HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:44:07 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64746.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Nov12.154900.18279@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
>Xref: usenet.ins.cwru.edu alt.atheism:38150 talk.religion.misc:62674
>In article <kmr4.171.721533749@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov12.003007.11189@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
>>>When combined with our theoretical understanding of physics and our everyday
>>>experience with gravity, yes we can take this evidence as proof that gravity
>>>actually exists.  Are you going to deny that gravity exists?  Can you prove
>>>that it doesn't?  What are these assumptions which are stated without proof?
>>
>>	In the words of Pirsig, "... and what it means is that the law of 
>>gravity, and gravity itself exist nowhere except in people's heads!"
>Yeah, yeah, and when you leap from that 10-story building and splatter
>your brains out on the sidewalk below we can go up to what is left of your
>head and point out exactly where in your head gravity exists.

	Please, read Pirsig, and try to understand his position, before you 
try to belittle him. He makes a very valid, and very important point. It 
applies not only to gravity, but to science as a whole.
	Let me try to help you along by asking a question, did gravity and 
the law of gravity exist before Newton? Think about it for awhile, and the 
implications of your answer.
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: Asserting No Gods
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:42:52 GMT

In article <92311.062359MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <n0d6ct@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org says:
>>
>>To answer my own question, I don't care if people think my
>>assertion of no God is "hypocritical." Does my assertion that
>>there is no Santa Claus make me thus? Easter Bunny? That's for
>>the theist to deal with.
>
>No quotes necessary. Asserting there is no god while attacking the
>other side for the opposite assertion is hypocritical, as do the
>rest of your assertions. Simply because some of them are silly
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>isn't going to confuse me. You have no evidence to prove your
>assertion, and therefore you have made the same mistake as theists.
>
>
>Martin Schulte

You may not understand this, but when Atheists mention God in the same
sentence as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny , the Tooth Fairy, and 
invisible-pink unicorns, it is because they are ALL silly.  The fact
that you treat the God question differently than the others means that
you have bought into some of what the theists are selling you.  I know
that some religionists get very upset when we do this, but we do it in
total seriousness to point out the insanity that is religion.

Jim Copeland
-- 
You lock the door
And throw away the key
There's someone in my head
But it's not me            -- Pink Floyd
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 04:57:38 EST
From: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is there a discrepancy with Soc.Religion.Christian?

In article <1992Nov8.080516.17590@news.ysu.edu>, ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley
Miller) says:
>
>In a previous article, rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) says:
>
>>Hello all
>>
>>I tried to post an article in "Soc.religon.christian"
>>3 times and of no avail.
>>Do they have a "scrutiny" process to weed out
>>any atheistic post?
>>
>
>Yep.  That group is moderated (read: Censored).  They won't allow any posts
>which might lead their readers to think for themselves....

Not quite. I have managed to insert a few choice posts in there myself,
and some manage to get a lively discussion going before mighty moderator
steps in and declares the discussion over. I should hope that just that
would get them thinking...hop on over and check it out, you may see some
of mine still surviving there...

Martin Schulte
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jking@socs.uts.edu.au (smathy werp)
Subject: Re: Don't believe anything you hear!
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date:  6 Nov 92 08:08:25 GMT


@expert.cc.purdue.edu (adamsma@expert.cc.purdue.edu) writes:



>P.S.  If you don't believe that it gets dark at night, does that keep it from
>getting dark? 

mark ..
	stay with me through this one .. because my answer is yes .. ok

	dark is a humanly defined word describing a state of there being
	too little light to adequately see (usually colours) detail in
	objects observed .. hence if a human doesnt see the situation where
	there is low light .. then NO it is NOT dark .. *8^)

	i also believe that if a tree falls and no-one hears it fall then
	it makes NO sound .. so judge me accordingly

	thats all
--


	| Life: Jason | IRC: elephant | email: jking@socs.uts.EDU.AU |
From: hbcs1010@blurt.oswego.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Homosexuality - genetic?close
Date: 11 Nov 92 13:30:25 GMT
Organization: SUNY College at Oswego, Oswego, NY

In article <1992Nov10.124050.25803@maths.tcd.ie>, pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:
> hbcs1010@blurt.oswego.edu writes:
> 
>>how can homosexuality be genetic? forgive me if i'm diplaying my ignorance
>>here, but isn't it a bit difficult for a homosexual to be the biological parent
>>of a child? the last time i checked, the most likely cause of homosexuality, at
>>least for males, was abnormally high estrogen levels in the mother during
>>pregnancy. but then again, that was a while ago.
> 
> Even I, biologically clueless as I am, have heard of recessive genes.
> Anyway, does the cause of homosexuality _really_ matter? If it was
> proved to be genetic, the 'phobes would still find a way to rationalise
> their hatred.
> 
> P.
> -- 
> moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
> clive  P a u l   M o l o n e y    "I'm pretty witty and you're itty bitty    pe
> james  Trinity College, Dublin     And isn't it a pity the city can't see?   vr
> brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien




is it too late to apologise for the original post? i posted it in a sudden fit
of brain-death and it's really embarassing.

sorry, everyone.
-diedre hauptfuehrer


there's a hell of a universe next door- let's go!
                                                 e.e. cummings
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: Would you believe anyway ???
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:04:45 GMT


In article <BxJz2K.zE@brunel.ac.uk> bm90ash@brunel.ac.uk (Adrian S Harvey) writes:

	In the future, Ade, it would be a good idea for you to keep
your line length to 75 characters or less.  It's a lot easier to read
that way.  Oh, and I've directed followups out of talk.origins, since
your article has no business being here.

> Question : If God exists, why doesn't He come and tell us?
> Would we believe Him if he did ??

	I might.  He's welcome to try me.

> Jesus Christ came to this earth ~2000 years ago to tell us that not
> only did God exist but that he wants to know us.

	So God is NOT omniscient?  Wait a minute...

> In true scientific fashion, how do you know that God exists unless you
> reach out to Him like he asks.
> If you really want to find out what is going on then reach out to God
> with a desire to know Him, then you'll know that He is there...

	Tip: Psychedelic drugs can help. 
	If it were so bleeding important to God that we acknowledge
his existence, he could just write a message on the moon, no problem.
Hopefully, his message would include some reasons for allowing the
world to degenerate to its present condition.

> p.s. Science cannot explain some of the biggest things in life  -- LOVE,

	What's to explain?

> Jesus said that "God is love " Therefore science cannot explain God -
> Simple ......

	"Simple"?  Yes, I suppose it is.  But I don't think you and I
have the same meaning of "simple" in mind... :-)

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.                                  +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
    WARNING: The Surgeon General is both a surgeon AND a general.  So watch it.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:44:13 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Nov5.202026.28765@nmsu.edu>, epowers@mccoy.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) writes:
> 
> Everything I've seen in this discussion assumes that evidence for the existence  
> of God must be scientific in nature (falsifiable hypotheses, etc.).  Please,  
> people!  I can't even prove I exist in a scientific manner!

   Why not?  The fundamental assumption of science is that one's
senses work.  I can tell by simple observation that I exist.  I
can't tell that *you* exist going only on this, but that's another
matter.

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel)
Subject: evidence against slavery of Jews in Egypt
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:46:32 GMT

How does modern theology (particularly religious apologetics) explain away
the evidence that  1) the pyramids were apparently not built by slaves but
by paid workers, some of whom reached levels of status high enough to get
tombs of large size (tomb size and placement is a measure of social status)
however the lowest physical laborers may have been slaves  2) murals seem to
suggest that foreigners were treated very well by the government and were not
summarily enslaved.
Basically my point is that there seems to be little archeological evidence
that Egypt had enslaved the Jews as described in the bible and the majority
of the slavery that did occur was 1) slavery of captured soldiers
2) slavery to pay back debt (indentured slavery) to a creditor
Can someone comment who knows a lot about the evidence for/against slavery of
the Jews.   

Mark
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:16:08 -0500 
From: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Chaotic brain behaviour and its influence on duplicating a person(was: Questions about other stuff(sorry, lousy title!))
	<1992Nov9.222823.2219@gacvx2.gac.edu>

>It seems improbable to me, anyway, that the body would duplicate the >brain's
>exact status in DNA. This means a clone would simply be a baby of the
<origional, with near identical genetic potential.
It wouldn't have to.  The brain works by transmitting electrical
impulses.  With accurate enough recording/replicating devices, we could
basically "install" the old person's memories onto the clone.  School
would be pretty useless too.  Why go to school when you can have all
this information just uploaded to your brain?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Help
Date: 13 Nov 92 04:32:43 GMT
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

Michelle writes:
> What if 70 to 100 thousand people from Portugal told you of the miracle they
> saw back in 1917 -- that is, the miracle of the sun? Would you believe these
> people (who btw were not all Catholics, but many were instantly converted
> at that moment)

Aw, heck.  Back in...when was it?..'91, I think...I saw
the moon EAT the sun!  The sky went black, right in the 
middle of the day!  And they say there is no God!
What fools!

Brian /-|-\  "Not blinded BY faith: blinded FOR faith!"
From: sham@cs.arizona.edu (Shamim Zvonko Mohamed)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: morality????????
Date: 4 Nov 92 22:38:10 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <dpn2.46.720833007@po.CWRU.Edu> dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:
>What is the value of a human life? What if a person is sentanced to life 
>imprisonment, escapes, and kills someone else? I don't know specific 
>instances, but I'm certain that this has happened.

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.

-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
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21038 talk.abortion:47654
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 12:02:48 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <ednclark.720769528@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) 
> >mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> >>Because ending something is not the same as not having started it in the
> >>first place.  For example, ending a nuclear war (via massive retaliation) i
> >>not at all the same as not starting one in the first place, morally speakin
> 
> >>So the answer to "If it's OK to cause a potential person never to exist, wh
> >>isn't it OK to cause an existing person to cease existing?" is simple;
> >>"causing a person to never have existed" is not the same as "causing a pers
> >>to cease existing".  Hence my original comment.
> 
> A sentient fetus is a "person" in the phenomenological sense of the
> word.

Quite possibly, but how do you know that any such thing as a "sentient fetus"
exists?

Also, are Ethiopians "persons" in the phenomenological sense?  What about
convicted serial killers?


mathew
[ Just asking ]
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 08:51:06 EST
From: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Asserting No Gods
 <1992Nov9.043152.25127@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
 <92314.054826MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Nov10.032119.14234@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>

In article <1992Nov10.032119.14234@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) says:
>
>>They're all baseless beliefs. Not
>>one of them is proven. Therefore, they're all pointless.
>
>But this is where you are mistaken.  Simply put, it is reasonable to assume
>the negative when no evidence exists for the positive.  I didn't say it
>proved the negative to be true, just reasonable to assume it.

This is something I can agree with. It tends not to agree with the way
most atheists go posting "there is no god" as if it were some cosmic
truth, but oh well. I can understand how it's reasonable, as long as one
remembers it's still an assumption. And it would seem you have.

>Christians feel similarly, but will readily admit that they treat the God
>question differently.  They do this because of their assumptions.  Now we
>have the agnostics who must logically treat the two questions as one, but
>can't help but feel that they are different.  You can't seriously say that
>you think that unicorns might exist, and that you're holding out denying
>them on the possibility that they do.

Like I've been saying, I don't rule them out. It's evident that I do
much the same thing as you, although I've worded it differently. I act
as if they don't exist because I have found no reason to think they do.
This is what I've said all along, and in comparing it with your method,
I find them to be similar. What's your opinion on this?

Martin Schulte
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Marriage a religion?
Date: 7 Nov 1992 02:04:19 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


	Why bother with the getting married crap...just shack up
and do the "wild thing" :-)


	I would not mind shacking up with a long legged Transvestite
or Transexual ( or a man or woman for that matter :-)     )



-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu | alias: White Rook
aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons to _NOT_ bash Fundies
Date: 11 Nov 92 11:12:08 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <2AFE04E5.24729@news.service.uci.edu> cnc@balboa.eng.uci.edu (Christopher Christensen) writes:
>TOP TEN REASONS TO _NOT_ KEEP BASHING FUNDIES
>---------------------------------------------
>
>10. Shame on you for bashing the mentally impaired!  Don't you know
>    you can't match wits with a half-wit?

Match, no.  But if a mosquito insists on bothering me, I'll slap it.

> 9. Any more mental dissonance could kill them, or worse, send them off
>    the deep end.  No, I mean the _REALLY_ deep end..

Possible, but that's where they're headed anyway, because if they
weren't already suffering from mental dissonance, they wouldn't be fundies.

> 8. If we ignore them, maybe they'll get bored and go away.

Most of them do, no matter whether we ignore them or not.  Has anyone
seen Mark Barry recently?  Or look at Edwin Bologna III.  He posts a
couple of idiotic articles and then goes into hiding for a few months.

> 7. Let "real" xians do it for us.

I wish they did.  If real Christians (no quotes) don't want us to lump
them together with fundies, they ought to follow up to fundies' articles.
I wonder why they never do it.  I'm left with the impression that in
their heart of hearts they think with the fundies.

> 6. Fundie assertions too idiotic to merit a response.

That's why I don't reply to Edwin Bologna III.  But some others have
more interesing things to say.

> 5. No self-respecting atheist's beliefs are shaken by fundie drivel/dogma.

Neither did anyone suggest such an atrocious thing.  It is fundies'
beliefs that are open to shaking.

> 4. What a waste of time, bandwidth, and logic.

But what fun!  :-)  We are willing to put resources into what we find
entertaining, and bashing fundies often is.

> 3. One phrase:  beating a dead horse

I would argue that this is just a side effect.

> 2. Newspaper headline:
>    "Fundie reads atheist newsgroup, goes crazy; kills 27;
>    says, <your name here> made me do it"

Which I won't have done.  If Joe Fundie feels like saying that I have
made him kill 27, he will say so no matter how I behave.

>1.  Gnawing fear that this fundie thing is all a joke aimed at the
>    humor impaired; "they're all laughing at me!"

Yea, Brother, that's how it is.  Glad thou hast seen the light.

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Questions about other stuff(sorry, lousy title!)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:28:29 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b63519.student.cwru.edu

In article <Uey44zu00WBME6MNZq@andrew.cmu.edu> "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>1)  What do you think happens when we die?

I don't know. I should find out in less than a century. Until then, I won't 
worry about it.

>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?

<shrug> If you can do it, we'll know. Until then, who cares?

>3)  What's the deal with supernatural type stuff(ghosts and the like)?

Again, who cares?

>4)  Will technology replace religion in the future?

Doubtful. But who can predict the future? Maybe it will. Yet again, who 
really cares? It's the present we have to deal with.

All these questions are rather pointless. Since we can't get the answers to 
any of them (except what happens after we die), why waste time worrying 
about them?
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
| Damien Neil | dpn2@po.cwru.edu | Case Western Reserve University |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fool! There is no God!
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 13:55:20 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
> In article <rex.720833929@cyclops> rex@cyclops.itc.gu.edu.au (Rex Baker) writ
> >Look up "Evidence that demands a verdict" by Josh Mcdowell - Chapter 10. 
> 
> This book is well known among alt.atheism readers, and is not
> regarded as a reliable source of information. Indeed, it is
> often used as an outstanding example of how *not* to convince
> reasonable people of something.
> 
> I know that it's quite likely Rex is going to ask why; does
> anyone have an archived copy of Jim Perry's excellent critique
> of the book? Maybe we should consider asking mathew to add it
> to the FAQ; it seems like every couple of weeks somebody
> brings it up.

I have a commentary for "Evidence..." which Jim Meritt sent to me.  It's on
the archive server.  It's 3561 lines long, and includes comments by Jim Perry
and others.

Send mail to archive-server@mantis.co.uk saying

   help
   send atheism/index

for information about this and other stuff available.

I don't think the entire critique should be an FAQ; but a pointer to it could
be, and it's probably worth mentioning how highly "Evidence..." is regarded.


mathew
From: jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jordan M. Wolbrum)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Questions about other stuff(sorry, lousy title!)
Date: 4 Nov 92 21:31:43 GMT
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I was wondering about a few things, and how the other people on the net
felt about them.
Brief list follows with personal opinions:

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.

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.

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

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.

Please post responses on a.a!  Thanks in advance for all friendly discourse,
-JW
 
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21133 talk.religion.misc:20977