HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:40:10 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

James Meritt <m23364@mwunix> writes:

>}Good points... and remember, saying "THIS is the truth" can be stereotypical
>}of a christian but is often said by atheists when they say "I know for sure
>}there is no such thing as a GOD of any kind."  They're being just as
>}closed-minded as stereotypical christians.

>That's nice.  Since you used "they", it seems that you are aware of more
>than one (given the pronoun is plural).  Could you please give at least two
>verifiable instances of identified atheists saying "I know for sure there is no
>such thing as a GOD of any kind."?  Thank you.

  as i see it, a divinity is equally irrelevant in the lives of two people,
one who is sure there is no god and the other who claims god is merely 
irrelevant whether he exists or not.  as far as i see it, there is no
relevant distinction between those two positions that would significantly
affect the lives of those two hypothetical people.  so the distinction
between the two positions appears moot.  please correct me if you're
in one of these two positions and you think my perception is inaccurate.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:68 alt.atheism:14605
From: Marvin Minsky <mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!media.mit.edu!minsky@uunet.uu.net>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheist or Agnostic Part two
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 12:02:37 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory

In article <1992Jul29.173212.25082@shearson.com> "Perry E. Metzger" <shearson!snark!pmetzger@uunet.uu.net> writes:
>
>I think there is sufficient evidence to say there is no god as defined
>by most of the world's major religions. It is possible that there is a
>god who very scrupulous about avoiding involvement in the world, but
>such a god is ignorable....
>
>I refer to myself as an atheist, rather than an agnostic, because I
>would say that my confidence in a lack of an "interesting" god is
>similar to my confidence that the sun will rise in the morning.
>Technically, I have no PROOF that the event will occur, but I have
>high enough confidence that saying "I really don't know" isn't a
>useful statement.

pmetzger mentions "the world's major religions" which, in my view
consume a major portion of the world's human resources -- and this
suggest another reason to prefer atheism.   Whenever you observe a
widely popular idea with no substantial basis, you must consider the
possibility that you're observing a group of memes (ideas) that work
together like the genes of a virus to produce a highly contagious
(mental) disease.  In a virus we usually have one part specialized to
penetrate a cell wall, another to induce copying (evangelism), others,
perhaps, to resist countermeasures (encouragement of faith as a
virtue), etc.
  In view of the prevalence of such diseases, the atheist position
might thus be healthier than the agnostic position.  In other words,
it is more a matter of mental hygiene than of reasonable inference in
itself.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:80 alt.atheism:14677
From: mrl@st-andrews.ac.uk (  Michael Ladomery)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What's the point?
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:32:06 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <33779@cbmvax.commodore.com> Robert Weir - Manuals <weir@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com> writes:
>
>
>As I understand it, atheism is the denial of god's existance.
>
>But to get to this point you need to first understand what god is, 
>or at least understand what other people mean when they say "god" and
>then reject that god does exist. This seems rather pointless. By

Maybe some people out there are "absolute atheists" in that they do not
believe in *any* god, others might have a specific problem with say the
Christian god.

I have a big problem with the Christian God. re.: free will and
absolute morals ( I see them as a delusion), the role of Christ and
the fact that a vast proportion of people in history died
without ever getting the teachings of Christ (I dson't see why
God should select some people over others) and so on.
And I don't have any personal experience of God.

>denying the existance of something, don't you validate its existance
>and then say simply, "Oh, by-the-by, that which I formally held to
>be true, I now hold as false? Denial is a weak argument.

Well, in denying the existence of something, you might be accepting
the *logical possibility* or *empirical* or
*metaphysical* possibility that it exists, but that is not the
same as "validating its existence"!!
So anything that is denied exists? Is that what you're saying?

>How can an atheist point of view be argued?

Oh it can, it can. For example, read Bertrand Russel's
"Why I Am Not A Christian"
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:53 alt.atheism:14583
From: Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Herro...
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:57:50 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

st1el@rosie.uh.edu (Jensen, Douglas J.) writes:

>While I myself do not classify myself as an Atheist, I do welcome the addition
>of this usegroup for two reasons...

>1]  The majority of Atheists has better thought-out ideas and were more in
>    touch with the universe than the Bible-Thumpers I've met.

  look around from some christians who are no strangers to reality checks.
there are many out there worthy of a good conversation.  some bible-thumbers
are whacked out and far from living in the real world, but others live
it quite well.

>2]  Freedom of Speech!  :)

  yeah! i agree!

>Enjoy,

>---Doug

Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:36 alt.atheism:14512
From: mrice@churchill.columbiasc.ncr.com (Mark.Rice)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Atheist or Agnostic Part two
Date: 29 Jul 92 13:17:44 GMT
Organization: NCR Corp

I had posted asking people to tell me whether they are atheist or
agnostic.  I gave my definition of both.  One net reader was apparently
offended because I assumed my definitions were the only ones and he
felt I was trying to start a war on the definitions.  That was not my
intention.  I simply want to know what you people believe.

I'll rephrase it, and hopefully I won't offend anyone because of their
definition of atheist or agnostic.  My questions are:

Do you believe there is no God?

or...

that you have insufficient evidence to say there is or is not a God?

That's what I meant to ask.  I didn't even have a clue that there were
arguments about these definitions.  I've only been on this group (or
any ...atheist... group) for three days.  I've simply ran into many who
didn't know what agnostic means.  If enough email me with their answer,
I'll summarize and post.

mark rice      ---------      mark.rice@ColumbiaSC.ncr.com
-- 
-----
mark.rice@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM		H: 803-731-5560
Not necessarily the views of NCR.	W: 803-791-6466
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:49 alt.atheism:14579
From: Robert Weir - Manuals <weir@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: What's the point?
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:53:50 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Weir - Manuals <weir@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com>
Distribution: world
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA



As I understand it, atheism is the denial of god's existance.

But to get to this point you need to first understand what god is, 
or at least understand what other people mean when they say "god" and
then reject that god does exist. This seems rather pointless. By
denying the existance of something, don't you validate its existance
and then say simply, "Oh, by-the-by, that which I formally held to
be true, I now hold as false? Denial is a weak argument.

How can an atheist point of view be argued?



RSW
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:55 alt.atheism:14585
From: John Paulus <shadow@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:36:27 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.

In article <1992Jul28.142808.4694@samba.oit.unc.edu> lambada.oit.unc.edu!Josh.Adams@mcnc.org (Josh Adams) writes:
>I think that what they preach in churches that is not about God is about
>a way of life, and it seems that we already know what they are going to say.
>(i.e. Be nice to each other, don't lie, etc.) I don't see how it would
>do any good to someone who is not a believer. It's just spitting back 
>what we already know... I hope I made my point without any confusion...

	The problem with many churches, in my opinion, is that they aren't
really teaching what Christ taught. For the unbeliever, they need to teach
about salvation through Christ. Then, for the unbeliever, they can go on about
what it means to be a Christian, etc. The problem is that Christians (&
"Christian" teachers/preachers) often teach the ends (being nice to each
other, being peaceful, loving, etc.) AS the means. (I believe that letting the
Holy Spirit take control is the means to achieve the ends of being a "good"
person).

I too hope I made my point without any confusion.

--JP--

Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:85 alt.atheism:14682
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Without God, but generally enjoying the hell out of everything
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 13:04:50 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

"Johan A. Grape" <jgrape@coos.dartmouth.edu> writes:
> In article <TyZPoB10w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> >Certainly even atheists are subject to the idiocy of the "not one of us"
> >mentality, especially in its most common form, "nationalism".
> 
> Wait a second.....
> 
> Linking atheism to nationalism is a harsh one.

No, I didn't mean to say "atheists tend to be nationalists".  I meant "even
atheists, whom one might expect to be wary of the 'not one of us' mentality,
are often found to be nationalists".


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard

Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:96 alt.atheism:14693
From: Mitch Davis <9125113g@lux.latrobe.edu.au>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 07:58:28 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: La Trobe University

In article <92Jul29.103720edt.62@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> linley@qucis.queensu.ca (Richard Linley) writes:
>In article <199207281258.AA20162@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> "Mark.Rice" <mrice@churchill.columbiasc.ncr.com> writes:
>
>very well.  I recall one evening several years ago when I was sitting about
>having a few beers with some theatre pals when the subject of religion came
>up and we discovered, to our mutual surprise, that we were ALL atheists.

Who was it said "An atheist is one with no invisible means of support"....

Mitch.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:78 alt.atheism:14675
From: "Johan A. Grape" <jgrape@coos.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Without God, but generally enjoying the hell out of everything
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:41:42 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <TyZPoB10w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca> writes:
>> "Johan A. Grape" <jgrape@coos.dartmouth.edu> writes:
>> >I guess the fundamental flaw I find in every religion I encounter
>> >is the "not one of us" mentality.
>> 
>>   do you mean the exclusivity of religions that discriminate and oppress
>> those that aren't in their flock?
>
>It's not just a property of religions.  People in general seem to suffer from
>it; but then, perhaps that's because most people are brought up to be
>religious.
>
>Certainly even atheists are subject to the idiocy of the "not one of us"
>mentality, especially in its most common form, "nationalism".

Wait a second.....

Linking atheism to nationalism is a harsh one.  The Hitler's, Stalin's
etc. of this world normally use atheism as a tool to center belief
in their organization and race, which is not to far from fundamentalist
religion in its execution.

Atheism is a tolerant state of mind IMHO.  I find nothing atheistic
about belief in the strength of many or the strength of your kind. 
Essentially, it is still belief.

Best regards
Johan
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:38 alt.atheism:14522
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheist or Agnostic Part two
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 16:51:46 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

"Mark.Rice" <mrice@churchill.columbiasc.ncr.com> writes:
> I had posted asking people to tell me whether they are atheist or
> agnostic.  I gave my definition of both.  One net reader was apparently
> offended because I assumed my definitions were the only ones and he
> felt I was trying to start a war on the definitions.  That was not my
> intention.  I simply want to know what you people believe.

I think he's referring to me.  I bounced his first posting because it looked
like the start of a definition war, and suggested that he should re-word it.

For those who are concerned about censorship, I'm keeping all the articles I
reject.  (Well, actually I lost one completely, but it was a one-liner
containing the 'dyslexic agnostic' joke so I'm not shedding any tears...) 

I plan to make the rejections file available somewhere so masochists can
request a copy and check exactly what I'm rejecting...  Also, the first
month's worth of articles will be made available at the start of August, so
hardcore atheists can catch up on what they missed.


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:94 alt.atheism:14691
From: Warwick Allison <warwick@cs.uq.oz.au>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Date: 30 Jul 92 06:57:28 GMT
Reply-To: warwick@cs.uq.oz.au
Distribution: world


lambada.oit.unc.edu!Josh.Adams@mcnc.org (Josh Adams) writes:
>mtrevor@nyx.cs.du.edu (Matthew Trevor) writes:
>> ...

>Sounds like you might be agnostic...

No, don't believe him - he's trying to corrupt your mind - you are atheist!



:-)



--
Warwick
--
  _-_|\      warwick@cs.uq.oz.au            /Disclaimer:
 /     * <-- Computer Science Department,  /  
 \_.-._/     University of Queensland,    /      void (if removed)
      v      Brisbane, Australia.        /  
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:81 alt.atheism:14678
From: linley@qucis.queensu.ca (Richard Linley)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sowing the seeds on Xian BBSs
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:35:12 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Computing & Information Science, Queen's University at Kingston

In article <1992Jul30.123912.13742@linus.mitre.org> James Meritt <m23364@mwunix> writes:
>In article <92316@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>}In article <1992Jul28.163920.13575@news.media.mit.edu> mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!media.mit.edu!minsky@uunet.uu.net (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>}
>}>Most XIANS do not consider doing such things to be sociable, at least
>}>in this particular era, and I have not met any who refuse to denounce
>}>such behavior.  However, I have not observed any Muslimss on the net
>}>to firmly denounce the murder of unbelievers.  Did I miss some of these?
>}
>}Of course you have. Killing _anyone_ is against the tenets of Islam
>}unless that person has killed someone else (death penalty) or is
>}forcibly preventing a community of muslims from practicing their
>}religion (praying, meeting at Friday prayers).
>
>Then they do NOT believe that the directions from Yahweh as recorded in the
>OT are correct, since many instances other than those you just gave are
>used by god to justify killing people.  Serious things like living in
>the wrong place at the wrong time, for instance.

Being a child and teasing an old bald guy gets you eaten by a bear, ac-
cording to the OT. ;)

	Richard (and old bald teddy bear)


Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:14 alt.atheism:14470
From: Josh Adams <lambada.oit.unc.edu!Josh.Adams@mcnc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:28:08 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

I think that what they preach in churches that is not about God is about
a way of life, and it seems that we already know what they are going to say.
(i.e. Be nice to each other, don't lie, etc.) I don't see how it would
do any good to someone who is not a believer. It's just spitting back 
what we already know... I hope I made my point without any confusion...

Josh

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:48 alt.atheism:14578
From: Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:30:15 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

Josh Adams <lambada.oit.unc.edu!Josh.Adams@mcnc.org> writes:

>I think that what they preach in churches that is not about God is about
>a way of life, and it seems that we already know what they are going to say.
>(i.e. Be nice to each other, don't lie, etc.) I don't see how it would
>do any good to someone who is not a believer. It's just spitting back 
>what we already know... I hope I made my point without any confusion...

  well in church they stress the importance of jesus, the role of god
in a person's life more than how to live.  how to live comes from the
other two things.  

  and people who do not believe in or recognize the bible as binding
authority over their moral lives will not necessarily find its teachings
binding.  for non-believers, the bible and all the good teachings
[love enemies, etc.] is not binding, but it can be a contributing part
of a non-christian's moral make-up, if they have the interest in taking
the time to examine it.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:4 alt.atheism:14089
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: "Agenda for Atheist : Why I am atheist"
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 92 10:28:38 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

[ Damn, I think all the articles were Henry Spencered.  I'm re-sending... ]

brahmbha@baboon.ecn.purdue.edu (Hitesh N Brahmbhatt) writes:
> As I see it, people are driven to religion (as they exist) partly due to 
> suffering and this suffering has kept changing its face over the centuries.

Last night I was reading "The Skeptical Enquirer".  It quoted a study which
showed that belief in astrology seemed to be related to a general uncertainty
about one's position in society, one's future.

For example, women are much stronger believers in astrology than men.  Young
people are more inclined to believe it than older people.  And the
middle-class is more inclined to take it seriously than the upper-class or
lower-class.  Perhaps the latter have given up and "know their place". :-(

One surprising result was that belief in astrology is not simply a matter of
scientific ignorance.  Those who know nothing of science or a lot about
science tend not to believe in astrology; it's the ones in the middle who
believe.

I'm wondering whether anyone has read of similar studies on religious belief.
What kind of people believe in God most strongly?  We can speculate
endlessly, but I'd like to see some hard data.


mathew
-- 
Ceci | n'est pas une pipe.

Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:22 alt.atheism:14478
From: Adam Trent Phillips <bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Campaigns
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 02:48:11 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


	How about...


	Know Christ....no life

	No Christ....know life


		:-)

-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries, reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips     |personal E-mail:bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
alias: White Rook     |   NWROC E-mail:aphillip@heartland.bradley.edu
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:98 alt.atheism:14705
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheist or Agnostic Part two
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 13:06:48 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

gat@forsight.jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes [of religion]:
> An interesting notion to pursue: the possibility exists also that this
> mental entity is not a parasite but a symbiote.  It could be argued
> that the widespread dissemintation of, say, the "thou-shalt-not-kill"
> meme is largely beneficial to society.  How do we distinguish the
> mental smallpox from the acidophilous?

The critical question, perhaps, is whether people *need* religion to give
them the "thou-shalt-not-kill" idea.

Call me a hopeless optimist, but I like to think that fundamentally people
are 'good', and that murderers are people who have been 'damaged' in some way
rather than people who were 'born evil'.

I think that's probably the biggest difference between my viewpoint and the
Christian one.  Christians believe we're all born fundamentally sinful, and
have to have God save us.  I prefer to think we're all born fundamentally
'pure', but subsequently we get corrupted and must then save ourselves.


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard

Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:67 alt.atheism:14597
From: Tom Schneider <toms@ncifcrf.gov>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Campaigns
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:33:00 GMT
Distribution: alt.atheism.moderated
Organization: Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center


In article <1992Jul27.234227.2806@csc.canberra.edu.au> gav@asgserver.canberra.edu.au
(Gavin McKay) writes:

>For the past year, there has been a Christian Group on campus doing
>their best to 'save us all'.  One method they have been using is a heavy
>poster/billboard campaign.  There two major messages have been:
>
>	"Know Christ.
>	 Know Life."
>and
>	"No Christ.
>	 No Life."

(various rejoinders)

But how about:

>	"Know Christ.
>	 No Life."
>and
>	"No Christ.
>	 Know Life."

  Tom Schneider
  National Cancer Institute
  Laboratory of Mathematical Biology
  Frederick, Maryland  21702-1201
  toms@ncifcrf.gov
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:8 alt.atheism:14351
From: Jones <jones@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Hi
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 20:17:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. USA

Dear All,

I think this newsgroup will fill a need for us non-believers to
communicate.  In the past,I have been reduced to using Christian-
oriented boards.  This  is fun, but you take a lot of flak.


Tom (Thomas L. Jones, Ph.D.)
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:74 alt.atheism:14671