HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: geoff@tyger.Eng.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near thgeoff@tyger.Eng.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near thgeoff@tyger.Eng.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near thgeoff@tyger.Eng.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheists--born or made?
Date: 10 Aug 92 23:18:47 GMT
Organization: SunSelect
Old-Message-ID: <166tgnINNhff@seven-up.East.Sun.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tyger.east.sun.com

Quoth danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) (in <l8dof2INNau@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>):

#(Douglas Graham) replies:
#
# -Well, obviously something goes on in your head when you switch from
# -theism to atheism or vice versa.  I see nothing wrong with calling
# -it a mental phenomenon.  What we're trying to explain is why some
#
#Kevin was talking about a religious phenomena, not a "mental" one.

What, pray tell, is "a religious phenomena"[sic]?

Is it an observable phenomenon in the physical world?
Is it a measurable electrochemical phenomenon in a subject's
brain?
How is it demonstrably different from other "mental" phenomena?

This inquiring-mind-process-running-on-this-biochemical-processor would
like to know....

Geoff

--
Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect | In the years after WW2 it was said that Oxford
  (geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM)  | philosophers had found a cure for atheism.
         SunSelect,            | Young people coming up as atheists soon found
  a Sun Microsystems Business  | that they no longer knew what to disbelieve...
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: That Star Trek Episode
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:05:28 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <l85qipINNcgn@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
>Subject: Re: That Star Trek Episode
>Date: 7 Aug 1992 21:25:45 GMT

>(ken bell) writes:

> How many of you remember the episode from Star Trek in which the crew had 
> landed on a planet that was ruled by a greek-like demi-god, who straightway 
> demanded worship from the enterprising alien crew. Captain kerk refused to 
> honor the demand saying in effect 'he is no god.' Evidently Kerk had 
> some notion of what would constitute a being worthy of worship. I have an 

>Evidently you missed this required reading at the academy. The God
>in the episode in question, turned out to be Apollo. The story hinges
>on Kirk's archeological expert (who just happens to be buxom and
>swoons at the sight of "mighty" Apollo) first going with Apollo and
>then betraying him for Kirk.

>In the end (as always), Kirk discovers his "power source", part of
>which is dependent on "worship" to sustain him.

>In case you were interested. . .

>Dano

My point here, though, was that Kirk must have been operating with some noti 
on of what makes an entity worthy of worship. (I thought Apollo *was* a 
greek demi-god, god of reason or light, something like that? The same one 
Nietzche contrasted with Dionysius? I was a bad student.) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        Abstract Arts BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Subject?
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:36:44 GMT
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH


In a previous article, safecrac@west.darkside.com (Chris Colvin) says:

>Jesus Saves
>
Don't tell the republicans...they'll want to tax the interest.
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Peter...PETER!!  I can see    *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // your house from here!"          *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // Jesus Christ, from the cross     *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: re. radio etc. Slight retraction
Date: 22 Aug 92 06:06:59 GMT
Organization: University of South Australia

AH.. Made a mistake.

Possibly I meant Buddhism, which I think is different.
I thought about that after I posted it, by which time it was too late.


-- 
John McVey, Whyalla campus, Uni S.Australia
Enic Eng Student & Terror Tekkie G1 (at 19!)
9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au, or try
9051467f@wh.whyalla.unisa.edu.au

Those who believe in an afterlife will not be dissappointed.
				--me.
'An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.'
   				--Don Marquis
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: For all you believers
Date: 17 Aug 1992 17:59:51 GMT
Organization: bobo bolinsky, inc
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Adam Trent Phillips) writes:

 	Look....I did the god bit to make a point. No one has
 yet DISPROVED me as god. NO ONE has done a miracle for me to top.

 A. Trent Phillips     |personal E-mail:bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
                                              ^^^^^^^^^
                                                ||||||
It is of course obvious beyond discussion that god could not
be from Cleveland! Hey wait a minute. Maybe that does explain
something. . . .. .  :-)

Dano
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Subject: Amerindian Citizenship (was: Bush interview)
Organization: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adminstration / Boulder Labs
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 04:51:24 GMT

I've been digging in the attics and found...

_The Oxford History of the American People_ by Samuel Eliot Morison.
Volume 3, pg 337:

"In an act of 1924 Congress conferred United States citizenship on all
Indians born within the United States who did not already have it.
This boon was received with considerable skepticism, especially as many
states refused to let Indians vote -- New Mexico and Arizona did not
do so until 1948.  What most Indians wanted was to be let alone on
their diminished reservations, to live their own way.  Reservation
Indians, not taxed and not subject to the draft, in a sense were 
privileged, even if poor in goods.  Most of them preferred to continue
that way rather than be individual landowners with the duties that
landowning imposed."

On page 64 he notes that members of the Five Civilized Tribes, which
had supported the Confederacy during the Civil War, were made American
citizens in 1901.  They had been explicitly excluded from the Dawes
Act of 1887.  (BTW, the Cherokee are one of the Five Civilized Tribes).

There are also numerous references to treaties with Amerindian
tribes throughout the series, but I couldn't find a specific statement
that reservations were sovereign territory.  (The closest I could find
was references to the Supreme Court (which resolves treaty disputes)
overturning some sales of land owned by individual Amerindians 
after the Dawes Act.


Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 14:16:38 GMT

bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:
: 
: (Oops.  I started this thread and thought it had died).
: 
: Indian Reservations are sovereign nations.  Amerindians born on reservations
: are not U.S. citizens by the Fourteenth Amendment.
: 

I believe that there is an Indian nation in upstate NY that even
issues passports and that these passports are honored by many other
nations.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  I want to so HAPPY, the
Rosemount Inc.                                |VEINS in my neck STAND OUT!!
                                              |
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Objectivity
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:14:24 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <l8frfdINN3vg@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM| danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
|(Bob Beauchaine) writes:
|
|    What do you mean?  How could I account for the development of
|    something I don't even believe exists?  Or are you stating that
|    you have seen evidence of a moral objective code?  If so, how
|    "objective" is it?  Is it cross cultural?  Independent of time?
|    Independent of circumstances?  If you can't answer yes to all of
|    the above, then I don't think you can make much of a case for an
|    objective morality.
| 
|And this argument taken to its logical conclusion would
|seem to suggest that the word "objective" is useless.
|Right?

  Not at all.  Take a large rock, say 20 pounds.  Hold it directly
  over your foot.  Now drop it.  You *will* hit your foot.  In any
  culture, at any time, under any circumstances.  It is an objective
  fact.  Morality, on the other hand, has always been defined by the
  time, place, and people who created it.  Consider that many
  activities that we now consider immoral have been practiced at one
  time or another in the history of the world.


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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A Struggle With Christianity
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:35:03 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <1992Aug12.132709.1045@bnr.ca> coop2b34@crchh75d.BNR.CA (Carey Dula) writes:

>I dated a girl for four years who had been in Catholic school all her life and
>she couldn't tell you the first thing about the Bible.  She was familiar with
>Catholic liturgy, however.  When we actually sat together and read the Bible,
>she was overjoyed and amazed at the sight of what was actually there.

I knew a girl who had been in Catholic school who couldn't tell you the 
first thing about compound fractions - nb this was in the days when we 
actually got taught compound fractions!

I know which area of ignorance worries me most

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  The trouble with having an open mind is that people come along and |
|  put things in it.   {attribution? I nicked it from Readers Digest} |
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44)061-275-6033  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Originator: root@mogate.sps.mot.com
Organization: SPS
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:15:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.000224.5519@colorado.edu>, bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:

|> That's what makes the Court's decision to uphold the DEA's ban on peyote
|> ceremonies more galling -- not only does it violate the Freedom of Religion
|> clause of the First Amendment (IMHO), it is being enforced in a legally
|> sovereign nation!  (I haven't read the treaties, but I suspect they require
|> compliance with U.S. laws, not necessarily U.S. government agencies'
|> regulations).

My religion says that paying taxes is a sin.  Does the First Amendment protect
me?  If not:
     why not?
     Does the same rule apply to the peyote case?

Mr. Giles earlier claimed that the Supreme Court's decision in the peyote case
somehow resulted from a mis-statement made by George Bush in 1988 while cam-
paigning for President.  How did a mis-statement in extemporaneous remarks
cause this ruling?
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Objectivity
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 11:15:03 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine) writes:
> In article <l8frfdINN3vg@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM| danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Da
> |And this argument taken to its logical conclusion would
> |seem to suggest that the word "objective" is useless.
> |Right?
> 
>   Not at all.  Take a large rock, say 20 pounds.  Hold it directly
>   over your foot.  Now drop it.  You *will* hit your foot.  In any
>   culture, at any time, under any circumstances.

Hmm.  What about in 2090, in a culture which lives in a space station in
geostationary orbit under zero gravity?

What about in a Virtuality virtual reality system?


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard
From: tcbruno@athena.mit.edu (Tom Bruno)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:13:07 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Aug13.191901.5444@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.181452.17042@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>>>... I mainly agree with Mr. LeRoy.  Leviticus does
>>>prescribe the death penalty for homosexuality.  And Jesus said something
>>>about not changing one jot nor tittle of the Law, and that he came
>>>not to change the Law, but to uphold it.  And Christians claim that they
>>>follow the teachings of Jesus.  Therefore, Christianity prescribes the
>>>death penalty for homosexuality.  What's wrong with my logic? 
>>
>>(In every translation I have seen, the word is "fulfill," not
>>"uphold.")
>
>You could be right.  I was speaking from memory.  I'm not sure I
>know what it means to fulfill a law though.  Do you?  Anway, the
>jot and tittle stuff still stands doesn't it?
>
>>Your logic is fine.  I got nothing so clear from Mr. LeRoy.  He
>>himself would have a problem with the last part because it relies on a
>>step from "Christians...." to "Therefore, Christianity...."
>
>Well, I'm at quite a loss as to what to use for a definitive description
>of Christianity.
>
>>You logic is clear and we can continue if you like.  I begin by
>>stating that Christianity includes most or all of the teachings of
>>Paul, one of its founders.  Do we agree?
>
>I dunno.  What do we do when the teachings of Paul contradict those
>of Jesus?
>
>>If so, I note that we have words from Paul to the effect "you are no
>>longer under the law, but under grace."
>
>But this directly contradicts the jot and tittle stuff spoken by
>Jesus.  Why should Paul, a mere mortal, be able to override Jesus,
>who was God?  One might almost think that the religion has been
>corrupt right from the beginning.

Bingo.


>--
>Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.


tom bruno
archaeology
mit
From: paulk@convection.engin.umich.edu (paul kominsky)
Subject: Re: Shroud of Turin (was DOES GOD EXIST?)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 12:17:14 EDT
Organization: Rarely
Originator: paulk@convection.engin.umich.edu


daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:
> Paul Kominsky expresses doubt as to the source of the custom of putting coins
> on the eyes of the dead.  He does this because I pointed out that coins on the
> eyes in the Shroud of Turin count against its authenticity:

I read the reference to BA that you gave before, and it said that
that the Greek custom involved a coin in the mouth.  That's why I
doubted the source of the custom.  (And I'm very surprised that you
make what appears to be a personal jab about my motivations.)

> >>	"Was the coin-on-eye custom a Jewish burial practice in
> >>	the Second Temple Period?" by R. Hachlili and A. Killebrew,
> >>	_Biblical Archaeologist_, Summer 1983 issue, pp. 147-153.

Now, regarding coins on the eyes, I'm not claiming that it ever
was a Jewish custom for burials, nor that it was done regularly.
The above article seems to conclude that there isn't any good
independent supporting evidence for the custom.  

But as an argument regarding the Shroud, this is inconclusive
unless there is strong evidence that coins on the eyes would
be positively excluded.  I can understand why coins in the mouth
might be excluded from a Jewish burial because of the Greek custom,
but this doesn't apply to coins on the eyes.

> If you are going to insist that the Jews of that time did put coins
> on the eyes of the dead, or that they stuck coins on the eyes of someone
> provisionally buried, it is your responsibility to produce some sort of
> documentation supporting your thesis.

Well, I am not insisting on that in general.  In one specific case, 
though, it could have happened.  I don't think the presence of coins
has direct bearing on the status of the Shroud.  It's more the other
way around--if the Shroud is genuine, then for some reason Jesus' 
followers put coins on his eyes, and it would be interesting to know
why.

pjk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
From: bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Organization: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adminstration / Boulder Labs
Distribution: world,local
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 21:55:46 GMT

I give up.  If you truly can't see how a presidential candidate
dismissing an entire group of people because he disagrees with
their beliefs is related to a Supreme Court justice (nominated by
the candidate's ideological predecessor) dismissing the acknowledged
rights of religious minorities because he felt it would _eventually_
lead to anarchy, I can't convince you.

Some day _you_ will be nailed because you aren't in the majority.
But then it will be too late to complain.

(BTW, before you think I'm exaggerating go to the airport and buy
a round-trip ticket to Miami (leave next flight, return the next
day).  Use cash.  Only have a small carry-on bag, containing $20,000.
After you are finally released, sans money, tell us these 'but it
only affects a few people' rulings aren't dangerous.  (Source:
_Philidelphia Enquirer_ series a few months back. The current _Utne
Reader_ says there is a proposal to extend the forfeiture laws to
include money sent to (poorly defined) terrorist groups... based on
precedence this law could be used to suppress legitimate political
organizations (e.g., Operation Rescue, PETA, probably NORML)).


Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: maoh@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu (Maureen O'Halloran)
Subject: Re: DOES GOD EXIST? (different from previous posting).
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:36:44 GMT

tjohn@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (THIAGARAJ JOHN : THIRD) writes:


>I hope we can have a sensible discussion on some of the proofs presented 
>below.

>		Has Matter Always Existed?

	[omit explanation of scientific FACT of radioactivity!]
> The
>calculated half-life of radium is 1590 years - uranium much
>longer.
>    
	[omit authors PERSONAL observation of FACT of radioactivity!]

>We know, therefore, that there has been no past eternity of
>matter!

>                    When Matter Did Not Exist
			  ^^^^^^
Actually Uranium etc.

>The radioactive elements in existence today have not yet been in
>existence long enough to have run their course, and disintegrated
>into lead. To have ALWAYS existed, without any definite time of
>starting in the past, this "life" period of radioactive elements
>long ago would have run its course. All radioactive elements
>would have long ago disintegrated into lead. Since these elements
>exist only for a definite span of years, and all the uranium,
>radium, thorium and other radioactive elements in the world today
>have not yet existed that many years, there was a time, prior to
>the duration of this span in the past, when these elements DID
>NOT EXIST!
>    

True

>Here we have definite scientific proof that MATTER HAS NOT ALWAYS
					     ^^^^^^	
>EXISTED. Here we have definite specific elements which once, in
>the long ago, did not yet exist. Then there came a time, later,
>when these elements CAME INTO EXISTENCE.

Some matter, i.e., heavy radioactive elements.
Yes, they were produced by fusion of lighter elements
in supernovae.  Apparently the author never came across this in all of
his 56 years of research. Funny, I remember seeing it for the first
time in my high school chemistry text.
The "theory" that heavier elements were created not in the "big bang"
but by fusion in supernovae is not a wild guess stretched to fit the
"theory" of cosmology, but an explanation  that fits experimental
observations of stellar spectra, abundances of different elements etc.


>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>The above was taken from the booklet "Does God Exist?" published by
>The Worldwide Church of God.  Original text by Herbert W. Armstrong
>(1892-1986).

Since the person who posted this article is not the author, I'll
assume that he is honestly unaware of how spurious its "proofs" are. 
If he actually wants a serious discussion I suggest he ask one ask one
question at a time.  Before asserting that scientists "have no
explanation" for some "FACT" that "proves" the earth was created a
short time ago, why not ask for the explanation?  I've no doubt most
of the people in this group are fed up with the same spurious proofs
coming up over and over again, but I'm new here and am continually 
astounded by the "FACTS" and "proofs" that come up.