HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A few points to raise . . .
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:31:13 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <exukjb.278.718134486@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>
>As Hume remarks in his Dialogues, the issue isn't directly about whether a 
>god exists, but about what we should mean when we say that a god exists, and 
>this is just another way of putting the question about the coherence of a 
>set of attributes theists have traditionally ascribed to God.  The question 
>of whether anything in the universe instantiates the concept of that set of 
>properties comes after.  But this is just another way of making the 
>philosopher's oft repeated point, that on the question of God's existence,
>"It all depends on what you mean by 'god'".  Trivial, but true.

I don't think the point is necessarily trivial. I might be a very
interesting point if we want to talk about the effect of ideas
upon the course of civilizations, or the relationshiop of shared
metaphors to a culture's definitions of values, or perhaps about
how influential ideas propagate and evolve. I am curious, for
instance, just how different ideas of god can be among people who
profess to have 'the same' beliefs. We might even, for the sake of
argument, consider whether this or that fundamentalist religion
could be right (not that I particularly think any of them are),
and see which among our own assumptions this proposition challenges.

>As for your peculiar form of atheism, Mikel, I can just imagine how a 
>christian theist might want to respond. "You want empirical verification
>of God's existence?  Wail till ya die."

It's funny, but I usually don't get that one. I usually get the
old 'you're playing with Satanic forces, son, and some day
you're going to regret it.'
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Date: 28 Sep 92 10:39:04 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

timf@microsoft.com (Tim Fleehart) writes:
> In article <n0a10t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> >That is Creationist Error #1. Is (E=MC^2) a "belief system?" Is
> >rocket engineering a "belief system?" Is planetary motion a "belief
> >system?"
> 
> Yes, you put your faith in the demonstrability and repatability of your
> 'science',

No I don't.  As far as was possible, I verified scientific results for
myself, and I would expect other people to do the same.  If you didn't, then
your scientific education was severely lacking.


mathew
-- 
De-evolution!  Self execution!  No solution!  I'm a potato, and I'm sooooo hip!
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:17:46 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <parsons.717613819@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>>You will find that people "demonically posessed" are very
>>sick mentally, or sick emotionally, of very much in need
>>of attention to keep the loneliness at bay.
>
>You need to get into contact with some missionaries who have
>any time in the field, then you will see that you are the one 
>who has a wrong belief about demonic possession.

Are you for real?  Is there really a portion of society so stupid to
believe that demonic possessions are even possible, let alone occur?
Maybe I'm a bit intolerant here, but you're a sorely deluded babbling
idiot if you buy this shit.  Get some help.  Fast.


Ack. Spit.  [Profuse quantity of green vomit].  REDRUM! REDRUM!

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"Above all, a god needs compassion"    James T. Kirk
Newsgroups: alt.religion.messianic,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Object-oriented creation (Was Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:03:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.003242.6@sycraft.com>, ken@sycraft.com (Ken Richardson)
writes:
> There is, after all, a high degree of similarity between DNA programs
> and computer programs.

  Only if the programmer is totally psychotic.  If somebody handed me a program
in which over 90% of the code was meaningless and the code jumped back and forth
in an almost random meandering pattern I would accuse the person of taking drugs
while programming.

  On the other hand, if the program had been generated by a genetic algorithm
this is almost certainly what I would expect to find.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: bug in FAQ file (summary)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 07:51:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.183444.15650@unixg.ubc.ca> morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
>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.

This isn't true.  If you believe that the universe is run by gods, your
brain isn't working right, and you are susceptible to being taken advantage
of by charlatans regardless of whether or not you belong to an organized
church.  Priests aren't the only charlatans in town.

>|> 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.

Actually, I disagree with this.  People can make themselves believe arbitrary
things.  In fact, I think Pascal went on to explain how one should go about
brainwashing oneself after having been conned by the Wager.  If somebody
wants to believe something badly enough, they'll usually find a way.
Evidence and reason rarely have anything to do with it, because our society
does not teach people to be skeptical and rational.
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: Atheism uber alles?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:52:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.193104.18644@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> jack@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (John Stump) writes:
>
>I hypothesize that in another century science will have produced so much
>undeniable evidence to our origins, as well as discount most of the bible, that
>the majority of people will be atheists, while a small, die-hard lot will
>cling to their unfounded beliefs. I only hope that I will still be alive when
>this happens. Or, at least I can witness it from Heaven. :-) (that was a joke).
>
>What do y'all think? Will atheism rule in the near future?

I think you underestimate the level of credulity that the human mind
is capable of achieving.


>
>Jack "I believe in Mother Nature" Stump

Steve 
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18370 sci.skeptic:17451 talk.origins:12509
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 4 Oct 92 09:50:46 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Oct2.191905.29627@engage.pko.dec.com>, ed_eck@milkwy.enet.dec.com writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep24.204237.25841@ims.com>, chapman@ims.com (Dave Chapman) writes...
>> 
>>John, are you claiming that you can keep a dog alive and healthy on a diet
>>of grass and no meat at all? Dave Irish is assuming ( correctly I think ) that
>>carnivores need some meat in their diet. The fact that your dog eats
>>grass sometimes does not mean that it can survive on a herbivorous diet.
>> 
>>-- 
>>Dave Chapman   	       	       	    | The chickens are in the air.
>>Integrated Measurement Systems	    |
>>9525 SW Gemini Dr.		    | work 503 626 5373
>>Beaverton, Oregon		    | chapman@ims.com
> 
> 
> 
> (As usual, I am several hundred notes behind, so if this has been done to
> death by now, please ignore me...)
> 
> 
> Dogs are a bad example of carnivors adapting to vegetarianism.
> 
> I personally have met two dogs who are fed only veggies--they are fed 
> no meat at all and have not eaten meat in (in one case) over a decade.
> They seem healthy and are certainly active enough. I am told that
> most dogs will adapt to a vegetarian diet; cats however will not.

But this is not the diet the animal would choose if it were living in the
wild.  This diet is a specially designed one that includes additives that
mimic animal protein.  Also this diet was designed by people who have an
ethical problem with dogs eating animal protein.  So it is not something
that is chosen by the animal but rather the owner.

Sue
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: timf@microsoft.com (Tim Fleehart)
Subject: Re: anal-oriented Creation
Date: 06 Oct 92 00:19:17 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <n0b43t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>Though DNA still looks more BASICA to me than OOPS. Patches
>and kludges, missing code (why can mammals no longer regrow
>missing body parts, while some reptiles and sea creatures can?),
>code never called---- sounds like The Creator never got beyond
>junior highschool, and He learned "programming" on a PDP/8. Why
>is there this object / subroutine for an apendix---- who ordered
>that?

Why is there a turbo button on my 486-50?  If I wanted slow I'd use my C=64
with an 8086 emulator written in basic.

Tim
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Saturday, 26 Sep 1992 10:28:07 CDT
From: David James Alexander Hanley <U55870@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Test For True Christians

In article <19vcqeINNd63@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M.
Mcgeary) says:
>
>You forgot. Christians are also supposed to be able to handle venomous
>serpents without being bitten. (Duh! You keep 'em chilled for about 4 hours,
>then hold them directly behind the head!) And if they're bitten, they (the
>Christians) are supposed to survive.

  I have often asked christians to demonstrate this to me ( drinking poison
, handling snakes ) and I have yet to have one take me up on the offer.
I wonder why? :) . Mabye they have weak faith?

>


dave!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 17:21:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.154002.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi>, hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:

|>  If God is 'Existence' as is defined in the Holy Bible

Supposition:  God == existence

|>  then who dares to assert that God does not exist. ?

Conclusion:  God exists

All that you have shown is that existence exists.  Any attempt
to widen your definition of God is invalid given only the 
evidence you have presented.

-- 
Dan Yergeau                         He's dead Jim.  Take his phaser
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU        and I'll get his wallet.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 10:37:08 GMT


In article <1992Sep26.184242.10476@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
> In article <1992Sep25.154002.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi>
>   hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:
>
>> If God is 'Existence' as is defined in the Holy Bible
>> (in 2nd Moses 3:14-15 and in gospel of Johannes 8:28-29),
>> then who dares to assert that God does not exist. ?
>
> Me and several hundred million other people around the world.
>

  All stupids ?. They assert at the same time that they themselves
  do not exist. !


>>         Hannu.
>
> C "Duh" Frog

           Hannu.
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: All Bases Covered
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Sep 21 1992
Date: 28 Sep 92  16:26:10

Tag: mathew (mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew))
 
A  list  of "satanic indicators" was sent by Ms Klein to  help  social
workers.  Classic  signs and symptoms are said to include  an  unusual
preoccupation  with  urine and faeces, fear of  ghosts  and  monsters,
aggressive play, and the child being "clingy", reciting nursery rhymes
with  indecent overtones, suffering from nightmares and  bed  wetting,
preoccupation with "passing gas", using mouth to make "gas sounds" and
wild laughter when the child or someone else "passes gas".
-------------------
 
M> "Good grief. I don't think I've met any eight-year-old boys who
M> *haven't* been Satanically abused, then."
 
That's the point, natch'. I read a Christian "Satanic Survivor" book
that claimed that one of the proofs of "Satanism" was "animal parts
in the freezer." I read that and said "Thank Goddess I'm a vegetarian!"
Then I read a few more chapters, and it said that vegetarianism was
"Satanic!" Looks like they got us comming and going.
 
Folks in the UK are worried that things there will get as bad as
they got here a few years ago.
 
M> mathew --
M> De-evolution! Self execution! No solution! I'm a potato, and I'm
M> sooooo hip!

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 28 Sep 92 06:17:28 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <parsons.717613819@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu>, parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> 
> [...deletions...]
>>Exactly my point---it is this irrational WRONG belief that
>>causes so much pain and mental bondage.
>>[...] 
> 
>>You will find that people "demonically posessed" are very
>>sick mentally, or sick emotionally, of very much in need
>>of attention to keep the loneliness at bay.
> 
> [ravings about demonic possession deleted]

   Thank goodness your belief is no longer so widespread, or I'd
have undergone several exorcisms by now; I have epilepsy.

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

Karl Magnacca                 |  A lie is still a lie even if      |  Alb. 6:66
kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu  |  1.7 billion people believe it.    |
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan ( aka. Wolphgang ))
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 13:32:49 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.22.255.189

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!
>
>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.

	If this board is unable to logically disprove Collen is God, then
how can we even disprove God?
	And, who's side is the burden of proof on? 

	The major difference between science, and mysticism:

	Science: Doesn't always have an answer.
	Mysticism: Always has an answer, even if non sequiter.

Meaning, there is nothing in the world that even hints that there is a God.

Claiming there isn't a god, does not violate any known law, or throw anything
known, into doubt. Such an assertion does not contridict anything.

Claiming that god does in fact exist, does violate many laws, and is thowing
everything in doubt. Such an assertion does contridict a multitude of things.

So, in a much simplified reason, the burden of prood is upon you. The 
Christians are making a claim, which violates the known state of affairs.
And, especially considering that I know of no one, nor know of one who 
knows another who has ever had contact with the divinity,  I have no 
perception of the state of affair that is not in question.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 27 Sep 92 21:12:41 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep23.152011.3808@darwin.ntu.edu.au>, ho@darwin.ntu.edu.au
wrote:
> 
> I am new to this but I was facinated to read the views expressed under atheism.
> Why do people get so hot and bothered about how many days the world was created
> in ? It is really not material to matters of faith and one's beliefs.

Actually, my new .signature is suitable as an opinion about this issue
of faith. Kent.

	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: tonyp@convex.com (honey bunny)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: God is responsible for the death of Jesus
Date: 5 Oct 92 03:00:32 GMT
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.

STATEMENT:

o God killed Jesus.

o That's right: God is the *ONLY* one responsible for Jesus' death.

---

CHRISTIAN FACTS: 

o God is all-powerful.

o God knows everything. Everything that has happened, everything
  that will happen.

---

EXTRAPOLATION:

o God knew that if he put his son here his son would be killed.

o Since God knew this, he is an accessory to the crime.

  Suppose you have a child, or a "lamb", and you put it out in
  your fields - where you *know* the wolves will kill it. Who is
  responsible for its death: the wolves, or you?

  The wolves were acting as you *knew* they would. They did *just*
  what you expected them to do. It's *your* fault the child died.

---

EXTRA CREDIT:

o God gave his only begotten son....

  Now wait a minute. He's God. He can make *all* the sons he wants.
  In fact, all the Nuns wear a wedding band, hoping for the Immaculate
  Conception (didn't he play for the Mets?). He can make 'em all pregnant
  at once. Don't blame mankind just because he only created one son.

  A mother of father that gave their only son to war, now that's something
  to be revered.


--
    Tony J. Podrasky             BIBLE : 
     San Diego , Ca                       BUY BULL ? 
    tonyp@convex.com                                  ( NO ) 
QSL? QRU? QRZ? QLZ? QFA?                                      BYE, BULL !
Newsgroups: alt.religion.messianic,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Son of Creationist Crapola.
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:23:07 GMT

danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:

[totally brainless analogy between OOP and DNA correlation between
species ommited]

: > While my analogy may seem only tangentially relevant to those who
: > are not personally experienced with object oriented programming,
: 
: I am so experienced and the analogy is nonsensical, not tangential,
: at least as presented by you.  Do your objects randomly exchange
: piecies when you copy them to a new program?
: 

There's a new one for the field service bullitens: "We regret to
announce that the firmware in the Model 1234 Whatzit seems to have
mutated into a non-functional form."

Actually there has been work done on evolutionary algorithms, where
algorithms are randomly changed, and the more successful ones are kept
and allowed to reproduce, and the less successful ones are eliminated.
This, of course, has absolutely _nothing_ to do with the original
OOP/DNA comparison.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  Mary Tyler Moore's
Rosemount Inc.                                |SEVENTH HUSBAND is wearing my
                                              |DACRON TANK TOP in a cheap
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |hotel in HONOLULU!
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18175 sci.skeptic:17130 talk.origins:12210
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Son of Creationist Crapola.
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:01:50
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<1992Sep24.115217.11296@hsr.no>
	<1992Sep27.220350.17189@pdnfido.fidonet.org>
	<1992Sep28.100020.27769@hsr.no> <1992Sep29.003242.6@sycraft.com>
	<1992Sep29.112700@IASTATE.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: danwell@IASTATE.EDU's message of Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:27:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.112700@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:

   > In fact, object oriented programming makes reusing code easier than *not*
   > reusing code.  So extending this to its natural conclusion, I would expect
   > the process of creating life to be a more simple and orderly process by
   > reusing DNA rather than not.

      Reusing the unrunnable noise.  Right.  So what your saying here is that
   God is a moron who leaves his hardrive full of random, leftover bullshit? 

Hey, anthropomorphize god to that extent, and he wastes disk space just
like we do :-)
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins