HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please Read This One!
Date: 20 Aug 92 11:47:29 MST

In article <1992Aug20.165526.22197@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> In article <1992Aug20.081539.290@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>>(To everyone)  Why do you waste bandwidth responding to this type of
>>post?  Why legitimize it with your answers?  There must be over a
>>hundred "Re: Survey" subject lines on my server!  I read this group
>>to get thought-provoking discussions going, not to see crude responses
>>to this type of zero-content post.  
> 
> Why is it that a post asking what you'd say to God to get into heaven is a
> zero-content post, but a post saying that God is in three parts which are
> really one except that they're not, isn't?  How am I supposed to tell the
> difference between zero-content posts and "real" posts?
> --
> I am of course experienced in teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.
>     -- Ed Nilges
> 
> Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
>      INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)

Good question Ken.  Let me define my use of context, and then I think
you'll see what I meant.  

I used "zero-content" in the sense that atheists here in alt.atheism
have defined it.  I do not mean that the original Survey did not have
meaning or content, but that its content was inappropriate to a.a.

When I post on the Trinity, I assume you are referring to my posts in
particular, it is in response to a question asked of me or to an
assertion that is in error.  I do not create a new thread like "The
Trinity and Why You Should Believe In It!" and expound at length on
issues no one has asked me about.  

If you follow a thread, you'll see that "real posts" may be of a
theistic point of view, but are in answer to a question someone has
posed, or they may be a correction or clarification of a previous
point that was made. 

So the difference between a "zero-content" post and a "real" post
is that the "zero-content" post is a gratuitously offered post that
no one asked for, does not address atheism specifically, that does
not answer a question posed, nor does it address or rebut a point
that was previously made.  Such was the "Survey" post in my
estimation.

Regards,

Jim
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Radio made me puke and get booked
Date: 21 Aug 92 10:21:09 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <170sucINNai@cardinal.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@cardinal.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>I am truly repulsed by Hinduism, because it is used to reinforce separation of
>class.  If you're born a peon, it is because you were evil in a past life; you
>are supposed to accept it and hope for better cards in the next hand.

This doesn't make Hinduism any different from Christianity and Islam,
except that "the next hand" is the next rebirth rather than afterlife.
But at least you can do something to earn a good rebirth.  :-)  And it
doesn't take a Hindu priest to take you that if your position in
society is low, it is because of your own (or your parents')
wickedness (laziness, say).

>Social inequality is completely justified.  I'm sure that the
>catholic theocracy of old Europe truly admired that system of oppression.

They had their own system of oppression, which was just as efficient.
Doesn't Paul say that those who are born slaves don't need freedom?

>Although I must say that tools such as "turn the other cheek" and
>"blessed are the meek" (or is that "blessed are the cheesemakers"?) do
>a very good job of keeping the upper class empowered.

Of course.  The job of every single religion on earth is to keep the
upper class empowered.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (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: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:09:08 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <1992Aug21.034754.6319@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>In article <92233.093053RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com writes:
>>In response to Griff's statement regarding the course of celestial bodies:
>>In the Qur'anic verse the word does not exclusively mean "circular" paths
>>traversed by celestial bodies. And I did *not* say that either. By rounded,
>>is meanst the path or trajectory traversed such that after some time the
>>particle orbitting comes to the same point. As such, circular, elliptical
>>and other such trajectories are included in "rounded."

>In hyperbolic trajectories, the particles do not come to the same point
>again.  Some celestial bodies travel in hyperbolic trajectories.
>--
Plus of course, taking eg earth, it goes round the sun but by the time it 
gets back to the start of the orbit, the sun has moved round the galactic 
centre, so the earth never gets back to the exact same place it started from.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  What should always be remembered about England is that from 1950   |
|  to 1957 one of the most popular acts on RADIO was a VENTRILOQUIST  |
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44)061-275-6033  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 21:28:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: world,local

In article <25024@castle.ed.ac.uk> loki@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Kashko) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.201550.15888@newsgate.sps.mot.com > titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
> >My religion says that paying taxes is a sin.  Does the First Amendment protect
> >me?  If not:
> >     why not?
> >     Does the same rule apply to the peyote case?
>
>	Paying taxes can be viewd as payment fot the services the
>government provides. Non payment can thus be treated as theft of services.

Since many states are now charging directly for the services, this is
not clearly the case. It now looks like the gov't is charging twice
for some services.

Also, charging everyone for services that do not use is a questionable
practice.

I'd say that the "services" argument is questionable at best.

> Taking Peyote for religious reasons should have
>nothing to do with the state.
> >
> >Mr. Giles earlier claimed that the Supreme Court's decision in the peyote case
> >somehow resulted from a mis-statement made by George Bush in 1988 while cam-
> >paigning for President.  How did a mis-statement in extemporaneous remarks
> >cause this ruling?
>
>	Because the off the cuff statements of powertful people are often
>treated as commands by the less powerful ("Who will rid me of this
>troublesome priest?")


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: johnf@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu (John Flanagan)
Subject: Re: A question
Organization: University of Hawaii, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 12:49:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.162258.15081@ncsu.edu> cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes:
>
>To respond to the post concerning my comments on homosexuality.
>
>I feel the following about homosexuality:
>
>1) Homosexuality is a choice, consciousness or sub-consciousness. At any rate 
>   can be changed.

This assertion contradicts medical evidence.

>2) Homosexuality, as far as I've seen, has never been the issue that it is today.
>   Why hasn't homosexuality been such a debated topic throughout history.

It has been debated before.  Greece is an obvious example.

>3) The Roman Empire was freat and powerful until the extreme moral decay 
>   weakened it.

What does this have to do with homosexuality?

>4) Homosexuals were the firing gun for AIDS.

You got that backwards.

>5) Looking at the make up of a man and a woman, it is quite apparent that they
>    were made to go together sexually. Not so with male-male or female-female.

Then why do men have asses and mouths, and women have tongues and fingers?  

>6) I do not think that a law should be made against homosexuality b/c I said
>   so or b/c it is in my religion.

Good.

>7) I doubt very seriously that all the "prejudice" in the world to homo-
>   sexuals is because of Christianity.

Me too.  But fundamentalist Christians are the most vehement
proponents, in the US, of discrimination against gays, lesbians and
bisexuals.

--John
-- 
John Flanagan                          ||"Pretty boys
johnf@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu           || with the sunshine faces
U. of Hawaii, Dept. of Physics & Astro.|| <mumble mumble>..."
2505 Correa Rd., Honolulu, HI 96822    ||            -- My Bloody Valentine
From: kml@cellar.org (Lazlo Hoover Toth)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: HAVE YOU READ THIS ?.............
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:10:54 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken) writes:

> In article <1992Aug11.231925.1@acad2.alaska.edu>
> atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
> >
> >I should finish the Bible, too, but I've read enough to know it
> >sucks.  Some things are simply a waste of time.
>  
> Is there a Cliff Notes version of the Bible for those people who aren't
> masochistic enough to wade through the whole thing?
>  

Actually, there is, and it's presently weekly from the pulpit.  It features
only those sections that are internally consistent.

Nother problem with the Cliff's Notes versions: you miss really cool 
stuff, like the story of the Levite and the Concubine Woman (Judges)
and Absolam having sex with his father's wives (Kings).  And the 
endless Leviticus...now when was the last time you heard that preached?


This message may not be rebroadcast without the express written consent of 
the Baltimore Orioles and Major League Baseball.  Send $2 for transcripts to
  kml%cellar@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com  - My other account is a Mercedes.
From: rad@genco.bungi.com (Bob Daniel)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Here is your proof=God Exists?
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:20:30 GMT
Reply-To: rad@genco.bungi.com (Bob Daniel)
Organization: Gentry & Assoc. Excelsior Springs, MO

In article <1992Aug12.204328.20497@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>I am of course experienced in teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.
>    -- Ed Nilges

Hehehe.  This is pretty funny considering that Socrates never left any
writings.  I wonder if he also read the writings of Jesus Christ (who also
never left writings himself).



Bob Daniel
rad@genco.bungi.com

"Bogus explanations often come from those who are insecure of being uncertain."
	- Me
From: clennox@vaxeline.ftp.com (Systems Anarchist)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Not killing as a moral absolute (was Re: Best Bible translation?
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:53:37 GMT
Organization: FTP Software, Inc., Wakefield, MA

Issues of morality generally center around *reasons* for actions
rather than the actions themselves.

For example, suppose A kills B.  What is the morality of the action?
Is it different if A genuinely thinks his/her life is in danger from
B, than if A merely gets intense enjoyment out of killing people?
What if *both* conditions are true; can the same action simultaneously
be moral and immoral?  Does the morality of the situation change if A
is delusional, and genuinely, but mistakenly, believes his/her life to
be in danger from B?  How about if A kills B just for fun, unaware
that B really *was* about to take A's life?

The problem, therefore, in defining an objective morality, is that the
issues we are dealing with (perceptions, emotions, cognitive
processes) are inherently subjective.  Essentially, an action is moral
or immoral only if the person performing the action *believes* it to
be so.

-- 
%SYSTEM-F-ANARCHISM, the operating system has been overthrown
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: denmckinnon@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (NEIL MCKINNON)
Subject: Re: Oh no, not again
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University 
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:39:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.154251.8897@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.uucp (Paul Neubauer) writes:
>From: 00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.uucp (Paul Neubauer)
>Subject: Re: Oh no, not again
>Date: 12 Aug 92 20:42:51 GMT

>In article <denmckinnon.4.713396128@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au>, 
> denmckinnon@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (NEIL MCKINNON) writes:
>> In article <exukjb.46.713118796@exu.ericsson.se> 
>>  exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>>>foreknowledge and man's free will.  It seems fairly clear to me that the 
>>>principles of excluded middle and of bivalence are universally applicable to 
>>>all declarative statements, regardless of their tense.  But I don't know 
>>>how to argue for this.
>> 
>> Why does it seem clear?  It seems very counterintuitive to me to say 
>> that a statement about a future free action is actually fixed (i.e. true or 
>> false) now.

>What is counterintuitive about that?  If I were to say something like
>"Bush is going to suspend the Bill of Rights and declare martial law."
>I think that quite a large number of people (probably a large
>majority) would be quite prepared to say that I was wrong (regardless
>of whether they liked Bush as a president or not).  In this case,
>saying that I was wrong is no more or less than saying that my
>statement was false.  That is, it already has a truth value (false)
>despite being "about" some future contingent (non)action.

All that can be justifiably attributed to them saying you are wrong (whether 
or not they think that saying this fixes its truth value) is that they 
suspect it will be the case that when this statement acquires a truth-
value (it aquires a truth value either when Bush declares martial law or 
Bush ceases to be in a position where he is able to declare martial law) 
that its truth value will be "false".

Neil.
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Not killing as a moral absolute (was Re: Best Bible translation?)
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:46:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug12.164820.19890@leland.Stanford.EDU>, yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes...
>In article <BsvKur.5yG@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
>|> For example, when confronting my parents recently, my mother claimed that 
>|> "Thou shalt not kill" was actually "Thou shalt do no murder" (as if that makes
>|> a large difference).

>Since this "commandment" gets brought up often (in this group) as being 
>an obvious (or unquestionable) moral absolute, I thought I'd thrown in 
>my $0.02.  I think the "do no murder" is better way to state it.  And, 
>yes, there is a large difference, but even that form has its faults.

[Analysis deleted]

In the aforementioned confrontation, my mother and I attempted to come up with
a mutually acceptable definition of "murder."  (She's a very thoughtful theist,
and loves to debate with me...  My recent stay at a Catholic hospital gave
her tons of ammunition.)  She was trying to put forth the notion that murder 
is "unjustifiable homicide," while I pointed out that most everyone feels that 
their murdering someone else is justified (with rare exceptions).  Finally,
she begrudgingly accepted my definition of murder as "non-accidental homicide."

Unfortunately, my father, a Colonel in the USMC who is much less amenable (no 
pun intended) to such debates, hissed, "So are you calling me a murderer?"  

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*      I'm the person that	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*      the president
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*      warned you about.    
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Organization: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adminstration / Boulder Labs
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 00:24:47 GMT

In article <19AUG199200055698@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>In Arizona, the feds recently seized gambling machines on Indian reservations.

Yup.  The situation is a _real_ mess.

(btw, they could have still seized the machines under a treaty where 
Federal agents are granted extraterritorial rights to enforce laws
agreed to under that treaty).


Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
Subject: Re: HAVE YOU READ THIS ?.............
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:53:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.231925.1@acad2.alaska.edu>
atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
>
>I should finish the Bible, too, but I've read enough to know it
>sucks.  Some things are simply a waste of time.
 
Is there a Cliff Notes version of the Bible for those people who aren't
masochistic enough to wade through the whole thing?
 
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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: johndunk@wpi.WPI.EDU (John Dunkelberg)
Subject: Re: Bush quote?(not the FAQ atheist one)
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 18:47:38 GMT

In article <5khy1r+@rpi.edu> mcgead@jacob.its.rpi.edu (Darren McGeary) writes:
>
>    I could have sworn that I just heard on the radio that George Bush has
>said something to the effect that 'You cannot be President if you don't
>believe in god'.  Has anyone else heard this?  I'm sure that they weren't  
>referring to the 'atheist quote' from years back.
>  

Unfortunatly, he appears to be right.  There was a spot in Time magazaine
about how Clinton made one of his political runs while not using the
usual video-spots of him going to church with his family.  In fact, he
gave a rather sectarian image.  He lost the election.  Next time he had
plenty of clips of his family going to Church every Sunday and being
good american christians.  He won.

john
-- 
| John S. Dunkelberg Jr. |"The devil went down to georgia, 
| johndunk@wpi.wpi.edu   | an' he was lookin' for a soul to steal.
|------------------------| He was in a bind, he was way behind,
|The Charlie Daniels Band: and he was lookin' to make a deal..."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:20:46 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug13.233830.1175@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
>In article <92226.014101U55870@uicvm.uic.edu> U55870@uicvm.uic.edu (David James Alexander Hanley) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug11.053433.19983@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
>>souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) says:
>>>
>>>Incidently, the people who didn't believe in Mohamed (PBUH) as
>>>a prophet of God at his time said that he was insane.
>>
>>  Gee, evidence that people at the time knew he was insane.  What more
>>evidence do you need?  Why do you persist in your delusion?
>
>Of course history has shown that he was not so, and those
>who made those accusations did so out of jaleousy and enmity.

"History" has shown no such thing; the faith and belief of individuals
is another matter.  As for the accusations, they are rather typical of
those made against those who claim to speak with angels, demons, or
deities, for instance Jim Jones (of the Guyana Peoples' Temple fame).
The presumption that someone who makes such claims is insane is quite
rational given the frequency with which those who make such claims do
in fact turn out to be insane, when they don't appear to be simple
charlatans, which I expect is more common.

>Also there are scientific facts in the Qur'an that were not known
>and were discovered only in the past couple of centuries.
>How can these come from a "desert nomad"?

Name three.  As you put it "Examples?"

>Ridha
-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 11:49:44 GMT

Me:
>>Ridha one could use this same kind of argument to support the consumption
>>of alcohol, the use of drugs, the rightness of Chrisitianity, .... etc
>>
>>As an argument it doesn't really cut much ice.

Ridha Soussi.
>I am not trying to use this as a proof of the truth of Islam,
>just showing the person who is mocking prophet Mohamed as a
>"desert nomad" man that this man is among the top who influenced
                                               ---
>humanity with the message he brought.

"Top" in what sense? Your whole previous argument suggests you mean "top"
in terms of quality, value etc. But as I point out the above argument uses 
"top" in a sense of "qauntity" which as a support for an argument about 
qaulity is pretty flimsy.

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
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (ELVIS)
Subject: Re: Subject?
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:40:56 GMT

In <34544@cbmvax.commodore.com> kominetz@cbmvax.commodore.com (John Kominetz - CATS) writes:

>In article <FeosPB2w176w@west.darkside.com> safecrac@west.darkside.com (Chris Colvin) writes:
>>Jesus Saves

>Bush spends.

Elvis lives.
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: ccx018@cch.coventry.ac.uk (Leslie Griffiths (Griff))
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:17:24 GMT
Organization: Coventry University

In article <1992Aug21.034754.6319@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <92233.093053RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com writes:
>>In response to Griff's statement regarding the course of celestial bodies:
>>In the Qur'anic verse the word does not exclusively mean "circular" paths
>
>In hyperbolic trajectories, the particles do not come to the same point
>again.  Some celestial bodies travel in hyperbolic trajectories.

Hmmph. Thanks very much, Ken, I think I already made that point. And don't
forget that the celestial bodies are all moving in respect to each other,
expanding away from the postulated centre of the universe, and that because of
complex gravitational interactions, many celestial bodies move in highly
irregular orbits.

>Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
>     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)

Cheers


-- 
Griff				\\         	ccx018@uk.ac.cov
^^^^^		       		 :-=       	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
		        	//
Newsgroups: alt.atheism