HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Chaotic brain behaviour and its influence on duplicating a perso
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 22:41:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.223219.11075@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>In article <of1g_dC00iUy02t807@andrew.cmu.edu> "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>Why?  What else is there to school than learning that cannot be better
>>accomplished elsewhere today, with our current technology.  
>Rather a lot.  When I look back upon my undergraduate career (ah,
>being a Senior was 3 of the best years of my life) I remember hazy
>Friday nights of alcoholism, trips up into the Berkeley hills, offensive
>music, bad food, beautiful and intelligent women who had the good sense
>not to get involved with me, etc.  Classes don't really stand out.  Even 
>if I had learned nothing at school (which is far from the case), the social 
>interaction would have made it all worth while.
Hmm...I remember some of this stuff(After having visited UC Berkeley,
I'd guess that there were a hell of a lot more beautiful and intelligent
women there than at Yale) particularly the Friday(and Thursday, and you
get the picture) nights of alcoholism, but I am much less sure that
it was all worth it. After I got out, I found that all this stuff
was still available, and more. If your social interactions end upon
leaving undergrad, it's by choice, not by obligation. What then was
unique about the college experience? 

-Ekr




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 07:48:31 -0500 
From: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: The Sin Of Christianity

>I have never sinned. I have never done "anything wrong." This does
>not mean that I would not if the opportunity presented itself. It
>is just that I have never been in a position to "sin." The last
>time I did anything "wrong" was before I was potty trained (30
>years ago).

What do you define as wrong?  I find it very difficult to believe that
any human is capable of a 100% right existance.  Have you ever lied,
even by omission?  Have you ever passed judgement on someone w/o all the
information?  I don't mean to insult at all, but I'm just surprised at
the convept of a person without any wrongdoing at all.  I had an
arguement with a friend of mine saying that if Jesus Christ was
completely pure, and never committed even the most minor sin, then he
could not be human.  She argued that even though he was God, he was
human too, which made no sense to me at all, and from there the
conversation degenerated into worthless garbage.  I find "sin," but not
the biblical ramifications to be a very real part of humanity.  I feel
that humans are inherently evil, and even with maximum effort to alway
do good, are fated to slip up somewhere.  If you truly have lived a
"perfectly right" existance, then congratulations!(NO SARCASM)  I'm
truly impressed and sorry that I even questioned it.  If not, then I'm
sure you're no worse than the rest of us.  I mean, you sound like a
decent guy on the net!
Sincerely, 
-JW
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Blasphemy??
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:52:41 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <Bxwtp1.1MD@newcastle.ac.uk> T.G.Nattress@newcastle.ac.uk (Graeme Nattress) writes:
>What is the point in having any laws on blasphemy?  I will argue this in two
>ways:
>

 To give Mary Whitehouse something to do.........

>
>Graeme,
>

Chris Lee
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Nowhere else to go
Date: 23 Nov 1992 01:13:56 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

dbent@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Darrell A Bent) writes:


>     I have tried going to quite a few other religious newsgroups to discuss my
>beliefs, but my views don't seem to fall under any of those categories.  As 
>such, I thought that this group might be the only place where I can find 
>tolerance for my beliefs, and perhaps people who have the same beliefs system 
>that I do.  I believe that there is a God, and that God is a rubber band.  I 
>believe that God shoots spitwads and paper clips at his buddies.

That's interesting.  What about your beliefs did you want to discuss?

keith

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Circumcision (was Re: God Is Unfair)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 21:46:14 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

In article <10785@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:

|> 
|>   Ever witness a circumsion up close?  Lots of blood and
|>   screaming; truly not a sight for the weak kneed.  Now combine this
|>   with the facts that the AMA recommends *against* circumsion, and
|>   that there is no sound reason to perform one, and you have an open
|>   and shut case for barbarism.

Yes of course I witnessed a circumcision up close --- my son's.
Hardly any blood.  Much less screaming than the first
time he fell onto a pavement and cut open his forehead at age 2.
He fell asleep soon after, and I was able to enjoy the party.
I still felt bad for him, just as I did when he got his
shots, and when my daughter got stitches after a similar accident.

Your AMA example actually works against your argument.
For a certain period of time, medical doctors considered
circumcision *beneficial* for reasons relating to
hygiene and incidence of cancer.  Many Gentiles were
circumcising their children.  As with many other
practices (e.g. exposure to sunlight), new studies
came in and the medical profession changed its mind.
Their position now is that there is no longer a
sound medical reason to perform a circumcision.

That's not the same as saying that they consider
circumcision harmful.  And it's certainly not
an open and shut case for calling it "barbaric",
any more than we should call sunbathing barbaric.
 

|>   Or are you suggesting that removal of the foreskin causes no
|>   permanent damage, and the boy is not substantially altered by its
|>   being cut off.  In that case, I hope you're not circumcised.  Do
|>   send me an invitation to the ceremony, though. 
|> 
It's too late.  Jewish ritual circumcision is done on
the 8th day.  That's how it was done for me;  that's how
it was done for my son.


-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21579 talk.religion.misc:21436
From: ktikkane@phoenix.oulu.fi (Kari Tikkanen)
Subject: Re: Is omniscience impossible?
Organization: University of Oulu, Finland
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:46:15 GMT

 Linden salter.Duke (salter_duke@darwin.ntu.edu.du) and YOU others try to
prove omniscience to be logically impossible. Me too. (I try to show
that there's no creature x that x is Omniscient and Omnipotent). 
But Today I saw an argument in Finnish net which is something like this:
  
   All those proofs are fruitless. 
 If logic A and x are in contradiction then logic A is wrong.
 That's because Omnipotent x can always define a new logic B
 that is not in  contradiction to x.
 So x can determine (or define) that logic B is right.    

So this argument claims that if x is Omnipotent then you can never disproof 
it ( or him).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Kari Tikkanen               |         |  |      b        | for i:=1 to n do
  Kelotie 37                  |   .  . -+- |      /        |   begin  
  SF-90550 OULU               |         |  |  I = | f(x)dx |     s:=s+Eq(i);
  FINLAND                     |       Vega |      /        |   end
  ktikkane@phoenix.oulu.fi    | .  .       |     a         | Writeln('s=',s);
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 20 Nov 92 10:10:38 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch) writes:
> Being blunt, I don't think it's the mannerisms that really bother people.
> Rather it's the fact that during the last 5000 years of Judeo-Christian
> history, homosexuality has been considered immoral. In the Bible, God calls
> it "an abomination." Those of us who try to live by Judeo-Christian moral
> standards find homosexuality morally offensive, and many of us prefer to
> shelter our children from that and other immoral or unhealthy influences
> because we do not want them to follow what we consider a bad example. As
> parents, it's our right to bring our children up according to whatever
> standard we choose.

Is it?  So if I have children, it is my right to bring them up to worship
Satan, drink blood, kill other children and have sex with each other?  Just
asking.

> Unfortunately, there are many homosexuals who *do* try to influence
> children toward the homosexual lifestyle. I just saw a tv news report last
> Sunday in which a lesbian was talking to a group of 10-year old public
> school children about how wonderful it is to be a lesbian. I think that's
> wrong, and I have the right to demand that the schools not expose my child
> to that kind of indoctrination. Accordingly, I believe a law preventing
> schools from advocating homosexuality and other forms of immorality is
> entirely reasonable.

On the contrary, it is not reasonable because you must ask the question
"Whose idea of immorality?"  Not all religions share your rather mediaeval
hang-ups, and I doubt if many atheists do.

> My value system (the Bible) is banned from schools;

Bullshit.  It is merely not permissible for schools to make your value system
compulsory, either de facto or de jure.  If you don't understand why THAT is
an important principle, surely you wouldn't object to your children having
compulsory gay sex each morning?

> It's not a matter of hate or fear. It's simply that I want the best for my
> child, and exposing her to immoral influences is not what I consider  best.

What you consider best is relatively unimportant.   Yours is not the only
belief system in your country, and you have no right to impose it on others
via the local school.

