HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re:      Re: God Is Unfair
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:19:38 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Nov18.151044.23933@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>
>Please explain how circumcision of an eight-day-old infant is
>as barbaric as excising the clitoris and sewing the vulva
>of a young girl.  

  Ever witness a circumsion up close?  Lots of blood and
  screaming; truly not a sight for the weak kneed.  Now combine this
  with the facts that the AMA recommends *against* circumsion, and
  that there is no sound reason to perform one, and you have an open
  and shut case for barbarism.

  Or are you suggesting that just because an eight day old infant
  will soon forget the pain that it's not barbaric?  I guess 
  infant beatings are OK after all.

  Or are you suggesting that removal of the foreskin causes no
  permanent damage, and the boy is not substantially altered by its
  being cut off.  In that case, I hope you're not circumcised.  Do
  send me an invitation to the ceremony, though. 


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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@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!
From: starr-daniel@yale.edu (Daniel Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Church of England / Women / Catholics
Date: 17 Nov 1992 13:17:34 -0500
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu

Okay, with the release of the new, improved Catholic catechism today we
can give the official approved answer on why the Catholic Church will not
ordain women.  I quote here from an excerpt of the catechism in today's
New York Times:

"Only a baptized man may legitimately receive Holy Ordination.  The Lord
Jesus chose men to form the college of the 12 apostles, and the apostles
did likewise in choosing the collaborators who succeeded them in their
task... The church acknowledges that it is bound by this choice of the Lord
Himself.  That is why the ordination of women is not possible."

(I regret that I do not know what is said in the elided section.)
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|Daniel Starr                | "Wait! Wait! Maybe THIS will work!" |
|dstarr@minerva.cis.yale.edu |                                     |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 03:49:22 GMT

In <DZP3TB8w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> In <ednclark.720769528@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) 
>> >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) i
>> >>not at all the same as not starting one in the first place, morally speakin
>> 
>> >>So the answer to "If it's OK to cause a potential person never to exist, wh
>> >>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 pers
>> >>to cease existing".  Hence my original comment.
>> 
>> A sentient fetus is a "person" in the phenomenological sense of the
>> word.

>Quite possibly, but how do you know that any such thing as a "sentient fetus"
>exists?

I don't KNOW it, but then I don't KNOW that anyone in the world is sentient
besides myself.  This is an ancient philosophical conundrum, and one must
resort to external signs to arrive at a probable conclusion.

>Also, are Ethiopians "persons" in the phenomenological sense?  What about
>convicted serial killers?

Yes in both cases.  But (1) if you are implying I should save every child
in Ethiopia BEFORE I have the right to try to save any unborn children, I
say you are all wet and (2) if you are equating an innocent babe in a 
woman's womb with a serial killer, you are worse than all wet, you are
an ethical nihilist.

>[ Just asking ]

I wonder.  If you did not imply either (1) or (2) above, my apologies,
but your choice of topics sure smelled funny.

Peter Nyikos





Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Church of England / Women / Catholics
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:01:15 GMT

In article <Bxtsrz.DqI@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> svanegmo@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Stephen Van Egmond) writes:
>I've been wondering about this for quite a long time.  What sort of out-of-date reason does the Catholic church offer for denying women the right to become priests?   And why on earth does the pope disapprove of the Church of England's decision to allow t
>hem to become priests?

The Church's reasoning is that since all of the disciples were men, it
is God's will that priest be men.

I didn't say it was a *good* reason. 

>
>Being atheist, I have never really understood fully any of the positions of the Catholic religion, but this one really baffles me, and I simply have no idea what sort of mind could justify such a point of view.  It never really occurred to me to ask this 
>question until now.

I grew up Catholic with several priests and brothers in the family and
*I* never fully understood any of the positions of the Church.  Don't
feel bad.   :)


--
====
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
From: T.G.Nattress@newcastle.ac.uk (Graeme Nattress)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Blasphemy??
Date: 18 Nov 92 11:39:00 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

What is the point in having any laws on blasphemy?  I will argue this in two
ways:

1:  Atheistic POV.

God doesn't exist therefore blasphemy means nothing.

2:  Theistic POV.
      (from an Atheist's perspective)

God's a big boy and can look after himself.  If anyone calls him names ,

1)why should he care

2)If he does care then he can strike the personn down with a lightening bolt or
whatever.

Conclusion:

Blasphemy laws are wrong and evil etc....

Graeme,



{---    T.G.Nattress@uk.ac.ncl -----------------------------------------}
{--------------------------------- The Moral of this story is: ---------}
{---    Never trust a Venusian Floghorn with a Perigosto Stick. --------}
{-----------------------------------------------------------------------}
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.abortion
From: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:45:10 GMT

In <1992Nov18.234437.5345@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>> 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, now the obvious question you left unanswered:  Are they breastfeeding?

Yup.
and my sister who didn't breastfeed and had her kid in a hospital had
a less severe post-partum depression than my sister who breastfed her
and had her in a hospital.
My sister-in-law's sister, who had a child and gave it up for adoption,
had a noticeable, but not severe depression.

-- 

Lori Kent Rothman
usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu

"Can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding....
I can't stand here listening to you and your racist friend"
		They Might Be Giants
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21337 talk.religion.misc:21192
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Accuracy of Texts
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:01:59 GMT
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things

mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes: >
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.

Charley, I don't know if you are naive or deliberately prevaricating,
but your comment is out-and-out false.  First of all, the Dead Sea
Scrolls were only recently released.  Part of the reason they were
not is because they *contradict* a number of current Biblical
construction, and are more in line with the Gnostic Gospels.  It was
because of this contradiction that such a tight lid was kept on the
Dead Sea Scrolls, and, if not for a single person's act of willfully
disseminating the Scrolls (when told not to do so), no one would
have had this information.

I find it amusing that so many fundies assume complex issues of
theology, that have been argued about for millenia, are "settled."
This is the most basic trait of this branch of Christianity; the
need to avoid any complication whatsoever.  And if you have any
problems with that, you're going to hell!


-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21454 talk.religion.misc:21309
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:28:39 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64746.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Nov17.200847.26093@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:

> Does that make the geocentric model the "true" one?
>No, no more than the symetries of the heliocentric model make it the "true"
>one. 

	Unfortunately, the two respective frames of reference, that the Sun 
is "still" [ or more precisely, undergoing a uniform linear motion ] while 
the Earth is revolving, and the contra- are NOT equivelant reference frames. 
Having two frames where in the Earth is "still" and in the other, it is 
moving in a circle do not equate, that is, they are not sysnonymous. If we 
were able to construct an accurate enough tool, and were able to eliminate 
the interactions between the other planets, we could tell. However, the 
centrifical force of the Earth's revolution ( or lack thereof ) is dwarfed 
by other factors.

	This is my major problem with Kuhn, and with my philosophy teacher. 
Neither seems to understand the concept of a inertial frame of reference ( 
or lack there of ). Without such an understanding, it is easy to say the 
Tycho and Copernical models are geometrically equal. ( ie: Kuhn's "pick the 
model up by the Earth" approach at "proving" they are equal )

[ note: if we then believe that we are rotating around the milky way, then 
you must allow the centrifical force of that rotation, but it is magnitudes  
lower. Also, I know the "centrifical force" is only a false force, it doesn'
t really exist. However, it's an easy liquistical construct. ]

>Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: glenn.alldis@human.utas.edu.au (Glenn Alldis)
Subject: Re: Accuracy of Texts
Organization: Archetype Publishing
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 10:08:16 GMT

In article <62134@mimsy.umd.edu>, mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
> 
> 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.

Your argument for OT transmission is fine for transmission from NT times to
the present,but what about up to NT times?

You're quite right, it is _in-credible_.

As for NT, no, I don't think you can fairly get away with just a "ditto";
where's the argument?

Glenn
																				"'Curiouser & curiouser', said Alice" (LC)




Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:53:50 -0500 
From: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Circumcision (was Re: God Is Unfair)
	<10811@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>

>  My good friend and pediatrician informs me that it's not always
>  that pretty.  His screaming at age two was likely more the result
>  of fear and anxiety than it was from pain.  Also probably not the
>  case for your son's circumcision.

As a witness to several circumcisions, I claim some knowledge of the
practice.  I really don't think the infant feels much pain at all, in
fact, the infant begins to cry at the coldness of the sterilizing
alcohol.  The cries do not increase in intensity during the actual
cutting.  As a circumcised male, I haven't felt any traumatic loss
without my foreskin.  My girlfriend says she's glad that I am, because
she wouldn't be able to help thinking, "How clean is it INSIDE the
uncurcumcised penis?"  I also believe that the risk of obtaining some
STD's is reduced by a factor of 10.  
So, in summary, circumcision has medical benefit which outways the minor
pain that the child feels.  Also, we as parents should have the right to
choose what we feel is aesthetically pleasing for our children.  I
wouldn't interfere with the African custom of putting the huge plates in
lips and ears, as long as it continues not to represent a serious health
risk.
From: 00brwoodson@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: *TRUE* Christians
Date: 18 Nov 92 03:06:49 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

In article <11494@spark.ed.ac.uk>, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
> In article <92316.015308RXS127@psuvm.psu.edu> RXS127@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>>Well, the first thing about becoming a Christian is an
>>acknowledgement o f sin.  "The wages of all sin is death."  This means
>>that all sin is equal.  So don't try to go up to a Christian and say
>>that they did evil things in the past Because they should know that already.

If you mean that before they became Christian they did evil shit, you shouldn't
bring it up because once you become Christian and are baptized you are forgiven
and are a new creation.  If they have done shit since becoming Christian, they
need to ask forgivness or live with it for the rest of their lives. Plus,
whether Christian or not, you have no right to judge others unless you are
wearing a black robe and spend your days in a courtroom.
 
> Doing evil things is not the same as sinning.  We don't care whether
> all sin is equal or not, and whether the Christian has sinned or not,
> since sin means separation from his god, in which we don't believe.
> But we may find it necessary to point out that the Christian has done
> something which can be seen as evil regardless of his religion.

Saying that there is a difference between evil doings and sinning is a
contradiction in terms.  What constitutes sin?  Isn't sin supposed to be evil? 
There is no difference; it's all the same thing.
 
>>It is only secular moralists like yourselves that try to blame sin on
>>Christians and get the last laugh in.
> 
> My lack of belief in the Christian god means that I don't believe in
> sin either, and it would be meaningless for me to blame someone for
> something that doesn't exist.  Enough about this.
> 
>>In reality, we don't care what you think.
> 
> Well, then we may have some trouble sharing the planet.
> 
>>We just care that we have acknowledged our sins.
> 
> Well done.  It would be better if you did something about them, though.
> (Not that I expect you to.  You're going to hell anyway.)

Goddamn it, you both sound like a bunch of kids.  How old do you have to be to
subscribe to this net?
 
>>Haven't you ever done anything wrong in your life???
> 
> Yes, I have.  But wrong deeds, unlike sins, are not equally grave.
> I claim to never have caused any substantial evil.  (Say, I haven't
> drowned a pig or made a fig tree wither, never mind that I haven't had
> anyone mauled by bears.)
> 
> -- 
>  `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
> Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
> * Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
> * Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 08:38:17 EST
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Archetypes and genetics

In article <1992Nov13.225753.6579@nmsu.edu>, epowers@huey.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
says:
>
>In article <92315.122110J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
>writes:
>[lots of archetype stuff deleted]
>
>> Jung is not a clear writer and appears at times to be a Lamarkian rather
>> than a Darwinian, so he is of little help in answering the questions
>> about genetics.
[ . . . ]
>> I think we have both genetic and cultural
>> baggage to deal with in achieving atheism.  I continue to regard
>> atheism as a real intellectual achievement, not something we are born
>> with or that comes naturally.  If atheism were that easy, there would
>> be more of us.
>
>        Shame on you for mentioning scientists like Lamarck and Darwin in the
>same breath with pseudo-scientists like Jung. :-)

Okay, I see the smiley.  But my observation that Jung appears to follow
Lamarck rather than Darwin hardly implies that he is a scientist.  He
clearly is not.  And his disdain for Darwin is a serious shortcoming
in his thinking.
[ . . .]
>evolutionary biology does not allow for "intellectual acheivements".  All of
>your thoughts are the result of the brain chemistry you inherited reacting
>with
>your environment.  But it's cute that you believe you can think beyond that.

Wait a minute.  Who says I think that an "intellectual achievement"
somehow transcends brain chemistry?  Atheism is an achievement that does
"not come naturally" in the sense that dunking a basketball can be
achieved through hard training by a relatively short person who is born
without a lot of fast-twitch muscles.
John A. Johnson
I don't speak for Penn State (especially the football program).
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: one lab
Date: 18 Nov 92 08:38:40 GMT
Distribution: world, public
Organization: New Mexico State University


>>>Also, I would think you people
>>>would be a bit more patient and stop trying to immediately discount what I
>>>say just because you have a difficult time believing it. Just hang on to
>>>your balls, ok? You'll get the name of the laboratory I referenced, but I
>>>can't just snap my fingers and have the name, I have to find it, as I did
>>>not keep the name in mind when I heard it.
>>
>>	When we've heard a multitute of unsubstantiated claims, and outright 
>>deceit from others, its hard not to dismiss such far fetched sounding 
>>"proofs" as just another poor attempt at science. Especially if you didn't 
>>hear it.
>
>Fine then, I won't even bother wasting my time and energy worrying about
>getting your proof then. Let's just drop the whole thing then because I
>have been wasting lots of precious time just to hopefully please you
>people and all you give me is a bunch of nasty remarks that would
>insinuate that not only am I a CRAZY-in-the-head Catholic, but I'm also
>gullible, ill-informed, and certainly not capable of being as intellectual
>as yourselves. You are just TOO high and mighty for me. I should just
>crawl back into my hole hey? Stupid Michelle, how dare she insult our
>intelligence like that!

Look, let's cut the bullshit right now.  If you have some
substantiation for your claim, post it.  A reference to a reputable
scientific journal (NOT something like MIU, for instance--I wonder how
many people they've actually gotten to levitate?) would go a long way
towards a)  convincing us and b)  leaving those of who made "nasty
remarks" standing there with egg dripping off of our face.

The point we're trying to make here is that those who are making
fantastic claims need some sort of proof if they want to convince
someone.  Bald assertions just don't cut it.  I mean, just look at the
name of the newsgroup:  alt.atheism.  Wouldn't you expect such people
to be a bit more skeptical than average when it comes to claims about
the supernatural?

Some here are over-zealous when it comes to flaming.  The same is true
for all newsgroups, though.  You really need to be a bit more
thick-skinned--the responses I've seen to your posts are actually
pretty mild, compared to the butt-kicking I've seen administered to
others in the past.

SD
  
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: ...and Puppies! (WAS:Re: Kittens!)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 07:58:52 GMT

In article <By3uDo.E66@umassd.edu> rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:
>In <1992Nov21.021807.22347@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
>
>>One beautiful spring Sunday, Father O'Malley took a walk trough the park. The
>>Sun was shining, the skies were blue, the flowers were blooming in rainbow
>>colors... and everything was merry.
>
>>Father O'Malley saw a little girl playing with her puppy. With a friendly
>>smile on his face, he approached the cute kid:
>
>>"What is your name, my dear child?"
>
>>"Blossom," the girl replied, her blue eyes widely open.
>
>>"That is such a beautiful name! How did you get it?" Father O'Malley asked,
>>admiring the child's innocence.
>
>>"While my mother was praying to God to give her a little daughter, a blossom
>>fell on her hair. So she said she would call her daughter Blossom."
>
>>"How beautiful that God was so good to your mother" - exclaimed Father O'Malley
>>in delight - "and what is your puppy's name?"
>
>>"Porkey." Said the girl in her cute voice.
>
>>"And how did he get that name?"
>
>>"He likes to fuck pigs."
>
>
>>	Sven
>
>Wtih all due respect Sven, I desagree with you.
>As an atheist I feel that you should make your point
>in a gracious, justified, logical and diplomatic way.
>Don't bring your self down by demening any one, or 
>anyones' belief. This was a joke in very poor taste.

With all due respect Frank, get a clue.
--
Should the human race not be extinguished by a nuclear war, it will degenerate
into a flock of stupid, dumb creatures under the tyranny of dictators who rule
them with the help of machines and electronic computers.  This is no prophecy,
just a nightmare.  -- Max Born.   **** dgraham@bnr.ca    My own opinions. ****
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Adam and Eve and Bellybuttons
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:04:36 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

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?
> 
> --
> 'Did you hear about the dylexic, insomniac athiest?
> - He stayed up all night wondering if there really was a Dog'
> 	Andrew Percival   email:percival@qut.edu.au

Because, they were created in God's image...

--Semhaza