HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yohan@chester.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Date: 10 Apr 1992 16:02:49 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: chester.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <01050133.0l3vt9@caligula.cts.com>, edw@caligula.cts.com (Ed Watkeys) writes:
>
>In article <s2rfqINN84@festus.ksu.ksu.edu> (alt.atheism), yohan@festus.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>> 
>> 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)."  I'm
>> sorry if I'm being redundant, but I just want to make sure this is clear. 
>> Anyway, it seems to me that atheists are just as assuming as theists, since they
>> are "having faith" that there isn't a God, for which, in my opinion, there can be
>> no proof.  It seems, that a common arguement that theists and atheists use
>> against one another, deals with the origin of the universe.
>
>I won't address the rest of your post because, honestly, I stopped reading
>shortly after this point...
>
>To me, being an atheist is very much like calling evolution a fact -- while
>there is no way to prove the nonexistence of god or the validity 100%, the
>percentage is way up there and there is absolutlely no reason for believing
>in any other situation. Technically, I imagine, I'm agnostic, but I'm fairly
>sure that if any atheist was confronted with "irrefutable" proof, they too
>would admit god's existence.
>
>Also, I think of my atheism in terms similar to calculus: In the last 19 years
>of my life, I have not been presented with any evidence supporting the existence
>of god, so say the likelyhood of him existing is 5%. Tomorrow, after god doesn't
>show himself again, the percentage chance will be 4.98% etc... Using induction
>(which I know is totally bogus outside of math), you can predict that god
>will never be found etc...
>
>Aside from all of this, the first cause stuff doesn't hold any water, and
>the idea of a god seems inelegant when you have to make him hang around forever
>and then create the universe... There's no need for god, so why create him?
>I don't need morality from god, nor do I need everlasting life (well, I wouldn't
>mind...) from him. So, there's no reason to think that a god exists. If you
>were to ask Carl Sagan, he'd probably call organized religion reptilian (_The
>Dragons of Eden_), and I'm inclined to agree.
>
>Ed
>
>--
>Ed Watkeys (Drexel U. Comp Sci)  "...if you wish to strive for peace
>edw@caligula.cts.com              of soul and pleasure, then believe;
>edw%caligula@phlpa.pha.pa.us      if you wish to be a devotee of truth,
>ls.com!phlpa!caligula!edw         then inquire...." -- Nietzsche

Just because you are self-sufficient as an individual don't need the idea of god
as a crutch, doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.  I can think of scenarios wher
a God(s) wouldn't be involved in individual affairs.  I am interested in what
reasons you might have for believing that God(s) does not exist.

Jon Newton
From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Alcor Nevada
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 13:55:09 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

Alcor Nevada will be meeting Sunday April 12th at 5 PM at the 
Riverside Casino owned by Don Laughlin in Laughlin, Nevada.  Don 
Laughlin will be attending our meeting.  The use of cryonic 
suspension for people who don't believe in an afterlife will be 
discussed.  For more info call Eric Klien at (702) 255-1355.  
 
Note that opinions of this discussion group do not necessarily 
reflect the views of the non profit organization Alcor.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: deductive "proof" of HIghest Intelligence, defined God.
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:08:16 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <graham.701783380@dumas>, graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
writes:
> 
> (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >Yes, I've done some personal thinking lately (!) about why the universe
> >is so quiet. There has to be a reason why we don't have any connections
> >with any other intelligent beings in this universe.
> > [various reasons deleted]
> 
> Two much simpler explanations Kent:
> 
> a) the universe is very big - the probablity of bumping into Earth
> is therefore small.
> 
> b) other life does exist but we wouldn't recognise it, and it wouldn't
> recognise us.

A couple of problems, the most natural physical wavelength to broadcast
information is the wavelength of hydrogen. So far we have not found
anything intelligent transmitted over this broadcast address.

As for the second issue, yes maybe biological life forms are considered
to be the 'viruses' of this universe, and the higher level intelligent
beings are just ignoring us, in the same way we don't try to communicate
with worms.

Cheers,
Kent
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Question about modern manners
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:13:42 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <11APR199214230916@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:

["Gesundheit"]

>My German-English dictionary translates it as "bless you," but it
>literally means something like "be healthy."

"gesund" is the German for "health". It's cognate with the
English "sound" (in the sense of strong or healthy; 'a
sound mind in a sound body').

"-heit" is a suffix that makes a noun of an adjective, like
the English "-ness" and cognate with the English "-hood,"
as in "brotherhood".

"Gesundheit," if translated with ridiculous literal-mindedness
might be represented as "healthyhood". It's capitalized 
because all German nouns are capitalized.

Incidentally, for a little more fun with this line of thinking,
Walter Cronkite can be rendered as "forester sickness." (Walder =
someone who comes from, or lives in, a forest; Krankheit = sickness).


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: starpath@bard.MIT.EDU (David E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 09:29:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.034627.14318@access.usask.ca> choy@skorpio.Usask.CA  
writes:
> Religions have many ideas.
	This is true.

> If one were to adhere to a religion, it may make life comfortable.
	Or it might make it unbearable.

> Is religion a heuristic?
	Sort of; theological claims are heuristic...religion is a result  
of having such heuristics.  (Usually, I go further and define religion in  
terms of social interaction, but that doesn't really matter for this  
discussion.)

> Can we choose a religion to use?
	Assuming you have free will, yes.

> Is everything that we do adhering to some religion, namely our own
> heuristic?
	Atheists do not have a religion, because they do not have the  
associated set of required heuristics.    Thus, nothing atheists do adhers  
to some religion.

	These are all definitional things, and therefore quite subjective  
and personal.  I don't know if anyone can tell you anything other than  
their opinion on the subject.

> Henry Choy
> choy@skorpio.usask.ca

--
David E. Hollingsworth
starpath@bard.mit.edu
NeXTMail: yummy
From: gfritz@sage.cc.purdue.edu ("Happy Fun Ball")
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Do Atheists have Thier Own "Faith"?
Date: 14 Apr 92 04:41:08 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <Aam+ZLA@engin.umich.edu> ingles@bluejay.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:

[lots o' deletions]

>>>Somewhat ambiguous on my part:
>>>  A note on the concept of good, bad, & evil.  There is no such thing as
>>>  evil.  Bad is just entropy, and good is the lack of entropy.  
>>>
>>>Colman justifiably inquires:
>>>  What? In what sense are you using "entropy"? I don't understand what those
>>>  sentences mean. In fact I'm not sure they mean anything.
>> 
>>Entropy as in the physics/thermodynamic sense: disorder.  Most things that 
>>might be classified as "bad" would have higher entropy.  A dead person has
>>more entropy than a living one.  A shattered glass has more entropy than an
>>intact one.  The tendancy of "good" is to maintain or lower entropy within 
>>a system.  A "good" government would keeps things in order, whereas anarchy 
>>would lead to a "bad" very unorganized society.  I don't feel that "evil" is
>>its own property but just an extreme form of "bad".   
>
>But a live body will continue to eat and produce more entropy than a dead one.

Okay, you pegged me on this one.  However, within the closed system of the body
the disorder would increase.  Those neat, complex (very organized) DNA chains
would fall apart.

>And a dictatorship will produce even more order than a democracy, even 
>assuming the order involved is anything like thermodynamic order, which it 
>isn't.

Ahh, yes this is true.  But (if I'm interpreting you right), I happen to think
that a dictator ship might be a better form of government than democracy.  
Though you might have implied the contrary, you support my argument if I 
believe that a dictatorship is better than a democracy.  As I said in an 
earlier post, many arguments are under the constraints of the beliefs of those 
who make them.

You didn't, however, dispute the shattered glass.  :-)

Geoff
--
 ==============================================================================
 || "Maybe its imaginary, I'd like to know. ||            sage.cc.purdue.edu ||
 ||  What's the world coming to, and where  || gfritz @--(       or          ||
 ||    will it go?" -- Kirsty MacColl       ||            mn.ecn.purdue.edu  ||
 ==============================================================================
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 14:27:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: netnews.73223
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Distribution: world,public
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)

In article <22564@goofy.Apple.COM>, ksand@apple (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>OK, services instead of sermons, let's use that word then. Anyway,
>other religions have solved this dilemma by using common sense.
>Why does Jewism need separation of sexes to solve it?

(A) I've answered this before: Jewish services are _much_ more social
    in practice than Christian ones.

(B) Separation during services *is* common sense--although maybe not your
    common sense.

>> >> Would you consider smoking vs non-smoking separation a form of
>> >> discrimination?

>> >I would consider it if there were separate spaces for women 
>> >and male smokers, [...]

>> Try answering the question.

>It was answered above, as you read.

I don't see it.  Spell it out explicitly: would you consider smoking
vs non-smoking separation a form of discrimination?  Yes, no, other?

>> >All in all, separation of sexes is a tradition, admit that, there's
>> >nothing practical involved, [...]

>> That's precisely where you are mistaken.

>So what's the fuzz with keeping males and females separated during
>the 'services', it works fine with other religions? Either you
>are right, and all the other 4 billion people are wrong, or then
>it's the other way around. Actually, this was a silly statement,
>every religion is right.

Exactly.  Judaism makes not claims about what other religions should
do.  Why are you trying to make a claim about what Judaism should do?
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
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: 9 Apr 92 17:14:55 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: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)

In article <22610@goofy.Apple.COM>, ksand@apple (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>> Speak for yourself.  I don't see unisex department stores.  I do know
>> of women who went to all-female schools and colleges, and think this
>> was a good thing.  From one of the soc.feminism FAQs:

>Matthew, as a Jew I would hope you would understand the dangers of
>separating humans from humans.

No one is calling for a full scale separation.  The dangers you are
concerned about are imaginary.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: "Where did the universe come from" is an illogical question
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 11:34:26 GMT

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

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

(David Lyndes) writes:
>Indeed?  This "everything we perceive" just won't do.  There are too many
>things we will never perceive but exist nevertheless. There are neutrons
>at the center of distant stars about to decay.  There are rocks
>in the earth about to dissolve into the magma.  There are gnats in
>deepest Alaska about to be eaten by toads.  We'll never perceive them
>but I'm sure that such things exist.  I'm relatively certain that
>you also believe that there are such things.  (Well, you could
>be a disciple of George Berkeley - "to be is to be perceived or
>to be a perceiver.")
>
>If your intent was to find a way to to ask "where did everything come
>from", but exclude a supernatural being from that "everything", you'll
>have to come up with some other way to explicate "everything".

My intent was merely to show that Ryan's problem is all in how
you define reality. Thats all.

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: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jews in the "real world" (was Re: Judaism and the FAQ file))
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:50:17 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <72542@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P
Wiener) writes:
> 
> In article <22372@goofy.Apple.COM>, ksand@apple (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >> OK, let me rephrase.  Short of castration, what method was available
> >> two thousand years ago and works as such?
> 
> >I'm tired of this debate, it's just an attempt to cover the issue
> >of separation of sexes, which is not a good thing, and fortunately
> >our western society understands this.
> 
> Speak for yourself.  I don't see unisex department stores.  I do know
> of women who went to all-female schools and colleges, and think this
> was a good thing.  From one of the soc.feminism FAQs:

Matthew, as a Jew I would hope you would understand the dangers of
separating humans from humans. I hope... History has clearly
showed us the dangers with such implementations.

Cheers,
Kent
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Who did Cain marry? His sister?
Date: 11 Apr 92 19:51:35 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr2.191631.13804@ncsu.edu>, cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER
M GRAWBURG) writes:
> 
> 
> 	>Is it inconsistent for incest to be immoral now since
> 	>all of Adam's sons obviously married their sisters?
> 	>Oh, yeah.  Who married them?
> 
> 
> Yes, they had to. But there was no other way. This does not condone
> incest though. There simply was no other way.

Somehow I have the feeling that a more creative Creator would have 
created a huge group of people with different genetic structures,
and let them marry each other. There certainly was another way.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: More "Best Wishes"
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 05:27:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.203455.7566@rz-berlin.mpg.de> dabrowski@rz-berlin.mpg.de (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>You do. Even the acceptance of empirical evidence (we both accept it)
>is made ad-hoc. It is also ad-hoc to limit evidence to empirical data.
>Or to extend it to other things. We can't avoid ad-hoc, unsupported 
>statements. You think we can? Examples, please.

Jarek, when I decide to use empirical evidence, it is because I picked it--
_beforehand_.  I didn't suddenly bring it up in the middle of an argument
just because it turned out what I was doing didn't work and I needed to add
another premise that I somehow forgot to tell you about.

>"I accept your non-existing will!"
>You may say "I am not sure whether God exists or not, so I pray to Him
>for any case". This is logical. You may say "I am not sure whether God
>exists or not, but I follow His commands for any case". This is also
>logical. But then you don't behave as an atheist; actually, you're just
>a theist that has doubts, as many. ...

The reason (if there is one) that the above behavior is one of a "theist with
doubts" instead of an atheist, is that a lifetime of prayer, following
commands, etc. is a big commitment.  Someone is unlikely to do such a thing
unless he has at least some belief in God.  When I ask God to prove his
existence, all I do is utter a sentence.  This sentence doesn't take lots of
time to utter, nor must I change my whole lifestyle to say it, so it is
quite possible I can utter it, and even sincerely mean it, without being a
theist.

That is the difference between "I don't know if God exists, but I still pray
to him" and "I don't know if God exists, but I still am capable of asking him
for evidence".
--
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: mathew@mantis.co.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jews in the "real world" (was Re: Judaism and the FAQ file))
Date: 9 Apr 92 14:10:45 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
> In article <22562@goofy.Apple.COM>, ksand@apple (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >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.

Yes.  Let's allow people to choose whether they want to go to single-sex
schools or not, to choose whether they think it's a good idea.

> Judaism has traditionally never mandated this much of a separation,
> since it has not found it to be that much of a problem.

So, are you saying that there's nothing to stop some of the women choosing
not to sit seperately?  Nothing to stop some of the men choosing not to sit
separately?


mathew
-- 
Kraftwerk Robert Fripp Negativland Harold Budd LaTOUR Ultravox! Brian Eno Sigue
Sigue Sputnik TELEX Dead Kennedys Steve Fisk Startled Insects Peter Gabriel Art
of Noise LARD Cabaret Voltaire DEVO Durutti Column Ministry Holger Hiller Yello
Fortran 5 Wir Andrew Poppy Nine Inch Nails I Start Counting John Foxx Fischer-Z
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:8031 alt.satanism:1271
From: ogorman@unix1.tcd.ie (Lucifuge)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Backward Masking
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:39:01 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

In <9APR199212155608@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:


>OK, sorry I misunderstood.  I thought you were referring to messages
>such as those used on one of Christian Death's albums, where English
>words were simply spoken backwards.
>   I don't think that the technique you describe above is a plausible
>explanation for many of the "messages" perceived by fundamentalists
>(for instance, the "Stairway to Heaven" example).  I think they are
>imposing the message on a highly ambiguous stimulus by means of their
>expectations rather than there being any message intended by the
>recording artists.

Well I hate to say it so cornily but....me too! :)

ollie....
From: trent@termnet.chi.il.us (Brian Issleb)
Newsgroups: alt.mythology
Subject: Re: _Mare_Tenebrarum_
Date: 15 Apr 92 02:05:44 GMT
Organization: Temple of Pong BBS

In article <1992Apr12.034554.18600@grebyn.com>, fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Webster)
writes:
>I'm reading Edgar Allen Poe's strange cosmogony work, "Eureka,"
>and it has a reference to the _Mare_Tenebrarum_ (Sea of Darkness?),
>supposedly described by Ptolemy.  Anyone know what this thing
>is?  A mythological entity?  References?
>
>					--clueless,
>
>						Fiona Webster
>						fi@grebyn.com


Sounds to my uneducated ears like one of the seas of the moon (but that's
probably just 'cause it's in Latin).

                 
 
                     =====================================
                     =                                   =
                     =  "...my left arm's come off too.  =
                     =  Hell, how am I going to operate  =
                     =  my digital watch now?"           =
                     =                                   =
                     =               -Arthur Dent        =
                     =====================================
 
                                       ______________
                                         King Trent
                                             -