HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 06:15:33 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.
From: jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jordan M. Wolbrum)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Chaotic brain behaviour and its influence on duplicating a perso
Date: 15 Nov 92 21:35:37 GMT
	<1992Nov13.131437.3158@newstand.syr.edu>
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>>"Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>> impulses.  With accurate enough recording/replicating devices, we
could     >> basically "install" the old person's memories onto the
clone.  School
>> would be pretty useless too.  Why go to school when you can have all
>> this information just uploaded to your brain?
>>
>It's sad that there are people who believe that's the purpose of school...

Why?  What else is there to school than learning that cannot be better
accomplished elsewhere today, with our current technology.  Basically,
I'm in school because I want to become a doctor.  I'd love to be a
doctor now, but I need to give up at least 7.5 more years of my life to
just learning how to be one.  I think that the reward is worth the
effort, and I'm enjoying the engineering curriculum at CMU(when I have
the chance to sleep!), but I'd rather just be "healing" right now.  The
main thing I learned in highschool was that you fit the mold, or you
didn't.  If you didn't, you had to find other people like you that were
"excluded," and make your life with them.  I also felt that this wasn't
discouraged by the faculty.  I could have told anyone that after being
in any environment.  I think it's just human nature to exclude those
that are different.  It's evolutionary(assure that your genes live on by
eliminating competion).  Don't get me wrong.  I think knowledge is
extremely important, I just think it's currently too slow for my tastes.
I'd like to know what you think is the purpose of school.  I mean, I'm
only 18, I don't know everything, and you may find something that I've
overlooked.
-JW
PS: I don't think that I'm bitter, just a realist.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Atheist "philosophy"
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:48:10 GMT

David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>Sorry, WRONG. We -can- save humanity. Society just chooses not
>to, because society is a hungry, greedy mob of ignorant fools,
>mostly Christians in this country, who believe as you do that
>we cannot save ourselves, therefore they do not try. There are
>a great many things we can do to save Earth, and therefore us.

	Like what ?

>NEVER! You demand that we consume and spend, because you feel there
>is no need to conserve, because your gods are going to come and
>save us. What utter ARROGANCE. What HUBRIS! You sound just like
>the James Watt asshole, who said it would insult his gods if we
>did not "use up" all of our natural resources.

	You misunderstood me, I'm against materialism. The trouble is 
	that it doesn't help if there are few non-materialists, when 
	there always are much more materialists. Greed is our major 
	environmental problem. How do you solve it with atheism ?

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21977 talk.religion.misc:21967 alt.politics.homosexuality:7568
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 24 Nov 92 01:16:37 GMT
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Nov22.032704.25058@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> mudge@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (MUDGE BRIAN WAYNE) writes:
>Sombody posted:
>
>>>Evetually they will respond with gas and pink triangles. Be careful.
>
>  Which reminds me of something interesting I found out the other day.
>  Remember all those homosexuals rounded up by the Nazis?  Well, I found out
>that the ones who survived the death/prison camps were not set free
>when the camps/prisons were "liberated".
>  Seems homosexuality was still considered a crime under german law, and the
>occupiers let it stand.
>                            Bri...
>
>
>

I don't know about that, but there were many homosexuals among the Nazi leaders.

	Sven
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dbent@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Darrell A Bent)
Subject: Nowhere else to go
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 22:51:30 GMT


     I have tried going to quite a few other religious newsgroups to discuss my
beliefs, but my views don't seem to fall under any of those categories.  As 
such, I thought that this group might be the only place where I can find 
tolerance for my beliefs, and perhaps people who have the same beliefs system 
that I do.  I believe that there is a God, and that God is a rubber band.  I 
believe that God shoots spitwads and paper clips at his buddies.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:24:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.131433.1905@umr.edu>, ckincy@mcs213f.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) writes:
|> [...]
|> I have an interesting theory:  It was fundamentalists that
|> nailed Jesus to the tree to BEGIN WITH!
|>  
|> Suck on that one for a few thousand years.
|> 
|> Now, imagine a world without these people.  Nice place, isn't it?

