HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Wed,  7 Oct 1992 20:18:50 -0400 
From: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
	<ebolog.14@elaine.ee.und.ac.za>

>Wrong, how Human life came to be has not been proven by scientists - it is 
>ONLY a theory and should be treated as such.

Creationism has not been proved by Christians - it is ONLY a theory and
should be treated as such.
\begindata{text,17029828}
\textdsversion{12}
\template{default}
\majorheading{Jordan M. Wolbrum

}\center{\smaller{at jw67@andrew.cmu.edu

}}\enddata{text,17029828}

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:41:12 GMT

In <73160@apple.Apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:

>In article <BvptEx.IIH@umassd.edu> rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:

>>Question ; (A thorn for the Theists)
>>
>>-------->There is "evil"in the world.
>>
>>If this GOD exists then how does he deal with this issue?("EVIL")

>This question is a classic problem usually called 'the problem
>of evil.' It's not as dramatic a revelation as your post
>appears to make out, in part because it's very well known
>in both theist and atheist circles.

>Educated and thoughtful theists generally have some fairly
>good arguments (or, if you prefer, rationalizations) dealing
>with it. I don't find them convincing, but then that's part
>of what makes me an atheist.

>At any rate, the problem of evil isn't likely to sound the
>death knell of Christianity (any more than the theistic
>defenses are likely to eliminate atheism).




Evins:
So what you're trying to say is: even if an argument is solid,
after a while we should stop using it?
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Date: 12 Oct 1992 13:14:36 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>You most certainly can disprove the existence of something without being
>omniscient.  Square circles are the usual example; read the FAQ.  

+-----------------+
|                 |  Ha!  So there.
|                 |
|                 |
|                 |  Yes you can prove that circles can not be square
| I am a Circle!  |  shaped, but this is a definition problem and not
|                 |  one of an object actually existing.  You still 
|                 |  can not prove that the Pink Elephants I saw Friday
|                 |  night don't exist, or that "Army Intelligence" doesn't
|                 |  exist.  It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove the non-existence
+-----------------+  of an omniscient being.

Stratocaster
-- 
	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
				   
The white porcelain is screaming ayee! Thank god the boy's not alone. - Primus
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Creationism out of gas
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992
Date: 12 Oct 92  09:04:52

Tag: ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA TURD)
 
EBT> "Ok, you tell me how man came about and do not state 
EBT> the theory of evolution since one it is a theory with 
EBT> lots of short comings and one which even some scientists 
EBT> do not agree with."
 
I will, if you can tell me how automobiles get their power
without mentioning gasoline, desel, and other fossil fuels.

--- Maximus 2.00
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: ....
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:16:12 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <92282.102833AMS176@psuvm.psu.edu> <AMS176@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>Beware of GOD
>                         Antony Mikael Schiffbauer

Curb Your GOD.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Let us look at this yet another way
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:54:57 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

   So what's the deal here?  Does Paul Harvey go off his
rocker every five posts or so or is has he just been talking
to Bob and the CANNIBAL person too long?

Karl
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Square Circles
Date: 15 Oct 1992 21:17:57 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, ttobler@unislc.uucp (Trent Tobler) says:

>
>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)

	I doubt that given any sophisticated instrument that one could do
that. One can't even get a real circle, let along making a real circle 
whose real area match a real square! 
-- 
So there I was, snuggled in the leather seat of my brand new Ferreri [sic]
I had the oiled wood gear shift in one hands, and the leather wrapped Momo in
the other. And, I had the stereo cranking _Born to be Wild_...
	Only one problem, I was unside [sic] down, under six feet of water...
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus vs. Cub Scouts?
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:15:09
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<1992Oct5.052605.6685@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
	<1992Oct07.134057.23892@digibd.com>
	<1992Oct8.185406.1020@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com's message of Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:54:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.185406.1020@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:

   The points I raised do NOT apply to atheists, and I'd wish you'd stop
   cluttering up rec.scouting with your anti-religion agenda!!!

Feh.  In a way I'm amused, with some people saying that atheism's just
another religion and others saying that it isn't.  But Merlyn's right.
This is one of the most hypocritical postings I've seen on the net (and
I'm trying REALLY hard not to exaggerate).

   A religious belief is a POSITIVE moral value, and a value that children
   should be encouraged to adopt.   The issue in these postings is that
   a BSA unit adult leader was unable to respect legitimate RELIGIOUS
   beliefs different from his own.  It had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with
   atheism.

If you read the original article, it sounded like the original poster
didn't really accept Judaism as a "legitimate religious belief".  What
goes around, comes around.

Do you consider religions that don't follow the 7 Noahide laws to be
legitimate (e. g. polytheistic religions, if I have my facts right)?
How about religions that advocate peyote use?  Are these religions
legitimate?  If not, why not?
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: f_thomas@csd.uwe.ac.uk (F Thomas)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:50:07 GMT
Organization: University of the West of England, Bristol

In article <ebolog.18@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:

[much deleted ]

>Well, do you really think it is right?! I mean the main purpose of sex is 
>reproduction - even though there is a level of enjoyment involved. Any 
>emotional feelings you have for a person of the same sex must just be as a 
>friend and not be confused with lust. There is nothing wrong with loving a 
>person of the same sex as long as you do not have any sexual desires for him.
>
>Cheers.

Whoa boy!!!! I sure hope you got asbestos underwear on !!!

Better hope your god can get you out of this !!!

Frank

|========================================================================|
| Frank Thomas    Aka the Strange Attractor or the Hermit                | 
|========================================================================|
| f_thomas@csd.uwe.ac.uk      || voice +44 (0)272 355038                 |
|    (E-mail welcome)         || In Ye Olde Merrie England               |
|========================================================================|      
| Hee forgets that hee can die who complains of misery                   |
|   Wee are in the power of no calamity while death is our owne          |
|            (Sir Thomas Browne -- Religio medichi)                      |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Square Circles
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:28:23 GMT

In article <zlsiida.221@fs1.mcc.ac.uk>, zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave
budd) writes:
|>In article <IeqXKy200iV0I6xJp2@andrew.cmu.edu> jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Jordan M. Wolbrum) writes:
|>
|>>Why is there so much fuss about proving circles square?  The reason this
|>>is possible to prove against is that nobody disputes the definitions of
|>>either, nor the fact that they were created by humans(at least nobody I
|>>know).
|>
|>This one REALLY ANNOYS me. 
|>
|>IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PROVING CIRCLES ARE/ARE NOT/CAN BE/ETC SQUARE
|>
|>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.
|>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.
|>
|>I'll be explaining "the exception proves the rule" all over again next....
|>
|>
|>              Have another day    [Armageddon, the musical] 
|>  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44|0)61-275-6033  
                         
This one REALLY ANNOYS me.  (too)

You are, in fact, right and wrong.  You are right in your definition of the
circle-square problem.  However, there is ANOTHER circle-square paradox.  
One that deals with the concept of omnipotence. That is: if an entity is
omnipotent, can it make a square circle? (an object that meets both
definitions)
This is in line with the "rock so heavy he/she/it cannot lift it" paradox.
These try to disprove the possability of an omnipotent god, due to the fact
that some things cannot exist, because of logic.  (I am not supporting or
discounting this arguement, just clearing things up)

Now ask yourself: which definition of "circle/square problem" do you think is
most apropos to the newsgroup "alt.atheism".  Ever hear of context, Dave?
Titles are not unique identifiers.  All things have several titles and
all titles
belong to many things. I hope this clears things up.

Brian /-|-\

PS Remember to look on the flip-side. :)
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: EEEEEEKKKKK
Date: 12 Oct 1992 19:52:02 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org sez:
 
 
 
 
|.....it's been over 32 YEARS since I've had sex......
 
 
=:-O	EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK !!!!!!!
 
	I was sitting in my room listening to some Led Zepplin and I
fud m self screamin' as I read this....
 
 
	How old are you dude ?I'm 22 and I cannot go for more than a month
without doin' the wild thing........
 
 
 
		I gotto catch my breath...
 


-- 
"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
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Just the FAQs, man.  (was Re: Great Proposal !)
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:01:57 GMT


In a previous article, v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) says:

>In article <ebolog.14@elaine.ee.und.ac.za>, ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes...
>
>>Wrong, how Human life came to be has not been proven by scientists - it is 
>>ONLY a theory and should be treated as such.
>
>Guess what?  Creationism is only a theory as well (and a bad one to boot).  
>
>This guy's a walking, talking FAQ violation.  
>
>In fact, he reminds me of the "Mr No Short-Term-Memory" sketch on Saturday Night
>Live -- he seems to forget what's said in each post as soon as he's hit "f".
>

It amazes me that I am the first to comment on the irony of this guy's
name header...

"Edwin Bologna | Third"
       ^^^^^^^
How fitting....
Since that is what he is dishing out...


>******************************************************************************
>Mike Cluff				*  "If something about the human	
>v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*   body disgusts you, complain to
>UB Language Perception Laboratory	*   the manufacturer." - Lenny Bruce	
>******************************************************************************
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Assembly of God???  Strange.. *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // I was not aware that the diety  *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // was available in source form..." *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18590 talk.origins:12730
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Just the FAQs, man.  (was Re: Great Proposal !)
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 8 Oct 92 00:22:25 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <BvroL6.8DE@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
> In article <ebolog.14@elaine.ee.und.ac.za>, ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes...
> 
>>Wrong, how Human life came to be has not been proven by scientists - it is 
>>ONLY a theory and should be treated as such.
> 
> Guess what?  Creationism is only a theory as well (and a bad one to boot).  

   It isn't even a theory.  On talk.origins we've been trying to get the 
various creationists there to come up with a Theory of Creation; I think 
it's been at least three years for some of them, and so far they've never
come up with one.

Karl
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Morals and God is Dead.
Date: 12 Oct 92 12:01:52 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu
Keywords: Morality.

gj156879@prince.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879) writes:

>Well, speaking from personal experience, I've had trouble with moral
>concepts as of late, and I've never had a god looking over my
>shoulder.  Seems to be something that can get programmed into you with
>or without religion.  the thing to do: if the morals BUG you, (say you
>want to sleep around and can't, or something that isn't really a good
>or a bad thing, but something you've been taught to feel guilty about)
>then realize it's a moral someone has put in you, or something that's
>developed in you over time that you never noticed, you can change it,
>if you want to, or feel the need to.

This is so nice to know.  I've been having trouble with the moral concept
of murder lately.  It is finally a relief to know that I can over come
my problem and change it, since this is a moral that has been put in me.
I'm so happy that I no longer have to be bugged by this programming.
Should I decide to start my homicidal rampage soon, can I start with you?
I know you would understand--what's your address?

-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: ....
Date: 8 Oct 1992 22:01:36 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, AMS176@psuvm.psu.edu () says:

>Beware of GOD
>                         Antony Mikael Schiffbauer
>

	Much like those who have a "Beware of Attack Dog" sign, when they
only have a hampster...
-- 

	" It's time for Congress to tell the president to shove his 
	veto pen up his deficit! "  
					- Rep. Jim Traficant.
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus vs. Cub Scouts?
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:55:06 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <ksand-111092154712@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>
>Sigh, things are not that simple, if you would have a Boy Scout
>leader that was a secret active Kali worshipper, I guess you would
>not agree that his religious belief implies positive moral values, right?
>I hope so at least, I would not trust a Kali boy scout leader :-).

Tsk tsk tsk, Kent. I am surprised. There are perfectly innocuous forms
of Hinduism in which Kali plays a major role. Don't believe
everything you see in an Indiana Jones movie.
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: THE PROOF: The Non-existence of GOD !
Keywords: atheist, atheism, GOD, religion, logic, proof, reality, creator, the one and onl
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:25:00 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

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

>"Things" happen.  They happen to people who love God and they 
>happen to those who don't love God. 

What type of things?  Are you saying that theists somehow have a
more fortunate or "luckier", if you will, life than atheists?
This is not the case.

>For those who love God, there is the promise that "all things 
>happen for good" for them.  If He didn't let things happen to 
>them, they would be deprived of the good which will result. 

What good is this?
Why does God care how we humans may or may not feel towards Him?

>For those who don't love Him, another part of God's nature 
>becomes evident.  GOD is perfectly just.  For everyone, what is 
>just is punishment.  So even though God might not have sent these 
>*particular* "things," those people are receiving what is just. 

What you are saying is that there is some sort of moral obligation
to love this thing you call "God."  If one doesn't love this God, you are
saying that this person will be punished.  Now, the person hasn't done
anything wrong--he merely does not love this God.  So the only reason
to love God is so that you won't get punished.

So why not then just not love God, and then not get punished?  What is
the difference?
> 
>There is a common saying, "What goes around, comes around." (This 
>idiom is usually interpreted to mean, "You get what you give.")  
>So unless one of those who don't love God is perfect in his 
>morals and perfect in the execution of those morals, he is 
>getting what "goes around" when "things" happen to him.  And this 
>is minor compared to what justice demands. 

You morals are skewed by religion.  How can we hope to execute them
perfectly?

You still haven't given any reason why I should love this "God".
I mean a logical reason (which might exclude any of your reasons,
since religion is inherently illogical from an objective viewpoint;
but feel free to try to propose a logical reason).

It would alson be nice if the religious people who posted on here did
not include any Biblical references.  I don't have a Bible on hand, so
any such reference would be lost on me.  Of course, if you are forbidden
to use the Bible as evidence in your case, I guess your case really falls
apart, doesn't it?

keith
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: What brought you to atheism?
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:38:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.203308.17984@convex.com> tonyp@convex.COM  writes:
>I love to believe in the "spirit" of Jesus - that there once was a man of
>such great wisdom that he could see past man's petty state of existence and
>look into a higher plane of living. It is my understanding that when Jesus
>was MIA (he went from a boy of 12 to a grown man in the bible) he was in India
>learning the middle-eastern teachings. Son of god? - I don't think so. 

is India now in the middle east? for that matter, is the middle east
in the middle east? i dont see why. in fact, the only reason i can
see why it is called the middle east is jerusalem was once considered the
center of the planet.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cults
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:45:01 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Oct06.232551.2929@pdnfido.fidonet.org> joeb@pdnfido.fidonet.org (Joe Beiter) writes:
>In article <BvoFIz.4zq@umassd.edu> rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:
>>At least Jim Jones, Rev Moon and some others  brainwashed adults,
>>unlike some cults (Christianity, Muslims, etc.) which brainwashe
>>the most vulnerable of living animals, THE CHILDREEN.
>
>So since I am a Christian I should resist any atheistic teaching in our
>schools since it would be brainwashing from my standpoint?

What would be an example of 'atheistic teaching'? The only thing
I can imagine would be 'there is no god', and I have never heard
of any school in the U.S. including any such statement in its
lesson plans.
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: You're Invited!
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:49:09 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1atc8uINN7j2@bigboote.WPI.EDU> scott@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Scott G Goddard) writes:
>
>    To all Atheists, reading these comments made by you are very upsetting to 
>me.  There shouldn't be a discussion of whether or not God exists, it's not
>about that.  It is a fact that God exists, I don't have to prove that because 
>when you are a Christian,like me, you know I in you're heart(without a doubt).

1. I very much doubt that many atheists hold their opinions for
   the purpose of upsetting you. Regardless, your degree of
   upset doesn't provide much of a persuasion to change those
   opinions.

2. The information you posted about a Christian notion of how
   the world works is not news to many (any?) of the readers
   here. Certainly, I've heard countless variations of it
   before. It just isn't persuasive.

3. If I tell you that I know from personal experience that you
   can receive a million dollars simply by plucking out every
   hair on your body with a tweezers and painting your eyeballs blue
   while singing 'Ave Maria', will you do all those things?
   I bet you won't. I bet you don't normally believe improbable
   stories just because someone swears that they know from
   personal experience that they are true. I feel much the
   same way about people who assert that they have personal
   knowledge of god's existence. I don't have such knowledge,
   and people say all sorts of things.

4. The Bible is only persuasive if you already believe it's true.

>Please believe me, everyone needs Jesus in their life, it is incomplete 
>without Him.

Please believe me, everyone but you and I are actually killer
robots made of specially treated creamcheese. See what I mean?
Exhortations to believe are no guarantee of truth.