HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kschnitz@encore.com (Kevin Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: Help
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:57:12 GMT

Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes:
>Thirdly, and I ask this out of sheer confusion myself (and I'd really like
>true opinions on what you make of this), 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. 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', what
>do you make of this obvious proof that the human body entails more than
>its physical being? How would you explain this, and does this not provide
>a damn good proof that when we die we are only leaving our physical body?

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'd appreciate any input and anybody who would like to know where this
>laboratory is, I can certainly give you that info.

>You doubt it? I'd be happy to refer you to the source.

>That was my own opinion, I can't say if they would charge people or not,
>though I would assume if people requested it they would have to pay for
>the scientist's time. I didn't get my info from a journal, but I'd be
>happy to get you the name of the institution..

So, where is the name of the institution?  What is your source?
You don't seem to know...

>Tell that to those who have experienced it! You are showing what a narrow
>mind you have, just by calling it bullshit when you admit you don't even
>know anything about it. tut tut

Well, you seem to believe it without experiencing it.  It just shows that
you are extremely gullible.  Your gullibility makes your information suspect.
Post the name of the institution or a reference to a reputable journal and
we'll check it out.

BTW, I am calling it bullshit.
--
mr asynchronous                                   kschnitzius@encore.com
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: morality????????
Date: 4 Nov 92 21:02:55 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <ednclark.720775515@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>
>Once someone has committed a crime of impinging the rights of another person
>to such a severity that the idea of capital punishment becomes an option
>that person has forfeited their right to rights. 


  Witness recent attempts at legislating the death penalty for drug
  dealers.  How far down do we lower the bar?  Why not mandate the
  death penalty for any felony?  Or misdemeanor?  Once the criminal
  has decided to violate my rights, he has abrogated his own.
  Including his right to life.  Give me a break.

  Again, the only way you can justify the death penalty is to assume
  the criminal sub human.  Can't go around slaughtering perfectly
  functional human beings, now can we?

>Criminals de-humanise
>themselves by acting so blatently anti-socially, and no amount of "they had
>a bad childhood" or some such bleeding heart crapola cuts ice with me. 


  Sounds a lot like the recent war over homosexuality.  "Those damn
  faggots are behaving anti-socially by dehumanising themselves
  through anal intercourse".  Why do we always need a scapegoat? Do
  you really think that most murderers go through a rational thought
  process whereby they realize the full implications of what they
  are doing?  


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

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: v462etnn@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (David L Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Before you reply to Re: THE DIVINE MASTERS VS DUPED CHRISTIANS
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:48:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <BxMI8B.6xB@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes...
>Before replying to McElwaine's post, check this posting on t.r.m. out.  I
>strongly doubt he's for real.  (Either that, or the acid just hit.) 
> 
>Once again, more evidence for state-sponsored Lithium handouts:
> 
>In:<1992Nov11.205728.2285@cnsvax.uwec.edu>
>>                          CONTRADICTIONS about God

[much wacko stuff deleted]

>>                                   Robert E. McElwaine
>>                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
                                     ^^^^^^^^
Maybe they gave him the degree to get him off their campus!
I wonder if it could be revoked for severe loss of rational
logic.  Then again, maybe the acid did just hit.

David Anderson
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: epowers@huey.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Asserting No Gods
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:35:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.044107.25244@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>  
jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
> In article <1992Nov8.221216.1657@nmsu.edu> epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)  
writes:
> >
> >	I think it's just because you're stuck.  I've looked everywhere, and I  
> >can't find alt.a-invisible-pink-unicornism.  Maybe it got taken off due to  
lack  
> >of posters.
> >
> >						Erik Powers
> 
> No, its because it is _Invisible_!
> jc
> -- 

	Excellent, excellent.  I just didn't see that at first!
						Erik Powers
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Keywords: Cure
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:42:14 GMT
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

In article <1992Nov11.161003.27772@bnr.ca>, ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen
Ethridge) writes:
|>In article <1992Nov10.164821.29822@newstand.syr.edu>
dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:
|>>Seems to me a Believer is a lot like an Alcoholic.  They are both 
|>>unreasonable and the more drunk they get the more irrational their
|>>actions become.  After all we do try to help alcoholics and drug
|>>addicts, so why shouldn't we try to help Believers.  
|>
|>Interesting idea.  How many people are aware that the most well known
|>treatment for alcoholism, AA and its Twelve Steps, advocates giving control
|>of one's life over to God?  Without this God (or Higher Power) some even say
|>that it's impossible to recover from alcohol (and other drug dependencies).
|>So, the cure for the disease is itself a disease?
|>
|>Yes, yes, i'm aware that there are "atheists" who practice the twelve steps,
|>but i think you really have to twist the words to do that. (Somewhat like
|>fundamentalist christians twist the Bible.)
|>-- 
|>allen@well.sf.ca.us
|>ethridge@bnr.ca
|>my opinions are my own
                   
Some people cannot give up drugs and alcohol with out starting
an eating disorder or a lesser drug (smoking) and others
chew gum or start hobbies.  Giving up one dependancy by starting another.
If someone needs an invisible buddy to help him or her through
the tough times, fine:  but a crutch is still a crutch.

Brian /-|-\
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: Asserting No Gods
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:21:19 GMT

In article <92314.054826MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.043152.25127@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) says:
>>
>>There! You did it again!  You say that you don't treat them any differently
>>and then say that it's not rational to assume none of them exist.  Don't tell
>>me that you believe in invisible-pink-unicorns.  If you don't and still think
>>that the God question is any different then you DO treat them differently.
>
>You seem to think that there are only two sides to this. You think that
>if I don't believe they don't exist, then I must think they do. Let me
>tell you about my side to this. I think I tried to get the differences
>straight before, but I'll try again. They're all baseless beliefs. Not
>one of them is proven. Therefore, they're all pointless.

But this is where you are mistaken.  Simply put, it is reasonable to assume
the negative when no evidence exists for the positive.  I didn't say it
proved the negative to be true, just reasonable to assume it.

> The only way
>god-belief is different is that I usually end up talking about it more.
>If you think that my not assuming unicorns exist is stupid, fine. Just
>remember that to believe either way is groundless. The only thing that
>I do that could resemble atheism at all is to not worry overmuch about
>it. Since none of these things have appeared, I don't trouble myself by
>sitting around worrying that they might exist.
>
>>You missed my point, namely that if you do treat these differently then you
>>are doing so because of your assumptions, not because the questions are
>>different.
>
>Your point seems to be to try real hard to make me slip up and mistakenly
>say that I treat them differently. I haven't assumed either way regarding
>theism, atheism, unicorns, flurgles, etc.
>Martin Schulte

No, you did a fine job of that in your previous posts, as anyone who read
them can plainly see.  Either way, most people I know think that the
idea of unicorns existing is silly and believe they don't exist.  Most
Christians feel similarly, but will readily admit that they treat the God
question differently.  They do this because of their assumptions.  Now we
have the agnostics who must logically treat the two questions as one, but
can't help but feel that they are different.  You can't seriously say that 
you think that unicorns might exist, and that you're holding out denying
them on the possibility that they do.

Jim Copeland


-- 
I sink like a stone
That's been thrown in the ocean
My logic has drowned
In a sea of emotion                   -- Sting
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Subject: Re: Don't believe anything you hear
Reply-To: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Organization: Nirvana
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 18:47:02 GMT

In article <Bx7ACM.27A@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, @expert.cc.purdue.edu (adamsma@expert.cc.purdue.edu) writes:
|> Okay, so you're an athiest.  Don't believe in any God, Devil, angels, demons,
|> good, evil.  Don't believe in any higher authority then yourself.  That's
|> you right as a human being.  However, your lack of belief doesn't change God's
|> infinite love, power, or being.  It doesn't change the fact that Jesus, the 
|> Son of God, died in a horrible fashion to save you from your sins.  It doesn't
|> change the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead and now reigns in Heaven 
|> at the right hand of God.  It doesn't change the fact that you can have 
|> salvation and eternal life by accepting Him as your personnal savior.  Don't 
|> believe.  It doesn't change anything.
|> 
|> Sincerely, 
|> 
|> Mark    

Okay, so you're a christian. Go ahead, believe in a god, devil, angels, demons,
good, evil. Believe in a higher authority than yourself. That's your right as
a human being. However, your belief doesn't change the fact that there is no god
with infinite love, power, or being. It doesn't change the fact that Jesus was
just a man who happened to be the wrong person at the wrong place at the wrong
time. It doesn't change the fact that the ressurection myth is just that. It doesn't
change the fact the _you_ are responsible for _your_ life -- and that no one can
save you but yourself. Go ahead, believe. It doesn't change anything.

Sincerely,

Erik

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: epowers@spock.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Bash Atheists
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:29:36 GMT

In article <cex_zrG00WB58Dzt80@andrew.cmu.edu> fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal  
Nameer Jawdat) writes:
> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
> >   2.  If we keep making fun of them, maybe they'll just go away.
> >
> >   1.  If you invite them into your home, you can make them wet their
> >         pants by failing to line up with their deranged, bigoted
> >         stereotypes.
> 
> statement #2 only confirms that statement #1 is wrong

	I'm surprised you didn't take great glee in pointing out that statement  
#2 preceeded statement #1!  Come on, have a sense of humor!
					Erik Powers
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: Marriage and Hypocrite married atheists.
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:25:28 GMT

In article <ebolog.3@elaine.ee.und.ac.za> ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:

	[My lack of God!  There's at least THREE of these people?]

> Marriage is a joining of two people (of opposite sex) by God!
	BZZZT! (tm) Sorry, but that's incorrect.  You have to go into
the "I Am A Failure" box.  If your statement were correct, there
wouldn't be nearly as many marriages in Thailand, a nation which is
95% Buddhist.  My wife is a Buddhist Thai, and she got married.

> Why then do atheists get married? 
	My reason: Love.  Is that acceptable to you, or don't you
believe atheists are capable of love?

> They do not believe in God, do they - or is it just to conform with
> society?
	If I wanted to conform to (American) society I wouldn't have
had a Thai wedding.  (Not Buddhist - Buddhism has no ceremonies.  The
Thai ceremony is of Brahmin origin, is very beautiful, and there is no
mention of any God.)

> You have to admit that for an atheist to be married is really going 
> completely against any beliefs he claims to have.
	All I have to admit is that your posting is one of the three
most incredibly ignorant postings I have ever seen in my more than 8
years of hanging around the Net.  Since I regularly read talk.origins,
that's a major accomplishment!  Congratulations!
	$ $ $ $  <-- Here's some cash.  Buy yourself a clue.

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.                                  +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
 I may not be one-dimensional, but I am a fractal between 1 and 2 dimensions...
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Don't believe anything you hear!
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:12:23 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <19245.2afd9a59@levels.unisa.edu.au> 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon) writes:
>In article <Bx7B51.6Dz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, @expert.cc.purdue.edu
>(adamsma@expert.cc.purdue.edu) writes:
>
>[some crap that Mr Schneider has already dealt with deleted]
>
>> P.S.  If you don't believe that it gets dark at night, does that keep it from
>> getting dark? 
>
>We have already had proof that it will get dark since it got dark
>the night before, and the night before that, and so on as far as
>we can remember, so why should we not believe it now?
>
>Your analogy fails utterly because there is NO PROOF that gods
>exist whilst there IS PROOF for it getting dark.
>

  (I'll do my best to fill the void left by Graham Mathew's recent
  departure)

  No, you do not have proof that the sun will set tonight.  You
  have a long history of sunsets that would suggest a pattern.  The
  fact of darkness falling every previous night of your life is not
  proof that it will get dark tonight.  From a utilitarian
  perspective, it does you well to make that assumption.  Don't for
  one minute assume that this is proof, however.  Ultimately, there
  is little if anything we can really prove in the strictest sense.

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

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!

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: johnsd2@vccnw07.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Don't believe anything you hear
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:29:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.214111.2468@massey.ac.nz>, J.W.Lockhart@massey.ac.nz (J.W. Lockhart) writes:
|> As a Christian who actually believes most of what was contained in the
|> post I would like to say how impressed I am with the restraint and genuine 
|> attempt to raise the standard of the discussion by most of the (presumably)
|> atheists who responded in this thread. The points of course were valid,
|> the original post, if I was a little more paranoid, would have me think 
|> people are posting these just to make Christians look either impolite or
|> incompetant.

But of couse we are!

We're all in cahoots. Its a conspiracy.

|> I find the FAQ and discussion here interesting and it doesn't threaten
|> my "faith". This is because a little like a scientist I attempt to find
|> a model that is most useful to explain the reality I experience (directly
|> or indirectly). Also like a scientist the temptation having found a 
|> reasonable one is to switch direction to attempting to preserve it at all
|> costs rather than to look for more data/experience/wisdom and revise or
|> rebuild or even discard if necessary. For me to take the first option
|> would be to dishonor my concept of God (who is TRUTH) thus, paradoxically
|> to attempt to protect my faith in that way is, for me, to make it worthless.

Interesting God. Do you mean you believe God=Truth, and there is (in
your view) no other supernatural/creater/Heavenly Father type?

If so, why bother calling this "God"? "Truth" is a perfectly good word,
and much easier to understand. If not, why did you say 'dishonor my
concept of God (who is TRUTH) thus..'? Perhaps you mean that you
have the One True God, but the rest of your post seems so reasonable
I didn't want to jump to that conclusion.

|> My apologies that this is a diversion from the thread but regard it as my
|> introducing myself. 

Ah, well then Hello!

-- 
			- 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: lpzsml@unicorn.nott.ac.uk (Steve Lang)
Subject: Re: Vatican approves Death Penalty
Originator: lpzsml@unicorn.nott.ac.uk
Organization: Nottingham University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 12:07:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.115500.10221@cs.nott.ac.uk> I wrote:
>>What has happened to the commandment "Thy shall not kill"?  Although I do
>>not agree with the Church's position on abortion, I fully understand their
>>reasons.  However the statement on death penalty is completely
>>contradictory to that on abortion; indeed it is hypocritical.

In article <1992Nov5.160707.1189@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> you wrote:
>It is not "thou shall not kill", it is "thou shall not murder".  This might
>deserve a FAQ, it turns up so often, even if it is a FAQ of a bad argument
>used by atheists against theists, instead of the reverse.

I was certainly not using the above arguement against theists in general,
only against a few, specifically those who campaign against abortion yet
support the death penalty.  As you mentioned there is a difference between
"kill" and "murder"; murder is unlawful premediated killing of one human
being (COLLINS CONCISE).  Under such a definition both abortion and death
penalties carried in the USA are not murder, yet some theists support one
and demand the abolition of the other, why?

In addition I still believe the support of killing (whether lawful or
unlawfully) is contrary to messages in your bible.  Would Jesus have
participated in an execution (stoning)?  He in fact order people not to kill
(stone) another person.

Furthermore I remember being taught that life is a gift from God, and as
such can only rightfully be taken away by God.  Can you seriously argue
that support of the death penalty is not contradictory to devotion to God?

Steve Lang.
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: *TRUE* Christians
Date: 8 Nov 92 23:22:45 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <rex.721029457@cyclops> rex@cyclops.itc.gu.edu.au (Rex Baker) writes:
>[...] consider the following scenario;
>You arrive home from work to find said 'loved one' being held at
>ransom by a known killer. Would it not be an apt expression of your
>love for that person to offer to take their place as the hostage.

Thank you for comparing Yahweh to a gangster.  That's exactly what he is.

Yes, it would be the only apt expression of my love, which would go
together with the greatest possible hate for the killer.

>Even if that meant dying in their place.

Yes, and I would even play it honest by not rising from the dead.

>If you can understand this, and the way your loved one would feel
>about you for doing this in their place,

... and the way both my loved one and I would feel about the killer in
question -- because, if we called him good, merciful, wise or anything
like that, we would be out of our minds.

>then you can understand the
>way a christian feels or reacts to Jesus death.

No.  I have never understood it and don't understand it now.

>How would you feel towards someone if they rescued you from a
>perilous situation which resulted in their own death?

Depends.  If he died for ever, I believe I would be impressed by his
sacrifice.  But if he came back to life two days later, I wouldn't
feel particularly grateful.  Jesus didn't lose anything substantial,
therefore he doesn't deserve my attention.

-- 
 `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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:06:05 GMT

In article <11309@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
>I have no problem with the notion that science has a certain domain.  I do have
>a problem with a community with a long history of killing people without trial
>defining the boundaries of that domain.  It doesn't make me feel any better 
>that I might be vindicated hundreds of years after my death.

I agree 100%.  I'm not defending the Vatican's history in regard to scientific
progress (or lack thereof).  My point is to say that science and religion are
not in conflict.  Scientists who claim everything must conform to scientific
theories are wrong just as religionists who claim science must conform to their
religious views.  The two fields deal with seperate issues and have different
goals.  Their findings are not in conflict; they can coexist quite nicely.  
Unfortunately, many in both camps can't accept that.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism