HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: School discipline (was Re: worthless comic strips)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:23:41 GMT

In article <1w0qRB4w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> >   Yoga does have some benefits, but many of the claimed benefits are just
> > rationalizations of religious beliefs.  Sounds an awful lot like
creationism.
> 
> Hardly.  What benefits does Creationism offer?

  Laughter is the best medicine.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: alc@netcom.com (Chris Stassen)
Subject: Re: Object-oriented creation (Was Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 15:10:30 GMT
Organization: The Lion's Den, San Jose
Followup-To: talk.origins

Followups are set to talk.origins, the appropriate forum for this topic.

Ken Richardson writes:
[regarding very similar DNA in various creatures:]
> I mean, consider for a moment: If you were the Creator, and you were about
> to create life, what techniques would you use to put order and simplicity
> into the task?  Object-oriented techniques!

This doesn't wash.  The canonical example is the "cytochrome c"
phylogeny.  This is a mitochondrial protein that performs exactly
the same function in many creatures (from fungi to humans).

There is quite a bit of (functionally equivalent) variation between
different creatures.  In humans and apes it is identical (the genes
coding for it differ by one base, but the amino acid sequence is not
changed).  Between humans and tuna, there is a difference of 31 bases
(18 amino acids differ, plus the protein is one acid shorter in tuna).
[A more complete table can be found in Strahler, _Science and Earth
History_, pp. 348-351]

[Warning, object-oriented techno-speak follows.]

If we are a good OO designer, we take advantage of inheritance and
re-use.  (After all, this is the whole reason that people such as
Mr. Richardson are claiming that God would use OO design.)  We
would create this functionality -- which is needed by nearly all of
creation -- at a high level in the inheritance hierarchy AND NEVER
OVERRIDE IT.  Every creature would get an identical one.

Instead we find different-yet-equivalent versions of the exact same
function, with the magnitude of those differences being proportional
to times-since-divergence deduced by independent means (such as
homology or from the fossil record).

If you want God to be an OO designer, why is He unnecessarily overriding
inheritance?  Why does the pattern match "evolutionary expectations"
which were derived long before anyone knew DNA existed?  Is our Divine
Object-Oriented Designer expending effort to simulate a misleading
*appearance* of evolution?
-- 
Chris Stassen						stassen@alc.com
DISCLAIMER:  My employer's account, but not their opinions.
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Stupid Christian Tricks
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992
Date: 02 Oct 92  15:55:20

Tag: David James Alexander Hanley <U55870@uicvm.uic.edu>
 
Someone> If someone intentionally handles a poisonous snake and
Someone> gets bitten and dies (which I belive very rarely happens
Someone> anyway) or gets sick, its not because they didn't have
Someone> faith but because they were stupid.
 
DJA> "Of course they're stupid. They're christian right? I'd expect
DJA> them to do a whole range of idiotic stuff."
 
Are =ALL= Christians "stupid?" Or are they mislead? Or ill-informed?
Or perhaps mis-informed?
 
Theists believe in stupid things, silly things, impossible things,
and downright BIZZARE things, for a variety of reasons. "Hope" is
one, though "Fear" and "Ignorance" also applies.
 
"Stupid" doesn't fit all Christians--- just a large number of them.
 
And I'm living proof that an atheist can be just as stupid as
many Christians. (SMILE!)

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dale@ais.org (Dale Gee)
Subject: Re: Demonic Possession
Organization: UMCC
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:58:12 GMT

This discussion of demonic possession reminds me of a experince that
happened to me not too long ago.
I had a well meaning thiest tell me that my epilepsy was demonic possession.
That provided a nice chuckle.  This did surprise me though, I thought that
was a idea that died in the middle ages.

Dale
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Religious Ignorance
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:08:53 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <ksand-270992141014@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.121552.164633@dstos3.dsto.gov.au>,
jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) wrote:
>> His command for the demon to leave the person was all that was required.
>
>I don't think animal lover groups would subscribe to the notion of 
>casting deamons to pigs, something Jesus gladly did.

I don't belong to any animal lover group, but the story about that
fellow drowning a large herd of pigs makes me very uncomfortable.
That's a huge lot of good pork wasted.  It could have fed many people.

>Poor pigs.

Exactly.  Besides, the two men who used to host the daemons probably
became followers of Jesus, so that's double loss for the world.  I
would rather trade a herd of Christians for two pigs any time.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: 890707p@ace.acadiau.ca (GLENN G. PARSONS)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: missing the point
Date: 26 Sep 92 15:42:10 GMT
Organization: Acadia University

I like to read this group, but the trite arguments over highly subjective 
interpretations of religions details misses the entire essence of what 
religious thought should serve to accomplish.
when we mire ourselves down in insipid arguments over things which are 
really totally dependent upon personal opinion, and which are of no 
significance to spiritualistic living in the first place, we are throwing 
around us Blake's "chains of the soul."
                                        A detractor  of the merits of 
                                              organized religon.
From: rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto)
Subject: Re: THE LORD IS UPON ME!
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 01:32:53 GMT

Mr. Baldy

The next time you have a meeting with "HIM", give him my
address, and tell him I need a partner for some golf.

Thank you  

Hole in one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Bar codes, Apocalypse, etc.
Date: 27 Sep 92 10:55:19 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

nancyann@work.berkeley.edu (Nancy Johnsen Horton) writes:
> You know those chrome fish shapes that people put on their cars, 
> usually on the back, opposite the car's own "logo?"  Often the fish
> outline has "JESUS" or some other word inside.
> 
> I saw one that had the fish outline, with two little feet on the
> fish's belly.  The word inside read:  DARWIN.

[ This is a canned posting ]

This is a reminder about the alt.atheism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
file.

The file exists to help new readers avoid embarrassing themselves by asking
questions which have been covered over and over again.  Please read it before
posting.

To find a copy:

1. Check the newsgroup alt.atheism.  There should be a copy of the latest
   version of the FAQ file.  Look for the subject line "Alt.Atheism
   Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)".

2. Check the newsgroup news.answers for the same subject line.

   If you don't find anything in steps 1 or 2, your news system isn't set up
   correctly, and you may wish to tell your system administrator about the
   problem.

3. If you have anonymous FTP access, connect to pit-manager.mit.edu
   [18.172.1.27].  Go to the directory /pub/usenet/alt.atheism, and you'll
   find the latest version of the FAQ file there.

4. If you don't have FTP, send mail to mail-server@pit-manager.mit.edu
   consisting of the following line:

      send usenet/alt.atheism/Alt.Atheism_Frequently_Asked_Questions_(FAQ)

   The FAQ file should be mailed back to you automatically.

5. (Penultimate resort)  Send mail to info-server@mantis.co.uk consisting of
   the following line:

      send atheism/atheism.txt

   and our poor overworked modems will try and send you a copy.  There's
   other stuff, too; interesting commands to try are "help" and
   "send atheism/index".


mathew
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jackson@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Bruce Jackson)
Subject: Satanic hysteria ?
Organization: University of North Texas, Denton
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:24:52 GMT

A couple of years ago when I was working retail I was talking to a
customer who was a `born again Christian.'  It was the week before
Halloween and she was complaining how restless her cat was getting
being cooped up.  I asked her why she couldn't let her cat out and
she said that since her cat was black she couldn't let it out because
Satinists might take it and use on their rituals on Halloween.  I
asked her if she actually knew anyone who had their black cat taken
for Satanic rituals and she replied that this sort of thing happened
all over.

I don't believe that black cats are being kidnapped in large numbers
for Satanic rituals  My theory is that somewhere, someplace, that 
someone's cat disappears before Halloween. They told a friend who
noticed that it was just before Halloween and asks "wasn't your cat
black? Hmmm".  Noting the coincidence that the cat was black and it
was before Halloween they tell several friends.  The story goes
around a couple times, the names are forgotten or changed and then
all of a sudden everybody is hearing about black cats disappearing
before Halloween.  Soon the urban myth of black cats being kidnapped
and used in Satanic rituals is spreading through the congregations
of churches all over the country.

Later a security guard for the shopping center came by and warned us
that some Satan worshipers had been doing their rituals behind the
shopping center.  He asked us to keep an eye open for anything
Satanic.  He said that as soon as they had evidence that the
Satinists were doing something really illegal they would go to the
Police.  I looked behind the shopping center and only found some
burnt skids and some heavy metal band graffiti painted on the walls.

I guess that the more gullable Christians are receptive to the idea
of a Satanic conspiracy and tend to quickly jump to the conclusion
that juvenile mischief is Satanism.

I wonder how widespread the idea is amongst Christians that there
are large numbers of Satanists?  Any ideas?

Bruce  -  jackson@cs.unt.edu
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Date: 29 Sep 1992 19:55:55 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


	Creationism is NOT to be considered to be on the same level
of something scientific. This is because creationism is based on the
premise the the whole god/supernatual thing is true. As much as 
christians say that there is no "proof" for evolution, they have no
proof of the one thing their "concept" (my word) depends on. The existence
of god. Unlike anything scientific, a number of christians will tell you
(as will I) that the existence of god can NOT be proven.

	Hate to say this, but it goes back to the question of if god
exists or not.....

	But to get into that further, I would like to ask theists to
define "god" and other supernatural things for me.



	NOTE: I am bound to be familiar with some of the definitions
given, I grew up in a Lutheran household and went to Lutheran schools 
for 5 years. But I do not want to put words in peoples mouths and
wish for the theists here to do the definign for themselves.


	NOTE WELL: Please to not do what "Hannu" does and just say
some dippy thing like "god is existence". That is something so vauge
that I can mean several things.........I wish for people to be as concrete
as they can be.





-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Reveal to me the sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips | alias: White Rook | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
From: darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:41:56 GMT
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])

>From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
>Message-ID: <1992Oct01.084647.24107@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
 
>Science is telling us that we're insignificant.  Religion
>tells us that we're not. 
 
Science tells *atheists* that they're insignificant.  Science 
tells theists how wondrously God created the universe.  This also 
tells theists how significant *people* are because it was all done 
for them.  The theist wonders why the atheist wants to save a
species (man) that he believes is so insignificant.
 
>The religious meme complex most definitely
>competes with the scientific meme complex.  Science is the way we learn
>about the universe.  Among other things, religion is the way we put a cap
>on how much we learn,...
 
The theist views atheism as putting a cap on knowledge about the
universe because it prevents seeing the universe as the theist sees
it: with a God.  Do you assume science and atheism are the same?  The
theist sees science revealing God and thus being a-atheism (!(!God)).
 
You assume everyone believes as you do, concerning God, when you 
assert man is insignificant.  It is not a persuasive argument to
make an assumption which others do not hold, and then use it to
argue for your viewpoint.
 
 
Such blindness to the viewpoint of theism, instead of arguing for
your viewpoint, argues against it.  It does so because someone
might say you are trying too desparately to avoid understanding
theism.
 
 
>If more people viewed our planet in the
>proper perspective, they would see what a precious and fragile thing
>it is, and they would not be so hellbent on destroying it.
 
Although we disagree on which perspective is proper, I agree the 
planet is precious and fragile.  For me, it is precious because 
God made it.  Atheists and theists can cooperate in this, despite 
their differences. 
 
DARIST
 
God said, "tend the garden" not "rape it."
 

 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: edc513ysft@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: THE LORD IS UPON ME!
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 07:21:53 GMT

YOU MIGHT THINK THIS IS STUPID BUT I AM THE SON OF GOD!
I HAVE POWERS ATTRACT ALL THE WOMEN ON THE DANCEFLOOR.
THIS IS PROOF ENOUGH THAT I AM AND SHALL BE THE ALL CONQUERING
STUD THAT I AM!

P.S.  GOD EXISTS.  I SEE HIM IN MY DREAMS AND HE TALKS TO ME.
      HE TELLS ME ABOUT LIFE, THE UNIVERSE AND HOW TO PICK UP
      PRETTY YOUNG BLONDES.


Mr Baldy

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.cascade
From: thaddeus@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Thaddeus R. Crews)
Subject: Re: atheism
Organization: Vanderbilt University School of Engineering, Nashville, TN, USA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:56:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.012710.9181@tamsun.tamu.edu> mfc1493@tamuts.tamu.edu (Michael Frank Caver) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.060551.20516@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
>>> >"God is Dead" - Friedrich Nietzsche
>>> "Nietzsche is Dead" - God
>>"Nietzsche is God" - the Dead
>..."Nietzsche God dead." - is
"This is all very amusing" - NOT

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Thad Crews                         (email thaddeus@vuse.vanderbilt.edu)
              "Crime would not pay if the government ran it!" 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Religion & Crime / "Satanic Conspiracy"
Date: 26 Sep 92 18:32:39 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1a0o5kINN3lu@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary) writes:
>
>>cackle< >snort<
>BWAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>
>Sorry. No, I'm not. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You're not _what_, for the nineteen-dimensional Big Blue Banana's sake?
(I wouldn't want to use Colleen's name in such context.)

I have the feeling that you should adopt the habit of including a few
relevant lines from the original article, Seventh Disciple.  Articles
cross the ocean in all kinds of incredible orders, and I for one
almost always find it impossible to recall or reconstruct the context
from a subject line.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Great Proposal !
Date: 6 Oct 1992 08:23:49 GMT
Organization: Electronic Eng., Univ. Natal, Durban, South Africa
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc77.ee.und.ac.za


Atheists are always saying that God does not exist and laugh away any proof 
Christians use to prove His existence.

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

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

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).

Many Thanks for any logical and well thought out arguments.

	Cheers from E.B.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke)
Subject: Re: bug in FAQ file (summary)
Organization: TRIUMF, Vancouver BC
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:34:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.130328.29001@st-andrews.ac.uk>, nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson) writes:
|> One point about this bothers me - the claim that it does no harm to 
|> believe in a non-existent God.  Not so!  I think that believing in
|> non-existent things is very harmful, for the usual reasons that 
|> atheists have: it leads to people being manipulated by unscrupulous 
|> leaders, it leads to raised levels of superstition in the population 
|> at large, etc etc.  So I wouldn't let that statement go unchallenged.

Well, you are partially right, but your point is really only valid if
you follow an organized religion and practice assorted rituals in that
capacity.  "Belief" in its purest form does not demand this kind of
behaviour.  Theism and Religion are certainly related, but by no means
equivalent.

|> Another point raised by Pascal's Wager, but of much wide relevance, is 
|> this.  I don't think anyone can choose what they believe in.  You either
|> believe something or you don't.  You may be forced to believe in 
|> something by evidence that makes you change your mind, but there's no 
|> choice in that.  So the Wager falls down on a practical point: even if 
|> it were rational to believe in God, there's nothing you can do about it!

I have to agree with you here.  This may be related to the 
circularity of the wager and its rebuttal.  Because it is circular,
it only reaffirms whatever belief you already have, and has little power
to change beliefs.

-- Morgan Burke (morgan@reg.triumf.ca)
From: tonyp@cnvxla.COM, , Conan - good!)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 6 Oct 92 15:12:25 GMT
Reply-To: tonyp@convex.COM
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
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 <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.
}
}So here is my proposal : You prove to us that God does not exist!
}
It is no more possible to prove that God does not exist than it is
to prove that he does exist.

Logic and thinking tell us that the existence of such a being is not possible.

How screwed up the world is, and how that so many of the things attributed to his
creation have been "proven" otherwise as well.

--
Tony J. Podrasky |  What's this thing?
 San Diego , Ca   |  It's called a MODEM.
tonyp@convex.com |  And what's this button for? 
WA2EAA NNNN ZCZC  |  Whatever you do, don't touc{{{7bh6xx!{@%%hxbd&$#)$% NO CARRIER
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: `And yet it moves' (Was Re: Christianity is Stupid)
From: lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:06:35 GMT
 <10448@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> <1992Sep29.155452.24931@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology


In article <1992Sep29.155452.24931@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>,
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:

|> In article <10448@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
|> writes:
|> > In article <1992Sep27.135113.9406@cs.ucla.edu> robert@oahu.cs.ucla.edu
|> > (Rob Karmolinski) writes:
|> >>
|> >>FYI, it took unil 1989, (yes, NINETEEN
|> >>EIGHTY NINE; thanks Elf!), for the Vatican to *pardon* Galileo, for his
|> >>heretical views that the earth revolved around the sun  (unfortunately,
|> >>his death sentence could not be commuted).
|> > 
|> >   Not to interrupt a perfectly good anti-christian rant, but
|> >   Galileo wasn't sentenced to death, was he?  I thought he was
|> >   sentenced to house arrest until his death of natural causes.
|> >
|> 
|> It was house arrest.  Also, he was forced to recant his earlier
|> observations under threat of torture from the Inquisition.  
|> There was a very good article in Scientific American a few
|> years back on the incidnet.  It's worth tracking down.
|> 
|> "The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go."
|> Galileo quoting a Cardinal whose name I can't remember.


  Yes, in fact he was forced to recant twice.  Another now-funny-
but-still-disturbing story tells of the theologians who refused
to look through Galileo's telescope at the moons of Jupiter.
  They insisted that there was no need to look, since they would not
see anything that Aristotle (via the corrupt interpretations of Thomas
Aquinas) hadn't written about almost a thousand years before.  If there
was something there, they concluded, then it was mere trickery on
Galileo's part.


_________

Loren King
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
From: 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Null Cypher)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:04:17 GMT

[I am deleting all attribution]

Here's the argument for Cupid, parallel to an argument for God:

>|> >Therefore, 1. Cupid causes people to fall in love. (by definition) 
>|> >           2. Love exists. (By inspection)
>|> >           3. Assume cupid does not exist.
>|> >               4. Thus, people do not fall in love.
>|> >               5. Love does not exist.
>|> >           6. Thus, Cupid exists!
>|> 

and here's a comment

>No.  (1) says cupid is a cause of people falling in love, but not necessarily
>the only cause, therefore (4) is invalid.  The original argument re: God, 
>said that God is *the* cause of the universe, therefore its equivalent to 
>(4) is valid.

>Of course the validity of the original God argument doesn't allow us to
>say anything specific about what this God thing is...

>-- Morgan Burke (morgan@reg.triumf.ca)

A quick note:  This argument also assumes causality, which I define right
now to mean "the doctrine that everything has a cause".

--
Null - 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu

"Nothing is true; everything is certain."