HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: siemens@mprgate.mpr.ca (Curtis Siemens)
Subject: Re: Is omniscience impossible?
Reply-To: siemens@mprgate.mpr.ca (Curtis Siemens)
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 21:38:08 GMT

salter_duke@darwin.ntu.edu.au writes:
> 1.  Knowing something involves a change in the knower 
>     - whether or not the knower is material or not, the fact of knowing 
>       something means that the knower is different from the way he/she/it
>       would be if it/she/he didn't know it.

Well I see a flaw in this argument.  What if the god knew everything always.
ie. There wasn't a time that the god didn't know everything.  Then there is
no "change" done.  Actually I think this also brings up a different point that
makes this whole argument unapplicable -> If the god isn't inside of time, then
"changes in history" & "cause & effect" are not "laws" in that god's realm, so
it throws out all arguments based on "cause & effect".  Actually we cannot
really say much about a realm or the beings in that realm where "cause & effect"
are not "laws".

Curtis
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:46:58 GMT

	Atheists commonly ignore that they live in a dream-world by themselves.

	Quite common is the belief that you could save this earth. This is 
	rubbish. There is no method to save mankind from Greenhouse effect or
	lack of Ozone (for decades). People refuse to believe this. 

	What is the philosophy with atheists ? Consume ! Spend more !

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rjg@doe.carleton.ca (Richard Griffith)
Subject: Re: Help
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:42:01 GMT

In <BxMFuz.4uq@acsu.buffalo.edu> v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
>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. 

>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.  

Warning pure conjecture follows!!
Anyone here involved in research on OOB experiences.

How does the OOB experience sound as the after images of hitting the reset
button on the brain.

After the reset the brain must begin to reorganize itself. At first
this is a total random state, or white noise state for the synapses. Return
to normal can take two paths:
	1) self awareness first, then external awareness
	The person becomes aware of their body against the white noise.
	The white noise gradually disolves to the external awarness of
	the body in the operating room.
	2) external awareness first, then self awareness
	The person becomes aware of the surroundings, i.e. operating room
	and gradually resolves their position to be on the table.
Possible a disjoint progression from 1) to 2) rather than just one. State 1)
is first then sensory input arrives and the brain is flooded, resulting in
state 2) which progresses.

I seem to recall experiments have proven that the unconsious body on the
operating table is aware of what is going on in normal operating procedures.

Consider that any consious state is represented as an organization of
signals in the brain. Death in the OOB experiences case is (help here)
approaching or eclipsing brain death where these organized signals
stop. (Organized signals are alpha and beta brain waves.)

Organization: Freshman, Art, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 07:45:35 -0500 
From: Jennifer Lynn Urso <ju23+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: READ THIS

this is for ANY subscribers: atheist, christian, or whatever.
please answer the following questions and respond to me directly(it's
for a concept studio project that i'm working on)

1) what is YOUR definition of atheism(not dictionary definition)
and 
2) what are your opinions on atheism or atheists

if you participate
THANK YOU
it'll help a lot...
seeya

jennifer urso:  the oh-so bitter woman of utter blahness(but cheerful
undertones)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:25:15 CST

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!
Well, is everything consistent?  Use the only truly American school of
thought in that matter, pragmatism.  Everything behaves as if you do exist,
right?  So you must _act_ as if you do.  Whether or not you exist and
others exist is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that everything is consistant
as if you exist.  Using this consistency, you can prove your existence.
What is more important is that you can prove the existance of others with
this attitude in mind, with reasonably scientific methods.  A better way
to prove or disprove supernatural existance is by logic.  But the question
of what kind of logic to use comes up.  Lets keep it simple and use
Aristotillian Logic.  Christian faith believes in a Ominiscient and Ominpotent
being that they have labeled "God".  This being is suppossed to be an
agent for common morals of this society which holds to this faith.  (Def. good).
Look at omniscience really hard.  There is a paradox there for you.  
I'll send you an e-mail star if you can think hard enough to post it
without my having to post it myself. ;)
:)M^2

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:20764 talk.religion.misc:20570
From: bluelobster+@CMU.EDU (David O Hunt)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Fundies posting here
Date: 7 Nov 92 01:35:33 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I think that the Fundies who post here aren't trying to save us.  What they
want is a "Tried to save the heathen and was rejected.  Not MY fault they
don't want to hear the Truth."

David
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21061 talk.religion.misc:20893
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is there a discrepancy with Soc.Religion.Christian?
Date: 8 Nov 92 21:13:01 GMT
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

In article <BxDu89.FrI@umassd.edu>, rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:
|>Hello all
|>
|>I tried to post an article in "Soc.religon.christian"
|>3 times and of no avail.
|>Do they have a "scrutiny" process to weed out
|>any atheistic post?
|>
|>Thanks 
|>Frank Pinto
         
Yes, it is moderated.  Could you post your
article here, so we (I) can see what type
of articles are screened?

Brian /-|-\
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re:  Top Ten Reasons to Bash Atheists
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:09:01 GMT

In article <0eyrBfG00iUz49aYU=@andrew.cmu.edu>  writes:
> >	I have now read the replies to this post, but most weren't worth  
> >reading.  I am sorry you eventually apologized, although I'm still trying to  
> >decide whether or not the apology was serious.  This was a perfect
> example of  
> >"put up a stupid post, get a stupid post in reply".
> 
> One difference.  The first post(TTRTBF)was funny.  The second one was not.
> -JW

		Sorry, you must have them mixed up.

						Erik Powers
From: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Iraq Murders
Date: 13 Nov 92 10:58:38 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

: The US Department of Defense claims that less than 20% of its
: "smart bombs" actually hit their targets. The ones we all got to
: watch on TV were the exceptions, not the rules.

  The claims (DoD) were that an unprecedented 90% of "smart bombs"
  actually dropped hit their targets. However the US figures indicate
  that only 7% of their bombs were laser guided. The 20% figure is  
  is for iron bombs (again unprecedented accuracy). This means that 
  of the 80,000 tons of bombs dropped around 60,000 tons *missed*.
  Bombing of Baghdad and Bazra was in part carried out by B-52s at
  high level. Civilian casualties were inevitable, especially as some
  civilian targets such as power and sewage treatment works were also
  targeted.

  Most of the warheads in the much vaunted Tomahawk 'cruise' misslies
  were in fact bomblets (CBM) as were most of the artillery shells fired,
  many of the bombs and all of the multiple rocker launcher (MRLS) ammuntion.
  Alone the (US) MRLSs fired ammunition containing 80 million separate
  bomblets.

  The US also flouted the Geneva Protocol which outlaws the bombing of
  chemical facilites or nuclear plants that are near civilians and might
  endanger their lives.

  The US also continually moved the goalposts when Hussein was attempting
  to withdraw. Hussein said that he would withdraw by the specified time,
  and then the US introduced the additional condition that they had to also
  leave all their war materiel behind.

  The number of troops on the allied side has been revised upwards to 
  a figure for the Iraqi's side which has been revised down. The estimates
  are 650,000 allied troops (excluding medical personnel) to 250,000
  Iraqi troops in Kuwait and on the Iraqi border (including medical personnel).


	God bless America,

		Aaron Turner		aaron@minster.york.ac.uk

NB: I don't love Saddam, but I love needless deaths less.
From: dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Keywords: Cure
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:32:45 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

In article <1992Nov11.161003.27772@bnr.ca> ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge) 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.)
>-- 
Or maybe could it be that the alcoholics are just given a replacement drug,
namely some delusionary beliefs = God.  Therefore the alcoholic is still not
cured, but rather has now a different problem.  Wonder if that's why there
is so much danger from recidivism.
From: dan@stanton.UUCP (Dan Mahoney)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Summary: Refutation
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:28:35 GMT
Organization: Stanton Public Domain Systems, Stanton, Ca.

In article <1992Nov10.184658.19188@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
> 
> 	Atheists commonly ignore that they live in a dream-world by themselves.

        <..... stuff deleted ......>
> 
> 	What is the philosophy with atheists ? Consume ! Spend more !
> 
> -- 

Come now, how can consumerism be equated with atheism?  My lack of belief 
in a anthropomorphic superbeing has absolutely no influence on my spending
habits or upon my environmental philosophy.  Please don't try to say that
having an open mind, unshackled by centuries-old folk rubbish, is akin to
having no respect for the environment and no respect for conservation.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Bash Atheists
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 05:11:17 GMT

In article <ksand-051192185021@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.143833.2191@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian
>Kendig) wrote:
>> >Seems like this Maddi Hausmann has a personal problem with
>> >atheists. Reminds me of jokes I've seen on Christian TV channels,
>> >they sound very artificial and hateful. Speak about bad taste.
>> 
>> Huh?  Maddi wrote the original "Top Ten Reasons to Bash Fundies",
>> and I thought it was awfully clever and frighteningly applicable.  ;)
>> 
>> Judging from that list, she appears to be an atheist herself.
>> It was another poster who took the list and unsuccessfully tried to
>> turn it back on us.
>
>So, someone just took the bash-fundies list, and rewrote it, and 
>then cited Maddi as the originator. That's really sick...

Now, now, Kent.  Don't go blaming the chap for more than he is guilty
of.  Maddi's signature was quite clearly indented with one more
level of '>'s than the article to which you refer.  I'm quite
certain that no forgery was intended.  His only real faux pas was
that his article was just plain dumb.
--
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: PLai@cup.portal.com (Patrick L Faith)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Human computational defects
Date: Fri,  6 Nov 92 14:25:31 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

I do a lot of A.I. research where the ai comes down with
some wierd psychosis (i.e. programming error).  I have noticed
similarities with certain aspects of religion and correcting
computational flaws in IAI's (independant acting artificial
inteligences).  A classic example is the prayer "concept".

Often the IAI gets confused (more often then I'd like) and
the metrics get so out of whack that the IAI is not functional.
If the IAI is "forced" to focus on a single item and gets some
resonable solution - it is way better than deleting the IAI.

It is also advantageous to renforce the "confused->single->resolution"
solutions in the computational network (i.e. when this kind of thing
happens actually "hard code" the "experience").  I'd be willing to
bet that human neural nets also have reinforcement mechanism based
on hormonal changes (i.e. going from a angry/confused hormonal base
to a calm/peaceful hormonal state helps "lock in" neuron connections).

This type of mechanism also tends to lock the IAI into modes where it
cannot not see other associations, nor allow itself the temporary state
of "confusion" in trying to understand conflicts - this is the negative
part of over reinforcing a connection that happened to work.  The
concept of prayer, therefore, seems to me to be a structure for using
the biologic functions of the human brain that lock in certain connection
relationships when "brain" errors occur (i.e. our brains have computational
flaws and religion is a mechanism for dealing with them).

Just a guess ...  PLai
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: re: Homosexuality - genetic?
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:43:43 GMT


In a previous article, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) says:

>hbcs1010@blurt.oswego.edu writes:
>> how can homosexuality be genetic? forgive me if i'm diplaying my ignorance
>> here, but isn't it a bit difficult for a homosexual to be the biological pare
>> of a child?
>
>Yup, but it could be a recessive gene.
>

The point that many people miss is that many gay people (including myself)
try to hide, and slip 9into mainstrem society, marry, have children, ect.

Although I've been divorced for several years, and have accepted who I am,
many have not, and continue to live the double life of being gasy and having
their own biological children.

And remember, only recently (in historical terms) has it been acceptable
to be openly gay, and for generations gay people have been doing exactly
what I and many other uncomfortable gay persons have done, and continue
to do.


-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  //   No God, Know Peace   /\     * 
*                    Kelley L. Miller  //  Know God, No Peace    /P \    *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  //                        /____\   *
*****************  James Trafficant for US Senate, 1998  *****************
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: one lab
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:50:43 GMT

Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes:

>I have been informed by one fellow student here at GB that Maharishi
>International University (MIU) in Fairfield, Iowa is one institution
>where OOB's are studied and performed. This friend tried to get
>involved with it when he was down there but was told you must be a 
>student there to qualify.

And here I was worried that it wouldn't be scientific institution.

------------------------------------------------------------
mark schnitzius           |  seeking guitar songbook for the
schnitzi@eola.cs.ucf.edu  |  clash's "london calling".  does
univ. of central florida  |  one even exist?  will pay top $
------------------------------------------------------------
From: EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is omniscience impossible?
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:55:07 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

Let's assume momentarily that omniscience IS possible.  And that a 'god' is omn
iscient.   What purpose would this being have in creating this universe?
In fact, I think that this being would be BORED as HELL!!!!!
In FACT, I think that the only thing that this being would want would be to DIE
=cease to exist.

Which reminds me of a fascinating Isaac Asimov short story I once mentioned on
this subject a while back......

8-)
   Eylon

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eylon Geva            |   "Somebody please tell me that I'm dreaming,
geva@orville.psu.edu  |    It's not so easy to stop from screaming..."
exg106@psuvm.pdu.edu  |                            Iron Maiden
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lpzsml@unicorn.nott.ac.uk (Steve Lang)
Subject: Vatican approves Death Penalty
Originator: lpzsml@unicorn.nott.ac.uk
Organization: Nottingham University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 11:55:00 GMT

A leaked report of the new Universal Catechism states that the death
penalty is a "legitimate" punishment.  The Pope, according to the _Catholic
Herald_, has approved the Cathechism in July.

"For the sake of the common good, aggressors might have to be placed in a
position where they cannot cause further harm.  Public authorities have the
right and obligation to issue proportionate punishment, including the death
penalty"; although the Catechism also says "non-violent measures are
preferable".

John Paul II described how he personally scrutinised successive drafts.  He
said he gave "observations, proposals, counsels" which were "carried out
with careful fidelity".

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.

All Roman Catholics I have spoken to on this issue have agreed that there
is no justification for the death penalty.  It is a shame that the Vatican
has not listened to its follows.

If any state is to introduce the death penalty as a result of the
Catechism, the blood will on the churches hands.

Steve Lang
The article contains my own views and may not reflect those of the
university.
From: MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka Ktf92)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Questions about other stuff(sorry, lousy title!)
Date: 5 Nov 92 08:57:26 GMT
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

In <Uey44zu00WBME6MNZq@andrew.cmu.edu> jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu writes:

> 1)  What do you think happens when we die?
> I think it's just like a blown fuse, and when it's your time to go,
> you're gone forever.

      Pretty much my idea of it. How do you describe nonexistence? Full
explanation at the bottom of this post - just after the End-of-File
marker. :-)

> 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?

      Theoretically, maybe... But, since some processes in the brain
(arguably) happen at the molecular level, you *may* run into the
Uncertainty Principle... Copying every single cell in detail would take
a while, too; you (the original) might have changed drastically by the
time the copy was finished.

> 3)  What's the deal with supernatural type stuff(ghosts and the like)?

      Lacking a more probable explanation: Figments of people's hyper -
active imaginations.

> 4)  Will technology replace religion in the future?

      Nope. Religion may lose authority, and may even become a minority
thing some day, but I don't think it'll ever *completely* disappear, in
every kind of form. Humans just aren't *that* smart critters. Let's keep
on working, tho'; maybe we can get close enough.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
 These aren't really my opinions, but those of my split personality - he's the
       only one of me who's learned how to use the computers properly.
"Don't damn me when I speak a piece of mind, 'cos silence isn't golden when ..."