HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke)
Subject: Re: Pascal's Wager / Pitt Bull's Wager
Organization: TRIUMF, Vancouver BC
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:46:41 GMT

In article <u5aRRB9w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
|> morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
|> > Pascal was making his wager from within a decidedly Christian framework.
|> > That in itself flaws his reasoning, but we should try to be faithful to
|> > his intended premises, which were probably closer to:
|> > 
|> > 1')  there is a possibility that the Christian God exists
|> > 2')  the Bible gives us a reasonably accurate description of this God
|> 
|> If you're assuming those Christian premises, then Pascal's Wager becomes "If
|> you believe in Christianity, it is best to believe in Christianity".

Correct.  Ditto, if you are an atheist, you come to the opposite conclusion:
"If you don't believe in Christianity, it is of no value to believe in
Christianity."  Circular, no matter which way you approach it.

|> For Pascal's Wager to be any use at all, it must NOT start by assuming the
|> tenets of Christianity.

The wager is nonsensical when taken out of context like this.  One of the
premises is, "Unbelievers burn in hell if God exists."  This premise comes
completely out of the blue if one does not start by assuming the tenets of
Christianity.  Atheists can redefine Pascal's intent if they like, but it
amounts to building a straw man, and the counter-arguments become rather
meaningless.

-- Morgan Burke (morgan@reg.triumf.ca)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bug@arachne.UDAC.UU.SE (Bernt Budde)
Subject: Book search
Summary: Need book
Keywords: 'The Historical Jesus'
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala, Sweden
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:21:28 GMT

I've seen Dominic Crossan: "The historical Jesus: A Portrait of a
Mediterranean Peasant" recommended in a.a.moderated.

Could someone please give me a publisher (and maybe even ISBN)?

Would you recommend it to someone interested in varying their
X:an-bashing with some fresh arguments? Any other good books
in about the same genre?

Bernt Budde, UDAC (Uppsala University Computing Centre)
bug@arachne.udac.uu.se
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan ( aka. Wolphgang ))
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: You're Invited!
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:56:07 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.22.255.189

In article <1atc8uINN7j2@bigboote.WPI.EDU> scott@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Scott G Goddard) writes:
>From: scott@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Scott G Goddard)
>Subject: You're Invited!
>Date: 7 Oct 92 00:50:38 GMT
>
>    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).
>
>     That's why you are all cordially invited to enjoy the blessing of God and 
>his family for eternity!R.S.V.P.

	I message as important at this, can only delivered in person. I will
wait for God to call me. To date, God has never called me, nor made his pre-
sence known to me. If God exists, this must be his wish, and I will not vio-
late His decision by trying to find him. 
	If He wishes my service, He will let me know. Until then, if God 
exists, my mission is to continue in my own capacity, to use the knowlegde 
and thinking ability that He has blessed me with. 
	So, I must decline *your* invitation, and wait humblely for God's 
invitation.
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Lord Cometh!
Date: 6 Oct 92 03:34:45 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) wrote (in article <10936@scott.ed.ac.uk>):
>Wait a minute, sir.  Weren't you a Merittist but a while ago?  :-)

Yeah, but aren't Colleen and James Meritt just two sides of the same
cookie?  Female and male, yin and yang, zen and zigzag, you know.  :-)

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ttobler@unislc.uucp (Trent Tobler)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:57:18 GMT

EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD (ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za) wrote:
: 
: Atheists are always saying that God does not exist and laugh away any proof 
: Christians use to prove His existence.

Because most Christian 'proofs' aren't proofs at all, but rather a subjective
opinion.
 
: So here is my proposal : You prove to us that God does not exist!

Why?  Why should I be concerned with what you believe, other than when your
beliefs interfere with my life?  If and when you try to tell me how to believe,
how to act, what I should or should not do, will I ask you why, and in these
cases, the burdon of proof is on you, not I.

: And please don't use your usual irrational logic and childish insults!

Why not?  There are some logical reasons to not believe in god, but they are
not absolute, ie. there is no evidence where the explaination god(s) is
the simplest, there can be no valid way to determine whether a god(s) really
is a god(s), the explanation god(s) does not really add any explaination, only
adds more complexity (where did god(s) come from, why did he/she/it/they make
the world the way it is, what are we to do once we get to heaven/hell/etc.)

Of course, we could cite cases against a specific god... did you have one in
mind?


If you want my reasons for being atheist, that is pretty easy.  I am happy
with it, having tried theism. I found theism both intellectually void and
relying to much on emotionalism.  With atheism and agnosticism, I have found
that there is explainations (through science) of many of the things around
us, and I am comfortable accepting it, because there is nothing magical,
emotional, or biased about it.

: 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.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: atheism
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 07:27:30 GMT

In article <ednclark.717813231@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>suresh <suresh@halcyon.com> writes:
>>"God is Dead" Friedrich Nietzsche 19th century
>"Nietzsche is Dead" God 20th Century

God is Love;
Love is Blind;
Stevie Wonder is Blind.

Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God, Q. E. D.

And who needs the Bible when you've got "I Just Called [to Say I Love You]"?

:-)

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
Date: 4 Oct 92 19:06:43 GMT
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

acsormd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Randall Desmond) writes:
: In article <1992Oct2.050949.12343@oclc.org>, jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes...
: >acsormd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Randall Desmond) writes:
: >: 
: >: Someone please supply a definition of evidence and how one is to determine
: >: what evidence is and what it is not. Thank you.
: > 
: >You can look this up in the dictionary as well as we can.  You can
: >tell if something is evidence by whether it fits the definition or
: >not.  
: 
: 	That's true.

"I think therefore I am".  Other than that, *nothing* is necessarily
true.  Ask any solipsist.  I personally am not a solipsist.  I am
willing to believe that what appears via my senses is a very rough
interpretation of something more tangible than solipsism.  If you
wish to challenge this 'faith', please explain why I should feel
compelled to justify it.

If you aren't going to challenge the belief that my senses provide a
rough interpretation of reality, then these sensory observations provide 
a form of evidence.  The fact that others generally describe their 
sensory observations in terms compatible with my interpretation, 
provides me with fallible support that reality is possibly correlated
to the way it is commonly observed.

: 
: >What's your point?
: 
: 	To know what one can claim for or against his/her point of view.
: 	In the context of this newsgroup, that would be for or against
: 	atheism, would it not?

Atheism for me is the acknowledgement that evidence is lacking for
the existence of God.  Please don't start a definition war about
the meaning of atheism.  I have evidence that the chair I'm sitting
in exists because I can sense it through my pants.  I don't have
sensory evidence that God does or doesn't exist.
-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
From: jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Date: 27 Sep 1992 18:10:33 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


How does one prove that an actual demon is involved, and not a severe
form of schizophrenia, or multiple personality disorder? Isn't it possible
for someone who's mentally ill to develop aversions to religious objects?
In missionary countries, isn't it also possible that the 'demonic' possession
is more along the lines of, say, ingesting some sort of plant or mushroom
for the purposes of religion? I'm fairly sure that, for example, not all
that many followers of Voodoun become genuinely possessed during their
rituals- but you'd never know it by the way they act...
-- 
Jessica McGeary
jmm25@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University
Remember! Arguments should be FUN!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto)
Subject: O'Connor in Saturday Night Live
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:50:37 GMT


Would anyone comment on "Shaned O'Connor"'s actions
on the program "Saturday Night Live" this past SAT.

Frank
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bittrolff@evans.enet.dec.com ()
Subject: Re: I still seem to be God
Reply-To: bittrolff@evans.enet.dec.com ()
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:43:31 GMT


|>	Yeaaa pray hello,
|>	I am but a humble atheist, who has wandered his whole life in search 
|>of a kind and just God.  Pray tell me more of Colleen.  Is she a goddess 
|>worthy of my worship?  Do I still get Christmas off?  How about Sundays?  Is 
|>alcohol allowed at the services?
|>	Please, please, tell me more. I am hungry for salvation.
|>_________________________________________________________________
|>Dustin W. Cannon      "Just because some of us can read and write
|>University of          and do a little math, that doesn't mean we
|>North Texas            deserve to conquer the universe."
|>                                                -Kurt Vonnegut
|>

As the first disciple of Colleen, I have spent lo these many weeks in lonely 
meditation upon the wonders of Colleen, and have seen the Truth of Colleen, and 
the Wisdom of Colleen, and the Wonder and the Greatness of Colleen. As I am 
filled with the Spirit of Colleen, I would endeavour to answer the questions of
the wanderer Dustin.

Colleen is most worthy of your worship, yet She does not demand it.
You may have Christmas off (Colleenmas also if you wish), and Sundays, and any
other days of your choosing for Colleen does not demand that any days, or anything
else, be set aside for Her. In fact, Colleen demands not anything, except that 
you do not hurt you sisters and brothers upon this earth, for we are all Her 
children, whatever your beliefs may be.

This is why there cannot be heretics, or unbelievers, or anti-Colleens. And this
too is Her Genius, in that all of us are disciples of Colleen, whether we realize
it or not, and will be welcomed into the Kingdom of Colleen when the time is 
right.

This in and of itself makes Her more worthy of worship than ANY of the other 
false gods that exhort their followers to kill, and that seek to deny entry to
their so called heaven for non-believers, and ask their followers to enforce 
their will and morals upon our fellow travellers.
--
Steve Bittrolff

Filled with the Peace that comes from Knowing the Spirit of Colleen.
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Negativland is Stupid (was Re: Christianity is Stupid)
Date: 27 Sep 92 11:18:33 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

"Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes (about Negativland's
"Christianity is Stupid" T-shirt):
> Just as an aside, I was wondering if T-shirts like this really solve
> anything.  I mean, I think the reason most of us don't believe in God,
> or observe a religion is because it doesn't make sense to us.  If our
> beliefs(nonbeliefs?) are to appear credible, should we be reacting in
> such a crass, unintellectual manner.

The track "Christianity is Stupid" consists of a heavy rock track, overlaid
with cut-up samples of preaching by Rev. Augustus Pickle (I think that's his
name, I'd have to check...) rearranged so it sounds like he's intoning "The
loudspeakers, hooked up in sin... Christianity is stupid... Communism is
good... Give up... Give up..."

I've played it to devout Catholics who found it funny.  It's, you know, a
JOKE.  It may be crass and unintellectual, but it's damn funny.  The T-shirt
is probably offensive, but so what?  Do you want it banned, or shall we
voluntarily censor ourselves so as to avoid making people think?

>                                       I am not a Christian, nor a member
> of any other religion, but I would find these T-shirts offensive, just
> as I find it offensive when Pres. Bush says athiests would not make good
> citizens.

Offensive T-shirts are nothing new.  A few years back, someone in Britain
started making rock tour style T-shirts saying "Adolf Hitler World Tour,
1940--1945", with a list of countries and dates.  Britain was last on the
list, crossed out, with "CANCELLED" written alongside.

I laughed.  Other people didn't, and it got as far as questions being asked
in the Houses of Parliament.  Could we ban the T-shirts?  Could we arrest
those who wore them?  The answer to both questions was yes, but I don't
remember what (if anything) government decided to do.

> Just because something is not true does not mean it never causes any
> good to be done.

Quite.  Hitler performed miracles with the German economy.


mathew
-- 
"When nothing's funny it gets easy to laugh 
 at the drop of a hat, or a bomb" -- DEVO
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 92 21:46:46 GMT

In article <exukjb.284.718225924@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>In article <1992Oct03.183755.12930@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>In article <exukjb.276.718129015@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>>>So Doug, are elephants more "significant" than humans because they're
>>>bigger!  
>
>>No.  Elephants are more significant that people because the Great
>>Elephant In The Sky created the universe for the sole benefit of
>>elephants.  People were only created to feed the elephants peanuts.
>>Unfortunately, in the process of growing and roasting the peanuts,
>>people are making rather a mess of things, and I hear tell that the
>>Great Elephant In The Sky is planning remedial action soon.  However,
>>elephant theologians are having a great deal of trouble agreeing on
>>what form that action will take, and exactly when it will take place.
>
>I don't think your talent for witty reparte is going to help you out of 
>this one, Doug.  It was a straightforward counter-example to your enthymemic 

Yow!  Dictionaries.  Don't leave home without one. :-)

>argument--which I here expand--that mere physical magnitude was an essential 
>ingredient in grading the "significance" or value of something.  That would 
>indeed be a strange value system to adopt, which is precisely what my
>Elephant Argument shows. It is formally identical to your argument that the 
>since the galaxies' dwarf man physically they therefore dwarf man in value 
>or significance.  

I suppose that by using the word "grand" I may have given the impression
that it was only size that I was concerned with.  But it's more than that.
It's location as well.  If there were a centre of the universe, and if,
as it used to be believed, our planet happened to be at it, we might then
have some reason to think that we were special.  But it isn't.  It's just
a bit of debris orbiting another slightly bigger bit of debris off in some
undistinguished corner of the universe.  Similarly, there doesn't appear
to be any good reason to think that our species is in any way more significant
than any other.  So far, we may be the only species to have developed enough
foresight to realize that we will die someday, and therefore spend a good
part of our time inventing ways to pretend that we won't.  But then, elephants
are the only species who can carry huge logs with their noses.

The idea I'm trying to get across is not that anything else dwarfs man
in significance, but rather that man does not dwarf everything else in
significance.  The universe wasn't put here for us.  We just happen to
be passing through.
--
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: x@beyond.one's.understanding (The Messiah)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: The Lord Cometh!
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 00:34:17 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.22.255.189


	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!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:34:35 GMT


Dear Johnson

If we are dealing with logic here, then "LOGICALLY"
no one can prove that something isn't.
Can you prove that "snergs" do not exit?
How ever, if one is to believe that something is...
then the burden lays on the shoulder of the believer
to substantiate his/her claim. Therefore you must prove
with certainty, to me that, "this something" exits.
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Date: 27 Sep 92 16:50:57 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu

David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

[...deletions...]
>Exactly my point---it is this irrational WRONG belief that
>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 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.
 
-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bwilliam@iat.holonet.net (Bill Williams)
Subject: Re: God's Last Posting
Organization: HoloNet (BBS: 510-704-1058)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 10:53:03 GMT

Dearest Brethren,

Our God Colleen has ascended into the heavens to shed Her Holy Care upon
the people of New Zealand.

Farewell O Great Lord, we dutifully await your second-coming.

Bill Williams

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Proof that Colleen is not the One True God!
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:31:22 GMT

In article <Bv6nq1.3Bq@iat.holonet.net> bwilliam@iat.holonet.net (Bill Williams) writes:
}Alas, Our God Collen spake unto us:
}
}>24 Sep 92 16:11:27 GMT            alt.atheism           
}>Article 16812                God's Last Posting         
}>cisc124@jeff-lab.queensu.ca       Colleen Davis at Queen's University
} 
}>I'm leaving the net now and taking a trip to New Zealand.
}>I can no longer be reached via internet.  When the net is
}>ready, I shall return to bring salvation to all.
} 
}>colleen
}
}
}......
}We humble servants of Kind and Just Colleen the God await the signs of
}your second coming with perseverence and unmittigated patience.

Hmmmm.  Wonder if it will be more than, say, 2000 years?


Newsgroups: alt.religion.messianic,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:58:04 GMT

>Actually, we can *OBSERVE* evolution in action; it doesn't always take
>millions of years.  A few examples:

Your statement is true, but your example iswrong.

>- one species of moth evolved two different forms in different parts of
>England after the industrial revolution; a light coloured form in the
>South, and a darker form in the North.  This made it better able to
>camoflage itself against the bark of trees (industrial North -> more
>soot -> darker tree bark).
>

The darker form already existed, it never evolved (it evolved, but not after the
industrial revolution.). However, the majority of the moths was white. Then,
through natural selection, the darker moths gradually became the most successful.

The moths are an example of natural selection, NOT of evolution. 


Onar.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism