HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: what did god do before creation
Date: 7 Apr 92 10:54:54 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> Well, as I thought I demonstrated in my last post, we have to be careful
> when we use the words 'nonexistent cause'.  Actually, what we should say
> is 'false cause'.  In addition, we should never say that we are looking
> or trying to observe 'false causes' or nonexistent causes.  Only humans
> create false causes or nonexistent causes.  They are called false theories
> in science.  If they are not potentially falsifiable, then one might say
> they are not scientific theories.  The question then becomes, how do we
> test for the difference between theories and undetectable causes.  Now what
> is an undetectable cause?  I would say it is a cause with no detectable
>  consequences.

This is just word salad.  A cause is something which produces an effect; if
there are no 'detectable consequences' -- no effects -- then it isn't a
cause.


mathew

-- 
Hail Eris! / "Our whole economy's based on fear and death; how long can we get
away with this?" --- Jello Biafra / Message for Kodak: Bring back Dan Bredy! /
PGP RSA public key available on request / Desperately seeking Negativland's U2
CD / Just another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@bluejay.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 22:53:19 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor


In article <aswj06q.lion@netcom.com>, lion@netcom.com (carl loeber) writes:
> davidch@ZIMMER.CSUFRESNO.EDU (David Choweller) writes:
> >|In my view, this argument against the existence of God is weak primarily
> >|because it doesn't deal with the purpose of creation.  Now, if you could
> >|show that God had a certain good purpose in creating the world, and it was
> >|possible to attain that good purpose, and God has in fact, or will in fact,
> >|fail to attain that purpose, now that would be something!
> 
> >You are right.  We must finally go to the purpose of creation.
> >The way I see it, no purpose can justify much of the suffering that takes
> >place in the world.  The problem is, you're not saying what this good
> >purpose is.  Some theists say it is the glorification of God. Well, this
> >doesn't cut it.  Putting sentient beings through torture so that they
> >wwill be better able to glorify you isn't benevolent; it's downright
> >
> 
> some Christians say that the purpose is simply the simply life
> and growth, eteranlly.  And that that they might have JOY in
> living.  All suffer but it is still possible to have joy nicht wahr?

 Well, except for the 'eternally' part, that agrees with what I've
seen of the 'typical' atheist.
 But this purpose could be served better by a world without evil,
no?

> :r HI
> .
> Friends:
> 
> As a developement of the free will hypothesis.
> 
> If the Highest Intelligence (God) wanted to allow humans to grow,
> even given that HI is loving, could He not then allow them to fail
> and be responsible, to grow to be independent learning agents, much
> as a father and mother will treat their offspring after weaning
> them?

 HI could indeed do that, but better still would be to impart
such knowledge directly, as human parents cannot...

> Carl Loeber          lion@netcom.com              San Jose

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: For Matthew: The Israelites vs. other Canaanites
Date: 8 Apr 92 03:38:42 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Mar30.235515.15774@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
(Eric Rescorla) writes:
> We were discussing, I believe the claim that the Jewish tradition
> includes giving, kindness, etc.....
> I particularly like 10.40
> "So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and
> ov the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left
> none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed,
> as the LORD God of Israel commanded."
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Now, I quote Matthew from this thread:
> >And Jews have traditionally found this abhorent.  A willingness to share
> >and help and to not steal etc is much more important to us than "don't
> >worry, be happy".
> 
> I ask you Matthew, is invading a city and killing every male inhabitant
> the act of a people with a "willingness to share and help and to not
> steal etc?"

Eric, Matthew -  the great Jewish scholar - will just state that this are 
babblings from your side, with no relevance to the modern Jewish religious 
tradition. I guess to define clear Biblical statements are babblings is 
somewhat heretical, however in religion and warfare anything is allowed.

Cheers,
Kent
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Examined by the judge
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:34:37 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <5305@pdxgate.UUCP> news@pdxgate.UUCP (Net News Account) writes:
>From: allenroy@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (callen roy)
>Path: rigel!allenroy
>
> [... hell, you know the sort of thing...]

Clearly, no attempt has been made to read this board or its FAQ. This counts
as an insult to the intelligence of this board's readership.

I suggest that the appropriate response is to hit the "R" button (not now! :-)
and mail the whole f***ing lot right back where it came from, as I have
indeed done. Additional abuse optional.


Cheers

Simon
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Every morning when you wake up and look in the mirror, check yourself
for signs of collective identity" - Consolidated on "This Is Fascism"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: WEEMBA and DABROSKI Angst (Was: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 9 Apr 92 14:16:07 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
> In article <92097.134726J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson
> >Belief in ANY God will disqualify you from using the label "atheist"
> >to describe yourself.  Define God any way you wish.
> 
> 	This is a trivially false statement.

No it's not, because atheism is defined in terms of "God".  So it doesn't
matter what "God" is defined as.  You could choose to define "God" as a jam
doughnut dipped in methylated spirits if you wanted, you still wouldn't be
able to believe in "God" and be an atheist.


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
From: atten@phil.ruu.nl (Mark van Atten)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: goedel's proof for existence of god
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:51:09 GMT
Organization: Department of Philosophy, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands

torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:

>In article <atten.702905004@groucho.phil.ruu.nl> atten@phil.ruu.nl 
>(Mark van Atten) writes:

>   >1. I think Wang actually quoted Goedel.

>  I don't recall Wang claiming that this was the actual proof as formulated
>by Godel. Godel was very careful, and very cautious, and it would surprise
>me a great deal if in his formulation of the proof the conclusion does
>not follow from the premisses.

>   >2. Goedel's own formulation is certainly not in Volume II;

>  In that case, we'll have to wait for a later volume. According to
>Feferman, the proof will indeed be published as part of the collected
>works. It was one of the very few things that Godel wanted to make sure
>were published after his death.

I think you're right about the first point, but on the other hand I cannot
imagine that Wang would deliberately give a correct proof in a wrong way. I
mean, Wang is also careful! It is a pity that Wang does not elaborate on this
argument, but he is very honest in admitting that religion (or religious
metaphysics) does not bother him in any way.

Wang has said that his next book, 'Conversations with Kurt Goedel' will appear
this year. (Or has it already been published? Please let me know)
Perhaps we will learn more from that; and of course, from the publication
of the argument in Collected Works, which I trust to be accompanied by a
well-written introduction.

Best wishes,

Mark.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,rec.scouting
From: bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker)
Subject: Re: another greeting
Organization: Dept. of Physics, McMaster Univ., Hamilton, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:16:16 GMT

In article <sd6g9INNfur@doc.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@doc.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>
>Kent:
>
>Even if we leave out the biological issues with homosexuality, could you 
>also explain why atheists are not allowed to enter scouting, based on
>biological and social rules? If not, then we have a yet another biased
>society.
>
>Cheers,
>Kent
>
>Me:
>
>Well, I can kind of see the scout's point.  I was a cub scout (yipee), and a
>God-fearing little Christian who didn't question what his parents taught him (but
>I'm feeling MUCH better now).  I distinctly remember that God was rather
>important in the scouts, and I beleive that it was in part of your oath.  Anyway,
>the scouts discriminating against atheists be any different than the catholic
>church prohibitting atheists from becoming priests?
>
>Jon Newton
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 10 Apr 92 13:52:13 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 <oFqyiB12w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis (From A to B) writes:
>> I presume you're still confused that I'm claiming my methods work with all
>> teachers.  No such luck.

>So not only have you failed to try honesty in your teaching,

This is nonsense.  On certain topics I had no trouble spelling out the
truth and having the students grasp it.  On others, the raw truth left
them confused or worse--and so I switched to lying.

>							      you're not even
>offering evidence that your lying technique will work for others.

Why should I?  I made no such claim.  Besides--*you* yourself offered
such evidence for me--you mentioned a professor of yours who announced
that he was about to lie, with no indication that this was unusual or
ineffective.

>								    I suppose
>you know how worthwhile that makes your anecdotal 'evidence'?

Considering that no one even knew the truth about calculus for a few
centuries, and people still learned it, I'd say the weight of the
evidence is that there is absolutely nothing unusual or extraordinary
about my claim, and that those who think there is have a heavy burden
of proof regarding the matter.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: mullignj@acfcluster.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Request for Info Don't Flame Me!
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:28:50 GMT
Organization: New York University


Can someone e-mail the address of an ethics news-group?

I'm posting this here because I figure most of you might know.

Thanks.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Date: 11 Apr 92 19:54:01 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <73563@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P
Wiener) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Apr9.230514.21220@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla)
writes:
> >>This is backwards.  The historians I'm familiar with come to the con-
> >>clusion that the Pharisees were the majority party, so I have confidence
> >>that this includes seeing past potential self-serving distortions.
> 
> >Like I said. You have confidence when it defends your point,
> >but not otherwise. 
> 
> This is still backwards.  My confidence comes from the historians, and
> from the various primary texts that I've read.  I don't pick and choose
> based on my prior expectations.

Unfortunately there is no such thing as objective history. History
is created by humans, often with biased ideas and personal or organizational
motives. I never fully trust historical documents, a good example
is the history of how United States was founded and the 'sudden
disappearance' of the original native Americans.

Cheers,
Kent
From: tony@mantis.co.uk (Tony Lezard)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Kinnock is atheist
Date: 9 Apr 92 10:16:01 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

g9129499@cc.uow.edu.au (Jeremy Lawrence) writes:

> The Australian, 8/4/91, states (quote/paraphrase from memory):
> " Interestingly, he [Neil Kinnock (sp?)] is likely to become the first
> British Prime Minister in living memory to admit to being atheist."

I gather that this is yet another area of principle in which he
has changed his opinion in his desperate bids to get himself
elected. (ie. now he believes in god.)

We'll find out very soon whether this (and other ploys) worked.

--
Tony Lezard IS tony@mantis.co.uk OR tony%mantis.co.uk@uknet.ac.uk
OR EVEN arl10@phx.cam.ac.uk if all else fails. Great! Kept my .sig down to two
lines!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: WEEMBA jests or admits atheism? (Was: Re: WEEMBA and DABROWSKI Angst
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:06:04 GMT

In article <73453@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>>Let me try some reflective listening.  Matthew Wiener, are you saying that
>>god(s) have been so poorly defined for you that you do not have sufficient
>>information to decide whether or not to believe in any of these gods?
>Uh no.  There's the Christian version, which I certainly don't believe
>in.  There's the Big-Guy-in-the-Sky-with-Beard version which I certainly
>don't believe in.  They may be poorly defined, but they are defined well
>enough for me to reject them.

>It depends on whom you ask.  Smullyan has, in one of his books, a
>conversation between an ideal theist and an ideal naturalist.  At one
>point the theist says "Why not call that God?" and the naturalist replies
>"Why not call it Nature?"

There are certain characteristics often assigned to God which are not typically
assigned to Nature.  For instance, God is usually assumed to be a sentient
being, while "nature" isn't.  When we get to specific gods, other
characteristics are added.

Do you believe in an intelligent God who created the universe, who exists
(in some sense in which Zeus and Santa Claus do not), who existed before there
were any people around, and who later spoke to humans as recorded in the
Tanakh, who gives orders and rules for morality (at least to Jews)?
--
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: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: goedel's proof for existence of god
Date: 7 Apr 92 10:57:44 GMT
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <atten.702563771@groucho.phil.ruu.nl> atten@phil.ruu.nl 
(Mark van Atten) writes:
 
 >Goedel made this formalization of Leibniz' proof of
 >the existence of God (perhaps as outlined in Monadology par.44-45)
 >I would welcome all comments (theologians, logicians, thinkers, dreamers ... 
 >unite!)

  A discussion of Godel's proof of the existence of God should not start
from Wang's outline, but from Godel's own formulation. It is included
in Volume II of his Collected Works, which I unfortunately don't have
at hand.
From: jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Question on modern manners
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:47:59 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Apr14.201336.25374@dale.ksc.nasa.gov> sdavis@laforge (Steve Davis) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.220721.569@miavx2.ham.muohio.edu>  
>bstadnik@miavx2.ham.muohio.edu writes:
>> In article <1992Apr12.143119.19410@athena.cs.uga.edu>,  
>pellock@athena.cs.uga.edu (Bretamesh) writes:
>> > Instead of one of the coventional "God bless you" or "gesundheit", I say
>> > "I bless you" (provided of course that I really care that the person
>> > who sneezed sneezed).
>> > 
>> > 	  
>>   How about,  "Bless you."   This leaves out the 'by whom'.  The person
>> sneezing can take it how they would like.  "I bless you" sounds kind of
>> arrogant to me.
>
>  I don't really have any better suggestions, but I think "bless you"  
>originated because it was once believed that when sneezing, one's soul leaves  
>the body momentarily, and the devil might snap it up if not blessed.  So I  
>usually avoid any of the standard comments when someone around me sneezes,  
>unless I can think of something particularly witty.
>

But, my whole point was that "Bless You" implies that one has a soul and that
there is a spiritual world.  When one doesn't believe that either exists, the
act of blessing makes as much sense as buying a $200K Ferrari and placing a
Datsun 1770 cc engine under the hood.  I do like the German _Gesundheit_, I
had forgotten it.  If I remember my H.S. German correctly, it does mean good-
health-ness and fits better than a blessing.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Date: 17 Apr 92 10:14:30
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<1992Apr15.021231.1976@utdallas.edu> <siqc1INNjdc@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu>
	<1992Apr17.043102.17997@utdallas.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: kmldorf@utdallas.edu's message of Fri, 17 Apr 1992 04:31:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.043102.17997@utdallas.edu> kmldorf@utdallas.edu (George Kimeldorf) writes:

   >What are your reasons for believing the way you do?  I assume that you have
   >specific reasons for believing that God does not exist, could you please post
   >them.  

   No.  I can't.  If I lived in rural Haiti, where the population
   believes in Voodoo, it would be difficult for me to state specific
   reasons for believing that Voodoo does not exist.  Each reason I
   give would be answered by a "Yes, but."  Similarly, I don't know
   how to respond to your request.  If I could give a one- or two-
   line answer, I would.   Ten years ago, when I believed in God, I
   don't think anyone could have posted anything which would have
   helped me.   Sorry.

Perhaps a better way to put it (speaking for myself) is that I don't
have any good reasons FOR believing in a god.  Given that I see no
reason to make such an assumption, why should I make it?  So I have no
specific reasons for believing that a god doesn't exist (although there
are specific reasons for believing, say, that the god of the
Judeo-Christian-Islamic bible doesn't exist, given that said bible makes
specific claims about said god).

It was remarked to me recently that radioisotope dating doesn't
necessarily prove anything, because the world could have been created
with everything "in place".  Of course I have no way of refuting it, but
why should I believe something that relies on that kind of ad hoc
assumption?
--
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 league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:37:15 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)

In article <1992Apr7.004952.649@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>No, I claimed that _I_ did.  And that certain corners on the truth
>>were necessary when _I_ taught calculus.

>Even that is unsubstantiated---i.e. only your opinion. You have a
>controlled study on YOUR teaching?[Gee, that sounds hard. I guess
>it just means it's an assertion without proof.]

Total nonsense.  When I didn't cut corners, I could see students
freeze or get bored or otherwise panic.  

>>It was frankly anecdotal.  It wasn't opinionated, and it happened to
>>be true.

>And it is still unsubstantiated by any sort of empirical DATA. You
>may have heard of the concept.

And I mentioned empirical data: my students' grades and their evaluations.

>>As I am not claiming that there is One True Way of teaching calculus, I
>>really don't see what the need for controls and all that is.

>You were making an empirical claim about what was necessary when
>you taught calculus. Empirical claims require proof. It's the nature
>of the beast.

You are really getting ridiculous: I know what worked when I taught.
I was there, you weren't.  As I mentioned to Mr B, it *may* have been
that mischievous twinkle in my eye or that guilty tap of my foot that
got my students to learn calculus, but I the cause-effect between my
teaching and their learning was pretty clear.
-- 
-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 06:27:38 GMT

(Ryan Daum) writes:
>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.  Theists tend to say thing such as "nothing can't come from 
>nothing" ... therefore God must exist to cause the action (btw, this 
>logic has holes -- is God something? etc.)
>
>What I'm thinking is, isn't the question of "Where did reality come form" 
>illogical?  We exist: There is some form of reality in which we are 
>present.  To say otherwise is illogical.  It is also illogical to take 
>yourself out of it and conceptualize a reality in which reality isn't. 
> 
>To place yourself out of reality and try to observe it is impossible 
>since reality is an all-encompassing thing ... to eliminate reality and
> 
>then try to say where did something come from insinuates that there 
>*could be nothing.*  Nothingness is an impossibleness.  Nothing==false.
>
>Therefore reality cannot be measured in beginnings and endings, it must
>be measured as it is.  To say "where did time begin" is also irrational
>as well.
>
>Well, I really muddled that up, but I hope you get the point.  how 
>could a person take themselves out of all-encompassing reality and 
>then try to compose a reality in which there is no reality.

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.

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