HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: matthew@rima.isor.vuw.ac.nz (Matthew Hobbs)
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Organization: Institute of Statistics and Operations Research, VUW, Wellington, NZ
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 09:27:41 GMT


Keith Schneider wrote:

> ... Morality
> entails those things which allow us to successfully live together.

This is a good statement of what morals result in but it is not a
definition. A science fiction story could provide a contradiction.
I think the problem is that you have begged the question by not
defining "successfully live together". I also suspect the direction
is: we live successfully together (whatever that is!) _if_ we have
compatible moral codes.

On another tack, morality still needs to be defined in terms of the
individual unless you want:

  Morality = benefit society as a whole (by what criterion?)

but there are other versions:

e.g.

  Morality = benefit self (self benefit may derive from society benefit
  to some extent of course)

There is no apriori reason why a persons morality `must' benefit society
as a whole so I think your version of morality presumes too much.


As a last comment, I think the word morality (being a 'code of conduct')
jarrs to the atheist way of thinking - I hate it!

I'd prefer to use the word `sub-optimal', it cuts straight to the heart
in that we now need a definition of optimal.


-------------
Matthew Hobbs (matthew@isor.vuw.ac.nz)
-------------
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Cults
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 00:14:16 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: alt.atheism

In article <1992Oct06.232551.2929@pdnfido.fidonet.org>,
joeb@pdnfido.fidonet.org (Joe Beiter) wrote:
 
> 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.
> >
> >Shame on them.........
> 
> So since I am a Christian I should resist any atheistic teaching in our
> schools since it would be brainwashing from my standpoint?

I would also be appalled if there were schools teaching atheism. My
educational background was attending religious teaching classes
in school (Lutheran tradition, Finland), and yes I don't think it
exactly helped me, with the exception of training my skeptical
thinking abilities.

We should rather place children in classes teaching rational thinking,
common sense and personal skeptical judgement.

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: ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:24:42 GMT
Organization: Electronic Eng., Univ. Natal, Durban, South Africa
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc56.ee.und.ac.za

In article <Bvpt1p.Gu9@umassd.edu> rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:


>Dear Johnson

>If we are dealing with logic here, then "LOGICALLY"
>no one can prove that something isn't.
>Can you prove that "snergs" do not exit?
>However, if one is to believe that something is... 
>then the burden lays on the shoulder of the believer
>to substantiate his/her claim. Therefore you must prove
>with certainty, to me that, "this something" exits.

Ok, how about you proving to me how man came into existance without quoting 
the THEORY of evolution - after all it is a theory and even some scientists 
disagree that it could have been possible. Also why are humans symmetrial 
and do not have two arms on one side and one on the other for example - 
since according to you it was a freak accident that we came to life. Why no 
other intelligent creatures as well - why only us!

Cheers.
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Just the FAQs, man.  (was Re: Great Proposal !)
Date: 12 Oct 92 02:54:34 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <1992Oct8.030157.4859@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>
>
>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...
>
	Ah, but *this*, you see, is proof of Intelligent Design(tm) and 
therefore demonstrates that God not only exists, but has a fine sense of
humor as well!  After all, can it just be a freak accident that Bologna is
dishing out bologna?  Take *that*, oh vile secular humanist yoga meditator!
	BTW, "God" is acutally only a brand name for JHVH-1, the space deity
who *still* threatens this planet.  It is only by sending $20 to his only-
hired salesman J.R. "Bob" Dobbs that *You* can be saved when He and the Xist
saucers return in 1992.  This is a *fact* for I have read it in The Book of
The SubGenius and know it to be true in my heart.
	What?  You doubt the reality of "Bob" and slack(tm), Mr. Coldcuts?
Oh, yeah?  Well prove they don't exist, then.   You can do it via email if
you're to embarrassed to post it here.  And don't give me any of your usual
irrational "logic", either.
	That'll show him!
>
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

--
   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
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: O'Connor in Saturday Night Live
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:40:26 GMT
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

In article <BvptsF.Jzx@umassd.edu>, rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:
|>
|>Would anyone comment on "Shaned O'Connor"'s actions
|>on the program "Saturday Night Live" this past SAT.
|>
|>Frank
     
How about "huh?".
Or maybe "stupid".
Most people (I have heard) are confused and/or disappointed
with her "statement".  Why is she down on the Pope?
What did he do to her?  Even the non-Catholics (myself incl.)
feel that she has no reason to hate him.  A guess would be
that she is protesting the Irish inner conflict between North
and South Ireland.  The Pope is not responsable for the
religious conflict in Ireland.  Ms. O'Connor always seems to
TRY to do the right (contriversal) thing, but does not seem to
have a good grasp of moral and political reality.

(just my $0.02)

Brian /-|-\
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:53:40 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1bcfacINNov5@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>>You most certainly can disprove the existence of something without being
>>omniscient.  Square circles are the usual example; read the FAQ.  
>|                 |  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.

Proving the nonexistence of something which _is_ an object actually existing
is going to be somewhat difficult.

>It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove the non-existence
>+-----------------+  of an omniscient being.

"It is impossible to prove the nonexistence of an omniscient being" and
"It is impossible to prove the nonexistence of anything"
are NOT the same thing.  Please, if you don't mean the second one, don't say
it....
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 22:43:59 GMT

In article <10950@spark.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>
>Fellow atheists, can we agree to ignore this idiot?
 
 I certainly can agree to that!


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: <tonyp@cnvxla.COM> (good, Conan - good!)
Subject: Re: God is a higher technology.
Keywords: God is a bum.
Reply-To: tonyp@convex.COM 
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 04:28:04 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <gj156879.718505053@cunews> gj156879@prince.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879) writes:
}I just read a post where someone said that if you disbelieve in God
}just because you don't understand Him (I would add Her, It, They,
}etc.) then you probably don't believe in TVs, computers, and
}satellites.
} 
[stuff deleted]
} 
}Very sad, that full grown adults can argue that Santa Claus exists
}because they have a book.
} 
}"Look, Santa exists, I have a book!"
} 
}I think we should substitute Santa Claus for God in all future
}conversations.
}
That is pretty good, *BUT* things will become crystal-clear if
you substitute the word GOD for the word THE GOVERNMENT.

...and "god" told the people what to think, and how to think, and
how they should live, and what is right and wrong, and not to question
what "god" said - because "god" said it.

Amazing!

--
    Tony J. Podrasky             BIBLE : 
     San Diego , Ca                       BUY BULL ? 
    tonyp@convex.com                                  ( NO ) 
QSL? QRU? QRZ? QLZ? QFA?                                      BYE, BULL !
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:59:52 GMT
Subject: Please Help
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: alt.atheism

              Please answer these 9 questions and return.

1.) Do you think equal rights for men and women is generally a good idea?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

2.) Are you pro choice?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

3.) Are you in favor of adoption?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

4.) Do you think men should be allowed to legally terminate their parental
rights and responsibilities before fetal viability?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

5.) What sex are you?
Male               [ ]
Female             [ ]

6.) How old are you?
Under 18           [ ]
19 to 65           [ ]
Over 65            [ ]

7.) What religion are you?
Protestant         [ ]
Catholic           [ ]
Jewish             [ ]
Other              [ ]

8.) What political party are you affiliated with?
Democratic         [ ]
Republican         [ ]
Other              [ ]

9.) How many years of education have you completed?
Grade School       [ ]
High School        [ ]
College            [ ]
More               [ ]
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Dear Bush
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:09:24 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <Bw83IM.LCC@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> csfed@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Frank Doss) writes:
>In article <n0c32t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>>George Bush                                                       David Rice
>>The White House                                      
>>----------------------1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW                         
>>Laguna Niguel, California Washington, DC.                                     
>>              92677-1610 20500
>>
>>
>>Dear George,
>>
>> [Ranting deleted.]
>>
>>--- Maximus 2.00
>
>Was this really necessary?

Which:  the letter, or George Bush?

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Summary: TJOHN is an conceited idiot
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 06:04:43 GMT

In article <ebolog.12@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:

>Wrong, look around you and tell me that it all just happened by freak 
>accident. That the perfection of natural was accidental.

If you are suggesting that the theory of evolution states that we all
got here by accident, then I suggest you go over to talk.origins with
a thick flame retardant suit.  The TOE consists of both mutations and
natural selection.  At least try to understand the theories you are
attacking, and attack them on their merits, not by showing your
ignorance and trying to get others agree with your ignorance.

This is perfection?  This "creation" is the best that God could do?
Would you care to elaborate why you feel nature is perfect?  Better
yet, prove that nature is perfect.

>Scientists today turn to nature to solve problems. Think about yourself for 
>example, if you where created by a freak accident then why is the human body 
>symmetrical and not deformed with two arms on one side and only one on the 
>other for example.

I wasn't an accident.  My oldest brother, however, was. :^)

If we were "deformed" with two arms on one side and only one on the
other, you would have written "Think about yourself, for example, if
you where[sic] created by a freak accident, then why does the human
body have the useful feature of three arms..."

Isn't vanity frowned upon by the Christian God, Mr. Perfection?

Dan Yergeau
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU



-- 
Dan Yergeau                         He's dead Jim.  Take his phaser
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU        and I'll get his wallet.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: goff@intruder.navo.navy.mil (Victoria Goff)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-17809]: intruder.navo.navy.mil
Reply-To: goff@pops.navo.navy.mil
Organization: POPS Facility Managment
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:34:02 GMT

|> 
|> Evolution is a well established fact. Many biologists debated the method by 
|> which it occurred. Any many scientists when outside their field of expertise 
|> know no more than laymen.

Excuse me. Evolution is not a well established fact. It has major problems
and I could explain them if anyone really wanted to listen. The problems
with evolution are such that it can be soundly disproved and is in
respectable scientific circles.  

|> 
|> >So you prove God does not exist! (Or that you came to be without Him).
|> 

You can't prove God doesn't exist  any more than you can prove he
exists. If it were possible to prove that he does not exist, then proving
he does exist would not be very necessary, now would it?

Let us think...and reason!

v.goff "Not an evolutionist, not a creationist. A revelationist"

Disclaimer: My opinions are my own.
From: tonyp@convex.com (honey bunny)
Subject: Created in His Image?
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 20:41:18 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

As always, before the question, I present the facts;

---
Christian Fact:

   o Man was created in the image of God, and in his image created him he.

   o God is everywhere. He is in all places at all times.

   o God's WILL be done.

   o God can "impart" (as opposed to "talk") knowledge, as in Noah's Arc,
     when one of the brothers was concerned that the lions would eat the
     other animals, and someone said something to the effect that the
     it was implanted in the animals not to do that kinda stuff right now.
---

MAN WAS CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD.

Let's take a look at this, from a good ol' 20th-century point:

o Why would God have arms? 
    He doesn't need to feed himself. 
    He doesn't need to pickup stuff. 
    He doesn't need them to do things.

o Why would God have legs?
    He doesn't need to get up.
    He doesn't need to move around - he is already everywhere.

o Why would God need a mouth?
    He already has the ability to impart thoughts upon others. With
    telepathic abilities having a mouth is ludicrous.

o In fact, the human design is so poor, what superior being would 
  WANT to look / be a human? 

  Face it: other than the brain, it is surpassed by many others;

   - it isn't fast.
   - it isn't strong.
   - it isn't warm.
   - it damages very easily.
   - it has limited repair capabilities.
   - it doesn't last long.

---
We now return to your regularly-scheduled program.


--
    Tony J. Podrasky             BIBLE : 
     San Diego , Ca                       BUY BULL ? 
    tonyp@convex.com                                  ( NO ) 
QSL? QRU? QRZ? QLZ? QFA?                                      BYE, BULL !
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:49:23 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

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

>"It is impossible to prove the nonexistence of an omniscient being" and
>"It is impossible to prove the nonexistence of anything"
>are NOT the same thing.  Please, if you don't mean the second one, don't say
>it....

Please point out where ->>> I <<<- said the second one.

Stratocaster
-- 
	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
				   
The "War on Pot" makes Cocain look like an economical high.  Brilliant.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: <tonyp@cnvxla.COM> (good, Conan - good!)
Subject: Re: You're Invited!
Reply-To: tonyp@convex.COM 
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 18:02:55 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

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).
}
There's the problem: you're thinking with your heart instead of your head.
}
}     Did you know that God has a special invitation for you?  
}
Speaking of which - where is he? He was SUPPOSED to be here THIS WEEK!
}
}   Get your heads out of the darkness, there is so much that can be offered to
}you through Jeses.  Just look.
}
You're the ones with your head in the clouds. Face reality.
}
}Bible references: Isaiah 55:6, Matthew 11:28, Isaiah 55:7, John 5:24, John 1:12
}
That book was made up by old geezers to terrorize the masses into submission.

--
    Tony J. Podrasky             BIBLE : 
     San Diego , Ca                       BUY BULL ? 
    tonyp@convex.com                                  ( NO ) 
QSL? QRU? QRZ? QLZ? QFA?                                      BYE, BULL !
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Faith is illogical
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:08:22 GMT


Heb 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
things not seen.

-----------------
Gratuitous Definition:

Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks
without knowledge, of things without parallel.
		Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

-----------------
Many Christians base their belief in God on faith.  I wish to show
that the Christian God cannot exist if faith is a requirement.

DEF: Faith as I interpret it is either belief without supporting 
evidence, or belief that the evidence points to God's existance 
in spite of naturalistic explainations for the evidence.

If you disagree with this definition, please provide a counter-example.

1) Faith, by this definition, is the acceptance of the logical 
fallacy of Special Pleading.  Why should we accept a supernatural 
explaination over a natural one?

2) God, as defined by Christians, will prevent atheists from entering
Heaven due to their lack of faith.  This is required because to 
admit atheists to Heaven reduces Christianity to a mere crutch 
for life.  (I don't know of many Christians who will willingly admit 
the crutch purpose.)

3) God, as defined by Christians, is just.

4) Requiring atheists to accept a logical fallacy is unjust.

Note: I did not equivocate on the word 'just' in 3 and 4.  For 
Christians to claim God's justice is different than our own is 
to commit the fallacies of Special Pleading and/or Argument from
Authority, etc.

Conclusion:  A Just God, as defined by Christians, can't exist since
it would be unjust to prevent atheists from entering Heaven for their 
failure to yield to the logical fallacy of Special Pleading.  Q.E.D.

Comments are welcome.



-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner