HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: We'll all burn in hell!
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:18:25 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

Who is this civl097 character, and why does he/she not learn how to
cut double spaces out of his/her posts?  And furthermore, I fail to
see why this is even being cross-posted to alt.atheism. 

So the Catholic church has come up with a revision to the revised list
of thrice-changed notes on the tentative modified list of sins.  And
the first one is:

>     EVADING TAXES, 

A ha!  So virtually all churches with property tax exemptions are
going straight to hell.  Good deal.  Of course their hell will come
when they find out (the hard way) that there isn't an afterlife. :)

>     Hell still exists and its flames await  those  guilty  of  "grave
>sins"--a  term  that  now replaces the older "mortal sins", but at the
>same time the Church appears to have softened  its  position  on  sins
>prompted by social problems.

Ah.  You can sin if you have a *REASON* to sin.  Makes perfect sense
to me!

>     But the Church shows some understanding  for  such  sinners:   at
>confession  priests should consider "psychological and social factors"
>that lead to masturbation, 

BA HA HA HA HE HE HE HO HO HO!  Excuse me while I puke.

Well.  This article had nothing to do with atheism, but it was good
for a laugh nonetheless!

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: ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:36:19 GMT
Organization: Electronic Eng., Univ. Natal, Durban, South Africa
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc56.ee.und.ac.za

In article <1992Oct06.151225.15480@convex.com> tonyp@cnvxla.COM, , Conan - good!) 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!
>}
>It is no more possible to prove that God does not exist than it is
>to prove that he does exist.

>Logic and thinking tell us that the existence of such a being is not possible.

>How screwed up the world is, and how that so many of the things attributed to his
>creation have been "proven" otherwise as well.

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

Next, how can you possibly compare your logic with Gods!? especially when it 
appears that you do not reason to well.

The world is messed up because of HUMANS and their GREED and WICKEDNESS - 
things which the Bible teaches Christians not to do!

Cheers.
From: jwfost@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Joshua W. Fost)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:30:12 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <BvE8IH.AwK@acsu.buffalo.edu> acsormd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Randall Desmond) writes:
>
>Someone please supply a definition of evidence and how one is to determine
>what evidence is and what it is not. Thank you.

This is a good question which deserves a long answer, which I cannot
give. I suggest a book: Science and Earth History, by Arthur Strahler.
It is an incredible reference on the creationism / evolution debate,
and devotes perhaps 1/3 of its 800 pages or so to a discussion of
evidence, and how whatever evidence is can be used to evaluate claims.
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jehovah's Witnesses and their axioms
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:12:23 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Oct10.203857.11259@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca> cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:
>
>I'd like to get your opinions on the following tenet of the
>Jehovah's Witnesses (I prefer "Jehovah's Witless" myself)
>which they keep throwing at me despite my most valiant
>efforts to contradict them.
>
>(I actually like it when they come to my door because it 
>gives me an opportunity to get philosophical.)

Sometimes, it can be fun.  Just don't expect to change their
minds, because these people are generally "true believers"
who are imune to reason.  The best you can hope for is to
watch them squirm under an assault of facts and logic.

>Now please realise that I'm always polite to them and give
>them the dignity that they deserve as fellow human beings
>but recently became annoyed at their ever-lovin' axiom of
>"if a house has a builder, surely the universe must have
>a builder too".  

Possbile replies:
(1)  Why?
(2)  Whereas a house has a builder, it seems obvious
that many objects in our experience (trees, mountains,
clouds, etc.) do not have builders.
(3)  My house was actually built by several "builders"
(architect, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, etc.);
since the universe is so much grander than my house,
surely the universe was built by several builders.
Obviously, the ancient Greeks had a much more realistic
religion than Christianity.
(4)  If God created the universe, who created God?
(5)  Almost every religion has some story of creation;
why do the JW's think that the "god" referred to
in Genesis is the same one who created the universe.
That is, why should the biblical story be believed over
any other story?  (this argument usually leads to
a discussion of evolution, for some reason).

>How would y'all answer this question in an infantile manner
>that these simple minds could fathom?

Simplicity is not the problem with JW's.  Total disregard
for facts and the basic premises of rational discussion are.

>C. Armour-Kidson
>cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: fischedj@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (David J. Fischer)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Anyone heard of Cliffe?
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:55:11 GMT
Reply-To: fischedj@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (David J. Fischer)
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
NNTP-Posting-Host: g222-29.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

In article <UerQu0q00WBLE4avlJ@andrew.cmu.edu> jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu  
(Jordan M. Wolbrum) writes:
> The intervarsity Christian assoc here at CMU got someone named Cliffe to
> come speak.  I went to listen to him, and while there was much he said
> that I disagreed with, I went away respecting him.  He challenges all
> people, including Christians, to not accept Christ's divinity on faith
> alone.  
> Any comments?  I thought it was about time for a new thread anyway!
> 
> }\center{\smaller{at jw67@andrew.cmu.edu
> 
	Yes, I have heard of Cliffe. I believe his full name is Cliffe  
Kneckle (I am not positive of that spelling, but that's close). He has  
written at least one book (which I own) named _Give_Me_an_Answer_. 
	I enjoyed reading the book, because Cliffe would address a  
question by stepping back and looking at some of the motivations and  
ramifications behind the question. I like this because it's good to go  
beyond listening merely to the specific question, and to hear the person's  
motivations for asking it. This, to me, is a means to address the deeper  
issues that sometimes prompt specific questions.
	Anyway, that's just my opinion. 

--
David J. Fischer : fischedj@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu <NeXT Mail welcome>
"Don't ever put your brain on a runaway train 'cause it won't be coming  
back!" 
- Mad At The World.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
  <1992Oct14.183419.27049@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> 
  <1992Oct15.001002.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:17:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.001002.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> 
  kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.183419.27049@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, 
>  amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct14.183102.26867@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> 
>>   amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>> 
>>>So, amusingly enough, does celibacy.  Anyway, as I am sure you agree,
>>>this definition of morality is a little weak.
>> 
>> Fuck.  I meant chastity.  I *hate* it when I do that.
>
>   What's the difference?  Aren't they basically the same thing
>(i.e. celibate priests, etc.)?

Not technically.  I think celibate means unmarried.  Chaste means a variety
of things, one of which is not having had sex.

Of course, if you are a good Christian type, celibate => chaste.

>Karl

C Frog
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: To All Truth Seekers!
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:55:57 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Oct13.192107.19123@adobe.com>, mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:
> kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>>bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) says:
>>> 
>>>	Creationism saying the earth is only thousands of years old is
>>>a little presumptuous.
>>
>>	The thing that I don't understand, that if they want to say that
>>the Earth is only a few thousand years old- that half loads of plutonium
>>and dinosaur bones were placed to fool the "unbelievers" - then what is
>>to stop someone from claiming the world is only a hundred years old, with
>>equal validity? Or, even 2 seconds ago...
> 
> Nothing. The world as we know it could have been created 1 second ago,
> and all of our experiences, memory, etc. are simply fabrications.
> Didn't you see _Blade Runner_?

   Funny how discussions of this kind always come back to 
Last-Thursdayism...

Karl
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 22:06:34 GMT

In article <ebolog.19@elaine.ee.und.ac.za>, ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za
(EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:
|>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.

Even if evolution is wrong, that does NOT make creationism right.
Creationism is not a theory, it's a myth (IMHO).
Logical reasoning producing valid hypothysis = theory
Story passed down to explain events not understood scientificaly = myth

|> Also why are humans symmetrial 
|>and do not have two arms on one side and one on the other for example - 

Evolution explains it.

|>since according to you it was a freak accident that we came to life.

Freak accident?  How about natural process.

|> Why no 
|>other intelligent creatures as well - why only us!
|>

Humans are only intelligent by human standards.  Natural selection describes
how we got that way (some what...no theory is perfect...but it beats
creationism!)
Why do men have nipples?  Why do we have an appendix?  Why not TWO
opposing digits
per hand?  Why do men go bald?  If man were created, then how come I can
come up
with better designs?

|>Cheers.
                     
Bottoms up!


Brian /-|-\
From: jwest@wisc (Jeff West)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Thanks Atheists
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:57:25 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

cb366@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark B. Bendiksen) writes:
: 
: Thanks to all responded to my post last Friday entitled
: "Hello All!" via E-Mail or posting (I'm sure there's still

: be found. My post was attempting to address the issue of
: what I saw as unconstructive posts filled with senseless
: namecalling. But this namecalling should not exist either
: by theists or atheists. The purpose of newgroups (to
: me, at least) are to share ideas and beliefs with others,
: some who will disagree and others who will agree. It seems


	If your really here to share ideas and beliefs without
	trying to 'force' yours upon me then I for one welcome
	you.


: openly invite megaflames, and that atheists who respond to
: these posts will extend the same courtesy I received (for
: the most part), which is open and frank discussion.


	There 'logically' should be NO reason people of different
	faiths can't communicate their thoughts with each other
	and not be offensive.  To me few things in life are more
	enjoyable than when people can share ideas with each other
	from a standpoint of respect for the others point of view.
	Unfortunately topics such as religion and politics rarely
	rise to this level.
	So have at it.  What's your first topic?  I'll be happy to
	give you any thoughts I have.

: 
: Thanks to all,
: 
: 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

	I actually like this disclaimer.  May I borrow it?

  Jeff West
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bug@arachne.UDAC.UU.SE (Bernt Budde)
Subject: Re: O'Connor in Saturday Night Live
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala, Sweden
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:34:36 GMT

bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie (Bryan O'Sullivan) writes:
>Oops: I forgot the recently revised Catechism and various pronouncements
>from the Vatican on homosexuality, among other things.  I guess
>that calls for me to dislike the Church by my own metric.  Can't
>say I can find the fervour in me to say anything particularly nasty
>though.  It's probably comment enough that I don't pay any attention
>to the Church.
>--
>Bryan O'Sullivan                                        bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie
>Department of Computer Science           "No matter how cynical you are, it's
>University of Dublin                      hard to keep up." -- Woody Allen

(-: What did the homosexuals do that deserves extra special hate? This
isn't good for my ego! :-)

I'm from a culturally more or less protestant country with a (this is
one thing I'm proud of:) majority of agnostics/atheists, according to
recent statistics.

An organisation with a strange and totally wrong view of what humans
are, that has a large influence on society is dangerous. That is a
good thing to remember if you're arguing with wimpy religious people
like those coming from the local Swedish state church. Mostly harm-
less isn't good enough. And the catholic church is NOT "Mostly"!

(No, this isn't really relevant for this meeting:)
I have problems with Ireland; I do love the country and the people.
I had my vacation there last summer and loved it. If there were any
jobs I'd move there (no, the Guiness is only part of it!:-).
But you KNOW that every other guy you talk with must literally be
a religious nut. Only goes to show that you shouldn't generalize
your views on human beings -- or maybe that they became religious
when they were persecuted for it.


Bernt Budde                            |Religion, n: A daughter of
bug@arachne.udac.uu.se                 |Hope and Fear, explaining to
UDAC (Uppsala Univ. Computing Centre)  |Ignorance the Nature of the
                                       |Unknowable.
Don't for a moment believe UDAC,       |
while being a nice place, have         |-Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's
opinions like me!!                     |                 Dictionary
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan ( aka. Wolphgang ))
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:49:13 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.22.255.189

In article <ebolog.21@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:

>>        Hey! I'm inclined to mysticism, and I haven't the vaguest idea
>>if there's a god or not. Mind your terminology.
>
>>                                                Kayembee
>
>Well, there is! So now you know.
>

	I see that you do not have the slightest comprehension of what
"to know" means. You use it so carelessly, and interchange it with "to
believe", that no wonder that you claim "to know" that god exists. Only
a simpleton is unable to understand the significance of the difference.

	But, to try to enlighten you, let us discuss what I "know" as a
result of this conversation.

	Let us assume that you really DO "know" that God exists, then.

	I "know" that you believe that god exists. 

	[ well, it really don't know that. I am making the assumption that
you are not lying to me about that, that is, you are acting in good faith. ]

	I may believe that you "know" that god exists. 

	But, I do NOT "know" that you "know" that god exists.

	And, I do NOT "know" that god exists.

This is why I do not see the bible as any evidence. I may even believe that 
the authors "knew" god, but I do not "know" it, and I do NOT "know" god.

	" I do not know Divinity. Nor, do I know anyone who has, nor anyone
that knows of one who has. Until then, I do not know God. "

	And, no, this is not a simple sematics game. The underlying concept
is very important, and to me, a very key support to my beliefs. ( no, I
am not athiestic, nor am I really agnostic. )

	However, I do not really believe the above assumptions. I strongly
believe that you do not in fact "know" god. And, I strongly believe that 
no one ever has. That is not saying that you are lying to me; you are unable
to comprehend the very subtle difference.

	( AT least Michael admits that Christianity is "most likely true" )


---

	" If God exists, religion is the work of the Devil! "
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Wednesday, 14 Oct 1992 16:57:22 CDT
From: <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: ==> Bush On Atheists

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Information in the public interest which does not imply that it
is the opinion of UIC.  Contact 75300.3115@compuserve.com for
further information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Free Inquiry v. 8 #4 (1988) (page 16)

"The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert
Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush.  The Republican
presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for
Illinois.  The discussion turned to the presidential primary:"

   Reporter for the American Atheist magazine, Rob Sherman:
        "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are
        atheists?"

   George Bush: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community.
        Faith in God is important to me."

   RS: "Surely your recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of
        Americans who are atheists."

   GB: "No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens,
        nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

  RS:  "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of
       state and church?"

  GB:  "Yes, I support the separation of church and state.  I'm just not very
       high on atheists." --GALA Interim
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Wed,  7 Oct 1992 20:16:34 -0400 
From: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
	<ebolog.13@elaine.ee.und.ac.za>

>Now the Christians have proof that He exists, do you have proof that he 
>doesn't - or are you just saying He doesn't because you can not see Him.

Show me the proof and then we'll talk.

HINT: The Bible is not any more valid a proof that God exists than L.
Frank Baum's novels are toward Oz's existance.
\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: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:49:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.132026.164741@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
>On the contrary, there is plenty of proof that demons exist.

If there is plenty of proof, can't you just give us a little
example?  Please, please, please.

>This is
>too big a subject to deal with in this posting.

Alt.atheism regularly deals with Ultimate Questions (tm)
like faith, reason, morality, metaphysics, etc.
We're big enough to handle your "proof" of demons.
Bring it on!

>With various other
>postings also concentrating on this issue, I will try to prepare an
>article on it in addition to those on Satanic crime which I am currently
>preparing.  Hopefully this later article will respond properly to your
>statements.

Have you been reading the postings about satanic crimes
which show how baseless virtually all such reports are?

>>	Ah, but the "spiritual realm" does not exist. Please PROVE IT !
>
>I will also endevour to answer this in a later posting as well.

We will be waiting on pins and needles for your posting.
(Wait, isn't that a yoga practice?  I'M POSSESSED!  AARRGH!)

>Jesus is not dead!  He died and was RAISED FROM THE DEAD.  He lives today
>inside all those who accept Him as their Lord and Saviour.  This I KNOW!

This you BELIEVE!

>Although I can not prove this by sending words such as these across the
>network, He is as real to me as a person standing next to me.  With the
>communion and fellowship that I have with Him, I know for sure that he is
>ALIVE!  You can have the same relationship with Him if you ask Him
>(and mean it).  Go ahead, you might just supprise yourself.

*sigh*  Most of us on this group are ex-xtians or ex-other-religions.
Many of us have experienced this "relationship" you claim
to experience, and found it wanting.

BTW, how do you explain the "fellowship" and "communion"
that followers of Islam (or Krishna, or JHWH, or Great 
Earth Spirit, or ...) claim to experience with their gods?

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

BZZZTTT!  Pascal's Wager:  I'm afraid that you lose one thru.

>Yours in Christ,
>James.

Yours on Earth, Eric.


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:19123 talk.origins:13048