HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dbell@maths.tcd.ie (Derek)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Question about modern manners
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:22:32 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.

In <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?

	"Gesundheit" comes to mind.
-- 
Derek Bell {dbell%maths.tcd.ie,belld%{unix1,vax1}.tcd.ie}@cunyvm.cuny.edu 
	Why am I worried about someone named Azathoth looking for 
Call of Cthulhu players? -- Geoffron, mephron@tronsbox.xei.com
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:22:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr7.212243.14200
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <73104@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.191947.12360@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>Total nonsense.  When I didn't cut corners, I could see students
>>>freeze or get bored or otherwise panic.  
>
>>Opinion.
>
>Not opinion.  These are all easily recognizable physical reactions.
Glad to know you're omniscient. Now give me some data.

>>>And I mentioned empirical data: my students' grades and their evaluations.
>
>>Who graded them?
>
>The professor and TAs together.
Boffo. Now produce something standardized that we can agree on
as a good measure of calculus learning.

>>Evaluations are not, IMHO, a wonderful way to measure understanding.
>
>No.  But my assertion that I was a good teacher is more than my opinion.
Good. Substantiate that.

>>No, what I am challenging is PRECISELY the claim that it is
>>cause and effect. Does the phrase post hoc fallacy ring a bell?
>
>Yes.  How does it apply in this case?  The fallacy is when a causative
>mechanism is deduced from just coincidences.  I could see explanations
>make sense or fail to make sense.
You have alleged that this is causative mechanism. I am pointing out
that it could be coincidental--or at least improperly controlled.
You're insistence that that WAS the mechanism does nothing to
actually demonstrate causation, and until you do so, all you'll
be doing is asserting. The first step to demonstrating that
your teaching style was causal is to demonstrate that such an
effect even existed, a phenomenon I'm not about to take your word
for. After that, demonstration that you have controlled for other
factors would be a step in the right direction.

The empirical truth value of your assertion is non-related to
the vehemence with which you claim it to be true.
-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: yohan@cutlass.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Date: 7 Apr 1992 18:51:42 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cutlass.ksu.ksu.edu


I'd like to pose the question:  Has God really granted "free-will"?

I guess my answer would be:  Man has free-will, but not freedom of choice, or
real freedom for that matter.  Here's why:

Man obviously has free-will, as the differing opinions in this news group show. 
There is no freedom, because if we excercise our free-will and choose not to have
faith in Christ we are damned to an unimaginable torment for eternity.  To say
man is "free to choose" is like saying "Jews had freedom of religion in NAZI
Germany; they could deny their faith or die in concentration camps" or "American
slaves were free; they could work for their masters or get the @#$% beat out of
them or get killed".

So if God grants us free-will, but not freedom of choice, then where is the
utility in having free-choice?  What is the purpose?  MOST IMPORTANTLY: why have
a universe where evils and attrocities occur, JUST so we can have free-will that
we can't really use since we are being coerced by the threat of Hell?


Sorry about poor sentence structure (well, not really),


Jon Newton - sophomore in biochemistry - Agnostic


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: The Canaanites(was Re: Achilles heels for religion?)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:27:12 GMT

In article <73040@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.005356.782@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>Well, I didn't see them, and as far as I can tell he hasn't
>>reposted them on my request. Would you mind doing so?
>
>I posted them, I posted them at your request the second time.  Here's a
>third time: Artscroll YEHOSHUA and Judaica Press JOSHUA.
Thank you. Finally I've seen them.

My library has the following entry for Artscroll Yehoshua:
 the following entry for Artscroll Yehoshua:

  Bible. O.T. Joshua. Hebrew. 1982.
    Yehoshua = The book of Joshua = [Sefer Yehoshu a] : a new translation with a
    commentary anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic, and rabbinical sources /
    translation and commentary by Reuven Drucker ; overviews by Nosson Scherman. --
    1st ed. -- Brooklyn, N.Y. : Mesorah Publications, c1982.
      479 p. : ill. ; 24 cm. -- (ArtScroll Tanach series)
        Biblical text in English and Hebrew; commentary in English.
          Includes indexes.
           SUBJECT HEADINGS (Library of Congress; use s= ):
                Bible. O.T. Joshua--Commentaries.
                


