HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sham@cs.arizona.edu (Shamim Zvonko Mohamed)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: morality????????
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:56:02 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <25833@optima.cs.arizona.edu> sham@cs.arizona.edu (Shamim Zvonko Mohamed) writes:
>What if a person sentenced to jail escapes and kills someone else? I don't know
>specific instances, but I'm certain that this has happened. We should get rid
>of prisons and make them all capital crimes.

In article <dpn2.51.720939977@po.CWRU.Edu> dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:
>A murderer has already demonstrated his willingness to kill. A thief has not.

The nub of the problem! Remeber, it's not murderers that are executed, but
people convicted of murder. Until you can prove that the two classes are the
same, you cannot use this argument.

Besides, you seem to think that sentences (whether jail terms or capital)
are society's revenge for the crime. (And the "victim impact statement"
crowd seem to also be in this camp.) Why do you think jails are called
"correctional" facilities? What are your views on the Islamic "Sharia"
justice - steal, and you lose a hand? He has demonstrated his willingness to
steal, and if he steals twice, he will never steal again!!!

How can you take an irreversible step when there is *any* uncertainty? Keep
in mind the clause, "beyond a reasonable doubt," not "beyond all doubt."

Doesn't the fact the US and South Africa are the only industrialised
countries with death penalties say something? (Coincidentally, these two
lead the list of percentage of the population in prison. So I propose an
alternative factoid: industrialised countries that institute the death
penalty have the highest crime rates.) (And these are also the only ones
without universal health care. I wonder what that says about the regard for
human life.)

-s
--
  Shamim Mohamed / {uunet,noao,cmcl2..}!arizona!shamim / shamim@cs.arizona.edu
  "Take this cross and garlic; here's a Mezuzah if he's Jewish; a page of the
    Koran if he's a Muslim; and if he's a Zen Buddhist, you're on your own."
 Member of the League for Programming Freedom - write to league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: johnsd2@jec322.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Questions about other stuff(sorry, lousy title!)
Date: 5 Nov 92 06:27:36 GMT
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.

In article <Uey44zu00WBME6MNZq@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|> I was wondering about a few things, and how the other people on the net
|> felt about them.

Shoot..

|> 
|> 1)  What do you think happens when we die?
|> I think it's just like a blown fuse, and when it's your time to go,
|> you're gone forever.

I dont think there's a specific time. I do think that when you are
gone, you're gone forever- but theres no time to go.

|> 2)  Without a soul, could it be possible to clone a human and copy all
|> of the original's memories into the clone, creating two of the same
|> person?
|> I think so.  I'm just tired of hearing people say "It just wouldn't be
|> me," w/o any justification.

I dont see anyway to pull this off- but if you did, immediately after
cloning, it would start having its own, distinct, experiences and
would diverge from "me".

Or perhaps Id diverge from it. :)

|> 3)  What's the deal with supernatural type stuff(ghosts and the like)?
|> I think it's a load of crap.

I think its just normal for humans to be superstitious. I wouldn't
worry about it.

|> 4)  Will technology replace religion in the future?
|> Believe it or not, I think it will.  I think the public in general
|> depends less on the concept of a God then ever before.  I also think
|> that science will one day disprove the existance of a soul, and will be
|> able to create complex life from non-organics.

I see a distinction between science and technology; Science cannot
replace religion tho- they are very dissimilar imho- but it can
serve one of the functions of religion; that is to explain the
unexplainable. I do not see this as the only function of religion:
it also provides an escape from death (tho, as I see it, this is only
illusion). Science, thanx to that annoying entropy thing, can't do this.

|> Please post responses on a.a!  Thanks in advance for all friendly discourse,

What, no flames? Aw, dammit. :/

-- 
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:14:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.005929.5275@bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.152613.19756@cs.yale.edu>,
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>|>Yes.
>|>
>|>>science: 1)systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc.
>|>                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
>|>See this...

>What about the "study" and "etc" parts?
I think they're less important.

>I think I understand how you split logic vs. science. My view of
>what "science" is might have been too broad.  One question, though...
>could you give some examples of mathematical first principles not
>dependent (or derived) from observation?
>That might clear things up for me.
The parallel postulate.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 04:52:28 EST
From: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Epiphany
Distribution: alt.atheism

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

Ok, "god," since we all know what marvelous things computer-friendlies
can do, why am I compelled to believe?
Scorpion from Mortal Kombat chucks his harpoon and yells, "C'mere!"
Hopefully I can follow through with an uppercut...
Sorry for digressing to a video game folks, but this is the equivalent
to what I wish I could do...just reel god in and have himself prove
himself to me, personally...
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: The Place That Is (God)
Subject: Epiphany
Organization: Elder of the Universe
Distribution: alt.atheism
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:42:30 GMT


Now that I have revealed myself, how can you disbelieve?
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God Is Silly
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:42:28 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <92315.021717MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <n0de5t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org says:
>>
>> I don't care if I have no evidence that God does
>> not exist, though I assert God does not exist. I assert the negative,
>> and it is up to the theist, whom asserts the positive, to produce the
>> evidence.
>
> Where do you get this? Does no one understand that there are more than
> two sides to this? Anyone who asserts something had better be prepared
> to back it up.

Martin, I keep backing it up, and you keep repeating this.

I'm going to map one of these damn special-function keys here to the
word `falsifiable' because I am getting as sick of typing it in as I
imagine everybody else is of reading it.

First you said you had read my burblings on falsifiability but didn't
understand them, so I tried to explain ("The deal is...", remember?).
No response. Then you said that you probably hadn't read them after all,
despite your having asked that specific question about what "the deal"
is with falsifiability and null hypotheses.

> I don't understand why you think that the other side has
> to prove you wrong. As if you can assert a belief and get away with it.
> Both sides, since they are asserting something, need to prove their
> assertions. Otherwise, I'm left with nothing at all--my present stance.
>
> Martin Schulte

I'll post the lot again if you like, but composing yet more articles which
say exactly the same thing has very limited appeal.

Confused,

England
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
From: EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: "God is unfair" Bible passages.
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:34:42 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

First, Elisha was the prophet of the JEWISH god, not the CHRISTIAN god, as Chri
stianity did even EXIST at that time.

Then, as I recall (it's been a while since I've taken a look at an OT in Hebrew
, and mine happens to be at home), the place where Elisha was walking didn't ev
en have trees.  Somehow he made trees appear, and bears emerged from the woods.
 And, although I don't recall the precise wording, I seem to remember the bears
 KILLING the kids.  This is also what I was taught.
Note that I don't have the hebrew OT with me for reference, so that this is all
 from memory.  I'll check up on it the next chance I get.

And another thing...I certainly don't recall this god as being very "nice".
He basically seemed to work this way:  Either you follow me and kiss my ass,
and I'll make you happy and powerful, OR you don't follow me and I make your
life a LIVING HELL  (of course Judaism doesn't have a Hell- Those of you that t
hink that it does, I want book, chapter, and verse of where this reference appe
ars in the OT)!!
Very kind god.   And before you start trying to refute what I say, let direct y
ou to BOTH books of Judges in the OT.  You'll see a good example of what I just
 said.

 Have a nice day!!  8)

       Eylon Geva

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eylon Geva            |   "Somebody please tell me that I'm dreaming,
geva@orville.psu.edu  |    It's not so easy to stop from screaming..."
exg106@psuvm.pdu.edu  |                            Iron Maiden
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Don't believe anything you hear
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 21:32:03 GMT

In article <Bx7ACM.27A@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, @expert.cc.purdue.edu
(adamsma@expert.cc.purdue.edu) writes:
|>Okay, so you're an athiest.  Don't believe in any God, Devil, angels, demons,
|>good, evil.  Don't believe in any higher authority then yourself.  That's
|>you right as a human being.  However, your lack of belief doesn't
change God's
|>infinite love, power, or being.  It doesn't change the fact that Jesus, the 
|>Son of God, died in a horrible fashion to save you from your sins.  It
doesn't
|>change the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead and now reigns in Heaven 
|>at the right hand of God.  It doesn't change the fact that you can have 
|>salvation and eternal life by accepting Him as your personnal savior.  Don't 
|>believe.  It doesn't change anything.
|>
|>Sincerely, 
|>
|>Mark    
             
Absolutly!  What a person believes in has no bearing on reality.
<smirk>

Not so sincerely,

Brian /-|-\

PS Talk to Brother Max lately?
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 08:37:20 EST
From: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A question

In article <Yf06qUW00WBOA99nls@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Adam M. Donshik"
<ad2u+@andrew.cmu.edu> says:
>
>In the begining of "time" Religion served a purpose to answer questions
>which could not necessarily be answered by the real world  (such as the
>reaason for the earth's movement, where we canme from), but now we have
>a better grasp on what it is that we are dealing with, so, What purpose
>does Religion serve now, in present society?

Depends on the religion, but some, say, xianity for example, have become
rather backward. Take their recent pardoning of...Galileo! That was only
a few hundred years ago, after all...god was used to explain away events
which couldn't be explained, mostly because people were scared of most
of those events back then. They're still trying to use god to explain the
unknown, and perhaps to keep the priests comfortable...

>Has it just become a control devise over humanity, or is it founded in
>some cosmic truth that we are not aware of?

Well I don't know about any cosmic truths, but it certainly looks like
a brainwashing tool at present.

>Also, Does any one believe that religion has been warped into a pathetic
>excuse for a societal control, or is it still puttereing along as it did
>when it was originated?

Well, we know that priests retain much less tangible power in the world,
as opposed to, say, the middle ages, when the kings of the world bowed
to the pope. So it would appear that religion has lost something and has
been warped as a result.

>I have incredible reservations about religion, but I do not think I can
>just pass it off.  Too many people are swept up in it's wake to have it
>(religion) be similar to a fly buzzing around annoying people.

Don't be too hasty to just jump on the bandwagon because it's there.
Lots of people can't handle the world without that nice crutch to
lean on. You don't have to "pass it off;" certainly considering the
fact that we discuss and debate things with the believers indicates
that we don't just write off religion altogether. But don't equate
masses of believers with truth.

Martin Schulte
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: God And StarTrek
Date: 9 Nov 92 09:46:36 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov  5 1992

A question from: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
ID: 1992Nov3.034845.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu
 
??> "Why is it that 2/3 of the posts on alt.atheism.moderated
??> have to do with extraterrestrials and Star Trek transporters?"
 
My older brother, Daniel, explained this to me many years ago.
(He lost his thinking ability one day, and he's been a Born
Again Fundamentalist Christian <hack! spit!> ever since.) He
said that when God comes and takes all the One True Christians
away (i.e. himself and a few dozen others) in the Rapture, us
lot left on Earth will explain it by saying space beings used a
transporter-beam to do it, thus no God would be considered
responsible.
 
So I assume the moderators of alt.atheism.mod think it somehow
connects.
 
As an aside, before my older brother lost his mind and found
God [sic], he was violent, abusive, and dysfuntional. Now that
he has taken Jesus into his heart and life, he is COVERTLY violent,
COVERTLY abusive, and still dysfunctional as hell! (Gee, just like
his father. . . . .) I am told by other people that when someone
turns to God / Jesus / Whatever, they think their problems go away,
but they only repress them in a different way.
 
Ain't religion grand?

--- Maximus 2.00
From: shari@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Wild and Crazy Kind of Girl)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: A quote
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:45:41 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX


My friend had this quote in his sig file... I thought it was pretty funny...

"Christ died for our sins.  Dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not
committing them?"              -Jules Feiffer
From: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What if there is a god?
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:19:26 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b63519.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Nov4.131825.164982@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
>>dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:
>
>>>In article <Bx0s7E.9zp@umassd.edu> rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:
>>>>SupDose there is a god.
>>>>Then what?
>
>>>Don't know about you, but it wouldn't make much difference to me.
>
>It's made a huge difference to me, in almost every part of my life.  It has
>shaped my beliefs, morals, actions and priorities.  Having a personal
>relationship with God changes everything.

Oh? He talks to you?

>>> I've 
>>>always felt that the existance or nonexistance of a god would have no effect 
>>>on how I live my life, so why should I care?
>
>Because God first cared for us.

So? That's very nice of her...why should this have any effect on the way I 
live?

>>Hear, hear.  Whether or not God actually exists, people will still worship
>>Him, or not.  Believing in this God does not apear to be in any way beneficial,
>>providing no motivation to pay any attention to this thing that may or may
>>not exist.
>
>As they say, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating"!

What does this mean? That I will enjoy believing in god, so I should? There 
are a lot of things that I would enjoy believing. A god is not on the top of 
the list.
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
| Damien Neil | dpn2@po.cwru.edu | Case Western Reserve University |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Posting to soc.religion.christian
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 12:08:24 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

awmurray@eos.ncsu.edu (ALAN WAYNE MURRAY) writes:
>                                           Anyway, if your post goes
> through with that line in the header, then wouldn't it by-pass
> the moderator??

Yes, but the next thing that would happen is that you'd get lots of angry
mail to your system administrator.

Most end-user software does not allow you to add Approved: headers anyway.


mathew

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Fundie Humor! (was Re: Top Ten Reasons to Bash Atheists)
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 01:54:05 GMT

rjg@doe.carleton.ca (Richard Griffith) writes: >
>
>A traveling secular humanist salesman has a flat tire and asks a
>Christian farmer if he can stay the night until he can call for help.
>The farmer tells him he is welcome to stay the night [hospitality]
>however God placed the farmer here to do the work of the lord 
>[charity] and he has already phoned his daughter[equality, and you can't
>have a farmer and travelling salesman joke without the farmers daughter]
>who works as a mechanic for AAA, and the salesman should be back on the
>road in less than half an hour[also no sex in a joke of this type].

But then all four of the salesman's tires blow out five miles down the
road under the weight of all the Christian pamphlets the farmer loaded
up the poor salesman's car with!

-- 
_/_/_/  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.
        "Sex is DEATH!"      Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
         -- Barbara Bush                                         -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Well.......... It seems that Clintons is IN!!!!!!
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:15:11 GMT
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.

In article <1992Nov5.162603.26991@mr.med.ge.com> coons@ct46.med.ge.com (James J. Coons) writes:
> Bush said: Atheists should not be allowed to be citizens.
> Citizens said: Bigots should not be allowed to be president.

	Well, to tell the truth, citizens said, "People who screw up
our economy should not be allowed to be President," but the effect's
the same, and I like it.

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.                                  +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
         "If only I could forget her."  "Pretend you owe her a couple hundred."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:38:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.170628.28428@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.220940.14904@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
>>Please point out to us Atheists examples of supernatural phenomena.
>>Is there any reason why you assume that such things exist?
>
>The point is that science by construction excludes such phenomena by
>requiring
>that everything behave according to natural laws.  So, acts of God (by
>definition supernatural) cannot be compared with scientific laws.  Religious
>accounts (we can specialize to Christian accounts, if you want) put forth
>supernatural phenomena which cannot be compared with the natural
>models put forth by science.

No, what science says is that the supernatural is not necessary to explain
anything in the universe.  I see that you didn't answer my question.  How
much more simple can I make it.  You also ignored and edited out the most
important part of my post which was: Why do you suppose the supernatural
exists at all?  What reasons do you have to believe this?  First you invent
the supernatural then you say that we can't experience it. If the effects of
God's actions can not be known or experienced in the natural world, then how
do you know they exist in the first place?

>>> 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
>>
>>Are you saying that we can't see the effects of God's actions here in the
>>natural world?  How do you know this?
>
>No.  I'm saying they cannot be compared or subjected to natural explanations
>since they are, by definition, supernatural.  Science and religion are not
>opposed in general.  They are only opposed by those who reject one or the
>other.
>  -- Scott @Brandeis

You can't take a lack of a natural explanation as evidence of a supernatural
one.  Please point out anything that without a doubt is the result of God. 
Science doesn't need to take the supernatural into account because there is
no evidence for its existence at all.  Before you continue complaining that
science can't be used to determine God's existence you must give us a reason
why you think that anything other than the natural universe exists.  Perhaps
science can't detect the supernatural because it is not there.

-- 
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: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject:      Read the FAQ
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 20:56:55 MEZ
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA16784; Fri, 13 Nov 92 00:36:14 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA26048; Fri, 13 Nov 92 00:35:59 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)   with BSMTP id 0744; Thu, 12 Nov 92 21:03:08 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

James Marcus typed:

>Also, the name of Jesus is recorded in other Christian and Non-christian
>texts.  There is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that the name of Jesus is correct, and
>that He lived on earth.

You are mistaken. The name that is given is more like Yeshua - not Jesus.
And the prophecy said that the name of the messiah would be Immanuel.

For the silly 'absolutely no doubt' claim, learn what a FAQ file is about and
read it.
Benedik
Newsgroups: alt.atheism