HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: How woould a Judeo-Christian God convince us he really was it!
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:48:29 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
NNTP-Posting-Host: de5.ctd.ornl.gov

In article <ksand-240892184658@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>
>If you insist to use Q as an example -- he showed up frequently so
>Captain Picard and the rest believed he existed. I guess the Christian
>God should do something similar, or what.

Believing in an entity with Q's powers is one thing, believing that such an
entity is the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe is quite another.

Convincing one of its creations that it is the one, true creator would
certainly be a possible, if not trivial, for an omnipotent, omniscient being. 
Being omniscient, it would know exactly what to do, and being omnipotent it
would have the ability to do it.

So why doesn't it?  Either it doesn't want to, or it doesn't exist.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: LIFE GOES ON UNTIL YOU DIE
Date: 25 Aug 1992 19:12:09 GMT
Organization: Hmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Young Jeff) writes:

 How horrible was it for you before you were born?  I expect death
 will bring the same exprience.  I worry more about having some
 medical problem that leaves me unable to pursue my interests yet
 cognizant of my misery.  I worry more about leaving my estate secure

You write about how your death may affect others in an (IMO)
intellectual way, but do not mention how you _feel_ about your
death.

Do you not despair that one day the "you" that is uniquely
you will be gone forever?

Dano
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: LIFE GOES ON UNTIL YOU DIE
Date: 27 Aug 92 04:18:53 GMT
Organization: Academic Computing, University of Virginia

In article <1992Aug27.003820.16961@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

>What's wrong with being a Reductionist?

Nothing, if you have no qualms with the conceit that goes with reducing the
nature and workings of life to a handful of flimsy theories deduced from
likely misinterpreted observations collected through extremely band-limited
sensors.

>What is so unfathomingly complex about life?

Ever looked at it? I mean, pulled your nose out of the books and looked
at it? What _isn't_ marvelously complex about it? Are you serious?

>>Would you call yourself a scientist,
>>or scientifically enlightened? Your characteristically-youthful
>>clinging to holy mantram like "electro-chemical reaction" would belie
>>any such claim. 

>Ah, there's that accusation of youthfulness again.  I believe Torkel
>Franken (sp?) was tossing around similar accusations a day or two ago.
>It saddens me.  It is yet another instance of our Wise Ones teaching
>our youth to look at the world through the same blurry glasses that they
>wear.

They're blurry, but at least they let some light through. The ones you're
wearing have nice little pictures you've painted on the insides of the lenses,
producing the illusion that you're actually seeing something.

>We can't possibly be scientifically enlightened unless we fill
>our brains with mystic fog.

It rolls in on an appreciation of the balance between zeal for
investigation and knowing our limitations as investigators.

>Perhaps this is why scientists tend to
>do their best work while they are young.

Do they really, or are you just making this up?

>Perhaps it's inevitable that
>the fog gets us all in the end, and good science becomes difficult
>after that.  (BTW, I'm in my mid thirties, so I guess I don't qualify
>as young.  Just unenlightened I suppose)

Well, some just take a little longer, that's all. I wouldn't worry about it.

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is atheism experimentally refutable?
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:46:54 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Sep1.211646.19814@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu) writes:
>Yes, but I have had experience with pieces of lint under my chair before.
>There may or may not currently be any pieces of lint under my chair, but I
>know from past observations that it is possible for lint to be there.  Because
>of this fore-knowledge, I cannot positively deny the existence of four pieces
>of lint under my chair without checking.

This past experience is irrelevant to the matter under discussion,
which is the question of whether there is a difference between
not(believe X) and believe(not X). There is, as the thought experiment
demonstrates.

>God (or gods) on the other hand is a completely different situation.  I've yet
>to encounter any observational evidence that a god exists, so there is no sug-
>gestion whatsoever that I should currently think such a being can exist.
>An example of this would be the possibility that four leprechauns are behind
>my back as I type this.  Geez, I don't know if they're really there or not
>without turning around and looking, but I can safely assume that they're not,
>since my experience with leprechauns in my office has been quite limited.

Fine, but your experience with gods isn't germane to the subject
of discussion. The difference (or lack of it) between lacking
a belief and believing its contrapositive is.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: Biblical errors
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
	<1992Aug22.133632.15744@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> 
	<adams.714665058@spssig>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 01:44:50 GMT


adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>>sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>>>  i've heard the pi=3 thing refered to a few times and i can't find it
>>>in kj or niv, can someone cite me chapter and verse?  thanks.

>akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:
>>1 Kings 7:23, plus a little interpretation.

>A lot, in my opinion...And who says it was a perfect circle?  It only says
>'circular in shape', and nowhere does it say if the measurement was taken
>at the top of the 'sea' or not....

>This is grasping at straws....if this is the best you can do for 'errors
>and inconsistancies' you have a long way to go...

I made no comment on the validity of the verse as an example of
Biblical error.  Mr. Buckley asked for the reference, and I gave it to
him.  Since it's not the sort of passage you can find via concordance
or keyword search, it's very hard to locate if you don't already know
where it is.

Of course it is quite possible that the vessel was not perfectly
circular.  It's also likely that the measurement itself was
inaccurate.  Chances are they used a standard cubit rod to do their
measuring, and trying to measure a curved surface with a straight
object can surely lead to errors.  Even if they stretched a rope
around the circumference and compared that to their cubit rod, it's
still not terribly accurate.

Still another possibility was proposed by a certain Rabbi Nehemiah, who
wrote a geometry textbook around 150 C.E. called the Mishnat
ha-Middot.  The Rabbi suggested that the circumference was measured
along the *inner* side of the brim, while the diameter was measured
between the *outer* rims.  The width of the walls accounts for the
discrepancy in the measurements.  (This information is from a book
called _A History of pi_, by Petr Beckmann, St. Martin's Press, 1971.
It's exceptionally informative and amusing, if anyone is interested.)

As for the value of the passage as an example of Biblical error, I
agree that it's not worth much, but at least it helps to show that a
literalist view of Biblical inerrancy is a chimaera.  If a
straightforward passage such as this one requires interpretation before
it makes sense, how much more interpretation is needed to understand
passages which aren't so plain in their apparent meaning?


Keith
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Complete proof of Gregg Skinner's dishonesty
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:41:00 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug31.184707.16966@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>In article <BtutJ3.L3n@apollo.hp.com> perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry) writes:
>}In article <7!fn-8_.madhaus@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>}I have to stand by Gregg Skinner here -- I don't think he's done
>}anything dishonest in this thread or elsewhere that I've noted, and I
>}don't think he's the type.
>
>How about making statements that have a direct logical implication that
>is counter to the rest of his apparent posts?  When directly and repeatedly
>asked about the specific contradiction, he has not given any response.
>Does that count?

What I said is what I meant: "I don't think...that I've noted, and I
don't think...".  If you've got a complaint, go for it.  I recall that
you've had some ongoing difference, but it hasn't made enough
impression on me to a) remember what it is, or b) have the impression
that Gregg has been dishonest in the exchange.  There are enough
arguments around here that come down to miscommunication on all sides
that assertions of dishonesty are uncalled for.  I've had a fair
amount of interaction with Gregg, and though we've had our differences
of interpretation and usage, I have every respect for his integrity.
Your mileage may vary; slightly higher in California.
-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: LIFE GOES ON UNTIL YOU DIE
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:02:53 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

Seth L. Kroger writes

>>Well, I can't see infrared or X-rays with my unaided eyes. I can use
>>instruments to extend my vision, but I don't see how we'll ever
>>perceive with unlimited bandwidth, or know that we are doing so. 

>I thinki that's the point.  We can use instruments that can extend our
>natural senses.

Yes, but my point is, how far can they be extended? To infinite
bandwidth? I doubt it. We can only become a little less blind. I
think there will always be regions impenetrable to our vision, even
if only because we can't know whether or not we have, in fact, seen
everything there is to see. 

>>Something capable of producing the variety we see in life would have
>>to be fairly complex, if not in its components, at least in its
>>operation. 

>Take a look at the weather.  All it's variety is from simple Newtonian
>mechanics and thermodynamics.  But it's still a real pain to predict it.

Well, yes, that's what I was saying: "if not in its components, at
least in its operation". That is, in the interaction of simple(?)
elements; extremely complicated in the case of weather. Actually, I
don't think there's anything simple about real-world thermodynamic
and fluid mechanical behavior. 

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho
From: yohan@festus.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: LIFE GOES ON UNTIL YOU DIE
Date: 25 Aug 1992 16:15:02 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: festus.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <1992Aug25.161055.14167@sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>In article <17dksuINNc9k@apollo.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@apollo.ksu.ksu.edu 
>(Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>
>   >Oh, so you're saying we should leave everything that makes us uncomfortable
>   >unanalyzed and just avoid our emotions as best we can.
>
>  Well, no. This is just a piece of fantasy on your part.

This is probably because your "informative" post left much to the imagination.

Jon Newton
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth)
Subject: Re: die alt.athiesm heathen bastards
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 01:27:57 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <94958@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>I just encountered a newsgroup called "alt.athiesm" (instead of
>"alt.atheism") on the net -- what gives? Should we start an
>aholy war with these heathens? Obviously atheism is the ONE
>TRUE NON-FAITH!!! 8-)
>
>Follow-ups set to alt.atheism 

Instead of creating alt.athiesm, should we create alt.athiest?  This way, 
it'll trap some idiots that can't spell (not including myself) that want to
convert us to the one, true god BEER ?

Just a thought...


Jerry
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: assholes
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:24:30 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <j1moody-010992233350@lafmac15.lafortune.lab.nd.edu> j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:
>Wouldn't you really have to see all of existence to make
>such a pompous claim as "there is no god"?
>
>I don't give two shits if you reject religion.
>
>But for some bag of blood and bones that hasn't lived more than 100 years
>on this blue ball of earth to reject the idea of "god" altogether. . .
>
>You'd have to be an asshole.

My dear Mr. Dumpty:

Your insightful post has stirred me from my spiritual slumber.
Several questions come to mind:

(1)  Is god an asshole?
(2)  Does god have an asshole?
(3)  Does god think that you are an asshole?

If you have any more pertinent comments, please direct them
to /dev/null.  Thank you.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: joyce@meaddata.com
Subject: LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:46:21 GMT

You guys are all mistaken. I don't even own a copy of "Evidence That
Demands a Verdict."
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Complete proof of Gregg Skinner's dishonesty
Date: 29 Aug 92 16:22:31 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Maddi Hausmann (madhaus@netcom.com) wrote:
: I stand by my entire article.  Mr. Skinner is a dishonest debator.
: Anyone who has a discussion with him is wasting his or her time,
: because Gregg will not play by the rules.
: 
: -- 
: Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
: Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.
: 
: Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553

Ye Gods and little fishes! I hope, Maddi, that this is an example
of you being a humorist; but it is a pretty slender hope.

In my mind at least, you discredit yourself and Greg not at all with
this tripe.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:16271 talk.origins:10506
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:54:03 EDT
From: <EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (4 of 4)
 <1992Aug31.204837.29425@leland.Stanford.EDU>

Most, if not all religions claim to abhor killing or violence.
Not to pick on the church or anything, BUT,  I seem to remember there being a
certain inquisition, and what about the crusades?
And, (I CERTAINLY don't equate racism with religion [seriously], but...) what
about certain well-liked organizations such as the KKK which seem to be quite
religious (the WASP thing).  They don't exactly seem to preach peace.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Undecidability and the FAQ
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 10:14:32 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

Well, I've found a bit of time to re-subscribe to alt.atheism, and I
went through my brain-child, the FAQ.

I am quite pleased with what it has become...the fact that it has
changed and been updated is pleasing...there really is no such thing
as "the last word."  To all who have helped improve it,
congratulations.

Now, I have a correction.  In the FAQ under Godel's Incompleteness
Theorem (point 21), when referencing undecidable statements, it
states:

     Note that if a proposition is undecidable, the formal system cannot
     deduce anything about it -- not even that it is undecidable.

The final statement is false.  It is possible to show that certain
statements in a given set theory are undecidable.  For example, Paul
Cohen proved, in 1963, that the Continuum Hypothesis is undecidable in
the Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory.

For those who don't know, the Continuum Hypothesis concerns the size
of the set of real numbers.  There is a set of numbers called
"trans-finite" numbers which deal with how "big" infinity really is.
The size of the set of integers is called "aleph-null."  "Aleph-one" is
arrived at by taking 2 to the power of aleph-null.  "Aleph-two" by
taking 2 to the power of aleph-one, etc.  Well, the set of real
numbers is bigger than the set of integers.  Thus, the size of the
real numbers isn't aleph-null.  But which one is it?

Godel had proven that it can't be proven to be anything but aleph-one,
given the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms, in 1938.  However, that doesn't
solve the issue since the axioms may not be sufficient to decide the
issue one way or the other.  Given this, it had been assumed that the
size of the continuum (i.e., the real numbers), was aleph-one...thus
the "Continuum Hypothesis" is that the size of the continuum is
aleph-one.

However, Cohen showed that the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms were not
sufficient to prove the Continuum Hypothesis.

Thus, when combined with Godel's work, we know that the Continuum
Hypothesis is undecidable, given the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms of set
theory.

Cohen's method is called "forcing" and has shown a great many
classical unsolved problems of mathematics are undecidable.

Thus, if a set of axioms that is agreeable to all concerned is complex
enough to fit into the Incompleteness Theorem *and* has something to
say about the existence of supernatural entities, any of the three
main divisions of belief are possible:  theism (yes), atheism (no), or
agnosticism (good question).

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:09:09 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <BtnAGE.8G@news.cso.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>>However comforting it might be that you don't care about
>>the legal status of a marriage, tax collectors, health insurance
>>providers, and the Social Security Administration provide
>>off-the-top-of-the-head examples of people who do care
>>about the legal status of a marriage, and whose interest
>>in the matter has non-trivial practical consequences.
>
>Isn't this the problem, then?  Rather than expand the legalities of
>marriage and divorce to another group of citizens, I advocate dropping
>state-sanctioned marriage altogether.

I'll go along with that. And I find myself completely unsurprised
that I am once again in agreement with a minority view wholly
unlikely to be reflected in public policy any time in the
forseeable future. (That being the case, it might still behoove us
to support such measures as are feasible to alleviate the
gratuitous problems that certain individuals -- homosexuals, for 
example -- suffer under the present set of legal constraints).
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: che755v@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: 27 Aug 92 09:47:23 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

In article <1992Aug26.203344.3474@ctr.columbia.edu>,
 locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (SCOTT C LOCKLIN) writes:
> In article <sbuckley.714808795@sfu.ca>
> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>>
>>  actually, the relevant part of douglas's post that i was refering to
>>doesn't appear in your post.  in that relevant part, douglas claims that
>>christianity assersts that sex is disgusting.  a misunderstanding of
>>extreme proportions [especially for people like my soon-to-be married
>>roomate!  :) ]

[Douglas: I'm just repeating this, I'm not really sure if you actually
said what Stephen claims]

> Some forms of chistianity do. The prohibition on premarital sex among most
> forms implies this...

I don't see how a prohibition on pre-marital sex implies that sex is
disgusting.  To me it simply says that there is a perceived "right" and
"wrong" place for it.

>>not debate the sources of poverty and ecological disasters because we will
>>end up agreeing on most of it.  my argument is that while the bible not
>>only says we are responsible for stewarding the planet, there is also
>>the responsibility that goes along with that privelage.  while that
>
> Bible quotes please. You are reading in something that isn't there.
>
>>responsibility has been heinously avoided in the past [and the present :( ]
>>the bible and god's word cannot be shown to advocate abrogation of that
>>same responsibility.  for what we do with the planet in the name of god-
>>granted stewardship is part of our relationship with god.

I agree to some extent with Scott here.  Christianity seems to me to have
suddenly (and conveniently) "rediscovered" the "fact" that the bible
teaches us that God wants us to look after the planet.  On the other hand
some of the OT laws about the use of land (for instance) such as
leaving parts to lie fallow are good from an environmental standpoint
(though nothing is said about the clearing of the land in the first place)
and also constituted actual farming practice until quite recently when
the pressure to produce more from a given area of land rose.

Peter D. Thomas
Centre for High Resolution Spectroscopy and Opto-Electronic Technology
Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.religion.kibology
Subject: Re: Pythagorean Reform Church
Date: 4 Sep 92 04:41:54 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <92247.115437HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET> HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET writes:
>Is is possible to join the Reformed Pythagorean Reform Church which still
>allows the eating of beans?

No, but you can use Pi in calculations provided you do an act of pennance.

I know somebody who would benifit by the cessation of beans, (okay, *I* would benifit by his cessation of beans), how do I convert somebody?

Saint Big Al.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tuesday, 1 Sep 1992 00:52:37 CDT
From: David James Alexander Hanley <U55870@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is atheism experimentally refutable?

  The fine point you seem to miss is that atheism, in the sense most users
here use it IS NOT A BELIEF!  It is the LACK of one.  Therefore 'faith'
hardly gets involved.  Even the 'strong' atheist viewpoint should not be
classified such, because we can hardly be held responsible for every stupid
theory out there...  If you don't beleive that there are taffita lampcoveres
following you around, I'm hardly going to say that you are accepting that they
do not exist on faith.  Ditto for god, thought I find the taffita lampcovers
more likely, interesting, and amusing.

dave
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:16504 talk.religion.misc:15576 sci.skeptic:15884 alt.religion.kibology:3692