HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: none
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:22:35 GMT

mgmam@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Mark A. Morrell) writes:

>In article <1992Oct29.173312.15748@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com> dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau) writes:
>>mgmam@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Mark A. Morrell) writes:
>>
>>>If you can't tell the difference then I don't have a problem with it.
>>>If none of the secondary characteristics associated with homosexuality
>>>are present then I have no problem with it.  Otherwise I have a problem
>>>with it.  I'd even have a problem with heterosexuals with those
>>>secondary characteristics.
>>
>>You're 100% entitled to have a problem with it; certainly nobody is perfect
>>and without prejudice.  On the other hand, do you really think that your
>>problems should be translated into law?
>>
>>Dan Breslau
>>dan@codex.com

>I never once said that I would want this translated into law.  But now
>that you mention it...

>No, I would not.
>-- 

Thank you.  Not to create a new argument, but I'm pretty sure your original
post (now expired here) related to whether teachers with these characteristics
should be allowed to teach; hence, I think we were talking about laws.

Dan Breslau
dan@codex.com
speaking for myself, at most...
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Morals ARE relative
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon)
Date: 2 Nov 92 12:03:24 +1030
Organization: That damn kid is still here!

In article <exukjb.348.719859180@exu.ericsson.se>,
exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:

>>>I think noone has the right to 'punish' another who has different
>>>morals just because it offends their own (yes, morals ARE relative
>>>is what I am saying).

>>This is just the old Gospel of Tolerance thing again. What are you
>>going to say to the person who's moral system does not include a
>>tolerance precept? Suppose the moral belief of his culture is that
>>he should be intolerant of any whose moral beliefs are different
>>from that of his own society? What can YOU say to him? Not, surely,
>>that he is, in some objective or cross-cultural sense, wrong; not
>>that he is making some kind of ethical mistake. What, then? 

Then I turn around to these people and say to them that if they try
anything they can expect a furious response. They think it is right
to be intolerant. Who am I to say that they are wrong? I wont. I
WILL, however, say that I will defend myself and that any fate that
befalls them is of their own doing. Wether or not they take that
advice is not my problem. I'll just blow the pricks away if they
come at. I will also help others who ask for my help should they
try it on other people.

Note that these people WOULD eventually come at me, so I would prepare
myself. They won't listen to me. They think I'm a devil or something.
I have no choice but to defend myself till they stop.

> I'm leaving Ericsson today. If you want to contact me, do so through
> ANTHEM BBS 386-7909.

Sorry it will be too late for you to read this. It takes about 4 days
for posts to reach me. There was also a lockout over the weekend at the
uni because of a security problem.

-- 
John J McVey, Whyalla, Uni S. Australia    9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Electronic Engineering student & Terror Tekkie!
Any email can be posted unless I state explicitly otherwise.
+-----------------------------------------------------+    ________
|  Obligatory disclaimer: UniSA hates my opinions...  |  \/Darwin o\
+-----------------------------------------------------+  /\________/
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. Marquis
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: johnsd2@jec323.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Immortality
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec323.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:08:25 GMT


---
			- 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.
From: Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger)
Subject: Help
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:25:06 GMT

Ok, people, I have been reading this board for quite some time, and
personally, I must say both sides are arguing for nothing. You are all
wasting your breath because you know as well as I that there will never
be what you would call proof unless God shows himself to each and every
atheist in this world. Every atheist I have ever encountered sticks to the
tiring line, "If I didn't witness it, I don't believe it." First of all let
me ask you this: Did you witness any of the scientific proofs for anything
beyond what one can prove in an ordinary lab setting? Probably not. In fact,
I'm sure there are abundant examples where you are trusting the claims of
a few mere men (or women) without witnessing proof yourself.

As a second point, I'd like to assert that no human can even hope to talk
intellectually about the reality that exists beyond human scope. You have
no idea whatsoever whether unicorns really do exist or not because you have
not had the opportunity to visit any other planets in any other solar
system. So how can you be so bold to discount the existence of anything?

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?

*Note: This is absolutely NO claim for Christianity or any other religion
       but merely a strong validation for eternal life. (no reference of
       Heaven, Hell, God, angels, etc. just the facts)

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

Michelle----My opinions only, don't even try to call em yours!

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: idfraser@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Ian Fraser)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Repost of reasons to not vote for Bush...
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 20:12:51 MST
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #1, Edmonton, AB, Canada


Recently on another newsfeed, I saw an artical that looked to be some sort of
press release from a national atheists' organization. The substance of the post
was a series of comments by George Bush  and the validity of allowing atheists
to vote, or indeed be considered citizens.

Although I kept a copy at the time, it was lost in a recent disk crash. I would
really appreciate it if someone could send me a copy (this seemed like a
logical place to post this request.).

Thanks.

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
 
Bright Blessings to you and yours!  
 
Hawk
 
Circle of Ashtoreth, 
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: richard@harlqn.co.uk (Richard Brooksby)
Subject: Chaotic brain behaviour and its influence on duplicating a person
         (was: Questions about other stuff(sorry, lousy title!))
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Summary: Does chaos in the brain make duplication impossible?
Organization: Harlequin Limited, Cambridge, England
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:28:45 GMT

In alt.atheism jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jordan M. Wolbrum) wrote:

> 2) Without a soul, could it be possible to clone a human and copy
> all of the original's memories into the clone, creating two of the
> same person?  I think so.  I'm just tired of hearing people say "It
> just wouldn't be me," w/o any justification.

I have a friend who is doing neuroscientific research.  He once told
me about chaotic behaviour observed in the olfactory lobe.  His claim
was that the brain was using a strange attractor to somehow control
perception.  I didn't take in much of what he said -- it was just a
brief conversation about what he was working on.

Anyway, if the brain were to make use of chaotic behaviour, or at
least be influenced by chaotic functions, then it is unlikely that
duplicating a person completely (setting aside quantum physics for the
moment, *ahem*) would duplicate their behaviour.  Their chaotic nature
would cause them to diverge unpredictably.

I would be interested in any references to documents describing
chaotic brain behaviour.  It would be even better if someone could
explain and/or challenge this work in terms which I am likely to
understand.

[Note the followup line -- edit it if you want to take this discussion
 elsewhere.]
---
richard@harlqn.co.uk              (Internet)
RPTB1@UK.AC.CAMBRIDGE.PHOENIX     (JANET)
Zen Buddhist
From: damiens@cco.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Vatican approves Death Penalty
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:04:50 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov5.160707.1189@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.115500.10221@cs.nott.ac.uk> lpzsml@unicorn.nott.ac.uk (Steve Lang) writes:
>>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.
>
>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.

MY version of the King James Edition says "Thou shall not kill."  Maybe the
orginal Hebrew/Aramaic is different but what most of the English speaking
world reads is "Thou shall not kill".  NOT murder, _kill_.  Of course, it
also says to put the people of Jericho to the sword... :p

			-- Damien Sullivan+++++++++++++++++++
	42	AIXELSYD	Kiljoy  X-)
Bill Gates is twice as rich as Ross Perot.  Any ideas....?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:05:40 GMT
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

In article <1992Nov5.202026.28765@nmsu.edu>, epowers@mccoy.NMSU.Edu
(POWERS) writes:
|>
|>Everything I've seen in this discussion assumes that evidence for the
existence  
|>of God must be scientific in nature (falsifiable hypotheses, etc.). 
Please,  
|>people!  I can't even prove I exist in a scientific manner!
|>
|>						Erik Powers
      
How can you "prove" something in a non-scientific manner?
Is "The Last Supper" an artistic proof?  What are you 
talking about?  
BTW "I think, therefore I am" is a scientific (?) proof
that I exist (proves it to me).  I also have empirical
evidence (reproducable) that I exist. Ptthhhh!

Brian /-|-\  "A-rantin' and a-ravin'"
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21052 talk.religion.misc:20888
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Reader's Digest on prayer: amusing, or scary?
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:39:03 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1992Nov10.143105.22358@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:
>gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>: 
>: Your observations are well taken.  I have nothing against public schools as
>: such, or even schools that present a diversity of views.  Unfortunately,
>: public schools do not present a diversity of views.  You will not learn any-
>: thing there about Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Quakerism, the Bible,
>: the Koran, or the Tao te Ching.  The only references are of an historical
>: or anthropological point of view.  This is not necessarily a wrong approach
>: for some people, perhaps the majority of them.  But it should not be called
>: diversity.
>
>Believe it or not, there are other types of diversity than just the
>religious kind.
>-- 
>> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
>> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
>> opinions   <         Ring Lardner

Yes indeed.  And that is the real reason why we need choice in education.
The only kind of diversity that uniformity can provide would be the
intellectual, pedagogical, or esthetic equivalent of Western Literature
101 or "great moments in classical music".  No one approach can provide
both diversity and depth. 

Actually, I would prefer that the debate over educational choice range over
these much wider issues than those of religion.  But there is real fear
and concern about on both sides of the aisle on this issue.  In an 
environment of freedom prayer becomes a non-issue, as does "the atheism
taught in schools today" etc.  For myself I am far more concerned about
the philistinism of public education than its lack of religion.  One
could recast this entire thread around that question and it would come
out the same.

Cordially,
Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:33:30 GMT

alan@geg.mot.com (Alan Newman) writes:

>In article <ednclark.720770788@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>>...
>>   Personally (being a product of ny society) I do not find persons of my own
>>   sex attractive, but that does not mean that no-one does. 
>>...

>Personally (being a product of my parents) I couldn't stand the sight of most
>of my female peers for most of the latter half of my first dozen years.  Then,
>in less than a year's worth of metamorphosis I found most of the same females
>who were previously so repulsive to be undescribably attractive.  I still
>haven't recovered (although I maintain my vows of monogamy).  I understand
>that this adolescence disease has been shared by many males.  I also understand
>that a similar, but opposite metamorphosis in sexual attraction occurs in
>most females.  (Sorry, I have no data readily at hand to support my claims of
>"most".)

Well, I found no intense dislike of girls when I was between 6 and 12 and in
fact had no real sexual preference until after a little while of discovering
my sexuality I found out it was definitely quite naughty to want boys but
very desireable to want girls.  In fact there are few printable words  which
are said with as much sneering hatred as pooftah, and to a thirteen year old
it is a big worry that you might be one. Until you come to realise there is
actually nothing wrong with homosexuality, you are imbued with this idea
that it is wrong, dirty, weird and perverted.  So regardless of what anyone
says opinion wise I beleive that monosexuality (ie the attraction to a
single sex) is if not societally induced at least societally encouraged.

>I will leave it to others to determine the cause (% genetic, % environmental, 
>% magic, etc.) of this commonly occuring affliction and why it doesn't work the
>same in each individual.  I am very interested in the cause of homo/hetro/
>whatever-sexuality, but I think the cause is of minimal significance to the main 
>theme of this thread.  I suspect, however, that the cause has much less to do 
>with what happens in the second half of the first dozen years of ones life than 
>what happens before then.  I also suspect that this is just the opposite for the 
>cause of bigotry, which is the real issue in this thread.  

>--
>Alan Newman ... speaking for myself. 
>(I hate bigots. :-)

Jeff.      So do I. (Does that mean I hate myself?)
From: censwm@cend3c7.caledonia.hw.ac.uk (Stuart W Munn)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The church and Galileo
Date: 9 Nov 92 13:59:50 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland

Err actually what I heard was that the Pope actually said that there was truth on both sides! He refused to condemn the church inquisitors that were interrogating him because they were acting against him "in good faith!"


-- 
=========================================================================
Stuart Munn		DOD# 0717
Heriot-Watt University                  "The sky is BLACK . . .
Edinburgh                                therefore GOD, he is a St Mirren
Scotland, EH14 4AS                       supporter!!!"
031 451-3265
031 451-3261 FAX                        God may have a Harley . . .
E-Mail censwm@UK.AC.HW.CLUST            But the Pope rides a Guzzi! 
=========================================================================
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fundie Humor! (was Re: Top Ten Reasons to Bash Atheists)
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:16:07 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Nov9.015405.3175@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>But then all four of the salesman's tires blow out five miles down the
>road under the weight of all the Christian pamphlets the farmer loaded
>up the poor salesman's car with!

Then what shall the travelling salesman do?

He shall stop the first Christian passing by on his way home from a
church service, and shall compel him to take the pamphlets to the nearest
recycling point.  If ye hiv ears oan yer heid, then use them tae lissen.

-- 
 `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: etljmme@etlxd10h.etlxd (jim moore xd/nda)
Subject: Re: A question
Reply-To: etljmme@etlxd10h.etlxd
Organization: Ericsson
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:19:01 GMT

Tarl said (quite rightly) :

>As for spatial boundaries; The universe is believed to have a non-euclidean
>geometry which maintains a closed volume (albeit expanding)

Do you remember the old analogy of an insect on a ball?   It says that as far as the
insect is concerned; it's universe is infinite and has no boundaries.  However, this
is simply relative to the insect.  If it could observe the universe from a different
dimensional perspective, i.e: us looking at it upon the ball, it would see that it's
universe was not infinite after all.  

Food for thought, never-the-less.

Jim
From: mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel)
Subject: Re: Chaotic brain behaviour and its influence on duplicating a person
Organization: Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:21:30 GMT

     There is already a lot of research literature on chaotic behaviour
in human physiology.  Anyone interested in this topic should definitely
read the works of Michael Mackey and Leon Glass (McGill University, both
joint papers and separate work) and of Ary Goldberger (Harvard Medical
School and Beth Israel Hospital).  There is a lot more literature out
there than these particular gentlemen have generated, but their works are
probably as good a place to start as any.  In connection with this
particular topic, I believe that Dr. Goldberger's work may yield the
most insight.

				Marc R. Roussel
                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is omniscience impossible?
Date: 7 Nov 1992 10:44:06 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:

>Look at the matter this way.  You have a person on earth.  This Omniscient
>being knows when something will happen to this being, say when the person
>will die.  Well, the omniscient being also knows how to change or prevent
>this, being omniscient.  If this action is taken, then the previous
>knowledge of when this person will die becomes false.  But no knowledge
>of an omniscient being can be false. :)  You can also have fun with
>similar arguments.

This doesn't make sense.  For example, if I set my alarm, I know it
will ring in the morning, unless something happens to change it.  If
I then smash my clock, I have made the "something ... it" clause above
true, changing the conditions of my previous knowledge.  That is, I 
know the clock will not sound if I smash it.  My previous knowledge that
the alarm would ring UNLESS... was true, because I know what would
happen, given my actions.

See, if you say that the omniscient being knows when a person will die,
then that knowledge includes all circumstances, including intervention
by the said being.

keith

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:27:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.213948.27071@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:
>ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>: 
>: One must be very
>: careful when judging a religion to separate the human members of
>: the religion from the religion itself.  If the founder of the
>: religion has led an exemplary life above criticism, then their
>: fruit (the religion) can be judged on its own merit.  If the
>: founder's ideas and philosophy are above reproach, then again the
>: fruit can be judged on it's own merit.  However, if followers of
>: the religion (even in high places) in that religion do not follow
>: the founder but veer away for their own agenda, then their fruit
>: can be seen.  However, I suggest that their fruit is not the
>: religion itself, but merely their own behaviour. 
>
>What about the ghastly commands of God in the Old Testament?  If
>I remember right, this is the same God that Christians have faith in.
>If the Bible is the word of God, I should be able to judge God based
>on his own actions as depicted in the OT and not just indirectly
>via his followers.  Is this a fair judgement?  Why not?

I guess I'm somewhat hazy on what you mean by "judge God based on
his own actions".  If you mean that you will read the Old
Testament and determine whether God acted in a manner consistent
with your belief of how God *should* act (where this belief is
derived from is another story), then odds are you might be turned
off.  I know, for me anyways, that only when I read the Old
Testament through the eyes of the New Testament was I able to
personally make sense out of it.  And I'm still in the process
today... But that is my experience, as there are other people who
have had no problem with the OT at all. 

>-- 
>> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
>> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
>> opinions   <         Ring Lardner


-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729