HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Date: 4 Oct 92 19:12:04 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1992Oct03.183755.12930@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
>Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
>Date: 3 Oct 92 18:37:55 GMT

>In article <exukjb.276.718129015@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct01.190233.5751@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>>In article <exukjb.273.717952506@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>>>>And Doug, exactly what do you see in science which tends to show that "man
>>>>is insignificant"? Fruedianism? Evolutionism?  Behaviorism? --- what? 
>>
>>>Evolution, and the grand scale, both in time and space, of the universe.
>>
>>So Doug, are elephants more "significant" than humans because they're
>>bigger!  

>No.  Elephants are more significant that people because the Great
>Elephant In The Sky created the universe for the sole benefit of
>elephants.  People were only created to feed the elephants peanuts.
>Unfortunately, in the process of growing and roasting the peanuts,
>people are making rather a mess of things, and I hear tell that the
>Great Elephant In The Sky is planning remedial action soon.  However,
>elephant theologians are having a great deal of trouble agreeing on
>what form that action will take, and exactly when it will take place.
>--
>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_

I don't think your talent for witty reparte is going to help you out of 
this one, Doug.  It was a straightforward counter-example to your enthymemic 
argument--which I here expand--that mere physical magnitude was an essential 
ingredient in grading the "significance" or value of something.  That would 
indeed be a strange value system to adopt, which is precisely what my
Elephant Argument shows. It is formally identical to your argument that the 
since the galaxies' dwarf man physically they therefore dwarf man in value 
or significance.  

But I'll give you the last word on this one.
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18057 talk.origins:12070
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
Subject: Re: School discipline (was Re: worthless comic strips)
Date: 27 Sep 92 10:34:59 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>   Yoga does have some benefits, but many of the claimed benefits are just
> rationalizations of religious beliefs.  Sounds an awful lot like creationism.

Hardly.  What benefits does Creationism offer?


mathew
-- 
De-evolution!  Self execution!  No solution!  I'm a potato, and I'm sooooo hip!
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A few points to raise . . .
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:22:57 GMT
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center

>
>There is ambiguity in the conversation because 'God exists' can
>mean any of several things. There is a sense in which I think it
>likely that God does not exist; there is another sense in which
>I think it unquestionable that God does exist. Essentially, it
>is my opinion about what sort of thing God is that makes me an
>atheist.
>
>If I thought that God were a sentient being with 'independent'
>existence who was responsible for the creation of all that
>exists, then I suppose you would have to say that I am not
>an atheist. However, I don't think that's true. 

This sounds atheistic to me.

Rather, my
>working hypothesis is that God is a projection of human
>intentionality on perceived order in the universe, and a
>rack on which to hang people's hopes and ideals; in other
>words, a construct, both psychological and cultural. There is
>little question in my mind that this projective construct
>exists; indeed, it seems clear that there is more than one.
>They also clearly seem to have nontrivial effects on the
>society in which we live. One might even propose that, acting
>in the human consciousness that forms their substrate, these
>metaphorical beings exhibit intentionality of a kind.
>

This is true, but IMO sounds like apologetic rationalizing in an attempt
to not offend the "true believers". By harboring these two definitions,
and not pointing out which you are referring to at any given time, you 
can avoid conflict with atheist and fundamentalist alike. To the vast 
majority of "believers" god is described in your first definition. Non-
believers are more likely to subscribe to the second. 

>So what do you think? Am I atheist or not? (I don't really
>mind if you classify me differently from the way others
>have classified me, nor if you classify me differently from
>my own presumptive working classification).
>

IMO you are definitely atheist. Also, IMO, you do yourself an injustice
by the use and (implied) acceptance of the second definition. A mythical
figurehead is hardly necessary to the having of hopes and ideals. Why 
allow that which is (hopes, ideals, etc) to be usurped by that which 
isn't (mythical, anthropomorphic deity)?  

