HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:56:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr9.155653.14279
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <73397@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>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.
Evasive.

Simple binary question:
In order for you to do a good job of teaching, was it necessary for
you to lie?

-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: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 22:41:35 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Research

In article <F_g+ylB@engin.umich.edu>, ingles@finch.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
[lots of things with which I basically agree:  e.g.
you need to combine books and lectures with discussion
and positive role-models, etc.]

|>  I'm not sure there's something which translates to atheism that
|> way. Honest.
|>  I think atheists tend to base their moral systems on intelligent
|> self-interest. Note the *intelligent*, it's important. Going on
|> a looting spree is bound to get you talked about. Paying for things
|> in a timely fashion and giving value for value is the way to ensure
|> your long-term well-being.
|>  Note, also, that doing things for you loved ones is in your self
|> interest. It makes you happy. Note that giving reasonable amounts
|> to charity is a good thing, both beacuse it makes you (well, me,
|> anyway) feel good to help people out, and because you might need
|> it someday and you want to encourage that sort of behavior, etc.
|>  Finally, notice that this framework does lead to most of the values
|> that Jews and atheists and, indeed, most social beings share, as you
|> noted.
|> 
OK, but often the self-interest of the group and the
self-interest of the individual may not match.  Also
even the self-interest of the individual and the
*perceived* self-interest of that individual may
not match.  Especially in children, for whom
instant self-gratification is a much easier
concept than long-term world-gratification.

So you may have some individuals for whom giving
charity does not make them feel good.
You also may have Prisoner-Dilemma-like situations.
There may be individuals who like to give charity,
but only if everybody else also must give charity ---
otherwise they lose.  So having rules and codes
saying it's a mitzvah (commandment) to give charity
may be valuable to induce cooperation in these
situations.  And having some of these principles
inculcated during the formative years so that as
an adult it feels good to give charity may
be socially valuable.



-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jews in the "real world" (was Re: Judaism and the FAQ file))
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:59:28 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <71751@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P
Wiener) writes:
> 
> In article <22099@goofy.Apple.COM>, ksand@apple (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >> I think my claims about men harassing women are not exaggerated.  I've
> >> seen it enough times, with men forcing their attention on women who are
> >> clearly not interested.
> 
> >I would yet want to see this happen during a Christian sermon. I've 
> >never heard of anything similar. Can't say anything about any other
> >religions and their holy sermons, [...]
> 
> Then shut up.

Are you getting angry, should we move this to alt.flame?

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Do Atheists have Thier Own "Faith"?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 14:11:07 GMT

In article <house.703306007@helios> house@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house) writes:
>I have explained this before in this forum, so here goes again.  The problem
>is entirely one of people being misguided by word usage.  Assume god can
>lift anything.  Then "A rock so big He can't lift it" is not a description
>of anything.  You might as well ask god to make a "asdfghjkl".  You ask him
>anyway.  He just says "Now let me get this straight: just how big a rock,
>in tonnes, do you want?"

Yes, misguided by word usage.  Just because we can express the thought
"omnipotent", capable of doing anything, does not mean that it makes
sense as a realizable concept.  Same for all the other omni-*
attributes.  Especially in combination.  Thus these inevitable "rock
too heavy to lift" arguments.  Sure, if something is defined to be
able to lift anything, then of course nothing realizable will be
unliftable; by the same token, however, if something is defined as
being able to create anything, why should that be limited to
realizable things?

It's rather like getting involved in detailed discussion about the
effects of certain types of kryptonite on certain powers of Superman,
or questioning whether Thor could defeat a Balrog.
-- 
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!
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: For Matthew: The Israelites vs. other Canaanites
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:15:06 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)

In article <22586@goofy.Apple.COM>, ksand@apple (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>Eric, Matthew -  the great Jewish scholar - will just state that this are 
>babblings from your side, with no relevance to the modern Jewish religious 
>tradition. I guess to define clear Biblical statements are babblings is 
>somewhat heretical, however in religion and warfare anything is allowed.

The Jewish tradition is not literalist.  To quote literalism as if it
were relevant to Judaism without checking the extratextual sources is
babbling.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: The Canaanites(was Re: Achilles heels for religion?)
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1992 22:16:40 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Research

In article <1992Apr09.035618.15343@bmerh2.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr06.210827.25916@watson.ibm.com> strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
|> 
|> >So the story is an improvement for its time, in
|> >that it emphasizes the triumph of righteousness
|> >over unrighteousness, rather than glorifying
|> >brute strength per se.
|> 
|> Well I think that the story needs a little more improvement for our
|> time.  This has been one of the big causes of war throughout history.
|> One group of people decides that it is more righteous than another,
|> and decides that it is their duty to wipe out the immoral bunch.

I agree.  We need modern commentaries which specifically
counteract this very dangerous misinterpretation which,
if not a cause of war, is at least used as an excuse
to rally the masses behind wars.  


|> The problem is that it is the righteous bunch who get to define
|> "righteousness".  If Hitler had won WWII, our history books would
|> speak of how the Nazis had rid the world of the evil Jews, and made
|> the world safe for the righteous Nazis.  IMO, any decent moral teaching
|> should emphasize that there is no such thing as righteousness.  Only
|> self-righteousness.

Here I disagree.  I believe there is such a thing as righteousness
and I believe that there is not a moral symmetry between the
position of the Nazis and the position of their victims.

-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 10 Apr 1992 10:29:41 CDT
From: <U30471@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Distribution: world

In article <s2rfqINN84@festus.ksu.ksu.edu>, yohan@festus.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W
Newton) says:
>

  Well, the way I define atheism is "Do not believe in god".
  Which is different from "believing that god does not exist"
  It requires no faith, though i admit that i am very close to
the second definition.

>
>1)  God has always existed.  (Popular among most Christians I've talked to.)
>2)  God was created by another God, who was created by another, and this      n
>patter
>regresses infinitely.
>3)  There was nothing, then God popped into existence.
>
>All these cases involving God, are then followed by him creating the universe,
>of
>course.
>
>4)  The universe has always existed.
>5)  The universe came from a previous universe, which came from another, and
>this
>pattern regresses infinitely.
>6)  There was nothing, and then the universe popped into existence.
>
>None of these explanations strikes me as logical; they don't "feel" right.

  Well, this is a very good reason not to believe in god.  1-3 & 4-6
are the god & no god versions of the universe, and the no god version
in each case is simpler.  Therefore, occam's razor shaves away
the stubble of belief in god. ( cute, huh? )

--DAVE!
u22015@uicvm.uic.edu  My opinions should be those of the college, but alas....
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: IQ and religious belief
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:47:08 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <rfmc3INN3ga@caravan.ksu.ksu.edu>, yohan@caravan.ksu.ksu.edu
(Jonathan W Newton) writes:
> 1)  Being giants in the field of science doesn't confer credebility to what
they
> might say about philosophical subjects (i.e religion)
> 
> 2)  Einstein and Newton were more intelligent in some areas.  I doubt I need
to
> remind anyone about all of Einstein's eccentricities like forgetting where he
> 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 :-).

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.satanism
From: luc@hardy.u.washington.edu (nightstalker)
Subject: Re: Backward Masking
Followup-To: /dev/null
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 02:00:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.150442.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>In article <1992Mar31.235053.489@miavx2.ham.muohio.edu>, bstadnik@miavx2.ham.
>muohio.edu writes:
>>   I would post in the Satinist newsgroup, but figured their answer would be 
>> just as biased.
[Stuff deleted]
>P.S. I can spell 'athiesm' correctly, can you please try to do the same with
>'Satanism'?

Hey!  I resent that.  Satinism is alive and well in alt.satinism.  It's a 
group dedicated to all those people who worship fabric.  Personally, I prefer
corduroy, but well, that's just me.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|  Steve Jacobson  a.k.a.  Bill de Catt  a.k.a.  luc@hardy.u.washington.edu   |
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:8138 alt.satanism:1304
From: ogorman@unix1.tcd.ie (Lucifuge)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Backward Masking
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:50:03 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

In <8APR199215152365@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:

>In article <ogorman.702753753@unix1.tcd.ie>, ogorman@unix1.tcd.ie (Lucifuge) writes...
>>In <7APR199209183545@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>> 
>>Ok. This is true. I gave the generic definition of a backmask. It's just
>>as easy to do the other. Get a tape. Record your message (say "Jesus
>>Saves" - it's been done though with heavy sarcasm). Play backwards. Work
>>out from the phonetics off the phrase (it will sound nothing like sevas
>>susej BTW) some words that approximate that sound. Record this forwards.
>>Listen backwards and you'll hear a muddy version of the original
>>message. No technical difficulty. For the record, I've never been able
>>to hear anything in 'Stairway...'.

>Actually, this isn't what I meant, but you're right that this is yet
>another type of backwards message.  What I meant was that the fundamentalists
>claim that vocal tracks which are ordinary, plain English when played
>forwards (not "manually" reversed words), e.g., "if there's a bustle
>in your hedge row, don't be alarmed now, it's just a spring clean for
>the May Queen"--becomes a satanic message (again in English) when played
>in reverse (e.g., "he will give you 666").  The Beatles' "Revolution #9"
>is another example--the "number nine" that sounds like "turn me on, dead
>man" when reversed.  (If you try this at home, you need to say it like
>"number nye-nuh.")

I don't think you get me. This is what I mean. You can, with a bit of
work, get a phrase which sounds like another phrase when played
backwards. The forwards piece is formed of real words which you get by
the method I descibed. For instance "I'm" forwards becomes "my"
backwords. Anyway this is getting away from the original claim that the
technology for such a backmask did not exist. I think anybody can see
that it did. 

Ollie

----------------------Do you want what I want?-----------------------
                         More alternatives?
            Energy derives from both the plus and negative. 

------------------------ogorman@unix1.tcd.ie-------------------------
From: dabrowski@rz-berlin.mpg.de (Jarek Dabrowski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: test. please ignore.
Date: 12 Apr 92 21:42:20 +0100
Organization: Rechenzentrum MPG Berlin

testing server...
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:17:19 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 <1992Apr6.184804.27039@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <72905@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr6.154934.24621@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>No, Matthew. Your attempt to pass off anecdotal evidence as gospel
>>>is the snow job. I'm just calling you on it.

>>What _gospel_ am I proclaiming?  Quit exaggerating, and you won't feel
>>the need to invent strawmen so badly.

>Matthew, you claimed that it was necessary to lie to your Calculus students
>in order to teach them.

No, I claimed that _I_ did.  And that certain corners on the truth
were necessary when _I_ taught calculus.

>			 I challenged it, and you respond with what is
>frankly anecdotal opinionated bullshit.

It was frankly anecdotal.  It wasn't opinionated, and it happened to
be true.

>					 Don't you have the slightest
>clue how to empirically demonstrate something?

As I am not claiming that there is One True Way of teaching calculus, I
really don't see what the need for controls and all that is.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: WEEMBA jests, apparently.
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:49:54 GMT

In article <73502@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>>There are certain characteristics often assigned to God which are not
>>typically assigned to Nature.  For instance, God is usually assumed
>>to be a sentient being, while "nature" isn't.  When we get to
>>specific gods, other characteristics are added.
>And when I run this argument by certain rabbis, they describe this
>"sentience" in ways that some AI types do regarding the Chinese Room.

You're still evading.  If I were to claim that a being existed who spoke words
on Mount Sinai for the Jewish people to keep and eventually have written down
for all eternity, and who caused miracles such as stopping the sun and moon in
the sky or turning people to salt, this would be taken as my believing in God,
even if I _did_ claim that this being was merely a huge state machine that
takes inputs of "stop the sun and moon" and produced an output interpreted by
the universe as "the laws of motion will be a little different for a while".

Repeat after me: Just because it's not possible to define a term well enough
to classify _everything_ does not mean you can't classify _anything_, and it is
evasion to use the excuse "it's not well-defined" when the thing in question
doesn't lie in the trouble spot.  (And you have _not_ said it does; what you've
done is to _imply_ that you have enough trouble with the definition that you
can't decide--but you haven't said so.)
--
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: kmldorf@utdallas.edu (George Kimeldorf)
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 04:31:02 GMT

In article <siqc1INNjdc@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>
>
>The main thing I want to know, is how you came to your decision that God
>does not exist.  

I was brought up as a theist.  I did not come to understand that
gods do not exist in a sudden flash.  It took me many years of
reading and study to realize that I believed in the existence of
God only because it was taught to me at a very young age and that
there was little evidence to support this belief.  It is very
difficult for people who are born into a culture practicing
certain superstitious beliefs to perceive these beliefs as
superstitions and to free themselves of these superstitions.   
Thus, we must have great compassion for religious people in 20th
century America.


>What are your reasons for believing the way you do?  I assume that you have
>specific reasons for believing that God does not exist, could you please post
>them.  

No.  I can't.  If I lived in rural Haiti, where the population
believes in Voodoo, it would be difficult for me to state specific
reasons for believing that Voodoo does not exist.  Each reason I
give would be answered by a "Yes, but."  Similarly, I don't know
how to respond to your request.  If I could give a one- or two-
line answer, I would.   Ten years ago, when I believed in God, I
don't think anyone could have posted anything which would have
helped me.   Sorry.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 00:51:13 GMT

In article <72935@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.184926.27099@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>You're right. I just know what counts as proof, and that you have
>>not even come close to meeting the standard.
>
>I presume you're still confused that I'm claiming my methods work with all
>teachers.  No such luck.
Not at all. Necessary and work are two different things. You claimed it was
necessary for you. I'm not sure I accept your judgement about what
was necessary. So, prove it was.
-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: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 02:41:04 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)."

Me:
>>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.

Martin Schulte:
>Oh well...based on these definitions I can be called an atheist. It is a
>quandary to me, however, that I have seen literature put out by the
>American Atheists group titled "There is no God." This would imply that
>atheism is in fact a belief that there is no god...

Some atheists do indeed believe that there is no God. These atheists
still lack a belief in God. The problem you are having is that you
are trying to treat the categories agnostic, atheist who lacks
belief, and atheist who believes in non-existent, as mutually exclusive
categories. They are not - there are some inclision relations at work
among the categories.

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: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jews in the "real world" (was Re: Judaism and the FAQ file))
Date: 8 Apr 92 03:34:24 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <71841@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P
Wiener) writes:
> I couldn't care less what you consider substance.  If people are going to
> criticize Judaism from a position of maximal ignorance--and assuming that
> it's merely a mutated version of Christianity fits that mental abyss--then
> I will respond.  Sometimes politely, sometimes not--whatever it takes to
> get the point across.  Maybe Kurt Sandvik thinks he's onto something with
> his babbling, but by his own admission, he's not.

I don't know of anyone named Kurt Sandvik, not even in my own family...
(babblings again, I guess, especially when my name is usually clearly
stated in the Subject listing, as well at the end of *every* posting).

Anyway, more concerning babblings, it seems that you are a master in this 
trade. I would state that Jewish men thinking about sex during
their religious activities is a prime example of such babblings.

I have many Jewish friends, and such statements would certainly hurt
their feelings - to be defined as animals during a holy event.

As for any other religions where there's no need to think about 
sex during the ceremonies, if you consider this to be babblings,
it clearly demostrates your ignorance about other customs and 
traditions.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: alt.atheism