HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Well.......... It seems that Clintons is IN!!!!!!
Summary: Why?
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:22:47 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Distribution: world
Organization: Statistics, Pure & Applied Mathematics, University of Adelaide

In article <1d9greINNc4h@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:

>>>Clinton seems to be in.............'

>>Thank God!

>Thank me!

>Stratocaster

Why? Did you vote for the slightly less sleazy scumbag? Or perhaps you
gave enough people an insight into the next four years of Republicanism
that they all voted Democrat? Or perhaps people thought you might get a
Cabinet seat? Or what? Were you the guy that single handedly screwed the
economy up or made Neil Bush take all that money from Silverado? Did you
write Pat Buchanon's speech for him? Come on you can't just say this and
expect to get anyway with it. Enquiring minds need to know!!

Joseph Askew

-- 
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  At dawn with staff in hand I climbed the crags,
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu  At dusk I made my camp amoung the mountains.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  Only a few peaks rise as high as this house,
One China One Korea One Eire32  Facing the crags, it overlooks winding streams.
From: salter_duke@darwin.ntu.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Is omniscience impossible?
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:14:34 +0900


This argument came out of a slightly inebriated conversation about
life, the universe and everything.  The assembled multitude couldn't
agree whether or not the argument is (a) flawed, or (b) original, so
we decided to ask for the combined wisdom of alt.atheism.

Omniscience is impossible because:

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.

2.  Omniscience means knowing everything.

3.  Knowing everything involves knowing everything in the knower.

4.  Knowing everything in the knower involves knowing about the changes 
in the knower brought about by knowing something.

5.  And this looks like an infinite regress: to be omniscient, the omniscient 
entity would have to know everything her/him/itself, which would involve
knowing another something, which would involve knowing another something...

Linden


-- 
Linden Salter-Duke		email: SALTER_DUKE@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU
Northern Territory University
Darwin, Australia		Snail: Box 40146, Casuarina, NT 0811
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:20697 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2180
From: tarl@coyoacan.sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 6 Nov 92 06:44:29 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

In article <1992Nov6.043452.3676@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> hwong@euler.Berkeley.EDU (Harris Wong) writes:
>	Where is the boundary of the universe? Is this a meaningful question
>to ask? 

It depends on what you mean by boundary. There is one known boundary in
the time dimension, the Big Bang. There is probably another one in the
opposite direction, either the heat death or the re-collapse, depending on how
much matter there is in the universe (does the universe collapse into a big
scrunch, or die of reaching maximum entropy?)

As for spatial boundaries; The universe is believed to have a non-euclidean
geometry which maintains a closed volume (albeit expanding) without having
any discontinuities. Consider a surface of a sphere as a two-dimensional
analog; the area is defined and limited, but it has no edges.

In summary, your question is probably not meaningful. Depending on what
you wanted to know.
	Tarl


-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:49:00 GMT

In article <kmr4.171.721533749@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.003007.11189@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
>>When combined with our theoretical understanding of physics and our everyday
>>experience with gravity, yes we can take this evidence as proof that gravity
>>actually exists.  Are you going to deny that gravity exists?  Can you prove
>>that it doesn't?  What are these assumptions which are stated without proof?
>
>	In the words of Pirsig, "... and what it means is that the law of 
>gravity, and gravity itself exist nowhere except in people's heads!"



Yeah, yeah, and when you leap from that 10-story building and splatter
your brains out on the sidewalk below we can go up to what is left of your
head and point out exactly where in your head gravity exists.
jc
-- 
I sink like a stone
That's been thrown in the ocean
My logic has drowned
In a sea of emotion                   -- Sting
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: The Bible In Minnesota
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:11:02 GMT

rick@solbourne.com (Rick Gillespie) writes:
>I was flipping through the channels on tv this morning, and came across
>the Family Channel (sic) with Pat Robertson and some lawyer fellow.
>They were discussing a case in Minnesota about the American Atheists
>suing to remove bibles from schools and/or classrooms (I didn't see
>the whole discussion). Of course, they weren't too happy about it,
>and complained about how Christians are being repressed these days.
>Anyway, I was wondering if anyone knows of this case, because I'm *sure*
>they weren't telling the whole story (naturally).

Yes, it's had some newsplay here.  Most of the synopsis is correct
(except it is an individual student doing the suing, not American
Atheists, although I think the student is a member).

And now, the rest of the story...

There have been two letters in the local paper (that I have seen); they
weren't written by the student, but one was by a couple of American Atheist
members who apparently know the guy.  There have been a lot of challenges
to schoolbooks in Minnesota recently, many of them objected to on the basis
of content (violence, sex, etc), and many brought by religious groups or
associations.  This student decided to object to another book on the basis
of content (violence, sex, etc), and, of course, we all know what book that
was...  It seems to be a deliberate exercise in political theater.

Also not mentioned in the 700 Club infotainment report was the MN Civil
Liberties Union's offer to help oppose the removal (since that would
contradict Robertson's cartoon portrayal of the ACLU).

It won't get removed, but I don't mind seeing Robertson's organization
throwing away some money in the meantime, either.  Robertson's new legal
group, the American Center for Law and Justice, sees nothing improper about
a teacher leading students in a Christian prayer each morning (this is from
their own show, and they certainly didn't criticize her actions, but I don't
think they'd like, say, Hindu prayers each morning, since Pat thinks Hindus
are Satanists).  They'll fight for your religious rights (and then some) as
long as your religion is the Right One.  Let's see them support, say,
Santerians in their animal sacrifice court case.  Fat chance.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rswiftrw@cc.curtin.edu.au (Rod Swift)
Subject: Re: God Is Silly
Organization: -=[ Curtin University of Technology ]=-  Perth  Australia
Distribution: world, public
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 07:26:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.114355.14940@nmsu.edu>, sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
> In article <92315.021717MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>In article <n0de5t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org says:
> 
> It's like this:
> 
> Weak atheism: "I do not believe that a God exists."

Bzzzzt.  This is more like agnosticism....
 
> Strong atheism: "There is no God."

Correct!  This is atheism.....

Rod
--
|            . . .   . . . . .          "It leaves us galloping up Diarrhoea|
|        +  +  +     +  +  +  +  +                  Drive without a saddle."|
|    *   *   *       *   *   *   *   *                                      |
|R    o    d         S    w    i    f    t        -- Kryten from "Red Dwarf"|
+-----------------------------------+---------+-----------------------------+
|  Curtin University of Technology  |  Perth  |  RSWIFTRW@cc.Curtin.edu.au  |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:01:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.144229.18595@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, jstump@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (John E. Stump) writes:
>I beg to differ. Most everything science investigates goes against
>religious beliefs. Our search for human ancestors, evolution theory
>development, and astromony are excellent examples. The only places that
>science doesn't seem to interfere with religion is in those areas that
>the ancients who invented religion didn't know anything about in the
>first place.

I must also beg to differ.  Nothing science does precludes anything religion
teaches.  Science only considers natural phenomena and therefore any acts of
God (supernatural) are, BY CONSTRUCTION, excluded from consideration.  One
cannot make conclusions from science about God's existence or lack thereof
because the two are unrelated.  There can therefore be no interference
because there can be no comparison.  Science is beautiful but don't abuse
it by applying it where it cannot be applied.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Vatican approves Death Penalty
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:07:07 GMT

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.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
From: forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis)
Subject: Re: Buddhism Discussion
Summary: Info request
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 06:02:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov1.183352.6392@wam.umd.edu> scarfman@wam.umd.edu (Jonathan Smith) writes:
>Xref: news.cis.umn.edu alt.atheism:20006 talk.religion.misc:19842 sci.skeptic:16178
>Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
>Path: news.cis.umn.edu!umn.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!haven.umd.edu!wam.umd.edu!scarfman
>From: scarfman@wam.umd.edu (Jonathan Smith)
>Subject: Buddhism Discussion
>Message-ID: <1992Nov1.183352.6392@wam.umd.edu>
>Summary: Info request
>Sender: usenet@wam.umd.edu (USENET News system)
>Nntp-Posting-Host: rac1.wam.umd.edu
>Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
>        Hi there, I was wondering: Is there any group in which Buddhism is regularly discussed?  Please respond my mail, thanks!
>        scarfman@wam.umd.edu
>                             || Now Residing in England
>References: <1992Oct30.200803.12242@wam.umd.edu> <adams.720505778@spssig> <1992Nov1.181438.5506@wam.umd.edu>
>Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1992 18:33:52 GMT
>Lines: 0

alt.buddha.short.fat.guy has hosted some interesting stuff. 
---------

Eric Forbis      forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Keywords: Cure
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 11:57:05 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

In article <1992Nov6.135913.3366@newstand.syr.edu> dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu
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).

Gas chambers ought to do it.


mathew
-- 
"I don't believe that where German soldiers have been they can't go again."
 -- Volker Ru"he, German Defence Minister

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  9 Nov 92 23:46:59 GMT

In <ednclark.720769528@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:

>mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:

>>Because ending something is not the same as not having started it in the
>>first place.  For example, ending a nuclear war (via massive retaliation) is
>>not at all the same as not starting one in the first place, morally speaking.

>>So the answer to "If it's OK to cause a potential person never to exist, why
>>isn't it OK to cause an existing person to cease existing?" is simple;
>>"causing a person to never have existed" is not the same as "causing a person
>>to cease existing".  Hence my original comment.

A sentient fetus is a "person" in the phenomenological sense of the
word.

>Yeah, and also why not (if we take the view of pro-lifers) get every fertile
>woman we can cram into an in-vitro fertilisation clinic and inseminate her
>with a potential life.

Boy, talk about reading comprehension problems!  Fertile women and sperm
banks both contain potential human life: the unfertilized ova, and the sperm.
The fetus is actual human life.  Pro-lifers are not into greatly 
increasing the number of human beings on this earth; they are very 
concerned about reducing their numbers by violent means, in utero.

> It seems to me, that if we view the right to life
>above and beyond societal and existing person's well being, we have a moral
>obligation to do this. We have the capacity to make sure a much greater
>proportion of existing ova and sperm realise their potential so, according
>to pro-life, it seems to me we should do this. When will such madness end!

Soon, I hope.  The madness, that is, that preceded your last sentence in
the same paragraph.

Peter Ny.



Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: phys224@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Subject: information wanted please!
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:56:04 GMT

Hi everyone,i'm an atheist living in new zealand,and i am sick and tired
of religious types forcing their opinions on the rest of us.
I would like to know,are there any major worldwide organisations for atheism?
if so,could someone post/send their address for me please?
Or are there any in say the USA,that foreigners can join?
Down here in new zealand,we are doing quite well;we have over 600,000
non-religious people according to census figures,out of a total population
of 3.3 million(i think.).Yet we too have a fundementalist problem,with
a relatively scientifically illiterate population,very vulnerable to
fundementalism.I was just the other day talking with a fast food retailer,
he was trying to convince me the world was 6000 years old.I pointed out to
him that we can detect stars,galaxies etc many thousands of lightyears away;
unfazed,he told me the speed of light was faster in the past;so the stars
also were created 6000 years ago!he told me recent experiments have proved
light speed is not a constant.nonsense!I'm doing a P.hd in physics,that
didn't matter to him,i'm still ignorant compared to him about such matters.
Likewise,i have (almost) a degree in zoology,specialising in genetics/
evolution,but can't count the number of times my fellow citizins have called
me stupid for believing in evolution;my own aunt called me that!just because
i have degrees dosen't make me smart etc;but at least shows i have some,no
matter how meager,knowledge of science.In our country,people with university
educations are looked down on;we are currently having a study done on
whether to allow US nuclear ships back into our country,the research is
being done by scientists mostly,to see if nuclear propulsion if safe enough.
But most people want a referendum on it!how can people vote on whether 
nuclear power is safe?especially when more than 1/2 adults in this country
don't know the earth travels around the sun!
see ya all later

stephen botha,christchurch,new zealand.
From: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Don't believe anything you hear!
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:59:36 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b63519.student.cwru.edu

In article <jking.721037305@syzygy> jking@socs.uts.edu.au (smathy werp) writes:
>@expert.cc.purdue.edu (adamsma@expert.cc.purdue.edu) writes:
>>P.S.  If you don't believe that it gets dark at night, does that keep it from
>>getting dark? 
>
>mark ..
>	stay with me through this one .. because my answer is yes .. ok
>
>	dark is a humanly defined word describing a state of there being
>	too little light to adequately see (usually colours) detail in
>	objects observed .. hence if a human doesnt see the situation where
>	there is low light .. then NO it is NOT dark .. *8^)

Does this mean that the light does not exist if there is no human there to 
see it?

>	i also believe that if a tree falls and no-one hears it fall then
>	it makes NO sound .. so judge me accordingly

Sound, loosely defined, is air waves. If a tree falls, it produces air 
waves. Therefore, if a tree falls, it produces sound regardless of the 
presence of humans to detect the air waves.

If you define sound as something that a human hears, than someone _would_ 
have to hear it for it to exist.
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
| Damien Neil | dpn2@po.cwru.edu | Case Western Reserve University |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:20640 talk.religion.misc:20453
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:39:48 GMT

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?
-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Reader's Digest on prayer: amusing, or scary?
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:09:55 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu

dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:

Someone else writes:
>>...(I) might agree to organized prayer in a school is if it were done, 
>>say, at the end of the school day, so children who don't want to
>>participate could just leave instead.

>This has certain advantages.  It would not be done on school time.
>Presumably, no teacher would be required to lead an after-school
>prayer.  (Even though a major concern is the rights of the students,
>we must remember that teachers have rights too.)  Teachers of any
>religion could invite students of that religion (and those of other
>religions who are curious) to stay for an after-school prayer.  This
>can be done now without any new legislation.  I don't know if this
>would be considered an establishment of religion or not.

>I predict that the usual suspects will oppose this idea.

After hours use of public school facilities by religious organizations
or for religious purposes is in dispute in a few areas of this country.
A church group in (forgot the state) wanted to use their local high 
school auditorium after hours to show a video on teenagers and sex 
emphasizing abstinance, that was produced by a religious oriented 
organization.  The district denied their request to use the facility
citing separation of church and state.  A suit followed; I believe
it is still pending.

Most districts, I think, are quite willing to rent out or allow the
use of the facility during non-school time.  It is done now without
legislation, but standards differ from community to community. 
Which is fine; after all, it is a community decision.  However, 
there are some people who don't want any religious activity on any 
state property for any reason at any time. 
 
-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Epiphany
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: alt.atheism
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:53:09 GMT

In article <BxDDuu.1My@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> The Place That Is (God) writes:
> 
> Now that I have revealed myself, how can you disbelieve?
> 


	Sorry, not that interested in peep shows.
				(humor appreciated, though!)
					Erik Powers
Newsgroups: alt.atheism