HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Null Cypher)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Hello All!
Date: 11 Oct 92 23:30:05 GMT

In article <1b4unhINNr3k@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cb366@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark B. Bendiksen) writes:


>Hello Atheists:

Hello.

>I am what most of you would probably call a "Jesus Freak".
>I have spent some time reading through many of the posts on
>this newsgroup with much interest. I expected to find much more
>discussion on deeper philosophical issues (i.e. why you
>believe in no God, etc.). Instead, this group seems to be
>mainly a "club" whose members waste time and net space by
>coming up with clever ways to bash "crazy Christians" and
>anyone else who chooses to believe in an almighty creator.
>If you scan through articles on religious newgroups I dare
>say you'll find little space wasted talking about "those
>nutty atheists who don't believe in God". 

Them's fightin' words.

>Please don't get me wrong. I did read many fascinating
>and interesting posts while going through your newsgroup,
>but more often than not many posts consist of nothing more
>than hate for those that believe in God. Is that really
>constructive?

I'm glad you wrote that paragraph.  It puts the first in a better context.

>I know I'm inviting flames, and that's okay. But if you
>attack me with namecalling rather than by discussion of
>the issue, you'll just be proving my point.

I agree with you on this matter.

Everyone:

I have been sending copies of the FAQ list and arguments (a.k.a. "hate-mail")
to the abusive theists posting in this group (Mr. "Prove That God Does Not
Exist", Scott Goddard, etc) through mail, and I recommend that everyone else
do so as well, unless of course you have some neat new line of reasoning that
should be posted.  (although perhaps most people are already doing this)

>Love in Christ,

>Mark B. Bendiksen
>cb366@freenet.cwru.edu

May Bugs Bunny be with you,
--
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Null - 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
                                               --------------------------------
From: spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za (David Spurrett)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: FAQ please !
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 10:55:43 GMT
Organization: University Of Natal (Durban)
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc11.superbowl.und.ac.za

In article <1992Oct9.133540@axion.bt.co.uk> rharnwel@axion.bt.co.uk (Richard Harwell) writes:
>From: rharnwel@axion.bt.co.uk (Richard Harwell)
>Subject: FAQ please !
>Date: 9 Oct 92 12:35:40 GMT
>
>I am new to this group, and I am fascinated by the ref.s to Pascal's
>Wager, but as I haven't seen the FAQ yet this meen nothing to me.
>Can someone email it to me please.
>
Me too, please...

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+ 
| Dave Spurrett                       |                              |
| Department of Philosophy            |   "I have seen the truth,    |
| University of Natal                 |    and it makes no sense."   |
| Email: spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za |                              |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan ( aka. Wolphgang ))
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:12:41 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.22.255.189

In article <ebolog.16@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:

>Ok, you tell me how man came about and do not state the theory of evolution 
>since one it is a theory with lots of short comings and one which even some 
>scientists do not agree with. Then disprove that the only God the Father and 
>his only begotten son Jesus Christ do not exist!

	The inability to "prove" how mankind has come to be, does not imply
that God is the reason for it. It only does not eliminate the possibility.
From: censwm@cend3c7.caledonia.hw.ac.uk (Stuart W Munn)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:20:18 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland

I'm new to this group so excuse me if this has been covered before . . .

If you believe GOD exists and he created man in his/her image ... etc
Where did GOD come from who or what created god, and if this can be answered why dont believers worship the creator of god?
-- 
=========================================================================
Stuart Munn		DOD# 0717
Heriot-Watt University                  "The sky is BLACK . . .
Edinburgh                                therefore GOD, he is a St Mirren
Scotland, EH14 4AS                       supporter!!!"
031 451-3265
031 451-3261 FAX                        God may have a Harley . . .
E-Mail censwm@UK.AC.HW.CLUST            But the Pope rides a Guzzi! 
=========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 03:17:23 GMT

In article <6048@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Null Cypher) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.215854.4477@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>I think that it probably won't be long before we understand the human
>>nervous system well enough that we'll be able to see that a lot of what
>>our culture does to people is very destructive.  I think that we'll begin
>>to see what causes things like nightmares, child abuse, misogyny, rape,
>>blind obedience to authority, lying, hypocrisy, alienation, stupidity,
>>war, short-sightedness, non-organic mental illness, etc. etc.  In fact,
>>I think that some people have gotten a pretty good glimpse of the causes
>>of a lot these things already.  Practical issues aside, once we have a
>>complete theory of human behaviour, I think it will become apparent that
>>we need a massive redesign of our culture.
>
>This 'complete theory of human behavior' sounds pretty fishy.  I am of
>the opinion that we will never know (or be able to explain) everything,
>and that goes for any particular subset of "knowledge".

That may be true, but it doesn't mean that we should ignore the knowledge
that we do have.  If we took that approach, we'd all still be banging rocks
together while we waited for somebody to produce a complete theory of the
universe.  Already, enough is known about human nature that we can see that
a lot of what this culture does is crazy.  Of course, you won't get many
people to agree that it is nuts, because they've been socialized into the
nuttiness and therefore have grown to love it.  But the knowledge is
out there nontheless, and more of it is on the way.
--
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: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan ( aka. Wolphgang ))
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:01:21 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.22.255.189

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.

	What do you mean by "freak"? 

Perfection of natural [ nature (sic)]? I do not see any perfection in 
nature. I know more about what doesn't exist in nature, than what does!


>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.

	First, my parents copulating was not a freak accident. However, I
assume you are dealing with the very very slim probability of it all.

	That is immaterial. The chances of a particular combination happening
is miniscue in the lottery, but the chances of something happening, is 1. 
And, there needn't be a "cause" of it happening, no matter how remote it 
is. Now, don't try to start on a thread of the probability of life, or 
molecular combinations, etc. The number does not matter, it is only different
in degree, not concept.


>
>Think about it. With the existance of a God everything in the universe can 
>be proved, but without Him we do not even know how we can to be. Remember 
>evolution is a theory which is opposed by may scientists.

	First, why should I care about having a "proof", if it implies 
nothing, does not allow me to learn, or predict certain things. I suppose
the world was flat, because god wanted it; then he changed it to being 
round when he wanted to. And, I do not see what evolution has to do with
it? If you are trying that route, then I pity your simpletonic ways of 
thinking. 


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

	I am not required. Since I'm not, God wishes it. So, you better 
not demand that I go against his wishes! 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: <tonyp@cnvxla.COM> (good, Conan - good!)
Subject: Re: What brought you to atheism?
Reply-To: tonyp@convex.COM 
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:33:08 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 <10534@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
}
}  Why is it that atheists do a far better job of living
}  up to the ideals of Jesus than do the fundamentalist Christians?
}  Why,why,why?
}
I would venture to say because Atheists permit them selves the luxury of
throwing away the parts they don't believe, and retaining the parts they
find plausable - thus removing any conflicts that would arise. The christian
does not have the "permission" to do this - he must accept EVERYTHING in the
bible as true, and not pick it apart. He must "condem" homosexuals because it
is "not right by god" - even though his neighbor might be one, and be the
nicest person living on the block. This is a conflict for people who are
told what to think

I love to believe in the "spirit" of Jesus - that there once was a man of
such great wisdom that he could see past man's petty state of existence and
look into a higher plane of living. It is my understanding that when Jesus
was MIA (he went from a boy of 12 to a grown man in the bible) he was in India
learning the middle-eastern teachings. Son of god? - I don't think so. 
Really existed? - I do think so. The authors of the bible have created a book
full of magic, mostly about threats by god, plagues, and lots of just plain old
nasty stuff (sacrifices). For those same guys to have invented Jesus doesn't
follow the rest of the bible. Jesus "should" have been vengeful, smited alot
of not-nice people, and other more "biblically-flavored" things.

--
    Tony J. Podrasky             BIBLE : 
     San Diego , Ca                       BUY BULL ? 
    tonyp@convex.com                                  ( NO ) 
QSL? QRU? QRZ? QLZ? QFA?                                      BYE, BULL !
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheist cable TV show
Keywords: Greensboro NC cable
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:53:41 GMT
Organization: Boston University Physics Department

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. 


Care to let us in on the nature of these ``sermons''? I'm very curious
how this might be done!


Gregg





-- 
Gregg Jaeger    (jaeger@buphy.bu.edu)          VOTE PEROT  VOTE PEROT       
If you think the Republicans screwed up the country, can you afford to
see what the Democrats will do?!   ->BEWARE OF SLICK-WILLY CLINTON!!<-
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Date: 9 Oct 1992 02:55:40 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

"Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>James Marcus writes:
>>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.

>Haven't you read the FAQ file?

Of course he hasn't.  What is this ... the ten ZILLIONTH time that
someone as rephrased Pascal's Wager for us?

Stratocaster
-- 
	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
				   
 The most important freedom in a democracy, is the freedom of CHOICE.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ttobler@unislc.uucp (Trent Tobler)
Subject: Re: Morals and God is Dead.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:10:23 GMT

Scott S Parish (parsons@cis.ksu.edu) wrote:
: gj156879@prince.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879) writes:
: 
: >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.
: 
: This is so nice to know.  I've been having trouble with the moral concept
: of murder lately.  It is finally a relief to know that I can over come
: my problem and change it, since this is a moral that has been put in me.
: I'm so happy that I no longer have to be bugged by this programming.
: Should I decide to start my homicidal rampage soon, can I start with you?
: I know you would understand--what's your address?
: 

Even though I know you were trying for satire... You raise an interesting
point.  Why IS murder immoral?  Sure, if you do it, and get caught, you
will likely have an unhappy life, so, on that standpoint, murder is something
that is undesirable.  But other than that... why is it immoral?

What IS so wrong about killing someone else?

Of course, my opinions on this is that you cannot expect anyone to act any
better than you.  If you murder, then you can only expect others will murder
as well.  So, in your little account above.. if you are going to try to
murder me, you can only expect that I will try to murder you.  If you
do not try to murder anyone, then you should be able to expect no one
else will try to murder you.  Of course, this expectation is not absolute,
and you can therefore take further precautions.. ie, instill your morals on
others, make punishments that will deter someone from murdering, protect
yourself with items to deter a would be murderer, etc.

--
  Trent Tobler - ttobler@unislc.slc.unisys.com
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Revelations..
Date: 12 Oct 1992 20:03:28 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


	Why does the book of Revelations read like the writer was
on acid ? How do we know the writer was not stoned or something. i
know if someone walked up to me on the street or something like
that and told me of all that weird drek (horse men and the whole
Revelations bit......) I would call for the looney wagon and have him
put in a straight jacket.....

-- 
"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: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Wed,  7 Oct 1992 20:25:40 -0400 
From: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
	<ebolog.15@elaine.ee.und.ac.za>

>Atheists are always saying that God does not exist and laugh away any proof 
>Christians use to prove His existence.

I have yet to find any atheist laugh away proof.  If you met someone who
did, then they are not only an atheist, but a moron.

Perhaps you and I define proof in two different ways.  What I call proof
is irrefutable and logical.  Very few statements fit both these
categories.


\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: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 04:41:48 GMT

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.

>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.


Which is why the Elephant Man was called a freak, right?  Christ on a
stick!  That man must have suffered such inner pain and indignities
on account of his (by supernatural design, please note) deformities.

God must have punished him for some terrible sin he did while still 
inside the womb.  Or else, his deformities must have been visited 
upon him by demons.  As such, are we to gather that he was not fit to
live?  

Ironically, Joseph Merrick was probably one of the most "christian"
persons in history.  Poor guy, he was handicapped in that regard
as well.


C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@Ariel.yorku.ca
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: So many assumptions!
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:08:02 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992

Tag: Scott S Parish (parsons@cis.ksu.edu)
And: bluelobster+@CMU.EDU (David O Hunt)
 
DO'H> "I have a couple of friends who claim to be 'witches'.
DO'H> I've asked them what I could do to _deliberately_ invite
DO'H> posession and takeover of myself, and have done so. If
DO'H> demons were real (and as opportunistic as you claim) why
DO'H> am I not foaming at the mouth?"
 
Why would Witches be one's first choice of information, when
"demons" and "demonic possession" is PRIMARILY in this culture
a Christian belief, and not Wiccan / Witches?
 
If one wanted to be possessed, I'd suggest one convert to
Fundamental Christianity or Voodoo, where such things are
believed. In several South American locations possession is
seen as a GOOD thing--- daemons are instruments of enlightenment,
and the "pssessed" individual is an instrument of prophesy.
Only "our" backwards Christian blood-libel slander of other
religions and belief systems make this possession "evil."
 
All that is required to be possessed is the belief that one can
be, intense physical exertion that includes repetition (could
be distance running, feet stomping, relentless drumming), and
perhaps a little alcohol.
 
SSP> "Assumptions: you are an atheist;
SSP> there is a spiritual realm where spiritual entities exist;
SSP> Christianity is the religion of choice."
 
I can understand you're first two (valid) points, but the third?
 
SSP> "If I were a demon and I know you are an atheist, I would not
SSP> possess you for the following reason: Your lack of belief
SSP> in God, Jesus, heaven and hell, your sin and your need of
SSP> salvation will eventually end in your eternal damnation
SSP> anyway. Why waste my time possessing your body, and therefore
SSP> give you evidence of a realm you do not believe in anyway?
SSP> In fact, it would be dangerous for me to do so, since you
SSP> may end up looking to Jesus Christ for deliverance. This
SSP> would not only result in my forceful and rude ejection from
SSP> your body, but also may lead to other people converting to
SSP> Christianity. Your ignorance will damn you better than I
SSP> ever could."
 
That assumes that Jesus exists and has something to do with God,
and also assumes God has something to do with reality. It also
assumes that Jesus somehow has value to humans, assumes that the
Jesus Hero offers "salvation," assumes that humans require
"salvation," assumes that demons exist, assumes that demons are
bad things and not good things, assumes that humans exist after
death.
 
Jesus! So many assumptions, and not a scrap of evidence or proof.
Makes one wonder how some folks can work it all out, let alone
believe it it.
 
Yours in Colleen,

--- Maximus 2.00
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: PROOF OF GOD (based on atheist's prem.)
Date: 15 Oct 1992 02:52:12 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) on Wed Oct 14 18:15:16 1992:
 
|From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
| 
|>In article <T54BsB1w165w@bluemoon.rn.com> 
|>darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) writes:
| 
|>>IMO, atheism is largely the result of a person's need to be an atheist. 
|>>The above are merely excuses.
| 
| 
|>WRONG.  ...
|>        The only reason that you believe your religion is 
|             ^^^^
|>        because your parents taught you when you were young and 
|>        impressionable. And their parents taught them, etc. 
| 
| 
|Hmmmm.
| 
| 
|             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).
 
	Theism got it's start when humans did not understand the world
around them. The "gods" they came up with where the best systematic
understanding they could come up with, in short they didn't know any better.
The only reason they could think of for thunder and lightning was something
like "There must be somebody up there doing it"- a good example is the Norse
with their "Thor", the thunder to them sounded like a hammer falling down.
 
 
| 
|2. But, the first mortal theist did exist (because we know theists).
 
	See above....(how do we know that they did not eat the little
buttons on the cactus roots in the desert (peyote) or munch on little
mushrooms growing in cow dung (psilisiben- I cannot recall the spelling) ?
HOW DO YOU KNOW THE "FIRST MORAL THEIST" WAS RIGHT ?
 
 
| 
|3  Therefore, God exists.
| 
|(It's either that or your postulate is false.  You choose.  I kind
|of like it, myself.  :)  )
| 
|DARIST
| 
 Look, I am better at logic than you are and I did not even graduate from
high school...what's your exscuse ? 
 
-- 
"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