HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:28:09 GMT

In article <nyikos.721352819@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <ednclark.720769528@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>
>>mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>
>>>Because ending something is not the same as not having started it in the
>>>first place.  For example, ending a nuclear war (via massive retaliation) is
>>>not at all the same as not starting one in the first place, morally speaking.
>
>>>So the answer to "If it's OK to cause a potential person never to exist, why
>>>isn't it OK to cause an existing person to cease existing?" is simple;
>>>"causing a person to never have existed" is not the same as "causing a person
>>>to cease existing".  Hence my original comment.
>
>A sentient fetus is a "person" in the phenomenological sense of the
>word.
>
This statement is not correct.

It has yet to be demonstrated that a fetus is capable of
sentience.  Even if a fetus could be shown to posess sentience,
in a phenomenological sense, the 'experience' of the fetus would 
hardly be comparable to the experience of born persons.  A fetus 
does not experience 'being-in-the-world'.  There is also a clear
distinction between the phenomenological self-awareness of one's 
own personhood and the recognition of the personhood of 'others'.  
A fetus does not attain 'otherness' until birth, except for those 
who regard the personhood of the woman as completely transparent.
It is possible that the woman carrying the fetus may regard it
as 'other', though in doing so she would probably experience a
profound sense of alienation from her own body.  The transition
from connectedness to 'otherness' is, in fact, not complete
psychologically at parturition for some women.  Hence, the 
lifelong distress that affects many women who give up their babies 
for adoption.

It has been argued that it is possible for others to interact
experientially with a fetus while it is still in utero.  I
would point out, however, that such exchanges  _always_
involve some interaction with the physical person of the 
pregnant woman.  From the perspective of all outsiders, the
'otherness' of a fetus is completely derivational from the
experience of treating in some way with the body of the
pregnant woman.  It is also extremely difficult to assess 
the quality of such 'experiences' for the fetus, since the
memory of 'post-fetuses' so rarely includes such things.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:20639 talk.religion.misc:20452
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:17:02 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Nov12.130951.165091@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
>dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:
>Also, the name of Jesus is recorded in other Christian and Non-christian
>texts.  There is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that the name of Jesus is correct, and
>that He lived on earth.

OK, give us the evidence. I doubt it until then.

>
>I think we can safely dismiss your supposition!  (In fact, I think we can
>safely dismiss all of them.  It all sounds like day dreaming, not fact. :-)
>

As far as atheists are concerned, yours is the day dream until you have
given satisfactory evidence.

>
>Yours in Christ,

But not on this board.

>James.
From: hbcs1010@blurt.oswego.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: The Church of the Wabbit!
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:20:01 GMT
Organization: SUNY College at Oswego, Oswego, NY

IT HAS BEEN REVEALED! BUGS BUNNY IS THE ULTIMATE POWER OF THE UNIVERSE! REPENT!
REPENT! FIND SALVATION THROUGH THE DIVINE MANTRA: "WHAT'S UP, DOC?" MAKE A
PILGRIMAGE TO THE HOLY WARNER BROTHERS ANIMATING STUDIO AND FIND PEACE! THE
CHURCH OF THE RABBIT IS THE ONE TRUE WAY! ELMER FUDD IS SATAN! FALL ON YOUR
KNEES, ONE AND ALL, AND WORSHIP!



   () ()    
   () ()
   ()_()
  / o o \      
  \ ___ /     
     W <IIIID--*
From: euan_s@bunyip.atnf.csiro.au (Euan Troup)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Don't believe anything you hear!
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:25:01 GMT
Reply-To: etroup@atnf.csiro.au
Organization: Australia Telescope, Parkes Radio Observatory.


In article <Bx7B51.6Dz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, @expert.cc.purdue.edu
(adamsma@expert.cc.purdue.edu) writes:
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path:
crux.rp.CSIRO.AU!dmssyd.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU!metro!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!spo
ool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!@expert.cc.purdue.edu
From: @expert.cc.purdue.edu (adamsma@expert.cc.purdue.edu)

>Okay, so you're an atheist.  So you don't believe in God, the Devil, angels,
>or demons.  So you don't believe in any authority higher than yourself.  That 
>is your right as a human being.  However, your lack of belief doesn't change 
>the fact that there is a God.  It doesn't change the fact that there is
a Devil.
>It doesn't change the fact that there is an ongoing spiritual battle
all
>around us.  It doesn't change the fact that God, because of His
incredible
>love for us, sent His Son to die in great agony for each of our sins. 
It
>doesn't change the fact that the Creator of the Universe loves you more
than 
>any human can imagine.  It doesn't change the fact that you can have
salvation
>and eternal life by simply accepting Jesus as your personal savior. 
Don't 
>believe.  It doesn't change anything.

>Sincerely,

>Mark


>P.S.  If you don't believe that it gets dark at night, does that keep it from
>getting dark? 


You assert all this to be fact, there are many people who would disagree with
this who are not atheists. If it is a fact, can you show us a demonstration?
Can you die and go to heaven and demonstrate this for us? Repeatedly, under
carefully controlled conditions, in the same way it can be demonstrated that
several thousand kilometres of rock can block sunlight?


Euan Troup,	etroup@atnf.csiro.au
..mostly harmless			Disclaimer: I frame no hypotheses.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.abortion
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 11 Nov 92 02:50:49 GMT

ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:

>In <1992Nov3.182924.21155@zeus.franklin.edu> scruggs@zeus.franklin.edu (Kevin Scruggs) writes:

>>In article <ednclark.720769528@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) 
>>>
>>>Yeah, and also why not (if we take the view of pro-lifers) get every fertile
>>>woman we can cram into an in-vitro fertilisation clinic and inseminate her
>>>with a potential life. It seems to me, that if we view the right to life
>>>above and beyond societal and existing person's well being, we have a moral
>>>obligation to do this. We have the capacity to make sure a much greater
>>>proportion of existing ova and sperm realise their potential so, according
>>>to pro-life, it seems to me we should do this. When will such madness end!
>>>
>>>Jeff.
>>>
>>	You're not getting the point. What you view only as potential, 
>> your opponenets view as actual existence. If the entity in question 
>> only posesses homo-sap. RNA this is rather absurd, otherwise it is not...

>This is clearly the philosophical difference between the sides, but in
>this case I believe the prolifer was attempting to argue against
>abortion _even_if_ the the prochoice position (that a fetus is only
>potential existence) is accepted. It doesn't wash though because that
>argument can as easily be applied against birth control or abstinence.

>As you say, the prolife position must consider a fetus more than just
>potential existence to be credible.

>Werner

Okay, so we reckon we've got to the crux of the problem. Please give me a
rational reason why a foetus that is still attached to the mother is
considered to be a separate entity deserving rights above and beyond the
rights of it's mother.

And also when does this transition to greater rights occur?


Jeff.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Historical proof?
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:55:41 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: alt.atheism

In article <9211071441.AA25784@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com>,
I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau) wrote:
> I have heard many reports about the time when my grandparents were young,
> including the Nazi rule, from people of their generation. And many of them
> contradicted each other. Further, I have seen people giving different reports
> from events I have been at. Not just slight differences in what happened, but
> reports that make you think that they must have been somewhere else.

Anyone involved in for instance corporations knows about the grapewine
network that distorts facts so everyone has their own view. The only
thing that helps is one single memo appearing from the top that clears
the situation.

It does not help to publish four different memos from four different CEOs
:-).

Cheers,
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: one lab
Date: 13 Nov 92 17:24:58 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service


I have been informed by one fellow student here at GB that Maharishi
International University (MIU) in Fairfield, Iowa is one institution
where OOB's are studied and performed. This friend tried to get
involved with it when he was down there but was told you must be a 
student there to qualify.
I'm sure there are other places, and will get back to you all on more
when I get the time to do the research.

Michelle
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: eradm@brahms.wbst845e.xerox.com (Erik Radmall)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: leave us alone!!!!
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:09:24 GMT
Reply-To: eradm@brahms.wbst845e.xerox.com (Erik Radmall)
Organization: Xerox

In article <parsons.720996187@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu>, parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:

[stuff deleted]

|> Also, the reason you don't find Jewish, Buddhist, or Islamics posting to 
|> this group often (though I have seen Islam represented here occasionaly) is
|> that the bulk of the readers on the net come from predominatly Christian
|> countries, like the USA.  I'm surprised you didn't think of that.

The Christian charter is to gain converts at any expense (sometimes even human life).
This does not accord with those of the Jewish or Buddhist faiths. One theme I noticed
repeated the Koran was that infidels are as good as dead anyway, so why bother.

[more deleted]

|> -- 
|> Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6


-- 
J. Erik Radmall
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Orson Scott Card
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 06:43:01 GMT

Interesting quote from "Xenocide" from Orson Scott Card

Ch 4 p 53
'Telepathic' communication between two aliens:

"<So many of your people are becoming Christians. Be-
lieving in the god these humans brought with them.>
<You don't believe in God?>
<The question never came up.  We have always re-
membered how we began.>
<_You_ evolved. _We_ were created.>
<By a virus.>
<By a virus that God created in order to create us.>
<So you, too, are a believer.>
<I understand belief.>
<No--you desire belief.>
<I desire it enough to act as if I believed. Maybe that's
what faith is.>
<Or deliberate insanity.>"

Good book, if you like moral dilemma. (Read "Ender's Game"
and "Speaker for the Dead" first.)

Brian /-|-\
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Vatican approves Death Penalty
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 23:21:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.115500.10221@cs.nott.ac.uk>,
lpzsml@unicorn.nott.ac.uk (Steve Lang) writes:
|>A leaked report of the new Universal Catechism states that the death
|>penalty is a "legitimate" punishment.  The Pope, according to the _Catholic
|>Herald_, has approved the Cathechism in July.
|>
|>"For the sake of the common good, aggressors might have to be placed in a
|>position where they cannot cause further harm.  Public authorities have the
|>right and obligation to issue proportionate punishment, including the death
|>penalty"; although the Catechism also says "non-violent measures are
|>preferable".
|>
|>John Paul II described how he personally scrutinised successive drafts.  He
|>said he gave "observations, proposals, counsels" which were "carried out
|>with careful fidelity".
|>
|>What has happened to the commandment "Thy shall not kill"?  Although I do
|>not agree with the Church's position on abortion, I fully understand their
|>reasons.  However the statement on death penalty is completely
|>contradictory to that on abortion; indeed it is hypocritical.

The commandment is actually (?) translated as "You will not murder".
"Murder" means that while you as an individual cannot kill, 
institutions can.  Neat, huh?

|>
|>All Roman Catholics I have spoken to on this issue have agreed that there
|>is no justification for the death penalty.  It is a shame that the Vatican
|>has not listened to its follows.
|>

When has it ever?

|>If any state is to introduce the death penalty as a result of the
|>Catechism, the blood will on the churches hands.

...again.

|>
|>Steve Lang
|>The article contains my own views and may not reflect those of the
|>university.
                             
Brian /-|-\
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 16:43:29 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Nov10.184658.19188@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	Atheists commonly ignore that they live in a dream-world by themselves.

 My, Antti. You're being polite and restrained, I see.

>	Quite common is the belief that you could save this earth. This is 
>	rubbish. There is no method to save mankind from Greenhouse effect or
>	lack of Ozone (for decades). People refuse to believe this. 

 So, are you saying that all humanity is going to go extinct? When? How
long will it take?
 Why would, say, technology that doesn't produce greenhouse gases & CFC's
be unable to handle this?
 Please, explain this...

>	What is the philosophy with atheists ? Consume ! Spend more !

 Have you even *heard* of the FAQ file? Do you even know how to spell FAQ?

>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint


 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are going to the
stars!" - Robert A. Heinlein
From: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Immortality
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:45:58 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b63519.student.cwru.edu

In article <19233.2afb10ff@levels.unisa.edu.au> 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon) writes:
>> If you don't so assume, I think that makes you a "Sophist" (sp?), right?
>> Don't believe ANYTHING wo/ proof, even your senses? Only thing you know
>> is that you exist?
>
>Yeah, if you ask me, that is a VERY self-important view to take, almost
>downright arrogant.

Why? This is my viewpoint. It makes little difference since I assume that 
that which I see is real. However, since I cannot prove that I am currently 
seated before my keyboard, I will not assert that I am definately doing so, 
beyond a shadow of a doubt.

>Since we have now come to the conclusion that, based on the fact
>that one can think, you exist. This only shows that you, the
>thinker exists. Next question: If you exist, which includes your
>physical form, then it seems reasonable that what you survey also
>exists. 

You hit a problem here -- I know that I exist. I do _not_ know that my 
physical form exists. Again, I assume that this is so for conveniance's sake.

>Wether or not what you survey is an accurate representation
>or not, the fact that they can be percieved is proof that they do
>exists in one form or another. If it's a fabrication, then there
>MUST have been a fabricator.

Yes, but what if that fabricator is myself?

>If it wasn't you, then there is 
>definately someone else around. To believe that it's all to trick
>you somehow is very paranoid so until further evidence which indicates
>otherwise, the logical conclusion is that not only do you exist but
>other people and other things do also.

I have no argument with this. I do not believe that all that I perceive is a 
trick. I do accept that as a possibility, albiet a very minor one. The 
logical assumption _is_ that what I perceive exists, and this is the 
assumption that I go on. I merely accept the _possibility_ that this may not 
be the case.

>> I never understood why people insist on separating out "you" from
>> your body. I see no evidence that our "selves" are separate things,
>> and not merely an artifact of the functioning of our brains. (or,
>> alternately, a feature of this functioning. Not sure myself)
>
>Agreed. Life is a chemical reaction and the 'soul' cannot be
>separated from one's physical brain (there's a bodacious Star Trek
>thread down in .moderated which discusses this).

This seems likely -- but can you prove it?
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
| Damien Neil | dpn2@po.cwru.edu | Case Western Reserve University |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
From: dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God Is Silly
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:59:49 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

In article <1992Nov11.131415.810@blurt.oswego.edu> hbcs1010@blurt.oswego.edu writes:
>In article <92315.021717MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>, MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>> 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.
>> 
>> Martin Schulte
>
>
>
>no no no no no! didn't you read the pink unicorn bits? if i assert that there
>are pink unicorns running around in my walls, it's up to me to prove that they
>are, not up to you to prove that they aren't. 
>  
> of course, if i tried to prove it, i'd probably get locked in a padded
>room....
>
>-diedre hauptfuehrer
>
>there's a hell of a universe next door- let's go!
>                                                 e.e. cummings
There's some pink unicorns in my walls too.  Haven't seen a trace of God yet.
Therefor pink unicorns exist and God does not.:)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: Epiphany
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: alt.atheism
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:06:19 GMT

In article <BxDDuu.1My@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> The Place That Is (God) writes:
                                 ^^^^^^
It certainly is a sad commentary on the level of delusion at good ole 
Purdue U.  May the BoilerWeenies forever be banished to the lower reaches
of the Big 10 (now 11).  Simple pleasures for simple minds.
jc

>
>Now that I have revealed myself, how can you disbelieve?


-- 
I sink like a stone
That's been thrown in the ocean
My logic has drowned
In a sea of emotion                   -- Sting
From: MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Asserting No Gods
Date: 6 Nov 92 11:23:58 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

In article <n0d6ct@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org says:
>
>To answer my own question, I don't care if people think my
>assertion of no God is "hypocritical." Does my assertion that
>there is no Santa Claus make me thus? Easter Bunny? That's for
>the theist to deal with.

No quotes necessary. Asserting there is no god while attacking the
other side for the opposite assertion is hypocritical, as do the
rest of your assertions. Simply because some of them are silly
isn't going to confuse me. You have no evidence to prove your
assertion, and therefore you have made the same mistake as theists.

>To me, lack of evidence of any kind that shows God's existance
>is in itself evidence AGAINST God's existance. Surely in 10,000
>years there would be at least ONE proof of God, right? There
>isn't even ONE.

A lack of evidence _is_ evidence? I'm not sure about that. Still,
even with circumstancial "evidence" taken into account, is this
absolute proof of your claims? I think not. So either prove your
assertions, or throw them away.

>The guy who said "Why are you atheists? Did God -WRONG- you all in
>some way!?" I believe you are refering to. Some people think that
>atheists are "anti-God" and not people without a God.

In this I think you're right. Such a question is ridiculous, since
I don't even believe in god; why would I think one "wronged me"?
I may retain some dislike toward xianity since it caused me problems,
but I am certainly not the way I am because I think god is out to get me.

Note: To anyone that doesn't know me from previous postings, please
don't assume that I am a xian from the fact that I disagree with an
atheist. I think "agnostic" is probably the most accurate label one
could slap on me, although I'm not even sure it fits.

Martin Schulte
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: epowers@mccoy.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: assertiveness of non-divinity
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 06:26:05 GMT

In article <Mew_tsK00iUyQ8DAU=@andrew.cmu.edu>  writes:
> I was just wondering how many people here assert that there is no God. 
> I personally have said "There is no God,"(without proof) while
> denouncing Christians for saying there was one(without proof).  Does
> this make me a hypocrite? 

	No.  All opinions can be traced back to something that is assumed  
without proof.  For example, most people here assume that Logic is the best way  
to examine an argument.  We wouldn't get very far if someone disagreed, would  
we?  Imagine the challenge:  "Prove that logic is a valid way of examining  
reality!"
				Erik Powers 
> If pressed on the issue, I do admit that I don't have all of the
> answers, but that mine seem much more logical and reasonable than the
> answers of the theists.  I'd like to know what happened to the bologna
> guy who used to post here.  He sent me a note and said "read my next
> post" which never showed up.  Did something happen to him?  I mean, some
> people here were pretty fed up with him!