HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is Santa Claus God?
Date: 23 Dec 92 08:41:48 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

[reply to npm@dale.cts.com]
 
>There was an article in "Free Inquiry" about a woman who strongly
>believed it was wrong to tell your children about Santa Claus.
>First of all, you're lying to them and what is more devastating
>to a child than to find that their own parents are liars.  Secondly,
>it gives precedence to believing in patently impossible things.
>Maybe it paves the way to believing in other impossible things
>later in life -- like God, fer instance.
>
>What do other atheists think about Santa Claus?  And for that matter,
>how many of us celebrate Christmas?  Should we?  Even if we say
>we're celebrating the winter Soltice, that's still a religious
>holiday for druids.
 
My kids believe in Santa.  When they realize they've been had, then I
will explain to them that we were making believe because its sometimes
fun to make believe.  I think that might actually set a precedent that
religion is making believe as well.  We celebrate Christmas.  I just
look on it as a cultural event, not a religious one, the same making
believe idea.
 
The solstice is an astronomical event.  The Druids just happenned to
hold their holiday then.  We can celebrate the event without any
religious trappings.

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
From: ahmed@cs.tcd.ie (El-Habbash Ahmed)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is Santa Claus God?
Date: 23 Dec 92 17:40:06 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin

npm@dale.cts.com (Nancy Milligan) writes:

>There was an article in "Free Inquiry" about a woman who strongly
>believed it was wrong to tell your children about Santa Claus.
>First of all, you're lying to them and what is more devastating
>to a child than to find that their own parents are liars.  Secondly,
>it gives precedence to believing in patently impossible things. 

This is absolutely right

>Maybe it paves the way to believing in other impossible things 
>later in life -- like God, fer instance.

Isn't this a lie to say that God is impossible thing ?
All these things within ourselves and around us do not tell that there
is a possibility of a creator !!!???


>--
>Nancy P. Milligan 				npm@dale.cts.com
>Titan Linkabit					cts!dale!npm
>		  Gravity is no laughing matter.

Ahmed.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: y41@aix320d.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (Jeffrey Hazelwood)
Subject: BE GLAD YOUR CIRCUM...
Organization: University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 13:35:00 GMT


Keywords: 

Folks this is the last comment on circumcision! (I hope!)

Be glad your circumsized!  A man without foreskin can have sex longer than
non circumsized people.  This is because the foreskin protects the head of
the penis and keeps it sensitive.  But, with circumsized people the head of
the penis is not as sensitive, therefore they can do the NASTY longer!!!!!!
If you don't believe me, ask DR. RUTH!!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMAIL: Jeffrey T. Hazelwood                    Universitaet Heidelberg
       Ploeck 61/106                            Heidelberg, Germany
       6900 Heidelberg, Germany                  
EMAIL: y41@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de  "I've got them right where they want me!" 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Morgan Burke <morgan@sitka.triumf.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: FAQ critique
Date: 21 Dec 1992 21:34:17 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: TRIUMF, Vancouver BC

In article <1992Dec21.134412.29629@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, jkopersk@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey D Koperski) writes:
[quoting Thomas Kuhn, _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_]
"An apparently abitrary element, compounded of personal and historical 
accident, is always a formative ingredient of the beliefs espoused by a given
scientific community at a given time. . . .  When examining normal science . . 
. we shall want finally to describe that research as a strenuous and devoted
attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes suplied by professional
education."

This is not a very interesting quote to me.  Is this statement supposed to
be shocking or surprising?  All he is saying is that scientists check to see
if the data fit the model.  If Kuhn wants to call it attempting "to force
nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education," he can,
but it's still science, pure and unblemished.  How else are researchers
supposed to find out whether something makes sense and is consistent with
what they already know?  It's when nature doesn't fit into these conceptual
boxes that science gets really interesting.

The great fallacy is thinking that science tells us what is truth.  This
is completely wrong.  It tells us the exact opposite:  what is not truth.
In other words, it gives us the means to discover which models are
wrong, not which model is right.

|> The fact that
|> non-rational forces are at work in shaping the beliefs and theories of the
|> scientific community is not a "problem" for that community.  Such forces are
|> at work in every discipline.  The point being, as usual, is that theology is
|> not intrinsically worse off because of these non-rational pressures.  
|> We're all in the same boat on this one.

The process of inventing a model to explain the data can be very non-rational,
and based on prejudice, ignorance, common-sense, and religion.  The invention 
of a model is not science, however, so comparisons with theology (or any other
branch of philosophy) aren't going to be very helpful.

You aren't doing science until you start testing the model empirically, a
concept which is completely foreign to theology.

Theology attempts to decide what is true, by non-rational means.
Science, on the other hand, decides what is false, by rational means.
The idea that science reveals truth is indeed non-rational, and if you
once believed it, it is not surprising that your faith was shaken.

-- Morgan Burke
   morgan@sitka.triumf.ca
From: Jeffrey D Koperski <jkopersk@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: FAQ critique
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 13:44:12 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Ohio State University

Although I've been talking strictly about contemporary philosophy and 
philosophers, not the medievals, your point is well taken.  There are a number 
of non-rational, sociological pressures that influence theistic belief.  
However, this in no way makes religion and theology second class disciplines 
since science faces the same pressures and is likewise shaped by something 
other than the mythical scientific method.  The now classic work on this is
Thomas Kuhn's _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_.  Anyone who has taken 
an introduction to the philosophy of science should be familiar with this book.
For those of you unfamiliar with the text, here is one brief quote:
"An apparently abitrary element, compounded of personal and historical 
accident, is always a formative ingredient of the beliefs espoused by a given
scientific community at a given time. . . .  When examining normal science . . 
. we shall want finally to describe that research as a strenuous and devoted
attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes suplied by professional
education."[4]

Those unfamiliar with Kuhn generally find his work disturbing since it shakes 
their faith in science.  I was very defensive when I first read this book 
since, at the time, I was an engineer for the Air Force.  I took it as an 
attack on science when in actuality it is a myth-breaker.  The fact that
non-rational forces are at work in shaping the beliefs and theories of the
scientific community is not a "problem" for that community.  Such forces are
at work in every discipline.  The point being, as usual, is that theology is
not intrinsically worse off because of these non-rational pressures.  We're all
in the same boat on this one.

Oh, and one comment in no way directed at you, Ken, is for one of my critics 
who seems to dislike philosophers in general--though I doubt he knows what
it is that philosophers do:  Before you blow off my citation to Kuhn, he earned
his doctorate in physics prior to taking up philosophy.

Jeff Koperski
Dept. of Philosophy
Ohio State
From: Jeffrey D Koperski <jkopersk@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: FAQ critique
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:57:37 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Ohio State University

I don't want to be overly critical about philosophical points made by those 
with a limited background in philosophy, but there is little doubt that science
is a fact stating discourse (i.e., its declarative sentences purport to be 
true).  Barring some kind of irrealism about theoretical science, which is an 
option but one that non-philosophers seldom stuble upon, the hard sciences are 
usually held up as the exemplar of a fact stating discourse.

If science could only operate "via negativa" as you propose, you will be hard 
pressed to explain engineering applications of theory.  One cannot build a 
rocket knowing only what we cannot truthfully say about the world.

So far as models go, for any set of data, there is perhaps an infinite number
of models that can fit it.  Kuhn does an adequate job explaining this notion
which is technically known as the Quine-Duhem thesis or the underdetermination
of theory by data.  In late 20th-century philosophy of science, this notion is
a pillar.  Falsifying a cluster of this infinite number of models is certainly
a part of science, but it cannot be the whole of science.

>Theology attempts to decide what is true, by non-rational means.
>Science, on the other hand, decides what is false, by rational means.
>The idea that science reveals truth is indeed non-rational, and if you
>once believed it, it is not surprising that your faith was shaken.

Hmm.  It's hard to be charitable on this one.  You probably mean to say that 
theology is non-empirical instead of non-rational.  Although this is not 
completely true, it suffices.  However, neither is philosophy and if you wish 
to argue that this discpline is non-rational, I'll let the philosophers in your
own camp take you to task on that score.  I addressed your second sentence 
above and I can't quite figure out the last one.  I think you mean to say "The 
sentence 'science reveals truth' is false."  If so, then I also addressed this.

Jeff Koperski
Dept. of Philosophy
Ohio State
From: Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Administrivia
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 19:46:57 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

alt.atheism.moderated will be having a rest over the Christmas period;
postings will resume on January 4th. Articles submitted between now and
then will be kept safe and sound awaiting the return of a moderator.

Thanks for all the articles you've posted since July. If you are having
a winter break I hope it is an enjoyable one.

--
Tony Lezard
 Acting moderator, alt.atheism.moderated (submissions to atheism@mantis.co.uk).
  tony@mantis.co.uk / tony%mantis.co.uk@pipex.net / arl10@phx.cam.ac.uk
From: bl275@cleveland.freenet.edu (Dan Diaz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Existence of gods (Atheism FAQ point 7)
Date: 22 Dec 92 01:01:06 GMT
Reply-To: Dan Diaz <bl275@cleveland.freenet.edu>
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, jkopersk@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey D Koperski) says:
>
>There is a key difference in the case of Israel.  God came to the Israelites
>and revealed himself.  The Jews were not a people in search of such a being.
>If God had not chosen to do so, then our knowledge of God would be much more
>limited than it already is.  In fact, the theist's justification for believing 
>in the existence of such a being would be, in my view, quite restricted without
>some sort of special revelation.

As I read the FAQ, if God revealed himself to Israel, so he could reveal
himself plainly to us today.  As a former evangelical, this lack of
contemporary revelation was a reason I began to question my faith.  If God
is not believed in, then its his own fault.

>A short review of 20th century philosophy will show that attempts to rule out 
>theological discourse as "non-cognitive" (Carnap's term) or otherwise 
>essentially flawed have always come back to haunt science.  That is, applying 
>the same criterion to the "good discourse" of theoretical science rules out 
>part of that discourse.  One atheist philosopher still carrying this torch is 
>Kai Nielsen.  His debate with J.P. Moreland (_Does God Exist?_, Thomas Nelson, 
>1990) would be helpful in reworking the FAQ.

I also read the Nielsen-Moreland debate.  The problems with logical
positivism's handling of theoretical constructs in science are of no effect
in attacking the argument on the meanfulness of religious language.  Martin
does and excellent job of surveying the history of the meaningfulness
argument and christians' reponses to it (Atheism: A Philosophical
Justification).   Martin goes on to show that despite much criticism, the
position that religious language is devoid of meaning is still quite strong.
-- 
Dizzy Dan         ddiaz@cwru.bitnet      bl275@cleveland.freenet.edu
Department of Molecular Genetics - Albert Einstein College of Medicine
"My opinions are my own, and they should be yours as well"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN)
Subject: Re: I still wouldn't worship it.
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:48:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.013107.158783@zeus.calpoly.edu> jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch) writes:
>
>  If some entity turned off the force of gravity for half a second today,
>then I would immediately become a theist, in the sense that I would 
>say that god existed. I still wouldn't worship it. My first reaction
>would be to figure out how I might be as powerful as this god. If I knew
>there was some way to turn off gravity, I would want to know how to turn 
>it off. Knowing how to turn it back on again would be helpful too.
>  If this god said he wanted my "soul", I would ask him what the heck is
>a soul, and I'd tell him to keep his grubby hands away from mine. If this 
>god said there is an afterlife and I had to choose between living in hell
>or heaven for all of eternity, I'd tell him that in this afterlife I would
>come and go as I pleased to where ever I pleased, and any entity that 
>tried to keep me confined to only one place would get their ass kicked.
>  I am not a violent person, but I am an individual. I will never submit
>myself to any other entity, no matter how much more powerful they are than
>me. If this god threatened my life, then I would do my best to kill god.
>I am saying all of this to point out that my atheism is much deeper than
>merely not believing in god. Thoughts?
>
>                      -John David Munch

Its not a question  of atheism but of self-respect and freedom.  I'd be
depressed if the Christian god existed.  What a horrible creature as described
by the New and Old testaments.  I'd rather be the amazing 'it walks, it talks,
it thinks' random creation of a chaotic universe than a servile, unrespected,
sycophantic toy of some meglomaniacal psychotic who runs his own personal
torture chamber.  Of course if this god were a dude that had his own pad
where he likes to hang with cool humans on equal terms, then I could 'dig'
that. You know, if he were like Santa Claus.  But that ain't what I've been
hearing.  Buddha was a relaxed dude.  Him I could hang with.  Or Lao-Tsu.
But this Christian god?  I don't think so.  Sounds like a knob to me.

    -Nick Vanweerdenburg
From: d000dlphi@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (David Speakman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 29 Dec 92 10:58:02 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

In article <1992Dec28.071210.1149@nmsu.edu>, sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
> It still seems to me that this correlation is just being used as a
> convenient device to dismiss theists with the wave of a hand. 

And what is wrong with that???

;)

David Speakman,
Dismissing theists with a wave of a hand
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Distribution: world,public
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 12:38:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.035933.21189@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>
>What Onar is saying is that their reasoning, from the premises they
>accept, is not logically flawed.  But the results could be wrong
>because the *premises* are wrong.  That's not the same as saying that
>they made a mistake in their logic.  Here's a little example:
>
>	Major premise:  All elephants are pink.
>
>	Minor premise:  Mathilda is an elephant.
>
>	Conclusion:  Mathilda is pink.
>
>*Given* those premises, the conclusion follows logically.  The
>conclusion is incorrect because the *premise* is false, not because
>the reasoning *from* those premises is faulty.  
>

I see what you mean.

>Here the premise is easily disproved by going out and observing
>non-pink elephants.  Some Christians make it a bit harder, by making
>their God non-disprovable (exists outside space-time, inaccessible to
>our five senses, etc.)  Thus they guarantee that we can't disprove his
>existence, but also guarantee that they can't prove his existence
>either.  So we are reduced to using more circumstantial lines of
>reasoning, such as pointing out that the Bible's record of God's
>barbarity plays havoc with the notion of a loving God.  Christians
>then usually make additional assumptions ("God must know best") to
>save their premises.  So I think it is reasonable to conclude doesn't
>exist, but that's not the same as disproving him--how can you disprove
>something that has been defined in non-disprovable terms?

But hat about using reasoning on the premises? They don't bother as they
conclude them to be axioms?

>
>SD


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I still wouldn't worship it.
Date: 4 Jan 1993 04:25:25 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) says:

>jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch) writes:
>
>
>>  If some entity turned off the force of gravity for half a second today,
>>then I would immediately become a theist, in the sense that I would 
>>say that god existed. I still wouldn't worship it. My first reaction
>>would be to figure out how I might be as powerful as this god. If I knew
>>there was some way to turn off gravity, I would want to know how to turn 
>>it off. Knowing how to turn it back on again would be helpful too.
>>  If this god said he wanted my "soul", I would ask him what the heck is
>>a soul, and I'd tell him to keep his grubby hands away from mine. If this 
>>god said there is an afterlife and I had to choose between living in hell
>>or heaven for all of eternity, I'd tell him that in this afterlife I would
>>come and go as I pleased to where ever I pleased, and any entity that 
>>tried to keep me confined to only one place would get their ass kicked.
>>  I am not a violent person, but I am an individual. I will never submit
>>myself to any other entity, no matter how much more powerful they are than
>>me. If this god threatened my life, then I would do my best to kill god.
>>I am saying all of this to point out that my atheism is much deeper than
>>merely not believing in god. Thoughts?
>
>Hey, I'd be cheering, I always like to go for the underdog!
>
>Jeff.
>
>
>


	I agree...like the song by Motorhead, just because you got the
power, doesn't mean you got the right.

-- 
A. TRENT PHILLIPS |" A mirror is a negative space with a frame and a place for
  also known as   | your face, it reveals what the rest of us see. It conceals
   WHITE  ROOK    | what you'd like you to be."--Blue Oyster Cult
-------bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu-----aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu-------
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fun ways to get rid of fundies...
Date: 31 Dec 92 02:06:34 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec30.035249.23858@newsroom.utas.edu.au>,
Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) wrote:
> Very true Kent, though I think that 'KKK Bitch' would do just as well. I live
> next door to the Full Gospel Church and when I'm felling silly on Sunday
> mornings I put on Ministry's 'Psalm 69' and sit on my balcony with a
> malevolent grin on my face. They probably can't make out the lyrics
> ( I can't either), but it sounds diabolical enough to make the worshippers
> walk a little faster as they pass my house.

I really miss the days when fundies visited our apartment (JWs, Mormons,
the rest), it was fun have them to cross-reference issues in the Bible back
and forth, and when they suddenly had to justify things, instead of the
other way
around. Sigh, you don't see much of them here in Northern California,
with the exception of Scientologists and newspaper salesmen.

The trick is to look like a good case of conversion, and so they
think this is a good case, and then the fun starts! 

I remember once in Sydney when a 'known case' was interviewing
people at a known place in downtown, asking people what is the most
awful thing they know of in life. My answer was 'cults that drag in
innocent
people into the group so they loose their personality'. :-).

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 12:04:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.105721.6061@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec26.230321.27048@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>>>On my desk.
>>
>>Then by all means, tell us more about this study.  If you're correct,
>>it's just the sort of substantiation that OUGHT to have been provided
>>by this thread in the first place.
>
>First tell me what is unclear.
>I suppose you have your own sources, too?

Look, all I want is for someone, on EITHER side of the issue, to cite
some support more substantial than the "me and my friends" argument.
That's all I ask.  Refer me to a paper published in some reputable
journal, and I'll be happy.  Give us some relevant numbers from that
study on your desk, tell us how it was carried out!  That is something
no one participating in this discussion has done yet.  

SD
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc