HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Abortion: When does life begin?
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 22 Dec 92 07:03:14 GMT

dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

>In article <1992Dec19.173106.28170@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>In article <n11b8t@ofa123.fidonet.org> 
>>David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>>
>>> The abortion issue really boils down to a question of CONTROL
>>> and DOMINATION by rich, powerful white males, of women, to continue
>>
>>The polls tend to indicate that 'rich, white males' support  
>>abortion rights much more so than the general population.
>>If you want to generate a conspiracy theory, perhaps you
>>should target some other group.

>I think he might be talking about *really rich* white males, who,
>since they don't consist of a large percentage of the population,
>and since they aren't likely to be forthright anyway, aren't likely
>to cause much of blip on your survey.  However, since they own the
>instruments of propaganda, they have the ability to make great masses
>of other people, especially poorly educated and religious people,
>hold the "correct" opinions.
>--
I think  he is probably referring to the vote chasers, who happen to be very
rich white males.  They read surveys like the one above and consider how
many votes they will get if they publically assert an opinion for or against
abortion. The fact that abortion is such an emotive issue there would be
many one issue voters for an anti-abortion stance, whereas a vote-chaser may
feel that pro-abortionist may be less likely to be one issue voters, and
therefore a pro-abortion stance may be more profitable poll-wise.

Jeff.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: news@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson)
Subject: Re: Question for theists on fate.
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:38:34 GMT


In article <1992Dec30.134859.12210@walter.cray.com>, jwest@wisc (Jeff West) writes...
>Since there are many theists obviously reading this newsgroup I would
>like to sincerely ask the following question.
> 
>Do you believe that your god (any religion) controls your destiny?
>To expand it a bit, do you believe that when, or before, you are
>born that your life has been all worked out for you by god and that
>there is nothing you can do to change it?  Is god responsible for
>what happens to you?
> 
>Since I'm the one that's asked the question I promise that *I* won't
>flame any of your replys.
> 
>Yours in Colleen,     (who's been to darn quite lately }8-))
>  Jeff West
> 
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>It's not denial.  I'm just very selective about the reality I accept.
> 
>    - Calvin & Hobbs

    Jeff,

        I'd like to reply to this via e-mail, but my reply bounced.  Could
    you please e-mail me a brief reply to this posting.  If the path is
    different, perhaps I can get through.  Thanks in advance.

                                                            -mark.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24778 talk.religion.misc:24950
From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: In Job, Lucifer was proved right!
Date: 2 Jan 93 17:18:19 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Cc: minsky

In article <1993Jan2.014956.6474@eskimo.com> alpinist@eskimo.com (David Butler) writes:
>
>I can look at my past and see exactly what choices I made.  I know with
>certainty what I have already done.  Does that mean I did not have free
>will at the time?  If the past can be fixed and free will still exist,
>then why would free will not exist just because the future is fixed?
>Or in other words, if I know what choices I already made and had free
>will at the time - couldn't the choices I will make be known and still
>be the result of free will?

Sure -- if you accept the idea that decisions seem 'free' simply when
your conscious mind lacks access to the other mind-parts that made
those decisions.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:15:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.084332.2995@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye) writes:

|> If you believe that abortion is murder then it must be morally wrong at
|> all times for everyone.  It would be inconsistent to hold that it would
|> be immoral for you if you were a woman to have an abortion but not for
|> someone else to.  Don't we all have an obligation to prevent an immoral
|> act from occurring if we can do so without causing greater immorality?
|> If so, to be morally consistent, you should do all that is legal to
|> oppose abortion, such as voting against pro-choice candidates and
|> voicing in public your opposition to abortion.  You should not say that
|> whether another has an abortion is their own business unless you believe
|> that it is more immoral to try to influence the affairs of others than
|> to allow murder.

I agree.  Consistency of belief is, IMHO, what everyone should strive for.

|> We atheists of course avoid this problem because we deny the existence
|> of a soul or any other kind of mind/body duality.  Killing is wrong in
|> our view not because it deprives a soul of its human body but because it
|> deprives a sentient being of the esperience of life.  The more sentient
|> the being, the worse the crime.  Killing an adult ape is thus worse than
|> killing a fetus which is not yet capable of any self-awareness.  In our
|> eyes, it is morally inconsistent to be against abortion unless one is
|> also a vegitarian.

Oh , so *that's* what we atheists believe!  :->

Actually, I have to disagree.  Perhaps its arrogant of me, but I'll
pick the human over the animal any day, no matter the sentience
level invovled.  If you had a chance to save a baby or a grown
gorilla from an onrushing truck, which would you pick?  I also
support animal research on the grounds that it saves human lives.
Perhaps someday we won't have to do this, and we will be looked
back upon as barbarians, but killing animals is justified to save
lives.  Hell, one of the most natural things to do is kill an animal
and eat it.

|> David Nye
|> nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu

Mike Noonan
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ron@syacus.acus.oz.au (Ron Williams)
Subject: Re: A Word from Kierkegaard
Organization: ACUS Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Sydney
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 07:18:03 GMT

Joe Moody (j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu) wrote:
> 
> Philosopher Soren Kierkegaard took his greatest leap to say:
> 

AAAARRRRRRRRGGGHHHHH!!

Unfortunately NOT!

regards,

ron
--
Ron Williams                  ACSnet : ron@syacus.acus.oz
Ph : +61 2 390-1366         Internet : ron@syacus.acus.OZ.AU
Fax: +61 2 390-1391             UUCP : uunet!munnari!syacus.acus.oz.au!ron
Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: ed_eck@milkwy.enet.dec.com 
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Distribution: world,public
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:58:50 GMT


In article <1992Dec31.011550.15801@jcnpc.cmhnet.org>, mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes...
>ed_eck@milkwy.enet.dec.com wrote:
>: 
>: In article <1992Dec29.163307.21853@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, 
>: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes...


Actually, he quite correctly demonstrates that I was wrong and Eve did
indeed know about the prohibition on eating from the Tree of Knowledge.
I blush.

My major argument, that God did not originally sentence mankind to death,
is not affected.

>-- 
>Mike McAngus 			 | As if I needed Another time consuming hobby.
>(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)		 | 
>The Truth is still the Truth	 | This Post exploits illiterates.
>Even if you choose to ignore it. | 




BTW, I stole the idea from Robin lane Fox in _The Unauthorized Version_.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24595 talk.religion.misc:24786
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: In Job, Lucifer was proved right!
Date: 30 Dec 1992 12:23:41 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Distribution: world,public
NNTP-Posting-Host: im4u.cs.utexas.edu

-*----
parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish) writes:
> Satan was the one coming before God accusing Job of only serving God
> for the cash, land, camels, sheep, etc.  So, to prove Satan wrong He
> allowed Satan to rake Job over the coals.  It wasn't so much to punish
> or torture (as you put it) Job, as to put Satan in his place. ...

Job is a much more subtle and interesting story than most
Christians realize.  Because the plot does not well serve 
simplistic morals, many Christians tend to forget how the story
goes (assuming they had ever read it in the first place).

In the story, after his last tribulation, when Job is suffering
disease, loss of loved ones, and poverty, he curses and rebukes
Yahweh.  Yahweh gets pissed off at Lucifer -- because Lucifer had
fooled him or because Lucifer was correct about Job? -- and
restores Job to health, familial love, and wealth.  Only then
does Job once again sing his god's praise. 

Oh, the morals that can be drawn from this story!  Lucifer was
proved right about Job and Yahweh wrong.  Does this mean that we
should take Yahweh's attitudes about how people are and what they
can be with a grain of salt?  Does the story show that Yahweh
does not know as much about the people he created as he thinks he
does?  

It is also curious that Yahweh gets pissed off at Lucifer rather
than Job after Job curses him.  Does this mean that Yahweh
realized he had been unfair to Job?  (What does this say about
some of the other ways the Old Testament records Yahweh treating
people?  Perhaps Yahweh's followers should not accept his
treatment so blindly.) Job is restored to good graces despite his
ultimate disloyalty.  Perhaps the moral is that one should only
take so much shit from one's god before complaining. 

Any of these conclusions are consistent with the tale.  But the
story does *not* support the typically Christian conclusions:
that Lucifer was wrong (in the story, he was right), that Yahweh
knows what will happen (in the story, he didn't), and that one
should always be loyal to Yahweh (in the story, Job wasn't).  

Russell
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim Gunnar St|vring \yhus)
Subject: Re: Science and choice 
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology
Distribution: world, public
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 16:03:23 GMT

In article <ednclark.725008082@kraken>, ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
 > kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim Gunnar St|vring \yhus) writes:
 > >In article <BzIww4.996@ecf.toronto.edu>, vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN) writes:
 > > >   Someone who knows please expand on this:  isn't there completely random
 > > > atomic events ( such as radioactive decay, I think ) that totally DESTROY
 > > > any notions about the universe being causal ( ie deterministic and, so...
 > 
 > >As far as it is possible to test for randomness, there really are a lot of
 > >absolutely random processes in nature. F.ex. which of the photons hitting the
 > >film in your camera will make the film darker? (Actually quite few)
 > 
 > Is it possible that such processes seem random merely because we do not know
 > every possible causitive factor? IMHO, Radioactive decay seems random merely
 > because we cannot measure what is happening beneath the level of the event
 > which has instigated the event. We can't accurately predict weather as we
 > don't know all the influential factors, however we do know now the dates of
 > a coming eclipse, and the amount of energy produced by the decay of
 > sub-atomic particles is proportional to the amount of mass annihilated,
 > because we understand the mechanisms of such previously wonderous events far
 > better now (not to say that such events are any less wonderous just more
 > predictable).

