HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: D.J.Butcher@newcastle.ac.uk (Dave Butcher)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Arguments for the existence of God ...
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:07:09 GMT
Distribution: world, public
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU.



In <1993Jan18.035249.27834@rp.CSIRO.AU> ahaig@rp.CSIRO.AU writes:

> THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN:
(Deleted for space)

If there are an infinite number of possible universes, there should reasonably be
an immeasureably large number of possible universes that are capable of supporting
intelligent life, and probably an immeasurably large number of them suggesting the
same Argument From Design.

> THE `FIRST CAUSE' ARGUMENT: We have two options. One is that the universe
> exists uncaused, and the other that God exists uncaused and created the
> universe.

To keep this 'First Cause' to be the simplest proposal possible, it would be
sensible to limit this `god` to be a simplistic consciousness with only the
desire for creation somewhere outside the Universe, and to grant it at most the
ability to spectate on the lowest level, like a baby watching ripples on water.
Conciousness without intelligence.  Even if you maintain that this no less complex
it is only one of an infinite number of possiblities.  Making all relgious 
wranglings of purely academic interest.  Trying to ascertain which one was the
correct one would be like trying to predict which side of a dropped marble would
be facing upwards when it stops moving.

Dave.
Nb.- Witty Quote goes here.

	D.Butcher@ncl.ac.uk
Nb.- Witty Quote goes here.

	D.Butcher@ncl.ac.uk
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A point well missed ...
Date: 27 Jan 1993 23:53:25 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) says:

>   I've had the experience of discussing atheism with atheists before
>and in every case the atheists avoids the questions, "Why are you an
>atheist?" ...

	.....because there is no real basis that justifies beleif in the
supernatural......NEXT QUESTION 

>   I think there are really only two possibilities here: one is that
>the atheist can't explain his position, the other is, if he did he'd
>look like a fool. 

	I think a pot has called a kettle black......

>   Other than sarcasm, ridicule and hyperbole, I've yet to hear an
>atheist's defense of atheism; are you up to it?

	Gee, when some theists (not ALL just some)present me with 
*WARM* and *FUZZY* or try to waste my time with other sillyness they DESERVE
IT!

>
>Bill
>
	If you don't want flames, don't pour gas all over yourself ! =-)


-- 
A. TRENT PHILLIPS |" A mirror is a negative space with a frame and a place for
  also known as   | your face, it reveals what the rest of us see. It conceals
   WHITE  ROOK    | what you'd like you to be."--Blue Oyster Cult
--------------------------bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu--------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: contradictory nature of free will and omni-anything
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 13:51:43 GMT

In article <1jkjigINNf5s@kralizec.zeta.org.au>
mikeh@kralizec.zeta.org.au (Michael Hore) writes:
 
>2. We experience free will.  It seems to us that we have it.  In the
>absence of any compelling argument to the contrary, shouldn't we apply
>Occam's Razor and say that free will is real?
>
 
Can you give a definition of free will?
 
And Occam's Razor works only for things that are necessary for a theory.
Can you show that Free Will is necessary in the sense of being a base
of *valid* predictions in your system?
 
 
And as far as Occam's razor goes, I have the following question:
 
1. We have free will, and by free will, we think we have free will.
2. We have no free will, and it forces us to think we have free will.
3. We have free will, and through it we think we heve no free will.
4. We have no free will, and it forces us to think we have no free will.
 
Could you name experiments that allow to distinguish between these?
 
 
And I do not experience Free Will. The things I decide for are bound
by many variables which not only affect my decision, in a sense they
determine my decision. And I do not know if this process is affected
by random effects at quantum level, nor do I experience that I
somehow 'steer' these effects in order to come by the determination
given by my knowledge of a certain situation.
   Benedikt
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:27197 talk.abortion:58481
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:13:57 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

That's exactly the part that I don't understand.  How, by my logic, are sperm 
and eggs also human?  I thought, by my logic, just the fertilized, and arguably
implanted, egg is human.

MAC
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: The First Cause argument (again)
Organization: SPS
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:08:44 GMT

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

It's my objection, Mark wrote in support of your position.

> Your (Mark Schlegel's) objection is based on a number of assumptions:
>
> 1. Time is a single linear dimension.
> 2. Time proceeds forwards from past to future.
> 3. An event at time t1 can only cause an event at time t2 if t1 < t2.

Correct, with a slight modification: I accept these assumptions for all
effects occuring within this universe, excepting #3 for the big bang. 
I assume causality holds, and since the big bang event occurs at t=0, 
it's cause would be extra-dimensional.  

> It may be the case that one or more of these assumptions is not the case. 
> Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", 

"Brief History" is near the top of my "to read" list. But I am somewhat 
familiar with his arguments, as I have read a couple of commentaries on 
the work. As physicist Frank Tipler notes,
   "... a four-dimensional sphere of zero radius forms a boundary to
    Hawkings universe. ... He [Hawking] has eliminated the classical 
    singularity -- the beginning of time -- only to have it re-appear 
    as the "beginning" to the space of all possible four-spheres." 
A quantum singularity is substituted for a classical singularity, and the 
problem of "beginning" is not eliminated. 

> And now, on to Dave Weaver's objections to Mark Schlegel's comments about
> uncaused quantum events...

>> I'm glad you added "apparently" to the idea of quantum events being uncaused.
>> Unless I am grossly misinformed, quantum theory does not state that these
>> effects are uncaused.

> It may not say that all quantum events are uncaused, but what is the cause of
> virtual pair production, for example?

I have no idea, and I take it from the question that no one can say for 
sure. Again, does that mean that this effect is uncaused? I for one, am 
not quite ready to throw causality under the bus.

> I'll stomp on this one quickly:  QM is *not* about observational interference.

Point taken. That's why I asked for physicists to help out.

> mathew
> [ An argument about this issue occurs on alt.atheism about once every six
>   months.  Can you just trust me on this one, or shall I dig out the quotes
>   and references I posted last time? ]

I'll take your word for it. This, however, is the first time I have seen
it discussed here. Not all of us are old-timers on the net. 

---
Dave Weaver                | "The impression of design is overwhelming"
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com |       -Paul Davies (on the cosmos)

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jwest@wisc (Jeff West)
Subject: Re: Where does Adam and Eve Fit In?  Attn:  Jeff West
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: 22 Jan 93 16:12:07 CST

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
: 
:    Personally, I believe that what the Bible says is true.  I believe
: that Genesis 1 and 2 was the way it actually happened.  I believe that
: creation story literally--which means contextually.  The point I

Ok, as I understand it you take the creation of Adam and Eve as
described in Genesis literally, correct?  Meaning that we all have
decended from 2 people.

Where do the people in the Stone Age fit in?  Are these decendents
of Adam and Eve?  My point being that even though these people did
have tool making skills and formed communities they were far from
what we would call educated in a formal sense.  There is also no
mention in anyway of the god of the OT.  Seems that some pottery
or carvings on tools etc. would show this awareness.

If these are the decendents of Adam and Eve then how can you hold
A&E accountable for their actions in Eden?  Were the people of the
stone age superior in intellect than A&E?  If not then what happened?
God made man and woman and because they ate the "bad fruit" he then
made them dumb to the point that they needed to revert to stone tools
for centuries?

Just curious,
  Jeff West

---------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not denial.  I'm just very selective about the reality I accept.

    - Calvin & Hobbs

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jstump@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (John E. Stump)
Subject: Re: Atheism in pop culture
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:02:40 GMT
Organization: IBM AWD Austin, TX

In article <1jpd8cINN4n5@nic.umass.edu> ABPD103@UCSVAX.UCS.UMASS.EDU (John F. Donoghue) writes:
>In <1jpc5jINNbbk@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
>
>> 
>> In a previous article, jstump@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (John E. Stump) says:
>> >
>> >There's a great song by the group "The The" called Armegeddon Days or
>> >something like that. I'll bring in the lyrics tomorrow.
>> >
>> >john
>> >
>> >-- 
>> >John Stump (jstump@netftp.austin.ibm.com)
>> >

Armageddon Days Are Here (again), by The The:

(Chorus):
Islam is rising.
The Christians mobilizing.
The world is on its elbows and knees.
It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds.
...
If the real Jesus Christ were to stand up today,
He'd be gunned down cold by the CIA.
Oh, the lights that now burn brightest behind stained glass,
Will cast the darkest shadows upon the human heart.
But God didn't build himself that throne.
God doesn't live in Israel or Rome.
God doesn't belong to the 'Yankee Dollar.'
God doesn't plant the bombs of Hezbollah.
God doesn't even go to church.
And God won't send us down to Allah to burn.
No, God will remind us what we already know,
That the human race is about to reap what its' sown.


Not quite atheistic, but anti-many things

-- 
John Stump 
inside IBM: jstump@auntbea.austin /  outside IBM: jstump@netftp.austin.ibm.com

"Socrates was a famous Greek teacher who went around giving people
From: 9225803@ul.ie
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Langers!!!!!
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:57:20 GMT
Organization: University of Limerick, Ireland



Ye pack of wankers,when your on your last legs you'll be praying for your 
souls like the rest of us!
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism is dogmatic.
Date: 21 Jan 93 21:15:27 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

: In <rabjab.27.727501059@golem.ucsd.edu> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (rabjab) writes:
: 
: >Atheism seems to be guilty of what is proposes to conteract.
: 
: >Because atheism represents a belief in the non-existence of God,
: >it takes a dogmatic position relative to what could exist.
: 
: >-rabjab

It seems to me that you make no distinction between "holding a
position" and "holding a position dogmatically".

You are esentially rendering the word "dogmatic" meaningless.

Fred (commenting on the above extract) thinks you have made a
different mistake.

Fred Rice (darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au) wrote:
: I made the same mistake you are making here about a month ago.
: 
: Apparently, here in this group, the general definition of "atheism" used
: is "a lack of a belief in one or more dieties".

I do not think this is the problem.

I am a strong atheist. However, I do not think I am "dogmatic" about
it. I consider that that available evidence suggests no entity exists
which has anything much in common with the usual definitions of God.

I do not consider the evidence is conclusive, and so this, like any
aspect of my internal model for reality, is always subject to review.

Hence, although I am a strong atheist, I do not think it accurate to
characterize my position as dogmatic.

Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:26741 talk.religion.misc:27168
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why? (was Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER)
Date: 21 Jan 1993 21:50:51 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world,public
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan20.223704.29859@digi.lonestar.org>, gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> Another view is that religion has its origins in light and truth, but,
|> the human bearers of it being human as they are, over the ages it becomes 
|> encrusted with corruptions and superstitions, and also becomes sclerotic 
|> and hardened, closing itself off to the new understanding and enlightenment 
|> required by the human soul as it grows and evolves.

Yet another view is that we simply don't know an "origin" for religion.
To get going at all, it must server some purpose for someone, and to
persist it must strike a significant chord with a large number of people,
but beyond that, we don't really have any idea if there is any truth
behind it, let alone "light and truth".    It may simply be something
that some people get off on, like dervishes are supposed to have gotten
off on whirling in a circle.

|> 
|> The difference between true religion and Nazism is that with the former, even 
|> if its form has become as brittle and crumbled as a dead leaf, you can still 
|> detect traces of the once living form -- even it the fullness of its original
|> intricacy and integrity cannot always be clearly discerned -- whereas the
|> latter was constructed out of artificial, dead substances - lies - in the first 
|> place and was twisted and ugly from the beginning.  The living plant that 
|> ages and dies always brings forth a new seed from which it can rise again 
|> in renewed freshness.  The one that was dead to begin with must be reconstruc-
|> ted again by force of lies, by those who serve the "father of lies".

You've been listening to too many Inauguration speeches.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: gre253@its.csiro.au (Steve Green)
Subject: God MUST be bored! (Hypothetically)
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Comms group, ITS branch, CSIRO
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:28:13 GMT

Greetings fellow atheists!
	This is my first post to this group - be gentle. :-)

I'd just like to share a little toy idea of mine. Suppose God did exist!?
He/She/it would be bored shitless! What I'm trying to say, and maybe some
of you christian types can help here, is "What's in creation for God?".

Don't worry - I'll answer for you. You'll all say "he wants us to love 
him". But what sort of egomaniac would create beings to love him? And then
say "if you don't love me - you'll burn in hell" - Talk about Mr. Nice guy.

I'm no psychiatrist but isn't this sort of behaviour sound like he must be
one sick puppy.

I just love this mental image of God sitting at his Amiga 1000000 playing
Sim-Universe - getting really bored - and turning it OFF!

Have a nice day :-)

========================================================================
| Steve Green     |  "Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit outa my hat !" |
| Comms Group     |  "That trick never works"                          |
| ITS Branch      |  "Nothin' up my sleeve - PRESTO !"                 |
| CSIRO Australia |  "No doubt about it - I gotta get another hat"     |
========================================================================
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A point well missed ...
Date: 28 Jan 93 22:03:41 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <C1I2GF.Dnu@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>
>   I've had the experience of discussing atheism with atheists before
>and in every case the atheists avoids the questions, "Why are you an
>atheist?" ...

I am an atheist because no argument meant to persuade me of
the existence of a god has yet been convincing to me, and
there is nothing in my experience aside from such arguments
that would lead me to suppose that such beings exist.

Simple as that.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jhigbee@cs.weber.edu (Jonathan C. Higbee)
Subject: Anthropologically observerved "super-natural" events?
Keywords: Anthropology data super-natural
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 00:27:31 GMT


Greetings:

My anthropology teacher mentioned that in her field work she
experienced some not readily explainable things such as rain
dances working and knives bending against sternums in Bali. She
mentioned that other anthropologists had observed similar data;
that when such data is observed it's usually just recorded and
set aside, since what's observed is outside the "normal
traditional" anthropological data.

Apparently the Zuni have rain dances on a scheduled and
non-scheduled basis. The dances my teacher observed did appear to work
(though she didn't observe them all dilligently probably because
there's a tendency to set such data aside as she mentioned). Mabie the 
knife benders in Bali got ahold of Uri Gelders secret spoon bending cream,
but maybie not. Since I'm not aware of intensive studies to verify
the acuracy of Zuni rain dances or the integrety of the knife bending
in Bali.  

She did volonteer one possibility that perhaps group belief had
some bearing on what actually worked in a given religion, but she
nor I know for sure how to explain these occurances.

I don't know whether group belief with all participants in a given rite
having to believe in what will happen actually explains what occurs.
Perhaps there's extra parts to our being which we don't currently 
understand. Perhaps science will someday describe how these seemingly 
para-normal [yet actually fully natural] things happen

No doubt that some things which occur are figments of peoples
imagination and/or religious frenzy, but is every seemingly
super-natural occurance to be dismissed? Given sufficient
experience in the study of different cultures, does one observe
seemingly super-natural things not currently explainable by
science?

I welcome your comments.


Jon Higbee

jhigbee@cs.weber.edu or icarus.weber.edu
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why? (was Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER)
Date: 20 Jan 93 22:37:04 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX


 F. A. Karner AIX Technical Support | karner@austin.vnet.ibm.com 
 writes in part, replying to Matt Ivaliotes:

>> >|> >What is there that prevents you from being a Christian?

>I used to be one, then I thought better of it.  Religion has its roots
>in ignorance and superstition.  Over time, religions have built
>incredibly convoluted and implausible scenarios in support of the basic
>premise: the existence of god.  Followers are required to believe, lest
>they be condemned to eternal damnation.  The brainwashing artifices used
>are among others, faith, dogmas, ostracism, discrimination, persecution,
>etc.  Kind of reminds me of that tenet of nazi propaganda: the bigger
>the lie, the more people are inclined to believe it!

Another view is that religion has its origins in light and truth, but,
the human bearers of it being human as they are, over the ages it becomes 
encrusted with corruptions and superstitions, and also becomes sclerotic 
and hardened, closing itself off to the new understanding and enlightenment 
required by the human soul as it grows and evolves.

The difference between true religion and Nazism is that with the former, even 
if its form has become as brittle and crumbled as a dead leaf, you can still 
detect traces of the once living form -- even it the fullness of its original
intricacy and integrity cannot always be clearly discerned -- whereas the
latter was constructed out of artificial, dead substances - lies - in the first place and was twisted and ugly from the beginning.  The living plant that 
ages and dies always brings forth a new seed from which it can rise again 
in renewed freshness.  The one that was dead to begin with must be reconstruc-
ted again by force of lies, by those who serve the "father of lies".

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Was Jesus the Anti-Christ?
Date: 26 Jan 93 04:59:55 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: The Language Game Inc.

In article <cscope.727987530@camelot>, cscope@camelot.bradley.edu (William
Twentyman) wrote:
> This has been one of my biggest problems with Christianity, the possibility
> that it was a ploy by Satan to draw people away from God.  Can anyone see
> any flaws in my logic?  Anything I may have missed?

You're not alone, the gnostics looked at this 'Philip K. Dick' inverse
reality -- and remember that Satan is also called "the Great Deceiver",
and what would be the biggest lie than to create a false religion. It's 
a more deep theological concept than the churches dare to look at today,
mostly because it's very hard to counter-attack such constructs. Unless
you call people believing in this heretics and burn them, of course :-). 

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND
Private activities on the Net, opinions are not Apple's, they are mine.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Consciousness and the soul
Keywords: consciousness, soul, mental models, psychology
Date: 24 Jan 93 03:13:00 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan24.015049.18024@ousrvr.oulu.fi>, kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) writes:
>
> So, what _is_ human soul? Many Christians I've talked to claim it is
> exactly the part in me which is conscious, which makes decisions, which
> thinks, which guides our body. So it is essentially our "self". (Please,
> if you disagree with the above, present a better definition - I have never
> heard any atheist definitions ;-)) 

I don't think you ought to ask for an "atheist definition" for 
something which presents no evidence of independent existence.   

Choosing a part of human activity, like "which makes decisions, 
which thinks, which guides our body. So it is essentially our 
'self'" and then awarding it a label like "soul" does nothing 
to show that there is a separate phenomenon to be labelled.

I could just as well choose all our kinetic activities, running,
dancing, swimming and so on, label that our "doul" and insist
that even after we die, our "doul" lives on.

Most people would object that even though you can refer to a
humand being's kinetic activities, they are still just properties
of being a human being, and there is no need to invoke a seperate
"doul" to account for them.   *I* run, it's not my "doul" doing
my running for me.

It's certainly traditional in many religions to abstract out a
"soul" and refer to it as though it has its own existence, not
identical to the existence of the body, but all the concrete
evidence that we have seems to indicate that the activities that
are labelled "soul" are really just properties of brain activity.

Of course, that means that when the brain dies, the "soul" goes 
too.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism