HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rjg@doe.carleton.ca (Richard Griffith)
Subject: Morals Argument was : Atheism as a religion
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:22:59 GMT

In <gj156879.728233438@cunews> gj156879@alfred.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879) writes:
>This happens to be why I think discussing Taoism and any other form of
>philosophy or religion should occur in this area.  Just because you
>are an atheist doesn't mean you're a moralless dog eating cretin etc
>etc. as some religious folk would tend to believe.

What does religon have to do with with morals?
Morals are how you treat other people property and things; religion
is your relationship with things that do not exist.

Granted that some relationships with things that do not exist include
the rules ``respect others.'' This is an enforcement system, obey
the speed limit because it is the law, rather than a value system
where people obey the law because it is a good idea that benefits all.
Even without considering the notion of a god, I prefer the second system.

>The formation of beliefs of a personal nature are a hell of a lot more
>interesting than the formation of beliefs under a religious structure.
>If you are a "catholic", the scope of your beliefs would tend to be
>limited.  If you are an atheist, your "religious/philosophical" views
>can come from many sources, and avoid the bits you don't like.

Atheists are not religious. Religion is -> see the FAQ
Taoism skirts the borders of the western definition of religion,
however the belief that a enlightened state exists places it in fantasy land.
Taoism does seem to have a greater respect for the here and now rather than
the belief system it is based on and thus is much closer to the atheist
point of view that the here and now is all we have.

>As for myself, I'm an agnostic who has read some religious texts, some
>philosophy texts, etc. and I get to pick and choose.  Is this moral
>irresponsibility or pure luscious freedom?  (Guess which i think it
>is...)

>What I'm interested in is whether the atheists out there have read
>spiritual texts, whether they have read philisophical texts, etc. or
>whether they just get their beliefs solely on the basis of life
>experiences.  Where did you atheists GET your beliefs?  

Physics 100. But we still retain a healthy amount of skepticism.

>So how about it:  where did your beliefs/morals come from?

Beliefs what beliefs.

You are a complex chemical system isolated from the environment by a
physical membrain. This is a large
and complex system that eventually falls victim to entropy and ceases
to exist. You may attempt to continue your chemical system through a
complex process requiring the cooperation of another chemical system.
The required cooperation
of another chemical system is an evolutionary oddity that uses entropy 
to introduce possibly benificial changes into the continued chemical system.
Biology 100 and personal experiences. 

Morals.
We don't need no ... :-)
Treat others as you would have them treat you is a simple system.





Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jwest@wisc (Jeff West)
Subject: Re: Where is the good discussion? (a theist writes)
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: 21 Jan 93 10:56:20 CST

Aside from the need to preach I find it interesting that so many
theists (let's be honest - 99% Xtians) even come here.  What are
you looking for.  Could it be,,,,,,,,SATAN!

If you live in a society of which 95% of the people claim to eat
banana cream pie at least once a week but you don't, you still find
yourself talking about it even when your with others that also
abstain from it.  It's so pervasive in the daily life of the culture
you live in that even if you wish to ignore it, it finds YOU!

But lucky for you, you live in such a free society that you can
simply "unsubscribe" to this group.

Have a nice life!
  Jeff West

---------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not denial.  I'm just very selective about the reality I accept.

    - Calvin & Hobbs

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:26749 alt.religion.all-worlds:116 talk.religion.misc:27179
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism is False
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 28 Jan 93 22:15:45 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1993Jan27.202552.5417@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
> Atheism has no evidence of there not being a Allah, so its just denial.
> But Islam provides evidence for Allah, though.

   Care to articulate it for us?  Or is it not worth it because all
us evil atheists have our minds set on denial already?

Karl

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "Lastly, I come to China in the hope      | "All you touch and all you see  |
| of fulfilling a lifelong ambition -       | Is all your life will ever be." |
| dropping acid on the Great Wall."  --Duke |                 --Pink Floyd    |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|         A Lie is still a Lie even if 3.8 billion people believe it.         |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Buddhism - A religion of atheists?
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:05:14 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1k49itINNrd1@endeavor.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@endeavor.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>I also wouldn't say that Buddhism is free of violence in its history.  Zen
>buddhism in Japan, for starters, has been involved in past bloodshed.