>It seems to me that the phrase 'God does not exist' is
>idiomatic for a class of claims about what sort of existence
>God is supposed to have. I very much doubt that many people,
>if any, assert that there is actually no phenomenon, psychological,
>cultural, social, or metaphorical, to which the label 'God'
>can be legitimately applied.
>

The last phrase, legitimately applied, is where I disagree. Your second 
definition is not what is meant by the majority of religionists when they
refer to god. Words with more than one meaning are not conducive to clear
communication. The word god has been around, and understood, for long enough
that for you to chose to define it differently is a copout. Find another 
word for definition 2.

Jeff Achenbach
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A few points to raise . . .
Date: 3 Oct 92 16:43:48 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <MAGUIRE.92Sep28172138@signal.clarkson.edu> maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire) writes:
>From: maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire)
>Subject: Re: A few points to raise . . .
>Date: 28 Sep 92 22:21:38 GMT

>In article <1992Sep28.174845.2076@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>>  "Scott F. Earnest" <se24+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>>    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).

>I thought the colleen is god thread was trying to show the theists
>that their proof of gods existence amounts to nothing.  We cannot
>prove their god doesn't exist, but they can't prove that colleen isn't
>god either.  We can show, however, that their god isn't necessary for
>the world to be the way it is. 

>Which argument is stronger?

>-Bill


>First the tooth fairy, then the easter bunny, then Santa, finally ___.
>Fill in the blank.
>Why do so many people not make that last step?

So both atheism and theism leave the world just the way it is.  They are 
both prima facia explanatorily empty.  But, what the god colleen has made 
us able to see much more clearly than we otherwise would have is that what 
tips the epistemic scales in atheism's favor is its clear theoretical 
advantage of simplicity? 

Colleen is Occam's Razor with a vengeance!
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
From: waynebro@romeo.caltech.edu (Broughton, Wayne Jeremy)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Anti-Creationist Books (was Re: Correcting Creationists)
Date: 28 Sep 92 03:18:00 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology
NNTP-Posting-Host: romeo.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <DGRAY.92Sep21111303@menudo.uh.edu>, DGray@uh.edu writes...
>In article <1992Sep19.183624.2641@wam.umd.edu> jfloyd@wam.umd.edu (Jason Edward Floyd) writes:
> 
>>I don't know if anyone has mentioned this or not, but in last Sunday's
>>Washington Post there was a reveiw for a book called the Creationists.
>>It is a look at creationism by a former creationist who then went to college.
>>I haven't read it. I just thought I'd mention it as a possibly interesting
>>book to read.
> 
>Just thought I would drop a line to the newsgroup, since I have been
>pretty busy latley...  Anyway, I have read this book and it is pretty
>nice.  However, a much better book on the subject is _Abusing_Science_
>by Philip Kitcher.  "A brilliant book by a gifted scholar." -- Stephen
>J gould.  It really is a good book, but is written on a higher level
>than most people would care to read casually.  Copyright 1982 from MIT
>Press...
> 
>Enjoy,
>-dennis

I too have read "Abusing Science" and it is the best anti-Creationism
book I have seen that is easily accessible to non-biologists.  I have
no formal background in biology and found the chapter explaining evolution
did wonders to clear up a lot of the misinformation I had been fed by 
Creationist literature;  that chapter alone demolished half of the
Creationist arguments.  The book presents its case clearly and carefully,
exposing the paucity of Creationist arguments and emphasizing the 
deception in their methods.  It does not consider very many of their
objections in detail, however.

Could someone please email me (or post) the bibliographical information
on the other book, "The Creationists", mentioned above?  It sounds
interesting!!

Thanks.
**********************************************************************

Wayne J. Broughton                 Take the road less travelled by.  
waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu    
Department of Mathematics,
Caltech, Pasadena, CA  91125

Caltech has no idea what my opinions are;  
they think I'm working right now...
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: C599143@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Matthew Q Keeler de la Mancha)
Subject: Re: A few points to raise . . .
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 23:26:41 CDT

In article <welcOx600WB7EOwUVE@andrew.cmu.edu>
"Scott F. Earnest" <se24+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>    First, it is not really right to come out and say that God does not
>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;
 
Sounds like an intuitive modification of Spinoza's system as presented in
his Ethics.
 
I happen to be wavering between agnostic and Spinozian deist at the moment,
but that is not terribly relevent... as I have a few thoughts for the
atheist.  First, to be an atheist is to deny the existence of a god.
It is very challenging to prove something is not.  However, I suspect that
is addressed in the FAQ which I have yet to locate.  My real concern is
this:  1) Someone uses a system of logic/proof (a beleif system itself) to
make decisions or validate actions.  2) Some concerns are not provable
by logic, that is, humans lack the means to know everything.  3) If some
person is needs a basis for a decision about something, then what means
does this person have for making the decision if they cannot use a faith
step in the process?  I would be interested in finding out what arguments
there are against William James' "Will to Beleive" which makes this
much clearer.
 
Q.
>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?! :)
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Buddhist Atheists
Date: 27 Sep 92 10:08:43 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
> In my opinion, much of the trappings of Buddhism, particularly
> the stories of miracles, ideas about an afterlife, and so
> on, are entirely dispensable, and attractive only as
> decorative stories, or in some cases as metaphorical
> presentations of ethical or philosophical thought experiments.
> (No doubt some Buddhists would disagree).

It's also worth pointing out that although the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are
often "worshipped" in rituals rather like prayer, the meaning behind the
action is generally very different to the Christian idea of prayer.  Early
Western books about Buddhism tended to be misleading because the authors had
mistaken the "prayer" ritual for some sort of request for mercy/assistance
from some supernatural God.

As far as I can tell the "Gods" of Buddhism are not Gods in the Christian
sense; rather, they are more often used as ideals or role-models.  Prayer is
used for its effect on the humans concerned, rather than as a means of
invoking some non-human force.

All of this is pretty irrelevant to atheism, except to say: Don't be
surprised if you investigate "atheistic" Buddhism and see what looks like
people praying to a God.

> One idea that is commonly understood as some mysterious
> cosmic force is karma, but I think this is a misunderstanding.
> The word karma, as I understand it, is a present participle form
> of the Sanskrit (or perhaps Pali) verb 'to do or make'. Thus,
> karma would mean 'doing' or 'making'. The idea is that
> karma is the natural course of one's actions; that is, it is
> the actions themselves and their natural consequences.
> The karma, for example, of a habitual murderer, is to
> live in fear of discovery or retribution.

I think Mikel's description here is pretty much the mainstream view.  The
idea of karma as some mysterious force acting as a cosmic judge and jury is
more to do with New Age religions, I think.  Karma in Buddhism is just the way
things are; natural cause and effect.  There's no consciousness behind it.


mathew
-- 
De-evolution!  Self execution!  No solution!  I'm a potato, and I'm sooooo hip!
Newsgroups: alt.religion.messianic,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke)
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Organization: TRIUMF, Vancouver BC
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:14:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.200011.19280@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, jack@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (John Stump) writes:
|> >The moths are an example of natural selection, NOT of evolution. 
|> 
|> Uh, buddy, what do you think evolution is? Evolution IS the process of
|> natural selection. Reread your school notes.

Uh, before we all get into a definition war, here, I believe that two 
meanings of "evolution" are being tossed around.

1)  evolution:  the change in allele frequencies over time

according to this definition, natual selection is a form of evolution.

2)  evolution:  the re-adaptation of a species to a changing environment;
                the result of natural selection acting in concert with
                changing selection pressures.

this more restrictive definition is useful when discussing the 
processes that give rise to speciation.

It seems like the moths in question fit both definitions, so I would 
agree that they evolved.

-- Morgan Burke (morgan@reg.triumf.ca)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: esposito@hamlet.uncg.edu (Andrew Joseph Esposito)
Subject: Re: A few points to raise . . .
Organization: not affliated with any
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:50:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.223835.21095@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:

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

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

>No, you're not.

Well, he may be.  It all depends on how you define existance.  If I think 
that a place exists which has no polution, poverty, or despair, it can be 
argued that because I think it, it is -- not unlike the existance of this 
message in your mind (after it has been deleted from cyberspace).

God is real for many people on the planet.  It is not real for me, and many 
others on this list, but that does not mean that "God does not exist."

I think what most people lack, in general, is tolerance.  Tolerate others: 
their lifestyles, ideas, feelings, and shortcommings; this world will be a 
better place for it.

Note: I don't have my spell checker handy, and I am a dyslexic.  Please 
forgive any mispellings -- as I cannot check them without the aid of 
software (and this interface I'm using to connect doesn't have a 
spellchecker).
--
Andrew Joseph Esposito                    internet:  esposito@hamlet.uncg.edu
voice (919) 379-8244                      bitnet:    in%"esposito@uncg.bitnet"

--
Disclaimer:  The opinions herein are not necessarily the opinions of any
organization or group of which the author is affiliated.  The preceding 
opinions may not even be the author's.  No guarantees are given and no 
warranties will be honored.
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Date: 2 Oct 92 02:34:42 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu

bluelobster+@CMU.EDU (David O Hunt) writes:

>I have a couple of friends who claim to be "witches".  I've asked them what
>I could do to _deliberately_ invite posession and takeover of myself, and
>have done so.  If demons were real (and as opportunistic as you claim) why
>am I not foaming at the mouth?

Assumptions:  you are an atheist; 
              there is a spiritual realm where spiritual entities exist;
              Christianity is the religion of choice.
 
If I were a demon and I know you are an atheist, I would not possess you 
for the following reason:  Your lack of belief in God, Jesus, heaven
and hell, your sin and your need of salvation will eventually end in 
your eternal damnation anyway.  Why waste my time possessing your body, 
and therefore give you evidence of a realm you do not believe in anyway?  
In fact, it would be dangerous for me to do so, since you may end up 
looking to Jesus Christ for deliverance.  This would not only result in 
my forceful and rude ejection from your body, but also may lead to other 
people converting to Christianity.  Your ignorance will damn you better 
than I ever could.


-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Subject: Read the FAQ (was Re: Great Proposal !)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 16:08:54 GMT

In article <ebolog.10@elaine.ee.und.ac.za>, ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:
|> mail it directly to us at (TJOHN@ELAINE.EE.UND.AC.ZA).

Just when you thought it was safe, TJOHN is back.  I wish I still had
some of the stuff he posted in the past, since it is clear that either
he has never read the FAQ (I think I sent him a copy) or that he
still doesn't understand.

Ignore him, and maybe we can avoid some preachy posts and other
useless threads.  Stuff that has been hashed through hundreds of 
times like this "Great Proposal."

-- 
Dan Yergeau                         He's dead Jim.  Take his phaser
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU        and I'll get his wallet.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18236 sci.skeptic:17205 talk.origins:12296
From: stuart@stipple.seas.upenn.edu (Joseph Stuart )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:41:54 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Sep29.200011.19280@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> jack@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (John Stump) writes:
>Uh, buddy, what do you think evolution is? Evolution IS the process of
>natural selection. Reread your school notes.
>
>Jack Stump


BZZZT! Wrong.  Evolution is the gradual change in the characteristics of a
population.  Natural selection is the process by which evolution tends to
"improve" on past designs.  The theory of evolution was around long before
Darwin figured out that natural selection is the driving force.

scott

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If anybody wants a sheep, that is a proof that he exists.
	- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.religion.messianic,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 10:34:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.135804.7127@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>> Actually, we can *OBSERVE* evolution in action; it doesn't always take
>> millions of years.  A few examples:
>
> Your statement is true, but your example iswrong.
>
>> - one species of moth evolved two different forms in different parts of
>> England after the industrial revolution; a light coloured form in the
>> South, and a darker form in the North.  This made it better able to
>> camoflage itself against the bark of trees (industrial North -> more
>> soot -> darker tree bark).
>
> 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. 

Hmmm, methinks you're both right. If you define "evolution" as "change
in the gene pool" [of a population] then both the origin of new genetic
variants *and* a change in the frequencies of existing variants count
as evolution. Onar is right that the latter is mediated by natural
selection in this case and that the darker variant was around for some
time previously; nevertheless, the change in frequencies does count as
evolution.

>Onar.

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.