HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Reality- What's Probable?
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:14:50 GMT

In article <76569@apple.apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>In article <cu87wB6w165w@momad.li.ny.us> siphon@Momad.LI.NY.US (Stimpson J. Katz) writes:
>
>>        You ask for the unreasonable. One does not attempt to prove a
>>negative assertion. Standards of evidence apply to positive assertions
>>about the existence of entities.
>
>It's very common for people to claim that it is impossible
>to prove the nonexistence of an entity. Given the universal nature
>of this calim, a single counterexample disproves it. Thus:
>
>(Assuming Euclidean geometry)
>
>A circle has no vertices, by definition.
>
>A rectangle has four vertices, by definition.
>
>Therefore, there is no object in Euclidean space that is both a
>circle and a rectangle.
>
>Therefore it is possible to prove the nonexistence of an entity
>(suitably chosen).

This is a problem in definition, not existance. There is no well defined
term "rectilinear circle" It can not even be imagined. God, on the other 
hand, can be. "God" is an object that could exist. So, let us rephrase:

It is not possible to prove the non-existance of any object/entity
that is well defined

Robert Johnston
From: BLD110@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: looking for God
Date: 6 Jan 93 13:37:05 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

After wading through many posts on this list I am amazed at two things.  One
that so many seem to be saying that the behavior of some people has anything
to do with the existance of God.  Does the fact that someone says they believe
in God and then behave violently toward others mean that God has failed in
some way?  Does the fact that the christian religion as a whole does not hold
up to reasonable inquiry mean that their is no God?  Does the fact that people
of all religions seem prone to go to war and commit all kinds of violence in
the name of what they believe to be God mean that there is no God?  It seems to
me that it would indicate that these view of God are not acceptable to me.

The second is the use of the Bible as an athority.  If this book was given to
the world today and we were told that here we would find all we needed to know
about God - I dare say not one organization would be formed to preach from it.
It has taken on the form of a God in itself, and has frozen people into a
place where they can not have a relationship with God if they are lead past
what it says in the Bible.  Sad.  But not worth trying to argue with.

I have a question for those of you who are sure that there is no evidence that
God exists.  What is the life force?  What is that leaves that body when it
dies?  When you pick a flower what flows from it that causes it to wilt?  What
do you use to explain our complex ecosystem which can not operate without the
full circle of elements, i.e. soil can not produce vegitation without humas.

It seems to me that most of those writing on this list are blindly posting
their rhetoric without really listening or considering what the others are
saying.  There are some exceptions, and I guess they are what keep me reading.
                          Betty Lee Dowlin
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24986 talk.religion.misc:25154
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 5 Jan 93 07:17:54 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <ednclark.726111513@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>
>>Lets clear something up - all things work together for good FOR THOSE WHO
>>LOVE THE LORD.  If my daughter was in this circumstance, she would be in
>>physical pain, but she would be secure in the knowledge of her eternal life
>>through Christ, and though I would also be in much pain - probably more than
>>her - God would use it to strengthen my character.  Who are we to argue with
>>God?
>
>I feel sorry for your brain-washed daughter, she never had a chance did she?
>
>Jeff. (not Jeff West but Jeff Clark from Orstraalya).
>

Last I knew, clean brains were in!

John M.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jwest@wisc (Jeff West)
Subject: Re: A nation chosen by GOD -- New-Israel
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: 11 Jan 93 10:02:23 CST

p00261@psilink.com ("Robert Knowles") writes:
: >DATE:   Sat, 9 Jan 1993 07:44:00 GMT
: >FROM:   Stephen Tice <b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu>
: 
: NICE TRY JEFF, BUT SOMETIMES THE SUBTLE WAY AIN'T THE EFFECTIVE WAY.
: 
: SO FOR STEPHENS BENEFIT I WILL EXPLAIN:
: 
  [explaination deleted]
: 
: IT IS NOT AN INVITATION FOR PREACHERS TO HUNT US DOWN IN ALT.ATHEISM AND
: PREACH TO US HERE.
: 
: READ THE FAQS AND GET BACK WITH US.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, Mondays!  Sorry 'bout the previous Non-post.  Here's
what I intended to say.

Thank you Robert for "explaining" 8-) for me in a more direct fashion!
It has bothered me lately that some of my posts are coming across as
mean-spirited.  99% of the time I'm not that way.  But I do tire of all
the preaching here in a.a recently.  Xtian, Xmas hangover?  Quota system?
Whatever?

Stephen I have nothing against a good conversation that contains religion
in a.a.  I even would go so far to say that this would be a pretty dull
newgroup without it.  But good dialogue with theists and those that use
it as a chance to try and push their dogma on us are two different things!
I can even handle a little preaching but when it comes post after post
after post it become quite clear that no one is benefiting from it and
all that is accomplished is the polarization of people.

I'm sure your not here because your thinking about becoming and atheist
right?  And we're CERTAINLY not here because we want to be converted.
So if you wish to continue posting here please be curtious of what this
newsgroup is for.  It doesn't read alt.please.convert.me.

Thanks again and have a pleasant life.  (it may be the only one you get!)

Jeff

---------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not denial.  I'm just very selective about the reality I accept.

    - Calvin & Hobbs

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Why must you act this way?
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:14:32 GMT

Malcolm Lee (mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca) wrote:
: God loves.  Man kills because he chooses to kill.  God gave us the ability to
 create and destroy as we see fit.  What we choose to do is left to us.  Humans
 prefer to blame God for all the wrongs of this world.  Kind of hypocritical wh
en most people don't believe in God in the first place.

"Most people don't believe in God"????  Or is it really, most people don't 
believe in _your_ god?  And if they don't believe in your god, then why would 
they "blame" hir for "all the wrongs of this world"? 

I blame your god for nothing, but when you or your ilk try to tell me that your
omnibeing exists, I will use your sacred texts and the world around us to show 
the contradictions inherent in your assertions.
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |If you'd come today you would have reached a 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |whole nation.  Israel in 4 BC had no mass 
The Truth is still the Truth    |communication.
Even if you choose to ignore it.|                Judas in "JCSS"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: rmg53668@dcl-nxt53 (Ryan Martin Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Date: 4 Jan 93 21:46:54 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

[extensive stuff on how long a day is deleted]

Well that's fine, but there's another point mentioned in the bible where
one family procreates to fill the rest of the world.  Noah and the ark.
Wasn't his lineage traced in all those boring chapters of so and so having
begot so and so?  (If not please correct me)  Anyway, I think it would be
hard for any bible believer to place that event millions of years ago.

Can someone give it a time period?
I think human evolution sounds like a good anti-OT argument so far, but 
the OT is already pretty easy to throw away.  

- Ryan Grant
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25836 talk.religion.misc:26021
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:17:25 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <Jan.12.08.47.56.1993.635@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
|> In article <1isn3eINN62n@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> 
|> }} In that case, how would you feel about your children bringing home
|> }} tracts from the Church of the SubGenius, the Discordians, or the
|> }} Church of Satan?  The Unification Church?  The Scientologists?  The
|> }} Children of God?
|> 
|> } I think we already know the answer to this one, from the Christian
|> } Groups that have attempted to have Yoga lessons banned, or insisted on
|> } having what they thought were satantic symbols removed from football
|> } team logos.
|> 
|> And why not?  If Christianity is to be banned, then these other
|> religions ought to be banned also.
|> 
|> } When arguing for equal time for Christianity, Christians claim that
|> } they wouldn't mind other relgions being represented.  In real life,
|> } they behave somewhat differently.
|> 
|> If Christianity is to be accorded equal time, then fine, other
|> religions can be represented also.  If Christianity is to be banned --
|> _AS_IS_CURRENTLY_THE_CASE_ in many public institutions -- then, by
|> God, all other religions must be banned also!  You got a problem with
|> that, bub?

Yes, I don't believe you.    I don't believe that if Christians are
allowed to reimpose the kind of social control they once had, they
will behave any differently to the way they did then.

I don't believe that equal time for Christianity will translate into
equal time for all religions.

I don't believe that the people who are currently claiming that they
would have no problem with their children being exposed to influences
from other religions in school actually mean what they say.

I believe that if we let any religion at all into schools, *especially*
Christianity, because of its arrogance and absurd pretensions, then
the schools will simply become a battleground over which christians
fight to exclude other religions, and those other relgions fight back,
and educational standards fall even further.

And I believe that Ted Kaldis and bigots like him will be in the thick
of it, only too delighted to stir up even more hatred in new areas.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Who knows the mind of God?
Keywords: hypocrites backflip Jesus God Christians Jeff Clark
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 11 Jan 93 00:55:09 GMT

livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

>In article <ednclark.726466826@kraken>, ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>>
>> So Fundies, Christians or Born Agains (Whatever you want to call yourselves)
>> what is it: do you know your God intimately, or don't you know him at all?
>>
>> Hint: You can't have both and stay out of mental asylums.

>Which nicely raise the question: what features distinguish religions
>from lunatic asylums, anyway?

It seems, Jon, merely to be the public acceptance of the displayed
behaviours!

Jeff.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Adobe Systems Inc., Mountain View, California, USA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:27:10 GMT

In article <C0L1tA.BHr.1@cs.cmu.edu> drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
>mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes:
>
>>> What are the reasons for emotions?
>>
>>	Trivial.  It seems to me that emotions can easily be
>>understood in an evolutionary context.  Love causes creatures to
>>cooperate with each other, to enhance each other's chance of survival.
>
>I *really* hate to seem like I'm agreeing with this bozo...but yeah,
>let's discuss this.  Love often seems to be anti-survival, to be
>honest.  Example: I love my mother.  Because of that love, I would
>sacrifice my life for her.  Obviously anti-survival for me.  My mother
>is old, cannot have more children, will probably die soon.  Also
>anti-survival for the race.  Yet, I perceive that I would do so, out
>of love.

We are not perfectly evolved creatures. If in your example love does
not seem to be useful, that doesn't mean it isn't useful for the
species in general. For example, I don't think you would disagree that
love between a mother and infant is beneficial. Trying to understand
how our genes effect our behaviour is particularly difficult in humans
because of our more highly evolved "culture" which can greatly
influence our behaviour patterns. Going back to your example, there
are many people who would probably not do what you are willing to do.
Does this seem callous? Maybe, but look at what many of us in the U.S.
do with our parents once they reach an old age -- throw them into a
nursing home and then forget about them. On the other hand, Asians
don't seem to do this as often. Nurture or Nature?

Anyways, a good book to read to learn more about this stuff is
_The Selfish Gene_ by Richard Dawkins.

-- 
Michael Wang
mmwang@mv.us.adobe.com
From: werdna@cco.caltech.edu (Andrew Tong)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Reverse FAQ....
Date: 9 Jan 1993 06:50:40 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

Seeing how so much of this alt.atheism group is dedicated to ridiculing
Christians, I'm proposing to write up some sort of an "anti-FAQ"--something
that attempts to answer (intelligently) the standard attacks on Christianity.
The purpose of this FAQ would be the same as the current FAQ: prevent
redundant arguments.  I personally believe that there are fewer than 10
distinct arguments against Christianity, all of which could be considered
one by one.  This should provide a more balanced view of Christianity for
both Christians and atheists.  (BTW: Most of the atheist FAQ is relevant
and positively written--if read in a good-natured way.  Commendations
to whoever was responsible.)

I don't need this to be official or anything.  Just post a message with the
title "Anti-FAQ", and email me with a single question.  Any lurking Christians
are free to go ahead and provide preliminary answers.             

Again, I don't care too much if this FAQ is really a FAQ (I don't know the
orthodox procedure to do something like this.)  So please don't flame me too
much if doing something like this is a cardinal sin, etc....  

Sample question:
Don't you Christians ever doubt whether God exists?  (etc. etc.  I won't includethis particular one unless somebody else poses it, though....)

my email: werdna@punisher.caltech.edu

Thanks in advance.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: Taxing religions, Spreme Court 1983, was Re: did I like miss your point?
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:27:05 GMT

pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:

>As for other fanatical atheists, here in Colorado we have folks who fight
>any sort of publically visible (as opposed to publically funded) religious
>symbols-- crosses on the outside of churches, highway signs saying "Mother
>Cabrini Shrine", displays on private property, and so forth.  At the
>Colorado People's Fair there was a group advocating taxation of religions
>but not other non-profit organizations.  Followers of alternative religions
>should take note of this last-- if it came into practice, either YOUR
>religion would be taxed, or if it wasn't, this would constitute government
>sanctioned religious discrimination.

In the landmark case IRS vs. Bob Jones et al, the Supreme Court
ruled that sincerity of religious belief was insufficient when
there existed a federal public policy.  i.e. if there is a governmental
policy on an issue, you may not base your opposition to the policy
on religous ground.  Tough tacos - freedom of conscience.  How quaint.
chus
pyotr

-- 
Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
Next Month's Panel: Us and Them - Eliminating Them.
EOF
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: did I like miss your point?
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 23:14:47 GMT

Tammy Stark Blandino (lib1p@elroy.uh.edu) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan01.194249.2754@jcnpc.cmhnet.org>, mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mi
ke A. McAngus) writes...
: >Tammy Stark Blandino (lib1p@jane.uh.edu) wrote:
: >: In article <1992Dec31.183939.3539@radian.uucp>, markbr%radian@natinst.com
(ma
: >rkbr) writes...
: >: >In article <1992Dec31.000558.8172@nwnexus.WA.COM> pyotr@halcyon.com (Pete
r D
: >.. Hampe) writes:
: >: >>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
: >: >>
: >: >>>iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
:
: Boy this has gone on....
:
: >:
: >: ..stuff deleted....
: >:
: >: Does the name Madeleine Murray O'Hare ring any bells?
: >:
: >: Tammy
:
:
: >
: >How, exactly, is Dr. O'Hare a fanatic.  Because she contested an
: >unconstitutional school prayer practice?  Because she opposes the
: >unconstitutional entanglement of religion in Federal and State government?
: >Dr. O'Hare does not prosletize her atheism (yes she does speak before groups

