HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Date: 12 Oct 1992 15:53:36 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, exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) says:
 Of course, the reasons I would give for my 
>atheism are different from those McTaggart gave, and are largely the result 
>of not having seen any description of either theistic or nontheistic god-
>concepts which can't be shown to be at bottom incoherent, either with 
>with itself, other parts of the religious outlook in which the concept is 
>found, or with the rest of what I know.  My attitude is: remain tough-yet-
>open minded on the whole problem of God, while believing that I am 
>rationally justified in so far thinking that the God of traditionnal theism 
>does not exist.
>


	This is a very good summation of my beliefs. I make no statement
on whether or not there really is a divine being. However, I feel there
are many merits to disbelieving the christian myths. ( I am not euridith
enough on other religions to really make a accurate decision. )


"If there is a God, Religion is the work of the Devil."
-- 
	So there I was, snuggled in the leather seat of my brand new Ferreri.
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 down, under six feet of water...
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sources of 'Real' Atheism
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:21:46 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

 From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
 Message-ID: <exukjb.279.718136930@exu.ericsson.se>
>
>There are, I think, 5 main 
>sources of contemporary atheism:
>
>    [etc.]

   What makes you think there are "causes" or "sources"
for atheism?  This sounds like the "burden of proof" 
debate with E. Bologna et al; a better question would
be "what are the sources of contemporary religion?"

Karl

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:14:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.023701.15212@cs.ucla.edu> robert@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Rob Karmolinski) writes:
>sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>
>>Over in alt.vampyres, they are using the same sort of argument against
>>people who assert vampires don't exist.  "Oh yeah?  You can't prove
>>vampires *don't* exist, so there!"
>
>>The parallel here *ought* to be painfully obvious.
>
>>Cheers,
>
>>Steve
>
>    Aren't the stories of Jesus and vampires drawn from the same
>mythologies?  Note all the references about drinking blood from
>the body of Christ, etc.
>
>    So, it should be obvious that the "you can't prove vampires/god
>*don't* exist argument" is *equally* valid for both cases!
>
>
>Rob

1)  I think Christianity is unique as a synthesis of Judaic and
Graeco-Roman elements.  Equating the two mythologies strikes me as
superficial.  

2)  My point here is that this *isn't* a valid argument.  If it were,
we'd also have to acknowledge the existence of Santa, pixies, UFO's,
ancient astronauts etc. etc.  because we can't provide an ironclad
100% certain disproof of the almost infinite number of imaginary
beings some crackpots somewhere believe in.  Ye Gods!  Are we required
to shoot down every lunacy, every cosmic conspiracy theory, every
Elvis sighting, just because there's some snivelling cultist out there
who cries out, "You can't *disprove* my belief, so go take a flying
leap!"

*Anyone* who thinks that this type of argumentation will convince
anyone with so much as a dim glimmer of rationality in their minds,
obviously can't tell shit from Shinola!

(In case it's not clear, that's YOU, EDWIN BOLOGNA THE THIRD!  Get
your God-fearing, Bible-thumping ass off of alt.atheism, and back into
that Freshman Composition class where it belongs!)

SD
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: FAQ-finding difficulties
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:03:59 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <IerQf3200WBL84atsa@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> I have an idea.  If you're looking for the FAQ file, email someone who
> looks like they've been here a long time personally.  They'll probably
> be happy to mail you a copy.
> 
> PS  I'm a bad candidate.  I'm a freshman who found the FAQ the old
> fashioned way, scrolling through 500+ messages.

No, it's a good idea to have a group's FAQ get posted (if they have one). There
are plenty of newbies and permanent idiots all the time who don't know to ask
for a FAQ. If they see it in the header at least they'll say, "what in hell's
that?" and maybe take a look.

And I certainly wouldn't expect them to have the sense to locate an experienced
poster, let alone know enough to ask them for a FAQ.

It's generally a good bet, if you don't see a FAQ posted in a group, they don't
have one, so why bother asking?

---Semhaza
Usenet:  It's not just a job, it's an adventure.
From: ohoward@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Todd Howard)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Morals and God is Dead.
Date: 12 Oct 1992 17:09:58 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

>|parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) sez:

[stuff deleted]

>|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?
> 
>	Interesting, that the only thing keeping you from killing people
>is some imaginary spook (IE your god). I think you are trying to make a
>point for your nice, warm, fuzzy and happy christians "morals". Like when

Hmmm.  I think he does make a point.  A very valid one at that.  One
that you utterly failed to address, in fact.

[drivel deleted]

Why don't you try to argue that the "self made morals" concept is valid,
instead of attacking his position?  Surely you have some ground to
stand on!

Todd
-- 
 "The statistics on death are in, and they're pretty convincing.  One out
  of every one people die."   -Unknown

Todd O. Howard (ohoward@matt.ksu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: What an atheist thinks of the biblke.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 00:09:35 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: alt.atheism

In article <1992Oct10.212402.11649@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca>,
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) wrote:
> In article <gj156879.718726566@cunews>, gj156879@prince.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879) writes:
 
> >> PEOPLE 2000 YEARS AGO WERE MORONS:
 
> 	True.  I never really thought of it that way.

I actually don't agree on this statement. People are people, still today.
To cite Schiller:

Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.
				Friedrich Schiller
				The Maid of Orleans, III, 6.


Cheers,
Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: evil computers
Date: 9 Oct 1992 16:25:14 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) sez:
 
|In article <1aup6oINNb9h@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
|>
|>	This is interesting. here in NorthEast Ohio there are a number
|>of Amish. Though they are theistic, and do not beleave in even tele-
|>phones or cars, they tend not to be much of a problem. Even though
|>they do not use anymodern tools (a FEW MIGHT use a tractor ONLY FOR
|>THE PRODUCTION OF FOOD) they do not have delutions about partaking
|>in modern society. They stay out of the mainstream so they can be 
|>left alone to do their thing. These people in Canada sound like a 
|>real pain in the a$$.
|>
|>A. Trent Phillips | 
 
|The key point about the Amish is that they choose to live in isolation.
|Now, if they tried to force their beliefs on the rest of us they would be
|destroyed.  I think all religions should take a cue from the Amish.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|jc
	I can agree about that. I have never taken any drek from someone
Amish. The underlined portion of your post is my feeling exactly :-)



-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu | alias: White Rook
aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 11 Oct 92 23:03:56
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<ebolog.10@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> <1992Oct06.134011.16927@bnr.ca>
	<ebolog. <1992Oct12.014559.18229@news.ysu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu's message of Mon, 12 Oct 1992 01:45:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.014559.18229@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:

   In a previous article, wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks) says:
   >
   >This is, in my opinion, the most powerful argument _against_
   >there being a "God" as defined by the Christians.  "He" is not
   >doing the things that "He" promised to do, and has not ever 
   >done so.
   >

   Neither has George Bush....

   Ipso-facto, does George Bush not exist?

Definitely not.  It's really his evil twin Skippy.
--
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
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 13:49:38 -0400 
From: David O Hunt <bluelobster+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists

>Since coming to disbieve the existence of god a few months ago, I have
>come pretty far in defining my own personal philosophy.  However, one point
>still bugs me that I can't quite get around: morality.  I feel that there
>are certain things which are immoral.  While I don't expect everyone to
>have the same moral code as me, I still feel a bit disturbed when others
>do things that I consider wrong.  Have any other atheists grappled with
>the question of where morality comes from, and produced any cogent
>thoughts?  If so, I would love to hear them.
> 
>scott

Well, there's something called cooperation theory (which I admit I know little
about save in a general way)...

Basically, it says that a society that trusts and works together will advance
faster than one that doesn't.  Under that banner, "Thou shalt not kill," etc.
make sense, because without them you'd be walking about paranoid all the time,
wondering if you were being cheated, etc.

David
From: johnsd2@lib110.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Dangerous Drug (Was: Re: We'll all burn in hell!)
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:58:37 GMT
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.


-- 
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.In article <1bn4otINNht6@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, cb366@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark B. Bendiksen) writes:
|> 
|> Bill Maguire writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1bmp9tINNm9k@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> 
|> >cb366@cleveland.Freenet.Edu >(Mark:
|> >                                                   
|> >>This is where you begin to lose credibility. Religion is not in and
|> >>of itself dangerous. There are countless believers of many faiths
|> >>in our world who quietly and reverently worship their god of choice
|> >>and do not start wars or torture people. Their faith gives them a
|> >>moral code, and a being to direct their worship to. It sounds to me
|> >>like you are saying no to people having the choice to worship whoever
|> >>or whatever they want. Shouldn't people be able to do that? I'm sure
|> >>you don't want anyone telling you that you must "just say no to
|> >>atheism, a scourge upon humanity". Just because you do not see
|> >>the need to "talk to an invisible person" does not mean that it's not
|> >>helpful for other people                                                    
|>                                                              
|> >Shouldn't people be allowed to drink?  There are billions of people around
|> >the world that drink alcohol responsibly.  Should they be punished just 
|> >because a few million become alcoholics and beat their wives?  
|> >
|> >I'm bringing up this argument because it is the RELIGIONS of the world
|> >that have banned alcohol for these reasons.  It seems that if the
|> >argument is valid (which it isn't) and you ban one thing based on the
|> >argument then you should ban religion as well.  Or are you a hypocrite?
|> >
|> >-Bill
|> 
|> The point I was making in my response was that the author of the
|> "Dangerous Drug" post seemed to be advising that religion was a
|> "dangerous drug" which should be avoided at all costs, and that we
|> all must "just say no to religion, a scourge upon humanity". The
|> author, therefore, was attempting to say that because he does not
|> believe in religion, others must also refrain from seeking out God.
|> To me, that's infringing on someone else's rights, and therefore wrong.       

Funny, I thot that post was a joke.

Well, anyway, he didn't say anyone should ban religion, but
rather that we should "just say no to religion". Surely we
have the right to do that? Surely he has the right to urge us
to do so? [whazzat? oh all right, Ill stop calling you Shirley..]

[deletia- religions do not ban alchohol]
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Thu,  8 Oct 1992 16:32:43 -0400 
From: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
	<1992Oct8.132026.164741@dstos3.dsto.gov.au>

James Marcus writes:
>Look at it this way.  If He doesn't exist, then you have nothing to worry
>about.  If He does exist, then you will be able to really experience the
>presence and love of God through His son (ultimate proof for yourself!).
>I sincerely hope you take up the challenge.

Haven't you read the FAQ file?


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: kruegek@stein.u.washington.edu (Kirby Krueger)
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 04:37:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.132026.164741@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
>bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>
>
>>jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) sez:
>> 
>>[ stuff deleted ]
>>
>> 
>>	There is NO proof of any such non-sense. I could say that 
>>Pixies exist, Just because you haven't (or think that you haven't) 
>>come across them or been influenced by them does not mean that they
>>don't exist. The only problem is that there is NO PROOF THAT PIXIES
>>EXIST !
>
>On the contrary, there is plenty of proof that demons exist.  This is
>too big a subject to deal with in this posting.  With various other
>postings also concentrating on this issue, I will try to prepare an
>article on it in addition to those on Satanic crime which I am currently
>preparing.  Hopefully this later article will respond properly to your
>statements.
>
I sincerely urge you to not post these on alt.atheism.  They are not relevant,
and nobody wants to hear them.  Try talk.religion.misc.

>
>>	Ah, but the "spiritual realm" does not exist. Please PROVE IT !
>
>I will also endevour to answer this in a later posting as well.
>
This has a slight bit of relevance, at least, although judging from these
latest posts, I am very skeptical of what you would consider proof.

>> 
>> 
>> 
>>	Jesus is dead, that would be like saying Sig Freud (spelling ?).
>>How can a dead person help ? Dead people tend to be of little help, their
>>DEAD, KAPUT, STILL, ACHIEVED ROOM TEMPERATURE, 6 FEET UNDER.I still say a 
>>good shrink is better than a corpse
>
>ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!!!!
>
>Jesus is not dead!  He died and was RAISED FROM THE DEAD.  He lives today
>inside all those who accept Him as their Lord and Saviour.  This I KNOW!
>
>Although I can not prove this by sending words such as these across the
>network, He is as real to me as a person standing next to me.  With the
>communion and fellowship that I have with Him, I know for sure that he is
>ALIVE!  You can have the same relationship with Him if you ask Him
>(and mean it).  Go ahead, you might just supprise yourself.
>
>Look at it this way.  If He doesn't exist, then you have nothing to worry
>about.  If He does exist, then you will be able to really experience the
>presence and love of God through His son (ultimate proof for yourself!).
>I sincerely hope you take up the challenge.
>
>
>>-- 
Read the FAQ, please.  This logic is known as Pascal's Wager, and has many
flaws, as the FAQ explains.  Why are you posting here?  Do you really believe
that you'll convert any of us godless heathens on the net?  Do you really
think that you are saying anything we haven't all heard thousands of times,
and rejected already?  Why do you think we want people on our group preaching
to us?  This isn't alt.help.me.I'm.an.atheist.please.save.my.soul.
These posts are why alt.atheism.moderated exists. (I wish my site admin 
would let us have it.)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Lord Cometh!
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 8 Oct 92 00:26:00 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <10936@scott.ed.ac.uk>, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
> 
> Fourth Disciple and Prophet of Colleen and First Colleenian Pope,

   How many Disciples are there?  I lost count and She never told my
my number.

Yours in Colleen,
Karl
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: gj156879@prince.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879)
Subject: Re: What an atheist thinks of the biblke.
Keywords: Bible? SHMIBLE.
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 04:46:00 GMT

Ayep.  I think Mary was great.  Well, this may or may not have been
posted in alt.atheism a billion times or not, but I am told that the
word VIRGIN used to mean YOUNG WOMAN, and not someone who has not had
sexual intercourse.  If this is the case, the bible is also losing
meaning over time through poor translation.
 
What the bible needs is a good rewrite, some foot notes, and more sex,
violence, and sheep. <COUGH>

                                                  Nik
                                        Holding a cat, and waiting
                                        for you know who...
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:42:55 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Oct8.043752.19728@u.washington.edu>, kruegek@stein.u.washington.edu (Kirby Krueger) writes:
> In article <1992Oct8.132026.164741@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
>>
>>On the contrary, there is plenty of proof that demons exist.  This is
>>too big a subject to deal with in this posting.  With various other
>>postings also concentrating on this issue, I will try to prepare an
>>article on it in addition to those on Satanic crime which I am currently
>>preparing.  Hopefully this later article will respond properly to your
>>statements.
>>
> I sincerely urge you to not post these on alt.atheism.  They are not relevant,
> and nobody wants to hear them.  Try talk.religion.misc.

   No, please post them here.  I would like to see them and I 
don't read t.r.m.

Karl
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Now, wait here, is this deja vu or what???
Date: 15 Oct 1992 01:00:20 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, f0358@desire.wright.edu () says:

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

Well, article 70825 posted by f0358@desire.write.edu was the one who 
posted under that title origionally on 7 Oct 92. 

	<peers suspiciously> 		>8-/

	Was that you?

Its amazing how a post thread can change so drastically. We had one on 
my local board which spanned 6 months! All started by one little seemingly
insignificant mistake...
	

Article 70825 of alt.atheism:
>Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Atheism? Really Harold, how gauche...
From: f0358@desire.wright.edu
Date: 7 Oct 92 10:55:29 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

Hi...y'know, I have met lot of people who proclaim the nonexistence of God, or
god(s) as it were, I myself being one of them. Why is it though that so many
'atheists' use the same faulty logic as those many spiritual debators? It's
disheartening to see that so many people espouse 'atheism' without a true
understanding of the concept. I feel that atheism gets often a bad rap because
of this. People often rightly assume that atheism is the conglomerate of all
pagan, non-Theist, or Pan-theist beliefs. They are right in assuming this
because many atheists lead them to believe this. A belief in the existence of
God, god(s), is not in and of itself a bad thing, but never let yourself
believe that you have THE truth lest someone come by and smack the smile off of
your face. Truth is a virus, as they say, once people have it, they can, and
often do, lose their minds to it. Atheism is only a concept by whose
prescriptions there is no extant God, god(s). I believe this, but it doesn't
mean I am free to do as I please; I am still obligated to search for my own
personal truth. That's all. Later.
-- 
	So there I was, snuggled in the leather seat of my brand new Ferreri.
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 down, under six feet of water...
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Dear Bush
Date: 16 Oct 1992 17:11:41 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, csfed@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Frank Doss) says:


>>Dear George,
>>
>> [Ranting deleted.]

>
>Was this really necessary?

	When the President of the United States publically admits that
he does not feel certain memebers of this society are worthy of U.S 
citizenship, then it is most definently necessary!
	What if he used - Islamic, Morman, Russian Orthadox, Hindu, etc.-
instead? 
	He is clearly showing either his ignorance of or disdain for the 
first admendment of the Constitution. Do you not feel that that is a 
serious issue?
-- 
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...