HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:49:42 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <Lou1RB1w165w@bluemoon.rn.com> darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) writes:
>>From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
>>Message-ID: <1992Oct01.084647.24107@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
> 
>>Science is telling us that we're insignificant.  Religion
>>tells us that we're not. 
> 
>Science tells *atheists* that they're insignificant.  Science 
>tells theists how wondrously God created the universe.  This also 
>tells theists how significant *people* are because it was all done 
>for them.  The theist wonders why the atheist wants to save a
>species (man) that he believes is so insignificant.

This is BS. Science doesn't tell us anything about how
significant people are. From the point of view of a
scientist, a thing can only be significant with respect
to some standard of comparison in some domain. For instance,
a human being is not significant in measurements of the
earth's mass. So what?

The sort of significance you are talking obliquely about
above has nothing to do one way or the other with
science.

>The theist views atheism as putting a cap on knowledge about the
>universe because it prevents seeing the universe as the theist sees
>it: with a God.  Do you assume science and atheism are the same?  The
>theist sees science revealing God and thus being a-atheism (!(!God)).

If you posit a philosophy (call it 'Anti-theism') that requires
rejecting any view of the world in which a god turns up, then
that philosophy 'puts a cap on' knowledge in the way that you
describe. However, Anti-theism is by no means subscribed to by
all atheists. Many are people who simply have yet to see any
good reason to believe that this or that religion's account
of existence as proceeding from some god or other is accurate.
The challenge from such atheists to theists is: 'produce a
convincing reason for me to believe you're right.' In absence of
such a reason, the atheist remains atheist.
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Lord Cometh!
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:25:52 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Oct6.033445.8685@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
><...> aren't Colleen and James Meritt just two sides of the same
>cookie?  Female and male, yin and yang, zen and zigzag, you know.  :-)

You have a point.

I hereby declare that there is no god other than James Meritt.

I also declare that there is no god other than Colleen Davis.

(No, there is no contradiction.  God works in mysterious ways, you see.)

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 92 17:57:00 GMT

In article <TORKEL.92Oct3143130@bast.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>  >That's unfortunate, because I'm truly interested in where you're
>  >coming from.
>
>  But I thought you were about to give up on humanity in disgust?

It varies from day to day.  I'm certainly about to give up on you though,
because you really don't appear to have much to say.  And you think *I'm*
boring.
--
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: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: bug in FAQ file
Date: 23 Sep 92 11:24:19 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
> >Let's get the business of what is "assumed" straight.
> >
> >(defun odd(x) x)             ; assumes n is odd
> >
> >(defun odd(x) (- x 1))       ; assumes n is even
> 
> Neither of these functions works if n doesn't match the assumption,
> so they are useless for the purposes of my analogy.  Remember the
> core logic behind Pascal's wager:  assumption of X is never bad, even
> if X is wrong.  But in the above cases, if X is wrong you crash.
> 
> >(defun odd(x) (- (* x 2) 1)) ; doesn't assume either
> 
> On the contrary, it assumes n is even, since the operations are
> pointless and redundant if n is odd.

Look, let's suppose someone walks up to you and asks you to code a function
which takes an argument n and returns an odd number close to n.

If he tells you "You can assume n is even", are you really telling me you'd
code your function as (defun odd(x) (- (* x 2) 1))?  If so, don't apply for a
job at Mantis.


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
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 11:45:33 EDT
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !

In article <ebolog.10@elaine.ee.und.ac.za>, 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!

Read FAQ point number 6, sir.  For *which* God would you like a proof
of nonexistence?
>
>And please don't use your usual irrational logic and childish insults!

Could you be more specific?  Which logic do you regard as irrational?
>
>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.
>
In return, we would like a logical and well thought out argument proving
that any mythological creature (unicorns, elves, orcs, Santa Claus)
does not exist.
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Date: 26 Sep 92 21:54:40 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Sep25.154002.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi> hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:
>
> 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.
>

Me.

Next question?


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 14:56:23 GMT


In a previous article, hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi () says:

>
> 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.
>
>

I would say any thinking person.

-- 
*...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: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 6 Oct 1992 19:19:02 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) sez:
 
 
>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!
 
    There is no such thing as a spirit, or a "spiritual realm".
The "realm" where "God" is supposed to exist is not real. If "God"
is supposed to be a spirit, and spirits do not exist, then neither does
"God".
 
 
 
>And please don't use your usual irrational logic and childish insults!
 
      When an old book that says I should be killed just because I
am bisexual, and am very attracted to cross-gendered people, THAT is
something I call irrational. Can you rationalize the reason I should
be killed because my lover might not be a member of the opposite sex ?
 
 
 
>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.
 
 
	Your Welcome.


-- 
"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: timf@microsoft.com (Tim Fleehart)
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:49:12 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <n0a10t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>Tag: Curtis Siemens (siemens@mprgate.mpr.ca (Curtis Siemens))
>CS> "[....] but I do know that many Creationists view Evolution
>CS> as a religion because it is a belief system."
> 
>That is Creationist Error #1. Is (E=MC^2) a "belief system?" Is
>rocket engineering a "belief system?" Is planetary motion a "belief
>system?"

Yes, you put your faith in the demonstrability and repatability of your
'science', and they put theirs in that silly book; both are belief systems.

Both believe their version to be true and correct.
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:21:24 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <ebolog.10@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:
<And please don't use your usual irrational logic and childish insults!
<
<Please post your replies <...> or if you feel embarassed <...>

Fellow atheists, can we agree to ignore this idiot?

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A few points to raise . . .
Date: 28 Sep 92 06:39:46 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <welcOx600WB7EOwUVE@andrew.cmu.edu> se24+@andrew.cmu.edu (Scott F. Earnest) writes:

>    First, it is not really right to come out and say that God does not
>exist without reasonable justification.  In fact, I can state very
>simply that God *does* exist.  (Yes, I am a real atheist.)  The point of
>fact is, exactly how does this God exist.  If you examine the Bible
>carefully enough, you can see fairly easily that it is a story of the
>interaction between Humankind and God.  The Judaic and Christian beliefs
>interpret this "God" concept as being a greater, all-powerful force, in
>control of the entire world.  However, this is where the religions go
>wrong.  Yes, this "force" exists, but it is not really a being per se;
>it is the human conscience.  Thus, this struggle for what is right or
>wrong is between Humankind and each individual's conscience. Each and
>every one of us is aware of our own conscience (provided that each of us
>is sane), and that conscience can hardly be called dead.  And, if that
                                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>conscience equates to God, then God must necessarily exist, though not
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>in the conventionally thought of form.

Yeesh, this symbol "God" sure does seem to be quite versatile.  But, if
that's what you're calling God, then what does it mean for you to say
that you're an atheist?  And what's the point in playing these word
games anyway?  I could just as easily say "If God is a ham sandwich,
then many Gods must necessarily exist."  What have I achieved in doing
so, besides confusing an already befuddled debate?  You wouldn't be
planning a career in theology by any chance, would you?

>    Finally, for the record, it is my belief that the one true greatest
>sin is self-righteousness.  Denial of something as true means an
>unwillingness to accept that you are wrong, which is a problem central
>to close-mindedness and ignorance.

This is crap.  Everybody denies lots of things as true.  Even though
I've proven it beyond any reasonable doubt, I still deny that pigs
have wings, although I may change my mind if further evidence presents
itself.  Besides, didn't you start out saying that you are an atheist?
How do you think your position differs from that of the atheists you are
calling closed-minded?  I don't think that a willingness to play word
games has much to do with whether or not one is closed-minded.  I do
think however, that it reflects on ones abilities to think clearly.
--
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: nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: bug in FAQ file (summary)
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:03:28 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <1992Sep29.202222.6228@unixg.ubc.ca> morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
>
.. an excellent summary of the Pascal's Wager debate ..
>
>-- Morgan Burke (morgan@reg.triumf.ca)

One point about this bothers me - the claim that it does no harm to believe in a
non-existent God.  Not so!  I think that believing in non-existent things is
very harmful, for the usual reasons that atheists have: it leads to people being
manipulated by unscrupulous leaders, it leads to raised levels of superstition in
the population at large, etc etc.  So I wouldn't let that statement go unchallenged.

Another point raised by Pascal's Wager, but of much wide relevance, is this.  I
don't think anyone can choose what they believe in.  You either believe something
or you don't.  You may be forced to believe in something by evidence that makes
you change your mind, but there's no choice in that.  So the Wager falls down on
a practical point: even if it were rational to believe in God, there's nothing you
can do about it!

(This is clearly related to free will - another illusion, like the earth being flat.)

-Norman
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Does God Like Blood?
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 30 Sep 92 04:34:53 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <92273.215647J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>, John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> In article <s9VJRB8w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) says:
>>If not, how does one determine which orders are indicative of God talking, 
>>and which are indicative of mental imbalance?
> 
> mathew's question is purposely rhetorical, for there is no way to tell
> the difference.

   Exactly.  I don't think the question was rhetorical.

Karl
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: bug in FAQ file
Date: 23 Sep 92 11:15:08 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
> Imagine you are blindfolded and about to walk through a swinging door that
> might be opened or closed.  Naturally you hold out your hand, to push the
> door open in the event that it is closed.  If the door is open, then your
> outstretched hand serves no purpose.  I claim that by sticking out your
> hand in the absence of knowledge about the state of the door, you are
> *assuming* the door is closed.

But once again, your analogy is completely spurious.  In the above, you are
assuming things about the STATE of the door, GIVEN THAT IT IS KNOWN TO
EXIST.  In Pascal's Wager, it is the very EXISTENCE of God that is in
question, not what state he is in.

Let's postulate something called a foor.  It's like a door, but it is usually
found open.  It is operated by a light sensor, and slams shut in your face
when you try to walk through it.  However, if you paint your face purple the
foor's sensor will not notice you and you will be safe.

Obviously if foors do not exist, you will lose nothing by painting yourself
purple; and if they do exist, the purple paint will prevent serious injury.

So NOW we have a situation analogous to Pascal's Wager.  Do you contend that
you have gained useful information about the existence of foors?  Will you be
painting yourself purple?


mathew
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: bug in FAQ file
Date: 23 Sep 92 11:34:51 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
> In article <1992Sep22.184352.17770@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.
> |> Premise 2': God is bad to his believers, and good to the rest.
> 
> WRONG!  -10 marks for not paying attention!  Premise 2' is an arbitrary 
> statement that is difficult to corroborate from any external sources.  The
> information contained within it came from nowhere.
> 
> The reverse proposition, "God is good to his believers...", comes from
> a huge body of knowledge commonly known as the Bible.  This source of 
> knowledge may very well be unreliable (even a pack of lies), but it is
> still contains heaps and stacks of information.

Well, yes; in the theoretical sense, a stream of random numbers contains
stacks and stacks of information.

How exactly do you take a book which you admit may be a pack of lies and use
it to conclusively *prove* a proposition?


mathew
-- 
"I refuse to be President of a country called Czesko." -- Vaclav Havel
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<1992Sep28.172152.4817@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:16:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.172152.4817@leland.Stanford.EDU> yergeau@leland.
Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:

   >All that you have shown is that existence exists.

   You mean, the way persistence persists and resistance resists? And
babbling babbles and eating eats?
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Religion & Crime / "Satanic Conspiracy"
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Sep 21 1992
Date: 01 Oct 92  14:08:10

  
Thank all of you folks who have sent me email concerning the articles I have
posted here. I will follow up via email on the requests made, and ship some of 
the texts via diskette USMail

--- Maximus 2.00
From: jwest@wisc (Jeff West)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: god is in all of us
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:37:55 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

michalek@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Libor Michalek) writes:
: Sure this could be counter productive someone could
: say to them self "I could die today so I better do something outragous
: like kill as many people as I can". But If you use the same wisdom you
: used when becoming an athiest this can be avoided. Maybe being an athiest
: isn't ok BY ITSELF but if you apply some of that atheist logic to the
: rest of your life you will probablly see an overall improvment in the
: rest of your life and you hopefully wont kill someone. I have seen alot of

One thing that I see over and over that makes me curious is statements such
as above.  Whenever someone finds out that I'm not a Christian (or any other
religion) I usually hear: "So you can go out and kill people then."
Why is atheism so often equated to killing?  Just because one deceides not
to believe in some organized religion doesn't mean that person doesn't still
have morals.  The mistake is that you *need* religion to have morals.
I think it's been proven over and over in the world that just because you
claim to be a member of some religion you aren't guaranteed morals!

Jeff West
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Free will - the "Jarekian" heresy.
Date: 27 Sep 92 21:07:07 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <exukjb.237.717360987@exu.ericsson.se>, exukjb@exu.ericsson.se
(ken bell) wrote:
> I don't disagree. Making god transcendent to the world and any possible 
> human experience is much more fatal to theism than relegating god to the
> status of an abstraction.  My point was that abstractions can at least be 
> discussed and criteria of intelligibility can be used to assess them.  
> They are discussable.  The transcendent god isn't.   

True, this is why I subscribe to the simple observation Wittgenstein 
defined:

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silentS 

Cheers,
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: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: What is "occult?"
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:02:32 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992

Tag: James Marcus (jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au)
 
JM> "I think we need to clarify some definitions here.
JM> The name 'occult' refers mainly to Satanism, and
JM> could not be further away from Christianity."
 
Hi. Sorry for not reading more of the article quoted
above, but I missed two days, and my system purged
500+ articles in that time. I missed quite a few.
 
Occult DOES NOT "refer mainly to Satanism." The primary
definition of "occult" is "hidden." Secondary is the
belief in magic / supernatural, which is most emphatically
valid for Christianity. The belief that demons exist, and
the belief that these demons can possess humans, is an
occult belief. Just because you do not like that fact does
not give you the right to unilatterally redefine the word,
and then expect others to use your meaning.
 
Whereas most Christians believe in the occult (God / devils /
angels / demons / etc.) Satanists for the most part do not.
In fact, most Satanists do not believe in Satan, let alone
worship it/him, and consider the belief of such things silly.
 
If you ask, I will post some info on Satanism, and what
Satanists really believe.
 
JM> "As for 'New Age Jesus', the New Age movement has its
JM> roots in Hinduism. The phrase 'New Age' and Jesus are
JM> contradictions in terms."
 
Jesus was constructed upon several Occidental myths, which
INCLUDE HINDUISM.
 
"Creation Science" is New Age Jesus-ism. That's just one
example. There is a great deal of occult nonsense that
mainstream and Fundamentalist Christians believe about
Jesus that is not found in previous Christian generations.
Christianity in general changes generationally.

--- Maximus 2.00