HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Free will - the "Jarekian" heresy.
Date: 7 Sep 92 13:39:24 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
> But, to take a tack I've heard from several physicists and
> mathematicians, the cat is either alive or dead.  This is from the
> classic experiment of a cat-in-a-box with a nucleus that has a 50-50
> chance of decaying...and if it does, it triggers a laser to kill the
> cat.  Well, the coin has been flipped...is the cat alive or dead?
> There are those who claim that it is in some "meta-state" of being
> neither alive nor dead until somebody looks in the box.
> 
> Nonsense, I say.  The cat is either alive or dead, we just don't know
> which.

Hidden Variables, the hypothesis that just refuses to die...


mathew
-- 
Bush/Quayle in '92!
God Bless America!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: schiller@prl.philips.nl ()
Subject: Beliefs are refusals to check the facts
Originator: schiller@prl.philips.nl
Organization: Philips Research Laboratories, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:50:24 GMT



Having followed the discussion on beliefs in science and religion,
I think one would get a clearer picture of what one means
by beliefs if one clearly states that:

A belief is a statement which the believer refuses to check with 
observations.

Probably not everybody will agree with this definition, but
it's a good idea to start with. I actually cannot find a better
one - any proposals ?

Using this  definition, the distinction between scientific 
descriptions of the world and religious descriptions become 
rather clear. In science ALL statements are checked  with
observations, whereas in religion, if you try to do that, you get
thrown out from the group :-)

Waiting for flames 

                            Christoph Schiller


Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: The Doors
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:17:44 GMT

David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>Drew> "If this 'evidence' were not there, would you have any
>Drew> choice about accepting the story of the creation?  You
>Drew> cannot have a choice unless there is an alternative
>Drew> available.  God makes two doors and says, 'Go through
>Drew> door #1.' When you go through door #2, you say, 'God
>Drew> didn't make this door. It made itself.'"
> 
>Suppose, for the sake of killing time, God did create these
>"two doors" ["creationism" as in the myth in the bible being
>one "door,", the evidence that proves evolution, i.e. the fossil
>record, geologic column, ice cores, coral samples, lab
>observations, etc., etc., etc. being the other "door"]. Why
>would He make the evidence for evolution as so utterly convincing
>that it is, if He wanted people to "choose" creationism? Was it
>to test humans' faith or their stupidity? To test their piousness
>or judge the depths of their abysmal ignorance?

>--- Maximus 2.00

It is a possibility that God means us to take door #2. He just left such a
horrifically small amount of proof of his own existence in an ambiguous book
that he meant for it to be ignored. This is to sort the sheep from the
lambs. Only those willing to use blind faith in their lives go through door
#1 and onto the reject pile (i.e failed specimen). But those willing to
accept the evidence, use thought and logic, willing to make a stand against
the current orthodoxy etc go through door #2 and onto Nirvana where we can
all keep God (whom we were all sure never existed, as he casually points out
that that was want he meant us to think) company with some intellectually 
stimulating conversation. Maybe he wants us to come and solve one of his
problems like where did he come from. Just conjecture, but it's a
possibility!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Wed,  9 Sep 1992 02:11:36 -0400 
From: Jad Nehme <jn1a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: god is not relevant
	<exukjb.131.715981096@exu.ericsson.se>

Excerpts from netnews.alt.atheism: 8-Sep-92 Re: god is not relevant ken
bell@exu.ericsson.se (3486)


> In article <IedVgW200VotQ731Em@andrew.cmu.edu> jn1a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jad
> Nehme) writes:
> >From: jn1a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jad Nehme)
> >Subject: Re: god is not relevant
> >Date: 3 Sep 92 14:03:14 GMT

> >Excerpts from netnews.alt.atheism: 2-Sep-92 Re: god is not relevant
> >Keith A. Schneider@cco.c (878)

> >> ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge) writes:

> >[stuff deleted]
> >> >Or is god relevant?  If so, how and why?  What's he/she/it needed for?


> >[stuff where Jad (I) question the relevence of god's existence deleed]

> >-Jad

> Very nice, Jad. 

Thanks very much.

> Also, let's remember that if we could answer the question of 
> the existence of God [provided the "answer" included or entailed a 
> sufficiently elaborated or at least clear conception of "God"], this would 
> immediately be of enormous importance for the solution of many of the most 
> contentious problems of philosophy, or would at least provide the main 
> body of a solution to them. It would be relevant to the question of the 
> purpose and origin of the world and of human beings, which, I would claim, 
> is the central problem in metaphysics; for if there is a God who created 
> the world, this would indicate that man also has a divine origin, and thus 
> would be relevant to long-standing questions aobut man's ultimate nature 
> and the meaning of his destiny. 


Very true.  Now (I am sure this has been brought up before) 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: schiller@prl.philips.nl (schiller c)
Subject: Beliefs are refusals to check the facts
Originator: schiller@prl.philips.nl
Organization: Philips Research Laboratories, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 08:30:58 GMT



Having followed the discussion on beliefs in science and religion,
I think one would get a clearer picture of what one means
by beliefs if one clearly states that:

A belief is a statement which the believer refuses to check with 
observations.

Probably not everybody will agree with this definition, but
it's a good idea to start with. I actually cannot find a better
one - any proposals ?

Using this  definition, the distinction between scientific 
descriptions of the world and religious descriptions become 
rather clear. In science ALL statements are checked  with
observations, whereas in religion, if you try to do that, you get
thrown out from the group :-)

Waiting for flames 

                            Christoph Schiller


Xref: sparky alt.atheism:17165 alt.politics.homosexuality:5972
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:47:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Sep14.161935.12158@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.175414.15059@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>proposition Y is intuitively obvious. I.e. you are totally unable
>>to support it and therefore are resorting to merely asserting it.
>>Are you able to make a logical argument, or do you think that being
>>insulting and irrational will convince me?
>
>What you call my "being insulting and irrational" (but without invoking
>any coherent standard deducible from commonly-held axioms as to what
>that might mean) was simply bait.  It is gratifying to see you take it,
>showing you know damned what we are talking about here.  You object to
>my being nasty about disabled people.
The rest of your post assumes something I didn't say. I object to
you calling me idiotic. I didn't say anything about the disabled.

>>No, it is your position, sir, which has no intellectual coherence.
>
>Oh, yeah, Bunky?  Care to tell me what it is?  I don't recall having
>spelled it out.
>
>Grow up, Rescorla.  This crap is tedious and downright stupid.
That is pretty weak coming from someone who clearly
misunderstood my entire position. If you aren't asserting that
there are moral values, why are you bothering to post? If you
are asserting it, then it is up to you to substantiate.

Either you are asserting a moral position in which case I am asking
you for substantiation which you are not providing, or you are
not, in which case I have no argument with you.

In the first case, back it up or go away. In the second, why not
just go away.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: assholes
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<ocTiqB7w165w@mantis.co.uk> <1992Sep5.212728.3127@cs.yale.edu>
	<graham.715833468@galois> <TORKEL.92Sep7180250@bast.sics.se>
	<graham.715923740@galois> <TORKEL.92Sep8070754@bast.sics.se>
	<graham.715940744@galois>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 10:39:32 GMT

In article <graham.715940744@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
 writes:

   >I disagree. The point of the constructivist proof is that to say
   >that "there do not exist P that are Q" is meaningless unless you can
   >produce at leat on object staisfying P and one satisfying Q. 

  This has nothing to do with constructivism in any sense known in
mathematics or philosophy. I take it the concept is an arbitrary
invention on your part?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Pythagorean Reform Church
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 12:28:13 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <1992Sep5.174927.12074@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <6lnn0#a@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep4.224050.21786@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>>In article <0kmn#3=@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>>>Of course 4 could also represent male+male marriage and 6 represent
>>>lesbian marriage :-)

>>No...even numbers are female; odd numbers, male.  4 would be
>>representative of lesbian marriage, 6 would be gay male marriage.

>No no no! :-)
>1+3=4 (gay marriage)
>2+4=6 (lesbian marriage)

No...1 isn't a "true" number.  It is merely a generator.

The first true, male number is 3.

And why are you mixing the 2's with the 4's, the 1's with the 3's?
Unless you're trying to come up with the tetractys.....

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
From: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Has Robert Tilton been shut down?
Date: 9 Sep 92 22:54:46 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

The last time I saw the Robert Tilton program, it was trying to refute
a hatchet job that one of the investigative programs had done.

This morning, it had been replaced by the National Geographic.

Has it been taken off the air? Did someone complain that their 'vow'
hadn't worked?

Chris Lee
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: Bird Wedges and ur-vile wedges
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 20:16:30 GMT

In <n0958t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> 
> 
>SB> "Didn't you recently post something about people needing
>SB> more field experience? If you have done any studying of
>SB> migratory fowls or even read much on the topic then you
>SB> might have found out that the wedge leader position is
>SB> rotated through the wedge. It's not always the same bird
>SB> in the lead, they keep changing it as they tire."
> 
>The same is true for ur-viles; the lore master takes up the
>point of the wedge, and when she/he falls, the next strongest
>takes up that position.

You should use the pronous "it" when referring to ur-viles,
since they reproduce asexually.

Of course, as an atheist, I don't believe that ur-viles exist.

>--- Maximus 2.00
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: what, me thee asshole?
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:20:31 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <j1moody-080992232050@lafmacconsultant.lafortune.lab.nd.edu>, 
j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) whines:

[bad attempt at peotry deleted]

In his first post, he demonstrated he couldn't reason.
In his second, that he couldn't empathize.
In his third, that couldn't write.

Ladies and gentlemen, we may well be looking at the single most useless person
on the planet.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
From: jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: End of the World...
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:56:26 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


Not all of us take pride in appearing loony. For instance, I, as a Catholic,
prefer to appear sober and sane (in religious matters) because that throws
the weirdos in the College of Cardinals into sharper relief. B-)

I think you guys just see a lot more loony ones 'cos they come from either
denominations that are hellbent on converting the (what would you say you
think they'd call you? Pagan? Heathen? Infidel? Godless-Commie-Bastards,
or whatever there are now that Communism's on its way out?) masses, or from
'nondenominational' churches which tend to get even worse.

Just my opinion; ignore it if you like.

-- 
Jessica McGeary
jmm25@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University
Remember! Arguments should be FUN!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Dealing with theistic relatives
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:01:54 GMT

In article <18dlu4INNrcn@wupost.wustl.edu> oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser) writes:
>	Does anyone have any observations on dealing with religious relatives?
>How does one breach the subject of being an atheist and deal with the 
>inevitably negative response?
>	Personally, I still find myself going to church with my parents
>when I visit them, because I know that if I refused and explained why,
>they wouldn't be happy campers, and I'd rather just waste an hour on
>Sunday than deal with the hassle.  And I'm absolutely positive my
>grandparents would flip out if they knew I was an atheist.
>	Is it possible to be openly atheistic without alienating one's
>family?  Is this perhaps why there are so few overtly open atheists?
>	Private e-mail responses are encouraged, although you may wish
>to post anything that would be of general interest.
>
>	-Scott Oser

In our family, going to church with Mom was regarded as a family
obligation.  Not going to church would have been regarded in the
same way as refusing to mow the lawn.  Since I attached no
intellectual or spiritual significance to going to church, and
I knew that it added to domestic tranquility, it did not bother
me at all (unless I missed an important football game on TV!)

When I started my own household, and stopped going to church,
it was never regarded as a problem.  I never brought up
my personal beliefs because there was no need to:  I had
no interest in converting members of my family.  And I knew
that since beliefs tend to change over time, there was no
point in indulging in heated and disruptive arguments over
beliefs that would probably be different in a few years.

Mainly, I don't worry about an "open" lifestyle because I
regard morality to be vastly more important than theology.
-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:03:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.194712.24771@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>Look, if you don't believe in morality, then it is sheer stupidity to
>claim that it is logically flawed for somebody to say that, eg., murder
>is immoral.

It is not stupidity to claim that A does not imply B, even if you don't
believe in A.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Free will - the "Jarekian" heresy.
Date: 6 Sep 92 00:45:24 GMT
Organization: Xerox PARC

In <1992Sep5.163142.28032@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> Ken Arromdee suggests that I
am someone else, not me:

-Jarek:
>>Imagine yourself as such a being.
-Ken:
>people like you reject the idea that such a being would act any way like me.
>
????????????    ~*-)    =8-|     :-E    ^%$*#@!!!!!!!!

Recall our discussions (eg. about omnipotence) and READ what I said, OK?


Best wishes,
             Jarek
======================================================
 .-----.            Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com       
 `-> <-'       I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: End of the World...
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:53:17 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep10.200525.1@cc.helsinki.fi>, eperkio@cc.helsinki.fi
wrote:
> 
> By now every Finn should have a 'sickness insurance card', which
> features a bar code.  Incidentally, so does my driver's licence, and
> the card I use to borrow books from the local library.  We're doomed... 
> 
> Strange are the ways of a paranoid mind.

Well, I used to be a paranoid Finn, then I moved out from Finland,
and I asked the local Police if I should register my current location
in USA if they ask me to suddenly join the Army (of some reason or
another). The answer (official one) was, "Who bothers?". Well, 
I'm less paranoid nowadays, if the Finnish government cares a shit
where I am just now, then we don't have a high Big Brother level
in Finland.

Cheers,
Kent
"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Did the world end already?
Date: 5 Sep 92 22:03:18 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <dabrowsk.715213828@liveboard10>, dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek
Dabrowski) wrote:
> In <1992Aug29.003242.1@acad2.alaska.edu> Don (atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu) 
> concludes Scott Oser's remark about the imminent end of the world with:
> -Don:
> >Conclusions:  Jesus (if he existed) and his followers thought the end
> >"must shortly come to pass" (Apocalypse 1:1); they were wrong; ergo
> >Christianity is wrong; 

> ... or misinterpreted. Solution: This world ends TO YOU when you die. 

So I died during the generation of the Apostles ("this generation will not
pass away till all things have been accomplished").

Strange...

Cheers,
Kent
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: assholes revisited
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:51:09 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <j1moody-070992012737@lafmacconsultant.lafortune.lab.nd.edu> j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:
>It was amusing to see so many level-headed, objective athiests <...>

That's it.  I _knew_ this idiot wouldn't know how to spell "atheist".

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: god's relevancy
Date: 9 Sep 1992 19:02:33 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(ken bell) writes:

 Very nice, Jad. Also, let's remember that if we could answer the question of 
 the existence of God [provided the "answer" included or entailed a 
 sufficiently elaborated or at least clear conception of "God"], this would 
 immediately be of enormous importance for the solution of many of the most 
 contentious problems of philosophy, or would at least provide the main 
 body of a solution to them. It would be relevant to the question of the 

Hmmm. Let's suppose for the moment god exists and that tomorrow 
morning, right before your alarm clock goes off, a single fleeting
image of "god" appears to each and every sentient being on earth
and says something like "I am that I am".

This would not be inconsistent with the way god has supposedly
appeared in the past according to various theologies.

What would it solve/prove? Would anything change?

Dano
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Would you do ANYTHING God told you....?
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:37:23 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


	Jessica sez:


	I can honestly say that no, I wouldn't..........



	HOLY S&@# ! JESSICA IS THE FIRST PERSON TO EVER ANSWER THE
QUESTION instead of going around it. Yes, instead of ducking the question,
she answered it..........





	.....wow.....





-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries, reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips     |personal E-mail:bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
alias:White Rook      |   NWROC E-mail:usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism