HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
Subject: Re: Watsonville, CA
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:44:28 GMT

In <UeRBjeq00WBMI8QmFX@andrew.cmu.edu> ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis) writes:

>I am interested in an analysis of what is happening in Watsonville, CA. 
>There is a reputed resemblence of a pattern on the bark of a tree to the
>Virgin Mary.  Obviously, the pilgrims to this "miracle" are not the
>brightest people, but how can such folly be explained in the 20th
>century?  Would abolishing democracy be a desirable a goal or what? 
>[Cheer me up about the human condition, please.]

>Ironic side note:  the pilgrims in their enthuaism for the tree are
>stripping of its bark and killing it.  Isn't it an excellent metaphor?

>Michael Loomis

I refer the right honourable gentleman to the strip in Breathed's 
'Bloom County' where a piece of mould on a refigerator door grew to 
resemble (in the right light :) a profile of Elvis.  Miracles happened.

Gavin -- Firm believer that Opus is the new messiah.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rswiftrw@cc.curtin.edu.au (Rod Swift)
Subject: Re: Where God???? load of rubbish!
Organization: -=[ Curtin University ]=-  Perth, Australia.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 12:20:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul05.101233.23329@DIALix.oz.au>, shogun@DIALix.oz.au (Matthew Fitzgerald) writes:
> Ok, all the religious freaks have seen proof that God exists??? Bullshit!!

Try posting that to David Sparrow on Fight-o-net R55_Chat!

Rod
-- 
|            . . .   . . . . .        "Dear God.  We paid for all this stuff|
|        +  +  +     +  +  +  +  +        ourselves, so thanks for nothing."|
|    *   *   *       *   *   *   *   *                                      |
|R    o    d         S    w    i    f    t      -- Bart Simpson saying grace|
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Internet: RSwiftRW@cc.curtin.edu.au               School of Social Sciences|
|PSImail : psi%050529452300070::RSwiftRW                   Curtin University|
|Bitnet  : RSwiftRW%cc.curtin.edu.au@cunyvm.bitnet             GPO Box U1987|
|UUCP    : uunet!munnari.oz!cc.curtin.edu.au!RSwiftRW        Perth  WA  6000|
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14149 sci.skeptic:13058
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 11:46:08 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

tke@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (thomas.j.epstein) writes:
> Let me see if I got this right:  The article reports the interviewer 
> addressing the not-as-of-yet President as, "Mr. President."  This
> might be an indication that there was a typographical error, or it
> might be an indication that the entire article was a poorly-done
> hoax. In fact, it could be indicative of many things.

For example, I saw on a TV report someone sucking up to Clinton by addressing
him as "Mr President".

> You have your own personal guess on the cause of the inconsistency
> and seem to find that wild guess so lame that you need to solicit "a
> better suggestion" from usenet readers.

Ptbtphthth!

I just presented a hypothesis for the inconsistency, and solicited
alternative hypotheses.  I haven't decided on the One True Answer yet, and I
don't see why I should until I've heard a few possibilities.

>                                          Armed with no evedence whatsoever,
> rather than seeking the truth of the matter, you choose to  delete (falsify,
> corrupt, intentionally mis-inform, LIE ABOUT) a portion of the "information"
> which you intend to propagate.

It's called quotation, Mr Epstein.  If you think the quotation as is now in
the file is out of context or misrepresents your pal Mr Bush, why don't you
look up the reference and tell us what you find?


mathew
-- 
Ceci | n'est pas une pipe.
From: frazier@maxwell (Greg Frazier)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Wowzers
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:34:45 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:
: Wow. It seems like denying the existence of God would leave so much
: confusion about the mysterious spaces of life that one would not have
: the chance to enjoy the spaces that we do understand.

This seems like a strange comment, if not fundamentally
bankrupt.  Unfortunately, we are able to look back in
history and scoff at the Greeks, for believing that the
sun is a fiery chariot driven by the gods.  Given this
as a context, it becomes very unsatisfying to resolve
unanswered questions via a god or gods.  Personally, I
am very comfortable with the concept that there is a great
deal that is unknown to me.

: Each to his own, I know, but Hell, what a bummer.

I'm not sure why you think that this is a bummer.  But, as
you say, to each his own; I would be among the last people
on Earth to tell you that your point of view is incorrect.

: peace

And to you.

--


Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
From: souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:57:49 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <graham.711589846@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>(Stephen James) writes:
>>>Warning, warning, here we have the same old tired theist argument,
>>>"But, how could you not think that all this was not designed it is 
>>> all so complex and amazing." I have no problem with this. Read the
>>> book "The Blind Watchmaker" (I think that is the title). This book
>>> discusses this design argument and indicats how long a time these
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> things take, such that complexity can be derived from natural 
    ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> phenomenon (often the phrase random chance is used pejoratively)
>
>(Ridha Souissi) writes:
>>I will try to read this book.  However I suspect that the ideas
>>contained in it are mere theory, since nobody could go long
>>enough in the past to verify them.
>
>Exactly what do you mean by this Ridha?
>

See the phrase I underlined in Stephen's message and I think
you will understand what I mean.  If still not clear, please let me know.

>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
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14535 sci.skeptic:13359
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:11:05 GMT
Organization: SPS

Bush often says silly thinks in extemporaneous remarks.  Why do you people
think his silly statement about atheists is important?

If he repeats the silly statement or makes it during prepared remarks
or tries to take away atheists voting rights then we should take notice.

Take this idiocy out of sci.skeptic please. 
-- 

Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

...the most important change which extensive government control produces 
is a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people.
                    Friedrich A. Von Hayek
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 11:04:38 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

frazier@maxwell (Greg Frazier) writes:
> souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
> : No doubt about it.  Wanna bet? even an insect is much more complex
> : than a jumbo jet.  Man is able to construct an airplane, bute
> : he cannot create a bird. He would fail miserably to do so.
> 
> A pretty sorry way to judge complexity, IMHO.  Yes, we are just now
> achieving the technology necessary to manipulate genetics, but that
> does not necessarily mean that the genetics itself is so much more
> complicated.  I prefer the argument that the entire plans/schematics
> for an airplain could be encoded within a single strand of bird
> DNA as evidence of the bird's greater complexity.

Well, the human genome can be stored on a CD; it's about 600MB of
information.  However, a lot of that is redundant (in the sense that it
doesn't actually code for amino acids, it merely makes up part of the
tertiary structure of a gene).

I suppose this means that Emacs is getting to be more complex than a human
being...


mathew
-- 
Down, boy!  There's a good dogma.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Ethics -- a quest
From: agray@StarConn.com (Andrew J. Gray)
Date: 27 Jul 92 05:48:49 GMT
Organization: Starnet-Public Access UNIX--Los Altos, CA  415-949-3133



I just read another feeble attempt to prove the existence of God
(Spinoza), in my quest for a cogent discussion of ethics.  The work I
just read was in fact titled "Ethics", but strikes me as more or less a
vehicle for Spinoza to say that God "must necessarily exist".

Can anyone provide pointers to a discussion of ethics that is NOT based
on Judeo-Christian mythology?

Andrew Gray
agray@starconn.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: matthew's and Jim's views of free will
Date: 23 Jul 92 09:03:07 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

matthew seemed to say he has free will even if somebody else can predict his 
actions, as long as they don't tell him they've made the prediction.
I'm not keen on that...
First I'd like to dump the word 'prediction' - it might imply 'probably 
accurate guess' to some people.
Then I'd like to dump the person who makes this prediction - because what I'
m interested in is:
Are your actions predetermined by the laws of physics as applied to the 
biology of humans (in particular their brains and hence minds)?  If they are 
then you have no free will, whatever it actually feels like to you.

Jim seemed to be saying that this is the case, though he says 'free will' is 
a meaningless concept.  I guess that makes him a 'strong determinist'.
As he doesn't like the term 'free will', let me ask again in slightly 
different terms, just to check I've read him right:
Do we ever have a totally unconstrained choice of actions?  eg.  When we 
ponder a choice of 2 actions, are we really choosing or is the choice and 
the exact path of our pondering on the choice totally predetermined?

If Jim's right, then our path through life is a one way single lane road 
with no junctions, and whether or not we enjoy the scenery or hate it is 
also totally predetermined.  In fact, this posting was already predicted by 
the configuration of the Big Bang.  We're reduced to a spark of 
consciousness trapped in a vehicle we can't control.  Even leaving by 
suicide wouldn't actually be our own choice.

I don't want this to be true.
I'd like somebody to tell me it isn't.
Without invoking God in any form, because the only evidence of God 
acceptable to me is direct experience of His presence (if you can provide me 
with that, drop by immediately!)

+--Great Quotes of our Time-------------------------------------------+
|        You should never have a hobby that eats                      |
+--------------------------------------Amarillo Slim Preston----------+          
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England  (44)061-275-6033   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: wichmann@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de (Arne Wichmann)
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Organization: Fachschaft Informatik, U of Saarland, FRG
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:32:30 GMT

dmcanzi@watserv1.waterloo.edu (David Canzi) writes:
: In article <1992Jul20.175947.21159@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> timpson@nntpd2.enet.dec.com (Steve Timpson) writes:
: )In article <1992Jul20.135600.19367@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, ury@humus.cs.huji.ac.il (My Friend Of Misery) writes...
: )>Why is it so difficult for ppl to understand that There is no god?
: )
: )        Why is it so difficult for you to understand thaty There is a god?
: )
: )        Steve With_his_devils_advocate_hat_on        
: 
: Fancy that... a Devil's advocate advocating God...

If -as always- the christian god is meant by this: I see no problem there...
This god is a devil...
-- 
Na duw na feistr - o unrhyw fath na chr^ed
Arne Wichmann (wichmann@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ury@humus.cs.huji.ac.il (My Friend Of Misery)
Subject: Re: Existence of misery (was: Existence of god)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 09:47:38 GMT

In article <dabrowsk.711806880@liveboard10>, dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com 
(Jarek Dabrowski) Flame :
|> SUMMARY: No DAVE!!!, no MvA, no Shogun... Who will be 
|>          my next friend in misery?
|> 
|> In <1992Jul22.074201.23437@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> 
|> My Friend Of Misery '}' teaches me about phylosophy:
|> 
|> } Everytime someone posts something you can't deal with, you say "You
|> } don't know any phylosophy". SO: 
|> }
|> Every time a theists posts something you can't deal with, you say:
|> }
|> }f) Face it. NO GOD.
|> 
|> } a) please stop. 
|> }
|> Please stop. (BTW, there are kill files)
No I won't. This newsgroup is about atheism, In case you forgot. NO GOD.
NO GOD. NO GOD. NO GOD. NO GOD. NO GOD. NO GOD. Happy? 

|> } b) Suprise. I DO know some phylosophy. 
|> }
|> A suprise indeed. And I know some karate (I took LESSONS!). And some
|> cooking tricks. (For example I know how to cook eggs. Indeed. Believe
|> me or not. My wife has shown it once to me. She's an expert). 
Don't petronize me. When I say "Know" I mean University courses and a lot
of reading. You thinkk everyone who knows phylosophy is religious?

|> 
|> }c) It is clear that you DON'T when you post strange lines like 
|> }   "fundamental things about philosophy". If you knew phylosophy, 
|> }   even a little, you would understand that there is NO SUCH THING.
|> }
|> Hmmm. You seem to have just found one fundamental thing...

Hmmm. You seem to fall into the trap. Now, Oh Great Philosopher, Climb out of it.

|> I agree. There's a hell of difference between a phylosopher and a
|> philosopher. As between AIDS and aids.

That was SO mature. Flaming because of spelling. I'm not english speaker. Let's
see YOU writing a letter in hebrew.
|> 
|> }e) As for examples, you are good example of religious who tries 
|> }   to hide behind Phylosophy.
|> }
|> But you will track down, uncover, disable, and eliminate!
|> 
Exacly. I'm doing it about 2 years now.
|> 
|> Best wishes,
|>              Jarek

Writing "Best wishes" at the end of every post doesn't make you nice..
|> ------------------------------------------------------
|>  .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
|>  `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
|> I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET


-- 
Ury Segal          | The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the 
ury@cs.huji.ac.il  | University or IBM, Digital, Apple, HP or anyone else.
Phone: 02-971187   | They are mine, LO MIN HAHEFKER, as Bialik once said.
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: a butterfly?
Date: 29 Jul 92 13:52:19 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <28JUL199212180687@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> hanlon@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Casey Hanlon (SVER)) writes:

>Saw a news release the other day where some minister somewhere here
>is the USA had captured a butterfly that when its wings were spread
>had a picture of jesus on it.  Hmm, I wonder how they determined it
>was jesus?  It looked more like Charles Manson to me.  But then
>Charles Manson was jesus wasn't he.

>Casey Hanlon 

Isn't Charlie eligible for parole now?

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  I don't take part in any sport that requires me to change clothes  |
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44)061-275-6033  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: frazier@maxwell (Greg Frazier)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Hello?
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:24:44 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
: Are my articles not getting out, or is everyone studiously ignoring me?

It would seem to be the latter. :-)
--


Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism vs. Christianity (WHY?)
Date: 30 Jul 1992 22:17:41 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

 Josh Adams writes:

 My biggest reason (well, I think biggest) for not believing in god is that
 there are so many religions out there who all believe they are right and
 everyone else is wrong (yes I know it's not exactly like that, but most
 religions contradict) so how can any one of them be right? You, well, we'll

So what if most religions contradict? No one said it was an
easy subject. Let's face it: people have been and will continue
to ponder the very question of human existence as long as there
are humans. There are no easy answers no matter what fundamentalist
tells you; just because one has conflicting theories about something,
doesn't mean it isn't worth thinking/talkin about?

 Christians (randomly, of course) all think that Jesus is gonna come back
 or whatever, while the Jews say he won't. You are so set in your thinking
 that you don't realize that there are other possibilities than yours. So,

And you don't realize that what you say isn't the case. Christians
say the Christ has come, Jews say he has not. Some protestants
aren't even christians to begin with (i.e., they do not generally
believe Jesus was divine, but another "teacher").

You may say this is besides the point, but I just wanted to
point out that there are other possiblities than yours. .  ;-)

Dano
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 11:08:49 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> >But God can make the Bible more accurate in ways which don't violate free
> >will.  For instance, he could engrave them on indestructible tablets, and be
> >sure the tablets hang around.  Although there certainly would still be
> >errors (such as translation errors), there would be fewer errors since some
> >of the sources (copying errors, and errors caused by bad decisions on what
> >books are canonical) of error have been eliminated.
> 
> >In fact, God could even produce a new translated version (on similar
> >indestructible tablets) every so often.  It would not violate free will just
> >because there is no need to translate the Bible into English.
> 
> These things don't violate your definition of "free will."  They do,
> however, violate mine.  As usual, the discussion falls apart when we
> differ on what "free will" means.

So tell me, what is your definition of "free will" that is violated by Ken's
suggestions?  I'm curious.


mathew
-- 
Civilization is just a temporary failure of entropy.
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Atheism and spiritual feelings (was Re: Atheism and culture)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 10:26:40 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> In article <70170@apple.Apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
> >The perception of redness is *not* public because we cannot
> >compare it. I can have no experience of your perception.
> >The best we can do is compare verbal maps we make of
> >our perceptions.
> 
> In one sense this is true.  But in another sense, I can get 10 people to all
> look at an object which none of them have ever seen before, and they'll all
> independently tell me that the object is really red.

You might like to think that, but I'm afraid it isn't true.

In Russia, for instance, they categorize colours differently.  Shades of
colour which we would call "green" they might call "blue".  This also occurs
in many other countries.  And it isn't that they have fewer words for blue,
or more words for green, or something like that.  They actually categorize
colours differently.

The mapping between the colour as perceived by the viewer and words used to
describe that colour is nowhere near as universal as you seem to be implying.
It is certainly culturally dependent.

I could perceive everything as you would perceive it in a colour photographic
negative, and you'd never be able to tell.  My words for colours would map
onto different experiences, but I would have learnt all the words for
comparison between those experiences by talking to people like you, so we
would be unable to establish whether our mappings from perception to words
were the same.

>                                                                       This
> seems to indicate that although "red" is a perception, the presence of the
> perception means that the objects share some kind of real characteristic that
> the perception detects.

I can pick two objects such that a Russian will say they're the same colour,
and you will say they're a different colour.  Who's right?  I can do the same
trick the other way around; you'll say two objects are the same colour, and
someone from some other country will say they're different colours.  Who's
right then?


mathew
-- 
Ceci | n'est pas une pipe.
From: romo@netcom.com (Rafael Romo)
Newsgroups: alt.ensign.wesley.die.die.die,rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: Re: Ideas on how to cure the "Wesley Problem"
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:55:41 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder) writes:

>In article <1992Jul27.154205.3315@hubcap.clemson.edu> charlet@hubcap.clemson.edu (Charles E "Rick" Taylor IV) writes:

>Wes _did_ acquire depth this season.  Or did you miss "The First Duty"?

Not that I think it gave the Weasal *depth*, but _The First Duty_ is 
being rerun this week (at least in the SF bay area).  How nice to watch
the creature squirm.

RR

-- 
Rafael Romo romo@netcom.com ---

	Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that people
	aren't out to get you. 
Newsgroups: alt.ensign.wesley.die.die.die,rec.arts.startrek.misc
From: schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder)
Subject: Re: Ideas on how to cure the "Wesley Problem"
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:41:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.154205.3315@hubcap.clemson.edu> charlet@hubcap.clemson.edu (Charles E "Rick" Taylor IV) writes:
>ludwigj@CS.ColoState.EDU (Vilkata (Joe Ludwig)) writes:
>
>>learnd@lafcol.lafayette.edu (Dave Learn) writes:
>>>    After his science project kills his girlfriend, Wesley chases it all
>>                                         ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>It'll never happen.
>
>I want to see Wesley get *dumped*.  That might give him some actual 
>depth...

Wes _did_ acquire depth this season.  Or did you miss "The First Duty"?

-- 
--------------
Gary Schroeder		
schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov 
Brookhaven National Laboratory     "Home of the Big BNL Burger."	
Xref: sparky alt.ensign.wesley.die.die.die:23 rec.arts.startrek.misc:7584