HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: THE LORD IS UPON ME!
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:53:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.172153.1@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au> edc513ysft@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>YOU MIGHT THINK THIS IS STUPID BUT I AM THE SON OF GOD!
>I HAVE POWERS ATTRACT ALL THE WOMEN ON THE DANCEFLOOR.
>THIS IS PROOF ENOUGH THAT I AM AND SHALL BE THE ALL CONQUERING
>STUD THAT I AM!
>
>P.S.  GOD EXISTS.  I SEE HIM IN MY DREAMS AND HE TALKS TO ME.
>      HE TELLS ME ABOUT LIFE, THE UNIVERSE AND HOW TO PICK UP
>      PRETTY YOUNG BLONDES.
>
>
>Mr Baldy
>

Ross?  Ross Perot?  Is that you?

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:45:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.090512.10530@cs.ucla.edu> robert@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Rob Karmolinski) writes:
>>Pretty horrendous logic, isn't it?
>Actually, I see nothing wrong with the *logic*.  Yes, my argument does have
>fundamental flaws, but logic is not one of them.  By your argument, Cupid does
>indeed exist *as you defined Cupid*, because people do fall in love.  However,
>your argument does *not* corroborate the actual existence of a flying cherub
>with bow and arrow, ready to shoot people, come mid-February.
>Similarly, with *my definition* of God, as the creator of the universe.

Cupid doesn't even necessarily exist as he defined it.

If Cupid is defined as the cause of people falling in love, and falling in
love is causeless, then Cupid does not exist.  The same applies to God being
the creator of the universe: if the universe doesn't have a creator of any
sort, God, as so defined, does not exist....
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto)
Subject: Re: The Lord Cometh!
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 01:38:24 GMT

 How many times is (she? He? it?) going to make "their" entrance
for the second time?
From: yohan@goldwing.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I keep tell'n you
Date: 30 Sep 1992 09:08:14 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: goldwing.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <exukjb.259.717706313@exu.ericsson.se>, exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>
>You atheists will just never learn. 

The christians started it :)

>
>The way to blow christianity completely away is to concentrate
>on the question, not "does god exist?" but "what is god?" Hume
>makes this point early on in the Dialogues Concerning Natural
>Relegion, and the fictional participants in the dialogue agree
>that that is the pivotal issue.
>
>You see, when it comes right down to it, they cannot set out
>an account of the concept of "God" that is intelligible in terms
>of concepts both skeptics and believer share.  And surely they must
>share some concepts, because if they don't, skeptic and believer cannot
>possibly discuss God's existence.  
>
>Now to possess a concept is to be able to use it correctly--which is 
>compatible with mishandling it sometimes--and also to be prepared to make 
>assertions or judgements about what things are properly referred to by that 
>concept, what things fall under it.  So if skeptic and believer share the 
>same concepts, they must agree in their judgements about central 
>applications of those concepts. 

Why?

>If you take concepts like "soul" and
>"God", you will find that skeptics and believers do not agree in judgements
>about the even the central applications of these concepts, and so it follows 
>they cannot possibly understand one another.

No it doesn't follow.  It is very possible to understand a concept and draw
different conclusions.  Life isn't all mathematics.

>
>Hence, no discussion between skeptic and believer is possible.

So I'm just imagining the 400+ articles posted?

>
>//////////////////////////////////////
>/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
>//////////////////////////////////////


Jon Newton
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke)
Subject: Re: bug in FAQ file
Organization: TRIUMF, Vancouver BC
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:29:24 GMT

mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
>> Both functions accept input that will be in either of two states;  each
>> executes an algorithm that transforms the input to one of the states.
>> In both cases, the algorithm is unneccessary (ie. redundant) if the input
>> state already matches the output state.  Rather than first testing the
>> input to determine which state it is in and whether the transformation
>> should be applied, the program ASSUMES one input state and applies the
>> transformation regardless.
>
>But the odd/even example was bogus anyway.  You do admit that, I hope, or
>shall I explain again?

The example matched the above description.  That's all I ever claimed,
and all that was necessary to claim to make my point.  If you have
difficulty understanding its relevance, forget about it.  I have given
other examples that will serve just as well.

>> On the contrary, it assumes n is even, since the operations are
>> pointless and redundant if n is odd.
>
>Look, let's suppose someone walks up to you and asks you to code a function
>which takes an argument n and returns an odd number close to n.

That would result in a different function of no relevance to this discussion.

>A "valid" argument is one which proceeds logically by inference without
>falling into fallacy.  A "sound" argument is one which is valid, and also has
>correct premises.  So I think you meant "...their reasoning would be
>perfectly valid, but unsound."

I guess I'm not up on my semantics.  Thanks for the clarification.  That
is exactly what I meant.

>> Imagine you are blindfolded and about to walk through a swinging door that
>> might be opened or closed.  Naturally you hold out your hand, to push the
>> door open in the event that it is closed.  If the door is open, then your
>> outstretched hand serves no purpose.  I claim that by sticking out your
>> hand in the absence of knowledge about the state of the door, you are
>> *assuming* the door is closed.
>
>But once again, your analogy is completely spurious.  In the above, you are
>assuming things about the STATE of the door, GIVEN THAT IT IS KNOWN TO
>EXIST.  In Pascal's Wager, it is the very EXISTENCE of God that is in
>question, not what state he is in.

Wrong!  Pascal's wager makes *NO* claims about the existence of God --
the question is explicitly ignored.  The wager only deals with the
consequences of belief in God.

The FAQ point in question attacks only this aspect of the argument:
consequences of belief.  My counter-argument also attempts to address
only this point.  As such, the actual existence or non-existence of
things in my examples should be seen as irrelevant:  it is the
conclusions we reach about what is best to believe that show Pascal's
reasoning was *valid* (if unsound).

-- Morgan Burke (morgan@reg.triumf.ca)
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Lord Cometh!
Date: 5 Oct 92 09:14:45 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Oct5.005842.13295@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>You mean Colleen's coming back?!  Hurrah!  :)

Wait a minute, sir.  Weren't you a Merittist but a while ago?  :-)

Fourth Disciple and Prophet of Colleen and First Colleenian Pope,

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: The Royal-Lie Theory of Religion (was Re: morality and religion)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 09:13:43 GMT


	There is another version of this type of argument. It states
that people _must_ be doped with a religion to make them virtuous.
This I call the "royal lie" argument from its most honest form -- if
it is necessary to do this, then one could just as well use a false
religion. It might also be called the theory that religion is
desirable _as_ opium for the people.

	I got the term from Plato, who advocated that his Republic (in
that dialogue) teach a religion which he considered false, but which
was designed to legitimize his ideal state. According to it, there
were three kinds of people: golden ones who are to be the Guardians,
philosopher-kings and -queens; silver ones who are to be the soldiers;
and bronze and iron ones who are to be the ordinary people.

	This was a common view up to early modern times. The ancient
geographer Strabo believed that "the great mass of women [yes I know
that's sexist] and common people can not be persuaded to [virtuous
conduct] by the force of reason. Superstition is necessary, and even
that is not effective without the aid of the marvelous and the
horrible." In early modern times, Machiavelli had a similar view. He
applauded the ancient Romans for pretending to believe in auguries
(official divinations), and for punishing those who refused to respect
them. This is significant because I'm sure that Machiavelli did not
believe in auguries.

	However, at the present time, it seems to be a serious act of
Political Incorrectness to explicitly advocate teaching a religion one
considers false just to make people virtuous; the truth question is
often evaded by present-day advocates of this view.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Pope to visit Albania?
Date: 28 Sep 1992 05:37:02 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


	....Just when you thought Albania was backwards enough......



			:-)



-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Reveal to me the sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips | alias: White Rook | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
Date: 6 Oct 92 10:57:10 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <1992Oct4.190643.29894@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:

>"I think therefore I am".  Other than that, *nothing* is necessarily
>true.

And there are a few people around these days who aren't sure that ITTIA is 
true either.  After all, just because something you call your conscious 
awareness is monitoring a data stream which seems to have something to do 
with what happens next (etc), doesn't mean there's necessarily any other 
connection between the conscious awareness, the data stream, and what 
happens next.  "You" may just be a convenient fiction.


              Have another day    [Armageddon, the musical] 
  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44|0)61-275-6033  
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18152 sci.skeptic:17095 talk.origins:12168
From: ken@sycraft.com (Ken Richardson)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.messianic,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Object-oriented creation (Was Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!)
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:32:41 MDT
Organization: SyCraft Software, Colorado Springs CO

In article <1992Sep28.100020.27769@hsr.no>, onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
> I should mention that comparing genomes directly is a relatively new technique.
> The older, more standard, technique is to compare proteins of individuals ( which
> relies ONLY on the 10% meaningful DNA) and the results are the same: 99%
> identical. So there is no need to doubt that humans and chimps are very much
> alike. No, the stunning thing, which alone almost proves the
> chimp/human-relation, is that also the junk-DNA are alike. 
> 
> ...
> 
> Not only does DNA-dating increase the integrity of the existing dating techniques,
> it supports and CONFIRMS the theory of evolution even further. 

Well, I appreciate your conviction.  But "confirmation" is a bit strong.

I mean, consider for a moment: If you were the Creator, and you were about
to create life, what techniques would you use to put order and simplicity
into the task?  Object-oriented techniques!

What are object-oriented techniques?  They are a philosophy and approach to
computer programming that promote code re-use.  And computer programs are
not unlike DNA programs.

In fact, object oriented programming makes reusing code easier than *not*
reusing code.  So extending this to its natural conclusion, I would expect
the process of creating life to be a more simple and orderly process by
reusing DNA rather than not.

So while at first sight it may seem astounding that chimps and humans have
99% similarity in their DNA, I would be surprised if that were *not* the
case, considering the similarity of the overall "systems".  Assuming, of
course, that object oriented techniques were applied in their creation.

While my analogy may seem only tangentially relevant to those who are not
personally experienced with object oriented programming, those who *have*
used those techniques will surely see the applicability of the analogy to
the discussion of "How could chimp/human DNA be 99% alike?"

There is, after all, a high degree of similarity between DNA programs
and computer programs.
--------------------------------------------
Ken Richardson		SyCraft Software
ken@sycraft.com		Colorado Springs, CO
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<TORKEL.92Oct3143130@bast.sics.se>
	<1992Oct03.175700.12517@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 19:28:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct03.175700.12517@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca
 (Douglas Graham) writes:

   >It varies from day to day.

  Yes, atheists tend to be excitable and emotional people, as we know.

  >I'm certainly about to give up on you though,
  >because you really don't appear to have much to say.  And you think *I'm*
  >boring.

  These things are relative, of course!
From: bug@arachne.UDAC.UU.SE (Bernt Budde)
Subject: Re: atheism in the future
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala, Sweden
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:33:07 GMT

EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

>I wouldn't be so sure.  People will only believe something if they want to
>, i.e. you can't convince a person who doesn't want to be convinced.

I have an acquaintance that proclaims himself X:an. He is not stupid; my
usual arguments works quite well. (Anyone needs some good angles, I'll
be happy to give an abstract. But you probably know them) and the only
real answer he DO have, is arguing that he's happier with his religion.

I counter that kind of arguments ("This lie I'm basing my life on is
making me happier", my formulation) in two general ways. The first is
that people that distorts their world view is dangerous; they vote for
the Christ Democrats, etc. Just by existing in a democracy they change
it. The second is more personal, it pisses me off! I argue that at an
early age in my life I really could have used a religious crutch, but
couldn't go so far as to sell my intellectual integrity, and people
that do that probably makes me envious and angry.

>...  and that we must have
>something unique about us: this "soul".

My example studies computer science; no such cheap options for him.
Just refusing to think. 

My point (at last! A relevant point! :-)) is that we'll always have
these members of strange sects; there will always be people with
problems. The soul-idea is already a good arguing angle that will
be much better in (say) twenty years! (Any brain researchers and
AI researchers reading this? Stop that and get back to work! :-))


Bernt Budde                            |Religion, n: A daughter of
bug@arachne.udac.uu.se                 |Hope and Fear, explaining to
UDAC (Uppsala Univ. Computing Centre)  |Ignorance the Nature of the
                                       |Unknowable.
Don't for a moment believe UDAC,       |
while being a nice place, have         |-Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's
opinions like me!!                     |                 Dictionary
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 30 Sep 92 04:41:48 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Sep30.133017.164697@dstos3.dsto.gov.au>, jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>>
>>	The problem with your position is that demons do not
>>exist.                                                  ~~~
>  ~~~~~
> 
> But demons DO exist.  Just because you haven't (or think that you
> haven't) come across them or been influenced by them does not mean
> that they don't exist.

   Have you ever come across one?  If so, please give a description.  If
not, what makes you think they *do* exist?
 
>> They are said to have no mass, take up no space and are
>>not made of any kind of matter, though some say that they are
>>made up of a kind of "energy", which is a yet unamed, unmeasureable
>>energy with NO source. This seems like such a shakey ground to 
>>base diagnosis of an ill person.
> 
> Some more research would provide a better description than the above.
> Briefly, they exist in the spiritual realms, which can be reached by
> certain types of meditation (esp. yoga - yes yoga!), seances, ouija,
> and other OCCULT practices.  BUT BE WARNED, DO NOT BECOME INVOLVED IN
> THESE THINGS.  THEY ARE EVIL, AND WILL NOT HELP YOU IN ANY POSITIVE WAY!

   Of course not.  But naturally, Christianity will.  How do you distinguish 
between "occult" and non-occult practices, i.e. what makes Christianity not
occult?

> Yours in Christ,
> James.

Awaiting the Return of Colleen,

Karl
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: I keep tell'n you
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:51:53 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.


You atheists will just never learn. 

The way to blow christianity completely away is to concentrate
on the question, not "does god exist?" but "what is god?" Hume
makes this point early on in the Dialogues Concerning Natural
Relegion, and the fictional participants in the dialogue agree
that that is the pivotal issue.

You see, when it comes right down to it, they cannot set out
an account of the concept of "God" that is intelligible in terms
of concepts both skeptics and believer share.  And surely they must
share some concepts, because if they don't, skeptic and believer cannot
possibly discuss God's existence.  

Now to possess a concept is to be able to use it correctly--which is 
compatible with mishandling it sometimes--and also to be prepared to make 
assertions or judgements about what things are properly referred to by that 
concept, what things fall under it.  So if skeptic and believer share the 
same concepts, they must agree in their judgements about central 
applications of those concepts. If you take concepts like "soul" and
"God", you will find that skeptics and believers do not agree in judgements
about the even the central applications of these concepts, and so it follows 
they cannot possibly understand one another.

Hence, no discussion between skeptic and believer is possible.

//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu ()
Subject: Re: Demonic Christian Beliefs
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:35:13 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

>knowing the atheist mindset you'd find some way to write their
>experience off.  But on the subject...Most people are severely 
>crippled in their knowledge of the subject of possession, and I 
>don't profess to be an expert.  There is a difference between 
>possession and oppression by demons.  The majority of people who
>are under demonic attack are oppressed not possessed.  There are 
>different levels of oppression ranging from doubt to depression 
                                              ^^^^
ahh- so all atheists are under demonic attack! Thats why they are soo
sneaky! Noone with free-will could possibly think like they do!

> 
>-- 
>Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
>parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |

"Nothing is true- Evrything is permitted!"- Hassan-I-Sabbah

-Scott
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Pascal, Animals and Religion (was Re: Bug in FAQ (again))
Date: 26 Sep 92 10:06:36 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <esposito.24.717444495@hamlet.uncg.edu> esposito@hamlet.uncg.edu (Andrew Joseph Esposito) writes:
>When I was young I was in CCD and the Nun told me that my dog, Buffy, would 
>not go to heaven.  Well, this is the first thing that pissed me off about 
>Catholisism.  <...>
>
>Well, being an animal lover, Hinduism looked better than Christianity.

Now the sad thing is that, according to Hinduism, doghood is a very
low form of existence.  A dog is a despised animal in that religion.
If you are a dog lover, try Zoroastrianism.

Of course, if Buffy was a good dog, then he was probably reborn as a
better kind of animal, or -- who knows? -- maybe even as a human being.

>I read about it and found that the cast system didn't fit with my idea of 
>bettering oneself (I rose from poverty).

This doesn't contradict the caste system.  You may have risen in
wealth or social position, but not in caste.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: acsormd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Randall Desmond)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
Date: 3 Oct 92 20:02:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct2.050949.12343@oclc.org>, jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes...
>acsormd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Randall Desmond) writes:
>: 
>: Someone please supply a definition of evidence and how one is to determine
>: what evidence is and what it is not. Thank you.
> 
>You can look this up in the dictionary as well as we can.  You can
>tell if something is evidence by whether it fits the definition or
>not.  

	That's true.

>What's your point?

	To know what one can claim for or against his/her point of view.
	In the context of this newsgroup, that would be for or against
	atheism, would it not?

>-- 
>> Jeff Young 

	-RMD