HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 21:16:45 GMT

In article <73102@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.191730.12206@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>No, Matthew, it is simply ill informed.
>How would you know?  It wouldn't make a bit of a difference to you.
What wouldn't?

>I managed to annoy some Indians when I stated some falsehoods about
>Indians speaking English.  If I kept going with my falsehoods, I'd
>say the Indians would have direct grounds for calling me unpleasant.
You might. I'm not sure I would.
Would depend on the situation.

>>					 Merely because ignorance
>>and rudeness are correlated in your case doesn't mean it's generally
>>true.
>
>What ignorance are you referring to?  You're the one who doesn't know
>much of anything about Judaism.
Matter of opinion, my boy, matter of opinion. You seem to know equally
little about history. Or is it just that you don't know how to
conduct a rational discussion.


>>I have yet to see one that is, but I don't think it's in principle impossible
>>that one could be.
>
>Wrong.  They cannot engage in such massive lying without being unpleasant.
Glad to know I'm dealing with an omniscient individual.
Do you ever see anything in any terms other than black and white?

Are you suggesting that it's impossible in principle for one to
believe that the holocaust didn't happen without being unpleasant?
Suppose you'd simply been fed an incorrect history and were trying,
like most people do, to hold on to your worldview. You'd have a lot
of incorrect facts, but you wouldn't be lying.
-Ekr




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh? 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: yohan@cutlass.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Date: 7 Apr 1992 19:10:49 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world,local
NNTP-Posting-Host: cutlass.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <1992Apr7.173652.25560@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, nathans@coos.dartmouth.edu (Nathan Shafer) writes:
>In article <6APR199219534716@milori.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@milori.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr6.211058.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes...
>>>The doctrine of original sin does indeed seem to predict that 'all
>>>have fallen short', and all will fall short.  
>>> 
>>>As I said before, there does not seem to be a type of soul associated
>>>with free will which can be guaranteed not to sin.  Or rather, it is
>>>not clear that there is such a type.
>>
>>Really?  So Jesus might well have fallen short of moral perfection?
>>Or did he lack free will?
>
>   Well, strictly speaking, Jesus was exempt from Original Sin by virtue
>of his parentage (i.e. he was born of a virgin). So with regard to Joe's
>statements, there is such a type, but it was a one-time exemption.
>Generally speaking, Joe is doctrinally correct.
>
>   However, with regard to the question "So Jesus might well have fallen
>short of moral perfection?", many Christians will answer, "Yes, he well
>might." Jesus' exemption from Original Sin ensured that Jesus was *capable*
>of remaining morally perfect, but there was nothing to guarantee that he
>would. That has always been my understanding of the temptation story about
>Jesus, that there was always a chance that he *might* fail, thus making
>his success that much more blessed.
>
>Nathan Shafer
>Dartmouth College, NH

No, Joe has the right idea.  The fact remains, that Jesus 1) had free-will and 2)
was faced with temptation.  Alot of print goes to the trials of Jesus and how he
felt temptation (don't mean to patronize you).  In the end, you have a
free-willed individual who was perfect.
From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:02:49 GMT
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

>In article <1992Mar31.210234.14722@watson.ibm.com>, strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
>> 
>> These two paragraphs imply a difference of value systems between
>> Eric and me.
>> 
>> The second paragraph sounds like hedonistic ethics:  maximize
>> your own happiness --- don't think about others, including
>> future generations.  My value system is very much concerned
>> with being fair to others, being helpful towards the disadvantaged,
>> and replenishing and improving the earth for the sake of
>> future generations.\


Hang on a minute, maximising your happiness of necessity includes others 
into the equation.  Ignoring any other considerations, being a little
bit sensitive to others means that you can get more out of them.
Knowing what buttons to push to maximise *your* happiness.
On an economic standpoint, suppose you derive utility from a nice 
earth, therefore it *is* maximising your happiness to improve the earth.


Nobody *ever* does anything they don't choose to do.  If you're nice 
to others its because you want to be, you get a kick out of it.
There is no such thing as altruism, everything is ultimately 
self-interest.

flame away.

--
         ______________________________________________________________
	|  A.G. Williams          |        Plus qu'il n'en faut.       |    
	|  willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie  |                                    |
	|_________________________|____________________________________|
From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:18:03 GMT
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

In <1992Apr8.105926.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>OK, I said I wouldn't post, but I don't think I could stand to see the
>distortions which are likely to follow.  I *think* the following is safe
>to say:

>Catholics are not bound to believe that those who are non-catholic or
>non-christian or non-theist or atheist are headed for hell.  

There was a posting in either alt.atheism or soc.culture.christianity,
where it was said that anyone who knew about catholicism and didn't 
convert and pray would go to hell.  You were ok so long as you lived in
blissful ignorance.

So ........

Hey everybody!!!!!!!  Catholicism exists, now you all know, so you're all
going to hell!!!!!
`
--
         ______________________________________________________________
	|  A.G. Williams          |        Plus qu'il n'en faut.       |    
	|  willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie  |                                    |
	|_________________________|____________________________________|
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:56:59 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 <1992Apr6.154934.24621@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>I know what worked with my own students, and what did not.  The truth
>>and nothing but the truth did not work.  The request of Eric and others
>>for "controlled experiments" here is nothing but a snow job.

>No, Matthew. Your attempt to pass off anecdotal evidence as gospel
>is the snow job. I'm just calling you on it.

What _gospel_ am I proclaiming?  Quit exaggerating, and you won't feel
the need to invent strawmen so badly.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: yohan@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Date: 15 Apr 1992 22:16:39 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kitty.ksu.ksu.edu


From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)


If there is (as far as I'm concerned [see quote]) an equal amount/lack of
evidence for any number of theories of, say, the origin of the universe, then
I am compelled to award each of them the *same* notional probability z of
being true, at least until some evidence comes along to separate them. On
this basis, god/s and All-Creating Higher-Dimensional Huge Blue Banana/s
score exactly the same.
(Plus alot more on probability)


Me:

I understand what you're trying to say.  We can come up with an infinite number
of possible alternatives to God.  We have the whole electromagnetic spectrum to
choose from, plus the fruit and vegetable group.  The problem is that I don't
agree that the almighty banana has as much evidence as God.  This of course
depends on your defintion of evidence.  I can think of many logical reasons
against the Grreat banana than for God.

It seems to me that you are abusing probablility.  Science is full of examples
where the subject of debate had MANY different theories, which all were fairly
viable.  If mankind said, "well hell, look at z, we might as well give up, there
are too many possibilities", we wouldn't be wasting lots o' dollars having this
very conversation.  Plus I emphasize that these scientific discussions had many
REASONABLE hypothesese, of which I doubt the Huge Blue Banana was a part of :)

Jon Newton - biochemist - agnostic
From: yohan@doc.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Date: 14 Apr 1992 17:57:34 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: doc.ksu.ksu.edu
Keywords: God


From: zeisset@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Stephan Zeisset)

Your assumption (if not explicitely mentioned) is that god is
in some sense like us - He deliberates, decides what is good
and bad and then he acts.
This is ridiculous.

Me:	
This is very possibly true.  I wish alot of Christians could get that through
their head.  Are you trying to say that God's values are not the same as our own?
If so, I agree that that is most probably true, assuming of course that God
exists.  But, by human perception and values, evils do occur, and therefore, God,
by the definitions of God established before, God is evil by human perception. 
Popular religion claims that God loves mankind and is good.  A omnipotent,
omniscient, benevolent being would prevent any evil from happening to those he
loved.  This has been the main point of discusion for a long time.  I'm sure,
that if there is a God, he thinks he is doing what is best by his own values
system.  At the same time, by man's values system, he would be allowing or
causing evils to befall man.  The main point of this is that a personal God who
has man's interests in mind is bogus.

From: zeisset@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Stephan Zeisset)

So god thinks about good and evil and both come into 
existence. He decides to eradicate the evil and the evil 
ceases to exist. But as our human perception is limited
in time and space, millions of years of suffering lie
in between.

Me:

It seems to me like you're saying that God can't control his own thoughts.  That
fails the requirement for omnipotence in my opinion.  Furthermore, if he has to
eradicate the evil he has created, that means he screwed up and has to correct
his mistake.  It also seems like your saying that God is completely seperate from
our reality and cannot have total control of it (I get this from where you say
that God's decisions takle millions of years to process).  This again violates
the requirement for omnipotence, and popular religous beliefs.  God is supposedly
very involved in our reality (and mankind as well), and has absolute control over
our reality.  Therefore, a correction of one of his mistakes would not take
millions of years to go into effect.

Jon Newton
From: NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Question on modern manners
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:25:03 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Apr14.201336.25374@dale.ksc.nasa.gov>
sdavis@laforge (Steve Davis) writes:
>
>  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.
>
 
How about, simply, "Do you need a kleenex?"
 
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: yohan@doc.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Do Atheists have Thier Own "Faith"?
Date: 13 Apr 1992 18:25:41 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: doc.ksu.ksu.edu


From Geoff's article:

>I state:
>  There can be no all-powerful entity.  It just defies the properties of this
>  universe.  
>
>Colman asks:
>  Why not? Which ones?

Okay, let me make a statement:  There can be nothing in existence that has
absolute power ("omnipotent").  Why?  Because being all-powerful would in 
itself would put limits on that power.  I will post the same question as I did
to someone who responded to my post via e-mail.  I read this in _The Emperor's
New Mind_ by Roger Penrose:  "Can God create a stone too big for Him to lift?"
Either answer limits His power.

Me:

I think that's a very compelling arguement.  The only response I can think of is
that God never creates that stone, and therefore remains omnipotent.  Maybe if
God creates the stone, then gives himself the ability to lift it (well, that's
sort of lame).  Anyway, that isn't my point.  Basically, the question is:  is
omnipotence a prerequisite for a God?  In many cultures, omnipotence isn't (i.e.
Greek mythology).  What should be the criteria for God?  He who created
everything?  How do you refute the possibllity of a God with finite power?

From Geoff's article:

Here's a followup thought:  Can there be more than one omnipotent being?  If so
how can one be so without limiting another?


Me:
I would think that this is possible, as long as these multiple omnipotent powers
didn't come into conflict.  As God, by popular opinion, is perfect, these two
beings would hold perfect and therefore like ideas.  They would always agree, and
therefore never have to challenge one another's power.  This assumes, that there
can only be one perfect answer to everything, which seems logical to me.

Jon Newton
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: creilly@maths.tcd.ie (Colman Reilly)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:35:19 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.

In <44721@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> gfritz@sage.cc.purdue.edu ("Happy Fun Ball") writes:

>In article <s2rfqINN84@festus.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@festus.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>>
>> In my humble opinion, yes they do.  Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure
>> someone will), but atheist means:  "to conclude that God(s) does not exist",
>> while agnostic means:  "to draw no conclusion about the existence of God(s)."

Jonathon seems right here.

>                       There can be no all-powerful entity.  It just defies the
>properties of this universe.  

Why not? Which ones?

>I could accept the idea of a higher life form,
>which might _seem_ omnipotent, but not without proof of such.

Fair enough.

>  A note on the concept of good, bad, & evil.  There is no such thing as evil.
>Bad is just entropy, and good is the lack of entropy.  

What? In what sense are you using "entropy"? I don't understand what those
sentences mean. In fact I'm not sure they mean anything.

Colman
--
----------------------------
Colman Reilly (creilly@maths.tcd.ie)
c/o School of Mathematics,18.05 Westland Row,Trinity College,Dublin.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Help me Refute this Advertisement
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:32:28 GMT

In article <sk2tuINN440@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> 
  strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>I just typed this from the pack page of the Kansas State University
>Collegian.  I apologize for any spelling errors... I was using the
>ten-finger protocol!  :-(
>
>Please help me gather information to refute this advertisement in a
>letter to the Collegian editorial staff.  Please respond by
>electronic mail since I do not normally read alt.atheism.  Thank
>you.
>
>-- BEGIN QUOTED MATERIAL
>
>HL: Evidence For the Resurrection
>
>SH: Paid Advertisement Sponsored by Christian Students and Faculty
>
>SS: For centuries many of the world's distinguished philosophers
>have assaulted Christianity as being irrational, superstitious, and
>absurd.  Many have chosen simply to ignore the central issue of the
>resurrection.  Others have tried to explain it away through various
>theories.  But the historical evidence just can't be discounted

Suuuure.  I read this entire article (and fascinating reading it was
too).  I could not see any sources used other than the Bible.  No
independent confirmation of the `fact' of the resurrection was given.
None.  Nada. 

I have in front of me the Book of Spam - which declares categorically
that I, C Frog, did blast a city into dust 2 days ago.  (It got better).
Throughout this book this fact is mentioned again and again with 
numerous eyewitnesses (who also reported other miracles, like turning
Big Macs into food, etc).  Given this *unimpeachable* historical
evidence, how can you doubt my divinity?

Get a life.

C Frog
From: bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie (Bryan O'Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Help me Refute this Advertisement
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:32:22 GMT
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

In <sk2tuINN440@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:

>I just typed this from the pack page of the Kansas State University
>Collegian.  I apologize for any spelling errors... I was using the
>ten-finger protocol!  :-(

>Please help me gather information to refute this advertisement in a
>letter to the Collegian editorial staff.  Please respond by
>electronic mail since I do not normally read alt.atheism.  Thank
>you.

Oh dear. It was Josh McDowell who wrote that. Well, he has a habit of
mixing the truth with some ambivalent points, and then heaping a lot of
lies and distortions on top of this to "prove" his point. If you take
notice of his message, he basically refers to the bible, assumes it to
be true, then refers to a lot of people. It comes down to "proof by
authority:" he gets a lot of "mental heavyweights" to spout the same
spiel, and then, in spite of the fact that nowhere does he use anything
that might be accepted in a court of law as evidence, he knocks the
weak-minded for six.

McDowell has no problem with using distortions and lies to further his
aims, and I would automatically be wary of anything he has to say, as
the problem is that the things he says are sometimes true, or credible,
so it can get hard to tell the lies from the truth.

	-- Bryan

--
Bryan O'Sullivan                                              +353-(0)1-973504
Advanced Development Group                        bosullvn@(vax1|unix1).tcd.ie
Department of Computer Science            "Experience is what you get when you
University of Dublin                       were expecting something else."
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: WEEMBA and DABROSKI Angst (Was: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 10 Apr 92 13:53:40 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 <0BRyiB15w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis (From A to B) writes:
>> Considering that it was totally false, it could not come from observation
>> or intelligent inquiry or any other rational thought process.

>I think this sums up your problem quite succinctly, Matthew.  You think that
>everyone who disagrees with you either doesn't care about the truth, or is
>stupid.

Not in the least.  I think people who state blatant falsehoods don't care
about the truth, or are stupid, or whatever.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Backward Masking
Organization: University of Louisville
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 09:00:44 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.062339.3067@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, amorgan@Xenon.
Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
> In article <1992Apr3.150442.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> 
>   rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Mar31.235053.489@miavx2.ham.muohio.edu>, 
>>  bstadnik@miavx2.ham.
>>muohio.edu writes:
> 
> .. the article on backwards masking that we all have read ..
>  
>>>   I would post in the Satinist newsgroup, but figured their answer would be 
>>> just as biased.
>>
>>Gee, that's pretty discriminatory. When someone asks me an objective question,
>>I try to give an objective answer with specific examples and references. Not
>>that the opportunity arises too often; people are usually just interested in
>>finding out what Satanists believe and why (morbid curiousity I suppose).
>>
>>I'm disappointed to find such assumptions in a normally rational newsgroup.
>>
>>--Semhaza
>>
>>P.S. I can spell 'athiesm' correctly, can you please try to do the same with
>>'Satanism'?
> 
> Usenet Rule 347: If you flame someone for spelling, make sure you don't
>                  misspell anything.
> 
> C Frog

Did it get the point across? Personally, I'm so sick of seeing "Satinism" that
I'm tempted to misspell everything indiscriminantly. I don't worship textiles!

P.S. Normally I don't give a !!?@@$# @%%$!? about misspelling, I just made an
exception because I was pissed off at the person.

P.P.S. Sorry I didn't delete most of the article, it would have taken aboout
1/2 hour.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: g9129499@cc.uow.edu.au (Jeremy Lawrence)
Subject: Kinnock is atheist
Summary: Addition to list of famous atheists.
Organization: University Of Wollongong
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 02:40:22 GMT

Here's one to add to the list of famous atheists.

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."

(Kinnock's Labour party has as steady small lead over the ruling
Conservatives in the lead up to the coming election.)

Jeremy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Lawrence        | ...the tell-tale tocking of the last cigarette
jeremy@snrc.uow.edu.au | Marking time in the packet as the whiskey sweat
g9129499@uow.edu.au    | Lies like discarded armour on an unmade bed
Ph +61 42 21 3244      | As a familiar craving is crawling in his head  -Fish