HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What brought you to atheism?
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:28:05 GMT
 <1992Oct8.051900.23436@u.washington.edu>
 <SUOPANKI.92Oct9012127@zombie.oulu.fi>
Organization: Penn State University

I was brought up in a Jewish household, although my family was not very religio
us (by any stretch of the imagination).  I do remember believing in god when I
was about 4 or 5: I remember a ridiculous discussion  with a friend of mine abo
ut (get this) how god was created.

After a while I began thinking about whether or not there really is a god.
I had numerous discussions and debates with myself (No, I don't think I'm insan
e), trying to give both sides (theistic and atheistic) the best arguments I cou
ld consider.  Atheism came on top of all of those arguments: this could be beca
use I used logic (I didn't think that god is above logic).
Some arguments:  God is omniscient and omnipotent.  WHY (the hell :-) ) did he
create the universe?  As some play-thing perhaps?  What is the point?  I cannot
 think of one.
       From a theistic point of view he (god) did create the universe.  Now the
n, since he's omniscient, he should know what we (humans) are capable of, what
we are thinking, what drives we have, etc.  We are slaves to our genes and the
environment, (i.e. our personality is formed during our childhood).  This god
should be able to predict our actions. Why would would he punish us for somethi
ng we do even though it is inevitable that we will do it?
       There are MANY different religions.  Each is SURE that it is correct.
Which one is correct? They can't all be.  No one has any more proof of being th
e valid one than any other.  It's either one or NONE.
       I've noticed this only in Christianity:  things we enjoy are considered
sin.  Why would a god create us, make certain things pleasurable to us, and the
n tell us that we can't do it/have it/etc.  What a SADIST!

I have numerous other arguments, but that's enough.  I hope you can follow what
 I've written because I do not have any talent when it comes to expressing my v
iews.  Although this is probably hard to follow, I you make it through it.

     sorry,
           Eylon Geva
From: mpinnock@casper.cs.uct.ac.za (M B Pinnock)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Science and significance
Date: 14 Oct 92 08:03:15 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Cape Town

In <5i6FsB2w165w@bluemoon.rn.com> darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) writes:

> 
>From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
>Message-ID: <73086@apple.Apple.COM>
>>darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) writes:
>>>From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
>>>>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.
> 
>>This is BS. Science doesn't tell us anything about how
>>significant people are.
> 
>Good!  You have seen my point.  Science *in itself* says nothing 
>about significance.  It is the viewpoint, whether atheist or 
>theist, that interprets science as saying something about 
>significance. 
> 
>So, you are right.  Science doesn't tell us anything about how
>*in*significant people are.
> 
Disagree!
Firstly what "SCIENCE" are you talking about here? I know of no
commonly accepted definition of science.

Secondly no matter what view one takes of science wether it be a realist
or instrumentalist view, the significance of the observer i.e. you/me is clear.

>To the extent that an atheist has not decided that there is not a 
>god, he has not capped knowledge. 

Nicely put.


Brian Pinnock

Computer Science Dept.       | Sam! 
University of Cape Town.     | I like green eggs and ham! 
South Africa.                | I do! I like them, Sam-I-am! 
mpinnock@casper.cs.uct.ac.za |                                 Dr. Seuss. 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:08:35 GMT


>In article <BvptEx.IIH@umassd.edu> rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:

>>Johnson

>>According to theists , this is true:

>>-------->God is omnipotent
>>-------->God is omniscient
>>-------->God is the creator of "EVERYTHING"

>>Question ; (A thorn for the Theists)

>>-------->There is "evil"in the world.

>>If this GOD exists then how does he deal with this issue?("EVIL")

>>If this GOD exists and is apathetic about evil then he is weak. On
>>the other hand if he can 't do anything about evil then is not omnipotent
>>whence he is "EVIL"

>You have never read the Bible have you? You chose to become an atheist 
>without ever exploring your other options. Just because you cannot see Him, 
>He does not exist!

>Now, about EVIL - it says in the Bible that God will eventually do away with 
>it, but for now we have our own choice. We can choose to either do EVIL or 
>GOOD. 

>Cheers.

Edwin 

I'm astonishingly perplexed at your comment about me. Have you tought for
one minute, before you posted?

Perhaps its just fair that I reciprocate that astonishment: Yes I have read
the bible (I went to a Jesuit school (South America) for 12 years), as
well as being an "altar boy" when mass was in Latin (Took 6 years).
 I have been on both sides of the fence? I know.

 Now! about the bible :- The bible was writen by a string(not one) of writers
 (mortals) that had no answers to phenomenas ocurring in that period. Therefore they had to think that something more powerfull that them (mortals) was the cause of all the phenomena. Then they created God.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Atheism? Really Harold, how gauche...
From: f0358@desire.wright.edu
Date: 7 Oct 92 10:55:29 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

Hi...y'know, I have met lot of people who proclaim the nonexistence of God, or
god(s) as it were, I myself being one of them. Why is it though that so many
'atheists' use the same faulty logic as those many spiritual debators? It's
disheartening to see that so many people espouse 'atheism' without a true
understanding of the concept. I feel that atheism gets often a bad rap because
of this. People often rightly assume that atheism is the conglomerate of all
pagan, non-Theist, or Pan-theist beliefs. They are right in assuming this
because many atheists lead them to believe this. A belief in the existence of
God, god(s), is not in and of itself a bad thing, but never let yourself
believe that you have THE truth lest someone come by and smack the smile off of
your face. Truth is a virus, as they say, once people have it, they can, and
often do, lose their minds to it. Atheism is only a concept by whose
prescriptions there is no extant God, god(s). I believe this, but it doesn't
mean I am free to do as I please; I am still obligated to search for my own
personal truth. That's all. Later.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Hello All!
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:52:33 GMT

In article <1b4unhINNr3k@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
cb366@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark B. Bendiksen) writes:
|>
|>Hello Atheists:
|>
|>I am what most of you would probably call a "Jesus Freak".
|>I have spent some time reading through many of the posts on
|>this newsgroup with much interest. I expected to find much more
|>discussion on deeper philosophical issues (i.e. why you
|>believe in no God, etc.). Instead, this group seems to be
|>mainly a "club" whose members waste time and net space by
|>coming up with clever ways to bash "crazy Christians" and
|>anyone else who chooses to believe in an almighty creator.
|>If you scan through articles on religious newgroups I dare
|>say you'll find little space wasted talking about "those
|>nutty atheists who don't believe in God". 
|>
|>Please don't get me wrong. I did read many fascinating
|>and interesting posts while going through your newsgroup,
|>but more often than not many posts consist of nothing more
|>than hate for those that believe in God. Is that really
|>constructive?
|>
|>I know I'm inviting flames, and that's okay. But if you
|>attack me with namecalling rather than by discussion of
|>the issue, you'll just be proving my point.
|>
|>
|>Love in Christ,
|>
|>Mark B. Bendiksen
|>cb366@freenet.cwru.edu
|>-- 
|>"If we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto,
|> We'll just be bogus, too."-- Dr. Jeff Spicolli
                                 
Howdy!

I don't think you are inviting flames (tho you will get some. Normal for
the Net ;~)
It's true that a lot of bandwidth is spent on tearing x-tian posters, but 
there is a reason (well, a few).

1) Christians are the only ones that post trying to convert people.
2) After hearing the same thing over and over, one gets a little testy
(eg Hot enough for ya'?)
3) Most postings by Christians are in the form of "I don't have proof-I
don't need any"
   and that pisses people off.

Not to say that there haven't been good, philosophical arguments put
forth by Christians 
in this group!  There have been a few.  But the "ranting preachers"
outweigh them.

There are postings on philosophy, ethics, politics, and other topics, but
since this is a un-moderated newsgroup (read: chaos), people who like to 
flame are given carte blanc to create as great an inferno as they wish.
Just ignore stupid postings, regardless of source or destination.

Do you read the Christian news groups?  I don't think they write about why
they do believe in God much.  If atheists could post in Christian news groups
(questioning the existance of God), what do you think the result would be?



Love in Colleen,

Brian /-|-\

P.S. A REAL Jesus Freak would never quote Bill & Ted.  8^/
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: evil computers
Date: 7 Oct 1992 13:37:28 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


	This is interesting. here in NorthEast Ohio there are a number
of Amish. Though they are theistic, and do not beleave in even tele-
phones or cars, they tend not to be much of a problem. Even though
they do not use anymodern tools (a FEW MIGHT use a tractor ONLY FOR
THE PRODUCTION OF FOOD) they do not have delutions about partaking
in modern society. They stay out of the mainstream so they can be 
left alone to do their thing. These people in Canada sound like a 
real pain in the a$$.



-- 
"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 | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu | alias: White Rook
aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: evil computers
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:20:20 GMT

	I think that these Christian/Plymouth Brethren may be
concerned about possible exposure to heretical ideas. But books can be
just as bad as TV or radio in that regards. I'm not sure why they
think the medium of Madonna's new picture book is OK, but a medium in
which they can watch some TV evangelist in action is not. Since
computers are a necessity for many of the more high-powered careers,
it is clear that they are shooting themselves in the foot.

	And would these characters complain about a book that was
printed from a computer file? After all, I'm sure that most of the
publishing industry now has a computer somewhere in the book-printing
process by now, and a large fraction of book writers compose with a
computer nowadays.

	At least the Amish are honest about their separatism, and
willing to accept their being outside of the rest of our society.
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God's existence
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:24:51 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1b4gs1INNj9v@bigboote.WPI.EDU> scott@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Scott G Goddard) writes:
>Hi everyone.  I posted something a few days ago, and I got a lot of responses,
>mostly hate mail.

This is a common tactic.  Some
xtian salesman stumbles in, posts some bit of drivel that we
have already seen and dismissed, and then whines about the
responses he/she gets.  The problem is that most of you
goofballs cannot distinguish between "hate" and good-faith,
well-reasoned disagreement.  This may be due to the fact that
you come from a tradition of unquestioning belief.
In any case, the "hate" you feel is usually simple
psychological projection (IMHO).

>To tell you the truth, that doesn't bother me, actually it
>seems kind of childish. Grow up!

This is also standard fare.  The person who wants us to 
seriously consider his fairy tales as a substantive
basis for discussion turns around and calls us childish.
 
>I could tell that you all have a wonderful 
>vocabulary, but I could also sense much hatred.

Probably more annoyance than hate, the kind of thing one feels
when an uninvited guest vomits on the carpet.

>Personally, I don't care if
>I sounded like a "preacher", as some of you put it.  And I also don't care what
>the FAQ states.

Apparently not.  It seems you don't care for facts of
any kind.

>You're salvation means more to me than that.

It must mean more to you than it does to me.

>I don't know 
>about you, but eternal damnation doesn't sound too appealing to me.  I just 
>pray that one day you are not wishing that you listened to me, or anyone else
>who has tried to get it through to you.  Call me in about a million years at
>1-800-1HEAVEN.  Now, I'm not trying to make anybody mad, and I'm not 
>condemning anybody either.  What I say is true, "THERE IS A GOD."

According to the fundamentalist xtian creed, those who believe
are saved.  I believed, and accepted Jesus' "sacrifice" for my 
sins.  Well, I no longer believe, but the gospels say nothing
about losing the gift of salvation if I change my mind.
QED, I am saved, although if heaven is full of dweebs like
you it may seem more like hell.

>     What is it going to take to prove that He does exist?  Is God Himself 
>going to have to come down from Heaven and perform a miracle?  Or would that 
>not be good enough?

No, that would be fine.  In fact, it is essential.  The question
of the Existence of God and Eternal Salvation is so vital
that it cannot be left to imperfect human messengers or
bad translations of ancient revelations.  A simple word
directly from God would be adequate.

>Well, I hope it would be. By the way, this is probably
>going to be the last news that I post, but just think about it.

Now, this IS good news!

>                              P.S.  Jesus loves you

Jesus is dead.


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:32:00 GMT

In <73159@apple.Apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:

>In article <Bvpt1p.Gu9@umassd.edu> rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:
>>
>>If we are dealing with logic here, then "LOGICALLY"
>>no one can prove that something isn't.
>>Can you prove that "snergs" do not exit?
>>How ever, if one is to believe that something is...
>>then the burden lays on the shoulder of the believer
>>to substantiate his/her claim. Therefore you must prove
>>with certainty, to me that, "this something" exits.

>Oh for heaven's sake this is nonsense. It is perfectly
>straightforward to prove that even prime numbers greater
>than 2 don't exist. There: a counterexample that
>demonstrates that it is possible to prove something
>doesn't exist.

>Isn't this in the FAQ? It certainly comes up with annoying
>frequency.

Michael

Here is some food for thought!!!!!

The non-existence of an even prime number larger than 2 is con-
tingent on mathematical definitions which were made even before
anyone new (defined) primes. You are using a pre-stablished
theorem for that prove. In other words you had to make use of the fact
that you ---------> KNOW WHAT NUMBERS ARE
         ---------> KNOW HOW TO MANIPULATE THEM
         ---------> MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL, YOU CAN MAKE STATEMENTS WITH SOLID
                    PROOF ABOUT ANY PREDETERMINED MATHEMATICAL THEOREMS
         ---------> CAN ARRIVE OR POSTULATE OTHER THEOREMS BASED ON THE
                    PREDETERMINED RULES FOR MATHEMATICS.

However God exitence is "hear say"

Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Wed,  7 Oct 1992 20:35:54 -0400 
From: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
	<ebolog.17@elaine.ee.und.ac.za>

> explain why if human life came about by freak accident why only we are
intelligent.

Some dolphins, simians, and my dog have a bone to pick with you. 
Intelligence is not fully understood but can be related to brain size
and cerebral wrinkling.  That's why an ant doesn't have the intelligence
of a human.(At least not most humans!)


\begindata{text,17029828}
\textdsversion{12}
\template{default}
\majorheading{Jordan M. Wolbrum

}\center{\smaller{at jw67@andrew.cmu.edu

}}\enddata{text,17029828}
From: KMK138@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: God
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:33:31 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

Never mind the idea slipped from my head.  So sorry for inconvience!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Originator: cs911461@a01.ariel.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: york
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:07:06 GMT


In article <92450@netnews.upenn.edu>, stuart@stipple.seas.upenn.edu (Joseph Stuart ) writes:
>> 
>> Since coming to disbieve the existence of god a few months ago, I have
>> come pretty far in defining my own personal philosophy.  However, one point
>> still bugs me that I can't quite get around: morality.  I feel that there
>> are certain things which are immoral.  While I don't expect everyone to
>> have the same moral code as me, I still feel a bit disturbed when others
>> do things that I consider wrong.  Have any other atheists grappled with
>> the question of where morality comes from, and produced any cogent
>> thoughts?  If so, I would love to hear them.


Not believing in God does not include never taking a good quote 
from the Bible.  Please note, I am not preaching and do not 
believe in God myself.

Morality is not doing what you would not like have done onto
you (I believe this is called "the Golden Rule").  This may be
an oversimplification of a very touchy issue but I believe it
to be nonetheless accurate.

C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Atheism? Really Harold, how gauche...
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 18:59:26 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Oct12.205329.3857@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

[huge, ruthless deletion]

>This is all well and good, but what does it have to do with whether
>or not truth is relative?  I'm claiming that it is impossible for
>one thing to be true for you, and another for me, and that anybody
>who thinks that it is possible is daft.
>--
>Doug Graham

 Hmmm... suppose we grant that. Are there situations where resolving what
is in fact true is impossible? (I'm thinking of, for example, the various
interpretations of quantum theory (Many-Worlds, Copenhagen, etc.) which
all predict the same observations, due to very different causes. Which
cause is the 'true' one?

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: "Teaching atheism"
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 13:23:41 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Oct14.160506.23515@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh) writes:
>From article <1992Oct13.131928.18294@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, by jstump@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Jack E. Stump):
>> 
>> It is a double-edged sword: You need to implant alternative ideas in a
>> child before he is completely brainwashed, but friends and family may
>> not let it happen. 
>
>I'm interested in hearing more discussion on how this could be done.
>
>Recently, I heard my 3-year old son make a reference to "god" for the
>first time...
>
>I see Jack Stump's point that if I do not intervene in what my son is 
>learning, he may indeed be "completely brainwashed".  But I don't want 
>to teach atheism to him the way Christians indoctrinate their people,
>nor do I want him to grow-up feeling like he is being pulled in 
>different directions by his parents.  What would be important for me to 
>do is to encourage him to be a critical thinker.  
>
>I would like to hear suggestions on some good ways to introduce
>"alternative ideas" to such small children.  

 Well, my parents were both 'lapsed Catholics' and didn't raise me with
any religion. They were always honest with me; for example, my mother
explained that Santa Claus was a nice story, and a kind of symbol of
giving, but there really wasn't any such person. They always tried to
explain things to me as best they could, when I asked. (Whether I was
"ready" for it or not.) They didn't always succeed, but I grew up knowing
there were answers if you tried hard enough to understand things.
 I like to think this has made me a critical thinker...

>Young Huh
>yhuh@ihlpe.att.com


 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are going to the
stars!" - Robert A. Heinlein
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: O'Connor in Saturday Night Live
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:08:45 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <BvptsF.Jzx@umassd.edu> rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:


>Would anyone comment on "Shaned O'Connor"'s actions
>on the program "Saturday Night Live" this past SAT.

>Frank

Would that be 
Sinead O'Connor?   (pronounced   shin-aid)
My general opinion of her is that she'll grow up fairly soon.
Good voice.
What did she do on SNL ?


              Have another day    [Armageddon, the musical] 
  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44|0)61-275-6033  
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18740 talk.religion.misc:17991