Is that a reasonable version of what you're talking about?
-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: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:35:31 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <72839@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P
Wiener) writes:
> 
> In article <01050133.05at1a@caligula.cts.com>, edw@caligula (Ed Watkeys)
writes:
> >I haven't been around alt.atheism very long (a month or so), but in this
time,
> >more than anything else, I have gotten the feeling that Matthew P Wiener has
> >a persecution complex, is rude and generally a sour kind of person. I don't
> >think these feelings are unfounded -- I have about twenty messages from him
> >currently waiting to be expired, and he has never once been what I would call
> >pleasant. Is there a reason for all of this?
> 
> Yes.  I'm responding to some very unpleasant people.  You don't notice,
> since you've apparently decided that any unpleasant remarks that attack
> the "right" group are not really unpleasant after all.  I don't think so.

Funny, I'm seldom if ever responding to unpleasant people. It all depends
on the world view. In my case I respect every human being. It does not
imply that I automatically respect silly ideas.

Cheers,
Kent
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:51:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: netnews.73210
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 <1992Apr7.212517.14260@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>>Show me the controlled studies that show that controlled studies are
>>>>necessary, as you keep insisting, for honest teacher self-evaluation.

>>Well: show me already.  You are evading.

>No, I'm not. The scientific method is postulational, not empirical.
>Either one accepts it or one does not. If you don't, I won't be able
>to argue you into it.

What are you talking about?

>>>You're making what is basically a scientific claim, and there are
>>>established procedures for verifying such a claim--controls are part
>>>of that procedure.

>>This is maximally idiotic.  I am not making a scientific claim.  I've
>>denied that for you twice now.  I am making a historical claim.  Ie, I
>>tried method A and it failed, and I tried method B and it worked.

>No, you said that you had to do so. That's not history, that's
>a scientific claim.

It's history.  That is what happened.  

>Back it up or retract it.

I have backed it up.  You are the one invented preposterosities on
the spot.  Just like you do with Judaism.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: dekorte@next2.scri.fsu.edu (Stephen Dekorte)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism & the supernatural
Date: 2 Apr 92 09:04:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: sun13.7994

In article <31MAR199210345820@summa.tamu.edu> jdb1145@summa.tamu.edu  
(There Is No Excuse) writes:
> In article <1992Mar31.133434.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au>,  
c9037395@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Nougat Gelato) writes...
> >Hi,
> 
> >Just as a matter of interest, a couple of questions for atheists:
..
> >1) Do you, as an atheist, believe in supernatural occurances
> >( telepathy, ghosts, even UFO's, etc.) ?
> 
> No.  Atheism is, by definition, a lack of belief in any spirituality or 
> supernatural being or force.  If someone believes in supernatural  
occurances, 
> that person is not an atheist.  I don't believe in supernatural  
occurances.

Websters:
athe ism \'a -the -,iz-em\ n
[MF athe isme, fr. athe e atheist, fr. Gk atheos godless, fr. a- + theos  
god]
(1546)
1a: a disbelief in the existence of deity
b: the doctrine that there is no deity

As you can see requirement for atheism is disbelief in deities , so one
can believe I other supernatural phenomena and still rightly call  
themselves an atheist.

It's probably true though, that most atheists also lack beliefs in the  
supernatural as a whole.

-Steve
From: hjort@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: goedel's proof for existence of god
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:43:06 GMT
Distribution: na,local

In article <15APR199216580567@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
> In article <12078.29ec7e6e@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, hjort@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes...
>>In article <1992Apr13.172422.6509@eco.twg.com>, chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
>>> By the way, have you seen this argument?
>>> PREMISE: If the statement "If I am good, then I will go to Heaven" is true,
>>> 	 then God exists.
>>> PREMISE: I am not good.
>>> CONCLUSION: God exists.
>>> 
>>> If you translate that into propositional logic, you really can
>>> derive the conclusion from the premisses. You can't in modal
>>> logic, because "If I am good, then I will go to Heaven" needs
>>> to be universally true, and "I am not good" is only conditionally
>>> true.
>>> -- 
>>  [my stuff deleted]
> 
> The first premise says that if A -> B is true, then C.
> The second premise says that A is false (and so by the semantics
> of the material conditional, A -> B is true).
> The conclusion says that C is true, which follows from the two premises.
> The truth value of B doesn't affect the validity of the argument.
>
You are right, I'm sorry. (I have to read more carefully I guess)
The nested conditional slipped me up.
 
>   [second argument deleted to save space]
>
>>> ===========================================================
>>> Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
>>> ===========================================================
>> 
>>					-Hans H Hjort
> 
> Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
> Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
> University of Arizona
> Tucson, AZ 85721

					-Hans H Hjort
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jews in the "real world" (was Re: Judaism and the FAQ file))
Date: 10 Apr 92 14:07:58 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: mathew@mantis.co.uk

In article <mwVyiB1w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis writes:
>> Judaism has traditionally never mandated this much of a separation,
>> since it has not found it to be that much of a problem.

>So, are you saying that there's nothing to stop some of the women
>choosing not to sit separately?  Nothing to stop some of the men
>choosing not to sit separately?

No.  I said there's no tradition for the total separation envisioned
by Kent Sandvik, so pointing out how bad such would be is not very
relevant.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:29:58 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <73054@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P
Wiener) writes:
> 
> In article <01050133.0cmsf7@caligula.cts.com>, edw@caligula (Ed Watkeys)
writes:
> >	     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.

Are you implying that a harem is *not* an example of sexism? If you 
think so, then your concept of sexism in combination with separation
is not exactly valid.

Cheers,
Kent
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:59:57 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr9.155653.14279@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
(Eric Rescorla) writes:
> Simple binary question:
> In order for you to do a good job of teaching, was it necessary for
> you to lie?

Speaking from personal experience, any teacher that deliberately told me
lies would never get my respect.

Cheers,
Kent
From: martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Argument by authority
Date: 8 Apr 92 11:58:31 GMT
Organization: British Telecom

In article <22466@goofy.Apple.COM>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> > In article <4134@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk> martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk
> (Martin Gorman) writes:
> > 
> > >Guardedly agree, except that as Einstein is generally regarded as
> > >an expert on maths & science etc, it would be more reasonable to
> > >accept his authority on that subject than on theology, at which
> > >he was crap.
> 
> I would like to know the guidelines how to differentiate between bad
> and good theologians. For me all of us are in the same boat, especially
> when we don't have any real clues about theological guidelines (if there
> are any at all).
> 
> Cheers,
> Kent
>
You're right of course. It was a flippancy wot I have already retracted.
I was just pointing out that Eintein's brilliance at maths & physics
does not necessarily imply that he would be as good in an unrelated field.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Hell
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:11:25 GMT
Distribution: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <92049.100016MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>, MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
> Too bad you "neglected" to include what I was talking about there.
> It happened to be about how well the bible stands up to examination.
> Naturally, with only this much quoted out of context, you can say
> whatever! This sounds remarkably like those "prophecies being fulfilled"
> which were taken out of context by the apostles themselves. Just goes
> to show, you can't teach a Christian new tricks.

If apostles themselves were confused, what about Christians today
2000 years later?

Cheers,
Kent
From: yohan@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Date: 15 Apr 1992 21:56:01 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kitty.ksu.ksu.edu


From: kmldorf@utdallas.edu (George Kimeldorf)

Yes. I agree.  I believe that gods do not exist. I also believe that Santa
Claus does not exist, that witches do not exist, that ghosts do not exist,
that Zombies do not exist....  In each case, I admit the possibility that
I am mistaken, but I will retain my belief until I am provided with
sufficient evidence that I am mistaken.  When I was in high school, I was
taught that the mass of an object was constant, and I believed it.  When
I learned about relativity in college, however, I was presented with
sufficient evidence to justify changing my belief.  I now believe in
Einstein's theory of relativity (to the limited extent that I understand
it).  If, in the future, I am presented with contrary evidence, I am
prepared to change my belief again.


Me:

The main thing I want to know, is how you came to your decision that God does not
exist.  What are your reasons for believing the way you do.  It is a little
assuming to say "well, I'm going to believe what I believe in because I haven't
heard anything to disprove it (even though I haven't heard anything to prove it
either)".  Christians often take the same stance.  I assume though, that you have
specific reasons for believing that God does not exist, could you please post
them.
From: news@pdxgate.UUCP (Net News Account)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Examined by the judge
Date: 11 Apr 92 21:03:43 GMT
Organization: Portland State University,Portland,Oregon

From: allenroy@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (callen roy)
"Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my
anxious thoughts.  See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead 
me in the way everlasting."  Ps. 139:23-24

David had a marvelous understanding of God, and it spills 
out almost automatically in this psalm.  He is fearlessly opening his
inner life without reservation for the careful examination of the King of
the universe.

We who wish we could hide the secrets of our hearts wonder at his
candor, his vulnerablility.  The secret, however, is found in his last phrase.
He knows that, were the Father to find any offensive ways within him, the
result would be instruction and not judgment.  He knows the Father's
heart and his desire to lead David in the way everlasting.

We hide behind our fig leaves when we fear that our nakedness will 
become the object of derision and scorn.  Adam and Eve hid, leaf-clad, in 
the bushes of Eden because they had already fallen under the spell of
Satan's view of God.  They believed God would harshly condemn them
for their nakedness.  but God went in pursuit of them, holding out an 
animal skin for clothing--not because His pure eyes were offended by
their nakedness, but so their shredded self-esteem might not be further
torn.

Manay people fear the judgment of God because they see Him as one
who can evaluate our performance only for the purpose of condemning 
our failures.  They see Him as bound by a strictly legal system, in which
the only thing one can do with wrong is condemn it.  But David saw Him
as a father, and fathers relate to wrong in their children by nuturing and
instruction them beyond such immaturity.

Our greatest need is to admit our great need.  but admitting need is not
easy.  We cling to whatever scraps of adequacy we can find to bolster our
bruised self-worth; why be "up front" about our inadequacies?  We shall
never know God's strength, however, until we own up to our weakness.
And so God Himself has every reasonn to make it easy for us to admit our
weakness, that His strength might be perfectly displayed in us.

David knew God, not as the administrator of an abstract legal code or
as an offended lawgiver.  He knew Him, as we may, as a loving Father and
a wise Instructor in the ways everlasting--in ways that last forever!

(from God's Healing Love  by Dick Winn)


Xref: sparky alt.atheism:8013 rec.scouting:782
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,rec.scouting
Subject: Re: another greeting
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:33:17 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Mar29.235930.7801@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu>,
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Mar29.171058.26125@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:
> >As a Jew in America, I am thankful that my son and I can be affiliated
> >with an organization that both promotes and encourages proper religious
> >values without any "and accept Jesus as your savior" overtones.  Any
> >organization that can pull this off, like BSA does, should enjoy our
> >gratitude and not contempt.
> 
> How is it you can be glad that they're not promoting a belief unacceptable to
> _you_, while at the same time supporting their promotion of a belief
> unacceptable to someone else?

If BSA would promote atheistic ideas, I'm sure there would be atheists 
that would also be proud to send their sons to BSA. The whole issue
of BSA promoting theistic ideas is anyway a big lie, I'm sure there 
are many atheists hiding inside BSA, and in this sense the whole concept
of promoting theism is a facade for the big fun. There are 
homosexuals inside BSA as well, as well as satanists, gnostics, nazists
and you name it -ists. Isnt' it scary to send your young boys to such
a scary environment?

Cheers!
Kent