HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:30:27 GMT
Organization: Electronic Eng., Univ. Natal, Durban, South Africa
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc56.ee.und.ac.za

In article <BvptEx.IIH@umassd.edu> rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:

>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"

You have never read the Bible have you? You chose to become an atheist 
without ever exploring your other options. Just because you cannot see Him, 
He does not exist!

Now, about EVIL - it says in the Bible that God will eventually do away with 
it, but for now we have our own choice. We can choose to either do EVIL or 
GOOD. 

Cheers.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
Subject: Re: Atheist cable TV show
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:52:08 GMT

First- a BIG thanks to Andrew Esposito for being a local sponsor for the
American Atheist Forum in Greensboro, NC.  It is currently being shown in
over 130 cities, with many more to go.  E-mail me for complete details if
you're interested in having this show on the cable in your own city.
 
In article <98673@bu.edu>
jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>
>In article <esposito.39.719094964@hamlet.uncg.edu> esposito@hamlet.uncg.edu (Andrew Joseph Esposito) writes:
>
>>Well, it's done.  Thursdays at 3:30pm the Atheist Cable TV show out of
>>Austin will be shown on Greensboro Cable.  I sponsored it and I'd like
>>everyone out there in net land to think about doing the same.  There is
>>nothing on TV that directly contradicts the preaching, and sermons that are
>>broadcast throught the week.
>
>Care to let us in on the nature of these ``sermons''? I'm very curious
>how this might be done!
 
The show is a panel-discussion format on various topics ranging from
separation of church and state, current violations and court cases,
discussions of the philosophical aspects of atheism and materialism,
atheist history, current events, and many other subjects.  There is usually
always at least one or more of the O'Hairs, often with guests.  It may not
be as slick as the 700 club, but often it is the *only* show of its kind
on cable access stations which typically show many hours of religious
programming each week.  If your cable company has a public access station,
you may be able to request it to be shown.  If you live in a major
metropolitan area, it may already be on the air.  Check your local listings.
 
Wayne Aiken                                            "You can BE what
PO Box 30904            slack@ncsu.edu                  you WON'T!!"
Raleigh, NC  27622                                       --"Bob"
(919) 782-8171          StarFleet BBS: (919) 782-3095
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What is "occult?"
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:59:47 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Oct12.125501.164757@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:

>This stuff about Satanists NOT worshipping Satan is absolute RUBBISH!
>Of course they worship Satan, and there is PLENTY of proof.  I will not
>elaborate now because there is too much to write here, but it will be
>presented in a later posting.
>

   Do you *ever* back up your claims with evidence?  This is at
   least the third time I've seen the "it's too much to write here"
   argument from you.  Out with the evidence, bucko!  Did it ever
   occur to you that perhaps some of us on this group have talked to
   self proclaimed Satanists who do not worship Satan?  Does the
   name Anton LaVey (sp?) even ring a bell?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"Above all, a god needs compassion"    James T. Kirk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jwest@wisc (Jeff West)
Subject: Re: Jesus vs. Cub Scouts?
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:43:43 CDT

stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:
: A religious belief is a POSITIVE moral value, and a value that children
: should be encouraged to adopt.   The issue in these postings is that
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
          Why?

: a BSA policy.  Trying to equate tolerance toward atheism with tolerance
: towards legitimate religious beliefs and values is like trying to compare
: apples and oranges.  Religion/atheism is a TOTALLY separate issue from
: respecting others RELIGIONS.               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      Again why?

: -- 
: Stan Krieger                 All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even
: UNIX System Laboratories     if related to my employment, are my own.


Jeff West
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What is "occult?"
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:18:20 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Oct6.192023.23591@news.acns.nwu.edu> ikonen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Ian Konen) writes:
>In <n0b4ft@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>
>>Whereas most Christians believe in the occult (God / devils /
>>angels / demons / etc.) Satanists for the most part do not.
>>In fact, most Satanists do not believe in Satan, let alone
>>worship it/him, and consider the belief of such things silly.
>> 
>
>Please do.  This is not the first time I have heard Satanists refered to as
>people who neither worship nor believe in Satan.  What is the difference
>between a Satanist and an atheist?

One can be an atheist, or a Satanist, or both. Most Satanists
regard Satan (and certain other mythological figures) as
metaphors for human and natural qualities that they consider
admirable.

For example, many Satanists admire Milton's Satan for the
statement "non serviam" ("I will not serve"). I believe the
bulk of Satanists are atheists, although one need not be.

One could believe in any number of gods and be a Satanist,
although presumably one would have to be very foolish indeed
to believe the mainstream Christian account of god and also
be a Satanist (since one would be condemning oneself to
eternal torture if one's beliefs turend out to be accurate).

One angle I've seen (though not among Satanists per se) is
to argue that, if Satan is the king of this world, and if
he is the Great Deceiver, then the version of events depicted
in the Bible must be a lie (since the Bible exists in this
world, where Satan is king), and therefore the god in the
Bible is really Satan, and the being it refers to as Satan
is really God. I don't personally know anyone who takes
this argument seriously, however.



Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Atheism? Really Harold, how gauche...
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 03:18:49 GMT

In article <1q6-k7A@engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.205329.3857@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>
>>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.
>
> Hmmm... suppose we grant that. Are there situations where resolving what
>is in fact true is impossible? (I'm thinking of, for example, the various
>interpretations of quantum theory (Many-Worlds, Copenhagen, etc.) which
>all predict the same observations, due to very different causes. Which
>cause is the 'true' one?

I gotta admit.  You've got me on the ropes when you start talking
quantum mechanics.  I think it's all a commie plot to destroy our
minds. :-)
--
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_
From: mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: To All Truth Seekers!
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:21:07 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) says:
>> 
>>	Creationism saying the earth is only thousands of years old is
>>a little presumptuous.
>
>	The thing that I don't understand, that if they want to say that
>the Earth is only a few thousand years old- that half loads of plutonium
>and dinosaur bones were placed to fool the "unbelievers" - then what is
>to stop someone from claiming the world is only a hundred years old, with
>equal validity? Or, even 2 seconds ago...

Nothing. The world as we know it could have been created 1 second ago,
and all of our experiences, memory, etc. are simply fabrications.
Didn't you see _Blade Runner_?

-- 
Michael Wang
mmwang@mv.us.adobe.com
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God is responsible for the death of Jesus
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:02:28 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Oct06.022734.3153@pdnfido.fidonet.org> joeb@pdnfido.fidonet.org (Joe Beiter) writes:
>In article <1992Oct05.030032.5778@convex.com> tonyp@convex.com (honey bunny) writes:
>>STATEMENT:
>>
>>o God killed Jesus.
>
>Well God's problem was the reason why Jesus had to be killed.  Jesus had
>to take the rap of 'our' screwups so 'we' would not have a problem with
>God any longer.

I have a problem with the phrase 'had to' in the above rationalization.
It implies that God answers to some higher power or law; otherwise he
could have simply eliminated our 'problem' without Jesus having to die.
The idea, however, of God answering to a higher power is inconsistent
with the Christian concept of God as I understand it (except, perhaps,
with the Mormon concept of God).

So here is my objection rephrased as a question: if God wanted to
eliminate a problem between him and humanity, why did Jesus have
to die for it? What prevented God from eliminating the problem
without the murder of Jesus?

>>  Suppose you have a child, or a "lamb", and you put it out in
>>  your fields - where you *know* the wolves will kill it. Who is
>>  responsible for its death: the wolves, or you?
>>
>
>What if that was the only way you could save the rest of the herd and 
>you knew that you could raise the lamb from the dead anyway?

I don't buy this reasoning at all. God is supposed to be the creator
of the rules. This business about it being 'the only way' would be
a lot more convincing if we weren't talking about the being who
is supposed to have made up the rules in the first place.
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: To All Truth Seekers!
Date: 10 Oct 92 13:46:52 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu wrote:
: In article <1992Oct9.163435.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
: > In article <1992Oct9.150735.23962@cs.tulane.edu>, goff@intruder.navo.navy.mil (Victoria Goff) writes:
: > 
: > Oh, no, not the Intruder again...
: 
:    Isn't this the same person who showed up last year, and
: there was a big argument over whether it was actually her
: posting or someone breaking into her account?
: 
: Karl

Yes: this is the second coming.

Vicky posted an apology for the misuse of her account, but followups
and other investigations suggest that Vicky really is a lunatic, and
that if there was a break in via her account, it was by somebody
posting a parody of Vicky, which is pretty much indistinguishable
from the real thing.

Felicitations -- Chris
From: rharnwel@axion.bt.co.uk (Richard Harwell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: FAQ please !
Date: 9 Oct 92 12:35:40 GMT
Reply-To: rharnwel@axion.bt.co.uk (Richard Harwell)
Organization: British Telecom Research Labs


I am new to this group, and I am fascinated by the ref.s to Pascal's
Wager, but as I haven't seen the FAQ yet this meen nothing to me.
Can someone email it to me please.

Cheers 

Richard
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie (Bryan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: O'Connor in Saturday Night Live
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:22:42 GMT

tony@mantis.co.uk (Tony Lezard) writes:

>> Would anyone comment on "Shaned O'Connor"'s actions
>> on the program "Saturday Night Live" this past SAT.

>Not everyone in the world can watch SNL when it is broadcast.
>What did she do?

The "flamboyant" (substitute any pejorative term you don't particularly
care for) Ms O'Connor saw fit to rant on about evil in the world
and then tear up a picture of the pope.  I find it mildly amusing
that the woman indulges in these childish antics every time a new
album comes out.  If her next album is worse than "Am I not your
turd?" she'll have to sacrifice Pat Robertson live on stage (with
simultaneous translation of her accompanying self-righteous rant
into several major languages) to get any press attention.

	-- Bryan

--
Bryan O'Sullivan                                                 +353-1-767551
Advanced Development Group                               bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie
Department of Computer Science            "No matter how cynical you are, it's
University of Dublin                       hard to keep up." -- Woody Allen
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Satan's Work
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:37:10 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992

Tag: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu (Semhaza)
And: jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus)
 
[stuff]
 
S> "There is an alt.satanism, with a representative sample of 
S> resident Satanists. Anyone can check it out and discover for 
S> themselves that *you* are *wrong*. If the promised article 
S> on Satanism (from the rational side) isn't forthcoming
S> in the near future and if there is still any interest, 
S> I can post a little about the topic. Yours in Azazel,
S> --Semhaza"
 
I am working on it, honest. I want to do a good job. One problem
that I wish to avoid is to incorrectly state what Satanists 
believe. I have seen many Christians, for example, tell everyone
what other religions believe, while lying through their teeth. It
is always better to have a member of a given religion say what 
their religious beliefs are--- I am not a Satanist, so I am just 
compiling theology samples from Satanists.
 
One "problem" with me doing such a compilation is that some
Satanists who have written books write in "code," or metaphorically.
The Beast, uncle Crowley, liked to talk about "Infant Canabalism,"
but the "in" joke is that he was talking about -oral sex-. Is it
any wonder folks are confused? (BIG SMILE!)

--- Maximus 2.00
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Thanks Atheists
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:19:54 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

cb366@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark B. Bendiksen) writes:


>It seems
>to me that some atheists posting to this group became
>non-believers as a result of experiences earlier in life
>which disillusioned them.

Surely this is true in some cases, but I don't think that this is generally
applicable.

keith
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop)
Subject: Re: The Lord Cometh!
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 18:19:56 EDT

 
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
 
>In a previous article, darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) says:
 
>>From: x@beyond.one's.understanding (The Messiah)
>>Message-ID: <x.35.718245257@beyond.one's.understanding>
 
>>You assert that you have been in contact with "someone."
>>The burden of proof is on you to prove what you say is true.
 
>        I think you have missed the point. This was obviously a 
>joke. Look at this person's "address". Come on, doesn't it reek 
>of humor?
 
I'm sorry I was not sufficiently clear in what I was doing.  I
*did* understand the joke nature of the article.  I enclose part
of my article as evidence that I saw the address: (did you read
that far?)
 
# >@beyond.one's.understanding 
# This is not beyond *my* understanding.
 
Using this joke (the point of which was to "make fun of fundies" 
and some of their positions (some of which need a little airing)) 
as the basis of a running joke, I was "making fun" of atheists and
some of their positions.  (That's fair, isn't it?)
 
Specifically, I was there making fun of those who insult using 
twisted names, those who taunt mercy, and those who question the 
theist's self worth.
 
Maybe I should use more :) 's.  Somehow that spoils the effect.
 
DARIST
 
P.S.
At least, my method is not in the FAQ.

 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: To All Truth Seekers!
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 22:37:01 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Oct11.210257.3190@src4src.linet.org> joeb@src4src.linet.org (Joe Beiter) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.152208.13379@news.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct9.150735.23962@cs.tulane.edu> goff@pops.navo.navy.mil writes:
>>>JESUS WAS A MYTH-
>>>   Question: The bible, as a history book, is astonishingly correct when
>>>	     used to understand archeological remains and ancient writings.
>>Twaddle. The Bible is astonishingly bad. It gets all sorts of things
>>wrong. E.g. The creation narrative. The flood. There is much doubt
>>about the historicity of the Exodus narrative, and Joshua claims to
>>have conquered cities that didn't exist at the time.
>
>For one, your accusation that the creation narrative is wrong is based on
>a theory.  Isn't that just a leetle presumptuous?
 
 Okay, I know, I know, gobs of people will post about the above. Forgive
me, I have to respond.
 If you are truly interested in this, I suggest you go to talk.origins and
request the FAQ files. If your site doesn't get talk.origins, email me
and I will send you enough to get started. Then, *read* what you get and
think about it. *Then* you will be in a much better position to discuss
this issue, and who knows, you might learn something.

[I don't know about the Joshua and Amorites stuff, so I won't comment.]

>What about the flood?  Are you saying there was no flood?  How do you account
>for all the different claims from various cultures about it?

 Well, as has been pointed out, most cultures started by rivers, and most
rivers flood periodically. Besides, there is no supporting evidence for
a world flood in geology, and a lot of evidence against it. (Again, the
FAQs I mentioned cover this, so ask for them.)

>- JoeB  

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (Wild Child)
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:34:07 +0930
Organization: University of South Australia

In article <92450@netnews.upenn.edu>, stuart@stipple.seas.upenn.edu (Joseph Stuart ) writes:
> 
> Since coming to disbieve the existence of god a few months ago, I have
> come pretty far in defining my own personal philosophy.  However, one point
> still bugs me that I can't quite get around: morality.  I feel that there
> are certain things which are immoral.  While I don't expect everyone to
> have the same moral code as me, I still feel a bit disturbed when others
> do things that I consider wrong.  Have any other atheists grappled with
> the question of where morality comes from, and produced any cogent
> thoughts?  If so, I would love to hear them.
> 
> scott

Start with one word: empathy.

From this we get our version of the golden rule.
(individuals have the right to do anything xcept deprive others of this right.
Corrollary: the group exists to protect the rights of the individuals
who are in it - ie I don't believe in the involuntary sacraficing an individual
for the good of the group. Choosing to do so is OK).

Anything else is specifics derived from it or religous garbage (eg public
nudity).

I have sent you a larger email version. Hope these help. (applies to
me only. Others may have similar ideas).

An atheist AND a capitalist.
-- 
John J McVey, Whyalla, Uni S. Australia    9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Electronic Engineering student & Terror Tekkie!
	+-----------------------------------------------------+
     ---|  Obligatory disclaimer: UniSA hates my opinions...  |---
	+-----------------------------------------------------+
From: stafford@msus1.msus.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: FAQ?
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:08:15 -0600
Organization: Minnesota State University System


	Where may I find the FAQ for this group?  I'd not
	want to begin with foolish questions.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 09:56:41 GMT

In article <92484@netnews.upenn.edu> stuart@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Joseph Stuart ) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.213730.14549@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>Rather than being a slave to this conditioning, much of which is destructive
>>and geared to producing mindless warriors, I think it's important to learn
>>as much as you can about human nature, and from that develop a view of how
>>you think a healthy society (this one isn't by a long shot) ought to function
>>in order that each member of society can leave a peaceful and happy life.
>>With this view of society in mind, you can then go on to develop a rational
>>code of ethics.
>
>I agree with much of what you say about indoctrination, but perhaps you
>haven't even gone far enough. This parpagraph assumes that you 
>feel you have an obligation to each member of society, and that 
>you (and everyone else) should structure his moral conduct for the 
>greatest good.

I can see how that phrase "each member of society" might have given
you that impression, but it isn't the impression I intended.  I don't
think that each person should strive for the greatest good, but rather
that they should base their actions on enlightened self interest.  But
I think it is in my best interest that others are peaceful and happy.
It's hard for me to be peaceful and happy when my neighbours are violent,
crazed lunatics.

>How do you know that this is not just another case of indoctrination.

I don't.  All I can do is to try to keep an open mind and keep gathering
and critically evaluating information.

>Is there any fundamental reason that we should all
>be concerned about each other, or should it be every human for itself? 

I think that we could all enjoy a better quality of life if we were to
cooperate with one another, rather than competing with and exploiting
each other.  I haven't yet figured out how that would be best implemented
in practice though.

>I suppose that you could argue that we should be evolutionarily pre-disposed
>toward helping one another since we have similar genes.  But, that doesn't
>make it very palatable.

What's not palatable?  Helping one another?

>I'm not really disagreeing with your post, just trying to serve up some
>food for thought.

It certainly tastes better than the regular fare. :-)
--
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