HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism and morals and dating
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:36:34 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison
Originator: mccullou@sun-3.cae.wisc.edu



In article <XXuBuB6w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
|> mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
|> > In article <1992Nov13.233958.17643@nmsu.edu> epowers@huey.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) w
|> > >	Just curious, I'm not attacking you.  What's "immoral" or "wrong" (or  
|> > >whatever word with negative connotations you want to use) about drinking, do
|> > >drugs, or sleeping around?  What do you use to distinguish "moral" vs.  
|> > >"immoral"?
|> > 
|> > That is a fairly easy one.  Culture has placed certain standards on individua
|> > behavior.  These standards define what is moral and what is immoral.  They
|> > define what is right and wrong.  These standards may not make much sense
|> > to an outsider, but within that society, that societies standards define
|> > the collective morality.  So if society decided that reading internet
|> > was very bad.  (Note I mean the collective society, not just a few individual
|> > , then it would become immoral or in some way wrong to read internet.  Things
|> > do change.  Look at relations between people of different skin pigmentation
|> > in the past 50 years to see how fast "wrong" can change.
|> 
|> I see.  So in the context of Germany around 1940, it is entirely moral to gas
|> Jews?
|> 
|> I'm not entirely sure I like your definition of morality...
|> 
|> 
|> mathew

Why not?  I siad the society as a whole, not just a few people didn't I?
You will find that many people claimed to have no knowledge of what
was happening in the concentration camps, even though they lived a few
miles away only.  People didn't want to know.  

COME UP WITH A BETTER ONE.  If you don't like that definition, give a better
one, don't just say it is wrong.  Show why my definition doesn't fit
the general and collective use of that term.
:)M^2
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: svanegmo@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Stephen Van Egmond)
Subject: Church of England / Women / Catholics
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:26:21 GMT

I've been wondering about this for quite a long time.  What sort of out-of-date reason does the Catholic church offer for denying women the right to become priests?   And why on earth does the pope disapprove of the Church of England's decision to allow them to become priests?

Being atheist, I have never really understood fully any of the positions of the Catholic religion, but this one really baffles me, and I simply have no idea what sort of mind could justify such a point of view.  It never really occurred to me to ask this question until now.

Stephen Van Egmond - University of Waterloo


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: denmckinnon@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (NEIL MCKINNON)
Subject: Re: God Is Silly
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University 
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 06:08:34 GMT

>In article <92315.021717MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>, MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>> In article <n0de5t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org says:
>>>
>>> I don't care if I have no evidence that God does
>>>not exist, though I assert God does not exist. I assert the negative,
>>>and it is up to the theist, whom asserts the positive, to produce the
>>>evidence.
>> 
>> Where do you get this? Does no one understand that there are more than
>> two sides to this? Anyone who asserts something had better be prepared
>> to back it up. I don't understand why you think that the other side has
>> to prove you wrong. As if you can assert a belief and get away with it.
>> Both sides, since they are asserting something, need to prove their
>> assertions. Otherwise, I'm left with nothing at all--my present stance.
>> 
>> Martin Schulte



>no no no no no! didn't you read the pink unicorn bits? if i assert that there
>are pink unicorns running around in my walls, it's up to me to prove that they
>are, not up to you to prove that they aren't. 

What's the story?  I think I've missed most of the discussion here (haven't
looked in on alt.atheism for a few months), but I fail to see the 
relevance of this last point.  Give me a bit more to go on than this (I 
apologise if I have missed the relevant justifications).

Now consider these two statements:

"There is a God x" 
"It is not the case that there is a God x"

x represents the particular deity appealed to here. (For instance, x may be 
the Christian God, with all the properties and historical claims which are 
made on His behalf.)

Now it seems to me that the two statements above are both assertions.  The 
second is not just the absence of an assertion.  No, it is a positive 
assertion about the ontology of the Universe (i.e. the things which exist in 
the Universe).  Thus, just as the first represents the Universe as being a 
certain way, so does the second.

It seems to me that the second does indeed require justification.  Just as a 
theist of a particular kind has reasons for his belief (however tenuous and 
ill-advised they may seem), so also does the atheist.  And this point I 
think comes out whenever we see an argument between a theist and an 
atheist.  The theist makes certain claims, and the atheist attempts to 
discredit them, and in so doing, gives his justification for assenting to 
the second statement.

Neil.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
Subject: Re: Circumcision (was Re: God Is Unfair)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:41:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.221401.27880@watson.ibm.com>
strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>
>The pain associated with circumcision is transient; the
>pain associated with the other operation is massive,
>and it causes intercourse to be painful.  The effect
>of circumcision on sexual pleasure is essentially
>unquantifiable; the effect of the other operation
>on sexual pleasure is drastic.
 
This is untrue; there are many cases of men who had circumcisions later in
life, long after they had become sexually active.  They report that the
changes in feelings and sensations is dramatic, and that sex is far less
satisfactory than before.
 
Like all surgical procedures, there is a non-zero chance of mutiliation and
death, in this case, for a procedure with absolutely no medical benefit.
At least the grown men had a choice about it.
 
>Americans have far more "barbaric" practices:  in
>our community (Connecticut) it is almost universal
>for teenage and pre-teen girls and occasionally
>boys to have holes punched through their earlobes
>and metallic studs and rings forced through them.
>I would say almost 90% of the girls in my daughter's
>school class are "victims" of this form of mutilation.
 
Maybe they are "victims", but at least they had a chance to decide
for themselves.
 
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: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God Is Silly
Date: 15 Nov 92 20:24:41 GMT
Distribution: world, public
Organization: New Mexico State University

In article <1992Nov13.162630.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> rswiftrw@cc.curtin.edu.au (Rod Swift) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.114355.14940@nmsu.edu>, sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>> In article <92315.021717MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>In article <n0de5t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org says:
>> 
>> It's like this:
>> 
>> Weak atheism: "I do not believe that a God exists."
>
>Bzzzzt.  This is more like agnosticism....

Bzzzzt yourself.  Agnostics think that knowledge about God is, in
principle, unattainable.  The weak atheist, on the other hand, remains
unconvinced by the evidence presented to date but acknowledges that it
is possible that at some point in the future, convincing evidence
could, in principle, be presented.  Do these positions sound the same
to you?

>> Strong atheism: "There is no God."
>
>Correct!  This is atheism.....

This is *strong*atheism.  You are making a positive assertion here.
In addition to finding theistic proofs questionable, you ought to have
a proof that God can't exist, to make this position tenable.  Else you
are making a doctrinaire assertion and are no better off than theists!

SD
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Supernatural And Science
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 21 Nov 92 21:50:31 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Nov21.180259.18253@midway.uchicago.edu>, hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
> 
> Here is THE TRUTH :)
> 
> God created the Universe exactly one minute ago. He created it in such a
> shrewd way that all physical observation yields such results that it APPEARS
> that the beginning of the Universe was in a Big Bang some 10 billion years
> ago. He also created us and implanted memories of our "pasts" in our brains.
> It only APPEARS to us that we have witnessed events from years ago - it is
> all God's work done at the moment of creation. He also created many things
> around us that APPEAR to be products of human work. Some of them even APPEAR 
> to be created by the person observing them, and even correspond with their
> 'memories', but it is, of course, just another proof of God's omnipotence.

   This is related to Last Thursdayism (and the splinter sect, Last
Wednesdayism), which is popular on talk.origins.

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Church of England / Women / Catholics
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:59:44 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <Bxtsrz.DqI@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> svanegmo@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Stephen Van Egmond) writes:
>I've been wondering about this for quite a long time.  What sort of out-of-date reason does the Catholic church offer for denying women the right to become priests?   And why on earth does the pope disapprove of the Church of England's decision to allow them to become priests?

  Isn't it obvious?  Women don't have external genitalia.  What more
  of a reason do you need?


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

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!
From: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: HERETICS
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 03:45:00 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b63519.student.cwru.edu

In article <92323.211145MHB108@psuvm.psu.edu> <MHB108@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>     Religious people are full of crap. I have almost never met a supposedly
>religious person who practiced what he or she preached.

Meet my mother someday. Or my grandmother, who was what I, an atheist, would 
consider a saint. The people who practice what they preach exist -- they 
just don't feel any need to make a big fuss about it.

>Religious fanatics
>have no place in the United States. 

On the contrary. The United States has a thing called "freedom of religion". 
Ever hear of it? It is what lets you and me be atheists. It also lets 
religious people, even fanatics, believe whatever they please.

>Especially those weirdo's who pretend that
>they can heal people .

There are few of those compared to the rest of the theist population. Ignore 
them. They aren't hurting you, so why bother with them.

>Overly preachy people really rattle my nerves. Has anyone ever seen that 
>guy who preaches on that crazy show called "Manna from Heaven? He spits all 
>over the place and you can hardly ever even understand what he is talking 
>about . He ought to take a course in diction and a course on stress-
>management before he steps in front of the camera. And he could learn some
>English while he's at it. Mr. Manna ought to be committed.

I would say the same about most comedians. What are you doing watching his 
show if you don't like him? I happen to despise Saturday Night Live, but I 
don't go around bitching about it. I just don't watch it.

>     Yes I am a heretic. I think it is more important to try and be a good
>person and treat others with respect than whether or not I am going to
>be saved by some entity I am not even sure exists.

You seem to have a problem with treating theists with respect.
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
| Damien Neil | dpn2@po.cwru.edu | Case Western Reserve University |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Circumcision (was Re: God Is Unfair)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 18:38:03 GMT

In article <Uf3RnyG00WBLI8pqg2@andrew.cmu.edu> "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>uncurcumcised penis?"  I also believe that the risk of obtaining some
>STD's is reduced by a factor of 10.
You may believe it. That doesn't make it true. Do you have studies
which show this to be the case?

>So, in summary, circumcision has medical benefit which outways the minor
>pain that the child feels.
Really? I know of no medical benefits it has been proven to have.
Facts, please, sir.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: the Four Dummies
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 18:46:45 GMT

Ah, Mr. Wingate is back, fresh from getting his butt kicked in
talk.philosophy.misc.

In article <62132@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>Benedikt Rosenau writes:
>
>>Christians generally assume that the four guys who wrote down the deeds of a
>>certain jesus were not dumb/dishonest/suckers for 'godly' interference with
>>their lives. I think they are wrong.
>
>People have been sniping at the gospels for a century now at least--
>anything to pry them away from any real experience of Jesus.  For insofar as
>that experience is real, it is all over; when Thomas takes the hands and
>touches the side of Jesus, no quibbles about illusion or delusion are
>tenable.

Mr Wingate, I don't believe that you are this stupid.  I can't help but
think that there must be some other reason for why you bother to post this
kind of trash.
--
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: patc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Pat Caldon)
Subject: The Bible Book
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:28:28 GMT

In the FAQ there is mention of a "Bible Book", published in the US. Does anyone
know where it might be availiable in Australia?

enjoy,
Pat.


-- 
Pat Caldon.            |  The Mercy Seat is Burning, And I think my Head is 
patc@extro.ucc.su.oz.au| turning, and deep indide I'm longing to be done with
3:714/908.5@fidonet.   | all this weighing up of truth...  -- Nick Cave
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject:      The Bible As A Rorschach
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 14:03:48 MEZ
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA02595; Mon, 23 Nov 92 09:36:22 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA13631; Mon, 23 Nov 92 05:12:45 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0384; Mon, 23 Nov 92 14:12:08 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

Sven Hauptfeld types:

>>
>>Your use of the bible as a Rorschach groups you among the semantically
>>impaired.
>>   Benedikt

>Unfortunately, you are wrong, Benedikt. Arguably, that is the way
>the Bible was *intended* to be used.

Most interesting. That I am wrong is a strong assertion. To write
arguably in the next sentence looks like a contradiction to me.

Further (unfortunately, I might add) you do not give any evidence besides
arguably to back up your claim. And you fail to address who intended what
with the bible as a Rorschach.

If it have been humans, the claim that jesus has fulfilled every prophecy
of the Rorschach looks quite silly, doesn't it?
   Benedikt
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: akhan@gab.unt.edu (Arshad Khan)
Subject: Re: Circumcision (was Re: God Is Unfair)
Organization: College of Arts and Sciences
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:08:33 GMT

>In article <dpn2.124.722235695@po.CWRU.Edu>, dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P.
>Neil) wrote:
>
>than circumcised ones. Thirdly, I seem to remember reading somewhere that
>among the Plains Indians, the Cheyennes (and perhaps others) circumcised
>their boys. Is there anyone who can elaborate on circumcision outside the
>Judeo-Christian tradition?
>Gene

Muslims do have this ritual (if you consider them outside Judeo-Christian
tradition though, personally I feel that all three have same the roots).
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: gdavis@griffin.uvm.edu (Gary Davis)
Subject: Circumcision as Crimes agaisnt children
Keywords: Crime
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:03:10 GMT

 Isn't it just marvelous to hear all these people who have circed
their kids try to rationalize it. As for your hope that the AAP will
recommend Circ,forget it. The Jewish procirc front headed by never
say die circumcisor ARRON FINK where largely unsucessful in their 
skem. Boys not cirumcised at birth have a 1% UTI rate by age six months,
after that time the rate drops dramatically. Many of the so called
necessary childhood circs are actually caused by ignorant MDs and
parents fiddling with the foreskin. The mistaken idea is that it must
be retracted. In reality the foreskin separates from the glans only
gradually by completely natural means and by puberty all boys or 99.9%
will have retractability.

Why Americans should favor circumcision as a social or pseudo-medical
necessity is quite a mystery. Maybe as I heard some raving Bapist
preacher gush, its because Americans are a lost tribe of Israel.

: *(

As anyone can tell you there is no devise that can give an entirely
bloodless,much less painless circumcision.

I suggest all women who favor men and boys being circumcised,submit
themselves immediately to Dr. Love... who I understand removed the
clitoral hood of several of his unsuspecting victims.

As far as praise for circumcision.. I say get some knowledge and
some compassion. Both of these seem to be atrophied vestige in the U.S.A.

It may surprise some of you that some hospitals have sound proof circ
rooms as the shreiks of the boys being cut tend to bother the post
natal musings of mothers who signed the circ permission forms.

And Americans care about their children.. noway!!


--
I               Gary Davis Dpt. of Electrical Engineering
                University of Vermont
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: johnsd2@jec324.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Paganism & Atheism
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec324.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 13:50:41 GMT

In article 1ecr1vINN664@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu, bx461@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Leo J. Mauler) writes:
>
>Neo-Paganism, as it exists today, seems to consist entirely of
>people who worship a Deity or Deities without any set form or
>dogma.  Quite a few are like the Buddhists or Taoists who worship
>without Deities whatsoever.

My impression (from alt.pagan, for what its worth) is more like
they will worship/believe in anybodies God more ore less- they
aren't picky.

>Which is why it seems to me that Atheism is more or less a subset
>of Neo-Paganism, in that Atheists live their lives without
>Supernatural Beings, and not denying others their own beliefs.
>The only Pagan "law" I ever came across in my life has been,
>"As long as you don't hurt anyone else, do as you want."  It
>strikes me that a great many Atheists act in this manner without
>Deific persuasion, so what is there to make this idea false?

Atheists do not believe in any gods, Pagans believe in them all.
(how's that for categorical statement of the week?)

There's a difference.

>This is not to say, "hey you Atheists!  You're really Pagans, so
>why not own up and admit it," this is just a theory about 
>religions and not-religions.  Besides, another tenet of Paganism
>is more or less, "THERE IS NO 'ONE TRUE WAY'"...

They mean something different than atheists do by this; they mean
that there is more than one True Way (tm); Atheists feel that there
is no (spiritual) True Way at all. [tho there are exceptions. Like
I said, Im going for categorical statement of the week]

>-- 
>Never do this at home.  Look how easily it killed this sig.
>/\  ___/\  ___/\  _____________________________________________
>  \/     \/     \/  bx461@cleveland.freenet.edu (Leo J. Mauler)
>DISCLAIMER: Everything I say is false, including this sentence.

Heh heh!

'Course, it wont kill MY sig. Mine's omnipotent, as you can see. :)

---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism