HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 13:36:57 GMT

mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:

>skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>> >skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>> >> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>> >> >Ah, so now you're saying that God has to do things which he doesn't want 
>> >> >do -- that, given that we are to have free will, he has to allow the book
>> >> >be transcribed inaccurately even if he doesn't want to.
>> [Rest deleted.]
>> 
>> I need to back up to this point.  I'm not saying that God has to do
>> things he doesn't want to do.  I'm saying that God cannot fulfill
>> conflicting wants.  To allow the book to be transcribed inaccurately
>> is not doing anything.

I'm more interested in backing up to this point, but I'll answer the
query.

>I'm afraid I'm used to moral codes where allowing something bad to happen
>through inaction is still bad.

I don't see how this relates.  The point of contention is whether God
has to do things he doesn't want to do.

>But to get back to the point, am I to take it that you're claiming that
>error-free transmission of God's word is incompatible with free will?

No.  It's not incompatible, since everyone with free will could choose
to transmit God's word error-free.  I claim that free will allows for
the possibility of errors in the transmission.  We have the errors,
and God's desire to preserve free will is an explanation for them.

Thus, I have shown that an omnipotent God wanting error-free
transmission and our not having that transmission are not necessarily
contradictory.
--
Gregg Skinner  g-skinner@uiuc.edu   I do not speak for any organization.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi)
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:22:59 GMT

In article <39988@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> ss@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Scott Stuart) writes:
>
>When was the last time that an airplane crashed into a glass plate and 
>killed itself while trying to escape from a cat?
>
>
>scott

At least the bird didn't kill 270 or so people "on board".

Ridha

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: delphine@wpi.WPI.EDU (Delphine Clomenil)
Subject: Re: Ethics -- a quest
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:41:53 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.145708.4644@watson.ibm.com> strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:

   (I'll suppress the urge to re-open the argument about
   why I dislike the term "Judeo-Christian", but I will point out that Spinoza
   was not Judeo-Christian; he was Jewish.)

Pardon my ignorance, but I thought Judeo-Christian included Jewish and
Christian (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox) religions.  I was under
the impression that it refers to the aspects that are common to both,
like the teachings of the Old Testament, etc.


--
	Delphine Clomenil (delphine@wpi.wpi.edu)  We Pay Incredibly

                       LEGALIZE PHYSICS

"	A race of hyperintelligent pan-dimensional beings once built
themselves a gigantic supercomputer called Deep Thought to calculate once 
and for all the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and 
Everything.
	For seven and a half million years, Deep Thought computed and 
calculated, and in the end announced that the answer was in fact Forty-Two -
and so another, even bigger, computer had to be built to find out what the
actual question was."

		- From _The Restaurant at the End of the Universe_
			by Douglas Adams

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rswiftrw@cc.curtin.edu.au (Rod Swift)
Subject: Re: 'Nuther g*d joke
Organization: -=[ Curtin University ]=-  Perth, Australia.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 21:06:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.180405.684@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

> In article <1992Jul25.223620.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> rswiftrw@cc.curtin.edu.au (Rod Swift) writes:

>>I was attacked on the street the other day by a g*d-believer and he said
>>to me...
>>
>>	"Know G*d, know peace.  No G*d, no peace."
>>
>>And I turned around to him and said...
>>
>>	"Stuff it up ya shirt ya hippy git!  Know G*d, know
>>	 problems.  No G*d, no problems!"
>>
>>He was very upset.  I received applause.

> Interesting.  I wouldn't have thought that this would work very
> well in a verbal exchange.

Appropriate hand actions do suffice.  Anyway, compare the two lines to see
how they were constructed.

Considering everyone got it, it was "know problem" :v>

Rod
-- 
|            . . .   . . . . .        "Dear God.  We paid for all this stuff|
|        +  +  +     +  +  +  +  +        ourselves, so thanks for nothing."|
|    *   *   *       *   *   *   *   *                                      |
|R    o    d         S    w    i    f    t      -- Bart Simpson saying grace|
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Internet: RSwiftRW@cc.curtin.edu.au               School of Social Sciences|
|PSImail : psi%050529452300070::RSwiftRW                   Curtin University|
|Bitnet  : RSwiftRW%cc.curtin.edu.au@cunyvm.bitnet             GPO Box U1987|
|UUCP    : uunet!munnari.oz!cc.curtin.edu.au!RSwiftRW        Perth  WA  6000|
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hanlon@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Casey Hanlon (SVER))
Subject: crusades again
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Distribution: usa
Date: 24 Jul 1992 14:39 EST  

Jim Brown writes in reference to Stalin:

>This atheistic barbarian killed more people during his Reign of Terror
>than even Hitler could have hoped to accomplish.

There is a major difference between Stalin and the european kings responsible
for the crusades.  The actions of Stalin were those of a parnoid individual.
He didn't order the purges in the name of atheism, he did so inorder to
ensure his remaining in power.  However, on the other hand those responisibe
for the crusades did so in the name of christianity.  They were self
proclaimed christians and in more than one case were responding to the 
call of the pope.  So without a doubt, the responsibility for the crusades
lies clearly in the lap of the christian community.  Deny it all you want,
but it happened and thats that.  Any attempt to deny that christians
were responsible is simply revisionist history.  Hmm, Jim you kind of sound
like Stalin.

Casey Hanlon  (dog si daed) 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: denmckinnon@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (NEIL MCKINNON)
Subject: Re: Free will (from Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University 
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:23:48 GMT

In article <dabrowsk.711681306@liveboard10> dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
>Subject: Re: Free will (from Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
>Date: 21 Jul 92 01:15:06 GMT

>Omnipotence does NOT contradict free will. Though omnipotence implies
>omniscience, omniscience does NOT imply that the omniscient being MUST
>immediately know about all events (in the past, present, and future). It
>only implies that this being IS ABLE to know that. The 'MUST' would, in
>fact, CONTRADICT omnipotence by imposing a logically unnecessary limit
>on the power of the omnipotent being. And if the omniscient being does
>NOT have to know the details of our future, this unknown part becomes
>the domain of free will. In other words, the omnipotent being MAY allow
>for free will, though it does NOT HAVE TO allow for it.

   
		Dear jarek,
				You are overlooking one major property of an 
ominiscient being.  He by definition must know all true propositions.  If a 
future "free event" is available to him to know if he chooses then it must 
necessarily be a true proposition.  Thus in his choosing not to know it he 
forgoes his omniscience.  If you redefine omniscience to circumvent this 
problem then you in a sense redefine God, and then you are a hell-bound 
sinner like all the rest of us.

			Yours   Tony Chay  (not Neil)
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 11:35:43 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> >skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
> >> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> >> >Ah, so now you're saying that God has to do things which he doesn't want 
> >> >do -- that, given that we are to have free will, he has to allow the book
> >> >be transcribed inaccurately even if he doesn't want to.
> [Rest deleted.]
> 
> I need to back up to this point.  I'm not saying that God has to do
> things he doesn't want to do.  I'm saying that God cannot fulfill
> conflicting wants.  To allow the book to be transcribed inaccurately
> is not doing anything.

I'm afraid I'm used to moral codes where allowing something bad to happen
through inaction is still bad.

But to get back to the point, am I to take it that you're claiming that
error-free transmission of God's word is incompatible with free will?


mathew

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pooder@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Don Fearn)
Subject: Re: Blasphemy in Greece
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:10:44 GMT
Reply-To: Pooder@vnet.ibm.com, but I can't receive e-mail, so forget it. 
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <92204.142414J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>, John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

|> I have also seen a swastika engraved in pottery (approx. 3000 years old)
|> from the Middle East and in similarly aged Viking artifacts.  Again,
|> the arms are opposite of the direction of the Nazi swastika.

The swastika motif is the subject of an article in the Jan/Feb 1992 issue 
of "Print", a graphical arts magazine.  It says that the symbol predates
the Ankh and that the  word comes from Sanskrit "svastika".  It resembles
an Indian mystic figure of well-being, good fortune, and luck and was used
as a "sign of benediction".  The swastika was also used by 19th century American 
Indians and was shown in a 1907 picture of the Corn Palace in South Dakota.
The Japanese in the early 1900's used symbols called "manji" that were 
variations on the swastika motif.  The article is about the symbol's change
in meaning from ancient times through modern.  Most of the arms were 
opposite direction from the Nazi symbol, but some (especially into the 
1900's) were the same.

-- 

    Pooder    -    Rochester,  MN  
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quid tibi (est) opiniones aliorum: What do you care what other people think?
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Subject: Re: Jarek's Challenge (was: We will see Return of Jesus!)
Organization: Xerox PARC
Date: 26 Jul 92 05:43:51 GMT

In <V8awNB3w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew says that reasonable is not the
same as intellectually appealing and describes his own views as not 
reasonable but intellectually appealing: 

-mathew [about Jarek's "I believe because I want to"]:
>>>>> as reasoned positions go it doesn't have much intellectual appeal,
-mathew: [earlier, about himself]:
>> | [I have no beliefs because I don't] behave in a way which I
>> | consider reasonable". 
-mathew [now, about this puzzle]:
>It's certainly "reasonable" to go to work every day.  But for many 
>people it isn't "intellectually appealing".
>
It depends on the work and the people, mathew the FAQ keeper. Moreover,
when you addressed me, you said "as REASONED positions go", didn't you?
So what did you really mean in your comment? Don't let me guess...


Best wishes,
             Jarek
------------------------------------------------------
 .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
 `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Date: 26 Jul 92 06:13:17 GMT
	<1992Jul20.162442.21778@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> <9997@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>
	<1992Jul25.220613.15611@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu's message of 25 Jul 92 22:06:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.220613.15611@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:

   In article <9997@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine) writes:
   >
   >  Indeed?  A jumbo jet can carry more payload faster and at a
   >  greater altitude than a bird.  When was the last time a jet
   >  was sucked into a bird engine intake?  And I certainly don't
   >  recall ever having a jet bounce off the windshield of my car.

   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.

Birds crash into windows, freeze to death, and do lots of stupid things
that airplanes don't.  Plenty of 20 year old aircraft continue in
service with no problems.  The flight life of a modern jetliner is
probably longer than that of all but the longest lived birds.  Now I'll
grant that aircraft (at least modern jets, who knows what people do with
small craft) need more maintenance than birds, but so what?

   >  You're comparing apples and oranges.  Man has no need to create a
   >  bird, since they serve no invaluable purpose and it's been done
   >  before.  In fact, the patent probably hasn't even expired on the
   >  original design.

   Man CANNOT create a bird, period.  If you think that birds serve
   no invaluable purpose, then you should study more. It has been
   done before by who? certainly not by man.  Since the existence
   of man till today, where did man reach?  he created superfast
   computers that can make millions of calculations a second? it doesn't
   come any close to the human mind.

But a human can't compute FFT's at 5 gigaflops, for example, whereas a
computer can do so.  Certainly a computer can't do any significant
amount of the pattern recognition that people can do, but remember that
pattern matching skills have evolved over hundreds of millions of years,
and as something of considerable importance to survival for anything but
the most trivial organism, was quite well selected for.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Spanish Inquisition (Long)
Date: 30 Jul 1992 19:26:43 GMT
Organization: Washington University Astrophysics
NNTP-Posting-Host: fermi.wustl.edu

Excellent article!  Thanks.

-Scott Oser
oser@fermi.wustl.edu
From: stoesser@i31s21.ira.uka.de (Achim Stoesser)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Swastika [Re: Blasphemy in Greece]
Date: 23 Jul 1992 13:11:50 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: i31s21.ira.uka.de

In article <1992Jul23.031928.6672@cs.yale.edu>, A. Satish Pai <Pai-Satish@CS.Yale.Edu>  writes:
|> Don't be surprised if you see the swastika prominently painted/drawn on 
|> *anything* in India, not just statues. 

Yes, I've read that the even sell "German Beer" in Delhi(?) with a swastika
on the label.

 							        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.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:33:27 GMT


(Ridha Souissi) writes:
>How do those things compare with the human brain, created by God,
>which invented these things in the first place?


Prove it, Ridha!! Or don't say it!!

Gavin -- Getting irritated by all these assumptions knocking around.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Subject: Re: Free will (from Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Organization: Xerox PARC
Date: 26 Jul 92 05:07:25 GMT

In <willimsa.711987119@unix1.tcd.ie> The Phantom Coalminer confirms that
if someone is omniscient, then he MUST:

-Jarek:
>>>Omnipotence does NOT contradict free will. Though omnipotence implies
>>>omniscience, omniscience does NOT imply that the omniscient being MUST
>>>immediately know about all events (in the past, present, and future). 
>>>It only implies that this being IS ABLE to know that. 
-NEIL MCKINNON:
>>ominiscient being [...] by definition must know all true propositions.
>>If you redefine omniscience to circumvent this problem then you in a
>>sense redefine God [...]
-The Phantom Coalminer:
>Omniscience DOES imply that it MUST know all events, for that is inherent
>in the very definition of the word.  
>
Could you guys please prove that omniscience as you want to understand
it (which, mind you, limits omnipotence) is a more correct description
of God than omniscience as I understand it? Assume you could ask God a
question; would you ever be able to find any difference if He answered
as a must-omniscient being or as a may-omniscient being?

BTW, I said that I won't reply to this thread, and I kindly asked that
this information be retained as long as I am being quoted... Please...


Best wishes,
             Jarek
------------------------------------------------------
 .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
 `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Free will (from Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Date: 21 Jul 92 11:57:47 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <BroznH.27G@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> uhschreg@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Ulrich Schreglmann) writes:

>zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
>>Actually I was pondering this last night.  What's the a.a. opinion on free 
>>will?  Do we have it?  If so, how does it work?  Which bit of us allows us 
>>to choose between options without the choice being predetermined by the 
>>physics of how the world including our brains works?

>Before you can define the term "free will" you have to assume that
>reason for one thing or other may very well exist but is not equally
>accessible for one of two minds. One mind can then leave the other one
>free will in order to let them decide according to their own judgment.
>If one mind has all information another one has, including the other
>one's motivation all he will be able to do is to manipulate, because
>the other one won't ever be able to do anything unsuspected.

Aaaahhhh - I was thinking more of the 'laws of physics control every atom 
therefore your every thought is predetermined' problem.  What's the way 
around that, if there is one?

+--Great Quotes of our Time-------------------------------------------+
|        You should never have a hobby that eats                      |
+--------------------------------------Amarillo Slim Preston----------+          
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England  (44)061-275-6033   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Praying to Mecca?
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:42:11 GMT

Me:
>>   > But why 5 times a day? Why not 3? Why not 7?
Matthew:
>>   It's the LAW OF FIVES, Graham.
(Ridha Souissi) writes:
>Oh yeah, it's the law of fives, Graham.  I forgot to mention it :))

Why did God chose a prime number? Is this the law of primes?

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: Hello?
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 10:04:16 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

Are my articles not getting out, or is everyone studiously ignoring me?


mathew
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Evidence
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 13:31:06 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
> From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine)
> >  Is Tolkien's work evidence for dwarves, elves, and hobbits?  Is
> >  C.S. Lewis' work evidence for Narnia?  You get the point.
> 
> You cite works of fiction which *purport to be* works of fiction.  The
> issue is far less clear with any work which claims to be a reflection of
> reality or truth.  The Bible *claims* to be true, so it must be evaluated
> on a more serious level than admitted fictional works.

OK.

Are Whitley Streiber's books evidence for the existence of sinister aliens
who kidnap people and subject them to horrifying gyneacological experiments?


mathew
-- 
Down, boy!  There's a good dogma.

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14644 soc.culture.pakistan:12916 soc.culture.arabic:2950
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:00:08 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Jul30.155300.12315@ucunix.san.uc.edu> minhaszt@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Zafar T Minhas) writes:
>I would disagree here, though it is true that many rapists want to humiliate
>the victim for one reason or another, you can not deny that the a large
>minority, if not a majority of women are raped for sexual pleasure. I should
>add that alcohol plays a strong role in both cases, but it is the general
>view in most places that women are only good as sex objects and are not worth
>much more than that. 

  Which kind of rape are you referring to?  If you mean the sexual
  assault of a woman by a stranger, than you are very much wrong is
  stating that sexual pleasure is the prime motivational factor.
  Most social experts agree that rape is a crime of violence and
  dominance, not of sex.

  While I can't quote statistics, I would be genuinely surprised if
  drugs or alcohol played a large part in the majority of rape
  cases.  At least, I've never heard it mentioned as such.  Perhaps
  you could back up your assertions?

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

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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism