HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: What if there were a god after all? (Was: A question)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 10:51:12 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

Before I start, a quick flame-ette. Why can't people come up with
meaningful Subject: lines? "A question" doesn't really tell you much
does it? Not to mention the fact that there's already an "A question"
thread running. Anyway,

frisinv@alleg.edu writes:

> [Implores us not to take this as a preaching post. Ok.]
> 
> 	You die. Oops, you were wrong and there is a god (or more that one  
> god or some goddesses or a giant carrot with divine powers...). You were a  
> nice guy during your life so this being asks you to join it in heaven. Now  
> a day heaven consists mostly of information exchange, practicing various  
> artforms and sciences, and lotsa philosophizing on whatever the topic of  
> intrest is that day. If your lucky, you might get build a new universe or  
> two. Would you accept the invitation even though you spent your life in  
> the firm belief that such a place exists (the alterative is to cease to  
> exist. Not out of spite, there just isn't an alterative existance)? This  
> may sound like a stupid question, but I've gotten very diverse answers  
> among my atheist friends.

I think it's a valid question. After all, as we all know from reading
this group, there's no *proof* either way.

I'd take up the offer. If the "me" that was being asked the question
was anything like myself now, then my instinct for self-preservation
would be intact and it would be suicidal not to accept. There's more
to it than that though...

I don't know if this is a common position among atheists, but the
stark fact of oblivion if there is no god is a bitter pill indeed,
and it would be nice if there were a god, and the holiday resort in
the sky really did exist. I can see how easy it is to be religious
simply through fear of death. (There's another discussion about
related matters happening at the moment here.) But the available
evidence compels me to reject the hypothesis, comforting though it
is, but I simply cannot believe in something through sheer wishful
thinking.

In short, I'd like to be proved wrong, but I can't see it happening.

> [Another plea not to take the post as preachware. I believe you!]

--
Tony Lezard
 Acting moderator, alt.atheism.moderated (submissions to atheism@mantis.co.uk).
  tony@mantis.co.uk / tony%mantis.co.uk@uknet.ac.uk / arl10@phx.cam.ac.uk


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth)
Subject: Re: How woould a Judeo-Christian God convince us he really was it!
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 19:01:15 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Keywords: christian convince proof God atheists

In article <1992Aug25.025403.23229@ctr.columbia.edu> locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (SCOTT C LOCKLIN) writes:
>In article <21AUG199209493837@chemvx.tamu.edu> lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine) writes:
>>If you mean 'proof' in the mathematical or logical sense, he couldn't. No
>>matter what he did to show his omni-<take-your-pick>, he could just be
>>a super powerful alien (like Q in ST:TNG). There would possibly be a point
>
>Hmmm, whats the diff? Afterlife? Couldn't Q do somethiing like this?
>

Exactly.  Arthur C. Clarke has written numerous times in his books that
any technology sufficiently advanced will be indistinguishable from magic
by primitive people.  I'd imagine that if we took some of our modern devices
(with the batteries, gas, etc.) back to the ancient Greek times, we would
be labeled as gods.

So who's to say that this god-thing (or things) isn't really a super advanced
being that has managed to harness more of the fundamental forces of nature
than just the electro-magnetic forces?  Have these Q-like beings decided to
interfere with us or do they have the prime directive?

I am more inclined to believe in advanced technologies than I am in a
spiritual/magical world.  We have glimpsed reliably many technological
phenomena that can be predicted.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: In the Infinite Universe
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 00:01:37 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <exukjb.108.715039120@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.080155.27593@sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>>   On the contrary, actual infinites do exist. In fact there are
>>infinitely many atoms in the universe. Or perhaps you have an
>>a priori argument to show that there are not?

>Here's an apriori argument for the impossibility of infinite magnitudes. 
>If an infinite magnitude were possible, then it must be possible for 
>there to be a greatest number.  But there can't be a greatest number.  
>Hence, there can't be an infinite magnitude. 

I fail to see how you go from the existence of an infinite magnitude
to claiming that there is a "greatest number."

The mathematics of the infinite is not the same as that of finite (for
lack of a better way of expressing it).

As a possible analogy, I point to relativity.  The speed of light is a
limit for speed.  If you are moving at .9 c and you throw a rock ahead
of you at .9 c, that rock isn't moving at 1.8 c.

If you have an infinite magnitude and you add a finite number to it,
you don't have a "bigger" magnitude...you have the same magnitude.

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
From: yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (4 of 4)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 20:48:37 GMT

In article <37445@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke) writes:
|> The final exhibit in the creationism vs. evolution hallway is
|> pictures of two trees (a Creationist Tree and an Evolutionary
|> Tree).  The Creationist tree has "long roots" and "good fruits."
|> The Evolutionary tree has "short roots" and "evil fruits."
|>  
|> Branches of the Creationist Tree
|> --------------------------------
|> Correct Practice:
|>   True Science
|>   True History
|>   True Government
|>   True Americanism
|>   True Family Life
|>   True Education

Americanism?  I didn't know that God was so political.

|> Branches of the Evolutionary Tree
|> ---------------------------------
|> Evil Practices:
|>   Abortion
|>   Promiscuity
|>   Pornography
|>   Genocide
|>   Euthanasia
|>   Infanticide
|>   Chauvinism
|>   Bestiality
|>   Homosexuality
|>   Drug Culture
|>   Child Abuse
|>   Slavery

Hmmmm, are they asserting that the practices listed above
did not occur before Darwin?  Then, they are going to have 
to rewrite the Bible.  Maybe that is part of their "True 
History."

A *few* representative samples of the "evil practices" listed
above...

|>   Promiscuity

GEN 22:19-24
SA2 3:7-8

|>   Genocide

JER 13:14
SA1 15:3

|>   Infanticide

EXO 11:5,12:12
SA1 15:3

|>   Chauvinism

TI1 2:9-15

|>   Bestiality

LEV 18:23

|>   Child Abuse

GEN 22:2-10

|>   Slavery

GEN 17:23

As for the one's I missed,

Abortion and pornography are too modern for Bible documentation, 
although nude dancing could probably be included in pornography, and
it is certainly in the Bible somewhere.

Euthanasia is certainly not a new concept.  I just couldn't quickly
find a reference.

Drug Culture?  Depends on the meaning.  Alcoholism has been
around since yeast got together with sugar.  Other cultures
drank/smoked/ate mind altering substances long before 
Darwin's time.

Any ICRer's out there want to try to explain why/how these
practices are to be blamed on evolutionists.  They seem to be
well documented (and, at times, even encouraged) in the Bible.


-- 
Dan Yergeau                         He's dead Jim.  Take his phaser
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU        and I'll get his wallet.
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: This explains a bit about .moderated
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:44:53 GMT
Organization: University of South Australia

I just copied this for the .mod questioner, and renamed it for her.

In article <PeF1PB3w165w@mantis.co.uk>, tony@mantis.co.uk (Tony Lezard) writes:
> perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry) writes:
> 
>> I have to say that from my perspective parts of the net in the
>> vicinity of alt.atheism are broken: some peoples' posts I never see at
>> all (Dave Davis), some I only see followups to (mathew).  I have yet
>> to see any sign of alt.atheism.moderated (perhaps related to the
>> relative invisibility of mathew).
> 
> Well we get alt.atheism.moderated here :-)
> 
> I'm sorry you don't. It might be due to the group not being created
> at your site or you might really not be connected to all of the net.
> 
> Can you (and indeed anyone else failing to get a.a.m) see this?
> 
> --
> Tony Lezard
>  Acting moderator, alt.atheism.moderated (submissions to atheism@mantis.co.uk).
>   tony@mantis.co.uk / tony%mantis.co.uk@uknet.ac.uk / arl10@phx.cam.ac.uk
-- 
John McVey, Whyalla campus, Uni S.Australia
Enic Eng Student & Terror Tekkie G1 (at 19!)
9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au, or try
9051467f@wh.whyalla.unisa.edu.au

Those who believe in an afterlife will not be disappointed.
				--me.
'An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.'
   				--Don Marquis
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Free will -answer to your questions jarek.
Date: 30 Aug 92 04:24:03 GMT
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney

Graham:
>>>This sounds to me like reverse engineering a specification for God.
>>>ie: well we have to solve logical problems X, Y, and Z with respect
>>>to God, so we better have a God with attributes A, B, and C ...
(Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>>Interesting. You sound as if have never noticed that this is the usual
>>approach in scientific investigation. I thought you were a scientist...
>>Or maybe it was just a remark, not a criticism? 
>>You see, objects are given attributes to describe their behavior (which
>>shows up in objective experiments or subjective introspection), not the
>>other way round. If the experiment does not confirm your choice of the
>>attributes, you change the attributes, not reject the experiment. 
(Ken Arromdee) writes:
>Changing the attributes, in this case, means changing "God's omnipotence
>isn't limited".  You obviously _haven't_ done this....

To this I would like to add that Jarek is clearly not much of a scientist,
as there are often times when one is forced to reject the experiment.

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine)
Subject: Re: A question
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University - Chemistry Dept. Programmer
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 05:14:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.174855.318@doc.bmd.trw.com>, jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes...
}In article <25AUG199213405864@chemvx.tamu.edu>, lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine) writes:
[...]
}> Out of curiosity, what relevance does the percentage of the population that
}> is homosexual have on the government's discrimination?
}> }-IvArch->--------------------------Brett G. Lemoine-------------------->
} 
}None.  Discrimination is never justified.  But tell me just how homosexuals
}are discriminated against by *government*, other than by the military
}which claims to have functional reasons for its policies.  I am well
}aware of how *individuals* discriminate.  What rights do homosexuals lack
}as *citizens* (and not as *homosexuals*) that other people have?  It is
}my understanding that they already enjoy equal protection under the law
}as citizens of this country.

Homosexuals are not allowed to marry the persons of thier choice.
Many states _still_ have antiquated laws on the books outlawing
'sodomy' (often including oral and manual as well as anal sex).

If you can give me _NON-religious_ reasons for this discrimination,
I will drop my claim that the government is abusing the seperation
of church and state by these practices. 

}Regards,
}Jim B.

}-IvArch->--------------------------Brett G. Lemoine-------------------->
}-Texas A&M University--------------Chemistry Department Programmer----->
}-Internet: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu-Bitnet: lemoine@tamchem------------->
}------"A person without a god is like a fish without a skateboard."---->
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:45:50 EDT
From: <EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: The Rock

Just curious here......
Has anyone ever heard of "The rock argument" (I have never a formal name for it
, so I took the liberty of naming it appropriately)
Here it is:

      Is God (I'll assume the Judeo-Christian God) all powerful?
   ANSWER: Yes.
      Then could he/she/it create a rock so massive that he/she/it would not be
 able to lift it?
   IF ANSWER IS NO, Then: God is not all powerful, as something exists which he
 cannot create.
   IF ANSWER IS YES, Then: God is not all powerful, as something exists which h
e cannot lift.

It's some kind of loop without an exit.  As dumb as it is, has anyone heard of
it, and what do you think of it?

<TACHYON>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.religion.kibology
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Pythagorean Reform Church
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date:  4 Sep 92 04:41:21 GMT

entropy@world.std.com (Lawrence C Foard) writes:

>I have a wonderful message to bring to the world!

>Last night the number 4 came to me in a dream and told me that I
>must bring the pythagorean Gospel to the world!

>The number 4 said that the message must be spread throughout the
>whole of the world, passed out in Airports, in Harvard Square
>and on the internet. The number 4 was saddened to see that the
>world has reverted to eating BEANS, and belief in false numbers!

>With the divine guidance of 4 I am starting the Pythagorean Reform
>church to spread the Gospel far and wide. With the guidance of 4
>I hope we can soon bring the message to the world over the PBN
>(Pythagorean Broadcasting Network).



>-- 
>----          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!         ----
>\  /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers        \  /
> \/   and bean eating ways. Accept the #4 into your heart! \/

Oh, all mighty representative of the supreme 4, please give FOURth your
learned wisdom to a FOURthright sinner who has been eating beans since 
early childhood (original sin?). I repent of my irrational ways and realise
I can never live up to the supreme example set by your WHOLEly self.
FOURgive me!! unFOURtunately there are many unbeleivers in this continent of
which I cannot be more ashamed. Could I also, most WHOLEly one, ask that you
allow me, a most unworthy subject, the right to spread your gospel in this
dark land. (i.e. How much of tithe do you want so I can still live on the
donations to the church under the guise of a social service). I accept you 
FOURever into my heart and do not need any proof of your goodness and
WHOLEness (that would be 4IRRATIONAL4) [just placing your WHOLEly presence
around that evil word] because I beleive. I BELEIVE!!!!

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Take Your God And ....
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 11:05:07 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli
Keywords: God

In article <jhb.715304484@galois> jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie) writes:
>In <1992Aug31.182853.18246@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> spc@pineal.sci.fau.edu (Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner) writes:
>>The Roman parthenon is based upon the Greek parthenon, which is what every-
>>body thinks of when anyone mentions a parthenon.  But the Greek parthenon
>>was itself based upon older parthenons of the Babalonians, Asrians, etc ...
>>By the way, a parthenon (for those of you not in the know) is a group of
>>12 gods.

>Sorry.  I can't resist.  A parthenon is a temple in Athens on the
>Acropolis.  I can't remember which god it's associated with, but there
>is probably something to do with virgins (parthenos = virgin in
>Greek).

It's dedicated to Athena...matron goddess of Athens.  She was one of
three goddesses deemed "the virgin goddesses" with Artemis (who turned
a man into a stag to be hunted by her hounds for having the audacity to
look upon her nude body while she bathed in a stream) being another.
I want to say that Hera is the third, but I'm under the impression
that Hephaestus was her child...which leads me to think it's
Proserpina.

>The word you're looking for is pantheon (pan = all, theos = god).

Yes, a "pantheon" is, among other things, a building dedicated to all
the gods.  One dedicated to just 12 might be a dodecatheon.

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Response to Maddi Hausmann:  Get your facts straight.
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 19:34:50 GMT

(Note: This post has no content related to atheism.  My apologies.
This is a response to a blatantly false statement about me authored by
Maddi Hausmann.)

madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:

>Here is proof positive that Mr. Skinner is wasting our time.  He
>has no interst in authorities written by humans, only those purported
>to be from the Mind of God.

A blatantly false statement.  Let's look at the "proof."  The proof
consists of my failure to join Jim Perry in (correctly) pointing out a
misspelling of the word "jibe" as "jive" by another poster.

>  Mr. Skinner misuses the word
>"jibe" and others challenge his usage.  Twice he is corrected.

He has his facts wrong.  The word "jive" first appeared in another
post, to which I responded.  Jim Perry corrected the misspelling.
Without consulting a dictionary, as correctly supposed, I mentioned in
a post directed to the original poster that I thought "jive" was the
correct spelling, noting that it was slang anyway.  The whole
discussion of the spelling of the word was completely aside.

>  Instead 
>of turning to an authority, he reasserts his incorrect usage.

Correction: Not my usage, the usage of another poster (I leave out his
name because I don't want to appear to be flaming him.  I don't care
if he misspells a word.  We know what he meant).

>  A source
>is available to him, but he does not avail himself of it.  Such a source
>is commonly known as a "dictionary."

Gee, sorry, my dictionary is packed in a box this week as I move
offices.  Yes, here is proof that I have no interest in "human
authority." (heavy sarcasm) Notice that the "Mind of God" is not even
mentioned.

If Mr. Hausmann wants to take issue with something I've written, he
will kindly address it directly.  Spelling flames are of no interest
(especially when I'm not the one responsible for the misspelling).
--
Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: 3005904@jeff-lab.queensu.ca (Colleen Davis (Dexter))
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:18:55 GMT
Organization: Antipodean Association

In article <1992Aug26.154203.5111@pellns.alleg.edu>, frisinv@alleg.edu writes:
> 
>    I have a question for atheists, but first a disclaimer. Yes, this was  
> inspired by that incredibly obnoxious Survey post (must you poll every  
> irrelevant group?), but my intentions are a bit different. I am a writer  
> and part-time philosopher just loves to learn more about folks who  
> disagree with me (I'm a nasty theist). If you are so foolish as to believe  
> I have the slightest interest in converting you, DON'T FEEL SO SPECIAL!!!
>   
> The question:
> 	You die. Oops, you were wrong and there is a god (or more that one  
> god or some goddesses or a giant carrot with divine powers...). You were a  
> nice guy during your life so this being asks you to join it in heaven. Now  
> a day heaven consists mostly of information exchange, practicing various  
> artforms and sciences, and lotsa philosophizing on whatever the topic of  
> intrest is that day. If your lucky, you might get build a new universe or  
> two. Would you accept the invitation even though you spent your life in  
> the firm belief that such a place exists (the alterative is to cease to  
> exist. Not out of spite, there just isn't an alterative existance)? This  
> may sound like a stupid question, but I've gotten very diverse answers  
> among my atheist friends.
> 
> Again, if you think I'm have any interest in converting you, you're having  
> delusions of grandeur! (I include this because I got flamed as a fundie  
> the last time I tried to poll you guys.)
> 
> -----
> Vincent Frisina the Nasty Little Theist Who Likes To Learn New Stuff From  
> Those Evil, HellBound Atheists -:)
> 
> 
What a ridiculous question!  Of course I'd go for the "Heaven" option.   So
I was mistaken.  Big deal.  I don't have to turn something down because I used
to believe that there wasn't such a thing.  

colleen
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:16370 sci.skeptic:15744 talk.religion.misc:15412
Organization: Middle East Technical University - Computer Center
Date: Wednesday, 2 Sep 1992 10:56:01 TUR
From: <C44590@TRMETU.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A Critique of Barbara Thiering's 'Jesus the man'

hello all,
       today i e-mailed a request for recieving a copy of the critique to

the book 'jesus the man'to the writer of it personally,but i was informed that

my mail hadnot  been  delivered to the author for some reason or another.

here i'd like to renew my request and also ask if anybody on this group could

have ,kindly,handed out this msg to the author of the critique as it seems

MY system computer isnot capable of doing that.

                                with my highest regards.
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:53:40 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <BtLJq8.Gvt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine) writes:
>
>>Homosexuals are not allowed to marry the persons of thier choice.
>
>Why is this a problem?  Who cares whether the government affirms one's
>marriage?  I don't.

However comforting it might be that you don't care about
the legal status of a marriage, tax collectors, health insurance
providers, and the Social Security Administration provide
off-the-top-of-the-head examples of people who do care
about the legal status of a marriage, and whose interest
in the matter has non-trivial practical consequences.
From: nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God posts again AND, Proof colleen wrote the bible
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:49:11 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

NO, NO, 4 times NO.  Has NO-ONE seen that "SEVEN" has 5 letters?  And
"FIVE" has 4 letters?  And "FOUR" ALSO HAS 4 LETTERS!!!!  This property,
which I call "divinity" is unique to the number 4!!!!  (That's not
factorial, by the way.)  So the church of the Divine 4 (one of the
Pythagorean ones, I forget which) must be correct in its claims.

Join the church and be four-given.

-Norman (to be re-born as "Norm")

[Enough of this nonsense - Ed]