HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dobbs@ast.saic.com (Lynn Dobbs)
Subject: Re: ABORTION: WHEN DOES HUMAN LIFE BEGIN?
Organization: SAIC
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:29:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec8.161458.2696@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>          
>
>                     ABORTION: WHEN DOES HUMAN LIFE BEGIN?
>
>               The debate about the abortion issue really boils down to 
>          a question of when human life begins.  Many "pro-lifers" are 

 Not all of us are concerned about "when life begins" in our stands on
abortion. I, for one, believe that abortion should be a parents right
until the zygote is eighteen. :-)

--Lynn

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: jwest@wisc (Jeff West)
Subject: Re: YHWH
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: 17 Dec 92 09:34:17 CST

Or, "I ams what I ams!"

	- Popeye

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:05:14 GMT

In article <75699@apple.apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>In article <P8HVVB3w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>>darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>>
>>> To use the word "atheist" for "weak atheism" can be confusing.  For
>>> example, using this definition, an agnostic (one who believes that it is
>>> not possible to know if God(s) exist(s) or not) is an atheist.
>>
>> No.  An agnostic may choose to believe in God.  He just doesn't believe it's
>> possible for him to know whether he's right or not.  I think most agnostics
>> don't believe in God, but I'm sure they're not all unbelievers.
>
> Indeed; recall Jarek Dabrowski, who on more than one occasion
> explained that he was both agnostic and Christian.

Boy, did he ever `explain'.

But I can top that apparent paradox. I'm engaged in an e-mail dialogue with
a guy who will be well-known to readers of sci.skeptic, although I won't
name names, who describes himself as a skeptic and a Creationist.

On a related note, I found a weighty volume in the philosophy section of
the University bookstore here called _Does God Exist?_ or some such, by
Kung, who is described by the sleeve-note sycophants as a highly respected
theologian cum philosopher who has set Christianity on a sound philosophical
footing, or something like that.

Well, I'm glad they thought so. A brief scan left me astonished by the
enormous fallacy-count as the author `established' his position that
the only rational worldview is the Christian one, and that atheism is
susceptible to attack with the weapons of reason and skepticism, only
to be found of course in the armoury of the Christian.

And this was just next to, and about the same price as,  _The Logic of
Scientific Discovery_ by Karl Popper. Conclusive proof that There Is No
God as far as I'm concerned.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: fsrey@rama.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Rex E. Young)
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: alt.santaism
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 03:23:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.060620.23826@netcom.com> jef@netcom.com (Jef  
Poskanzer) writes:
> I propose a new group dedicated to discussion of the religion Santaism.
> Some points in its favor:
> 
>  - Santaism is practiced, to some degree, by hundreds of millions
>    of people world-wide, especially in the English-speaking world
>    where netnews is concentrated.
> 
>  - The evidence for the existence of Santa is precisely as good as
>    the evidence for any other religion's holy figure.
> 
>  - Anyone who objects to the newsgroup will get a lump of coal.
> 
> All varieties of Santaists would be welcome in this group, from
> the Fundamentalists (believe that Santa exists as a corporeal being,
> lives at the North Pole, and personally vists every chimney in the
> world in one night), to the Reform Santaists (believe that the
> presents are placed under the tree by loving parents, but that
> those parents are animated by the all-pervading spirit of Santa).
> 
> Since Santaism's yearly holy day is only two weeks away, I would
> like to move quickly on this newsgroup.  If I don't hear any
> objections (coal...) I'll send out the newgroup tomorrow.
> ---
> Jef

Well, I know Santa Claus exists.  I live just a few miles from his
house, in North Pole, Ak.  Yes, this is a city.  Get out a map and
look just a few miles south of Fairbanks, and you'll see it there.

_______________________________________________________
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored
by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency
a great soul has simply nothing to do.

I hate quotations.
May 1849

-Ralph Waldo Emerson
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: is it necessary to hate?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 23:56:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.214106.14181@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.154307.16307@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>>The hostility
>>that I see here (and also on other related newsgroups) certainly does
>>not lend itself either to clear thinking,  mutual understanding or even to 
>>the deepening of ones own understanding.
>
>The problem Gerry, is that many atheists do think clearly, and they
>do have a good understanding of themselves and you.  The bottom
>line is that you're crazy, and it's often difficult to keep from
>getting a little pissed when one is forced to debate with lunatics.

I just made a foray into sci.archaeology, and found another one
of your drively articles there.  I just wanted to point out why
it is that you are often met with hostile responses.

In article <1992Dec10.180627.2304@digi.lonestar.org> you wrote:
 }I may be sticking my neck out here, having recently set myself up 
 }to be accused of being a pyramid freak by some  Scientifically 
 }Incorrect (though rather mild, in my opinion) assertions.

Now here you're claiming that the reason that your pyramid nonsense
was met with hostile responses was that you were being Scientifically
Incorrect.  Thus, you put the blame on those nasty closed-minded
members of the Scientific Establishment, rather than accepting that
you were flamed because you were spouting garbage.  That's likely
to piss off those closed-minded scientists who know that you were
spewing gibberish.

 }Be that 
 }as it may, I worked on a farm in Swabia, Germany, for three years 
 }in the mid 70s. There the most sober and serious -- and well
 }educated -- farmers almost always employed a dowser when drilling for
 }water.  Like many people, I only heard about their incidences
 }of success, of which there were many reported.   One interesting 
 }thing is that the ability to dowse is apparently an arbitrary gift.
 }Some have it and some don't.  There was one man who was a professor
 }of agronomy who was particularly good at it.  The dowsers always did
 }it gratis. They refused any compensation, except maybe lunch or a 
 }glass of wine.  Charging money apparently ruins it.  Likewise, 
 }attempts at controlled experiment also generally failed.  

Now Gerry, the fact that attempts at controlled experiment failed
ought to tell anybody with any semblance of a brain what is going
on here.  Charging money ruins it eh?  What utter rot.  It seems to
me that your Xian based insanity often leads you to look for some
fantastic and mysterious explanations for mundane phenomenon.  Can't
you see the damage you do with your drivel-mongering?  Can't you
understand why sane people might get thoroughly pissed at this kind
of nonsense?  Get some skepticism dude; the universe just isn't the
topsy-turvy kind of place that you would like to make it.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Religion = Anything that's fun is bad.
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 05:35:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.025108.27551@bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.013204.5282@bmerh85.bnr.ca>,
>dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>|>The exchange went as follows:
>|>
>|>  Roderick:
>|>   However, today the devil is binding people to believe in no higher
>|>   being so that it would be hard to reach them.
>|>  You:
>|>   Superstitious drivel. A total lack of evidence is what leads people to
>|>   doubt the existence of both deities and devils.
>|>
>|>Here you express an unwillingness to consider the possibility that
>|>the devil is binding people to believe in no higher being.  Does
>|>that make you closed-minded?
>
>Could you email me that?  I do NOT remember saying that!  Either
>I was asleep at the time or someone is using my account. 

Oops.  It was actually the dangerous fanatic Simon Clippingdale who
wrote the bit that I attributed to you.  The strange quoting style
screwed me up.  Sorry.  Since we already know that the devil is binding
Simon to believe in no higher beings, it goes without saying that
he's closed-minded.  Hopefully Roderick's exorcism will unbind him.

>|>Perhaps not, but you must have some idea of what you mean by the
>|>term.  I get the impression that you think it means never asserting
>|>that somebody else is wrong, and never making too much of a fuss
>|>about what you believe.
>
>So what is the difference between 'open-minded' and 'dogmatic'?
>Or are they mutually exlusive?

I would say that undogmatic and open-minded mean pretty much the
same thing: the willingness to consider new ideas and arguments.
However, that doesn't mean that you can't rationally reject those
new ideas, and it doesn't mean that you must refuse to brand
those ideas irrational just because some other people happen to
believe them.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: "Separation of Church and State"
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:29:10 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.


In article <parsons.724583764@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> you write:
>
>Provide any other evidence from the Founding Fathers or even something
>prior to 1947 (besides the obviously disputed Jefferson quote) that 
>support the _current_ interpretation of the 1st Amendment.
>

        "What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments
     had on society?  In some instances they have been seen to erect
     a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on
     many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of
     political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians
     of the liberties of the people.  Rulers who wish to subvert
     the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient
     auxiliaries.  A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate
     it, needs them not."

                            - James Madison
                              "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785


        "History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden
     people maintaining a free civil government.  This marks the
     lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as
     religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own
     purpose."

                              - Thomas Jefferson
                                to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

"[I]t may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of
 separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority
 with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential
 points.  The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to
 a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded
 agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way
 whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and
 protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others."
     [James Madison, "James Madison on Religious Liberty",
      edited by Robert S. Alley, ISBN 0-8975-298-X. pp. 237-238]



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

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Believe in BOB!!! :)
Date: 17 Dec 1992 01:18:18 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


PRAISE BOB...........BLEEDING HEAD GOOD/HEALED HEAD BAD



PRAISE THE PIPE.....FROP IS GOOD FOOD


PRAISE CONNIE !!!



:-)

-- 
A. TRENT PHILLIPS |" A mirror is a negative space with a frame and a place for
  also known as   | your face, it reveals what the rest of us see. It conceals
   WHITE  ROOK    | what you'd like you to be."--Blue Oyster Cult
-------bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu-----aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu-------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Atheists "stir up shit" (was Re: Religion = Anything that's fun ...)
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:13:31 GMT

Harold Platypus (harry@timesink.chi.il.us) wrote:

[response to initial diatribe and ad hominem arguments deleted]

: There are Big Dickheads who would put their little boy on the stand in
: a courtroom against the Boy Scouts of America just to prove a point.
: Pitting the child against his peers and the organization he wants to
: join is really constructive and makes for an emotionally healthy child.
: NOT!

I've never heard of a rabid Platypus before.

The "little boy" wants to join the BSA but can't because he questions the
existence of god.  What is a "Big Dickhead" supposed to do,  say "Well son,
people discriminate against atheists and agnostics and you'll just have to
accept it."????
Hell no!  Discrimination on the basis of race, creed, lack of creed, gender, 
sexual preference or nation of origin is wrong and should be confronted when 
and where it occurs.
-- 
Mike A. McAngus	(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org) | The train today to Morrow leaves today
The Truth is still the Truth           | at 8:35.  At half-past ten tomorrow is
even if you choose to ignore it.       | the time it should arrive.
                                       |                    The Kingston Trio
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Dealing with annoying e-mail: A real life example!
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:49:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.070243.29684@syacus.acus.oz.au> ron@syacus.acus.oz.au (Ron Williams) writes:
>right is right.
>might != right;

light is white;
kite in flight;
fight the night;
quite a height;
polite invite;
tight in sight;
bite bite bite.


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Truth:  You ignore it, it ignores you.
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: God is a hole
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 15 Dec 92  13:02:18

Who: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
ID: <1992Dec11.054012.10468@microsoft.com>
 
JK> "Answer 1: There is a God-shaped hole in every person, [...]"
 
Put there by Satan to decieve us into believing God exists.
 
JK> ". . . . and without God, a person is empty."
 
Try a good beer if you feel empty. Better yet, kill yourself.
 
JK> "Answer 2: Christianity is true."
 
If that is an answer, the question must be one whopper of
a belly-laugh!

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: Colleen
Organization: SPS
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:06:13 GMT

In article 11993@hogg.ed.ac.uk, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
> 
> I, Ivan, the Fourth Disciple and Prophet of Colleen, bare witness,
> speaking, `There is no God other than Colleen'.     
> 
> I also bare witness, speaking, `There is no God other than James Meritt'.
>        
> Hark to the words of my testimony, for it is true, and it is hereby
> presented so that ye too may believe.

A word of caution for Ivan...
For you to bear witness for Colleen and James is fine, but 
to bare witness in public probably violates indecent exposure laws.
[Of course you could bare witness with the 'rec.nude' crowd.]

---
Dave Weaver                | "The impression of design is overwhelming"
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com |       -Paul Davies (on the cosmos)


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ktikkane@phoenix.oulu.fi (Kari Tikkanen)
Subject: Re: Omniscience
Organization: University of Oulu, Finland
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:37:34 GMT

Torkel Franzen wrote Tue, 8 Dec 1992 20:45:48 GMT:
>In article <1992Dec8.193648.4643@ousrvr.oulu.fi> ktikkane@phoenix.oulu.fi
> (Kari Tikkanen) writes:
>
> >But 1931 Kurt Godel  proved that there are true statements in arithmetics you
> >CAN never prove them merely from arithmetic axioms.

>  He did not. Anyway, it's interesting to see that Godel's theorem crops up
>in alt.atheism once more, now in connection with omniscience. Give it a rest.

All right. I was inaccurate, but I didn't talk about Godel with omniscience.
I talked Godel with omnipotence.
I give another example why CHOOSE is not good answer to my problem A (or B). 
  I say: " I am the best boxer in the world ! Nobody CAN win me ! "
  My manager and supporters defend: "Kari does not have to CHOOSE boxing
  with anybody who would cause a contradiction with his statement. So Kari
  is always the best boxer in the world." 
You could ever catch me if CHOOSE would be right answer. And there would be 
no difference between Omnipotent and swindler.

----------------------- ktikkane@phoenix.oulu.fi -------------------
  Kari Tikkanen      |   .  . -#- |      b        |   begin  
  SF-90550 OULU      |         |  |  I = / f(x)dx |     s:=s+Eq(i);
  FINLAND            | .  .  Vega |      a        |   end
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Religion = Anything that's fun is bad.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 18:57:13 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Dec12.192802.19309@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
>In article <b6vd02022e9P01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec12.075622.16643@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
[deletions]
>>>IMHO, telling kids there is NO GOD is just another
>>>form of indoctrinating them into a almost fanatical belief system -
>>>an evangelical anti-religion if you please.
>>
>>Are you just plain stupid, or what. READ THE FAQQING FAQ. Atheism is the
>>absence of belief that a god or gods exist. It is not a belief system.
>>
>Now I'm really mad... (-:  When atheism takes on all the characteristics
>evangelism it IS a belief system. Oh, but if it's in a FAQ then I better
>believe it... I quivering now... NOT!

 How many people have come to your door saying, "Have you heard about this
God fellow? Well, forget it." How often do people pass out anti-religous
tracts in schools and on streets? What is the ratio of atheist to religious
programming on TV? (Hint: 1/lots) How many 'atheist churches' have you come
across?
 There *are* people who go out ant try to 'convert the masses to atheism.'
Based on what I can see, the proportion of 'evangelical atheists' is quite
a bit less than that of 'evangelical theists.'

>There are Big Dickheads who would put their little boy on the stand in
>a courtroom against the Boy Scouts of America just to prove a point.
>Pitting the child against his peers and the organization he wants to
>join is really constructive and makes for an emotionally healthy child.
>NOT!

 Actually, it is the BSA that wants to prevent the kids from joining;
it is the BSA that sets these kids apart and says 'you can't join.'
Suing to join is the only way they *can* join.
 It almost makes me ashamed to have been a Scout.

[BTW- in the little bit here I delted, the author was not necessarily
implying you were a 'fundie,' just that what you were describing is
much more typical of fundamentalist theists than atheists.

>- Harry


Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
From: Usenet News <news@exodus.eng.sun.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Existence of gods (Atheism FAQ point 7)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 20:07:32 PST
Distribution: world
From: sxn@eng.sun.com (Steve Nahm)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Existence of gods (Atheism FAQ point 7)
Distribution: world
Date: 18 Dec 92 03:35:53 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: rand

Jeffrey D Koperski <jkopersk@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:

>First, any good scientist
>believes in the existence of entities that are undetectable.

Wrong.  Any theory that a scientist constructs about entities that are not
directly observable is based (ultimately) upon entities that *are* observable
and understood.

>That is, no one
>holds that the only things that exist are objects within Earth's light-cone.

If no one holds this, why are you bringing it up?  Do you hold otherwise?  If
so, I (and any scientist) would ask for evidence and reasons why matter does
not exist outside Earth's light cone.  The onus of proof would be on you to
prove the assertion.

>Objects outside the cone as well as, say, whatever is inside a black-hole, are
>not dectectable, yet we ascribe existence to them.

What "we"?  If you have no information about these entities, you cannot make
statements about them (statements that you would assert as "fact").  Since
knowledge is contextual and hierarchical, you could construct a theory about
such entities based on what you have observed "within Earth's light-cone".
But you would be mistaken to construct a theory that is not consistent with
your existing knowledge.

>Second, numbers, sets, and a host of universals are undetectable when
>uninstantiated, but many philosophers and most mathematicians believe in the
>existence of (at least) some mathematical entities (see, for example, Roger
>Penrose, _The Emporer's New Mind_).

You are impeaching existence by attacking the only means we have of
understanding existence, our conceptual faculty (and mathematics is
essentially a conceptual science).  A "set" or a "universal" (such as
"man") is a construct of the human conceptual process.  By observing many
"men" we build a concept of "man".  The universal "man" is not an existent,
but is an abstraction of a set of existents.

>A short review of 20th century philosophy will show that attempts to rule out
>theological discourse as "non-cognitive" (Carnap's term) or otherwise
>essentially flawed have always come back to haunt science.  That is, applying
>the same criterion to the "good discourse" of theoretical science rules out
>part of that discourse.

It's not surprising that 20th century philsophers have been unable to
accomplish the obvious (the FAQ would call this comment argumententum ad
hominem).

--
Steve Nahm                              sxn@sun.COM or sun!sxn
Sun RPC Project Lead