HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A few points to raise . . .
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:21:38 GMT
	<1992Sep28.174845.2076@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY

In article <1992Sep28.174845.2076@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>  "Scott F. Earnest" <se24+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>    Second, I've noticed something that concerns me.  People seem to be
>>claiming themselves as God, and other seem to be calling certain people
>>God.  This can hardly be called atheism.  Atheism is the belief that no
>>deified God exists.  What is being acted out here is the deification and
>>acceptance of deification of individuals.  This is more pagan deism than
>>atheism!  Could someone explain the rationale to me?! :)

>It is called humor.  There is a newsgroup dedicated to it that you might
>want to check out (rec.humor).

I thought the colleen is god thread was trying to show the theists
that their proof of gods existence amounts to nothing.  We cannot
prove their god doesn't exist, but they can't prove that colleen isn't
god either.  We can show, however, that their god isn't necessary for
the world to be the way it is. 

Which argument is stronger?

-Bill


First the tooth fairy, then the easter bunny, then Santa, finally ___.
Fill in the blank.
Why do so many people not make that last step?
From: jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Date: 29 Sep 1992 19:32:11 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


Had a lovely little lesson in biblical Hebrew today- don't know if it's
quite relevant to the usual manner of correcting creationists, but it
does clear up a few things that occasionally get on my nerves...

Adam- the original hebrew word- does not mean 'man' as 'male human'. It
means 'man' as 'humankind' or 'race'. The word for 'man' as 'male human'
is 'ish'. 'Woman' as 'female human' is 'ishah'. (also, 'earth' is 'adamah'-
Mother earth, maybe?) I just like the fact that when you go through the
original text, woman was NOT created from A man, but from the species in
general- which had both genders in it, though referred to by a word of
masculine gender. 'Ish' does not appear until woman, 'ishah', comes on the
scene- prior to that, since both genders were contained by the word 'adamah',
there was no one gender... basically, female was distilled out of the
fe/male mix. That's one thing to spring on fundies right there- women
were not created from Adam, but from adam- from the race- even as men were!

Just what I learned in class today; ignore it if you like.
-- 
Jessica McGeary
jmm25@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University
Remember! Arguments should be FUN!
Newsgroups: alt.religion.messianic,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: scruggs@zeus.franklin.edu (Kevin Scruggs)
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Organization: Franklin University (Columbus, OH)
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 04:55:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.220350.17189@pdnfido.fidonet.org> joeb@pdnfido.fidonet.org (Joe Beiter) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.115217.11296@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>>
>>
>>I got a reply earlier doubting the integrity of my facts. I stated that humans
>>and chimpanzees were 99% alike. The person who replied had heard that only a
>>fraction of the genetic data are actually used to code a human being, the rest is
>>junk-DNA. 
>>This is true. Only about 10% actually make up human beings (and chimpanzees for
>>that matter.) If you compare humans and dogs, for instance, we are genetically 
>>about 70% identical. They same goes for chimpanzees. this means that the junk-DNA
>> as well as the "real" DNA has changed. And since humans and chimps are STILL
>>very much alike.This supports a close relationship. 
>>
>
>We're also 90+% made up of water as are watermellons and clouds.  Therefore
>we are 80 somthing % identical to watermellons.
>
>Whats your point with the monkeys?
>
>- JoeB
>
You are trying to equate chemical similarities with genetic ones. If you want to deal with chemistry of the genes, we are absolutely identical to chimps, and wotermelon, and retroviruses...

Genetic comparisons are more detailed. Same substances, different amounts and arrangements...



					-THE MAD JEDI-

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: marriage: atheist's alternatives?
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 19:55:10 GMT
Reply-To: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX

In article <16878946F.FLANAGA@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>, FLANAGA@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Scott Flanagan) writes:
|> 
|>  What do atheists, or anyone not desiring a religious wedding ceremony,
|> typically do if they otherwise want to have a normal wedding?  I am aware
|> that justices of the peace may perform civil services, but I was hoping that
|> there are other, LEGAL, alternatives.  I am particularly interested in
|> alternatives which have been shown to be legally watertight in Texas, since
|> that is where I will be getting married.

The Unitarian-Universalist church is one alternative.  Since UU has no
creed, they will generally do a ceremony exactly how you want it done,
without imposing anything that you might find objectionable.  There
are several UU churches in the Houston area.

-- 
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"It takes a big man to cry.  And it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man."
                                                              -- Jack Handey
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Date: 28 Sep 1992 00:25:14 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


 
parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) sez:
 
 
|David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
|
|[...deletions...]
|>Exactly my point---it is this irrational WRONG belief that
				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 This is one point I agree. I it is irrational.
	
|>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.
|
|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.  However,
|knowing the atheist mindset you'd find some way to write their
|experience off.  But on the subject...Most people are severely 
|crippled in their knowledge of the subject of possession, and I 
|don't profess to be an expert.  There is a difference between 
|possession and oppression by demons.  
                              ^^^^^^
	The problem with your position is that demons do not
exist. They are said to have no mass, take up no space and are
not made of any kind of matter, though some say that they are
made up of a kind of "energy", which is a yet unamed, unmeasureable
energy with NO source. This seems like such a shakey ground to 
base diagnosis of an ill person.
 
 
|                                      The majority of people who
|are under demonic attack are oppressed not possessed.  There are 
|different levels of oppression ranging from doubt to depression 
|to fear and anything else you can probably think of.  NO, not all 
|or even most cases of emotional problems or mental illnesses are 
|due to demons.  But demonic attacks can and due happen.
 
	I think it really the other way around. People who have problems
or mental illness start to look for easy answers, IE:demons. But at least
you don't seem to be blaming all mental illness on "demons".
 
 
-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Reveal to me the sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips | alias: White Rook | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: The Lord Cometh!
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 01:02:41 GMT


In a previous article, x@beyond.one's.understanding (The Messiah) says:

>
>	I bring word from our great Creator! She is given word that her
>presence shall be felt by the world! Spread The Word! Make haste to 
>prepare for Her Second Comming! All ye mortal souls must be in order!
>Armageddon is near! She is mercefull and gives all yee unbelievers one 
>last chance to repent your sins, and recognise Her Divinity!
>
>	The world shakes with thunder in one week!
>

WOAH!!

...life's a bitch, I guess...

:-)
-- 
*...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.****************
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A few points to raise . . .
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:15:43 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Sep28.174845.2076@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:

>>In fact, I can state very simply that God *does* exist.  (Yes, I am a
>>real atheist.)  
>
>I hate to break it to you, but by the definitions usually bounced around
>in this newsgroup you are *not* an atheist if you believe God exists.

Not so fast. I don't think the situation is anything like this
cut and dried. I know for a fact that I fit the definition of
atheist used by at least some participants here (because they
have told me that I do), but I can honestly say that I think
God exists (although I'm going to have to explain what I mean
in order to preserve my honesty; see below).

There is ambiguity in the conversation because 'God exists' can
mean any of several things. There is a sense in which I think it
likely that God does not exist; there is another sense in which
I think it unquestionable that God does exist. Essentially, it
is my opinion about what sort of thing God is that makes me an
atheist.

If I thought that God were a sentient being with 'independent'
existence who was responsible for the creation of all that
exists, then I suppose you would have to say that I am not
an atheist. However, I don't think that's true. Rather, my
working hypothesis is that God is a projection of human
intentionality on perceived order in the universe, and a
rack on which to hang people's hopes and ideals; in other
words, a construct, both psychological and cultural. There is
little question in my mind that this projective construct
exists; indeed, it seems clear that there is more than one.
They also clearly seem to have nontrivial effects on the
society in which we live. One might even propose that, acting
in the human consciousness that forms their substrate, these
metaphorical beings exhibit intentionality of a kind.

So what do you think? Am I atheist or not? (I don't really
mind if you classify me differently from the way others
have classified me, nor if you classify me differently from
my own presumptive working classification).

It seems to me that the phrase 'God does not exist' is
idiomatic for a class of claims about what sort of existence
God is supposed to have. I very much doubt that many people,
if any, assert that there is actually no phenomenon, psychological,
cultural, social, or metaphorical, to which the label 'God'
can be legitimately applied.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi
Subject: GOD is EXISTENCE
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 13:40:02 GMT


 Hi !


 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. ?

         Hannu.
From: morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke)
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Organization: TRIUMF, Vancouver BC
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:26:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.090512.10530@cs.ucla.edu>, robert@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Rob Karmolinski) writes:
|> kruegek@stein.u.washington.edu (Kirby Krueger) writes:
|> >Therefore, 1. Cupid causes people to fall in love. (by definition) 
|> >           2. Love exists. (By inspection)
|> >           3. Assume cupid does not exist.
|> >               4. Thus, people do not fall in love.
|> >               5. Love does not exist.
|> >           6. Thus, Cupid exists!
|> 
|> >Pretty horrendous logic, isn't it?
|> 
|> Actually, I see nothing wrong with the *logic*.  Yes, my argument does have
|> fundamental flaws, but logic is not one of them.  By your argument, Cupid does
|> indeed exist *as you defined Cupid*, because people do fall in love. 

No.  (1) says cupid is a cause of people falling in love, but not necessarily
the only cause, therefore (4) is invalid.  The original argument re: God, 
said that God is *the* cause of the universe, therefore its equivalent to 
(4) is valid.

Of course the validity of the original God argument doesn't allow us to
say anything specific about what this God thing is...

-- Morgan Burke (morgan@reg.triumf.ca)
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:17:19 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <1a0of0INN3u7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary) writes:
>
>Ya know what's really a hoot about changing the rotational period of the
>Earth, and suchlike? Immanuel Velikovsky's stuff.
>[...]

Velikovsky has an ardent defender by the name of Ted Holden (posting ID
`news') over on talk.origins. Ted posts identical long posts on a regular
basis on t.o. which are rebutted as regularly but to no avail. Fabulously
entertaining stuff, he has recently reposted the entire set. If the
expire time on your system isn't too short, you may have them hanging
around still. Highly recommended.

>Jessica McGeary

Cheers

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.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Lord Cometh!
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:44:36 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <x.36.718287285@beyond.one's.understanding>, x@beyond.one's.understanding (The Messiah) writes:
> In article <1992Oct5.005842.13295@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
> 
>>You mean Colleen's coming back?!  Hurrah!  :)
> 
> 	Unbeliever!
> 
> 	Thou shall repent thy sins, or suffer eternal pain!
> 	You have six days!

   Well, who is it if not Colleen?

Karl
From: CXL121@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 4 Oct 92 17:24:20 GMT
 <BvEMI5.n34@inews.Intel.COM> <1al8clINNsre@caravan.ksu.ksu.edu>
 <11000@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Organization: Penn State University

>In article <1al8clINNsre@caravan.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@caravan.ksu.ksu.edu
>(Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>> How could a scientist deny that
>>mathematics is correct, when we can obtain power splitting an atom?  If
>>mathematics is incorrect, did man, with his invalid theories, accomplish
>>these feats by blind luck?
>
There are many scientists who accept the fact that mathematics cannot (yet)
describe all facets of nature.  They have relatively accurate (but not
completely sound) models with which to work.(e.g. SHO wave mechanics vs.
Schrodinger's equations).

Though I am normally opposed to quoting great minds like Einstein
to support an argument, I feel this one is apropos...
   "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain;
    and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

Yours in Logic,
Chris
=============================================================================
Christopher J. Lemond  INTERNET:cxl121@psuvm.psu.edu BITNET:cxl121@psuvm
Penn State University - Electrical Engineering
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of
            Penn State...they are mine...but sometimes I disagree
            with myself.
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: No, no, no...*I'm* the one, true god
Date: 24 Sep 92 10:51:13 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>   intellectual pantheistic deity war.  Oh, for a good Jim
>   Perry post, or a scathing rebuke of a logical fallacy by Graham,
>   or even the latest headline from the UK by Mathew.

See alt.atheism.moderated for an article about the latest development in
atheist TV in the UK...


mathew
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: christ
Date: 7 Oct 1992 02:52:44 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


J024330@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM  sez:
 
>In article: <pockling.718401164@sfu.ca>Pocklington writes:
 
>>   There has been only one recorded incident of parthenogenetic
 
   <interesting stuff deleted for space>
 
>>        Richard pocklington
 
>1 COR 2:14 - But a natural man (that's you) does not accept the things of
>of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot under-
>stand them, because they (the issues debated) are spiritually appraised.
 
	<spacey stuff deleted, not interesting :-)    >
 
 
	So, you can quite some old book of superstition. BIG DEAL.
I can do the same thing......
 
	I was readin' in a book on Norse mythology that Thor had
challenged Jesus to a match of tug-of-war. Why did Jesus not take
him up on it. Do the nail holes in his hands screw up his grip or
what ?
 
 
	<see what kind of goofy S--T you come up with when you rely
	 on old books of mythology                            :-) >
 
 
	--White Rook (former Lutheran, present atheist)
-- 
"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: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Christian Demons
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992
Date: 02 Oct 92  15:53:46

Tag: Dale Gee (dale@ais.org (Dale Gee))
 
DG> "This discussion of demonic possession reminds me of a
DG> experince that happened to me not too long ago.
DG> I had a well meaning thiest tell me that my epilepsy
DG> was demonic possession. That provided a nice chuckle.
DG> This did surprise me though, I thought that was a idea
DG> that died in the middle ages.
 
Same was true for TB and cancer, as well as masterbation
and drinking problems / alcoholism. I suppose problem
bed-wetting also.
 
Alas, the Enlightenment didn't brighten all corners of the
globe ("corners on a globe?")--- superstition will probably
always be with us, as long as humans live. One can only shed
a little light around oneself, and hope some sinks in to
other folks who toil in darkness.
 
DG> Dale

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: esposito@hamlet.uncg.edu (Andrew Joseph Esposito)
Subject: Re: Let's get back to basics
Organization: not affliated with any
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:21:59 GMT

In article <c8922369.717478289@jupiter.newcastle.edu.au> 
c8922369@jupiter.newcastle.edu.au (Leon James Garde) writes:

>>Andrew Joseph Esposito                    internet:  esposito@hamlet.uncg.edu
>>voice (919) 379-8244                      bitnet:    in%"esposito@uncg.bitnet"
>Look at the biblical middle name you have got !!   Do you show it as a sign
>of respectability ????????  :) :) 
>
> a 'lion strong guard',
>leon

All of the rest of your post was acceptable (ie., no arguments here) and 
well thought out.  The above is the only comment I'd like to reply to.

I show my middle name because it is my given name.  Andrew is also a very 
"biblical" name even though its origin is Greek.  I was confirmed a Catholic 
and took an non-biblical name (I'd rather not say it over the net, thanks).

I basically put my full name down for two reasons.  It identifies me -- 
there are a butt load of Esposito's out there. I like the sound of it.  
Andrew Joseph is just sounds nice.

No sign of respectability.  I gain face by deceiving.  I have an aptitude to 
play parts.  In a religious environment I come accross as a saint.  Outside 
that, say in the streets of NJ, I fit in perfectly also.  A chameleon.

Hmmm, Leon... ChameLEON?  Are you a deceiver also?  Wasn't Saitan a 
deceiver?  Hmmm, we are both athiests.  I therefor conclude that all 
athiests are saitan.  Get the stakes and build the fires.

(sorry, one rediculous comment deserves another)
--
Andrew Joseph Esposito                    internet:  esposito@hamlet.uncg.edu
voice (919) 379-8244                      bitnet:    in%"esposito@uncg.bitnet"

--
Disclaimer:  The opinions herein are not necessarily the opinions of any
organization or group of which the author is affiliated.  The preceding 
opinions may not even be the author's.  No guarantees are given and no 
warranties will be honored.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18374 news.answers:3292
From: johnh@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (John Holeman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.messianic,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Object-oriented creation (Was Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!)
Date: 30 Sep 92 06:38:28 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept.

All this dicussion about the semmantics of the creation:OOP analagy
is just an attempt to ignore what is truely being said.  The 
gentleman who asserted the analogy, I believe was attempting to say
that, instead of evolution and creation being two inseparable concepts, 
maybe one explains the other.  That is to say that there was a creation
(this is accepted).  However, the work of science over the years is to
search for the fundamental proccesses that a God would have employed 
in his creation.  The analogy isn't waterproof, but the idea behind is.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18000 talk.religion.misc:17121
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Family values defined
Keywords: death to family values
Date: 23 Sep 92 11:40:56 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
> So, as I see it, our choice in '92 is: Does America want "Family Values"--
> i.e. "strict Capitalist Fundamentalist" Christianity, to dominate or remain
> essential to way of life in the country?  Or does America want democratic
> socialism?

If you think you're going to get democratic socialism from Clinton, you're in
for a surprise.  Although you may get Democratic socialism -- that is, the
term "socialism" redefined by the US Democratic party.

>            Bush or Clinton.  Is that it?  Is that the choice being offerred 
> the American people, really? 

As Jello Biafra would say, if voting changed anything they'd make it illegal.


mathew
-- 
PGP 2.0 public key
begin 644 mathew.pub
MF0"-`BJP<SX```$$`*.6X_'WX!53/_"F6AR#R@=E>D[WP0TQR%,&\@YU..UV
M3I*V<DGN^XBI02.TA<LJ0EZ4R__DV@'`^;M7^O.V&5&ZDF;`!1@C$:LF'QK$
MK3@)/K96>9I6QB**))A&>U789QUV2/O.S"L-=LZ.%/%E6;6M"3R,6X:+EWS7
G-^5K.;E%``43M!QM871H97<@/&UA=&AE=T!M86YT:7,N8V\N=6L^
`
end