HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Help
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 18:13:51 GMT

kschnitz@encore.com (Kevin Schnitzius) writes:
: Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes:
[...]
: >I am aware that your wonderful scientists have now discovered a way
: >to tap the area of the brain that triggers out-of-body experiences,
: >and that they now in fact have a laboratory where one (with much
: >money to blow) can experience an OOB.

Some research has been done on OOBEs, and the mechanisms involved
aren't as well understood as you imply.  There have been projects that
tried (with limited success) to induce OOBEs with sensory deprivation
and drugs.  Richard Feynman describes such an experience in his book
"Surely You Must Be Joking, Mr Feynman."

Susan Blackmoor has researched (and written about) OOBEs extensively.
Sorry, I don't have any references handy.

: >Given that after coming back from one of these the person can relay
: >information which occured in other rooms/states/countries/etc while
: >they were 'gone',

While the experience of an OOBE is definitely "real," it has been
repeatedly proven that the persons "leaving" their bodies could _not_
describe anything that would have required them to leave their bodies
to observe.

: >what do you make of this obvious proof that the human body entails
: >more than its physical being?

I challenge you to provide a single documented case where, under
controlled conditions, a person experiencing an OOBE can provide
information as you describe.

: If this were true, it would be on the front pages of every single
: newspaper in the world.  Proof of a soul would be pretty big news.
: However, I am so sure that this is either a joke or a scam that I,
: like the Amazing Randi, will put forth a sum of money, say $50, to
: anyone who can demonstrate to my satisfaction that this is not fake.
: By my satisfaction, I mean a double blind test of this OOB stuff.

I'll put up another $50.  As I recall, James Randi has even
experienced OOBEs, though I can't remember which of his books
describes the events.  He describes awakening during the night to find
himself floating with his back against the ceiling, looking down at his
sleeping body with his cat asleep on the foot of the bed.  The next
day he critically examines his experience and realized that he wasn't
actually observing the room from the ceiling because the cat was
outside that night.

OOBEs are real, just like dreams are real.  Sort of like the man, who
when asked if he believed in prayer, replied: "Yep," and after a
pause, "I've seen it done."  (don't remember where I stole that from)

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  I am a jelly donut.  I
Rosemount Inc.                                |am a jelly donut.
                                              |
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Adam and Eve and Bellybuttons
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:30:36 GMT

In article 15890@u.washington.edu, sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov18.162203.58773@qut.edu.au>, percival@qut.edu.au writes:
>>> 	What I want to know is:  Did Adam or Eve have bellybuttons?
>>> 	And if so, Why?
>
>They did.  The first bellybuttons were abdominal indentations
>caused by an attack by a pink unicorn.
>

That settles it! You've just proven the  existance of
Invisible Pink Unicorns Dancing in the Walls!

Whats that you say? Think Im loony? Ah, but my reasoning is
impecable! You see, if the unicorns were not invisible, Adam+Eve would
have dodged 'em! They might've gotten one of them, but not both!
If there weren't dancing they wouldn't be careless enough to poke anything-
they are usually very co-ordinated creatures don't you know. And if they
weren't in the walls they'd be poking US, something we could hardly
avoid noticing!

So obviously Invisible Pink Unicorns are Dancing in the Walls!
(Of course this leaves the question _which_ walls, which I will address
in my 32 1/2 volume dissertation "Invisibilius Unicornilibus Hopingaboutibus
in Sububi", free with 2 proofs of article reception and a prayer donation
of $19.95. Order now and I'll even throw in an Invisible Pink Unicorn,
just like the one navy-blue one included with this article. (you
didn't let it get away did you?) This offer void to anyone who needed
smilies before this paragraph)

(yes, now Im going for least sensible article of the week.)
---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: atheism and morals and dating
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 04:59:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.214859.23647@doug.cae.wisc.edu> mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.233958.17643@nmsu.edu> epowers@huey.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov10.011336.8574@iscsvax.uni.edu> mccall3080@iscsvax.uni.edu  
>>writes:
>>>        
>>>         We also are very moral people.  I don't drink, do drugs, sleep  
>>around,
>>> or even swear beyond saying the word "shit" occasionally.  I have high  
>>morals.
>>	[plenty of stuff deleted] 
>>
>>	Just curious, I'm not attacking you.  What's "immoral" or "wrong" (or  
>>whatever word with negative connotations you want to use) about drinking, doing  
>>drugs, or sleeping around?  What do you use to distinguish "moral" vs.  
>>"immoral"?
>>					Erik Powers
>>Reply by email, if you wish.
>
>That is a fairly easy one.  Culture has placed certain standards on individual
>behavior.  These standards define what is moral and what is immoral.  They
>define what is right and wrong.  These standards may not make much sense
>to an outsider, but within that society, that societies standards define
>the collective morality.  So if society decided that reading internet
>was very bad.  (Note I mean the collective society, not just a few individuals)
>, then it would become immoral or in some way wrong to read internet.  Things
>do change.  Look at relations between people of different skin pigmentation
>in the past 50 years to see how fast "wrong" can change.
>:)M^2
>

By your definition of "moral", atheism is immoral in the U.S. society, to a
lesser extent than drug use, but to a greater extent than drinking or swearing.
About the same as 'sleeping around', I guess.

	Sven

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jon.taylor@uuserv.cc.utah.edu (JON M. TAYLOR)
Subject: Re: Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible
Organization: The University of Utah
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:13:33 GMT

In article <ednclark.722477320@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
>Subject: Re: Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible
>Date: 23 Nov 92 00:08:40 GMT
>mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:
>
>>In article <ednclark.722219787@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>>>rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:
>>>
>>>>Helo all
>>>
>>>>I'd like some comments (if you've read it)
>>>>on the book by Isaac Asimov calles 
>>>>Guide to the Bible. I think it deals with
>>>>the discrepancies' of 
>>>>the bible.
>>>>Any comments?
>>>
>>>>Frank Pinto
>>>
>>>It is extremely unlikely that Isaac would write a book showing any
>>>discrepencies with the Bible as unfortunately the late man was a christian
>>>(though not a fundie).
>>>
>
>>Excuse me?  He was most definitely *not* a christian.  He was a Jew,
>>although non-practicing, and I'm almost 100% certain that he was
>>an atheist.  I won't say I'm positive because I don't have any
>>references handy.
>
>
>>--
>>====
>>Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
>>mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
>>"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
>
>Well if you can provide some evidence I would be most surprised (and
>releived) that he was an atheist. He may have been a Jew rather than a
>Christian though. I've read a transcript of a meeting between Arthur C.
>Clarke and Isaac Asimov organised by Mensa and the majority of this good
>natured discussion centred around the existence of God. Asimov took the
>position of beleiver. Also a number of his works involving the far distant
>future involve an incidental acceptance by the characters of a God. However
>I never met the man to ask him and I can't remember a quote about someone
>else actually asking either. He also produced a book about the weakness of
>evolutionary theory to explain the origin of life and compared evolution
>disfavourably with creation theory. All of this is off the top of my head so
>if anyone has any facts out there to the contrary I'd love to read them and
>as I said it would make me feel better that a person of such vast knowledge
>and intellect could not reconcile both a Judeo-Christian God and science
>(whereas at the moment I beleive he could, something that baffles me).
>
>Jeff.
>
>
	These are the things Asimov definitely was:

1: At least an agnostic, if not an out-and-out atheist,
2: DEFINITELY an evolutionist (many of his essays rip on creationism),
3: From a Jewish background.  He mentioned being bar-mitzvah several times.

	As for his whatever-it-was with Clarke, I'm sure the man was smart 
enough to be able to argue the fundie side of things if he wanted to.  After 
all, he wrote extensively about the bible.  That doesn't mean he actually 
believed it, however.

	-Jon
From: bx461@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Leo J. Mauler)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Paganism & Atheism
Date: 18 Nov 1992 07:23:43 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Neo-Paganism, as it exists today, seems to consist entirely of
people who worship a Deity or Deities without any set form or
dogma.  Quite a few are like the Buddhists or Taoists who worship
without Deities whatsoever.

Which is why it seems to me that Atheism is more or less a subset
of Neo-Paganism, in that Atheists live their lives without
Supernatural Beings, and not denying others their own beliefs.
The only Pagan "law" I ever came across in my life has been,
"As long as you don't hurt anyone else, do as you want."  It
strikes me that a great many Atheists act in this manner without
Deific persuasion, so what is there to make this idea false?

This is not to say, "hey you Atheists!  You're really Pagans, so
why not own up and admit it," this is just a theory about 
religions and not-religions.  Besides, another tenet of Paganism
is more or less, "THERE IS NO 'ONE TRUE WAY'"...

-- 
Never do this at home.  Look how easily it killed this sig.
/\  ___/\  ___/\  _____________________________________________
  \/     \/     \/  bx461@cleveland.freenet.edu (Leo J. Mauler)
DISCLAIMER: Everything I say is false, including this sentence.
From: ron_s@verifone.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: God ran down the alley
Date: 16 Nov 92 12:13:47 -1000
Organization: VeriFone Inc., Honolulu HI

    God hangs around:

   The world exists and I exist. I am a distinct part of the world.
I am not the rest of the world.  I interact with the world for
a period of time. I interact with other "I -s" similar to myself
for a period of time.  I have experienced a thing called birth,
and do not doubt I will also experience a thing called death,
which apparently happens to all living things.

   There may be something called a soul or a spiritual self which
is more or less attached to my physical body in hard to understand
ways.  There are dozens of dogmatic idea structures and belief
structures which maintain they have the final and complete word
on the "God and spirit" thing.  The exponents, proselytizers,
missionaries, and others who are carrying these torches - will tell
you, without any sparing or economizing - why thus and so is true
and could not possibly be otherwise.  The terrible thing is that the
most sacred thing in the universe, the individual human being,
gets trashed in the name of the higher powers, and so forth.

   It is difficult to engage the closed mind of a dogmatist in
a genuine dialogue where new truth may be uncovered.  He guards
his presuppositions fiercely - otherwise he might betray his
faith, whatever faith means to him, and he might not have enough
wits to argue anymore or even to say anything at all. he would
glare and suspect you of being the devil -- who are of course
much more interesting and entertaining than angels - (see
Willima Blake's - the marriage of heaven and hell)

aloha



Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: altruism and will to live/ not likely
Keywords: altruism evolution will survive
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 05:50:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.081457.5471@news.uiowa.edu> cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu (Corey D Minter) writes:
>I want to argue my belief that we all just act selfishly, and anything that
>seems altruistic is either just a means to selfish goals or an error in
>judgement.

It would be so if humans were rational beings. But they usually are not.
There is a lot of self-destruction for no reason, like drug abuse or loving
a histeric person.

>    I must admit that it may not be in my own interest for everyone to realize
>that they ultimately act selfishly, since society benefits more when they
>think they are acting benevolently.

 I disagree. It would be better if everybody knowingly acted selfishly, 
provided they rationally consider the consequences.

>An aquaintance on the board here gave me this example (I can't get to his name
>right now while I am writing this, I apologize):
>
>>                                        The reciprocal altruism and
>>familial altruism that you cite omit still one other category: the
>>unexplainable altruism of a human being giving his or her life for
>>another person he or she does not know. No benefit accrues to the (dead)
>>altruist, no indirect contribution to the composition of the gene pool.
>>It is simply an act of personal will, an act not describable by
>>scientific rationality.
>
>    With respect to the unexplainable altruism, if it were realy 
>unexplainable then it would be dismissed as accident, not providence.
>Say I saw you were going to get hit by a car I realized that I could save
>you but I would die in the process.  Say I did it, I die.  The question is am
>I altruistic.  In one perspective, everyone else's, I am.  But I argue that
>as it turns out that either I reasoned or by some sort of knee-jerk reaction
>based on my system of beliefs I actually valued your life at that instant at
>least, more than my own.  Furthermore, I value your survival such that I
>feel like I lose less in myself dying than in you dying.  I will anticipate
>you saying that it is still altruism.  If so please use a better example or
>clarify this example.

It is a poor example indeed. Valuing someone else over yourself is exactly
what altruism means. And the described action is altruistic, i.e. irrational.

But if you are a dying old philosopher and you die a little faster while saving
the life of your gifted young disciple, your ideas will live longer and they
are what you consider the meaning of your life, so you are actually acting in
your interest.

Similarly for people who sacrifice themselves for ideas like freedom. Their
interest is the realization of that idea, and it may be more important than
their own physical existence.


	Sven
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Roman Catholic Church
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 18 Nov 92  09:54:58

   Yesterday the Los Angeles Register reported on the new moral codes that the 
Roman Catholic Church issed about a month ago. A few of these rules were
posted here at that time.
  
   Guess which one the LA Register failed to list? The one that says that
avoiding taxes is a sin!
  
   Last time I looked, the IRS does not require cults to pay taxes on land,
buildings, and "love offerings." So technically cults do not "avoid" taxes,
yet how many start out being a tax dodge?

--- Maximus 2.00
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Accuracy of Texts
Date: 17 Nov 92 13:14:59 GMT

Erik Powers writes:

>Find out the methods used to hand copy manuscripts in those days, and then
>tell us if you think it was that haphazard.

This is a settled issue.  Comparison between the Dead Sea Scrolls, the
current Masoretic text, and the Septuagint (an ancient translation) show
that transmission of the text, at least from NT times to the present, has
been incredibly accurate.  Ditto for the NT.
-- 
C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:42:33 GMT

In <usglkrx.721748983@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman) writes:

>In <1992Nov14.005617.27920@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>>From article <nyikos.721695784@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, by nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos):
>>> 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.

>>A large part of it, Peter.   La Leche League has books and books on the subject.
>>When mother and child are separated at birth by arbitrary hospital nursery
>>policies, the mother's body goes into a hormonal tailspin.  Engorgement
>>causes the mother's body to react as if the baby had died (obviously since
>>he's not nursing enough, or even at all), and so the mother's whole system shuts
>>down.  What follows is insufficient milk, and then of course a round-the-clock
>>screaming hungry baby once they both escape and get home.   Even though the
>>baby hasn't actually died, the mother's screwed up hormones have now sent her
>>into mourning mode, and then added to that is the exhaustion because the
>>baby can't get enough milk to sleep well.

>>Check into it.  Non-industrialized countries, which have far fewer hosptial
>>births, have a far lower rate of post-partum depression.   Also in these
>>countries, the _infant_mortality_ rate is inversely related to the breast-
>>feeding rate.  All of this is simply because outside of a hospital setting,
>>the breastfeeding relationship is less likely to be tampered with by
>>commercial interests.   (Read "The Politics of Breastfeeding" by Gabriella
>>Palmer.)

>Interesting, considering that of the two women I know who had *severe* 
>post-partum depressions, one of them had a a natural childbirth at home,
>and the other had her kid in a birthing center.  

Well, in light of what Suzanne posted, some other questions are relevant, 
such as whether these infants got all their nourishment in these early
days from breastfeeding.  And did these infants have any health problems?
Was the first one vaccinated at home, too, or did it spend some time in a
nursery soon after birth?  did the second one?

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:05:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.194148.25867@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.200022.19896@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
>>You may have missed his point on Occam's Razor.  You have provided two
>>explanations of the universe, one with God and one without.  Both are 
>>possibilities, but unless there is some compelling reason, logic justifies
>>the one without God.
>>Jim CopelanD
>
>Occam's razor slashers are at it again.  Occam's razor is not in itself
>capable of arbitrating the truth between two alternative explanations.

I don't believe I mentioned truth, just reasonable justification for belief.

[straw men deleted]
>At best Occam's razor is an excuse not to investigate further.
>Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)

On the contrary, Occam's Razor says we should believe the simplest explanation
until we obtain further evidence.  I would take this as a challenge to
prove my point if I were on the wrong side of Occam's Razor.

Jim Copeland
-- 

What we really need to do to bring peace to the middle-east
is to get the Jews together with the Muslims
and teach them to act like good Christians.
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Mass Murder
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:47:26 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA18862; Wed, 18 Nov 92 05:48:27 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA10003; Wed, 18 Nov 92 05:48:24 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0070; Wed, 18 Nov 92 14:47:55 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

Samuel E Wiggins typed:

>Nope.  For the sins of most.  In some cities, though, He gave the opportunity
>for them to change their minds and turn back to Him and start being/doing
>right.  Nineveh, for instance, where Jonah went.  And, he didn't destroy
>that city as He planned.  And, He would have saved Sodom and Gomorrah if just
>a few (10?) righteous men were found in them, which probably had very large
>populations.  BTW, He creates life; He also takes it away.  I guess if you
>value your physical life and your eternal one doesn't exist for you, dying
>is a big deal.

Dying is not a big deal to me, suffering is a big deal. Your god lets people
suffer even for things they haven't done.

For the rest, you say that the killing of innocent people is ok when they
are sufficiently outnumbered. Your god's cognitive equipment seems to lack
selective features. I extend that to your mind.
   Benedikt
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Help (OoBEs)
Date: 17 Nov 92 12:43:51 GMT

Richard Griffith writes:

>Warning pure conjecture follows!!
>Anyone here involved in research on OOB experiences.

It sure is.

>How does the OOB experience sound as the after images of hitting the reset
>button on the brain.

It sounds lousy.

I once had a grand mal seizure, which is the closest thing the brain has to
a computer system crash.  I simply woke up in the hallway (surrounded by a
crowd of very worried people).  No visions, nothing at all.  I just woke up,
exactly like waking up in the morning.  This is typical of people who have
had such seizures.

-- 
C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism