HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: From inferrence to conclusion -
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 21:42:58 GMT

In article <C1K0zG.8Ex@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>
>   I posted some follow-ups to my other postings, but it seems that
>the would-be Defenders of the Faith intend to exhaust themselves
>protesting their own futility, so I moved over a notch. I was
>surprised how quickly my postings received attention; it's like a
>multitude of vultures were hovering, waiting for the unwary infidel to
>trespass ...
>   Well here I am. I was also suprised at the vehemence with which my
>propositions were attacked. I never even stated a position, I merely
>raised some questions, atheists it seems are just as aggressive and
>abusive as any theist when they sense their position threatened. What
>hypocrisy. Do you people ever read your own postings or do you content
>yourselves praising your own cleverness (not to be confused with wit).

Billy, you missed the best replies to your posts.  Why pick on the easy ones?
I can only take your purposely ignoring of my posts as a sign of avoidence,
of you not wanting to get in over your head.  But rational discussion was never
your intent anyway, was it.

Don't bother replying to this post until you can satisfactorily answer my
previous posts.  Continued avoidence will be taken as an admission of your
inability to hold a rational discussion.

The ball is in your court now, Billy.

JC
--
Have you washed your brain today?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ttobler@unislc.uucp (Trent Tobler)
Subject: Re: long dead
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 00:00:01 GMT

Bill Conner (bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu) wrote:
: Yes, John, I can substantiate this. I know I must be dead and in Hell
: since I am surrounded on all sides by morons, and they all subscribe
: to this news-group ...

No, we don't want you in hell, please leave.  It was so much more enjoyable
without you ;)

Ah, reminds me of a cute saying (I think I thought it up.. oh well, memory is
such a fragile thing..)  "I'd rather be in hell with those I love than in
heaven with those I hate."

As for you being dead, how can you link the fact that you are surrounded on
all sides by morons, and being in hell..?   I have never heard that only
morons, and lots of them will go and be in hell..

: Bill (or is that ex-Bill)

--
  Trent Tobler
From: dgray@menudo.uh.edu (Dennis Gray Jr.)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: RELIGION & PRESIDENTS
Date: 21 Jan 1993 14:23:36 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer User Services
Reply-To: DGray@uh.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: menudo.uh.edu
In-reply-to: y41@aixterm1.urz.uni-heidelberg.de's message of Thu, 21 Jan 93 10:20:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.102041.7378@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> y41@aixterm1.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (Jeffrey Hazelwood) writes:

   Ok, I just watched Clinton's swearing in ceremony and I couldn't believe how
   religious is was.  Since I'm in Germany, we saw it live but with German
   news anchors.  They couldn't believe how religious the whole thing was
   and found it amusing that the government could carry on in such a way. I 
   found the innaguration disgusting. In America, if you don't preach about
   God or carry on about religion you have no chance in hell(grin) of becoming
   president! Just once I would like to see the president say, "Look folks
   there is no God. Stop praying, get off your asses and do something about
   our problems." or after winning a war "Don't thank the Lord for winning,
   thank the fucking Tomahawk cruise missiles and the stealth fighters!" 

Well, there are also the guys and gals working on the missiles and
flying those fighters, but you point is well taken.

   KINISON MODE=ON

   WHY THE HELL WAS BILLY GRAHAM THERE?!?!

   KINISON MODE=OFF

You don't think any of us good xian Americans even know who Kinison is
do you?  (Sarcasm, for those to whom it is not painfully obvious.)

   To sum it up, there was...The Homeboy Baptist Choir..Billy Graham..Clinton...
   the Lord...Benediction...more prayers...Amen...

   What do you other atheists think about this? 

Well, I must say that this is better than him saying we are not
citicens, though I am not so interested in that anyway (while
technically I am, that will change shortly after I get a degree!).  I
think we as atheists, and I don't pretend to speak for everyone, must
feel that we could have ended up ALOT worse off.  Consider:
	1) We can once again be citizens.
	2) Clinton COULD have sworn on not one Bible, but TWO as the
case with Eisenhower (Jeez did we fuck up that election -- glad I
wasn't around...).
	3) I think we are used to all these xian intrusions into our
lives.  I don't mean that this is acceptable, just that this is a
reason that we should not be as suprised as you seem to be.  We have
to swear to some god in order to appear in court or on a jury (they
will ask "Do swear...  so help you god?"  To which I say we all
respond in a very loud and boombing voice with accent on the "B",
"Buda?!?!  Do you mean BUDA???", just to see what happens :-).

Related, but not along the group: Did anyone catch Rush Lumerger's
statement that "We don't want people to have too much freedom!!!"

-dennis
--
Dennis Gray, Jr.                                        DGray@uh.edu
"You askin' to become a pile of zeros?  I could put you away so good
that Peter Norton couldn't find you with his arms unfolded."
			  - Lincoln Spector
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jjh37997@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (James J. Herlburt)
Subject: Re: God MUST be bored! (Hypothetically)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:45:49 GMT

gre253@its.csiro.au (Steve Green) writes:

>Greetings fellow atheists!
>	This is my first post to this group - be gentle. :-)

>I'd just like to share a little toy idea of mine. Suppose God did exist!?
>He/She/it would be bored shitless! What I'm trying to say, and maybe some
>of you christian types can help here, is "What's in creation for God?".

>Don't worry - I'll answer for you. You'll all say "he wants us to love 
>him". But what sort of egomaniac would create beings to love him? And then
>say "if you don't love me - you'll burn in hell" - Talk about Mr. Nice guy.

>I'm no psychiatrist but isn't this sort of behaviour sound like he must be
>one sick puppy.

>I just love this mental image of God sitting at his Amiga 1000000 playing
>Sim-Universe - getting really bored - and turning it OFF!

>Have a nice day :-)

The good doctor Asimov wrote a short story that somewhat expressed this idea.He stated that the only thing a being, like the supposed God, would want is to
die. God then went about creating humans (and others) to help him think of a 
way to do it. Good story - wish I rememebered the name.



>========================================================================
>| Steve Green     |  "Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit outa my hat !" |
>| Comms Group     |  "That trick never works"                          |
>| ITS Branch      |  "Nothin' up my sleeve - PRESTO !"                 |
>| CSIRO Australia |  "No doubt about it - I gotta get another hat"     |
>========================================================================
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why God is Hiding
Keywords: Why God is Hiding
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:37:41 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <C1Dzv5.Frs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> skillian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Seth James Killian) writes:
>
>
>	To accord with the 
>	preservation of free will, any God could not allow his own existence
>	to be provable with formal logic.  If he were so provable, humankind
>	would not have any choice (the critical reason for our creation) but
>	to believe in God, thus undermining the nature of our freedom to choose.

   Only if god's definition of free will includes the clause that no
   person be allowed to prove his existence.  If this is indeed
   god's definition, then he has had a radical change of heart since
   the Exodus, where burning bushes, bloody rivers, pillars of fire
   and such were commonplace.  

   I would find it very difficult to excercise my freedom to not
   believe in god if I were faced with the same proponderance of
   evidence as the ancient Israelites.  Likewise if I had seen Jesus
   raise Lazarus from the dead, walk on water, and feed a crowd of
   5000.  

   So whence comes the dichotomy?  Where was this arbitrary line
   drawn that allowed certain folks to witness god directly, and those
   of us now who must believe on faith alone?  And what if I know
   with certainity that god exists?  This does not violate my free
   will to choose to follow him.  I could still spit in his eye
   and declare I would rather be with Satan, as apparently 1/3 of
   the angels did at one time.  Was their free will violated?  

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

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@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
From: cscope@camelot.bradley.edu (William Twentyman)
Subject: Was Jesus the Anti-Christ?
Organization: Bradley University
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:45:30 GMT


Matthew 12:22-28

    Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute,
  and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see.  All the 
  people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?"
    But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by
  Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."
    Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided
  against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided
  against itself will not stand.  If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided
  against himself.  How then can his kingdom stand?  And if I drive out 
  demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out?  So then,
  they will be your judges.  But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of
  God, then the kingdom of God has come to you.

This passage poses two possibilities, either Jesus was an agent of God, or
Satan.  Jesus's quote clearly implies that he is an agent of God, but what
if the reverse were true?  If Jesus were an agent of Satan, he could simply
appear to be divided against evil.  This would result in people believing
he was an agent of God and actually draw people away from God.  If Satan
were more interested in gathering souls than in leaving a few demons around
to torment people, he would be making an enormous profit.

This has been one of my biggest problems with Christianity, the possibility
that it was a ploy by Satan to draw people away from God.  Can anyone see
any flaws in my logic?  Anything I may have missed?
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The following statement is false.  The previous statement is true.
--------------------------- cscope@camelot.bradley.edu -------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: varney@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (Al Varney)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:09:54 GMT

In article <C18s77.Cq3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb) writes:
>pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>

>>.... I could simply go out and write up a book
>>of thousands of demonstrably correct facts and include in the list the
>>assertion "God does not exist", and by your argument I would therefore
>>be obligated to disbelieve in God.
>
>This isn't the same thing. The bible is a book of related facts. The entire
>Bible is a combination of webs and strands crisscrossing back and forth.
>It has been compared to a fragile system of bridge supports, made strong
>through unity. Each part realted to every other part in some way. This
>is why you get what is known as the Thompson Chain Bible. (Great work for
>anyone interested BTW). You can't take parts of it out and have the same
>thing. It is too interdependent. The book you speak of has none of these
>characteristics. It is the bible's nature to be combined.
>It is this nature that lets us generalize about it's truth. The book you
>propose is not such a work and an assumption of that kind would be unwar-
>rented.

   Well, I'm somewhat interested, but more along the lines of:

   How did various writings get put in the OT and NT, who made the
decision(s), and, most interesting, what writings were rejected from
the Bible?  Was there a stated criteria?  Why do different Christians
have different Bibles (not just translations)?  If it's the "bible's nature
to be combined", why haven't it's contents been agreed upon?  Is the
TRUTH of various Bibles different?  Is the Jewish OT not as truthful?
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Buddhism - A religion of atheists?
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:49:21 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <gj156879.728056125@cunews> gj156879@alfred.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879) writes:
>Although my knowledge is sketchy on the matter, the Taoist philosophy
>seems to be godless as well.  (Sort of)  From what little I've read,
>they have "gods", but recognize them as an internal manifestation.
>That is, they don't exist "out there", but exist inside you.  The gods
>are more label than substance.  What do we call this hunk of our
>personality?  Let's call it Thor, or whatever...

Well...The Taoist philosophy doesn't have any gods in it, although
one can argue that the concept of an ineffable something that is
the source of all existence and behaves according to such-and-such
principles is similar to a god.

Taoism as practiced religiously in China is more or less associated
with the scads of Traditional gods and heroes of China. That is,
Taoism per se does not teach of the existence of gods; practicing
Taoists, on the other hand, typically honor or placate all sorts
of gods and demons, and believe all sorts of scientifically implausible
things about the world.
From: atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Deliberate Ignorance
Date: 28 Jan 93 03:20:20 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska

In article <C1JrEI.5pF@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
> Daniel Norman Johnson (johnsd2@jec324.its.rpi.edu.its1) wrote:

[All manner of "He said then I said" deleted.]

>    This is so childish I am embarrassed for you. I would like to see
> how any of the the preceding paragraph can be rendered intelligble.
> 
> Bill
> 


Bill:  Is English not your first language, or do you drink a lot
before you post?

Don
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject:      Re: Strong Atheism should explain Theism
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 13:23:38 MEZ
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA22496; Tue, 26 Jan 93 04:25:21 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA20598; Tue, 26 Jan 93 04:25:17 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0543; Tue, 26 Jan 93 13:24:52 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

In article <1993Jan22.091314.23002@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:

(Deletions)
>
>Now, many religious people, notably mystics, claim to have "experienced"
>God.  It is certainly possible that their experience of God was just as
>real as our present experience of our respective computer terminals.
>This then puts a belief in God for this particular person on a par with
>the vast majority of people's belief in the real existence of the
>material world.
>

No, the point is that I have not witnessed it myself, and these people
can not derive statements from their belief that I can validate and not
explain from another system.

They may have 'experienced godly', but they have not experienced 'god',
so to speak.


>Thus, a true "experience" of God may be a very rational reason for that
>particular person to believe in God.  Definitely as rational as the reason
>the vast majority of people have for believing in the existence of the
>material world.
>

I accept that. However, when I look at mystical practices, I am not impressed
that methods of for instance, sensory deprivation, hyperventilation, lack of
food, pain, etc., makes people think they have seen god. Especially when it
stops hurting.

It can be that they have a overwhelming experience, but simply it because it
was so overwhelming, people forget to make reality checks because noone cares
for objectivity after such an experience.

The only objectivity I see is that I might have such an experience myself.
But the way to it is hard, and it looks as if the experience would impair
my reasoning quality and therefore the quality of my life.

It can be that I wouldn't care then anymore, but the analogy to hard drugs
is too clear in my eyes.
   Benedikt
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: How much should we read?
Date: 22 Jan 93 11:18:19 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <1jk51aINN9o9@OPAL.SYSTEMSX.CS.YALE.EDU> Pai-Satish@CS.Yale.Edu (A. Satish Pai) writes:
[...xians tell him he hasn't read enough religion to know what he's talling 
about...]

Try checking what quantum physics or other real-science(tm) stuff they've 
read.  They're postulating a particular model of the world - how can they 
presume to do that if they're not up to speed on the actual evidence of what 
the world looks like?


            All creatures will make merry   (on pain of death)
    Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England    (44|0)61-275-6033
From: geoff@East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A Challenge
Date: 27 Jan 1993 14:22:08 GMT
Organization: SunSelect
Distribution: world
Reply-To: geoff@East.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: tyger.east.sun.com

In article w165w@mantis.co.uk, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> () writes:
##cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
##> So it wouldn't be worth the effort to get opposing groups together to try to 
##> set up a forum for debate?  
##
##I doubt it.  My experience is that Usenet is actually *better* for these
##debates than real life, because on Usenet all participants can respond
##point-by-point, can't be interrupted, and can retrieve previous sections of
##the debate for reference and quotation.  And the oratory skills of the
##preacher don't help him sway the audience.

I agree. A case in point is that of the philosopher Antony Flew. He's
one of the most elegant and thoughtful writers about atheism, but in
several published debates (one with Terry Mieses, and another that I
forget) he was deemed to have "lost" the debate because he was more
interested in polite, courteous, fairly reasoned debate than in
demagoguery.


---
Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect, Sun Select. (geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM)
--------------------------------------------------+-------------------
"What if they made the whole thing up?            | "The Great Lie" by
 Four guys, two thousand years ago, over wine..." |    The Tear Garden
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism is dogmatic.
Date: 20 Jan 93 22:59:25 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <rabjab.27.727501059@golem.ucsd.edu> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (rabjab) writes:
>Atheism seems to be guilty of what is proposes to conteract.
>
>Because atheism represents a belief in the non-existence of God,
>it takes a dogmatic position relative to what could exist.
>
>-rabjab

READ THE FAQQING FAQ AND FIND OUT WHAT AN ATHEIST IS BEFORE YOU SEND
TRIPE LIKE THIS.

1) Atheism is the ABSENCE of belief in ANY god. That includes "God", Zeus,
   Thor, Krishna etc.. Not just "God".

2) "Believe" means to accept without any reason. For example :
     What is that tree on the horizon?
     I believe it is an oak.
        - I have not seen it up close, but I have been told it is an oak
          and in the absence of any contradictory evidence assume that
          it is an oak.
     It is an oak.
        - I know it is an oak, because I know what an oak tree is, I have
          seen the tree, and yes, it is an oak.

3) Some atheists (not very many) say that XYZ (substitute your favourite
   deity) does not exist. Most of us just don't care what you believe, so
   long as you don't force it on everybody else.

4) If you make the POSITIVE ASSERTION that your favourite deity exists
   then it is up to you to justify it. That includes defining it. If your
   definition includes attributes that are self-contradicting then it is
   obvious that that particular deity, with that particular definition
   (note the qualification) cannot exist. This is knowledge, not belief.

5) Most atheists are atheists because they have not seen any evidence for
   any particular deity. To put it another way, they have no reason to
   believe in something that has not been defined in any other than the
   vaguest terms, and which has no detectable influence on any observed
   phenomena, and whose only evidence is heresay.

6) Most religions make the same claim to have the only revealed truth,
   and can only back it up with circular argument that only convinces
   believers. There have been Christians, Hare Krishnas and Moslems
   on here recently, all with equally convincing arguments as to why
   we should all embrace their particular belief. Why should we believe
   yours rather than any of the others?

Now tell me why this is a dogmatic belief in what could or could not
exist.

Why do you believe that invisible pink unicorns don't exist?

Chris Lee
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: gj156879@alfred.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879)
Subject: VALIS: insanity and religion
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:29:07 GMT

Mathew, and others interested,

Valis was a great novel, and the main characters religious experiences
were very similar to symptoms of schizophrenia.  However, recall that
some of the symptoms could not simply be explained away by mental
illness.  The sudden knowledge of his son's illness and knowing
exactly what the illness is, verified by the doctor, is the one
example that comes to mind.

The trouble in the novel is that the character doesn't accept the
things that occur to him at a face-value level.  He attempts to
explain them, going over and over the same material, trying to
formulate a universe where such things could occur.  The more he did
this, the more he distanced himself from reality.  

I'd argue that this happens with many religious movememnts, where
their was some sort of basis, perhaps even a "mystical" experience,
but the explanataions and dogma, rules, bureaucracy, etc. all pile up
on top of the foundation, until all that's left is a garbled mess.

A religion has to keep a basis in reality.  If it doesn't, it becomes
ivory-tower-like, and you end up with Popes telling people that
condoms are evil, resulting in many stupid deaths.

                                        Nik
                              
PS
Check out "A SCANNER DARKLY", which is a damned fine read, also by
Philip K Dick.  Sort of a 60s paranoid fantasy that blew me away when
I read it.  Also, not there are some bigtime similarities between
VALIS and RADIOFREE ALBERMUTH, another amazing book.  (The pink laser
occurs in both, if I recall correctly...)


Newsgroups: alt.atheism