HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Praying to Mecca?
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 00:52:39 GMT

Graham:
>>Just to be on the level I am trying to establish what sort of things
>>you take as axiomatic (on faith) in your religious view. So far
>>we have established that you have faith that God exists. The above
>>example suggests that you also have faith that God is right.

(Ridha Souissi) writes:
>As a Muslim, I believe in God (Allah) and his prophets and his
>angels and his books and in the day of jugement.  If you want
>more details on any of these, please let me know.

I am trying to establish what you believe about your God? Does he
exist? Is he honest? ...

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: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: 02/alt.atheism fre <cont>
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:15:43 GMT

In article <39656@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> ss@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Scott Stuart) writes:
>Why do you think particles require such immense "computing power" to
>follow the rules of quantum physics?  Just because we require computational
>power to analyse what a system will do, does not mean that that system
>requires some sort of hidden computer telling it what it shoucd do next.

I think our understanding of quantum mechanics is flawed because we don't
know how to simulate a real quantum system without infinite computing power. 

>I'll agree that it would be nice if the universe followed simple, elegant
>laws, but there is no guarantee that that is the case, and if you restrict
>the set plausible theories by that sort of unfounded and unnecessary 
>assumption, then you run the very real risk of being blind to the truth.

Its like the difference between Newtons theory a gravity and the old
models with spheres in spheres in spheres. Even without knowing Newtons
theories the overly complex math required to calculate positions without
them would indicate that something was wrong. Quantum mechanics has a
similar problem, a theory that shows that limits on information storage
and computing power exist but yet requires infinite amounts for accurate
simulation.

-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Let's Compare BSA's anti-queer policy to former anti-women polic
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 06:07:55 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.162939.18031@midway.uchicago.edu> elle@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Yeah, right.  Your friend doesn't get out much.  (And what on earth are
>"bisexual intercourses"?)

Woman getting screwed by man who is getting screwed by second man :)
You only count the man in the middle as having bisexual intercourse though..

More seriously for any one who doubt the 10% figure, try explaining
the arbitron ratings for soc.motss and soc.bi, keeping in mind that many
of the gays and bisexauls on the net don't have the time to read either...

-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
From: marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:33:52 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Jul29.192132.2974@csrd.uiuc.edu>, skinner@sp14.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> 
>>So, what does that make you when you advocate the Bible without being able to
>>answer a similar question?
> 
> Before I can answer this, I must know what you mean by "when you
> advocate the Bible."
> 
>>> We agree that in general an entity can have conflicting wants.  Assume
>>> that God can have conflicting wants.  Then God does, or allows, things
>>> that he doesn't want because he has other, conflicting wants that are
>>> more important to him.  The thing the omnipotent God cannot do in this
>>> instance is fulfill conflicting wants.  Does this surely contradict
>>> God's being omnipotent?  No.  Weak omnipotence does not call for God
>>> to be able to do anything logically impossible.
> 
>>Right, but given that position I want to know what the conflicting wants are
>>and why they conflict.  Otherwise it's just vague guesswork.
> 
> Even vague guesswork is enough refute the assertion "surely God
> wanting an accurate Bible and our not having one says something about
> God's omnipotence."  The simplest of hypotheticals will do, and I have
> given one.
> 
> I am not one who can satisfy your want.  I think the writing and
> collecting of the Bible was a human endeavor.  I find that the Bible
> points to God, but I don't think it is the direct Word of God,

Yes it does point to God, and also I believe that God directed their thoughts
or inspiration, and directed their lives so that they could compile what God
predestined them to do.  Thus creating "His Word".
 
> except
> possibly the Law given at Mount Sinai, which is said to have come
> straight from God.  Thus, any translation I read today is certain to
> have errors.  

Yep, a few, but not enough to completely misinterpret what God meant to say.

> 
> Rather, I think that the omnipotent God gave us his accurate
> expression of his will in the form of Jesus Christ.

Absolutely correct!

> --
> Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.

In Him,
Evan Marshall
marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu
From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
Subject: Re: Atheist or Agnostic Part two
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 19:02:33 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.161702.21696@b23a.b23a.ingr.com> jimreed@b23b.b23b.ingr.com writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.120237.24395@news.media.mit.edu>, Marvin Minsky <mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!media.mit.edu!minsky@uunet.uu.net> writes:
>|> ... Whenever you observe a
>|> widely popular idea with no substantial basis, you must consider the
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|> possibility that you're observing a group of memes (ideas) that work
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^
>|> together like the genes of a virus to produce a highly contagious
>|> (mental) disease.  In a virus we usually have one part specialized to
>|> penetrate a cell wall, another to induce copying (evangelism), others,
>|> perhaps, to resist countermeasures (encouragement of faith as a
>|> virtue), etc.

> ... Using similar logic, we can easly label every business venture
>as an "economic disease".

Not all analogies are equally apt.  
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi)
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:33:26 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.221527.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> rswiftrw@cc.curtin.edu.au (Rod Swift) writes:
>|            . . .   . . . . .        "Dear God.  We paid for all this stuff|
>|        +  +  +     +  +  +  +  +        ourselves, so thanks for nothing."|
>|    *   *   *       *   *   *   *   *                                      |
>|R    o    d         S    w    i    f    t      -- Bart Simpson saying grace|

Dear Bart:

But God gave you hands to work with so you can earn money to buy
that stuff.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Subject: Re: lighten up, people
Keywords: faith 
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:07:43 GMT

In article <graham.712058148@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
>Subject: Re: lighten up, people
>Keywords: faith 
>Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 09:55:48 GMT

>(Mr. Mensa ) writes:
>>       5) finally, LIGHTEN UP PEOPLE!!!! Geez. I mean, as if. People, people
>>       people.....there is one and only one way to prove the existence of
>>       God......

>Interesting - is there any way to disprove the existence of God?

>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

Yes, there is. Anyone interested?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Bell                                    Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc                   You can force any entertainment
P.O. Box 833875                                 on a people except the consistent
Richardson, TX 75083-3875                       pursuit of a topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why do I post here (was: prayer)
Date: 25 Jul 92 14:59:00 GMT
Organization: Xerox PARC

In <graham.711863129@galois> Graham Matthews loves DAVE!!! the kid:

[DAVE!!!'s revelations deleted]
-Graham:
>You are learning Dave. 
>
Kids learn bad manners very fast indeed. 


Best wishes,
             Jarek
------------------------------------------------------
 .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
 `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
From: mrice@churchill.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Mark.Rice)
Subject: Re: atheism
Keywords: atheism
Organization: NCR Corp
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 13:01:01 GMT

In article <mspears.712252338@sfu.ca> Matthew Spears <mspears@sfu.ca> writes:
>  I am not a fundamentalist christian, or even a christian at all.  (Gave it
>up in childhood), but I dislike the close-mindedness of many atheists.  Yes,
>there is a lot of hypocrisy in Christianity, but there is a lot of good as
>well.  What I dislike about Churches in general is that they tend to say "THIS
>is the truth, take it or leave it."  But I still find that there is a lot
>of Truth in what they say. 
> 
>  If you have a view of the universe, say it, backing it up as best you can. 
>But this cynical denigration of everything religious does no one any good, 
>least of all you.

Good points... and remember, saying "THIS is the truth" can be stereotypical
of a christian but is often said by atheists when they say "I know for sure
there is no such thing as a GOD of any kind."  They're being just as
closed-minded as stereotypical christians.

-- 
-----
mark.rice@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM		H: 803-731-5560
Not necessarily the views of NCR.	W: 803-791-6466
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: n5ppm264 (Charlie Board)
Subject: Re: Oh no, not again 
Organization: bnr
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 03:02:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.225043.1@acad2.alaska.edu>, atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
> 
> In article <Bs6tKq.J98@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mr. Mensa ) writes:
> > 	Now I come to the free will concept. I totally understand the 
> > notion that if God knows what we will do, are we really free to do it?
> > Yes, we are. It is like this: now let's pretend that we know in advance that
> > a professor is going to put a certain question on an exam. Somehow we have
> > found out ahead of time--perhaps we have seen a copy of the exam, or maybe
> > we have heard him/her talking to a colleague about it, or perhaps even we
> > are just psychic. The point being that we know for a fact that this question
> > is going to be on the exam. Now...this is just like God knowing what we are
> > going to do, say, this Friday night at the bars. I ask to you all (and if
> > you don't agree, please don't hesitate to let me know): isn't the professor
> > perfectly free to put this question on the exam? Why does our knowing that it
> > is going to be there make it imperative that it be there? I don't see how a
> > prior knowledge of an a person's action strips that person of his/her free
> > will. Maybe I just didn't get the point of everybody's criticism, either.
> > 
> > 
> > 		keep thinking--it's what keeps us all sane
> > 		thomas ehardt
> > 		tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
> > 
> 
>     Thomas:  I don't believe you've quite got the concept--after all, the
>     professor _could_ change his mind, and you're omniscience would be
>     shown to be not omni at all.  Try this one:
> 
>     There is a god and it's omniscient.  It knows past, present, future.
> 
>     Now, I believe that I can walk out my office door right now and freely
>     choose to turn either left or right.  God knows already, say, that I
>     will turn left.  Under what circumstances can I exercise my free will
>     and turn right?
> 
Well Don you've stumbled onto the great secret that's been passed down in my
family for thousands of generations. See, God (an omni-omni entity) did 
exist and did endow humans with free will. But then one day my great-great-
great-.......-grandfather Ug actually excersised his free will by coming
out of his cave and hanging a right. Well, god immediately lost his 
omniscience and -since knowledge is power- his omnipotence. And of course
since being omnibenevolence requires total knowledge of all consequences 
of all actions,well...that went too. This massive chain reaction of omni-
ruptures had the effect of killing god. So I'm free at last to tell you
all why I'm really an atheist - I know God doesn't exist because my ancestor
killed him!
>     Don 
> 
>
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Sowing the seeds on Xian BBSs
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:16:34 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <92316@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.163920.13575@news.media.mit.edu> mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!media.mit.edu!minsky@uunet.uu.net (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>
>>Most XIANS do not consider doing such things to be sociable, at least
>>in this particular era, and I have not met any who refuse to denounce
>>such behavior.  However, I have not observed any Muslimss on the net
>>to firmly denounce the murder of unbelievers.  Did I miss some of these?
>
>Of course you have. Killing _anyone_ is against the tenets of Islam
>unless that person has killed someone else (death penalty) or is
>forcibly preventing a community of muslims from practicing their
>religion (praying, meeting at Friday prayers).

I am sure this thought provides hours of comforting rumination for
Salman Rushdie...
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 05:29:57 GMT

Graham:
>Why [didn't God] make everything as it is now?
Jarek:
>That is HOW, Oh Graham, my dear 'aGNOStic'?
Graham:
>I see nothing in my original question that contradicts my agnosticism 
Jarek:
>In <graham.712111389@dumas> Graham Matthews suggests that all is clear
>when an agnostic says "the world as it is now":
>What does it mean "as it is now"? HOW should God make this world?

"As it is now" - whats so difficult about this. Pick a time - some
point in history - say 5 minutes ago - thats 15:34 Sunday 26 July 1992
my time. Now (assuming the existence of God as per the original poster)
why did God not make the world exaclty as it was on 15:34 Sunday 26 July
1992? Why did God bother making a world way back whenever he made
it and let it evolve to the world of 15:34 Sunday 26 July 1992?
Why did he just not build the world of 15:34 Sunday 26 July 1992
directly?

Its a pretty simple question really. Whats more it has nothing to do 
with agnosticism. So whats your point? Or do you just like playing the 
smug policeman?

So my question stands as "WHY didn't God make everything as it is
now". Your introduction of "HOW" is just an irrelevancy.

Jarek:
>I want
>to check how far does your agnosticism go... I want to find out whether
>it is a real agnosticism or just a fake shield.

The question has nothing to do with my agnosticism?

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: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:03:53 MST

In article <1992Jul20.135600.19367@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, ury@humus.cs.huji.ac.il (My Friend Of Misery) writes:
> Why is it so difficult for ppl to understand that There is no god?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ury Segal          | "I'm God, and so is my wife"
> ury@cs.huji.ac.il  | I swear I'm gonna live forever. Tell my maker It can wait.
> Phone: 02-971187   | DISCLAIMER: I Don't spell and I don't care

Because it is self-evident that there is One.  :)

Regards,

Jim

(Actually, it's not obvious that there isn't One.)
From: sanders@iitmax.iit.edu (Greg Sanders)
Subject: Creating birds? (was Re: Sneezing)
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 04:22:34 GMT

Stephen McIntyre <trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu> writes:
>souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu  writes:
>> Man CANNOT create a bird, period.     [ . . . ]
>
> In part you are right when you say man cannot create a bird.  However,
>     the modifier placed on the end of your statement should be "yet":
>     
>     "Man CANNOT create a bird, /yet/."
>     
>     Give humans time-- it may be another hundred years or so, but I think
>     man /will/ be able to create life and eventually specific life forms,
>     even birds.
> 
>  [. . . ]
>     
>Trajan
>     

This is just "argument from design" stuff.  Comprehensible.  The real trick
is creating mass/energy and space/time--the basic stuff of physical reality.
It seems to me that the very existence of physical reality is a mystery 
of a much higher order than the mystery of complexity/design within it.
(Still, long-time aa readers may recall that I do not think the existence 
 of physical reality calls for an "explanation," any more than typical 
 theists think the very existence of God calls for an "explanation.")

Incidentally, I am traveling, so any responses will expire here long before
I could read them.  The comments in this posting are rather much cast upon
the cyberspace.

                             -- Greg
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A Christian Who Thinks
Date: 29 Jul 1992 22:32:11 GMT
Organization: Standing Ovation Dept.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

First I would like to say I thought Mr. Koperski's post lucid and
thoughtful. In fact the only reason for my reply is:

     to believe.  In fact, Christianity lives and dies 
     over the question of the resurrection.  A challenge: 

I for one do not agree with the priority you place on the
resurrection in determining whether christianity is useful
or not; neither, might I add would Paul Tillich (as I
understand his work) whom I am assuming you have read.

There are many "christians" and protestants generally who
would not agree with a literal interpretation of the resurrection
story. There have been numerous explanations for the creation
of the resurrection story, not the least of which are political
intrigue and translation errors.

The only reason I mention this, is that if one bases an
entire theology on one point, it may become necessary to
defend to the point of illogicallity the "correctness"
of that point.

Dano
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 11:46:36 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> >skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
> >> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> >> >skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
> >> >> >But to get back to the point, am I to take it that you're claiming tha
> >> >> >error-free transmission of God's word is incompatible with free will?
>
> >The claim quoted above concerns what is allowed by free will.  I'm asking yo
> >what would be allowed given guaranteed accuracy of transmission of God's
> >word.  Your answer does not relate to my question.
> 
> I agree that the second part of the answer relates only marginally.
> My answer to your question is: No, I am not claiming that.

"What would be allowed given guaranteed accuracy of transmission of God's
word?"

"No, I'm not claiming that."

Hmm.  It's worse than the mice on Magrathea.

Anyway, can I then take it that you do *not* claim that guaranteed accuracy
of transmission of God's word is incompatible with free will?


mathew
-- 
Civilization is just a temporary failure of entropy.
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 10:48:57 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> >Ah, so now you're saying that God has to do things which he doesn't want to
> >do -- that, given that we are to have free will, he has to allow the book to
> >be transcribed inaccurately even if he doesn't want to.
> 
> >But that contradicts his being "omnipotent", surely?
> 
> As I see it, no.  I will explain.
[...]
> Perhaps one would say that an omnipotent God could find a way to do
> both.  However, according to most Christian theologians, an omnipotent
> God cannot do impossible things.  Thus, if having both is not
> possible, we have an explanation which does not contradict
> omnipotence.

So you're claiming that it's impossible to allow people free will, yet still
ensure that a message be transmitted by them without error?


mathew
-- 
Down, boy!  There's a good dogma.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Interpreting the Qur'an (was Re: Words Feminists ...)
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 04:52:45 GMT

Graham:
>You are making a simple mistake here. To say that some
>interpretations stray from the true Islam and some don't is indeed
>true since if we have two interpretations of the same thing both
>cannot be right.

che755v@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>Is this necessarily true?I can agree that only one of two CONTRADICTORY
>interpretations is true but what about non-contradictory ones?

In this context I don't think you can have two non-contradictory views 
of the same thing. I think ...

che755v@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>Graham is probably going to say this but you seem to have dug yourself
>the same hole, just in a slightly different patch of ground.  It seems
>to me that you now have something like:
>true intention --> true definition --> true criterion --> true method
>  --> true interpretation.
>After all this you still have to be either God or Muhammed (sp?) to 
>know what the Qur'an teaches.

Indeed this is how it looks to me. You have to know ALL of these
things to be able to judge the validity of an interpretation, yet
none of them are humanly accessible.

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