HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Keywords: Cure
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:33:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.164821.29822@newstand.syr.edu>,
dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:
|>
|>
|>>|> I am interested in making this world a better place to live, and in
|>>|> order to do so I think it would be beneficial if this group would
|>>|> think about ways of helping those who have religious leanings.  I do
|>>|> relize it would be inapropriate to lock up all Christians, Muslems, etc.
|>>|> in insane asylums, but surely there must be some way of stopping this
|>>|> defective mindset(s).  Perhaps we should start with the most severly
|>>|> disturbed individuals, such as priests and other religous leaders.
|>>|> I think maybe someone could establish an anonymous "Believer" line.
|>>|> This should be staffed by a psychologist and would give the Believer a
|>>|> reality check (sort of a first step towards mental health).
|>>|> I would like to hear some other suggestions - something that an
individual
|>>|> could do to cure a Believer.  Lets see some action please!  
|>>
|>>Whoa! Down boy! Live and Let Live!
|>>
|>>
|>Seems to me a Believer is a lot like an Alcoholic.  They are both 
|>unreasonable and the more drunk they get the more irrational their
|>actions become.  After all we do try to help alcoholics and drug
|>addicts, so why shouldn't we try to help Believers.  
|>Ever play that game where someone tells a word to his neighbor and
|>he in turn tells it to the next person until it comes back to the
|>first person and often the word is totally different.  Sort of like
|>the bible ...  Makes you kinda wonder if they even got the name (Jesus)
|>right.  I wouldn't bet on it.  
                           
I prefer the joke about the text that was translated from English to
Russian and back to English ("The Flesh is Weak, but the Spirit is 
Strong" into "The Meat is Rotton, but the Wine is Good").
As far as the name goes, classical latin didn't have the letter 'J'.
Hmmm...
As far as the rest of the post goes...maybe some sort of Thought Police?
Maybe set up a Ministry of Faith?  We could even put 2-way TVs in people's
homes so they can't prey in private. Of course, every citizen would turn
in rebel believers.

ksfldjconformjdfskconformksdfjconformwbjkhbconformhsdkamne

Comrade Brian /-|-\
From: blesmana@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Atheists,Buddhists,Cristians
Date: 10 Nov 92 11:33:20 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

A short comment about Buddhism, Cristianism, and Atheistism

I've been 'studying' Buddhism for about 2-3 years
(mainly Theravada, Zen, Mahayana), and I haven't came across 
the concept of God in Buddhism. They simply don't mention it.

Thus my conclusion is they don't bother whether God exist or not, 
since Gautam Buddha teaching is only concern about meditation 
(awareness, consciousness) and meditation has nothing to do with 
existence of God.

Where as Cristians are very much disturb if an atheist success in 
disprove existence of God logically, or empirically.
(even though I doubt that if Jesus would agree with Cristians now)

Hence, it does not matter for Buddhists if an atheist can disprove 
existence of God, but it does matter for Cristians.
(I also had an experienced for 3 years in a Catholic high school)

Sincerely,

BLesmana

PS : Sorry 'bout me grammar, English is not me first language
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about the Pro-Abortionists
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon)
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:51:34 +1030
 <1cste7INNlqr@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> <1992Oct31.035413.3374@ncsu.edu>
Organization: That damn kid is still here!

In article <1992Oct31.035413.3374@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1cste7INNlqr@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> 
> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>> Now, ask yourself:  Would you be in college today if your parents had two
>> MORE younger children at home right now?
> 
> Why should anyone be killed so that another person can go to 
> college?  That is the one of the most selfish statements 
> that I've ever read on talk.abortion. 

You don't give a damn about quality of life, you just want to sooth
your pro-life conscience.

It is your kind of argument that keeps some poor people poor, those
who were forced to raise children because of some mythical right to
any life regardless of quality.

>> Better yet, would you be in college today if your parents had had that
>> *earlier* child that they couldn't have aborted?  No, you probably wouldn't
>> even exist.
> 
> Yeah, so what?  If I didn't exist, then I couldn't care 
> about the situation.   Take a reality check, Ms. Regard. 

If you didn't exist you wouldn't have to worry about where
your next meal is coming from where you are going to sleep
for the night or how you are going to get out of debt because
you have a shitty job thanks to the fact that your parents
couldn't put you through college.

> I think it's far more tragic that people like yourself will
> gladly stomp all over the rights of other individuals to
> get material things like a college education.  

OK, lets see you give up all the nice material things you wouldn't
have if your parents couldn't afford to give you a decent start:
a decent childhood, a roof over your head, enough food to eat,
or a half-decent education - not every one whose parents couldn't
pay can be good enough to pay themselves, me for example.

Yeah some people don't have these things at all, but I don't
see you hopping on the next plane to Mogadishu.
OK, not only starving Africans, what of America's homeless. Do
you open your doors on a rainy night and let every single
homeless kid who can fit sleep in your place? I didn't think so.

A quote I read: You don't see an angry mob rushing across town to
do a badly needed kindness.
-- 
John J McVey, Whyalla, Uni S. Australia    9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Electronic Engineering student & Terror Tekkie!
Any email can be posted unless I state explicitly otherwise.
+-----------------------------------------------------+    ________
|  Obligatory disclaimer: UniSA hates my opinions...  |  \/Darwin o\
+-----------------------------------------------------+  /\________/
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. Marquis
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: morality????????
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:26:47 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <ednclark.721455345@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>Our society through a myriad of influences (mostly economical,
>religious, and political) is going down the flush and this is one of the
>very minor ways that we must change radically or it will be too late and
>anarchy, starvation, and "might is right" philosophies will prevail.
>

  And what is state sanctioned execution but the biggest
  "might is right" philosophy of them all?

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

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!

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: "God is unfair" Bible passages.
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:02:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.233853.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>  writes:
> In article <1992Nov6.175349.4663@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>,  
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> > In article <Bx8nwn.8q6@newcastle.ac.uk> J.M.A.Gilman@newcastle.ac.uk  
(J.M.A. Gilman) writes:
> > 
> >>    In the case of Lot, God did NOT destroy a city of innocent people,
> >>they were a bunch of gang-rapists, ...
> > 
> > God did not limit himself to destroying just the gang-rapists in the city.
> > Even if every adult man in the city was a rapist, he also destroyed all the
> > women and children when he destroyed the city.  This no doubt included a
> > number of innocent people.
> 
>    Not only that, he was ready to kill Lot too until Abraham pointed
> him out.
> 
> Karl


	Amazing, isn't it, how in the real world, one person's actions affect  
other people?  Sorry, that's just physics, it has nothing to do with religion.
						Erik Powers
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge)
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Keywords: Cure
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Tx.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:10:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.164821.29822@newstand.syr.edu> dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:
>Seems to me a Believer is a lot like an Alcoholic.  They are both 
>unreasonable and the more drunk they get the more irrational their
>actions become.  After all we do try to help alcoholics and drug
>addicts, so why shouldn't we try to help Believers.  

Interesting idea.  How many people are aware that the most well known
treatment for alcoholism, AA and its Twelve Steps, advocates giving control
of one's life over to God?  Without this God (or Higher Power) some even say
that it's impossible to recover from alcohol (and other drug dependencies).
So, the cure for the disease is itself a disease?

Yes, yes, i'm aware that there are "atheists" who practice the twelve steps,
but i think you really have to twist the words to do that. (Somewhat like
fundamentalist christians twist the Bible.)
-- 
allen@well.sf.ca.us
ethridge@bnr.ca
my opinions are my own
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:42:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.161932.20172@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk  
(Simon Clippingdale) writes:
[stuff deleted]
> 
> Rather than type in almost exactly the same articles again, have you read
> the stuff I posted in the other branch of this thread, which seems to be
> running more or less parallel to this one?
> 
> Summary -- `strong' atheism is defensible by virtue of constituting
> the (falsifiable) null hypothesis in the absence of [what the individual
> considers to be] evidence for the existence of god/s. Ken's point about
> how certain specific existence claims are falsified trivially  
notwithstanding,
> theistic and atheistic claims are not in general symmetrical with respect
> to falsifiability and are not logically equivalent.
> 
> If you have read any of these posts, I'd be interested to know whether, and
> if so why, you disagree with the arguments therein. 
> 

> 
> Cheers
> 
> Simon
> -- 
> Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
> Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
> University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
> Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.

	I have not read the posts you refer to, but I do have a question for  
you.  Falsifiable on what grounds?  Saying that the hypothesis that God does  
not exist is falsifiable by producing this God is like saying that I have a  
hypothesis that no unstoppable forces exist, and you can disprove it by  
bringing me some unstoppable force in a bottle.  No, no, if I did manage to  
"produce" this God (whatever that means), every scientist who values being able  
to show his face in public would demand that I demonstrate scientifically that  
this was God.  Unfortunately, scientific methods always assume that what you  
observe is not due to any supernatural interference.
	What you are doing, it seems to me, is demand that theistic claims be  
verified by science, which assumes the non-validity of theistic claims.  This  
is exactly the same as when theists demand that scientific theories conform to  
the current interpretation of their particular scriptures.  It is a demand that  
you use an axe to fix my plumbing instead of a toilet plunger.
	The two assumptions are LOGICALLY equivalent-- they are both  
assumptions.  They are not SCIENTIFICALLY equivalent.

					Good to post to you again, Simon,

						Erik Powers
From: jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What if there is a god?
Date: 4 Nov 92 19:18:22 GMT

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

>dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:

>>In article <Bx0s7E.9zp@umassd.edu> rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:
>>>SupDose there is a god.
>>>Then what?

>>Don't know about you, but it wouldn't make much difference to me.

It's made a huge difference to me, in almost every part of my life.  It has
shaped my beliefs, morals, actions and priorities.  Having a personal
relationship with God changes everything.

>> I've 
>>always felt that the existance or nonexistance of a god would have no effect 
>>on how I live my life, so why should I care?

Because God first cared for us.

>Hear, hear.  Whether or not God actually exists, people will still worship
>Him, or not.  Believing in this God does not apear to be in any way beneficial,
>providing no motivation to pay any attention to this thing that may or may
>not exist.

As they say, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating"!

>That is, we are assuming that you are trying to say "suppose that everything
>in the universe is currently operating by God's design" rather than "suppose
>that a god now exists that hadn't previously existed: then what?".  Actually,
>the latter is rather more interesting, but the answer depends on the god.

>keith

Yours in Christ,
James.
From: mccall3080@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: atheism and morals and dating
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:13:36 -0600
Summary: where are the atheists?
Reply-To: mccall3080@iscsvax.uni.edu
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

        I was in a weird discussion this evening.  I have been an atheist for
basically most of my life.  I reached that decision on my own, but along the
way my Mother, Aunt Connie, and my two brothers and sister have come to the
same conclusion.  We don't have a problem with other people believing in their
religion, but it bothers others that we don't have a GOD in our life.
        My family still celebrates traditional religous holidays, but without
the religion.  Christmas and Easter are times to show love with the family and
to give and have hope.  We don't need a GOD for it to have a meaning.  We don't
see a problem with that.
        We also are very moral people.  I don't drink, do drugs, sleep around,
or even swear beyond saying the word "shit" occasionally.  I have high morals. 
You tend to like people who have similar interests and lifestyles as you and
unfortunately most of those guys are religous, or so it seems.  I don't have a
problem with their religion.  They have made their choice and I have made mine. 
I can respect that, but they can't handle that I don't have Christ in my life.
        Why is that?  Why is it OK for me and not OK for them.  It is all a
matter of personal difference.  I may be wrong about my atheism, but they could
be just as wrong about their Christianity.  Neither of us can absolutely be
sure until we are dead.  
        I guess I find it upsetting.  I would like to go out with someone who
would respect my choice.  I respect theirs.  I honestly don't see many atheists
like myself in Northeastern Iowa.   The ones that I have met don't have any
morals.  So basically I feel like I am one in a million and no one can respect
my choice.  I realize that I am only 22 and I'm at a university, but will I
ever find what I am looking for?  This is not a personal ad, but more like a
question:  are other atheists running into the same problem?

Melissa
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:59:29 GMT
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

In article <1992Nov9.152613.19756@cs.yale.edu>,
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
|>In article <1992Nov08.235324.21646@bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA
(Brian Cash) writes:
|>>In article <1992Nov8.222406.8994@cs.yale.edu>,
|>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
|>>|>>How is logical proof different from scientific proof?
|>>|>Scientific proof can involve empirical measurement and typically does.
|>>But does it NEED empirical measurement?
|>Yes, I think so.

OK...

|>
|>>|>>  Is math not scientific?
|>>|>Yes, math is not scientific.
|>>Could you expand on this?
|>Yes, math is REALLY not scientific.

Yes, but is it REALLY, REALLY not scientific?   ;^)

|>
|>>Don't we use logic to form scientific theory?
|>Yes.
|>
|>>science: 1)systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc.
|>                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
|>See this...

What about the "study" and "etc" parts?

|>
|>>Math quantifies and models reality: it helps us relate to what we observe.
|>Yes, but that doesn't make it science. The observational part of science
|>is what makes it science. Scientific first principles are dependent
|>upon observation. Mathematical first principles are not.
|>
|>-Ekr
                                 
I think I understand how you split logic vs. science. My view of
what "science" is might have been too broad.  One question, though...
could you give some examples of mathematical first principles not
dependent (or derived) from observation?
That might clear things up for me.

Brian /-|-\
From: ron_s@verifone.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: STUDENT ATDIR/ALLHIESTS
Date: 11 Nov 92 11:06:56 -1000
Distribution: world,public
Organization: VeriFone Inc., Honolulu HI

> 
>>Your a mere person.  
> 
> What's "mere" about being a person?
> 
> 
>>We are lost in a pattern of thinking that elevates oneself to the  
>>conception of all knowing and power through many different means such as  
>>self glorification.  Things are done to glorify oneself in ignorant 
>>pride of self accomplishments.  How long have you been on this earth?
>>And you call yourself an athiest?  How can you deny yourself coming into
>>existance...Evolution?  Come on....  
> 
> 
>>If you say that there is nothing out there (GOD), then you are really an  
>>ignorat self glorifying fool.  Heading where I don't know.
>>
>>Those who call themselves Athiests are nothing but a bunch of hunters  
>>hunting for self glorification and pride through disproving what they  
>>cannot.  STUPID STUPID STUPID!
> 
> We don't disprove anything, merely note that your "proofs" are far
> from persuasive.
> 
 
   Bravo, I agree there is no such thing as a "mere human". Mere humans
are in fact carrying on this conversation. Whether such a critter as
a god is listening in, or its "deus abscondicus" is the matter at hand.

   Its no good calling atheism self-glorification, far from it. 
Since there never has been a credible proof for God's existence,
the believer simply states: "Your belief will assist you in seeing
the light"  That is, just go ahead and accept all this non sequitar
trash, that God does exist - then when God sees you have got hold
of "belief" he will look kindly upon you and shine his everlasting
light on you.

     This is ok for toddlers and fits the same categories of belief
as the belief in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and perhaps
leprechauns.. -

     Another devious tactic od the believer is to say that the
path to god is entirely non-rational, and that you cannot find
your way to him through rational thought, but by faith alone.
This idea ultimately reduces to  "Stop thinking and start praying",
not a happy prescription.  Since our rational faculties are so
rare and precious, I believe we should do quite the opposite,
that is think more and believe a lot less, as hard as that is to
do.  

   It does not require god for a human being to livr a life of
fully integrated honesty, compassion, and love.  Giving your
love to any god is like givinh your love to a stone, an 
invisible stone, which finally falls on your head and kills you
because you can't see it. It gives back nothing.  Love your
fellow man and woman, and there is reality - someone to touch..

aloha
From: pbreton@asylum.UUCP (Peter Breton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.cognitive,sci.psychology,sci.research
Subject: Re: Chaotic brain behaviour and its influence on duplicating a person
Date: 13 Nov 92 04:20:56 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Epilogue Technology Corp.



  Hi,

  I'm new to this newsgroup, and I'd like to know about work done using
videotape as a research tool. Good VCRs that will allow several slo-mo
speeds, frame-by-frame advance and freeze-frame are fairly cheap and
widely available. What's missing is the literature about this technique.
Most of the studies I've heard of are quite old; the first one that comes
to mind is the classic mind-fuck descibed in Paul Watzlawick's How Real Is
Real?: a psychologist is sent in to treat a patient with delusions of
being a psychologist. Of course, this "patient" is another psychologist
who has been told the same thing!!
  Anyhow, what do you folks know about it?


 		Peter
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: atheism and morals and dating
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:37:42 GMT


	I myself have a Buddhist wife, which is almost the same thing
as marrying a fellow atheist.  Have you considered an Asian spouse?

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.                                  +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
                      "Who told you I was paranoid?!  It was THEM, wasn't it?!"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 13:41:24 GMT

In article <92308.201322MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
<MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
 
>
>Okay, you still haven't justified the unfounded assumption. How's it
>"useful" to assume something which need not be bothered with? I just
>say "I don't know" and move on. What's useful about assuming no god,
>or what's so non-useful about assuming there is, and what's wrong
>with skipping assumptions altogether?
>
 
When one says 'I don't know' one'll have to work with uncertain facts. One of
the nasty things about religion is that it aims at the basics. Eg, it claims
to explain the universe better than science. Whenever one comes back later
to a question that would be influenced by existence of gods, it becomes
difficult to establish anything having left that question open.
In case you use 'I don't know if there are gods but I haven't seen its been
proven so I won't work with it' you'll come very close to what pragmatism
understands as truth. I like it better the first way because it clears up
the terrain, but your mileage may vary.
   Benedikt
Newsgroups: alt.atheism