HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What brought you to atheism?
From: dan@stanton.UUCP (Dan Mahoney)
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:08:42 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Organization: Stanton Public Domain Systems, Stanton, Ca.
Summary: Similiar experience


Thanks for that posting.  I find it refreshing that others have come to 
beliefs similar to mine through processes similar to mine.  

I too came to a position of pseudo-atheism (explained later) through the
abandonment of mainstream Christianity.  As a young college student I was
impressed by the Campus Crusade for Christ group, and was swayed to follow
their beliefs (more or less).  My then-girlfriend, now ex-wife, was also
a follower of the CCC way of thinking.  Following graduation I immersed myself
whole-heartedly in a mainstream church, both through involvment (teaching
Sunday School, leading youth groups, etc.) and by firmly BELIEVING what I
was teaching.  I guess I believed it because I wasn't given a good reason
not to.

My experience over the next ten years showed me that prayer as taught by
the churches doesn't really work; the only way they can be argued to be
effective is if they are taken a psychological conditioning to accept 
whatever fate delivers.  About eight years ago I was on a business trip
and was bored out of my mind.  I visited the book rack at a convenience
store near the airport and found a book on paganism and witchcraft; I bought
it figuring that anything was better than boredom.  What I found as I 
read was fascinating; the rituals and beliefs of Christianity are basically
the same as those of Christianity, expressed through a language and world-
view of another place and time.  Further review of the literature after I
got home convinced me of one thing - all of the religions I looked at
pracitice primarily the same things, with major beliefs readily 
transportable from one system to another.

My bottom line evaluation was that I cannot anthropomorphize (sp?) well
enough to deal with the concept of a "person" or "force" of centralized
intent that runs my life and the lives of those around me.  My belief
of pseudo-atheism is this:  perhaps an energy (for lack of a better term)
does exist, giving order to the universe.  If it does, then it is not a
"god", it is merely a source of energy or organization.  I cannot 
worship a source of energy.  It would not do me any good, and it would
certainly not be a source of benefit to the energy source.

In other words, I am responsible for my own life.  I cannot ask a 
heavenly big daddy to help out when I get in trouble.  If I screw
up some aspect of my life, it is my responsibility to fix it or live
with the consequences.

Comments?

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: New Member (me)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:04:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.153147.3441@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
>I've been reading this group for about a week now, and I can't figure
>out what the point of most of these discussions are.  There's something
>about a 200,000 lb. sauropod (or human?).

	This refers to Ted Holden's view that some large extinct
animals could not have walked around on land unless the "felt effect
of gravity" was less when they were alive than it is now.

  Some strange physics about
>the sun being wome kind of electromagnetic (definition?) star.

	Ted Holden proposes that the Earth's north pole was once
pointed to a pulsar or some other such object.

>Cladistics of lobophores (coelenterata?).

	That's "lophophores", which include the brachiopods and
bryozoans. The issue is which of two major superphyla of animals they
are closest to, and the consensus is "deuterostome" rather than
"protostome" (a reference to how the larvae of some forms develop).
Members of each group:

	Protostomes:

		Annelids
		Arthropods
		Mollusks

	Deuterostomes:

		Echinoderms
		Chordates

/Loren


From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:13:21 GMT
Subject: Re: Please Help
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: alt.atheism

Oops! My apologies for posting my previous "Please Help" survey to this
group. It was an honest mistake and won't happen again.

Kingsley
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: coylh@eskimo.celestial.com (Ray E)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: Eskimo North -- Seattle, WA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:22:23 GMT

In article <kmr4.50.718378369@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan ( aka. Wolphgang )) writes:
>In article <ebolog.10@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:
>
>>Atheists are always saying that God does not exist and laugh away any proof 
>>Christians use to prove His existence.
>>
>>So here is my proposal : You prove to us that God does not exist!
>> ...
>
>	If this board is unable to logically disprove Collen is God, then
>how can we even disprove God?
>	And, who's side is the burden of proof on? 
> ...

I proposed a means to prove that Colleen is not god, though it was rejected.
My feeling was that, if Colleen was god, she was also immortal.  Colleen
ignored my suggestion that she should commit suicide, and none were willing
to kill her.  Actually, they simply changed the definition of god.

It is simple to prove that god exists or does not, if you choose what god is.





-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
coylh@eskimo.celestial.com	"Everything you know is wrong."
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: "Prove God DOESN'T exist!"
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:05:14 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992

Tag: EDWIN BOLOGNA THIRD (ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za)
 
EBT> "Atheists are always saying that God does not exist
EBT> and laugh away any proof Christians use to prove His
EBT> existence."
 
Since Christians do not have proof that gods exist, atheists
cannot very well "laugh away" this proof, now can they? Of
course not.
 
EBT> "So here is my proposal : You prove to us that God does
EBT> not exist!"
 
Was it your intent to prove to us that idiots exists? You did
a very good job.
 
EBT> "And please don't use your usual irrational logic and
EBT> childish insults!"
 
Oops! Too late.
 
EBT> "Please post your replies so that other people may also read
EBT> them or if you feel embarassed mail it directly to us at
EBT> (TJOHN@ELAINE.EE.UND.AC.ZA). Many Thanks for any logical
EBT> and well thought out arguments. Cheers from E.B."
 
Somehow I think logic will be lost to you.

--- Maximus 2.00
From: darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Science and significance
Date: 10 Oct 92 21:00:15 GMT
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])


 
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
>darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) writes:
>>From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
 
>>>Science is telling us that we're insignificant.  Religion
>>>tells us that we're not. 
 
>>Science tells *atheists* that they're insignificant.  Science 
>>tells theists how wondrously God created the universe.  This also 
>>tells theists how significant *people* are because it was all done 
>>for them.
 
>This is BS. Science doesn't tell us anything about how
>significant people are.
 
Good!  You have seen my point.  Science *in itself* says nothing 
about significance.  It is the viewpoint, whether atheist or 
theist, that interprets science as saying something about 
significance. 
 
So, you are right.  Science doesn't tell us anything about how
*in*significant people are.
 
>
>>The theist views atheism as putting a cap on knowledge about the
>>universe because it prevents seeing the universe as the theist sees
>>it: with a God.  Do you assume science and atheism are the same?  The
>>theist sees science revealing God and thus being a-atheism (!(!God)).
>
>If you posit a philosophy (call it 'Anti-theism') that requires
>rejecting any view of the world in which a god turns up, then
>that philosophy 'puts a cap on' knowledge in the way that you
>describe. However, Anti-theism is by no means subscribed to by
>all atheists.
 
Yes, I see what you mean.  I apologize to rlk@underprize.think.com
(Robert Krawitz) for not understanding him when he called this 
"weak" atheism. 
 
To the extent that an atheist has not decided that there is not a 
god, he has not capped knowledge. 
 
DARIST
 
Homo sapiens is an [oxy] moron. 

 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ttobler@unislc.uucp (Trent Tobler)
Subject: Re: Square Circles
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:20:32 GMT

dave budd (zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk) wrote:
: In article <IeqXKy200iV0I6xJp2@andrew.cmu.edu> jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jordan M. Wolbrum) writes:
: 
: This one REALLY ANNOYS me.  
: 
: IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PROVING CIRCLES ARE/ARE NOT/CAN BE/ETC SQUARE

Yes, some of us realize this.  However...

: It refers to the impossibility of a geometric construction of a square which 
: has the SAME AREA {or was it perimeter...} as a given circle.

You forgot to mention that we also are working with Euclidean space, and that
the geometric contruction tools imply the operations of a compass (congruent
distance constructor), and a straight edge (line constructor).  Given the right
tools (ie, a distance measuring tool, ie ruler), one CAN construct a square
with area equal to a circle.  Or, step away from Euclidean geometry, and use
a geometry where 'squares' and 'circles' can be constructed with equal areas
(ie, I believe that taxi-cab geometry provides a way to do this)

: Remember - there was a time before algebra, when almost everything in math 
: was done via geometry.  The point is that it was not known for a very long 
: time whether or not the geometric construction was possible or not, so 
: geometers spent a lot of time trying to construct a square which had THE 
: SAME AREA as a given circle.  NOTHING to do with the definitions of 'square' 
: and 'circle' themselves.

Well, they do have to do with the definitions of squares and circles, in a
way, since the geometry underlying them is based on the primitives,
DEFINITIONS, and axioms.
 
: I'll be explaining "the exception proves the rule" all over again next....

BTW, I really don't see how the proof of the impossibility of constructing
a square with area of a given circle (or vice versa) says anything about
proving the non-existance of some object (The square with area of a circle
certainly DOES exist, it just can not be constructed using compass and
straight edge on a euclidean plane)

--
  Trent Tobler - ttobler@unislc.slc.unisys.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 22:28:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct06.205447.4956@convex.com> tonyp@convex.COM  writes:
 
>"God is necessary" to make life worth living. It is pretty silly to "live",
>and know it is all for naught. This is the hardest part for me as an atheist.
>
>I would give anything to be able to believe in God.

No, it is not all for naught.  And a "God" is not necessary to
make life worth living.  As a nearly-life-long-atheist, I have
never felt a need to believe in "God." 
Nearly everything we do in life will have an effect on
someone or something else.  Children, friends, many other people
in the world.  If one can manage to have the net effect come out
positive, then life has been worth living!
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism? Really Harold, how gauche...
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:21:43 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Oct09.220324.2747@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>In article <5960@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Null Cypher) writes:
>>Hmmm, could you post some examples of these objective truths, along with
>>proof?
>
>Sure.  It is an objective truth that if you jump in front of a moving
>train, you will die, or at least make a real mess of yourself.  The
>proof is trivial and left as an exercise for the reader.  It's an
>objective truth that Christianity tends to make people mindless fanatics.
>The proof is trivial and left as exercise for the reader.

You are inferring causal relations from correlation. A venerable
aphorism of science reminds us that "correlation is not causation."
The sloppiness of your second allegation calls into question
your understanding of the nature of scientific inquiry and
knowledge.

>>And explain why it is a 'trap' to believe that truth is relative
>>or personal?
[...]
>If I thought that truth were relative, I'd be left a helpless vegetable,
>never being at all sure of what I believed or why, and unable to act for
>fear of imposing my truths on others who prefer different truths.

Your personal discomfort is no better guide to veracity than that of
the Christian fellow who recently implied that we ought to take into
account his discomfort with atheist criticisms of religion. In general
you seem to be confusing the probable nature of synthetic knowledge
with the logical nature of analytic knowledge. All empirical knowledge
is synthetic and probable (i.e. it is logically possible for it
to be wrong).
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: More Goff
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 11:43:05 GMT

Yup, crossposted (from alt.atheism) and followups set to talk.origins.

In article <1992Oct9.181919.26472@cs.tulane.edu> goff@pops.navo.navy.mil writes:
>
> I can absolutely prove evolution to be incorrect but the same argument does
> not prove the existance of God.

Do it. Enquiring minds with a grip on reality want to know how this has
evaded them.

> [...]
>
> BTW, evolution is NOT a logical alternative [to God] by any stretch of
> the imagination and don't worry, you can still be an atheist and a
> non-evolutionist.

Don't worry, you can still be a Christian and accept the fact of evolution.

> v.goff - "Not an evolutionist, not a creationist. A revelationist"

Waaaaah.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 19:46:49 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

>In article <ebolog.16@elaine.ee.und.ac.za>, ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:
>|> two arms on one side and only one on the other for example. Also explain why 
>>> (Also explain why)
>|> if human life came about by freak accident why only we are intelligent. Why 
>|> not, as logic would point out, some creature with a different shape to the 
>|> human being with the gift of intelligence.

 I suggest you read up on cetaeceans (dolphins, etc.). Then come back
here and, to use your logic, disprove the idea that they are intelligent.

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jwest@wisc (Jeff West)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:48:47 CDT

ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:

: Ok, just tell us all the Biblical errors and a logical explanation on how 
: you came about. No, do not quote the THEORY of evolution I said proof - your 
: own personal ideas on why the human body is symmetrical and does not have 
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: two arms on one side and only one on the other for example. Also explain why 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: if human life came about by freak accident why only we are intelligent. Why 
: not, as logic would point out, some creature with a different shape to the 
: human being with the gift of intelligence.
: 
: It is logical isn't it - and please do not ignore or laugh at the question.


What's the hangup with a symmetrical body?  If that's proof of god's exhistance
then how to you explain those people who are born *without* such symmetry?
Are they not god's children?  Did they do something wrong before they were born?
Is a person with only one arm or one leg less than someone that has all his/her
arms and legs?

Jeff West

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 01:45:59 GMT


In a previous article, wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks) says:
>
>This is, in my opinion, the most powerful argument _against_
>there being a "God" as defined by the Christians.  "He" is not
>doing the things that "He" promised to do, and has not ever 
>done so.
>

Neither has George Bush....

Ipso-facto, does George Bush not exist?

:-)
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  //  Newsflash from the Vatican: *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller  //  "Easter has been cancelled...*    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  //  Someone found the body...."   *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.***************
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cochrane@spot.Colorado.EDU (Jim Cochrane)
Subject: Re: Morals and God is Dead.
Keywords: Morality.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:53:00 GMT

In article <zW7-V!=@engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>In article <austin.719028317@munagin> austin@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (timothy james austin) writes:
>>ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>
> Note, I have edited the context below a bit...
>
>>>In article <parsons.718891651@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>>>>gj156879@prince.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> ...if the morals BUG you...
>>>>>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...
>>>>Should I decide to start my homicidal rampage soon, can I start with you?
>>>>I know you would understand--what's your address?
>>
>>>>Scott Parish
>>
[Deletions]
> If this is so, then we don't need to worry about people actually going off
>on wild killing sprees, do we? This 'sense of what is right' would tend
>(not absolutely, but *tend*) to preclude this, right? So why, whenever
>someone talks about morals possibly being somewhat relative, is the first
>thing out of anybody's mouth, "So, you can go out and shoot dum-dums into
>a crowd?"
>
>>If, for example someone tortured and killed a child then we (at least I
>>would) have a sense of outrage and think that the person should be punished.
>
> No kidding. Me too.
[More deleted]
>
>>Why should we stop any injustice if it does not affect us?
>
> Maybe we feel like it.
>
>>                                                           The whole
>>idea of morality discussed here seems to be that we just do to others
>>so we can get something back ourselves.  
>
> Well, yeah. But, as has been laboriously pointed out on several posts
>up to now, that does *not* translate to 'exploit everyone around you
>as ruthlessly as possible for your immediate short-term gain.'

It seems a little strange to me that a lot of people assume that if one
rejects the prevaling moral system(s) and defines one's own rules or
guidelines of action that they would necessarily act in a selfish
manner as a result.  I think it is quite possible for such a person to
act purely out of compassion for someone else without expecting anything
in return.  In fact, I would bet that in many cases where someone
performs this kind of action, it is completely spontaneous and has
nothing to do with the person's moral code, regardless of whether or not
they have one.  [Note that by quite possible I don't mean likely; this
type of action is rare -- because it is difficult to do.]

Jim Cochrane
cochrane@spot.Colorado.EDU
From: bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie (Bryan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Where's the FAQ? [was Re: FAQ-finding difficulties]
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:27:58 GMT

rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>People here seem to have problems finding the FAQ in record numbers. I only
>seem to be able to find it once every 6 months. When I see three new people
>asking for it in one day I know there's a problem.

Well, mathew used to handle posting it every week or so.  It seems
that mantis.co.uk has disappeared from the face of the earth (as
far as net traffic generated from there is concerned) for some
reason.  Perhaps someone else should take up the job.  There are
certainly plenty of alt.atheism regulars out there who may not have
any problem doing so; any thoughts, anyone?

Further, a.a.m is sort of foundering due to the moderator (mathew?)
not being active.

	-- Bryan
--
Bryan O'Sullivan                                         bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie
Department of Computer Science          "We don't want to go back to tomorrow;
University of Dublin                     we want to go forward!" -- Dan Quayle
From: darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Lord Cometh!
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:41:59 GMT
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])

From: x@beyond.one's.understanding (The Messiah)
>
>        I bring word from our great Creator! She is given word that her
>presence shall be felt by the world! Spread The Word! Make haste to 
>prepare for Her Second Comming! All ye mortal souls must be in order!
>Armageddon is near! She is mercefull and gives all yee unbelievers one 
>last chance to repent your sins, and recognise Her Divinity!
>
>        The world shakes with thunder in one week!
 
You assert that you have been in contact with "someone."
The burden of proof is on you to prove what you say is true.
 
You may say:
< [This widget signifies a quote from the future.]
<Just wait till she comes.  Then you'll believe.
 
I want proof now.  If this great being (you give no name, do you refer
to colon, the god of the stomach?) is so powerful, let her convince me
now so that I can prepare for her great "coming."  If she were truly
merciful, she would allow me proof so that I could avoid her wrath.
 
Well I'm waiting...  I give her until I send this article.
 
 
>@beyond.one's.understanding 
 
This is not beyond *my* understanding.  You've deluded yourself into
believing you've had contact with "her."  You did this to give 
significance to your life.
 
DARIST
 
(I prefer that this silliness continue so that I may continue to
expose more of these invalid atheistic arguments.  Maybe a few of
these could be added to the FAQ which seems to address, with perhaps
only one exception, only invalid *theistic* arguments. (Why is that,
do you suppose?))