HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: epowers@mccoy (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Easter whodunnit
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:55:26 GMT

In article <12479@sorley.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)  
writes:

> The most likely explanation is that the witness is lying.  The reason
> that there were no guards is that it made no sense for there to be
> any.  I can't imagine an officer who, short of being out of his mind,
> would send soldiers to guard the body of an executed criminal, as if
> it were some object of value or as if the army had nothing else to do.
> 
	
	The idea that guards were present is too easily verifiable from  
local records, and the locals themselves.  It would be easy to lie to you  
and me, certainly, but how easy would it be to lie about a thing like that  
in the same city where the events occurred?  Lying in this situation about  
something so easily checked out would be beyond dense.
					Erik Powers
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:34:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.000201.8575@nmsu.edu>
epowers@mccoy (POWERS) writes:
 
>        I'm curious what you think of my idea that if thought is
>completely due to physical processes that we can't differentiate between a
>false thought and a true one?
 
Depends on the definition of truth. I do not believe that there is such a
thing as objective truth that all people can perceive or would even agree on.
And similar to gods, even when there should be such a thing, the proposition
that we can never reach the full truth makes it an useless concept.
 
 
So the idea of false and true is misleading, IMO. It supposes that a thought
can be absolutely true or absolutely false. However, I agree that it is an
effect of the nature of thought that people will disagree on what is true
and what is false.
 
A simple example would be. Take someone who is mentally impaired,
explain Quantum Mechanics to him, show him experiments that back
the model of QM up and ask if QM is true? And when you hear the
answer, ask yourself what meaning it has.
 
And then there are more difficult questions like true to whom?
In other words, difference in opinion appears to be a necessary
consequence of the different experiences and the different
equipment of humans.
   Benedikt
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism.gif
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:33:38 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1993Jan21.022534.16710@mel.dit.csiro.au> jen187@its.CSIRO.AU (Graham Jenkins +61 6 276 6812) writes:
>
>To whoever posted the atheism.gif :
>
>Thank you, much enjoyed by all here.

  You're quite welcome.  Sometimes it does indeed pay off to keep
  those precious megabytes of archives!

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

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@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!

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:26895 talk.religion.misc:27375
From: nightsng@anarky.tch.org (Nightsong)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Eve and Adam, was THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 21:33:15 PST
Organization: The Canned Ham, San Jose, CA (408) 971-8530

cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea) writes:

> Paul Harvey (pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us) wrote:
> 
> > If I was a father of two children who were too young to yet
> > have any knowledge of good and bad and I was to acquire rat poison and put 
> > the poison in the middle of the room and point it out to the children and 
> > tell them if you eat this you will die, then leave the room, what do you 
> > think would happen? And what would this say of my
> > parenting ability, assuming I actually put rat poison there instead of a
> > placebo? 
> 
> Curiously, some studies have been done on this type of thing and if
> you had  a boy and girl as your two children its more likely that the
> boy would eat it and the girl wouldn't. Just goes to show that girls
> don't have much independence, always need a man around to do things for
> them.
> 
> --
>                                                                      ___
> Bill Rea                                                            (o o)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w---
> | Bill Rea, Computer Services Centre, | E-Mail   b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
> | University of Canterbury,           | or     cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
> | Christchurch, New Zealand           | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 |
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not want to get too far off of the topic, but who can say that boys 
OR girls (men or women if you prefer) are more independent?  Personally,  
I have met people of both sexes who are equally (and sadly) 
non-independent.  Actually, many people I meet are this way.  ANYWAY, 
more to the point, I am female -- probably the only reason I responded at 
all (as you would probably say (judge for yourself whether this is my 
opinion..and have fun =/))

-Nightsong

  nightsng@anarky.tch.org
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Strong atheism ought to explain theism (Was: Re: Atheism is dogmatic.
Date: 22 Jan 93 20:36:08 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1993Jan22.091314.23002@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>
>Now, many religious people, notably mystics, claim to have "experienced"
>God.  It is certainly possible that their experience of God was just as
>real as our present experience of our respective computer terminals.
>This then puts a belief in God for this particular person on a par with
>the vast majority of people's belief in the real existence of the
>material world.
>

  I personally know of no one who makes the claim that their
  experience of god is on the same sensual level as their day to day
  perception of the world around them (well, maybe one, Jarek
  Dabrowski, but that's another topic).  Most claims of believer-god
  interaction are extraordinarily vague or mystical, with phrases
  like "felt lead to", "had a vision", "had a feeling", etc.

  It's this distinction that allows me to summarily reject these
  claims as unconvincing evidence of god's existence.  To elevate
  these experiences to the same level as normal perception would
  require me to believe that drunks, addicts, and schizophrenics all
  have useful information about parts of the universe that are
  apparently unopened to me.  Not that it's impossible, just not
  very likely.

>Thus, a true "experience" of God may be a very rational reason for that
>particular person to believe in God.  Definitely as rational as the reason
>the vast majority of people have for believing in the existence of the
>material world.

  If any of the theists in this group have had encounters of this
  kind with their god, please post them.  I for one have never heard
  of such a thing.


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

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@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: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Atheism in pop culture
Organization: I'm on a coffee break now
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:53:31 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

>Somebody sent me the words for John Lennon's hit song "Imagine". Lennon
>and his song are before "my time", but they seem to hint at atheism.
>Was he an atheist?
>
>Can you think of any examples of explicit atheism expressed in pop
>songs or other pop culture works?
>
>-- Brad Pierce 

Hi Brad,

[I think my first post didn't make it, so here we go again since there is
some interest]

Down here in Houston we had an hour long atheist radio program for about
10 years.  During that time we played hundreds of songs with atheistic
leanings.  For many years Imagine was our opening song which brings back
good memories.  John Lennon's first Plastic Ono Band album with songs
such as "God", "Working Class Hero" is probably his best anti-theist
work.  I do not know if he was an atheist proper, but he sure could 
turn a phrase in that direction!

Some other well liked songs I remember (I hope I get them right):

Blasphemous Rumours - Depeche Mode
Dear God - XTC
Methodist Coloring Book - The Dead Milkmen
Your God Is Dead - Mussolini Headkick
Jesus Love Me (But He Can't Stand You) - Austin Lounge Lizards
Atheist Tabernacle Choir - Spitting Image
Jesus Is Easy - Martin Mull
Operation Spirit - Live
God Is A Groovy Guy - Fish Karma
Bring Back Reality - Snakefinger
TV Fundamentalist - Happy Fingers Institute
Truth Is Out of Style - MC 900 Ft. Jesus and DJ Zero
Christianity is Stupid - Negativeland
Religion Ruined My Life - ????????
Gun Sale At the Church - Beat Farmers
Ain't Necessarily So - Bronski Beat (from old blues song)

I remember that we also had at least one Don Henley song.

But the high volume producer was....
Frank Zappa (pick any album!)

A lot of college radio stations play anti-religious (if not atheistic) music
and some industrial/dance music fits into that category.  A lot of the dance
music contains sermon excerpts and such meant to hold religion in a bad light.

We had to skip a lot of the hardcore stuff (musically, that is) and go with
tunes more accessible to the majority of people.



Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: epowers@mccoy (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:02:01 GMT

In article <16B5E10EB2.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>  
I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:

> IMO, people identify with their conscious state. So far so deep :-)
>  
> But many people do not like to see them or better, the very essence
> of them, as the product of chemical reactions/physical processes,
> because it is so damn apersonal. There is nothing that gives the process
> of identification with it the very notion of being special/not the
> surrounding that is the base of identification.
>  
> In other words, I or rather *feeling of being myself* is nothing
> tailor made?
>  
> However, I do not identify myself much with me as I was twenty
> years ago, so I would expect my soul, or whatever introduced
> consciousness, to have changed. Few of the theories of souls say
> it the same way, so I reject  them for that reason. And then the
> theories seem to get their explanatory power (awkward term) from
> their materialistic parts. Soul is not necessary, it just gives
> them more emotional appeal.
>  
> If there is a better one, I would be interested.
>    Benedikt

	I'm curious what you think of my idea that if thought is  
completely due to physical processes that we can't differentiate between a  
false thought and a true one?
					Erik Powers
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: A point well missed ...
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:58:51 GMT

: You in your arrogance will no doubt tell us that we should read the
: Bible before making up our minds, but have you read the Bhagavad Gita
: before deciding that Christianity and not Hinduism is the "true"
: religion? What about the Koran, Buddhist scriptures? You mean you
: haven't? What a surprise.
: 

   Why the hostility Bruce, you every bit as intolerant of criticism
as any theist. Speaking of arrogance, yours is well advanced; I have
read the Bhagavad Gita, the Koran, the Bible, the Vedas (in part), I
am familiar with  the major schools of Bhuddist thought, Taoism and
many other facets of religion as well as most of the Western
philosophers. Why do you assume that I haven't?
   I have also studied the ramblings of Madalyn Murrey O'Hair, several
of the works of Paul Kurtz (who's he?), both Humanists Manifestoes,
"A Secular Humanist Declaration" along with variuos pamphlets from Ms.
O'hair's flock of zealots. I spent a couple of years exchanhging
letters with the president of the local Humanists Association, and
I've had numerous conversations with those claiming to be atheist. I
believe I am probably better prepared for this forum than most.
   Having disposed of the question of arrogance, would you at least
attempt a rational response to my original query?

Bill
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Removing "god" from morality. (was: Moral liberty)
Date: 24 Jan 93 05:34:01 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <108114@bu.edu>, wooyoung@bu.edu (WooYoung Chung) writes:
|>
|> [in reply to Ray Ingles]
|> 
|> Ray, you are right.  There is no doubt that religion imposed on us, 
|> the problems that you mentioned.  However, I think the religion is 
|> more than just emotional crutches.  Human beings are limited in power, 
|> mortal, and subject to many painful experience during life.  It is 
|> almost a part of our humanity to look for a being more powerful 
|> than us, someone of great power and authority to look over our lives, 
|> and someone to bring some justice to our existence. 
|> 
|> As I said before, the religion have caused many problems, but it 
|> wasn't much more than some of ideologies that we have created. 

I hope you don't mind me butting in here.    I think that there
are good reasons to consider that religion really is worse than
other ideologies.

I agree with you that some people seem to have a need to have
someone more powerful around to tell them "things".   I also
agree that when people erect secular ideologies, they sometimes 
do very evil things in their name.

However, as long as an ideology is clearly seen to be based 
on the ideas of human beings, then we can say that human beings
can ultimately find the ideology invalid.   The Russians 
eventually found Communism wanting, and demolished it, and 
said that *they*, the Russians, were doing this.   I find that
to be a vey powerful affirmation of humanity ultimately being
in control of its own future.

But religion finds its authority figure outside time and space,
and most of the religions that we have to deal with from day to 
day claim at the start that mankind should neither expect to 
understand nor to judge the ways of God.     Then if mankind
attempts to judge, evaluate or even understand the religion,
or its Gods, or the consequences of following it, then mankind
is simply "wrong".

Like many people, I don't think there even is a God, and that 
all we are seeing is a bunch of ordinary humans posturing as 
the representatives of a non-existent being.   Yet the very fact
that this being is absent, and unquestionable, untestable and
not even to be understood, makes a religion an immensely powerful
tool for intellectual oppression in the wrong hands, which is 
where religion almost always seems to end up.

I find it interesting that when humanly-constructed ideologies
start to take on some of this not-to-be-questioned, and semi-
magical characteristic, as did Naziism under Hitler and Communism
under Stalin, we recognize that by referring to them as quasi-
religions, and when arguments end up as the mutual assertion of
untestable propositions, we dismiss them as "religious" argument.



jon. 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: apeel@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Andrew Peel)
Subject: Re: Atheism in pop culture
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:06:51 GMT


Gudday Everyone.

Tom Waits' latest album, _Bone Machine_, has some good stuff.

I don't have the Album here of course. 
My favourite track is...
	"We're all go'na be
	 just dirt in the ground."

Andrew Peel
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Peel.					University of Melbourne,
apeel@cs.mu.OZ.AU				Computer Science Dept.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 07:18:13 GMT

In article <01050133.ohmnd7@distant.uucp> edw@distant.uucp writes:
>
>In article <1jo4trINNlp1@pith.uoregon.edu> (alt.atheism,sci.skeptic), delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu (Scott C DeLancey) writes:
>> In article <1993Jan20.213756.8012@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>> >
>> >I would be most greatful if you could point out to me the passages in
>> >Scripture that support "treating gays badly".
>> 
>> Well, one that leaps to mind is Leviticus 18, where among the many
>> offences for which the offender is to be "cut off from his people" is
>> for a man to lie with a man as with a woman.
>
>Not to inject reason into this, but could you ask these questions for me?
>
>Assuming, for the sake of argument, that God says homosexuality is immoral,
>can you tell us why He says it's immoral? 

Wait a minute, it is said that no man can know the mind of god. But heck, I
cannot even tell why -you- made this post. To ask one for the motives/reasons
of another is not reasonable. They can never know for sure.

>                                         If it's because He says so, please
>tell us *why* He says so. Now, we have your *real* reason for thinking that
>homosexuality is immoral. Unless you can explain *why* God says homosexuality
>is immoral, you're making your god look pretty arbitrary, or, alternatively,
>you're making morality beyond human comprehension, which would make me wonder
>why we're being held accountable for things that we can't even begin to
>comprehend.

Lack of an explanation is the xpected outcome, and proves nothing.
 
>You see, the Divine Command theory of morality doesn't work, even to fellow
>believers. You're going to need to fall back onto some other moral theory.

I do not support this theory of morality, not do I see any reason in your
demands for information that would not be available for another person,
much less a diety.
 
>I'll be looking forward to your *real* justification for condemning
>homosexuality.

All justifications are personal.
 
>Ed
>
>> Scott DeLancey
>
>--
>Edwin H. Watkeys III                                   edw@distant.uucp
>Distant Software                               dsinc!jabber!distant!edw
>+1 215 387 7971                                     edw%distant@bts.com


Rich

payner@netcom.com




Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lewocz@acsu.buffalo.edu (John S. Lewocz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: looking for God
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:13:54 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo/Comp Sci

In article <martin.726335097@marsh> martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:
>Betty Lee Dowlin (BLD110@psuvm.psu.edu) writes:

>>God exists.  What is the life force?  What is that leaves that body when it
>>dies?  
>
>How do you know anything "leaves" as such?  Still, I see what
>you're saying..."When a life dies: what changes?"  I would answer
>that it is something we don't fully understand as yet.  It need not
>be an autonomous spirit, necessarily.
>"What happens to a flame when it burns out?" is a similar question.
>I'm don't think you'd think the answer to that is that its soul
>goes up to heaven.


As I understand it, and as was explained to me once by a biology student,
a cell's structure immediately breaks down upon the death of the cell.  If
you can suspend "life processes" without damaging the structure of a cell
it can be revived, eg. frozen sperm cells, etc.

So it would seem that a living thing is a stucture that must maintain
a certain set of processes to maintain its stucture: a fragile state.

Can anyone substantiate this?


--John
-- 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: How much should we read?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 07:27:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.034815.19776@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu> christen@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Carl Christensen) writes:
>Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu) wrote:
>: A religion is barbaric if it teaches barbaric things.  If it teaches
>: non-barbaric things based on misinterpretations of a Bible that, interpreted
>: properly, should instead be read as teaching barbaric things...  well, that
>: doesn't count.
>: If the scholar discovers that the Bible teaches cruelty, all that means is tha
>: modern Judaism has made a mistake in giving passages a non-cruel reading, but
>: it does _not_ mean that Judaism teaches cruelty.  Anti-semitism probably _is_
>: a motive for such a leap.
>I don't see how someone could give Deuteronomy, Numbers, etc. (as posted
>elsewhere) a 'non-cruel' reading.

Perhaps this is a failure of imagination on your part.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
From: daniel@scs.leeds.ac.uk (D N Crow)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Consciousness and the soul
Keywords: consciousness, soul, mental models, psychology
Date: 27 Jan 93 11:55:48 GMT
Organization: The University of Leeds, School of Computer Studies
Originator: daniel@csgi60
X-Posted-From: csgi60.leeds.ac.uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu


In article <1993Jan24.015049.18024@ousrvr.oulu.fi>, kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) writes:
|> 
|> In an article by Susan Blackmore (in New Scientist, 1 April 1989), where 
|> Libet's work is also described, she tells us about some more radical 
|> views: Consciousness is just an illusion, an afterthought to help us. 
|> The concept of self, which is the brain's mental model of itself, separates
|> "me" from "the rest of the world". 

A similar view of the role of conciousness was expounded in some detail in
Daniel Dennett's recent book "Conciousness Explained". I would recommend this
to you as an excellent (well written, well researched, authoritative) book
on this idea.

-- 
Dan Crow
daniel@scs.leeds.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: CHRISTIANS ARE BEING DUPED!
Organization: Still On a Coffee Break
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:09:09 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

>                         CHRISTIANS ARE BEING DUPED!
>
>               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
>          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. 
>
>                                           Robert E. McElwaine
>                                           2nd Initiate in Eckankar
>

WOW, I'm convinced!  Is this a chain letter?  I certainly don't want to
break the spell.  Let's see ...

                          cHrIsTiAnS aRe BeInG dUpEd?

                u N-allllllterred Repordctuoin nda DssiMeniation fo shit
                IPMORTNAT FrOnMantoni si DEgarCoune

HMMM, Guess I had better work on this a while.