Not as nice as it would be without the people who continue to
carry on this thread on sci.skeptic!

-- 
J. Giles
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: morality????????
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 24 Nov 92 01:30:01 GMT

hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:

>[Sorry, I didn't read this thread earlier, so I am commenting on more than one
>person's opinions.]

>In article <ednclark.721455345@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>>mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>>
>>>In article <ednclark.721007809@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>>>>dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <1d6e46INN7e6@shrike.und.ac.za> dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace) writes:
>>>>>>: In article <1d3nt2INN7m6@shrike.und.ac.za>, dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace) writes:

>>>>	Let's [...]                                    
>>>>                                                       and just plonk any
>>>>really nasty offenders on this island without any modern convenience and let
>>>>them sort out their livelihoods amongst themselves. This would be a pretty
>>>>good deterrent as who wants to go to a place where there is no bars or walls
>>>>between you and that multi-murderer next door. I vote we just leave them
>>>>there as they have forfeited their right to have anything that society can
>>>>provide for them. No gaurds, no doctors, no tvs, no electricity, no guns,
>>>>nothing, just a picket to make sure no-one gets in with a method to get
>>>>out and who cares if they get overcrowded.

>Isn't this, to a very good approximation, how Australia started? And, to a
>somewhat worse approximation, America?

Damn straight! What's the problem with that! The only difference is that
Britain sent criminals who were not necessarily violent offenders (ie they
sent people who stole food and medicines as well as rapists and murderers)
and also sent guards to guard them. Personally I don't beleive all that is
necessary, just plonk 'em on the island and let whoever is there deal with
them. This is instead of capital punishment or life imprisonment, which are
of great cost to the community and I beleive only for those who are likely 
future danger to society.

>>>                                 Try looking at the drunk driving laws
>>>in France or Sweden.  Now tell me that someone in that country will DWI
>>>more than once.

>If you think nobody will, you must be intoxicated.

>	Sven

Jeff.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:00:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.162540.24184@news.cs.brandeis.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>
>In the past few decades, scientists have observed evidence for universal
>expansion which leads to the Big Bang model for cosmology.  This model predicts
>the existence of the microwave background which has been observed so that
>there is evidence for the model.  Now suppose a hypothetical god actually 
>created the universe 10,000 years ago and created it such that the universe
>appeared to have evolved from a Big Bang event.  Does this change the
>observations or the fact that the Big Bang model explains well the observations?
>No.  The universe still appears to have evolved from a Big Bang event 15
>billion years ago (actually somewhere between 10 and 20 billion) and is
>nicely modeled by the theory.  Lest this become like the discussion I've been
>having with Mr. Copelan, I must stress that I'm not advocating any
>particular religious view on the creation (the god I mention is hypothetical).

But the question remains, why would one make this supposition?

You may have missed his point on Occam's Razor.  You have provided two
explanations of the universe, one with God and one without.  Both are 
possibilities, but unless there is some compelling reason, logic justifies
the one without God.

Jim CopelanD

-- 

What we really need to do to bring peace to the middle-east
is to get the Jews together with the Muslims
and teach them to act like good Christians.
From: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Blasphemy??
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:51:25 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b63519.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Nov18.143325.19946@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>Conclusion:
>>Blasphemy laws are wrong and evil etc....
>
>Ah, but we atheists don't believe in absolute wrongness or evil! ;-)

To nitpick -- it is quite possible to be atheistic and still believe in 
absolute good/evil. :-)
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
| Damien Neil | dpn2@po.cwru.edu | Case Western Reserve University |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Circumcision (was Re: God Is Unfair)
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 00:42:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.171943.5907@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.214621.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>>read a while ago that there has never been a recorded case of 
>>penile cancer in a circumcised man.  But the chance of getting
>>it is so small that it's no more than the chance of infection
>>from circumcision.
>Hmmm...How many TOTAL cases of penile cancer have there been? If
>it's small enough, it's certainly possible it's statistical error.
>
>
As far as I know:
1) penile cancer is not rare;
2) circumcised men get it, too;
3) it is significantly less frequent among circumcised men, BUT
4) it is NOT less frequent among c'ed men than among non-c'ed who
   maintain proper hygiene.

	Sven
From: starr-daniel@yale.edu (Daniel Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Darwin on Trial
Date: 17 Nov 1992 13:27:03 -0500
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu
Keywords: darwin evolution fundamentalist false

In article <1992Nov17.062603.7927@news.uiowa.edu> cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu (Corey D Minter) writes:

>    Now, I would agree with the Proffessor that to understand evolutionary
>biology means that you need to dismiss the supernatural entity business.  I
>don't think they can coexist.  What do you say?

Well, I'll happily refer you to our Vatican/Galileo/Occam's Razor thread.
But the short answer is:

Evolutionary biology makes unnecessary supernatural creation of life.  It
doesn't rule out a creation that just happens to duplicate observed results;
such an indistinguishable creation is ruled out as inferior by Occam's
Razor (which is a philosophical principle, not a scientific one, the fact
that most scientists accept it notwithstanding).

Further, evolutionary biology says nothing about supernatural entities who
do something else besides create life... however, it does make such entities
unlikely in the sense that it requires these entities to interfere in some
areas (say, creation of the universe) but not in others (determination of
species) completely inexplicably  -- again, by Occam's Razor.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|Daniel Starr                | "Wait! Wait! Maybe THIS will work!" |
|dstarr@minerva.cis.yale.edu |                                     |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21825 alt.censorship:8974 talk.religion.misc:21741 sci.skeptic:20033
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.censorship,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 21 Nov 92 11:46:07 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <1992Nov19.083346.11808@midway.uchicago.edu>, hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
> In article <1992Nov17.215712.18356@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> rose@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu writes:
>>How can you pick up a mannerism genetically?  Your genes determine your 
>>biology, and the limits of what you can do.  There is no way for your genes 
>>to determine what habits you learn.
> 
> This is completely wrong. I picked up many of my father's mannerisms, many of
> which are unusual, although I didn't spend any significant time with him
> until I was 15, and all those mannerisms formed.
> 
> 	Sven
> 

I highly suggest reading _Nature's Thumbprint_, it is on the genetics of
personality.

Just as an example, I have a cousin (first) who lives in California.  I
haven't seen her in thirty years, at least!  Relatives who have seen us
both marvel over the fact that we look almost like identical twins, have
the same voice, same speech mannerisms, same gestures, etc.  

Genetics is a wild and wonderful thing.


sue
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Misquamicus)
Subject: Re: REAL Gods
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:40:44 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <n0e87t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>I've just waded through several dozen religionists articles here
>in alt.atheist. In these various articles four deities were up
>for sale--- Jehovah, Krishna, Jesus, and some bizzare New Age
>"Ascended master" stuff that was mostly indecipherable.
> 
>I've looked over dozens of Gods, ever since high school when
>I became enamoured with Greek mythology. I went on to Hebrew
>mythology, Jewish mythology, and Christian mythology. I guess
>in my next life (SMILE!) I'll have time for Chinese mythology.
> 
>I have found the deities above, Jehovah, Krishna, and Jesus,
>to be utterly lacking in any redeeming qualities. Krishna is
>a Drunken God and a Divine Madness God, much like Dyonysis.
>Jehovah, the "Earth Shakerer" (Poseidon, Neptune, Chronos)
>is a bloodthirsty butcher, drunk on arrogance. Jesus (Zeus,
>Horus, Apollo) the solar God, required his followers to hate
>their families, then lied to them every chance He got.
> 
>Since all these Gods were created, why not create some GOOD,
>VALID, socially responsible Gods WORTHY of worship?!
> 
>I nominate the following individuals as God. I submit that
>they are FAR BETTER Gods than any other God that have ever
>been put forth. I can think of THOUSANDS more than the ones
>I've listed below, that are FAR more worthy of worship than
>any religion's deity:
> 
>1) Larry Niven
>2) Isack Assimov
>3) Madam Curie
>4) Louis Pasture
>5) Motzart
>6) Max Plank
>7) Einstein
>8) Stephen R. Donaldson
>9) Louis LaMour
>A) Frank Herbert
>B) Shakespear
>C) Reba McEntire
>D) Ghandi
>E) Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
>F) Mae West
>G) Susan B. Anthony
>  
>No doubt you can think of more.

I prefer CHTULHU myself. Much more honest than Jehovah or the rest...
-Misquamicus
From: awmurray@eos.ncsu.edu (ALAN WAYNE MURRAY)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Circumcision (was Re: God Is Unfair)
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:19:48 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos

In article <1992Nov19.221401.27880@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.092029.24644@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>
>|> >Please explain how circumcision of an eight-day-old infant is
>|> >as barbaric as excising the clitoris and sewing the vulva
>|> >of a young girl.  
>|> 
>|> Ok, I guess if we have to start quantifying barbarity (I know, I
>|> started it), I'll concede that circumcision is not quite as barbaric
>|> as clitoridectomy.  But they're both completely unnecessary mutilation,
>|> they're both very painful for the victim, and they both cause reduced
>|> sexual enjoyment for the victim.
>|> 
>You drastically overstate the comparison between the two.
>
>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.
>
>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.

You drastically overstate the difference between the two.

The small holes created by ear piercing will heal themselves if you
don't WORK to keep them open (for example by keeping the piercing
studs in for 6 months).  Even after the 6 months, if you don't put
ear rings in them occasionaly, they will close up and heal.  Has your 
foreskin grown back yet?
 
Ear piercing is optional and usually not done on babies (certainly
not the boys).  Couple this with the fact that the pain is superfluous
(there are a lot more nerve endings in the penis than in the earlobe!)
and there is NO blood if done by professionals.  Now, how can you call
circumcision less barbaric than simple ear piercing???   BAH!

You yourself seem to admit that there is no medical benefit.  You're only
acting like a loyal robot for God and His word.  Tell me, did you have
a burnt offering as well or was that part skipped?  Did your wife stay
"unclean" and "touch nothing holy" for the prescribed period of time
(30+days)?
 

>
>-- 
>Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
>IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 07:49:40 GMT

In article <Petch-181192140829@oboe.gvg.tek.com> Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch) writes:
>
>Unfortunately, there are many homosexuals who *do* try to influence
>children toward the homosexual lifestyle. I just saw a tv news report last
>Sunday

99% of TV news reports I've seen in this country are a bunch of crap.

What network broadcast that report? What kind of news was it? Without such
information, it is ludicrous to quote a tv news report as a source.

> in which a lesbian was talking to a group of 10-year old public
>school children about how wonderful it is to be a lesbian.

Was she their teacher? If not, how is it relevant for this discussion?

> I think that's
>wrong,

It is certainly arguable, and considering the hostile environment and
possibly other undesirable effects (like reproduction problems), probably
most lesbians would say that it is not wonderful to be one. (I am taking 
your words litterally, as it is lesser evil than interpreting them.)

However, it is at least not provably false, unlike the existence of Santa
Claus, and yet few people are appaled at somebody telling children there is
Santa.

>                                             I believe a law preventing
>schools from advocating homosexuality

Certainly, schools have no business doing that. At least public schools. But
a private school that is openly gay-advocating would be quite an interesting
legal case. While I personally think it would be a silly idea, legally, I'd
argue in favor of its legitimacy.

> and other forms of immorality

Nonsense. By ad hoc asserting that homosexuality is immoral, you undermine
the logic of your argument.

> is
>entirely reasonable. My value system (the Bible) is banned from schools;

This is total bullshit. The rules of conduct in our society are based 99%
on the Bible (or, more accurately, on the Old Testament) and schools are a
part of society that is in no way exceptional.

>why should yours (which I find highly offensive) be permitted?

What value system are you talking about?

	Sven

Newsgroups: alt.atheism