HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cfaehl@leo.unm.edu (Chris Faehl)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: From inferrence to conclusion -
Date: 28 Jan 1993 15:31:38 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: leo.unm.edu

In article <C1K0zG.8Ex@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:

> [deleted]
>    Well here I am. I was also suprised at the vehemence with which my
> propositions were attacked. I never even stated a position, I merely
> raised some questions, atheists it seems are just as aggressive and
> abusive as any theist when they sense their position threatened. What
> hypocrisy. Do you people ever read your own postings or do you content
> yourselves praising your own cleverness (not to be confused with wit).
> 
> Ok, fire at will ...
> 
> 
> Bill
> 

Bill also writes:

>    I've had the experience of discussing atheism with atheists before
> and in every case the atheists avoids the questions, "Why are you an
> atheist?" ...
>    I think there are really only two possibilities here: one is that
> the atheist can't explain his position, the other is, if he did he'd
> look like a fool. 
>    Other than sarcasm, ridicule and hyperbole, I've yet to hear an
> atheist's defense of atheism; are you up to it?

This is called 'daring someone to knock the block off your shoulder'. Perhaps
you can't see it, but your message contains an overwhelming tone of 
belligerence. All flames you got were, I'd say, to be expected. You certainly
*do* post a position:"the atheists avoids the questions, 'Why are you an
atheist?'". I've never seen any atheist who couldn't explained in brief, quite
succintly, why they are an atheist. This was demonstrated to you in the
subsequent messages you received, and also pointed out in the FAQ.

I think you'll find most people to be aggressive and abusive when you infer
them to be fools.

Chris Faehl
cfaehl@polaris.unm.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Cults and Fundies
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:40:14 GMT

jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) wrote:
] > the COG pulled out of the USA and went to Europe at about the time of the
] > Arrival of the Comet Kahotek, or what ever that was. It was in one of the
] > 'Mo letters that understood that the Comet was going to destroy the USA for
] > its Wicked Ways.
[....] 
] I have some problems with this notion that anybody with such deviant ideas
] is a "cult" - after meeting some Young Americans for Freedom (and, for that
] matter, the moronic US political consensus) at around the same time, they
] weren't such a paradigm of brainwashing. 

Small Secret: many of us think YAFFers are KultGroupies....

[ editorial on Kult as a Term of Oppression by the Right Wing... ]

I will agree that some of the ReligiousRight have turned 
everything NOT Explicitly Sanctioned by one of the Correct
Christian Groups as 'cults'...

{there is the thread wandering loose about Satanic Cult Rituals
wandering around as well.... }

But I think that there is a Problem that NEEDS to be addressed
in terms of Dangerous 'Group Oriented' behaviors, and that in
that light, many churches also need to be VERY AWARE of where
they are crossing the line as well.

] And I most
] certainly would *not* trust a Christian fundie "anti-cultist" group like the
] one cited here.

Jack,

Are you Calling me a Christian Fundie?????[1]

Or are you referencing the gentleman listed
in the other post who was sited as a source....

ciao
drieux

[1] sometimes the jesus just shows through....





-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
and they may not be connected..... 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A point well missed ...
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:24:32 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <C1G7ry.HKw@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>The question, "How much should I read of a religions corpus of sacred
>writings", seems to miss the point. Being atheists it's incumbent on
>you to demonstrate the reasons for your disbelief. Merely attacking
>the beliefs of others does nothing to validate your own. Tell me then,
>why are you an atheist ...

  Because I haven't read your religions' corpus of sacred writings?

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

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Deliberate Ignorance
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 06:10:30 GMT

atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu wrote:
: In article <C1G7CF.HGC@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
: > 
: 
:   [lots of meaningless tripe deleted]
: 
: 
: Bill:  Was your post an example of the upper limit of your verbal
: and logical/mathematical intelligences?  If so, you are about
: seven notches below the atheists on this group, and a few of the
: theists as well.  You're a philosophy 101 student, right?
: 
: Please come back when you have something to say, but not before.
: 
: Don 


   Don, I'm sure you are right in every point, but you don't really
expect me to just take your word for it do you? Or was this an attempt
at a Flame and not to be construed as a rational argument? Obviously
my posting offended your exalted intelligence, but isn't it something
of a civic duty to help those less enlightened than yourself - enumerate
your objections - if you can ...

Bill

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: daniel@scs.leeds.ac.uk (D N Crow)
Subject: Re: RELIGION & PRESIDENTS
Originator: daniel@csgi60
Organization: The University of Leeds, School of Computer Studies
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 08:51:34 GMT
X-Posted-From: csgi60.leeds.ac.uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu


In article <1jq02qINN5rq@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> In article <1johhhINNlt@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> |> David James Alexander Hanley <U16244@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
|> |> >  As a side note, i heard the prime minister of england is an atheist.
|> |> >Is this true??  Wow, this could never happen here.  Are there any more
|> |> >freely-elected atheist high-powered officals? ( in the world ? )
|> |> 
|> |> The English Prime Minister is not really freely elected.  I think that
|> |> he is chosen from among the majority party in the House of Commons.
|> 
|> You don't mean "freely elected" you mean "directly elected".   He does
|> not run in a special election in the way that the US president does.
|> Instead, he is elected leader of his party first, and then after a General
|> Election the leader of the party that can control the legislature becomes 
|> Prime Minister.

This is usually true, but not necessarily. For example, when Maggie (Thatcher)
resigned as leader of the Conservative party, she could have stayed on as
Prime Minister. She resigned from that position also, and John Major was
elected (by the Conservative MPs) as leader of the Conservative Party. He then
became Prime Minister, as the Conservatives had a (large) majority on
Parliament. It was 18 months until a general election at which we could
specifically vote for a Conservative government lead by John Major.

|>    The electorate know who they are going to get for Prime
|> Minister if they vote for X party.   This is how most Pariamentary systems
|> work.   It's not special to the UK.   [Note, not England, which has no
|> Prime Minister of its own, but UK]
|> 
|> Oh, and by the way, the original poster was probably thinking of Neil
|> Kinnock, not John Major.
|> 

I'm not sure if Kinnock (leader of the Labour party until the last general
election. Labour are the second largest political party in the UK after the
Conservatives) actually was an atheist. The previous leader, Michael Foot most
definately *was* and he was quite open about it.

I think there is a striking irony in the USA being unable (in effect) to
elect a non-Christian President, despite its sensible constitution and the
separation of church and state, when in poor old Britain with its established
Christian church (Bishops of the Church of England automatically get a seat
in the House of Lords, our upper chamber) being an atheist politician is no
obstacle to becoming Prime Minister (or at the least, the leader of the
opposition).

-- 
Dan Crow
daniel@scs.leeds.ac.uk
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Islamic proof of existence of god!!??
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:35:22 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan22.080000.19786@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>
> Firstly, note that the article referred to was posted in
> soc.religion.islam, not in alt.atheism.  This person was interested in
> getting the reactions of *Muslims* to his arguments.  Muslims did show
> him where his arguments were quite weak.  Now, for an atheist to call to
> other atheists to see what a good laugh they can have with a particular
> posting in S.R.I. shows that this particular atheist seems to suffer
> from a "holier-than-thou" attitude.

I've always suspected that other people's powers of ESP are
far superior to my own, but in general I have no idea of what
someone's motives are for posting something in alt.atheism.

So I just address what's posted, and if it's silly, as most of
this "Proof for God" stuff seems to be, that's what I say.

I certainly don't go through some "This is so silly that it must
have been posted for sympathetic comments and so I shouldn't
comment on it ..." kind of second-guessing.


> Let's leave it there.  You may disagree with me... that's fine.

I disagree with your patronizing evaluation of why people replied
to the posting in question.   Still fine?

jon.
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: looking for God
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:56:52 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

>a cell's structure immediately breaks down upon the death of the cell.
>If you can suspend "life processes" without damaging the structure of a
>cell it can be revived, eg. frozen sperm cells, etc.
 
>So it would seem that a living thing is a stucture that must maintain
>a certain set of processes to maintain its stucture: a fragile state.
 
>Can anyone substantiate this?
 
Yes.  It's called maintaining homeostasis.

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:27140 sci.skeptic:22956
From: pyeatt@Texaco.com (Larry D. Pyeatt)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:48:21 GMT
Organization: Texaco

In article <1993Jan23.024015.1978@cs.unca.edu>, kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan22.160421.5216@texhrc.uucp> pyeatt@Texaco.com (Larry D. Pyeatt) writes:
|> >
|> >What a cruel and immoral thing to do to another human being.  It is made
|> >all the more worse by the fact that it is found in a book which supposedly
|> >contains only the word of God.  There are thousands of such references in
|> >the Bible.  Everything from killing babies to raping women to killing one's
|> >own children.  All at the commandment of this wonderful God. The Bible is 
|> >definitely not the word of MY God.  Mine has much higher morals.
|> >
|> 
|> Well then, why don't you take this boasting to alt. whatever _your_
|> wonderful God's name and get it out of here?

What makes you perceive it as boasting?  I am not really boasting about my God.
I don't even believe in a god.  I am simply pointing out, in a fashion that
you are obviously too dense to percieve, that the god of the Bible is not 
really the one that most Christians believe in.  Their god has all of the good
points of the god of the Bible, but the less positive aspects are forgotten.

|>  One thing I'm not really
|> interested in is reading some self satisfied yuppie boasting about their 
|> high moral standards.  

Well, I really don't consider myself to be a yuppie, but if it makes you feel
better to put me into a group so that you can ridicule and persecute me, then
go right ahead.  I expect nothing more from someone who thinks that the Bible
is the pure, unadulterated word of god.

|> Reminds me of the person who screams out the back 
|> door at his neighbors about how happy he is.

Sounds like you are jealous.

|>  I vote we somehow break this endless link between alt.atheism and 
|> alt.skepticism.  There's no end to a "my God's better than your God"
|> argument.

I think atheism and skepticism are very closely tied together.  One 
naturally leads to the other. ;^)  I agree that the "my God's better than your
God" argument is pointless, and I am sorry that you missed my point.  I will
try to make myself more clear in the future.

-- 
Larry D. Pyeatt                 The views expressed here are not
Internet : pyeatt@texaco.com    those of my employer or of anyone
Voice    : (713) 975-4056       that I know of with the possible
                                exception of myself.
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Athletes thanking Jesus (BUSH MISQUOTE) 
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<fX2AOi2@quack.sac.ca.us> <1993Jan23.021320.1226@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
Date: 23 Jan 1993 09:02:57 UTC

In article <1993Jan23.021320.1226@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> 
rjb3@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (robert.j.brown) writes:
>> Did you happen to catch Pres. Bush refering to the lastest US v. Iraq
>> action as "The Lord's Work" on MacNeil/Lehrer?
>Uhhh...atheist brains grinding gears ??
>You got your World crises mixed up.  The Bushman said that about
>the Marines in Somalia helping the starving folks get the food.
>He did not drag the Lord into the Iraq thing...

No, the quote I'm refering to was in discusion of his last shot at Iraq,
but no doubt he used the term also in regards to Somalia. Presumably any
action of the US Military can be considered to be "The Lord's Work", no
doubt even mining the harbor of Nicaragua and Iran-Contra and Iraqgate
were also "The Lord's Work."
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A different view of God
Date: 24 Jan 93 00:24:15 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: The Language Game Inc.

In article <1993Jan20.031133.27550@rp.CSIRO.AU>, ahaig@rp.CSIRO.AU (Albert
Haig) wrote:
> 	Firstly, I hold that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent,
> 	perfectly free and perfectly good. He is the cause of the
> 	universe. By omnipotent, I mean that he can do anything which
> 	it is logically possible to do. I take it as a consequence of
> 	this definition that only one such being could exist. Who would
> 	over-rule who in case of a disagreement? By omniscient I mean that
> 	He knows everything which it is logically possible to know i.e. He
> 	believes all true propositions and disbelieves all false ones, and
> 	has reasons for said beliefs. Omnipresent is perhaps self-explanatory.
> 	He is perfectly free in that there he is not constrained or influenced
> 	in His actions by any factors other than His will alone - for example,
> 	emotions, desires and so on play no role in His decisions. I believe
> 	that moral statements have truth values (there is an objective right
> 	and wrong) and since God is all-knowing, he knows all moral
> 	requirements. Since He is perfectly free, moral imperatives are
> 	the only thing that can sway his actions - He is therefore
> 	perfectly good.

I don't have any problems in justification of belief in such constructs,
one might state that anything is possible, and any kind of a God could
be available, if not directly then somehow as part of the idea-world
(Popper's world 3). 

However, the next step is the critical one, does this construct 
manifest itself in the current universe? And if, how?

Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND
Private activities on the Net, opinions are not Apple's, they are mine.
From: pab@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Alan Blair)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Ontological argument...
Date: 21 Jan 93 12:12:11 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh

The basic ontological argument for the existence of god goes along these lines...

"God is conceived as being perfect; non-existence would be an imperfection; thus
God must exist"

The crux of the matter is getting from the conceptual perfect being to the real one,
and while the version above is clearly bollocks I remember hearing a better phrased
one, that needed more thought to straighten out just WHY it was wrong.  This post
is a request for a sounder phrasing... mail or post, take your pick.

(While it may sound like a stupid argument, the more convoluted forms of the
ontological argument can really wrap your brain around itself trying to unravel them.
It's sobering to think that the argument was seriously used by many philosophers
to justify belief in god;  Kant had an objection to it, that "existence is not a
predicate", which smacks of logical conjuring and isn't needed to discount the
argument anyway.  As far as I remember, he believed in god all the same.)

Alan
 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Time Travel (did I get into sci.sceptice by accident?)
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:13:50 GMT

In article <lYk=FBC@engin.umich.edu>
ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
 
>
> No, under certain assumptions (not pathological assumptions, either!) it
>might be possible to go backward in time with out anybody going faster than
>light. This generally requires something *really* massive (like a black
>hole or lump of neutronium) rotating *very* quickly (in one model, faster
>than .5c...) though.
> I don't want to clutter up this newsgroup any more than it already is,
>though. Email me if you want references to five papers in Physical Review
>and Physical Review letters that discuss the possibility.
 
 
Ok, but this does not imply a place out of time. As far as my understanding
of Relativity goes it says: no time, no space.
   Benedikt
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar)
Subject: Re: Whay atheists?
Reply-To: west@next02.wam.umd.edu
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:28:57 GMT

	I've read your question and a few responses, and I have a similiar  
story, strict Christian upbringing (I was even an Alter Boy in my local  
church) and became a Roman Catholic (to the umpteenth degree).  I later  
started questioning the basis of the religion (sorry, but 50% of the Bible  
doesn't hold water, and the rest is historical or "storybook" text). 
	I finally decided to break off of the Christian bandwagon after I  
attended a class during my freshman year here at UMCP, the class was  
Philosophy, God and the Cosmos.  My proffesser was a devout athiest and  
made no attempt to hide it.  I later discussed with him many of my  
problems with ESTABLISHED RELIGION (sorry everybody for the harsh  
vulgarities there, it was necessary).  He reccomended that I make up my  
own mind by reading up on the basis of the religion and the questions  
other people have published on the subject.  I was soon convinced of my  
shortsightedness on the topic of religion, and became an agnostic.  Later  
I decided that my doubts continued even further, and decided on athiesm.  
	My current belief is that if (??) a supreme being exists, I highly  
doubt that IT (not he, by the way, I doubt a supreme being has a penis)  
had anything to do with any current religious literature, nor do I think  
that it would be at all interested in our worshipfull nature, or in our  
following a list of ten, or a hundred THOU SHALT NOT's.  


Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
!                             !  He who does not understand himself,     !
!                             !  cannot hope to understand anyone else.  !
! -Place interesting          !       -Brian-                            !
!  .sig file here.-           !                                          !
!                             !                                          !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cfairman@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman)
Subject: Ms. O'Hair
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: alt.atheism
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 01:00:08 GMT


I have a few questions regarding a comment I read recently about how
Ms.  O'Hair and the American Atheists are bad press for Atheists in general.
I never would have thought talking out about your beliefs, starting an A.A.
forum on cable, etc. were bad but perhaps I'm missing something.
I'm truly curious what other Atheists have heard (_not_ theists, Xians, etc.)
about the group as I found them wonderful.  Until then I thought I was the only
person who never bought the belif in god thing.
So, this is important because I am going to the American Atheist
Convention in Sacramento in April ("Easter" weekend, of course) and
I wondered what I might find.

Thanks!

Carolyn
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: RELIGION & PRESIDENTS
Date: 22 Jan 1993 10:16:17 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

David James Alexander Hanley <U16244@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

>  Yeah, me and most of my atheist friends were pretty disgusted about the
>whole inaguration.  I seem to remember that one war general who was
>considering running for president made some pretty anti-religious
>comments and he dropped out of the race soon afterward.  Too bad he
>couln't have kept his mouth shut:)

>  As a side note, i heard the prime minister of england is an atheist.
>Is this true??  Wow, this could never happen here.  Are there any more
>freely-elected atheist high-powered officals? ( in the world ? )

The English Prime Minister is not really freely elected.  I think that
he is chosen from among the majority party in the House of Commons.

keith

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:26770 talk.abortion:57261
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
From: jfrandson@vax.cord.edu
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:46:49 GMT
Reply-To: jfrandson@vax.cord.edu
Organization: Concordia College, Moorhead, MN

In article <1993Jan20.020307.17203@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1ji4r9INN3bh@male.EBay.Sun.COM> birge@guerciotti.EBay.Sun.COM writes:
>>If we take the Atheist perspective then the individual created at the
>>point of conception exists only because of the meeting of two gametes.
>>Thus to abort the zygote, fetus, child ends forever this individuals
>>chance for existance.
>Don't be silly.
>Any given gamete is essentially unique. So, for any given sex act,
>since there are N sperm and 1 egg involved, using contraception
>destroys the chance for existence for N individuals. Since
>N>>1, contraception is much worse than abortion.
>
>-Ekr
Interesting... this concept would help the catholics uphold
their ban on contraception.  I would have to say though, it
doesn't hold up to common sense morals.  It is better, I would
think, to not have an organism in the first place than to kill
it (all arguments of a fetus-organism being human or not need
 not apply).  A farmer would keep his cow and bull apart, rather
than let the bull do his thing and then have to kill the resulting
calf (if he didn't want it, of course).

jared matthew
Newsgroups: alt.atheism