HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amck@mcc.com (Alan McKendree)
Subject: Re: Bush no friend of atheists (but Clinton no better)
Organization: MCC, Austin, TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:03:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.195334.3774@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.152053.15655@mcc.com> ai.amck@mcc.com (Alan McKendree) writes:
>>[political disclaimer follows]:  BTW, this is _not_ to say I support
>>Bill Clinton in the upcoming election.  I've never heard either of them
>>talk for more than 5 minutes on policy or programs before saying
>>something with which I violently disagree.  I dread the next four years
>>under the leadership of whichever wrong-headed, philosophically corrupt
>>power-seeker gets the majority of votes this November.
>
>I think Clinton is the far superior alternative to a candidate whose party is
>falling further and further into the clutches of its right-wing religious
>faction.  Clinton may be religious but at least he's not trying to weaken the
>separation of church and state with the money-for-private (i.e. "Christian")
>schools that Pat Buchanan was pushing, and the whole family values non-issue
>the Republican leadership has decided is the most important.
>
>
>--
>*Ka Chun Yu                 * "Deputy dog dog a ding dang depa depa deputy     *
>*kachun@as.arizona.edu      *  dog dog a ding dang depa depa . . ."            *
>*                           *                         --"Don't Let's Start"   

*IF* atheism were the one and only thing I cared about, I might vote
for Clinton.  I might even do so enthusiastically.  But in addition to
being an atheist, I am a capitalist and individual-rightsist, which
takes Clinton right out of the running for my vote.  It was reported
on the radio yesterday that he's promised to install some kind of
"national health plan" within the first 100 days of his administration
:-(, for an example of _one_ specific grandiose "in your face and in
your wallet" scheme.

As I said in my quoted paragraph above, I see this November as a true
no-win regardless of the outcome.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (4 of 4)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 10:47:58 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <1992Aug31.204837.29425@leland.Stanford.EDU> yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:
>Abortion and pornography are too modern for Bible documentation, 
>although nude dancing could probably be included in pornography, and
>it is certainly in the Bible somewhere.

Um...abortion isn't too modern that _The Bible_ couldn't have
mentioned it.

The Hippocratic Oath states that a doctor shall not provide materials
to be used in an abortion to a woman.

As a side note...have you read the Hippocratic Oath?  I'm not sure I'd
trust somebody who took it seriously....

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: LIFE GOES ON UNTIL YOU DIE
Date: 25 Aug 1992 19:08:38 GMT
Organization: Hmmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Graham Matthews) writes:

 I think Derek is confusing the state of being dead with the process
 of dying. Death is inevitable and final - you cannot escape it. Moreover
 when you are dead you will feel nothing, see nothing etc. So the state
 of death is not to be feared - it will happen and thats that. 

 As to the process of dying that maybe scary (there are scary scenarios).
 I like living and so do not want to die - that is the scariest part - oh
 yeah and the pain.
 
I disagree. Dying is a process, so it has a beginning and an 
end. I think every person who has experienced something like
a "mid-life crisis" has become aware of their own finitude, i.e.,
that one day in the foggy future, they will die, everything will
be over and done with; that for the vast majority of us, within
a few years or generations at most, we will be forgotten, our
acts or courage or criminality will be long since forgotten
and our life will have been meaningless for anyone else but
us, and of course, we'll be dead. 

Many psychologists and theologians have noted that the fear 
of death (not dying) is the primary anxiety which underlies
all other fears, frustrations and anxieties: the complete
and utter terror in our innermost being (certainly needed for
survival) of complete and utter annihilation. I think this is
also troublesome for us westerners who like to believe that
we have a measure of control over our lives and what happens
to us. 

Death reminds us that life is a borrowed, unasked for gift
that eventually has to be returned - like it or not.

Dano
From: nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Is atheism experimentally refutable?
Date: 31 Aug 92 11:39:29 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

Is atheism experimentally refutable?

I suspect that atheism is not experimentally refutable, and therefore must
be classed as a religion or faith, which is surprising.  I have come to
this conclusion because I can't think of an experiment or situation which
would refute it.  I'd be glad of others' thoughts on this.  To start the
ball rolling, here's some thoughts on possible experiments.

What it comes down to is this: how could a god prove their godhood?  Merely
proving one's existence is not enough - my cat does that.  So what are
the qualities of godhood?  Different religions have different answers, so
I feel at liberty to make up my own.  The one that seems to hold out best
chances of experimental refutability is being supernatural.  (Being
"infinitely good", for example, seems a bit wishy-washy and hard to pin down
by comparison.)  So: what does it mean to be supernatural?  It's got to be
more than technological superiority.  Somehow, our candidate god has to
be able to demonstrate that it has the power to ignore natural laws that
we cannot logically deny.  It must be able to break our rules of logic and
somehow demonstrate it.  The trouble is, these rules are a bit abstract and
therefore hard to come to grips with.  For example, take the rule:

	A, A->B |- B

which says that given a truth A, and a truth that A implies B, you can
deduce the truth B.  I think that our faith (sic) in this rule is so strong
that we'd sooner distrust our senses than abandon it.  (Perhaps that only
says something about the relative values of our senses and our reason.)  For
example, let A be "Newton's laws of motion are approximately true", and
B be "This apple will fall to earth if I let it go", then what would you
think if the apple floated off?  Perhaps you'd think I was cheating, eg by
having an invisible string tied to it.  But that really means you don't
think that A->B is true.  In other words, you don't doubt the syllogism.

What would you accept as experimental evidence?


-Norman
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Undecidability and the FAQ
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 08:43:22 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <TORKEL.92Aug28173512@bast.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>  However, you have yet to grasp the irrelevance of your remarks to the
>FAQ entry. Your lengthy quotations are quite irrelevant. You have been
>misled by casual formulations.

You're calling Steven R. Lay, Ph.D., of the Department of Mathematics
at Aurora University a "casual reference"?  You're calling Dr. Keith
Devlin (Ph.D. from Bristol University) as a "casual reference"?

>Take the continuum hypothesis and its
>undecidability in ZFC. We do indeed know that it is undecidable in ZFC -
>provided we know that ZFC is consistent. By Godel's second theorem,
>however, it is not provable in ZFC that the continuum hypothesis (or
>any other statement) is undecidable in ZFC.

Now you're being silly.  Maybe it's that pragmatic streak in me that
lead me to be an applied mathematician instead of a pure
mathematician, but *of*course* we're assuming that ZF is consistent!

Inconsistency and incompleteness can be thought of as being
practically the same thing.  What the Incompleteness Theorem is
stating is that if we have an answer to every question, then some of
them are wrong.  However, if we can only arrive at correct answers,
then we aren't going to be able to answer all of them.

If we assume the consistency of ZF, then we arrive at undecidable
statements (such as the Continuum Hypothesis).  If we assume ZF is
complete, then we arrive at inconsistent statements (which could mean
that either Godel (c = aleph-one doesn't contradict ZF) or Cohen (c <>
aleph-one doesn't contradict ZF) is wrong).

What we have is that, assuming ZF, the Continuum Hypothesis is
undecidable.  Of course we are going to assume ZF are correct...
they're axioms, after all.  If we are under the impression that ZF is
inconsistent, nobody would use them as we could not guarantee the
veracity of statements derived from them.  If it turns out that ZF is
inconsistent, then I doubt that ZF would remain as the basis of set
theory for very long.

Given that we cannot "know for sure" if an axiom set is consistent, it
is the pragmatic thing to assume that the axioms are until shown that
they are not.  Thus, we have a statement from Godel saying that the
size of the continuum can't be proven to be anything but aleph-one and
a statement from Cohen saying that the size of the continuum can't be
proven to be aleph-one...and if that isn't an example of an
undecidable statement, I don't know what is.

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: 3005904@jeff-lab.queensu.ca (Colleen Davis (Dexter))
Subject: Re: God posts again
Organization: Antipodean Association
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:07:40 GMT

In article <BtM35s.L7y@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug24.125646.305@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
> >In article <1992Aug24.171141.22562@ccs.QueensU.CA>, 3005904@jeff-lab.queensu.ca (Colleen Davis (Dexter)) writes:
> >> There is no God but Colleen.I'd 
> >> really like to see someone prove
> >> me wrong.
> >
> >In your case, Colleen, the following quote is apropos.
> >
> >"Never argue with a fool.  The fool will not benefit,
> >and other people may not be able to tell the difference."
> >                                     -Mark Twain
> 
> A wise person calls a fool a fool, and a fool calls a wise person a
> fool.  Thus, when one person calls another a fool nothing is revealed
> about which one is, in fact, the fool.
> 
> The wisdom of Colleen appears as folly to the "wise" people of the
> false religions.
> 
> This idea is so stupid that it must be true.
> 
> -- 
> David Canzi
> 
Dave is the Second Disciple and Prophet.

colleen
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:16530 alt.politics.bush:4095 alt.politics.marrou:1043 talk.politics.misc:43782 alt.politics.elections:12438 talk.politics.theory:4043
From: cf603@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Date: 4 Sep 1992 18:32:37 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cf603@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Sill)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


[Followups redirected to alt.atheism]

In a previous article, pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) says:
>In article <1992Sep3.185156.18883@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>>
>>Well, I was raised Methodist, and have been exposed to Christianity all my
>>life.  If I'm lacking a clue, why don't you just give it to me?  I'm not going
>>to run out and buy/study a bible just to satisfy you.
>
>I'm afraid this says very little.  In my experience, Methodists can range from
>humanists to "holy-rollers".  You may have had a lot of exposure to
>"Christianity" but to a very distorted version of it.

Perhaps, but I doubt it.  I've been to many different churches--Methodist,
Lutheran, Catholic, etc., and talked to members of other sects, e.g.,
Southern Baptists, Pentecostals.

>A lot of people who
>consider themselves to be Christians (I am not passing judgement) may believe
>in such things as a "leap of faith" and "suspensions of disbelief" (whatever
>that is)

To suspend disbelief in something is to ignore one's initial reaction to
something as unbelievable and accept it as believable.

>and possibly "subjugation of will" (???).

To allow the subjugation of one's will is to allow the inclinations of
another to take priority over one's own.

>However none of them have any basis either in scripture or in early
>Christian writings.

You're saying Christianity doesn't require one to take on faith that Jesus
dies for their sins?

>Faith is not inconsistent with a reasoned belief.

It certainly can be, though.  For example, when creationists argue against
evolution.

>... The thrust of
>the Gospels involves presenting evidence for Christ's claims.  Why would such
>pains have been taken to present evidence if the writers felt that one should
>believe w/o evidence?

Sheesh, you call that *evidence*?  I call it anecdotal, at best--more like
folklore.   Consider all the "evidence" of the existence of Santa Claus.
-- 
Dave Sill
Play: cf603@cleveland.freenet.edu
Work: de5@ornl.gov
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.emacs
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Where it came from (was Re: Survey)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:03:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.191003.15475@hellgate.utah.edu> rodespai%munich.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Robert Despain) writes:
>[Much omitted -- bottom line is Texas rednecks offended by
>demon/devil/logo from USENIX pubs covers.]
>
>So how do these folks handle Arizona State University -- The Sun
>Devils?
>
>Other than refuse to schedule them in favor of such Texas schools
>as the Horned Frogs?
>
>Cheers,
>Captain Curmudgeon
>R.O.Despain@m.cc.utah.edu

Do these people ever eat devilled ham?  Do they say "hell-o"
when answering the telephone?

Bored minds want to know.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: st1lv@elroy.uh.edu (McLeod, Stephen)
Subject: Possible Real World Evidence for why Religions Exist
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 17:36:00 GMT

I have thought for some time that possibly religions exist because they make 
their followers somehow more 'fit' than non-religious folks.  Obviously, 
having a group of people available who you can count on is one benefit but 
I recently saw on CNN some 'real world' evidence.  Now, it very well could 
be biased and so on so put on your eye-glasses of true seeing before 
reading on.  I'm merely relating, not espousing anything.
CNN reported that insurance data indicated that Nevada had the worst health 
data in the country, due to its 'party' atmosphere towns, smoking, 
drinking, staying up all night and so on.  On the other hand, Utah had the 
best health data.  Lower incidence of disease, longer lifespans, etc.  The 
implication was that abstinance made the populace as a whole live 
healthier, longer lives.  CNN pointed out the implications on national 
health policy of this and reported that companies in Nevada were now trying 
to coerce their employees into living 'healthier' lives.
While I'm thinking about it, you know religion also is quite handy for 
dehumanizing other human beings (who don't believe in your religion).  Look 
at all those nice people in Serbia and Bosnia who believe it is perfectly 
okay to kill, and systematically rape muslims.  
A religious society seems more internally cohesive and perhaps internally 
moral (honest and kind to others who follow the same religion) while 
capable of external inhuman cruelty.  
Comments?
---
Stephen McLeod        *YEA!* One of my markers has normalized!  Looks like 
The Eternal Students   I'll only have to take 4 courses of chemo! ($11k each!)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: A question
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:52:15 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Keywords: Life Death Everything

In article <29AUG199219301608@robin.rp.csiro.au> etroup@robin.rp.csiro.au (Euan Troup, AT Parkes.) writes:
>In article <BtLxDo.Ls3@apollo.hp.com>, perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry) writes...
>>In article <1992Aug26.154203.5111@pellns.alleg.edu> frisinv@alleg.edu writes:
>>>      You die. Oops, you were wrong and there is a god (or more that one
>>>god or some goddesses or a giant carrot with divine powers...). You were a
>>>nice guy during your life so this being asks you to join it in heaven.
>>>Would you accept[...]?
>>
>>The simple answer is: "yes, of course I'd take it".
>
>        It's still a meaningless question. When I die, I cease to exist. There's
>no doubt at all. I lose my kidneys (no more adrenalin to make the heart race),
>my brain (no more endorphins to make me feel good, or alcohol for that matter),
>no more nerve endings to rub together. Whatever survives after death certainly
>isn't me, so it can make it's own decisions.

Sometimes one can't win.  This question has come up twice recently.
The first time (where do you go when you die, what would you say to
get God to let you into heaven), I answered in the vein of this
response, and got mail chiding me for not accepting the hypothetical
nature of the question; this time I went the other way, accepting the
premise that my understanding is wrong and I found myself in the
hypothetical situation, and I get this response.  Oh well.
-- 
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: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Free will -answer to your questions jarek.
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 20:10:18 GMT

In article <dabrowsk.714862129@liveboard10> dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>>>>What you are after is a way to allow God be able to know all future free
>>>>actions (thus not limiting his omnipotence) yet retaining human free will.
>>>Right.
>>This sounds to me like reverse engineering a specification for God.
>>ie: well we have to solve logical problems X, Y, and Z with respect
>>to God, so we better have a God with attributes A, B, and C ...
>Interesting. You sound as if have never noticed that this is the usual
>approach in scientific investigation. I thought you were a scientist...
>Or maybe it was just a remark, not a criticism? 
>You see, objects are given attributes to describe their behavior (which
>shows up in objective experiments or subjective introspection), not the
>other way round. If the experiment does not confirm your choice of the
>attributes, you change the attributes, not reject the experiment. 

Changing the attributes, in this case, means changing "God's omnipotence
isn't limited".  You obviously _haven't_ done this....
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang)
Subject: Re: Virgin Goddess ....
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:53:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.165250.14591@u.washington.edu> sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>BTW, I heard on the radio this morning (normal secular radio,
>mind you) that JC and his mom made an appearance yesterday
>somewhere in Kentucky.  Lots of people claimed to see the
>wonderful apparition.  When one of the lucky viewers was 
>asked why some people saw the sight and others did not,
>the answer was that you had to be a believer to see it.

Yes, I saw this on the local news last night. They interviewed some of
the people who "saw" the Virigin Mary and, of course, they gave completely
different descriptions of what she looked like.

-- 
Michael Wang
mmwang@mv.us.adobe.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi)
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 00:08:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.133413.202585@uctvax.uct.ac.za> fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
>======================================================================
>Extract from 'Seal of God' by F.C.Payne (1974):
>
>BIBLE NUMERICS - FIRST ASPECT
>
>The New Testament begins with the genealogy of Christ back to
>Abraham. It is interesting to note that this genealogy itself is
>divided into three sets of 14: Abraham to David (14), David to
>Babylon (14), Babylon to Christ (14). See Matt. 1:17.

Three sets of 14 generations makes 42 generations in all.

I've made a list of the names, from Abraham to Jesus.  After Abraham,
each person listed is the son of the previous person listed.  There are
only 41 names in the list.  How did you or Matthew get 42 generations
out of a geneology containing only 41 names?

-- 
David Canzi
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Subject: Re: A question
Originator: glp@merlin
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:20:20 GMT


In article <Aug.26.22.55.17.1992.2607@aramis.rutgers.edu>, hedrick@aramis.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:

 (re: Boswell)
|> He's a good enough history that I doubt it will be made up out
|> of whole cloth.  But there are going to be all kinds of questions,
|> like how widespread the practice was.  You can find some Christian
|> sect that's done just about everything.  Also, evidence can often be
|> construed several ways.

As I remember it, the text of the ceremony
can be found in religious manuscripts located
from the British Isles to the Vatican.

-- 
Greg Parkinson                  Phone: 212-657-7814  Fax: 212-825-8607
Citibank,111 Wall Street        E-Mail: glp@fig.citib.com
New York, New York  10043
The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 28 Aug 1992 16:09:29 CDT
From: David James Alexander Hanley <U55870@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
 <1992Aug21.093950.18878@bradford.ac.uk>
 <1992Aug21.224729.4369@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
 <1992Aug25.180610.21461@bradford.ac.uk> <graham.714819952@galois>

  I find these claims that the koran contains scientific facts interesting,
but I have seen no proof for this, however.  The real litmus test here would
appear to be if you could find fact in the koran that has not yet been
discovered ( by science ).  If this could be accopmlished ( with 100% accuracy,
mind you, after all it's divinely inspired, right? ) I might give the koran
more credence than I now give it ( none ).

dave
From: hanlon@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Casey Hanlon (SVER))
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: LORD, LIAR or LUNATIC?
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:01:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Undoubtedly he was a LUNATIC, if he ever lived that is.  By the alleged
account of his followers he knew that his actions would lead to his
own execution.  Sure sounds like a LUNATIC to me.

Casey (dog si daed) Hanlon
Newsgroups: alt.atheism