HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: Was Jesus the Anti-Christ?
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 08:29:13 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <cscope.727987530@camelot> cscope@camelot.bradley.edu writes:

(scripture quote deleted for space)

> This has been one of my biggest problems with Christianity, the possibility
> that it was a ploy by Satan to draw people away from God.  Can anyone see
> any flaws in my logic?  Anything I may have missed?

      Apart from its being a conspiracy theory, not really; the logic is
- in principle - impeccable, but it's as unfalsifiable as the theory
you're criticizing, so what do you gain?

-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-
 If you think I'm gonna be responsible for this crap, you're madder than I am.
    "No logic here today / Do as you got to, Go your own way..." -- G 'n' R
     ===>The Truth is still the Truth, even if you choose to ignore it.<===
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
Subject: Re: RELIGION & PRESIDENTS
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 16:20:32 GMT

In article <DGRAY.93Jan21082336@menudo.uh.edu> DGray@uh.edu writes:
>We have
>to swear to some god in order to appear in court or on a jury (they
>will ask "Do swear...  so help you god?" 

You have the right (IMHO, the *duty*) to affirm rather than swear.

-- Brad Pierce --
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A point well missed ...
Date: 27 Jan 93 07:36:51 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

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 ...

My disbelief in what, exactly?   Your particular religion?   Your
particular deity?

Why don't you tell us why you don't believe in the others.  Or
do you believe in them all?

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu (Corey D Minter)
Subject: Omnicorns and other Omniphony
Summary: Omnistuff
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 10:37:53 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.4.19
Keywords: Omni-X

With all the talk of Omniscience on this group I did some research
and discovered some other 'features' of god tha the religious don't
talk about often enough.  -Corey Minter  cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu

Omnigasm:  warm feeling of just knowing with out having to think too hard
   of the implications of your beleifs.  See <Omnitastic>

Omniambivalence:  the ever present disregard for things that happens to 
   non-believers.  See <Omnimpotence>

Omnimpotence:  inability to show any evidence of existance 

Omninconsistent:  ability to be all good yet decide when to show it.
   very handy.

Omnoying:  ability to make the same wacky claims over and over.  See
   <Omnicon>

Omnicon:  ability to generate revenue, flourish and otherwise continue
   indefinately even though belief is detrimental to advance of society

Omnitastic:  fuzzy feeling associated with creating beings that
   can both believe in your or not believe in you.  Believers experience
   what is known as Omnigasms see above.

Omnicorns:  channel through which god makes itself known.  People 
   witnessing Omnicorns are blessed with such appearences due to
   Omnifavoritism see below.

Omnifavoritism:  selection of one or more groups of individuals for
   the priviledge of exclusive viewing of Omnicorns

Omnifty!:  exclamation of warm fuzziness

Omnilusive:  ability of god to intervene, (against my free will) and
   leave the scene just in time to leave no trace.  See <Omniterference>

Omninterference:  poking about in creation after it was apparently all
   ready set up perfectly 

Omnismite:  apparently the all knowledge of 'bad' things that will
   occur at the expense of the 'souls' involved for all time due to
   the all creating creator
   
Omnotimpressed:  all knowledge of the above which leads to atheism and
   a feeling of overwhelming relief

I may have missed something so please let me know.  These definitions
are an expression of the ridiculousness of all theismdom.
This should be read with a mental picture of the old Saturday Night
Live skit with that short black haired guy saying Xgasm, blah blah.
Does anyone remember this?

"If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down?
We might if they screamed all the time, for no good reason."
"It makes me mad when I go to all the trouble of having Marta cook up 
about a hundred drumsticks, the the guy at Marineland says,"You can't
throw chicken to the dolphins.  They eat fish."
   Sure they eat fish, if that's all you give them.  Man, wise up."
     -Jack Handy from Saturday Night Live
-- 
cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu / cdminter@eng.uiowa.edu (Qlink: EarthsWake)
"The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face."
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.  But we can't scoff at them
personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me."  -Jack Handy, SNL
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Let's try these proofs
Date: 25 Jan 93 10:39:12 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <C19u7I.Eyy@news.rich.bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:

>No.  I am not sheep: all gods must be moral by my standards (who else
>would I use?) or I will not even talk to Him/Her/It.

Right.  Were it proved tomorrow that a God exists, I still wouldn't worship, 
having seen the shit that goes on on this planet.  I might fear, but not 
worship.

            All creatures will make merry   (on pain of death)
    Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England    (44|0)61-275-6033
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:03:14 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1993Jan26.000201.8575@nmsu.edu>, epowers@mccoy (POWERS) writes:
> 
> 	I'm curious what you think of my idea that if thought is  
> completely due to physical processes that we can't differentiate between a  
> false thought and a true one?

   You seem to put a lot of weight on this true/false thought idea in
this and other posts.  What exactly do you mean by it?  Is a false 
thought one that is not factually true, such as "green unicorns are 
sleeping on my ceiling," or something to do with morally right and wrong?

Karl

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "Lastly, I come to China in the hope      | "All you touch and all you see  |
| of fulfilling a lifelong ambition -       | Is all your life will ever be." |
| dropping acid on the Great Wall."  --Duke |                 --Pink Floyd    |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|         A Lie is still a Lie even if 3.8 billion people believe it.         |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:14:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.035309.21434@digi.lonestar.org>
gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
 
>
>To check its veracity also requires a thought, which would have to be
>a product of chemical reactions.
>
>More important, "chemical reaction" is itself a thought.
>
>This doesn't prove the existence of God, however.  It does point to
>problems with the idea that thought (and consciousness) arise out of
>matter. And it points to, not thoughts, but thinking as being primary.
>Even the division of the world into subject and object is the outcome
>of thinking.
>
 
IMO, people identify with their conscious state. So far so deep :-)
 
But many people do not like to see them or better, the very essence
of them, as the product of chemical reactions/physical processes,
because it is so damn apersonal. There is nothing that gives the process
of identification with it the very notion of being special/not the
surrounding that is the base of identification.
 
In other words, I or rather *feeling of being myself* is nothing
tailor made?
 
However, I do not identify myself much with me as I was twenty
years ago, so I would expect my soul, or whatever introduced
consciousness, to have changed. Few of the theories of souls say
it the same way, so I reject  them for that reason. And then the
theories seem to get their explanatory power (awkward term) from
their materialistic parts. Soul is not necessary, it just gives
them more emotional appeal.
 
If there is a better one, I would be interested.
   Benedikt
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: slp9k@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism in pop culture
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:42:26 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

> 
> Can you think of any examples of explicit atheism expressed in pop
> songs or other pop culture works?
> 
> -- Brad Pierce 
> 
	Nine Inch Nails has refered to the non existence of God in a few songs,
while I don't have lyrics on me I can quote a little from memory.

	_Suck_
	There is no God up in the sky, tonight
	No sign of heaven anywhere in sight
	All that was true is left behind
	Once I could see, now I am blind.
	[...]
	The temple walls are made of flesh
	It tears the skin right off of my back
	I'll heal your wounds, I'll set you free
	I'm Jesus Christ on ecstacy.

	_Terrible Lie_
	(the lyrics in the cover have 'hey, god' before each line
	 although it is not actually sung)
	
	(hey, god) Why are you doing this to me?
	(hey, god) Why am I seething with this animosity?
	(hey, god) I think you owe me a great big apology.

	(the song continues in this vein, but I can't remember the lyrics)


-- 
Disclaimer:  I don't care

********************************************************************************
Darrell Fuhriman          *     "Oh, just like an orange cloud of light, 
SLP9K@CC.USU.EDU          *      that just blows right out of it.  Wow!"
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Why Xians Post in Alt.Atheism
Keywords: Marcinkiewicz
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Distribution: alt
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 12:49:05 GMT

Null Cypher writes:
>Well, I think it's time we recognized these posts for what they
>really are - cries for help.  These Christians have begun to
>realize that their religions are based on unfounded assumptions
>(and often illogical arguments), and so they come to alt.atheism
>for help.

I would very much like to challenge your hypothesis. I am probably among those
few theists which you would call rational. I spend a lot of time in
a fundamentalist community to observe, gather information on human interaction in
a potentially charged environment. I feel that I get to know their motives and 
their thoughts pretty well. Believe it or not, these people think quite
rationally. Their premises (axioms) may be far-out but the reasoning built on
these is perfectly valid. 
    But anyway, the main reason, I think, that so many Xtians preach on
alt.atheism is: self-satisfaction... 
    Remember that Xtians are crazy about converting people, being able to serve
God by preaching His Word etc. This is what gives them a meaningful life. Being a
Xtian makes them feel special. This is emphasized when preaching to unbelievers 
- especially atheists. This is because, unlike the majority of unbelievers,
atheists have consciously through their will and rationale chosen to turn their 
back on what to them is sacred. And - seeking out to be the Hero of the day (
having the angels throw a party in Heaven, and so on)- they try to save these
poor creatures who are crippled spiritually by their own minds. And with their
spiritual sword - the Word of God - they Knightly engage in the spiritual Battle
against Evil! Which, of course, is a bloody extatic experience. THAT is why they
preach on a.a., nothing else.


Onar.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jimb@rcx1.csd.harris.com (Jim Burmeister)
Subject: Re: A point well missed ...
Organization: Harris CSD, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:53:35 GMT

In article <C1I2GF.Dnu@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) 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?
> 
> Bill

Well, I'm not sure this post deserves a response, but I'll give it a go...

Of course, I can't speak for all atheists, but here's why I am an atheist.

I have a skeptical world-view.  In other words, I do not accept something
as "truth" without some sort of evidence to back it up.  So far, I have
not received convincing evidence that "god" exists.  Therefore, I live my
life under the assumption that there is no god.  That makes me an atheist.

This is somewhat simplified, but I think it makes my point.  So, I have
explained my position, I have not used sarcasm, ridicule, or hyperbole,
and many atheists on this group will agree with me, so I don't think that
what I said makes me look foolish.  How about it, Bill?  Do I get a prize?

-Jim Burmeister, jimb@csd.harris.com
From: stave@apollo.hp.com (Joel H. Stave)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Buddhism - A religion of atheists?
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:16:03 GMT
Reply-To: stave@apollo.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Apollo Division - Chelmsford, MA

In article <1993Jan26.163039.19486@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only) writes:
|> Why then, is Buddhism considered a religion as opposed to a philosophy or
|> way of life?  Religion usually involves God and/or the supernatural.  In 
|> this case, one could be a Christian-Buddhist as easily as another could be
|> an Atheist-Buddhist.  So calling it the "religion" of Atheists seems
|> unwarranted, almost like calling Atheism itself a religion.

One book I read (I think it was "Three Pillars of Zen") talked
about this and said that the religion part comes from faith.  With
Zen Buddhism the faith comes in the form of the concept of
enlightenment and what needs to be done in order to acheive it.

Joel Stave
stave@apollo.hp.com
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The First Cause argument (again)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 12:13:12 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.98

weaver@chasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
>In article 727502778@cwis, schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel) writes:
>> weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
>> >In article w165w@mantis.co.uk, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> () writes: 
>> >> I can think of at
>> >> least two other possibilities:
>> >> 
>> >> 1. The universe was caused by itself.
>> 
>> >To my understanding, this is not a possibility as it results in a logical
>> >contradiction. If the existance of the universe is caused by the universe
>> >itself, then the universe is both creator and creature. The universe would
>> >have to exist and not exist at the same point in the same relationship.
>> >As a logical impossibility, this is, therefore, not an option.

[ I didn't see Mark Schlegel's article except as quoted by Dave Weaver. 
  Repost? ]

Your (Mark Schlegel's) objection is based on a number of assumptions:

1. Time is a single linear dimension.
2. Time proceeds forwards from past to future.
3. An event at time t1 can only cause an event at time t2 if t1 < t2.

It may be the case that one or more of these assumptions is not the case. 
Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", for example, puts forward the
suggestion that time is two-dimensional, but that we only perceive one
dimension.  That is, it's like a complex number where we only perceive the
real component.  This allows the possibility that the universe is finite but
unbounded -- it simply has no beginning or end, time is a loop.  In such a
model, we see a singularity at the universe's beginning because at that
stage, time is entirely imaginary (in the mathematical sense).

And now, on to Dave Weaver's objections to Mark Schlegel's comments about
uncaused quantum events...

> I'm glad you added "apparently" to the idea of quantum events being uncaused.
> Unless I am grossly misinformed, quantum theory does not state that these
> effects are uncaused.

It may not say that all quantum events are uncaused, but what is the cause of
virtual pair production, for example?

>                        Maybe some physicists can help me out here, but the
> idea that cause-effect relationships are indeterminant due to observational
> interference is not stating that there is no cause for these effects.

I'll stomp on this one quickly:  QM is *not* about observational interference.
That there's a particle with a definite position, but that you cannot measure
the position accurately, is a common misconception.  A photon with a given
wave function does *not* have a single particular position within the space
occupied by the wave function.  In the two slits experiment, in an inexact
hand-wavy sort of way each photon "goes through" both slits.


mathew
[ An argument about this issue occurs on alt.atheism about once every six
  months.  Can you just trust me on this one, or shall I dig out the quotes
  and references I posted last time? ]
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Islamic proof of existence of god!!??
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:56:26 GMT

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.

Then all the "monitors" from soc.religion.islam should leave alt.atheism,
right, since they're doing the same thing in reverse?
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: A Challenge
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:04:03 GMT

For UIUC readers.  Do you think your position is strong enough to face a
one on one confrontation.  Pick the best guy in the nation to represent
your position, and who would it be?  WOuld you be interested in trying to get 
money from the campus to fund a meeting between two people on atheism v. 
theism, or Christianity v. Paganism, or God v No God.  Worth the effort?  What
do you think.  Pick your best person, the other side picks their best, and we
see what happens.  The only rule, we actually let both sideq
mac
.
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Any Chick comic fans out there?
Date: 25 Jan 93 14:42:16 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system


> In article <2936495372.1.p00261@psilink.com>, "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilin
> > Count me in.  I really liked those things as a child.  Especially the ones
> > where the evil atheists die in train crashes and go to hell!  Great stuff.
> > 
> > When I was about 13 or so, the Jehovah's Witnesses used to come to my house
> > and I would always rush to the door to give them a hard time.  After a whil
> > they stopped coming by, but I noticed that they would drive by my house in
> > a van and throw these Chick Publication things in my yard.  Kinda like home
> > delivery with none of the usual J.W. hassles.  Atheists just can't get good
> > service like that anymore. 

	What's even funnier is that Chick has a tract out that specifically
attacks the JW's.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org

"Do I BELIEVE in the Bible? Hell, man, I've even SEEN one!!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: brumleve@iboga (Dan Brumleve)
Subject: Re: Need arguments *******
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:35:50 GMT

cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:

>Ok atheists.  This is the big chance.  I need arguments specifically dealing 
>with why the Lord, Liar Lunatic argument is wrong, and why Christianity and the
>New Testament is not historially accurate.  Remember, I don't want to hear that
>no one ever could show you why it is accurate,    I want to know why it is not
>accurate.  I want to hear from everyone, so don't worry about whether someone 
>has written or not.  Also, I'm doing research, not interested in dialoging, so
>I probably won't write back, unless you want an acknowledgment that I received
>it.  

>Thanks

     It's impossible to prove a negative in an infinite set.  If I claim
that Johnny the Jiant Jumping Bean is the Eternal Master of the world, the
burden of proof is upon me, even if I have a book of fairy tales to back
myself up, and likewise, the burden of proof is also upon the theist
to prove the existence of any gods.

>MAC

-Dan
From: werdna@cco.caltech.edu (Andrew Tong)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Ontological argument...
Date: 26 Jan 1993 02:13:05 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

wilkins@scubed.com (Darin Wilkins) writes:
>>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"

>I don't know the phrasing of the version that you are looking for.
>But instead of wracking your brain trying to unravel some of the more
>convoluted forms of it, try replacing the 'God' entity in the argument
>with the entity 'Invisible Pink Unicorns'.  For example, in the version
>you post above:

>"Invisible Pink Unicorns are conceived as being perfect; non-existence
>would be an imperfection; thus Invisible Pink Unicorns must exist"

>A convincing argument, wouldn't you say?

I believe that most statements of the ontological argument for the    
existence of God claim that the mere fact that we can imagine an entirely
perfect being implies that it must exist.                  

Still not very convincing.

But you only get out of that argument what you put into it.  One can simply
ignore it without thinking very much about it (that's what I do).  But
the ontological argument has messed up several logical thinkers, basically
because they thought too much about it....  Nothing that survives so long
is pure bunk.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism