HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Date: 12 Nov 92 01:59:52 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1992Nov5.170147.8341@news.cs.brandeis.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>I must also beg to differ.  Nothing science does precludes anything religion
>teaches.  Science only considers natural phenomena and therefore 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 therefore be no interference
>because there can be no comparison.

That's good so far.  Science deals with certain things.  The one fundamental
characteristic of these things is that they have to be falsifiable, which
entails that they be well definied.  Religion deals mostly with that which
is ill-defined and unfalsifiable, and its borders are infinitely mutable.

>  Science is beautiful but don't abuse
>it by applying it where it cannot be applied.

Ah.  I see.  So, what happens when someone plays around with science and
impinges on what the religious establishment decides is Hallowed Ground?
Well, there are a lot of choices:

1) Nail him to a tree
2) Burn him at the stake
3) Tie him down to a grill and burn him there.
4) Hang him by the neck until dead.
5) Have lots of people throw stones at him until he dies of internal injuries.
6) Put a door on top of him and pile stones on him until he is crushed to death.
7) Just torture him a little and threaten him with 1-6 until he recants.

I have no problem with the notion that science has a certain domain.  I do have
a problem with a community with a long history of killing people without trial
defining the boundaries of that domain.  It doesn't make me feel any better 
that I might be vindicated hundreds of years after my death.

-EMP
From: hbcs1010@blurt.oswego.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Bash Atheists
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:28:29 GMT
Organization: SUNY College at Oswego, Oswego, NY

In article <1992Nov3.143446.2028@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:
>>
>>Door to door atheists?  "Hello. Have you heard of Jesus?  Well, forget it."
> 
> Hee hee hee!  I love it!
> 
> -- 
> _/_/_/  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



sounds good to me- let's do it! all we have to do is come up with a name for our
pamphlets........... any ideas?

-diedre hauptfuehrer


there's a hell of a universe next door- let's go!
                                                 e.e. cummings
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cbrasted@iti.org (Charles Brasted)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is god worth it?
Date: 7 Nov 1992 11:25:07 GMT
Organization: The University of Adelaide
NNTP-Posting-Host: adelphi.itd.adelaide.edu.au

4chua_l@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:

>Would the world be a better place if religion was absent?  Isn't fighting over 
>some supposedly infinite, immortal being beyond our conception worth it?  

>	I have been attending catholic institutions as far as I can remember.  
>I did not particularly like the idea of religion being shoved down my throat 
>without any reason.  I tried to perform a sort of "epoche" similar to the 
>concept introduced by Husserland I concluded that yes it would be a better 
>place.  I am curious as to what other people think about the fact that some 
>do rely heavily on religion to direct them in their lives.  
>     
>responses are welcome at 4chua_L@spc.edu

Yes, but if there were no religious groups, what would all the social cripples
do on weeknights and weekends?
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:48:26 EST
From: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Asserting No Gods
 <1992Nov6.164252.27622@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
 <92312.020054MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Nov9.043152.25127@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>

In article <1992Nov9.043152.25127@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) says:
>
>There! You did it again!  You say that you don't treat them any differently
>and then say that it's not rational to assume none of them exist.  Don't tell
>me that you believe in invisible-pink-unicorns.  If you don't and still think
>that the God question is any different then you DO treat them differently.

You seem to think that there are only two sides to this. You think that
if I don't believe they don't exist, then I must think they do. Let me
tell you about my side to this. I think I tried to get the differences
straight before, but I'll try again. They're all baseless beliefs. Not
one of them is proven. Therefore, they're all pointless. The only way
god-belief is different is that I usually end up talking about it more.
If you think that my not assuming unicorns exist is stupid, fine. Just
remember that to believe either way is groundless. The only thing that
I do that could resemble atheism at all is to not worry overmuch about
it. Since none of these things have appeared, I don't trouble myself by
sitting around worrying that they might exist.

>You missed my point, namely that if you do treat these differently then you
>are doing so because of your assumptions, not because the questions are
>different.

Your point seems to be to try real hard to make me slip up and mistakenly
say that I treat them differently. I haven't assumed either way regarding
theism, atheism, unicorns, flurgles, etc.

Martin Schulte
From: dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: morality????????
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:34:54 GMT
Organization: University of Natal (Durban), South Africa
NNTP-Posting-Host: shrike.und.ac.za
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:
: In article <1d6vllINNkg@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
: >
: >Fact:  A capital crime trial and execution in the USA is more expensive
: >than a life imprisonment.
: >
: >How, then, do you justify the cost of capital punishment to the community?
: 
: 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.

Probably no more often than an innocent person has been executed for a
capital crime.
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Iraq Murders
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:38:40 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64746.student.cwru.edu

In article <721653258.11864@minster.york.ac.uk> aaron@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
>: That 20% is still an incredible number of hits. 
>
>  Which means that there were 10,000s of tons of explosives landing 
>  somewhere is populated areas. Wonderful. Glad to know the allies were
>  being so careful.

	No, the bomb's which 'missed' did not necessaraly hit populated 
targets. Most of the 'misses' were still in the general direction, it just 
hit a few 100m away. Alot of the 'misses' were movable targets, in the 
desert. Hoever, Bagdad targets which were missed probably resulted in 
civilian causilties.

	However, you're losing a sense of scale. The US military literally 
tied one hand behind their back in their attempt to NOT hit civilian 
targets. Tomahawk cruise missiles are EXPENSIVE. For about the same amount 
of money, we could have just carpet bombed most of Bagdad. We would have hit 
the same targets, and more. However, the US does not believe in gassing 
civilians, like Saddam, and we try to limit civilian casualties.
	
	There are two rules to war:

	1) People die.
	2) Nothing can change rule number 1.

	The civilian to military ration was much much better than in 
previous wars, especially WWII.

>
>: Again, I have yet to hear of this, even from many british people I know.
>: Any British people care to comment on that?
>
>  Yes, I saw it. Also the bombing of a baby milk factory that the US claimed
>  was a chemical weapons factory (as if bombing a chemical weapons factory
>  in a populated area would be a good way to avoid civilian casualties)
>  Their evidence that it was a weapons facility was the fact that it was
>  camouflaged. Iraq had recently been at war with Iran. All factories were
>  camouflaged.

	Why was there never any listing of this as being a Milk Factory?
Surely, if it were one, the Iraqi government wouldn't hide the fact from 
everyone? Why were there never any shipments of the raw material to and from 
the factory? What about the Keyhole pictures, which are reported to have 
shown abnormally high levels of activity for a milk factory.

	[ note: if anyone has claimed to have seen the actually pictures, 
	assume are lying. They are heavily guarded for national security. ]

>  Questions were asked in Congress as to why the Japanese were not providing
>  forces. Someone pointed out that they were not allowed by their constitution
>  which was imposed by the US. In fact their warships took over some patrol
>  duties in the Pacific to relieve US ships. They are also not allowed to do
>  this under their constitution but noone noticed.

	There were very very good reasons for this. We learned our lesson 
after the Germans rebuilt their army after WWI.
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism and morals and dating
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 11:40:28 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes:
> 	I myself have a Buddhist wife, which is almost the same thing
> as marrying a fellow atheist.  Have you considered an Asian spouse?

Er, there are western Buddhists too.


mathew
[ But possibly not mail-order ]
-- 
"When nothing's funny it gets easy to laugh 
 at the drop of a hat, or a bomb" -- DEVO

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:43:24 GMT

>>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.

Do you mean that the concept of parallel lines does not originate
from observation, or is it the fact that the postulate is formed
without using observed phenomenon as part of the proof?

Brian /-|-\
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Sat,  7 Nov 1992 02:42:35 -0500 
From: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Bash Atheists
	<1992Nov6.172521.20712@nmsu.edu>

>	I have now read the replies to this post, but most weren't worth  
>reading.  I am sorry you eventually apologized, although I'm still trying to  
>decide whether or not the apology was serious.  This was a perfect
example of  
>"put up a stupid post, get a stupid post in reply".

One difference.  The first post(TTRTBF)was funny.  The second one was not.
-JW
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:20926 talk.religion.misc:20745
From: epowers@mccoy.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality - genetic?  (was Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare)
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 07:03:40 GMT

In article <GERRY.92Oct28181119@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)  
writes:
> Get the weenies out, here comes a flame fest!
> 
> Despite what many people may believe from their misinterpretations of
> my previous posts, I have nothing against homosexuals.  However, I
> seriously doubt this claim about homosexuality being caused from
> physiological differences.  Let's face it, Occam says no way!
> Bilological structures in animals are the result of evolution.  Now,
> of what possible could homosexuality be?

	In the observations of Allonemobius fasciatus and Allonemobius socius  
in the evolutionary biology lab I work in at NMSU, we've noticed homosexual  
behavior on the part of more than one male cricket.  The theory is that if you  
can get another male to waste his sperm, yours has a better chance of being  
inherited.  Then the males that gain the ability to recognize other males and  
not waste their sperm in such a fashion have a reproductive advantage, and  
evolutionary pressures go nuts, much to our delight as researchers.

> 
> This kind of reminds me about the patriarchy discussion from a while
> back.  Certain people seem to believe that to legitimize woman's
> rights, they must produce evidence of ancient matriarchies.  Bullshit.
> Woman have right because all people have rights.  

	This is an assertion I have still found no reason to accept.  Where do  
"rights" come from?  What is the scientific base for rights?  What are the  
rights of a bacterium, say E. coli?  And if they have no rights, why not?   
After all, they are genetically more similar to H. sapiens sapiens than the  
archaebacteria.  THIS IS NOT A JOKE.  I really want to know, as right now I am  
of the opinion that the idea that anything has a right to anything is simply  
unfounded assumption.  I don't mind unfounded assumption (all ideas can be  
traced back to unfounded assumptions) but I want them recognized as such.


             					Erik Powers
The same with
> homosexuals.  The behavior, IMO, is learned, but in no way diminishes
> that individual's rights.  The bilogical argument sound like a cop out,
> "Oh, it's not MY fault I'm gay, my genes made me do it."  Face up to
> it people.  You made a decision to lead a particular life style.  Now,
> be proud of your decision and stop this wimp out crap.
> 
> --
> Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Any value in religion?? WAS Re: A Reply to "Sources of 'Real' Atheism
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:32:17 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <83389@ut-emx.uucp> shari@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Wild and Crazy Kind of Girl) writes:
>	One thing I am interested in finding out is how many athiests or
>agnostics actually think religion has any value??      My dad is an athiest,
>but he sent my sister and I to church with my mom because he thought the
>church taught morality well or at least adequately.  You an email me if you 
>like. (I'm doing this as part of a research project).
>

  A quick trip down to your local food bank or soup kitchen is all
  the evidence one needs to see that religion has some practical
  value.  Or walk into the nearest hospital and the odds are good
  that it's run by a religious organization.  

  On a more pragmatic level, at least it gets all of those theists
  off the streets on Sunday morning.

  Though I'll probably catch some flames for this, having a
  Christian morality is better than having no morality whatsoever.
  Particularly if you're not able to critically examine your
  personal morality, as many people aren't.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: Asserting No Gods
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:41:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.221216.1657@nmsu.edu> epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) writes:
>
>	I think it's just because you're stuck.  I've looked everywhere, and I  
>can't find alt.a-invisible-pink-unicornism.  Maybe it got taken off due to lack  
>of posters.
>
>						Erik Powers

No, its because it is _Invisible_!
jc
-- 
I sink like a stone
That's been thrown in the ocean
My logic has drowned
In a sea of emotion                   -- Sting
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:20916 talk.abortion:47339
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 15:36:55 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> In article <6X2LTB6w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> says:
> >So the answer to "If it's OK to cause a potential person never to exist, why
> >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 perso
> >to cease existing".  Hence my original comment.
> 
> It's not the same, but the reasons are the same and the outcome is the same.
> In either case, we are preventing something terrible from happening in the
> future.  In this way, the two are the same.

When trying to argue by drawing a comparison between two situations, you
can't just choose to ignore any major differences which exist between them.

In the context of morality, there is a clear difference between not causing
someone to live and causing someone to cease living.  Thus any moral argument
which completely ignores that difference is fallacious.


mathew
-- 
"Boy, they were big on crematoriums weren't they?"
 -- George Bush, during a tour of Auschwitz, 1987-09-28

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Help
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 04:40:03 GMT

>>|>I'd appreciate any input and anybody who would like to know where this
>>|>laboratory is, I can certainly give you that info.
>>
>>1) An open mind is great, just be aware that some people lie.
>>2) Science is a methodology.  It can be applied to anything real.
>>
>>So, where's the lab?
>>
>WHAT Lab??  

Sorry Mam (Sir? You could be a French name). 
What is the info you can give on where "this" laboratory is?
(lab = slang for laboratory)
"This" refers to the lab that reported the OOB stuff.
My question is solid.

;)

Brian /-|-\
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 10:35:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.034732.9928@nmsu.edu> epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) writes:
>In article <1992Nov07.014950.18496@bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)  
>writes:
>> In article <1992Nov6.135913.3366@newstand.syr.edu>,
>> dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:
>> |>I am interested in making this world a better place to live,
>
>	First, there needs to be a little defining.  Let's start by defining  
>what exactly is wrong, and why it is wrong.  I mean, why it is absolutely  
>wrong.  If the world only stinks for you, why should anyone else care?

This points to the number one problem caused by religious mind control.
The world stinks for you too, only you don't realize it, or at least
don't realize that it could be much better.  Therefore you're unlikely
to be inclined to do anything about it.  In fact, you're likely to
fight to keep things the way they are, or even make them worse.

There are many problems caused by religion, but let's consider one that
is very directly related.  Let's consider the problem of how there is
something inherent in many religions which cause their followers to want
to proselytize by whatever means they have at their disposal.  They might,
for example, try to get their prayers into the schools.  Or they might try
to get their religion taught in science classes.  Can you see how people
who do not want their children brainwashed, or people who would like their
children brainwashed with a different set of Truths, might be justifiably
upset at this attempt to indoctrinate their children?  Can you see how the
resulting friction naturally leads to a destructive divisiveness and hatred
amongst people?

You might also consider the problem of why almost every damn innovation
that has the potential to make life better for people is fought tooth
and nail by the people who stand to gain most from it, and why those
courageous enough to fight the idiots are vilified, persecuted, and jailed,
or worse.  For example, Margaret Sanger suffered this fate for promoting
birth control.  Does it really make sense that it seems to be the rule in
our society to persecute those who use their brains to improve the human
condition, and reserve our praise for those who are content to live their
lives in stultifying conformity?  I think not.  I think our civilization
was built by the labours of those heretics.  I think that the deluded
idiots who persecute them are much worse than useless.  Now go read
talk.origins or talk.abortion for examples of present day stupidity.
--
Should the human race not be extinguished by a nuclear war, it will degenerate
into a flock of stupid, dumb creatures under the tyranny of dictators who rule
them with the help of machines and electronic computers.  This is no prophecy,
just a nightmare.  -- Max Born.   **** dgraham@bnr.ca    My own opinions. ****
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Marriage and Hypocrite married atheists.
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:52:53 GMT
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.


	On second thought, the original post may have been just a
joke, baiting us.  If so, it got me.  What do y'all think?

-- 
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: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality - genetic?
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 12:40:50 GMT

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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: God is dead, dead, dead....
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 15:19:33 GMT

Interesting to note that we live in a country which believes that God
is dead and Elvis is alive... ;)

-- 
_/_/_/  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