HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Date: 15 Oct 1992 01:13:51 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:

>In article <1bfk4bINN8si@gap.caltech.edu> 
>  keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>>
>>In order to determine the morality of homosexuality, we need only determine
>>whether or not homosexuality poses any threat the functioning of society.
>>Societies, or groups, developed in order to insure the propogation of the
>>human species.  A given homosexual act or encounter does not threaten
>>the continuation of our species.  In the past, a strictly homosexual
>>lifestyle would, by this definition, be considered immoral, as it hinders
>>reproduction.  

>So, amusingly enough, does celibacy.  Anyway, as I am sure you agree,
>this definition of morality is a little weak.

But of course you read the REST of my post in which I sort of cleared this
up.  You forgot to mention the [STUFF DELETED].  If you're going to quote
me, make sure you include the whole idea.

keith
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: To All Truth Seekers!
Date: 10 Oct 92 23:55:14 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Oct9.150735.23962@cs.tulane.edu>,
goff@intruder.navo.navy.mil (Victoria Goff) wrote:

Victoria, a serious question, are you yourself seeking the truth,
or trying to hide it? What's so dangerous in the alt.atheism FAQ?

Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: What an atheist thinks of the biblke.
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:33:51 GMT

sjs@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (BORCO) writes:

>In article <gj156879.718726566@cunews>, gj156879@prince.carleton.ca
>( gj student 156879) writes:

>> 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 ago and is no longer valid.  


>Age has nothing to do with it.  Aren't any of Plato's writings still valid?
>Aren't any old math books still valid?  Like Plato's writings, the bible's
>narrative can be taken as one wants.  You might believe in some or all of
>what was written.

>Old math books are more "believable" though, because you can work the proofs
>out yourself.  The bible doesn't claim and then provide a proof you can work
>out yourself; you have to believe that the _authors_ worked out the "proofs"
>correctly.

Precisely, people two thousand years ago were not morons. The people who
wrote the bible were either well intentioned to provide asdvice on how to
live and to use a third person as their source (this makes good sense if you
wish to convince people of your arguments, it shows you have little personal
gain from these works) or were interested in bringing down the Roman Empire
via insidious religious manipulation of the populace (in which case they
managed when Constantine converted the Roman Empire to Christianity it was
basically the end of the Empire). Quite a lot of what the Bible has to say
is quite useful for it's time and not the product of morons. The problem is
that it is a product of it's time and goes on to claim things about
supernatural deities, demons, angels, afterlifes etc.
	
	The Bible is a
collection of writings by people who thought they knew how to live life best
and that everyone else should live this way. These were chosen by the early
christian church from a myriad of other similar works, they were probably
the best. So I think even though they may have been more relevant in the
pre-technical age they still deal with people and have at least something of
use to say even if it be only historical. I also recommend Plato, Kant,
Heidegger, Mill, Marx, de Bouvwa (I can never spell her name), Nietzche,
Hobbes etc.

Jeff.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie (Bryan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: O'Connor in Saturday Night Live
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:52:42 GMT

bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:

>What did he do to her?  Even the non-Catholics (myself incl.)
>feel that she has no reason to hate him.  A guess would be
>that she is protesting the Irish inner conflict between North
>and South Ireland.  The Pope is not responsable for the
>religious conflict in Ireland.

I doubt that she's protesting any such thing.  I think Ms O'Connor is
suffering from a peculiar second adolescence (or maybe her first was
merely retarded).  There's no real religious conflict in Northern
Ireland.  Bigots kill innocent people, and then other bigots do
the same in retaliation.  I doubt that Sinead O'Connor even has
much of an opinion on our troubles up North, and if she did, I'd
probably find them tiresome.

If you're looking for things religious to bash in Ireland, you
could do worse than complain about the fact that three constitutional
referenda on abortion have been scheduled for December 3 next,
which is a Catholic holy day.  It may be a coincidence.  I don't
know.  The Church will probably mobilise its considerable PR machine
to defeat both these and a forthcoming referendum on divorce.  This
is not a statement of bias: it happened in 1986, and will probably
occur again.

	-- Bryan

--
Bryan O'Sullivan                                                 +353-1-767551
Advanced Development Group                               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
Newsgroups: alt.religion.messianic,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: jwfost@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Joshua W. Fost)
Subject: Re: Object-oriented creation (Was Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:04:42 GMT

I'm suspicious of creationist discussions that invoke the anticipation
of the Creator's thoughts and actions. Although it may seem to human
beings that a certain method of creation is optimal, for example using
object oriented DNA and thereby introducing a lot of similarity 
between species, this does not necessarily mean that this is the
strategy the Creator would have used. After all, it is a pretty unsure
proposition, that the Creator acts logically and is a pragmatist. In
the absence of any mechanism of insight into the Creator's mind, the
conservative thing would be to not assume anything, and to adopt the
most parsimonious explanation that accounted for the data. I think
there are many reasons (which can be discussed, and are, elsewhere)
to believe that evolution by natural selection is just such an
explanation.
From: cb366@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark B. Bendiksen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Hello All!
Date: 9 Oct 1992 21:48:33 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Hello Atheists:

I am what most of you would probably call a "Jesus Freak".
I have spent some time reading through many of the posts on
this newsgroup with much interest. I expected to find much more
discussion on deeper philosophical issues (i.e. why you
believe in no God, etc.). Instead, this group seems to be
mainly a "club" whose members waste time and net space by
coming up with clever ways to bash "crazy Christians" and
anyone else who chooses to believe in an almighty creator.
If you scan through articles on religious newgroups I dare
say you'll find little space wasted talking about "those
nutty atheists who don't believe in God". 

Please don't get me wrong. I did read many fascinating
and interesting posts while going through your newsgroup,
but more often than not many posts consist of nothing more
than hate for those that believe in God. Is that really
constructive?

I know I'm inviting flames, and that's okay. But if you
attack me with namecalling rather than by discussion of
the issue, you'll just be proving my point.


Love in Christ,

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
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Date: 11 Oct 1992 15:18:43 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

mike@huevos.ma.utexas.edu (Mike Sullivan) writes:

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

Language, science, and Law are constantly evolving.  Why shouldn't
morality?

Stratocaster

-- 
	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
				   
       PC's?  Blech.  Who wants a politically correct computer?
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jehovah's Witnesses and their axioms
Date: 11 Oct 92 16:51:52 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


	I would point out that not all things have a "creator". For
example, snowflakes, two are never the same (the look nice), but
does that mean that they are created ? -no.

-- 
"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
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18678 talk.origins:12801
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
Subject: Re: New Member (me)
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:03:08 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)

In article <BvtGKL.GA2@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, adpeters@sunflower (Andy Peters) writes:
>>Cladistics of lobophores (coelenterata?).

>I'd just like to point out that *Lophophorates*are*not*coelenterates.*
>As the lophophorate discussion said, they are (probably) deuterostomes,
>which put them much more closely related to _us_ than to coelenterates.

Even if the lophophorates were protostomes, they would still be more
closely related to us than to coelenterates.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jeon@carson.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon)
Subject: Re: What brought you to atheism?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:19:00 GMT


The unbearable lightness of being.
The unimaginable vastness of Universe and the absolute insignificance
of human existence.
And the absolute freedom and liberty that brings.

jeon
From: csfed@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Frank Doss)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Dear Bush
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:37:34 GMT
Organization: Educational Computing Network

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 
The above stated words are my opinions and do not reflect the opinions,
attitudes, or policies of my employer or any affilliated organizations.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: amorgan@csd-d-5.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Cults
Originator: amorgan@csd-d-5.Stanford.EDU
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:55:43 GMT

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

What schools teach atheism?  I admit that many (most) schools do not
mention God in class, but that is a far cry from teaching atheism.

C Frog

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: erlebach@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Thomas Erlebach)
Subject: Humor
Keywords: atheist
Originator: erlebach@hphalle9a.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 12:36:08 GMT



Read on a gravestone:

"Here lies an atheist. All dressed up, but no place to go."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: csfed@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Frank E. Doss / Academic Computing)
Subject: Re: The Devil Important?
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 17:35:19 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Oct8.115238.1@uncavx.unca.edu> bthurman@uncavx.unca.edu writes:
>Can anyone explain why such a strong movement seems underway to emphasize the
>femininity of God, but no similar movement seems underway to emphasize the
>femininity of the devil?

But we all know that Colleen is female, while James Merritt is male. :-)

Std disclaimers apply.

-- 
Frank E. Doss                            Academic Computing
csfed@ux1.cts.eiu.edu                    Eastern Illinois University
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 11 Oct 92 00:34:11 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <BvtntD.C3q@umassd.edu> rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:
>In <73159@apple.Apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>
>>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.
>
>Michael

It's mikel.

>Here is some food for thought!!!!!

More like candy sprinkles.

>The non-existence of an even prime number larger than 2 is con-
>tingent on mathematical definitions which were made even before
>anyone new (defined) primes. You are using a pre-stablished
>theorem for that prove. In other words you had to make use of the fact
>that you ---------> KNOW WHAT NUMBERS ARE
>         ---------> KNOW HOW TO MANIPULATE THEM
>         ---------> MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL, YOU CAN MAKE STATEMENTS WITH SOLID
>                    PROOF ABOUT ANY PREDETERMINED MATHEMATICAL THEOREMS
>         ---------> CAN ARRIVE OR POSTULATE OTHER THEOREMS BASED ON THE
>                    PREDETERMINED RULES FOR MATHEMATICS.

Of course. All the above assumptions are characteristic of any
logical argument. You did say we were 'dealing with logic'.

>However God exitence is "hear say"

Which is about an empirical claim, which has nothing to do
with logical argument. Don't change the subject.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: What an atheist thinks of the biblke.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:40:03 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: alt.atheism

In article <1992Oct11.020208.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>,
kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu wrote:
> In article <ksand-101092170809@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >> >> PEOPLE 2000 YEARS AGO WERE MORONS:
> > I actually don't agree on this statement. People are people, still today.
> > To cite Schiller:
> > 
> > Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.
> > 				Friedrich Schiller
> > 				The Maid of Orleans, III, 6.
> 
>    Which part don't you agree with?  That people weren't morons then
> or that are aren't still stupid now?  Either way, the original premise
> still holds, it's just not giving enough information if you believe the
> latter.

PEOPLE 2000 YEARS AGO AS WELL AS TODAY WERE AND ARE MORONS.

Kent
It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that
virginity could be a virtue.  -- Voltaire
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: plumpton@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au (David Plumpton)
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Organization: University Of Wollongong
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 04:44:22 GMT

jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:

>bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) writes:

>>Summary: Fundamentalist Christianity helps spread satanism

>>>>>>> On 30 Sep 92 19:30:16 GMT, jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) said:

>>> Some more research would provide a better description than the above.
>>> Briefly, they exist in the spiritual realms, which can be reached by
>>> certain types of meditation (esp. yoga - yes yoga!), seances, ouija,
>>> and other OCCULT practices.  BUT BE WARNED, DO NOT BECOME INVOLVED IN
>>> THESE THINGS.  THEY ARE EVIL, AND WILL NOT HELP YOU IN ANY POSITIVE WAY!

>>Rrright.  So the only way of verifying the spiritual realm is by using
>>things that we shouldn't use.

>These things exist and have an evil basis.  Using them brings you closer to
>Satan, not to God.

>Praying to God throught the fellowship of the Holy Spirit is what we
>need to bring us close to God.  This is NOT evil, and I would recommend it
>to anyone.

>>(Do many Christians really believe that
>>yoga is evil?  I thought not.)
>                          ~~~
>I think you might be supprised!


>>Q: What's the best way of encouraging teenagers to take up occult
>>   practices?
>>A: Tell them:
>>     a) They work
>> and b) They're evil, and I forbid you from even considering them

>>> Yours in Christ,
>>> James.

>>--
>>Bruce

>I stated these other things because many, many people are already involved
>in them, not always realising what they are *really* getting involved with.
>Yoga and meditation are very common examples, and if you wish, I could
>provide some more information as to what actually happens when you involve
>yourself with them, and why they are inherently evil.

>Yours in Christ,
>James.

Try to get a grip on reality!
-- 
/------------------------------\ /-------------------------------\
I       David Plumpton          I     There is a holy trinity:    |
I plumpton@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au I N Tesla, R Feynman and C Sagan  |
\------------------------------/ \-------------------------------/
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: To All Truth Seekers!
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:34:35 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Oct9.150735.23962@cs.tulane.edu>, goff@intruder.navo.navy.mil (Victoria Goff) writes:

Oh, no, not the Intruder again...
 
> A Quote from Alt.Athesim Frequently Asked Questions:
> 
>      "Most atheists put truth first.  If searching for truth causes you to
>       become uncomfortable, that's too bad."

[Arguements. I deleted 'em. You've seen 'em before, do you really want to see
them again?]

Why is it that *this* person, one of the few people I would say is truly
close-minded, is the one scolding others for not being interested in the
Truth(TM)?

--Semhaza
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Dangerous Drug (Was: Re: We'll all burn in hell!)
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:09:53
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: cb366@cleveland.Freenet.Edu's message of 16 Oct 92 19:22:05 GMT

In article <1bn4otINNht6@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cb366@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark B. Bendiksen) writes:

   Your argument is false, because, first of all, not all religions of
   the world have banned alcohol. But more importantly, those that have
   do not prevent those outside their faith from taking a drink.

Alcohol's a bad example (but see next sentence); other drugs (and
restrictions on pornography, and sodomy laws, etc.) aren't.  As for
alcohol, the Women's Christian Temperance League was in the forefront of
early attempts at prohibition.  More to the point, many of us have heard
a constant drumbeat of "Just say YES to religion" (not from you, I might
add) that we're completely fed up with.

   As many atheists are so quick to point out, the U.S. constitution
   separates the church and state. But that's a two-way street. People
   should be able to worship as they wish or not worship as they wish
   without any repercussions.

Quite correct.  You're way out ahead of, say, George Bush with that
(regarding his infamous comment on atheists from 4 years ago).
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ttobler@unislc.uucp (Trent Tobler)
Subject: Re: Square Circles
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:37:07 GMT

Brian Cash (bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA) wrote:
: In article <zlsiida.221@fs1.mcc.ac.uk>, zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave
: budd) writes:
: |>In article <IeqXKy200iV0I6xJp2@andrew.cmu.edu> jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu
: (Jordan M. Wolbrum) writes:
: |>
: |>>Why is there so much fuss about proving circles square?  The reason this
: |>>is possible to prove against is that nobody disputes the definitions of
: |>>either, nor the fact that they were created by humans(at least nobody I
: |>>know).
: |>
: |>This one REALLY ANNOYS me. 
: |>
: |>IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PROVING CIRCLES ARE/ARE NOT/CAN BE/ETC SQUARE
: |>
: |> ....
:                          
: This one REALLY ANNOYS me.  (too)
: 
: You are, in fact, right and wrong.  You are right in your definition of the
: circle-square problem.  However, there is ANOTHER circle-square paradox.  
: One that deals with the concept of omnipotence. That is: if an entity is
: omnipotent, can it make a square circle? (an object that meets both
: definitions)
: This is in line with the "rock so heavy he/she/it cannot lift it" paradox.
: These try to disprove the possability of an omnipotent god, due to the fact
: that some things cannot exist, because of logic.  (I am not supporting or
: discounting this arguement, just clearing things up)
: 
: Now ask yourself: which definition of "circle/square problem" do you think is
: most apropos to the newsgroup "alt.atheism".  Ever hear of context, Dave?
: Titles are not unique identifiers.  All things have several titles and
: all titles
: belong to many things. I hope this clears things up.
: 
: Brian /-|-\
: 
: PS Remember to look on the flip-side. :)

You do realize that even the real number system has not been proven to be
consistant with itself.  If it IS inconsistant, then you can really prove
anything, and of course, this means that you can have square circles in
euclidean space, since it can be modeled using the real number system. ;)

--
  Trent Tobler - ttobler@unislc.slc.unisys.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism