HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: leave us alone!!!!
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:10:36 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: alt.atheism

In article <parsons.720996187@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu>,
parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) wrote:
> Well, for some of us we can't; our motivation is the Great Commission.
> Another reason is because we have found something that is so life changing
> and real in Jesus Christ, that we can't understand why anyone wouldn't 
> want it or can't see it.  For me at least, it is also a learning experience 
> reading and posting here; and I've learned quite a bit about how an atheist
> views religion and life.  I'm sure there are other reasons. 

There are many things in my life that I've found very profound and
important,
but it does not imply that I should try to convert every possible human
being to believe in my ideas. It is a question of both politeness and 
the core issue that everyone is free to create their own views of this
world.

In many cases actually religions have created atheists as a rebellion
against organized and push-down-the-throat doctrines.

Anyway, I hope Christians reading this would realize that atheists
are not atheists due to limited understanding (didn't see the light).
I'm neither an atbeist, however I would like to state myself as a 
preserver of the rights for everyone to define their own views of 
this world.

Cheers,
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
Date: 8 Nov 92 22:47:10 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University

In article <1992Nov6.224413.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>  writes:
> In article <1992Nov5.202026.28765@nmsu.edu>, epowers@mccoy.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)  
writes:
> > 
> > Everything I've seen in this discussion assumes that evidence for the  
existence  
> > of God must be scientific in nature (falsifiable hypotheses, etc.).   
Please,  
> > people!  I can't even prove I exist in a scientific manner!
> 
>    Why not?  The fundamental assumption of science is that one's
> senses work.  I can tell by simple observation that I exist.  I
> can't tell that *you* exist going only on this, but that's another
> matter.
> 
> Karl
> ------

	In order for your senses to work, you must exist previously.  Even more  
fundamental than this assumption, then, is the assumption that you exist.  If I  
assume I exist, and a few other things, I may be able to logically arrive at a  
scientific method.  If I attempt then to use this method to prove my own  
existence, I am arguing in a circle, which is invalid.

					Happy posting,
					Erik Powers
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:20872 talk.religion.misc:20692
From: siphon@momad.UUCP (Stimpson J. Katz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 12:52:30 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: MoDeM MaDnEsS BBS   1-516/295-9435

damiens@cco.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) writes:

> In article <1992Nov6.170628.28428@news.cs.brandeis.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brande
> >
> >The point is that science by construction excludes such phenomena by requiri
> >that everything behave according to natural laws.  So, acts of God (by
> >definition supernatural) cannot be compared with scientific laws.  Religious
> >accounts (we can specialize to Christian accounts, if you want) put forth
> >supernatural phenomena which cannot be compared with the natural
> >models put forth by science.
> >
> 	But how do you prove that an event is supernatural in origin?  Since
> anything you know comes through your *natural* senses how can you prove that
> something IS supernatural, and not a hallucination, prank by bored alien 
> teen-agers (:-) or whatever?

    Obviously you cannot PROVE that something is supernatural because
proof in the sense of proof about the physical world is a scientific
concept. That is the entire point. One does not prove ones religious
views (at least not anymore).

The Siphon (SIPHON@momad.uucp)

"I swear, by my life and my love of it, never to live for the
sake of another man, nor to ask another man to live for mine."
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Historical Facts
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 11:27:20 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
> Mathew typed:
> >I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
> >>There is still a discussion about if Nazi annihilation camps existed. How d
> >>this fit into 'it is impossible, the memory of elderly persons regarding ev
> >>of thirty years before is perfectly clear'.
> >Simple.  Those who "discuss" (ho ho) whether Nazi death camps existed, do so
> >not because they are interested in facts, but because they are interested in
> >bashing Jews.     (Rest deleted in order so save bandwidth)
> 
> I wonder if you are barking up the wrong tree. To put it bluntly, my post has
> nothing to do with if they existed or not. The context was: it is possible
> to start an argument about an event of that size.

And my point is:  Yes, it is possible, but not in an intellectually honest
way.

> According to Ambrose Fleming it is not possible.

Perhaps he was assuming that we were only talking about honest debate. 
Obviously if I'm prepared to ignore evidence and lie through my teeth I can
even start a debate about whether World War II happened.

> And though I assume that those who deny the existence of concentration camps
> do so for selfish motives, there are still many who are simply dumb enough
> to believe these argumentators.

Right.  But ignoring the intellectually dishonest and those too stupid to
understand an argument or examine data, is it possible to argue about whether
an event of that size actually happened?


mathew
-- 
"Boy, they were big on crematoriums weren't they?"
 -- George Bush, during a tour of Auschwitz, 1987-09-28

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: epowers@spock.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Bash Atheists
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:25:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov1.172654.7113@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>  
sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
> 
>  
>             TOP TEN REASONS TO KEEP BASHING ATHEISTS
>  
>  10.  The same techniques are also good for getting rid of bigots of
> 	any ilk.
>  
>   9.  Their religion tells them they should hate those outside their
> 	faith.
> 
>   8.  It's so amusing to watch their eyes pop out when they find out
>         you know more Scripture than they do.
>  
>   7.  Always a great line: I'd rather serve God.
>  
>   6.  Karl Marx is still dead, and Leningrad is back to St. Petersburg
> 
>  
>   5.  Good opportunity to practice finding logical fallacies.
>  
>   4.  Their tax-exempt organizations aren't helping our deficit problems.
> 
>   3.  You can learn what a "scoffer" is by asking them what they know
> 	about the Rapture.
> 
>   2.  If we keep making fun of them, maybe they'll just go away.
>  
>   1.  If you invite them into your home, you can make them wet their
>         pants by failing to line up with their deranged, bigoted
> 	stereotypes.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
> > Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.
>   ^^^^^^^^
> 
> Yep.
> 
> 
> > Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
> 
> 
> Steve Matheson      Program in Neuroscience      University of Arizona
> sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu

	I have now read the replies to this post, but most weren't worth  
reading.  I am sorry you eventually apologized, although I'm still trying to  
decide whether or not the apology was serious.  This was a perfect example of  
"put up a stupid post, get a stupid post in reply".
						Erik Powers
From: shari@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Wild and Crazy Kind of Girl)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:08:32 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Nov08.212152.20899@bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:
>How is logical proof different from scientific proof?
>Does science need to deal with the physical to be
>"scientific"?  Is math not scientific?
>Anyone?

Logical proofs tend to be ttheoretical, and from what I've seen in my logic
class, you can prove some pretty strange stuff with them.  I think scientific
proof requires experimentation with a hypothesis which can be proved or 
disproved by the experiments.



Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21185 talk.religion.misc:21034
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:33:28 GMT

In article <92308.201645MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Nov2.161932.20172@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>, simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
>(Simon Clippingdale) says:
>>
>> Rather than type in almost exactly the same articles again, have you read
>> the stuff I posted in the other branch of this thread, which seems to be
>> running more or less parallel to this one?
>
> Summary: I read them, and haven't figured them out yet, as I don't
> understand this "null hypothesis" deal that allows you to say that
> "there is no god" needs to be falsified first.

Well, the "deal" is that only falsifiable theories are worthy of consideration,
at least when it comes to claims of objective existence. The need for this
restriction can be shown inductively by considering the consequences of giving
credence to any unfalsifiable theory against which there can by definition be
no evidence. Assuming that there is also no evidence *for* such theories, then
they are all logically equivalent and if we are prepared to entertain any one
of them, then we are compelled also to entertain `I have invisible pink
unicorns living in my walls' (thanks Doug) or `The Creator of the universe
was a 19-Dimensional Divine Blue Banana'.

The problem is essentially one of information. Such theories are worth zero
in terms of information, as can easily be demonstrated by my ability to make
up any number of them you like, totally off the top of my head. They do nothing
to advance our understanding (or in informational terms, to reduce our level
of uncertainty) about the universe. Since we are supposedly in the business
of doing exactly that when we address questions of objective existence, such
unfalsifiable theories are worthless. Since existence is a binary matter,
we are left with the falsifiable member of the pair. This is the null
hypothesis.

Limiting attention to falsifiable theories leaves us with a chance of actually
finding out things about the universe by testing them. While a continuing lack
of falsifying evidence does not prove such a theory true, it seems reasonable
(and Bayesian analysis confirms this to be well-founded) that confidence in it
must increase, the reason being that the falsifiable theory predicts that
events (i.e. evidence) will fall in a particular region in event `space',
whereas its unfalsifiable counterpart does not, since by definition it would
then be falsifiable. If the data continue to fall only within the region
predicted by the falsifiable theory, confidence in it must necessarily grow.

> Martin Schulte

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What if there is a god?
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon)
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:12:17 +1030
Organization: That damn kid is still here!

In article <Bx0s7E.9zp@umassd.edu>, rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:

> As a fresheman in the subject, let me pose a
> question : 
> 
> SupDose there is a god.
> Then what?

Simple!

If we think there is no god, then we will only realise our 'mistake'
when we die or this god decides to show it's ugly mug.

 - If we are dead at the time, we have no choice but to accept whatever
   judgement it passes down.
 - If it proves its own existance then that nullifies any conversion
   since it was not done without full faith.

-- 
John J McVey, Whyalla, Uni S. Australia    9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Electronic Engineering student & Terror Tekkie!
Any email can be posted unless I state explicitly otherwise.
+-----------------------------------------------------+    ________
|  Obligatory disclaimer: UniSA hates my opinions...  |  \/Darwin o\
+-----------------------------------------------------+  /\________/
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. Marquis
From: oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: THE DIVINE MASTERS VS DUPED CHRISTIANS
Date: 12 Nov 1992 19:40:02 GMT
Organization: Washington University Astrophysics
NNTP-Posting-Host: fermi.wustl.edu

In article <1992Nov11.201137.2273@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>           
>               First, Jesus Christ was NOT unique, John 3:16 NOTWITH-
>          STANDING.  There is ALWAYS at least one such perfect living 
>          Master (God Incarnate) PHYSICALLY ALIVE in this world AT ALL 
>          TIMES, a continuous succession THROUGHOUT HISTORY, both 
>          before and after the life of Jesus. 
>    

Did someone forget to take their lithium?

>               One such perfect Master alive today is an American, Sri 
>          Harold Klemp, the Living "Eck" Master or "Mahanta" for the 
>          "Eckankar" organization, now headquartered in Minneapolis, 
>          (P.O. Box 27300;  zip 55427). 

And I thought that Eck pitched for Oakland!

>          [deleted] [ ALWAYS use the "KING JAMES VERSION".  Later 
>          versions are PER-VERSIONS! ] 

Of course, the KJV is a perfectly accurate translation of the original
Greek and Hebrew ... NOT!

Puh-lease, get off it!  Alt.athiesm is a group for people recovering from
cults, not joining them.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Asserting No Gods
From: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:29:47 -0500 
 .edu><92314.054826MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu><1992Nov10.032119.14234@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu><92316.085106MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>In article <1992Nov10.032119.14234@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) says:
>>
>>>They're all baseless beliefs. Not
>>>one of them is proven. Therefore, they're all pointless.
>>
>>But this is where you are mistaken.  Simply put, it is reasonable to >assume
>>the negative when no evidence exists for the positive.  I didn't say it
>>proved the negative to be true, just reasonable to assume it.

>This is something I can agree with. It tends not to agree with the way
>most atheists go posting "there is no god" as if it were some cosmic
>truth, but oh well. I can understand how it's reasonable, as long as one
>remembers it's still an assumption. And it would seem you have.

>>Christians feel similarly, but will readily admit that they treat the God
>>question differently.  They do this because of their assumptions.  Now we
>>have the agnostics who must logically treat the two questions as one, but
>>can't help but feel that they are different.  You can't seriously say that
>>you think that unicorns might exist, and that you're holding out >>denying
>>them on the possibility that they do.

>Like I've been saying, I don't rule them out. It's evident that I do
>much the same thing as you, although I've worded it differently. I act
>as if they don't exist because I have found no reason to think they do.
>This is what I've said all along, and in comparing it with your method,
>I find them to be similar. What's your opinion on this?

Here, I've got a question.  Do you think that there is any chance that
invisible pink unicorns exist?  If the answer is yes, you can't defend
it with proof, and if the answer is no, you can't defend it with proof. 
How do you answer such a question.
PS: Maybe won't work.  Either you do think there's a chance or you don't.

>Martin Schulte


-The Wizard
---------------------------------------------------------------The
hearts of all were filled with hope, for even though Lancer, tried
war-hero, had met his match, there was a new power to be reckoned with. 
The Wizard had returned home, and this time no tyrannical lord would
hold the town in thrall.   
---------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality - genetic?
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 12:21:25 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Nov4.202346.742@blurt.oswego.edu> hbcs1010@blurt.oswego.edu writes:
>how can homosexuality be genetic? forgive me if i'm diplaying my ignorance
>here, but isn't it a bit difficult for a homosexual to be the biological parent
>of a child? the last time i checked, the most likely cause of homosexuality, at
>least for males, was abnormally high estrogen levels in the mother during
>pregnancy. but then again, that was a while ago.
>
> just thought i'd toss that in.........

 The asnwer, of course, is that nobody knows. What evidence we have indicates
that it's biological in some sense.
 As to how it could be genetic...
 
 a) Ever heard of recessive genes?

 b) Consider the large social bias against homosexuality. This forces many
homosexual people to hide their orientation, get married, have kids, and
(these days) eventually get divorced when the relationship doesn't work out.
In the past, divorce wasn't generally an option.
 If homosexuality turns out to be genetic, therfore, the people who have
a problem with it and persecute homosexuals are, to some degree, to blame
for its propogation... :->

>-diedre hauptfuehrer


Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:20594 talk.religion.misc:20403
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Reader's Digest on prayer: amusing, or scary?
Date: 4 Nov 92 20:52:09 GMT
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.


> Gerry Palo writes:

> The best solution is to get the State out of the business of running
> schools.  Let the parents decide which school to send their children
> to, religious or otherwise.  If the funding for it must come from 
> everyone (on the basis that the whole society's welfare requires that
> all children be educated, and so even childless adults must pay their
> share), then transfer the funds by voucher (very un PC, I know).

Doesn't this concentrate education in wealthy areas?
There are private schools.  If you want your child to 
have a specific type of education, they can go to a private
school.  Too expensive?  Would be in your system, too. 
Right now I pay for public schooling.  In your system
(the system you support, that is), I would pay NADA!
The full burden of keeping the kids in pens would fall
on the parents.

> Yes, this atheocratic system could very well develop into a theocratic
> one some day.  Which way it goes depends only on the trend of the moment,
> which for some time now has been materialistic and anti-religious.  Lately
> it has become pagan and somewhat New Age, with nature worship, yoga,
> and various trendy get-in-touch-with-your-spirituality movements now being
> actively "studied" and even practiced in many schools. This, I assume, would 
> bother you, Brian, as whatever they are they are not atheistic.  

1) The extent that atheism can be introduced into schools is walking in
and saying "Gods don't exist", then explaining why.  I have NEVER heard 
this happen.  If you are refering to evolution, that is scientific.
If it doesn't agree with your religion, too bad.  Science is a process
that questions and corrects itself, not a set of dogma.  If it cannot
be put into schools, then nothing can be justified to be taught.

2) "Pagan and trendy g.i.t.w.y.s" movements have just as much right
to religious freedom as christianity or any other "accepted"
religion.  Anything you want for yourself, you want for everyone.

3)  I agree that the schools are not becoming theocratic.
And I don't think they should be.  Religion should not
be taught until the students are old enough to make up
their own minds, and then they should be exposed to all
the choices.  If a kid wants to pray in school, that's OK.
But I don't think that the teacher should stand up and lead
the class in prayer.  (if you disagree,  what if it was a 
Shinto prayer?)

Brian /-|-\


"The people following you say you're paranoid!"
From: coons@ct46.med.ge.com (James J. Coons)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:38:47 GMT
Reply-To: coons@ct46.UUCP (James J. Coons)
Organization: GE Medical Systems - CT, New Berlin, WI

In article <1992Nov6.043452.3676@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> hwong@euler.Berkeley.EDU (Harris Wong) writes:
>
>Hi,
>	Where is the boundary of the universe? Is this a meaningful question
>to ask? 
>	Any comment?
>Harris
>
>
>Harris Wong	201 Gilman Hall, Dept. Chem. Eng.
>510-6420853	U.C.Berkeley, Berkeley, CA94720

It certainly is a meaningful question although I would first ask the question

1. Is there a boundary of the universe?

Don't automatically assume a boundary exists.

It may be that the boundary consists of the initial big bang, and possibly
the final collapse.  It is also posible that there is a boundary inside
black holes.  For a more rigorous look at these questions read anything
by Steven Hawking. My Favorite is "The large-scale structure of space-time".
By Hawking and Ellis. Warning this book is NOT for the casual reader.
The investigation of these questions (And full understanding) require
a lot of Mathematics and Physics however. Hawking proved that in the
non-quantum classical model that the universe does indeed have a boundary,
(The Big Bang for example). Allowing for quantum theory may however change
this. The issue of whether the universe will collapse is awaiting more
accurate studies. If there is a boundary remember that it is a boundary
in space-time so the question you ask should maybe be phrased 
When is the boundary of the universe.