HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:48:04 GMT

In article <72905@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.154934.24621@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>No, Matthew. Your attempt to pass off anecdotal evidence as gospel
>>is the snow job. I'm just calling you on it.
>
>What _gospel_ am I proclaiming?  Quit exaggerating, and you won't feel
>the need to invent strawmen so badly.
Matthew, you claimed that it was necessary to lie to your Calculus students
in order to teach them. I challenged it, and you respond with what is
frankly anecdotal opinionated bullshit. Don't you have the slightest
clue how to empirically demonstrate something?
-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?
Organization: HAM - Hackers Against MUDs
X-Subliminal-Message: IBM/370 assembler is your friend.
Date: Friday, 10 Apr 1992 09:22:18 EDT
From: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?

In article <graham.702876735@bizet>, graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
says:
>
>(Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>[on whether atheists have as much faith as theists]
>>In my humble opinion, yes they do.  Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm
>>sure someone will), but atheist means:  "to conclude that God(s) does
>>not exist", while agnostic means:  "to draw no conclusion about the
>>existence of God(s)."
>
>Nope.
>Atheist means lack of belief in God's existence, not belief in god's
>non-existence.
>Agnosticism is the position that the question of God's existence
>is not answerable/knowable etc.

Oh well...based on these definitions I can be called an atheist. It is a
quandary to me, however, that I have seen literature put out by the
American Atheists group titled "There is no God." This would imply that
atheism is in fact a belief that there is no god...
Since all I have is a lack of belief, I am not sure where that puts me.
Perhaps someone should get out a dictionary, but those were probably written
by christians anyway. We should just settle on some definitions and get on
with it.

>
>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

Martin Schulte
From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Owning up to Disobedience
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:57:52 GMT
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

In <5306@pdxgate.UUCP> news@pdxgate.UUCP (Net News Account) writes:

>From: allenroy@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (callen roy)
>Path: rigel!allenroy


<Yet another sermon constructively edited>


As I said before,.......
RTFF RTFF RTFF RTFF

--
         ______________________________________________________________
	|  A.G. Williams          |        Plus qu'il n'en faut.       |    
	|  willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie  |                                    |
	|_________________________|____________________________________|
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: WEEMBA jests or admits atheism? (Was: Re: WEEMBA and DABROWSKI Ang
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:04:42 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <92104.101634J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson) writes:
>
>Let me guess.  The subject matter of which they speak is of a higher order,
>truly unfathomable to the human mind.  So it is okay to be vague, to lie,
>to evade, to cast seeds of doubt, to self-contradict.  Excuse me while
>I hurl chunks.

I think that there are things I might like to communicate
or express that do not lend themselves to straightforward
explication. Now, I may be mistaken; it may simply be that
I am too inarticulate or stupid to formulate them clearly.

(I also don't think that a subject is 'of higher order'
or 'unfathomable' by virtue of being hard to convey. I
think, for example, that the object of Buddhist practice
is perfectly straightforward and even mundane; it
simply doesn't lend itself well to description.)

If I am right, and if other people have similar experience,
then it may be that some vague or self-contradictory
communication is a sincere attempt to convey a difficult
message. In fact, I think of poetry as being in this
category; if you object that poetry is often clear,
I will respond that much poetry is clear by artful choice
of indirection; poetry is the art of using a lie to
tell the truth.

>These kind of stories (which also can be found in the Sufi, Buddhist, and
>Taoist traditions) I find valuable precisely because they shake the
>the rigidity of analytic thinking.  But if the result is solipsism,
>feeling lost or confused, or permanent inactivity, I think the potential
>value of the lesson has not been fulfilled.

I agree. If I try to convey a message that is not suited
to simple explication, and if my delivery is greeted
with confusion, then I have failed, and the vague or
self-contradictory vehicle isn't poetry, it's just
vague and self-contradictory.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Monday, 6 Apr 1992 15:39:09 EDT
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: WEEMBA and DABROSKI Angst (Was: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Distribution: world,public
 <92093.115540J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992Apr4.174918.7562@rz-berlin.mpg.de>

In article <1992Apr4.174918.7562@rz-berlin.mpg.de>, dabrowski@rz-berlin.mpg.de
(Jarek Dabrowski) says:
>
>In <92093.115540J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> John A. Johnson got tired as well:
>
>-Eric Rescorla:
>>>> >[...] is starting to get really tiresome.
>-Matthew Wiener:
>>>> Then get lost.
>-Mathew from A to B:
>>>[...] YOU should be the one to get lost.
>-John Johnson:
>> Indeed, when I logged in this morning, the first screen in alt.atheism was
>> completely filled with articles by two nonatheists (Mr. Wiener and Jarek).
>> Even deleting these articles is getting tiresome due to the sheer volume.
>> What a drag.
>>
>[HURRAH! I was already afraid that my posts disappear in the ocean.]
>
>What a nice way to say "get lost"! Thanks, John. BTW, it seems that
>you were somehow more tactful when you talked directly to me. Maybe
>even a remote contact with a theist helps :->?

*I* did not say "get lost;" I merely said that I found the volume of
postings from you and WEEMBA to be getting tiresome.  You and I in fact
agree on some very important issues, but I do not seem to be learning
anything new by wading through your prolonged, quintuply-imbedded
discussions with Kent and others.

>
>> "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
>>
>How nice that atheists learned how to avoid metaphysics! How nice!
>
It seems you misunderstood this quotation.  Let me give you some context.
Pirsig suggests that "doing metaphysics" is a degenerate activity because
one must deal with categories that do not perfectly capture the essence of
reality.  For a period of time in his life, Pirsig avoided metaphysics in
an attempt to rise above degeneracy.  Yet then he realized that people who
completely avoid degeneracy feel so smug and self-important that they fall
into another sort of degeneracy.  Seeing that it was impossible to avoid
degeneracy completely, Pirsig decided to continue to do metaphysics (and
drink and fuck) because these things are part of his nature (personality).
My position is essentially the same as his; hence the quotation in my sig.

>             Jarek
>PS. DabrowsKi, not just "Dabroski". But doesn't matter.

Sorry about the typo.  I redid the header several times and was sloppy.
You may call me Jonson, if you wish.
And it has never been my intention to be impolite to you. -- John
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Question on modern manners
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:31:36 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <4hyjc3c@lynx.unm.edu> jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth) writes:
>
>But, my whole point was that "Bless You" implies that one has a soul and that
>there is a spiritual world.  When one doesn't believe that either exists, the
>act of blessing makes as much sense as buying a $200K Ferrari and placing a
>Datsun 1770 cc engine under the hood.  I do like the German _Gesundheit_, I
>had forgotten it.  If I remember my H.S. German correctly, it does mean good-
>health-ness and fits better than a blessing.

You are overgeneralizing from the Christian sense of blessing.
"Bless" can mean anything from "invoke divine care for" (the 
sense to which you object, I presume) to "speak gratefully of"
(probably irrelevant to sneezing, although I always kind of 
liked a good sneeze) to "confer prosperity or happiness upon"
(which is more apt, if we take prosperity to include good
health).

In addition, some of us treat gods as metaphors, and may
take them seriously while at the same time doubting or
denying their literal existence. Those of us in this
position may very well say "bless you" and mean it without
believing at all in the literal existence of deities.
From: yohan@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Date: 13 Apr 1992 15:25:37 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kitty.ksu.ksu.edu


If the Highest Intelligence (God) wanted to allow humans to grow,
even given that HI is loving, could He not then allow them to fail
and be responsible, to grow to be independent learning agents, much
as a father and mother will treat their offspring after weaning
them?

Carl Loeber          lion@netcom.com              San Jose


Me:

Sure, but that's not the Christian god.  If you fail after you are "weaned" your
parents can't do anything about it (at least nothing negative).  The God of
Christianity dooms you to eternal torment if you fail after he has "weaned" you.
The idea that man is weaned of God, free toi be their own individuals, is a joke.
If that was true, we could have whatever ideas or opinions we wanted, and not
have to fear his wrath.  I believe I said something to this effect earlier, and
someone said, "I don't believe all atheists are going to Hell."  Well then, I
have no quarrel with you, and you're also a minority in the religious community.

Jon Newton
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@cclittle.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: WEEMBA and DABROSKI Angst (Was: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 18:44:03 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world,public


In article <73042@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
> In article <graham.702607240@bizet>, graham@maths (Graham Matthews) writes:
> >This is all irrelevant drivel Matthew. The defintion of 'atheist'
> >John is using has been given by his 'acid' test (and is a fairly
> >standard and clear definition of atheism). Now when John asks you
> >'are you an atheist' he is quite clearly asking whether you fit the
> >description of the word atheist *AS DEFINED BY THE DEFINTION HE HAS
> >GIVEN YOU*.
> 
> 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.

 Funny, I thought Jewish tradition held that it was known that God
disapproved of practices like eating pork (among many other things),
working on the Sabbath, etc., etc.

> -Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)

 Or is working on the Sabbath prohibited for some entirely mundane
reason?

 Sincerely,
 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu
"The meek can *have* the Earth... the rest of us are going to
the stars!" - Robert Heinlien
--

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@caen.engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:15:15 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

in article <1992Apr7.122418.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu says:
> In his previous post Chris Ho-Stuart points out something I should have

Wow! I was taken seriously! Now I'll have to confess that I have not
really been following the thread. My main point was a kind of tongue
in cheek laugh at application of formal maths to reason about terms
which are not precisely defined, like evil and free-will.

> (I think Ho-Stuart stacks the deck when he has the probability of 
> commiting a sin decrease exponentially.  I don't know anyone like that,
> do you?  As I see it, the only simple mathematical model which is 
> justifiable is assuming a relatively constant probability for doing evil
> at each opportunity.)

Unless we grow in wisdom or love or something. But you're right of
course. The only way to get the kind of result I suggested is to have
an exponential decay or something very like it. Your constant probability
model will imply that evil will get committed if you wait long enough.

But consider whether perhaps the deck is stacked the other way. Your
decision to apply probability in this way is pre-judging the question,
since it assumes a lack of free-will (depending on what we mean by
free will).

Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Best Wishes
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:00:06 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.202257.20962@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> ak574@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (David Choweller) writes:
>>>Since God created souls, he defines what makes them happy.
>>Not necessarily. If God created souls as completely free beings, then
>>souls may also decide what makes them happy. Maybe they are unable to
>I don't see how souls can decide what makes them happy.  For example, if
>you don't eat, you'll starve and be unhappy.  God made the rule that
>if I don't eat, I'll starve -> I'll suffer -> I'll be unhappy.  I cannot
>choose both to be happy and not eat.  God makes you crave the love of
>another human being; I don't *choose* to be attracted to a pretty girl; If
>I fall in love with her, I cannot both choose to be happy and have her
>not reciprocate.

Ah, but you see, Jarek will now tell you that your souls made this choice long
ago, when before you were born God asked your soul whether or not it wanted to
be in a body that was subject to physical laws and lacking free will.  You
already made the decision that you wanted to suffer if you didn't eat, for
instance; you just don't remember it.

>Anyway, back to your scenario: supposing I don't like this crappy free will
>I've been given, will God take it back, and spare me from his damnation?
>You say that I agreed to be on this earth but don't remember doing it.  Can
>I change my mind?  Can I demand a refund?  If not, why not?

I already asked Jarek this, except with "your decision" substituted for "free
will".  His reply was basically that it is impossible for you to ask God to
take anything back, since one must first believe in God before asking him for
something.  (It is not possible to ask "God, if you are there I'd like you to
cancel this decision.")  To me, the claim that one must believe in God to
address a request to him seems rather odd; anyway, Jarek refused to explain
why, apparently believing that it was obvious.
--
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: djohn@maths.tcd.ie (Derek John)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: THE BIBLE WHATS IT WORTH?
Date: 14 Apr 92 08:50:20 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.

I read with interest the article about the way in which the gospels contradict each other.I was recently talking to a friend of mine who also happens to
be a theology student about this.I was surprised to learn that the  Catholic 
Church accepts that the gospels are not 100% historically accurate 
in fact he mentioned to me a few cases where the gospels make quite serious
historical errors,but nevertheless they are held to be 100% accurate when it    comes to reporting the words of jesus.I asked him how somwthing written up to   50 years after an event could report any conversation with veracity,he went
into this long argument about Q sources and other stuff whch I couldnt really
follow.I knew a bit about the new testament apocypha and asked him how come     some gospels were chosen and others rejected he told me that the four gospels
were the oldest and most reliable texts and had been held as authentic by the 
early church,and that most of the apocrypha were later imitations or
heretical texts.Can any body clear up this debate for me?  
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mcbride@sawwhet.owlnet.rice.edu (Doug McBride)
Subject: American Atheists address needed
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 08:01:41 GMT


I'm not sure if my previous post got through, so here I go again:


I need AA's mailing address, as I am trying to order some
of their Darwin Fish bumper stickers.  If anyone knows how
much they cost also, I would apreciate you letting me know.
Thanks a lot.


---------------------------------------------------------------
"Look for my corpse in the color supplement!" -- Andy Partridge
Doug McBride			        mcbride@owlnet.rice.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:54:41 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Research

In article <kSm+ZC+@engin.umich.edu>, ingles@crane.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
|> > |> 
|> > |>  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.
|> 
|>  Ah, but it would seem that the exact same level of maturity
|> would be needed to understand and appreciate the Bible, and
|> so it's not clear that anything is to be gained from using
|> it...
|> 
I had understood your earlier point to be that
by age 7 or 8 it was too late to give a moral
education.

My reply was that at this age we can read things
like the story of Adam and Eve, the story of
Abraham, the story of Hanukkah, and learn these
lessons.  That is, the reading is part of the process
which will lead to the higher "level of maturity".

This probably boils down to the Jewish belief
that it's important for your kids to read
("early and often").

-- 
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: atten@phil.ruu.nl (Mark van Atten)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: goedel's proof for existence of god
Date: 10 Apr 92 11:23:24 GMT
Organization: Department of Philosophy, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands

torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:

>In article <atten.702563771@groucho.phil.ruu.nl> atten@phil.ruu.nl 
>(Mark van Atten) writes:
> 
> >Goedel made this formalization of Leibniz' proof of
> >the existence of God (perhaps as outlined in Monadology par.44-45)
> >I would welcome all comments (theologians, logicians, thinkers, dreamers ... 
> >unite!)

>  A discussion of Godel's proof of the existence of God should not start
>from Wang's outline, but from Godel's own formulation. It is included
>in Volume II of his Collected Works, which I unfortunately don't have
>at hand.

1. I think Wang actually quoted Goedel.
2. Goedel's own formulation is certainly not in Volume II; that volume contains
publications (on logic, or, in Russell's case, philosophy of logic) only, no
personal material. Perhaps (selections from) his Nachlass will be published in
upcoming volumes.
From: poplog@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Red Sea.
Date: 9 Apr 92 11:42:09 +1000
Organization: University of New South Wales

In article <1992Apr6.180653.14636@wam.umd.edu>, spinoza@next05wor.wam.umd.edu (Prince Lev of the Domovoi) writes:
> In article <house.702520877@helios>  writes:
>> J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson) writes:
>> >Imagine a
>> >scientist who is collecting data and then God stepping in to make
>> >normally impossible things happen (like parting the Red Sea).
>> 
>> BTW, I read that recent simulations have shown that freak wind  
> conditions
>> in the Red Sea should be able to part it.
>> 
> Not to mention earthquakes.
> 
  There is no need for rediculous coincidences to explain the story of Exodus. 
Archeological finds suggest that the Israelites never actually went into Egypt
at all.  The theory is that the Israelites were realy the Caananites.  But many
of the northern peoples (in the region of Kurdistan) travelled to Egypt to take
part in raids.  Some of these tribes then settled in Caanan and became the
Philistines.  The Caananites were then threatened by the expansion of the
newcomers, so a new God came into existence to unite the Caananite tribes      
against the Philistines.  This is how the Isaelites and the Jewish God came
into existence.  The only real agreement between the bible and history starts
at about The Book of Kings.


        MATT. 8-)
    ________________________________
    I                              I
    I  mettw@newt.phys.unsw.oz.au  I
    I                              I
    --------------------------------
From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: WEEMBA jests or admits atheism? (Was: Re: WEEMBA and DABROWSKI Ang
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:34:25 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Research

In article <92101.134646J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>, John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

|> >I know very few Jews who would affirm the above [anthropomorphic God] in a literal sense.
|> >Many of us would affirm this in a metaphorical sense --- that is,
|> >we would teach lessons containing language roughly like this.
|> >Does that make most of us atheists?
|> 
|> In a word, yes.  Certain rabid, anti-religious atheists might not agree
|> with me, but in my book, any person who regards gods as metaphors is an
|> atheist.  I myself have been know to light candles on Imbolc, and I do
|> not think this makes me any less an atheist.  Welcome aboard.

Thanks for the invitation.   I don't know anything about
Imbolc, but exactly how much religious practice would
go beyond the limits for your invitation to stand?

Would you consider an Orthodox Jew who intellectually believes
that God is not anthropomorphic, but who nevertheless puts on tfillin
and tallit, recites the Shema, davens 3 times a day, wears fringes, 
observes Shabbat, etc., an atheist?  Or a Catholic who believes
that God is a metaphorical being but prays the rosary
and attends mass?  Perhaps by your definition close
to a majority of the world is atheist.
-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598