HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Organization: University of Louisville
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:08:25 GMT

In article <willimsa.702775083@unix1.tcd.ie>, willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams) writes:
> In <1992Apr8.105926.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> 
>>OK, I said I wouldn't post, but I don't think I could stand to see the
>>distortions which are likely to follow.  I *think* the following is safe
>>to say:
> 
>>Catholics are not bound to believe that those who are non-catholic or
>>non-christian or non-theist or atheist are headed for hell.  
> 
> There was a posting in either alt.atheism or soc.culture.christianity,
> where it was said that anyone who knew about catholicism and didn't 
> convert and pray would go to hell.  You were ok so long as you lived in
> blissful ignorance.
> 
> So ........
> 
> Hey everybody!!!!!!!  Catholicism exists, now you all know, so you're all
> going to hell!!!!!
> `
> --
>          ______________________________________________________________
> 	|  A.G. Williams          |        Plus qu'il n'en faut.       |    
> 	|  willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie  |                                    |
> 	|_________________________|____________________________________|


Hey, there was this guy on alt.atheism willing to repeat any fool thing
he heard.

Just the sort of ignorant stuff I wanted to avoid.

Joe Deasy
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 10 Apr 92 13:37:49 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 <1992Apr9.230127.21100@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>This is a historical claim on my part.  No more no less.

>No, Matthew, it's not. Your claim that you taught by lying and it
>worked better by not lying is a historical claim. The claim that
>it was NECESSARY to do a good job is not.

Since I did a worse job when I told the truth and nothing but the
truth, I conclude that this difference was the essential one.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: dabrowski@rz-berlin.mpg.de (Jarek Dabrowski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: test...\
Date: 11 Apr 92 20:31:10 +0100
Organization: Rechenzentrum MPG Berlin

cholera!
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wednesday, 15 Apr 1992 08:18:57 EDT
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Truth

In article <1992Apr15.033458.13891@access.usask.ca>, choy@skorpio.Usask.CA says:
>
>What do we know to be true?

Taxes will be levied upon you.
You will die.
-----------------------------------
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
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 9 Apr 92 14:22:16 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 <1992Apr8.192709.27311@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>What non-historical claim am I making?  I'm not saying method A is
>>superior to method B: I'm saying that I had success with method A at
>>times but not always with method B.  That is an historical claim.

>I'll take it that you are then retracting the claim that you originally
>made that it was NECESSARY for you to do so.

It was NECESSARY for me to do a good job of teaching.  When that included
lying, I had no problem doing so.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Question about modern manners
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:23:06 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Apr16.181232.2742@rhrk.uni-kl.de> wichmann@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de (Arne Wichmann) writes:
>mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>: Walter Cronkite can be rendered as "forester sickness." (Walder =
>: someone who comes from, or lives in, a forest; Krankheit = sickness).
>: 
>Hmmm... I have difficulties reassembling that word (Walder), it doesn't
>extist in German language practice, I would say it's artificial...

You're quite right; it was entirely artificial, constructed by
analogy to other similar constructions (e.g. Wiener or Berliner).
I should have mentioned as much.
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is belief in Jesus Necessary for a moral society?
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:08:17 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry) writes:
> In article <2APR199217093163@jane.uh.edu> cosc143u@jane.uh.edu (91F9774) writ
> >The story (GMHF) features a completely amoral killer, and our teacher
> >advanced the position that the number of psychotic killers has been steadily
> >increasing ever sinces its "founding member", Jack the Ripper, showed on the
> >scene.  Do you think the increase of non-fear-of-god morality is contributin
> >to this?  
> 
> It's been a while since I reviewed the details of the Jack the Ripper
> case, but given the above-mentioned fixation on sexuality, I would not
> be surprised to find that a killer who preyed on prostitutes was a
> god-fearing type.  

He was.  I believe Jack the Ripper claimed that God had told him to kill
prostitutes.  And let's not forget:

   "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance:
    Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners... But for
    that very reason, I was shown mercy so that in me... Jesus
    Christ might display His unlimited patience as an example
    for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life.
    Now to the king eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God,
    be honor and glory forever and ever."

    -- Jeffrey Dahmer, convicted serial killer, in a statement
       to the court, Milwaukee, WI, February 17, 1992.


mathew
[ Thanks to kmldorf@utdallas.edu (George Kimeldorf) for the original quote. ]

-- 
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
From: gfritz@sage.cc.purdue.edu ("Happy Fun Ball")
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:16:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.45624
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

I write:
  Bad is just entropy, and good is the lack of entropy.

Then Matt Sheahan writes:
  I've got to comment on this.  It wasn't the main point of your message, but it
  bears addressing.  I disagree that greater entropy is always bad and lesser
  entropy is always good.  Complete organization would be as difficult a
  situation for most individuals to stomach as complete chaos (though if either
  of those states were reached, there would be no more individuals).  Good, I
  would say, would be a state of balance between the extremes on the entropy
  scale, while bad would be something that moves the situation away from its
  balance (though a new equilibrium could perhaps be established).  Besides,
  don't you enjoy a little chaos in your life?

Now my reply.  My statement was a very broad generalization.  It's like me 
saying (now don't start up on this one, everyone) "Firetrucks are red."  Yes,
a good deal of them are, but some are not.  But you do understand where I'm
coming from on this, don't you?  Most things in thier preferred (as we see 
them) are more organized.  And yes, I do enjoy chaos from time to time -- it
gives me something to do.

Nice .sig, Matt.  "Bill lives!"

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: pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: what did god do before creation
Organization: University of Louisville
Distribution: world,public
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:27:54 GMT

In article <-#g+cAB@engin.umich.edu>, ingles@finch.engin.umich.edu writes:
> 
> In article <1992Mar31.002618.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>> In article <eaiaiB2w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) writes:
>> > pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>> >> Joe:  Look if you don't buy the principle you don't buy it.  The last thing
>> >> I want you to do is buy it only becuase I said it.  The principle is:
>> >>           Nothing causes nothing, only something can cause something.
>> > 
>> > Doesn't the fact that this principle is demonstrably false make it rather
>> > unlikely that we're going to buy it?
>> > 
>> > 
>> > mathew
>> > 
>> What?  Have you controlled for all of reality to make sure there are no
>> causes you're missing?
>> 
>> Joe Deasy
> 
Ray Ingles:
>  Let me put it this way: As far as our best understanding goes, there
> are uncaused events and something can come from nothing. According
> to QM, a very successful theory in science, this is so.

First of all, your 'best understanding' is not the way I see things.
Secondly, QM doesn't say "Something comes from nothing":  'something'
and 'nothing' are not QM terminology.  Now if you mean, a particle may
tunnel from here to there at any second, well that tells me that that 
particle started over there and came over here.  Now it is true that some
events are unpredictable, but so far as we know, certain conservation
laws are not violated, so that something never comes from nothing, it
always takes energy.


Special case:  A miracle caused by God.  Do we then say that the event was
uncaused, simply because we don't observe the cause?

It seems to me Ray, that you start out by *assuming* there isn't any cause
to events and then you say I'm wrong to intuit otherwise because, as
you observe, there are no causes to some events.

Joe Deasy
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:14:11 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman)

In article <4276@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk>, martin@pharaoh (Martin Gorman) writes:
>I know it's only a small point, but you wouldn't have been sacked or
>sent to hell if you had started with "this is an approximation...."

Sometimes I said I was lying.  Sometimes I didn't.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:39:09 GMT
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

In <1992Apr14.154524.17160@watson.ibm.com> strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:

>In article <ekTyiB2w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) writes:

>It's not at all clear that lying is wrong in *every* situation.
>For example:  military secrecy during wartime, telling someone
>they have a terminal disease --- these situations call for
>particular discretion and a blanket rule against deception may
>not be correct.

As mentioned by a senior Permanent Secratery in the British civil 
service, this is called; "Being economical with the truth".

--
As usual, JIMHO.
	  Gavin...                  Plus qu'il n'en faut.           
	  willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie
From: martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:35:30 GMT
Organization: British Telecom

In article <72193@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
> 
> When I taught calculus to freshman, I was required to lie my head off.
> Telling them the raw truth about derivatives and integrals would have
> popped their still developing cerebral cortices.
> -- 
> -Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
>
I know it's only a small point, but you wouldn't have been sacked or
sent to hell if you had started with "this is an approximation...."
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Date: 10 Apr 92 13:40:17 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 <1992Apr9.230514.21220@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>This is backwards.  The historians I'm familiar with come to the con-
>>clusion that the Pharisees were the majority party, so I have confidence
>>that this includes seeing past potential self-serving distortions.

>Like I said. You have confidence when it defends your point,
>but not otherwise. 

This is still backwards.  My confidence comes from the historians, and
from the various primary texts that I've read.  I don't pick and choose
based on my prior expectations.

>>You can look in Paul Johnson's A HISTORY OF THE JEWS for starts.

>Would you care to be a bit more specific? Page and line number
>with a quote, for instance?

Start with the index.  Look up "Sadduccee" or some such spelling.
You'll find it very quickly.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: plumpton@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au (David Plumpton)
Subject: Re: "Where did the universe come from" is an illogical question
Organization: University Of Wollongong
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 07:09:38 GMT

arktik@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Ryan Daum) writes:

>Many Atheists and Theists alike use the question of "Where did the 
>universe come from" as a platform on which to support their particular 
>opinion.  Theists tend to say thing such as "nothing can't come from 
>nothing" ... therefore God must exist to cause the action (btw, this 
>logic has holes -- is God something? etc.)

Actually, I kinda figured nothing already was nothing :-)

>What I'm thinking is, isn't the question of "Where did reality come form" 
>illogical?  We exist: There is some form of reality in which we are 
>present.  To say otherwise is illogical.  It is also illogical to take 
>yourself out of it and conceptualize a reality in which reality isn't.  

>To place yourself out of reality and try to observe it is impossible 
>since reality is an all-encompassing thing ... to eliminate reality and 
>then try to say where did something come from insinuates that there 
>*could be nothing.*  Nothingness is an impossibleness.  Nothing==false.

Loose manipulation of English sentences is no substitute for mathematical
equations and Quantum Theory.  Most Cosmologists these days suspect that
Time and Space where created with the Big Bang, i.e. the reality that the
Universe exists inside was created out of nothing too.

>Therefore reality cannot be measured in beginnings and endings, it must 
>be measured as it is.  To say "where did time begin" is also irrational 
>as well.

As above.

>Well, I really muddled that up, but I hope you get the point.  how could 
>a person take themselves out of all-encompassing reality and then try to 
>compose a reality in which there is no reality.

A difficult question to answer until somebody manages to succeed!  But,
in a Godel's theorem sense you are correct...
-- 
/------------------------------\ /-------------------------------\
I       David Plumpton          I     There is a holy trinity:    |
I plumpton@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au I N Tesla, R Feynman and C Sagan  |
\------------------------------/ \-------------------------------/
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: WEEMBA and DABROSKI Angst (Was: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:43:14 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Distribution: world,public
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)

In article <graham.702607240@bizet>, graham@maths (Graham Matthews) writes:
>This is all irrelevant drivel Matthew. The defintion of 'atheist'
>John is using has been given by his 'acid' test (and is a fairly
>standard and clear definition of atheism). Now when John asks you
>'are you an atheist' he is quite clearly asking whether you fit the
>description of the word atheist *AS DEFINED BY THE DEFINTION HE HAS
>GIVEN YOU*.

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.

>When you start introducing funny definitions like the above you
>sound evasive and irrelevant.

That's funny.  I think you and John and others are being evasive: what
do you mean by "God" that he deduced I believed in?
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
Organization: HAM - Hackers Against MUDs
X-Subliminal-Message: IBM/370 assembler is your friend.
Date: Monday, 13 Apr 1992 16:47:19 EDT
From: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Question on modern manners
 <1992Apr12.220721.569@mi <1992Apr13.144618.16709@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>

Why say anything when someone sneezes? It just calls attention to someone
who is probably a bit embarrassed that he/she sneezed in the first place.

Martin Schulte
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@robin.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Who did Cain marry? His sister?
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 14:01:18 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor


In article <1992Apr2.191631.13804@ncsu.edu>, cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes:
> 	>Is it inconsistent for incest to be immoral now since
> 	>all of Adam's sons obviously married their sisters?
> 	>Oh, yeah.  Who married them?
> 
> 
> Yes, they had to. But there was no other way. This does not condone
> incest though. There simply was no other way.
> 
> 
> Chris

 What do you mean, "There was no other way?" Why not make a group
of genetically diverse people in the first place? I mean, if
incest is so immoral, God would try to avoid it... (N.B. I think
incest is bad, but just for purely genetic reasons.)
 Heck, this has the advantage of multiple redundancy. Even if some
people "fall," not everyone has to. :->

 A question: What if Eve had fallen and Adam had not? What would
their kids be like? Would they be 'fallen' too?


Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@caen.engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 10 Apr 92 13:46:09 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 <1992Apr9.230825.21403@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>Yes. I taught the identical course several years in a row.  I recycled
>>quizzes and so on, and adjusted my explanations based on what worked
>>and what didn't.  This was from year to year, and from morning section
>>to afternoon section.

>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.

>			    It is possible, for instance, that your
>method of teaching generated students very good at doing what you
>had taught them but terrible at learning new material because they
>were burdened by the lies you had told them. You start to see
>the complexity of this problem yet?

There you go again, inventing new strawmen.  I claim no more than my
students learned how to integrate and differentiate and related matters.
I did not claim that I taught them higher thinking processes--I do not
know if that is even possible, or if I could evaluate it.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: deductive "proof" of HIghest Intelligence, defined God.
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:43:27 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Mar29.035709.14626@bmerh2.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca
(Douglas Graham) writes:
> >b) intelligent species die after a certain time due to either overpopulation,
> >war, or destruction of their environment. A small but not likely idea, 
> >mostly because there has to be more intelligent species out there than man
:-).

> I think it's death cults like Christianity that are largely responsible
> for humanity's apparent wish to commit suicide.  I often wonder
> why the human brain evolved in such a manner so as to make humans
> susceptible to dogmatic belief in such insane schemes.  Or dogmatic
> belief in anything for that matter.

I personally think that examination of ape societies should provide us
with some answers to our current dogmatic cultures and religions. Our
brain needs to build patterns, and known patterns are always more
welcome than unknown ones which might cause problems. Few people
dare to throw out most of the cultural and social garbage collected
over the years, and open their minds for wider avenues. I'm happy
myself that I'm not personally tied to any cult or religion, because
I feel much more free as an individual.

Now, I follow the rules of the land, and I'm raising a kid and I have 
a wife, so we are not talking about chaotic behavior due to lack of
religious morals. Common sense works perfectly.

Cheers,
Kent
From: sjames@digi.lonestar.org (Stephen James)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Question about modern manners
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:06:13 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

The concern here is that someoen says 'god bless you' after
you sneeze.

Well, someone explained the origins of the phrase to me.
Back in the dark ages, before the gods all got together to
form one big God, you covered your mouth when yawning to prevent
evil sprits from entering your body. So, when you sneezed they
thought that you were expelling any evil spirits that had moved
in. So, bless you probably meant, you are blessed by less of those
evil spirit tennants. I'm sure God was added later.


Stephen  - 

-- 
  Stephen A. James               | 
  sjames@digi.lonestar.org       | "If it weren't for statistics I wouldn't
  DSC Communications Corporation |  know how really strange I am"
  *** Standard Disclaimer ***    |   -- Me
Newsgroups: alt.atheism