HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gfritz@sage.cc.purdue.edu ("Happy Fun Ball")
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Backward Masking
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:51:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.44544
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <92094.101749J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson) writes:
>In article <11705@tamsun.tamu.edu>, rlopez@loanstar.tamu.edu (Robert Lopez)
>says:
>
>>Two very famous Beatle examples:
>
>>"Turn me on dead man" [White Album]
>>"We will fuck you like Superman" [Sgt. Pepper]
>
>Then of course there's the passage [boy is my memory fading--somewhere
>on Abbey Road?] between tracks that sounds like someone talking backwards
>when played normally, but backwards clearly says, "Paul is dead, miss
>him, miss him."
>
>I believe this passage reflected the band's disenchantment with Paul's
>changing attitudes (the old Paul is no more), but more importantly
>it was a marketing device building upon the rumor that Paul was
>was actually dead.

Well (not to be picky) but "Paul is dead, miss him, miss him." is at the very
end of "I'm So Tired" on the White Album -- John does some quiet mumbling at
the very end of the song.  Also, at the end of "Rain" there are some backward
lyrics.  In fact it is the very first line of the song: "When the rain comes,
they run and hide thier heads."  If anyone is interested on the "Paul is dead"
thing, I can send about ten pages of "clues" from the official list.

Just for the conversation's sake.
Geoff
--
 ==============================================================================
 || "Maybe its imaginary, I'd like to know. ||            sage.cc.purdue.edu ||
 ||  What's the world coming to, and where  || gfritz @--(       or          ||
 ||    will it go?" -- Kirsty MacColl       ||            mn.ecn.purdue.edu  ||
 ==============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: WEEMBA and DABROSKI Angst (Was: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:14:53 GMT

In article <73217@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>>>Since he hasn't told me what "God" means, and I am clueless--Jewish
>>>tradition doesn't help me here, since it teaches that God is totally
>>>unknowable--I really don't know how to answer his question.
>>>[What] do you mean by "God" that he deduced I believed in?
>>Easy, God = any of the Gods mentioned by any known religion.
>Well, yes, that much I figured.  But the fact that the mention them
>frequently doesn't mean that they define or explain them very well.
>Can you *please* fill in this void?

I am Jewish, by descent.  I am also atheist.

Because of this, and because I've attempted to defend him in the past, some
people may get the impression that Matthew Wiener speaks for people like me.
He doesn't.

Matthew is just evading questions here.  It's not necessary to know every
single attribute of something in order to be able to say one does or does not
believe it exists.  Judaism may say God is unknowable in a limited sense,
but a religious Jew may still say that he believes that God created the world,
spoke to Moses, etc.  The fact that Judaism says God is "unknowable" does
not make these beliefs ill-formed.
--
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: wichmann@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de (Arne Wichmann)
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Organization: Fachschaft Informatik, U of Saarland, FRG
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 00:47:14 GMT

simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
[deletions]
: If there is (as far as I'm concerned [see quote]) an equal amount/lack of
: evidence for any number of theories of, say, the origin of the universe, then
: I am compelled to award each of them the *same* notional probability z of
: being true, at least until some evidence comes along to separate them. On
: this basis, god/s and All-Creating Higher-Dimensional Huge Blue Banana/s
: score exactly the same.
: 
: As to the actual *value* of z, well, consider the number of such theories,
: `a la Blue Banana, which exist. I can, indeed, invent at will theories
: which I consider to be as well-supported by evidence as the god/s theory/ies
: or the blue banana theory. There are clearly an arbitrarily large number
: of such theories, and since their probabilities must sum to 1 (*) and must
: be equal from the above, the inevitable conclusion is that z for each is
: asymptotically zero (the "asymptotically" is there because I can't actually
: entertain an infinite number of theories, since I don't anticipate being
: around that long or wasting any more time on crap than I have to).

I think, as there is an infinite number of theories which don't involve any god,
there are an infinite number of theories involving a god.

The point that I make is that there is no conclusion that can be drawn about a
god, if there is one.

Na duw na feistr - o unrhyw fath na chr^ed
Arne Wichmann (wichmann@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de)
-- 
Na duw na feistr - o unrhyw fath na chr^ed
Arne Wichmann (wichmann@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de)
From: pellock@athena.cs.uga.edu (Bretamesh)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Question on modern manners
Date: 12 Apr 92 14:31:19 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens




Instead of one of the coventional "God bless you" or "gesundheit", I say
"I bless you" (provided of course that I really care that the person
who sneezed sneezed).
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:32:06 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: ingles@cardinal.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)

In article <fzj+=s_@engin.umich.edu>, ingles@cardinal (Ray Ingles) writes:
> I don't remember the exact post; but we were talking about *discussing*
>morals with kids and you immediately equated this with *lecturing*
>kids. If this was not yuor intention, my apologies.

No problem.  I was contrasting story-telling with lecturing, more as two
opposite styles than as any equation.

>> And what if the lesson you want to teach is don't steal?  Don't gossip?
>> Sometimes the most effective way to get the message across is to show
>> the negative effects of stealing/gossiping/etc, and the hardworking
>> parent presumably has to look elsewhere for this.

> No, the best way to show "don't steal" is to watch someone who
>has a good chance to steal and finds another way of dealing with
>the situation.

I think this could be quite subtle.

> There will be plenty of others around to show the negative
>consequences of stealing; heck, a newspaper is good enough for
>that.

Right: a "story".

> Look, I am not saying that literature is *useless* in teaching
>morals. I am saying that exapmles and thoughtful discussions are
>*more* useful, *much, much* more useful. This is what I have seen,
>anyway.

I'd say we are closer than anything.  I certainly agree that parental
example is primary.  But do you agree that literature can generate
numerous examples and thoughtful discussions?
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: WEEMBA jests or admits atheism? (Was: Re: WEEMBA and DABROWSKI Ang
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 14:25:59 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Research

In article <1992Apr14.185930.9705@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr14.163425.20412@watson.ibm.com> strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
|> >|> In a word, yes.  Certain rabid, anti-religious atheists might not agree
|> >|> with me, but in my book, any person who regards gods as metaphors is an
|> >|> atheist.
|> >Would you consider an Orthodox Jew who intellectually believes
|> >that God is not anthropomorphic, but who nevertheless puts on tfillin
|> >and tallit, recites the Shema, davens 3 times a day, wears fringes, 
|> >observes Shabbat, etc., an atheist?
|> 
|> I don't think "believing in gods [only] as metaphors" and believing in a God
|> who is non-anthropomorphic is necessarily the same....

You're right in theory.  However if you read the literal words of
the Bible, God is described as having a face, a backside, and
a voice.  Once you agree to take the face, the backside, and
the voice metaphorically, what's left?

Actually Jews tend to view questions about the metaphysical
nature of God as rather irrelevant --- a kind of intellectual
parlor game that goes nowhere, like asking how many angels
can dance on a pinhead.  The real arguments are about
how literally one takes the commandments.  All of the
interesting debates and schisms within Judaism come from this.


-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: What leads Jarek to accept God
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 04:52:16 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.190321.7564@rz-berlin.mpg.de> dabrowski@rz-berlin.mpg.de (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>>>My dear Ken. Two (?) followups before I have shown that your example 
>>>was orthogonal to my case because it contained equivocation while I do
>>>not use equivocation. ...
>> Except you do....
>Do you still remember? You said that calling something a strawman
>doesn't make it a strawman.

I didn't call it a strawman.

>>>>>Finally, all boils down to ethics: Do you, you #%&*^@ racist, prefer 
>>>>>your beliefs with their social consequences, or maybe you would like 
>>>>>to alter them so that they cause no harm in THIS world?
>>>>Oh, that one's easy: "Oh, there aren't any harmful social consequences.  
>>>>I admit that it looks that way, sure, and even that the numbers in the 
>>>>statistics make it appear that I'm doing harm, but I'm not."
>I didn't say it before, but if you insist... Man, do you perceive any
>difference between "One CAN'T show that X, HENCE I may believe not X"
>(my case) and "One CAN show that X, BUT I believe [not] X" (your example)?

This makes no sense unless I stick a "not" in.

Now, assuming you meant "not": the hypothetical racist simply disagrees that
one can show X at all.  In fact, the hypothetical racist has set things up so
that nothing you could possibly say could show X, converting the "can" to
"can't".

>>>Did you read the rest of the original text? Seems you did not. ...
>> You have made statements similar to the above one about statistics when
>> defending prayer; you suggested that some people do get cured as a result 
>> of praying, but in such a way that it doesn't show up in the statistics.
>My boy, this is NOT equivocation. As I explained it to you many times
>before (and you ignored it cheerfully), the equivocation enters when
>your racist says: "I don't hire blacks because their stupidity would
>destroy my business". In this case, his reasoning suggests that the
>famous stupidity is nicely detectable.

It does?  How?  (Perhaps destroying the business is also undetectable.  Or
rather, it is impossible to tell if there is a connection between a particular
destroyed business and a policy of hiring blacks.)
--
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:09:48 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: edw@caligula.cts.com (Ed Watkeys)

In article <01050133.0cmsf7@caligula.cts.com>, edw@caligula (Ed Watkeys) writes:
>Also, I've seen how we atheists misrepresent Judaism -- It seems that we
>misrepresent your brand of Judaism, which aside from yourself, no one can
>understand.

Huh?  I've not been speaking for "my" brand of Judaism whatsoever.  Hence
my point about my using the 3rd person--I'm confused how anybody concluded
I was speaking about "my" brand.

>	     For instance, your "Orthodox Judaism is not sexist" conviction
>seems more based on semantics and casuistry than any sort of logic.

You have this backwards.  Those who claim that "separation => sexism"
are using word games or bad analogies.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Date: 16 Apr 92 02:39:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: goofy.23288
Distribution: world,local
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr7.173652.25560@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
nathans@coos.dartmouth.edu (Nathan Shafer) writes:
>    Well, strictly speaking, Jesus was exempt from Original Sin by virtue
> of his parentage (i.e. he was born of a virgin). So with regard to Joe's
> statements, there is such a type, but it was a one-time exemption.
> Generally speaking, Joe is doctrinally correct.

Jesus was born of a women, i.e. he was *not* exempt from Original Sin.
Oh gee, I guess we will end up in the Roman Catholic doctrine discussion
about the holiness of Virgin Mary...

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 18:58:03 GMT

In article <73564@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.230825.21403@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>>Ok. That's a start....
>
>>The problem is that we don't have a standard measure of what
>>"learning calculus" means.
>
>No kidding.  I always took my personal evaluation of my students as being
>much more accurate than any exam scores, although they did correlate well.
>
>You're the one who thinks I was supposed to supply this imaginary
>standard, and now you admit there is no such beastie.  If you think
>this vitiates my claims, you're nuts.  I know what my students learned.
>I know what worked and didn't.
So you claim. You still have to prove it.
If it's unprovable, then you shouldn't go around claiming it.
All I'm doing is pointing out that you have come nowhere near
doing so. Not my problem if you're unable to supply the data
to back up your case.

-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: 9 Apr 92 12:01:43 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson) writes:
> In article <1992Apr4.174918.7562@rz-berlin.mpg.de>, dabrowski@rz-berlin.mpg.d
> (Jarek Dabrowski) says:
> >What a nice way to say "get lost"! Thanks, John. BTW, it seems that
> >you were somehow more tactful when you talked directly to me. Maybe
> >even a remote contact with a theist helps :->?
> 
> *I* did not say "get lost;" I merely said that I found the volume of
> postings from you and WEEMBA to be getting tiresome.

In the race to fill alt.atheism, Jarek's still in pole position!!!
(Geddit?!?!?!)


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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 03:32:15 GMT

(Jonathan W Newton) writes:
[on whether atheists have as much faith as theists]
>In my humble opinion, yes they do.  Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm 
>sure someone will), but atheist means:  "to conclude that God(s) does 
>not exist", while agnostic means:  "to draw no conclusion about the 
>existence of God(s)."  

Nope.
Atheist means lack of belief in God's existence, not belief in god's
non-existence.
Agnosticism is the position that the question of God's existence
is not answerable/knowable etc.

The rest of your article relies on these definitions so I won't 
bother replying to the rest.

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: IO00198@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Just some wierd dude)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I FOUND THIS AMUSING
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:11:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: MAINE.92097.111119IO00198
 <1992Apr3.191949.16035@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Organization: University of Maine System


In article <1992Apr3.191949.16035@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
nathans@coos.dartmouth.edu (Nathan Shafer) says:
>
>In article <92094.114154IO00198@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> <IO00198@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
>writes:
>>I was walking to the library yesterday when I passed this guy passing
>>out pamphlets to everyone who passed by (whether they wanted them or
>>not).  Anyway, I thought you might like to see what it said.  I only
>>kept it because it amused me. So here goes.
>
> [some deletions]
>
>>Water baptism is not the door!
>>Church membership is not the way!
>>
>>Criticisms:
>>Why is a baptist church putting out a pamphlet that says baptism
>>and church membership don't count for anything ??
>
>  Perhaps because it believes that that is the truth, regardless
>of what their own interests as an institution might say?
>
>  This is a new one; the usual criticism I see against
>Christianity is that Christians are often self-serving and
>intellectually dishonest. Now we have someone criticizing us
>for putting what we believe to be the truth ahead of our
>local, parochial interests.
>
>Nathan Shafer
>Dartmouth College, NH
  I wasn't criticizing Christianity as a whole, just this local
group.  If that church thought that what they printed was the
truth, then they wouldn't be a Baptist church. If you don't
believe in Baptism, you don't become Baptist.
  If I was going to criticize Christianity as a whole, you
can bet I'd come up with much stronger arguments (not to mention
better).
______________________________________________________________________
  COREY GRAY   IO00198@MAINE.MAINE.EDU  |  A WET DOG SWIMS IN THE RAIN
                                        |  BUT A DRY MARTINI LAUGHS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 13 Apr 1992 22:03:58 CDT
From: David Hanley <U22015@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Distribution: world
 <92101.092218MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <22942@goofy.Apple.COM>
 <sd60cINNfu6@doc.ksu.ksu.edu>



In article <sd60cINNfu6@doc.ksu.ksu.edu>, yohan@doc.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W
Newton) says:
>
>Can we please drop the discussion of semantics???!!!  That wasn't the main    t
>poin
>of my article.  It was adressed to those people who believe, not think, that
>God(s) does not exist.  Alot of quotes in this newsgroup have said atheists,
>by

  I thought there were several good answers here.  I, personally, in a
strictly philisophical sense must say i am agnostic.  I don't _know_ god
does not exist.  But it falls into the same category as all the other
vanishingly small possibilities a'la' the blue bananna.  I don't
BELIEVE that there is no god, as this word, to me, connotates the
suspension of reason, the unquestioning acceptance of a fact, with no
evidence, or even with evidence against.  I think you will have a very
difficult time finding an atheist who believes in these terms.

  I don't want to get into a semantic arguement ( a'la' jarek ).  If you
didn't mean the version of believe that i outlined above, please tell me
exactly what you did mean, and i'll try to answer your question.  I won't
try to force you to what i interpreted your first statement to mean( hmm..
line ja---? )

have a day   /..
--DAVE!!     --/
From: martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: different planet (was paranoid etc)
Date: 13 Apr 92 12:22:00 GMT
Organization: British Telecom

In article <73579@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
> 
> Then you really don't know what you're talking about.  Yes, even God.
> The most extreme has been trials of God--with guilty verdicts.  The
> most explicit rejection (not just questioning, _rejection_) of divine
> authority is a famous Talmudic passage regarding a rabbinic debate
> over some small dispute.  The vote was 70-1, and the lone holdout
> started invoking divine authority for his position.  He said that
> if he's right, the trees will show it, and they promptly bent over.
> The vote was still 70-1.  So then he invoked a river to reverse its
> course if he's right, the river reversed, and the vote was 70-1.
> Finally, he said a voice from Heaven will prove that he's right,
> and a voice from Heaven spoke, saying the holdout was right.  The
> other rabbis didn't budge [one of them is reputed to have said,
> "nu? the vote is now 70-2"].  And that night, one of the other
> rabbis had a dream, where Elijah the prophet told him that God was
> laughing over the whole thing, declaring "my children have won".
> 
This is very interesting. Not at all like a usual religion.
One learns something every day!!
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jews in the "real world" (was Re: Judaism and the FAQ file))
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:55:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: goofy.23268
Distribution: world,public
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <73223@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P
Wiener) writes:
> (A) I've answered this before: Jewish services are _much_ more social
>     in practice than Christian ones.
> 
> (B) Separation during services *is* common sense--although maybe not your
>     common sense.

According to your common sense Jewish people are more interested in
sex than any other cultures. Somehow I don't think so...
 
> >> >> Would you consider smoking vs non-smoking separation a form of
> >> >> discrimination?
> 
> >> >I would consider it if there were separate spaces for women 
> >> >and male smokers, [...]
> 
> >> Try answering the question.

Yes, I don't want to have my lungs full of acid and poisonous gases.
However, females don't exactly destroy my environment. Thus, there's
a valid reason to keep smokers separated, but there's *no* reason
to keep males and females separated, unless we have ancient cultural
and social rituals.

You know, I have female engineers working near my cube, do I constantly
sit and watch their bodies instead of working? Well, no. Why, because
this company respects people independently of sex, culture, religion
or color of skin. All that counts is the end result.
 
> >So what's the fuzz with keeping males and females separated during
> >the 'services', it works fine with other religions? Either you
> >are right, and all the other 4 billion people are wrong, or then
> >it's the other way around. Actually, this was a silly statement,
> >every religion is right.
> 
> Exactly.  Judaism makes not claims about what other religions should
> do.  Why are you trying to make a claim about what Judaism should do?

I don't like sexim in any religion, including Judaism. It's an ancient
and destructive force which we should try to get rid off.

Cheers,
Kent