HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: assertiveness of non-divinity
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:07:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.062605.8837@nmsu.edu> epowers@mccoy.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) writes:
>In article <Mew_tsK00iUyQ8DAU=@andrew.cmu.edu>  writes:
>> I was just wondering how many people here assert that there is no God. 
>> I personally have said "There is no God,"(without proof) while
>> denouncing Christians for saying there was one(without proof).  Does
>> this make me a hypocrite? 
>
>	No.  All opinions can be traced back to something that is assumed  
>without proof.  For example, most people here assume that Logic is the best way  
>to examine an argument.  We wouldn't get very far if someone disagreed, would  
>we?  Imagine the challenge:  "Prove that logic is a valid way of examining  
>reality!"
>				Erik Powers 

But it sounds like you are using logic (prove, valid) to judge logic.
Can you give us some other ways to examine arguments other than logic?
Logic is used because it is efficatious (it works).  And it doesn't
change when different people use it, it is not subject to the
user's whims.

Jim Copeland
-- 
You lock the door
And throw away the key
There's someone in my head
But it's not me            -- Pink Floyd
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto)
Subject: Is there a discrepancy with Soc.Religion.Christian?
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 05:36:08 GMT

Hello all

I tried to post an article in "Soc.religon.christian"
3 times and of no avail.
Do they have a "scrutiny" process to weed out
any atheistic post?

Thanks 
Frank Pinto
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board)
Subject: Re: Reader's Digest on prayer: amusing, or scary?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 14:21:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.164022.20975@digi.lonestar.org>, gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
|> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:
 
|> As a rule private schools, religious and secular, cost about half the amount per
|> pupil that public schools spend.  I verified this personally while looking for
|> a school for my daughter.  Public schools would learn to spend less if they  had
|> to compete on an equal footing with private schools, and the quality would 
|> improve.  It's the same thing as $90 hammers and $3,000 toilets.

Why do you think so? It seems our best parallel evidence runs directly against
this argument. Do YOU know of any public universities that spend less money and
offer higher quality than they did before the spigot of government money was
turned on after WW2? A voucher system would touch off a spiral of out of control
costs similiar to the one we see in higher education. 

|> 
|> Your point about science being not dogmatic begs too many questions to
|> go into at this juncture, as does the implication that science can prove
|> that the Gods don't exist.
|> 
|> No I don't want Shinto prayers. See my previous and original postings.  If
|> Japan had won the war, our public schools would have Shinto prayers.  But
|> why can't a Shinto Japanese send his kids to a school which has them? Or
|> an eclectic parent send his kids to a school that has a smorgasboard of
|> prayers?  Or an atheist send his kids to a school that has none and positively
|> affirms atheism?  I'd even go along with Wiccans having their own schools.
|> 
|> I send my children to a Lutheran school. But if tomorrow the government
|> decided to make Lutheran education the standard for public schools I would
|> not want to send my kids to such a public school.
|> 
|> Sincerely,
|> Gerry Palo
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
Date: 8 Nov 92 21:21:52 GMT
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

How is logical proof different from scientific proof?
Does science need to deal with the physical to be
"scientific"?  Is math not scientific?
Anyone?


Brian /-|-\
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is there a discrepancy with Soc.Religion.Christian?
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:46:24 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1992Nov08.211301.20733@bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:
>In article <BxDu89.FrI@umassd.edu>, rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:
>|>Hello all
>|>
>|>I tried to post an article in "Soc.religon.christian"
>|>3 times and of no avail.
>|>Do they have a "scrutiny" process to weed out
>|>any atheistic post?
>|>
>|>Thanks 
>|>Frank Pinto
>         
>Yes, it is moderated.  Could you post your
>article here, so we (I) can see what type
>of articles are screened?
>
>Brian /-|-\

Speaking for the other side, I have tried to post there too but without
success.  I assume that you just "F" or post to soc.religion.christian.
The moderator tries to keep the postings down to thirty or so a day, which
could be one reason why your posts don't get through. He says he replies
individually to everyone whose posting is rejected.  I haven't gotten a
reply, but that may be because I have trouble getting outside email.

Other than that, he does try to keep the newsgroup from becoming a free for
all and tends to exclude discussions about whether God exists, etc.  Anyway,
I have posted what I thought were some pretty profound and eloquent things
there, all of them postive from a Christian point of view, but to no avail.

There is another group, talk.religion.misc, which tends to be a gathering
place for Christians and representatives of other points of view.  The debate
rages all over the place.  In recent weeks the group has roared with a torrent
of postings pro and con Mormonism.  I can see why soc.religion.christian wants
to have a more focused, and therefore moderated, group.  But post in
talk.religion.misc if you want to speak to Christians in an open forum.

Gerry Palo
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rjg@doe.carleton.ca (Richard Griffith)
Subject: Re: Fundie Humor! (was Re: Top Ten Reasons to Bash Atheists)
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:14:21 GMT

I will attempt to improve the humor presented in some recent attemps.

In <1992Nov4.212732.4836@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>A travelling secular humanist salesman has a flat tire and asks a
>Christian farmer if he can stay the night until he can call for help.
>The Christian tells him not to bother, because God won't help him!
The atheist explains himself again, borrows the phone, and is on 
his way in less than an hour thanks to the AAA road side service.

I expect the annual AAA rates are much less than what you are expected
to tithe as a regular member of the church.

A badly formed joke from the Christian side.
  The ``God won't help him!'', although typical for a Christian viewpoint
  puts the humanist forever out of reach from God.

A truly christian form of the joke would be:
	XXXXXXXXX
	nice

A traveling secular humanist salesman has a flat tire and asks a
Christian farmer if he can stay the night until he can call for help.
The farmer tells him he is welcome to stay the night [hospitality]
however God placed the farmer here to do the work of the lord 
[charity] and he has already phoned his daughter[equality, and you can't
have a farmer and travelling salesman joke without the farmers daughter]
who works as a mechanic for AAA, and the salesman should be back on the
road in less than half an hour[also no sex in a joke of this type].

I started out with ``Christian'' as a modifier in the [] comments
however I deleted it as I meant true hospitality etc. Rather than the
oft experienced racist type behavior of Christians.
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God Is Silly
Date: 13 Nov 1992 12:36:17 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: world, public
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

rswiftrw@cc.curtin.edu.au (Rod Swift) writes:

>In article <1992Nov11.114355.14940@nmsu.edu>, sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>> In article <92315.021717MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>In article <n0de5t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org says:
>> 
>> It's like this:
>> 
>> Weak atheism: "I do not believe that a God exists."

>Bzzzzt.  This is more like agnosticism....
> 
>> Strong atheism: "There is no God."

>Correct!  This is atheism.....

Huh?  That *is* a pretty strong assertion.  I believe you when you say
that you don't believe in God, but your beliefs have no bearing on the
actually existence (or lack thereof) of this being.

I freely admit to not believing in God.  I choose to do so independent
of whether or not there actually is a god.

keith

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject:      Re: God Is Unfair
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 20:30:48 MEZ
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA26282; Wed, 11 Nov 92 12:07:34 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA27824; Wed, 11 Nov 92 12:07:15 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)   with BSMTP id 0217; Wed, 11 Nov 92 21:06:44 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) typed:

(Lots deleted in order to save space)
>The most important part of the story is not the destruction of Sodom.
>The most important part of the story is that Abraham *challenges God*
>on the very issue that Ken Arromdee raises in this post.
(More deletions.)
>The lesson is not that God indiscriminately destroys cities,
>the righteous with the unrighteous.  The lessons are:

>(1) Even God is constrained by His moral laws.
>(2) The righteous man does well to stand up for righteousness,
>    even if it means calling God Himself to account.
>(3) (less obvious but still important)  You don't need
>    an intermediary (e.g. priests, Jesus, Mary) to approach God.
>(4) Obeying God doesn't mean shutting up and passively
>    submitting; it means *doing righteousness*.

My lesson would be: the god of the OT does not recall its own moral standards.
Someone has to remind it.

Further, can you give stringent evidence that your interpretation of the
passage is the right one? That it was what your god meant when it destructed
sodom/invented the fabula of destructing sodom? It rather looks as if another
chain of theologic pseudo reasoning that aims at making the brute base of its
beliefs more palatable for our 'enlightened' times.

To rephrase it, what you do is to stretch and to bend an old superstition until
it fits your world view. Others have done so, too, and have come to different
conclusions, including the direct opposite. I wonder how you integrate Job into
your lesson.

The fact remains: the god - as depicted in the bible - is a brutal one.


(Deletions again)
>These are the lessons we teach.  They are relevant for
>alt.atheism, since you can view the lessons as lessons
>even if you believe the stories are all fables, and
>that Abraham and God either never existed or are
>literary metaphors.

Why should I believe a lesson that I consider to be a fable? The only thing
the story would be good for (if at all) was to be a paradigm. Further, what
can I learn from a lesson that serves the purpose of spreading the 'god'
mental phage?

Not to spread it,
   Benedikt
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:39:10 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Nov10.184658.19188@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>
>	Atheists commonly ignore that they live in a dream-world by themselves.
>
>	Quite common is the belief that you could save this earth. This is 
>	rubbish. There is no method to save mankind from Greenhouse effect or
>	lack of Ozone (for decades). People refuse to believe this. 
>
>	What is the philosophy with atheists ? Consume ! Spend more !
>

  Come on over to my state, pal, where the predominantly christian
  southern half is killing birds, trees, fish, and anything else
  that gets in the way of a human's employment.  Or consider James
  Watt's comments on how the immediacy of the second coming renders
  all ecological concerns moot.  

  Give me a break.  The only obstacle to saving this planet is
  overcoming the mindset that humans are it's most important
  inhabitant and can do bloody well what they like with it.


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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: hwong@euler.Berkeley.EDU (Harris Wong)
Subject: Re: Earth gains a retinue of Mini-Asteroids
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 04:28:29 GMT

Hi,
	Where is the boundary of the universe? Is this a meaningful question
to ask? 
	Any comment?
Harris


Harris Wong	201 Gilman Hall, Dept. Chem. Eng.
510-6420853	U.C.Berkeley, Berkeley, CA94720
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Anttidisestablishmentarianism (was Re: Cure the Believers!)
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 11 Nov 92 06:44:36 EST
 <1992Nov10.184658.19188@cs.joensuu.fi> <BxIsD8.5wD@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <BxIsD8.5wD@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
> In article <1992Nov10.184658.19188@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes...
> 
> Here's an example:
> 
>>	What is the philosophy with atheists ? Consume ! Spend more !
> 
> Evidence, please?

   Not only that, but what's the evidence that theists aren't
like that? 

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: awmurray@eos.ncsu.edu (ALAN WAYNE MURRAY)
Subject: Posting to soc.religion.christian
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:24:47 GMT

It sure would be a shame if everyone knew that you could post to
soc.religion.christian by simply placing a fake 'approved by' line
in the header of their post.  I havn't done this, but
if you look at all the posts that get through in s.r.c (or any
moderated group for that matter), you'll see a line that says
something like:

Approved by:
or 
Approved:

with the email address of the moderator.  Anyway, if your post goes
through with that line in the header, then wouldn't it by-pass
the moderator??

Of course, the article could be canceled, but that takes a while.  I'm
not saying you should do it, mind you.  Just giving information.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: Reader's Digest on prayer: amusing, or scary?
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:31:05 GMT

gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
: 
: Your observations are well taken.  I have nothing against public schools as
: such, or even schools that present a diversity of views.  Unfortunately,
: public schools do not present a diversity of views.  You will not learn any-
: thing there about Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Quakerism, the Bible,
: the Koran, or the Tao te Ching.  The only references are of an historical
: or anthropological point of view.  This is not necessarily a wrong approach
: for some people, perhaps the majority of them.  But it should not be called
: diversity.

Believe it or not, there are other types of diversity than just the
religious kind.
-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God Is Silly
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:59:11 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA24573; Wed, 11 Nov 92 11:24:08 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA24960; Wed, 11 Nov 92 11:23:53 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)   with BSMTP id 0195; Wed, 11 Nov 92 20:23:20 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

Martin Schulte typed:
>In article <n0de5t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org says:
>>
>> I don't care if I have no evidence that God does
>>not exist, though I assert God does not exist. I assert the negative,
>>and it is up to the theist, whom asserts the positive, to produce the
>>evidence.

>Where do you get this? Does no one understand that there are more than
>two sides to this? Anyone who asserts something had better be prepared
>to back it up. I don't understand why you think that the other side has
>to prove you wrong. As if you can assert a belief and get away with it.
>Both sides, since they are asserting something, need to prove their
>assertions. Otherwise, I'm left with nothing at all--my present stance.

Where does he get this: Methinketh it was said often. It is Occam's Razor.

Whoever introduces a new concept has to prove: that it is well defined,
that it is necessary in the sense that it explains things better than
without, or that it is justified assuming it. Particularly, showing that
the additional assumption is justified by the gain in information.


Most people (including me) do not do so for just every assumption they
make, science does not cover everything (yet), but alt.atheism happens
to be a board for people who consider the absence of belief in god to
be an important issue.
   Benedikt
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:20634 talk.abortion:46646
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:24:13 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <6X2LTB6w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>> In article <5279sB11w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) says:
>> >> That's why I can't believe President Bush is dragging his feet in
>> >> mobilizing the armed forces to blow away all the homeless, starving
>> >> people in our inner cities.  It sounds awful, but they'd be better
>> >> off dead.  Right?
>> 
>> >A typically mush-brained anti-abortionist argument.  Being killed is
>> >completely different to never having been born; otherwise you kill millions
>> >of people every time you masturbate.
>> 
>> I disagree.  The point was that non-existence is better than living a certain
>> quality of life.  So, why not end the existences of those who are living thes
>> terrible lives, if non-existence is better?
>
>Because ending something is not the same as not having started it in the
>first place.  For example, ending a nuclear war (via massive retaliation) is
>not at all the same as not starting one in the first place, morally speaking.
>
>So the answer to "If it's OK to cause a potential person never to exist, why
>isn't it OK to cause an existing person to cease existing?" is simple;
>"causing a person to never have existed" is not the same as "causing a person
>to cease existing".  Hence my original comment.

z/e/f's quite clearly do exist.  And your statement about their having only
"potential" personhood is just a guess on your part, possibly not a very good
one.  So far I have found that whatever someone's criteria for personhood, a
z/e/f meets at least one (probably two), and exactly as many as it might be
expected to demonstrate.  The other criteria don't tend to come out "true" or
"false", but "undecidable".

In short, under any reasonable definition of (actual, not legal) personhood,
a z/e/f is streets ahead of say, a rock or a dog.  So what's the
compassionate way to treat it?


Warranty: This article is guaranteed to be compatible with a woman's right to
obtain an abortion at any time up to birth, no matter what you think about
that.  Not void where prohibited by law.

>mathew

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject:      Historical Facts
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 20:44:29 MEZ
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA15891; Tue, 10 Nov 92 11:59:56 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA28038; Tue, 10 Nov 92 11:59:40 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)   with BSMTP id 0578; Tue, 10 Nov 92 20:59:11 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

Mathew typed:

>>I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
> There is still a discussion about if Nazi annihilation camps existed. How doe
> this fit into 'it is impossible, the memory of elderly persons regarding even
> of thirty years before is perfectly clear'.
>>

>Simple.  Those who "discuss" (ho ho) whether Nazi death camps existed, do so
>not because they are interested in facts, but because they are interested in
>bashing Jews.     (Rest deleted in order so save bandwidth)

I wonder if you are barking up the wrong tree. To put it bluntly, my post has
nothing to do with if they existed or not. The context was: it is possible
to start an argument about an event of that size. According to Ambrose Fleming,
it is not possible.

And though I assume that those who deny the existence of concentration camps
do so for selfish motives, there are still many who are simply dumb enough
to believe these argumentators. And one should not forget the group whose
sensory perception fails to register everything that doesn't fit smoothly in
their set of beliefs. None of these possibilities were mentioned by Fleming -
I regard this as enough evidence to put him into the vicinity of the groups
mentioned before (#include MMLJ), but I shall not say which.
   Benedikt
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: More Proof of Satanic Kult Activity on the Net!
Followup-To: alt.sex,soc.singles,talk.abortion
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:35:51 GMT

mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
] rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:
] > Cute.  The body of this post had exactly 666 lines.
] > 
] >   37464: [666:mathew@mantis] Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
] > 
] > Mathew, are you *certain* that you didn't plan it this way :-?
] 
] It's pure coincidence, but I consider it a delightful coincidence.  The start
] now reads:
] 
] >             THE ALT.ATHEISM FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ) FILE
] >
] >     This 666-line article is for all new readers of alt.atheism.
 
 
mathew,

NO! that is No more a Coincidence than the fact that
they just elected Bill Clinton the Babby Boomer Beast!

Which if you notice is: bbb

Which is clearly an effort by some to conceal
the fact that this is OBVIOUSLY the Sign of the
Beast and Proof Positive that Clinton is the 
Great Satan Foretold in Prophecy!!!!

Now Watch as Bill Clinton Seeks to provide MAGOOG
with the Means of resolving the Currency Issue
so that MAGOOG will be able to March to the
Plain of Armageddon!!!!! Yes! Watch as Bill
Clinton Seeks to Support the Former Soviet Union,
as well as the EuroDisneyConspiracy, so as to
Pave the Way for the End Times!!!!!

When you see Him Doing these Things,
THE END WILL BE UPON US!!!!!!

ciao
drieux


] -- 
] "Boy, they were big on crematoriums weren't they?"
]  -- George Bush, during a tour of Auschwitz, 1987-09-28
] 

ps: please take appropriate actions.

-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism