HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: varney@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (Al Varney)
Subject: Re: Help
Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 06:04:51 GMT

In article <BxMFuz.4uq@acsu.buffalo.edu> v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.192506.26872@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes...
>
>>I am aware that your wonderful
>>scientists have now discovered a way to tap the area of the brain that
>>triggers out-of-body experiences, and that they now in fact have a laboratory
>>where one (with much money to blow) can experience an OOB. 
>
>I suspect that this is urban legend, ...

   I agree.  However, for a scientific-sounding description of OOB
(and NDE - near death experience) in a weird sort of way, check out:

   THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE, by Michael Talbot, 1991,
                             NY: HarperCollins

  This covers some theories by London physicist David Bohm and by
Stanford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram proposing holograms as a
model for the universe.  I haven't read the book (my 14-year-old
checked it out; he gets to read it first), but it attempts to use
these theories to "explain" telepathy, OOB, NDE, religious/mystical
experiences, feelings of "cosmic unity", etc.

  The chapter on OOB, NDE, etc. has a dozen references to OOB, the
latest being:

   Out-of-Body Experiences, by Janet Lee Mitchell, 1987,
                            NY: Ballantine Books

   I'd be interested in opinions of these books.  If another newsgroup
is more appropriate, or this has been beat to death already, just let
me know...

Al Varney

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat)
Subject: Cure the Believers!
Keywords: Cure 
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 13:59:13 EST

I am interested in making this world a better place to live, and in
order to do so I think it would be beneficial if this group would
think about ways of helping those who have religious leanings.  I do
relize it would be inapropriate to lock up all Christians, Muslems, etc.
in insane asylums, but surely there must be some way of stopping this
defective mindset(s).  Perhaps we should start with the most severly
disturbed individuals, such as priests and other religous leaders.
I think maybe someone could establish an anonymous "Believer" line.
This should be staffed by a psychologist and would give the Believer a
reality check (sort of a first step towards mental health).
I would like to hear some other suggestions - something that an individual
could do to cure a Believer.  Lets see some action please!
From: jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What if there is a god?
Date: 4 Nov 92 19:26:58 GMT

fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat) writes:

>rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:
>> SupDose there is a god.
>> Then what?

>two answers:

>1. If a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one there to hear it,
>does it make a sound?  So if there is a God, but he has no effect on
>us, does it matter?

Who said He did not have an effect on us?

>2. Assuming that the God is as represented in the Christian image and
>such, then all the atheists lose.   Big time.

... and go to Hell.  Bad time.
From: Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger)
Subject: Re: Help
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:54:58 GMT

In article <dpn2.87.721598884@po.CWRU.Edu> dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.192506.26872@samba.oit.unc.edu> Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes:
>>triggers out-of-body experiences, and that they now in fact have a laboratory
>>where one (with much money to blow) can experience an OOB. Given that
>>after coming back from one of these the person can relay information which
>> STUFF DELETED

>
>A "laboratory" that charges its experimental subjects? This sounds fishy 
>from the start. I'll echo Ekr's request for a paper in a respectable journal.
>+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
>| Damien Neil | dpn2@po.cwru.edu | Case Western Reserve University |
>+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+

That was my own opinion, I can't say if they would charge people or not,
though I would assume if people requested it they would have to pay for
the scientist's time. I didn't get my info from a journal, but I'd be
happy to get you the name of the institution..


Michelle
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Help
Date: 15 Nov 1992 23:30:11 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov15.181351.12182@rosevax.rosemount.com>, grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
=I'll put up another $50.  As I recall, James Randi has even
=experienced OOBEs, though I can't remember which of his books
=describes the events.  He describes awakening during the night to find
=himself floating with his back against the ceiling, looking down at his
=sleeping body with his cat asleep on the foot of the bed.  The next
=day he critically examines his experience and realized that he wasn't
=actually observing the room from the ceiling because the cat was
=outside that night.

I don't know that it's in any of his books.  He described this in a talk he
gave some months ago at a meeting of the Skeptics Society at Caltech, and the
transcript of the talk was published in the Society's magazine.  Turns out that:
    1)	The bedspread he saw in his OOBE was not the one that was on the bed at
	the time (the one he saw in the OOBE was in a laundry bag in the
	basement)
    2)	The cat had been shut out of the house since the previous day because
	one of his son's houseguests was allergic to cats.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Help
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 02:11:49 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64746.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Nov13.004925.11717@samba.oit.unc.edu> Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes:

>I guess the point Sir, is that God DID give proof, you just were not there
>to witness it. In fact, just back in 1916 Our Lady of Fatima gave yet
>another show for all you people, but I guess you weren't there, huh?

	First, I only have YOUR, and the reports of a few others that this 
happened. Hardly proof, even if I do not suspect you of lying. Tales and 
acedotal "evidence" of a dubious nature are hardly grounds to even make a 
rational assumption that god exists.

	Second, this would hardly amount to proof that YOUR god, as YOU 
describe him, exists.

	Why do you say "you people"? Do you feel that you are not a member 
of humanity? Do you think you're one of the choosen?

>What if 70 to 100 thousand people from Portugal told you of the miracle they
>saw back in 1917 -- that is, the miracle of the sun? Would you believe these
>people (who btw were not all Catholics, but many were instantly converted
>at that moment)

	First, 70 to 100 thousand people have not told me they saw anything 
of importance from that date. Currently, there is only ONE individual, that 
is you. Hardly convincing evidence. 

	Even if all these people were to tell me- and I don't mean one 
person telling me that they all said it- I'ld have to be able to examine all 
factors, before I throw out logic, and assume some supernatural cause.

	Even if I were to assume that this "miracle" did in fact happen, I 
see no way that this proved the existance of your christian god.

	I find it sad that you think that if a certain number of people 
believe something to be true, that it must be true. There are many, many 
more people who claim Elvis is alive, or that we're being invaded by flying 
saucers. I'm not planning on putting my blue suede shoes on.
	

>>You have a peer reviewed paper for this, I'm sure.
>You doubt it? I'd be happy to refer you to the source.

	Okay, please do!

>Tell that to those who have experienced it! You are showing what a narrow
>mind you have, just by calling it bullshit when you admit you don't even
>know anything about it. tut tut

	Hmm, I guess I am narrow minded when I disbelieve people who claim 
that they come from Altarian, as I've never visited the place.

>>>I'd appreciate any input and anybody who would like to know where this
>>>laboratory is, I can certainly give you that info.
>>I'd settle for a paper in a refereed journal. Surely you have one.
>
>With your snotty attitude, maybe I will just bypass your request. Ask me nice!

	Uh oh, I see a blind bluff being called...
From: rick@solbourne.com (Rick Gillespie)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: The Bible In Minnesota
Date: 6 Nov 1992 09:53:52 -0700
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: dodge.solbourne.com

I was flipping through the channels on tv this morning, and came across
the Family Channel (sic) with Pat Robertson and some lawyer fellow.
They were discussing a case in Minnesota about the American Atheists
suing to remove bibles from schools and/or classrooms (I didn't see
the whole discussion). Of course, they weren't too happy about it,
and complained about how Christians are being repressed these days.
Anyway, I was wondering if anyone knows of this case, because I'm *sure*
they weren't telling the whole story (naturally).

	Rick Gillespie
	"This opinion is mine, and what it is"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: what is marantha?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: alt
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:25:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.4600.24754@dosgate> "capsco one" <capsco.one@canrem.com>  
writes:
> Does anyone here know anything about a Christian cult named Marantha?
> 
> These people were involved in a controversy in the Kitchener/Waterloo
> area two years ago when they entered a float in the
> Oktoberfest/Thanksgiving parade.  They represented themselves as a "pro
> Canadian unity" organization, but ended up parading down King Street
> carrying banners reading "Jehovah is Lord!" and singing Christian songs.
> 
> Organizers of the parade apologized to the cities saying that the group
> had not told them of the religious slant to their float, but had "just
> snuck it in".  Quite a few people were offended, but there were many
> more letters to the editor claiming that this was the best thing to
> happen to the parade and that these people were to be commended for
> their guile.
> 
> I had forgotten all about this group until I read a newspaper article
> about the Rapture that never was.  It listed the names of some groups
> involved in the "end of time" prediction, and the name Marantha was
> there.  Who are these people?  How big is this cult?
> 
> Joe deSousa                        I don't speak for CAPSCO
> 
> "We have just enough religion to make us hate,
>  but not enough to make us love one another."     Jonathan Swift
> --
> Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
> World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

	I've never heard of it.  Are you sure it is Marantha and not MaranAtha?  
I know "maranatha" means something like "Come again soon, Lord Jesus" or  
something like that.  I was just thinking that it might be difficult to find  
info if the spelling's wrong.

						Erik Powers
From: frank@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reasons for Atheism...
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:36:09 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division
Originator: frank@karner.austin.ibm.com


> 
> I am interested in finding out why you dear atheist are an atheist.

Check the FAQ! 

> For the most part, I expect alot, if not most of us have come from
> religious backgrounds and have "stayed" for one reason or another.  So
> that's what I am interested in -- why did you "stray" or why did you
> never fall for it?

I think that you are correct in assuming that most people come from
religious backgrounds of one form or another.  They tend to stay, out of
fear of their own finality; the pompous and arrogant assumption that 
there must be an ulterior purpose for the human animal species; 
and perhaps the most important, that they have to believe this utterly 
non-sensical religious crap in order to use the crutch that it affords.
There is indeed no better believer than he who WANTS to believe.

Once you commit yourself to thinking and questioning it's just a matter
of time until you make a "leap of courage" and begin to see the
religious myths for what they are.

> If I get enough replies I will compile and post them (so if you do not
> want what you say posted please tell me in the body of your mail).

Save the net's bandwidth - we've heard it all before.  Again, check the
FAQ!

-- 

         DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this posting are mine
            solely and do not represent my employer in any way.
       F. A. Karner AIX Technical Support | karner@austin.vnet.ibm.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: epowers@spock.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: An apology
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 02:16:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.140310.24045@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
> I am new to this news group, and what is really striking about it is all the
> fundies who write here. I myself am a theist, but I feel almost ashamed to  
call 
> myself a theist when reading all the ignorant crap from my supposedly
> "likewises". I therefore have a great urge to apologize on behalf of all the
> fundies for their apparently braindead behaviour.  
> 
> 
> 
> Onar.
> 
>  

	Please don't apologize.  Not everyone who claims to be a theist  
(especially a Christian theist) is one.  I know plenty of people who claim to  
be Christians, but their behavior tells me they aren't, and their knowledge of  
the beliefs they supposedly hold is pitiful at best.  I also know plenty of  
people who claim to be atheists but have never considered the consequences of  
their beliefs.  So don't assume that someone fits under a particular label just  
because they claim they do.
					
					Erik Powers 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: kachun@spot.Colorado.EDU (Ka Chun Yu)
Subject: Re: Don't believe anything you hear
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 06:23:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.203257.24534@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
>In article <Bx7ACM.27A@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> @expert.cc.purdue.edu (adamsma@expert.cc.purdue.edu) writes:
>>Okay, so you're an athiest.  Don't believe in any God, Devil, angels, demons,
>>good, evil.  Don't believe in any higher authority then yourself.  That's
>>you right as a human being.  However, your lack of belief doesn't change God's
>>infinite love, power, or being.  It doesn't change the fact that Jesus, the 
>>Son of God, died in a horrible fashion to save you from your sins.  It doesn't
>>change the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead and now reigns in Heaven 
>>at the right hand of God.  It doesn't change the fact that you can have 
>>salvation and eternal life by accepting Him as your personnal savior.  Don't 
>>believe.  It doesn't change anything.
>>
>>Sincerely, 
>>
>>Mark    
>
>Is this guy serious or is this a woefully sorry attempt at/cheap excuse
>for humor?

No, here's a real attempt at humor:

  Don't believe anyone/Don't read your mail/Make light of every word you
  hear/Turn up your radio/Quit your job/Do something different...disappear/
  do something different...disappear.     --Brave Combo

>
>He talks a lot about so called 'facts' which aren't facts at all.
>Ahhh, ignorance IS bliss!
>-- 
>You lock the door
>And throw away the key
>There's someone in my head
>But it's not me            -- Pink Floyd

I'd follow Brave Combo's advice on life more readily than I'd ever would 
adamsma@expert.cc.purdue.edu's.

-- 
*Ka Chun Yu               * Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy       *
*kachun@spot.colorado.edu * Astrophysical, Planetary, and Atmospheric Sciences*
*         --or--          * University of Colorado,  Boulder, CO 80309        *
*kachun@vela.colorado.edu * (303) 492-6857                                    *
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: God Is Silly
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 11:43:55 GMT

In article <92315.021717MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <n0de5t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org says:
>>
>> I don't care if I have no evidence that God does
>>not exist, though I assert God does not exist. I assert the negative,
>>and it is up to the theist, whom asserts the positive, to produce the
>>evidence.
>
>Where do you get this? Does no one understand that there are more than
>two sides to this? Anyone who asserts something had better be prepared
>to back it up. I don't understand why you think that the other side has
>to prove you wrong. As if you can assert a belief and get away with it.
>Both sides, since they are asserting something, need to prove their
>assertions. Otherwise, I'm left with nothing at all--my present stance.
>
>Martin Schulte

It's like this:

Weak atheism: "I do not believe that a God exists."

Strong atheism: "There is no God."

The strong atheist is making a positive assertion and needs to prove
it.  The weak atheist is merely noting that the evidence presented by
theists for God's existence is unconvincing.  

The theist is making a positive assertion that God exists.  The weak
atheist finds fault with the theist's proof and so remains
unconvinced.  Where do you see a weak atheist making any positive
assertion for or against God's existence in this scenario?

Why in the world should I "sit on the fence" if I cannot, in the most
rigorous sense, disprove the existence of God, Santa, Elvis, UFOs,
Bigfoot etc. etc.?  Isn't it enough to note that evidence that would
compel one to believe in said entities is sadly lacking in *all* of
the above cases?  It's one thing to have an open mind, it's another to
have a *weak* mind.

SD

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: epowers@mccoy.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:20:26 GMT


Everything I've seen in this discussion assumes that evidence for the existence  
of God must be scientific in nature (falsifiable hypotheses, etc.).  Please,  
people!  I can't even prove I exist in a scientific manner!

						Erik Powers
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: morality????????
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:28:01 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1d8rvnINNcq7@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>
>What if the person was brainwashed or insane?
>
  
  This is one of my main sticking points.  Personally, I don't think
  anyone who can murder (except perhaps in passion) is really sane
  in the normal sense of the word.

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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@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: T.G.Nattress@newcastle.ac.uk (Graeme Nattress)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is omniscience impossible?
Date: 10 Nov 92 09:35:30 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:

>mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:

>>Look at the matter this way.  You have a person on earth.  This Omniscient
>>being knows when something will happen to this being, say when the person
>>will die.  Well, the omniscient being also knows how to change or prevent
>>this, being omniscient.  If this action is taken, then the previous
>>knowledge of when this person will die becomes false.  But no knowledge
>>of an omniscient being can be false. :)  You can also have fun with
>>similar arguments.

>This doesn't make sense.  For example, if I set my alarm, I know it
>will ring in the morning, unless something happens to change it.  If
>I then smash my clock, I have made the "something ... it" clause above
>true, changing the conditions of my previous knowledge.  That is, I
>know the clock will not sound if I smash it.  My previous knowledge that
>the alarm would ring UNLESS... was true, because I know what would
>happen, given my actions.

>See, if you say that the omniscient being knows when a person will die,
>then that knowledge includes all circumstances, including intervention
>by the said being.

>keith

But that then rules out this omniscient beings free will doesn't it!

Graeme,




{---    T.G.Nattress@uk.ac.ncl -----------------------------------------}
{--------------------------------- The Moral of this story is: ---------}
{---    Never trust a Venusian Floghorn with a Perigosto Stick. --------}
{-----------------------------------------------------------------------}
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 08:29:56 EST
From: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: *TRUE* Christians
 <rex.720772657@cyclops> <1992Nov04.071546.14623@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
 <92316.015308RXS127@psuvm.psu.edu>

In article <92316.015308RXS127@psuvm.psu.edu>, <RXS127@psuvm.psu.edu> says:
>
> he just cooked something.  How dumb is this subject?  It is only secular
>moral
>ists like yourselves that try to blame sin on Christians and get the last
>laugh
> in.  In reality, we don't care what you think.  We just care that we have
>ackn
>owledged our sins.  Haven't you ever done anything wrong in your life???

It would seem that we can "blame" xians for sin, since they invented the
concept. I for one am not all that worried about "blame", however. After
all, since I don't buy into the concept, it's fairly meaningless to me.
Saying that you don't care what we think is also so clever...makes me
want to listen to you all the more! (chuckle) And then you end it with
the classic: the xian guilt trip. I've done much less that's "wrong"
since I rejected the xian belief system. You'd be surprised just how
much is "wrong" in it...

Martin Schulte
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject:      Re: Vatican Finds Galileo Not Guilty  ( Of What?)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 19:54:13 MEZ
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA16754; Fri, 13 Nov 92 00:35:38 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA26032; Fri, 13 Nov 92 00:35:30 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)   with BSMTP id 0727; Thu, 12 Nov 92 20:01:07 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

Keith M Ryan typed:

>        In the words of Pirsig, "... and what it means is that the law of
>gravity, and gravity itself exist nowhere except in people's heads!"

And I, the universe, everything, people with gravity in their heads, and their
dogs exist only in my head.

More depth than I can bear.

It's hard to poohpooh phenomenology when someone kicked you in the balls,
   Benedikt
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.censorship,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic