HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yohan@cutlass.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Date: 7 Apr 1992 19:07:12 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cutlass.ksu.ksu.edu


In a followup it was said:

>> But God is omniscient, and *indeed* knows what's best for you;  How can he
>> not know what's best for you.  He created all the darn rules, he created
>> all the calamities you face, he decided what would make you happy, and what
>> wouldn't.  Even your desire for free will was created by him.  All this, so
>> he could play games with you, and if you don't match up to his arbitrary
>> rules, fry you in HELL.   HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

Respsonse:

>EEAAUUCCHHH!!!  That's not the God of catholicism, which doesn't hold that
>all you atheists are gonna burn in hell.



Every devoted protestant I've talked to would argue that we (aetheists and
agnostics) are going to Hell.  As I've never talked to any devote catholics about
religion (not that there aren't any or that any of my catholic friends aren't
devout), I'm curious about what catholics feel merits Hell and their theory about
the afterlife.

I would have sent this to the author, but I think it would be good if the basic
Catholic ideas on this subject were made clear.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 21:25:17 GMT

In article <73107@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.192306.12441@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>Show me the controlled studies that show that controlled studies are
>>>necessary, as you keep insisting, for honest teacher self-evaluation.
>
>Well: show me already.  You are evading.
No, I'm not. The scientific method is postulational, not empirical.
Either one accepts it or one does not. If you don't, I won't be able
to argue you into it.

>>You're making what is basically a scientific claim, and there are
>>established procedures for verifying such a claim--controls are part
>>of that procedure.
>
>This is maximally idiotic.  I am not making a scientific claim.  I've
>denied that for you twice now.  I am making a historical claim.  Ie, I
>tried method A and it failed, and I tried method B and it worked.
No, you said that you had to do so. That's not history, that's
a scientific claim.

Back it up or retract it.
-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?
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 11 Apr 92 18:53:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr11.185359.19106
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <73562@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.230127.21100@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>This is a historical claim on my part.  No more no less.
>
>>No, Matthew, it's not. Your claim that you taught by lying and it
>>worked better by not lying is a historical claim. The claim that
>>it was NECESSARY to do a good job is not.
>
>Since I did a worse job when I told the truth and nothing but the
>truth, I conclude that this difference was the essential one.
Do you have any clue how to engage in establishing a scientific
proposition at all?

Will you get it through your head that CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION???
-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?
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: WEEMBA and DABROSKI Angst (Was: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 7 Apr 92 10:49:38 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
> What in the world makes you think someone would disagree with an atheist's
> assertions regarding religion and religious practice?  If you think it
> could only be from brainwashing and belief, then you are a fool.

This from the man who thinks that the FAQ file's assertions regarding
religion and religious practice could only be the result of brainwashing and
belief.


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
From: ian@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Speed Freak)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Truth
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:10:51 GMT
Organization: large

In article <1992Apr15.033458.13891@access.usask.ca>, choy@skorpio.Usask.CA writes:
> What do we know to be true?
> 
The only truth is that you are the only truth.

Ian.

-- 
The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds;
and the pessimist fears this is true.  -- James Branch Cabell.

Ian Crocker 					ian@cyborg.bt.co.uk
From: bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie (Bryan O'Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:07:45 GMT
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

In <sfovqINNkdv@doc.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@doc.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:

>I'm sorry, but this strikes me as a little silly.  Are people debating the moral
>implications of entropy?  In some of the previous articles, it seems so.  Using
>scientific principles to define "good" and "evil" is just stupid.  They are
>observed results and no true scientist tries to attach moral sentiments to it. 
>Isn't this sort of like people trying to explain social developements by using
>the theory of evolution?  (believe me, people have tried).

Jon, you might try reading Robert M Pirsig's "Lila: an Inquiry into
Morals," which spends a lot of its time dealing with just that which you
find so silly. I'm not saying I agree with Pirsig's conclusions, but
it's a very good book, and I'd hardly call the subject silly.

And why not explain social sentiments by using evolution? Memetics does
something vaguely like that, although I'm not very convinced by it. Then
again, I haven't read any material on memetics. Does anyone have any
references?

	-- 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."
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Wednesday, 8 Apr 1992 11:51:47 CDT
From: <U30471@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Apology for religious programming post (Madelyn O'Haire)

>
>I've been asked what the false rumor is. It is that Madelyn
>O'Haire(sp?) is trying to get the FCC to ban all religious programming
>from the airwaves (even Xmas shows). People are then asked to sign a
>petition to be sent to the FCC to stop her.
>

  Yes.  It was that, and that she wanted all refrences of christmas
taken out of schools, books, etc, etc.

  Now, while i think that it would be a very good idea to remove
religion from our society i wouldn't try to take away the rights of
someone else by forbidding religion.  I imagine Madylyn
has similar views.


---DAVE!!!!!

Stamp out redundancy
Stamp out redundancy
Stamp out redundancy
Stamp out redundancy
Stamp out redundancy
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 01:09:22 GMT

(John A. Johnson) writes:
>>I just wish he would stop getting into Jewish trivia arguments.  BORING!

(Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>I'll stop when people stop making criticisms based on either ignorance
>or a different world view.  For the one, I'll say "you're ignorant", for
>the other, I'll spell out the Jewish view.  Or vice versa.

Ok thats a fair deal, but Matthew when I, or others, ask a question,
PLEASE do not take it as a criticism (you do this all the time) and
reply with your Jewish trivia. Please take it as a question and answer
it. I am sure people think you evade questions because what usually
happens is the following :-

a) a question on a topic related to, or about Judaism

b) you take it as a slight against Judaism a mis-representation, etc
and reply with some defence of Judaism line, or some criticism of the
poster for being anti-Jewish, mis-representing Judaism etc.

c) the questioners look at your answer and wonder what it has to
do with the question and conclude you are evading.

Now before you reply in your usual manner please do two things :-

a) note that a lot of people in the newsgroup are having the
same reaction to you. Doesn't that tell you something (hint: that you
are the problem not the group or its members)

b) look back over your posts and see how many times you have done
what I outline above, and how many times others have commented on
you doing just this.

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: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:30:13 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)

In article <graham.702357689@dumas>, graham@maths (Graham Matthews) writes:
>Nope I don't but then I never claimed it was either! All I did was
>dispute your claim that it wasn't by conclusively showing that
>until you have a control experiment your so called justification
>is just vapourware.

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.

Considering that mathematicians and physicists floundered around not
really understanding the calculus for centuries shows that knowing the
truth is not necessary here--far more persuasively than any controlled
experiments ever would.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 01:10:49 GMT

Eric:
>No, you said that you had to do so. That's not history, that's
>a scientific claim.

(Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>>>It's history.  That is what happened.  

Eric:
>Yes, but your claim that it was necessary to do so is interpretation,
>and requires verification.

Matthew:
>But I don't claim there are no other ways.  Perhaps there's a magic
>pill that makes the fundamental theorem of calculus comprehensible to
>freshman.  I wouldn't know.  I just know that by deliberately deviating
>from "mathematical truth", I could got through to students in ways that
>I couldn't get through otherwise.

You seem to be missing the point Matthew. Neither Eric nor I are debating
whether or not your method got through to the students. Congratulations
for teaching them calculus. What both of us are disputing is your claim
that 'had you taught them the full mathematical truth (whatever that
may be) you would not have had as much success'. This is a scientific
claim - you should then verify it in a scientific manner. 

Eric:
>>No, Matthew. I'm the one who's demanding evidence for a claim that you
>>made--one that had a non-historical component to it. You are the
>>one who is refusing to provide it.

Matthew:
>What non-historical claim am I making?  I'm not saying method A is
>superior to method B: I'm saying that I had success with method A at
>times but not always with method B.  That is an historical claim.

YOU HAVE CHANGED YOUT CLAIM! Your original claim was not the historical
claim that 'I had success with Method A at times but not always with
method B'. Your original claim was that 'method A (in this case not
telling your students the whole truth) was superior to method B (telling
them the whole truth)'. If you dispute this then perhaps you could
tell me why you :-

a) introduced comparisons with other teachers and lecturers
b) introduced comments about how well your students did on various
calculus tests.

?

Both of these are evaluation measures trying to establish the superiority
of one method over another.

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: zeisset@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Stephan Zeisset)
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Keywords: God
Originator: zeisset@hphalle8.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
Organization: TU M"unchen (FRG)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 14:06:53 GMT


I don't have the original text at hand, but I think the 'proof'
was as follows:
GOD IS OMNIPOTENT (a)
GOD IS OMNISCIENT (b)
GOD IS BENEVOLENT (c)
So GOD knows our suffering (b), wants to stop it (c) and is able
to do it (a) - But there's still evil in this world.

You can't prove the existence of god, nor you can prove
his non-existence.

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.
If you accept GOD as the creator not only of the universe but
of the whole being, he stands outside of all our categories,
including the way we humans think. 
As he created also TIME, he stands outside of it. When there's
no time, there's no reason and no consequence.               
So thinking about something and creating something is
essentially the same - What god thinks comes into existence
(At the beginning was the word ...)

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.
From: mancer@meltdown.chi.il.us (Matt Sheahan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Date: 14 Apr 92 03:44:07 GMT
Organization: The Meltdown - A Team Star BBS

> Bad is just entropy, and good is the lack of entropy.

I've got to comment on this.  It wasn't the main point of your message, but it
bears addressing.  I disagree that greater entropy is always bad and lesser
entropy is always good.  Complete organization would be as difficult a
situation for most individuals to stomach as complete chaos (though if either
of those states were reached, there would be no more individuals).  Good, I
would say, would be a state of balance between the extremes on the entropy
scale, while bad would be something that moves the situation away from its
balance (though a new equilibrium could perhaps be established).  Besides,
don't you enjoy a little chaos in your life?

__   /|  All that glitters has a high refractive index.
` o.O    Der Gedanke an den Selbstmord ist ein starkes Trostmittel.
=(___)=  Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
   U     Rub her feet.
 Ack!!   Don't take life too seriously; you'll never get out of it alive.
From: davidch@ZIMMER.CSUFRESNO.EDU (David Choweller)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: More "Best Wishes"
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:35:03 GMT

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: More "Best Wishes"
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: California State University, Fresno
Keywords: 

In article <1992Apr4.182448.7563@rz-berlin.mpg.de> dabrowski@rz-berlin.mpg.de (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
|In <9204022043.AA02328@CSUFresno.EDU> David Choweller called for the
|standard argument:
|
|> Since God is omniscient, he could have predicted what would happen
|> if he created souls; that is, he could predict that this act of creating
|> souls would lead to the future you describe below, a future where horrible
|> evil and indescribable suffering exists.  Yet, he still went ahead and
|> created souls.  Thus, God cannot be benevolent in any reasonable sense
|> of the word.
|>
|Refutable: Omniscient and omnibenevolent God exists (assumpt.) and evil
|exists (fact) => God knows that every created soul will, when mature, 

I'm saying that Omniscient and omnibenevolent God doesn't exist, and
you take it as an assumption?

|treat its past mistakes and suffernig as a fine price for its present
|freedom and happiness. There's no logical hole here.

But since the rule that "past mistakes and suffering" are neccessary for
"present freedom and happiness" was created by God, God is responsilbe
for the suffering.  Remember that God is omnipotent.  He can change the
rule, as long as it doesn't defy logic.  You have to show why past mistakes
and suffering are neccessary for happiness.  Since God created souls, he
defines what makes them happy.  So if he makes them so that they have to
go through indescribable suffering and torture so that they can be
happy, then it's his fault.  Again, he's not benevolent.

Also, I'm curious.  Do you believe that the God (of your scenario) has
the right to judge his creations?
--
                                                 davidch@zimmer.CSUFresno.EDU
And if the dam breaks open many years too soon
And if there is no room upon the hill
And if your head explodes with dark forbodings too
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon
                -- "Brain Damage," Pink Floyd
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Apology for religious programming post (Madelyn O'Haire)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 14:47:40 GMT

norbeck@castor.cs.bucknell.edu (nancy norbeck `93) writes:

>Hi...I'm the one who posted the thing about Madelyn O'Haire last
>night.  I want to thank everyone who wrote me to tel me I'd 
>been caught up in a major hoax [...]

I wrote:

> Thank your for quickly posting an apology and retraction.

> I wonder if everyone who spreads this lie does so innocently. I
> wonder if some are malicious hate-mongers.

I've been asked what the false rumor is. It is that Madelyn
O'Haire(sp?) is trying to get the FCC to ban all religious programming
from the airwaves (even Xmas shows). People are then asked to sign a
petition to be sent to the FCC to stop her.

- Carl





--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: dlyndes@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (David Lyndes)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: "Where did the universe come from" is an illogical question
Date: 15 Apr 1992 00:31:07 GMT
Reply-To: dlyndes@deltahp.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: Barrios Technology @ NASA/JSC; Houston

In article <sduUzcK00io3Q2OUoo@andrew.cmu.edu>, jn1a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jad Nehme) writes:
|> Excerpts from netnews.alt.atheism: 13-Apr-92 Re: "Where did the
|> universe.. David Plumpton@wampyr.cc (2059)
|> 
|> > Loose manipulation of English sentences is no substitute for
|> >mathematical equations and Quantum Theory.  Most Cosmologists these
|> >days suspect that Time and Space where created with the Big Bang, i.e.
|> >the reality that the Universe exists inside was created out of nothing
|> too.
|> 
|> Do people who believe in the Big Bang believe that there was actual
|> creation?  Or does the theory claim that the whole universe was
|> contained in a (relatively) small space where
|> "we-can't-tell-what-was-happening" until the Big Bang occurred which led
|> to the universe as we know it (with its laws we still try to find)?

To speak of the "moment" of creation is usually OK.  But if we're trying
to draw philosophical or theological conclusions from a physical
theory like the "big bang" (a sexest name for a theory if ever I heard one!),
we have to be VERRRY CARRREFUL!!

The short answer to your question is, no.  The actual "moment" of creation
is not a part of the big bang theories.  The longer answer follows.

The big bang theories all work by projecting thermodynamic properties
backward in time.  As these projections approach a certain limit, they
also become mathematically bizarre, what physicists call a "singularity."
The singularity is NOT assumed to be a part of the theory, only a
mark on the limit to which the theory can help us.
-- 
+-------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| David K. Lyndes                     | "Kill the head and the body will      |
| Barrios Technology                  |  die."                                |
| email: dlyndes@deltahp.jsc.nasa.gov |  - Hunter S. Thompson                 |
+-------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer nor of God. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:8349 rec.scouting:893
From: yohan@doc.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,rec.scouting
Subject: Re: another greeting
Date: 13 Apr 1992 18:46:17 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: doc.ksu.ksu.edu


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: yohan@doc.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheists to hell (was Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof)
Date: 14 Apr 1992 18:05:43 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: doc.ksu.ksu.edu


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

The answer is a definitely NO (NO, it doesn't depend on your faith
in god what happens to you on judgement day)
Jesus himself linked our destiny only with the fulfillment of the
one commandment he gave us: Love one another as you love yourself.
(I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, ...)
Also the apostel Paulus mentions in one of his letters that
theres no advantage of believers against those who haven't 
heared the evangelium and says that all are judged by the same
guidelines. If someone is good without explicitely believing
in god then it is evident that god has engraved this goodness
in his heart, he is something like an implicit believer.


Me:

Ok, so what about those of us who have heard an acceptable amount of the
evangelium and have atributed it to the fantasies of early man that have appeared
in about every other culture in the world?  Are we going to Hell, for exercising
our Free Will that God gave us and was so important as to merit thousands of
years of suffering?  If so, I again ask, what is the point in having free will if
we can't use it without having the repercussions of Hell?????

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

However, for those of us who aren't perfectly good, believing
in god should help us to become like those few who are good
by default...

Me:

Wait a second....  Who's perfectly good besides Jesus?????


Jon Newton