HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:13:47 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)

In article <1992Apr8.154424.24351@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>>>No, Matthew, it is simply ill informed.

>>>>How would you know?  It wouldn't make a bit of a difference to you.

>>>What wouldn't?

>>Exactly.

>Huh? Your sentence was unclear.

The "it" was your "it".  I assume you have been keeping track of
your own pronouns.

>				 I asked for a clarification, and you
>take this as evidence that I don't care??? Have you considered
>taking an introductory course in logic.

Have you noticed English can be ambiguous?  I took your "what wouldn't"
as sarcasm--implying that nothing would make a difference to you.  As
for the clarification: how would *you* know what is unpleasant to Jews?
In particular, the "it" was in reference to passing off Christian ideas
about God and religion and lumping them with Judaism.

>>No, it's not a matter of opinion.  You postd a massive lack of awareness
>>regarding modern rabbinic Judaism when you thought it consists of just
>>dietary laws and the Sabbath.  The historical record regarding the
>>dominance of the Pharisees during the Second Temple era is rather solid.

>Funny....  I've never seen any such evidence, and I've read a fair
>amount of history of this era.

There's Josephus, the Talmud, and even the New Testament itself.  One
easily accessible and good account is Paul Johnson's book.

>>>Are you suggesting that it's impossible in principle for one to
>>>believe that the holocaust didn't happen without being unpleasant?

>>If they don't say or do a thing about their beliefs, they are not
>>being unpleasant.  Anything beyond that is unpleasant.

>>>Suppose you'd simply been fed an incorrect history and were trying,
>>>like most people do, to hold on to your worldview. You'd have a lot
>>>of incorrect facts, but you wouldn't be lying.

>>But you would be unpleasant.

>Hmmm...I hope you're not maintaining that unpleasant is a single
>argument boolean function.

No.

>I.e. unpleasant(person).

>I would put it to you that it is rather a function which takes
>at least two arguments:
>unpleasant(person A, person B)
>Where it reads "person A finds person B unpleasant."

>If that's so, I have no problems with you saying that you find me
>unpleasant, but I don't think that you saying that I am unpleasant
>per se is meaningful, unless you mean by that something like:
>(all A) unpleasant(person A, Eric Rescorla)

>Which is a false assertion, even if you qualify it so that A!=Eric Rescorla.

>So, Matthew, would you mind clarifying what you meant to say?

How about unpleasant(Jews, non-Jews speaking falsehoods about Judaism)?

I don't know you personally, and know nothing about you personally, and
this is USENET after all.  I did not intend unpleasant(everyone,Eric).
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: More "Best Wishes"
Date: 11 Apr 92 21:29:49 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <9204022043.AA02328@CSUFresno.EDU>, davidch@ZIMMER.CSUFRESNO.EDU
(David Choweller) writes:
> Since God is omniscient, he could have predicted what would happen
> if he created souls; that is, he could predict that this act of creating
> souls would lead to the future you describe below, a future where horrible
> evil and indescribable suffering exists.  Yet, he still went ahead and
> created souls.  Thus, God cannot be benevolent in any reasonable sense
> of the word.

This is a splendid example of how words defined by humans create
metaphysical nonsense. Wittgenstein was right.

Cheers,
Kent
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: American Atheists address needed
Date: 14 Apr 92 11:07:51 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <92104.214333U22015@uicvm.uic.edu> U22015@uicvm.uic.edu (David Hanley) writes:
>
>  Well, the address to order books is:
>
> American atheist press, P.O. box 140195, austin, tx 78714-0195
>
> I assume that you can also order the darwin fish there too.
>
> I THINK ( not believe ) that i have seen the fish in the catalog, but
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I can't seem to find them now, so i can't tell you the price.
>
>--DAVE!!


You are Jarek Dabrowski and I claim my $10.


Cheers

Simon
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Every morning when you wake up and look in the mirror, check yourself
for signs of collective identity" - Consolidated on "This Is Fascism"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mikeb@eg.lucasauto.co.uk (Mike Brady)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Owning up to Disobedience
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:38:24 GMT
Distribution: eunet
Organization: Lucas Powertrain Systems, Electronic Control Group, UK

In article <5306@pdxgate.UUCP> :
>From: allenroy@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (callen roy)
>Path: rigel!allenroy
>
>For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all.
>(Rom 11:32)
>
>Why is God so interested in pointing out the universal disobedience of
>the human race?  What reason does He have for wanting to make sure that
>everyone owns up to being disobedient?  Is this so that no one will try to
>sneak away from the smarting pain of His rebuke?
>
>[ stuff deleted ]
>
>(from His Healing Love by Dick Winn)


Why do you find it so difficult to accept who you are?  Why this
need to judge yourself guilty of something so then you can be
forgiven for it?


>We would rather die championing our innocence than
>to risk facing seemingly certain embarrassment and rejection should we
>show up at the clinic door and whisper our disease.


Some would rather die championing their humility than risk
facing seemingly certain testing and hardship should they walk
into the sunlight and say firmly "I will not feel guilty for
being here."

We are here and we are to live.  If you stop seeking for
something in the distance you see that you are already where you
should be.

Mike.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: THE BIBLE WHATS IT WORTH?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 12:27:57 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.085020.7161@maths.tcd.ie> djohn@maths.tcd.ie (Derek John) writes:
I'm just going to touch briefly on your points.
>in fact he mentioned to me a few cases where the gospels make quite serious
>historical errors,but nevertheless they are held to be 100% accurate when it    comes to reporting the words of jesus.I asked him how somwthing written up to   50 years after an event could report any conversation with veracity,he went
>into this long argument about Q sources and other stuff whch I couldnt really
>follow.
Q: The Two Source Hypothesis.
The TSH is the going solution to the Synoptic Problem--why do the
Synoptic Gospels(Mt,Mk,Lk) look so similar if they were independently
written. The TSH says that Mk was the original gospel and that Mt and
Lk are Mk plus a collection of sayings called Q.(from the German
Quelle, meaning "source.") Compare Gospel of Thomas for an idea of
what Q must have looked like.

>I knew a bit about the new testament apocypha and asked him how come     some gospels were chosen and others rejected he told me that the four gospels
>were the oldest and most reliable texts and had been held as authentic by the 
>early church,and that most of the apocrypha were later imitations or
>heretical texts.Can any body clear up this debate for me?  
This is basically the standard Xian line, but it's garbage. Some of
the pseudoPauline letters are substantially newer than Gospel of Thomas,
for instance. While some of the "apochryphal" texts are newer and
unreliable, some are probably more reliable and were not chosen
for theological reasons.
-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: ogorman@unix1.tcd.ie (Lucifuge)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Do Atheists have Thier Own "Faith"?
Date: 16 Apr 92 10:23:41 GMT
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

In <45284@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> gfritz@sage.cc.purdue.edu ("Happy Fun Ball") writes:

>In article <Aam+ZLA@engin.umich.edu> ingles@bluejay.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:

>>But a live body will continue to eat and produce more entropy than a dead one.

>Okay, you pegged me on this one.  However, within the closed system of the body
>the disorder would increase.  Those neat, complex (very organized) DNA chains
>would fall apart.

The body is not a closed system. The DNA molecules would remain if
there was nothing to degrade them (like say bacterial enzymes) for a
very long time.

Ollie
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:56:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.190125.6849@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.154356.9455@apollo.hp.com> perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry) writes:
>> [...]
>> Whatever term you care to use, "people who believe, not think, that
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> God does not exist" (as you define the terms) are not the people who
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> call themselves atheists in this newsgroup.  Sorry, but that's life.
>> [...]
>
>Well, far be it from me to prolong a debate about semantics to the bog-down
>point, BUT....:-)
[...probability-based belief...]
>This specifically does *not* permit the conclusion that the "strong"
>atheist position is dogmatic and less likely to be swayed by evidence
>which might cause z to be revised upward.

"Strong atheism" in the sense "thinking that the weight of evidence
indicates that in all probability that which is called God does not
exist" is not the same as the theologically-based "believing as an act
of faith that God, an inherently unknowable entity, absolutely does
not or can not exist".

-- 
Jim Perry   perry@apollo.hp.com    HP/Apollo, Chelmsford MA
This particularly rapid, unintelligible patter
Isn't generally heard, and if it is it doesn't matter!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:38:04 GMT

In article <73423@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.192549.27194@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>There's Josephus, the Talmud, and even the New Testament itself.  One
>>>easily accessible and good account is Paul Johnson's book.
>
>>Well, that's not at all what I see in the New Testament. What I
>>see is the Sadducees being dominant.
>
>The Sadducees were dominant regarding the Temple and upper class power.  The
>masses followed the Pharisees.
That's not the impression I got.

>  The Pharisees were also dominant outside of
>Israel--away from the Temple--which was home for less than 1/3 of the Jews.
That's not the impression I got.

>>				      The Talmud has a vested interest
>>in portraying that picture, so I don't trust it much
>
>Historians deal with the self-serving nature of primary documents all the
>time, and have ways to read past such literalisms.
Hmmm...Funny how you have such confidence in this sort of criticism
when you think it defends your point. In any case, it was my
impression that the historians had read the text and come to the
conclusion that the Pharisees were not dominant. Do you have
a citation to support your claim that they had come to the conclusion
you say? Note that I am challenging a positive claim by you. You
have the burden of proof, not I.

>>						     --I'm not
>>sure the NT does so much in this matter, but I'm not about to
>>defend that.
>
>The extent of Jesus' criticism shows that, at the very least, the
>Pharisees were not a fringe group.
That is far from them being the major power, which is what
you asserted.


>>	      There is quite a bit of Josephus, so would you mind
>>being a bit more specific?
>
>I'd have to look it up.
Please do.
But don't cite it as a reference till you have.

-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? 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@crane.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 16:50:19 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor


In article <1992Apr09.221025.32333@watson.ibm.com>, strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
> In article <zNk+f2B@engin.umich.edu>, ingles@cclittle.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
> 
> |> > Actually, it's not clear that the authors of the Bible
> |> > and commentaries arrived at similar conclusions from
> |> > a "greatly different direction".  We may be just
> |> > using different words to describe it.
> |> 
> |>  Hmmmm. But they justified fairly typical moral commandments by
> |> saying, 'The Lord said: Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt...."
> |>  I.e. I still think that the authors had a different route to
> |> the same morals, though what nowaday readers do with this may be
> |> different.
> |>
> 
> That's how they wrote it down.  But presumably you don't
> believe that the Lord literally wrote the commandments
> on the tablets and handed them to Moses (neither do
> most liberal Jews).  So the authors probably had a
> similar route to these morals that you do today.  The
> only difference is that we have 3300 years of tradition ---
> we don't start from scratch.

 The original morals did indeed come from humans, but then
they seem to have been *justified* by attributing them to
a god. I.e. the authors seem to have been thinking, "People
won't accept these rules if just humans came up with them.
So we'll lie and say they're from a god, and no one will
disobey them then." ("Do this, not because it is for the
best, but for some other reason.")
 Secondly, My family may not have 3300 years of tradition
to draw from, true. But neither did we "start from scratch."
I can *learn* from my parents, and from wider society, and
even from books. In this sense, *no one* starts from scratch,
except maybe Tarzan.
 (Also, I *like* things that are made from scratch rather than
bought prepackaged... :-> ) 

> |> 
> |>  Okay. But I think by the time a child is old enough to read,
> |> understand, and get something out of the Bible, they have already
> |> had the bulk of their moral education...
> |> 
> 
> Yes and no.  On fundamentals like not lying or stealing, yes.
> 
> On more subtle things like tolerance, it's not clear.
> From my perspective as a parent, middle-schoolers
> have a lot to learn in that area.
>
> On other things like the courage to be different,
> the dangers of assimilation to the crowd, conscientious
> objection, the conflict between serving oneself
> and serving others, ..., I think a certain level
> of maturity is required.

 Ah, but it would seem that the exact same level of maturity
would be needed to understand and appreciate the Bible, and
so it's not clear that anything is to be gained from using
it...

> Rob Strom
From: bstadnik@miavx2.ham.muohio.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Question on modern manners
Date: 13 Apr 92 02:07:21 GMT
Organization: Miami University, Hamilton campus

In article <1992Apr12.143119.19410@athena.cs.uga.edu>, pellock@athena.cs.uga.edu (Bretamesh) writes:
> 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).
> 
> 	  
  How about,  "Bless you."   This leaves out the 'by whom'.  The person
sneezing can take it how they would like.  "I bless you" sounds kind of
arrogant to me.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean)
Subject: Re: IQ and religious belief
Organization: Blue Moon BBS (614/868-9984 = T2500 | 998[02] = HST DS)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 15:02:37 GMT

willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams) writes:

>>> lived, etc.  Newton thought his greatest accomplishment was dieing a virgin.
>>> I say that destroys his credibility right there.  :)

>>True, every human being has talents and non-talents. Einstein was a lousy
>>violin player :-).
>So was Sherlock Holmes. :-)

 And Sherlock Holmes can tell us all about God, since SH and God exist in
the same way...

-- 
\   Grant DeLorean    - IHMSA Life Member -   (grant@bluemoon.rn.com)   /

               "Ubi non accusator, ibi non judex."
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Question about modern manners
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:29:50 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <a0tjf!#@lynx.unm.edu> jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth) writes:
> 
> Since it is alergy season, people are often sneezing.  In fact, it seems that
> I sneeze every five minutes.  which brings me to my question.  I am a "devout"
> atheist, and I don't know what the polite thing to say is when someone blesses
> me after I sneeze.  It is offensive that someone would think that I need saving
> and need the blessings of a person or a non-existant god.
> 
> So what would be the polite response to tell someone?

I am also an atheist.  Have no idea what it means to be a "devout
atheist."

In answer to your question, I recommend "Thank you."

Somebody says "God bless you" after you sneeze and you want to
turn it into a drum beat?  Courteously?

Dean Kaflowitz
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:08:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: netnews.73215
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)

In article <graham.702698396@bizet>, graham@maths (Graham Matthews) writes:
>Can anyone take this man seriously any more! Oops I forgot that Matthew
>hasn't said he was *male* yet even though he has hinted at it 
>strongly. Perhaps an acid test would do; 'Matthew do you have a
>penis'.

>Waiting expectantly for your evasion ...

Thanks Graham, for demonstrating the total braindeadness of this whole
"evasion" game.  Anyone can invent irrelevancies.  I won't such.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:8158 alt.satanism:1316
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thursday, 9 Apr 1992 11:48:48 EDT
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Backward Masking
Distribution: world,local
 <ogorman.702753753@unix1.tcd.ie> <8APR199215152365@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
 <ROLFL.92Apr9072117@karl.uio.no>

In article <ROLFL.92Apr9072117@karl.uio.no>, rolfl@karl.uio.no (Rolf Lindgren)
says:
>
>So far as backward masking goes: There's still the problem: Does it work?
>Is it possible to _change_people's_minds_ using BM?
>
>Well, there's been done some research on subliminal messages, ie.
>(usually) visual messages that are displayed so fast that you're not aware
>you've seen them.
>
>These messages have some effect on monopolistic competition. They can't
>make you buy soda pop, but they can direct your choice of brand if you
>were already going to buy...
>
>I haven't got any sources though, this is what I heard at a lecture.
>

I don't know about the research on subliminal visual information, but
research reported recently in _Psychological Science_ appeared to
completely dispell the notion that subliminal audio messages (such as
those found on self-improvement tapes) can affect how we think and
behave (beyond placebo effects).

But, for goodness sake, one doesn't need to do experiments to see how
a priori absurd it is to assume that backwards masking could have any
kind of effect on people.  To assume this would be to assume that
(a) the backwards message would be registered somewhere in the mind, and
(b) the mind could play this message backwards to decode it.  While
I can imagine that (a) is possible, I think that assuming point (b) is
assinine.

Of course, this is not to say that Christian fundamentalists are
incapable of holding assinine beliefs.
-----------------------------------
John A. Johnson (J5J@psuvm.psu.edu)
Department of Psychology Penn State DuBois Campus 15801
Penn State is not responsible for my behavior.
"A ruthless, doctrinaire avoidance of degeneracy is a degeneracy of
 another sort.  Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing
 metaphysics is a part of life."  - from _Lila_ by R. Pirsig
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
From: lippard@milori.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 6 Apr 1992 19:53 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Apr6.211058.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes...
>The doctrine of original sin does indeed seem to predict that 'all
>have fallen short', and all will fall short.  
> 
>As I said before, there does not seem to be a type of soul associated
>with free will which can be guaranteed not to sin.  Or rather, it is
>not clear that there is such a type.

Really?  So Jesus might well have fallen short of moral perfection?
Or did he lack free will?

>Joe Deasy  

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: alt.atheism