HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 10 Oct 92 13:44:00 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.


You cannot possibly tell me that you do not believe in something just 
because you do not understand it! If you are saying that you would have not 
believed a computer, TV, satelites, etc. existed.


It depends on what you mean here by "understand". Computers, TV's, and
satelites are not propositions per se; they are objects we are in daily
contact with at a familiar level of experience.  But the claim that God 
exists is a proposition proposed for belief.  Consider what you would say to 
someone who asked you to believe the following statement

			Igly boo is farkel.

Well, do you believe it or not?  Chances are you're probably thinking to
yourself, "How can I believe it.  I don't even understand this statement.  
It's perfectly meaningless!"

And with that thought you have attained a great insight, I.e. that no 
statement can be believed if it does not succeed in asserting something that 
makes sense.  Understanding the meaning of a statement is a necessary 
condition of meaningfully affirming or denying that statement.  So, on the 
contrary, it is perfectly true and legitimate, not to mention absolutely 
necessary, to withhold assent to any statement we do not understand.

Of course, you could be using "understanding" to mean something like 
"comprehend".  In that case, of course, you're point would be well-taken.
No one should argue that because we don't fully understand [=comprehend]
the technical details involved in workings of computers, light switches,
and so on, we therefore should withhold our belief that there really are
such things as TV's and light switches.  That would be preposterous. Thus, 
only by equivocating on these two senses of 'understanding'--or by confusing
[linguistic] understanding or apprehension of the meaning of words with 
comprehension can this point be made against atheists who profess not to
believe in God on the grounds that they do not understand what theists
mean by 'God'. 
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:08:09 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

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

Actually, if it wasn't for the human propensity to go to absurd lengths
to rationalize their silly beliefs, the problem of evil should have put
a stop to all this god stuff thousands of years ago.

>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.

If I took the time to thoroughly and painstakingly examine the arguments
of every snake oil salesman with a line of obvious bullshit to sell, I'd
have no time left to actually learn anything useful.  There's a lot more
to life than silly philosophical debates about imaginary beings.  'course,
everybody ought to spend a week or two examining the arguments just to
see the depths of absurdity to which educated people will descend in trying
to prove or disprove the nonsense they've been indoctrinated with.

Gotta go.  I've just thought of a novel way to prove my thesis that
43,213 angels can dance on the head of pin, and that donkeys have
33 teeth.
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: ....
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 04:47:24 GMT

In article <92282.102833AMS176@psuvm.psu.edu>, <AMS176@psuvm.psu.edu>
wrote:
> Beware of GOD


This reminds me of an old Dave Allen sketch.

The postman approaches a gate upon which hangs a sign: "Beware of GOD".
He laughs and says: "Oh that's silly.  It's just 'dog' spelled 
backwards" and opens the gate.

ZAP!  No more postman!

Classic Dave Allen.


C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:12:36 GMT

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.

Actually, this demonstrates the dubious value of zealots
who are only interested in propagating their drivel;
the FAQ is fine.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: O'Connor in Saturday Night Live
Date: 7 Oct 1992 23:49:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


	She tore up a picture of the pope ???



	coooooooooooooooooooool !


-- 
"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
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:34:38 -0400 
From: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Square Circles

Why is there so much fuss about proving circles square?  The reason this
is possible to prove against is that nobody disputes the definitions of
either, nor the fact that they were created by humans(at least nobody I
know).

Even an all-powerful being couldn't create a square circle, having
squareness prohibits circularity, and vice versa.  But, proof of God's
non-existance is an entirely different thing.  Some people think God
created man, and others think man created God, and it can't be proven
either way due to the lack of concrete, universally accepted definitions
and existance of the higher powers.

Nobody denies the circle or its definition.  Nor the square.

If this arguement only serves to prove that things can be misproven,
than I am sorry for wasting everybody's time.  If not, or if my
preceding logic is flawed, kindly let me know by posting a response on
the bboard.

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

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

}}\enddata{text,17029828}
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Date: 15 Oct 92 08:40:53 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <1bfj6bINN843@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:

>Morality is the basis for society. 

and he then goes on to argue from a position which assumes morality is a 
product of society.  and therefore not its basis.

other than that, I go along with what he said: the 'nuclear family' {2 
parents and 2.4 kids} isn't a viable unit.  we're a group animal.  so we 
MUST get along with each other.  so we need some 'moral code'.  but it's 
derived solely from our need for others, and is thus based {however 
abstractly} on expediency.


              Have another day    [Armageddon, the musical] 
  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44|0)61-275-6033  
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: ....
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 00:17:49 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: alt.atheism

In article <92282.102833AMS176@psuvm.psu.edu>, <AMS176@psuvm.psu.edu>
wrote:
> Beware of GOD

... he might zap your newsfeed!

Kent

	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: EVIL
Date: 13 Oct 1992 03:00:37 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu () says:

>More importantly, does evil EXIST?  Evil is relative term, and depends on one's
> frame of reference.  What is good to one person is evil to another:
>                            What the Nazis did seemed "evil" to whoever was not
>                            Nazi, But the Nazis felt fully justified in their
>                            actions and probably felt that they were doing
>                            "good."

	There is many historical documents which show evidenence that the
German High command were aware that they were doing "wrong". Even Goring 
expressed uncertainty of their course.

	I have always wondered: Did Hitler really believe that the holocost
was decreed by God ( scary ), or even worse, was he only using it to solidi-
fy his power? ( very very scary ) He was a master at mind control. 
	That is, did they die because of one's belief that god wishes it,
or just one man's greed?
	( which is worse in reality? or does it matter? )

>I submit that there is no such thing as evil (and for that matter, there's no
>such thing as good).

	Regardless of whether or not we deem an  action "good" does not 
necessaraly reflect whether or not it is truley "good". Lest our Ego's...
-- 
	So there I was, snuggled in the leather seat of my brand new Ferreri.
I had the oiled wood gear shift in one hands, and the leather wrapped Momo in
the other. And, I had the stereo cranking _Born to be Wild_...
	Only one problem, I was unside down, under six feet of water...
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:41:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.183402.3997@cs.tulane.edu> goff@pops.navo.navy.mil writes:
>Excuse me. Evolution is not a well established fact. It has major problems
>and I could explain them if anyone really wanted to listen. The problems
>with evolution are such that it can be soundly disproved and is in
>respectable scientific circles.  
Really? Please, list them.

You know, I always thought I had been a member of "respectable scientific
circles" and we didn't seem to think that evolution had been
disproved.
-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
From: mike@huevos.ma.utexas.edu (Mike Sullivan)
Subject: Re: "Teaching atheism"
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:25:39 GMT

David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> 
>The question arises: Can atheism be taught? I contend that it
>cannot. I've asserted before that people are born atheist, and
>are later indoctrinated by people in their early environment.
> 
>However, one can teach critical thinking, correctly applied logic, 
>and techniques for retaining / supporting self respect---- all 
>tools that preclude a belief in Gods / theism.
> 
>Let's suppose that Mr. Joe Beiter is correct, and that some
>schools do "teach" atheism. What, exactly, could they possibly
>teach? "There are no Gods, and here's why. . . .?" How can one
>disprove a negative, when that negative does not lend itself
>to proof, let alone disproof?
> 
>A theist might retort "They teach evolution, and evolution is
>atheist dogma." While such subterfuge may decieve SOME theists, 
>it will not fool enough people to make it true (assuming that
>telling a lie enough times makes the lie true): even most theists
>know that evolution is fact, and not atheist "dogman."
> 
>So what WOULD be an "atheist teaching?" When someone points out
>that "Noah's flood" is impossible, that DOES NOT make that person
>an atheist, nore does it attach religion or the Gods--- it attacks
>bad science and ignorance: things education is designed to do.

The Soviet schools systems used to teach atheism. I have one of their texts
on ancient history,  that emphisizes that God was invented by humans.
It looks to be aimed at 12-14 year-olds. I liked it myself. But of course
believers should not be discriminated against as they were, aand others
views of history should have been discussed as well. 

Mike Sullivan
mike@math.utexas.edu

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
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 18:34:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.183102.26867@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> 
  amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:

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

Fuck.  I meant chastity.  I *hate* it when I do that.

C Frog


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
	<ebolog.12@elaine.ee.und.ac.za>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:33:25 GMT

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

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

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

>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.

>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.

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

I read in a post that you do not understand the FACT of evolution (And
I am not referring to one of the THEORIES that try to explain the
MECHANISM of evolution)  but try reading Stephen J. Goulds first two
books  "Ever Since Darwin" and "The Pandas Thumb" and he will explain
to you how the creatures on the earth are not perfect.  You might also
get an understanding of the pain Young Earth Creationists (much
smarter than this ICR bunch) went through before finally abanding
their old folklore beliefs and bringing their theories into line with
the evidence.  An OLD earth and EVOLUTION.

Go over to talk.origins.  Request the FAQs and READ them.  Go to the
library and get the books Scientific Creationism and Abusing Science
and READ them.  Read the lack of a creationist theory and  and how far
off base they are.

Go get the new book by Carl Sagan and READ how much alike primates are
to us.   They use TOOLS, they have a CULTURE, they pass on what they
learn to new generations,  they even have MORALS.

I read your Bible.  I accepted you challange.  Now accept mine.

-Bill
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 12:09:46 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

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!

Read the FAQ file.


mathew

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mpinnock@casper.cs.uct.ac.za (M B Pinnock)
Subject: Re: Hello All!
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Cape Town
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 08:30:17 GMT

In <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 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.

Agreed! But the reason seems to me to be that we spend all our time
reading what appeared to be legitimate articles only to find drivel like
yours when we get into the main body of the text.

>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". 

Firstly its because they come over here and waste our space.
Secondly most of those newsgroups are moderated (i.e. censored) and
any atheistic postings get obliterated. (I know I've tried.)

>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?

Not hate. Pity and a sense of shame that we belong to the same species and
there is nothing I can do to change that fact.

>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.

Unfortunately he has a point.

May I suggest that we start employing a "secret symbol" in the titles of
our articles. Just put it in the FAQ. No christian ever seems to read it so
it will be quite safe.


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: bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie (Bryan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: O'Connor in Saturday Night Live
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:43:55 GMT

bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie (Bryan O'Sullivan) writes:

>I'm not a great fan of abortion, and I tend to think that, so long
>as the Church don't do anything that I see as particularly
>objectionable (i.e. that negatively affects a significantly large
>number of people), there's not very much to dislike.  From a few
>previous exchanges of opinion on such subjects, I know that Doug's
>opinion differs some from mine, but there you go: c'est la vie.

Oops: I forgot the recently revised Catechism and various pronouncements
from the Vatican on homosexuality, among other things.  I guess
that calls for me to dislike the Church by my own metric.  Can't
say I can find the fervour in me to say anything particularly nasty
though.  It's probably comment enough that I don't pay any attention
to the Church.

	<b

--
Bryan O'Sullivan                                        bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie
Department of Computer Science           "No matter how cynical you are, it's
University of Dublin                      hard to keep up." -- Woody Allen
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Demons (again)
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992
Date: 12 Oct 92  09:05:34

Tag: James Marcus (jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus))
 
Someone> "There is NO proof of any such non-sense. I could 
Someone> say that Pixies exist, Just because you haven't (or 
Someone> think that you haven't) come across them or been 
Someone> influenced by them does not mean that they don't 
Someone> exist. The only problem is that there is NO PROOF 
Someone> THAT PIXIES EXIST!"
 
JM> "On the contrary, there is plenty of proof that demons 
JM> exist. This is too big a subject to deal with in this 
JM> posting."
 
Almost five billion people on the planet, and you alone
have proof of demons? Why have you kept it to yourself?
 
JM> "With various other postings also concentrating on this 
JM> issue, I will try to prepare an article on it in addition 
JM> to those on Satanic crime which I am currently preparing. 
JM> Hopefully this later article will respond properly to your
JM> statements."
 
WRONG! The existance of demons has absolutely no bearing on
the existance of Satanic Crime. The former is a theological
issue based upon your occultism, while the latter is a legal
issue. If you could somehow "prove" demons (which you cannot),
you would also have to prove a great many other things before
an individual may take action:
 
  1) prove demons are bad, not good
  2) prove one can get rid of demons, if desired
  3) prove that demons have an interest in humans
  4) prove that it is in ones interest to banish demons
  5) prove demons are not God, and didn't create us
  6) <several others>
 
However, if you could prove that Satanists, as individuals or
in groups, go out and commit crimes such as vandalism, rape,
robbery, tourture, and murder, then it is obviously in ones
best interest to oppose Satanists, if not Satanism.
 
[Oddly enough, -I CAN PROVE- that SOME Christians, as individuals 
and in groups, go out and commit crimes such as vandalism, rape,
robbery, tourture, and murder.]

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: gj156879@prince.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879)
Subject: How I could believe in God.
Keywords: Well...
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 14:25:33 GMT

He'd have to come down here and perform oral sex on my cat.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pan2765@seas.gwu.edu (Edward A. Pan)
Subject: Re: anal-oriented Creation
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:29:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct06.001917.3937@microsoft.com> timf@microsoft.com (Tim Fleehart) writes:
>In article <n0b43t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>>Though DNA still looks more BASICA to me than OOPS. Patches
>>and kludges, missing code (why can mammals no longer regrow
>>missing body parts, while some reptiles and sea creatures can?),
>>code never called---- sounds like The Creator never got beyond
>>junior highschool, and He learned "programming" on a PDP/8. Why
>>is there this object / subroutine for an apendix---- who ordered
>>that?
>
>Why is there a turbo button on my 486-50?  If I wanted slow I'd use my C=64
>with an 8086 emulator written in basic.
>
>Tim

There's a turbo button on your 486-50 so that if that was the only computer
you had, and you wanted to play a game that was pretty cool on a 4-8MHz 8086,
you wouldn't be freaking out about how it was going too ridiculously fast.

As for the appendix, *I* ordered it, solely for the purpose of being able to
lay in a hospital and play with my I.V. -- watching the blood go up and down,
when I had the thing removed.

					-- Crazyman Pan


("I'd rather be playing guitar...")
"You have been dying since the day you were born..." -- MetallicA, KEA, TFH

Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA