HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:08:13 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <ebolog.12@elaine.ee.und.ac.za>, ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:
> 
> Wrong, look around you and tell me that it all just happened by freak 
> accident. That the perfection of natural was accidental.

   Nature is far from perfect.  The panda's thumb is one obvious example,
but there are many more subtle but important ones that I don't have time
to go into.  Check out talk.origins if you want some.

> Scientists today turn to nature to solve problems. Think about yourself for 
> example, if you where created by a freak accident then why is the human body 
> symmetrical and not deformed with two arms on one side and only one on the 
> other for example.

   Because something with two arms on one side and none on the other is
not going to last very long.  This has absolutely no conflict with evolution.

> Think about it. With the existance of a God everything in the universe can 
> be proved,

   Exactly; you can take anything and say "God did it."  Whatever you 
can't explain, God must have done.  It's the easiest way out of ignorance.

> but without Him we do not even know how we came to be.

   We have some pretty good ideas.

> Remember evolution is a theory which is opposed by many scientists.

   The "Theory of Evolution" describes *how* evolution occurs.  That 
evolution has and is occurring is a FACT.  I challenge you to find
a scientist, especially a biologist, who believes that evolution by
some mechanism did not occur.  I mean one who graduated with a degree
from a real school, not the ICR College of Idiots.

> So you prove God does not exist! (Or that you came to be without Him).

   I'll prove how we came to be without using evolution if you prove
that God exists without using the Bible.

   BTW, I give you permission to respond to the email I sent on the net
if you like.  The reason I sent it to you instead of posting it was that
I was embarassed to be seen responding to such a moronic post in public.

   You should consider that a compliment, not an insult.

Karl
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: God is a higher technology.
Keywords: God is a bum.
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:05:46 GMT

In article <gj156879.718505053@cunews> gj156879@prince.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879) writes:
>I just read a post where someone said that if you disbelieve in God
>just because you don't understand Him (I would add Her, It, They,
>etc.) then you probably don't believe in TVs, computers, and
>satellites.

When xtians say this sort of thing, I try to get them to
explain what they mean by "believing in TV".  When I push
one button, the TV goes on.  When I push another button,
the channel changes.  If this fails, I find the problem
(broken TV, broken remote control, TV not plugged in)
and fix it.  There is no "belief" involved.  Just the facts.

BTW, is the xtian god even remotely as reliable as my TV?
Or as entertaining?

>Well, I can pick up a book and read about what a computer is made of,
>and get an intricate blue print.  If someone has the gaul to tell me
>the BIBLE is a goddamn fuggin blue print...  Face it, the thing is
>vague.

I've tried to fix computer programs even more vague
than the Bible. :-(  Yuk.  Maybe this is where
"Christian Computing" comes in.

>Sigh, it sure is a damn shame I'm wasting my time with this.  Once a
>believer, always a believer (until "God" fails you and you realize
>that you believed in this higher force cuz mommy, daddy, and Uncle Jim
>all told you to when you were very small, stupid and gullible).
>
>Depression depression depression.

Cheer up.  Try to thing of these bozos as sources
of comedy and entertainment.

>Very sad, that full grown adults can argue that Santa Claus exists
>because they have a book.
> 
>"Look, Santa exists, I have a book!"
> 
>I think we should substitute Santa Claus for God in all future
>conversations.
>
>"You have to believe in Santa Claus because the bible says that He is
>the one true yak yak yak..."

Good idea.  Lets do this to every fundie who stumbles in
here trying to "convert" us.

>Etc.
> 
>                              -Nik
>                              I crucified my cat for Jesus...
                                              ^^^ 

Have you seen the movie "Pet Sematary"?  Heh, heh, heh.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: joeb@pdnfido.fidonet.org (Joe Beiter)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cults
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:25:51 GMT
Organization: The Source for Source Pub Access Unix

In article <BvoFIz.4zq@umassd.edu> rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:
>At least Jim Jones, Rev Moon and some others  brainwashed adults,
>unlike some cults (Christianity, Muslims, etc.) which brainwashe
>the most vulnerable of living animals, THE CHILDREEN.
>
>Shame on them.........

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!



-- 
-=@=-=@=-=@=-=@=-::
- JoeB           Joe.Beiter@HauppaugeNY.NCR.COM
                 joeb@pdnfido.fidonet.org
-=@=-=@=-=@=-=@=-::
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: "Jehovah" TRIBE OF SPACE CANNIBALS
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:41:33 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire


          
                          CONTRADICTIONS about God

               Christians should all HONESTLY and thoroughly 
          investigate the CONTRADICTIONS between the Old and New 
          Testaments in terms of their descriptions of God. 

               The God of the New Testament is described as a God of 
          LOVE, MERCY, and PEACE. 

               The god of the Old Testament is described as a JEALOUS, 
          VENGEFUL god, a WAR-MONGER.  He said "Thou shalt not kill", 
          and then proceeded to help the Israelites to kill TENS OF 
          THOUSANDS of Arabs in order to take their land.  [And the 
          zionist PIG$ from Israel are still doing it today!] 

               Can the two Testaments POSSIBLY be talking about the 
          same thing?! 


               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". 

               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! ] 

               See also the book "THE LOST TRIBES FROM OUTER SPACE", by 
          Marc Dem, 1974, Bantam Books, Inc.. 



               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. 


                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: evil computers
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:26:55 GMT

In article <1aup6oINNb9h@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>
>	This is interesting. here in NorthEast Ohio there are a number
>of Amish. Though they are theistic, and do not beleave in even tele-
>phones or cars, they tend not to be much of a problem. Even though
>they do not use anymodern tools (a FEW MIGHT use a tractor ONLY FOR
>THE PRODUCTION OF FOOD) they do not have delutions about partaking
>in modern society. They stay out of the mainstream so they can be 
>left alone to do their thing. These people in Canada sound like a 
>real pain in the a$$.
>
>A. Trent Phillips | 

The key point about the Amish is that they choose to live in isolation.
Now, if they tried to force their beliefs on the rest of us they would be
destroyed.  I think all religions should take a cue from the Amish.

jc
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jim Copeland                                            COPELAND.5@OSU.EDU |
|	How do you build a container for the universal solvent?		     |
|									     |
From: mike@huevos.ma.utexas.edu (Mike Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Date: 11 Oct 92 05:02:41 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics

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

>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.

I disagree with your sequence, first understand "human nature" then devlop
a "rational code of ethics".  I do not think human nature is understandable
outside of its (our) historical development. This includes the development
of moral codes. You can't IMHO seperate the two and then derive one from the
other. They are too intertwined.

I also suspect that ethics will always be changing and will never arive at
some final form. I say this because some people might think a "rational code
of ethics" is necessarly a perfect fixed system, though you do not say this.

One popular book I would suggest is "Cows, pigs, wars & witches; the
riddles of culture" by Marvin Harris.

Mike Sullivan
mike@math.utexas.edu
From: jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What is "occult?"
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:54:59 GMT

ikonen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Ian Konen) writes:

>In <n0b4ft@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

>>Whereas most Christians believe in the occult (God / devils /
>>angels / demons / etc.) Satanists for the most part do not.
>>In fact, most Satanists do not believe in Satan, let alone
>>worship it/him, and consider the belief of such things silly.
>> 
>>If you ask, I will post some info on Satanism, and what
>>Satanists really believe.

>Please do.  This is not the first time I have heard Satanists refered to as
>people who neither worship nor believe in Satan.  What is the difference
>between a Satanist and an atheist?
>							-Ian Konen

This stuff about Satanists NOT worshipping Satan is absolute RUBBISH!
Of course they worship Satan, and there is PLENTY of proof.  I will not
elaborate now because there is too much to write here, but it will be
presented in a later posting.

Also, there are differences between Satanists and atheists, with the main
difference being that atheists do not worship Satan (otherwise they wouldn't
be atheists!).

More to come later.

Yours in Christ,
James.
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 8 Oct 92 11:50:11 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <BvptEx.IIH@umassd.edu> rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:
>From: rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto)
>Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
>Date: 6 Oct 92 19:42:31 GMT

>Johnson

>According to theists , this is true:

>-------->God is omnipotent
>-------->God is omniscient
>-------->God is the creator of "EVERYTHING"

>Question ; (A thorn for the Theists)

>-------->There is "evil"in the world.

>If this GOD exists then how does he deal with this issue?("EVIL")

>If this GOD exists and is apathetic about evil then he is weak. On
>the other hand if he can 't do anything about evil then is not omnipotent
>whence he is "EVIL"

Without making out some kind of explicit argument for this, what you say
is boring.  That there is a "problem of evil" is no secret to theists. But
you fail to offer anything more than an assertion that an inconsistency 
exists here.  Or, perhaps you're assuming your audience will supply the 
missing arguments?  

John Hick and Ninian Smart (not to mention Alvin Plantinga and other very 
astute theists of no mean technical ability) have argued that it may well 
be logically impossible for an omnipotent being to create a conscious 
rational agent such as a person wholly good, for the concept of a good 
person is linked up with related concepts such as courage, compassion and 
generosity, which arguably presuppose some confrontation with a situation of 
moral difficulty [involving the presence of pain and suffering or at 
least their possibility] for their realization in people's lives.  Ninian 
Smart in particular has suggested that the expression "good man" may not be 
significant in a world in which no evil whatsoever were ever a factor in 
that world.  Perhaps.  But then, how would we know without an argument?  We 
wouldn't, would we?  Whether some particular claim represents a logical 
possibility or not is often [as it is here] a matter for debate.  

There is surely a great deal of initial plausibility in the straighforward 
way the problem of evil has been stated; and I believe there are ways of 
defeating theists solutions to it.  But so far all we have here in your 
post is the announcement that there is a problem. Theists know this. They 
have also proposed solutions.

I don't know, perhaps I shouldn't assume, as I often do, that most atheists 
are open-minded rationalists who take the time to thoroughly and 
painstakingly examine the arguments of theists. "We must unravel every
tangle to be self-respecting" [Whitehead].  

 
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
From: 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Null Cypher)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism? Really Harold, how gauche...
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:44:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct08.041941.21176@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

>>I am still obligated to search for my own personal truth.

>Well, you should still be searching for truth.  But don't get caught
>in the trap that says that truth is relative or "personal".  There are
>objective truths out there, but it's often hard to find them amongst
>all the bullshit.

Hmmm, could you post some examples of these objective truths, along with
proof?  And explain why it is a 'trap' to believe that truth is relative
or personal?

>--
>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_
--
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Null - 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
                                               --------------------------------
From: stuart@stipple.seas.upenn.edu (Joseph Stuart )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God's existence
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:59:49 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct12.144219.10140@walter.cray.com> jwest@wisc (Jeff West) writes:
>scott@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Scott G Goddard) writes:
>
>:      What is it going to take to prove that He does exist?  Is God Himself 
>: going to have to come down from Heaven and perform a miracle?  Or would that 
>: not be good enough?  Well, I hope it would be. 
>
>	Yes I believe this would do it for me!  Would be more than I've seen
>	so far.  Can you schedule it?  I'll take vacation time to see it and
>	even pay full price airfair to get there.
>
>
>     Jeff West


Were you one of those people in that midwestern town (in Kansas? or Kentucky?)
a few weeks ago who gathered in the church yard to see a vision of Mary
at midnight?  



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The men ... raise five thousand roses in the same garden -- and they do
not find what they are looking for.  And yet what they are looking for 
could be found in a single rose ....
	- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 7 Oct 92 02:48:07 EDT
 <1992Sep30.133017.164697@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> 
 <BRUCE.92Sep30132352@suprenum.supr.scm.liv.ac.uk> <1992Oct7.124046.164732@dstos3.dsto.gov.au>
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Oct7.124046.164732@dstos3.dsto.gov.au>, jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
> bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) writes:
> 
>>> Some more research would provide a better description than the above.
>>> Briefly, they exist in the spiritual realms, which can be reached by
>>> certain types of meditation (esp. yoga - yes yoga!), seances, ouija,
>>> and other OCCULT practices.  BUT BE WARNED, DO NOT BECOME INVOLVED IN
>>> THESE THINGS.  THEY ARE EVIL, AND WILL NOT HELP YOU IN ANY POSITIVE WAY!
> 
>>Rrright.  So the only way of verifying the spiritual realm is by using
>>things that we shouldn't use.
> 
> These things exist and have an evil basis.  Using them brings you closer to
> Satan, not to God.

   What makes you think this?  Do you really have any reason for your 
anti-Satanic/occult diatribe other than the Bible?  I didn't think so.

> Praying to God throught the fellowship of the Holy Spirit is what we
> need to bring us close to God.  This is NOT evil, and I would recommend it
> to anyone.

   You don't have any evidence that praying to God is *not* evil either,
any more than praying to Satan is.

>>(Do many Christians really believe that
>>yoga is evil?  I thought not.)
>                          ~~~
> I think you might be supprised!

   Maybe, but I doubt it.  I find it hard to believe that many non-fundies
believe that yoga is evil and will turn someone into a raving devil-worshipper.
 
> I stated these other things because many, many people are already involved
> in them, not always realising what they are *really* getting involved with.

   So how do *you* know what they're really getting involved with?  I
may just be suffering from atheist pig-ignorance, but I don't recall 
anywhere even in the Bible where it mentions that yoga is evil.  Heck,
forget what I said above, I'd be satisfied if you can just come up with
a Biblical quote that supports your yoga=evil theory.

> Yoga and meditation are very common examples, and if you wish, I could
> provide some more information as to what actually happens when you involve
> yourself with them, and why they are inherently evil.

   I would wish that.  Last I heard meditation is (or at least was) 
fairly common in Judaism and Christianity.  Or were they just deluded
by Satan.
   My email address, by the way, is kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu.  I'm
looking forward to hearing from you and what you have to say about the
evils of yoga and meditation.

> Yours in Christ,
> James.

Yours in Colleen,
Karl
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Homophobia
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:00:04 GMT
Reply-To: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu () says:

>
>   Except that just because the official church position is anti-gay
>doesn't mean that all or even most of the churchgoers follow it.  Many
>of them would probably remain in the church they grew up in than leave
>over a single issue.

	Slowly, certain denominations are chaning their official views
to better reflect their congregations feeling. Which brings up an interesting
question: Ought the Chruch reflect the views of the congregation, or ought
the congregation believe the views of the Church? ( it is not an either/or
question )

	( Can morality and such change over time, or ought it to be immutable?
Some denominations are now accepting homosexual marraiges as being moral...)
-- 
	So there I was, snuggled in the leather seat of my brand new Ferreri.
I had the oiled wood gear shift in one hands, and the leather wrapped Momo in
the other. And, I had the stereo cranking _Born to be Wild_...
	Only one problem, I was unside down, under six feet of water...
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cochrane@spot.Colorado.EDU (Jim Cochrane)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:40:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.195332.1481@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <kmr4.50.718378369@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan ( aka. Wolphgang )) writes:
>>	The major difference between science, and mysticism:
>>
>>	Science: Doesn't always have an answer.
>>	Mysticism: Always has an answer, even if non sequiter.
>
>	Hey! I'm inclined to mysticism, and I haven't the vaguest idea
>if there's a god or not. Mind your terminology.
>
>						Kayembee

I agree with this sentiment.  I don't think mysticism implies theism.
I'm sure there are people who consider themselves atheistic mystics.
The dictionary I have (unfortunately, it's an inferior Merriam-Webster
pocket dictionary) defines mysticism as:  "the belief that direct
knowledge of God or ultimate reality is attainable through immediate
intuition or insight."  According to this definition, an atheist
searching for direct knowledge (or experience) of reality could be
considered a mystic.


Jim Cochrane
cochrane@spot.Colorado.EDU