HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: choy@skorpio.Usask.CA
Subject: Re: Re: Truth
Reply-To: choy@skorpio.Usask.CA
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:27:13 GMT


In the article <1992Apr15.092327.19633@athena.mit.edu> by
David E. Hollingsworth (starpath@bard.mit.edu, NeXTMail: yummy), I get
reply

>> > What do we know to be true?

>	Nothing without assumption, but if we don't assume a few things,  
> we can't conclude anything either, and that's not very useful.

I wasn't asking "what tautologies are known?". I'm asking "what is true
without proof (and perhaps without logic)?" (Maybe logic as we know it
works.)

Henry Choy
choy@skorpio.usask.ca

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie)
Subject: Re: Backward Masking
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 00:13:17 GMT

In <1992Apr10.154247.22728@bnr.ca> rob@bnr.ca (Rob Sutherland) writes:

>All this talk of backward masking fails to take into account the
>fact the there is *NO* evidence that a "backwards" message hidden
>in music can be understood nor that these messages can affect behaviour.

I heard at a concert once a singer say something to this effect:  "If
backward masking can turn you into a Satanist, then why don't the
fundies use backward masking to turn us all into fundies?"

--
John Brownie
School of Mathematics and Statistics
University of Sydney
Internet: jhb@maths.su.oz.au
From: J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: WEEMBA jests or admits atheism? (Was: Re: WEEMBA and DABROWSKI Ang
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:46:46 GMT
 <73453@netnews.upenn.edu> <1992Apr9.210604.19267@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu>
 <1992Apr09.223614.33366@watson.ibm.com>
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Apr09.223614.33366@watson.ibm.com>, strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob
Strom) says:
>
>In article <1992Apr9.210604.19267@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu>,
>arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>|> Do you believe in an intelligent God who created the universe, who exists
>|> (in some sense in which Zeus and Santa Claus do not), who existed before
>there
>|> were any people around, and who later spoke to humans as recorded in the
>|> Tanakh, who gives orders and rules for morality (at least to Jews)?
>|> --
>I know very few Jews who would affirm the above 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.
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jews in the "real world" (was Re: Judaism and the FAQ file))
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:19:58 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)

In article <22562@goofy.Apple.COM>, ksand@apple (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>> I know of some women who disagree with your assessment of it working
>> well, with harassment coming in many different forms.  And I know of
>> some women who have gone to all-women high schools and/or colleges,
>> and so on.

>I don't either personally think that all-female or all-male schools
>are a good thing, quite the opposite.

You can think what you want.  Why don't you extend that freedom of
thought to other people.

>				       These were based on the old-fashioned
>society of keeping the sexes separated until marriage, and this is 
>not exactly a way to make people live peacefully together (remember
>Married with Children :-) ).

Uh no.  I don't watch television.

>> >And even if you move girls to the left and boys to the right,
>> >you could watch the girl crowd during the whole sermon. So what's
>> >the deal then?

>> Uh, the separation in a synagogue involves a physical barrier so that
>> the men cannot see the women.

>Shouldn't you expand this so they have separate entries to the place,
>so there's *no* way to take a quick glance at the other sex, and think
>about amorous adventures during the sermon? Even worse, you need to
>have two different times for the sermons, so there's no way to see
>the other sex *before* it all starts?

Judaism has traditionally never mandated this much of a separation,
since it has not found it to be that much of a problem.  The separation
is *not* based on armchair rabbis speculating on what might happen, but
on what has happened.

What "sermon", btw?  You have no idea of what you're talking about....

>As you see, this is not really practical, admit that the separation
>of sexes has to do with a social and cultural tradition, and not 
>based on any real issues related to human sexuality.

Well for sure it certainly has to do with a social and cultural
tradition.  It also has to do with real issues.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: smaurer@artin.helios.nd.edu (sean maurer)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Book of John
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:04:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr7.190410.3088
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

If this is the second time you read this I apologize.
I am interested in learning about the so called errors
in the Book of John. Are there any Bible scholars out
there that can point out the inconsistencies, fallacies,
omissions, contradictions etc. within the Book of John and
in its relation to the rest of the Bible.
Thanks, sean
.

