HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stuart@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Joseph Stuart )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Date: 11 Oct 92 01:25:15 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct10.213730.14549@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>Rather than being a slave to this conditioning, much of which is destructive
>and geared to producing mindless warriors, I think it's important to learn
>as much as you can about human nature, and from that develop a view of how
>you think a healthy society (this one isn't by a long shot) ought to function
>in order that each member of society can leave a peaceful and happy life.
>With this view of society in mind, you can then go on to develop a rational
>code of ethics.


I agree with much of what you say about indoctrination, but perhaps you
haven't even gone far enough. This parpagraph assumes that you 
feel you have an obligation to each member of society, and that 
you (and everyone else) should structure his moral conduct for the 
greatest good.  How do you know that this is not just another case
of indoctrination.  Is there any fundamental reason that we should all
be concerned about each other, or should it be every human for itself? 
I suppose that you could argue that we should be evolutionarily pre-disposed
toward helping one another since we have similar genes.  But, that doesn't
make it very palatable.

I'm not really disagreeing with your post, just trying to serve up some
food for thought.


scott

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grown-ups never understand anything by themselves, and it is tiresome for
children to be always and forever explaining things to them.
	- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: You're Invited!
Date: 7 Oct 1992 00:27:29 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

scott@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Scott G Goddard) writes:


>    To all Atheists, reading these comments made by you are very upsetting to 
>me.  There shouldn't be a discussion of whether or not God exists, it's not
>about that.  It is a fact that God exists, I don't have to prove that because 
>when you are a Christian,like me, you know I in you're heart(without a doubt).

[blah blah blah]

>Please believe me, everyone needs Jesus in their life, it is incomplete without
>Him. Please respond. (I hope in a positive way)

Hot damn!  Someone else preaching the gospel of that smelly A-rab who
died twenty centuries ago but whose memory lives on with droves of
mindless zombie thiests.

** I AM CLOSE TO JESUS !!! **

He was my room mate last school year!  Did * YOU * know that Jesus
goes to Kansas State?  There shouldn't be a discussion of whether
Jesus was my room mate.  It is a * FACT * that he was, I don't have to
prove that because when you go to Kansas State University like me, you
know it in your heart!  Without a doubt!

Please believe me.  Everyone needs to spend nine months in a 9' by 14'
room with Jesus.  Your life is incomplete without Him!  Please
respond.

Stratocaster
-- 
	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
				   
	    "I've got it!  Let's do 'The Wiz' ... white!"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:32:37 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <10545@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
> In article <1992Oct11.171027.11763@eskimo.celestial.com> wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks) writes:
>>
>>Well, for myself, I find that the Golden Rule is a sufficient base for
>>morality.  Anything that isn't covered by that is a matter of mutual
>>consent, but then that derives from Rule 1!
> 
> It's been some time now, but there was a bit of discussion about
> this topic long ago.  One of the statements I particularly liked was
> that the golden rule is too self centered; it pre-supposes that
> what's good for you is automatically good for others.
> 
> A (IMHO) better version is "do unto others as they would have you do
> unto them".

   That gets into a sticky situation too.  If I want you to 
be subservient to me (assuming for the moment that I'm not
God :-) would you do it?

Karl

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:10:02 EDT
 <1992Oct14.183102.26867@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> <1992Oct14.183419.27049@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Oct14.183419.27049@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
> 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.

   What's the difference?  Aren't they basically the same thing
(i.e. celibate priests, etc.)?

Karl
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:05:02 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

stuart@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Joseph Stuart ) writes:

>I agree with much of what you say about indoctrination, but perhaps you
>haven't even gone far enough. This parpagraph assumes that you 
>feel you have an obligation to each member of society, and that 
>you (and everyone else) should structure his moral conduct for the 
>greatest good.  How do you know that this is not just another case
>of indoctrination.  Is there any fundamental reason that we should all
>be concerned about each other, or should it be every human for itself? 
>I suppose that you could argue that we should be evolutionarily pre-disposed
>toward helping one another since we have similar genes.  But, that doesn't
>make it very palatable.

In the past, there were very good reasons to be concerned about others.
One simply could not survive on his own.  Our system of morality developed
as a tool to aid in the survival of our species.
Nothing to do with genes here--morality was essential to our survival.  This
is why it developed.  Morality is usually unwritten, but it is imbedded
within each of us: it is an instinct.

Now (modern), if you are not concerned about others, do not expect them
to be concerned about you.  Even the most self-reliant and emotionless
person needs compainionship sometimes.  Rather, it is difficult to become
self actualized without others' aid.  If you draw upon others, then
it is your responsibility to put something back into the pot.

You might argue that one immoral person will not spoil society.  This
is true.  The instinct to be moral is not all-powerful.  If you were to
ask me why you should be good, I suppose that I would have to say something
like "just because" or "it's only fair" or something like that.  Surely
you could see, though, that if the majority of people were immoral, then
society would cease to function.  Thus, you should be moral to preserve
society.  There are no iron-clad reasons why any individual should be
moral (other than the artificial ones we have devised, such as religion
and government), but there are clearly motives for the masses to be moral.
It is your duty, as a member of society, to preserve it.

keith
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Morals and God is Dead.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 18:47:03 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Keywords: Morality.

In article <parsons.718891651@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>gj156879@prince.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879) writes:
>
>>Well, speaking from personal experience, I've had trouble with moral
>>concepts as of late, and I've never had a god looking over my
>>shoulder.  Seems to be something that can get programmed into you with
>>or without religion.  the thing to do: if the morals BUG you, (say you
>>want to sleep around and can't, or something that isn't really a good
>>or a bad thing, but something you've been taught to feel guilty about)
>>then realize it's a moral someone has put in you, or something that's
>>developed in you over time that you never noticed, you can change it,
>>if you want to, or feel the need to.
>
>This is so nice to know.  I've been having trouble with the moral concept
>of murder lately.  It is finally a relief to know that I can over come
>my problem and change it, since this is a moral that has been put in me.
>I'm so happy that I no longer have to be bugged by this programming.
>Should I decide to start my homicidal rampage soon, can I start with you?
>I know you would understand--what's your address?

>Scott Parish

 Well, now, as has been posted already, if the only thing restraining you
from going on a rampage is the belief that a Cosmic Cop will come down
on you, you may have more problems than just in the realm of morality. :->

 But, to address the point you raise; sure, if you feel it's moral to go
out and kill people, go for it. But don't expect me to cooperate. Indeed, I
think you can expect a large number of people to take issue with that.
 I'm not being all that facetious. For all practical purposes, in morality,
you get what you give. If you feel that you can blow people away, you
can't really expect them not to blow you away. But, if you can get people
to cooperate, to see that blowing each othr away is not the best way to
go about day-to-day living, everybody benefits. Oh, I suppose you do pay
the price of not being able to go on killing sprees Saturday nights, but
I'm willing to forego that pleasure to keep my cells metabolizing. Besides,
ammo costs too much.

 As has been noted in every Intro to Philosophy class, the ideal society
from an individual point of view is one where you get to do whatever you
want and everyone else must obey all the rules. But it's awful hard to
get people to go along with that (unless you have a church that expouses
Divine Right of Kings, I guess) and most people settle for giving up some
freedoms in order to reap the benefits of trade and cooperation.


Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: To All Truth Seekers!
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:24:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.150735.23962@cs.tulane.edu> goff@pops.navo.navy.mil writes:
>
>A Quote from Alt.Athesim Frequently Asked Questions:
>
>     "Most atheists put truth first.  If searching for truth causes you to
>      become uncomfortable, that's too bad."
>
>
>I assume that this implies that they evaluate objectively both sides
>of a topic. If this be the case, then if they are correct, then there
>must be a sound, reasonable explanation as to who Jesus Christ was.

Yeah, I do.  I think he thought he was the Messiah--*not* God Himself.
Ask any Jew and see if they expect the Messiah to be God Himself.  I
think a lot of Greek and Roman elements got mixed in with Judaism to
create Christianity.  As for his alleged "miracles"--most only seemed
to work on those who already believed.  Auto-suggestion can go a long
way towards healing some illnesses.  Given the unlikelyhood of the 
whole scenario (not to mention that his promise of a "speedy return"
is starting to wear a bit thin) I think that I have a pretty
reasonable attitude towards Christ.

BTW, you sound like you ripped this stuff off from one of Josh
McDowell's books.  He is not thought of very highly here--his work 
is quite flawed.  I thought he was mentioned in the FAQ, but maybe he
ought to have a whole section of it to himself.

SD
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Teleological argument
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:52:54 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1bjup0INNrou@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) on Thu Oct 15 02:04:40 1992 posted:
>|Subject: The Teleological argument
>
>|Ay one have any comment on this argument?
> 
>	No Frank, why don't you tell us what it is................
>never heard of the "Teleological" argument...................

The Teleological argument can be summarized briefly thus: 

We observe that the universe has a purpose (or goal). The
existence of such a purpose implies that there is a
sentient entity responsible for originating it. That entity
must be God.

My favorite objection to this argument can be summarized
thus: given that I observe a purpose in the universe, why
should I not assume that its originator is me? (Another way to
phrase this objection is, how to we tell the difference
between a purpose in existence and our hallucination of a
purpose in existence?)

One more or less canonical form of the argument goes thus:

1. Things in the universe move toward goals.
2. There must be a source of these goals, which establishes and
sustains them, and which provides the means by which objects
move toward them.
3. This source must be God.

One can easily object thusly:

First, unless we can arrive at an objective definition of a goal,
we cannot determine whether (1) is true. We must be able determine
whether what we observe is in fact a goal, and we must have
a means of distinguishing imagined goals from actual goals.

Second, until we have the definition required above, we are
unjustified in assuming that any such definition of a goal
will require the existence of a sentient originator of
goals.

Third, even if we establish that things move toward goals, and
that such goals require a sentient originator, these facts will
not be sufficient to determine that the originator is the God
of Christianity (or of any other particular religion). More
information will be required in order for us to draw such a
conclusion.

There is also a version that proceeds from observed order,
but I think that version is more or less indistinguishable from
the Argument From Design.

Incidentally, I'd like to thank Frank Pinto for responding so
gracefully to a criticism I made of one of his previous posts.
The present exchange is pretty close to what I had in mind.
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: PROOF OF GOD (based on atheist's prem.)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:02:21 GMT

In article <1bimctINN7bf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>|             A PROOF OF GOD - using the above assertion.
>| 
>|Postulate: Theism can only be learned.
>| 
>|Given: People we know are theists.
>| 
>|1. The first *mortal* theist either
>|       did not exist   or
>|       learned theism from an immortal theist (God)
>|   (because theism can only be learned).
> 
>	Theism got it's start when humans did not understand the world
>around them. The "gods" they came up with where the best systematic
>understanding they could come up with, in short they didn't know any better.
>The only reason they could think of for thunder and lightning was something
>like "There must be somebody up there doing it"- a good example is the Norse
>with their "Thor", the thunder to them sounded like a hammer falling down.

>|2. But, the first mortal theist did exist (because we know theists).
> 
>	See above....(how do we know that they did not eat the little
>buttons on the cactus roots in the desert (peyote) or munch on little
>mushrooms growing in cow dung (psilisiben- I cannot recall the spelling) ?
>HOW DO YOU KNOW THE "FIRST MORAL THEIST" WAS RIGHT ?

>|3  Therefore, God exists.
>| 
>|(It's either that or your postulate is false.  You choose.  I kind
>|of like it, myself.  :)  )
>| 
>|DARIST
>| 
> Look, I am better at logic than you are and I did not even graduate from
>high school...what's your exscuse ? 
It doesn't appear that you ARE better at logic than Darist. If you're
criticizing his proof on the grounds of logic, you certainly aren't.

There's nothing wrong with his logic. It's his premise which is
bogus. (Which, I suspect, is what he was trying to show.)

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
        "God gets off on a technicality. Film at 11" --CJ Silverio
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sources of 'Real' Atheism
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:39:40 GMT
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])

From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
>
>There are, I think, 5 main 
>sources of contemporary atheism:
>
>        1. Religion demands too little. There is no rigorous discipline,
>           morally or rationally.
 
Too true.  But *true* religion as defined by the Bible still requires
discipline.
>
>        2. ...
>                a. Religion is an escape from responsibility for our
>                   own self-creation, value judgements, and so destroys 
>                   freedom, reason, and dignity <Sarte-Cumus>
>
Instead, people have escaped responsibility to their creator and become
slaves to their own "morality."  These (I retain a copy of the article)
proclaim their selfish addictions as "moral."  This demonstrates the
strength of their slavery.
 
>                b. Religion is pathological, the sign of a sick 
person,...
>
Either the theist is pathological or the atheist is pathological.
Which is true depends on what reality is.
 
>        3. Theistic religions represent an outmoded world-view which
>           is no longer valid. Science has made the 'God hypothesis'
>           obsolete <Laplace-positivists>       
 
I have never seen true science even speak to the subject.  For
it to do so, it has to develop a test for God that cannot fail
to detect Him if He exists.
Perhaps, instead, you mean that you have a new god in science that 
you think you can substitute for God.
>
>        4. Religious assertions are *unintelligible* or "cognitively
>           meaningless", more emotional or ideological than factual
>           in content. <Ayre-Edwards>.
 
Exactly what the deluded would be expected to say about reality.
>
>        5. Theism is contradictory and internally incoherent--the problem
>           of evil, incoherent description of divine attributes 
<Flew-Kenny>
>
The belief system of the Bible is internally consistent.  It is incoherent
to those who *need* to misunderstand it.
 
 
IMO, atheism is largely the result of a person's need to be an atheist. 
The above are merely excuses.
 
 
>Part 2 - The Incoherence of Theism
 
This part and part 3 was missing in your article.  Please repost this 
part.
Or maybe these are separate articles I have not seen.
 
DARIST
 
"This is the kind of religion that God accepts: caring for orphans or
widows who need help and keeping yourself free from the worlds evil 
influence."  James.
From: pan2765@seas.gwu.edu (Edward A. Pan)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:43:11 GMT

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.
>
>	Cheers from E.B.

Why need we prove that something does not exist?  Do we have to prove that
fairies don't exist?  Or dragons?  Or leprechauns?  Or Dan Quayle's brain?
(at least his frontal lobe).  It is assumed that things do not exist until
they have been attributed with enough logical proof (whether physical or
theoretical) to be considered as existing.  As for logic, well, the 
characteristics of that I leave up to the logicians.

					-- Crazyman Pan


("I'd rather be playing guitar...")
"Marvel at his tricks, need your Sunday fix.
 Blind devotion came, rotting your brain.
 Chain, Chain,
 Join the endless chain, taken by his glamour."
			-- MetallicA, MoP, LM
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 08:41:31 EDT
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What brought you to atheism?

I can't come close to matching the drama of Jeff's story, as I have never
been close to dying.  But since we're trading stories, I'll repost mine:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thursday, 30 Jan 1992 09:43:39 EST
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Flubber and the origins of my skepticism

If Jarek can wax autobiographical, so can I.

When I was about 9 or 10, I saw the Walt Disney movie about flubber--a
substance that could make cars fly and basketball players jump higher
than the backboard.  An older friend of mine said he discoverd a secret
recipe for flubber:  Take ordinary tree bark, sprinkle sugar on it, and
bake it in the oven for 30 minutes.

Excitedly, I ran home to tell my mother, who was unable to convince me
by reasoning that this recipe was doomed to failure.  So, she agreed to
an empirical test.  We baked the tree bark together, I placed the resulting
goop on my shoes, and jumped off the stair landing.  I was lucky I did not
hurt myself.

I reported the negative evidence to my friend, who said, "Oh yeah, I forgot
to tell you that you have to add salt."  I ran back to my mother to report
the missing secret ingredient.  "She said, do you REALLY think it will make
a difference?"  I knew in my heart of hearts that I had been foolish the
first time, and did not demand a second empirical test.

The following year I conducted one more test of the implausible.
On the way home from school way home I put to test the idea that,
with enough faith one can do anything.  I was carrying my cornet
from the bus stop up our country lane on my way home, and heaved it
with all my strength into the air, believing with all the faith an
11-year-old could muster that God would suspend it in the air.  The
cornet case failed to levitate.  (Hmm, did I have to say that?)

Ah, I said, this failure
is a real test of faith--despite the failure I am going to do it again.
Twice more I heaved it into the air.  The three crash landings damaged
the case and crumpled the bell of my cornet.  I lied to my parents about
the cause, claiming the case fell out of the bus as the driver turned
a corner recklessly with the door open.  At least I was throwing an
inanimate object up in the air.  When I later learned in
Sunday school that it is wrong to "test God" I had just about had
enough.  "Why?  I thought bitterly--it wouldn't be that they are afraid
of failure, would it?"

(Stories of encounters with snake-oil salesmen in later years reserved
 for another day.)

John

"Almost everyone, at some point in their lives, want to tell the way they
really feel, to butt-kick people into reality." Charles Barkley
(More Barkley quotations on reality coming soon)