There is no doubt that numerous Japanese soldiers have been Buddhists.
I am, however, unaware of any warfare undertaken in the name of
Buddhism. I'm not saying there hasn't been; just that I'm not aware
of it.
From: L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Let's try these proofs
Date: 25 Jan 93 13:51:48 GMT
Organization: University of Bradford, UK
Originator: 90908502@muser


yea027@marshall.wvnet.edu writes:

>Printed by 
>Islamic Teaching Center, P.O. box 38
>Plainfield, Indiana 46168
>Tel. (317) 839-8157
>
>How did it happen?
>
>	Would you believe a man if he tells you that there is a
> store which is running smoothly but has no salesman, 
>storekeeper or someone to look after it?  Or would you 
>believe him if he told you that the chair in front of you 
>assumed its present form all by itself?
>
  [etc. etc.]
>
>******End****

You are arguing almost exclusively from a position of incredulity.  
This is generally not accepted as a valid form of argument.  If you
want this demonstrated try using it in your university end of year 
exams.  

Just because something seems be be impossible does not mean it is. 
E.g. in 1945 few would have believed a man would be on the moon 
within 25 years!  A better example is provided by the 'Twins Paradox'
in special relativity.  It seems impossible to believe that one twin
will not have aged as much as his brother after a near light speed 
trip in space.  Mathematics and empirical evidence would prove you 
wrong.  Believing something to be true just because you can't imagine
the opposite is a sure sign of utter stupidity.

I'm afraid your argument will only serve as simplistic propaganda to 
those who already believe, but will not cut much ice with those for 
which it was intended, i.e. atheists or others who have doubts.

Quite frankly I am surprised that an organisation calling itself 'The
Islamic Teaching Centre' should write such dross.  It shows a clear
lack of understanding of methods of argument, not even a basic
grasp of biology or physics and even innumeracy. (The small amount of 
maths presented looks like numbers plucked out of the air, no 
assumptions are given and there is no continuity between these 
meaningless figures).  It only invites ridicule when Muslims live up 
to their medieval image with medieval methods of argument.

I suggest that you read two books.  They are both clear, concise and
easy to read:

	Innumeracy.  John Allen Paulos.

	The Blind Watchmaker.  Richard Dawkins.

Read these and you need never embarrass yourself in public on this
subject again!


-- 

Leonard               e-mail:  L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:26889 talk.religion.misc:27361
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Athletes thanking Jesus (BUSH MISQUOTE) 
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 23 Jan 93 06:02:33 EST
Followup-To: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1993Jan23.021320.1226@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, rjb3@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (robert.j.brown) writes:
>> 
>> Did you happen to catch Pres. Bush refering to the lastest US v. Iraq
>> action as "The Lord's Work" on MacNeil/Lehrer?
> 
> Uhhh...atheist brains grinding gears ??
> 
> You got your World crises mixed up.  The Bushman said that about
> the Marines in Somalia helping the starving folks get the food.
> 
> He did not drag the Lord into the Iraq thing...

   Yes he did.  It may not have been on MacNeill/Lehrer and it may
not have been that exact wording but he made a similar statement 
about the strike on Iraq in a speech.  I remember it quite distinctly,
thinking how closely it resembled one of Saddam's speeches.

Karl
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: Arguments for the existence of God
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 17:18:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.012146.26071@rp.CSIRO.AU> ahaig@rp.CSIRO.AU (Albert Haig) writes:
>	If these views are correct, they do indeed provide a satisfactory
>explanation for the fact that we have such a remarkable universe.

Can you explain what you mean by "such a remarkable universe"?  From what
perspective and on what basis is the universe remarkable?  What is more
remarkable perhaps is the fact that _anything_ exists at all.

>This constitutes the ultimate violation of Occam's Razor: do not postulate
>entities unnecessarily. Faced with having to postulate a huge or infinite
>number of other universes or having to postulate God, a very good
>case can be made that God is by far the better solution all round, including
>that it is far simpler and postulates just one entity for which I would
>claim there is some other evidence (this is not critical to the argument)
>rather than a huge/infinite number of entities for which there is not a
>skeric of independent evidence.

Evidence for your God is critical to the argument if you are going to make
the claim that this evidence exists and then invoke Occam's Razor.  So, what
is your evidence?

Please explain how Occam's Razor could ever support the claim that a self-
contained universe has more unnecessary entities than the same universe with
a God?

Universe  <<  Universe + God

As to the claim that the concept of infinite-anything is more simple than
a finite thing, consider the following continuum:

No knowledge  <  Some knowledge  <  All knowledge

Why would this not hold true for complexity?

> I do happen to believe in God, though not one who
>intervenes in the course of nature. I believe there are good rational grounds
>for doing so.

We just want to know what these good rational grounds are, so let us know.
You mentioned the problem of evil (really should be the problem of bad luck)
briefly in your first post, but I am interested in how you answer the 
questions it raises and maintain your belief in an all-powerful all-good God.

JC
--
Have you washed your brain today?
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism is False
Date: 29 Jan 93 00:15:11 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1k94tqINNh2b@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.202552.5417@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
>>Atheism has no evidence of there not being a Allah, so its just denial.
>>But Islam provides evidence for Allah, though.
>>
>>-Bobby Mozumder
>
> I sent him the FAQ. It might even do some good.

   In a childish fit of impetuousness, I sent him my collection of
   a.a articles.  All 800+Kb of it.  

   Isn't usenet fun?

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

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 23:25:36 GMT

In <1993Jan26.204422.25162@atc1.atc.com> raghu@atc1.atc.com (Raghothama Cauligi) writes:

>In article <1993Jan22.180446.7730@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>>In article <C19 G2F.7GJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
>>(Mike Cobb) writes:
>>
>>>Huh?  Could that be reexplained again so that I understand why
>>>contraception is worse than abortion?
>>
>>If you believe (as you apparently do) that DNA makes a person, then
>>you should have no trouble understanding, by your logic, that sperm
>>and eggs are human.

Are you SURE you're a molecular biology major? A sperm, or an egg, has 
only half the genetic code for a human being.

>>Now, if a woman goes in to have an abortion, she kills one potential
>>person. If a couple use contraceptives, they're killing hundreds of
>>millions of potential people in the form of sperm cells.
>>
>>So, if you use contraceptives, you're committing mass genocide against
>>yourself. :-)
>>
>>Tep
>>-- 
>>Mo-bio majors do it between the beta-sheets.

>If you abstain from sex, you are guilty of the same. So, what are you
>going to do, try to have your every sperm fertilized?
>Raghu

Mark Pundurs
From: epowers@mccoy (POWERS)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God MUST be bored! (Hypothetically)
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:13:53 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University

In article <C1E54D.HoJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jjh37997@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (James  
J. Herlburt) writes:
> gre253@its.csiro.au (Steve Green) writes:
> 
> >Greetings fellow atheists!
> >	This is my first post to this group - be gentle. :-)
> 
> >I'd just like to share a little toy idea of mine. Suppose God did  
exist!?
> >He/She/it would be bored shitless! What I'm trying to say, and maybe  
some
> >of you christian types can help here, is "What's in creation for God?".
> 
> >Don't worry - I'll answer for you. You'll all say "he wants us to love 
> >him". But what sort of egomaniac would create beings to love him? And  
then
> >say "if you don't love me - you'll burn in hell" - Talk about Mr. Nice  
guy.
> 
> >I'm no psychiatrist but isn't this sort of behaviour sound like he must  
be
> >one sick puppy.
> 
> >I just love this mental image of God sitting at his Amiga 1000000  
playing
> >Sim-Universe - getting really bored - and turning it OFF!
> 
> >Have a nice day :-)
> 
> The good doctor Asimov wrote a short story that somewhat expressed this  
idea.He stated that the only thing a being, like the supposed God, would  
want is to
> die. God then went about creating humans (and others) to help him think  
of a 
> way to do it. Good story - wish I rememebered the name.
> 
> 
> 
>  
>========================================================================
> >| Steve Green  

	Cute story.  I'm curious, is there a technical name for "argument  
by anthropomorphism"?
						Erik Powers   
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: How much should we read?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 18:30:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.072738.20808@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.034815.19776@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu> christen@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Carl Christensen) writes:
>>Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu) wrote:
>>: A religion is barbaric if it teaches barbaric things.  If it teaches
>>: non-barbaric things based on misinterpretations of a Bible that, interpreted
>>: properly, should instead be read as teaching barbaric things...  well, that
>>: doesn't count.
>>: If the scholar discovers that the Bible teaches cruelty, all that means is tha
>>: modern Judaism has made a mistake in giving passages a non-cruel reading, but
>>: it does _not_ mean that Judaism teaches cruelty.  Anti-semitism probably _is_
>>: a motive for such a leap.

Uh, yeah, that's the ticket.  Or, as Noam Chomsky points out, if the scholar
himself had been Jewish, he would have been branded a self-hating Jew.  That
pretty much covers off all the angles.

>>I don't see how someone could give Deuteronomy, Numbers, etc. (as posted
>>elsewhere) a 'non-cruel' reading.
>
>Perhaps this is a failure of imagination on your part.

Or perhaps Ken, you are still incapable of objectively discussing
this rather delicate matter.  Perhaps it would be better if you
didn't try.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
From: yohan@endeavor.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Buddhism - A religion of atheists?
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:14:05 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: endeavor.ksu.ksu.edu



Sounds interesting, but what do you mean by religion as it applies to Buddhism.
I also wouldn't say that Buddhism is free of violence in its history.  Zen
buddhism in Japan, for starters, has been involved in past bloodshed.

Jon Newton
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
Subject: Shelley's "The Necessity of Atheism"
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 03:05:32 GMT

"Shelley was familiar with tyranny and intolerance. In 1811, while yet
an undergraduate, he'd had the 'The Necessity of Atheism' published at
Worthing in Sussex. It appeared for sale in the bookshop window of
Munday and Slater's for just twenty minutes. The brevity of the sale
was due, unfortunately, not to an exhaustion of the edition, but the
appearance upon the scene of a clerical wowser yclept John Walker.  The
good Rev., strolling by the bookstore, saw the essay upon display, and
exhibiting correct Christian indignation, upbraided the two miserable
sinners. The pamphlets were removed and burned in true Hitlerian
fashion - except for one that Slater kept, and which is the surviving
copy."

                              -- Joseph Sapere

Source: pages 3-4 of introductory note to 

Author:        Shelley, Percy Bysshe, 1792-1822.
Title:         The necessity of atheism (selected aphorisms) with an
                 introductory note by Joseph Sapere. Yonkers, N. Y., Alicat
                 Book Shop, 1946.
Description:   24 p. 21 cm.

Series:        The "Outcast" chapbooks, no. 4.

Notes:         At head of title: Shelley.
               On cover: Selections from The necessity of atheism (1811) A
                 letter to Lord Ellenborough (1812) A refutation of deism
                 (1814) and Essay on Christianity (1815)

Subjects:      Atheism.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: RELIGION & PRESIDENTS
Date: 21 Jan 1993 19:32:20 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, y41@aixterm1.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (Jeffrey Hazelwood) says:

>Ok, I just watched Clinton's swearing in ceremony and I couldn't believe how
>religious is was.  Since I'm in Germany, we saw it live but with German
>news anchors.  They couldn't believe how religious the whole thing was
>and found it amusing that the government could carry on in such a way. I 
>found the innaguration disgusting. In America, if you don't preach about
>God or carry on about religion you have no chance in hell(grin) of becoming
>president! Just once I would like to see the president say, "Look folks
>there is no God. Stop praying, get off your asses and do something about
>our problems." or after winning a war "Don't thank the Lord for winning,
>thank the fucking Tomahawk cruise missiles and the stealth fighters!" 
>
>KINISON MODE=ON
>
>WHY THE HELL WAS BILLY GRAHAM THERE?!?!
>
>KINISON MODE=OFF
>
>To sum it up, there was...The Homeboy Baptist Choir..Billy Graham..Clinton...
>the Lord...Benediction...more prayers...Amen...
>
>What do you other atheists think about this? 
>

	Clinton=Bush=Perot=Dreker Kamph (spelling?)



that sez it all

-- 
A. TRENT PHILLIPS |" A mirror is a negative space with a frame and a place for
  also known as   | your face, it reveals what the rest of us see. It conceals
   WHITE  ROOK    | what you'd like you to be."--Blue Oyster Cult
--------------------------bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu--------------------------
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Strong atheism ought to explain theism (Was: Re: Atheism is dogmatic.
Date: 27 Jan 93 11:00:04 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.98

bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>In article <77482@apple.apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>>In article <11194@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert
>>Beauchaine) writes:
>>>  I personally know of no one who makes the claim that their
>>>  experience of god is on the same sensual level as their day to day
>>>  perception of the world around them (well, maybe one, Jarek
>>>  Dabrowski, but that's another topic).
[...]
>>I have memories of experiences of beings that I think deserve to be
>>called gods.
>   You just shot yourself in the foot.  There was apparently some
>   discernable factor of the experiences you are recalling that makes
>   them of the variety you know we find unconvincing.  Hence, these
>   experiences were not the same as you daily experiences, and don't
>   qualify as the kind to which I was referring.

The key word is "memories".  My memories of my day to day perception of the
world are unconvincing; probably at least as much so as my memories of things
which (in a naive realist sense) didn't happen.

Sometimes I have had dreams about everyday events, and become confused as to
which memories are real and which are memories of dreams.  Mostly I try not
to have mundane dreams for exactly this reason.


mathew
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: All Atheists hear this!!!
Date: 28 Jan 1993 02:31:53 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: catnip.engin.umich.edu

In article <1k7b9qINN5vt@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> tombiv@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Andrew Spencer Tomb) writes:
>In Job 38:2-11 The God of the Universe writes:
[Bible quote deleted]

 I sent him the FAQ, people. He has even less of an excuse now.

Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles               ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "Anybody who has ever seen a photograph showing the kind of damage that
a trout traveling that fast can inflict on the human skull knows that
such photographs are very valuable. I paid $20 for mine." - Dave Barry