HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: clennox@vaxeline.ftp.com (Systems Anarchist)
Subject: Re: Not killing as a moral absolute (was Re: Best Bible translation?
Organization: FTP Software, Inc., Wakefield, MA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:14:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.170059.7480@leland.Stanford.EDU> yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.185337.19907@vaxeline.ftp.com>, clennox@vaxeline.ftp.com (Systems Anarchist) writes:
>
>|> Essentially, an action is moral
>|> or immoral only if the person performing the action *believes* it to
>|> be so.
>
>This, however, I cannot buy.  Why aren't the beliefs of those 
>who are affected by the actions also considered?

I never said they weren't.  If person A holds the belief, for example,
that it is wrong to injure others, then A's moral assessment of any
action must of necessity take the beliefs and feelings of others into
account.

>Since most
>moral issues deal with social interaction, it seems to me that
>the determination of whether an action is right or wrong must 
>include viewpoints from all parties involved.

Well... in a strict sense it is not possible for a person to "know"
another person's viewpoint on a matter.  What a person can hold is an
interpretation of another person's communication of his/her viewpoint.
The interpretation will be of undetermined accuracy (there is no way
to objectively verify it) and will be evaluated in the *only* manner
possible: within the structure of the person's own thoughts, beliefs
and experiences -- which brings us back to my original assertion.

>I'm not trying
>to assert that there are moral absolutes, or even that there
>is always a mutually agreeable moral action.  I'm just trying 
>to find a middle ground between the extremes of moral absolutes, 
>and complete personal morality.

As an atheist, I'm not sure one really exists - or if did, what use it
would be.  Since I don't believe in God, heaven, hell, or an
afterlife, there can be no reward for morality, or punishment for
immorality, beyond that meted out by my own conscience and self-image.

-- 
%SYSTEM-F-ANARCHISM, the operating system has been overthrown
From: mfterman@dae.Princeton.EDU (Mutant for Hire)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Party...
Date: 22 Aug 92 02:42:11 GMT
Reply-To: mfterman@phoenix.princeton.edu (Mutant for Hire)
Distribution: alt
Organization: Mutant for Hire, Inc.

In article <torrie.714368449@Xenon.Stanford.EDU>, torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes:
>  By 1996, Bush will be long gone, and hopefully one of the more
>moderate western U.S. republicans (maybe Pete Wilson), who won't
>be blackmailed by the religious right, will landslide for
>the presidency.

Don't bet on this idea too heavily. The religious right is looking
forwards to having a *REAL* conservative, one of their own running for
office in 1996. They don't consider George Bush really a conservative,
though the current platform has delighted those types. There's a
battle in the Republican party now for who will define the primary
plank. Any bets on Robertson or Buchannan not running in 1996? Sort of
a right wing version of the Democrats battling for the 1988 primaries.

As far as I could tell, the three primary ideas of the party were: 1)
fight the commies 2) support bizness 3) support firm Xtian morality
(with white male emphasis) With the first item now dead as the dodo,
it has turned into a struggle between the people who are heavily into
the last item, and those who are not, who's primary interest is the
second item. There are plenty of people who would be Republican if it
wasn't for the party's view of homosexuals, or those little problems
with keeping women out of the workplace, etc.

It is easy to say "If you're Republican, you're against choice or
believe that homosexuals are evil". I've met Republicans who felt it
wasn't government's business to regulate morality heavily than it is
the government's business to strangle business under red tape. Only
problem is I have a hard time finding those people over the noise that
the vocal minority makes. The radical Xtian element of the country,
seeking political power and knowing that the Democrats are pretty much
a lost cause in that area, have targeted the Republicans. I just hope
they're able to resist the attack.

-- 
    Martin Terman, Mutant for Hire, Mad Scientist, Priest of Shub-Internet
    Disclaimer: Nobody else takes me seriously, why should you be the first?
mfterman@phoenix.princeton.edu mfterman@pucc.bitnet terman@pupgga.princeton.edu
"Sig quotes are like bumper stickers, only without the same sense of relevance"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Subject: Re: A question
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization
	<21AUG199215151282@chemvx.tamu.edu>
	<1992Aug21.204903.27695@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 23 Aug 92 11:58:49

Roger Shouse asks:

>Some analogies:  What possible justification can you possibly give for
not
>allowing prostitutes to practice their trade?  What possible
justification
>can you possibly give for not allowing brothers and sisters or first
cousins to marry?  What possible justification can you give for not
>allowing children under the age of 18 to have the free choice to
engage
>in sexual relations with adults?

Thank you for presenting me with such a perfect opportunity to
show how arbitrary "standards" like this are.  Prostitution is
legal in Norway.  First cousins can marry with no special
restrictions.  And the age of consent is 15.  (But note that
when a 13-year-old Norwegian girl had a baby recently, the
21-year-old father was not punished, because he is helping the
girl and his son as much as he can...)

And this fall, a bill will be brought before Parliament that
would allow homosexual couples to marry, giving them the same
rights and responsibilities as heterosexual married couples.

All these things are arbitrary laws, set by what a given
society thought (or what a legislature believed a given society
thought) at the time the law was passed.  That's the only
"justification" they have.  If a law no longer represents what
a given society thinks, it has lost even that rather flimsy
justification.

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.flame
From: bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie (Bryan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: DOES GOD EXIST? (different from previous posting).
Followups-To: alt.flame
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 15:21:22 GMT

In <tjohn.25@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> tjohn@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (THIAGARAJ JOHN : THIRD) writes:


>I hope we can have a sensible discussion on some of the proofs presented 
>below.

Not likely.

>Yes, my friends, I have a God.

... but no brain worth speaking of.

	-- Bryan

--
Bryan O'Sullivan                                                 +353-1-767551
Advanced Development Group                               bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie
Department of Computer Science            "No matter how cynical you are, it's
University of Dublin                       hard to keep up." -- Woody Allen
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Originator: root@mogate.sps.mot.com
Organization: SPS
Distribution: world,local
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 23:05:15 GMT

In article <25024@castle.ed.ac.uk>, loki@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Kashko) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug19.201550.15888@newsgate.sps.mot.com > titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
|>  >My religion says that paying taxes is a sin.  Does the First Amendment protect
|>  >me?  If not:
|>  >     why not?
|>  >     Does the same rule apply to the peyote case?
|> 
|> 	Paying taxes can be viewd as payment fot the services the
|> government provides. Non payment can thus be treated as theft of services.

You can view it that way,  I certainly don't.  When I pay for a service I pay for the 
free market value of that service.  

|>  Taking Peyote for religious reasons should have
|> nothing to do with the state.

Agreed.  But it's not a First Amendment question.

|>  >
|>  >Mr. Giles earlier claimed that the Supreme Court's decision in the peyote case
|>  >somehow resulted from a mis-statement made by George Bush in 1988 while cam-
|>  >paigning for President.  How did a mis-statement in extemporaneous remarks
|>  >cause this ruling?
|> 
|> 	Because the off the cuff statements of powertful people are often
|> treated as commands by the less powerful ("Who will rid me of this
|> troublesome priest?")

Quite a stretch.  Also quite silly.
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Not killing as a moral absolute (was Re: Best Bible translation?
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 01:11:03 GMT

In article <71236@apple.Apple.COM>, mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
|>In article <1992Aug14.060912.21399@bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA
(Brian Cash) writes:
|>>In article <71182@apple.Apple.COM>, mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
|>>|>I thought he was asserting that killing in self-defense and
|>>|>hacking a few people up with a chain saw are *legally*
|>>|>equivalent unless the law says they aren't.
|>>             
|>>"Legally equivalent unless the law says they aren't."?
|>>The car is blue, unless the color indicates otherwise:-)
|>
|>Precisely. Obvious? I thought so too.
|>
|>>I think you mean *technically* equal. *legally* OK is social 
|>>permission; *morally* OK is personal permission.   
|>
|>I think I know what I meant.
|>
|>
                 
Sorry.  I miss-understood your point.  I'm not really sure
what "he" (the one you referred to above) was indicating.
I shouldn't have "second-guessed" your post.
Once again, I apologize.

Brian /-|-\
====================================
"Oops" - Capt. Picard "Pen Pal"
From: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Here is your proof=God Exists?
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:08:31 GMT

In article <zlsiida.53@fs1.mcc.ac.uk>, zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
>>zrubek@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (ZRUBEK PETER F) writes:
> 
>>>If it is possible for God to exist then it is nessicary for God to
>>>exist, and if it is nessicary for god to exist then it does.
> 
> If it is possible for Desert Orchid to win the Gold Cup then it is necessary 
> for Desert Orchid to win the Gold Cup, and if it is necessary for Desert 
> Orchid to win the Gold Cup then it does.

Given unlimited (infinite) opportunities to win the Gold Cup, the 
statistical probability that D/O will win the Cup must converge to 1.0.

I think this is the sense that the premise intended to convey.

Here is another version of the argument:

Suppose there exists an infinite number of parallel universes.  If it is
possible for an all-powerful God to exist, then He (assumed for convenience)
must exist in at least one of them.  And if He exists in one, then He can
assure that life capable of knowing Him appears only in that one (since He
is *all-powerful*).  Since we are capable of knowing Him, He exists in our
universe. 

And another:

If there is a finite possibility that an all-powerful God could come into
existence over time, then from the standpoint of eternity such a God must
necessarily have come into existence before the universe began.  Therefore
God must now exist.

You may find holes in these too, especially in the liklihood of the
premises, but they are not as trivial as your Gold Cup example above.

> 
> you could lose an awful lot of money this way!
> 
> like to play me at poker sometime?
> 
> actually I think Dessie DID win the Gold Cup...
> 
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
> |  I don't take part in any sport that requires me to change clothes  |
> |  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44)061-275-6033  |
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

Regards,

Jim B.

please send a copy of any replies/followups to:  Jim_Brown@oz.bmd.trw.com
as I am unable to read this group regularly and I might miss your reply.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi)
Subject: Re: For all you believers
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 06:12:27 GMT

In article <95nF029H1dWn01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
)In article <1992Aug11.171843.16382@ccs.QueensU.CA> 3005904@jeff-lab.queensu.ca (Colleen Davis) writes:
)>Yes, you heard right, I'm God.
)>The Supreme Being.
)>The Divine Creator.
)>
)>Now, if there's anyone who'd like to try to prove me wrong....
)
)Can you walk on water?

An evil and adulterous generation demands a sign.  (Approximate quote,
chapter and verse forgotten.)  You must not put Colleen to the test.

-- 
David Canzi	Prior to the days of Tom Edison, early electric eels had to
		stun their prey with gas. -- C. Abrell & J. Thompson
From: 00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.uucp (Paul Neubauer)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Oh no, not again
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:42:51 GMT

In article <denmckinnon.4.713396128@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au>, 
 denmckinnon@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (NEIL MCKINNON) writes:
> In article <exukjb.46.713118796@exu.ericsson.se> 
>  exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>>foreknowledge and man's free will.  It seems fairly clear to me that the 
>>principles of excluded middle and of bivalence are universally applicable to 
>>all declarative statements, regardless of their tense.  But I don't know 
>>how to argue for this.
> 
> Why does it seem clear?  It seems very counterintuitive to me to say 
> that a statement about a future free action is actually fixed (i.e. true or 
> false) now.

What is counterintuitive about that?  If I were to say something like
"Bush is going to suspend the Bill of Rights and declare martial law."
I think that quite a large number of people (probably a large
majority) would be quite prepared to say that I was wrong (regardless
of whether they liked Bush as a president or not).  In this case,
saying that I was wrong is no more or less than saying that my
statement was false.  That is, it already has a truth value (false)
despite being "about" some future contingent (non)action.

-- 
Paul Neubauer	00PRNEUBAUER@BSUVAX1.BITNET 	00prneubauer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
                00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.UUCP       neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP
From: kiemschies@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Physics?
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:18:53 EDT

  Last year two of my fellow physics student friends and I were talking about
the occurance of religious belief in the physics community (from undergrads to
proffs). For some background, one of my friends is now a first (going on
second) year physics grad student at the University of Chicago. The other is at
the same level in Santa Barbara (I spent an extra year in undergrad because a
had a double major in astraomy and physics). One is also a devote christian
(the one at Chicago), one is an athiest (the one in S.B.) on I am what my
friend in Chicago refered to as (some sort of funcky theist). There really
didn't seem to be any pro or con bend in the physics (or astronmy) community
that (including either people we know, or know of through writtings,
correspondence,...etc.). One thing we did notice is the following. Very few
physicists use physics as a basis for belief or disbelief, but many
NON-physicists use physics as a basis for belief or disbelief. Of course there 
are some exeptions that we could think of, but we could also think of many 
physicist with very strong opinions (both devote church-goers, and extremely vocal
athiests) wo do not use physics as a basis.
  I would welcome any reply to my "Very few physicists......" statement. I'm
interested in what people (physicists, and real people) think about it. I would
also like to know if people in other physical sciences have noticed anthing
similar.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Subject: Survey..the tables turned !
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 06:46:01 GMT


	

	When you are dead, where do you tend to stay ?


	If you where to die today, would you go to Cleveland, or 
Toledo ? (and why ?)

	And when you got there, would you figure out that since you
where still thinking and such, would you realize you where alive ?


	What would god say if you asked him, "Why should I WANT to 
go into your heaven ?". What would he say ? 




	<please send E-mail with your reply to the last question>




-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries, reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips     |personal E-mail:bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
alias: White Rook     |   NWROC E-mail:aphillip@heartland.bradley.edu
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:45:43 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Aug13.173555.23367@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
>
>I am not trying to use this as a proof of the truth of Islam,
>just showing the person who is mocking prophet Mohamed as a
>"desert nomad" man that this man is among the top who influenced
>humanity with the message he brought.
>

  Ditto for Hitler.


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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
From: eperkio@cc.helsinki.fi
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: DOES GOD EXIST?  (different from previous posting).
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:14:07 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <BszGvv.7up@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
> In article <1992Aug14.142630.7708@spdc.ti.com>, achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes...
> 
>>I'm tired of these lunatic ravings. I think I'll stop here.
> 
> Agreed.  Has the original poster of these ravings ever replied?  I don't seem
> to remember any replies.  Guess his posts are the rough equivalent to running
> into a room with eyes shut and ears covered, and screaming out one's views, 
> only to run back out of the room...
> 
> [.sig deleted]

More or less to my surprise he did answer my E-mailed opinion of his
effort. (The first one, that is) I sent him the original post equipped with 
my comments, presented (IMHO) in a coherent and rational manner.  In reply, 
he sent me the entire thing back, and said what amounted to "Thank you,
watch out for more in alt.atheism".

How was it again, "provoke sensible discussion", or something...

 
--
Esa Perki|               "I should honor you?  Why?"
eperkio@cc.helsinki.fi      - Prometheus to Zeus according to Goethe
IRCer Shade
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi)
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:47:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.093950.18878@bradford.ac.uk> L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham) writes:
>
>Well Ridha, we have had the Koran quoted courtesy of Saddiqui.
>

I thank Mr. Seddiqui for taking the time to quote some verses of
the Qur'an.  When I saw his post, I felt there was no need for me to
respond myself being so busy and  lazy.  I must stress
that the Qur'an is not a book of science even though I maintain
that there are scientific facts of the Qur'an which were discovered
much after the death of prophet Mohamed (PBUH).  One more thing
is that it is very difficult to translate some words of the
Qur'an which is in Arabic.

I recommend that you read the book suggested by Siddiqui
"the bible, the qur'an and science" by Maurice Bucaille from
the french academy of medecine.  Then we can continue the discussions.
You can order a copy of the book from IBS phone: 317-839-8150.

>
>Leonard               e-mail:  L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: FOR WHATEVER IT'S WORTH
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:33:35 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

[Well, I'm not going to include any of the message I'm following up,
for reasons obvious to frequent readers].

I think we've blown something here: why is it that there isn't
mention, and prominent mention at that, of McDowell (and Lewis) in
general and this "Trilemma" argument in particular in the FAQ?

I have to say that from my perspective parts of the net in the
vicinity of alt.atheism are broken: some peoples' posts I never see at
all (Dave Davis), some I only see followups to (mathew).  I have yet
to see any sign of alt.atheism.moderated (perhaps related to the
relative invisibility of mathew).
-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.
From: geoff@tyger.Eng.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near thgeoff@tyger.Eng.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near thgeoff@tyger.Eng.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near thgeoff@tyger.Eng.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Religious Phenomena
Date: 11 Aug 92 17:13:00 GMT
Organization: SunSelect
Old-Message-ID: <168sesINNipj@seven-up.East.Sun.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tyger.east.sun.com

Quoth danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) (in <l8fs04INN404@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>):
#(Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top) scribbles:
#
# Is it an observable phenomenon in the physical world?
# Is it a measurable electrochemical phenomenon in a subject's
# brain?
# How is it demonstrably different from other "mental" phenomena?
# 
# This inquiring-mind-process-running-on-this-biochemical-processor would
# like to know....
# 
#I suppose if you haven't felt it, it might be difficult to 
#describe. I think each person might describe it slightly 
#differently, but since you asked, I would say that a religious
#feeling is one where a person is gripped by or experiences a
#personal reaction to something of ultimate concern. And no,
#I do not intend that language to be used literally :)
#
#One need not be a theist to feel a "religious feeling".

No, but a non-theist might choose a more appropriate label... maybe
"transcendent" would do, as in "going beyond everyday feelings".
Still just a cerebral electrochemical phenomenon, of course...

Geoff

--
Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect | In the years after WW2 it was said that Oxford
  (geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM)  | philosophers had found a cure for atheism.
         SunSelect,            | Young people coming up as atheists soon found
  a Sun Microsystems Business  | that they no longer knew what to disbelieve...
Newsgroups: alt.atheism