HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j)
Subject: Re: Certainty, Sureness, Knowledge, Proof (Was:Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:08:44 GMT

>>For what it is worth, I am "sure" that God doesn't exist.  I am also
>>"certain" of this fact.  I shy away from using the word "know" because
>>that implies positive proof (which I don't have, although the lack of
>>proof for the other view I feel adds weight to my own).
>>
>>C Frog

>Questions:  1.  How is it that you are certain without positive proof?
>            2.  How does "knowing" imply positive proof?
>John A. Johnson

This is how I decide, as an Objectivist...

"Idea X is 'certain' if, in a given context of knowledge, the evidence
for X is _conclusive_. In such a context, all the evidence supports X
and there is no evidence to support any alternative...
 "You cannot challenge a claim to certainty by means of an _arbitrary_ 
declaration of a counter-possibility,...you cannot manufacture 
possibilities without evidence..."
			   Leonard Peikoff (Ayn Rand's Intellectual Heir)
			   "The Philosophy of Objectivism" lecture series

Since there is no proof that God exists, I am certain that God does not exist.

PS: "I 'know' that God does not exist" implies that, based on my current
    knowledge, God does not exist. Knowledge is contextual, and could
    change based on future evidence. People who claim "to know" is an
    absolute that will never change are apparantly Omnipotent.

Peter J Nelson
pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ron@syacus.acus.oz.au (Ron Williams)
Subject: Re: Dealing with annoying e-mail: A real life example!
Organization: ACUS Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Sydney
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 07:02:43 GMT

right is right.
might != right;

--
Ron Williams                  ACSnet : ron@syacus.acus.oz
Ph : +61 2 390-1366         Internet : ron@syacus.acus.OZ.AU
Fax: +61 2 390-1391             UUCP : uunet!munnari!syacus.acus.oz.au!ron
Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN)
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 20:04:44 GMT

In article <6geXVB6w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>> I have experienced the same.  To the Christians (not fundies) that I've
>> encountered in every day life (i.e. not on the net) the term atheism
>> always implies strong atheism, and the term agnostic implies weak
>> atheism, sort of.  The Christians I know look upon agnosticism as "I'm
>> unsure, but open minded or still looking," and atheism as "I've given up
>> looking; I believe there is no god."  The point is not whether their
>> definitions are right or wrong (although they are obviously wrong), but
>> rather that in order to have a conversation that is of any worth with
>> these Christians, I must adapt and use their definitions.
>
>Yeah, right.  And if you're arguing gay rights, you should use terms
>like "AIDS-infested queers" or "swish pederasts".
>
>
>mathew
>-- 
>Lung cancer and arteriosclerosis.
>For people who like to smoke.
>

 The purpose of language is to effectively communicate.  Words have different
meanings for different groups, that is a obvious.  So, basically if you want
to communicate ( or do you just talk to yourself, making 'convincing'
arguments that you understand but the other party is 'too stupid' to understand
) you have to work with the language and definitions with respect to your
audience.  This does not mean insulting people ( unless you want to communicate
that you are an ass ).  A lot of problems occur in this world because people
are either too clued out or to anal to communicate with their audience and just
communicate with themselves.
 Of course there is something to be said for definition.  If we let meanings for
words degenerate excessively and widely, then it becomes difficult to
communicate because we don't have the words to do the job.  It would be 
prudent to note that this is somewhat of a problem in general.  However, when
getting to more esoteric words, like agnostic, there is usually a common meaning
much different from the 'true' meaning, and this meaning is commonly held by
the majority of the people.  It would be prudent to generally use the common
meaning then- for the sake of communcication.  And maybe, if fitting, enlighten
your audience a bit too, by noting the correct meaning.

 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: science a religion?
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:29:35 GMT

It seems that we are going nowhere fast on this thread, and I found having
tried once that I lacked the patience to answer Mr. Klopfer's entire post,
there being a screenful of response demanded by each of Mr. Klopfer's
sentences.

I've excerpted what I think is at the core of Mr. Klopfer's position.

In article <1gjvb4INNbvs@eagle.natinst.com> klopfer@natinst.com (Mike Klopfer) writes:
>
> Maybe something like this [consistent axioms - sc] is the reason we engage
> in science. At least we have a better idea of how to go about solving the
> problems we encounter. Where as the problems posed by Jesus (of trying to
> deal with our neighbor) are far too difficult.


You have yet to offer any more than assertion that problems of social ethics
and so on have anything to do with `Jesus'. In fact most of your post, and of
those that went before it, seems to consist of unsupported assertions and
emotional appeals to `Jesus', and lamentation of the fact that unlike you,
we here do not use `Jesus' as an emotional criterion of some sort for
decisions which we would usually make in a more or less scientific fashion
using rational criteria.

Appeals to raw emotion without any reasoned justification are going to get
you, and demonstrably are getting you, precisely *nowhere* on this newsgroup.
Most of us are here exactly because we realise that emotion is not a reliable
basis on which to make judgements of fact, and certainly not by comparison to
reasoning based on evidence.

So yes, I know it's unfair in a way to demand that you provide a reasoned
argument for an anti-reason position, but frankly that's the only way you
can hope to have people even listen, let alone agree. And yes, I think that
if you did so, people would point out the inconsistency and dismiss your
argument anyway, and I confess that that is exactly what I would do myself.
You probably can't win, and it seems only fair to say so.

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.
From: D.J.Butcher@newcastle.ac.uk (Dave Butcher)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Religion = Anything that's fun is bad.
Date: 14 Dec 92 12:39:47 GMT
Distribution: world, public
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU.


In article <parsons.724047485@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu>, parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>
>>[Story about the Pool of Funness deleted.]
>
>>Though these things are extremes it does seem to show the trend in religions
>>that if anything is fun it's out. i think it's because if you force a person
>>to invest a lot of their time and enjoyment into something it makes them
>>more convinced of the rightness of doing so. I beleive religion has actively
>>used this attitude bending method (only recently identified by psychologists
>>as Dissonance Theory) for thousands of very successful years. This is yet
>>another way that being an atheist opens your mind to the things around you.
>
>Boy, now there is a sweeping over-generalization if I've ever heard one.
> 
Uh? Where? 
'show the trend' nope, thats a qualification, 'i think' thats another one.
'I believe' thats another one.

I'd guess that you haven't heard a sweeping over-generalisation then.  Or
perhaps reality jumped tracks again.

>-- 
>Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
>parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |

Dave.
Nb.- Witty Quote goes here.

	D.Butcher@ncl.ac.uk
From: sheikh@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu (rizwan a sheikh)
Subject: Re: "Keep Christ in Christmas"
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:03:05 GMT

In article <parsons.724046792@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>fsrey@rama2.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Rex E. Young) writes:
>
>>In article <parsons.723946184@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu>  
>>parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>>> fsrey@trantor.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Rex E. Young) writes:
>>> 
>>> [deletions]
>>> >I do take offense to the rising tide of extreme Christians attempting
>>> >to put their majority on school boards.  As mr. 'jc' said in his 
>>> >posting, this is dangerous, and must be countered.  I would pull my
>>> >children from school and teach them at home before I would allow
>>> >people with such narrow beliefs dictate how my children would be
>>> >educated. [deletions] 
>>> 
>>> Substitute "Liberals" or "atheists" or "homosexuals" for "Christians" in 
>>> that first sentence and you can see the similar view taken by Christians 
>>> of the current system of education.  
>
>>I suppose that I could get defensive and point out that I know of no
>>Liberals, atheists, or homosexuals making strong attempts at electing
>>(and I emphasize electing--That they would be there would be the fault
>>of every American that didn't vote in that particular election) people       
>>that support their issues primarily.  But, I can also admit that I 
>>didn't think a whole lot about what I was writing at the time.
>
>First example I can think of occured in the Presidential election
>that we just had.  Liberals certainly weren't supporting Bush.
>Athiests were not supporting Bush, and were actively campaigning for
>Clinton.  Homosexuals were promised many things by Clinton and
>actively sought to elect him.  NOW wasn't supporting Bush.  As for 
>this occuring on school boards and in other local elections, please 
>don't tell me it doesn't happen.  After all, that's what campaigning 
>is all about.  It just may not happen in your local elections.

You missed the point of the original post, namely that these fundamentalists
were HIDING the fact that they were fundamentalists.  None of those in your
example acted in this manner.

jc
temporarily on a friend's acount...
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Non-Religious Definition to Atheism
Date: 12 Dec 92 20:07:06
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<1992Dec13.003734.5087@cis.ohio-state.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: sheikh@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu's message of Sun, 13 Dec 1992 00:37:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.003734.5087@cis.ohio-state.edu> sheikh@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu (rizwan a sheikh) writes:

   In article <Bz5zCI.D5A@news.cso.uiuc.edu> pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j) writes:
   >>Also, atheism defines something negatively. Whenever you
   >>define something negatively, it has negative connotations.
   >>Atheism is somewhat connotative of amorality or a lack of
   >>values in popular context. I would suggest a more positive
   >>term. Here are my suggestions:
   >
   >>MATERIALIST
   >>SENSORISTS
   >>MATERIALISTIC UTILITARIANS.
   >
   >I personally use "OBJECTIVIST", but that's an Ayn Rand definition.
   >Perhaps you could use "RATIONALIST" OR "REALIST".

   How about free-thinker.

   Jim Copeland

You'd be amazed just how negatively people react to that, too.  Worse,
it's not because they feel they're being accused of not thinking freely.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write lpf@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Alt.Atheism FAQ: Introduction to Atheism
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:53:19 GMT

I think this FAQ is _far_ too wordy.

I tend to do this myself sometimes: write something to post, and then find I
can go over it and reduce its size by half just by taking out all the fluff....
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: Discrimination?
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 12:27:38 GMT

In article <BzAnGp.Lxn@newcastle.ac.uk> T.G.Nattress@newcastle.ac.uk (Graeme Nattress) writes:
>shari@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Wild and Crazy Kind of Girl) writes:
>
>> Hi! I have a couple questions for all atheists:
>
>> - Do you tell most people what your beliefs are?
>
> Yes. I usually gets round into converasations.  But surely I tell people
> what I don't believe, not what I do!
>
>> - If you do profess your lack of belief in a god, do you encounter prejudice
>> or discrimination?
>
> No, not at all.

I think it's worth pointing out that the culture of universities such as
Graeme and myself inhabit here in the UK (and I expect the same is true
in most of Europe at least) is rather non-religious, and most undergrads
here certainly regard Christians as curiosities. It is actually a talking
point, at least among the undergrads that I know (few of whom are in the
CS department, incidentally, and may constitute a biased sample for various
other reasons) when it emerges that somebody has a Christian living in their
house or on their hall corridor or whatever, and particularly if the
Christian is something approaching a fundie (not that we have 'em like
the US has 'em, thankfully) in which case s/he tends to be given a wide
berth with added Twilight Zone noises.

In this climate, it is a fairly safe opening assumption that the person
you have met in the bar or at some party is pretty unlikely to be religious,
and you are pretty unlikely to encounter prejudice since the atheist view
seems to be in [silent] majority, although such sampling techniques as going
to the bar or parties are obviously biased. Fortunately.

So how bad is it these days in the States on a typical large non-sectarian
non-bible-belt university campus? Say UIUC (haven't we got some folks posting
from there?) or Penn State (I *know* there's some psuvm's around).

>> shari@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu

> {---    T.G.Nattress@uk.ac.ncl -----------------------------------------}

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.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 17 Dec 1992 01:42:34 CST
From: <U16244@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus Saves....

  Or,


  Jesus saves..

  But the puck goes back to Gretzkey...

  He shoots!!!!!!!

  HE SCOOOOOORRRRRREEEESSS!!!!

  <Appropriate siren noise..>

  -CR
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: epowers@spock.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: You shouldn't post this drivel to alt.atheism because (30 words max):
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:29:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.160234.4573@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk  
(Simon Clippingdale) writes:
> In article <1992Dec11.140927.21058@cs.cornell.edu> rodmoten@cs.cornell.edu  
(Roderick Moten) writes:
> 
> > Answer:
> >
> > To be Christ like and obtain a relationship with the Father.
> 
> Please, please, please take this drooling nonsense out of alt.atheism.
> 
> Alternatively, define your terms and present your evidence, and we'll do
> it properly, and in far more than 30 words.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Simon
> -- 
> Simon Clippingdale  

	I wouldn't recommend that anyone become a Christian, and I am one.  If  
you can be any other philosophy and not feel you are cheating intellectually,  
please do so.  We have enough fakers as it is.  No one should become a  
Christian unless they feel they must (and I don't mean with a sword at their  
throat).  Not only that, I would recommend that anyone who claims to be a  
Christian but feels they could as easily have been something else to get out.   
I hate dishonesty, and I prefer an honest pagan to a "lukewarm" Christian.  But  
of course, this is only my recommendation-- it would be stupid of me to try to  
force anyone to take this course of action.  
	(Whoa, does that sound hostile!  Sorry, folks, hostility is not  
intended.  Christianity is not an exclusive fraternity, and I wouldn't keep  
anyone out for the world, but it's awfully tempting to try to water Jesus down  
to a palestinian hippie who was just trying to get people to like each other.)

					Erik
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: epowers@spock.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: You shouldn't post this drivel to alt.atheism because (30 words max):
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:30:45 GMT

Okay, in my last one I posted over thirty words.  I heap shame on myself for  
not following the rules.             Erik
From: lucio@phyrql.Alt.ZA (Lucio de Re)
Subject: Re: Dealing with annoying e-mail: A real life example!
Reply-To: lucio@proxima.Alt.ZA
Organization: MegaByte Digital Communications
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 07:04:19 GMT

ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:

> Even if it was unsolicited and unwelcome, I still think posting email
>witohut permission is out of line. A simple pointer to the FAQ would
>take as much time as posting this would... Just MHO.

It may be that I have a different ethic, but I fail to see why I need
the sender's permission to post unsolicited, and often offensive personal
e-Mail.  My permission wasn't requested, so why should I return the
favour?

I'd like to solicit opinions in this matter, as I think the issue has
obviously been accepted without discussion for too long...

-- 
Lucio de Re (lucio@phyrql.Alt.ZA)
The supernatural does not exist, but it gives me the creeps...
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Finnish Bible Translation
Date: 15 Dec 92 06:50:45 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec14.160330.16722@ousrvr.oulu.fi>,
ktikkane@phoenix.oulu.fi (Kari Tikkanen) wrote:
> 
> Alan Feuerbacher asked to translate 12 Dec 92 19:36:59 GMT:
> >KR33:
> >   Silla nain sanoo Herra: Vasta kun ne seitsemankymmenta
> >   Baabelin vuotta ovat tayttyneet, mina katson teidan puoleenne
> >   ja panen taytantoon teita kohtaan hyvan lupaukseni ja
> >   palautan teidat tahan paikkaan.
> >
> >KR92:
> >   Nain sanoo Herra: Kun Babylonian seitsemankymmenta vuotta
> >   ovat kuluneet, mina otan teidat jalleen huomaani.  Mina
> >   taytan lupaukseni ja tuon teidat takaisin omaan maahanne.
> 
> I am not good in English but I try. I think they both mean the same but
> real differences are names Babel and Babylon and that KR92 is easier
> to understand.
> 
> KR33: Because Lord says : Only after,when those 70 years of Babel 
>    has been passed, I notice you and put into practice my good promise 
>    as fas as you are concerned and I restore you back here to this place.
> 
> KR92: Lord says : When When those 70 years or Babylon has been passed, I
>    take charge of you again. I fulfill my promise and I bring you back to
>    your own country.

I know more now about the backgroun of the issue of 70 years of Babylon,
it's the notion if we are talking about 70 years at Babylon, or 70
years of Babylonian rule. Gee, one problem with the Finnish language 
is that you could actually use "Babylonian vuotta" to explain both
cases, and you really need more words to specify what is intended.

Aren't languages fun?

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jclesar@unix.amherst.edu (Jen)
Subject: Believe in BOB!!! :)
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:19:11 GMT


Hi, I'm new to the group, and have read some of the FAQs, but I'm still not
sure if this is appropriate here.  I think it might give people some laughs, 
but perhaps this isn't the place - if so, tell me (please don't let the 
flames rise too high).

What follows is a friend's "invention" - Copyright Purple Publications, 1992

	T    	H	E	B	O	B	L	E

			 "THE BEGINNING"
			THE OLD TESTICLE
			 BOOK I:  GENESIS
	     "AN ACCOUNT OF THE BEGINNING OF ALL UNDER BOB"


	In the beginning, there was BOB and BOB Heavens (where there is great
sausage).  But it was dark and BOB kept bumping into things, so he said:  "Let
there be light!"
	And there was light!  But at night, BOB still bumped into things.  So 
he said:  "Let there be moon and stars and psychedelic black light!"
	And there was!  Thus passed the first day.
	On Monday--that being the inevitable `next day'--BOB sat in a super-
comfy lounge chair and looked out at the void before him.  Feeling that some-
thing should share this vast space, BOB said calmly:  "Let there be planets 
which orbit the stars!  Let there be galaxies!  Let the planets be equipped 
with water and soft-drink machines!  Then place slime in the water and give it
two quarters!  Thus shall I allow the slime to crawl forth onto the fertile 
soil, grow into little fuzzy beasts, and buy soda.  Got it?"
	And, lo, did it all come to pass?  Yeah, it did.  The slime crawled 
forth unto the fertile soil and grew into fuzzy beasts who frolicked in  the 
fields amongst the less-fortunate slime.  The planetary soda machine, however,
demanded seventy-five cents.  The fuzzy beasts were one quarter short.
	In what was undoubtedly the most stunning example of caffeine 
withdrawal, the soda machine was lobbed into a volcano.
	But, in Bob Heavens (where there is great sausage), BOB had grown 
lonely.  Thus he created his disciples:  two beings that wore mainly black.
	"Go forth," BOB said unto them (taking a sip of seventy-five cent 
soda), "and preach to the fuzzy beasts of My existence.  Mate with the less
fuzzy fuzzy beasts, and taketh many wives.  Populate my worlds with your 
offspring!!  But, concentrate mainly on EARTH!!!  And here, take these."  BOB
reached into an inner pocket of his trench coat and pulled out two pairs of
super-cool, purple-tinted sunglasses.


Well, I guess I've used up enough space for now...if anyone has comments, good
or bad, please e-mail to :  jclesar@amherst.edu, although I won't be around
from the 22nd Dec to late Jan.  
If you made it this far, thanks for your patience!

Jen

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:23824 talk.origins:15669