HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: A point well missed ...
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:44:31 GMT

: 
: 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

Jim,

   Yes, you get a prize; you were both civl and rational - the only
response that was in fact. It seems odd that I never stated my
position on the central question, do I believe in the existence of
God, yet was attacked by all and sundry, what does it mean? If
atheists are veritable paragons of reason, the intellectual elite, the
most rational of people, why do they get so hot when someone challenges their
faith?
   Your skeptical world-view is not really yours. To make the
statement suggests (as Madalyn Murrey O'Hair likes to do about
herself) that you are somehow exempt from the influences and pressures the 
rest of us feel, that while we become ensnsared in folly, you managed
to transcend beyond. Granted this is sarcastic, but this kind of
attitude is so common, I have trouble remaining genteel. My point is
that we are all born into the same world with pretty much the same set
of attributes; it seems ridiculous to pretend that some "special"
people have an advantage, which in the case of the atheists who have
responded to this posting, is exactly what is being implied.
   All of us are exposed to various world-views, usually before we've
developed the means to determine the most likely or valid. In my
experience, skepticism follows belief else of what are you skeptical? At
some time you believed in Santa Claus or something similar, you
probably believed in fairness and justice, you may have even believed
in God. You had, at that time, a different more credulous world-view.
   What I'm curious to know, is what made the difference, why did you
change, and why atheism? Claiming to be a skeptical person begs the
question it seems. The change from a child for whom God was at least
possible, to a cynical adult for whom there is nothing greater than
Man is radical at least.

Bill
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: From inferrence to conclusion -
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:12:42 GMT

In article <C1K0zG.8Ex@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>
>   I posted some follow-ups to my other postings, but it seems that
>the would-be Defenders of the Faith intend to exhaust themselves
>protesting their own futility, so I moved over a notch. I was
>surprised how quickly my postings received attention; it's like a
>multitude of vultures were hovering, waiting for the unwary infidel to
>trespass ...
>   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 ...
>
>

I repeat, read the fucking FAQ. How many times must  you be told this?

>Bill
>

Robert Johnston
From: starr-daniel@yale.edu (Daniel Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Easter whodunnit
Date: 25 Jan 1993 20:52:49 -0500
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu

>The idea that guards were present is too easily verifiable from  
>local records, and the locals themselves.  It would be easy to lie to you  
>and me, certainly, but how easy would it be to lie about a thing like that  
>in the same city where the events occurred?  Lying in this situation about  
>something so easily checked out would be beyond dense.
>					Erik Powers

Speaking of beyond dense:

There is an obvious contradiction in the claim that:

A) the soldiers said they fell asleep at their post  and
B) they couldn't have been telling the truth because if they had they would
   have been put to death.

When the soldiers were (as the NT says) making up an explanation, why on
earth would they make one up that would open them up to execution?  THAT
is a ridiculous piece of nonsense to swallow.  

Aside from the fact that I have never seen any evidence for this claim about
Roman military practice, nor yet any evidence that this regulation was kept
in the historically utterly messed-up situation in Judea, the very fact
that the NT offers "we were asleep on the job" as the soldiers' story should
establish that it was reasonable that such a story would be made up by
the soldiers, which in turn means that were have in fact no reason to 
believe they weren't telling the truth.  Along the way, this debunks the
notion that there was no ready way to move the stone in front of the 
sepulcher, etc.

To put it another way, if you assume that the NT is telling the truth and
that the guards made up this explanation, you have to assume that they
made up the explanation that best covered their posteriors.  This means
NOT using an explanation that leaves them open to the death sentence...
ergo, there was no [realistically expected] death sentence for falling asleep
on the job... ergo, the guards could very well have been sleeping on the job
... ergo, there's no reason to believe something mysterious happened:
they just fell asleep on the job.
-- 
This is NOT a .sig virus do NOT copy me into your .sig file  This is NOT
* Daniel Starr                   *   Ta twn thewn erga                 * 
* dstarr@minerva.cis.yale.edu    *   Hoi psukhwn twn anthrwpwn logoi.  *
a .sig virus do NOT copy me into your .sig file This is NOT a .sig virus
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: The First Cause argument (again)
Organization: SPS
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:08:56 GMT

Aaargh, it looks like the news server at my site is not receiving again.

If one of you following this thread could e-mail me the replys, I would
appreciate it. It looks like I can still post, just not receive.

Thanks,

Dave Weaver
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com
From: mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: religion in general
Date: 23 Jan 93 01:57:00 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Inc., Mountain View, California, USA

In article <1johe2INNk9@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>westsh@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>
>>re:religion in general
>>mostly, i agree with your letter. my problem with it is your comment about
>>using religion as a reason of abstaining from the consumption of animal
>>flesh. you say instead of worrying about religion, we could be solving
>>world hunger. the key to solving world hunger is surprisingly simple.
>>if all americans became vegetarians, we would be able to feed the world 
>>three times over!!!!! albeit, religion is not a good reason for this, but 
>>it works just the same. i agree religion of any kind is bull, but some of
>>it has good ideas: like not killing people or animals. i am also glad that
>>someone pointed out that christianity is  not the only culprit. all
>>religions are is a way to explain things without thinking.
>>susan hamilton west
>>the info on world hunger can be found in VEGETARIAN TIMES(i'm not sure what
>>issue). 
>
>It is well known that vegetarians are often fanatical and like to bend
>the truth a little.  Actually, just based on energy concerns, I suppose
>we could feed the world if we stopped cycling food to the animals. 
>However, the people and animals don't really eat the same kinds of food.
>The corn grown for pigs is not meant for human consumption.  I suppose
>it could be eaten, but it is rather course.  Also, humans have a hard
>time digesting various grasses.  You can't just let a human graze in
>the open range.  In fact, most of the land used for cattle probably
>couldn't be used for anything else (well, sheep, I guess).  If somehow
>you could get humans to eat grass, then I suppose youru statements
>might be true.

Well this is getting way off the subject of atheism, but it doesn't
take much effort to replant fields to grow crops more suitable for
human consumption (what is sorghum anyway?). Also, allowing cattle to
graze on open ranges leads to desertification and contamination of the
water table.

In any event, the problem of world hunger is not one of supply but of
distribution. Look at what the U.N. had to do to make sure people are
getting food in Somalia. Before the troops arrived, warlords were
stealing all the food that was being sent in to that country.

-- 
Michael Wang
mmwang@mv.us.adobe.com
From: jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov (James L. Felder)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Where does Adam and Eve Fit In?  Attn:  Jeff West
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:35:11 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Organization: Sverdrup Technology, Inc.

In article <1993Jan23.005958.21563@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:

> So why do you insist on reading the creation account in Genesis,
> a poem, like Einstein's General Relativity?   

I don't, fundies do.  To me it is just that, a poem.  It doesn't reveal any
Truth any more that the rest of the mildly interesting stories contained in
the bible.  So why should I try to take it as the literal Truth.  However,
when someone argues to me that It Happened Exactly Like It Says In The
Bible, or that the bible is the revealed word of GOD, well then I'll take
their position that the bible is to not be interpreted and take it in its
exact content with no margin for literary license.

In that light it is the account of a cult following formed around a mean
vicious brute of a god who talks out both sides of its mouth when ever
convenient.  Or, if you want, I can take it as poetry. Then, with some very
careful editing, it might have something educational to say.

In either case I see nothing about Xianity that would cause me to follow it
as a religion.

So which way to do you want me to look at it for purposes of discussion. 
It doesn't really matter to me.
 
>         Moses had something else in mind when he wrote
> Genesis 1.  Figure it out.  There is a reason--a good reason,
> a reasonable reason which made sense to everyone back then.

Yeah, believe and follow me, or I and my ultimate in big brothers will KILL
YOU.  Mind control, even thousands of years old has very distinguishing
marks.  The OT  is chock full of some of the best mind control techniques
ever invented by the twisted mind of man. Evidence the longevity of this
cult.
> 
> I guess I didn't make my point clear enough in my last post.  
> The Genesis "man" does not necessarily have to be the Stone Age
> anthropological man.  The Biblical definition may be, and probably
> is, different than the anthropological definition.  Adam was much more 
> than "homo faber", maker of tools.  Not all the people running around
> during the Stone Age must be the descendants of Adam and Eve.  There
> is nothing in Genesis that says they are.

Sounds a lot like that Chariot of the Gods stuff, where Aliens came to
earth and genetically altered some the the proto-humans.


James L. Felder            (216)891-4019         -My opinions are MINE-
Sverdrup Technology, Inc.  jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov  I think that should
NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland 44135        cover all bases, 
                                                  don't you.

"Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge -
    other people gargle"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
From: werdna@cco.caltech.edu (Andrew Tong)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Deliberate Ignorance
Date: 27 Jan 1993 20:37:27 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

johnsd2@vccnw07.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>On the other hand, if God is a being that is Omnibenevolent, Omnipotent,
>Omniscient, and did all that stuff the Bible sez he did, then he doesn't
>exist. That's logic (proof by contradiction that is- some of the stuff
>in the bible isn't very nice.)

Are you really claiming that the God of the Bible is logically inconsistent?

Because if you do, the the following:
>If God should come down in a Second Coming type thing and explain real
>well why he is late that would be pretty good proof that he exists too.
>But it's not nearly as much fun to reason about as Spam.
Could simply never happen.....  I'm sortof confused.  Do you believe God
(as described in the bible) doesn't exist because the biblical account of
God is logically contradictory, or are you saying that God doesn't exist
because no proof is ever provided for His existence.

I find the former argument immensely interesting.  The latter argument is
somewhat bland and quite boring--it's an end unto itself.  (You could always
assert it, but you simply can't get much more out of it than a simple
refutation....)

>Absolutely. We refuse to behave as if it God existed without proof,
>because this seems unreasonable to us. Acting "as if God might or might
>not exist" is tough.. what does it mean if not one of the first two?

Seems that you're holding onto the latter argument.  Damn.  I thought this
was going to get interesting.  Too bad.  Seems like some atheists (like many
theists/christians) can't play more than just a few notes....

>Parle vous frances? :)

Apparently, you don't spell it... (Correct spelling: Parlez-vous francais?)  
:-)
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Bible defacing
Date: 26 Jan 1993 03:23:56 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


	Someone mentioned earlier that the "gideons" where peeking into
rooms at a particular motel chain to catch people *INNOCENT LOOK* who like
to deface the nutty book of mythology (IE:Chri$tianity) they leave there.


	I am now going to help prevent these people from peeking.


	I will find the holes in the wall, go to the room and strap them
in place and tape their eyes open so they are FORCED to keep looking through
the hole.


	Then I will procede to have GREAT SEX with a transvestite &/or
transexual, with lots of moaning, touching, feeling, sucking, slurping, 
f***ing and everything else fun & illegal.



	This will teach `em !    =-)


-- 
A. TRENT PHILLIPS |" A mirror is a negative space with a frame and a place for
  also known as   | your face, it reveals what the rest of us see. It conceals
   WHITE  ROOK    | what you'd like you to be."--Blue Oyster Cult
--------------------------bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu--------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto)
Subject: Re: A Challenge
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 07:48:35 GMT

In <C18Aus.42K@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:

>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
>.

I'd like to post a "vote"

I think "BENEDIKT" should do a great job for atheists.
Perhaps even Mike Evans.
This is my  0.1E-100 cent.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: How much should we read?
Date: 21 Jan 93 20:31:12 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1jk51aINN9o9@OPAL.SYSTEMSX.CS.YALE.EDU> Pai-Satish@CS.Yale.Edu (A. Satish Pai) writes:
>
>   So, my question is, how much is enough? (Obviously for some theists no
>amount of study by an atheist might suffice...) How do the rest of you deal
>with such an accusation, that you have only a shallow understanding of the
>principles of this or that religion, that you have not _understood_, that once
>you really _understand_, then and only then will you believe? And this
>understanding can come only by studying the religious texts in depth...

Because there are so many competing theist religions, each with
its own text, and because studying such texts is time-consuming
effort, and because no one of them stands out in a way that renders
it transparently superior in the eyes of all viewers, it is
up to the theist who claims that his or her favored text is
of superior worth to make a case compelling to you. If that
hypothetical theist can make a strong case, by your (presumably
reasonable) standards, then one must assume that you will be
persudaed to study it in greater depth. If, on the other hand,
this thiest can make no case that is stronger than the cases
made for the numerous other texts, then one must assume that
there is no feature that sufficiently distinguishes it to
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Strong atheism ought to explain theism (Was: Re: Atheism is dogmatic.
Date: 26 Jan 93 02:36:38 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan25.094307.13447@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
|> 
|> Mystics, such as Sufis, claim that this experience of God is very
|> concrete and real.  Metaphysics to them is a science to be experienced.
|> Thus, the "warm and fuzzy" so-called "experience" of God that your
|> average Christian, for example, may have claimed to have had is not what
|> I was talking about.

I think you ought to note that there are actually *two* steps
here.   One: that they had the experience, two: that it was an
experience of God.

I don't doubt that Sufis and other mystics (SOM) experience
*something*, but I know of no evidence that what they experience
is either supernatural or God-related.

|> 
|> Note, however, that mystics (in the sense of the word I mean), such as
|> Sufis, spend years climbing up the spiritual ladder (so to speak) before
|> the ultimate goal of "annihilation" in God, the ultimate concrete
|> experience of God's reality, is achieved.  So your average religious
|> person, whatever his/her religion is, is most definitely not a mystic in
|> the sense I am talking about here.

This actually makes me more sceptical.    If someone spends their
entire life preparing themselves for an experience of God, and
eventually some event happens which is outside their previous
experience, what are they going to blame it on, too much Pizza?

|> 
|> I do not claim to have had such an experience, but having spent a
|> reasonable amount of time over the past few years reading about Sufism,
|> I do know that Sufism and other mysticisms are in a sense an
|> "experimental metaphysics", in that all metaphysical claims are to be
|> directly experienced and verified by the student, and not just taken on
|> blind faith.

No.   They are in a system in which "something" is directly
experienced, and then that something is attributed to supernatural
causes.

jon.
From: atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Deliberate Ignorance
Date: 27 Jan 93 02:07:04 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska

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 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Where is the good discussion? (a theist writes)
Organization: I'm on a coffee break now
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 12:43:06 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

An atheist replies:

Thanks for all the humorous reposts.  I missed some of them the first time.
I especially liked the list of things to do to liven up church services.

Guess what?  This newsgroup does not exist for the benefit of religious
believers.  We are not here to post news in a form that you may or may not
find acceptable.  From what I have seen, the atheists who post to this
group discuss a lot of the things that the atheists I know do in real life.  
This stuff may not be funny or mean much to you but it does to some of us.

Since this is a newsgroup on atheism, what authority does a believer have
over an atheist to tell them what to post?  How do you know what is important
to atheists?  Religious people are always trying to define the debates in 
their own terms.  When atheists are free to say what is on their minds it 
is sometimes funny, immature, serious, and all shades between.

So Mr. Believer, please tell us exactly what atheists should discuss and
exactly how we should do it.  Please define our lives for us and tell us
exactly what to do to meet your expectations.  Then watch us have a good
laugh and go on our merry way.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism