HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jdurbin@nl.oracle.com (Jason Durbin)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Date: 29 Jul 92 12:49:06 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Oracle Europe

In article <1992Jul27.142127.7867@cco.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
|> In article <RDgkoB3w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
|> >> As they cast doubt on whether Bush said anything of the kind, the are *very
|> >> important* to the point being made.
|> >
|> >Please explain why they are important to the point being made.
|> 
|> Because those words give us reason to believe that the whole story was a
|> fabrication.  Consider an analogy:  If I told you that an astronomer had made
|> some observations of the 1988 supernova, you'd have little reason to doubt my
|> statement.  If, on the other hand, I told you that the astronomer had made the
|> observations at Palomar observatory, you'd be damned certain that I'd got part
|> of the story wrong, which would cast doubt on the rest of what I reported about
|> it.
|> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
|> 
|> Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
|> understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
|> unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
|> organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
|> hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.

Please excuse my faulty memory on this subject. I do seem to recall the
mainstream media reporting that Bush made these comments but don't recall
whether he was filmed or if it was just the print media. Mr. Lydick seems
to believe the comment was fabricated. My question is: has Bush denied
making the statement? Is there any evidence he made the statement other 
than the cited article?

Jason (an athiest wondering if he's still a citizen) Durbin
From: bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Positive and negative assertions
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:40:48 GMT
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool, UK
Nntp-Posting-User: bruce

>>>>> On 17 Jul 92 00:35:27 GMT, graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) said:
> (Bruce Stephens) writes:
>>My own feeling is that Occam's razor is sufficient justification.

> Occam's Razor is not a *justification* of anything. It is a means
> of arbitrarily chosing between certain things. Nothing more nothing
> less.

You're correct, it is not a justification in the normal sense, and I
probably should have said "justification" rather than justification.

Occam's razor *is* a way of arbitrarily choosing between things,
however, and that's what we're talking about isn't it?  (Assuming the
evidence is evenly balanced, which I personally don't accept.)

> graham
> --
> Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
> Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
> graham@maths.su.oz.au

--
Bruce Stephens.  Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Liverpool Univ.
Internet: bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk     JANET: bruce@uk.ac.liv.uxb
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pooder@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Pooder)
Subject: Re: lighten up, people
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:24:12 GMT
Reply-To: Pooder@vnet.ibm.com, but I can't receive e-mail, so forget it. 
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester


Apropos this subject:

	Lighten up, there are stars in the sky.
	Lighten up, it's a good question why.
	But you don't know the answer, and neigher do I;
	So meanwhile let's just all lighten up.
 
	- Jim Post

-- 

	    Pooder    -    Rochester,  MN   
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quid tibi (est) opiniones aliorum: What do you care what other people think?
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rad@genco.bungi.com (Bob Daniel)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What Kind of Creator? (was Re: "A Brief History of Time")
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:19:34 GMT
Reply-To: rad@genco.bungi.com (Bob Daniel)
Organization: Gentry & Assoc. Excelsior Springs, MO

In article <1992Jul21.210731.13195@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>in discussions of whether or not the Universe had a creator.
>
>
>one with no special interest in humanity, perhaps even one that just
>creates universes for the fun of it.

>	I guess I have in mind a creator who creates the Big Bang and
>who just observes what happens next just for the fun of it. A far cry
>from the God of the Bible.

I've considered this quite a bit myself.  Even if there is a creator (a 
reasonable speculation but still a speculation), putting attributes on
this creator increases the speculation exponentially.  I.E., the alleged
creator is not necessarily a being.  The problem with speculation based
on the acceptance of another speculation is a severe problem I see in
say, Aquinas' logic.  I guess this is where faith comes in; that vast sea
of speculation and learned controversy.  Oh well, alot of us (if not all)
need some kind of placebo to cope with life.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: timpson@nntpd2.enet.dec.com (Steve Timpson)
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:10:10 GMT


In article <1992Jul22.074422.23588@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, ury@humus.cs.huji.ac.il (My Friend Of Misery) writes...
>In article <1992Jul20.175947.21159@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>, timpson@nntpd2.enet.dec.com (Steve Timpson) writes:
>|> 
>|> In article <1992Jul20.135600.19367@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, ury@humus.cs.huji.ac.il (My Friend Of Misery) writes...
>|> >Why is it so difficult for ppl to understand that There is no god?
>|> > 
>|> > 
>|> >-- 
>|> >Ury Segal          | "I'm God, and so is my wife"
>|> >ury@cs.huji.ac.il  | I swear I'm gonna live forever. Tell my maker It can wait.
>|> >Phone: 02-971187   | DISCLAIMER: I Don't spell and I don't care
>|> 
>|> 
>|>         Why is it so difficult for you to understand thaty There is a god?
>|> 
>Because I don't have any proof. Now, can YOU answer MY question or you still want
>to keep waisting everybody's time?
>|> 
>|>         Steve With_his_devils_advocate_hat_on        
>|> 
> 


        in answer to your question: (whatever it may have been)

        First  my  post  was a retort not an advocation for  God  or  the
        Devil.  If you will notice I used the line "devils  advocate"  so
        the only persons time I am waisting is my own in replying to your
        childishness. 

        FYI: From the "American Heritage Dictionary"

        retort v.  To present a counterargument to.    A  quick  incisive
        reply, esp.   one that turns the first speaker's words to his own
        disadvantage.

        Are there  any of the above words that you don't understand?


        Just so you know where I come from:

        I  am a theistic evolutionist.  In other words I believe that God
        started the  ball  rolling and evolutions then took over.  I have
        no arguments to  support  my  belief  and I will not even try.  I
        couldn't care less whether  anyone  believes  in God or not and I
        don't believe God cares either.


        Steve

        When the ground starts shaking everyone is going to look up.

                                        --Bill Cosby


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Subject: Jarek, where are you (with DAVE!!!)
Organization: Xerox PARC
Date: 26 Jul 92 23:07:57 GMT

In <92208.014517U55870@uicvm.uic.edu> DAVE!!! aka D*A*V*E '}' 
writes to Jarek '>':

} Jewfreak Drunkbrewski
}
Hi DAVE!!!

} his methods of reasoning have been questioned, with silly
} personal attacks. 
}
Indeed. 

} This proves the old adage that if you give a fool enough rope, he will
} hang himself. 
}
RIGHT!!! 

} If we spent all of out time trying to re-prove old theories, instead
} of developing new ,better ones, we would still be in caves banging
} rocks together, where it seems some of us still belong.  
}
Perfectly right.

High time for a lunch. Bye, DAVE!!!


Best wishes,
             Jarek
------------------------------------------------------
 .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
 `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Date: 29 Jul 1992 22:10:48 GMT
Organization: Bureau of Sweeping Generalizations
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird
Keywords: atheism

Todd Kelley writes in Toronto in response to Matthew Spears in SF:

<some stuff I happen to mostly agree with, then:>

     When dealing with something as basic and important as a view of how
     the universe is and how it should be made to become, arbitrariness and
     dogmatism are insidious nemeses.  Dogmatism and arbitrariness define
     religion.  (For example, science is not a religion because it's neither
     dogmatic nor arbitrary.)  Therefore, naturally, truly open-minded persons
     scorn religion.  This does not mean they scorn what religions say; it
     means they scorn what religion is: a set of arbitrary beliefs which
     must be accepted without question.

1) Dogmatism and arbitrariness do not necessarily define religion.

2) Science can be used as a religion depending on how one defines religion.

3) Your conclusion below does not follow from the premise:

     Therefore, naturally, truly open-minded persons scorn religion.

4) Your definition of religion (below) is arbitrary, I find no dictionary
   which supports it.

     This does not mean they scorn what religions say; it
     means they scorn what religion is: a set of arbitrary beliefs which
     must be accepted without question.

Finally, many scientists and other "truly open-minded persons"
do not "scorn religion.", rather they are interested in it to help
present another perspective to the universe and universal questions.

---
Dano
1st Warning Department
Sub-Assistant 3rd Class to the
Junior Associate Undersecretary
Petty Offenses Division
Bureau of Sweeping Generalizations

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 05:05:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.181800.23563@random.ccs.northeastern.edu> alansar@ccs.northeastern.edu (Mohammad Al-Ansari) writes:

>Why is it that it is only this choice that you are against? Would I see you
>someday protesting choice of some women who want to be able to kill their
>babies any time during pregnancy and throw it away just because it is not
>convenient?  Or women who want to go around topless so that they are equal to
>men?

Interesting that you should mention the topless issue.  Here in Ottawa, we've
recently had a couple of rallies where a number of women wandered topless
around Parliament Hill (the seat of Canada's government).  This was in protest
against what they (and I) consider the oppressive nature of our society towards
women.  Of course, the majority of women still have no desire to doff their
tops in public, and probably a number of them think that the brave few are
immoral and should be tossed in jail.  This is because they've been socialized
to accept their lot in life.

What I would like to know is, what are your feelings about these type of
protests?  Your line of argument seems to be that women are not oppressed
under Islam bacause the women choose to live that way.  Here we have a
situation where a number of women choose to take issue with a number of
lopsided things in our society, and have set out to change it.  Would you
support these women?  Similarly, would you support an Islamic women who
chose not to go along with the even more lopsided nature of Islamic society?

If, as I suspect, you would not support these women, but rather would
put them in their place at every opportunity, can you not see how it is
ridiculous to speak of women choosing to live the way they do?  On the
one hand, it would never even occur to most women to go topless in public
because they've been conditioned to be self conscious about exposing
their breasts in public.  On the other hand, the adventurous women who try
are sneered at, and called nasty names, and fined, and tossed in jail.
If these women really are oppressed, how do you suppose the change is
going to come about so that they are not oppressed any more?  Saying that
they are not oppressed won't cut it -- they disagree, and they're in a
better position to know.

>It seems to me that the choice of the Mulsim woman is the only one that
>you protest.

Not me.  Muslim women are worse off, but our society ain't perfect by
any stretch of the imagination.  Our curse is Xianity.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
Subject: Re: Free will -answer to your questions jarek.
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:23:16 GMT

(TONY CHAY) writes:
>(Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>>The Phantom Coalminer confirms that
>>if someone is omniscient, then he MUST:

>>Could you guys please prove that omniscience as you want to understand
>>it (which, mind you, limits omnipotence) is a more correct description
>>of God than omniscience as I understand it? Assume you could ask God a
>>question; would you ever be able to find any difference if He answered
>>as a must-omniscient being or as a may-omniscient being?

Assuming asking god a question is irrelevant, Jarek.
We don't WANT to understand omniscience; that is what it IS!!!
Glad to see you admit the paradoxes in your own arguments; it shows
progress.  Pretty soon you might even emerge from my kill-file.

>>BTW, I said that I won't reply to this thread, and I kindly asked that
>>this information be retained as long as I am being quoted... Please...

Jarek, that's VERY convenient.
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:05:17 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <exukjb.17.712264926@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:

>I would like to suggest that there is an argument, one very interesting 
>argument in particular, which might be called the The Argument From the 
>World's Intelligibility, that may be able to prove God's existence to any 

Is this the same as the Argument From Design?  Coz I don't accept that 
card in my store.  My response is: if it wasn't like this I wouldn't 
be here to worry about it; so it MUST be like this if there is NO god, and 
it probably wouldn't be like this is there was one.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  I don't take part in any sport that requires me to change clothes  |
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44)061-275-6033  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:55:12 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <sbuckley.712446280@sfu.ca> sbuckley@sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:

>  i agree that many atheists [including many i know] always entertain
>the possibility of more data regarding the existence of god.  i do not
>entertain the possibility that god doesn't exist not because it would
>be blasphemous but because of a rational observation of his presence in
>my life.  and the christian answer to your last sentence is that jesus
>did make himself known to us. [no big surprise to you there i guess. :) ]

  And just how did you come to the rational observation of jesus'
  presenc in your life?  Modern psychological thought long ago
  rejected introspection as a valid tool in psychoanalysis.  I'll
  also hazard a guess that you haven't subjected your experiences to
  any rigorous test of causality.  So how exactly can you state that
  your observations are rational?  You have apparently already
  discarded alternate explanations for certain aspects of your life.
  That is not a rational approach.

  I'll go out on a limb and state that you probably see causes and
  effects in your life exactly as you want and expect to see them,
  regardless of the evidence.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
From: souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Praying to Mecca?
Date: 26 Jul 92 00:05:29 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <graham.711862796@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>
>Just to be on the level I am trying to establish what sort of things
>you take as axiomatic (on faith) in your religious view. So far
>we have established that you have faith that God exists. The above
>example suggests that you also have faith that God is right.

As a Muslim, I believe in God (Allah) and his prophets and his
angels and his books and in the day of jugement.  If you want
more details on any of these, please let me know.

>
>graham
>--
>Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
From: kruegek@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Kirby Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Bill Clinton
Date: 26 Jul 92 06:09:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University

Okay, I just heard Bill Clinton speaking on a town hall in Seattle, which
I doubt many of you were able to see.  The issue of separation of church
and state was directly raised. (By a pagan concerned over the Washington
State Rupublican Party's platform forbidding the teaching of witchcraft
or eastern religions in public schools.)  I can't give an exact quote 
(I've not got that good of memory,) but he was very pro-separation of
church and state, calling himself a "vigorous, almost fanatical supporter"
of the separation.  He said that he is a Southern Baptist, but doesn't 
feel any need to impose his beliefs on anyone else.  Atheists weren't
directly mentioned, but he was quite clear that he felt religion and
the government were two separate things.  This is a large step up from 
George Bush, who would put prayer in school if he could get away with it.
I thought this might be of general interest to the net - he seems quite
rational about this issue.

-- 
kruegek@atlantis.cs.orst.edu  |  (This space accidently left blank.)
Shallana@pernMUSH             |
Stelnak@TaeisMUSH             |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mr. Mensa )
Subject: Re: Oh no, not again ( was Re: lighten up, people
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 05:00:20 GMT

mike@max.ma.utexas.edu (Mike Sullivan) writes:

>One can only talk of conditions tend
>to cause people to feel free. For example, in a sexist culture women may not
>feel free to make certain choices.

	An interesting note here: what I believe...the only way that man
is limited in his free will is in the actions he does that may limit this.
For example, women in a sexist culture not feeling free to make certain 
choices. By the sexist beliefs of others, a woman may feel that she can't
make certain choices. This is not, however (in my eyes) evidence that there
is lack of free will, but rather that only man can fate man, even though it
is not really fate.

	regards,
	thomas ehardt
	tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Subject: Re: OFFENCE
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:28:21

Beckie Christodal writes:

>   THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE EVER POSTED AN ARTICLE IN A GROUP, SO
IF
>ANYTHING IS WRONG    WITH IT SORRY.

Well, there is the minor problem that you left the caps lock on...

> BUT SOMETHING STARTED BUGGING ME AS I READTHE ARTICLES IN THIS GROUP.
>A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HAVE STATED TO BE CARFUL NOT TOOFFEND THOSE WHO
>BELIEVE IN A GOD.  AND I HAD TO ASK MY SELF   WHY SHOULD I
>WASTE MY TIME?

Because offending people leads to misunderstanding and hurt feelings,
and the last thing atheists need is to be misunderstood even more.

Because some theists will respond with a full-court-press attempt
to convert you, feeling that if you dare "offend God", you are a
sinner in dire need of their help.  (in other words, it's
self-defense)

Because we atheists can be polite, too, despite the stereotype.

Because it can make you feel so damn superior to take the high road.
8-)

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway
From: christodal@scri.fsu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: OFFENCE
Date: 21 Jul 92 12:48:35 GMT
Reply-To: christodal@scri.fsu.edu ()
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute



   THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE EVER POSTED AN ARTICLE IN A GROUP, SO IF
ANYTHING IS WRONG    WITH IT SORRY.  BUT SOMETHING STARTED BUGGING ME AS I READ
THE ARTICLES IN THIS GROUP.  A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HAVE STATED TO BE CARFUL NOT TO
OFFEND THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN A GOD.  AND I HAD TO ASK MY SELF   WHY SHOULD I
WASTE MY TIME?  I HAVE SPENT YEARS TRYING NOT TO OFFEND THE CHRISTIANS WHO FELT
IT THEIR DUTY TO ATTEMPT TO MAKE ME FIND GOD.  ALL THOSE YEARS THEY WERE
OFFENDING ME THINKING I COULD NOT MAKE MY OWN CHOICES ON WHAT TO BELIVE, OR MY
FAMILY WERE TO DUMB NOT TO BELIVE IN GOD OF TAKE ME TO CHURCH.  IT TOOK YEARS
FOR ME TO GAIN ENOUGH COURAGE TO TELL THEM TO GO AWAY, ITS A HARD THING TO DO
WHEN YOU ARE 12 AND AN ADULT IS TRYING TO CONVERT YOU. I UNDERSTAND DISCUSSIONS
ABOUT DIFFERENT VIEWS  AND ENJOY IT, BUT I DON'T ENJOY CHRISTIANS ATTEMPTING TO
CONVERT ME.  I THINK THAT SO LONG AS NO ON ATTEMPTS TO CONVERTS ANYONE TO ONE
BELIEVE OR ANOTHER THERE SHOULD BE NO OFFENCE.  ANY ONE WHO IS OFFENDED WHEN I
SAY 'I DON'T BELIEVE IN ANY GOD' IS NOT WORTH MY TIME.


     BECKIE CHRISTODAL
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Date: 28 Jul 92 04:02:47 GMT
Organization: Xerox PARC

In <graham.712134206@galois> Graham explains that he assumes, after the
person he replies to, that the world exists and is well defined:

I understand that for the sake of your comment ("Why didn't God make the
world as it is now?") you suspended your agnosticism and you asked your
question from the point of view of someone who claims to KNOW the real
'shape' of the world, no matter how weird his point of view may appear
to you. It also follows that you accept, for the sake of argument, all
definitions used by the person you talk to (the meaning of terms is an
integral part of one's world view and you accept, though temporarily,
this world view). Is my understanding correct? Do you always discuss in
that way? If not always, then how can I tell what your current mode is?

If I am correct, please explain how can you accuse anyone (say, me) of
playing word games without showing that one equivocates or says things
which are meaningless WITHIN his world view. I could understand such a
behavior (psychologically) if you argued from YOUR point of view (then
you could simply feel it intuitively and think that it is thus obvious)
but I cannot understand it if you argue from someone ELSE's view point.


Best wishes,
             Jarek
PS. I said that this was a malicious remark.
------------------------------------------------------
 .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
 `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET