HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gugler-sean@cs.yale.edu (Sean Gugler)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Star Trek transporters and the soul (Re: faith vs. reason)
Date: 28 Sep 92 03:49:00 GMT
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Undergraduate

[summary of original posts: If the Star Trek transporter duplicates
people rather than move them, what happens to the "soul" or identity
of the person?]

Dr. "Bones" McCoy himself posed this question in _Spock Must Die_, a
book by James Blish, author of a popular series of adaptations from
the original TV series.  These books, both the adaptations and the
novelette _Spock Must Die_, were published in the late 60's or early
70's.

In the book, McCoy's fears are addressed by rebuilding the transporter
such that the original is never destroyed.  Using a different
technology, a "temporary" copy is created at the destination, to be
destroyed upon completion of the mission.

Naturally, it backfires, but the situation posed is similar to the old
ship-building puzzle; namely, that if every piece of a ship is
replaced, one by one, and the old pieces re-assembled, which entity
possesses the identity of the original ship?

My views: I would not rule out cloning as a possible future
technology.  Both entities, original and clone, would necessarily
possess indistinguishable "soul-like" qualities.

So there be two ships (or people); why not?  Why should one be "more
valid" than the other?  Clones may cause some nasty paperwork for a
sluggish bureaucracy, but I would say both have equal claims upon
existence, and all that entails.

-- 
Sean Gugler                    gugler-sean@cs.yale.edu     <-- Internet
P.O. Box 1902 Yale Station         gugseap@yalevm          <-- Bitnet
New Haven, CT  06520   USA         sgugler@music.yale.edu  <-- NeXT
(203)-436-0861            We both have truths; are mine the same as yours?
From: kmldorf@utdallas.edu (George Kimeldorf)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: faith vs. reason
Date: 26 Sep 92 17:25:12 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas

In article <1992Sep24.102150.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> c9221777@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Brother Redeye) writes:
>If this is the process used then the crew member who is "transported" would
>never make it to his/her destination.  A replica that would be exactly the same
>in all respects to an observer would, but the original?  If such a thing
>happened to you would your consciousness somehow gravitate to this new "you" -
>unlikely. You would be, as far as you were concerned - dead.  The replica would
>have all of your memories and thus consider itself to be you so what is the
>difference?  A soul?  Comments?

This question of consciousness, along with similar questions, is discussed in
the book, "The Mind's I" by Douglas R. Hofstadter and Daniel C. Dennett.  If
you are interested in such speculations, I highly recommend this book.
From: S_TITZ@iravcl.ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Determinism and Deja Vu
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:18:54 GMT
Organization: Fachschaft Informatik, Uni Karlsruhe

In <1992Sep28.123804.20633@meiko.com> fred@meiko.co.uk writes:

>  As long as I can remember I have been what I call an Atheist. During the past
>  22 years (since I was eight about) I have compared everything I have observed
>  loosely against a scientific model and not observed anything which seemed
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
please explain further: do you mean 'against some scientific model' or
'against a specific scientific model of my own making'? If the second,
could you explain that?

>  improbable. That is except for a single happening, which I would like to
>  recall here, since it disturbs this model. 
>[description of a proven Deja Vu experience]

Not everything we regard as improbable disturbs the scientific
foundations of the world. An experience that can not be explained on
the spot on the basis of Newton's Laws does not prove that there is
something wrong with the world being seen on a stable scientific
ground, does not prove that something 'supernatural' [== not
*explainable* by scientific means] is involved, it does merely give an
indication that the world is not explained *completely* with the
currently known scientific models. In fact, since Einstein and quantum
mechanics we know that Newton's Laws are just an *approximation* that
fails for lack of exactness when it comes to very high speeds or very
small dimensions. 

Researchers are trying hard to explain phenomena they observe, but
nobody can explain everything observed on the spot. I think you should
not be disturbed by some experience that seemingly doesn't fit into a
currently known model. Instead a scientific approach to such
experience should be to further improve models and theories to match
experience where possible rather than taking the religious approach
{flame: the approach of the Pope towards Galilei}.

I have wondered about precognition experiences too and still have not
found a theory to explain them (otherwise, it would probably be known
to you already :-) However, I keep thinking about it and encourage
you to do so too {and don't let such things lead you away from atheism}.


MfG,
        Olaf
-- 
    o     Olaf Titz - comp.sc.student - univ of karlsruhe - germany
 _ /<_    s_titz@iravcl.ira.uka.de - uknf@dkauni2.bitnet - praetorius@irc
(_)>(_)   +49-721-60439 - did i forget something?
Future versions of 'grep' should refuse work when run on a file of newsgroups,
 as this usually serves no benign purpose.
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Star Trek transporters and the soul (Re: faith vs. reason)
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:28:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


       Don't take the "transporter" all that seriously.  Rodenberry put it
in "Star Trek" to cut the budget, by eliminating planetary landing scenes.  
This eliminated spaceport sets and models, special effects for takeoffs
and landings, and cut out travel scenes not necessary to the story line.
It's a literary device, not a technical one.


					John Nagle
From: bevans%carina.unm.edu@lynx.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Let's get this square circle s**t straight once and for all
Date: 24 Sep 92 08:27:15 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <WORKQUEUE-101.920910092130.480@fs1.manchester-computing-centre.ac.uk> D.Budd@mcc.ac.uk writes:
>I get really fed up with all the 'square circle' stuff I see.
>Am I the only one who remembers that the original 'square circle
>problem' was whether or not there is a geometrical construction which
>will give a square and a circle (separate objects!!!) having the same
>perimeter length [or was it   enclosing the same area ?] ???

I think you are confusing a "square circle" with "squaring the
circle."  The former is used commonly in alt.atheism as a response to
those who claim that you can't "disprove the existence of something
without an exhaustive search."  It is a trivial thing to disprove the
existence of an object that has the properties of both a square and a
circle simultaneously.

The latter is an ancient geometric problem that cannot be solved using
a "straight-edge-and-compass" construction because pi is not a
constructable number.

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
From: bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Star Trek transporters and the soul (Re: faith vs. reason)
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:38:58 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


	From what I understand, they have gotten it straightened into
the following way....


	The matter of the person I think is "converted" into a scrambled
/energy form. IT IS NOT DUPLICATION. I know for sure that the actual
atoms are sent. In Star Trek, the next generation, it has been indicated
that sometimes people are conious during transported.



	Hope that helps....


-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Reveal to me the sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips | alias: White Rook | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
From: mayne@phi.cs.fsu.edu (William Mayne)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: More on non-NT sources
Date: 23 Sep 92 13:44:38 GMT
Reply-To: mayne@nu.cs.fsu.edu
Organization: Florida State University Computer Science Department

In article <1992Sep9.190537.23235@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jkopersk@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey D Koperski) writes:
>Thanks to the two of you who responded to my original post.  I've 
>been pondering them a great deal the past couple of weeks.  In 
>that post I provided several non-Christian, non-New Testament 
>sources that verify parts of the New Testament record (viz., 
>Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Trajan, 
>and Hadrian). [And a bunch more stuff that belongs in soc.religion.christian
>but certainly not in alt.atheism.moderated deleted]

>[my thanks to the temporary moderator who helped me track down 
>one of the respondents to my original post] 

What the hell is a moderator for if such inappropriate stuff with
no content related to atheism is posted? Those of us who have any
interest in New Testament sources and theological discussions know
where to look for them. This is like a street preacher invading
an atheist meeting or a private home.

Let's see - where is that "u" key?

Bill Mayne
From: Nigel.Allen@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Pope to visit Albania?
Date: 28 Sep 92 05:24:15 GMT
Organization: NDA

(from the Chicago Tribune, Sept. 27, 1992)
 
Once-atheist Albania wants pope to visit

 VATICAN CITY -- Albania has invited Pope John Paul II to visit the Balkan
country that called itself the "world's first atheist state" while under
communist rule. Albanian Premier Aleksander Meksi met Friday with the
Vatican's secretary of state, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, to discuss the Roman
Catholic Church's attempts to reorganize in Albania, papal spokesman
Joaquin Navarro said.

--
   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:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: c9221777@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Brother Redeye)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: faith vs. reason
Date: 24 Sep 92 00:21:50 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

In article <1686825B1.PKJAMES@UKCC.UKY.EDU>, PKJAMES@UKCC.UKY.EDU writes:
> Interesting...?  I may sound psychotic, but one time watching Star Trek,
> I happened to think about what the transporter did.  Did it "copy" with
> atoms from the new place or truly "transport" the original ones a a unit
> through time and space.  That made me question what "identity" was.  Was
> it the dynamic processes the atoms were going through, or the atoms
> themself that were my soul-identity, or both?
-- 
Fascinating.  I had been pondering this myself.  The process appears to be
duplication, as on one occasion (the name of the episode escapes me) the
captain's body was "lost".  They managed to use a record of his body-pattern in
the transporter matrix to "create" a new one and thus he lived happily ever
after.

If this is the process used then the crew member who is "transported" would
never make it to his/her destination.  A replica that would be exactly the same
in all respects to an observer would, but the original?  If such a thing
happened to you would your consciousness somehow gravitate to this new "you" -
unlikely. You would be, as far as you were concerned - dead.  The replica would
have all of your memories and thus consider itself to be you so what is the
difference?  A soul?  Comments?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions expressed herein are my own and do not reflect those of the
University of Newcastle ... but then again, as I have to pay to use these
facilities anyway, who really cares?!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send all hate mail to: c9221777@cc.newcastle.edu.au
                   or: c9221777@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: fred@meiko.co.uk (Mark Homewood)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Determinism and Deja Vu
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:38:04 GMT
Organization: Meiko Ltd. Bristol

As long as I can remember I have been what I call an Atheist. During the past
22 years (since I was eight about) I have compared everything I have observed
loosely against a scientific model and not observed anything which seemed
improbable. That is except for a single happening, which I would like to
recall here, since it disturbs this model. 

---
While at college I went on a camping holiday with a student girlfriend. We
travelled across to the continent on a ferry. I never
sleep very well in the Economy recliner so I lay on the floor and had a very
disturbed night. In the morning over a cup of coffee brewed on deck over a
parafin stove I told my companion of a odd dream I'd just had. "We were walking
down this street and stopped outside this bar. We sat on a brick wall outside
this bar and on the wall next to us there was a pile of broken walnut shells".

We arrived in Holland and took a train to Gronigen in the north. Where we were
going to camp. We walked around the town and came to a bar. While deciding
what to do we sat on the wall outside. I looked down, deja vu, a pile of walnut
shells. I pointed them out to my friend "Look". She remembered with clarity
my dream, "Just like you said".
---

I have many deja vu which I dismiss as 'a trick of the brain' but how could
I trick someone else. Has anyone else had such an experience ? Or an
explanation other than mere chance ?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Religious Ignorance
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:40:36 EDT
 <ksand-270992141014@wintermute.apple.com> <10888@scott.ed.ac.uk> <1992Sep30.142718.37438@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Sep30.142718.37438@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>, csfed@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Frank E. Doss) writes:
> In article <10888@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>In article <ksand-270992141014@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>>>
>>>I don't think animal lover groups would subscribe to the notion of 
>>>casting deamons to pigs, something Jesus gladly did.
>>
>>I don't belong to any animal lover group, but the story about that
>>fellow drowning a large herd of pigs makes me very uncomfortable.
>>That's a huge lot of good pork wasted.  It could have fed many people.
> 
> Jews don't eat pork.  I wonder why a Jew was keeping a herd of pigs.  I
> always thought that pork didn't come into flavor until a few centuries
> later.

   By Jesus' time there were quite a lot of Greeks and Romans in Palestine,
especially in the region around Nazareth.  Even if it was a Jew keeping the
pigs, he could have been selling them to the Greeks.

Karl
From: joeb@pdnfido.fidonet.org (Joe Beiter)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Stupid Christian Tricks
Date: 5 Oct 92 01:15:01 GMT
Organization: The Source for Source Pub Access Unix

In article <n0b40t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>Tag: David James Alexander Hanley <U55870@uicvm.uic.edu>
> 
>Someone> If someone intentionally handles a poisonous snake and
>Someone> gets bitten and dies (which I belive very rarely happens
>Someone> anyway) or gets sick, its not because they didn't have
>Someone> faith but because they were stupid.
> 
>DJA> "Of course they're stupid. They're christian right? I'd expect
>DJA> them to do a whole range of idiotic stuff."
> 
>Are =ALL= Christians "stupid?" Or are they mislead? Or ill-informed?
>Or perhaps mis-informed?

Could not the same question be asked for any group you can think of?
"Christians" who do not read the Bible but listen to some *person* instead
will fall for just about anything you can feed them no?

Christianity demands that you think and study the Bible.  If a person is
doing that 'religiously' they will not be picking up snakes to test their
faith.

I (Someone) used the term 'stupid' loosely.

> 
>Theists believe in stupid things, silly things, impossible things,
>and downright BIZZARE things, for a variety of reasons. "Hope" is
>one, though "Fear" and "Ignorance" also applies.

As atheists never do eh?

> 
>"Stupid" doesn't fit all Christians--- just a large number of them.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about atheists... ;->

> 
>And I'm living proof that an atheist can be just as stupid as
>many Christians. (SMILE!)
>

I know how you feel....



-- 
-=@=-=@=-=@=-=@=-::
- JoeB           Joe.Beiter@HauppaugeNY.NCR.COM
                 joeb@pdnfido.fidonet.org
-=@=-=@=-=@=-=@=-::
From: csfed@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Frank Doss)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Religious Ignorance
Date: 1 Oct 92 16:35:19 GMT
Organization: Educational Computing Network

In article <1992Sep30.234036.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.142718.37438@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>, csfed@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Frank E. Doss) writes:
>> In article <10888@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>> 
>> Jews don't eat pork.  I wonder why a Jew was keeping a herd of pigs.  I
>> always thought that pork didn't come into flavor until a few centuries
>> later.
>
>   By Jesus' time there were quite a lot of Greeks and Romans in Palestine,
>especially in the region around Nazareth.  Even if it was a Jew keeping the
>pigs, he could have been selling them to the Greeks.
>
>Karl

I stand corrected.


-- 

Frank Doss 
The above stated words are my opinions and do not reflect the opinions,
attitudes, or policies of my employer or any affilliated organizations.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date:  5 Oct 92 00:00:08 GMT

morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
>|> it is, and they would not be so hellbent on destroying it.  But we're
>|> too fucking busy debating about gods and killing each other to take notice.

>You have some good points, but I might suggest that your attitude towards 
>religion in general seems a bit hostile.  Your points are certanily valid
>in the context of Judeo-Christian religions, but are far from the truth 
>when we consider various animist and tribal religions.  Most aboriginal 
>American and Australian religions, for example, stress harmony with nature
>and do not necessarily endow humans with some great cosmic significance, or
>even with status above other animals.  

>The fact that we seem hell-bent on our own destruction is probably more 
>the result of the ability to understand and therefore control nature 
>(ie. science) being coincidentally developed in a culture whose dominant
>religions say its our duty to dominate and exploit the earth.  Science 


It's not a conincidence, Judeo-Christian dogma was the most elitist and
aggressive (and confrontationalist) ideology which coupled with a
willingness to allow their religious leaders large amounts of time to
contemplate God's creations, produced a destructive technology and an
expansionist policy which therefore
dominates our current global decision making. Though as time goes by more
and more cultures and religions pull and tug at this "the Earth is ours to
make a profit from" ideal.


>tells us to back off, but this message conflicts with our cultural and 
>religious tradition of exploitation.  Our current angst over the world's
>environmental problems is the result of the collision of these two
>meme complexes.

Jeff.
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Date: 28 Sep 92 08:18:26 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Scott S Parish (parsons@cis.ksu.edu) wrote:
: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
: 
: [...deletions...]
: >Exactly my point---it is this irrational WRONG belief that
: >causes so much pain and mental bondage.
: >[...] 
: 
: >You will find that people "demonically posessed" are very
: >sick mentally, or sick emotionally, of very much in need
: >of attention to keep the loneliness at bay.
: 
: You need to get into contact with some missionaries who have
: any time in the field, then you will see that you are the one 
: who has a wrong belief about demonic possession.  However,

Provided, of course, that you pick the right missionaries. You need
wider contacts yourself. I bet I could find a number of missionaries
who would consider your views exceedingly simplistic.

By the way, I know *heaps* of missionaries, starting with my parents.
Actually Dad left from the mission field many years ago to take up
a regular job of a parish minister. But we keep in touch with lots of
folk in the field, as you put it. Most missionaries know to me
personally are now retired.

Felicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Religion & Crime / "Satanic Conspiracy"
Date: 27 Sep 92 11:40:55 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> A  list  of "satanic indicators" was sent by Ms Klein to  help  social 
> workers.  Classic  signs and symptoms are said to include  an  unusual 
> preoccupation  with  urine and faeces, fear of  ghosts  and  monsters, 
> aggressive play, and the child being "clingy", reciting nursery rhymes 
> with  indecent overtones, suffering from nightmares and  bed  wetting, 
> preoccupation with "passing gas", using mouth to make "gas sounds" and 
> wild laughter when the child or someone else "passes gas".

Good grief.  I don't think I've met any eight-year-old boys who *haven't*
been Satanically abused, then.


mathew
-- 
De-evolution!  Self execution!  No solution!  I'm a potato, and I'm sooooo hip!
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (Wild Child)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:56:22 +0930
Organization: University of South Australia

In article <ednclark.717813231@kraken>, ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:

Haha very funny.

>
>>"God is Dead" Friedrich Nietzsche 19th century
> "Nietzsche is Dead" God 20th Century
		      ^^^ prove it, dork! Send me a copy of the recording.
This is so flippin old!!!
a) You're an atheist with a humour deficiency (not likely given history)
b) You're a theist getting desparate for even a SMALL victory....

--
John McVey, Whyalla, Uni S.Aust  9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Electronic Engineering Student & Terror Tekkie G1 (at 19!)
       +------------------------------------------------------+
     --| Obligatory disclaimer : UniSA hates my opinions...   |--
       +------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,alt.atheism.moderated,talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.society.futures,sci.philosophy.tech,alt.cyberpunk,rec.arts.sf.announce