HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:47:53 GMT
Organization: Electronic Eng., Univ. Natal, Durban, South Africa
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc56.ee.und.ac.za

In article <1992Oct6.165718.15012@unislc.uucp> ttobler@unislc.uucp (Trent Tobler) writes:

>EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD (ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za) wrote:
>: 
>: Atheists are always saying that God does not exist and laugh away any proof 
>: Christians use to prove His existence.

>Because most Christian 'proofs' aren't proofs at all, but rather a subjective
>opinion.
> 
>: So here is my proposal : You prove to us that God does not exist!

>Why?  Why should I be concerned with what you believe, other than when your
>beliefs interfere with my life?  If and when you try to tell me how to believe,
>how to act, what I should or should not do, will I ask you why, and in these
>cases, the burdon of proof is on you, not I.

>: And please don't use your usual irrational logic and childish insults!

>Why not?  There are some logical reasons to not believe in god, but they are
>not absolute, ie. there is no evidence where the explaination god(s) is
>the simplest, there can be no valid way to determine whether a god(s) really
>is a god(s), the explanation god(s) does not really add any explaination, only
>adds more complexity (where did god(s) come from, why did he/she/it/they make
>the world the way it is, what are we to do once we get to heaven/hell/etc.)

>Of course, we could cite cases against a specific god... did you have one in
>mind?


>If you want my reasons for being atheist, that is pretty easy.  I am happy
>with it, having tried theism. I found theism both intellectually void and
>relying to much on emotionalism.  With atheism and agnosticism, I have found
>that there is explainations (through science) of many of the things around
>us, and I am comfortable accepting it, because there is nothing magical,
>emotional, or biased about it.

>: Please post your replies so that other people may also read them or if you 
>: feel embarassed mail it directly to us at (TJOHN@ELAINE.EE.UND.AC.ZA).
>: 
>: Many Thanks for any logical and well thought out arguments.

>:       Cheers from E.B.

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!

PS : Please read the other messages as well.
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: What is "God"
Date: 12 Oct 1992 19:29:44 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


	I think one think would be handy for me is to ask the
theists on the board to define "God". I know I have my own conceptions
on what I think it is you all are talking about, but I think it would be
a good exercise for the newgroup. Also I would like to point out some 
problems the christianity/theism has by using a Socratic method....


-- 
"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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Now, wait here, is this deja vu or what???
From: f0358@desire.wright.edu
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:45:26 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

Y'know, it's really weird...
I thought I wrote "Atheism? Really Harold, how gauche!" originally.
Of course, I didn't talk about what you all seem to be discussing...
I am missing something here, yeah?  If you are all using my title, please
tell me so I can know whether I'm going nuts or not...I am sure I wrote an
article of the same title...
Was I just dreaming this or is it true????
(Please, no "well, how do you define 'true?'" remarks, either!!! HA HA)

The Crescent Moonshade
    of Dreamscape
  Politics & Religion

NOVA NOVALIS NOVA NOVALIS NOVA NOVALIS NOVA NOVALIS NOVA NOVALIS NOVA NOVALIS
Truth is after all only an illusory attempt at getting laid.
That's my $.02....         Yours in (place personal deity, if any here),
                           Nova Novalis....
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: suopanki@zombie.oulu.fi (Heikki Suopanki)
Subject: Re: What brought you to atheism?
Reply-To: heikki.suopanki@phoenix.oulu.fi
Organization: Unixverstas Olutensin, Finlandia
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:21:27 GMT


Nothing brought me to atheism. One day I just discovered that some
people _really_ believe those silly stories in that thick book are true.

-Heikki

--
What do you get when you cross an agnostic, an insomniac and a dyslexic?
Someone who stays up all night wondering if there really is a dog.
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Just the FAQs, man.  (was Re: Great Proposal !)
Date: 12 Oct 92 03:05:26 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service


	As all true followers of Dobbs are aware, I should have typed "1998"
instead of "1992".  "Bob" will return on July 5th, 1998, at 7:00 am, to be
exact.  Didn't mean to be a heretic....this time!

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What brought you to atheism?
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:22:19 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Oct7.195301.27561@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> cochrane@spot.Colorado.EDU (Jim Cochrane) writes:
>
>I think that qualities such as intelligence, compassion, and generosity
>are attributes of the human mind.  People have made the mistake of
>solidifying these qualities within the concept of a God, perhaps in
>order to shift the responsibility for cultivating these qualities onto
>someone else.  In so doing, though, they have created for themselves an
>external (and imaginary) entity that they expect to help or "save" them.
>

  I've been spending some time thinking about attributes such as
  these w.r.t. religion.  Almost without exception, I find the
  atheistic readers of a.a to be far more compassionate, generous and
  caring than their theistic counterparts.  Fortunately, I have
  had enough exposure to the more mainstream religions to realize
  that this is not an immutable rule. 

  To wit, I was having a discussion with a fundie over the merits of
  abortion and the death penalty.  While this person was stark
  raving livid over the legal status abortion enjoys in today's
  society, he simultaneously supported capital punishment as a just
  and attractive form of punishment.  Where's the consistency?  Why
  can't these people think through the arguments on these issues
  themselves?  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 can't think of a single atheist (sans Doug Graham :; ) on this 
  forum who would attempt to pass legislation that encroaches on 
  another's private behavior, yet I have to go to the polls in my
  state to keep a bill off the books that would mandate teaching
  that homosexuality is a perversion in the public schools.  All
  brought to you, of course, from a local conservative Christian
  organization.  

  If the typical atheist morality will eventually land us all in
  hell, than I side with Mark Twain:

  " Give me heavan for the climate, hell for the company."

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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"Above all, a god needs compassion"    James T. Kirk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: J024330@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: I couldn't resist...
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 19:54:04 GMT

In Article: <1992Oct7.171638.17973@scic.intel.com> Donita Thompson writes:

>Scott GODdard says:
>
>> Get your heads out of the darkness,
>
>And I say -- Get your head out of your ass. :)

Wow! It's bright out here :o

Chris Colvin
From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Chastity vs Celibacy
Date: 17 Oct 92 03:06:00 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jordan M. Wolbrum) writes:

>On the other hand, chastity is the naughty one.  No sexual activity at
>all!  I can't think of someone being chaste but not celibate, unless
>they were repulsed by their SO, and married for money!

>Modern priests and nuns take vows of both celibacy and chastity.  Hope
>the intersparsed humor didn't offend anyone, but if so, tough!

Chastity normally means a pure sexual life, which includes abstaining
from improper sexual activities.  (Oxford actually gives both
definitions, but the one I'm giving you is from the Catholic
encyclopedia, which is the definition relevant when discussing
priestly celibacy.)  It applies to married couples who practice
"control and moderation of legitimate acts of the sexual relations of
married persons", as well as people who abstain from sex completely.
Celibacy and chastity together would imply no sexual activity at all,
since celibacy says you aren't married and chastity says no sexual
activity outside marriage.  But chastity alone does not say no sexual
activity.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: gj156879@prince.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879)
Subject: How I lost God and Grew as a person.
Summary: Jesus ate my labourghini.
Keywords: God is a pidgeon head.
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:43:42 GMT

My parents raised me as an agnostic.  Well, sort of.  They let us wee
kids do whatever we wanted.  We used to live up above my grandfather's
place, and the kid next door (who was much older than myself) had a
priest as a dad.  I was "friends" with the guy, and ate dinner there.
His name was Peter, and he wasn't exactly the most "religious" of
people.  When I ate dinner, Peter added to the meal-time prayer
(whatever the hell that is) "...and the cow jumped over the moon."
 
Peter was a holy terror in the neighbourhood, always up to trouble.  
 
Another childhood friend, Jason, always went to church on sunday.  I
went along to see what it was like, and the first time I had loads of
fun.  There was some singing, which was OK, there was cookies and
juice, wow, it was a neat way to spend a sunday.
 
The next week was SUNDAY SCHOOL.  Yuck.  As boring as regular school.
I did not have a good time like the previous trip (where I also played
hide and go seek with Peter in the huge halls and tunnels of the
church).  
 
It just struck me as boring.  So I developped a way of thinking that
didn't involve ritualised religion.  DESPITE the above, I am still a
fairly conservative, moral person.  My attitude to God (of any kind)
is "Neat idea, can't be proved, but if you want to believe it, fine".

I was approached by religious wackos here at Carletoon while in first
year, and they read me a pamphlet about Jesus, etc.  They said that
Jesus would "organize my life" and that right now, without Jesus, my
life goals were scattered and unorganized, but that if I "gave" my
life to Jesus, all my goals would be obvious, and my whole life would
be easy to plan and control.  Sure, only then it wouldn't be MY life
anymore, would it?
 
More recently, I picked up some silly comic books from the religious
wacko table, you know the kind, where an atheist is convinced by bible
quotations, and then starts to pray.  These were pretty silly, but not
as silly as I'd hoped they'd be.  I used to find them hysterically
funny, now I just find them depressing.
 
Spreading the word of God.  If the word is so fuggin' important, let
it trickle down to the poor slobs who need to believe it.  
 
I like the idea of the Norse Gods, and have read up a lot on the MYTH
of Odin, Thor, Loki, etc.  Some of the images are real nice: Odin
crucifying HIMSELF on the tree of life in order to find the wisdom of
the runes, etc.  I enjoy the story, the myth, but I'm damned if I'm
gonna get up on sunday, head off to some barn, and singing rising
choruses to Odin the one eyed father of poetry.  Even if I do get
juice and cookies.
 
                                        Nik
                                   Let Odin into your life.
                                   He's cooler than Christ.
                                   He drives a standard.
 


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:06:32 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <6045@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu>, 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Null Cypher) writes:
> In article <1992Oct12.173335.19203@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> 
>>*Groan* Not another one...
> 
>>You most certainly can disprove the existence of something without being
>>omniscient.  Square circles are the usual example; read the FAQ.  I don't
>>have to look at everything in the universe (and thus use omniscience) to check
>>that no single thing in the universe is a square circle; instead, logic allows
>>me to refer to whole groups of things at once, so I can say "Hm, that seems
>>to contradict.  Everything in the universe has noncontradictory attributes.
>>Guess there isn't any square circle anywhere.  I don't have to start searching
>>the Andromeda Galaxy to make sure I didn't happen to miss a square circle
>>somewhere."
> 
> Technical note:  There is such a thing as a square circle.

Is belief in a square circle a Demonic Christian Belief?

--Semhaza
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Fundies at the doorstep
Date: 16 Oct 1992 03:47:38 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


	 To add a bit-o-fun to this group, I wonder what the rest
of you atheists do when the fundies come to your doorstep. I am
going to sell them "Satanic" materials when they try to schlep
their junk......


	Well..what do you do to them for kicks ?


-- 
"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
From: maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: morality????????
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:17:00 GMT
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY

In article <92289.134045CP8219A@auvm.american.edu> Christopher H. Prokop <CP8219A@auvm.american.edu> writes:
>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???

Try looking at it from an evolutionary standpoint.  As humans we are
social animals.  Part of our ability to survive comes from our ability 
to cooperate.  If we stop cooperating then our advantage to survive
diminishe.  Imagin ehow difficult it would be for you to live if your 
fellow human being didn't aid in your survival.  We survive by maintaining
this society.

>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)??"

What is good is what aids your survival.  If you decide it is all right to
kill people the rest of society will see you as a threat and either lock
you up or kill you so you kill no more.  When as an individual you decide
that a killing will aid your survival, you must realize that others might
make the same decision about you.

>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.

Exactly, and survival is a very physical thing.

>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?

INCORRECT.  see above.

>Chris Prokop

-Bill
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop)
Subject: PROOF OF GOD (based on atheist's prem.)
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 18:15:16 EDT

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).
 
2. But, the first mortal theist did exist (because we know theists).
 
3  Therefore, God exists.
 
(It's either that or your postulate is false.  You choose.  I kind
of like it, myself.  :)  )
 
DARIST
 
I *say*, "I am."  Therefore,  I AM.
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: soc.religion.christian is moderated.
Date: 14 Oct 92 10:59:58 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <ksand-101092171951@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <1992Oct08.203819.1108@convex.com>, tonyp@convex.com (honey
>bunny) wrote:
>> 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. 
>Well, decent newsmailers should mail the entry to the moderator, that
>might or might not post the entry. Speaking about soc.religion.christian,
>I tried to post things on this group earlier, but the moderator didn't
>enter
>these due to 'already discussed issues'. Sounded like censoring for me,
>and even if I do think that newsgroups sometimes should be moderated,
>they should not be censored.

I had some stuff posted on s.r.c. which I was surprised got through after I 
found out it was moderated.  The moderator seems a reasonable fellow to me-
check his occasional comments at the end of posts he allows through.  But he 
does like to keep the bandwidth down, and just like here, they get the same 
stuff over and over, so he rejects some excessively frequent stuff.
I doubt he'd let through any "there is no god" preaching, but honest 
questions about christian belief will usually make it.



              Have another day    [Armageddon, the musical] 
  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44|0)61-275-6033  
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: More Sigh! A stud god?
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:44:24 GMT

darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) writes:

>From: edc513ysft@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au
>Message-ID: <1992Oct5.172153.1@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au>
> 
>>YOU MIGHT THINK THIS IS STUPID BUT I AM THE SON OF GOD!
>>I HAVE POWERS ATTRACT ALL THE WOMEN ON THE DANCEFLOOR.
>>THIS IS PROOF ENOUGH THAT I AM AND SHALL BE THE ALL CONQUERING
>>STUD THAT I AM!
>>
>>P.S.  GOD EXISTS.  I SEE HIM IN MY DREAMS AND HE TALKS TO ME.
>>      HE TELLS ME ABOUT LIFE, THE UNIVERSE AND HOW TO PICK UP
>>      PRETTY YOUNG BLONDES.
> 
> 
> 
>Consistency alert!  The stud herein described who attracts all 
>women should have no need for pick-up coaching! 
> 

Firstly in order to learn the enlightened ways of women attraction initially
He required coaching there is no problem here.

>Therefore this being does not exist. 
 
 This is an inconsistent conclusion to the above proposition (which was
 faulty anyway). The more obvious conclusion (given the proposition) is that
 he lied. But no atheist says that God does not exist, they all say that
 that some forms of God are unproveable either way. What we all know and
 most of us would be willing to bet our very lives on is that the
 Judeo-Christian God as described in the Christian Bible does not exist.
 However you Christians may have fabricated some (or most or most probably
 all) of the story but still managed to be on the right track, who knows?
 Certainly not anyone of this world. Please do not put words in our mouths,
 at least we quote you guys when you speak rubbish, we don't make it up for
 you (maybe it's because we don't have to!).

>DARIST
> 
>P.S.  Ok, I better explain this one.  All we studs :) know that 
>attracting women is not the same as *getting* women.  Or, even
>the best can learn new things.  Or rerun dreams.  So my mock 
>bias caused me to misinterpret the above.  This is like as the 
>real bias many atheists have.  This bias causes them to also see 
>inconsistencies that don't exist. These misperceptions prove 
>nothing just as my mock misperception proved nothing. 
> 
Jeff.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If my employer knew my opinions, I'd be fired!    | email:ednclark@kraken.
If I knew my employer's opinions, I'd quit!       |      itc.gu.edu.au
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:37:57 GMT


I seem to have missed this response to my article, and only just now
caught it in a response from a third party: 

In article <1992Oct06.205447.4956@convex.com> tonyp@cnvxla.COM, , Conan -  
good!) writes:

>}>Logic and thinking tell us that the existence of such a being is not
>}>possible. 

>}Logic tells us? But you just said that God's non-existence is
>}unprovable. Thinking tells us? Thinking tells some that God's
>}existence is not only possible, but necessary. Let's not slide into
>}the same sort of arrogance that some theists seem to wallow in. 

>Explain the "not only possible, but necessary".

You'll have to ask someone who believes that.

>Don't use the bible to back up any of your statements. You must use "fact".

You have cleanly missed my point. You claim that "thinking tells us"
thus and such, when you really mean "thinking tells me". There's the
implication that thinking is something done only by atheists. This is
simple-minded and no less arrogant than any theistic claim to an
exclusive on Real Truth. My point is to suggest that we avoid the
sort of silliness we accuse the less sophisticated believers of.
Atheists are supposed to be the cool, rational ones, eh? 

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho