HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Science and choice
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 10:37:48 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world, public
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Dec16.030334.20463@nmsu.edu> epowers@spock.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) writes:
>	You got it.  Here's a good one, that always manages to net a few  
>flames:  When I do work in my particular field of science (evolutionary  
>biology) I must assume that every situation I encounter is the result of the  
>situation that existed previously.  This assumption is universal in the  
>sciences, and is what allows us to say that an experiment done correctly is  
>repeatable, i.e, if you plug the same variables into the physical situation you  
>will get the same results out.  This, however, does not allow for free will.   
>Anything you do or think is the result of the way energy and matter 
>interact,  and is not affected by any outside force (eg, the supernatural).
>	So you must "choose":  either you must base an important part of your  
>philosophy on science and deny free will, or you'll have to find something  
>outside of science to base it on.
>	Hope you enjoy!
>						Erik
	It is not an either/or proposition. It can easily be a both/and 
proposition. You havn't fully demonstrated that they are mutually exclusive.
Freewill, as we experience it, could easily be caused by the reactions going 
on within our minds. 
	Or, you can view it as Kant does. If you wish to allow freewill 
[ whose existance has never been either verified or proven ], then you must 
concede that the mind exists both as we experience it, and in itself. 
Reason only describes it as we experience it. However, Reason can not 
determine anything as they exist. They are seperate. There is no method by 
which to learn of something in itself. Immediately when you try a method by 
which to learn, you have precluded yourself to examining it as you 
experience it. 
	There is no method by which to begin to describe constructs as 
themselves. 

		
---
	"on average, fully 50% of Catholic parents sodomize their 
	 children before they reach the age of ten... Babtist rate
	 at 43% and Lutheran's come in at 34%"
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:23933 alt.sex.wizards:4028 soc.men:21334 misc.kids:30737
From: giamomj@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu (Mike G.)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.sex.wizards,soc.men,misc.kids
Subject: Re: A few facts about circumcision
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:12:02 GMT
Organization: Drexel University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1b2

In article <1992Dec15.163041@IASTATE.EDU> Marie Coffin,
mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU writes:
>What I'm trying to say is that we are a society obsessed with
appearances. 
>Given that, people who are concerned about leaving their sons
uncircumcised
>are probably expressing their anxiety quite honestly.  It's not necessary
>to read any hidden agenda into it.  Grow up a little.
>
>
>Marie Coffin

Well, Marie...

I'm not sure what your comments are getting at in the end but the thread
here is that
routine circumcision of newborn males is truly unfair and (probably)
morally wrong.
I know because I'm a male who was circumcised at birth and grew up with a
father
who is not cut...I have wondered all my life what having a  foreskin is
like. Being a
gay man, and with the penis being the main organ of sexual interest for
most of us
gay guys, I think to cut a piece of it off for  *no good reason* (forget
the health and
hygiene crap: we could pull all of our teeth out both before and after
puberty and never
have tooth decay or gum disease, either -) is unfair. In Europe, for
example, the
citizens have not suffered a de-eroticization of the prepuce, as they
have in America.
Now that plays into your "difference of appearance bit" but so what? Like
so many 
other things (and this seems *trival* - at first) people are "stuck" with
their bodies
from birth onward. Surgery and accidents are the only things that can
change them.
I think it best that the decision be left to the owner of the equipment.
So - if you ever
have a son, do him the favor your parents did your brothers...BFN.
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Another fallacy to add to the list
Date: 17 Dec 92 13:27:43 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Edinburgh University

I just noticed mathew get attacked with a fallacy common on the net
that isn't on his list: the Fallacy of the Extended Analogy.

"I believe it is always wrong to oppose the law by breaking it."

"Such a position is odious: it implies that you would not have supported
Martin Luther King."

"Are you saying that cryptography legislation is as important as the
struggle for Black liberation?  How dare you!"

By the way, I really like the new FAQ: good job mathew.
  __                                _____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \\ //
/\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul."  \X/
From: cfairman@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman)
Subject: Easter
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: alt.atheism
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 07:43:45 GMT

 rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:

>From article <1992Dec6.010209.21998@leland.Stanford.EDU>, by cfairman@leland.St
anford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman):
>>Well, it's that time of year again.  [...]
>>How many other celebrate the Solstice, and how many just bite
>>their lips when they hear prayers at Christmas dinner?

>What do you do in such situations?
>What if they, perhaps your parents, asked you to offer a prayer,
>thinking that you are a Christian?

>Young Huh
>yhuh@ihlpe.att.com

Hang in there bub, spring is comming. Then  you can put up with Easter Hymns.
Conan the Libertarian

To which I must reply:  Easter is often around the Vernal Equinox, a known
pagan holiday celebrated with bunnies and eggs, both fertility symbols (though
I don't want to increase mine after chemically abolishing it...).  I enjoy
spring, and people look quite silly trying to explain how this dead man "rose
from the dead".  Easter is much less obtrusive than the whole Xmas thing.

Carolyn
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: The "Answers": and "Why" .....
Date: 14 Dec 1992 19:18:59 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


	I have seem a few times recently in posts and have heard it
a number of times before. Theists say things like "the Bible has the
ANSWERS" or "Haven't you ever wondered WHY ?" or stuff like that.

	The question of "Why are we where/ What are we here for".
implies that there is a specific reason why we are here. For me
 as an atheist, I feel that there is no "reason" or "mission" that
we are "here" (as opposed to "there" ?) for.

	What about when they say "the Bible has the answers". I
find that really odd. Most of time a lot of us just feel tempted
(or at least I used to) to just say the "answers are wrong", but
I look at it as they DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT MY QUESTIONS ARE !!!

	I really resent it when some (not all perhaps) chri$tians
say that "they have the answers to my questions". Well, my questions
 don't seem to match their answers.....because they don't really
know them.....


-- 
A. TRENT PHILLIPS |" A mirror is a negative space with a frame and a place for
  also known as   | your face, it reveals what the rest of us see. It conceals
   WHITE  ROOK    | what you'd like you to be."--Blue Oyster Cult
-------bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu-----aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu-------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus)
Subject: Re: Religion = anything that's fun is bad.
Organization: Big Bulging Buffalo Bladders -R- Us
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:54:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.005116.16799@doug.cae.wisc.edu> mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.213637.19852@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
>>In article <9212121433.AA02595@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>>>Harold Platypus types:
>>>>Being an atheist OPENS your mind? What a crock of shit!
>>>
>>>Either give evidence for your assertions or switch to another newsgroup.
>>>
>>Bugger off you pompous windbag... I'll post here if I damn well please!
>
>Sure, just don't object to the flames.  Judging from the responses so far,
>I hope you are behind a flame shield. :)

I LOVE IT! FLAME AWAY... Give me your LOATHING and HATE and I'll devour
them like a balrog using a flaming torch for a toothpick... (-:

>Ever hear of kill files?  It would be easy to kill any article mentioning
>you. :)  Not that I would do that, but some people can.  Also, their is
>a n key.

Awwww... that's not fair. Just because I offend your sensibilities you
advocate killing everything I post? Only an intellectual coward would do
that... as if atheistic ramblings couldn't stand the test of discussion.

>>I'll vote with my keyboard and stay as long as I like. Feel free to
>>filter me if you dare... HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...
>>- Harry
>
>Why?  I so much prefer the argument.
>

Me too... that's the only reason I'm here.
- Harry
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24056 alt.sex.wizards:4069 soc.men:21521 misc.kids:30892
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.sex.wizards,soc.men,misc.kids
Subject: Re: About circumcision
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:42:21 GMT
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland

In article <1992Dec19.015857.25809@colorado.edu> maman@boulder.Colorado.EDU writes:
>By another way, Rambam (Maimonides) explained why Jews are
>circumsized.  The hygienic part is not the main part.  I remember
>(well I hope) he wrote that humans were made perfect by God but as
>they were part mud, they have a moral imperfection: they like sex too
>much.  So to avoid masturbation and lust, they remove this part so the
>penis will irritate easily.

I've heard some things that the Jewish compared the shedding of a snake's skin
to circumcision. As a snake sheds it's skin, so must the man. I remember a
high school teacher telling the class this, but they aren't my words for sure.

>
>					Nat
>
>PS: I forgot: I'm Jewish, circumsized and therefore I don't know how
>it feels to have foreskin (prepuce?).
>--
>M. Nathan M. MAMAN,  Campus Box 429,  Boulder COLORADO 80309, USA
>EM:maman@boulder.Colorado.EDU TEL:(303)492-4481 FAX:(303)492-4990


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Just how much smarter are atheists?
From: Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (John Stafford)
Date: 14 Dec 92 10:54:18 -0600
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Distribution: world
Organization: MSUS

In article <kmr4.420.724182311@po.CWRU.edu>, kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M.
Ryan) wrote:
> 
> In article <1gbm3tINN73s@gap.caltech.edu> werdna@cco.caltech.edu (Andrew Tong) writes:
> >Just how stupid must one be to believe in a God? (This is the general
> >feeling that I get from reading 90% of the messages in this group: that
> >atheists must either be super-intelligent or God-fearing, religious
> >people must be interminably stupid.)
> 
> 	Its not the believing so much: A better question is:
> 
> 	Just how illogical must one be to believe in a proposition as being
> unequivacly truth, without having any evidence?

Some would argue that depending on 'logic' (in the functionalist
and Newtonian sense) is an article of faith.  These people admit
the possibility of a 'godness' and it doesn't conflict with their
life's philosophy or scientific productivity.  Would you like
citations?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Certainty, Sureness, Knowledge, Proof
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
            <1992Dec15.211927.6486@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> 
            <92350.192901J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:39:03 GMT

In article <92350.192901J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> 
  J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson) writes:
>[ . . .]
>>For what it is worth, I am "sure" that God doesn't exist.  I am also
>>"certain" of this fact.  I shy away from using the word "know" because
>>that implies positive proof (which I don't have, although the lack of
>>proof for the other view I feel adds weight to my own).

>Questions:  1.  How is it that you are certain without positive proof?

Good question.  Notice that I put "certain" in quotes.  I mean that
I have no doubt.  I am certain the Earth is round.  No, I can't prove
it directly, it could all be some complicated conspiracy theory
designed to confuse me and only me.  Although it is possible that
the Earth is flat and it just appears to be round I am prepared to
dismiss that notion and state that I am "certain" that that is not
the case.

>            2.  How does "knowing" imply positive proof?

Sorry.  "Knowing" for *me* implies positive proof.   I offer no good
reason for this distinction.  Applying these sorts of terms to
human knowledge is a risky proposition at best.

>John A. Johnson

Please don't turn this into a semantic arguement.  The words I chose
were based on my feelings about them, not on precise meanings.

C Frog
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:40:42 CST

In the discussion of strong vs. weak atheism, the definition of agnosticism
has come up many a time.  Here I am forced (under threat of mental
outrage), to step in and throw in my 12 cents.

Agnosticism does indeed come in more than one form.  IMNSHO, it is not
what the FAQ defines it as.  Agnosticism is the attitude of "I don't know
if there exists a god or not."  It is not saying the question is
undecidable, that is a militant agnostic.  This refusal to recognize
the other side of agnosticism is a big mistake because it doesn't
look at a nice large possiblity.  Yes, I know people who follow this
other kind of agnosticism which I will for the moment call a relaxed
agnostic -> "I don't know, and I'm not looking very hard."  The militant
agnostic can be summed up with one of two statements, 1) -> "I don't know
and you don't either." 2) -> "It is unknowable."  Note that they are similar.

:)M^2

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.sex.wizards,soc.men,misc.kids
From: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Subject: Re: A few facts about circumcision
Reply-To: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:30:41 GMT

In article <1glhqeINNi59@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>, potts@oit.itd.umich.edu
(Paul Potts) writes:
> In article <1992Dec9.210616.27866@crd.ge.com> meltsner@crd.ge.com writes:
> >
> >
> >Actually, I'm in favor of mandatory circumcision so Jewish boys don't
> >get teased in gym class. 
> >
> >[It's a joke, son.]
> 
> This is a joke, but I've actually heard parents-to-be argue with me that they
> want to have their son circumcised, on similar grounds. They say that they
> don't want the son to feel "different" when comparing himself to daddy.
> 
> What they really mean is that Daddy doesn't want to admit to himself that
> he is the one who is "different" by virtue of genital mutilation...
> and is willing to inflict the same treatment on son to justify it.


Wow, do you think you could be any more judgemental if you tried?  Did you
ever stop to consider that "being different from everyone else" is probably
every kid's worst fear?  There was a time when nearly every boy in America
was circumcised routinely after birth.  At that time, a boy who *wasn't*
circumcised was going to get a few strange looks when he took his clothes
off.  I know what I'm talking about:  I have 4 uncircumcised brothers.  They
told me that indeed it *was* the talk of the locker room for a few weeks...
then everybody got used to it and didn't think any more about it.  

What I'm trying to say is that we are a society obsessed with appearances. 
Given that, people who are concerned about leaving their sons uncircumcised
are probably expressing their anxiety quite honestly.  It's not necessary
to read any hidden agenda into it.  Grow up a little.


Marie Coffin
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: is it necessary to hate?
Date: 20 Dec 92 02:26:09 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

[reply to bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA]
 
>Does too times infinity.  <*Ptpthhhh!!!*>
 
Only God may multiply by infinity.

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: fsrey@rama.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Rex E. Young)
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:26:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.054012.10468@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen  
Kilmer) writes:
> Answer 1:
> 
> There is a God-shaped hole in every person, and without God, a person
> is empty.
> 
> Answer 2:
> 
> Christianity is true.
> 
> -jen

What proof do you offer?

_______________________________________________________
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored
by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency
a great soul has simply nothing to do.

I hate quotations.
May 1849

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

Rex Young @ Fairbanks, Ak.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cfairman@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman)
Subject: Re: proof
Keywords: Jesus,Proof
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 08:09:05 GMT

 casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) wrote:

I am willing to be part of an objective discussion about why I believe in God
and what the basis for my belief is founded in facts (no, I can't offer concret
proof in 30 words).  I'm not interested in a flame war, I seriously would like
a discussion based on analysis.  I can't claim to know everything

Ok, my 30 words =>

An empty grave, It would take take even more faith not to beleive, Historical
Accuracy of the bible, Completeness of the Spiritual model given in the bible,
personal experiances, Answers.

Hmmm.  An empty grave?  Being associated with a Med School here I hear about
rigar mortis and nasty things like the blood of the dead pooling on their      bottom side (not the JC would've had much left).  So if JC, the man, was
raised from the dead, those first steps must've been...hell.

Yes, I could agree it is harder not to believe.  Religion is a crutch, it
helps people feel important and less like a species of carbon based life on the
edge of the Milky Way.  So you admit you dislike challenging yourself?  That
just because something is harder you take the easy path?

Historical Accuracy? Ok, no flames.  However, you must realize the Bible was
written by people and people have been known to rewrite and create history.
This doesn't necessarily mean the Red Sea didn't part but makes it unlikely.

Don't know much about spirits and stuff.

Answers?  Answers?!  It's hard to admit there aren;'t really any.  Science
does the best it can, and I often wish there was a Truth but there are just
lots of truths, until they get disproven.

Carolyn
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Religion = Anything that's fun is bad.
Date: 12 Dec 92 16:58:54 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec12.075622.16643@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
>
>Being an atheist OPENS your mind? What a crock of shit!

I agree. Because being an atheist is not the cause of an open mind.

>
>So organized religion has perpetrated some of the most heinous crimes
>and practices ever... I don't have to be an atheist to get offended
>by the Inquisition. Just remember, not everyone who believes in a
>guiding intelligience subscribes to an organized religion. I think
>kids should be exposed to all kinds of beliefs so they can make
>their own choice. IMHO, telling kids there is NO GOD is just another
>form of indoctrinating them into a almost fanatical belief system -
>an evangelical anti-religion if you please.

Are you just plain stupid, or what. READ THE FAQQING FAQ. Atheism is the
absence of belief that a god or gods exist. It is not a belief system.

NOBODY TELLS KIDS THERE IS NO GOD. I am an atheist. My parents never
exposed me to religion. By the time I firts heard of "God" at school, I
had learnt to think for myself. I thought it was just the same as Iggy,
my kid sister's pretend friend, ie just a silly game. It took me another
few years to discover that people actually believed it.

Favourite extremist tactic: set up straw-man definitions for people
you disagree with, and attack those labels as a way of attacking what
you don't understand.

>
>Frankly, I find the majority of people ballsy enough to publicly
>declare themselves "atheists" are nothing more than troublemakers
>who finally found a mission. They stir up shit, cost the taxpayers
>money and vanish into the woodwork having done nothing constructive.
>If this is you, go soak yer head...

And you wonder why atheists need to "come out of the woodwork"? Substitute
"fundie" for "atheist" and that makes more sense.

>- Harry

Go soak your own head.

Chris Lee
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Colleen
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:54:31 GMT

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>In article 11993@hogg.ed.ac.uk, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>} I also bare witness, speaking, `There is no God other than James Meritt'.
>
>Hmmmm.  It seems logical to say what is, but I fail to see the logic in a
>universal is-not unless it is sufficiently quantified.  I, for instance,
>would not say "there is no other god", but I would say that I am one.

Blasphemer!  Heretic!  ;)

If James Merrit says there are no gods but him, then there are no gods
but him!  He should know, because he's a god!

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Just how much smarter are atheists?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:58:16 GMT

Hey, net.gang.  I've been reading the responses to
(HEATHER LEE FYFFE) regarding her fondness for
Christianity.  Do you think that she will 
(a) simply disappear from a.a,
(b) post a "you flamed me, waaaah!" message,
(c) post a "you are all closed-minded" message.

Maybe we could establish a betting line.
-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |