HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: csfed@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Frank Doss)
Subject: Re: Have you submitted to the will of God?
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:04:11 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.152450.11416@access.digex.com> you write:
>I'm a new reader of this newsgroup, so I apologize if this question has been
>posed before (yes, I read the FAQ file).  I'm curious to find out how many
>atheists and agnostics have truly opened their hearts to God.  The question
>might sound inane, but I don't think it is.  Let me explain.

[Remainder of posting deleted for brevity]

What god?  Yes, your question has been asked many times before.  Many
people who post here come from a "strong Christian background" and make
claims based primarily on that background.  

The stereotypical atheist does not believe there is a "God" to be
permitted into his/her heart.  Why should I make the effort to welcome 
a void into my heart?  Should I welcome the Easter Bunny into my heart
while I have the welcome mat out?

And, why Jesus?  There have been many great thinkers throughout history.
Many of these people have been religious figures (if that's what you
need).  If you feel you need to let a highly moral, non-violent
non-diety into your heart, try Gahndi.  Maybe Confusious.  Maybe
Sidhartha.  Maybe Mickey Mouse.

Many people need religion.  My wife is one of those people.  I am not.
Obviously, I respect people's right to have religious views.  I also
respect my right to not hold to the belief in the existance of god(s).


>From what I have seen here in a.a, the following is not a normal thing
for atheists to do:

sin
accepting deities into hearts
belief in a creator               (Andromeda Strain II: The Vacation) 
worring about an after-life argument  (come on, G-man! Let me in!)
fear of "Satan"                   (Jesus: The Woolen Comforter)

I would call someone who believed in these things border-line agnostic,
disgruntled xian, or confused.  Not atheist.  But to each his own.

Stuart, I am not trying to flame you.  I am only giving my reaction to
your posting.

Hang loose, bra!  ;-)

Fr*nk D*ss
Standard Disclaimers.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ehamrick@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Eric N Hamrick)
Subject: What are you doing here?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 21:13:08 GMT

        If the Christian Hell exists, who would you expect to find
     there?  Hitler or maybe Al Capone?  Probably.  But because
     the first Christian requirement to get into Heaven is to
     accept that Jesus died for our sins, you would probably be
     surprised to find who else would be keeping old Beelzebub
     company.
          How many great deists can you think of?  Hummm. Almost
     every founder of our nation was a deist.  George Washington,
     Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine to name a few. Here are
     a few quote from the group that certainly got them a
     reservation in the Christian's Hell.

          As to Jesus of Nazareth.... I think the system of Morals
          and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the
          world has saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it
          has received various corrupting changes, and I have,
          with most of the dissenters in England, some doubts as
          to his divinity.
                         -- Ben Franklin

          The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for
          absurdity.  Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept
          for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, doctrines, and whole
          carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in
          Christianity.
                         -- John Adams

          The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my
          religion.  I could never give assent to the long
          complicated statements of Christian dogma.
                         -- Abraham Lincoln

          There are many more. What a fitting end to the proponents of
          democracy, huh?

               The most intelligent man in this century must be roasting
          hotdogs over one heckuva campfire right now.  Albert Einstein
          was a pantheist.  He believed God was Nature, and believed the
          Bible was of human origin.  For his religious view take a
          a look a his obituary in The New York Times, April 19, 1955.
          I am sure that got the temperature upped in his eternal resting
          place for that quote.

               So, if there is truth to what the Christian's claim, you
          can an least take comfort in the fact that Hell has some very
          famous people in it.  It might even be possible to get Mark
          Twain's autograph!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@cardinal.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:16:25 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor


In article <72429@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
> In article <qwg+kVB@engin.umich.edu>, ingles@flea (Ray Ingles) writes:
> >(Mind you, I think the socratic method works best in such things, so
> >don't think of it, at Matthew Wiener apparently does, as a 'lecture.'
> >By the time a kid is capable of understanding a moral thought, they
> >are capable of some level of discussion and interaction.)
> 
> Huh?  Where did I come in here?

 I don't remember the exact post; but we were talking about *discussing*
morals with kids and you immediately equated this with *lecturing*
kids. If this was not yuor intention, my apologies.

> > But I still think that *seeing* a hardworking parent will
> >teach a 'lesson' far more effectively than any fable.
> 
> And what if the lesson you want to teach is don't steal?  Don't gossip?
> Sometimes the most effective way to get the message across is to show
> the negative effects of stealing/gossiping/etc, and the hardworking
> parent presumably has to look elsewhere for this.
>
> -Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)

 No, the best way to show "don't steal" is to watch someone who
has a good chance to steal and finds another way of dealing with
the situation.
 There will be plenty of others around to show the negative
consequences of stealing; heck, a newspaper is good enough for
that.
 Look, I am not saying that literature is *useless* in teaching
morals. I am saying that exapmles and thoughtful discussions are
*more* useful, *much, much* more useful. This is what I have seen,
anyway.

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@caen.engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.
From: hedrick@dumas.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Date: 11 Apr 92 07:50:13 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

yohan@cutlass.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:

>Every devoted protestant I've talked to would argue that we (aetheists and
>agnostics) are going to Hell.  As I've never talked to any devote catholics 
>about religion (not that there aren't any or that any of my catholic friends 
>aren't devout), I'm curious about what catholics feel merits Hell and their 
>theory about the afterlife.

>I would have sent this to the author, but I think it would be good if the 
>basic Catholic ideas on this subject were made clear.

I'm a Protestant (though a liberal one), and I don't say that you are
necessarily going to Hell.  Essentially all Christians, of both
flavors, will say that salvation is available only through Christ, but
at least some allow the possibility that people can have Christ
present in their hearts without recognizing him by name.  (The
Catholic term for this is "anonymous Christian".)  It's most common to
apply this to people who have not had an opportunity to hear the
Gospel, e.g. who live in areas where the message hasn't been
presented.  However only God can judge whether you really heard it
properly.  Perhaps all the Christians around you have made the Gospel
seem hateful, so you've had even less opportunity than the savage in
the jungle who has never at all.  However I get the impression that
most Christians don't think "anonymous Christians" are very common,
and that atheists would be least likely to fall into this category.
I'm not sure how many people believe in the possibility.  It's
something I've always wanted to have good statistics on.  I recently
got a Gallup book about American religion.  It summarizes a number of
beliefs, but not this one.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wednesday, 8 Apr 1992 14:07:42 EDT
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: WEEMBA jests or admits atheism? (Was: Re: WEEMBA and DABROWSKI Angst
Distribution: world,public
 <graham.702607240@bizet> <73042@netnews.upenn.edu> <graham.702698163@bizet>
 <73217@netnews.upenn.edu>

In article <73217@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P
Wiener) says:
>
>In article <graham.702698163@bizet>, graham@maths (Graham Matthews) writes:
>>>Since he hasn't told me what "God" means, and I am clueless--Jewish
>>>tradition doesn't help me here, since it teaches that God is totally
>>>unknowable--I really don't know how to answer his question.
>
>>>[What] do you mean by "God" that he deduced I believed in?
>
>>Easy, God = any of the Gods mentioned by any known religion.
>
>Well, yes, that much I figured.  But the fact that the mention them
>frequently doesn't mean that they define or explain them very well.
>
>Can you *please* fill in this void?
>
Let me try some reflective listening.  Matthew Wiener, are you saying that
god(s) have been so poorly defined for you that you do not have sufficient
information to decide whether or not to believe in any of these gods?

If I got that right, the next question is, are you jesting?

If not, then I have changed my mind and now assume you are an atheist.
Anyone who does not have a full and clear enough description of gods to
profess belief in gods is, by default, an atheist (a-theism = without
belief in gods).  Have I solved the riddle, or does the game go on?
-----------------------------------
John A. Johnson (J5J@psuvm.psu.edu)
Department of Psychology Penn State DuBois Campus 15801
Penn State is not responsible for my behavior.
"A ruthless, doctrinaire avoidance of degeneracy is a degeneracy of
 another sort.  Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing
 metaphysics is a part of life."  - from _Lila_ by R. Pirsig
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Keywords: God
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:39:06 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Apr16.145627.4869@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> zeisset@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Stephan Zeisset) writes:
>God is not responsible for evil but for undoing its consequences.
>

  Given this post, and some of Jarek's "heretical" ideas, I must
  renounce my atheism and be welcomed back into the fold of theism.
  After all, I can define god and give him attributes at will.  I
  can mold him into any shape I desire.  I can hold him blameless
  for those things I find abhorrent, and praise him where I see his
  obvious presence in what I cherish.  

  I therefore choose to worship the God That Dosn't Exist.
  Hallelujah.  Fortunately, I also get to define the worship
  service.  I'm still working on that, but I'm sure it will involve
  a mug of ale and dancing girls.

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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

Well, I vote for us to believe in an honest lawyer. There's a 
better chance that one exists than there is a chance that there is a god. 

No jesus, know peace.  Know jesus, no peace.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:49:43 GMT

In article <73451@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.193003.27389@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>No, but I do believe that teaching is a highly complex phenomenon,
>>and I'm concerned with several obvious sources of error.
>
>Well, if they are so obvious, spell them out.  I also believe that
>teaching is a highly complex phenomenon, which is why I had no qualms
>about deviating from the truth to minimize confusion.
Did you control for the material discussed? I.e. did you do the
same material several times with the same tests using the two
methods?

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh?
From: J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:54:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: psuvm.92097.155456J5J
Organization: Penn State University

In article <01050133.05at1a@caligula.cts.com>, edw@caligula.cts.com (Ed Watkeys)
says:
>
>I haven't been around alt.atheism very long (a month or so), but in this time,
>more than anything else, I have gotten the feeling that Matthew P Wiener has
>a persecution complex, is rude and generally a sour kind of person. I don't
>think these feelings are unfounded

No, they are not unfounded.  I have also found him to be paranoid, rude,
and sour.  He likes to evade, obfuscate, mystify, and then attack people
when they misunderstand him.  He can also be very amusing at times,
however.  I must admit he's made me chuckle more than once.  I just wish
he would stop getting into Jewish trivia arguments.  BORING!

 -- I have about twenty messages from him
>currently waiting to be expired, and he has never once been what I would call
>pleasant. Is there a reason for all of this? The point of this group, I       ,
>imagine
>is too discuss things, and being evasive and relying on semantics to 'win'
>arguments is counter to the spirit of this goal. As is calling atheists
>essentially lap dogs for Christians and anti-Semites and liars.
>
Yeah.  I am an atheist, I have many Jewish friends, and am typically
pro-Israel.  So Mr. Wiener really pissed me off when he called me
a closet Christian and a closet anti-Semite.  But I'm not angry-anymore.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1992 17:46:33 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Research

In article <92093.113309J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>, J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson) writes:

|> 
|> When several atheists here said the Bible "sucks" as a guide
|> to moral action, I do not think they were rejecting 100%
|> of its content.  What we find objectionable is (1) the poor
|> ratio of moral wisdom to moral obscenity (e.g., God murdering
|> people and having them murdered), and (2) the reason for behaving
|> morally (God's orders as opposed to genuine value for human
|> beings).
|> 

I think that (1) is a serious issue.  The Bible has examples
of cruelty as well as kindness which can be used as
an excuse for people to act in a cruel way and justify
it with the Bible.  That's why the Bible has to be
used in the context of commentaries and traditions,
and not by itself.  Jews and Catholics tend to
agree with this (although they disagree on the
particular commentaries and traditions); Protestantism
tends to disagree.  The Bible, like any tool
for good, can be equally well a tool for evil.

I think that (2) is a non-issue, however, being mostly
a terminological difference between atheists and theists.
For me at least, the meaning of the term "God's orders"
and the meaning of the term "genuine value for human beings"
is close to identical.  Remember, I don't believe that
there is a literal old man/superbeing in the sky giving out orders
and shooting thunderbolts at miscreants.  That's more the Greek
imagery.  Theists have a tradition of using the phrase
"God's will" to denote things that atheists just use
different terms for.

Now if you argue with a fundamentalist or Biblical literalist,
then (2) may in fact be a relevant disagreement, but
for me it's a non-issue.



-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:19:38 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson)

In article <92097.155456J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>, J5J@psuvm (John A. Johnson) writes:
>I just wish he would stop getting into Jewish trivia arguments.  BORING!

I'll stop when people stop making criticisms based on either ignorance
or a different world view.  For the one, I'll say "you're ignorant", for
the other, I'll spell out the Jewish view.  Or vice versa.

>Yeah.  I am an atheist, I have many Jewish friends, and am typically
>pro-Israel.  So Mr. Wiener really pissed me off when he called me
>a closet Christian and a closet anti-Semite.  But I'm not angry-anymore.

I remember the former, and clarified what I meant.  It was not nice, and
I apologize for the rudeness aspects, but I felt it got across the utter
absurdity of atheists (of all people) using Christian notions to define
Judaism.

I have avoided the term anti-Semite to refer, even indirectly, to anyone
on alt.atheism since I blew it when I scratched Lt 030.  Somebody else did
bring it up once, as a cautionary warning about what has been a popular
anti-Semitic canard, over the animal slaughter hoohah, and Lt 030 later
incorrectly ascribed this to me.

You are too kind in not mentioning my cracks in e-mail regarding PSU.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 15:49:34 GMT

In article <72838@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <graham.702357689@dumas>, graham@maths (Graham Matthews) writes:
>>Nope I don't but then I never claimed it was either! All I did was
>>dispute your claim that it wasn't by conclusively showing that
>>until you have a control experiment your so called justification
>>is just vapourware.
>
>I know what worked with my own students, and what did not.  The truth
>and nothing but the truth did not work.  The request of Eric and others
>for "controlled experiments" here is nothing but a snow job.
No, Matthew. Your attempt to pass off anecdotal evidence as gospel
is the snow job. I'm just calling you on it.

You know what counts as proof. Why are you trying to get off on
a lesser standard?
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh? 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1992 22:10:25 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Research

In article <zNk+f2B@engin.umich.edu>, ingles@cclittle.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:

|> > Actually, it's not clear that the authors of the Bible
|> > and commentaries arrived at similar conclusions from
|> > a "greatly different direction".  We may be just
|> > using different words to describe it.
|> 
|>  Hmmmm. But they justified fairly typical moral commandments by
|> saying, 'The Lord said: Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt...."
|>  I.e. I still think that the authors had a different route to
|> the same morals, though what nowaday readers do with this may be
|> different.
|>

That's how they wrote it down.  But presumably you don't
believe that the Lord literally wrote the commandments
on the tablets and handed them to Moses (neither do
most liberal Jews).  So the authors probably had a
similar route to these morals that you do today.  The
only difference is that we have 3300 years of tradition ---
we don't start from scratch.
 

|> 
|>  Okay. But I think by the time a child is old enough to read,
|> understand, and get something out of the Bible, they have already
|> had the bulk of their moral education...
|> 

Yes and no.  On fundamentals like not lying or stealing, yes.

On more subtle things like tolerance, it's not clear.
From my perspective as a parent, middle-schoolers
have a lot to learn in that area.

On other things like the courage to be different,
the dangers of assimilation to the crowd, conscientious
objection, the conflict between serving oneself
and serving others, ..., I think a certain level
of maturity is required.
-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
From: dlyndes@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (David Lyndes)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: "Where did the universe come from" is an illogical question
Date: 13 Apr 1992 07:10:58 GMT
Reply-To: dlyndes@deltahp.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: Barrios Technology @ NASA/JSC; Houston

[Ryan Daum]
|> >Many Atheists and Theists alike use the question of "Where did the 
|> >universe come from" as a platform on which to support their particular 
|> >opinion.  [...]

[Graham Matthews]
|> What you are confused about is what you mean by 'reality'. If you do
|> not define 'reality' as 'everything there is', but rather as say 
|> 'everything we percieve' then it is indeed possible for an observer to
|> imagine being outside of a reality (note: that the observer would
|> necessarily not be a member of the rality he/she was observing, or
|> strictly the observer would need to be a member of an encompassing
|> reality). ie: realities could be embedded within each other.

Indeed?  This "everything we perceive" just won't do.  There are too many
things we will never perceive but exist nevertheless. There are neutrons
at the center of distant stars about to decay.  There are rocks
in the earth about to dissolve into the magma.  There are gnats in
deepest Alaska about to be eaten by toads.  We'll never perceive them
but I'm sure that such things exist.  I'm relatively certain that
you also believe that there are such things.  (Well, you could
be a disciple of George Berkeley - "to be is to be perceived or
to be a perceiver.")

If your intent was to find a way to to ask "where did everything come
from", but exclude a supernatural being from that "everything", you'll
have to come up with some other way to explicate "everything".
-- 
+-------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| David K. Lyndes                     | "Kill the head and the body will      |
| Barrios Technology                  |  die."                                |
| email: dlyndes@deltahp.jsc.nasa.gov |  - Hunter S. Thompson                 |
+-------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer nor of God. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:8369 rec.scouting:899