Thats why I said "As far as it is possible to test for randomness,".

A polarized photon has 50% chance of going through a 45 degree polarization
filter. Unlike an atom nucleus, photons have no observable parts that can keep
local variables, or as you call it:"beneath the level of the event".

It is alway possible to make physical theories without randomness, but those
theories still possible to make, are becoming more and more messy.

Good bye, Determinsm.

Kim0
From: joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Date: 28 Dec 92 23:05:29 GMT
Organization: The Courts of Chaos

In article <9211241258.AA21354@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>
>Fundis appear to work on the following premises: God is Good and the OT (plus
>the NT for christians) is the word of god. However, when one actually reads the
>OT (instead of thinking one knows the content), one finds a lot of disturbing
>stories of genocide, mass murder, killing of almost every living being,
>slavery, and mutilation ordered or directly done by god. Looks like the
>premises given above contradict, doesn't it?
>Interestingly, a Fundi came up with an excuse like: Genocide, when ordered by
>god, is ok.

Justice, when it is Just, is OK.  You appear to assume God has your sense
of what is acceptable and what is not.  Did you actually know the people God
killed?  How do you know they didn't deserve death in the eyes of God?
For your assumption of contradiction to hold water you would have to know
both God and the people that were killed intimately.


>>Actually not, because his biographers - or inventors - could have easily
>>adjusted the biography to fit the prophecies.

and then proceed to be crucified, boiled in oil, stoned, sawn in half etc...
knowing full well the lie they were dying for.  The fact is, they either
witnessed the fullfilling of these prophecies and deemed it worth dying for
or they fudged and knew the real truth.

hint: Start claiming all the apostles really didn't get martyred and IT was
      all a lie too!

>Further, the authors of the NT could not adjust the biography because the
>prophecies about a messiah are too, er, well defined. Jesus postponed them,
>but even when one buys into Christianity, to say that he *has fulfilled them*
>is counterfactual.

in what way?

>
>And, assuming that the bible is a Rorschach, then I maintain the claim that the
>god who inspired it is a lousy communicator.

I wasn't aware that givers of the Rorschach were supposed to communicate what
the viewer was to see.

-- 
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
|Joe.Beiter@arden.linet.org               The Long Island Network Project   |
|The Courts of Chaos Semi-Public Access   Long Island New York: USA         |
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Atheists "stir up shit" (was Re: Religion = Anything that's fun)
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 12:03:10 GMT

Harold Platypus (harry@timesink.chi.il.us) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec16.031331.25918@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mi
ke A. McAngus) writes:
: >Harold Platypus (harry@timesink.chi.il.us) wrote:
: >
: >[response to initial diatribe and ad hominem arguments deleted]
: >
: >: There are Big Dickheads who would put their little boy on the stand in
: >: a courtroom against the Boy Scouts of America just to prove a point.
: >: Pitting the child against his peers and the organization he wants to
: >: join is really constructive and makes for an emotionally healthy child.
: >: NOT!
: >
: >I've never heard of a rabid Platypus before.
: >
: >The "little boy" wants to join the BSA but can't because he questions the
: >existence of god.  What is a "Big Dickhead" supposed to do,  say "Well son,
: >people discriminate against atheists and agnostics and you'll just have to
: >accept it."????
: >Hell no!  Discrimination on the basis of race, creed, lack of creed, gender,

: >sexual preference or nation of origin is wrong and should be confronted when

: >and where it occurs.
: >Mike A. McAngus (mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org) | The train today to Morrow leaves to
day
:
: Why would anyone want to belong to an organization whose charter and
: basic beliefs they oppose?

Because we are social animals.  If the boys friends are scouts, then he wants 
to be part of the group.

:                             Also, I can't believe a boy of ten:
: 1) Has a conviction that strong without being coached or encouraged
: 2) Understands enough about the legal system to seek a remedy
: 3) Can afford the almost $1000 court filing fees
: 4) Can afford to retain an attorney -or- has found a shyster with
:    ethics to try a principal issue with no monetary award sought.

1) I can believe he has such a conviction.
2-4) Nope, that's why the parents must become involved.

:
: I believe "a Big Dickhead" with his own agenda would seize on this
: opportunity to "stir up shit" using his misguided (and probably
: brainwashed) progeny as a red herring. "Oh, the poor, rejected lad!".
: - Harry

That's beause you WANT to see the worst in people you disagree with.  Its so
much easier than actually thinking and considering that there may be many
descriptions of the events.

By the way, exactly how is the child a "red herring"?
-- 
Mike McAngus (mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)| Let the raucous sleigh bells ringle   | Tom
The Truth is still the Truth	   | Hail our dear old fried Chris Kringle |Lehrer
Even if you choose to ignore it.   | Driving his reindeer across the sky
I wasn't sure if anyone would join | Don't stand underneath when they fly by. 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:17:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.114345.22456@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.031457.29295@nmsu.edu> usenet@nmsu.edu writes:
>>I don't know if anyone has been following this thread over the last
>>couple of days, but since Iikka has indicated he hasn't much left to
>>say, I have a few comments of my own to make on this discussion.
>
>[Emotional rantings deleted]
>
>You are making quite a fool out of yourself, not being able to defend your
>point by yourself, and trying to get notice from others. Yuo are showing
>very strong emotional behaviour, yet you said that you aren't. Look at what
>you wrote and find the point. If you think you can't take it publicly, use
>e-mail.
 
What's wrong with defending one's position with passion and vigor?

You have shown that your own position is as full of holes as Swiss
cheese.

I am quite comfortable with debating you publicly, once you learn how
to debate.

SD
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Book of Job
Date: 31 Dec 92 05:01:00 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu

sumner@math.scarolina.edu (David Sumner) writes:

>Scott Parish's commentary on Job: 
>> Satan was the one coming before God accusing Job of only
>> serving God for the cash, land, camels, sheep, etc.  So, 
>>to prove Satan wrong He allowed Satan to rake Job over the 
>> coals.  It wasn't so much to punish or torture (as you put 
>> it) Job, as to put Satan in his place.  
> 
>Isn't it strange that God needs to 'prove' something to 
>Satan? Don't the Christians realize how insecure this makes 
>their god appear to be?  He hurts an innocent man just to 
>make a point with the Devil.

1.  Satan is not Omniscient; therefore, to answer the accusation
God would either have to a) tell him plainly that Job wouldn't
curse Him, b) as someone so humourously proposed, used the old 
Jedi mind trick on Satan or c) allowed Satan to do what he did.

The problem with 'a', as I see it, is Satan still wouldn't have
believed, even though God does not lie, and probably would have 
continued to accuse Job.  The problem with 'b' is that it would
violate the freedom God has granted to all His creation.  We are
not puppets on a string.  'C' is the best response I think God
could make.  What better way to show a fool his folly than by
letting him do it himself?

God didn't need to 'prove' anything to Satan, but I suppose you
can view the exchange any way you like.  However let me pose this
parallel and see if you still view it as God 'proving' himself:
A world record holding weight lifter is approached one day by
the 98 pound weakling.  The 98 pounder challenges the strongman,
"I can lift more than you can."  In reply the strongman says,
"Ok, here's the weight."  The 98 pounder attempts to lift the
weight but fails.

2.  In response to question two:  you view it as weakness and
insecurity.  I view it as confidence and sureity.  Giving Satan
or humans or angels freedom to do what they will in no way diminishes
the fact that God is still God.  As someone pointed out in a
reply to one of the original posts, God made and blessed Job,
Satan destroyed what Job had, yet God rebuilt all that Job had.

3.  God did not hurt Job, Satan did.  God was not proving anything;
Satan was allowed to display his own ignorance and folly.

I realize you'll probably not see it the same way.  Just try not
to take up a lot of bandwidth to say "Did too."

-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 28 Dec 92 22:59:14 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland

In article <75972@apple.apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>Stephen Doe's request for journal citations was perfectly reasonable.
>His criticism of your reasoning was completely justified, and he is
>perfectly right to say that, as we are unwilling to accept such
>feeble reasoning from Christians and other theists, we ought to
>insist upon sound reasoning from atheists as well. All your snideness
>in response to Stephen's perfectly justified requests does nothing
>whatever to improve the quality of your reasoning (though you
>could improve it whenever you like by complying with his requests;

I am usually very friendly, but I just can't understand people who rush off
to flame others, completely inconsiderately. And second, what Doe seems to
have warped badly, is that I have no statements or thesis or premises made
whatsoever, the post was asking for opinions and what other people could glean
from their resources. Let's say, as a comparison, that someone asks you what
if we take this route home instead of the usual one, it is shorter, I believe.
What kind of psycho goes saying "Give me substatial proof that that route is
shorter"? Most people would think for themselves and then agree or disagree.

As for the Journal citations, if I had a study on exactly this statement and
area, would I ask about it on the net? In this manner, I mean. I gave one
journal that could give some way to the subject, but I doubt Doe will do
anything with it.

--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
Newsgroups: alt.atheism