HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za (David Spurrett)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God is a higher technology.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 09:22:28 GMT
Organization: University Of Natal (Durban)
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc17.superbowl.und.ac.za
Summary: ..and then I bvded.
Keywords: God is a bum.

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.
> 
>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.

Eh? `gaul'?  What do the French have to do with this?

>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..."
  
Vague as the `thing' may be it's nothing on gj156879's turbid little 
posting.  The fact of the matter is that the form of the argument he seems 
to dislike *is* valid.  The argument has the inoffensive conclusion that 
inadequacy of understanding cannot be used to assert non-existence.  A 
person wanting to pursue the argument on behalf of the atheist cause would 
need to show how the case of `God' and that of Computers, say, is 
significantly different in some other way, so that the argument is either 
incomplete, or has a hidden and contentious premiss.

Also: nobody but the most deranged of fundamentalist loons would call the 
Bible a blueprint.  Has gj156879 read any Theology?  I am no theist, but 
serious (even if in the end untenable) attempts at providing a `blueprint' 
do exist.  In its attempt to bash an argument which deals with 
lack of understanding and caution in making existential claims gj156879 
seems to be championing a style of debate where any ethic of informedness 
(sorry, that's a bloody ugly word) is totally absent, ie where ignorance of 
the existence of something justifies negative existential claims.

God help us all.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+ 
| Dave Spurrett                       |                              |
| Department of Philosophy            |   "I have seen the truth,    |
| University of Natal                 |    and it makes no sense."   |
| Email: spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za |                              |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:52:28 GMT

stuart@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Joseph Stuart ) writes:

>In article <1992Oct10.213730.14549@bmerh85.bnr.ca> 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 agree with much of what you say about indoctrination, but perhaps you
>haven't even gone far enough. This parpagraph assumes that you 
>feel you have an obligation to each member of society, and that 
>you (and everyone else) should structure his moral conduct for the 
>greatest good.  How do you know that this is not just another case
>of indoctrination.  Is there any fundamental reason that we should all
>be concerned about each other, or should it be every human for itself? 
>I suppose that you could argue that we should be evolutionarily pre-disposed
>toward helping one another since we have similar genes.  But, that doesn't
>make it very palatable.

>I'm not really disagreeing with your post, just trying to serve up some
>food for thought.

I think that you should be able to have an every human for themselves
philosophy so long as the powers that be take a utilitarian (use resources
for the greatest overall good) approach. Unfortunately, in our society it
appears too much the opposite (i.e. governments caring too much about loud
minorities and individuals wasting themselves caring too much for the
overall good). If governments took a utilitarian approach then every person
for themselves would be a pro-social behaviour whereas today in a lot of
cases it is encouraged and yet anti-social. Personally I beleive a person
should be allowed to do anything they want so long as it does not infringe
on others' liberties (i.e. legalise marijuana, prostitution, euthanasia but
come down hard on murder, rape, assault, embezzlement etc). I agree my
opinions are the product of my conditioning (or 'indoctrination') but so are
the things I find enjoyable.

>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: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: O'Connor in Saturday Night Live
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 02:03:58 GMT

In article <bosullvn.718501962@unix1.tcd.ie> bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie (Bryan O'Sullivan) writes:
>bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:
>
>>What did he do to her?  Even the non-Catholics (myself incl.)
>>feel that she has no reason to hate him.  A guess would be
>>that she is protesting the Irish inner conflict between North
>>and South Ireland.  The Pope is not responsable for the
>>religious conflict in Ireland.
>
>I doubt that she's protesting any such thing.  I think Ms O'Connor is
>suffering from a peculiar second adolescence (or maybe her first was
>merely retarded).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would this not be a good rational reason to dislike the Church?
--
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: CP8219A@auvm.american.edu (Christopher H. Prokop)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: morality????????
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:40:44 GMT
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center

OK, consider it crazy, but what do any of you mean by morality??
This is alt.atheism right?  How can anyone possibly reject god
and start to build some kind of moral ontological system???
If anyone is going to tell me what is good/bad either for the
population at large or even for their own little personal 'code'
don't they also have to start answering some fundamental questions
such as "What is good, and what makes the good good (Socrates)??"
It seems as if plenty of people (not necc. on this board) are
willing enough to give up a formal definition of the word 'god'
and even 'soul' but can't let go of the notions for which they
stand.  I think trying to establish any kind of morality requires
some fundamental postulates which I really consider semi-theist.
I believe the entire world is 100% physical.  Nothing else.
Matter and only matter. To suppose some kind of 'moral' law
seems to me to be doing the same as imposing some kind of theistical
'thing' floating about, mandating right and wrong.  Now if not
everyone believes the world is purely physical, (belief in existence
of nonphysical things, like souls, ghouls, and gods) well then I
can see how they would base morality on these nonphysical 'things'
By atheistic I do not consider these valid explanations of the
way the world works.  Without such things I find it rather difficult
if not impossible to try and establish any kind of moral heirarchy.
Tell me, what is true goodness?  I would say there is no such thing,
and there cannot be any TRUE moral or ethical code of behavior.
                     Correct?
Chris Prokop
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: What is "occult?"
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:19:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.125501.164757@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
>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!).
>

Gee, this sounds familiar.  "I've got a great proof, but no time
to type it in.  I'll get to it later..."

The fact is, most (to generalize) Satanists call themselves that
for one of two reasons.

a) shock value

b) they use the symbol of Satan to represent personal freedoms
and/or the more visceral instincts of man.  In this case they
do not truely believe that Satan as a supernatural being exists.



--
In the midst of the word he was trying to say,|McCreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com
     In the midst of his laughter and glee,   |Me, speak for Compaq?  
He had softly and suddenly vanished away---   |Yeah, right.
     For the Snark *was* a Boojum, you see.   |#include <stddisclaimer.h>
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:01:00 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <Bw1w8F.BDz@casper.cs.uct.ac.za> mpinnock@casper.cs.uct.ac.za (M B Pinnock) writes:
>
>Unfortunately being an atheist implies that one follows a code of moral
>relativism. Each person gets to define his/her own moral code. However I don't
>think that it's really such a bad thing. Xtianity doesn't have a monopoly on
>the thou shalt not kill, steal, covert wives etc. It's all really just 
>common sense and good manners.

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). This does not mean, by the way, that
I think I know of such a moral code, nor that I personally
think there is one.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mpinnock@casper.cs.uct.ac.za (M B Pinnock)
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Cape Town
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 08:14:38 GMT

In <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?  If so, I would love to hear them.

Yay, a practical philosophical debate on alt.atheism. About time!

Unfortunately being an atheist implies that one follows a code of moral
relativism. Each person gets to define his/her own moral code. However I don't
think that it's really such a bad thing. Xtianity doesn't have a monopoly on
the thou shalt not kill, steal, covert wives etc. It's all really just 
common sense and good manners.

Personally I try to strive for truth and happiness while at the same time
leaving others to do their thing if they are not infringing on me.


Brian Pinnock

Computer Science Dept.       | Sam! 
University of Cape Town.     | I like green eggs and ham! 
South Africa.                | I do! I like them, Sam-I-am! 
mpinnock@casper.cs.uct.ac.za |                                 Dr. Seuss.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God's existence
Date: 11 Oct 92 00:03:37 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <1b4gs1INNj9v@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, scott@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Scott G
Goddard) wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone.  I posted something a few days ago, and I got a lot of responses,
> mostly hate mail.  To tell you the truth, that doesn't bother me, actually it
> seems kind of childish. Grow up!  I could tell that you all have a wonderful 
> vocabulary, but I could also sense much hatred.  Personally, I don't care if
> I sounded like a "preacher", as some of you put it.  And I also don't care what
> the FAQ states.  You're salvation means more to me than that.

To start with, this is alt.atheism, not alt.convert.me.please. A lot of 
people would like to discuss about atheistic and agnostic ideas. And 
frankly speaking I do think anyone keen to evangelize on this channel
isn't polite exactly. Same with atheists and agnostics trying to convert
Christians. It's up to each one of us to build our own world views.

So if you continue with pushing people, it's not exactly polite. It also
shows lack of judgement and good behavior. If you don't care about
other people's feelings, then it's not a good example of your religious
moral.

Cheers,
Kent

Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jwfost@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Joshua W. Fost)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: god is in all of us
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:39:27 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Sep30.093755.29218@walter.cray.com> jwest@wisc (Jeff West) writes:
>michalek@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Libor Michalek) writes:
>: Sure this could be counter productive someone could
>: say to them self "I could die today so I better do something outragous
>: like kill as many people as I can". But If you use the same wisdom you
>: used when becoming an athiest this can be avoided. Maybe being an athiest
>: isn't ok BY ITSELF but if you apply some of that atheist logic to the
>: rest of your life you will probablly see an overall improvment in the
>: rest of your life and you hopefully wont kill someone. 

I think you are addressing one of the two issues central to (a)theism
discussions. The first is the mapping of theistic claims (or scientific,
for that matter) onto empirical data, and the second, the one you are
addressing, is the contribution made to society and individual morals.
To show that religion is part and parcel of an ethical system that will
permit the survival of society, you need to satisfy the requirements
of necessity and sufficiency. That is, you need to show that you can
have a "good" moral system if and only if you are relgious, so that
not only do all relgious people always act in ethically sound ways,
*and* that all people who act in ethically sound ways are religious.
I'm pretty sure this cannot be done. I'm not claiming that atheists
are more (or less) likely than theists to act in ethically sound ways, 
but perhaps they are about equal. For example, I know many people
who are atheists, but who have a moral system that is just as beneficial
to society as that of the best of the theists.  
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: bug in FAQ file
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 04:19:27 GMT

morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
>>You're the one trying to "define" God in Pascal's wager as the christian
>>god.  Prove this point, or I will just re-ask the question and delete
>>all this irrelevant verbiage.

>I must have done this a half dozen times already.  But for you, Merlyn,
>I'll give it one more go.  The following text is excerpted from the
>summary of this thread that was posted last week.  I guess you missed it.

>"Objections regarding the injection of Christian interpretations of God
>are irrelevant.  Pascal's cultural bias, the use of capital-G God, and
>the mention of "eternal soul" in the argument obviously imply a
>Judeo-Christian context to this debate."

This is some new use of the word "obviously", as your proof of the
Christian god suddenly turns into "Judeo-Christian context", which
is at least two (2) different gods right there, at least from a Jewish
viewpoint.  Your proof is lacking; if you don't have any more, all
you can do is reiterate for an Nth time, which I have no interest in.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sanders@iitmax.iit.edu (Greg Sanders)
Subject: Re: soc.religion.christian is moderated.
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 18:47:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct08.203819.1108@convex.com> tonyp@convex.com (honey bunny) writes:
>I tried to post something, and it won't let me.
>
>Soc.religion.christian is MODERATED!
>
>I don't believe it!
>
>On second thought, I shouldn't be surprized: That says it all,
>doesn't it: 
>
>    As usual, Christianity is censoring postings that they don't
>    want you to see - and keeping their people in the dark, as they
>    usually do. 
>
>I have a good mind to over ride their moderation. If I could post
>without my company's name appearing, I would.

This may come as a shock to poor innocent you, but ALL the groups in the
soc.religion  hierarchy are moderated.  They are SUPPOSED to be moderated.
The Internet as a whole will not carry any "religion" newsgroup in the
soc.religion hierarchy unless it is moderated.  If de-moderated, it
would move and become, say, talk.religion.christian

Also, you may wish to note that moderating a newsgroup is a service performed
on a volunteer basis by the moderator for the Usenet community as a whole. 
Your flame says more about you than them.  You will find the moderator
in soc.religion.christian to be conscientious (he is also NOT a fundie).

Some quite interesting posts by atheists to the Internet have appeared
in soc.religion.christian rather than here.  You may wish to note that
some of the pointless drivel that you must put up with in response to
your postings here gets filtered out in soc.religion.christian, so that
the quality of the responses which appear is higher.  A thoughtful
post there with a request for email responses can also get interesting
correspondence going.  It does take more than my tolerance of Christian
writing to read soc.religion.christianity regularly, but we seem
"blessed" with a high proportion of rabid fundie mindlessness here 
in alt.atheism that they, being moderated, seem spared.

                            -- Greg
                               (once moderator of soc.religion.eastern)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: soc.religion.christian is moderated.
Date: 11 Oct 92 22:44:23 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <Oct.11.00.09.44.1992.23783@athos.rutgers.edu>,
hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) wrote:
> Of Kent's postings, 13 have been accepted and 4 rejected (at least
> according to my log files -- it's certainly possible that they are not
> perfect).
> 
> One of the primary roles I attempt to carry out in moderation is to
> keep certain topics from continuing forever.  The overall goal is to
> keep a reasonable volume of articles (I'm trying for 20 - 30 per day)
> with minimum of redundancy.  Those who read talk.religion.misc will
> note that without moderation, a discussion can often persist for
> months, to a point where it's just the same thing over and over.
> There are also certain subjects which you can't mention without
> restarting the same month-long set of arguments each time.  Thus I
> eventually mark discussions as closed, and on some topics I prevent
> discussions from being restarted more than about every 6 months.
> Those who would prefer to use a group that is not moderated will
> presumably use talk.religion.misc.

Well, I didn't keep statistics myself of rejected entries. I gave
up, ultimately. I understand the need to moderate a group so the
S/N ratio is reasonable. That's one of the issues that is valid.
However I'm very doubtful that a moderator should somehow control
the thread directions. If people want to discuss about one single
issue -- let us say trinity -- it clearly indicates that there's a 
lot of controversy concerning the topic. And a zap by the moderator
to somehow re-direct the interest to something else is IMHO not
exactly moderation, instead a deliberate force trying to push the
discussion to other issues.

Such control ultimately leads to newsgroups that have a very
uniform view of issues -- something I don't think is really good
concerning the freedom of opinion. Anyway, those are just my 
observations, I'm sure others have alternate views.

Regards,
Kent
It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that
virginity could be a virtue.  -- Voltaire
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.