: >who invite her, but if they invite her then they expect to hear her opinions
).
: >
: >Read the woman's writings and listen to her speak before you start calling h
er
: >a fanatic.
: >--
:
: I have.....
:
: Yes what she has done is fine and good...the effect that is...but she is
: still imposing her will...and btw, I have seen where she has tried to go
: too far....please refer to my previous post right before this one....
:
: And btw, after listening to her speak.....she's a fanatic.....
:
: Tammy
:
:

How is Dr. O'Hare imposing her will?
Where has Dr. O'Hare "tried to go too far"?
I don't have access to yourprevious post, so could you email it to me?
What did Dr. O'Hare say that made you conclude she is a fanatic?
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why it sucks to be an atheist...
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:48:14 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan11.021552.3064@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye) writes:
>
> I am comforted to know that the moment I die, all experience will cease,
> so I can't be unhappy about it.  The fear of death is hard-wired into
> the limbic system for its survival value, but realistically there is
> nothing to fear about death, although dying may sometimes be unpleasant.
> While I certainly enjoy life a great deal and have no wish for it to
> stop, I wouldn't give that much for immortality.

Good point.   When people talk about fear of death, I often ask if they
experience the same fear about the time before they were born.   After
all, they didn't exist them, either.

jon.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24920 talk.religion.misc:25113
From: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kelly Martin)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 4 Jan 93 23:49:49 GMT
	<1992Dec26.211614.15278@nmsu.edu>
Reply-To: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Gender Anarchists United

sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:

>I do not see much in the way towards hatred of homosexuals in liberal
>or mainline denominations.  It seems to be a conservative phenomenon,
>part of those churches that most stress the primacy of the Bible.

i am reminded of the number of local churches who denied participation
in a recent 'forum' which was billed as a 'christian perceptive on
special rights for homosexuals' and was supposedly sponsored by the
local churches.  in fact i think only two or three churches actively
sponsored it, and several sent members in protest (at least one had a
member holding up a placard stating 'my church did not sponsor this'.


>My own phase of Bible-belief featured just the sort of fear and
>depression Dr. Cohen spoke of, which is why I was receptive to what
>he had to say.  The motivation behind these postings was to present
>Dr.  Cohen's views, partly to help those others such as myself, who
>might be suffering from that fear and depression, and partly to see
>what others had to say about the views of Dr. Cohen.

it is my opinion that a belief in any cosmology which demands one
consider oneself to be without inherent value is inherently
self-destructive.  to me, christianity, through its doctrine of
original sin and reliance on divine grace, meets this criteria.
--
As a practical matter, if a trusting and supportive relationship between a
parent and a child has not already been established, it is unlikely that the
state can create in a moment of crisis what the parents were unable to develop
over the course of the preceding years. -- Judge Maxine Chesney (CA Supr Court)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: Why must you act this way?
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:49:11 GMT


In article <1id87tINNq6k@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam  |> In a previous article, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) says:
|> 
|> >In article <1993Jan3.082328.11776@phyrql.Alt.ZA> lucio@proxima.Alt.ZA writes:
|> >
|> >for the children of God, however.  I look forward to meeting my Creator and
|> >knowing Him even as I am fully known by Him.  You may ask "Why doesn't God
|> >intervene and end the suffering of this girl?"  He will (and does) both
|> >miraculously and through modern medicine if it is His will for her to live.
|> >If it is His will to let a young girl die, then it is for the greater good of
|> >all those involved that love Him.  I don't see why you are mad at me - I
|> >didn't make it up, nor can I do a good job defending the One who calls the
|> >shots.  I suggest you seek Him for your answers.  Read James 1.
|> 
|> Well....I have tried to "talk" to god, but I NEVER got an answer.
|> "He" won't tell me a damn thing ! I for one think he is not there,
|> He won't speak up when he is being paged =)
|> -- 
|> 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-----aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu-------

When one wishes to address the Creator of the universe, it must be done with a 
humble heart.  You don't just say "Yo dude!  What's shakin?".  That might have 
been the reason you never got an answer or else you might not have been listening.
We always expect a powerful being to speak to us in a booming voice that will
crack the skies and peel back the earth when in fact, IMHO, God speaks to us in 
a soft whisper.  It is only when we silence all our other thoughts that we can
truly hear him.  And what He has to say is not necessarily what we wish to hear.
   This is not intended as a flame.  If you wish to seek Him out, please continue
to do so.
   It will be well worth your while.

God loves, Man kills.