HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka Ktf92)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: New Member (me)
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:30:47 GMT
Organization: Abo Akademi University, Finland
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

In <1992Oct8.153147.3441@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com writes:

> I've been reading this group for about a week now, and ... (stuff edited out)
> ...  It just seems like the discussions have gone off on
> tangents so much that their original purposes are unknowable.
> 
> On to my own post:
> I hear talk on this group about XXX's theory of TTT, and RRRR's first
> law of JJJ, and I'm getting tired of the discussion of decades old
> theories.  Darwin was probably wrong!

     These theories etc. you talk about may be some of those (e.g. Pascal's
wager) that are discussed in the FAQ, which you said you're looking for.
news.answers is probably your best bet; that file will be invaluable to you in
understanding some of the stuff that goes on here. Yes, some discussions tend
to wander a bit sometimes; I guess we can't expect perfection from us humans.

     Darwin's *original* theory of evolution, as put forward in the late 19th
century (I think, can't quite remember) has been quite substantially modified
over the years, much as Einstein did with Newton. Check out talk.origins for
details, they seem to have the latest facts.

> A Creationist could validly argue that God created DNA.  There is no
> evidence against this.  Similarly, human evolution (as far as I
> understand it as a geologist who reads quite a variety of technical
> journals on other subjects as well) is not well defined, and if someone
> wants to believe that God did some special tinkering, well, that's a
> question of faith.

     You betcha they could, and you betcha they do.

>  But the evidence for evolution occuring in organisms
> through geologic time is overwhelming (better than the evidence that the
> moon is a sphere).

     Logical evidence, regrettably, doesn't seem to impress the fundies very
much. If it did, there probably wouldn't be any.

> (...) No, there are three possibilities.
> 1)  The Bible is wrong.
> 2)  The creationist interpretation is wrong.
> 3)  The physical evidence is wrong.
> 
> Well, I hate to break it to you, but the answer is number 2.  I think
> the real problem is not that a creationist has wrongly interpreted the
> bible, but that he's been told by church leaders that creationism is the
> only interpretation that is allowed.

     What is the "right" way of interpreting the Bible? What way do you think
the fundies would interpret it, no matter what we told them? These are porblems
that I'm afraid will go on forever - that's part of the reason I'm so
interested in them.
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: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:19:12 GMT

dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

>What is it that makes you think that?  Is it only people suffering
>from peculiar second adolescences who dislike the Pope?

No.  However, from the general tones of her pronouncements on all
kinds of subjects (we get to hear her inanities more often in
Ireland), I assume that her attitude towards the pope is yet another
example of her tendency to say stupid things for no particular
reason other than to grab headlines.

>>There's no real religious conflict in Northern
>>Ireland.  Bigots kill innocent people, and then other bigots do
>>the same in retaliation.

>Er, I guess.  So what happens in a real religious conflict?  And
>why are these people bigots to start with?

Hm.  You've got me there.

>>I doubt that Sinead O'Connor even has
>>much of an opinion on our troubles up North, and if she did, I'd
>>probably find them tiresome.

>So, whose opinions do you value?  Those of your media over which
>the Church no doubt has a considerable influence?

I doubt that the Church has that great an influence over most of
the Irish media; at least, nothing more overt than in most other
European and American TV stations and newspapers that I've seen.

>>If you're looking for things religious to bash in Ireland, you
>>could do worse than complain about the fact that three constitutional
>>referenda on abortion have been scheduled for December 3 next,
>>which is a Catholic holy day.  It may be a coincidence.  I don't
>>know.  The Church will probably mobilise its considerable PR machine
>>to defeat both these and a forthcoming referendum on divorce.  This
>>is not a statement of bias: it happened in 1986, and will probably
>>occur again.

>Would this not be a good rational reason to dislike the Church?

Not necessarily.  I'm not a great fan of abortion, and I tend to
think that, so long as the Church don't do anything that I see as
particularly objectionable (i.e. that negatively affects a
significantly large number of people), there's not very much to
dislike.  From a few previous exchanges of opinion on such subjects,
I know that Doug's opinion differs some from mine, but there you
go: c'est la vie.

	-- Bryan

--
Bryan O'Sullivan                                        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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 18:55:30 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <a92isB1w165w@mantis.co.uk> Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk> writes:

>It's really a prisoner's dilemma sort of thing. While it may be
>advantageous to an individual of a species to act against other members
>of the species, it is detrimental to the survival of the species as a
                        ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^ ^
>whole. Thus we see animal behaviour such as hunting in packs, caring for
 ^^^^^
>young, and resolving territorial disputes non-fatally. Species which don't
>do this sort of thing when they need to don't survive. (This is a little
>simplistic; there are many other methods by which species can thrive.)

 ...and also writes...

>It is interesting to ponder that with the coming of intelligence we can
>reason and question our instincts and actually ignore them (eg. in the
>resolution of territorial disputes, mentioned above). History has shown
>that species not compelled to cooperate internally are selected against.
      ^^^^^^^                                       ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
>Are we thus doomed?

 Ummm... I think you need to do a little reading on evolution. It's a
matter of some debate in the circles of biology whether selection really
acts at the species level. Indeed, numerous examples of animals acting
against the good of the species are known. I suggest you read "The Selfish
Gene" by Richard Dawkins for a good exposition of the idea that evolution
acts, not at the species level, or even the individual level, but at the
level of the gene.
 Indeed, it's currently the view that taking care of young and hunting in
packs and collecting in herds is in the individual (and the individual's
genes) best interest...

>Tony Lezard IS tony@mantis.co.uk OR tony%mantis.co.uk@uknet.ac.uk


 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "Icky icky icky icky fKANG zoop-boing n zowzyin..." -The Knights Who
So Recently Said "NEE!"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop)
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 18:17:53 EDT

From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
 
>In article <73086@apple.Apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>>From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
 
>>In article <Lou1RB1w165w@bluemoon.rn.com>
>>darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) writes:
 
>>>From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) 
>>>Message-ID: 
<1992Oct01.084647.24107@bmerh85.bnr.ca> 
 
>>>>Science is telling us that we're insignificant.  Religion 
>>>>tells us that we're not. 
 
>The very idea of a supernatural, superhuman being who towers not 
>relatively but infintely over human intelligences, would seem to 
>me at least to have far greater consequences for the 
>"significance" of man... 
 
>>>Science tells *atheists* that they're insignificant.  Science 
>>>tells theists how wondrously God created the universe.  This also 
>>>tells theists how significant *people* are because it was all 
>>>done for them. 
 
>This point has merit but probably not as much merit as you might 
>think. There is simply no way of knowing, even relying the Bible, 
>how central man is to God's activity in the entire universe apart 
>from this Earth. 
 
It is sufficient for me to be significant enough for an infinite 
being (as above) to notice me.  (S = i * infinity = infinity; 
when i, the importance of human to God, > 0.) 
 
>Of course, the reasons I would give for my atheism are ... 
>largely the result of not having seen any description of either 
>theistic or nontheistic [?] god-concepts which can't be shown to 
>be at bottom incoherent, either with ... itself, other parts of 
>the religious outlook in which the concept is found, or with the 
>rest of what I know. 
 
For myself, I see nothing incoherent in the Biblical belief.
 
DARIST
 
"Not one of [the little birds] is forgotten before God."
 

 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: tonyp@convex.com (honey bunny)
Subject: soc.religion.christian is moderated.
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 20:38:19 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

I tried to post something, and it won't let me.

Soc.religion.christian is MODERATED!

I don't believe it!

On second thought, I shouldn't be surprized: That says it all,
doesn't it: 

    As usual, Christianity is censoring postings that they don't
    want you to see - and keeping their people in the dark, as they
    usually do. 

I have a good mind to over ride their moderation. If I could post
without my company's name appearing, I would.

--
    Tony J. Podrasky             BIBLE : 
     San Diego , Ca                       BUY BULL ? 
    tonyp@convex.com                                  ( NO ) 
QSL? QRU? QRZ? QLZ? QFA?                                      BYE, BULL !
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:58:08 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct8.132026.164741@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
>
>On the contrary, there is plenty of proof that demons exist.  This is
>too big a subject to deal with in this posting.  With various other
>postings also concentrating on this issue, I will try to prepare an
>article on it in addition to those on Satanic crime which I am currently
>preparing.  Hopefully this later article will respond properly to your
>statements.
>

You cannot get away with this. This is alt.atheism. A forum for ATHEISTS.
And you think you can come here and make the unsupported assertion that
"demons" exist. You have to PROVE this. You won't find it easy because
you will have to PROVE any scriptures that you use as reference.

>
>Look at it this way.  If He doesn't exist, then you have nothing to worry
>about.  If He does exist, then you will be able to really experience the
>presence and love of God through His son (ultimate proof for yourself!).
>I sincerely hope you take up the challenge.
>

How stupid can you get? Would you force yourself to believe in Osiris
because he might exist? If he doesn't then you have nothing to worry
about.If he does exist then you will be able to really experience theself
presence and love of Osiris in the after-life.

>
>Yours in Christ,
>James.

But not on this board.......Chris Lee
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Wednesday, 14 Oct 1992 23:47:39 CDT
From: <U52468@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: PROOF OF GOD (based on atheist's prem.)

In article <6NNNsB1w165w@bluemoon.rn.com>, darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop)
says:
>
>             A PROOF OF GOD - using the above assertion.
>
>Postulate: Theism can only be learned.
>
>Given: People we know are theists.
>
>1. The first *mortal* theist either
>       did not exist   or
>       learned theism from an immortal theist (God)
>   (because theism can only be learned).
>
>2. But, the first mortal theist did exist (because we know theists).
>
>3  Therefore, God exists.
>

  Well, we've been skipping our ligic classes, haven't we?  1 is totally
false.  A human being "created" religion for his own purposes, likely
one of the following:

1)  He wanted some people to go off to war and die for him.
2)  He wanted to gain power over some people.
3)  He was nuts.
4)  He was an ass-hole

  Most likely a combination of the above.  Since your first assumption is
childlishly oversimplified, your following conclusion is also false.

  Think of what a better place the world would be if the first person
who took it in his mind to speak of god had simply been clubbed to
death!  What a wonderful world it would be!

--dave!
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 17:15:43 -0400 
From: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: God's existence
	<1992Oct9.181438.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>

>   Are you saying there are pay phones in Hell?  Does that mean we
>get to take money with us?  Well, never mind, we'll just call collect.

When was the last time you had to pay for an 800 call?  My girlfriend
and I just noticed that.

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

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

}}\enddata{text,17029828}

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: <tonyp@cnvxla.COM> (good, Conan - good!)
Subject: Re: To All Truth Seekers!
Reply-To: tonyp@convex.COM 
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:20:12 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Oct12.002059.4115@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
}In article <1992Oct11.210257.3190@src4src.linet.org> 

}>claimed the Ammourites didn't exist until archeologists finally dug them up.

Of course they existed: who do you think invented Armourall?
 
}Of course, there is not a shred of geologic evidence that there ever was 
}a global flood.

The dead sea (you know - the one that's REAL SALTY) has been studied and
they've found that it has been separated from its original source
(the ocean) for hundreds of thousands of years. This kinda puts a 
BIG DENT into the Noah's Farce story. Unless, of course, after the flood
god turned it back to its original state - just to confound the atheists...
And the fish - what about the fresh and salt water fish - how did
they take this water change? Did all the water get salty, or fresh?
--
    Tony J. Podrasky             BIBLE : 
     San Diego , Ca                       BUY BULL ? 
    tonyp@convex.com                                  ( NO ) 
QSL? QRU? QRZ? QLZ? QFA?                                      BYE, BULL !
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:31:22 GMT
Reply-To: forever@out.there
Followup-To: no.reply.needed.or.wanted
Organization: Space, the final frontier

In talk.abortion, kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>> In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>   Why does this keep ending up on alt.atheism?!?  If I
>wanted to read you morons arguing I'd have a lobotomy and
>read talk.abortion.

Looks like you had one already from the statement below. :) As for why
it keeps ending up here, I can only say that I was negligent in looking
at the Newsgroups: line. Oops. Too bad. But in deference to those whose
systems are about to crash because of the large number of crossposts,
I'll attempt to remember to read them. :)

>   And why the hell doesn't my kill file work?

Can't answer this one. A higher power at work? :)

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
From: bluelobster+@CMU.EDU (David O Hunt)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: You're Invited!
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:22:10 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>     God calls.  How will you respond?  "As many as recieve Him, to them gave 
>He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His sons 
>name."

How will I respond?  "TAKE YOUR SALVATION AND SHOVE IT!"

THAT'S how I respond.




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

"If the liberties of the American people are every destroyed, they will fall
by the hands of the Clergy." -- General Marquis De Lafayette, 1789
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 06:11:33 GMT

In article <ebolog.14@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:

>The world is messed up because of HUMANS and their GREED and WICKEDNESS - 
>things which the Bible teaches Christians not to do!

Care to add VANITY, SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS, and JUDGMENTALNESS?

Dan


-- 
Dan Yergeau                         He's dead Jim.  Take his phaser
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU        and I'll get his wallet.
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Please Help
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:30:33 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <wr4-CHA@engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
<In article <1250029@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse) writes:
<>7.) What religion are you?
<>Protestant         [ ]
<>Catholic           [ ]
<>Jewish             [ ]
<>Other              [ ]
<
< You're posting on alt.atheism with a question phrased in this manner?

And also:

<>8.) What political party are you affiliated with?
<>Democratic         [ ]
<>Republican         [ ]
<>Other              [ ]

with "world" as distribution.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God's existence
Date: 9 Oct 1992 16:06:12 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

scott@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Scott G Goddard) writes:

The idiot from hell is back! ;-)

>Hi everyone.  I posted something a few days ago, and I got a lot of responses,
>mostly hate mail.  To tell you the truth, that doesn't bother me, actually it
>seems kind of childish. Grow up!  

Hmm!  It seems so ironic that Goddard would scream "Grow up!" to the
readers of alt.atheism.

>I could tell that you all have a wonderful 
>vocabulary, but I could also sense much hatred.  Personally, I don't care if
>I sounded like a "preacher", as some of you put it.  And I also don't care what
>the FAQ states.  

This only proves that you are a stupid idiot.  You join a newsgroup
full of ATHEISTS and immedietly try to convert us to your religion.
But the FAQ says that we don't want to be converted to your religion.
You begin by using arguments that have been discussed to DEATH in the
past.  This is why we made the damn FAQ file.  The FAQ file has
refutations to virtually every theistic argument that has appeared
here more than once.  If you have read the damn FAQ you would have
found that your arguments have already been tried.  Over and over and
over and over again.  Read the damn FAQ!

>You're salvation means more to me than that.  

I would like salvation from freshmen, USENET newbies, and theist
weenies who have nothing to contribute except their own rightiousness.

>I don't know 
>about you, but eternal damnation doesn't sound too appealing to me.  

Me neither.  But then myths perpetuated to SCARE people into
conformity can't really be appealing, can they?

>I just 
>pray that one day you are not wishing that you listened to me, or anyone else
>who has tried to get it through to you.  Call me in about a million years at
>1-800-1HEAVEN.  Now, I'm not trying to make anybody mad, and I'm not 
>condemning anybody either.  What I say is true, "THERE IS A GOD."

M-x twilight-zone-theme

Let's see.  First you say that we are going to suffer eternal
damnation, and then you say that someday we'll wish we had listened to
you (oooh scary stuff), and THEN you say you aren't condemning anyone.
That makes sense.

>     What is it going to take to prove that He does exist?  

You prove that your god exists.  Once you have proven that god exists
we'll know exactly what it would take to prove god's existence.

Stratocaster
-- 
	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
				   
Drug Violence exists not because of drugs, but because they are illegal!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: To All Truth Seekers!
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 10:16:10 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Oct13.185557.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.192107.19123@adobe.com>, mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:

[deletions]

>> 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_?
>
>   Funny how discussions of this kind always come back to 
>Last-Thursdayism...
>
>Karl

 Hmmm. You've got a point. Maybe there really *is* something to this
Last-Wednesdayism? :->

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "Icky icky icky icky fKANG zoop-boing n zowzyin..." -The Knights Who
So Recently Said "NEE!"