HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:31:02 GMT

In article <1bfk4bINN8si@gap.caltech.edu> 
  keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>
>In order to determine the morality of homosexuality, we need only determine
>whether or not homosexuality poses any threat the functioning of society.
>Societies, or groups, developed in order to insure the propogation of the
>human species.  A given homosexual act or encounter does not threaten
>the continuation of our species.  In the past, a strictly homosexual
>lifestyle would, by this definition, be considered immoral, as it hinders
>reproduction.  

So, amusingly enough, does celibacy.  Anyway, as I am sure you agree,
this definition of morality is a little weak.

>keith

C Frog
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Anyone heard of Cliffe?
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:12:27 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <UerQu0q00WBLE4avlJ@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> The intervarsity Christian assoc here at CMU got someone named Cliffe to
> come speak.  I went to listen to him, and while there was much he said
> that I disagreed with, I went away respecting him.  He challenges all
> people, including Christians, to not accept Christ's divinity on faith
> alone.  He said the gospels could be vieved as a historically viable
> source.  Having not read the gospels, I couldn't add anything to that
> discussion, but wonder if anyone here has an effective arguement against
> the gospels' validity.  I don't know how to approach this with my
> limited knowledge of the New Testament.

Try this:  they contradict each other on historical matters. Case in point: 
the recent discussion on Jesus' bloodline. Two genealogies (sp?) are given in
two different gospels.

> Cliffe said "there is more than enough evidence, nobody has a right not
> to believe in God."  I didn't agree, but I didn't know what to say
> without sounding like some closed-minded moron.  Needless to say, some
> students here just attacked Cliffe and went away looking like assholes. 
> Others actually made him think, and he was reasonably open-minded- a
> trait I have rarely evidenced before in theists strong in their
> convictions.

You probably made a good decision to not enter in the discussion without being
at least marginally familiar with the subject material, as an arguement poorly
conducted tends to make the other side look better.

--Semhaza
Usenet:  It's not just a job, it's an adventure.
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Atheism? Really Harold, how gauche...
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 03:15:29 GMT

In article <1bdcheINNkgd@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>
>In a previous article, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) says:
>
>>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.
>
>	Well, you have to be very careful of which prepositions you
>are evaluating.
>
>Let's say that I believe X is moral, but you feel it is immoral.
>
>It's not that X is both moral, and immoral, 
>X is moral for me, but immoral for you.

Sure, but I think that morality and truth are two different things.
The proposition "Keith believes that X is immoral" is either true
of false, and the proposition "Society will be less violent if
people believe that X is immoral" is either true of false, but
"X is immoral" alone is neither true nor false.  I think that
means it's not a proposition.

>Let's say that Y is true (for me), and Y is false (for you).
>
>It's not that Y is both true and false, look carefully at the proposition:
>
>Y is true for ME. Y is false for YOU. 
>
>The difference lies not in Y, but in you and me. 
>If you and me are different, the statement " Y is true" depends heavily
>on the difference. 
>
>Many times, we do not include that (for me) in there, its usually assumed.
>However, one really needs to be careful and differentiating persona proposi-
>tions ,and public state-of-affairs propositions.
>
>( One really needs a specific example here so I can clearly illustrate
>this. If you wish to suggest an example which you feel can't be both... )

Anything subjective I guess.  Is "Marilyn Monroe was beautiful" a
proposition?
--
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_
From: darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: More Sigh! A stud god?
Date: 10 Oct 92 21:02:49 GMT
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])

From: edc513ysft@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au
 
>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.
 
 
 
Consistency alert!  The stud herein described who attracts all 
women should have no need for pick-up coaching! 
 
Therefore this being does not exist. 
 
DARIST
 
P.S.  Ok, I better explain this one.  All we studs :) know that 
attracting women is not the same as *getting* women.  Or, even
the best can learn new things.  Or rerun dreams.  So my mock 
bias caused me to misinterpret the above.  This is like as the 
real bias many atheists have.  This bias causes them to also see 
inconsistencies that don't exist. These misperceptions prove 
nothing just as my mock misperception proved nothing. 
 

 
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Wed,  7 Oct 1992 20:10:12 -0400 
From: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
	<ebolog.12@elaine.ee.und.ac.za>

Who said the human body was perfect?  The only reason non-symmetry is
freakish to you is because humans evolved that way.  If some ancestors
of ours had found symmetry a detriment to survival, you might very well
have an asymmetrical body shape.

You can't say that the theory of evolution explains life as we know it
as an accident if you truly understand it.  In essence, evolution occurs
because subject A's genes are more suited to survival than subject B's. 
It is harder to view evolution today because of medicine(In the wild,
perhaps visually impaired humans might not be able to fend for
themselves and would die, purifying the gene pool).

NOTE: This doesn't mean that we should all throw away our technology in
order to evolve further faster.

I challenge you to explain how creation makes more sense than evolution.
 I'm sure all of us would like to hear it!

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

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

}}\enddata{text,17029828}

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: nubian@iat.holonet.net (Christopher J. Gray)
Subject: answer to Scott
Organization: HoloNet (BBS: 510-704-1058)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 22:13:03 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Wed,  7 Oct 1992 20:31:18 -0400 
From: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
	<ebolog.16@elaine.ee.und.ac.za>

>Ok, you tell me how man came about and do not state the theory of evolution 
>since one it is a theory with lots of short comings and one which even some 
>scientists do not agree with. Then disprove that the only God the Father and 
>his only begotten son Jesus Christ do not exist!

You caught me, I can't prove anything.  But, I ask you how you find it
easier to make a blind leap of faith than to consider more logical
alternatives.  I'm not insulting you, I'm just curious.  Theism makes no
sense to me.  A virgin birth makes no sense to me.  A ressurection makes
no sense to me.  Evolution makes sense to me.  I'd like to try and
understand you, so I'll give you the opportunity to explain.  Who knows?
 You might just convince me.

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

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

}}\enddata{text,17029828}

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto)
Subject: The Teleological argument
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 06:04:40 GMT

Ay one have any comment on this argument?

Frank
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 11 Oct 92 00:40:24 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <Bvto8o.DM0@umassd.edu> rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:
>In <73160@apple.Apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>
>>At any rate, the problem of evil isn't likely to sound the
>>death knell of Christianity (any more than the theistic
>>defenses are likely to eliminate atheism).
>
>Evins:
>So what you're trying to say is: even if an argument is solid,
>after a while we should stop using it?

Wrong in one. What I'm saying is that you are wasting your
breath unless you are in conversation with someone for whom
the argument is news. If you were interested in learning
what theist responses to the problem of evil are then the
posting might have been appropriate, though in that case
it probably should have been posted elsewhere and written
differently. If you wanted to know whether the readers
here knew of the argument (and most do) then you could have
asked.
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: To All Truth Seekers!
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:22:08 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Oct9.150735.23962@cs.tulane.edu> goff@pops.navo.navy.mil writes:
Vicky Goff....
Where do I recognize that from.
>A Quote from Alt.Athesim Frequently Asked Questions:
Atheism. Not athesim.

>     "Most atheists put truth first.  If searching for truth causes you to
>      become uncomfortable, that's too bad."
>
>
>I assume that this implies that they evaluate objectively both sides
>of a topic. If this be the case, then if they are correct, then there
>must be a sound, reasonable explanation as to who Jesus Christ was.
Don't you think using "Jesus Christ" is a bit leading?
Christ, after all, means "messiah".

>If there are any other theories the atheist community can offer, please
>post them! 
>
>JESUS WAS A MYTH-
>   Question: The bible, as a history book, is astonishingly correct when
>	     used to understand archeological remains and ancient writings.
Twaddle. The Bible is astonishingly bad. It gets all sorts of things
wrong. E.g. The creation narrative. The flood. There is much doubt
about the historicity of the Exodus narrative, and Joshua claims to
have conquered cities that didn't exist at the time.

>BIBLE ACCOUNT IS INCORRECT:
>   Question: If the account is incorrect, then many people have participated
>	     in the writing of a story that certainly would have required
>             very wicked hearts to produce.
Nonsense. If this is true, explain The Gospel of Thomas, The Apochryphon
of John, Acts of Thomas....

The rest of your article is similarly inane. Learn some Biblical
history, and then come back.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
Date: 10 Oct 92 13:07:19 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <92029@netnews.upenn.edu> stuart@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Joseph Stuart ) writes:
>From: stuart@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Joseph Stuart )
>Subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
>Date: 7 Oct 92 16:28:05 GMT

>In article <zlsiida.179@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct4.190643.29894@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:
>>>"I think therefore I am".  Other than that, *nothing* is necessarily
>>>true.

What about anything that could be strictly deduced from the Cogito? 

>>And there are a few people around these days who aren't sure that ITTIA is 
>>true either.  After all, just because something you call your conscious 
>>awareness is monitoring a data stream which seems to have something to do 
>>with what happens next (etc), doesn't mean there's necessarily any other 
>>connection between the conscious awareness, the data stream, and what 
>>happens next.  "You" may just be a convenient fiction.

>I believe that I hear the faint swishing of Occam's razor as it descends to
>shred this argument.   I can see the gleam of it's edge as sentences fall
>into the abyss of uselessness.

>scott

Yes, but even with a clean shaven face, the Cogito at least does provide
us with the certainty of our own subjectivity--something that cannot be  
logically doubted without affirming in the process.  Not only certain and 
undeniable, but also fundamental. "There is thinking going on", of course, 
which is all Descartes had a logically right to say given the total 
skepticism of his method, may not directly imply a thinker, and Descartes 
didn't provide any argument for the existence of the "I" in his famous "I 
think therefore I am."   However, Jeff's only point was that the Cogito 
was certain and necessary, not that SUM was so. 
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: URGENTLY NEEDED
Date: 11 Oct 92 22:52:39 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <IenT4wa00WB68DnlBT@andrew.cmu.edu>, David O Hunt
<bluelobster+@CMU.EDU> wrote:
> 
> Could some kind person please email me some atheistic-type quotes by the
> founding fathers?

I would be highly surprised if you found any, most of them where
highly religious deists, including Thomas Paine (I mean not active,
but he acknowledged the possibility of a God). 

However, they were highly critical concerning Christianity and
dogmatic church doctrines. You should be able to find plentiful
of such quotes in any good historical books. 

IMHO I would even state that if the founding fathers would
have been active Christians, we would have one single state church
in this country today, eventually even a special American form of
Christianity (something like Mormonism not gone too far).

Cheers,
Kent
It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that
virginity could be a virtue.  -- Voltaire
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:40:57 GMT
Organization: Electronic Eng., Univ. Natal, Durban, South Africa
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc56.ee.und.ac.za

In article <1992Oct6.154303.2578@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:


>In a previous article, ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) says:

>>
>>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!
>>

>One more time...

>A: Cristians are making the positive assertion (there is a god), therefore
>it is incumbant upon them to prove that assertion.

>B: It is a logical impossibility to prove non existance of anything (I again
>suggest a course in basic logic for those that suggest it is possible).


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

>Cristians are the ones who tend toward irrational logic:

>        "God is real because the bible says so, and since the bible was
>         inspired by God, then it must be true...therefore, god exists"

>or

>        "I know God is real because I believe it."

>or

>        "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."

>Real logical and rational....


>>
>>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).
>>

>I believe YOU are the one who should be embarassed for even suggesting such
>an illogical exercise...

>>Many Thanks for any logical and well thought out arguments.

>You're quite welcome.  Perhaps you'll learn about logic from this.

>>
>>       Cheers from E.B.
>>
>-- 
>*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Assembly of God???  Strange.. *
>*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // I was not aware that the diety  *    
>*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // was available in source form..." *
>****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************


Not much substantial enlightening information was supplied within the reply 
to the original posting.

Why not bring up a few points of discussion like you expect all non atheists 
to do. (Ofcourse if any non atheiests do bring up good points they are 
either insulted or ignored).

Cheers.

PS : Please Post or reply to JOHN@ELAINE.EE.UND.AC.ZA
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Morals and God is Dead.
Date: 15 Oct 92 05:06:18 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu
Keywords: Morality.

cochrane@spot.Colorado.EDU (Jim Cochrane) writes:

>It seems a little strange to me that a lot of people assume that if one
>rejects the prevaling moral system(s) and defines one's own rules or
>guidelines of action that they would necessarily act in a selfish
>manner as a result.  I think it is quite possible for such a person to
>act purely out of compassion for someone else without expecting anything
>in return.  In fact, I would bet that in many cases where someone
>performs this kind of action, it is completely spontaneous and has
>nothing to do with the person's moral code, regardless of whether or not
>they have one.  [Note that by quite possible I don't mean likely; this
>type of action is rare -- because it is difficult to do.]

This does pertain to selfish/unselfish actions but is not directly related
to the above paragraph.  I was watching Dateline NBC last night, and a
program about a 7 year-old girl with a severe form of cancer came on.
They discussed a St. Jude's research hospital where the experimentally
treat children with cancer with new drugs and treatments.  They mentioned
a statistic that was interesting and relevent.   Eighty percent of children 
would volunteer to be used in new treatments and use new drugs so research 
could be done, only 2% of adults would volunteer for experimental treatment.
Who is more moral?  Unselfish?  Knoble?  (I believe these are terminal
patients.)

It seems that selfishness is a learned behavior, and we only get more
selfish as time goes by.  It would also seem that unselfish behavior 
is the exception and not the rule in many (most?) cases. 
 
-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:12:09 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

mike@huevos.ma.utexas.edu (Mike Sullivan) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>On sex: Do you really think it is the teenages who aren't having sex that are the most
>violent? I doubt it. What you've done is started from a rational view that repressing the
>sex drive leads to violence and then derived a solution. (I will grant that you did
>start with "it might turn out...", but let me continue for the sake of argument.) 
>What you haven't done is any real research into the causes of teenage violence. 
>This must include economic conditions, cultural messages and yes our biology. 

I think that his point was that the sexual inhibitions imposed by our culture
is unnatrual and causes unncessary harm (mostly mental and emotional).

keith
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:45:12 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <RLK.92Oct8130114@underprize.think.com>, rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:
> In article <TORKEL.92Oct8143844@isis.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>    In article <ZuoBsB1w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> 
>       >Read the FAQ file.
> 
>    The present thread demonstrates the dubious value of the FAQ file.
>    Atheists will feel compelled to respond again and again to any
>    standard provocation put forward by people who ignore the FAQ file.
> 
> My preferred technique is to mail the FAQ file to the offending poster
> with instructions to read it.

   Probably a better idea; in all the time I've been reading alt.atheism
I've seen the FAQ posted here all of two times.

Karl
   
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Wed,  7 Oct 1992 20:44:17 -0400 
From: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
	<ebolog.18@elaine.ee.und.ac.za>

> There is nothing wrong with loving a person of the same sex as long as
you do >not have any sexual desires for him.

I am responding from CMU, so be prepared:

Who the fuck are you to judge?  If I want to fuck my dog that's my
business as well!(Excuse the language please)  The main objection that I
have with religion is that it attempts to force everyone to conform to
its moral code.  I don't find homosexual behavior enticing, but the
general homosexual population doesn't spit on my heterosexuality.  I
wish the Christians showed the same respect for my atheism.

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

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

}}\enddata{text,17029828}