--
Sean Maurer smaurer@artin.helios.nd.edu
From: davidch@ZIMMER.CSUFRESNO.EDU (David Choweller)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:31:06 GMT

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: California State University, Fresno
Keywords: 

In article <5APR199221524542@rosie.uh.edu> cosc143u@rosie.uh.edu (91F9774) writes:
|In article <9204050239.AA03522@CSUFresno.EDU>, davidch@zimmer.CSUFresno.EDU (David Choweller) writes...
|>Newsgroups: alt.atheism
|(original stuff gone)
|> 
|>If God is all-powerful, omniscient AND benevolent, he would indeed put
|>a stop to all the evil in the world.
|> 
|How?  The only kind of god who would put an end to all evil behavior summons
|such a "big brother knows what's good for you" feeling that I would truly

But God is omniscient, and *indeed* knows what's best for you;  How can he
not know what's best for you.  He created all the darn rules, he created
all the calamities you face, he decided what would make you happy, and what
wouldn't.  Even your desire for free will was created by him.  All this, so
he could play games with you, and if you don't match up to his arbitrary
rules, fry you in HELL.   HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

|dread the existence of such a being.

You should dread the existence of the God of the monotheists, that one 
day, perhaps because he's bored, decides to create souls, and play games with
them, inventing purely arbitrary rules and frying them in hell if they don't
obey the vague rules that he creates.  

|ME:  "Wow!  Five Bucks!  Someone left it in this class.  Well... know way to
|      know whose it is.  Guess I'll pocket it unless someone specifically 
|      mentions it."
|GOD: "Steve.  You know better than that.  It is stealing.  Put it back."

But a good GOD would make conditions so that you wouldn't have to steal.

|ME:  (Glancing around paranoidally)  "Boy, you never let me do anything 
|      except what's right.  You're always spying on me!"
|GOD: "Steve... I'm not spying on you.  I'm omnipotent.  It is not the same
|      thing.  Now put that bill back.  I know you are thinking evil thoughts
|      because you are frustrated so I will now change you so you feel better
|      about the whole thing."
|ME:  "Thanks God.  Boy I feel so happy now!" (Leaves room with beatific
|      expression on face.)

What's wrong with this?  Supposing you were in a Nazi death camp, and
you SS guard was torturing you.  God tells you that your horrible pain
is the cost of the free-will you were given.  Then, would you choose 
free will?

The free will that God gives you is worthless, anyway.  You're still buffetted
by desires that he created, and constricted by your circumstances.  But that's
a different thread.
 
|
|Ugh!  This is not the kind of god I'd want.  
|---
|Stephen McLeod
|The Eternal Student
--
                                                 davidch@zimmer.CSUFresno.EDU
    Sam:  How's life treating you?
    Norm: It's not, Sammy, but you can!
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:8211 alt.satanism:1327
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: logical?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 01:01:41 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.212313.4380@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> ehamrick@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Eric N Hamrick) writes:
> 
>      Is it logical for a perfect creator to create imperfections?
>    Perfection implies no mistake is ever made.  So I assume that
>    the creator is imperfect, or we are perfect.  And I doubt we
>    are perfect.  What are some views on this logic?
> 
>           -Eric Hamrick

If the intent was to make a creature that is
itself flawed, the perfect creator has not failed in any way.
Or, if you prefer, it is possible that what you perceive as
imperfection is not.  A theist might also add to that last that
it is not up to mere humans to judge the perfection of a god,
but then I don't buy that one as an answer either; however, given
a perfect creator, it works.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: WEEMBA and DABROSKI Angst (Was: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Distribution: world,public
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 01:56:03 GMT

Me:
>>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*.

Matthew P Wiener:
>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.

Me:
>>When you start introducing funny definitions like the above you
>>sound evasive and irrelevant.

Matthew P Wiener:
>That's funny.  I think you and John and others are being evasive: what
>do you mean by "God" that he deduced I believed in?

Easy, God = any of the Gods mentioned by any known religion.

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: U22015@uicvm.uic.edu (David Hanley)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: American Atheists address needed
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:43:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: uicvm.92104.214333U22015
Distribution: world,public
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago


  Well, the address to order books is:

American atheist press, P.O. box 140195, austin, tx 78714-0195

I assume that you can also order the darwin fish there too.

I THINK ( not believe ) that i have seen the fish in the catalog, but
I can't seem to find them now, so i can't tell you the price.

--DAVE!!
From: nathans@coos.dartmouth.edu (Nathan Shafer)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:36:52 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <6APR199219534716@milori.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@milori.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.211058.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes...
>>The doctrine of original sin does indeed seem to predict that 'all
>>have fallen short', and all will fall short.  
>> 
>>As I said before, there does not seem to be a type of soul associated
>>with free will which can be guaranteed not to sin.  Or rather, it is
>>not clear that there is such a type.
>
>Really?  So Jesus might well have fallen short of moral perfection?
>Or did he lack free will?

   Well, strictly speaking, Jesus was exempt from Original Sin by virtue
of his parentage (i.e. he was born of a virgin). So with regard to Joe's
statements, there is such a type, but it was a one-time exemption.
Generally speaking, Joe is doctrinally correct.

   However, with regard to the question "So Jesus might well have fallen
short of moral perfection?", many Christians will answer, "Yes, he well
might." Jesus' exemption from Original Sin ensured that Jesus was *capable*
of remaining morally perfect, but there was nothing to guarantee that he
would. That has always been my understanding of the temptation story about
Jesus, that there was always a chance that he *might* fail, thus making
his success that much more blessed.

Nathan Shafer
Dartmouth College, NH
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: a few fun lines
From: leppo@vax.sonoma.edu
Date: 11 Apr 92 01:42:23 -0800
Organization: Sonoma State University

Whats the point of being atheist if you can't be a little hedonistic as well

So here's a few quotes from the famous and the unknown to add a little 

fun to your day. I figured this news group would be one of the few 

in which my selected humor would find an attentive ear.

God is the immemorial refuge of the incompetent the helpless,
the miserable. They find not only sanctuary in His arms, but also
a kind of superiority, soothing to their macetated egos; He
will set them above their better. H.L. Mencken

If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated.
Voltaire

If God were suddenly condemned to live the life which he has
inflicted upon men, He would kill himself. Alexander Dumas

There are scores of thousands of human insects who are
ready at a moment's notice to reveal the Will of God on
every possible subject. George Bernard Shaw.

If you talk to God, you're praying; if God talks to you,
you have schizophrenia. Thomas Szasz

Creator: a comedian whose audience is afraid to laugh.
H.L. Mencken

God will forgive me; thats his business.
Heinrich Heine

It is the final clinching proof of Gods omnipotence that he need not 
exist in order to save us. Peter Devries

Religeon is always created by the fear of many and the cleverness
of few. (dang who said that one)

What's this with God wanting to be praised all the time?
What is he that insecure? (David H Leppo
  
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:8141 alt.satanism:1309
From: jlee@smylex.UUCP (Jeff Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Backward Masking
Date: 9 Apr 92 03:51:51 GMT
Organization: Shipbrook Software  (Newington, CT)

In article <7APR199209183545@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
> 
> (1) A reversed piece of tape is not the only kind of backwards message.
> In fact, this is NOT the case with "Stairway to Heaven."  Fundamentalists
> claim to find messages in the ordinary, forward-recorded vocal tracks,
> when played backwards.  They claim to hear these messages in reversed
> human speech.  [...]  (I've successfully "found" Satanic and bizarre
> messages in Christian music by listening to records backwards and looking
> for the same.)

Indeed.  After all, "Jesus loves you", when played backwards, comes out as
"We smell sausage".  But of course that message must have been put there by
Satan.  :-)

I've often toyed with the idea of writing lyrics with the *intention* of 
creating a secondary message (heard only if played backwards) without the
need for backwards recording or electronic processing.  (Of course, the
"normal" lyrics would make about as much sense as a song by "They Might
Be Giants"...)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
       Jeff Lee - jlee@smylex.uucp - jlee%smylex.uucp@uhasun.hartford.edu
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Iron rusts from disuse; stagnant water loses its purity and in cold weather
  becomes frozen; even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind -- da Vinci
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: WEEMBA and DABROSKI Angst (Was: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:25:46 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Distribution: world,public
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)

In article <1992Apr03.213905.22514@bmerh2.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30 (Douglas Graham) writes:
>Gee, those must have been back in the days when you actually said
>something in your articles.  What has changed since then?

I'm trying not to flame so much.  This results in weak flames and weak
articles in general.  It is not the natural weemba state of being.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 01:25:37 GMT

(Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>>>>No, Matthew, it is simply ill informed.

Matthew Wiener:
>>>>>How would you know?  It wouldn't make a bit of a difference to you.

Eric
>>>>What wouldn't?

Matthew Wiener:
>>>Exactly.

Eric
>>Huh? Your sentence was unclear.

Matthew Wiener:
>The "it" was your "it".  I assume you have been keeping track of
>your own pronouns.

Eric
>>				 I asked for a clarification, and you
>>take this as evidence that I don't care??? Have you considered
>>taking an introductory course in logic.

Matthew Wiener:
>Have you noticed English can be ambiguous?  I took your "what wouldn't"
>as sarcasm--implying that nothing would make a difference to you. 

You demonstrate your paranoia again. I read the 'what wouldn't' as
a question asking for clarification, but somehow you manage to read
it as sarcasm. Why is that Matthew? Why is is that you cannot just 
accept a question as a plain simple question, an enquiry, a request for
clarification? Why do *you* have to imbibe every question with some
venom, some sarcasm etc. When someone asks you the time off day do you
get all upity with them and acuse them of being sarcastic? Why can
you not take a question as just that and nothing more? You keep trying
to infer intent from the other poster's *written* words - it is a
practice fraught with error and generally pretty pointless. Please
refrain. Maybe you would find others could then communicate with you.

You are getting comical (perhaps absurd is a better description).

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@mantis.co.uk (From A to B)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: goedel's proof for existence of god
Keywords: god,goedel
Date: 9 Apr 92 11:17:41 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

atten@phil.ruu.nl (Mark van Atten) writes:
> First, this is not repeat not an attempt to apply Goedel's theorem to a
> religious question (or any other not concerning formal systems). However,
> I read somewhere that Goedel did not find it surprising that his theorem was
> used for this kind of argument, arguing that it is justified in some sense.

There's an article about this stuff in Omni this month.  I almost bought it
(the magazine, that is, not the argument) to read on the train to Birmingham
but decided on a newspaper instead.

I'll leave others to rip the argument to bits.


mathew

-- 
Hail Eris! / "Our whole economy's based on fear and death; how long can we get
away with this?" --- Jello Biafra / Message for Kodak: Bring back Dan Bredy! /
PGP RSA public key available on request / Desperately seeking Negativland's U2
CD / Just another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Simpler doctrine
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:30:38 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr4.102859.7561@rz-berlin.mpg.de>, dabrowski@rz-berlin.mpg.de
(Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
> 
> In <8dqmxz200awCI3ZlVB@andrew.cmu.edu> Stephen Alan Sisson 
> found a simple doctrine:
> 
> > There is no heaven; there is no hell; there is no god; 
> > and if there is, he can kiss my ass.
> > 
> Let's make it the simplest of all: There's even no 
> Stephen Alan Sisson; and if there is...  :->

But there is a Jarek! Time to start the Jarek-cult.

Cheers,
Kent
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:21:38 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)

In article <1992Apr9.155653.14279@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In order for you to do a good job of teaching, was it necessary for
>you to lie?

Yes!  Note that this is an existential assertion on my part.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: amitchell@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Question about modern manners
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:55:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: mac.1992Apr13.095542.2426
Organization: Macalester College

In article <1992Apr11.194811.26945@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> In article <1992Apr11.172232.23004@maths.tcd.ie> dbell@maths.tcd.ie (Derek) writes:
>>>Since it is alergy season, people are often sneezing.  In fact, it seems that
>>>I sneeze every five minutes.  which brings me to my question.  I am a "devout"
>>>atheist, and I don't know what the polite thing to say is when someone blesses
>>>me after I sneeze.  It is offensive that someone would think that I need saving
>>>and need the blessings of a person or a non-existant god.
>>>So what would be the polite response to tell someone?
>>	"Gesundheit" comes to mind.
> 
> This means "God bless you", as far as I know.

No, it doesn't.  It's basically wishing you good health ("Gesund").  If God was
in it, the word would probably have "Gott" in it.

> My advice would be to ignore it.  Saying an expression doesn't mean that you
> take the expression literally, and especially not for this one, which
> originated with the belief the soul was vulnerable when you sneezed (a
> superstition not actually part of a religion).

I tend to agree with you here.  If it really offends Derek, though, there
should be SOMETHING he could do....
Allison
amitchell@macalstr.edu
amitchel@math.macalstr.edu

Macalester College does not necessarily agree with my views.

If you want to be sure I will be able to read your response, please forward it
to me as well, as the DIrector of Computing Services here is threatening to
take the alt.* heirarchy away (he's restored it until tomorrow's meeting).
Newsgroups: alt.atheism