HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Here is your proof=God Exists?
Date: 16 Aug 92 02:03:26 GMT
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney

cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
>This is getting to be a hobby horse of mine... trivial interjections
>about probability which serve to detract from some main point which
>needs to be detracted from :-)
>
>It is quite possible to add up finite probabilities over an infinite
>period of time and get less than one, provided that the probabilies
>decrease with time.

They don't even need to decrease with time. In this case for example
the probability of winning on any given jackpot stays constant, yet the
sum of all the finite probabilities is still less than one.

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bzthomps@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Zac Thompson)
Subject: Re: New newsgroup proposal: alt.athiesm
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 02:31:19 GMT

In article <Bsyp3w.6rs@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:
> The purpose of the new newsgroup is, as with many other newsgroups, to
> provide an appropriate place for traffic that is unwanted in another
> newsgroup.  In this case, the purpose is to divert articles from people
> who can't spell atheism out of alt.atheism.
		    ^^^^	       ^^^^


	I beg your pardon?  Out of where?  |-)
	If you are going to complain about spelling...
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Not killing as a moral absolute (was Re: Best Bible translation?
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 12:45:33 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:
> In article <9ZuFPB1w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> |> Murder is just killing that the state has made illegal.
> 
> So, you are asserting that killing in self-defense and hacking
> a few people up with a chain saw are (nearly) morally equivalent.

We were talking about the difference between murder and killing, not the
difference between unprovoked killing and killing in self-defense.


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: yohan@cardinal.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Radio made me puke and get booked
Date: 20 Aug 1992 14:48:27 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cardinal.ksu.ksu.edu



From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
 What really pissed me off (and
gave me a speeding ticket) was that this wanker then proceeded to more or
less ignore the issue, concentrating on Hinduism itself, claiming that
Hinduism is the quickest path to having your body invaded by demons.
What bullshit. I am as atheist as one could get, but of all the religions
I mind the least, it's hinduism. At least they keep to themselves and
don't look down on you for not being one of them. Generaly nice people.
The point is, what exactly is this newsgroup for ?


Me:
I have to disagree (I know this is a going off on a tangent, but I'm bored).  I
am truly repulsed by Hinduism, because it is used to reinforce separation of
class.  If you're born a peon, it is because you were evil in a past life; you
are supposed to accept it and hope for better cards in the next hand.  Social
inequality is completely justified.  I'm sure that the catholic theocracy of old
Europe truly admired that system of oppression.  Although I must say that tools
such as "turn the other cheek" and "blessed are the meek" (or is that "blessed
are the cheesemakers"?) do a very good job of keeping the upper class empowered.

BTW, I saw Monty Python's "The Life of Brian" this summer, and anyone who hasn't
seen it should rent it as sson as they can.


Jon Newton - agnostic
  
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: suopanki@zombie.oulu.fi (Heikki Suopanki)
Subject: Re: priest observes
Reply-To: suopanki@phoenix.oulu.fi
Organization: Unixverstas Olutensin, Finlandia
	<1992Aug18.134052.8109@csrd.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:36:25 GMT


>>>>> On 18 Aug 92 13:40:52 GMT, skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) said:

>austin@apm.magadan.su writes:
Gregg>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gregg> This address is almost certainly bogus (su = Soviet Union?!?).
Gregg> % finger austin@apm.magadan.su
Gregg> unknown host: apm.magadan.su     (Try it for yourself.)

It is not an internet site, but:

zombie:~>nslookany apm.magadan.su
Default Server:  oulu.fi
Address:  130.231.240.1
Non-authoritative answer:
apm.magadan.su	preference = 100, mail exchanger = relay.fuug.fi
apm.magadan.su	preference = 200, mail exchanger = mcsun.eu.net

And the path of the original message:
Path: ousrvr.oulu.fi!news.funet.fi!fuug!kiae!relcom!usenet

So it most certainly came from ex-USSR. If the author is really a
priest is another question.


-Heikki

--
                                                                .0.0.
                         Have you fucked your wolf today?        _U_

Heikki Suopanki, Oulu Finland, I don't run a BBS.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,soc.motss
From: elle@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ellen Keyne Seebacher)
Subject: Re: A question
Reply-To: elle@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:53:25 GMT

cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes:
>I think the whole point of "traditional family values" not including gays
>would be the redefining of the word. As you know, tradional family refers
>to a male-female relationship. With the Liberal approach, tradional family
>would begin to include homosexual relationships which the Republicans (and 
>myself) do not want.

Heaven forbid we should redefine your precious "word" (looks like three
words to _me_), while restoring basic civil rights to millions of American 
couples.  Can't have that, it would somehow pollute your language.

Move it out of soc.motss, pinhead.

--
Ellen Keyne Seebacher            elle@midway.uchicago.edu
  "I get *tired* of being told to politely ask for my rights from people
   who didn't have the right to take them away in the first place..."
             --glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Reply to Gregg Skinner -- Christians and the Law
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 14:10:53 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <Aug.14.00.44.18.1992.19112@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>>I pointed out that not all christians agree with this, and that
>>many christians today still quote Leviticus as a reason to condemn
>>homosexual acts (while usually ignoring the penalty prescribed by it).
>
>You're obviously right that many Christians still quote pieces of
>Leviticus.  But if you ask them why they only quote pieces of it, I
>think you'll hear an answer that's closer to what the Christians here
>have been trying to tell you.  There's going to be some Christian
>somewhat who will prove me wrong, but almost no Christians accept
>Leviticus as a whole as binding on Christians.

Nobody here has claimed that Christians consider all of Leviticus
binding on them (or they'd spend all their time slaughtering critters
as sacrifices).  What is observed is that they selectively quote such
pieces of the OT as match their particular agenda or prejudice (for
instance the bits on homosexuality) while completely ignoring the vast
bulk of it.  The reasons for the latter are justified as you say.

>The upshot of all of this is the Leviticus as a whole is not binding
>on Christians, because Leviticus is part of the Law of Moses.  This
>does not mean that Christians have no moral principles.

I just had to keep this bit; it's so amusing seeing the shoe on the
other foot for a change...  Of course, since the NT neither provides a
new and complete moral standard, nor spells out which parts of the Law
are to be preserved, these moral principles are purely arbitrary (at
best they correspond to a guess at an absolute standard which we
currently have no access to).  Sounds UnSound to me...

>  Furthermore,
>since the OT and NT God is the same, we should expect at least some
>similarity.

This is at the heart of the discussion.  The Christian assertion is
that the OT and NT Gods are the same.  Conventional logic does lead
one to expect at least some similarity.  The non-Christian observation
is that there is very little similarity, and that the OT God is, by
the standards of the NT one, and of our current society (i.e. the
personal standards of the combined readership here), heinous.
-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.
From: che755v@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "civilized" west
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:59:34 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

In article <Aug.18.22.59.42.1992.12527@athos.rutgers.edu>,
 hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
> RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com writes:
>
>>Recently, some of my friends had to go through the US Immigration and
>>Naturalization Service (INS) for immigration to the US. They had
>>to state that they were not members of the Communist Party
>>and that they never were affiliated (of course, they were not, in any
>>case).
>
> The Constitution does not establish entry into the country as a right
> for non-citizens.  This means that the government can deny entry to
> people for doing things that it can't stop citizens from doing.  I'm
> sure when somebody said that the Communist Party is legal, they meant
> that it is not possible to prosecute someone for being a member.
> However it's possible to do more subtle things, including denial of
> entry, deportation, and also preventing members from getting security
> clearances, etc.  I suppose that means it's in sort of a gray area:
> legal but officially discouraged.

A couple of anecdotes:

My sister went to the States about two years ago.  About two years before
that she had been in Poland for a year, she had a scholarship to
study Polish language and history at the University of Krakow.  I can
remember there were a number of hassles about getting her entry visa
as a result (despite the fact that many Americans went to Poland on
scholarships also).

In about March of this year two people from this department were
heading to Zurich in Switzerland via the States. They were going
to take up post-doctoral positions in Zurich and had decided to have
a short holiday in the States on the way.  The trip had to be
rescheduled when one person's application for an entry visa was refused,
the reason: he'd forgotten to respond to the question about Communist
activities because it was the furthest thing from his mind and hadn't
thought it a very important question.  The matter was resolved by a
subsequent (hurried) application.

Peter D. Thomas
Centre for High Resolution Spectroscopy and Opto-Electronic Technology
Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
From: geoff@tyger.Eng.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Religious feeling
Date: 14 Aug 1992 04:12:09 GMT
Organization: SunSelect
NNTP-Posting-Host: tyger.east.sun.com

Quoth tcbruno@athena.mit.edu (Tom Bruno) (in <1992Aug13.174049.27208@athena.mit.edu>):
#
#I wonder if the whole system of belief and dogma didn't arise as an
#evolutionary adaptation to a massively powerful and complex brain. 

A Sherlock Holmes would immediately deduce that you had recently read
Stephen J. Gould's "Wonderful Life", followed up on his enthusiastic
recommendation of Kurt Vonnegut's "Galapagos", and unconsciously
imitated the latter's satirical position on the evolutionary
disadvantages of large brains.... :-) Not that I would claim to be a
Sherlock Holmes.

Geoff

PS This is just a flimsy excuse to plug both books, of course!
--
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...
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: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 06:50:44 GMT

In article <3_#n+6f.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.004028.12597@colorado.edu> bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:
>>BTW, if you truly want to pay no taxes, that's possible.  Take a vow of
>>poverty and live in a state that doesn't charge sales tax on food or
>>medicine.  You'll still get hit by Social Security if you earn _any_
>>money, but it isn't a tax.  So it _is_ possible to live with your religion.
>>It may not be easy, but that's your problem.
>
>Sorry Bear, but Social Security fails the "duck test" for taxes. It looks
>like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and yet you claim that
>it is not a duck. Would you care to differentiate between a duck, errr,
>taxes and SS?   

This is a rhetorical technique known as irony, use to demonstrate just
how hard it is to separate the church and state.  :-)

I know it's a duck, you know it's a duck, everyone outside of the Beltway
knows it's a duck, but you will never get anyone within the Beltway to
admit it.

Many people know the government keeps Social Security "off budget"
(which is why it can never be called a "tax"), but do they know why?

According to the _1992 Information Please Almanac_ the government
received $429.4B in social security taxes and contributions, but only
paid out $288.6B (1992 estimates).  The remaining $140.8 BILLION
dollars was used to help balance the budget.  It's hidden, but
there is effectively a 15% flat-rate surtax on most working Americans.

BTW, $140.8B won't pay the interest on the national debt (206.3B), but
it will pay for:  International Affairs (17.8B), General Science (17.5B),
Energy (3.7B), Natural Resources (19.5B), Agriculture (15.3B), 
Transportation (32.7B), Community Development (6.5B), Administration of
Justice (14.5B), and General Government (13.2B).

Ahh.  I long for the day I can get a few decades of almanac information
in a relational database on a CD-ROM....

Incidently, there was an editorlal in today's, ah yesterday's, newspaper
where someone actually counted the 128 times Bill Clinton raised taxes
in Arkansas in 11 years... and applying reasonable definitions (e.g.,
a tax increase on road fuels was counted as _two_ tax increases since
there was a tax increase on gasoline and a 'separate' tax increase on
diesel fuel) there were only 48 tax increases.  And about 48 tax
reductions.  Some of the tax increases were even major burdens, like
the $1.00 (yes, 100 cents!) charge per conviction of criminal charges.
Overall, Arkansas ranks at the bottom of all states in taxes collected.

George "No New Taxes" Bush, on the other hand, had 133 tax increases
when you use the definitions he uses in evaluating Clinton's record.
In 4 years.  Excluding the increase in FICA (which I think last occured
while Bush was in office).

Have a nice day.


Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: johndunk@wpi.WPI.EDU (John Dunkelberg)
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 03:17:15 GMT

In article <714047338.2728@minster.york.ac.uk> stuart@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
>David C. Choweller (davec@csufres.CSUFresno.EDU) wrote:
>: I recently heard that you Brits banned the Phil Collins song "Jesus he
>: knows me," because it was disrespectful to religion.  Is that true?  That
>: kind of thing is unthinkable in this country.
>
>No, it is not true.
>
>There is no mechanism for banning a song, no government department of
>censorship etc. In the case of libel it would be possible to get a court
>order preventing distribution/broadcast etc.

ummm.. one word:

Spycatcher

not song, book, and not particularly relevant to atheism, but an example
of censorship.  this was for the reason of threat to the state security,
but some would consider attacks on the majority religions similar.

john
-- 
| John S. Dunkelberg Jr. |"The devil went down to georgia, 
| johndunk@wpi.wpi.edu   | an' he was lookin' for a soul to steal.
|------------------------| He was in a bind, he was way behind,
|The Charlie Daniels Band: and he was lookin' to make a deal..."
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Reflections on atheism and hope. [was: Re: athiesm & hope]
Date: 15 Aug 92 00:26:26 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada




Re: Atheism and hope. A comment. 

<ahem>

Who needs hope? 

(This question actually leads into an interesting criticism of orthodox 
(i.e. non-Gnostic) Christianity.  Orthodox doctrine (tradition?)
states that we NEED the saving grace etc. in order to have a
good life in THIS world. You might call this the "Empty Heart" 
doctrine, after Pascal. (St. Augustine??) 

But is this true? It can only be answered
by each individual, speaking for him or herself. But if a person CAN
have a happy life without this grace, if a person does NOT feel inwardly
empty without adhering to the Athanasian Creed, than this doctrine is false.
Now, a Christian may say, "well, you're not REALLY happy..." but there is no
way for them to know. 

This line of reasoning has no power to persuade a Christian, of course, but 
it is useful, I think, in helping a non-orthodox Christian come to terms 
with Christianity.  Argumentation about whether Jesus really died on the cross,
or whether it was another man of the same name, leads us
nowhere.  The unbeliever quotes authority A. The believer quotes
authority B. They argue. The unbeliever quotes authority C to support A, and
vice versa, ad infinitum...

But if we test Christianity at the experiential level, and find it 
inaccurate, then we can start to appreciate it's nature as an artificial
doctrine that does not necessarily have any connection to experiential
reality at all. 

So... I put this question to readers of a.a.: Can you find (have you found?) 
a way to have a happy life without adhering to the doctrines of whatever Church 
is your personal bugbear?

A suspicion: the doctrine of Hell arose because people found a way to say 
"yes" to this question?

! Another question just occurred to me: ex-Christians, are you happier
as atheists than you were as Christians?  Do anyone's happiest moments
occur in relation to a doctrine??   Please post or e-mail responses: I'd love
to see how people answer this one. 

I'd also be interested to read any comments elicited by any of the 
above remarks. 

Cheers,
Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: DOES GOD EXIST?  (different from previous posting).
Date: 14 Aug 92 12:21:26
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com's message of Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:26:30 GMT

(I might get around to trashing the article that precedes this, but then
again darts would be no fun if the entire dartboard were the bullseye.
This is just a technical point.)

In article <1992Aug14.142630.7708@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:

   It has become accepted as a possible explanation for observed
   phenomena.  Scientific theories are subject to change as new evidence
   is discovered. When a better explanation than evolution comes
   forward, views will change. However, the only problem creationists
   seem to have with evolution is in human terms.  Evolutionary change
   in the earth's crust can be seen in a single human lifetime. With
   understanding of plate tectonics, paleontology, and sedimentol- ogy,
   evolution becomes difficult to deny.

Actually, "evolution" (really just motion) of the earth's crust (plate
tectonics) does not imply evolution of life.  The mechanisms are
entirely different -- no process of natural selection decides which
plates move relative to which other plates.

Actually, a lot of creationists don't much care for plate tectonics,
either, because it implies an ancient planet rather than one several
thousand years old.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: A question
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:35:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.191005.9049@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.162258.15081@ncsu.edu> 
>  cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes:
>>
>>To respond to the post concerning my comments on homosexuality.
>
>To respond to your response:
>
>>I feel the following about homosexuality:
>
>>1) Homosexuality is a choice, consciousness or sub-consciousness. At any rate 
>>   can be changed.
>
>Thanks Einstein.  The mere fact that you have not the slightest shread
>of evidence other than your malformed sense of importance to back this
>up doesn't bother you in the slightest.
>
>>2) Homosexuality, as far as I've seen, has never been the issue that it 
>>   is today.  Why hasn't homosexuality been such a debated topic throughout 
>>   history.
>
>Because people were a little more tolerant then?
>
>>3) The Roman Empire was freat and powerful until the extreme moral decay 
                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>   weakened it.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^

Argh, extreme moral decay huh?  I guess so, do you mean when the
empire convered to Christianity?  ;->  It seems to me that the
romans did pretty well under the statues of Apollo and Mars.  

Wake up!  What destoryed Roman  Empire is the corruption from the center,
and lead posioning in the wine, and most importantly, like clinton's
people are saying:

	"THE ECONOMY!  STUPID!!!"  

>
>The Roman Empire lasted a *hell* of a long time and the Roman Army was 
>chock full of homosexuals and did very well.  I guess love between the  
>men is good for morale.  Oh, I don't think many historians will agree with
>your "moral decay" argument.
>
[more flamings of homosexuality deleted] 

Y. Liu 

Newsgroups: alt.atheism