HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mgmam@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Mark A. Morrell)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:46:06 GMT

In article <ednclark.720773692@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace) 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.
>
>>But could you now address the issue:  Given we have resolved that effeminate
>>or `butch' behaviour is not a valid indication of gay men or lesbians,
>>why would you object to your children being taught by, for example,
>>effeminate men?  Won't they end up macho enough? 
>
>And besides what's wrong with them becoming homosexual? Will it make them
>more bigoted, more violent, less tolerant perhaps? What terrible thing will
>happen to your child's happiness (I hope this is the goal you have for yoiur
>children) if it becomes homosexual?
>
>Jeff.

Happiness vs. Homosexual?     What an issue...

Well, there are plenty of arguments here -- but I think I'll skip the
issue altogether by making the fight above irrelevant as far as my
opinions are concerned.  (Besides, while those arguments are fun, they
are kind of non-sensical.)

If my children could be happy without being homosexual I would prefer
it.  If my children would be unhappy without being homosexual, I would
leave them to their happiness.

However, now, in order convince me they should be homosexual (like they
would ask my opinion anyhow...) they would need to convince me that is
the only way they could be happy.  And regardless of what else they
thought or did, I would still very much prefer if they were straight and
happy.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark A. Morrell     Disclaimer:  _I_ probably don't even believe it.
Literary Reference:  The introduction to Cervantes' Don Quixote.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 05:02:45 GMT

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!

Oh dear.  I think we have a serious problem then.  You believe that there
is a big daddy in the sky looking out for you and you think it imperative
that you convince unbelievers of this.  I believe that the invisible
pink unicorns in my walls are looking out for me and I think it imperative
that you believe the same way.  If we can't use scientific methods to
determine which of us is right, then I suppose we're condemned to be
shouting our prejudices at each other forever.  Or we might get fed up
with the shouting, and decide to throw a war to settle the question once
and for all.  I dunno though.  Maybe it's just me, but somehow I can't
shake the notion that if I and my fellow unicornists were to beat you
and your fellow god talkers in a war, that wouldn't necessarily prove
that I was right.  So, if we can't settle the question via science, and
we can't settle the question via war, what method do you suppose that
we ought to use?
--
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. ****
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why Fundamentalists Like Satan
Date: 4 Nov 92 21:04:08 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Oct29.231156.925@nmsu.edu> epowers@huey.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) writes:
>	Flame, flame, flame.  Do you really think that everyone who claims to  
>be a Christian is one, especially in this country where there isn't any real  
>consequence for the claim?  

  Good point.  Let's start feeding christians to the lions again.
  Then we'll find out who the *real* christians are.

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

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: damiens@cco.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Women Ordination in England
Date: 9 Nov 1992 01:48:24 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

	I just read today that Wednesday the General Synod of England
is to vote on allowing the full ordination of women.  The head of the
Anglican Church, of course, is QUEEN Elizabeth II.  Any comments on this
development? 
			-- Damien Sullivan
	42	AIXELSYD	Kiljoy  X-)
Bill Gates is twice as rich as Ross Perot.  Any ideas....?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Help
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:04:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov12.192506.26872@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes...
[other points already well-rebutted removed]

>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. 

I suspect that this is urban legend, but I'll bite for a second...

>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?

Actually, if this were true, it would be remarkable evidence that the 
OOB experiences are not mystical.  If one could poke a part of the brain and
have it trigger an OOB, that's pretty good evidence that OOB experiences 
are physically based, wouldn't you think?  After all, one brain surgeon (forgot
his name) would poke (actually, stimulate it with an electrode) people's
cortexes and ask them what they experienced. Some heard sounds or perceived
visual objects, depending on where the cortex was poked.  

Are you really prepared to say that if one of these people heard a fire engine
when their cortex was poked that there was actually a fire engine there? 

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*  "If something about the human	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*   body disgusts you, complain to
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*   the manufacturer." - Lenny Bruce	
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 07:12:32 GMT


>From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
>One can criticize a scientific proof on the basis of either
>the reasoning involved in the predictions or the interpretation
>of data, or on the basis of the quality of data or the method
>of its gathering. One can criticize a logical proof only
>on the basis of the validity of its structure.

Now THIS I can buy! I didn't care for the "observation vs. whatever"
arguement.  This makes more sense.  This clears up logical proof
vs. scientific proof for me!

Brian /-|-\
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:48:47 GMT
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU


**FUNNIEST POST EVER IN SCI.SKEPTIC AWARD**

In article <Nov.6.05.09.57.1992.5646@geneva.rutgers.edu> hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:

   Despite some later unfortunate incidents, the Protestant form
   of Christianity has generally been much less willing to identify
   church and state, and much less willing to use the power of the state
   to enforce religion.

Hey Charles, what country do YOU live in.  Oz????

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | Such a [just] Government will be best
Field Robotics Center,          | supported by protecting every Citizen in the
Carnegie Mellon University      | enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | hand which protects his person and his
(412) 268-3856                  | property; by neither invading the equal rights
                                | of any Sect, nor by suffering any Sect to
The opinions expressed are mine | invade those of another.  James Madison
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      |
From: cnc@balboa.eng.uci.edu (Christopher Christensen)
Subject: Re: Is omniscience impossible?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 10 Nov 92 13:12:04 GMT

Omniscience doesn't make sense in a relativistic universe.
Think about it:

Suppose there is an object at a distance "d" from this allegedly
omniscient person.  The person's latest information about the object
will be out of date by "d/c" units of time (c = speed of light).
If the person was far enough away, you could be born, live out your
life, and die and the "omniscient" person wouldn't know about it for
hundreds of years.

Relativity limits what can be known about the universe, so does quantum
mechanics (but I won't get into that).

Omniscience is only found in the imagination--and that's the only place
you'll find an omniscient god too.  And without omniscience, omnipotence
is relegated to fantasy also.

[Of course, the assumption here is that relativity is the law of
the universe.]

--
|  Christopher  |  Computer Engineering graduate student, UC Irvine  |
|  Christensen  |  cnc@balboa.eng.uci.edu                            |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 11 Nov 92 06:16:40 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Nov10.184033.18948@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
> dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:
> 
>>I am interested in making this world a better place to live, and in
>>order to do so I think it would be beneficial if this group would
>>think about ways of helping those who have religious leanings.  I do
>>relize it would be inapropriate to lock up all Christians, Muslems, etc.
>>in insane asylums, but surely there must be some way of stopping this
>>defective mindset(s).  Perhaps we should start with the most severly
>>disturbed individuals, such as priests and other religous leaders.
>>I think maybe someone could establish an anonymous "Believer" line.
>>This should be staffed by a psychologist and would give the Believer a
>>reality check (sort of a first step towards mental health).
>>I would like to hear some other suggestions - something that an individual
>>could do to cure a Believer.  Lets see some action please!  
> 
> 	This has been in action in North Korea and Albania. 

   Hey, it worked pretty well there, didn't it?

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: silly joke you've all heard already
Date: 4 Nov 92 13:24:00 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Hear about the dyslexic devil-worshipper who sold his soul to Santa ?







  You don't have to work to be mad here      email: d.budd@mcc.ac.uk
  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44|0)61-275-6033  
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: J.W.Lockhart@massey.ac.nz (J.W. Lockhart)
Subject: Re: Don't believe anything you hear
Organization: Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
X-Reader: NETNEWS/PC Version 2c
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 21:41:11 GMT

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.

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.

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

Ragards,
  John Lockhart
  J.W.Lockhart@massey.ac.nz
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:20747 talk.religion.misc:20561 sci.skeptic:19121
From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Keywords: health, wisdom, happiness, religion, `Woof!'
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:30:52 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Oct27.181535.27024@Princeton.EDU>, rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D. Nelson) writes:
>In article <sw89sB13w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>>meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier) writes:

>>I have explained that there
>>is evidence that a regular schedule of 25 hours is more natural than a
>>24-hour cycle.  People who live a 25-hour cycle are likely to be more relaxed
>>and healthy than those who get up at the same time each day.

>I won't attempt to comment on whether a regular schedule is bad beyond
>noting that Poor Richard thought so.  But it bothers me to see a
>paragraph that begins "You have given no evidence..." and only one
>sentence later makes a claim, sans evidence, that people who live a
>25-hour cycle are likely to be more relaxed and healthy, etc.  I doubt
>there is much of a database on people living a 25-hour cycle, and
>furthermore suspect that the cave study on which the 25-hour cycle
>notions are based ought to be replicated and improved before we try to
>slow down the earth rotation.  What would Ockham say about a species
>that perversely developed a 25-hour cycle on a 24-hour planet?

Roger, I can well imagine what William of Occum would say about it, but the
fact is, Rolf is right.  Quite a number of studies have been done on human
beings living in environments where all time referents have been removed -
at Antactica, on Navy subs, and in caves and caverns.  One was documented
just a couple weeks ago on Nova, I think it was, about a woman who stayed
in a cave for several weeks while her cycles were analysed.  No one has
put forth any brilliant theories why, but the fact is, most humans _do_ fall
into a twenty-five hour cycle if they are denied any external time referents.
Individually, some slightly longer than 25, others slightly less than 25.
When living together, people seem to "synch up" at something around 25 hours.

I don't know of any studies about other animals, and it might be interesting
to determine if dogs fall into a 25 hour cycle, too, or cats, or fruit flys,
or whether they fall into different cycles, or no or irregular cycles.  But
I have to back Rolf up on this, I've read the writeups and seen the specials
on TV, too.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: What if there is a god?
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 23:04:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.132702.164983@dstos3.dsto.gov.au>,
jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
|>fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat) writes:
|>
|>>rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:
|>>> SupDose there is a god.
|>>> Then what?
|>
|>>two answers:
|>
|>>1. If a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one there to hear it,
|>>does it make a sound?  So if there is a God, but he has no effect on
|>>us, does it matter?
|>
|>Who said He did not have an effect on us?

Faisal did, you eeeediot!  Read the From: line!
|>
|>>2. Assuming that the God is as represented in the Christian image and
|>>such, then all the atheists lose.   Big time.
|>
|>... and go to Hell.  Bad time.
                  
Bad time? Bad time? Are you kidding!?! Look at all the awesome people 
there!  Buddha, Einstein, Ghandi, Brian Fisher (a Jewish friend
of mine when I was a tyke), and John Lennon, to name a few!
BTW Nice god.  Do you make puppies lick you by holding a cattle-prod
at their backs?

Brian /-|-\  "The Avenger <*snap!*>  hahehahehahehah!"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: Is omniscience impossible?
Organization: SPS
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:39:34 GMT

cnc@balboa.eng.uci.edu (Christopher Christensen) writes:
>Omniscience doesn't make sense in a relativistic universe.
>Think about it:
>
>Suppose there is an object at a distance "d" from this allegedly
>omniscient person.  The person's latest information about the object
>will be out of date by "d/c" units of time (c = speed of light).
>If the person was far enough away, you could be born, live out your
>life, and die and the "omniscient" person wouldn't know about it for
>hundreds of years.

Your argument assumes that the "omniscient" person is bound in the 
dimensions of space and time that we experience. 

A being inhabiting additional dimensions of time and space would not 
be limited in this way.
 
---
Dave Weaver                | "The impression of design is overwhelming"
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com |       -Paul Davies (on the cosmos)



Xref: sparky alt.atheism:20658 alt.censorship:8600 talk.religion.misc:20476 sci.skeptic:19054
From: mgmam@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Mark A. Morrell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.censorship,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:37:17 GMT
Organization: Educational Computing Network

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.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark A. Morrell     Disclaimer:  _I_ probably don't even believe it.
Literary Reference:  The introduction to Cervantes' Don Quixote.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:06:30 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Nov10.184033.18948@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> >I think maybe someone could establish an anonymous "Believer" line.
> >This should be staffed by a psychologist and would give the Believer a
> >reality check (sort of a first step towards mental health).
> >I would like to hear some other suggestions - something that an individual
> >could do to cure a Believer.  Lets see some action please!  
> 
> 	This has been in action in North Korea and Albania. 

Note that instead of becoming a pure atheist religion, the political
doctrine became the new religion. In other words North Korea is 
a splendid example of mass movement based on religious/political
use of forces to control the masses. Religion and politics has
a lot in common -- and I hope people like Antti would understand
this simple observation.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: *TRUE* Christians
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:00:27 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <92316.015308RXS127@psuvm.psu.edu> RXS127@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
> It is only secular moral
>ists like yourselves that try to blame sin on Christians and get the last laugh
> in.  In reality, we don't care what you think.  We just care that we have ackn
>owledged our sins.  Haven't you ever done anything wrong in your life???
>

  Wrong answer, but thank you for playing our game.  We have a
  lovely consolation prize backstage.

  The newsgroup is alt.atheism.  In the interest of improving your
  vocabulary,  atheism is the lack of belief in god.  That includes
  all of the baggage associated with god, such as sin.  We don't
  blame sin on Christians since we don't even believe in the
  concept.

  Yes, I have done many wrong things in my life.  I also take full
  responsibility for every one of them.  There's no Satan looking
  over my shoulder, coaxing me into doing things my immortal soul
  knows as wrong.  I, and only I, am responsible for my behavior.

  Now behave yourself in future posts or we won't be so generous.


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

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!

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21048 talk.abortion:47675