HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: The Lord Cometh!
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:43:20 GMT

iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) wrote (in article <10951@spark.ed.ac.uk>):
>I hereby declare that there is no god other than James Meritt.
>I also declare that there is no god other than Colleen Davis.
>(No, there is no contradiction.  God works in mysterious ways, you see.)

No, it makes perfect sense!  They're a duality!

And if we toss Elvis in there too, then we'd have a trinity!  But so
far I haven't been able to figure out if any Elvisists think their
Elvis is part of a trinity; they're always too busy speaking in
tongues.  ("You ain't nothin' but a hound god...")

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop)
Subject: Re: THE PROOF: The Non-existence of GOD !
Keywords: atheist, atheism, GOD, religion, logic, proof, reality, creator, the one and onl
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 19:06:56 EDT

From: rainerd@drunol.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Rainer Dickermann)
 
>Let's take some meanings of the christian GOD to proof it on reality:
>1. GOD is the all-mighty.
>2. GOD is the all-loving.
>3. GOD is the all-knowing.
>Is is really obvious that these 3 statements can't exist without
>contradiction if compared with reality.
>If 'GOD is all-loving' means GOD cares of all of us, this care seems not
>to be the very best compared to the many people living in despair or
>suffer from crulest illnesses. And because GOD should be all-knowing,
>GOD would know everything to help these people, and because GOD should be
>all-mighty there would be the capacity to make that all undone or not 
even
>happen ! But reality proofs the contradiction,...
 
 
This argument appears so often, it should go in a FAQ.
 
Your proof is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the God 
of the Bible. 
 
"Things" happen.  They happen to people who love God and they 
happen to those who don't love God. 
 
For those who love God, there is the promise that "all things 
happen for good" for them.  If He didn't let things happen to 
them, they would be deprived of the good which will result. 
 
For those who don't love Him, another part of God's nature 
becomes evident.  GOD is perfectly just.  For everyone, what is 
just is punishment.  So even though God might not have sent these 
*particular* "things," those people are receiving what is just. 
 
There is a common saying, "What goes around, comes around." (This 
idiom is usually interpreted to mean, "You get what you give.")  
So unless one of those who don't love God is perfect in his 
morals and perfect in the execution of those morals, he is 
getting what "goes around" when "things" happen to him.  And this 
is minor compared to what justice demands. 
 
 
The belief system of the Bible is consistent. 
 
DARIST
From: 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Null Cypher)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Date: 11 Oct 92 23:58:51 GMT

In article <92450@netnews.upenn.edu> stuart@stipple.seas.upenn.edu (Joseph Stuart ) writes:


>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

It's good to see someone recruiting himself.

Here's my moral philosophy in a nutshell:

I seem predisposed to act certain ways.  Some of these I have identified as
basic axioms:  "Don't hurt other people unless you feel they deserve it",
"Honesty is generally the best policy", "Try to help other people".  Note
that none of these are absolute in any sense, but that's OK because I don't
like absolute statements anyway!

If I find myself predisposed to act in ways which I don't seem to like,
then I do like another poster suggests and try to eliminate whatever
principle is causing the problem.  I guess this would bring up a choice
of principles to eliminate.  My suggestion is to try to identify which
core principles you find the most important and make the choice with
those in mind.

Disclaimer: I'm gonna burn in hell for spouting this heresy.
--
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Null - 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
                                               --------------------------------
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:57:10 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <ebolog.13@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:
>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, I understand computers, television, and satellites.
  Don't make the mistake of projecting your profound ingnorance on
  the rest of the population.  Judging from your posts, if I were
  you I'd spend a little more time in English and Logic classes than
  I would spend worrying about theology.


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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"Above all, a god needs compassion"    James T. Kirk
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Religion and morals
Date: 12 Oct 1992 19:09:25 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

>Which world am I living in?

M-x push-secret-trap-door-button

dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) screams:

> Aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!

Thanks Mr. Graham ... we'll get back to you.  Next!

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.
From: stuart@stipple.seas.upenn.edu (Joseph Stuart )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: source of morality for atheists
Date: 10 Oct 92 15:38:22 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


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

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The men ... raise five thousand roses in the same garden -- and they do
not find what they are looking for.  And yet what they are looking for 
could be found in a single rose ....
	- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Dear Bush
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:41:16 GMT
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY

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?
>Frank Doss 

One question I would have liked to have asked on last nights debate:

"Mr. Bush, here is what you said <insert bush's quote on athiests>

 Do you still support this statement?

 If so how can you as president justify denying a whole section of this 
 country's population their right to be free of religious persecution and 
 their first amendment rights.  Are not the athiests who fought in Desert
 Storm just as patriotic as others?

 If not, are you now, in your words Waffleing.  Or in Vice-President Quayles
 words "Pulling a Clinton"?  In this case isn't your character just as suspect
 as Mr. Clintons?"

-Bill

>The above stated words are my opinions and do not reflect the opinions,
>attitudes, or policies of my employer or any affilliated organizations.

Ditto.
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What an atheist thinks of the biblke.
Date: 11 Oct 1992 13:41:56 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu
Keywords: Bible? SHMIBLE.

gj156879@prince.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879) writes:

>PEOPLE 2000 YEARS AGO WERE MORONS:

And to continue ...

NOTHING MUCH HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN

>Any atheists think different than the above?  Probably not.  The first
>thought when you read/look at the book is:  It was written 2000 years
>ago and is no longer valid.  

Nope.  That's a pretty good summary of my beliefs.  Humans are herd
animals and as such don't feel comfortable thinking form themselves.
It's so much easier to let other people fill your head with
comfortable belief structure.  Carry this book around and you'll be
OK.  Come to the church and pray and we won't break your knee caps,
etc.

Stratocaster

-- 
	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
				   
There was never a democracy that didn't commit suicide.  -- John Adams
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:21:23 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

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

Oh for heaven's sake this is nonsense. It is perfectly
straightforward to prove that even prime numbers greater
than 2 don't exist. There: a counterexample that
demonstrates that it is possible to prove something
doesn't exist.

Isn't this in the FAQ? It certainly comes up with annoying
frequency.
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: You're Invited!
Date: 7 Oct 1992 05:00:08 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


scott@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Scott G Goddard) sez:
 
 
 
|    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).
 
 
 
	Pardon me, but I thought this was alt.ATHEISM. If you are upset
by what you are seeing, the leave. I would not take it as a personal insult,
nor was anything posted here my most of us ment to be an insult. But to say
this "God" is a fact,is a tad overboard. You sound like you swallowed it,
hook, like and sinker, heck, the ancients knew in their "hearts" there was
a Thor, but it did not make it true.
 
 
 
|     That's why you are all cordially invited to enjoy the blessing of God and 
|his family for eternity!R.S.V.P.
 
	That's nice, but I have a date with a hot transvestite this
weekend and prefer sex over myths. Drag queens are real, "God" is not.
 
 
|     Did you know that God has a special invitation for you?  He doesn't 
|require that you dress up to approach Him or turn over a new leaf to impress
|Him.  You can come just as you are.  This is the most important invitation you
|will ever recieve.
 
	Does your "God" take Bisexuals, or would he like to see them
stoned, like the bible says to do....
 
 
 
			<long boring sermon ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ>
 
 
 
|Please believe me, everyone needs Jesus in their life, it is incomplete without
|Him. Please respond. (I hope in a positive way)
|                                      Love:  Scott Goddard
 
	While your motivation seems nice, I think I'll pass. I will take
reality over a dream world........
 
-- 
"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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Christian Syllogism (was Re: Great Proposal !)
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:02:25 GMT


In a previous article, bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) says:

>
>ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) sez:
> 
>|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....
> 
> 
>   "I knew god, god was my friend, but George Bush is no god !!!!"
>|
>|Ipso-facto, does George Bush not exist?
>|
>|:-)
> 
> 
>	How about.......
> 
> 
>	God---->breaks promises
>George Bush---->breaks promises
> 
> George Bush is god ?
>1

Sounds like good, solid, Christian logic to me!!!

>
>-- 
>"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
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  //  Newsflash from the Vatican: *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller  //  "Easter has been cancelled...*    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  //  Someone found the body...."   *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.***************
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: "Teaching atheism"
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992
Date: 12 Oct 92  09:04:02

Tag: amorgan@csd-d-5.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
And: 1992Oct06.232551.2929@pdnfido.fidonet.org (Joe Beiter)
Sub: "Cults"
 
JB> "So since I am a Christian I should resist any atheistic 
JB> teaching in our schools since it would be brainwashing 
JB> from my standpoint?"
 
Atheism is the absence of brainwashing, from my standpoint.
 
JB> "What schools teach atheism? I admit that many (most) 
JB> schools do not mention God in class, but that is a far 
JB> cry from teaching atheism. C Frog"
 
Mr. Frog is quite right: public schools do not "teach" atheism.
Then again, they don't teach much of anything, comes to that.
 
Since I'm in a foul mood (it's been over 32 YEARS since I've
had sex, and my lunch is giving me Spicy Mustard Flashbacks,
I'd like to waste a few bytes and express my opinion on the
subject.
 
The question arises: Can atheism be taught? I contend that it
cannot. I've asserted before that people are born atheist, and
are later indoctrinated by people in their early environment.
 
However, one can teach critical thinking, correctly applied logic, 
and techniques for retaining / supporting self respect---- all 
tools that preclude a belief in Gods / theism.
 
Let's suppose that Mr. Joe Beiter is correct, and that some
schools do "teach" atheism. What, exactly, could they possibly
teach? "There are no Gods, and here's why. . . .?" How can one
disprove a negative, when that negative does not lend itself
to proof, let alone disproof?
 
A theist might retort "They teach evolution, and evolution is
atheist dogma." While such subterfuge may decieve SOME theists, 
it will not fool enough people to make it true (assuming that
telling a lie enough times makes the lie true): even most theists
know that evolution is fact, and not atheist "dogman."
 
So what WOULD be an "atheist teaching?" When someone points out
that "Noah's flood" is impossible, that DOES NOT make that person
an atheist, nore does it attach religion or the Gods--- it attacks
bad science and ignorance: things education is designed to do.

--- Maximus 2.00
From: mike@huevos.ma.utexas.edu (Mike Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:32:00 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics

cochrane@spot.Colorado.EDU (Jim Cochrane) writes:


>Perhaps it would be wise to scrap the concept of morality altogether.
>Morality implies a system of rules imposed upon you from outside --
>by parents, religious leaders, political leaders, TV, movies, and
>whatever other media can influence one's thinking.

The same could be said for language, science and law. Should we scrap them
as well?

Mike Sullivan
mike@math.utexas.edu
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: morality????????
Date: 15 Oct 1992 21:15:41 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, CP8219A@auvm.american.edu (Christopher H. Prokop) says:
>I believe the entire world is 100% physical.  

Then sir, if all is matter, would you kindly inform us what is the mean 
mass of "love"?

>Tell me, what is true goodness?  I would say there is no such thing,
>and there cannot be any TRUE moral or ethical code of behavior.


Then are there TRUE "anger", TRUE "love", TRUE "Circles", etc?

-- 
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...
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: O'Connor in Saturday Night Live
Originator: cs911461@a01.ariel.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: york
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 19:54:36 GMT



Like, I'm no fan of the Pope's or anything but I'm no fan of
Sinead O'Connor either.  She's a totally gruesome singer who
fools everyone into believing her oh-so-sincere crap about
not wanting to get rich.

Sure Sinead, I believe you.  I bet you let the record company
keep all the money from your albums, eh?  Tearing up a picture
of the Pope was entertaining for some of us, but was just 
another stunt to make you richer.  


C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18867 alt.satanism:2297 talk.origins:12909
From: bstuart@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Ben Stuart)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.satanism,talk.origins
Subject: test
Summary: test multiple post
Keywords: TEST - please disregard
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:20:03 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

This is just to test multiple group distribution.
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 8 Oct 1992 01:37:26 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) sez:
 
|In article <1asor6INNo0u@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
 
 
|>ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) sez:
|>>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!
|> 
|>    There is no such thing as a spirit, or a "spiritual realm".
|>The "realm" where "God" is supposed to exist is not real. If "God"
|>is supposed to be a spirit, and spirits do not exist, then neither does
|>"God".
|> 
|>>And please don't use your usual irrational logic and childish insults!
|> 
|>      When an old book that says I should be killed just because I
|>am bisexual, and am very attracted to cross-gendered people, THAT is
|>something I call irrational. Can you rationalize the reason I should
|>be killed because my lover might not be a member of the opposite sex ?
|> 
 
|Well, do you really think it is right?! 
 
	Of course I think it is right.
 
 
|					I mean the main purpose of sex is 
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|reproduction
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
	Why cannot I use it for an expression of love and for enjoyment.
Don't tell me you theists have screw just to have kids...you do it because
you like it.
 
 
|              - even though there is a level of enjoyment involved. Any 
|emotional feelings you have for a person of the same sex must just be as a 
|friend and not be confused with lust.                    ^^^^ 
 
 Why MUST it be like that. I don't think you get the picture. I do not
"choose" to be attracted to who I am, I just am. Do you choose to be
attracted to women ? No, you just are. Do I "choose" to be attracted to
transvestites, I just am attracted to them. I am BISEXUAL. This means that
I am attracted to both men and women. Also in my case it means that I am
also attracted to cross-gendered people too. 
                                       
                                      There is nothing wrong with loving a 
|person of the same sex as long as you do not have any sexual desires for him.
 
	Again why ?
 
	Now, what about my question- why does your religion condemn me
to death (like your beloved bible says) just because I love who I love ?
 
 
|Cheers.
 
	Just remember, I am going to love who I love if theists like it or
not ! If I am attacked for it, I will defend myself.
 
	...By any means necessary...
 
<special thanks to Malcolm X for the inspiration>
 
-- 
"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