HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: DOES GOD EXIST? (outpouring of gratitude)
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:09:38 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <tjohn.25@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> tjohn@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (THIAGARAJ JOHN : THIRD) writes:

[ No, no, I had to delete it all. Laughing that much again would have had
  me dead through dehydration. ]

Fabulous, ace, great post, Thiagaraj. My, how we laughed.

But a word or two of comradely advice from a fellow atheist if I may.

If you're going to take the piss out of fundies by writing this kind
of parody, you should try to sound just a *bit* less unhinged. Hilarious
though it was, even the most deranged and psychotic of Thumpers ought to
be able to spot those telltale signs that you weren't entirely serious.

Nevertheless, a fine piece of work. Is there more to come? God I hope so.

Thanks again, and I look forward to your next effort.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: space@ncc1701.stgt.sub.org (Lars Soltau)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Organization: United Federation of Planets
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 13:39:30 GMT

>>>>> On Sat, 22 Aug 1992 04:04:40 GMT, merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) said:

> Jesus paying the penalty doesn't even change this; the penalty is still
> there, it is just being paid for you.  Presumably, someone who has committed
> homosexual acts and does not have Jesus pay the penalty will still have to
> pay the penalty him or herself.

Folks, give it up. You're arguing with people who insist that some guy being
nailed to a cross pays for *your* sins and that the guy who invented the whole
scheme and (seemingly) insisted on his own son being sacrificed so that he
won't hold us responsible for the sins of our forefathers is the supreme model
for justice.

I've never been able to follow this scape-goat argument. I like to pay for my
*own* "sins", whatever they are, thank you. Someone insisting on a random guy,
one supposedly of the highest possible moral standards at that, being tortured
to death before being willing to forgive someone long death looks like the
biggest jerk on earth to me.
-- 
Lars Soltau	bang: <insert ridiculously long path>	    BIX: -- no bucks --
		smart: space@ncc1701.stgt.sub.org

     Germany, Stuttgart-Zuffenhausen, where dreams come true: Heaven is 911!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: My own religion
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 01:42:59 GMT

Re: From: fsjdh@acad3.alaska.edu

Welcome to alt.atheism! (as an active)
You shouldn't get too many flames about how hard it
is to prove/disprove the existence of a Supreme Being, but
some people will flame anything.  To offset the mindless 
wagging of ascii, I hope I can give you some GOOD answers as
to why the "age old question" is still debated.

1)  It has not been proven that no proof exists!
2)  One must allways question. (IMHO)
3)  Some people have alot invested in either side (emotionally, 
    intellectually, or a side bet on the color of St. Peter's hair)
4)  It's fun!  Opposition creates chaos.  Chaos is the spice of life.
    (IMHO)

Alot of people hold the same view as you (the "Why ask why?" theory :-)
Not everyone (praise be Thor) on the net is hard-line.  Maybe we can
"convert" the  rest?

Have nice e^3.1415927 days,

Brian /-|-\
====================================================================
"Earth--Mostly harmless."
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Not killing as a moral absolute (was Re: Best Bible translation?
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 12:48:51 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
> In article <9ZuFPB1w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> }Murder is just killing that the state has made illegal.
> 
> And how do you classify that extermination of Homo s. directed by Yahweh?

Diminished responsibility.


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: For all you believers
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 19:54:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.182030.1520@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
>My God makes the sun rise from the east.  Can you make it rise from the west?

I'll tell you what.  How about _your_ God make the sun rise from the west, and
then I'll have my God put it back.

(Of course your reply is that God won't move around the sun just because a
human being asked him to.  So why do you expect the same from some other God?)
--
I am of course experienced in teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.
    -- Ed Nilges

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Probability quaintness
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:02:03 GMT
Organization: University of South Australia

re 28473 (Ii don't want to FOLLOWUP and spend two hours deleting)

That part about probability of losing going down after each successive los
is absolute bullshit. At any given time, the probablity of winning on the
next 'go; is exactly the same no matter what the point in time.
Definitely, the probablity that sometime between the start and the end
you win increases if the separation is increased.

Also..
Maybe I have started reading this bit about probabilites to late to get
it all,but here goes..

Assuming that atleast one god exists somwhere in an infinite range of
of universes, and that it is possible for a god to exist in more than
one of these universes, then it is possible for many gods to exist
over the infinite range of Universes. 
Question : Has at any point in this mail topic been stated that the total
number of gods that may exist must be equal to or less than the number of
universes? ie how can you say that there is a maximum of only one god
per universe. Just because todays major religions state that there is 
only one god, how can we be sure of this. To date, nobody has proved that
there is definitely only one as opposed to the plethora in Greek times.

J McVey
TO1 & Eng. student, Uni South Australia Whyalla
From: mikeb@eg.lucasauto.co.uk (Mike Brady)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Religious feeling
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:36:26 GMT


Subject: Re: Religious Phenomena
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Organization: Lucas Powertrain Systems, Electronic Control Group, UK
Cc:
Bcc:

In article <l8fs04INN404@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> Dano writes:
>(Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top) scribbles:
>
[stuff deleted]

>I suppose if you haven't felt it, it might be difficult to
>describe. I think each person might describe it slightly
>differently, but since you asked, I would say that a religious
>feeling is one where a person is gripped by or experiences a
>personal reaction to something of ultimate concern. And no,
>I do not intend that language to be used literally :)
>
>One need not be a theist to feel a "religious feeling".
>
>Dano


IMHO religious feeling is the gelling of the different aspects
of a person in a set of ideas or understanding.  For example,
personal life experiences and intellectual understanding
suddenly gell in a moment of profundity when something is
realised.

The 'something' that is realised does not have to be true, it
just has to fit the thinkers experiences and provide a framework
for them to fit together.  The 'something' could equally well
be: I was created by Yahweh; I was created by evolution or The
Universe is a figment of my imagination.

All work for different people.  It is tempting to follow this
religious feeling, because it appears to point towards truth.
And indeed it does, because it explains a persons experiences.
However, the feeling does not justify truth.  There are other
things to be considered, such as the experiences and knowledge
of others.  If the religious feeling itself is used as
validation for the idea that gives rise to it then the thinker is
heading for close-minded stagnation.

Close-minded stagnation does have a certain sense of security
about it, however.  Until the point is reached where reality
forces its way through and makes the thinker take notice.  Then
the structure can collaps in often painful and frightening ways.

Religious feeling is something I understand even though an
atheist.  I am wary of it when I experience such profound
moments now, because I am aware that is simply a working of my
mind.  When things click into place we feel good because the
world becomes easier to cope with.

To reiterate, however, the religious feeling in itself does not
justify truth.  This is an error than has caused the mass of
religions we see and have seen.  To my mind atheism is better,
at least my version, because it allows religious feeling (which
is useful as a pointer towards 'best fit' theories) without
embellishing them with mystical properties.

Mike.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: denmckinnon@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (NEIL MCKINNON)
Subject: Re: Here is your proof=God Exists?
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University 
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 01:58:53 GMT

In article <denmckinnon.1.713576464@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au> denmckinnon@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (NEIL MCKINNON) writes:
>From: denmckinnon@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (NEIL MCKINNON)
>Subject: Re: Here is your proof=God Exists?
>Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 23:41:04 GMT

>Joe Francis' original posting summed up the argument well.  

>The talk of possible worlds is used in logic to help us get a grip on what 
>we are saying when we say that something is *logically* possible (i.e. does 
>not involve logical contradictions).  When we say x is logically possible, 
>we can explain this by saying that there is at least one possible world 
>where x is the case.  When we say that something is logically necessary, we 
>are saying that x is a part of all possible worlds.  And when we say 
>something is logically impossible, we say that there is no possible world 
>where x is the case.

>When most people (there are some exceptions) use this possible world talk, 
>they are not saying that these worlds actually exist, rather, they say that 
>this is a logically consistent way in which the actual world could have been.

>Concerning the argument in question, it asserts "possibly a neccessary God 
>exists".  This asserts that there is at least one possible world in which 
>a logically necessary being, God, exists.  Of course, if a logically 
>necessary entity exists in one possible world, then by the definition of 
>logical necessity above, it must exist in all possible worlds including the 
>actual world.  However, as Joe pointed out, not many people are going to be 
>swayed by the underlying premiss that God is a necessary being.  In fact, as 
>far as I can tell, it would be hard to come up with any necessary 
>entities.  For all that is required to show that a given entity is not 
>logically necessary is to show that there is a possible world where that 
>entity does not exist.

>I hope this has clarified things a bit.

>Neil.

Something just occurred to me today which might cause confusion... I forgot 
to mention that when logicians (well, in Philosophy anyway) talk about, say, 
the "actual world", they are referring to the totality of what exists.

Neil.
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please Read This One!
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:50:54 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Aug20.081539.290@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:

[Simon's hilarious article deleted.  Thanks Jim, for sharing it
 with us again.]

>Simon, cut the crap, OK?  As someone else pointed out, this post was
>gated through Compuserve and the original posters will probably never
>see your caustic wit.

That's ok.  I saw it.  I was entertained.  I thought it was the best
reply of the lot.  I'm glad he posted it.

>Everyone (atheists and theists alike) would be a whole lot happier if
>we all simply showed more maturity and completely ignored this type of
>post to begin with.  Imagine the bandwidth savings -- one inane post
>versus hundreds of equally inane responses!

What's wrong with this picture?  A fundie in alt.atheism telling us
what type of articles are appropriate?

Anyway, back to the serious stuff.  I'm wondering Jim, if you have
any theories on what it is that makes fundies post such obnoxious
drivel?  Do you think that the religion might have something to do
with it?
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi)
Subject: Re: For all you believers
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 18:20:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.220433.6859@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>
>	NO !    I'm God !!!!!!!
>
>
>
>	I'll tell you all what......if ANY of you can perform a 
>mirical I can prove I am God by toping it (performing a better
>mirical !)  !!!!!!
>

Forget the spelling test.

My God makes the sun rise from the east.  Can you make it rise from the west?

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cosc16tt@menudo.uh.edu (Dennis Gray Jr.)
Subject: Re: How woould a Judeo-Christian God convince us he really was it!
Reply-To: DGray@uh.edu
Organization: /posole/cosc16tt/.organization
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:45:07 GMT

In article <ednclark.714378813@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:

   one) could prove he was who he said he was? I don't think he could do it 
   (beyond tampering with our minds so that we all became fundies!)!

Is this asking too much of an all powerful being?  I didn't think so.

-dennis
--
Dennis Gray, Jr.                 "What the hell were you doing???"

DGray@uh.edu                   "Attempting the hell to communicate."
                                     -from The Voyage Home
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:03:54 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:
>Yes, I may have been getting the Scopes trial mixed up with some more
>recent stuff (sorry, but even my British history isn't that strong...).
>
>I seem to remember something about an "Equal Time Amendment" ? Something
>like folks being required to put notice of the Creationist "theory" into
>biology textbooks? Was this maybe just a fundie campaign, or was it
>actually a law anywhere?
>
>FoFP

It was put into law in the states of Arkansas and Louisiana, but both laws
were struck down in the courts. (early 1980's)  The Louisiana law was never
implemented due to court action.


|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: FAQ File Reminder (and archive-server stuff)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 15:02:33 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

[ This is a canned posting ]

This is a reminder about the alt.atheism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
file.

The file exists to help new readers avoid embarrassing themselves by asking
questions which have been covered over and over again.  Please read it before
posting.

To find a copy:

1. Check the newsgroup alt.atheism.  There should be a copy of the latest
   version of the FAQ file.  Look for the subject line "Alt.Atheism
   Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)".

2. Check the newsgroup news.answers for the same subject line.

   If you don't find anything in steps 1 or 2, your news system isn't set up
   correctly, and you may wish to tell your system administrator about the
   problem.

3. If you have anonymous FTP access, connect to pit-manager.mit.edu
   [18.172.1.27].  Go to the directory /pub/usenet/alt.atheism, and you'll
   find the latest version of the FAQ file there.

4. If you don't have FTP, send mail to mail-server@pit-manager.mit.edu
   consisting of the following line:

      send usenet/alt.atheism/Alt.Atheism_Frequently_Asked_Questions_(FAQ)

   The FAQ file should be mailed back to you automatically.

5. (Penultimate resort)  Send mail to archive-server@mantis.co.uk consisting
   of the following line:

      send atheism/atheism.txt

   and our poor overworked modems will try and send you a copy.  There's
   other stuff, too; interesting commands to try are "help" and
   "send atheism/index".

   Stuff from alt.atheism.moderated is available from the archive-server;
   the atheism/index file has more information.


mathew

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:15482 alt.politics.bush:2320 alt.politics.clinton:2396 soc.motss:36147
From: dave@gergo.tamu.edu (Dave Martin)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,soc.motss
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:57:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: gergo.20AUG199219575399
Organization: Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug20.201538.11505@ncsu.edu>, cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes...
}I think the whole point of "traditional family values" not including gays
}would be the redefining of the word. As you know, tradional family refers
}to a male-female relationship. With the Liberal approach, tradional family
}would begin to include homosexual relationships which the Republicans (and
}myself) do not want.

What, afraid of a little competition from the lesbians? Besides, it doesn't
matter WHAT you or the Republicans want -- or the Democrats, necessarily. It
will happen within the next eight years that ALL persons will have ALL the
same rights of self. Regardless of what the church believes and claims to its
members, the denial of rights of self to others is not something which your
God would approve of.  And of course that is far more important than anything
that you might want. 

 -                                                                     -
 - Dave Martin - Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M - 
 - DAVE@GERGA[GERGO,GERGI].TAMU.EDU - BROOKS@TAMVXOCN.BITNET - AOL:DBM -
 -                                                                     -
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: David.Choweller@bbs.oit.unc.edu (David Choweller)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 05:26:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.141934.12009@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>davec@csufres.CSUFresno.EDU (David C. Choweller) writes:
>
>>:If so, I note that we have words from Paul to the effect "you are no
>>:longer under the law, but under grace."  Also, Christianity holds that
>>:Jesus Christ payed all penalties for moral wrongs with his death.
>
>>But the people who were executed for homosexual acts, per orders of
>>the God Christians believe in, had to pay the ultimate price for their
>>moral "wrongs."
>
>Yes, those who came before Jesus did this.  I should qualify "all" in
>the above, since I don't know how or if Jesus death applies to sins
>that preceeded him.
>

It cannot apply, can it?  The Israelite homosexuals already paid (at least
part) of the penalty with their deaths, didn't they?

>>:This happened before Christianity even existed.  From these I conclude
>>:that Christianity does not prescribe the death penalty for homosexual
>>:acts.
>
>>Do you mean that it does not prescribe the death penalty for homosexuals
>>acts, *if* this punishment is administered out by humans?
>
>In a sense this is what I mean.  When we talk about the death penalty,
>I think of something administered by humans to other humans.

This clarifies things a bit.

>
>>  In and of itself,
>>the death penalty for homosexuals is just?
>
>I cannot speak to this.

I don't see how you can conclude otherwise.  You believe that anything
God does is just.  God ordained the death penalty for homosexual
behaviour.  Therefore, the death penalty for homosexual behaviour is
just.

>
>>  Further, why do Christians
>>consider it allowable for OT followers to execute homoseuxals, while
>>modern Christians are prohibited from doing this?
>
>The old covenant has been upgraded to the new covenant.  This example
>is one if the reasons I think the new covenant is an improvement.

If God is perfect, how can he improve on anything he does?  If he made
a covenant at a certain time, then that was the best covenant that
could possibly be.  There can be no improvement on it.  You can say
(maybe) that the new covenant is better for this time, but you can't
call it an improvement, can you?  This leads to the conclusion that
the O.T. is the best and most just law for its time.  This shouldn't
make Christians feel to uncomfortable, because they just believe that
whatever God does is just.  For non-Christians the conclusion that
executing homosexuals is just is unpalatable, to say the least.
--
   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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: For all you believers
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:29:20 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <1992Aug18.181215.19544@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
}In article <1992Aug17.185213.4380@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>In article <1992Aug17.172701.22284@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
}>}In article <1992Aug16.204444.22864@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
}>}>
}>}>Nah, that's not bloody enough -- it would never make the news.  Tell you
}>}>what.  I'll have my God arrange for Mr. Bush to slaughter a bunch of
}>}>followers of your God pretty soon (before November).  Then you shall know
}>}>that my God is the one true god.  And my God is merciful, wise.
}>}
}>}It shows that the lives of humans have no importance to you to
}>}talk about them like that.
}>}
}>}My God will make Mr. Bush die one day, and you shall die too.
}>}Then you should know the truth.
}>
}>Amusing.  If Doug says it, he is showing that human lives are not important.
}>If Ridha says the same thing, it is a demonstration of truth.
}
}
}Please read again what Doug said and what I said to see the difference.
}He was referring to the probable bombing of Baghdad by Bush to boost
}his re-election chances at the expense of Iraqi civilian (slaughter)
}. I was just mentioning the mere fact that Bush (and Goug) will die
}one day, probably a natural death and this is no wish it is a fact no
}human can escape from including you and me.

Hmmmmm.  Seems to me that you equate "resulting in death" with something
nasty.  Yet the god you describe, by your own words above, makes
EVERYONE die, and is inescapable.  Shows a VERY little regard for human life
on the part of your god.


BTW:  The death rate is the same:  1 each.  
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:15311 alt.flame:12142