HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: esposito@hamlet.uncg.edu (Andrew Joseph Esposito)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Summary: Mathmatical proofs of negatives
Keywords: Mathmatics, Logic, Not, Sets 
Organization: not affliated with any
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:53:07 GMT

In article <ebolog.10@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> you write:
>Atheists are always saying that God does not exist and laugh away any proof 
>Christians use to prove His existence.
>So here is my proposal : You prove to us that God does not exist!
>And please don't use your usual irrational logic and childish insults!
>Please post your replies so that other people may also read them or if you 
>feel embarassed mail it directly to us at (TJOHN@ELAINE.EE.UND.AC.ZA).
>Many Thanks for any logical and well thought out arguments.
>	Cheers from E.B.

Mathmatics:

To prove a negative, you have to show that the negative is not included in 
the set in question.  That is, to prove that x is not in the alphabet, you 
must define the set, called the alphabet, and show that x is actually not in 
that set.  Deifining that set we actually do see that x is in the set and we 
can therefore prove that x is in the alphabet.  

But this example is a 'super simplified' example.  Other sets are 
practically undefineable, especially when you get to the topic of god.  You 
have to define a set that includes EVERYTHING and then show that god does 
not fit in it.  Any logical proof of a negative of this sort can not be 
completed based on the basic fact that we will never have the "complete set" 
of "everything in existence" defined.

Do you understand this?  No irrational logic, and no childish insults.  I 
used mathmatics and a polite tone throught this whole message. 

Thanks for your time.
--
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.

--
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.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Date: 13 Oct 1992 22:55:07 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

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

[some stuff deleted]
A
>For example, growing up in a homophobic society as I did, I was programmed
>with a mild case of homophobia.  I just "knew" that homosexuality was
>wrong.  But then I started asking myself how I "knew" this, and if there
>was any rational reason for it.  The answers were respectively
>"indoctrination", and "no."  This sort of indoctrination is very worrisome,
>and you can see it in just about everybody.  It's very important to
>closely examine the things you just "know", because most of them are
>probably wrong.  You might have noticed Stan Krieger's latest bit of
>hypocritcal nonsense.  Stan just "knows" that his religion teaches proper
>moral values, and that atheists are immoral scum.  Stan is wrong, but
>only by about 180 degrees.  Stan will go to his grave a pathetic, ignorant
>little man, because he has never learned to question his conditioning.
>Don't be a Stan.

In order to determine the morality of homosexuality, we need only determine
whether or not homosexuality poses any threat the functioning of society.
Societies, or groups, developed in order to insure the propogation of the
human species.  A given homosexual act or encounter does not threaten
the continuation of our species.  In the past, a strictly homosexual
lifestyle would, by this definition, be considered immoral, as it hinders
reproduction.  However, with today's medical technology, reproduction
is achievable by means other than sex.  Therefore, homosexuality would
not be immoral.

It should be noted that the "does it harm the propogation of our species"
approach to morality may be a bit archaic in this age.  Perhaps a better
test would be to see if the given act disrupts a functioning society.
Homosexuality clearly passes this test.

Anyway, when assessing the morality of an item, it would be preferable
if this item were something over which an individual had complete control.
If one's sexuality is determined purely genetically, I could not be convinced
that sexuality and morality would be in any way correlated.

keith

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 04:44:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.225619.3252@math.utexas.edu> mike@huevos.ma.utexas.edu (Mike Sullivan) writes:
>ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:
>>So you prove God does not exist! (Or that you came to be without Him).
>
>Here it goes. If Edwin's god exists, we would be perpectly formed creatures.

	Obvious corollary: if Edwin's god existed, Edwin would not exist.

	(*Edwin vanishes in a puff of logic*)

						Kayembee :-)
From: fischedj@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (David J. Fischer)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Anyone heard of Cliffe?
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:54:55 GMT
Reply-To: fischedj@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (David J. Fischer)
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
NNTP-Posting-Host: g222-29.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

In article <UerQu0q00WBLE4avlJ@andrew.cmu.edu> jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu  
(Jordan M. Wolbrum) writes:
> The intervarsity Christian assoc here at CMU got someone named Cliffe to
> come speak.  I went to listen to him, and while there was much he said
> that I disagreed with, I went away respecting him.  He challenges all
> people, including Christians, to not accept Christ's divinity on faith
> alone.  
> Any comments?  I thought it was about time for a new thread anyway!
> 
> }\center{\smaller{at jw67@andrew.cmu.edu
> 
	Yes, I have heard of Cliffe. I believe his full name is Cliffe  
Kneckle (I am not positive of that spelling, but that's close). He has  
written at least one book (which I own) named _Give_Me_an_Answer_. 
	I enjoyed reading the book, because Cliffe would address a  
question by stepping back and looking at some of the motivations and  
ramifications behind the question. I like this because it's good to go  
beyond listening merely to the specific question, and to hear the person's  
motivations for asking it. This, to me, is a means to address the deeper  
issues that sometimes prompt specific questions.
	Anyway, that's just my opinion. 

--
David J. Fischer : fischedj@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu <NeXT Mail welcome>
"Don't ever put your brain on a runaway train 'cause it won't be coming  
back!" 
- Mad At The World.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: What an atheist thinks of the biblke.
Originator: cs911461@a01.ariel.yorku.ca
Keywords: Bible? SHMIBLE.
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:24:02 GMT


In article <gj156879.718726566@cunews>, gj156879@prince.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879) writes:
 
>> PEOPLE 2000 YEARS AGO WERE MORONS:

	True.  I never really thought of it that way.
 
>> Back 2000 years ago,
>> everyone was seeing "Elvis", every single occurence was an omen, a
>> mystical experience, etc.

	Recovering from a bad hangover was by 'divine intervention' of
	course.
 
>> Maybe Jesus used to be a gay
>> biker (or the ancient equivalent) and that was left out? 

	I'm pretty sure he was gay, at least.  Probably some hippy
	who was able to see then what where seeing now ("Shit, but
	these people are stupid!") and took advantage of it.
	
>> Any atheists think different than the above?  Probably not.  The first
>> thought when you read/look at the book is:  It was written 2000 years
>> ago and is no longer valid.  

	Oh yeah.  It's still a damn good piece of fiction though.  It
	makes for great toilet material (King James version, none of
	these "modern" translations go on my john).  The use of English
	alone is riveting, as in: "... and Mary being Great with 
	Child...".  Great!  Oh, what a hoot!  


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

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: stuart@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Joseph Stuart )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cults
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:33:40 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct06.232551.2929@pdnfido.fidonet.org> joeb@pdnfido.fidonet.org (Joe Beiter) writes:
>So since I am a Christian I should resist any atheistic teaching in our
>schools since it would be brainwashing from my standpoint?
>
>You have a point!


The major difference is that you will find few atheists who would dogmatically
teach children to believe in something without proof.  Rather, they would
teach the children to think for themselves, to weigh the evidence, and
if warranted, to belive in whatever they think right.

scott

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grown-ups never understand anything by themselves, and it is tiresome for
children to be always and forever explaining things to them.
	- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: gj156879@prince.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879)
Subject: Morals and God is Dead.
Keywords: Morality.
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 04:57:08 GMT

Well, speaking from personal experience, I've had trouble with moral
concepts as of late, and I've never had a god looking over my
shoulder.  Seems to be something that can get programmed into you with
or without religion.  the thing to do: if the morals BUG you, (say you
want to sleep around and can't, or something that isn't really a good
or a bad thing, but something you've been taught to feel guilty about)
then realize it's a moral someone has put in you, or something that's
developed in you over time that you never noticed, you can change it,
if you want to, or feel the need to.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: "Jehovah" TRIBE OF SPACE CANNIBALS
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:29:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.184133.1742@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>
>               Christians should all HONESTLY and thoroughly 
>          investigate the CONTRADICTIONS between the Old and New 
>          Testaments in terms of their descriptions of God. 

Tell the Christians, don't tell us!  And, since when did
a little old contradiction stop any Christian?

(babbling goofiness, deleted)

>               The "god" of the Old Testament was actually a TRIBE OF 
>          RENEGADE SPACE CANNIBALS, with a leader named "Yahweh", who 
>          was the commander of a UFO SPACECRAFT ("pillar of fire", 
>          "pillar of cloud", etc.), and a GENETICIST who CLONED Adam 
>          and Eve FROM HIMSELF and put them on this planet which was 
>          ALREADY INHABITED at that time.  And the "first born sons" of 
>          the Israelites became ROAST DINNER for the "JehovahS". 

You must be reading the Marvel Comics translation of the Bible.

>               All of this may sound UN-believable to most Christians.  
>          But try reading the Old Testament with these things in mind.  
>          For example, read the part about one of the Old Testament 
>          characters, Jacob, I think, WRESTLING WITH GOD, AND WINNING!  
>          [ ALWAYS use the KING JAMES VERSION.  Later versions are PER-
>          VERSIONS! ] 

It's unbelievable to me, and I'm not a Christian.
>
>               See also the book "THE LOST TRIBES FROM OUTER SPACE", by 
>          Marc Dem, 1974, Bantam Books, Inc.. 

Why bother?
>                                   Robert E. McElwaine
>                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC

So sad.  The University of Wisconsin system used to
be really good.

Why is this outbreak of idiocy suddenly landing on alt.atheist?
I am beginning to waffle in my (non) belief; maybe God is
sending these psychos to alt.atheist to punish us for
being heathens.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jordan M. Wolbrum)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: FAQ-finding difficulties
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:47:15 GMT
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I have an idea.  If you're looking for the FAQ file, email someone who
looks like they've been here a long time personally.  They'll probably
be happy to mail you a copy.

PS  I'm a bad candidate.  I'm a freshman who found the FAQ the old
fashioned way, scrolling through 500+ messages.

\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: mike@huevos.ma.utexas.edu (Mike Sullivan)
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 21:16:24 GMT

ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:

>>scott
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Grown-ups never understand anything by themselves, and it is tiresome for
>>children to be always and forever explaining things to them.
>>	- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Nice quote. Where can I find it?

"The Little Prince" by the author cited.

Mike Sullivan
mike@math.uteaxs.edu
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 12 Oct 1992 02:00:49 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) sez:
 
|In a previous article, wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks) says:
|>
|>This is, in my opinion, the most powerful argument _against_
|>there being a "God" as defined by the Christians.  "He" is not
|>doing the things that "He" promised to do, and has not ever 
|>done so.
|>
|
|Neither has George Bush....
 
 
   "I knew god, god was my friend, but George Bush is no god !!!!"
 
 
 
 
|
|Ipso-facto, does George Bush not exist?
|
|:-)
 
 
	How about.......
 
 
	God---->breaks promises
George Bush---->breaks promises
 
 George Bush is god ?
1

-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu | alias: White Rook
aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
Organization: Masters student, Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 14:56:28 -0400 
From: Jad Nehme <jn1a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
	<73356@apple.Apple.COM>

Excerpts from netnews.alt.atheism: 14-Oct-92 Re: source of morality for
.. Mikel Evins@Apple.COM (760)

> This is not necessarily so. It is logically possible that some
> particular moral code can be proven objectively superior to all
> other moral codes (given that anything can be proven to be
> objectively anything)

i don't know.  The way I see it, a moral code is dependent on the
context on which it applies.  Therefore to say "all moral codes" is an
implicit reference to "all context".  It looks like there might be a
logical problem in defining "all context" just as there is a problem in
defining "all objects".  Comments?

-Jad
From: tonyp@cnvxla.COM, , Conan - good!)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheist cable TV show
Keywords: Greensboro NC cable
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:01:03 GMT
Reply-To: tonyp@convex.COM
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
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 <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.  This is one small way you can do your part in 
}balancing the scales.
}
This is excellent news! Especially in the light of an article I saw in the
LA Times: The ACB (Ass of Christian Broadcasters) is petitioning the FCC and
lobbying congress to FORCE cable companies to carry their programs. They say
the the cable companies are discriminating against them, and prejudiced.

My feelings are that the cable company will carry anything that will make them
money, and that the people want. Face it, just like Hollywood, they'll make
anything that will bring in money. If they aren't carrying the religious 
programs, then it is because there isn't enough money in it for them, or 
enough interest in their subscribers.

--
    Tony J. Podrasky             BIBLE : 
     San Diego , Ca                       BUY BULL ? 
    tonyp@convex.com                                  ( NO ) 
QSL? QRU? QRZ? QLZ? QFA?                                      BYE, BULL !
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 17:21:00 -0400 
From: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Hello All!

I am an atheist.

I have nothing nasty to say to you, Mark.  I just don't agree with you.

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

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

}}\enddata{text,17029828}
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 9 Oct 1992 20:00:53 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, sieferme@carson.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) says:

>In article <1992Oct9.181919.26472@cs.tulane.edu> goff@pops.navo.navy.mil writes:
>>I can absolutely prove evolution to be incorrect but the same argument does
>>not prove the existance of God.
>
>OK.  Please post the proof.  You should also post your absolute
>post to the group "talk.origins"; this group is read by many
>people who have a very high regard for truth and proof.

	Ah, guys, I know you're hot to trot and jump all over this. But, I
think you've missed the point. I think the real interperation would be
this: "Supposing I can absolutely refute the theory of evolution, it does
not imply the existance of God." He's not saying that he CAN in fact refute
it, but that IF he could, it still doesn't prove the existance of God. That
is, whether or not the theory of evolution is true, is irrelevent to the
issue of God's existance. 

	[ even if the theory of evolution is in fact true, it does not
prove that non-existance of God! ]


	Then again, he could of meant to say that he can in fact, disprove
it.
-- 
	Mr. Bush has the dubious distinction of the second largest tax
raise in US history; right behind Mr. Reagan. They're the real slickersters,
with their theivery fingers in our wallets, with a grin and a gleem in their 
eyes.   What a "no new taxes" bastard.
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:45:30 -0400 
From: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: FAQ question

I've read the FAQ file, and I am curious as to how many of the atheists
that post to this board believe that only specific gods do not exist,
and how many believe no god exists.  It would seem to me that everyone
in the world was a member of the first group.

Perhaps, I've missed the point again.  If so, I'll sure I'll be reading
about it in the next few days on the bboard.
\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: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 21:37:30 GMT

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?

Good question.  Unless you've reasoned it out carefully, your moral code
is simply that which has been programmed into you by your parents,
religious leaders, and other aspects of society.  It has exactly the
same status as the belief that some have in gods -- it's not something
you've ever rationally evaluated, it's just a random collection of
baggage which your culture has accumulated over the years, and which
it indoctrinates into its young.  There are things which you just
know to be wrong, similar to the way the theist just knows god exists.

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.

For example, growing up in a homophobic society as I did, I was programmed
with a mild case of homophobia.  I just "knew" that homosexuality was
wrong.  But then I started asking myself how I "knew" this, and if there
was any rational reason for it.  The answers were respectively
"indoctrination", and "no."  This sort of indoctrination is very worrisome,
and you can see it in just about everybody.  It's very important to
closely examine the things you just "know", because most of them are
probably wrong.  You might have noticed Stan Krieger's latest bit of
hypocritcal nonsense.  Stan just "knows" that his religion teaches proper
moral values, and that atheists are immoral scum.  Stan is wrong, but
only by about 180 degrees.  Stan will go to his grave a pathetic, ignorant
little man, because he has never learned to question his conditioning.
Don't be a Stan.
--
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: vaccaro@novavax.UUCP (N. Trafford Vaccaro)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: You're Invited!
Summary: If you can't stand the heat, send your love gyift
Date: 14 Oct 92 07:10:42 GMT
Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, FL

In article <1992Oct07.180255.16355@convex.com>, tonyp@cnvxla.COM, , Conan - good!) writes:
> In article <1atc8uINN7j2@bigboote.WPI.EDU> scott@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Scott G Goddard) writes:
> } ...reading these comments made by you are very upsetting 
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Then don't read it.