HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cb366@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark B. Bendiksen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Love -in- Christ
Date: 16 Oct 1992 16:30:51 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


David Rice writes (in regards to one of my earlier posts):

>> Message-ID: 1b4unhINNr3k@usenet.ins.cwru.edu    
                                                  
>MB.B> "I am what most of you would probably call a 'Jesus Freak.'"   
                                                                     
>What I have always found most mind-boggling and utterly bizzare
>is that theists post in an atheist newsgroup, fully aware of that
>fact, and yet stumble blythly on, undaunted---- Folks such as this
>Mark person is so utterly ARROGANT, so drunk on HUBRIS that he
>assumes he has something to contribute in an atheist conference.
                                           
>Well SHIT! We've hear IT ALL so many time before!

I believe you have missed the point of my posts. I began posting
because I thought I might be able to learn from the differences
that believers and atheists have, not necessarily because I
felt that I had something so important to contribute. So far
(until your post), this has been possible, and I appreciate        
that.

>Who, exactly, is twisting your arm to subscribe to and read this
>newsgroup? Do the words "Shove off, mate" mean anything to you?

No one twisted my arm. I thought it might be interesting
and enlightening to discuss various issues with atheists and
agnostics. Your monologue has proven to be particularly
brilliant. 

Yes, I believe I can comprehend the phrase "Shove off, mate",
and as I promised in my second post (Thanks, Atheists) if
I read a plethora of posts as worthless and hateful as yours
I will indeed pack my bags and leave this newsgroup. My goal
is not to waste bandwidth with pointless attacks back and
forth. That's not constructive in my eyes, and truly a waste
of time.

>Itiots are forgivable. WILFULLY IGNORANT ASSES are not.

Ah, something we agree on.


Mark B. Bendiksen
cb366@freenet.cwru.edu

-- 
"If we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto,
 We'll just be bogus, too."-- Dr. Jeff Spicolli
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: esposito@hamlet.uncg.edu (Andrew Joseph Esposito)
Subject: Re: O'Connor in Saturday Night Live
Organization: not affliated with any
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:06:27 GMT

In article <63P0RB1w165w@mantis.co.uk> tony@mantis.co.uk (Tony Lezard) 
writes:

>Not everyone in the world can watch SNL when it is broadcast.
>What did she do?

She tore a picture of the Pope on stage (CNN headline news).
--
Andrew Joseph Esposito                    internet:  esposito@hamlet.uncg.edu
voice (919) 379-8244                      bitnet:    in%"esposito@uncg.bitnet"

--
Disclaimer:  The opinions herein are not necessarily the opinions of any
organization or group of which the author is affiliated.  The preceding 
opinions may not even be the author's.  No guarantees are given and no 
warranties will be honored.
From: joeb@src4src.linet.org (Joe Beiter)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: To All Truth Seekers!
Date: 11 Oct 92 21:02:57 GMT
Organization: The Source for Source Pub Access Unix

In article <1992Oct9.152208.13379@news.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.150735.23962@cs.tulane.edu> goff@pops.navo.navy.mil writes:
>>JESUS WAS A MYTH-
>>   Question: The bible, as a history book, is astonishingly correct when
>>	     used to understand archeological remains and ancient writings.
>Twaddle. The Bible is astonishingly bad. It gets all sorts of things
>wrong. E.g. The creation narrative. The flood. There is much doubt
>about the historicity of the Exodus narrative, and Joshua claims to
>have conquered cities that didn't exist at the time.

For one, your accusation that the creation narrative is wrong is based on
a theory.  Isn't that just a leetle presumptuous?
What cities (that Joshua conquered) are you saying didn't exist?  People 
claimed the Ammorites didn't exist until archeologists finally dug them up.
What about the flood?  Are you saying there was no flood?  How do you account
for all the different claims from various cultures about it?

>>	     in the writing of a story that certainly would have required
>>             very wicked hearts to produce.
>Nonsense. If this is true, explain The Gospel of Thomas, The Apochryphon
>of John, Acts of Thomas....

Explain your problem with them.

>The rest of your article is similarly inane. Learn some Biblical
>history, and then come back.

inane?  I thought it was very good.  As for you tag line, what makes you
think you were ever a "christian"?  (not ment as a flame, just curious)

- JoeB

-- 
-=@=-=@=-=@=-=@=-::
- JoeB           Joe.Beiter@HauppaugeNY.NCR.COM
                 joeb@arden.linet.org
-=@=-=@=-=@=-=@=-::
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: austin@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (timothy james austin)
Subject: Re: Faith is illogical
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:30:43 GMT

ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:

>austin@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (timothy james austin) writes:
>>As far as I can tell no one knows why the world comforms to reasonable well
>>defined patterns (If any one has a good answer then let me know!).

>Okay, ya ready! In the beginning (this is a human term I use loosely) there
>was nothing, but nothing is relative. Due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty
>Principle nothing cannot remain nothing indefinitely. One theory suggests

This sounds like a new version of the Uncertainty principle to me.
From what I rember the uncertainty principle says that you can never know
exactly the position and speed of a particle.  Its says nothing about
matter appearing from nowhere.

Excuse me if I'm a bit rusty on quantum mechanics, it is a couople of years
since I studied advanced quantum mechanics.  :)

(By the way when there was nothing there was no time, no anything - so
the word indefinite has no real meaning.)


[physics lesson deleted]

>Jeff.

>PS.There's a lot of very interesting books to read so don't discount evolution
>until you've read some and understood them. Natural selection must and does
>happen and therefore evolution (on the long term) must also happen. I read
>christian versions of creation vs evolution books so do us atheists a favour
>and read the scientific versions of creation vs evolution.

[other stuff deleted]

Who said anything about creation vs. evolution?  I personly have no problem
with evolution and don't remember mentioning it.  I have read numerous books
written by scientists about the universe, including such books as "The mind
of God" by Paul Davies.  I haven't read any books by creation scientists
because I don't consider them worth reading.  I have read books by
scientists who happen to be christians but not neccesarily creationists.


What I was discussing was why there is any science at all.  Saying that
something happens because of some principle is a bit misleading.  Something
happens, we observe it and then say that the when the same thing happens
again it is the so-and-so principle.  This says nothing about why there are
any rules or principles at all or why we can observe the world and make
decuctions about it.  


Tim Austin.

austin@munagin.ee.mu.oz.au.


PS. Thers's also a lot of very interesting books about the philosophy
of science around.  It would be a good thing to read some of them!
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:57:44 GMT
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:
: 
: Atheists are always saying that God does not exist and laugh away any proof 
: Christians use to prove His existence.

1) Most of the atheists participating in this group do *not* claim "God
does not exist."  Read the FAQ.

2) It is silly to claim "proof" for God's existence when there isn't
even any objective evidence that he does.  The things you claim
as evidence require faith.  Faith is not a rational basis for belief.
If there were objective evidence for God, faith wouldn't be necessary.

: 
: So here is my proposal : You prove to us that God does not exist!

Take a logic class.  The burden of proof is on YOU making the positive
claim.  If you can scrape up an atheist who claims that God doesn't
exist, then you can ask him to support his positive claim.  I doubt
you will find many here.  Again, read the FAQ about the difference
between belief in God's non-existence vs. the lack of belief in
his existence.

: 
: And please don't use your usual irrational logic and childish insults!

Pre-emptive ad hominem.  How clever.

: 
: Please post your replies so that other people may also read them or if you 
: feel embarassed mail it directly to us at (TJOHN@ELAINE.EE.UND.AC.ZA).
: 
: Many Thanks for any logical and well thought out arguments.

You're welcome.
















-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
From: ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:20:12 GMT
Organization: Electronic Eng., Univ. Natal, Durban, South Africa
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc56.ee.und.ac.za

In article <kmr4.50.718378369@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan ( aka. Wolphgang )) writes:

>In article <ebolog.10@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:

>>Atheists are always saying that God does not exist and laugh away any proof 
>>Christians use to prove His existence.
>>
>>So here is my proposal : You prove to us that God does not exist!
>>
>>And please don't use your usual irrational logic and childish insults!
>>
>>Please post your replies so that other people may also read them or if you 
>>feel embarassed mail it directly to us at (TJOHN@ELAINE.EE.UND.AC.ZA).
>>
>>Many Thanks for any logical and well thought out arguments.

>        If this board is unable to logically disprove Collen is God, then
>how can we even disprove God?
>        And, who's side is the burden of proof on? 

>        The major difference between science, and mysticism:

>        Science: Doesn't always have an answer.
>        Mysticism: Always has an answer, even if non sequiter.

>Meaning, there is nothing in the world that even hints that there is a God.

>Claiming there isn't a god, does not violate any known law, or throw anything
>known, into doubt. Such an assertion does not contridict anything.

>Claiming that god does in fact exist, does violate many laws, and is thowing
>everything in doubt. Such an assertion does contridict a multitude of things.

>So, in a much simplified reason, the burden of prood is upon you. The 
>Christians are making a claim, which violates the known state of affairs.
>And, especially considering that I know of no one, nor know of one who 
>knows another who has ever had contact with the divinity,  I have no 
>perception of the state of affair that is not in question. 


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

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.

Think about it. With the existance of a God everything in the universe can 
be proved, but without Him we do not even know how we can to be. Remember 
evolution is a theory which is opposed by may scientists.

So you prove God does not exist! (Or that you came to be without Him).
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Just the FAQs, man.  (was Re: Great Proposal !)
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:53:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <ebolog.14@elaine.ee.und.ac.za>, ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes...

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

Guess what?  Creationism is only a theory as well (and a bad one to boot).  

This guy's a walking, talking FAQ violation.  

In fact, he reminds me of the "Mr No Short-Term-Memory" sketch on Saturday Night
Live -- he seems to forget what's said in each post as soon as he's hit "f".

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*  "If something about the human	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*   body disgusts you, complain to
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*   the manufacturer." - Lenny Bruce	
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mpinnock@casper.cs.uct.ac.za (M B Pinnock)
Subject: Re: Cults
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Cape Town
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:53:14 GMT

In <ksand-101092171336@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:


>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.

Sounds to me like a perfect definition of atheism. This is because all of
the above are incompatible with emotional, anti-rationalist religious crap
that is taught in schools around the world.

 
Brian Pinnock

Computer Science Dept.       | Sam! 
University of Cape Town.     | I like green eggs and ham! 
South Africa.                | I do! I like them, Sam-I-am! 
mpinnock@casper.cs.uct.ac.za |                                 Dr. Seuss. 

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Goff's back.
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 11:35:11 GMT

This and a few other "evo is crap and this is a well-known scientific fact"
posts from Vicky Goff have appeared on alt.atheism. Note crosspost and
followups to talk.origins, where it belongs, with apologies to those who
remember Vicky "Burn In Hell, Scum - Oops, It Wasn't Me, Someone Must Have
Used My Account" Goff from some months ago.

At that time, sympathy was invited because supposedly you (Ms. Goff) were
in deep fudge with your employer over the fanatical drivel issuing from
your account, and of course it couldn't have been you. So why have you
started again? Are you the real Vicky Goff or what?

In article <1992Oct9.183402.3997@cs.tulane.edu> goff@pops.navo.navy.mil writes:
>
> 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.  

Bullshit lies from start to finish (do I sound like Ted?). You are either
aware of this and deliberately lying, or you are screaming mad. Or both.

Please post your sound disproof, and since it is apparently accepted in
"respectable scientific circles" you can doubtless give references to
the primary refereed scientific literature.

> Let us think...and reason!

If only.

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

A seasoned, apparently unreconstucted and widely renowned idiot.

> Disclaimer: My opinions are my own.

As someone else has pointed out, this is false. Your opinions are those
of your religion, albeit interpreted in a particularly unhinged way.
Your God help us all if the US Navy let you play with anything dangerous.

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.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Atheism? Really Harold, how gauche...
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 00:33:49 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Oct13.031849.7201@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>In article <1q6-k7A@engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct12.205329.3857@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>
>>>This is all well and good, but what does it have to do with whether
>>>or not truth is relative?  I'm claiming that it is impossible for
>>>one thing to be true for you, and another for me, and that anybody
>>>who thinks that it is possible is daft.
>>
>> Hmmm... suppose we grant that. Are there situations where resolving what
>>is in fact true is impossible? (I'm thinking of, for example, the various
>>interpretations of quantum theory (Many-Worlds, Copenhagen, etc.) which
>>all predict the same observations, due to very different causes. Which
>>cause is the 'true' one?
>
>I gotta admit.  You've got me on the ropes when you start talking
>quantum mechanics.  I think it's all a commie plot to destroy our
>minds. :-)
>--
>Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they

 Now, mind you, I've had one course where I actually solved Scroedinger's
Equation and in the rest of my courses we just used classical approximations.
I'm only quotin' what the *real* scientists tell me... :->

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
From: csfed@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Frank E. Doss / Academic Computing)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Please Help
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:29:47 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1250029@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> writes:
>              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                [ ]

Your question is loaded.  Why did you include the word "generally?"  You
seem to think that there are times that equal rights is not a good idea.
BTW, I do think equal rights for men and women is a good idea.

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

Another poorly phrased question.  I always enjoy being able to make
choices.  What would life be without choices?  But, I presume you are
talking about abortion.  Personally, I would not sponsor one, but I would
not limit the right of others to sponsor one.

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

Adopting children?  Yes.  Adopting alligators?  No.

>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                [ ]

What in the world are you trying to say here?

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

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

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

I am no religion.  The only person I know of who is a religion is Colleen,
and she's only joking.  BTW, why did you only mention Judaic religions?
Why were 2/3 of your solid choices Xian?  There are many more religions
out in the world that those three.  Many more people follow those other
religions than the three you listed.  Also, some people are atheists.
Atheism is not a religion.  Most atheists are not religious.

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

You continue to assume that people categorize themselves.  The "Other"
choice means I am affiliated with *some* political party.  I affiliate
with no political party.

>9.) How many years of education have you completed?
>Grade School       [ ]
>High School        [ ]
>College            [ ]
>More               [X]

Now, what's the purpose of this survey?

Std disclaimers apply.

-- 
Frank E. Doss                            Academic Computing
csfed@ux1.cts.eiu.edu                    Eastern Illinois University
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 12 Oct 1992 15:56:37 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:

>
>You cannot possibly tell me that you do not believe in something just 
>because you do not understand it! If you are saying that you would have not 
>believed a computer, TV, satelites, etc. existed.

>Well, do you believe it or not?  Chances are you're probably thinking to
>yourself, "How can I believe it.  I don't even understand this statement.  
>It's perfectly meaningless!"


	Yes, one is not understanding the proposition, the other is not
understanding the object/being. One must be very careful not to confuse
the two. 
-- 
	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: 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Null Cypher)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism? Really Harold, how gauche...
Date: 11 Oct 92 22:58:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct09.220324.2747@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

>>Hmmm, could you post some examples of these objective truths, along with
>>proof?

>Sure.  It is an objective truth that if you jump in front of a moving
>train, you will die, or at least make a real mess of yourself.  The
>proof is trivial and left as an exercise for the reader.  It's an
>objective truth that Christianity tends to make people mindless fanatics.
>The proof is trivial and left as exercise for the reader.

I lump these into "Most likely true so don't experiment with it", and
"Seems to be true", respectively.


>>And explain why it is a 'trap' to believe that truth is relative
>>or personal?

>I'm still trying to formulate a good answer to that.  Here's where
>I'm at so far (probably not too profound, original, or coherent):

>It leads to a mindset where you can't trust your own mind.  [etc]
>It leads to a mindset where facts and reason don't matter.  [etc]

>If I thought that truth were relative, I'd be left a helpless vegetable,
>never being at all sure of what I believed or why, and unable to act for
>fear of imposing my truths on others who prefer different truths.
>--
>Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they

So I suppose you don't support the idea of lumping all of the things that
overwhelmingly seem to be true into "Pretty Damn Sure" as opposed to 
"Definitely Is True"?

Let me supply some alternate desciptions:
[1] Probability = 1 - epsilon
[2] Probability = 1

--
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Null - 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
                                               --------------------------------