HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Religion and Culture
Date: 7 Oct 1992 13:45:42 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


	It seems as if George "I was out of the loop" Bush is in
a little bit of trouble....

	NBC news reported a while back that the leaders of 12 American
denominations denounced the constant references to god being on his
side in the election as "blasphemous" (their word).

	One of the signers was the leader of the presidents OWN denom-
ination.

	Oh, BTW, Randall "the fetus fetishist" Terry, said they it was
a "sin against God" to vote for Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton.



	NOTE: THIS POSTING BY NO MEANS SHOULD BE TAKEN AS SUPPORT 
	FOR BILL CLINTON OR ANY CANDIDATE RUNNING...VOTE NEITHER !


-- 
"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
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:54:27
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<ebolog.12@elaine.ee.und.ac.za>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za's message of 7 Oct 92 14:20:12 GMT

In article <ebolog.12@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za
(EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:

   Wrong, look around you and tell me that it all just happened by freak
   accident. That the perfection of natural was accidental.

Perfection, my ass (or should I say "my appendix"?).  Nor did it happen
by "freak accident" -- evolution is not a story of freak accidents, but
rather by incremental adaptations to fit particular niches that happened
to be available at any given time.

   Scientists today turn to nature to solve problems. Think about
   yourself for example, if you where created by a freak accident then
   why is the human body symmetrical and not deformed with two arms on
   one side and only one on the other for example.

This might actually be an interesting question (why bilateral symmetry
as opposed to, say, trilateral or quadrilateral symmetry, or no symmetry
at all) if asked on talk.origins in a non-confrontational manner.  I
suspect that there are good mechanical reasons for simple symmetries
(maneuverability and such) that would tend to get selected for.

Mind you, evolutionary theory has provided an interesting impetus to
computer science, in the form of genetic algorithms.  I'm not personally
familiar with this branch of computer science, but from what I
understand it uses perturbations of an algorithm (mutations and perhaps
recombinations) combined with selection.

   Think about it. With the existance of a God everything in the
   universe can be proved, but without Him we do not even know how we
   can to be. Remember evolution is a theory which is opposed by may
   scientists.

Assuming the existence of an omnipotent god it's possible to prove
*anything* by simply asserting that god can do it.  This sort of proof
contains no information whatsoever -- it's equivalent to a function of
many inputs that returns a logical value of true regardless of the
states of the inputs.  The output state contains no information
whatsoever regarding the input states, which isn't a very useful
function.

   So you prove God does not exist! (Or that you came to be without
   Him).

Given that you're assuming a completely omnipotent, omniscient deity
it's impossible to disprove its existence.  On the other hand, it's
equally impossible to prove any statements made about this object.
--
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
From: donita@scic.intel.com (Donita Thompson)
Subject: I couldn't resist...
Summary: Christians are such FLAKES...	
Organization: Intel SCIC, Beaverton, OR
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:16:38 GMT

Scott GODdard says:

> Get your heads out of the darkness,

And I say -- Get your head out of your ass. :)


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Jesus vs. Cub Scouts?
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:44:20 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: alt.atheism

In article <73288@apple.Apple.COM>, mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) wrote:
> 
> In article <ksand-111092154712@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >
> >Sigh, things are not that simple, if you would have a Boy Scout
> >leader that was a secret active Kali worshipper, I guess you would
> >not agree that his religious belief implies positive moral values, right?
> >I hope so at least, I would not trust a Kali boy scout leader :-).
> 
> Tsk tsk tsk, Kent. I am surprised. There are perfectly innocuous forms
> of Hinduism in which Kali plays a major role. Don't believe
> everything you see in an Indiana Jones movie.

Yeah, I know, I took that example just to provoke the reader's mind.
I was actually thinking about the book "Song of Kali" by Dan
Simmons, one of the best horror-but-it's-not-horror books. Even
better, I read it while we landed with a rusty Aeroflot airplane
on the airport of Bombay, and those who have landed there should remember
the feeling when the wingtips of the airplane nearly touches the
cottages.

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.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: davem@county.lmt.mn.org (David Mackmiller)
Subject: dream drivel
Organization: LaserMaster R&D, Minneapolis, MN  USA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:13:29 GMT



   I found the following post in talk.religion.christian.

> In article <Sep.13.21.54.19.1992.6953@athos.rutgers.edu> mgray1@metz.une.edu.au (Matthew GRAY) writes:
>>Subject: re: dreams of the end
>
>>        When you have a dream, be cautious. Many dreams are given to
>>us by spirits, not always good, not always bad. A prophetic dream
>>almost surely is given by a spirit. As such we must be sure which is
>>which. The 1st test: can you remember all of your dream, or are there
>>large spaces? If you can't clearly remember the whole dream, then you
>>can be pretty sure it's not of God, but Satan. 2nd test: does it
>>contradict scripture? No dream from God will contadict His word.
>>Dreams are normally given by God as a warning or sign for individuals.
>>They are not given to be told to others, but to be kept to yourself.
>>Remember the dream, to look for it's fulfillment. If it is a dream
>>about ourselves, and something which is going to happen to us,
>>normally bad, we should try with all our might to stop the event
>>happening, like when Jonah went to the people of Ninevah. He gave them
>>the prophescy that they would be destroyed in 40 days - they listened
>>to him, repented, and God turned the days into years.  God doesn't
>>give prophescies to us without our being able to avoid the prophescy,
>>otherwise there wouldn't be much point in telling us, would there?
>>   [ Insert large pile of refferences, sorry, no cookbook at the moment]
>

   I found it to be a bit paranoid.  This superstitous fool is even afraid
   of his own brain!  So I responded:

ME> Y'know, I had a dream about the above message last night, but I don't 
ME> remember it clearly because there were large gaps in it. 

   ...which was rejected by the moderator.

   Anyway, the I thought the original post would be good for a chuckle. 
   
   DaveMac
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              ...it's not funny 'til someone loses an eye.
------------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------
mail: davem@county.lmt.mn.org | flames: alt.good.news | Opinions=mine alone
------------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Homophobia
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:09:20 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


	The majority of Christians are very hate full towards 
Lesbians and Gay men (and Bisexuals too). I find it hard to take
a Christian seriously when he says his/her "God" loves me but yet
according to "God's" word, I should get the death penalty for the
simple act of making love to someone who is not the opposite gender 
I am. Also, with the Pope, Randall Terry and a LOT of other religious
leaders PROMOTING anti-gay bigotry it would be silly to think most 
segments of Christianity are good. After finding that they HELP 
motivate crimes of hate against the Gay community, I find them to 
be very sickening. Please, don't give the "God loves you" drek, I
heard it plenty of times while growing up in the Lutheran church.
If you say something patronizing like "..you sound like a hurt soul"
I will not like that. I am angry at the thought of such things as
Book/Record burnings, attacks on women and their rights and the
such.


	Perhaps if you all get your act together, then you MIGHT
be in some kind of position to talk about "sin". Until then, can it !



*****The exception to most Christians are some groups like the Unitarians,
who not only abstain from the spreading of bigotry, but at times even 
have supported various struggles (of hand I can think of clinic defenses
and such.....). I have no problem with them..they tend to leave me alone
and they don't try to stick their nose into my bedroom or bookshelf...


-- 
"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: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 8 Oct 92 11:16:52 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

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.

Oh God, it's you again. You seek arguments as "logical and well thought out"
as those in your (collective) last post in August, no doubt, the lunatic
illogic of which made me howl out loud with laughter in the lab here, and
Bruce Stephens even took a copy down to the local pub to show his postgraduate
students, I believe. I didn't save a copy, sadly, but now a new academic year
has started I imagine we'll be seeing it again soon.

Anyway, if you guys are keen practitioners of logic, you will know what
a "null hypothesis" is, and thus you will appreciate the idiocy of your
demand that atheists prove that no god exists.

Doubtless you will also be familiar with the term "falsifiable", and will
be aware of the asymmetry between theisms and atheism with respect to
falsifiability, since "There is a God" is unfalsifiable, but "There is
no God" is falsifiable by production of One.

You will no doubt also be aware that falsifiability is a must if a hypothesis
is to be worth beans, and conversely that unfalsifiable hypotheses are worth
jack sh*t.

This portion of your post is repeated for amusement value:

> So here is my proposal : You prove to us that God does not exist!
>
> And please don't use your usual irrational logic [...]

I love you. Really. You're ace.

>	Cheers from E.B.

Cheers, and regards to Thiagaraj John, the poster of the classic August post
and apparently the owner of your return e-mail address. Is he better yet?

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:33:35 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Oct10.185608.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>   *Groan* Not another one...
>   Okay, but first you try to disprove the existence of the Great
>Green Arkleseizure, the Giant Blue Banana, pink unicorns, etc.
>Get the point?  You can't disprove the existence of something unless
>you are omniscient.  Despite the plethora of gods on alt.atheism I 
>doubt that you are one.

*Groan* Not another one...

You most certainly can disprove the existence of something without being
omniscient.  Square circles are the usual example; read the FAQ.  I don't
have to look at everything in the universe (and thus use omniscience) to check
that no single thing in the universe is a square circle; instead, logic allows
me to refer to whole groups of things at once, so I can say "Hm, that seems
to contradict.  Everything in the universe has noncontradictory attributes.
Guess there isn't any square circle anywhere.  I don't have to start searching
the Andromeda Galaxy to make sure I didn't happen to miss a square circle
somewhere."
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: jstump@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Jack E. Stump)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:56:04 GMT
Organization: IBM AWD Austin, TX

In article <TORKEL.92Oct8185815@bast.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.171236.13629@u.washington.edu> sieferme@milton.u.
>washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>
>   >Actually, this demonstrates the dubious value of zealots
>   >who are only interested in propagating their drivel;
>   >the FAQ is fine.
>
>  Your comment would make sense if atheists were capable of responding
>with a mere "read the FAQ" to zealots who post drivel. But mostly they
>are not. They enter into just those endless and repeated arguments that
>the FAQ was designed to prevent. Whatever infinite wisdom the FAQ contains,
>it is useless if people are not actually prepared to let the FAQ provide
>the obvious responses.

This would be a pretty boring group if we didn't hear from the idiot
zealots, wouldn't it? ;-)

j stump
-- 
   _   Jack Stump   IBM AWD Austin AIX Kernel FV, 11401 Burnet Rd, Bld 905
 _| ~-. auntbea.austin.ibm.com!jstump@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com | Austin, TX 78758
 \, *_} Inside IBM:  jstump@auntbea.austin.ibm.com        | 512-838-3731
   \(   DISCLAIMER:  Speaking for IBM I am not            | 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:20:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.181919.26472@cs.tulane.edu> goff@pops.navo.navy.mil writes:
>I can absolutely prove evolution to be incorrect but the same argument does
>not prove the existance of God.
Good. Prove it.(That evolution is incorrect.)


>and don't worry, you can still be an  atheist and a non-evolutionist. All
>you have to say is 'I don't know how we got here'. Since atheists don't
>care where they go beyond the grave, why would it concern them as to the
>origins before their birth???? 
Curiosity.
-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."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sigh! Another god?
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 12 Oct 92 00:04:06 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <gL6FsB3w165w@bluemoon.rn.com>, darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) writes:
> From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
> Message-ID: <10936@scott.ed.ac.uk>
>>
>>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>>You mean Colleen's coming back?!  Hurrah!  :)
>  
>>Wait a minute, sir.  Weren't you a Merittist but a while ago?  :-)
>>
>>Fourth Disciple and Prophet of Colleen and First Colleenian Pope,
>>
>  
> Squabbling within the ranks?  Why should I adopt your
> beliefs?  From your evil behavior I see your god is evil.

   I beg your pardon?  How do you see this as squabbling within
the ranks?  It's merely clarification of a previous postition.
Even so, squabbling is hardly evil behavior.  I think some of 
E. Bologna III's logic is starting to rub off on you...

Yours in Colleen,
Karl
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:46:15 GMT

In <exukjb.296.718545011@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:

>In article <BvptEx.IIH@umassd.edu> rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:
>>From: rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto)
>>Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
>>Date: 6 Oct 92 19:42:31 GMT

>>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"

>Without making out some kind of explicit argument for this, what you say
>is boring.  That there is a "problem of evil" is no secret to theists. But
>you fail to offer anything more than an assertion that an inconsistency 
>exists here.  Or, perhaps you're assuming your audience will supply the 
>missing arguments?  

>John Hick and Ninian Smart (not to mention Alvin Plantinga and other very 
>astute theists of no mean technical ability) have argued that it may well 
>be logically impossible for an omnipotent being to create a conscious 
>rational agent such as a person wholly good, for the concept of a good 
>person is linked up with related concepts such as courage, compassion and 
>generosity, which arguably presuppose some confrontation with a situation of 
>moral difficulty [involving the presence of pain and suffering or at 
>least their possibility] for their realization in people's lives.  Ninian 
>Smart in particular has suggested that the expression "good man" may not be 
>significant in a world in which no evil whatsoever were ever a factor in 
>that world.  Perhaps.  But then, how would we know without an argument?  We 
>wouldn't, would we?  Whether some particular claim represents a logical 
>possibility or not is often [as it is here] a matter for debate.  

>There is surely a great deal of initial plausibility in the straighforward 
>way the problem of evil has been stated; and I believe there are ways of 
>defeating theists solutions to it.  But so far all we have here in your 
>post is the announcement that there is a problem. Theists know this. They 
>have also proposed solutions.

>I don't know, perhaps I shouldn't assume, as I often do, that most atheists 
>are open-minded rationalists who take the time to thoroughly and 
>painstakingly examine the arguments of theists. "We must unravel every
>tangle to be self-respecting" [Whitehead].  

> 
>//////////////////////////////////////
>/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
>//////////////////////////////////////


Well kenny, I'm thinking of one of the two kinds of evil, namely
the natural evil, and not the man made evil. Natural evil is the
one that comes from , what the theist claims is god's creation.

Frank
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What brought you to atheism?
Date: 7 Oct 1992 13:57:12 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


	My memory goes back to my youth. Just to keep it short,
I grew up in the Lutheran Church. One day they told me that 
being gay/bi was evil.....they told me that a woman had no right
to control her body......and then, THEY HELD A BOOK AND RECORD
BURNING.....THEY STARTED TO SUPPORT SEXIST/KLAN+NAZI LOVING 
OPERATION RESCUE....


	I might go into details later. But I can NEVER belong to 
an organization of ANY kind that partakes of cencorship and book/record
burning......



	....Book/Media burnings....if it doesn't scare you ,then
	    I truly worry about you........


-- 
"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: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: O'Connor in Saturday Night Live
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 20:35:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct07.184026.11138@bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:
>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.
>     
>How about "huh?".
>Or maybe "stupid".
>Most people (I have heard) are confused and/or disappointed
>with her "statement".  Why is she down on the Pope?
>What did he do to her?  Even the non-Catholics (myself incl.)
>feel that she has no reason to hate him.

Well, other than the fact that in his and his cronies lust for
power, they cause misery for millions of people, and may well
end up destroying us all, I suppose I have no reason to dislike
him.

>A guess would be
>that she is protesting the Irish inner conflict between North
>and South Ireland.  The Pope is not responsable for the
>religious conflict in Ireland.

Are you sure about that?

>Ms. O'Connor always seems to
>TRY to do the right (contriversal) thing, but does not seem to
>have a good grasp of moral and political reality.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps Ms. O'Connor is a good more
familiar with the shenanigans of the Pope that you are?  That maybe
she has a better grasp of political reality than you do?  Who do you
think is largely responsible for the current war on women's rights?
Who do think is largely responsible for the overpopulation crisis that
now looms?  Who do you think is largely responsible for keeping people
ignorant, stupid, and superstitious?
--
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_