HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bstuart@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Ben Stuart)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Questions about other stuff(sorry, lousy title!)
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:10:55 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jordan M. Wolbrum) writes:

>4)  Will technology replace religion in the future?
>Believe it or not, I think it will.  I think the public in general
>depends less on the concept of a God then ever before.  I also think
>that science will one day disprove the existance of a soul, and will be
>able to create complex life from non-organics.

>Please post responses on a.a!  Thanks in advance for all friendly discourse,
>-JW


We are already at this point.  Mr. Hubbard (sp?) and his "Church of
Scientology" have truly made it a religion (as if there were doubts that
science was a religion before 'Dianetics').  As for artificial intelligence,
we are near a point where this will be commonplace.  But this does not
address the issue if this should be considered 'complex life'.  This is
better addressed by your question regarding the soul.  The intuition and
soul (spirit) of humans cannot be placed on circuit boards.

Ben
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: starpath@bard.MIT.EDU (David E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: Biblical support of atheism was Why Did Jesus Lament?
Reply-To: starpath@bard.mit.edu
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:15:26 GMT

In article <92304.170659RBNMTM@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>  writes:
> I suggest that you read the Bible more throughly.  Facts or events
> are scattered throughout several books and composing complete
> ideas are difficult.
	Perhaps the Author should take a writing course.  ;-)

--
David Hollingsworth starpath@bard.mit.edu Send me NeXTMail or kill me
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is the last straw...this man has got to go!"  -- A Christian
radio show's statement about Massachusetts Gov. Weld, upon reporting
that he is funding an organization intended to prevent suicide
among teen homosexuals.
From: dace@shrike.und.ac.za ()
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism and morals and dating
Date: 12 Nov 1992 08:19:57 GMT
Organization: University of Natal (Durban), South Africa
NNTP-Posting-Host: shrike.und.ac.za
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

mccall3080@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
: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?

Don't despair.  The world is bigger than NW Iowa.  I know many, many normal
atheists who aren't atheist for ``rebellion's sake.  There are also some
tolerant theists around.  BtW, have you ever wondered why you consider the
morals you have to be good?  Not a criticism, just a suggestion that you 
challenge your beliefs about right and wrong, since much of `conventional'
morality has a theistic origin.

	-Hal 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:33:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.213436.26878@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:
>ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>
>Why should we believe that God could command such things in the OT,
>but when they are performed since the days of Christ, they aren't?
>This is a blatant double standard.  Why can't Christians see this?
>Their religion and God has their basis in economic/political power 
>struggles since its very inception.  Read the Old Testament!

If you look at it that people's relationship with God *changed* forever
after Christ, then the double standard becomes more comprehensible.

>-- 
>> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"


-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Keywords: health, wisdom, happiness, religion, `Woof!'
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:51:30 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering

In article <5877@balrog.ctron.com> smith@ctron.com writes:
>In article <1992Oct27.181535.27024@Princeton.EDU>, rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D. Nelson) writes:
>>In article <sw89sB13w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>>>meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier) writes:
>
>>>I have explained that there
>>>is evidence that a regular schedule of 25 hours is more natural than a
>>>24-hour cycle.  People who live a 25-hour cycle are likely to be more relaxed
>>>and healthy than those who get up at the same time each day.
>
>>I won't attempt to comment on whether a regular schedule is bad beyond
>>noting that Poor Richard thought so.  But it bothers me to see a
>>paragraph that begins "You have given no evidence..." and only one
>>sentence later makes a claim, sans evidence, that people who live a
>>25-hour cycle are likely to be more relaxed and healthy, etc.  I doubt
>>there is much of a database on people living a 25-hour cycle, and
>>furthermore suspect that the cave study on which the 25-hour cycle
>>notions are based ought to be replicated and improved before we try to
>>slow down the earth rotation.  What would Ockham say about a species
>>that perversely developed a 25-hour cycle on a 24-hour planet?
>
>Roger, I can well imagine what William of Occum would say about it, but the
>fact is, Rolf is right.  Quite a number of studies have been done on human
>beings living in environments where all time referents have been removed -
>at Antactica, on Navy subs, and in caves and caverns.  One was documented
>just a couple weeks ago on Nova, I think it was, about a woman who stayed
>in a cave for several weeks while her cycles were analysed.  No one has
>put forth any brilliant theories why, but the fact is, most humans _do_ fall
>into a twenty-five hour cycle if they are denied any external time referents.
>Individually, some slightly longer than 25, others slightly less than 25.
>When living together, people seem to "synch up" at something around 25 hours.
>
>I don't know of any studies about other animals, and it might be interesting
>to determine if dogs fall into a 25 hour cycle, too, or cats, or fruit flys,
>or whether they fall into different cycles, or no or irregular cycles.  But
>I have to back Rolf up on this, I've read the writeups and seen the specials
>on TV, too.
>
Perhaps it has to do with the same reason that tides are on an almost 25
hour cycle.  (I seem to remember it being 24 hours and 50 minutes).  The
effect of a subtle magnetic field are very widely felt in such things as
oceans.  Some animals, such as oysters respond by openning and closing,
not with the coming and leaving tide, but with what those hypothetical
tides would be, in response to the moons magnetic field.  VERY STRANGE!
:)M^2
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi)
Subject: Re: Reader's Digest on prayer: amusing, or scary?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:25:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.160855.20757@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>
>David Canzi writes in part:
>
>>Gerry Palo writes that prayer will be banned, to the detriment of the
>>rights of followers of various religions.  As you have pointed out,
>>students who want to pray have ample opportunity to pray if they want.
>>Their rights are in no way abridged by not having a teacher lead them
>>in prayer.  Gerry Palo is either lying, or has been fooled by liars.
>
>Please don't accuse me of lying about what will happen.  The only way I could
>do that would be if I were a seer, saw what really will happen, and lied
>about it.  I was not fooled by liars, either, as I have not been talking
>to any seers who told me what is going to happen in this regard.

Your comments are based on a misunderstanding of what I wrote.  I
suppose if I had worded my comments differently I would have been less
likely to have been misunderstood.

You used the following line, apparently believing it, in your article:

    But banning prayer and scripture from schools violates a Christian or
    Jewish or Sufi's Believer's rights as much or more than an atheist's
    rights are violated by allowing it.

...and this is a version of the same old lie I've been complaining about.
There is no movement I'm aware of to forbid anybody from praying while
in school, only to forbid teacher-led prayers.  And Christian students
who are not led in prayer have in no way had their rights abridged.

I assumed wrongly that you were supporting teacher-led prayer in public
schools for two reasons:  (1) The line I saw above, quoted in somebody
else's article, which is the same type of bogus argument routinely used
by supporters of teacher-led prayer, and (2) your use of the wordoid
"atheocracy", which is usually the cry of a religious loon seeking to
justify government support of his religion.

I didn't read through your whole article.  I jumped to a conclusion
about your actual intentions.  Sorry.

-- 
David Canzi
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God Is Silly
Date: 12 Nov 1992 02:04:52 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:

>Martin Schulte typed:
>>In article <n0de5t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org says:
>>>
>>> I don't care if I have no evidence that God does
>>>not exist, though I assert God does not exist. I assert the negative,
>>>and it is up to the theist, whom asserts the positive, to produce the
>>>evidence.

>>Where do you get this? Does no one understand that there are more than
>>two sides to this? Anyone who asserts something had better be prepared
>>to back it up. I don't understand why you think that the other side has
>>to prove you wrong. As if you can assert a belief and get away with it.
>>Both sides, since they are asserting something, need to prove their
>>assertions. Otherwise, I'm left with nothing at all--my present stance.

Who's asserting anything?  Whether or not God actually exists, I choose
not to believe in Him.  It is up to you to convince me that I *should*
believe in this thing.  The burden is thus on you.  I'm not telling
you NOT to believe in God, I'm just working with the fact that
there isn't enough evidence to convinve ME to believe.  Care to help?

keith

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ron@syacus.acus.oz.au (Ron Williams)
Subject: Re: A question
Organization: ACUS Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Sydney
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 02:53:33 GMT

"Adam M. Donshik" (ad2u+@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
: Seeing how this si a Bulliten Board about atheism, I was wondering if
:
This isn't a bulletin board, it's a news group.

: just pass it off.  Too many people are swept up in it's wake to have it
: (religion) be similar to a fly buzzing around annoying people. 
:         

50 Million Frenchmen can't be wrong, eh?

--
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
From: shari@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Wild and Crazy Kind of Girl)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Any value in religion?? WAS Re: A Reply to "Sources of 'Real' Atheism
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:53:04 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX


	This is a good point.  Religion is a way to fulfill and perpetuate
the social contract.  It is not the only way, but it seems to me that it
can be an effective way to do so.  I would not ever want a religion-controlled
government, but religions often encourage the rules like : "Do not kill"
and "Be kind to your neighbor." Religion, unfortunately, can be dangerous (i.e
relgious conflicts like the Isreal - Palastinian one), but I guess any other 
ideology or ethics system could be as well.

	One thing I am interested in finding out is how many athiests or
agnostics actually think religion has any value??      My dad is an athiest,
but he sent my sister and I to church with my mom because he thought the
church taught morality well or at least adequately.  You an email me if you 
like. (I'm doing this as part of a research project).

Shari

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: eliota@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Eliot Anderson)
Subject: Re: God is dead, dead, dead....
Organization: California State University, Sacramento
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:03:16 GMT

jeff@don't.want.email writes:
: In article <1992Nov3.051651.18169@csus.edu> eliota@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu  
: (Eliot Anderson) writes:
: > dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell) writes:
: > : (Eliot Anderson) sticking around after the first round of rebuttals,
: > : writes:
: > 
: 
: GEE, If he is dead........ Then he must have been alive at one time!
: 
: So how do you know is he is dead then?  Did you go to his funeral?
: 
: Jeff

Language is the way we try to approximate our concepts and exposes a way
of thinking.  "God" has had many manifestations in language through
history, the most recent being the "humanist" god of the Enlightenment.
This idea of "God" had been present in our language for some time.

Nietzsche dramatically attacked this in "Zarathustra."  He pronounced
"God" dead, this was his "funeral."  Thought has subsequently changed
dramatically since Nietzsche's pronouncement.  He revealed a thinking
that had been a subtext of the 19th century, the death of god.

Contemporary thinking has changed and shifted as a consequence.  Who we
are and our perceptions have changed as they did with the Renaisance and
the Enlightenment.  So, linguistically the construction of a "God" is no
more.  The concept is not present in our perception of the world as it
was until the 19th century.  Therefore, "God" is dead and I witness his
funeral by living in the time that I do.

Elliot

-- 
()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()
(     Elliot Anderson    "I despise mystics, they fancy themselves   (
)			  so deep, when they aren't even superficial )
(			  			- Nietzsche	     (
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Bible Buying
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:52:05 GMT

In article <1ducc4INNf5@wupost.wustl.edu> oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser) writes:
>I'm considering (gasp!) buying a Bible.  What translations do readers of this
>group recommend, and why?
RSV. NRSV has corrected some of the sexisms inherent in the RSV but
it's also less literal in places. Probably your best bet is to buy
several translations and compare.
-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
From: cbrasted@iti.org (Charles Brasted)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Marriage and Hypocrite married atheists.
Date: 7 Nov 1992 11:19:28 GMT
Organization: The University of Adelaide
NNTP-Posting-Host: adelphi.itd.adelaide.edu.au


>In article <ebolog.3@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:
>
>Marriage is a joining of two people (of opposite sex) by God!
>
>Why then do atheists get married? 

>
>PS: Awaiting any flames (but hoping to receive mail of discussion, if any).

Surely this is just a wind up.  

You cannot be serious, unless of course you
are running for the "net user with the most misconstrued use of the English
langauge" prize, (for example).  

Perhaps I am being cynical, perhaps your
dictionary has been edited to remove all the bits that aren't nice and holy.

Cheers,
Charles
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: hwong@euler.Berkeley.EDU (Harris Wong)
Subject: A question
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 04:34:52 GMT


Hi,
	Where is the boundary of the universe? Is this a meaningful question
to ask? 
	Any comment?
Harris


Harris Wong	201 Gilman Hall, Dept. Chem. Eng.
510-6420853	U.C.Berkeley, Berkeley, CA94720
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: LYSDEXIA Rools (JOKE)
Date: 10 Nov 1992 06:22:53 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


censwm@cend3c7.caledonia.hw.ac.uk on Mon Nov  9 09:01:18 1992 posted:
|
|Did you hear about the dyslexic devil worshipers?
|
|They sold their souls to SANTA!!!!
|-- 
|=========================================================================
|Stuart Munn		DOD# 0717
 
 
	I heard after they sold their souls to Santa they would dance in a
ritualistic circle rattling their Jinge Bells of Damnation...
 
 
 
	Or.....
 
	They could have sold their souls to Santana and the high preistess
would be known as a "Black Majic Woman"....:-)
 
 
-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu | alias: White Rook
aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: State Ordered Sterilization
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992
Date: 03 Nov 92  12:45:54

Who: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
ID: 1992Oct30.031757.5432@bnr.ca
 
[some stuff omited as not being germane]
 
BC> "Yes on all points, save the last one. I hope you are
BC> not one of those 'Atheist=Pro-Choicers.' That would be
BC> a mistake. I feel that abortions should be like guns
BC> (should be): legal, but highly regulated and restricted.
BC> But my views on these non-religious issues are beside
BC> the point. Let's move on...
 
Then don't have an abortion.
 
Your analology equating "abortion" with "guns" fails utterly.
Guns are dangerous tools that kill people. Abortions terminate
pregnancy. Do you "feel" (your word) that the State has the
right to say who MAY produce children, and who may not? Or
do you "feel" that all peoples may make that choice themselves?
 
Suppose, to give a very extreme example, the State dictates
that black people may NOT have children. Or, as in Nazi Germany,
plans are set in motion to sterilize Jews. Do you "feel" that
such things may be dictated by the State? Does the State have
the right to say what is right? Does a very small, yet very
vocal minority, such as the "Operation 'Rescue'" cult, have
the right to dictate who may and may not reproduce?
 
Seems to me, if a woman does not wish children, the State,
and you MALES, have no RIGHT to gainsay her, and force her to
reproduce. The anti-abortion nuts no more have a right to demand
a woman reproduce (shades of Romania), than they have the right
to tell a woman she may NOT reproduce.
 
The fascist State has ALWAYS claimed women members as property
of the State, to do with as They please. Fascist anti-abortion
is just one step closer to totalitarianism.

--- Maximus 2.00
From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is omniscience impossible?
Date: 7 Nov 92 04:49:56 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering

In article <1992Nov6.213808.27865@mprgate.mpr.ca> siemens@mprgate.mpr.ca (Curtis Siemens) writes:
>salter_duke@darwin.ntu.edu.au writes:
>> 1.  Knowing something involves a change in the knower 
>>     - whether or not the knower is material or not, the fact of knowing 
>>       something means that the knower is different from the way he/she/it
>>       would be if it/she/he didn't know it.
>
>Well I see a flaw in this argument.  What if the god knew everything always.
>ie. There wasn't a time that the god didn't know everything.  Then there is
>no "change" done.  Actually I think this also brings up a different point that
>makes this whole argument unapplicable -> If the god isn't inside of time, then
>"changes in history" & "cause & effect" are not "laws" in that god's realm, so
>it throws out all arguments based on "cause & effect".  Actually we cannot
>really say much about a realm or the beings in that realm where "cause & effect"
>are not "laws".

Look at the matter this way.  You have a person on earth.  This Omniscient
being knows when something will happen to this being, say when the person
will die.  Well, the omniscient being also knows how to change or prevent
this, being omniscient.  If this action is taken, then the previous
knowledge of when this person will die becomes false.  But no knowledge
of an omniscient being can be false. :)  You can also have fun with
similar arguments.

:)M^2
>
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21189 talk.abortion:47852
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
Date: 13 Nov 92 23:03:04 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <16898CCA0.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:

>In article <1992Nov3.183610.1435@Cadence.COM>
>mas@Cadence.COM (Masud Khan) writes:
> 
>>It is a well know fact that women who have gone through abortion go through
>>very serious traumas.
>Insert often and you get closer to the truth.
>And it is a well known fact that women who have given birth to a child go
>often through long phases of depression. And lose interest in sex.
>   Benedikt

I wonder how much of this post-partum depression is due to the artificial
and forced separation of mothers from their newborn children immediately
upon birth, or shortly thereafter.

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jking@socs.uts.edu.au (smathy werp)
Subject: Selfism (tm)
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:57:14 GMT



all ..
	i was wondering whether any atheists would like to join (not really
	join .. explained later) my new religion .. called Selfism (tm) ..
	it covers all aspects of life .. it is a total phylosophy .. however
	it requires no prayer .. no belief in non-tangeble things .. and
	no sacrifices .. it also has no un-answerable questions .. and no
	contradictions .. the most important thing about Selfism is that
	you take care of yourself .. and only do what you enjoy doing ..
	this (by definition) leads to a happy life .. for all your life

	the key to all this happiness is Self Realisation (tm) .. this is
	the practise of realising whats happenning with your own emotions
	.. this Self Realisation leads to Emotional Control (tm) .. whereby
	YOU decide what you feel .. after all they are your emotions .. so
	who else could control them but you .. you will learn to laugh at
	missing the bus .. to jeer when you fall over .. to break down into
	fits of uncontrollable laughter when you rip your favourite jeans ..
	and no .. there are no free steak knives ..

	the best thing about this religion is that because it is actually
	enjoyable to be a Selfist (tm) there is no need to rally for new
	recruits .. if they want happiness they will come to you .. this
	GUARANTEES that Selfism does not impede on other peoples civil
	right of choice ..

	all flames will be gratefully shredded .. thats all
--


	| Life: Jason | IRC: elephant | email: jking@socs.uts.EDU.AU |