HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Questions about other stuff(sorry, lousy title!)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:35:52 GMT

In article <Uey44zu00WBME6MNZq@andrew.cmu.edu> "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>1)  What do you think happens when we die?
>I think it's just like a blown fuse, and when it's your time to go,
>you're gone forever.
Something like that.

>2)  Without a soul, could it be possible to clone a human and copy all
>of the original's memories into the clone, creating two of the same
>person?
>I think so.  I'm just tired of hearing people say "It just wouldn't be
>me," w/o any justification.
Unknown. Matter of technology. I can't see anythign preventing it
in theory. Modulo the possibility that as Penrose suggests, quantum
effects are important for intelligence, in which case, naturally,
we would not be able to get enough precision to duplicate.

>3)  What's the deal with supernatural type stuff(ghosts and the like)?
>I think it's a load of crap.
Sounds about right.

>4)  Will technology replace religion in the future?
>Believe it or not, I think it will.  I think the public in general
>depends less on the concept of a God then ever before.  I also think
>that science will one day disprove the existance of a soul, and will be
>able to create complex life from non-organics.
How does one disprove the existence of the soul?
In principle?

-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: epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Fundies posting here
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:33:24 GMT

In article <0eylpZa00iUyE7jkUk@andrew.cmu.edu>  writes:
> I think that the Fundies who post here aren't trying to save us.  What they
> want is a "Tried to save the heathen and was rejected.  Not MY fault they
> don't want to hear the Truth."
> 
> David

	Good try, but no banana.  I post here in an attempt to get involved in  
good discussions.  Your choice about whether or not to believe what I do is  
entirely your choice.  That means we can disagree without too many flames, but  
if you want to flame me, go ahead.

						Erik Powers
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible In Minnesota
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:30:14 EDT
Distribution: na
Organization: Wesleyan University

 In article <cscope.721097690@camelot> cscope@camelot.bradley.edu (William Twentyman) writes:
>
>>I was flipping through the channels on tv this morning, and came across
>>the Family Channel (sic) with Pat Robertson and some lawyer fellow.
>>They were discussing a case in Minnesota about the American Atheists
>>suing to remove bibles from schools and/or classrooms (I didn't see
>>the whole discussion). Of course, they weren't too happy about it,
>>and complained about how Christians are being repressed these days.
>>Anyway, I was wondering if anyone knows of this case, because I'm *sure*
>>they weren't telling the whole story (naturally).
>
>Funny, I don't recall ever seeing a bible while I was in school for 12 years
>in Minnesota.  I don't see what the problem is or what the point of the 
>law suit is.

   According to a report on the radio today, the reason they are doing
it is not because they really want to have the Bible taken out, but to
draw attention to Xian groups trying to get books like Catcher in the 
Rye and Huck Finn removed.  The justification they give for banning
the Bible is that it is full of violence, condones child abuse, etc.,
which are the same reasons the Xians want the other books banned.

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: eknipp@lobo.rmhs.colorado.edu (Ethan R Knipp)
Subject: Re: Well.......... It seems that Clintons is IN!!!!!!
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:15:27 GMT
Organization: Rocky Mountain High School, Fort Collins, CO

In article <1825@spam.ua.oz> jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew) writes:
>In article <1d9greINNc4h@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>>mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:
>
>>>>Clinton seems to be in.............'
>
>>>Thank God!
>
>>Thank me!
>
>>Stratocaster
>
>Why? Did you vote for the slightly less sleazy scumbag? Or perhaps you
>gave enough people an insight into the next four years of Republicanism
>that they all voted Democrat? Or perhaps people thought you might get a
>Cabinet seat? Or what? Were you the guy that single handedly screwed the
>economy up or made Neil Bush take all that money from Silverado? Did you
>write Pat Buchanon's speech for him? Come on you can't just say this and
>expect to get anyway with it. Enquiring minds need to know!!
>
>Joseph Askew

No, don't you get it?   He *IS* God.
|-]


-- 
==============================================================================
Ethan Knipp                   []         ***PANIC NOW-AVOID THE RUSH***
The Unbeliever                []
                              []   "It is not I who am crazy, it is I who am
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject:      Scientific Claims Of Religions
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 21:00:33 MEZ
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA17168; Tue, 10 Nov 92 12:22:07 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA29429; Tue, 10 Nov 92 12:21:36 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)   with BSMTP id 0586; Tue, 10 Nov 92 21:21:03 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

Ismail typed:

>>"3. Theistic religions represent an outmoded world-view which is no longer
>>valid. Science has made the 'God hypothesis' obsolete <Laplace-positivist>"
>How?

God is not well defined. It is part of the historical evolution of the god
idea. With the rise of science, less and less effects were explained as
the interference of gods with the real world. This happened for the many
contradictions mostly. Now gods ordinarily work through 'miracles', believe
if you wish, but there are other newsgroups for it, and in a supposed after-
life. An idea most atheists regard as silly.
The god idea holds no useful information, so to speak.


>I think the Qur'an speaks for itself when it addresses science through it's
>verses. Some of these points are:

>        1. Palestine as the lowest geographical point on earth (i.e. landwise)
>        2. method of milk production in a cow
>        3. the dominant femanine nature of the bee community
>        4. the intricate communication of the ant community
>        5. the barrier between salt and sea water
>        6. the expansion of the universe
>        7. developement of embryo in womb
>        8. creation of heavens and earth
>        9. function of mountains on the earths crust
>        10. the roundness of the earth
>        (there are more but they slip my mind)
>       (**If anyone wants the verses, let me know.)

I don't want the verses, I want the text. One of the my personal peeves with
religions is that they cooperate with a kind of charlatanerie usually called
theology. Theologists have the nice attitude to attribute good in the world
to god and bad to human frailty. Another scheme is to claim that the religion
holds scientific knowledge. Which it doesn't - it does not use the scientific
method. Let me illustrate it: would you accept that there is something
inherently wrong in the Quran when I am able to refute only one single claim
in it?

Science does not claim to be 100% perfect, but I would definitely expect that
from the words of a being that is supposed to have created the universe.
To rephrase that: a single wrong claim, and your god did not tell the truth?
And because it would have done so knowingly, it would have lied?

Or what explanation does your religion offer for the mistakes of its god?
   Benedikt
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:26:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov08.235324.21646@bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.222406.8994@cs.yale.edu>,
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>|>>How is logical proof different from scientific proof?
>|>Scientific proof can involve empirical measurement and typically does.
>But does it NEED empirical measurement?
Yes, I think so.

>|>>  Is math not scientific?
>|>Yes, math is not scientific.
>Could you expand on this?
Yes, math is REALLY not scientific.

>Don't we use logic to form scientific theory?
Yes.

>science: 1)systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc.
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
See this...

>Math quantifies and models reality: it helps us relate to what we observe.
Yes, but that doesn't make it science. The observational part of science
is what makes it science. Scientific first principles are dependent
upon observation. Mathematical first principles are not.

-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: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re:      Re: God Is Unfair
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:14:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.024754.27590@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>|> Further, can you give stringent evidence that your interpretation of the
>|> passage is the right one? That it was what your god meant when it destructed
>|> sodom/invented the fabula of destructing sodom? It rather looks as if another
>|> chain of theologic pseudo reasoning that aims at making the brute base of its
>|> beliefs more palatable for our 'enlightened' times.
>You can't have it both ways.  If you criticize traditional religion for
>being ancient and single-minded and inflexible, you can't turn around
>and complain that my interpretation is flawed because it's too modern
>and ambiguous and flexible.

You can, in fact, criticize religion for both of these things.  The second
part is worthy of criticism, not because flexibility itself is something to be
criticized, but because of the inconsistency between the flexibility and the
lack of flexibility elsewhere in the same religion.

Suppose I say something like this: "the rules about [so-and-so Jewish law] were
indeed given by God.  But just like God's orders about Sodom, these are orders
which it is right for human beings to use their intellect to question.  My own
intellect tells me that there is no good reason to [follow law], so I am going
to dispute God on this point."

I don't think this would really be considered acceptable.  If I were to use
that as a reason for not following some Jewish law, the answer would be
something like "I'm sure God must have a reason.  After all, he knows more
than you do.  Even if you don't understand God's reason, you should trust that
he has one and knows what is best."  That it _is_ acceptable for Abraham at
Sodom seems inconsistent.
--
"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)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: morality????????
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date:  6 Nov 92 00:12:50 GMT

morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:

>In article <ednclark.720775515@kraken>, ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>|> Personally I think it's unjustifiable to
>|> allow multi-murderers and rapists and repeat-assaulters to live in our
>|> society at a cost to the community.

>Fact:  A capital crime trial and execution in the USA is more expensive
>than a life imprisonment.

>How, then, do you justify the cost of capital punishment to the community?

>-- Morgan Burke (morgan@reg.triumf.ca)

By the savings in repeat offending, negative influence on others caused by
allowing such peoples to remain in our society (even in jail is in our
society as they influence people who will be getting out) and general peace
of mind knowing that the pool of violent offenders was decreased if only
just a little. And besides can you gaurantee that such offenders will not
break out of prison and cause an expensive manhunt.

Jeff.

P.S. Most people would call me left-wing in views, but not when it comes to
people who feel they can use and abuse others for their own ends, then I
become militant.
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Historical proof?
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 16:47:48 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
> There is still a discussion about if Nazi annihilation camps existed. How doe
> this fit into 'it is impossible, the memory of elderly persons regarding even
> of thirty years before is perfectly clear'.

Simple.  Those who "discuss" (ho ho) whether Nazi death camps existed, do so
not because they are interested in facts, but because they are interested in
bashing Jews.  The evidence that Nazi death camps existed is overwhelming,
and includes sworn testimony from those who actually operated the gas
chambers, film of soldiers uncovering mass graves of emaciated corpses, Nazi
movies made to explain their eugenics programmes, and so on.  The
revisionists merely spend their time trying to explain all this away and
postulating some huge Jewish conspiracy to falsify documents, photographs,
film, eye-witness testimony, trial confessions, archeological digs and all
the other evidence...  Of course, if Jews really were that good at faking
evidence and controlling the media, we'd never hear all the bad things we hear
about Israel.

If you want to see anti-semitic hatred masquerading as "historical
discussion", look for postings originating at b-cpu.uucp in newsgroups like
alt.conspiracy.  They also like to cross-post to soc.culture.jewish every
time there's a major Jewish religious festival, which makes their motivation
all the more apparent.

Alternatively, buy a copy of the Sunday Times.  They paid David Irving,
revisionist historian, to edit translations of the diaries and other
documents of the Nazi leaders.  They lost tens of thousands of readers after
that little faux pas.


mathew
-- 
"Boy, they were big on crematoriums weren't they?"
 -- George Bush, during a tour of Auschwitz, 1987-09-28

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:47:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov07.014950.18496@bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)  
writes:
> In article <1992Nov6.135913.3366@newstand.syr.edu>,
> dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:
> |>I am interested in making this world a better place to live,

	First, there needs to be a little defining.  Let's start by defining  
what exactly is wrong, and why it is wrong.  I mean, why it is absolutely  
wrong.  If the world only stinks for you, why should anyone else care?  This  
will give some credence to the idea that things can be improved.

 and in
> |>order to do so I think it would be beneficial if this group would
> |>think about ways of helping those who have religious leanings.  I do
> |>relize it would be inapropriate to lock up all Christians, Muslems, etc.

	Inappropriate, or wrong, or both?  Actually, I'm glad you leave this  
out, as it has never worked any other time it's been tried.  And why waste  
public funds?

> |>in insane asylums, but surely there must be some way of stopping this
> |>defective mindset(s).  Perhaps we should start with the most severly
> |>disturbed individuals, such as priests and other religous leaders.
> |>I think maybe someone could establish an anonymous "Believer" line.
> |>This should be staffed by a psychologist and would give the Believer a
> |>reality check (sort of a first step towards mental health).
> |>I would like to hear some other suggestions - something that an individual
> |>could do to cure a Believer.  Lets see some action please!

	The best way is to listen quietly and think carefully before flaming--  
many believers just get more hardheaded that way. Send them lots of money, give  
them all the police protection they can ask for, fill their churches with  
entertainment, and make sure the government supports and encourages anything  
they choose to do, to make them feel happy!  It has been shown in century after  
century that the happier, more satisfied, wealthy, and safe believers are made  
to feel, the weaker and weaker their faith becomes! 

					Erik Powers 
>             
> We could go door to door, giving out extistential lit.
> Or we could go on TV and preach the joy of atheism
> (big, colorful sets. lots of singing.  We could invite
> maimed people to come forth and not get healed.)
> How about a theme park?
> 
> Brian /-|-\
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:20735 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2184
From: young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:08:57 GMT
Organization: AT&T

From article <1992Nov6.043452.3676@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, by hwong@euler.Berkeley.EDU (Harris Wong):
>
>Where is the boundary of the universe? Is this a meaningful question
>to ask? 

In his book, A_Brief_History_of_Time, physicist Stephen Hawking says:

"The boundary coundition of the universe is that it has no boundaries." 
-- quoted as best as I can remember.

By the way, it's an excellent book.  

Young Huh
yhuh@ihlpe.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:20671 talk.religion.misc:20501
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Date: 6 Nov 92 03:25:34 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <9231112.13752@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, austin@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU writes:
> 
> In Galileo's time the dominant view of the universe was
> an Aristoteliean one.  This view said that the earth was
> the stationary centre of the universe and that the rest of
> the universe was perfect.  None of Galileo's discoveries
> directly supported a sun centered (Copernican) universe.

I believe that this is factually incorrect.

	"Galilleo's observations of Venus were of crucial
	importance, since it goes through the full range of
	phases.   In the Ptolomeic system, this would have
	been impossible."

	Durham and Purrington "Frame of the Universe".

Durham and Purrington note that at a pinch the Tychonic
system, which has the Earth as the fixed centre, but has
Mercury and Venus revolving around the Sun, will yield the
correct phases of Venus, but by the time of Galilleo it
already seemed to be discredited, leaving only the
Copernican.

jon.
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fool! There is no God!
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:10:53 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <rex.720833929@cyclops> rex@cyclops.itc.gu.edu.au (Rex Baker) writes:
>Look up "Evidence that demands a verdict" by Josh Mcdowell - Chapter 10. 

This book is well known among alt.atheism readers, and is not
regarded as a reliable source of information. Indeed, it is
often used as an outstanding example of how *not* to convince
reasonable people of something.

I know that it's quite likely Rex is going to ask why; does
anyone have an archived copy of Jim Perry's excellent critique
of the book? Maybe we should consider asking mathew to add it
to the FAQ; it seems like every couple of weeks somebody
brings it up.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:06:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.220940.14904@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
>Please point out to us Atheists examples of supernatural phenomena.
>Is there any reason why you assume that such things exist?

The point is that science by construction excludes such phenomena by requiring
that everything behave according to natural laws.  So, acts of God (by
definition supernatural) cannot be compared with scientific laws.  Religious
accounts (we can specialize to Christian accounts, if you want) put forth
supernatural phenomena which cannot be compared with the natural
models put forth by science.

>> any acts of God (supernatural) are, BY CONSTRUCTION, excluded from 
>> consideration.  One cannot make conclusions from science about God's 
>> existence or lack thereof because the two are unrelated.  There can 
>
>Are you saying that we can't see the effects of God's actions here in the
>natural world?  How do you know this?

No.  I'm saying they cannot be compared or subjected to natural explanations
since they are, by definition, supernatural.  Science and religion are not
opposed in general.  They are only opposed by those who reject one or the
other.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rex@cyclops.itc.gu.edu.au (Rex Baker)
Subject: Re: *TRUE* Christians
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date:  6 Nov 92 05:57:37 GMT

dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

{lots deleted}

>You might want to consider why, if Christians are supposed to be known
>for their love for others, they take as their icon a symbol of one
>of the worst things that one person could do to another.  Does it
>not strike you as a bit odd that the word "love" and the gruesome
>image of a crucified man are somehow connected together in your mind?
>Does it not strike you as a bit odd that the best your loving god could
>do to show his love for you was to cause his only begotten son to die
>an excruciatingly painful death?  Why does the preceding sentence have
>both the words "love" and "pain" in it?  Should there really be a
>connection between these words?

Graham, I'm not going to argue with you about whether those who claim to be
christians, or those who don't claim to be christian have committed the worst
atrocities. 

As far as your last paragragh goes, can I ask you a question??

Are you married? Or do you have a companion with whom you are greatly attached, 
(dare I say 'love').

If so , consider the following scenario;
You arrive home from work to find said 'loved one' being held at ransom by a known
killer. Would it not be an apt expression of your love for that person to offer to
take their place as the hostage. Even if that meant dying in their place. If you can
understand this, and the way your loved one would feel about you for doing this in their
place, then you can understand the way a christian feels or reacts to Jesus death.

Or perhaps,
There are countless stories from the World Wars, where soldiers chose to give their
lives instead of their 'mates' (yep, I'm Australian :-).....). In cases like these,
"love" and "a gruesome image" can be connected. 

How would you feel towards someone if they rescued you from a perilous situation which
resulted in their own death?

Rex.