HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ingles@cclittle.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: The cause of existence. was: god before creationdir
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 16:50:34 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor


In article <1992Apr6.141706.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> In article <9!g+1+B@engin.umich.edu>, ingles@finch.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:

[deletions]

> >  Anyway, you claim that something is intuitively obvious, ("common sense")
> 
> Good God I never said common sense!!!  Nor did I mean to imply that
> it is intuitivly obvious for everyone!!  I said:  I intuit...

 Ah. Okay, sorry. That's how I understood what you were saying.
The fact that I (and Einstein, interestingly) intuit differently
does make me question your intuition, though...

>                                                        
> > yet even after you've explicated for a while many of us still don't accept
> > it. Hence, it should be obvious that it isn't intuitively obvious. :->
> >  Finally, yes, mathematical discoveries are often by intuition. But this
> > then needs to be checked by rigorous mathematical work.
> 
> I never said that intuition is always correct; that mathematical intuition
> is often incorrect is of course true.  The question is:  is THIS intuitive
> starting point a good one.  I still think so.  

 Well, I guess I have to say that I do not.

> >  So it's fine to discover a fruitful area of investigation by intuition,
> > but intuition alone does not a proof make.
> 
> Let me note here that even modern mathematics has different traditions and
> different answers for the question "What is a good proof?"  Sometimes, but
> not always, the answers overlap.
> 
> Personally, I think statements for which there is strong intuitive support
> and no counter evidence can sometimes be useful as beginning assumptions.
>                                
> Well, Ray, I thought you thought that it was a good question, what causes the
> universe?, since you suggested some possible answers.

 Just beacues I'm willing to play along with an argument for amusement's
sake does *not* mean that I'm willing to accept it as a good argument.
 Also, the stuff I proposed also satisfied your 'intuition' yet did
not require a God. So, even with your 'starting point,' there is no
logical *necessity* for there to be a God.

> Sincerely,
> Joe Deasy

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@caen.engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jews in the "real world" (was Re: Judaism and the FAQ file))
Date: 11 Apr 92 21:32:47 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <73576@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P
Wiener) writes:
> 
> In article <mwVyiB1w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis writes:
> >> 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 separately?  Nothing to stop some of the men
> >choosing not to sit separately?
 
> No.  I said there's no tradition for the total separation envisioned
> by Kent Sandvik, so pointing out how bad such would be is not very
> relevant.

You still have not shown a practical or logical reason for the
separation, so I gladly maintain that the grouping of males
and females is a social tradition. If you still insist on
thinking about sex, then I have to revise my opinions about
the Sabbath, but I think this is not needed (I do think Jews
are pretty serious about their worshipping).

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: plumpton@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au (David Plumpton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Date: 16 Apr 92 07:38:35 GMT
Organization: University Of Wollongong

>From: kmldorf@utdallas.edu (George Kimeldorf)

>Yes. I agree.  I believe that gods do not exist. I also believe that Santa
>Claus does not exist, that witches do not exist, that ghosts do not exist,
>that Zombies do not exist....  In each case, I admit the possibility that
>I am mistaken, but I will retain my belief until I am provided with
>sufficient evidence that I am mistaken.  When I was in high school, I was

I'm getting off the point a little here, but just to show what a strange
world we live in, Zombies *do* exist.  It's pretty well documented in Haiti.
Okay, they're not your classical zombie, but they are alive after being dead
in a certain sense (involving drugs and so on).  Then it's off to the
plantation to work as slave labour.
I still don't believe in God, though.
-- 
/------------------------------\ /-------------------------------\
I       David Plumpton          I     There is a holy trinity:    |
I plumpton@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au I N Tesla, R Feynman and C Sagan  |
\------------------------------/ \-------------------------------/
From: yohan@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Owning up to Disobedience
Date: 13 Apr 1992 15:13:21 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kitty.ksu.ksu.edu


His Healing Love by Dick Winn:

Paul seems to have another purpose in mind in this text.  He 
recognizes a principle in God's dealings with us sinners:  Those who
admit their disobedience receive mercy; those who do not admit it receive
no mercy.  The problem with those who do not receive mercy is not that
God has held it back, but that they didn't recognize that they needed it.
Those who do not know they have a disease will not reach out to the
Physician.

Me:

Who's fault is it that I do not recognize that I need healing?  It is God's fault.
And don't try and tell me I have access to God and that his is trying to make me
aware of my problems.  A crusty old book from a region that is still engulfed in
war and hate and all the good intentions of the Christian community are not and	
cannot make a person aware of God's mercy.  Not unless that person is naive and	
is capable of blind faith.  I can go talk to my doctor; I can't talk to God.

His Healing Love by Dick Winn:

As priceless as the gift of mercy is to all who know they need it, most 
of those to whom God has made this offer are still suffering outside its
gracious benefit.  It seems stupid to reject healing when the disease is fatal
without treatment.  But that reveals the lengths to which all of us go to
protect our image.  We would rather die championing our innocence than
to risk facing seemingly certain embarrassment and rejection should we
show up at the clinic door and whisper our disease.

Me:

How can I reject healing when I don't know it has been offered to me?  It hasn't; 
not in some intelligible fashion.  I have never claimed to be a good person.  By
Christian standards, I'm a sinner, just like everyone else.  If the Bible is	
correct, then Heal me o' Great Physician.  Hmm, I don't feel any different.  

A true physician who wants to heal people doesn't write a book, go off and hide,
and say "I offered treatment, but you never came.  Your tough luck."

I'm sure that this sounds simplistic to alot of people, but  it is no more
simplistic than the writings of Dick Winn.

His Healing Love by Dick Winn:

It is so true: the goodness of God leads to repentance.  It can also be
said that this same goodness so surrounds us with security that we are able
to admit our need to repent.  The personal question for us is How can we
stay away from such a warmly drawing Friend?

Me:

No, the question is, how can this caring physician stay away from me.


Jon Newton
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Do Atheists have Thier Own "Faith"?
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:12:40 GMT

(James J. Lippard) writes:
>[on a rock so big that God cannot lift it]

(ron house) writes:
>I have explained this before in this forum, so here goes again.  
>The problem is entirely one of people being misguided by word usage.  
>Assume god can lift anything.  Then "A rock so big He can't lift it" 
>is not a description of anything.  
> ...
>I also add that I >don't< think god is omnipotent in any sense, but 
>just that the above is an invalid demonstration of this truth.

I would like to agree with Ron here. Formally Ron is asking for 
an exsistence proof for the 'rock that is so big that God cannot
lift it'. And given that God is omnipotent then you will never
be able to provide such an existence proof. Hence there is no
paradox.

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: yohan@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Date: 15 Apr 1992 22:29:42 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kitty.ksu.ksu.edu


From: masmith@apollo	-- Russell Nash

	As to why, there are some fairly straightforward answers.  First, an
omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being has certain inherent logical
inconsistencies (e.g. problem of evil, "can God make a rock so big he himself
can't lift it?").  

Me:

I think this has been adressed adequately in previous articles

From: masmith@apollo	-- Russell Nash

	Second, if there were a supreme being, and he/she/it wanted
us to worship him/her/it, why doesn't the being simply reveal some small and
definitely exhibitive bit of divine power (a la the prophets) to all the 
peoples of the Earth and unite them behind the One True Faith.  If he/she/it
has already done so, and all the faiths throughout time are effectively the
same, why is your God a jealous God?


Me:

Sure, those are good points, and I agree.  But this is dealing with a personal
God that appears in most religions.  I'll agree that the Christian ideas of God
are wrong effectively impossible.  But what about an impersonal creator/observer
or whatever else you can think of.  What is the reasoning against that possiblity?



Jon Newton
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Date: 6 Apr 92 07:17:51 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

in article <1992Apr4.201457.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu says:
> Since the free will I am talking about means free will to do evil,
> and since the number of chances men and women have to make choices
> to do good or evil is in fact infinite (since time is continuous)
> the only possible way for people to not do evil is for the probability
> of doing evil to be identically equal to zero.  Since this contradicts
> the notion of free will, I conclude that God cannot create people
> who have free will and who will, in fact, not do any evil whatsoever.

I've done this to people here before....

There is a 15% chance it will be appreciated.

Suppose that you have an infinite period of continuous time starting
now during which you may do evil according to the following exponential
probability distribution:

There is a 32% chance that you will do evil during the first day.
There is a 16% chance that you will do evil during the second day.
There is a 8% chance that you will do evil during the third day.

And so on. The probability density function is 

d(t) = 0.443614 * exp(-0.693147 t)
d(infinity) = 0.36

The term d(infinity) is the probability of never doing evil at all.

This distribution is partly discrete, partly continuous, and over any
period of time there is a non-zero probability of doing evil. There is
also a non-zero probability of never doing evil at all.

The devil made me do it :-)  Best wishes -- Chris Ho-Stuart
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Simpler doctrine
Date: 14 Apr 92 10:45:19 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> In article <1992Apr4.102859.7561@rz-berlin.mpg.de>, dabrowski@rz-berlin.mpg.d
> (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
> > 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.

People seem to think Matthew Wiener's a bit of a cult as well.   :-)


mathew
-- 
Down, boy!  There's a good dogma.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@dennison.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Re: Truth
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 18:56:19 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor


In article <sirsiINNjf5@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu>, yohan@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:

[deletions]
 
> Nothing can be known for certain.  You have to make a few assumptions to have a
> foundation for your other beliefs.  I myself would be VERY interested in hearing
> about anything we know for certain.
> 
> Jon Newton

 How do you *know* that nothing can be known for certain?

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@caen.engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker)
Subject: Re: Question about modern manners
Organization: Dept. of Physics, McMaster Univ., Hamilton, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:36:33 GMT

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 gesundheit means "health" and is completely secular

>Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
>     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)

ALEX BUNKER
From: NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Atheist March in Austin, Texas  4/18
Date: 14 Apr 92 04:27:34 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

For those who will be in or near the Austin, Texas area over Easter holidays:
 
   The Atheist Pride March, part of the 22nd Annual Convention of American
   Atheists, will assemble at 9:00am on Saturday, April 18 at the Hyatt
   Regency.  The march will begin at 10:00am, and will proceed north on
   Congress Avenue to the Texas Capitol grounds, where a rally will be
   held at 12:00 noon.
 
Everyone is urged to come out and show support for this event.
 
Wayne Aiken             netoprwa@ncsuvm.bitnet         "You can BE what
PO Box 30904            netoprwa@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu     you WON'T!!"
Raleigh, NC  27622      slack@ncsu.edu                   --"Bob"
(919) 782-8171          StarFleet BBS: (919) 782-3095
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Date: 10 Apr 92 13:59:40 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: mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B)

In article <y3qyiB14w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis (From A to B) writes:
>> Somehow that's essentially all I've been posting on.

>Has it occurred to you that you might be in the wrong newsgroup?

What do you mean?  All attacks on religion belong in alt.atheism, while
all the defenses of religion belong in talk.religion.misc?  I don't quite
think that kind of split could work with the current software.

soc.culture.jewish is certainly not interested in Judaism-bashing.

>I mean, yes, if people start making assertions about Judaism which you
>believe to be untrue then point it out, but isn't it a little perverse to
>take a discussion on alt.atheism about paranoia and suddenly slip in Judaism?

Considering that the discussion was about my paranoia, which has
apparently been deduced from my postings about Judaism in this group,
the perversion is to think there's something perverse here.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 01:59:56 GMT

(Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>Show me the controlled studies that show that controlled studies are
>necessary, as you keep insisting, for honest teacher self-evaluation.
>I think you're just making it up on the spot.

Can anyone take this man seriously any more! Oops I forgot that Matthew
hasn't said he was *male* yet even though he has hinted at it 
strongly. Perhaps an acid test would do; 'Matthew do you have a
penis'.

Waiting expectantly for your evasion ...

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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: revik@camelot.bradley.edu (Gary Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Truth
Organization: Bradley University
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:08:01 GMT

In <1992Apr15.172713.5358@access.usask.ca> choy@skorpio.Usask.CA writes:


>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.)

Assuming you take objective reality as a given, things don't need to actually
be proven to be true.  For example, gravity was gravity before Newton even
thought of it.
For people to *know* something to be true requires rational analysis and
a proof of some sort.

_______________________________________________________________________________
revik@camelot.bradley.edu |   revik@cs1.bradley.edu   | revik@buhub.bradley.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Damnation is the start of your morality, destruction is its purpose, means and
 end." --Ayn Rand, _Atlas_Shrugged_
From: gfritz@sage.cc.purdue.edu ("Happy Fun Ball")
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Have you submitted to the will of God?
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:29:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.45796
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <1992Apr14.152450.11416@access.digex.com> backpack@access.digex.com (Stuart Reges) writes:
>I'm a new reader of this newsgroup, so I apologize if this question has been
>posed before (yes, I read the FAQ file).  I'm curious to find out how many
>atheists and agnostics have truly opened their hearts to God.  The question
>might sound inane, but I don't think it is.  Let me explain.

I consider myself to be a very open minded and open hearted person.  If I 
happen to one day bump into proof of a god's existence, then I would accept it.
But I don't go looking for it.  I prayed once, and let the god (of questionable
existence) know that this was a one time deal.  So far, no great revelations
on my part.  Oh well, no loss.  

As for submitting my will to a god . . . I don't think so -- Homey don't play
that.  Why should I?  To avoid damnation?  If a god were to judge me, I'd have
to have a heart-to-heart talk with the dude and inform him that he can't know
what's best for me (based on the belief that there can't be an all-knowing 
god -- see previous posting on THAT argument).  Dedicated religios people ask
me why sacrifice eternal happiness based on my ignorance.  Well, my biggest
problem with this is that I don't want to be a chronic Shiny-Happy Person for
all eternity.  I couldn't take it.  If I had to live a perfect existance, I'd
go nuts (see, I DO enjoy chaos -- entropy isn't all that bad at times.  :-).

In conclusion:  I don't believe in a god.  I'll be around for about eighty 
years or so, then I kick the bucket and make room for the next guy.  It won't
matter when I'm dead, because it there'll be nothing left of me to care.  If
there is a god, then I really don't want anything to do with it anyway -- I
couldn't stand being in eternal bliss forever.  Though having unlimited
knowledge (as some Christians promise me) _does_ sound tempting.  I guess I'd
have to flip a coin on it.  If it doens't maytter in the end, then I'm no worse
off than before.

Just my opinion,
Geoff Fritz

--
 ==============================================================================
 || "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  ||
 ==============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cosc143u@rosie.uh.edu (91F9774)
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:32:00 GMT

In article <s2rfqINN84@festus.ksu.ksu.edu>, yohan@festus.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes...
Jonathan....
  I will be kind and assume you are completely ignorant of the excellent FAQ
(Frequently Asked Questions) list.  The question you are asking is stale, stale,
stale.  It is dealt with in the FAQ which is posted in this section and in the
news.answers section (It's probably there now) about once a month.  Please read
it before you launch into wasting everyones time.  

I'm posting this so that others will learn from your mistake as well.  It is an
honest mistake.  I've made it in other sections on the net as well.  But it is 
a mistake of ignorance and now you are no longer ignorant.  

It is a good idea to read the FAQ's for all sections before you start posting 
on them.  You learn a lot and you avoid these kinda of mistakes.
---
Stephen McLeod
The Eternal Student
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jews in the "real world" (was Re: Judaism and the FAQ file))
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:50:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: goofy.23266
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <73221@netnews.upenn.edu>, 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.

People are free to think about whatever, but it does not mean
that the nazi ideology, sexism or apartheid are valid ideas.

> >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.

So there was  a lot of sex involved with the Sabbath rituals earlier, and 
there was a need to separate the people? Somehow I don't think this 
really happened...

> >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.

No, it has to do with social and cultural reasons, I have never
heard about anything similar happening in Christian churches, it's
such a blatant idea so anyone accused of such thing would certainly
be mad about it, including Jews.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: alt.atheism