instead, this group seems to be mainly a 'club' whose members 
MB.B> waste time and net space by coming up with clever ways to bash 
MB.B> 'crazy Christians' and anyone else who chooses to believe in an 
MB.B> almighty creator."
 
Who, exactly, is twisting your arm to subscribe to and read this
newsgroup? Do the words "Shove off, mate" mean anything to you?
 
[silly occult prattle by Mark deleted]
 
MB.B> "I know I'm inviting flames, and that's okay."
 
Itiots are forgivable. WILFULLY IGNORANT ASSES are not.
 
MB.B> But if you attack me with namecalling rather than by 
MB.B> discussion of the issue, you'll just be proving my point."
 
Oops, too late!
 
MB.B> "Love in Christ,"
 
You mean, like up the ass? Tell Him I'm not interested.

--- Maximus 2.00
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Square Circles
Date: 14 Oct 92 11:21:58 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <IeqXKy200iV0I6xJp2@andrew.cmu.edu> jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jordan M. Wolbrum) writes:

>Why is there so much fuss about proving circles square?  The reason this
>is possible to prove against is that nobody disputes the definitions of
>either, nor the fact that they were created by humans(at least nobody I
>know).

This one REALLY ANNOYS me.  

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PROVING CIRCLES ARE/ARE NOT/CAN BE/ETC SQUARE

It refers to the impossibility of a geometric construction of a square which 
has the SAME AREA {or was it perimeter...} as a given circle.
Remember - there was a time before algebra, when almost everything in math 
was done via geometry.  The point is that it was not known for a very long 
time whether or not the geometric construction was possible or not, so 
geometers spent a lot of time trying to construct a square which had THE 
SAME AREA as a given circle.  NOTHING to do with the definitions of 'square' 
and 'circle' themselves.

I'll be explaining "the exception proves the rule" all over again next....


              Have another day    [Armageddon, the musical] 
  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44|0)61-275-6033
From: spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za (David Spurrett)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 08:57:31 GMT
Organization: University Of Natal (Durban)
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc16.superbowl.und.ac.za

In article <ebolog.10@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:
>From: ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD)
>Subject: Great Proposal !
>Date: 6 Oct 1992 08:23:49 GMT
>
>Atheists are always saying that God does not exist and laugh away any proof 
>Christians use to prove His existence.
>
>So here is my proposal : You prove to us that God does not exist!
>
>And please don't use your usual irrational logic and childish insults!
>
I don't know whether *all* logic falls under your category of `irrational' 
but a small, slightly technical point about logic is worth making.  One 
particular form of logical argument is the `Reductio ad Absurdum', or 
`Reduction to Absurdity.'  The argument works by assuming the opposite of 
what you want to prove, and then deriving some contradictory conclusion.  If 
the logic is valid, and the derived proposition definitely contradictory 
then the problem must have been in the premisses (what you assumed.)  This 
has the effect of disproving what you assmued for the purposes of argument.

I think it fair to say that around two thirds of the material directed at 
attacking thesim has this basic form.  (Meaning that the arguments show 
that a God as usually concieved simply could not exist)  This means that by 
and large the onus is upon the theists to come up with some conception of 
God which is not logically vicious.  In such a case it would be possible to 
ask whether a God of that sort *does* exist, or to consider the respective 
merits of atheistmaterialismdarwinism and theism in even terms.

A QUESTION: Opposing theism is `atheism'.  Is there such a thing as `
adeism', and how is it different?

If anybody wants to get detailed then please mail me, since I don't get to 
see NEWS often.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+ 
| Dave Spurrett                       |                              |
| Department of Philosophy            |   "I have seen the truth,    |
| University of Natal                 |    and it makes no sense."   |
| Email: spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za |                              |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: All You Nasty Atheists
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:58:06 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992

Tag: Scott G Goddard (scott@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Scott G Goddard))
 
SGG> "To all Atheists, reading these comments made by you are
SGG> very upsetting to me."
 
Why, then by all means, we'll stop! We would not want to cause
you to feel any distrubing emotions. After all, it is -OUR-
responsibility to make you feel warm and fuzzy, right? Right!
Shall I fluff your pillow for you? Should we in any way cater
to your hallucinations?
 
SGG> "There shouldn't be a discussion of whether or not God exists,
SGG> it's not about that. It is a fact [sic] that God exists,
SGG> I don't have to prove that because when you [sic] are a
SGG> Christian, like me, you [sic] know I in you're [sic] heart
SGG> (without a doubt)."
 
(That's "your" not "you're.") If you want to believe in Santa
Claus, who are we to gainsay you? However, believing in such
silly nonsense as Gods and Santa Claus will open all up for
redicule. If you need a thumb to suck, try Hagen Dass.
 
SGG> "That's why you are all cordially invited to enjoy the
SGG> blessing of God and his family for eternity! R.S.V.P."
 
I'm busy that evening.
 
[much occult prattle by Scott deleted. We've all heard it.]
 
SGG> "Please believe me, everyone needs Jesus in their life,
SGG> it is incomplete without Him."
 
Perhaps =YOUR= life is / was somehow "incomplete" without your
imaginary playmate. I prefer real people in my life: real
people whom I love, care for, honor, and respect. Your imaginary
pal pales in comparison to real life.
 
SGG> "Please respond. (I hope in a positive way) Love: Scott
SGG> Goddard"
 
Well, let me tell you about ToothFarie's love for you. Everyone
needs ToothFarie in their life, because it is incomplete without
Him. That is why He sent His Son, Tiny Tim, to earth to die for
your sins--- all that He asks in return is for you to love Him in
return. I KNOW IN MY HEART that ToothFarie exists, so that isn't
the question. The question is, why have you not accepted Him yet?

--- Maximus 2.00
From: maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Dangerous Drug (Was: Re: We'll all burn in hell!)
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:50:07 GMT
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY

In article <1bmp9tINNm9k@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cb366@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark B. Bendiksen) writes:

>This is where you begin to lose credibility. Religion is not in and
>of itself dangerous. There are countless believers of many faiths
>in our world who quietly and reverently worship their god of choice
>and do not start wars or torture people. Their faith gives them a
>moral code, and a being to direct their worship to. It sounds to me
>like you are saying no to people having the choice to worship whoever
>or whatever they want. Shouldn't people be able to do that? I'm sure
>you don't want anyone telling you that you must "just say no to
>atheism, a scourge upon humanity". Just because you do not see
>the need to "talk to an invisible person" does not mean that it's not
>helpful for other people

Shouldn't people be allowed to drink?  There are billions of people around
the world that drink alcohol responsibly.  Should they be punished just 
because a few million become alcoholics and beat their wives?

I'm bringing up this argument because it is the RELIGIONS of the world
that have banned alcohol for these reasons.  It seems that if the
argument is valid (which it isn't) and you ban one thing based on the
argument then you should ban religion as well.  Or are you a hypocrite?

-Bill

>Mark B. Bendiksen
>cb366@freenet.cwru.edu
>-- 
>"If we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto,
> We'll just be bogus, too."-- Dr. Jeff Spicolli
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: THE PROOF: The Non-existence of GOD !
Date: 13 Oct 1992 02:40:37 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) sez:
 
|From: rainerd@drunol.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Rainer Dickermann)
|Message-ID: <rainerd.718622637@drunol>
| 
|>Let's take some meanings of the christian GOD to proof it on reality:
|>1. GOD is the all-mighty.
|>2. GOD is the all-loving.
|>3. GOD is the all-knowing.
|>Is is really obvious that these 3 statements can't exist without
|>contradiction if compared with reality.
|>If 'GOD is all-loving' means GOD cares of all of us, this care seems not
|>to be the very best compared to the many people living in despair or
|>suffer from crulest illnesses. And because GOD should be all-knowing,
|>GOD would know everything to help these people, and because GOD should be
|>all-mighty there would be the capacity to make that all undone or not 
|even
|>happen ! But reality proofs the contradiction,...
| 
| 
|This argument appears so often, it should go in a FAQ.
| 
|"Things" happen.  They happen to people who love God and they 
|happen to those who don't love God. 
| 
|For those who love God, there is the promise that "all things 
|happen for good" for them.  If He didn't let things happen to 
|them, they would be deprived of the good which will result. 
 
	But he is all-powerful, he could do good for the person
without making them go through those bad "things". He must be choosing
to have them go through bad things...
 
 
| 
|For those who don't love Him, another part of God's nature 
|becomes evident.
 
	Why does this sound a little like the old "good cop/bad cop"
bit ?
 
 
|  GOD is perfectly just.  For everyone, what is 
|just is punishment.  So even though God might not have sent these 
|*particular* "things," those people are receiving what is just. 
 
	Interesting, if someone does not do what I want, they will
have problems from me...sounds like coercion
 
 
 
| 
|There is a common saying, "What goes around, comes around." (This 
|idiom is usually interpreted to mean, "You get what you give.")  
|So unless one of those who don't love God is perfect in his 
|morals and perfect in the execution of those morals, he is 
|getting what "goes around" when "things" happen to him.  And this 
|is minor compared to what justice demands. 
| 
| 
|The belief system of the Bible is consistent. 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 
	ok....If you do not do what god tells you to do , you will
go to hell....but god loves everyone, including you....
 
 
	I love my sister, but if she does what I say, I will hit her.
 
	That does not sound like love to me.
 
 
	It might be consistent, consistently sick..
 
-- 
"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: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Homophobia
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:10:03 GMT

In article <1b4ec0INNg44@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>
>	The majority of Christians are very hate full towards 
>Lesbians and Gay men (and Bisexuals too).
I'm not at all sure this is true. You have data to support it?
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 22:12:03 GMT

In article <ebolog.13@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:
 
>You cannot possibly tell me that you do not believe in something just 
>because you do not understand it! If you are saying that you would have not 
>believed a computer, TV, satelites, etc. existed.
 
Hmmm ... I didn't get the implication of belief vs. understanding 
from the post or any preceding, but I may have missed something.
I believe in my computer because I am using it.  It works, and does
what it is supposed to.  I don't understand it, at least not the 
minute details of it as an EE would understand it.  The same can be
said of me and my car, TV, refrigerator, etc.  I believe in them
because I can see the evidence of their functioning.

I do not see any evidence of any "God" functioning in the world,
now or in any of the history that I know.  Untold thousands of
"His" believers are suffering in poverty and dieing of terrible 
diseases, as they and the other inhabitants of the Earth have
been doing for some thousands of years.

This is, in my opinion, the most powerful argument _against_
there being a "God" as defined by the Christians.  "He" is not
doing the things that "He" promised to do, and has not ever 
done so.
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What is "God"
Date: 12 Oct 1992 20:16:30 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) says:

>
>	I think one think would be handy for me is to ask the
>theists on the board to define "God". I know I have my own conceptions
>on what I think it is you all are talking about, but I think it would be
>a good exercise for the newgroup. Also I would like to point out some 
>problems the christianity/theism has by using a Socratic method....

	Don't be suprised that you get answers such as: " read the bible,
it is all explained. " or " when you believe him, he won't need to be 
"defined" for you."
-- 
	So there I was, snuggled in the leather seat of my brand new Ferreri.
I had the oiled wood gear shift in one hands, and the leather wrapped Momo in
the other. And, I had the stereo cranking _Born to be Wild_...
	Only one problem, I was unside down, under six feet of water...