The only way a school can be fair to all is to try and cover all belief
systems and let the children decide (perhaps with the assistance of their
parents).  You don't want that.  You want your belief system to be the One
True belief system forced on every child.  Well sorry, but no way.


mathew
-- 
"Boy, they were big on crematoriums weren't they?"
 -- George Bush, during a tour of Auschwitz, 1987-09-28
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: eknipp@lobo.rmhs.colorado.edu (Ethan R Knipp)
Subject: Re: God Is Silly
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:06:52 GMT
Organization: Rocky Mountain High School, Fort Collins, CO

In article <denmckinnon.1.722066914@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au> denmckinnon@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (NEIL MCKINNON) writes:
>Now consider these two statements:
>
>"There is a God x" 
>"It is not the case that there is a God x"
>
>x represents the particular deity appealed to here. (For instance, x may be 
>the Christian God, with all the properties and historical claims which are 
>made on His behalf.)
>
>Now it seems to me that the two statements above are both assertions.  The 
>second is not just the absence of an assertion.  No, it is a positive 
>assertion about the ontology of the Universe (i.e. the things which exist in 
>the Universe).  Thus, just as the first represents the Universe as being a 
>certain way, so does the second.

But you confuse weak atheism with strong atheism:
        Strong atheism: "There is no god x"
        Weak atheism: "I have an absence of belief in the existance of god x."
The Strong atheist is making an assertion.  The weak one just doesn't believe 
the assertion is true.  See mathew's "Introduction to Atheism"- as soon as it 
get's out of beta version.



-- 
                     /\  *STRAIGHT BUT NOT NARROW*
Ethan Knipp         /P \      |        ***PANIC NOW-AVOID THE RUSH***
The Unbeliever     ------     |   "It is not I who am crazy, it is I who am
eknipp@lobo.rmhs.colorado.edu |    mad!"- Ren, The Ren and Stimpy Show
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Help
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:30:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.163138.15512@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>The embarassing problem with OOBs is that the subject experiences things
>that are evidentially confirmable.  E.g. going to another part of the
>building or across town and reporting details they could not possibly
>could have known about.  These are not religious or new age cranks who
>report this, but respectable scientifically trained observers.  The
>only way to decide is to really look at the accounts, and there are many
>of them.  Skeptics are always looking for independently verifiable 
>evidence.  Well, there is some, so don't spend your time trying to argue
>apriori why the experiences and accounts thereof can't possibly valid. That
>is dogma, not science.
If there is such evidence, then one would need to account for it,
but I have seen neither you nor Ms. Ottinger post evidence that
people experienceing OOBs can reall report infomration that would
otherwise have not been available. If this is in fact true, I
trust you will be prepared to post evidence of studies which have been
done. Journal citations, experimental descriptions, that sort of thing.
Well?

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
From: eshin@ddsw1.mcs.com (Eshin-Fun)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: fatima
Date: 15 Nov 92 15:04:20 GMT
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago IL
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

>>Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes:

: Let me see, as I recall, it was foretold by Fatima that a miracle would
: take place to prove to the nonbelievers that she was speaking from the
: Lord. The miracle came exactly when it was supposed to after Fatima had
: spoken to the three children. That's proof enough for me, since I doubt
: these three children could've poisoned 100 thousand people in preparation
: for the event, much less fake a miracle....
: 
: Michelle<<

Just another way to look at it. 

Have you observed that the manifestations are of an anonymous "Lady" always
appearing to one so naive of symbolism that in the end cannot explain in the
midst of all hysteria details of what they've seen?

At Lourdes, or Fatima it seems to always be the same apparition. But by the
symbolism it seems to imply more the goddess Venus or Tlazolteotl than the
virgin Mary whom the church canonizes.

Perhaps, it >was< mass hysteria. For no record of the sun's descent was
recorded anywhere else in the world. And the miraculous waters have not
healed everyone who has used them.

But let's suppose, (for argument's sake) that what these apparitions
*really* mean is the reneissance of the pagan worship of the "goddess"
wouldn't it be logical that every time the "virginize" each apparition this
entity is going to continue to appear until humanity recognizes what it is
really trying to say?

Perhaps this may be why images of this goddess, whether found in Catholic or
pagan guise seem to weep.

Of course, on the other hand, perhaps people want toi believe so much that
in their frustration they are willing to manufacture >anything< in their
minds so that they have something to blame their misfortunes to.;-)

eshin-Fun
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21612 talk.abortion:48532
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.abortion
Subject: Sentient fetuses
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 11:28:51 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <DZP3TB8w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> >nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >> A sentient fetus is a "person" in the phenomenological sense of the
> >> word.
> >Quite possibly, but how do you know that any such thing as a "sentient fetus
> >exists?
> 
> I don't KNOW it, but then I don't KNOW that anyone in the world is sentient
> besides myself.  This is an ancient philosophical conundrum, and one must
> resort to external signs to arrive at a probable conclusion.

Quite.  What do you think are the external signs indicating sentience?

> >Also, are Ethiopians "persons" in the phenomenological sense?  What about
> >convicted serial killers?
> 
> Yes in both cases.  But (1) if you are implying I should save every child
> in Ethiopia BEFORE I have the right to try to save any unborn children, I
> say you are all wet

Boy, is that a snappy rebuttal.

>                      and (2) if you are equating an innocent babe in a 
> woman's womb with a serial killer, you are worse than all wet, you are
> an ethical nihilist.

What if the 'innocent' babe in the womb is going to become a serial killer?

Are you saying that only some sentient people have a right to life?  If so,
which ones?


mathew

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: Help
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:00:56 GMT

mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:

>Eric Rescorla writes:

>>I guess not. But I'm pretty doubtful that the events you call "proof"
>>ever happened at all. And you don't seem to be able to prove that
>>they did, or to make ones like them happen again.

>Your doubt doesn't carry a whole lot of weight, nor your insistence on
>miracles on demand.  If you found a skeptic who was converted, would you
>believe him instead?  I do not believe so.  Your standards for witnesses
>here are absurdly high.

Seriously.  Eric, where do you get off actually demanding to have a
witness that is cross-examinable?  Sheesh.  And you call yourself a
rational human being.

Lower your standards a little, and maybe you too can start believing
witnesses that testified two-thousand years ago, and sixty years after
the fact, like our friend Charley here.

------------------------------------------------------------
mark schnitzius           |  seeking guitar songbook for the
schnitzi@eola.cs.ucf.edu  |  clash's "london calling".  does
univ. of central florida  |  one even exist?  will pay top $
------------------------------------------------------------
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Help
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:50:31 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <62131@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>Eric Rescorla writes:
>
>>I guess not. But I'm pretty doubtful that the events you call "proof"
>>ever happened at all. And you don't seem to be able to prove that
>>they did, or to make ones like them happen again.
>
>Your doubt doesn't carry a whole lot of weight, nor your insistence on
>miracles on demand.  If you found a skeptic who was converted, would you
>believe him instead?  I do not believe so.  Your standards for witnesses
>here are absurdly high.
>

  Our standards for the witnesses are commensurate with the claims
  of the ring leader, for nothing less than the dispensation of our
  alleged eternal soul is in the balance.

  If we get it wrong, and indeed Allah is the one true creator, then
  an eternity in hell is our punishment for negligent fact gathering.

  If this all powerful god exists, then he knows the exact measure
  of evidence required to bring about my conversion.  The fact that
  he does not do so tells volumes.


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

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: starr-daniel@yale.edu (Daniel Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Church of England / Women / Catholics
Date: 16 Nov 1992 22:14:30 -0500
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu

Someone with a better knowledge of Catholicism should feel free to correct
me, but meanwhile:

With the notable exception of the Virgin Mary, women in general, dating
back from Eve (who plucked the apple and was the first committer of the
original sin), were traditionally considered inherently less trustworthy
and more prone to sin.

Additionally, the organized Christian tradition grew out of some of the
Jewish traditions of the time, which were patriarchal.

Finally, and most importantly from a theological point of view, Eve is
explicitly created out of Adam, as a "help meet" for him.  Thus Eve is
at a remove from God (who directly produces Adam) and is ordained (there
and elsewhere) to be a servant unto Adam.  Eve being the archetypal woman
and Adam the archetypal man, it is considered in the theology, as I understand
it, ordained that the direct intercessors with God -- the priests -- should
be men.  

As for the Church of England... (1) of all non-Catholic branches this is
by far the closest to being Catholic.  (2) The Pope naturally considers
himself to be responsible for all Christians (not to mention the whole world)
even if they're not Catholic.  (3) if it works for the Church of England
John Paul II may have to deal with increased political pressure to do it
in the Catholic church... which he does NOT want to do.  (In the category
of Things That Would Be Really Really Divisive and Probably Just Plain
Bad in the Pope's book.)

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|Daniel Starr                | "Wait! Wait! Maybe THIS will work!" |
|dstarr@minerva.cis.yale.edu |                                     |
--------------------------------------------------------------------