HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Date: 28 Jul 92 13:15:38 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <39988@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> ss@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Scott Stuart) writes:

>In article <1992Jul25.220613.15611@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
>>When was the last time an airplane crashed? And I certainly
>>don't recall a bird hit his noze on the ground because there
>>was some ice on his wings.


>When was the last time that an airplane crashed into a glass plate and 
>killed itself while trying to escape from a cat?


>scott
Hey a bird escaping a cat couldn't build enough velocity to kill itself on a 
window!  Wouldn't it have been easier to say:
When was the last time an airplane got caught by a cat?

Our feed went down last week and it's trying real hard to catch up with 
the backlog but everything's arriving even more out if order than usual!
If there was a god, he'd never allow it!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: duncan@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Duncan McCardle)
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 02:33:57 GMT

mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:

>In article <39654@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> ss@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Scott Stuart) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul22.162708.3126@ducvax.auburn.edu> rezkmah@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
>>
>>>intervening at that point.I can see the extremely high order and organization
>>>from the atomic level to that of the galaxy as pure and clearcut evidence for
>>>the existance of a creator.  They certainly do not suggest habhazardness, or
>>>do they ?!
>>
>>There is not really a great deal of complexity on most levels.
>[...stuff deleted about atoms, etc...]
>>The real complexity comes into
>>play in living organisms.  It is certainly too much complexity to be
>>explained by randomness, or haphazardness.  It is not, however, to much
>>complexity to be accounted for by natural selection working for something
>>like 3 billion years.

>Following multiple suggestions on this group to read _The Blind Watchmaker_
>by Richard Dawkins, I came away suitable impressed by the way he backed
>up his thesis which is that there is no need to invent a "creator" to
>explain life as we know it. I would highly recommend to the original poster
>that he read it also.

>Mathew, perhaps you could add a pointer to this book to #19 of your FAQ?

>-- 
>Michael Wang
>mmwang@adobe.com

I'd also like to recommend a book called _Cosmic Coincidences_, the names
of the authors elude me and I'm not at home. 

This book describes some of the very surprising coincidences that conspire
to make the universe habitable ( eg: Solid water (Ice) floats in Liquid water,
very strange). However the point I found particularly interesting is this
(paraphrasing frantically): 

	The fact that we are here to ponder the nature of the 
	Universe tells us about the very nature of the Universe.
	For if conditions were not right for the natural evolution
	of intelligent life, then there would be no intelligent
	life to complain about it. The fact we find the Universe
	to be hospitable should be no surprise, for our kind to
	come into being it could not be otherwise.

In fact I feel the nature of the Universe, being 'just right' for us, is
positive evidence *against* the existance of a creator. After all the 
creator could've got away with a less hospitable Universe and still plonked
us down in it, maybe to see if we could survive. We are still looking at
the Universe from a self-centered perspective (remember the flat Earth).
We should not be saying 'Wow the Universe suits us perfectly, how amazing',
it should be 'Wow we are perfectly adapted to suit the Universe, how amazing'.
Just to make the point ad nauseum, 'How did trees come to be so well
designed for monkeys to swing in ? I guess someone made them that way.'

Just something to consider 8-).

Duncan

-------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14367 soc.culture.pakistan:12789 soc.culture.arabic:2871
From: martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:10:40 GMT
Organization: British Telecom


>In article <graham.711939190@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:

>>
>>	"I went to the park with the dog"
>>
>>Now there are two possible interpretations of this sentence. By
>
 Four, Infidel!

Don't forget "dog" = "dog and bone" = "'phone".
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mrmuon@next03epsl.wam.umd.edu (Eli John Hawkins)
Subject: Re: Praying to Mecca?... and Evangelists
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:59:35 GMT

In article <ZAFAR.92Jul22121208@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>  
zafar@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Syed Zafar Kazmi) writes:
> This has nothing to do with Isla, rather this is a limitation of  
English. Sometimes
> I find myself irritated with this thing. Can anybody give me a pronoun  
which
> addreses both men and women alike.
> 
> 
> Zafar Kazmi
   It's not accepted by grammarians, but the de facto 3rd person singular  
inditerminant pronoun is "they". I also sometimes use "'e", sort of the  
intersection of "he" and "she".
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: a butterfly?
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 11:41:20 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> Nice going, particularly as no-one knows what Jesus looked like.

He was blond, with blue eyes and pale white skin.  Must be true, I've seen
pictures.


mathew
-- 
"He is heterosexual.  It is a sort of breath of fresh air, isn't it?  The
 indecent assault, an expression of his sexuality." -- Judge Geoffrey Jones

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: free will
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:54:40 GMT

khan@davidsys.com writes:
>  Regarding the "free will" of Mary, the mother
>of Prophet Jesus [pbuh], and why God did NOT ask
>her "permission" before she became pregnant
>by His command with the baby Jesus [pbuh]:
>  Every creature and object in this universe
>is the Creation of God, and God owns everything.
>You and I, everything and all is owned by Him.
>When the time comes, He will transfer us 
>[cause "death"] from this dimension to another one.
>And so with other things in our life.
>  We are Creations of God. Fortunately, or `
>'unfortunately', He gave us a consciousness
>and a power in the human brain. When this brain
>is not submitting to God, and praying to Him,
>the brain becomes arrogant [I am, I will,
>I say! etc.]. And so Hanlon asked the question
>of God violating Mary's rights, etc. First,
>you have to acknowledge your position with
>respect to God, and then you will understand.
>You are just a creature of God.

Do you know what the words "fuck off" mean Khan?

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: stoesser@i31s21.ira.uka.de (Achim Stoesser)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Jesus was married (was: Re: did christ play with himself?)
Date: 24 Jul 1992 11:06:22 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: i31s21.ira.uka.de

Jesus was married, says Theologist Dr. Barbara Thiering (Sydney University)
in her book "Jesus the Man" (Doubleday, London, to be published soon).
She studied the Dead Sea Scrolls and found:
  - His first wife was Mary Magdalene. They had a daughter before crucifixion
    and two sons after. Then she left him.
  - At crucifixion Jesus was doped (to simulate death).
  - After that he lived for 30 years.
  - His second wife was a Greek woman named Lydia.
(source: dpa [German press agency]).

I'd like to hear more, especially on what are Dr. Thiering's conclusions based. 

 							        Achim
_____________________________________________________________________

I'm an anarchist, atheist, pacifist, and vegetarian.  This does _not_
mean that I'd bomb kings, worship Satan, let soldiers bleed to death,
or eat fish.


Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14619 soc.culture.pakistan:12903 soc.culture.arabic:2943
From: bes@cco.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:53:52 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

In article <1992Jul30.063247.19824@ennews.eas.asu.edu> guncer@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Selim E. Guncer ) writes:

>Women have to change their lifestyle in order not to be raped?? Just what are 
>these "women" are you talking about? "Rape" is NOT the result of the woman's
>(or victim's) actions but of the rapist.

It would be stupid for a woman not to modify her life style because of the
existence of rape.  Now before dozens of people call me a chauvinist, please
read the following carefully.

I have changed my lifestyle because of the high incidence of theft.  For 
example, the following items belonging to me were stolen because I left
them somewhere, thinking that they would still remain there when I returned:
radio clock, watch, and calculator.   So, I am now wiser.  I don't leave
any of my personal belongings unattended.

Yes, theft is not the result of MY actions.  But it would still be stupid
for me to have a life-style that ignored the existence of theft.  It would
also be very stupid for a woman to pretend that rape does not exist and
walk in the streets at night *alone*.  That's very unfortunate, but that's
life.  This does not imply, by the way, that the woman is responsible for
rape.  To see why, read my next paragraph.

>You are suggesting that a woman, because of her appearance or social 
>behaviour, invites the rapist.  A woman wearing a bikini or a black sheet,
>has the same probability of being raped if she happens to be at the wrong 
>place, wrong time.

Another way in which it's wise for a woman to modify her lifestyle because
of rape is the choice of dress.  Scanty dress might increase the likelihood
of her being raped (depending on what the circumstances are).

So, who is responsible if a woman in scanty dress is raped?  Clearly, all
the blame for the rape goes to the rapist.  The woman deserves blame for
stupidity, not for the rape:  in the same way that somebody who leaves
his personal belongings unattended deserves blame for carelessness, but not
for the theft.

If the woman in question is a Muslim, still ALL THE BLAME FOR THE RAPE
goes to the rapist.   However, the woman deserves a separate blame for not
dressing modestly as recommended by God (regardless of whether she ends up
being raped or not).

>  [issues not directly related to rape deleted]
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14075 soc.culture.pakistan:12556 soc.culture.arabic:2798
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 92 12:49:36 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
> >In article <22313@hacgate.UUCP> frazier@maxwell (Greg Frazier) writes:
> >:Cute tirade, but please get to the point.  What special
> >:arrangements do ladies/women/females require?  Yes,
> >:that was the sexist part of the note, not the fact that
> >:the word "ladies" was used.
> 
> Did it occur to you that women (ladies) usually have children
> and usually they are the ones who take care of them.  To do
> that they may need babysitting services to attend the lectures.
> They may need places for changing the diapers, etc.

Then the comment should have said "Facilities will be provided for parents of
small children", or something similar.  Unless you're claiming that ALL
people who care for children are women?


mathew
-- 
Ceci | n'est pas une pipe.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: my "religous experience"....
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:41:31 GMT

(Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>	What can I say about my religous experience....
>[stuff on hatred against Jews]
>[stuff on hatred against homosexuals]
>	I was once a lutheran, but now I take a look at all of this 
>and then hear of them say....
>
>	"God loves you"....
>
>	If this is love, I wonder what hate is !

*sarcasm on*
But Adam the answer is clear - these people that hate homosexuals
and Jews aren't *true believers* (TM).
*sarcasm off*

On a more serious note I couldn't agree with you more.

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: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jarek's Challenge (was: We will see Return of Jesus!)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 11:15:06 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
> -mathew:
> >"Reasonable behaviour is that which is sensible, moderate, not absurd,
> >tolerable, viewed as such by most people."
> 
> On the other hand, in one of his previous posts matthew said that his
> behavior is NOT reasonable (see the file appended to this article).

OK, let's see it...

# Subject: Jarek, I think I've worked out the problem...
# Message-ID: <iJ4qcB7w164w@mantis.co.uk>
# From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (en font terrible)
# Date: 10 Dec 91 17:53:17 GMT
# 
# Jarek re-posts the "CIY article" and my reply to it.
# 
# Having read them both again, I think I know why he thinks I'm going back
# on something I said earlier.

This is truly ironic.

# Jarek:
# > STEP (B):
# > 
# > Even a mathewist cannot reasonably work without zero-order propositions.
#                           ^^^^^^^^^^
# mathew:
# > True, but I will just point out that they can be assumed out of 
# > necessity, not believed.
# 
# I've underlined the key word.  REASONABLY.
# 
# I agree that to behave in a REASONABLE way (ill-defined, note), I need
# to have zero-order propositions.  However, I don't have to behave in a 
                                                     ^^^^
# reasonable way.  It is therefore incorrect to say that I have to have
# zero-order propositions.

Read that paragraph again.  I said that I don't HAVE to behave in a
reasonable way.  I didn't say that I don't behave in a reasonable way.

Or to put it another way, I didn't say that I actually, in everyday life, have
no 'zero-order propositions'; I said that it was *possible* that I could
choose to have no 'zero-order propositions'.

> I guess that my behavior IS reasonable (anybody who thinks otherwise is
> kindly requested to support his opinion with solid arguments).

I'd hazard a guess that most people think their behaviour is reasonable.

>                                                                I think
> that any reasonable approach is more intellectually appealing than any
> not reasonable one,

Why?

I'd say that Communism is an incredibly intellectually appealing idea.  It
sounds wonderful.  Unfortunately, it doesn't work because for many (if not
most) people, human nature isn't up to doing things for the sake of such
lofty intellectual ideals.

A Communistic approach is very intellectually appealing.  Much more so than
the sort of capitalism we have in the UK and USA.  I wouldn't call Communism
more reasonable than state capitalism, though.


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Jesus was married (was: Re: did christ play with himself?)
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 14:49:01 GMT

stoesser@i31s21.ira.uka.de (Achim Stoesser) writes:

>Jesus was married, says Theologist Dr. Barbara Thiering (Sydney University)
>in her book "Jesus the Man" (Doubleday, London, to be published soon).
>She studied the Dead Sea Scrolls and found:
>  - His first wife was Mary Magdalene. They had a daughter before crucifixion
>    and two sons after. Then she left him.
>  - At crucifixion Jesus was doped (to simulate death).
>  - After that he lived for 30 years.
>  - His second wife was a Greek woman named Lydia.
>(source: dpa [German press agency]).

>I'd like to hear more, especially on what are Dr. Thiering's conclusions based. 
Aren't the Dead Sea Scrolls dated B.C.?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ury@humus.cs.huji.ac.il (My Friend Of Misery)
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 10:00:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.162708.3126@ducvax.auburn.edu>, rezkmah@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:

|> Hi,
|> Would you mind an intruder?  
|> I have been following this discussion for a while and I cannot resist
|> intervening at that point.  I can see the extremely high order and organization
|> from the atomic level to that of the galaxy as pure and clearcut evidence for
|> the existance of a creator.  They certainly do not suggest habhazardness, or
|> do they ?!
|> 
Hmm.. Read the FAQ.
Anyhow, when I was religious, I told this to someone. He said that if this is
true, it is clear that god exist, and therefor he couldn't believe in it,
because he whold *KNOW* god exist. 
|>                                                              Thanks,
|>                                                             M. A. Rezk
|> 
|> N.B.  Looking for serious discussion, i.e., no sarcasm please.

-- 
Ury Segal          | The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the 
ury@cs.huji.ac.il  | University or IBM, Digital, Apple, HP or anyone else.
Phone: 02-971187   | They are mine, LO MIN HAHEFKER, as Bialik once said.
DISCLAIMER: I DON'T SPELL AND I DON'T CARE
From: rad@genco.bungi.com (Bob Daniel)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Wowzers
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:35:42 GMT
Reply-To: rad@genco.bungi.com (Bob Daniel)
Organization: Gentry & Assoc. Excelsior Springs, MO

In article <22575@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> frazier@maxwell (Greg Frazier) writes:
|This seems like a strange comment, if not fundamentally
|bankrupt.  Unfortunately, we are able to look back in
|history and scoff at the Greeks, for believing that the
|sun is a fiery chariot driven by the gods.  Given this
|as a context, it becomes very unsatisfying to resolve
|unanswered questions via a god or gods.  Personally, I
|am very comfortable with the concept that there is a great
|deal that is unknown to me.

I feel the same... Bogus explanations often come from those who are
insecure of being uncertain. That includes psuedo-science and
cosmology as they are becoming as faith based as creationists.

Bob Daniel
rad@genco.bungi.com

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14281 talk.bizarre:23347
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Ivan Panin
Keywords: Prove, Bible
Date: 29 Jul 92 23:11:05 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <5159@krafla.rhi.hi.is| karlth@rhi.hi.is (Karl Thoroddsen) writes:
|
|I was reading through some pamphlets a few days ago and came across a 
|piece of paper by Ivan Panin.  The paper tried to prove the Bible's 100%
|correctness by maintaining that no mortal could have written it. 
|According to Panin every chapter of the greek version of the bible contains
|a 7*x large vocabulary, 7*x letters in the vocabulary, etc.  Panin then 
|states that it would have taken mortal men 1000s of years to create a
|book so crammed with "7 features" and thus it was god's work.
|

  Well now, that would indeed be a neat trick, especially
  considering that a goodly portion of the bible wasn't even written
  in Greek.

  The shit that passes for useful information these days...

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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Ridha's birds and Islamic attitudes to sex
Date: 27 Jul 92 11:59:00 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

If Ridha thinks birds are so fantastic, she should study the sex lives of 
some of them - eg the common English sparrow.  
After some study time, I expect Muslims everywhere will be bumping off these 
immoral creatures in order to keep the world pure.

This post is (almost) entirely non-serious as I'm bored with Ridha.


+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  I don't take part in any sport that requires me to change clothes  |
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44)061-275-6033  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Atheists--born or made?
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 08:11:23 GMT

In article <22616@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> frazier@maxwell (Greg Frazier) writes:


   >Two points differentiate this article from similar theistic claims.
   >First, the article was originally published in an atheist rag, and
   >then here.  So, it is not a proclamation to the world, or even an
   >attempt at justification or to get converts, but more an analysis.

   I'm sure that many sectarian magazines of different kinds contain
similar analyses, aimed at boosting the self-esteem of the faithful.

   >Second, the article actually presents a hypothesis and some data -
   >nothing conclusive, mind you, but if one wanted to, one could set
   >up experiments to validate or refute the hypothesis.

  But why should similar claims for religious sectarian beliefs be
any less testable?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 18:17:43 GMT

At the risk of being accused of "denigrating religion"...

In article <1992Jul28.063335.8435@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, Matthew Trevor <mtrevor@nyx.cs.du.edu> writes:
|> 
|> I was brought up in a strong catholic household, and have only just
|> recently "converted" (if you will) to atheism. I agree that religion can
|> have some important things to say, but my belief is that many christian
|> religions are too interested in enforcing Christ's divinity, and not as
|> involved with spreading what he *said*. I personally hold to many of
|> Christ's teachings, yet fail to see why he needs to be "divine" for his
|> words to have any relevance.

Christ was certainly not the first to state many of the ideas
attributed to him as "original."  Why continue to hold these
as "Christ's teachings" instead of using a non-religious
justification for these selected ideas.  Keep in mind that 
Christ's teachings include the concepts of sin, heaven, hell, 
etc., all of which are contrary to most (if not all) atheist 
"philosophies."

Would Christianity have survived without the (concept of) 
divinity for Christ?  The survival of the institution has 
become more important than the reason for being of the 
institution itself.

-- 
Dan Yergeau                         He's dead Jim.  Take his phaser
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU        and I'll get his wallet.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism