HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amorgan@csd-d-5.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: To All Truth Seekers!
Originator: amorgan@csd-d-5.Stanford.EDU
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:51:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.150735.23962@cs.tulane.edu> 
  goff@pops.navo.navy.mil writes:

>I assume that this implies that they evaluate objectively both sides
>of a topic. If this be the case, then if they are correct, then there
>must be a sound, reasonable explanation as to who Jesus Christ was.
>
>If there are any other theories the atheist community can offer, please
>post them! 

Oops.  I think my newsreader has a bug.  Everywhere this person 
to put "Bible" I saw "Quran", everywhere he put "Jesus" or "Christ"
I saw "Mohammed".  The argument still made perfect sense to me.

C Frog

BTW - If I hear the "liar, lunatic, or lord" argument *one* more time.....
From: mpinnock@casper.cs.uct.ac.za (M B Pinnock)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: ....
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:58:41 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Cape Town

In <ksand-101092171836@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>> Beware of GOD
>... he might zap your newsfeed!

Have no fear! All the off-key hymns and immense volume of one way traffic
on the praying wavelengths is sure to put his aim out and zap the
christian sitting next to you. :-)

Brian.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: gj156879@prince.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879)
Subject: Re: What an atheist thinks of the biblke.
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 04:49:39 GMT



>In article <1992Oct10.212402.11649@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca>,
>I actually don't agree on this statement. People are people, still today.

Yep, and a lot of 'em are just as dumb today as they were two thousand
years ago.  The reason I'd suggest people are more knowledgable today
is for a few reasons:
 
-technology has replaced superstition.
-widespread public school.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: gj156879@prince.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879)
Subject: God is a higher technology.
Summary: ..and then I bvded.
Keywords: God is a bum.
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:44:13 GMT

I just read a post where someone said that if you disbelieve in God
just because you don't understand Him (I would add Her, It, They,
etc.) then you probably don't believe in TVs, computers, and
satellites.
 
Well, I can pick up a book and read about what a computer is made of,
and get an intricate blue print.  If someone has the gaul to tell me
the BIBLE is a goddamn fuggin blue print...  Face it, the thing is
vague.
 
Sigh, it sure is a damn shame I'm wasting my time with this.  Once a
believer, always a believer (until "God" fails you and you realize
that you believed in this higher force cuz mommy, daddy, and Uncle Jim
all told you to when you were very small, stupid and gullible).

Depression depression depression.
 
Very sad, that full grown adults can argue that Santa Claus exists
because they have a book.
 
"Look, Santa exists, I have a book!"
 
I think we should substitute Santa Claus for God in all future
conversations.

"You have to believe in Santa Claus because the bible says that He is
the one true yak yak yak..."

Etc.
 
                              -Nik
                              I crucified my cat for Jesus...
          
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto)
Subject: Re: The Teleological argument
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 04:21:03 GMT

Mr. Phillips

I'm not sure how to interpret your reply. I'm interested to know

which of the following are you assuming:

1) that I'm a theist. (And you are antagonist about them)

2) that I'm stupid ( For not knowing the Teleological argument)

3) that all (100%) of subscribers toAlt.Atheism should, have to

   and  or must know all subjects dealing with the atheist's believe.

If you assume any of the above, I feel sorry for your arrogance.

Perhaps you ought to read to next Reply (Adam'

An enlightening, consistent and without prejudice. I've learned

more from him than I'll from you. In the future mr. Phillips

just think how boring this world would be if all inhabitants

liked and discussed the "SAME" discourses.

Thank you for your time

Frank
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:41:48 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <Eer6pQK00ioB457Eg=@andrew.cmu.edu> jn1a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jad Nehme) writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.alt.atheism: 14-Oct-92 Re: source of morality for
>.. Mikel Evins@Apple.COM (760)
>
>> This is not necessarily so. It is logically possible that some
>> particular moral code can be proven objectively superior to all
>> other moral codes (given that anything can be proven to be
>> objectively anything)
>
>i don't know.  The way I see it, a moral code is dependent on the
>context on which it applies. 

It's not clear what this claim means. Do you mean 'the existence of
a moral code depends upon the existence of its context?' Or perhaps,
'the specific character of a moral code depends upon its context?'
Or maybe 'the applicability of a moral code depends upon its context?'

>Therefore to say "all moral codes" is an
>implicit reference to "all context".  It looks like there might be a
>logical problem in defining "all context" just as there is a problem in
>defining "all objects".  Comments?

If by 'problem' you mean an obstacle to a coherent formulation
of the idea of 'all moral codes' then, so long as the idea of
'all contexts' is not self-contradictory the problem is only
one of defining what is meant by 'all contexts'. (This may not
be easy, but so far its hypothetical difficulty doesn't 
establish that it is impossible to prove a hypothetical moral
code superior to all others).

N.B. I do not claim that there is actually a moral code that is
objectively superior to all others.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: You're Invited!
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 7 Oct 92 02:40:36 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1atc8uINN7j2@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, scott@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Scott G Goddard) writes:
> 
>     To all Atheists, reading these comments made by you are very upsetting to 
> me. 

   Poor poopsy.

> There shouldn't be a discussion of whether or not God exists, it's not
> about that.  It is a fact that God exists, I don't have to prove that because 
> when you are a Christian,like me, you know I in you're heart(without a doubt).

   I see.  So you only know that God exists if you believe that God exists;
and if you don't believe that then you will never know that God exists.
   Fantasticly convincing logic.  I like the grammar, by the way.

>      That's why you are all cordially invited to enjoy the blessing of God and 
> his family for eternity!R.S.V.P.

   Sorry, I'm busy then; as many Christians have told me, I have an 
appointment with Satan in Hell that night; I'm afraid burning in hellfire
is going to take all eternity too.

>      Did you know that God has a special invitation for you? 

   Funny, I never got one.

> He wants us to turn
> from our sins to the forgiveness He offers:"Let the wicked forsake his way, and
> the unrighteous man and his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and He
> will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon."

   Hold on; you said above that we *didn't* have to dress up or turn over
a new leaf, just come as we are; now you're saying we have to forsake our
ways?

>      God calls.  How will you respond? 

   I'll hang up.

>    Get your heads out of the darkness, there is so much that can be offered to
> you through Jesus.  Just look.

   I have.  Get your head out of your butt and try to get in touch with
reality.

> Please believe me, everyone needs Jesus in their life, it is incomplete without
> Him. Please respond. (I hope in a positive way)

   Don't count on it.  I hope you didn't really expect to get any positive 
responses posting on alt.atheism.

Karl
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: gj156879@prince.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879)
Subject: Where are my morals?
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:51:35 GMT

I think a problem in this moral discussion is the difference between
PERSONAL morals and SOCIETAL morals.  Certain things are strictly
personal, in my opinion, but a lot religious types would think
otherwise:  
 
          Personal stuff:
          -who I sleep with, of what sex, etc.
          -what kind of music I listen to, books I read, etc.
          -is stealing wrong FOR ME, and the consequences of it?
          -is murder WRONG FOR ME, and what of the consequences?
 
Societal morals on the other hand are an agreement of what is an
unacceptable act, and what are WE going to do if we catch such a
person doing it?  These morals are made through discussion, opinion,
election, etc.

          Some obvious examples:
          -murder is bad.  25 years in jail or worse.
          -rape is bad.  A big sentence here too.
 
Then there's the problem when society's rules don't match people's
opinions, or try to dictate certain VALUES as opposed to agreed upon
morals.  (Not to bring up the hideous spectre of FAMILY VALUES in this
echo, shudder...)  

The rules often fall behind the opinions, mainly because it takes so
bloody long to make a law.  
 
This is all pretty simplistic, but I get the feeling some people don't
see the difference between MY MORALS and SOCIETAL MORALS.


                                        Nik
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Homophobia
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 12 Oct 92 00:01:24 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1b9nk8INNkgu@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) sez:
> |
> |I think it has more to do with your own private opinion, I know people
>                                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |that are non-religious, and still don't accept homosexuality.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  
>     This is true too. I am looking to sort my numbers better, but it is
> a fact that most mainstream churches are anti-gay. I think that my post
> holds true for the USA, which is a VERY different place.

   Except that just because the official church position is anti-gay
doesn't mean that all or even most of the churchgoers follow it.  Many
of them would probably remain in the church they grew up in than leave
over a single issue.

Karl

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 09:12:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.235911.3707@math.utexas.edu> mike@huevos.ma.utexas.edu (Mike Sullivan) writes:
>On the other hand I used to feel homosexualuty was wrong.  But I decided
>not to feel that way. Why? It probably has to do with the influence of
>the civil rights movement and the lack of any scientific bases for considering
>homosexuality a disease.

Why should it matter what the scientists decide to call it?  The way I see
it is that I don't much care what causes it.  It isn't doing me or anybody
else any harm, so what right do I have to pronounce it wrong?  That seems
to me to be a much stronger basis for ethical judgements than deciding based
on the name some other people decide to pin on a behaviour.
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_
From: ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:54:16 GMT
Organization: Electronic Eng., Univ. Natal, Durban, South Africa
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc56.ee.und.ac.za

In article <1992Oct6.170934.25011@u.washington.edu> sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) 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.

>We don't "laugh away" serious attempts at proof.  We point out
>the logical falacies and/or factual blunders in all such "proofs".

>>So here is my proposal : You prove to us that God does not exist!

>AARGH!  The new school year must have started.
>Someone send this person the alt.atheist FAQ.

>In brief:  we don't have to prove anything, because we
>cannot disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist.

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

>Oh fine!  Xtians worship a spook who rewards people who
>claim to believe a set of vague, contradictory fairy-tales;
>and atheists are called childish and irrational!

>>Please post your replies so that other people may also read them or if you 
>>feel embarassed mail it directly to us at (TJOHN@ELAINE.EE.UND.AC.ZA).

>Embarassed?  BWAAHAAHAA!

>>Many Thanks for any logical and well thought out arguments.
>>
>>       Cheers from E.B.

>Read the FAQ.  Let us know what you do not understand.

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


Ok, just tell us all the Biblical errors and a logical explanation on how 
you came about. No, do not quote the THEORY of evolution I said proof - your 
own personal ideas on why the human body is symmetrical and does not have 
two arms on one side and only one on the other for example. Also explain why 
if human life came about by freak accident why only we are intelligent. Why 
not, as logic would point out, some creature with a different shape to the 
human being with the gift of intelligence.

It is logical isn't it - and please do not ignore or laugh at the question.
From: <tonyp@cnvxla.COM> (good, Conan - good!)
Subject: Re: URGENTLY NEEDED
Reply-To: tonyp@convex.COM 
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:48:45 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <markg.59.718937928@county.lmt.mn.org> markg@county.lmt.mn.org (Mark Gilbert) writes:
}
}I read somewhere that Thomas Jefferson edited a version of the new 
}testament, removing all reference to miracle.  Has anyone heard of this or 
}know where to find it?
}
Yes, but you are no longer able to get a copy - no publisher is going to invest
all the effort it requires to make a 1-page book...

--
    Tony J. Podrasky             BIBLE : 
     San Diego , Ca                       BUY BULL ? 
    tonyp@convex.com                                  ( NO ) 
QSL? QRU? QRZ? QLZ? QFA?                                      BYE, BULL !
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Satan's Work
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:54:16 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <n0c31t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> I am working on it, honest. I want to do a good job. One problem
> that I wish to avoid is to incorrectly state what Satanists 
> believe. I have seen many Christians, for example, tell everyone
> what other religions believe, while lying through their teeth. It
> is always better to have a member of a given religion say what 
> their religious beliefs are--- I am not a Satanist, so I am just 
> compiling theology samples from Satanists.
>  
> One "problem" with me doing such a compilation is that some
> Satanists who have written books write in "code," or metaphorically.
> The Beast, uncle Crowley, liked to talk about "Infant Canabalism,"
> but the "in" joke is that he was talking about -oral sex-. Is it
> any wonder folks are confused? (BIG SMILE!)
> 
> --- Maximus 2.00

Oh, goody! Now we get to talk about whether Crowley was a Satanist! :)

I'll be impressed if you manage to pull this off--we certainly haven't. My
opinion is that the woes of this group may be as nothing compared to
summarizing Satanism.

Yours in Azazel,
--Semhaza
From: kachun@delphinus.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Lord Cometh!
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:58:01 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <1992Oct7.044320.21712@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) wrote (in article <10951@spark.ed.ac.uk>):
>>I hereby declare that there is no god other than James Meritt.
>>I also declare that there is no god other than Colleen Davis.
>>(No, there is no contradiction.  God works in mysterious ways, you see.)
>
>No, it makes perfect sense!  They're a duality!
>
>And if we toss Elvis in there too, then we'd have a trinity!  But so
>far I haven't been able to figure out if any Elvisists think their
>Elvis is part of a trinity; they're always too busy speaking in
>tongues.  ("You ain't nothin' but a hound god...")
>

I think we should agree to set up the first Colleenian Council of 1992 and 
decide once and for as dogma that the Colleenist Trinity should consist of
Colleen, James Meritt, and the King.  Maybe we can get a split in the church
between the Trinitarians and the Monophysites!

>-- 
>_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
> _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
>  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
>                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
>                                                                 -- Rousseau


--
*Ka Chun Yu                * "I'm going down to Cowtown, the cow's a friend of *
*kachun@as.arizona.edu     *  me; he lives beneath the ocean and that's where  *
*But you should reply to:  *  I will be.  Beneath the waves, the waves..."     *
*kachun@vela.Colorado.EDU  *                                      --Cowtown    *
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Subject: Re: Jesus vs. Cub Scouts?
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest, Beaverton Oregon
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:20:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.185406.1020@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:
>Trying to equate tolerance toward atheism with tolerance
>towards legitimate religious beliefs and values is like trying to compare
>apples and oranges.  Religion/atheism is a TOTALLY separate issue from
>respecting others RELIGIONS.

I see I need to capitalize some words.

TAOISM can also be ATHEISTIC.  Is Taoism ILLEGITIMATE? 
Buddhism IS atheistic. Is THAT variety OF Buddhism ILLEGITIMATE?
WHAT about SANTERA? Illegitimate or NOT?
what ABOUT Theosophism? Illegitimate OR not?
what about WICCA? ILLEGITIMATE or not?
...

WhO WiLl StEp FoRwArD, AnD Be ThE gUaRdIaN Of ThE pUbLiC MoRaLiTy?
WhO wIlL dO oUr ThInKinG fOr uS?

You, Stan? (BWAH HAH HAH HAH!)
(* end parody mode *)

Tolerance of atheists is _exactly_ the same issue as tolerance of deists.
The issue is tolerating people you disagree with, not the ones you approve
of. For example, I will not vote to bar homophobic jerks (like yourself)
from any organization I am a part of.

And if the joker who keeps cancelling articles in these BSA threads
cancels this one, it will simply be reposted. Again, and again if
necessary. It seems the Boy Scouts paramilitary are not friends of
freedom of expression.

>Stan Krieger

What a maroon.

Regards,
	Max G. Webb
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 8 Oct 92 13:01:14
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<TORKEL.92Oct8143844@isis.sics.se>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: torkel@sics.se's message of Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:38:44 GMT

In article <TORKEL.92Oct8143844@isis.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:

   In article <ZuoBsB1w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:

      >Read the FAQ file.

   The present thread demonstrates the dubious value of the FAQ file.
   Atheists will feel compelled to respond again and again to any
   standard provocation put forward by people who ignore the FAQ file.

My preferred technique is to mail the FAQ file to the offending poster
with instructions to read it.
--
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: gj156879@prince.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879)
Subject: Re: Morals and God is Dead.
Keywords: Morality.
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:36:43 GMT


>This is so nice to know.  I've been having trouble with the moral concept
>of murder lately.  It is finally a relief to know that I can over come
>my problem and change it, since this is a moral that has been put in me.
>I'm so happy that I no longer have to be bugged by this programming.
>Should I decide to start my homicidal rampage soon, can I start with you?
>I know you would understand--what's your address?

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

Sigh.  Obviously some morals shouldn't be questioned, Scott.  On the
other hand, things like : "Is it wrong for me to have sex before
marriage?" and "should I feel guilty for masturbating" etc etc. are
all crap.  When it comes to murder on the other hand, it's kind of
obvious to most people that it's wrong, strictly on a PERSONAL level.
The most sound personal rule is: "Would I want someone to do this
thing to me?"  This is NOT an allowance to do what you think you'd
want done to you (if you follow), but simply a basic rule.
 
"I don't want to be killed."
          SO
"I won't kill anyone else."
 
Any other wise cracks, smart guy?
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Square Circles
Date: 17 Oct 1992 00:54:11 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, ttobler@unislc.uucp (Trent Tobler) says:

>Keith M. Ryan (kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu) wrote:
>: 
>: 	I doubt that given any sophisticated instrument that one could do
>: that. One can't even get a real circle, let along making a real circle 
>: whose real area match a real square! 
>
>You forget, in mathematics you are supposed to pretend that the theory is
>correct, not the practical application! ;)

	Bingo! Give the man a cigar!

	In all seriousness, do we really know much about the *real* world?
I know so much more about what is not in the state of affairs. Its amazing,
if you think about it. The only { most } things that I am sure of, are non-
existant!
-- 
So there I was, snuggled in the leather seat of my brand new Ferreri [sic]
I had the oiled wood gear shift in one hands, and the leather wrapped Momo in
the other. And, I had the stereo cranking _Born to be Wild_...
	Only one problem, I was unside [sic] down, under six feet of water...
From: mike@huevos.ma.utexas.edu (Mike Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jehovah's Witnesses and their axioms
Date: 11 Oct 92 05:12:52 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics

Tell them you created the universe. See if they can refute it. If (when!) you 
finally get board with them put a sign on your door saying "the orgy has
been delayed until next weekend." Works every time! 

Mike Sullivan
mike@math.utexas.edu