HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 11:57:14 GMT

In article <TORKEL.92Oct1110909@isis.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>In article <1992Oct01.084647.24107@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca 
>(Douglas Graham) writes:
>
>   >Science is the way we learn
>   >about the universe.  Among other things, religion is the way we put a cap
>   >on how much we learn, and also allows us to compartmentalize our knowledge
>   >to avoid having to deal with some humbling truths about ourselves and our
>   >place in the universe.
>
>  In your remarks about what religion "is", you are really talking
>about how you perceive religion, and mostly how you perceive the role
>of Christianity in your own society.

No, I'm not.  I'm talking about what religion, as it exists today, is.
And I mean *all* organized religion.  Christianity.  Buddhism.  Islam.
Hinduism.  Bahaiism (sp?). The whole lot of them.

>Although your perspective has its
>own validity, it is very limited perspective. It's quite possible to
>criticize the role and effects of religion in society as harshly as
>one wishes without making sweeping and untenable assertions about what
>"religion is".

Yes, it would be possible.  But it wouldn't be what I meant.

>Also, such assertions are very boring. Wouldn't it be
>more interesting to consider e.g. what Einstein might have meant by
>saying that "a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot
>exist",

I think Einstein was talking about what religion should be, and that
bears very little resemblance to what religion is.  And I agree with
him.  But then, I wonder if he wasn't just playing word games himself.
He applied the label religion to a completely different concept than
what it has traditionally been applied to.  None of the definitions
in my dictionary under "religion" seem to apply, so perhaps a new word
is in order.  I'm assuming that I've understood Einstein properly.  It
could be that I haven't, because he claimed to be a big fan of Spinoza,
and from what little I've read of Spinoza, I wasn't impressed.

>or how different religious traditions have in fact conceived
>"our place in the universe"?

Most simply divert attention from it by providing primitive and
nonsensical mythology, or by providing thought stoppers like "what is
the sound of one hand clapping."  The problem is that the big religions
have been around for a long time, and therefore do not incorporate the
things that science has been telling us for the last few hundred years.
They don't tell us anything about our proper place in the universe, because
at the time they were concocted, the earth was thought to be its center,
and man was special.  Anything with a god in it, or that places man above
the other species in importance, is ludicrous and destructive as we near
the 21st century.
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: donita@scic.intel.com (Donita Thompson)
Subject: You were invited?
Organization: Intel SCIC, Beaverton, OR
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:50:24 GMT

Colvin writes:

	[bible drivel deleted...]

>Please don't flame me for posting this.  BC205CS@OPIE.BGSU.EDU from
>alt.satanism invited me to post over here.

Invited? Perhaps. Wanted? No. Big difference...

>Even sent me the alt.athiest FAQ.  Heck, I was content to keep my mouth
>shut.

Then kindly do so.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christianity is Stupid
From: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 23:45:27 -0400 
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Just as an aside, I was wondering if T-shirts like this really solve
anything.  I mean, I think the reason most of us don't believe in God,
or observe a religion is because it doesn't make sense to us.  If our
beliefs(nonbeliefs?) are to appear credible, should we be reacting in
such a crass, unintellectual manner.  I am not a Christian, nor a member
of any other religion, but I would find these T-shirts offensive, just
as I find it offensive when Pres. Bush says athiests would not make good
citizens.
Just because something is not true does not mean it never causes any
good to be done.  Believe me, I think religion is more trouble than it
is worth, but I recognize its virtues.
If anyone agrees or disagrees, please post to this bboard with
subject:Credible Athiestic Discourse, or something similar as opposed to
sending me personal mail.
                                    Thank you,
\begindata{text,17029828}
\textdsversion{12}
\template{default}
\majorheading{Jordan M. Wolbrum

}\center{\smaller{at jw67@andrew.cmu.edu

}}\enddata{text,17029828}

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: csfed@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Frank E. Doss)
Subject: Re: Religious Ignorance
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:27:18 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <10888@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>In article <ksand-270992141014@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>>
>>I don't think animal lover groups would subscribe to the notion of 
>>casting deamons to pigs, something Jesus gladly did.
>
>I don't belong to any animal lover group, but the story about that
>fellow drowning a large herd of pigs makes me very uncomfortable.
>That's a huge lot of good pork wasted.  It could have fed many people.

Jews don't eat pork.  I wonder why a Jew was keeping a herd of pigs.  I
always thought that pork didn't come into flavor until a few centuries
later.

>Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)


-- 
Frank E. Doss                            Academic Computing
csfed@ux1.cts.eiu.edu                    Eastern Illinois University
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 6 Oct 92 15:43:03 GMT
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH


In a previous article, ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) says:

>
>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!
>

One more time...

A: Cristians are making the positive assertion (there is a god), therefore
it is incumbant upon them to prove that assertion.

B: It is a logical impossibility to prove non existance of anything (I again
suggest a course in basic logic for those that suggest it is possible).


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

Cristians are the ones who tend toward irrational logic:

	"God is real because the bible says so, and since the bible was
	 inspired by God, then it must be true...therefore, god exists"

or

	"I know God is real because I believe it."

or

	"God said it, I believe it, that settles it."

Real logical and rational....


>
>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).
>

I believe YOU are the one who should be embarassed for even suggesting such
an illogical exercise...

>Many Thanks for any logical and well thought out arguments.

You're quite welcome.  Perhaps you'll learn about logic from this.

>
>	Cheers from E.B.
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Assembly of God???  Strange.. *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // I was not aware that the diety  *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // was available in source form..." *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Saturday, 26 Sep 1992 10:25:31 CDT
From: David James Alexander Hanley <U55870@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Starting a Religion
 <1992Sep18.170824.3142@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> <1992Sep18.232953.6590@bnr.ca>
 <1992Sep18.232734.6530@bnr.ca> <Buu72E.AHx@knot.ccs.queensu.ca>

In article <Buu72E.AHx@knot.ccs.queensu.ca>, Colleen Davis
<cisc124@jeff-lab.queensu.ca> says:
>
>bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
>
>And the Disciples of Colleen were then eight in number,
>and the names of the prophets were Steve, and Dave, and
>Bill, and Ivan the Convert, and Frank, and Jessica Who Saw
>the Light, and Hans, and Brian.  And Colleen posted on Usenet
>saying, "Let the faithful make themselves known, that they
>be recognized and counted among My followers."

  And the prophet dave acquired public funding and tax exemption for the
church and there was much partying.


>
>colleen
  ^^^^
  I have heard the word directly from the LORD!  All hail colleen!

dave!
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 92 17:49:40 GMT

In article <Lou1RB1w165w@bluemoon.rn.com> darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) writes:
>>From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
>>Message-ID: <1992Oct01.084647.24107@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
> 
>>Science is telling us that we're insignificant.  Religion
>>tells us that we're not. 
> 
>Science tells *atheists* that they're insignificant.  Science 
>tells theists how wondrously God created the universe.  This also 
>tells theists how significant *people* are because it was all done 
>for them.

No, science doesn't tell you that God created the universe, or that
the whole shebang was created for people.  That's your religion
telling you that.  Which was my point.

>You assume everyone believes as you do, concerning God, when you 
>assert man is insignificant.  It is not a persuasive argument to
>make an assumption which others do not hold, and then use it to
>argue for your viewpoint.

Don't be silly.  Of course I don't assume that everyone believes
as I do concerning God.  If I assumed that, then my article would
have been rather pointless, don't you think?
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: You're Invited!
From: runner@gphs.vuw.ac.nz (Graham McKenzie)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:09:11 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Institute of Geophysics, Victoria University of Wellington, NZ

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).

It is an Indisputable Truth that God does not exist. I know it in my heart (
without a doubt).

>      The Bible is God's open invitation:"Seek ye the Lord while He may be 
> found, call ye upon Him while He is near."  Jesus invites you, "Come unto Me,
> all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."

I did, he didn't. Sorry, God fails my test.
Assorted crap deleted.
Please 1) read the faq
2) realise that many people don't believe in God, and it's not because of any
ignorance, hard-heartedness etc.
3) put on a flameproof suit if you intend to continue such inappropriate and
provocative posts.
4) get the fuck out of this group!

> Love:  Scott Goddard

Love: Graham
-- 
Graham McKenzie   Phone: +64 4 4715346   Fax: +64 4 4712070
Snail: Institute of Geophysics, Victoria University of Wellington, NZ
Some people would sooner die than think. In fact they do so. - B.Russell
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Date: 28 Sep 1992 16:20:18 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


	I have an old book that says there is no god.



	If Hannu can use a book to say that there is a god, why can
I not use a book to say that there is no god. Why is Hannu's book
any better than mine. Perhaps Hannu can tell us....and while he is
at it he can answer the question I have put to him twice, to PROVE
his statement of IF <condition> THEN <thus is true> by proving the
condition. BTW, do not mistake my formulation as an attempt to truly
apply booleen logic, I think is just for  now  a simple way to put it.



-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Reveal to me the sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips | alias: White Rook | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
From: MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Date: 27 Sep 92 14:25:40 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Sep25.154002.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi>,
hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi says:
>
> Hi !

Greetings and salutations.

> If God is 'Existence' as is defined in the Holy Bible
> (in 2nd Moses 3:14-15 and in gospel of Johannes 8:28-29),
> then who dares to assert that God does not exist. ?

Well, it depends on which definition of this particular god you wish
to use. Someone attempt to count all the different 'definitions'
god himself has used in the bible...I wouldn't ask anyone to find
all the different ones we've thought of. As pertains to this definition,
I guess we're all god, and not just Colleen. Of course, you start
with an 'if'...the main drawback to it.

>         Hannu.

Martin Schulte
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: marriage: atheist's alternatives?
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:34:34 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

FLANAGA@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Scott Flanagan) wrote (in article <16878946F.FLANAGA@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>):
> What do atheists, or anyone not desiring a religious wedding ceremony,
>typically do if they otherwise want to have a normal wedding?  I am aware
>that justices of the peace may perform civil services, but I was hoping that
>there are other, LEGAL, alternatives.  I am particularly interested in
>alternatives which have been shown to be legally watertight in Texas, since
>that is where I will be getting married.

Isn't it true that in Texas, if you and your girlfriend rent a hotel
room under the same name (Mr. & Mrs. Flanagan), then you're married as
far as the state's concerned?  I'm pretty sure Texas was the state with
this law.

I don't think that you need much to be legally married -- you
certainly don't need a big Christian ceremony for it!  The legal side
of marriage is separate from the religious/traditional side.  Check
with your local government offices; that's what they're there for.
Make 'em earn their keep.  :)

And good luck!

-- 
_/_/_/  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
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18378 sci.skeptic:17457 talk.origins:12519
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: No, no, no...*I'm* the one, true god
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:04:20 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <3NqLRB13w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>>   intellectual pantheistic deity war.  Oh, for a good Jim
>>   Perry post, or a scathing rebuke of a logical fallacy by Graham,
>>   or even the latest headline from the UK by Mathew.
>
>See alt.atheism.moderated for an article about the latest development in
>atheist TV in the UK...
>

  You did that on purpose, right?  Deep down inside, you remember
  that alt.atheism.moderated doesn't appear at my site, right?  How
  about cross posting the article so I *can* read it?  Please, no
  comments on how I should petition my sysadmin to add
  alt.atheism.moderated to our system.  I work for a company that
  reserves the right to deny any newsgroup they see fit, for any
  goddamn reason.  'fer instance, I do not and cannot receive
  soc.religion.christian.  I appreciate your efforts in moderating
  an atheist newsgroup.  Please appreciate my inability to receive
  it.

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

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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: johnchad@triton.unm.edu (jchadwic)
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 14:15:46 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Distribution: alt.atheism


parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:

>bluelobster+@CMU.EDU (David O Hunt) writes:

>>I have a couple of friends who claim to be "witches".  I've asked them what
>>I could do to _deliberately_ invite posession and takeover of myself, and
>>have done so.  If demons were real (and as opportunistic as you claim) why
>>am I not foaming at the mouth?

>Assumptions:  you are an atheist; 
>              there is a spiritual realm where spiritual entities exist;
>              Christianity is the religion of choice.
 
>If I were a demon and I know you are an atheist, I would not possess you 
>for the following reason:  Your lack of belief in God, Jesus, heaven
>and hell, your sin and your need of salvation will eventually end in 
>your eternal damnation anyway.  Why waste my time possessing your body, 
>and therefore give you evidence of a realm you do not believe in anyway?  
>In fact, it would be dangerous for me to do so, since you may end up 
>looking to Jesus Christ for deliverance.  This would not only result in 
>my forceful and rude ejection from your body, but also may lead to other 
>people converting to Christianity.  Your ignorance will damn you better 
>than I ever could.

Scott, I am truly surprised at myself for responding to this post, but
I must alert you that you have sunk to an all new low for reason.

You are hypothesizing in regards to the rationale an imaginary being may
use to not take over the body of a non-believer. Is this an accurate
assessment of the about statement from you? Have you taken the time to explore
possible alternative hypothesis as many on this group, atheist and
theist alike, have done? I would suggest to you Scott that if you
have any desire to continue your education beyond the undergraduate level
you may want to develop some critical thinking skills rather than
blindly accept everything you are told by some ranting and raving
preacher.

>-- 
>Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
>parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |

john chadwick                      johnchad@triton.unm.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tuesday, 29 Sep 1992 09:58:24 CDT
From: David James Alexander Hanley <U55870@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Test For True Christians
 <92270.102807U55870@uicvm.uic.edu> <1992Sep28.223037.2258@pdnfido.fidonet.org>

In article <1992Sep28.223037.2258@pdnfido.fidonet.org>, joeb@pdnfido.fidonet.org
(Joe Beiter) says:
>
>For the sake of the gullible I'll lower myself to respond to this.  The
>passage
>that proclaimed this was not ment for people to 'test their faith'.  It was
>a prophecy of what would happen.  Paul, when ship wrecked, was bitten by a
>poisonous viper but did not die as expected and did not even get sick.
>
>If someone intentionally handles a poisonous snake and gets bitten and dies
>(which I belive very rarely happens anyway) or gets sick, its not because they
>didn't have faith but because they were stupid.

  Of course they're stupid.  They're christian right?  I'd expect them
to do a whole range of idiotic stuff.



Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:14:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.123708.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi>
hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep26.184242.10476@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
>amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep25.154002.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi>
>>   hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:
>>
>>> If God is 'Existence' as is defined in the Holy Bible
>>> (in 2nd Moses 3:14-15 and in gospel of Johannes 8:28-29),
>>> then who dares to assert that God does not exist. ?
>>
>> Me and several hundred million other people around the world.
>>
>
>  All stupids ?. They assert at the same time that they themselves
>  do not exist. !
>
 
This seeming contradiction may be avoided by noting the first word in your
original post- "If".  People who would deny that statement aren't denying
reality or "existence" as such, they are denying that this reality is or
has anything to do with any "God"- that is, they are disputing the validity
of such a definition.
 
Wayne Aiken                                            "You can BE what
PO Box 30904            slack@ncsu.edu                  you WON'T!!"
Raleigh, NC  27622                                       --"Bob"
(919) 782-8171          StarFleet BBS: (919) 782-3095
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: robert@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Rob Karmolinski)
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 09:01:32 GMT

There have been many definitions of God bounced around the net and
elsewhere, e.g., God is LOVE, God is EXISTENCE, God is the one true
sepreme powerful being, etc, etc.  Let us regress to the *original*
definition of God:  God is *the* Creator of the Universe.  By doing
this, I will hopefully put an end to all of the philosophical
discussions concerning the existence of God, by proving once and for
all that God does in fact exist:

	1:  God created the Universe.	(by definition)
	2:  The Universe exists.	(by inspection)
	3:  Assume God does *not* exist.
	    4:  Then, the Universe was never created.	(by #1)
	    5:  Then, the Universe does not exist.	(by #4)
	6:  God *does* exist.		(by contradiction, #3, #2, #5)

Whew!  Now that I've done that, it is trivial to show that God did in
fact write the bible, and everything in it is true.  I leave this as
an exercise for the readers, for I am tired now.  (Here's a helpful
hint to get you started:  God wouldn't lie about a thing like that,
would He??)  And to think, I used to be an atheist.

--
Theistically yours,

Rob