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 14:10:45 GMT

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

>skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>> >So I do not have free will.  For example, I don't have free will with respec
>> >to breathing underwater.  God chose to deny me that choice.
>> 
>> I'm not clear on this.  Who is forcing, coercing, or compelling you
>> not to breathe underwater?

>God is.  He made me in such a way that I am unable to breathe underwater.

>Why couldn't he have made the authors of the Bible in such a way that they
>were unable to misrepresent his word?

Possibly because giving humans the ability to make the choice to
misrepresent his word was more important to God than the accurate
transmission of his word.

In all this I am simply fitting an explanation to the situation we
have to show no necessary contradiction exists in God's (weak)
omnipotence and not having something he wants.  I make no claim that
this explanation is "the way things are."  There are probably other
explanations.

Crucial to what I am saying is the claim that entity can have
conflicting wants.  Do you agree with this?

>Why is the former not an imposition on my free will, when the latter is?

The former is an imposition on your free will.  Preserving free will
is not an absolute, in my opinion.  In creating humans with certain
inabilities, God limited some of our choices.  He also gave us many
other choices.  I think the numbers of choices we have is ever
increasing.  Adam and Eve apparently had only one choice to make in
the garden.  We now have billions.  As we discover more and more, our
choices grow.

>> >So... the next question is, why is the freedom to misrepresent God's word so
>> >important when millions of other freedoms aren't?

Still an important question.  My previous longwinded answer boils down
to, "Because God decided it was."  Since I only present an explanation
and make no claim that this is "the way things are" no further answer
is required.

>But you admit that it must have been his choice?

Yes.  According to the explanation I present, God arbitrarily made
humans the way he wanted them.
--
Gregg Skinner  g-skinner@uiuc.edu   I do not speak for any organization.
From: ss@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Scott Stuart)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Date: 30 Jul 92 13:34:29 GMT
Reply-To: ss@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Scott Stuart)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <5777@ucru2.ucr.edu> wedge@valiant.ucr.edu (John J. Wegis) writes:
>
>Now that I think about it, why must people classify themselves at all? 
>Classifying separates and alienates.
>
>John Wegis     wedge@constitution.ucr.edu

People must classify things, including themselves, to make some sense out of
the world.  If all sensory input were treated as a big pile of unrelated data,
and no associations and classifications were made within it, we wouldn't
get very far towards understanding the data.  Likewise, grouping people
together who have similar beliefs allows you to think about what the people
have in common, rather than concentrating on their differences.  Of course,
this grouping all runs into a great big problem when the groupings are 
given more meaning than they should have, or when people are pigeonholed into
a group before you really know enough about them to make a classification.

scott
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Why do I post here?
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:56:11 GMT

Someone:
>Christainity appears, in this context to be a large parasitic meme,
>taking much but returning little.

jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>    Opinion.  And not a very valid one at that.  Many hospitals have
>    been built by Christian denominations.  Many colleges and
>    universities have been started and supported by churches.
>    Even the American Red Cross was started by a Christian woman.
>    Christianity has made significant contributions to health and
>    education.	There are few other philosophies/religions which
>    have done as much charity work as Christianity in an organized
>    and systemized fashion.  Individuals of certain philosophies/
>    religions may feel led to charitable work, but it is often
>    an individual decision, and not a cooperatively organized
>    effort within the political structure of the philosophy/religion,
>    indeed, if it even has a coherent political structure.

When I read this I laughed myself silly. When someone brings up the
Crusades jbrown says "that was real Christians doing all those horrible
things". And now above "jbrown" says "look at all the good things
done by christianity". Why is it jbrown that you are prepared to take
the credit for the good things but not the shit for the bad things done
in the name of christianity?

Typical!

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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: aa758@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jordan Fields)
Subject: DOES ANYONE KNOW...?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 11:49:43 GMT


I'm looking for any information on how one can become an
officially recognized (that is, by the state--in my case, Ohio)
minister of one of those non-denominational churches that only
seem to require $3 and a stamp. Thanks.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14505 soc.culture.pakistan:12863 soc.culture.arabic:2910
From: bes@cco.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:53:07 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

In article <graham.712324379@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:

>Sure we have no reason to believe that every interpretation is false,
>but by the same token we have no reason to assume that *any* interpretation
>is true.
>
>So now we are in agreement that humans cannot read something without
>interpreting it.
>
>Ok then tell me, say we have two interpretations, I1 and I2, of the
>same passage. How are we to decide which of the interpretations is
>"more correct" than the other?

I answered this before.  You take the interpretation that best satisfies
the definition of Islam.  You will say but other people will disagree
with you on the choice on interpretation.  Fine, I have no problem with
that.

>(Behnam Sadeghi) writes:
>>O.K., I agree with your correction, i.e. that "we could choose a 
>>method to best satisfy AN INTERPRETATION OF A DEFINITION but this
>>then leaves the problem of how do we know which interpretation is 
>>correct."   Well, as you said, communication is possible.  And the
>>basic ideas of Islam have been communicated to people with such
>>clarity that Muslims, i.e. about a billion people, are unanimous about
>>what the "INTERPRETATION OF THE DEFINITION" of Islam is.  
>
>So there is no disagreement at all within Islam? Many of the women
>in the Islamic women's group here in Sydney would disagree with you.
>What about the split of Islam into two camps?

Who implied "there is no disagreement at all within Islam"?  I didn't
say anything that came even close to this.  Please read my sentence
(quoted above) carefully; every word counts.  In fact, I capitalized
the critical words in hopes that the reader wouldn't jump to unwarranted
conclusions regarding what I wrote.

>(Behnam Sadeghi) writes:

>Ok indeed perfect communication is possible, BUT given any one of those
>100 interpretations, how can I tell whether or not it is a correct
>interpretation? This is the issue.

If we apply the criteria given by the Qur'an and Sunna correctly, i.e.
if we use logical reasoning, we'll be able to tell which is the correct
interpretation.  

>graham
Behnam Sadeghi
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Atheists--born or made?
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 08:50:46 GMT

in article <1992jul29.225332.1@acad2.alaska.edu> atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu writes:


 >The following article was first published in the Alaska American
 >Atheist newsletter (Feb. 1991).  The subject relates (however
 >tangentially) to recent discussions on alt.atheism and talk.philosophy
 >about the negative correlation between intelligence and superstition.

  A fine article! But is it any different from the proclamations of
people belonging to various religious sects who claim that they alone
have the courage to face the facts? All this "superiority" business is
very silly. Among atheists, as among people who like their eggs hard boiled,
you find the usual assortment of idiots, geniuses, and just plain ordinary
people.
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 12:07:27 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:
> >> 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.

You said "To allow the book to be transcribed innacurately is not doing
anything".  It seemed to me that you were trying to 'excuse' God by saying
that he wasn't actively causing the errors, just failing to prevent them.

I just thought I'd make the point that many people would feel that failing to
prevent something bad when you have the power to do so is as immoral as doing
the bad thing yourself.

> >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.

Sorry, bad phrasing.

Are you claiming that if transmission of God's word is forced to be
error-free in any way, free will will be impossible?


mathew
-- 
Civilization is just a temporary failure of entropy.

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14620 soc.culture.pakistan:12904 soc.culture.arabic:2945
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: lighten up, people
Keywords: faith
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:16:01 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <1992Jul27.091703.1222@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>In article <Brxn7q.Hoy@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mr. Mensa ) writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>	3) God is not a person! [...] He (see above note) does
>>	not have a physical existence. He is a spirit of Love. [...]
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>	If anyone wants to pursue these discussions any further, do not
>> hesitate to e-mail me, too. I am a VERY open-minded person, but I still
>> have not some across anything that explains things better that the 
>> existence of a God, whatever YOU may believe this God to be.

> Could you give one or two examples of these "things" which you think are best
> explained by invoking the existence of a God? What specific properties does
> this God have which make it the best or only explanation for each "thing"?

...and the questions stand despite Mr. Ehardt considering my questions
above to constitute an uneducated and hostile attack made by one who has
not shown himself to be capable of an enlightening, non-emotional debate,
and therefore refusing to discuss it with me.

I'd be curious to know what was so offensive, if anyone else can spot it.

>>	thomas ehardt
>>	tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14462 soc.culture.pakistan:12855 soc.culture.arabic:2901
From: steve@fulcrum.oz.au (Steve Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Date: 29 Jul 92 06:05:51 GMT
Organization: The Fulcrum Consulting Group

In <1992Jul27.145725.8638@cco.caltech.edu> bes@cco.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi) writes:

>Your question is basically how can
>we tell which interpretation is correct.  The answer depends on which
>standard or method you use in arriving at the interpretation.  If the
>method is correct, then the interpretation is correct.  Then the question
>is how do you choose the method?  The answer is that there is a single
>criterion for choosing the standard or method:  The criterion is that the
>method is chosen in the way that satisfies the definition best, i.e. the
>method that allows us to understand what the true intention of the scripture
>is.  Now, obvisouly people will have different methods.  Some of them will
>be right and some of them will be wrong.

So, you get the right answer by choosing the correct method of interpretaion,
and you select the correct method of interpretation by choosing the one which
will give you the right answer! 

Can you rephrase your answer in such a way that it's not a circular argument?

							
							Steve
							steve@fulcrum.oz.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rswiftrw@cc.curtin.edu.au (Rod Swift)
Subject: 'Nuther g*d joke
Organization: -=[ Curtin University ]=-  Perth, Australia.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 13:36:20 GMT

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.

Just thought I'd share that with you all.

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|
+-----------------------------------+---------+-----------------------------+
|  Curtin University of Technology  |  Perth  |  RSWIFTRW@cc.Curtin.edu.au  |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: clennox@vaxeline.ftp.com (Systems Anarchist)
Subject: Re: Burn in the brimstone fires of Heaven
Organization: FTP Software, Inc., Wakefield, MA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:30:46 GMT

In article <willimsa.712431261@unix1.tcd.ie> willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams) writes:
> [...]
>which burneth with fire and brimstone."  A lake of molten brimstone means
>that its temperature must be at or below the boiling point, 444.6C. We
>have, then, that Heaven, at 525C is hotter than Hell at 445C. -- From
>"Applied Optics" vol. 11, A14, 1972

This assumes the pressure at heaven or hell is at or near 1 (earth)
atmosphere...

-- 
Flame me at: clennox@ftp.com
Craig Lennox                                          phone: (617) 224-6222
FTP Software, Wakefield MA                            pager: (617) 597-0683
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14364 sci.skeptic:13264
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 27 Jul 1992 10:24 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Jul27.142127.7867@cco.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes...
>In article <RDgkoB3w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>> As they cast doubt on whether Bush said anything of the kind, the are *very
>>> important* to the point being made.
>>
>>Please explain why they are important to the point being made.
> 
>Because those words give us reason to believe that the whole story was a
>fabrication.  Consider an analogy:  If I told you that an astronomer had made
>some observations of the 1988 supernova, you'd have little reason to doubt my
>statement.  If, on the other hand, I told you that the astronomer had made the
>observations at Palomar observatory, you'd be damned certain that I'd got part
>of the story wrong, which would cast doubt on the rest of what I reported about
>it.

Now that we know that the "Mr. President" came from a posting in which
someone was not quoting from a transcript they had at hand, but from memory,
this whole argument is a waste of time.  There is plenty of evidence for
a *single* version of the quoted transcript (which I have appended verbatim
below from a published source which I *do* have in front of me) which does
not contain "Mr. President," and *no* evidence that there is any published
source that does contain those words.  Can we go on to something else now?

From _Free Inquiry_, vol. 8, no. 4, Fall 1988, p. 16:

Bush on Atheism
The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert
Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush.  The Republican
presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for
Illinois.  The discussion turned to the presidential primary:
   SHERMAN:  What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are
atheists?
   BUSH:  I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community.  Faith in
God is important to me.
   SHERMAN:  Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism
of Americans who are atheists.
   BUSH:  No, I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens,
nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God.
   SHERMAN:  Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the
separation of state and church?
   BUSH:  Yes, I support the separation of church and state.  I'm just
not very high on atheists.
   -- _GALA Interim_

[_GALA Interim_ is presumably a publication of Gay and Lesbian Atheists.
-jjl]

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: clennox@vaxeline.ftp.com (Craig Lennox)
Subject: Re: 02/alt.atheism fre <cont>
Organization: FTP Software, Inc., Wakefield, MA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:54:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.013648.16481@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>
>Doesn't the idea of a universe that cannot be simulated bother you?
>An unsimulatable universe would imply that there is some hidden
>magic in the universe thats outside the laws of math as we know
>them. I'd sooner believe in God than I would believe in that.

The problem is, you seem to be looking for a simulation of the
universe which is somehow objectively distinct from the universe
itself.  However, any model of the universe you construct is, in fact,
a _subset_ of the universe; thus, it is necessarily incomplete.

-- 
Flame me at: clennox@ftp.com
Craig Lennox                                          phone: (617) 224-6222
FTP Software, Wakefield MA                            pager: (617) 597-0683
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
From: dagbrown@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Dave Brown)
Subject: Re: lighten up, people
Keywords: faith
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:07:33 GMT

In article <Bs2zzz.3wG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mr. Mensa ) writes:
>	Now this is a paraphrase of how the comcept of eternal damnation
>	has been explained to me:
           [...]
>		...those in Hell are forever to stay there.
Now _this_ is unreasonable...even murderers get parole.  Once evil, then
any chance for a reprieve?  Oh well, Christianity doesn't have any room
for fairness...nothing like a petty god (Funny how God is depicted in
the Bible as apparently having the temperament of a spoiled five-year-
old... ha ha only serious).

>	Remember, this is a Catholic, and not necessarily all-encompassing
>	Christian perspective.
    Well, it's a bit more reasonable than some people's views I've seen
on the subject--although I'm sure that there was _some_ sort of rather
impressive flood, otherwise people wouldn't've wrote it down...although
there are arguments to the effect that light didn't separate into
separate wavelengths before the Flood %-| .
--
Dave Brown
dagbrown@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
Phone: (519) 725-6896
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Date: 28 Jul 92 13:52:19 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> >Anyway, can I then take it that you do *not* claim that guaranteed accuracy
> >of transmission of God's word is incompatible with free will?
> 
> Yes.

OK...

> [I think this discussion is becoming muddled because it has gone on
> for several weeks.  I will stop now, lest anyone be tempted to start a
> "you said this" fighting match (mathew is not likely to do this, but
> others are).  mathew is welcome to continue via email.]

I'll continue here, because as far as I'm concerned the whole of the last
couple of weeks is irrelevant in the light of your response above...

So, forgetting the last two weeks entirely...

Given that guaranteed accuracy of transmission of God's word is not
incompatible with free will -- above, you say that you're not claiming
they're incompatible --  why do we find the Bible to contain errors?


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Date: 25 Jul 92 14:37:40 GMT
Organization: Xerox PARC

In <graham.711863498@galois> Graham Matthews plays word games again:

>Why did God bother with evolution? Why not just make everything 
>as it is now?
>
That is HOW, Oh Graham, my dear 'aGNOStic'?

Be consequent, please. Or you are an agnostic only when it is useful to
argue against people who have different BELIEFS? (Yes, I did suggest you  
believe. No, you know what I mean. Yes, I am malicious. Yes, because you
are. Yes, I am serious. Yes, please answer. Yes, I think you won't).


Best wishes,
             Jarek
------------------------------------------------------
 .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
 `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
Newsgroups: alt.atheism