HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fsmgs@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: atheist population
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:42:56 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <3nsnn2b@lynx.unm.edu>, bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
> How many atheists?  Good question.
> 
> Some of more reliable sources say that it's somewhere around 2% or so
> (and they usually define atheism in a rather strong sense so as to
> weed out "agnostic" views.)
> 
> An interesting survey (and I'd have to ask my friend for the source)
> showed that only 2% of the American public would consider the
> possibility of voting for an atheistic candidate for President.
> Without knowing his views on any issue, 98% of the public would reject
> him out of hand for claiming to be an atheist.
> 
> -- 
> Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
> bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dos105@rsphy2.anu.edu.au (Darren O'Shaughnessy)
Subject: Re: Dealing with theistic relatives
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 10:14:51 GMT

In article <18dlu4INNrcn@wupost.wustl.edu>, oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott
Oser) wrote:
> 
> 	Does anyone have any observations on dealing with religious relatives?
> How does one breach the subject of being an atheist and deal with the 
> inevitably negative response?
> 	Personally, I still find myself going to church with my parents
> when I visit them, because I know that if I refused and explained why,
> they wouldn't be happy campers, and I'd rather just waste an hour on
> Sunday than deal with the hassle.  And I'm absolutely positive my
> grandparents would flip out if they knew I was an atheist.

  Here's how not to handle it:
   I was at the (religious) grandparents' place for an (extended) family
dinner, and the young cousins started talking about heaven and hell and
what they were learning at school. I said, "Well, I'm going to atheists'
limbo-land." This wasn't appreciated. Met by dead silence, in fact.
  But don't be discouraged from telling them. My family accepts me for what
I am, although they now know to look out for the weak attempts at humour
over the dinner table.

      Signed,
              Pat Rourke  (you may not have heard of me)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.religion.kibology
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Pythagorean Reform Church
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 17:49:27 GMT

In article <6lnn0#a@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.224050.21786@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>In article <0kmn#3=@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>>Of course 4 could also represent male+male marriage and 6 represent
>>lesbian marriage :-)
>
>No...even numbers are female; odd numbers, male.  4 would be
>representative of lesbian marriage, 6 would be gay male marriage.

No no no! :-)
1+3=4 (gay marriage)
2+4=6 (lesbian marriage)

-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: esposito@uncg.edu (Andrew Joseph Esposito)
Subject: Re: Dealing with theistic relatives
Organization: chaos mostly
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:59:59 GMT

bwilliam@iat.holonet.net (Bill Williams) writes:
>Oh yeh... I'll give you some advice so you can answer quick on your feet
>to the question (by a misty eyed Mother) :
>"Well then, if you think there is no god, then whre did Granpa go when he
>died?"
>--- Answer : "I guess he went wherever he thinks he went"
>DO NOT SAY HE ROTTED IN THE GROUND, to your mother.

Debates aside, I told my mother I thought my Grandmother, her mother, was 
rotting in the ground.  I believe I said, "Worm food."  Then I went into the 
technical discussion of why she wasn't really wormfood.  Being treated with 
all those embalming chemicals and in a sealed coffin, no worm would want to 
eat her.

She had a few trying experiences where she claims that the ghost of my 
grandmother saved her life.  She fell alseep at the wheel, drove for about 
3 miles asleep (I do that all the time -- sleep drive that is) and as she 
was heading for an embankment she heard my Grandmother's nagging voice 
yelling, "Carol wake up, watch where you are going."  She woke up, avoided 
the accident and was really shook up.  This is the one example I can 
remember off hand.  I told her that "sleep driving" was not uncommon -- I 
do it often.  I also told her that my grandmother was on her mind a lot 
because of the trauma involved in loosing a parent.  I proposed that her 
subconscious mind offered that to jar her out of the semi-conscious state 
she was in.  She didn't think that there was any other explanation and she 
is a very rational person (as rational as a religious person can be).  She 
accepted my opinions, based on the fact that I had thought through the 
situation and come to a logical conclusion.  She accepted my opinions, but 
she still disagreed with me.  Most people are not that mature or curtious.

The audience makes the arguement.  I'd quote Marx in an Academic setting, 
and I'd bring up the Crusaids and the conflicts in the Bilble with laymen.  
I also avoid the subject at all costs with bible thumpers, unless I know 
that they posses some rational thinking ability.

Just my $(2.0 x 10E-2) worth.
--
Andrew Joseph Esposito

esposito@meg.uncg.edu
esposito@uncg.bitnet

--
Disclaimer:  The opinions herein are not necessarily the opions of any
sentient being, including the author.  All rights suspended due to the
election year.
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: FAQ please
Date: 3 Sep 92 10:29:35 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson) writes:
> How do you get hold of the FAQ?  I think I need to do some basic homework
> before I go any further :-)

[ This is a canned posting ]

This is a reminder about the alt.atheism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
file.

The file exists to help new readers avoid embarrassing themselves by asking
questions which have been covered over and over again.  Please read it before
posting.

To find a copy:

1. Check the newsgroup alt.atheism.  There should be a copy of the latest
   version of the FAQ file.  Look for the subject line "Alt.Atheism
   Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)".

2. Check the newsgroup news.answers for the same subject line.

   If you don't find anything in steps 1 or 2, your news system isn't set up
   correctly, and you may wish to tell your system administrator about the
   problem.

3. If you have anonymous FTP access, connect to pit-manager.mit.edu
   [18.172.1.27].  Go to the directory /pub/usenet/alt.atheism, and you'll
   find the latest version of the FAQ file there.

4. If you don't have FTP, send mail to mail-server@pit-manager.mit.edu
   consisting of the following line:

      send usenet/alt.atheism/Alt.Atheism_Frequently_Asked_Questions_(FAQ)

   The FAQ file should be mailed back to you automatically.

5. (Penultimate resort)  Send mail to info-server@mantis.co.uk consisting of
   the following line:

      send atheism/atheism.txt

   and our poor overworked modems will try and send you a copy.  There's
   other stuff, too; interesting commands to try are "help" and
   "send atheism/index".


mathew
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: assholes
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 11:47:41 GMT

graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
>I disagree. The point of the constructivist proof is that to say
>that "there do not exist P that are Q" is meaningless unless you can
>produce at leat on object staisfying P and one satisfying Q. 

torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>  This has nothing to do with constructivism in any sense known in
>mathematics or philosophy. I take it the concept is an arbitrary
>invention on your part?

As far as I can see it has everything to do with constructive logic.
As far as I understand the field it is one in which to prove that
there exists an X (having properties PX) satisfying some property P, 
one must produce an X having the property P. It is not enough to
derive that the propery P follows from the properties PX.

Perhaps instead of just spouting your mouth of and criticising
everything you disagree with, you could be a little more constructive
and outline why it is that you disagree. It makes for better
conversation.

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
Organization: Doctoral student, Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:06:53 -0400 
From: Christopher Dalton <cd27+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Atheist Clubs at universities

nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor) writes:

>Some friends of mine and I have been considering forming an
>'Athiest Club' on campus (as Clubs Day draws near), and are
>looking for some imput from people who either have ideas or
>experience with this.
> ...

"Jesus is comming, look busy"

That's from Andrew Werling's sig, he says he has it on a button.

If nothing else, such a club could make buttons and T-shirts with witty 
sayings on them.  Buttons and T-shirts with obviously atheist sayings on
them ("Jesus is a myth") would let other campus atheist/agnostics know 
that they are not alone.  This may seem silly, but isn't this part of the
reason there are sexual orientation or ethnicity based clubs?

At the undergrad school I attended, the afro-americans (all 10 of them) 
prolly outnumbered the atheists.  (An exageration, but I did go to a very
white, very Christian university.)  A "Praise the Lord, pass the fertilizer"
shirt might have made me feel more at home there.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.religion.kibology
From: jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth)
Subject: Pi and the US $$ system was (Re: Pythagorean Reform Church)
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 00:15:19 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Sep4.222423.21472@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>
>Be it known that this wicked man sent us a check for $PI! He is an evil
>user of irrational and unconstructable numbers.
>

Has anyone ever thought of making out a check for $Pi?  or for $e ?

I'm willing to take all these checks to the bank and see what they do when
I cash them.  Just spell my name correctly and don't make them out for
$ e^(i*Pi).

--
Jerry
From: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus & Sin
Date: 12 Sep 1992 04:48:15 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, jspence@cmptrc.lonestar.org (John Spence) says:

>In article <18ldivINN2f4@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:
>>
>>In a previous article, MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu () says:
>>
>>
>>>As far as I know, most of the so-called "atheists" online here qualify
>>>their disbelief as more like a skeptic's. Also, The skeptic doesn't just
>>>"believe"...he trusts his eyes.
>>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>Not always. I don't. I just act on the hypothesis that my eyes are giving
>>me an accurate picture of the world.
>
>This is very interesting. I was under the assumption that physical 
>observation was the worst form of empirical evidence. Am I wrong?
>

Err...was that addressed to me or the poster I was reponding to? I was
stating that the evidence of my eyes (i.e. that there is a world, it looks
like such and such...) is not neccessarily true.

However, I should note that physical observation is the ONLY form we have.
What else is there?
-- 
+-------------+------------------+
| Damien Neil | dpn2@po.cwru.edu | 
+-------------+------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bwilliam@iat.holonet.net (Bill Williams)
Subject: Re: Christianic Sacrifices
Organization: HoloNet (BBS: 510-704-1058)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 07:22:57 GMT

I love to read about religious wars.

I LOVE IT WHEN CHRISTIANS DIE FOR GOD.

Why? 

Because I am an atheist and recognize that the most sick evil people on
tha planet and in history have been crusaders for jesus.

I say let Catholics and Protestants "kneecap" each other in Belfast!
I say let the Kurds get slaughterred for their religious views.
I saw let the Moslems, Hindus, etc etc etc ALL DIE FOR GOD.

God is at the root of most of the wars in history.
God loves people killing in his name, AND SO DO I.




BWilliams, "Kill a Christian for Allah"
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Free will - the "Jarekian" heresy.
Date: 5 Sep 92 22:01:40 GMT
Organization: Xerox PARC

SUMMARY: The world doesn't care about what one CAN do 
         but about what one actually DOES do...

In <xknng=#@lynx.unm.edu> Mathemagician writes about Schroedinger's cat:

-Mathemagican:
>the cat is either alive or dead. [...] If god can tell that the nucleus
>is going to decay, then the cat is going to die...whether or not he
>actually takes the time to look. 
>
You are right about the cat and wrong about God :-D. Let me explain:

Recall the two slot experiment: A photon, two slots in its way, a screen
covered with molecules which change state when hit by a photon. Now, the
nucleus corresponds to the photon + slots system; laser + cat correspond
to a molecule in the screen. The state of any molecule is always either
on (hit) or off (not hit), ie. it's always a pure state; similarily, the
state of the poor cat is always a pure state (dead or alive). I does not
matter whether we look at the screen (at the cat) [*]. But the state of
any photon is a mixture of right-slot and left-slot paths and the state 
of the nucleus is, roughly, a mixture of decay-now and stay-stable paths
so it matters whether we look at it or not [**]. So indeed, you cannot
affect the fate of your cat by looking or not looking at the animal as
you cannot affect the diffraction picture by looking or not looking at
the screen; still, you can change (or even control) the final state by
looking or not looking at the slots or by 'looking' or not 'looking' at
the nucleus (monitoring or not monitoring processes inside the nucleus).

What does this have to do with free will? Simply, the idea is that the
state of the future isn't determined (QM analogy: WILL the cat survive
or not?) if noone determined (observed) paths of underlying processes
and, naturally, if noone reduced the phase space by observing the final
state in the future (QM: the cat must be dead, thus only such processes
may happen which will kill the cat). 'Not determined future' means that
some external factor (human free - ie. external - will) may affect it
(QM: external observation of slots changes the diffraction pattern). It
does not matter whether God CAN determine the path (QM: whether you CAN
look at slots) or not. What matters is whether He DOES it or not. 

Briefly: The world doesn't care about what one CAN do but about what one
actually DOES...

_____
[*]   The hamiltonian of 'looking' commutes with the hamiltonian of the
      screen and with the hamiltonian of the cat, if you like [***].
[**]  The hamiltonian of 'looking' does not commute with hamiltonians
      which describe the behavior of photon + slots and the decay [***].
[***] We describe our systems in the basis of eigenstates of the
      'looking' hamiltonian ({alive, dead, on, off, right, left, ...}). 
_____

Best wishes,
             Jarek
======================================================
 .-----.            Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com       
 `-> <-'       I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Knoweth not.
Date: 11 Sep 1992 20:09:56 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


		I knoweth not a mortal who knoweth divinity. Nor have
I ever knoweth one who knew a divinial erudith mortal. I feel I shalt 
knoweth divinity. I scoff at charlatans who claimeth to know divinity,
yeth canst showeth not; those who are prodigaleth of mystics and show
derisiveness towards the even minded and the temperate.

-- 
	Over heard in a cosmology class:
		"What happened before the Bang? 
		 What happened before the Bang?
			Who cares what happened before the Bang!"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: assholes
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 15:44:39 GMT

In article <graham.715833468@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>(mathew) writes:
>(Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>This isn't fair and you know it, Matthew.
>>The nonexistence of God--unless one accepts Brian Evans's proof--is
>>an empirical question . The claim that square circles
>>do not exist is a logical one.
>>The comparison is therefore invalid.
>
>Actually I think it is a fair question. A constructivist would argue
>that the "claim that square circles do not exist is a logical one" is in
>fact an empirical question, in that to prove this claim you must produce
>an object satisfying the property "circle" and one satisifying "square"
>for the claim to be proven. And this is emprical.

>Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
>Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
 ^^^^^^^^^

 Hm...Me thinks that I'm a bit outclassed. I think I'll bail while I'm
 still ahead. Point taken, Graham.
 -Ekr
 

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.discrimination
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: Those wacky fundies at Fiesta!
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Distribution: rec
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:43:51 GMT

In article <0xwn!n_@lynx.unm.edu> johnchad@triton.unm.edu (jchadwic) writes:

- Anyway, I wanted to share this with the group. I find it absurd that people
- waste so much energy trying to keep other people from enjoying life and
- having a good time. I was also very happy to know that, while this group
- of evangelicals were allowed to voice their opinions, they are unable to
- stop a wonderful community tradition.

Yeah, whenever they do that stuff they usually fail miserably.  Every
"rock" concert I've been to has had a fringe group of Bible Beaters
standing outside the gates.  We laugh at them.  They deserve it.

- Viva Free Speech!
- Viva Freedom of Religion (and freedom from religion)!
- Viva Fiesta!

Amen!

--
Andrew Werling    awerling@nmsu.edu    yip@acca.nmsu.edu
Transmitting from Planet Yip--where everyone you meet 
			      is already dead.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: atheist population
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 13:44:43 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

How many atheists?  Good question.

Some of more reliable sources say that it's somewhere around 2% or so
(and they usually define atheism in a rather strong sense so as to
weed out "agnostic" views.)

An interesting survey (and I'd have to ask my friend for the source)
showed that only 2% of the American public would consider the
possibility of voting for an atheistic candidate for President.
Without knowing his views on any issue, 98% of the public would reject
him out of hand for claiming to be an atheist.

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Dealing with theistic relatives
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:27:58 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Sep11.164358.18249@mercury.unt.edu> jackson@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Bruce Jackson) writes:
>I do not agree that it is ok to lie to avoid confrontation.  There may not
>be any sin involved but there is a moral imperative.  Everyone must stand
>for what they believe is true.  If what you believe is not worth defending
>than it is probably not worth believing in.

This adds the hidden assumptions "if you lie about something, you aren't
defending" and "if you don't defend something _all_the_time_, you're not
defending it".

Besides, when does the truth depend on whether it's "worth" believing in?
If someone were to say he'd shoot me unless I were to say that triangles have
4 sides, I'd say that triangles have 4 sides.  Whether or not it's "worth"
believing that triangles have 3 sides is irrelevant.
--
"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
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Free will - the "Jarekian" heresy.
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 16:31:42 GMT

In article <dabrowsk.715231939@liveboard10> dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>Imagine yourself as such a being. Wouldn't you, first of all, learn
>about which things you have to know and what consequences would this
>knowledge have? So God is still expected to know best. If you don't
>think that He is a Stupid Encyclopeadian but rather a Wise one :-D.

But whenever I try to imagine myself as such a being, and start to think things
like "if I was such a being I would not put people in the position of having
to believe in me on faith" and "if I was such a being I would not act in ways
indistinguishable from my absence", people like you reject the idea that such
a being would act any way like me.  Why the sudden change of heart?
--
"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)
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:16645 talk.religion.misc:15796 sci.skeptic:16030