HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Help
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 20:45:30 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.

Why is it that whenever I see the name "Gerry Palo" attached to an article,
almost invariably what follows is a load of unsubstantiated pseudoscientific
rubbish?  I've seen him promote Velikovski's theories, I've seen him
assert that the Egyptians could not possibly have built the pyramids,
I've seen him promote a geocentric view of the universe, I've seen him
promote astrology, I've seen him promote Christianity, and now he's
claiming without references that OOBEs are magical.  I haven't seen
anything about Elvis or UFOs yet, but I'm sure that's not too far
down the pike.

Perhaps, rather than telling us what you do believe, you could tell
us what you don't believe instead.  The list is bound to be shorter.

>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.

Skeptics are always looking for indpendently verifiable evidence that
I am Queen Elizabeth.  Well, there is some, so don't spend your time
trying to argue a priori why the experiences and accounts thereof can't
possibly be valid.  That is dogma, not science.
--
Should the human race not be extinguished by a nuclear war, it will degenerate
into a flock of stupid, dumb creatures under the tyranny of dictators who rule
them with the help of machines and electronic computers.  This is no prophecy,
just a nightmare.  -- Max Born.   **** dgraham@bnr.ca    My own opinions. ****
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Circumcision (was Re: God Is Unfair)
Date: 19 Nov 92 23:37:52 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Nov19.214614.15620@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>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
>
>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.

  My good friend and pediatrician informs me that it's not always
  that pretty.  His screaming at age two was likely more the result
  of fear and anxiety than it was from pain.  Also probably not the
  case for your son's circumcision.

>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.
>
  
  Doesn't sound like it works against my argument in the least.  It
  sounds more like the medical profession recognizes that it made 
  a mistake.

>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.

  Thank you for inserting the word ritual; that's all it is.  Ritual
  mutilation.  The AMA also has a word for practices on children
  that 
  1.  cause pain
  2.  have no medical benefit.

  It's called abuse.

  (BTW, I include ear piercings in that category if the child does
  not choose to have it done.)  But that's just one circumcised
  gentile's opinion.

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

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: Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: one lab
Date: 16 Nov 92 02:37:38 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <Bxq3wB.JzG@encore.com> kschnitz@encore.com (Kevin Schnitzius) writes:
>Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes:
>>I have been informed by one fellow student here at GB 
>
>Just out of curiosity, what is GB?
>

Sorry about that, GB is actually short for UWGB which is short for
University of Wisconsin Green Bay.

>>                                                      that Maharishi
>>International University (MIU) in Fairfield, Iowa is one institution
>>where OOB's are studied and performed. This friend tried to get
>>involved with it when he was down there but was told you must be a 
>>student there to qualify.
>
>While this lead is not quite dead, the reference librarian at MIU was 
>unable to come up with any published studies done at MIU concerning OOBs.
>I will be calling the psychology department on Monday for more information.
>
>>I'm sure there are other places, and will get back to you all on more
>>when I get the time to do the research.
>
>We'll be here.
>--
>mr asynchronous                                   kschnitzius@encore.com


It's gonna take about two weeks, I hope you will be patient with me.

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: johnsd2@jec326.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Paganism & Atheism
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec326.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:12:43 GMT

In article 092330J5J@psuvm.psu.edu, John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> () writes:
>In article <+4x1r4+@rpi.edu>, johnsd2@jec324.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman
>Johnson) says:
>>
>>In article 1ecr1vINN664@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu, bx461@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Leo .
>>J
>>Mauler) writes:
>>
>>Atheists do not believe in any gods, Pagans believe in them all.
>>(how's that for categorical statement of the week?)
>
>It's certainly categorical.

Why thank you! :)

>I consider myself an atheistic pagan, so I beg to differ here.
>As far as I am concerned, gods and goddesses are metaphorical
>personifications of aspects of nature.  What follows is a repost
>detailing my position.

Gotcha. Weird, but gotcha.

>----------------------------------------------
>Organization: Penn State University
>Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:39:49 EDT
>From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
>Message-ID: <92258.223949J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
>Newsgroups: alt.pagan,alt.atheism,alt.mythology
>Subject: Metaphorical paganism
>
>Anyone else out there in paganland consider themselves a "metaphorical
>pagan?"  I don't believe in supernatural deities, but I'm in love with
>nature and mythology.  I've been "worshipping" nature gods through
>rituals for some 20 years now--not because I believe in the magickal
>efficacy of the rituals, but rather for the feeling of connectedness
>to nature and to human prehistory.

Curiouser and Curiouser. Did anyone elseo ut there in paganland respond?
Or are you unique?

I didn't think this sort of thing would qualify, but you'd know better
than I. (<-- look! 'nother catagorical statement! Im full of these!)

>----------------
>John A. Johnson  (j5j@psuvm.psu.edu)
>Metaphorical (and Atheistic) Pagan
>Penn State is not responsible for my behavior.
>Neither am I to blame for Penn State.  Especially the football program.

:) Wish I had thought of this .sig. :)

---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Atheist "philosophy"
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:54:47 GMT

bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:
>Oh, but we DO understand you!  The question is do YOU understand US?
>Atheism says "No gods for me." ... period ... THAT'S ALL!!
>I suppose you think praying will get rid of the mess?
>Saving humanity requires an effort on the part of mankind to 
>work together to clean up what we have now and make sure it
>stays clean.  It has NOTHING to do with gods or religion.
>I'm against materialism, too.  
>Atheist not = materialist.
>Andreas = moron.                         
><*sigh*>

	I used to saw the problem (in singular) as philosophical, now I see it
	as religious. Atheism says "No gods for me, period", there's no NEED to
	think world as being in a religious crisis. Greed is behind famine and
	environmental problems. The only atheist attempt to control greed has
	miserably failed (Communism). In Capitalist economies greed is seen as
	a POSITIVE power. Proudhon has written about greed in economy more, so 
	I refer to him. 

	When greed is seen bad and exploiting, it should be controlled. To 
	control greed we must know where it comes from. Materialism. Materialism
	is strongly emphasized among those, who doesn't follow Jesus Christ 
	(includes many so-called "Christians"). In Jesus' time Pharisees used to
	boast with their material wealth. Jesus himself was very poor and also
	his disciples were and are poor (with exceptions, though). So, this is
	the way you can save the earth. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Bible Bying
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:38:34 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov  5 1992

Who: oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser)
ID: 1ducc4INNf5@wupost.wustl.edu
 
SO> "I'm considering (gasp!) buying a Bible.  What translations
SO> do readers of this group recommend, and why? -Scott Oser"
 
"The Satanic Bible," by Anton LaVey. It's great fun!

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: altruism and will to live/ not likely
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 05:52:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.171321.7624@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh) writes:
>From article <1992Nov20.081457.5471@news.uiowa.edu>, by cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu (Corey D Minter):
>>I want to argue my belief that we all just act selfishly, and anything that
>>seems altruistic is either just a means to selfish goals or an error in
>>judgement.  [...]
>
>In his book, "The Selfish Gene", Richard Dawkins explains this very well
>in terms of the genes trying to survive.  It's an excellent book.
>
Except that the premise on which it depends is completely arbitrary.

	Sven

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Blasphemy??
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 05:29:05 GMT

In article <dpn2.108.722127085@po.CWRU.Edu> dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:
>
>To nitpick -- it is quite possible to be atheistic and still believe in 
>absolute good/evil. :-)

How do you define "good" and "evil" in which you believe (or not)?

	Sven
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: REAL Gods
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:33:20 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov  5 1992

I've just waded through several dozen religionists articles here
in alt.atheist. In these various articles four deities were up
for sale--- Jehovah, Krishna, Jesus, and some bizzare New Age
"Ascended master" stuff that was mostly indecipherable.
 
I've looked over dozens of Gods, ever since high school when
I became enamoured with Greek mythology. I went on to Hebrew
mythology, Jewish mythology, and Christian mythology. I guess
in my next life (SMILE!) I'll have time for Chinese mythology.
 
I have found the deities above, Jehovah, Krishna, and Jesus,
to be utterly lacking in any redeeming qualities. Krishna is
a Drunken God and a Divine Madness God, much like Dyonysis.
Jehovah, the "Earth Shakerer" (Poseidon, Neptune, Chronos)
is a bloodthirsty butcher, drunk on arrogance. Jesus (Zeus,
Horus, Apollo) the solar God, required his followers to hate
their families, then lied to them every chance He got.
 
Since all these Gods were created, why not create some GOOD,
VALID, socially responsible Gods WORTHY of worship?!
 
I nominate the following individuals as God. I submit that
they are FAR BETTER Gods than any other God that have ever
been put forth. I can think of THOUSANDS more than the ones
I've listed below, that are FAR more worthy of worship than
any religion's deity:
 
1) Larry Niven
2) Isack Assimov
3) Madam Curie
4) Louis Pasture
5) Motzart
6) Max Plank
7) Einstein
8) Stephen R. Donaldson
9) Louis LaMour
A) Frank Herbert
B) Shakespear
C) Reba McEntire
D) Ghandi
E) Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
F) Mae West
G) Susan B. Anthony
  
No doubt you can think of more.

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto)
Subject: Re: Question for ex-Christians
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 06:30:39 GMT

Well 

In my case, I waas brought up a christian, up to
10th grade, with the works.
Went to a jesuit school (1st througth grade)
4 years of: Latin, french, english( in So. America)
Altar boy for 1 year (required)
Uniforms, ties, single file walking, mass twice a week
until I began to see hypocritical behaviour and unanswered
questions about the world. Decided to read phulosophical
books about religion. Checked both sides of the "fence"
made up my mind. "There is no solid evidence for the existence
of any god"

Cordially

Frank
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: The Supernatural And Science
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:47:45 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA20214; Wed, 18 Nov 92 06:31:34 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA12882; Wed, 18 Nov 92 06:31:30 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0107; Wed, 18 Nov 92 15:31:00 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

Scott Aaron typed:
>In the past few decades, scientists have observed evidence for universal
expansion which leads to the Big Bang model for cosmology.  This model predicts
>the existence of the microwave background which has been observed so that
>there is evidence for the model.  Now suppose a hypothetical god actually
>created the universe 10,000 years ago and created it such that the universe
>appeared to have evolved from a Big Bang event.  Does this change the
>observations or the fact that the Big Bang model explains well the observations
>No.  The universe still appears to have evolved from a Big Bang event 15
>billion years ago (actually somewhere between 10 and 20 billion) and is
>nicely modeled by the theory.  Lest this become like the discussion I've been
>having with Mr. Copelan, I must stress that I'm not advocating any
>particular religious view on the creation (the god I mention is hypothetical).

>So, the strong assumption you mention above is unnecessary.  Please take the
>time to criticize anything here or in the previous post.  I want to discuss
>this because I enjoy it.

Your 'god' does only create the universe so far. When it has no further
interference with the physics it is of little interest. However, naming
it god which usually implies a conscient entity also implies a assertion
that is not backed up with data. Now, let's assume your cause of the universe
or the supernatural interferes with the physical world.When it can be described
logic and science kick in. The less concise the description the less useful
it is - it is just the big random factor then. Tell me what information can
be gained through postulating a supernatural.
   Benedikt
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Adam and Eve and Bellybuttons
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:09:52 GMT

>In article <1992Nov18.162203.58773@qut.edu.au>, percival@qut.edu.au writes:
>> 	What I want to know is:  Did Adam or Eve have bellybuttons?
>> 	And if so, Why?

They did.  The first bellybuttons were abdominal indentations
caused by an attack by a pink unicorn.


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Circumcision (was Re: God Is Unfair)
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 21 Nov 92 21:46:21 EST
 <Uf3RnyG00WBLI8pqg2@andrew.cmu.edu> <1992Nov21.183803.25639@cs.yale.edu>
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Nov21.183803.25639@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> In article <Uf3RnyG00WBLI8pqg2@andrew.cmu.edu> "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>uncurcumcised penis?"  I also believe that the risk of obtaining some
>>STD's is reduced by a factor of 10.
> You may believe it. That doesn't make it true. Do you have studies
> which show this to be the case?
> 
>>So, in summary, circumcision has medical benefit which outways the minor
>>pain that the child feels.
> Really? I know of no medical benefits it has been proven to have.
> Facts, please, sir.

   I don't know if I can dig up a solid reference for it, but I
read a while ago that there has never been a recorded case of 
penile cancer in a circumcised man.  But the chance of getting
it is so small that it's no more than the chance of infection
from circumcision.

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: *TRUE* Christians
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 05:45:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.192623.12079@bsu-ucs> 00brwoodson@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.044912.22475@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>> In article <1992Nov17.220649.12040@bsu-ucs> 00brwoodson@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
>>>Plus,
>>>whether Christian or not, you have no right to judge others unless you are
>>>wearing a black robe and spend your days in a courtroom.
>> 
>> Where on earth did you get this strange notion from?
>
>What's strange about it.  Don't you understand what I've posted.  Read
>man,read.

Er, I did read.  And no, not much of what you wrote made a hell of a lot
of sense to me, but that could be because I wasn't following the thread
too closely.  Presumably though, the above statement of yours stands on
its own merits.  I'm just wondering why you think the average Joe (ie.
not a judge) has no right to judge others.  Personally, I think that's
one those Christian memes, and a ridiculous one at that.  I judge others
all the time.  So do Christians; in fact, they seem to some of the most
judgemental folks around.  It's just that I'm not big on hypocrisy
or fuzzy thinking.  That doesn't mean that I wouldn't use this line as a
befuddling tactic in a debate with a Christian, but that seems only fair
to me since it is they who claim to adhere to the rule, not I.
--
Should the human race not be extinguished by a nuclear war, it will degenerate
into a flock of stupid, dumb creatures under the tyranny of dictators who rule
them with the help of machines and electronic computers.  This is no prophecy,
just a nightmare.  -- Max Born.   **** dgraham@bnr.ca    My own opinions. ****
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:37:41 -0500 
From: David O Hunt <bluelobster+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Jesus Saves

Jesus Saves!

Moses Invests!

Buddha Recycles!



or the ever-popular...

Jesus Saves!  But Mario gets the rebound - and HE SHOOTS AND SCORES!


David
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Church of England / Women / Catholics
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 11:42:35 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
> Similarly, The Lord (tm) chose to walk whenever he travelled.
> So I guess that the Pope should sell the Popemobile
> and never travel in a car or airplane again.

As John Dowie put it, "It's odd that the Pope drives a car with bullet-proof
glass.  Jesus Christ didn't wear nail-proof gloves, did he?"


mathew

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: The Bible In Minnesota
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:33:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.041102.20005@digibd.com> merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>
>There have been two letters in the local paper (that I have seen); they
>weren't written by the student, but one was by a couple of American Atheist
>members who apparently know the guy.  There have been a lot of challenges
>to schoolbooks in Minnesota recently, many of them objected to on the basis
>of content (violence, sex, etc), and many brought by religious groups or
>associations.  This student decided to object to another book on the basis
>of content (violence, sex, etc), and, of course, we all know what book that
>was...  It seems to be a deliberate exercise in political theater.
>
It is not that simple. It can serve a useful purpose of setting a court 
precedent therefore preventing a future ban of other books.

	Sven
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: morality????????
Date: 23 Nov 92 15:43:04 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:
> In article <10803@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine
> >  Given that there are means of removing violent criminals from
> >  society that do not include death, what reason other than
> >  retribution do you see for allowing capital punishment?
> 
> Are you referring to life imprisonment? There are many cases of people who 
> have been sentenced to life imprisonment who have subsequently killed again.

Largely because they have been sentenced to 'life' imprisonment, i.e. fifteen
years.  I think Bob was talking about life imprisonment, i.e. you are locked
away for life.


mathew
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:26:04 GMT

In article <ednclark.722219787@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>It is extremely unlikely that Isaac[Asimov] would write a book showing any
>discrepencies with the Bible as unfortunately the late man was a christian
>(though not a fundie).
Are you off your nut? The man was an atheist.
-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."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism