HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 19:31:39 GMT

I've reset the newsgroups to alt.atheism and alt.p.h.
This almost belongs there.

In article <1992Sep12.035348.29757@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.200405.22799@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>Mr. Werling, you have yet to DISPLAY any logic, therefore I am unable
>>to point out logical flaws for you.
>>You have simply continued to assert that telling children
>>of one's religious beliefs that being gay is sinful is immoral.
>
>He also claimed that teaching other forms of bigotry is immoral,
>a claim to which you also objected.
Yep.
I think that's unsupported too.

>>I have been and continue to be skeptical of that claim. You, sir,
>>have the burden of proof. I have and am asking you again to meet
>>that burden. If you refuse to do so, the only rational conclusion
>>to make is that you are unable to do so.
>
>Perhaps Mr. Rescorla, you could be a bit clearer about what your point
>is.  How the hell do you prove that anything is immoral?
I have no clue. That's why I don't make claims about
what is moral or not.

>Can you
>prove that murder is immoral?
No.

> Would it be immoral of me to teach
>my children that all people with a last name of "Rescorla" are evil
>and should be exterminated?
No.

>  Presumably, you would object if I did
>this, so if it's the word "immoral" that you object to, perhaps you
>could provide an alternate rational argument for why I should not teach
>my kids this.
I don't think you shouldn't. I wouldn't object if you did.
If I thought they were actually going to try to kill me,
I would probably take some action to prevent them from doing
that, but not to prevent you teaching them that.

>  I'm betting that any argument you can come up with
>applies equally well to preaching any other kind of bigotry, including
>that against homosexuals.
Which is why I won't try.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: End of the World...
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 21:13:27 GMT

In article <BuJ9Ar.CxF@phage.cshl.org> pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
>In article <davem.48.716235979@county.lmt.mn.org> davem@county.lmt.mn.org (David Mackmiller) writes:
>>and 2 thin lines at the end.  These are some kind of synchronization codes, 
>>which (I guess) also is the code for '6'.  Three of 'em gives you '666'.  So 
>
>some kind of sync code? too complicated. if i were building scanners
>for this thing, i would scan the digits and:
>
>	if (digits[FIRST] == 6
>	&& digits[MIDDLE] == 6
>	&& digits[LAST] == 6) {
>		ok();
>	} else {
>		beep();
>	}

in order for this scheme to be plausible, there must be a fixed
number of digits in every barcode (to define what the middle and
list digit is, of course). there is!
there are 6 digits before the middle 6 and 6 digits after it!

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:16732 talk.religion.misc:15851
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (Wild Child)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Date: 8 Sep 92 11:27:32 GMT
Organization: University of South Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: sirius.itd.adelaide.edu.au
Originator: daemon@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au

In article <1992Sep2.161859.2691@spdc.ti.com>, achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:

> 
> Sheer stupidity.
Come on Jeff, you're getting abusive here.
Religions were created out of fear of the unknown and as a legitimisation of
the barbarity of later rules (cf witch burnings, papal infallibility, divine
right to be king etc)

> Jeff Achenbach
> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
-- 
John McVey, Whyalla campus, Uni S.Australia
Electronic Engineering Student & Terror Tekkie G1 (at 19!)
9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au, or try
9051467f@wh.whyalla.unisa.edu.au
'An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.'  Don Marquis
'Those who believe in an afterlife won't be disappointed'  Me
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Obligatory disclaimer : UniSA hates my opinions...			     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Bonk on the head!
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992
Date: 15 Sep 92  10:45:38

Tag: Bill Williams (bwilliam@iat.holonet.net (Bill Williams))
 
BW> "I love to read about religious wars. I LOVE IT WHEN CHRISTIANS
BW> DIE FOR GOD. Why? Because I am an atheist and recognize that
BW> the most sick evil people on tha planet and in history have
BW> been crusaders for jesus. I say let Catholics and Protestants
BW> 'kneecap' each other in Belfast! I say let the Kurds get
BW> slaughterred for their religious views. I saw let the Moslems,
BW> Hindus, etc etc etc ALL DIE FOR GOD. God is at the root of most
BW> of the wars in history. God loves people killing in his name,
BW> AND SO DO I. B.Williams, 'Kill a Christian for Allah.'"
 
Even when these Christians kill children? Or other innocents?
 
Your words reveal you to be other than atheist. God did not
approve, nor disapprove, of all these killings and maimings,
because She does not exist. These killings and maimings are
performed in God's name.

--- Maximus 2.00
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is atheism experimentally refutable?
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:53:41 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <wmsn-=#@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>Where's my Linguistics book when I need it....
>
>From _Language:  it's Structure and Use_ by Edward Finegan and Niko
>Besnier:
>
>First, speakers are expected to give as much information as is
>necessary for their interlocutors to understand their utterances but
>to give no more information than is necessary.  If we ask someone
>whether she has any pets and she answers, "I have two cats," it is the
>*maxim of quantity* that permits us to assume that she has no other
>animals.  If it turned out that she had three dogs and llama as well,
>we would have every reason to feel deceived.  While what she said was
>not false as far as it went, the unspoken commandment not to conceal
>relevant information would have been violated.  Listeners expect
>speakers to abide by this rule, and speakers assume that their
>interlocutors believe they are abiding by it.  Indeed, without such a
>belief lying would not be possible.

I presume that the author of this book is working in a field
that is empirical in nature, i.e. that this maxim of quantity
is based upon examination of numerous users of language. I
am driven by this assumption to conclude that either I am
atypical of users of language, or I am mistaken about my own
assumptions in conversation (that isn't meant ironically,
incidentally, but sincerely).

Examining my memories and imagining a situation like the
hypothetical one proposed above, I find that I have no
feeling of being deceived when the hypothetical person
tells me about the two cats. Rather, I imagine some
(delighted) surprise upon disovering the additional
animals.

>The only possible reason the speaker would have for not mentioning the
>dogs and the llama would be if the person didn't consider them to be
>pets.

There are other possible reasons; presumably they are discounted
from the linguistics professors' point of view.

>>Consider "Do you have any animals on your farm?"  "I have over five hundred
>>sheep".  Is the farmer deceiving you by failing to mention a sheepdog, two
>>chickens and a farmer's wife?
>
>Yes, it would be perfectly reasonable to feel deceived.  While what he
>said is true as far as it went, it isn't that accurate (whether or not
>we consider the farmer's wife to be an animal).

I find this opinion counterintuitive and surprising. If
your report of the opinions of linguistics specialists
is representative of the assumptions of most people, then
it may explain a certain category of misunderstanding that
I occasionally encounter.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Beliefs are refusals to check the facts
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 02:01:51 GMT

graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
>>	1)	assume A
>>	2)	now having assumed A, I notice some "observed fact" F
>>			that agrees with A (ie: does not contradict A)
>>Now F is not supporting evidence for my premise A. The relationship
>>between then is one way from A to F only.

bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>A: I assume (for the sake of argument) that anything I can see is solid.
>F: I see a computer on my desk.  I touch it.  It's solid.
>The fact supports my assumption.

Two points - the fact does not support your assumption, it agrees with it.
Moreover you are not stating all your axioms here. 

>Because the fact agrees with my
>assumption, the assumption appears to be true and I will believe that
>anything I can see is solid, and I'll use that in my logic (I can walk
>forward one meter if I can see ground one meter ahead of me).  It is
>not the case that my premise about visible things being solid supports
>the fact that my computer is both visible and solid.

No your premises about the perceptions supplied by your sense of touch
supports your new found "fact".

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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Subject: Re: Free will -answer to your questions jarek.
Organization: Xerox PARC
Date: 31 Aug 92 04:35:00 GMT

In <graham.715148643@galois> Graham Matthews changes the subject and
carefully avoids addressing my original point:

-Graham:
>>>>This sounds to me like reverse engineering a specification for God.
-Jarek:
>>>this is the usual approach in scientific investigation.
>>>
This was my reply to your strange comment. You left it without any
further remarks so I assume that you confirm that your previous article
only appeared as critical but it was in fact only an explanatory note.
Anyway, instead of saying that clearly you chose to change the subject:

-Jarek:
>>>If the experiment does not confirm your choice of the attributes, 
>>>you change the attributes, not reject the experiment.  
-Ken Arromdee:
>>Changing the attributes, in this case, means changing "God's 
>>omnipotence isn't limited".  You obviously _haven't_ done this....
-Graham:
>To this I would like to add that...
>
If you agree with Ken, then please explain how did you come to the idea
that my alternation of the meaning of omniscience had no effect on the
limits of omnipotence. 

-Graham:
>...Jarek is clearly not much of a scientist, as there are often times
>when one is forced to reject the experiment. 
>
I can understand this only as your attempt to initiate a flame war,
because your remark is completely unrelated to the original article
which does not discuss how to verify experiments but only says how the
results of experiments (implied: classified as correct) affect theory. 

I also didn't say that 2+2=4, hence I don't even know arithmetics...


Best wishes,
             Jarek
======================================================
 .-----.            Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com       
 `-> <-'       I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
Subject: Re: atheist population
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 04:17:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.205511.3169@spdc.ti.com>
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>
>   I wonder if anyone has any idea what proportion of USA citizenry is atheist?
>I have a feeling it's much higher than most people imagine. I would guess there
>are many in the closet, so to speak, who may not admit to it if a poll were
>taken. Has anyone out there ever seen any estimates? I'm curious as to how
>much political clout we potentially have.
 
Based on old census information and a recent study, at least 7% and possibly
as many as 10-11% of Americans are atheists.  Naturally, there's more in some
parts of the country and less in others.
 
Since the only defining characteristic is lack of religion, political views are
all over the spectrum just like other characteristics.  You'd have a hard time
getting them to vote on anything as a bloc, unless it was on some topic very
closely focused on Atheism as such; even then you'd have differences of
opinion.  Bush's comment may be the closest thing we've seen yet, if the word
about it can be effectively gotten out.
 
Wayne Aiken                                            "You can BE what
PO Box 30904            slack@ncsu.edu                  you WON'T!!"
Raleigh, NC  27622                                       --"Bob"
(919) 782-8171          StarFleet BBS: (919) 782-3095
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is atheism experimentally refutable?
Date: 6 Sep 92 18:33:46 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <dlnnwt+@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.181731.26850@gallant.apple.com> mikel@gallant.apple.com (Mikel Evins) writes:
>
>>Examining my beliefs, I discover that I don't believe God exists.
>>On the other hand, I don't believe that God deosn't exist
>>either. Evidently, the first statement doesn't mean the same
>>thing as the second after all.
>
>Most people, I have found, assume that everyone has some strong stance
>upon the subject of the existence of supernatural entities...the
>concept of "I don't know" doesn't come into play...you either have a
>penny or a nickel...the concept of not having either doesn't come into
>play.
>
>Thus, I claim that a person who doesn't have a belief in the existence
>of supernatural entitties and also doesn't have a belief in the
>non-existence of supernatural entities isn't being completely honest
>by merely saying, "I don't believe god exists."  Because, in order to
>state the true feelings of the person, there needs to be an, "I don't
>believe god doesn't exist."  People expect other people to reveal all
>relevant information.  If I asked you how many pets you had and you
>replied, "I have two cats," I'd have every reason to feel deceived if
>you also had four dogs and a llama.

This strikes me as a very peculiar rule of thumb, but for all I know it
may be the one most people use. Past experience suggests to me, though,
that the normal course of conversation is sufficient to prevent any
issue of 'dishonesty' in the vast majority of cases.



Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)
Subject: Re: Johnson Part X of 3
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:59:06 GMT

I found the book review by Gould reasonable.  Although he could
have avoided the overuse of the adjectives, his basic point was
about the lack of biological knowledge of the author.  It was
not an Ad Hominem attack on the person or the fact that he is
a lawyer.  In fact Gould goes out of his way to state that a
lawyer's input can be very valuable.

He says:
"Now, I most emphatically do not claim that a lawyer shouldn't poke
his nose into our domain; no do I hold that an attorney couldn't
write a good book about evolution."

The most important point he makes is:
"science simply cannot adjudicate the issue of God's possible
superintendence of nature."  and in this he is right.  He makes
it clear that science neither affirm God's role in nature nor
denies it.  It simply has nothing to say about that subject.

I know of no book review that merits a rebuttal and in this
the editors  of Scientific American are right.  The original
volume contains many more pages that the small book review
and is enough for an honest investigation into the author's
point of view without needed to give a rebutal to a book
review.

--
Eli Chiprout
Dept. of Electronics
Carleton University	
emc@doe.carleton.ca
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: assholes
Date: 7 Sep 92 13:53:56 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> In article <ocTiqB7w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
> >j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:
> >> Wouldn't you really have to see all of existence to make
> >> such a pompous claim as "there is no god"?
> >
> >Wouldn't you really have to see all of existence to make
> >such a pompous claim as "there are no square circles"?
> 
> The nonexistence of God--unless one accepts Brian Evans's proof--is
> an empirical question . The claim that square circles
> do not exist is a logical one.

Care to explain why?  It seems to me that I can build an empirical circle
using compasses, paper and scissors, and then check experimentally whether it
has four corners each of which is a right angle.  No theory is involved.

How about the claim "No tessalating circles exist"?  I'm willing to let you
use empirical circles of a radius x constant to within 1mm, and made out of
any material you want.  I'll also let you empirically tile them with your own
hands rather than working out on paper whether they would theoretically tile
according to logic.


mathew
-- 
Bush/Quayle in '92!
God Bless America!
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Beliefs are refusals to check the facts
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:15:25 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) wrote (in article <graham.716188202@galois>):
>(Brian Kendig) writes:
>>>I think a better definition of 'belief' would be "a premise, supported
>>>by evidence and conjectures, which someone holds to be true."
>
>Premises are never supported by anything. If they were they would not
>be premises.

_False_ premises aren't supported (or, at least, there will be some
evidence that doesn't support them).  You can state a premise without
bothering with its truth or falsity, but if you find evidence that
leads you to believe a premise is false, you'll usually discard the
premise and not use it any more in your logic.

>	1)	assume A
>	2)	now having assumed A, I notice some "observed fact" F
>			that agrees with A (ie: does not contradict A)
>Now F is not supporting evidence for my premise A. The relationship
>between then is one way from A to F only.

A: I assume (for the sake of argument) that anything I can see is solid.
F: I see a computer on my desk.  I touch it.  It's solid.

The fact supports my assumption.  Because the fact agrees with my
assumption, the assumption appears to be true and I will believe that
anything I can see is solid, and I'll use that in my logic (I can walk
forward one meter if I can see ground one meter ahead of me).  It is
not the case that my premise about visible things being solid supports
the fact that my computer is both visible and solid.

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Calling facts "theory"
Date: 13 Sep 92 02:55:26 GMT
 <1992Sep12.150951.6706@iscsvax.uni.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a4@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Sep12.150951.6706@iscsvax.uni.edu>
marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:

> Don't be stupid, please.

Speaking of stupid, articles which quote 40 lines of another article,
and then append "Don't be stupid, please." strike me as lame.  I have a
suspicion you did not intend to post an article others would regard as
lame.  Perhaps you should try again (though you may wish to read the
helpful posts in news.announce.newusers first).
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: worthless comic strips
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:21:10 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Sep11.153652.12928@phillip.edu.au> lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:
>
>  It appears to me that the only thing wrong with BC is that paranoid
>evolutionists disagree with it, which in their eyes makes it wrong. All the
 '''''''''''''

What's an evolutionist?

>flack the strip has received recently shows a real fear of anything opposing
>evolutionary views.  Don't fall into the trap many evolutionists accuse
                                                    '''''''''''''

What's an evolutionist?

>creationists of, that is to suffer from tunnel vision.
>
>  I haven't noticed any posts condeming yoga/meditation/eastern philosophy in
>public schools. Don't be a Christophobe.
                 '''''''''''''''''''''''

Hold it. This is alt.atheism, a forum for atheists. Most atheists don't
give a toss what everybody else believes. And don't give a toss about
Jesus Bin Joseph/Jesus Bin Panthera/Jesus Christ. So long as they leave
us alone.

But when people want their creation myths taught as SCIENCE? I'll believe
that's not a backdoor attempt to get around the establishment clause of
the first amendment when the christian fundamentalists start demanding
that the Mayan creation stories get taught as fact.

When George Bush says that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens, or
couldn't be patriotic because "after all, this is one nation under god"
(which was added to the pledge of allegiance during the McCarthey era)?

When people like Pat Buchanan start using atheists as scapegoats for the
country's problems, and accuse us of being part of an organised onslaught
on Christianity?They're the paranoid ones.



>================================================================================
>lbarrass@phillip.edu.au                     Lindsay     
>================================================================================

Chris Lee
From: jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: god is not relevant
Date: 12 Sep 92 00:15:28 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


Don't say anything about coining new words. The fundies would- actually,
that might make things more interesting. Especially if they tried to,
you know, make up words of more than one syllable other than their
old standard ('godless-commie-heathen-bastard-secular-humanists', I think
it is).

Ouch. I just looked at that, and it's unnecessarily nasty. Shoot me if you
like.

-- 
Jessica McGeary
jmm25@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University
Remember! Arguments should be FUN!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism