HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Subject: Re: Free will (from Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Organization: Xerox PARC
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:04:52 GMT

In <BrqJxF.5HJ@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Ulrich Schreglmann
replies to my remarks on omnipotence and free will...

Sorry but I have all reasons to suppose that your reply is irrelevant,
because you apparently didn't read my article carefully. In my post I
included TWICE the following line:

--> I will not reply in this thread. DON'T REMOVE. Jarek.

You deleted both occurences. Conclusion: You didn't read the article. It
was an EASY test for reading performance, Urlich. I'm sorry for having
to flame you (your response was not unfriendly), but alt.atheism is
rough and reasonable people are not its only posters and readers...


Best wishes,
             Jarek
------------------------------------------------------
 .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
 `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The face o' god
Date: 29 Jul 1992 22:14:39 GMT
Organization: Unknowable History Detective Society
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

      Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk> writes:
       Nice going, particularly as no-one knows what Jesus looked like.

(mathew) writes:

 He was blond, with blue eyes and pale white skin.  Must be true, I've seen
 pictures.


Actually, Malcom X in his autobiography made (what I thought was) a
strong case for the claim that Jesus was black, since all the original
hebrews from his tribe were black. . .


Dano

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: n5ppm264 (Charlie Board)
Subject: Re: Ethics -- a quest
Organization: bnr
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 12:55:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.054849.26631@StarConn.com>, agray@StarConn.com (Andrew J. Gray) writes:
> 
> 
> 
> I just read another feeble attempt to prove the existence of God
> (Spinoza), in my quest for a cogent discussion of ethics.  The work I
> just read was in fact titled "Ethics", but strikes me as more or less a
> vehicle for Spinoza to say that God "must necessarily exist".
> 
> Can anyone provide pointers to a discussion of ethics that is NOT based
> on Judeo-Christian mythology?
> 

You might want to look at "Ethics Without God" by Kai Nelson. I believe it
is published by Prometheus.

Charles Board
cnc405@bnr.ca

> Andrew Gray
> agray@starconn.com
> 
> 
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14527 sci.skeptic:13349
From: biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Praying to Mecca?... and Evangelists
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:01:53 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

In article <ZAFAR.92Jul22121208@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> zafar@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Syed Zafar Kazmi) writes:

>This has nothing to do with Isla, rather this is a limitation of English. Sometimes
>I find myself irritated with this thing. Can anybody give me a pronoun which
>addreses both men and women alike.

In the future, simply suggest that the person objecting to your
use of the English masculine as the neuter/default by suggesting
they combine the words "she, he, it" and substitute the resulting
word for all pronouns.

Actually, I have heard that "hit" was used in some dialects of
Middle English as a neuter. But, in Standard Written English,
the masculine pronouns double as neuter. Any idiot who quibbles
about that should be fed the above suggested word.




Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: tj32633@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Ronin)
Subject: Re: lighten up, people
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:28:48 GMT
Keywords: faith

simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:

>In article <1992Jul27.091703.1222@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>>In article <Brxn7q.Hoy@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mr. Mensa ) writes:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>	3) God is not a person! [...] He (see above note) does
>>>	not have a physical existence. He is a spirit of Love. [...]
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>	If anyone wants to pursue these discussions any further, do not
>>> hesitate to e-mail me, too. I am a VERY open-minded person, but I still
>>> have not some across anything that explains things better that the 
>>> existence of a God, whatever YOU may believe this God to be.

>> Could you give one or two examples of these "things" which you think are best
>> explained by invoking the existence of a God? What specific properties does
>> this God have which make it the best or only explanation for each "thing"?

>...and the questions stand despite Mr. Ehardt considering my questions
>above to constitute an uneducated and hostile attack made by one who has
>not shown himself to be capable of an enlightening, non-emotional debate,
>and therefore refusing to discuss it with me.

>I'd be curious to know what was so offensive, if anyone else can spot it.

>>>	thomas ehardt
>>>	tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

>Cheers

>Simon

Simon,
	
	I have been following this subject and I have not noticed any posted
articles saying that Mr. Ehardt considered your questions as being a uneducated
and hostile attack made by one who has not shown himself to be capable of an
enlightening, non-emotional debate.  As I understand Mr. Ehardt is willing to
discuss anything with anyone who wishes to talk about this particular subject. 
	I have talked to Mr. Ehardt and he has answered my questions.
	Can you please post whatever evidence that you have showing that  
Mr. Ehardt refuses to talk to you and considers you hostile because the only
evidence you have given so far is biased in your favor and I prefer to see both
sides of the story before making a decision.


-- 
Ted Jan                                       EMT-A
tj32633@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu                      Basic Life Support Certified
University of Illinois                        First Aid Instructor
Illini Emergency Medical Services             Community CPR Instructor
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: uhschreg@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Ulrich Schreglmann)
Subject: Re: Free will (from Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Organization: Student Pool, CSD, University of Erlangen, Germany
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 11:00:50 GMT

dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:

>Self-criticism appreciated :-D. 
Outgrinning You:  :-D  (My teeth are shinier than thine!)

>The
>weak omnipotence is logical by construction, and the strong omnipotence
>cannot be refuted by logic, again by construction: Logic, as any theory,
>is applicable only to certain class of objects (domain) and investigates
>relations between objects from its domain. Now the strong omnipotence is
>defined for a wider class of objects than logic, so logic itself says it
>cannot be used to deal with the strong omnipotence.

I don't know about these weird definitions, but I believe they're just
about my point. You don't define these terms like omnipotence versus
free will on logic but on a meta-level like limits are defined in math.
Take for example a limited (as religion would have it: immanent)
authority. The reasons you may recognize one as such may be that it's
stronger or wiser or both. But it also must be imperfect, since it
wouldn't bother to tutor you or whatever otherwise. So it leaves you
free will on things not concerning it or things you should be able to
figure out yourself if you're worth it. That's just how a teacher or a
parent would be. Now you simply increase the qualities strength and
wisdom to the infinite, thereby getting omnipotence and omniscience.
It's just like saying that a certain function has a certain value at an
infinitely remote point although that point of course doesn't exist
because it would be an end to infinity.

>Omnipotence does NOT contradict free will. Though omnipotence implies
>omniscience, omniscience does NOT imply that the omniscient being MUST
>immediately know about all events (in the past, present, and future). It

Yes. Free will gets infinitesimal, but it is still there because there's
still a system with to minds in it none of them being actually objec-
tive. As I already made clear omniscience is a metaphor for being so
immensely wise that YOU certainly won't find an end to it.
Same with all the rest of these absolute statements.


May the Cool be with You!

(C)OOL mcmxcii
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: skinner@sp14.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:21:32 GMT
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development

mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:

>So, what does that make you when you advocate the Bible without being able to
>answer a similar question?

Before I can answer this, I must know what you mean by "when you
advocate the Bible."

>> We agree that in general an entity can have conflicting wants.  Assume
>> that God can have conflicting wants.  Then God does, or allows, things
>> that he doesn't want because he has other, conflicting wants that are
>> more important to him.  The thing the omnipotent God cannot do in this
>> instance is fulfill conflicting wants.  Does this surely contradict
>> God's being omnipotent?  No.  Weak omnipotence does not call for God
>> to be able to do anything logically impossible.

>Right, but given that position I want to know what the conflicting wants are
>and why they conflict.  Otherwise it's just vague guesswork.

Even vague guesswork is enough refute the assertion "surely God
wanting an accurate Bible and our not having one says something about
God's omnipotence."  The simplest of hypotheticals will do, and I have
given one.

I am not one who can satisfy your want.  I think the writing and
collecting of the Bible was a human endeavor.  I find that the Bible
points to God, but I don't think it is the direct Word of God, except
possibly the Law given at Mount Sinai, which is said to have come
straight from God.  Thus, any translation I read today is certain to
have errors.  

Rather, I think that the omnipotent God gave us his accurate
expression of his will in the form of Jesus Christ.
--
Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Why do I post here (was: prayer)
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:45:29 GMT

Dave in Jarek:
>  Listen, I won't even try to get involved in a philosiphical discussion
>with you.  I do think many of those points about you I brought up were,
>in fact true.  I have yet to see any kind of rational discussion with you
>on the net.  Basically, you make silly semantic arguements state things
>'are so' and claim you've won, rarely appearing to notice anything anyone
>else has said.  I would killfile you, but I am still subjected to your
>pathetic babble when I view the articles of others.
>
>  Mabye I should just avoid 'your' threads.  Mabye everyone should...

You are learning Dave. 

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: hanlon@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Casey Hanlon (SVER))
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: a butterfly?
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:18:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Saw a news release the other day where some minister somewhere here
is the USA had captured a butterfly that when its wings were spread
had a picture of jesus on it.  Hmm, I wonder how they determined it
was jesus?  It looked more like Charles Manson to me.  But then
Charles Manson was jesus wasn't he.

Casey Hanlon 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
Subject: Re: lighten up, people
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 12:34:29 GMT

In <1992Jul28.192412.17340@rchland.ibm.com> pooder@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Pooder) writes:


> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Quid tibi (est) opiniones aliorum: What do you care what other people think?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shouldn't that be quid tibi SUNT opiniones aliorum???

Gavin -- Mr. Pedantic strikes again!!! :)
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:32:26 -0400 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Watsonville, CA

I am interested in an analysis of what is happening in Watsonville, CA. 
There is a reputed resemblence of a pattern on the bark of a tree to the
Virgin Mary.  Obviously, the pilgrims to this "miracle" are not the
brightest people, but how can such folly be explained in the 20th
century?  Would abolishing democracy be a desirable a goal or what? 
[Cheer me up about the human condition, please.]

Ironic side note:  the pilgrims in their enthuaism for the tree are
stripping of its bark and killing it.  Isn't it an excellent metaphor?

Michael Loomis
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Satanists
X-Sender: newtout 0.01 Jul 13 1992
Date: 30 Jul 92  14:23:46

Tag: Bob Beauchaine (bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine))
 
> "In article <nyarko.711815655@ee.ualberta.ca>
> nyarko@ee.ualberta.ca (David Nyarko) writes:
>> I have no idea of the age of the child when these words
>> were spoken. Regarding children and the age at which
>> they could be used by the Devil, I have personally
>> known an 11 year old girl and her 10 year old brother,
>> who were a witch and a wizard. The girl actually being
>> the head (queen-witch) of a gathering of witches and
>> wizards far older that her. They were obviously demonic
>> possessed."
 
BB> "Indeed? This is an intriguing statement. How exactly
BB> does one verify demonic possession, and in what way is
BB> it obvious to the observer?"
 
I've studied the urban myths concerning Witches, "Satanists,"
and the like. I have, without exception, found that when someone
says "I have personally known. . . ." or "I have personally
witnessed. . . ." the speaker is bold-faced lying through his
teeth. These folks claim to not only having witnessed crimes so
monsterous that they'd deserve the gas chamber ten times over,
but they even claim to have COMITTED such crimes as murder,
butchery, maiming, gang-rape, infant canabalism, arson, and
vandalism. Without exception, when their claims are examined,
the claimants are found to be lying or seriously disturbed.
After a while, police and other law enforcers learn to not
jump through the hoop when these liars spin their tales.
 
Witches have children, just like Catholics and Protestants
do. However, their children are generally not allowed to be
part of the coven, because it is an adult form of worship.
Witch children have their own "covens," which may be overseen
a different parent every time--- the adult doesn't interfer
with the children's worship, just as children do not (usually)
bother the adults in their worship. To have a child as "queen"
as this fool above claims, is =NOT= likely.
 
Satanists (which are totally, completely different than
Witches) will not allow members to join who are less than
18 years of age.
 
Both Witches and Satanists have a very high level of ethical
and moral character, and a very strong sense of responsibility.
Protection of children is just as sacrosanct to Satanists and
Witches as it is to Christians, Musslems, Buddhists, and even
folks like me: atheist, who view all the Chrsitian's lies
and deceptions about other religions as slightly ammusing,
but more so DANGEROUS. It seems to me that the Christians
have a book they place much value in--- this book says that
one must not bare false witness, nor tell lies to harm ones'
neighbors.

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:44:26 GMT

(...More stuff on Bird vs. Plane...)

In article <1992Jul28.012259.2619@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
|>In article <39988@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> ss@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Scott Stuart) writes:
|>>
|>>When was the last time that an airplane crashed into a glass plate and 
|>>killed itself while trying to escape from a cat?
|>>
|>>
|>>scott
|>
|>At least the bird didn't kill 270 or so people "on board".
|>
|>Ridha
|>
            
Um, people... alt.humor is just a few postings down.
That might be a better place to waste bandwidth.
Either bail out or go back to the core of the issue and
start using logical and reasonable arguments to support
your positions.  I'm getting sick of this silly thread.

Brian /-|-\
=====================================================
ISNOTISSOISNOTISSOISNOTISSOISNOTISSO!!!!!!!!!!
Logic-the last resort of a desperate idiot.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Subject: Re: Free will (from Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Organization: Xerox PARC
Date: 26 Jul 92 06:21:56 GMT

In <graham.712130006@galois> Graham Matthews doesn't understand:

-Jarek:
>>BTW, I said that I won't reply to this thread, and I kindly asked that
>>this information be retained as long as I am being quoted... Please...
-Graham:
>Why won't you reply Jarek? Feel like you are on shakey ground or something?
>
As I said before, I have no time. I made a comment which anyone can use
when discussing with me, but I can't reply carefully to too many threads.


Best wishes,
             Jarek
------------------------------------------------------
 .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
 `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:22:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.074422.23588@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> ury@humus.cs.huji.ac.il (My Friend Of Misery) writes:
>From: ury@humus.cs.huji.ac.il (My Friend Of Misery)
>Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
>Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 07:44:22 GMT

>In article <1992Jul20.175947.21159@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>, timpson@nntpd2.enet.dec.com (Steve Timpson) writes:
>|> 
>|> In article <1992Jul20.135600.19367@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, ury@humus.cs.huji.ac.il (My Friend Of Misery) writes...
>|> >Why is it so difficult for ppl to understand that There is no god?
>|> > 
>|> > 
>|> >-- 
>|> >Ury Segal          | "I'm God, and so is my wife"
>|> >ury@cs.huji.ac.il  | I swear I'm gonna live forever. Tell my maker It can wait.
>|> >Phone: 02-971187   | DISCLAIMER: I Don't spell and I don't care
>|> 
>|> 
>|>         Why is it so difficult for you to understand thaty There is a god?
>|> 
>Because I don't have any proof. Now, can YOU answer MY question or you still want
>to keep waisting everybody's time?
>|> 
>|>         Steve With_his_devils_advocate_hat_on        
>|> 

>-- 
>Ury Segal          | The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the 
>ury@cs.huji.ac.il  | University or IBM, Digital, Apple, HP or anyone else.
>Phone: 02-971187   | They are mine, LO MIN HAHEFKER, as Bialik once said.

What would pass for "proof" of God's existence?  Would the proof be like a 
mathematical demonstration yielding logical certainty?  Or should something 
less than that be allowed to pass?  Anyone seriously investigating the 
question of God existence must be prepared to answer these difficult 
epistemological questions, for himself, before any intelligent appraisal of 
arguments can properly get under way. 

I would like to suggest that there is an argument, one very interesting 
argument in particular, which might be called the The Argument From the 
World's Intelligibility, that may be able to prove God's existence to any 
reasonable person, that is, any person who has not already decided that 
there cannot possibly *be* a sound argument either for or against God's 
existence. It's not a 'proof' in the strict mathematical sense, but it is 
good argument, whose faults, if there are any, are not gross or obvious.  
Whether it proves God's existence is, of course, controversial.  But, of 
course, just because something is controversial does not imply that it does 
not express knowledge on the part of the person who states it. If anyone's 
interested in this seeing this argument laid out, let me know. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Bell                                    Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc                   You can force any entertainment
P.O. Box 833875                                 on a people except the consistent
Richardson, TX 75083-3875                       pursuit of a topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:52:56 GMT

souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu  writes:

> Man CANNOT create a bird, period.  If you think that birds serve
> no invaluable purpose, then you should study more. It has been
> done before by who? certainly not by man.  Since the existence
> of man till today, where did man reach?  he created superfast
> computers that can make millions of calculations a second? it doesn't
> come any close to the human mind.

In part you are right when you say man cannot create a bird.  However,
     the modifier placed on the end of your statement should be "yet":
     
     "Man CANNOT create a bird, /yet/."
     
     Give humans time-- it may be another hundred years or so, but I think
     man /will/ be able to create life and eventually specific life forms,
     even birds.
     
Also, if I may ask, even if birds do provide an invaluable service to
     the ecosystem (which, I believe, they do), how does this imply a god
     was needed to create them, if created they were?  Please explain.
     
Lastly, man has invented many fine machines, including superfast computers.
     Yes, today's computers cannot calculate as a man does (though what it
     can do may be faster).  But does this mean that computers will /never/
     be able to outperform the human mind /someday/?  Unlike you, I believe
     that they will...
     
Trajan
     
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mitchell@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (DeWayne Mitchell)
Subject: Re: lighten up, people
Keywords: faith 
Organization: National Severe Storms Laboratory
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:48:41 GMT

In article <exukjb.33.712436863@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>In article <graham.712058148@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>>From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
>>Subject: Re: lighten up, people
>>Keywords: faith 
>>Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 09:55:48 GMT
>
>>(Mr. Mensa ) writes:
>>>       5) finally, LIGHTEN UP PEOPLE!!!! Geez. I mean, as if. People, people
>>>       people.....there is one and only one way to prove the existence of
>>>       God......
>
>>Interesting - is there any way to disprove the existence of God?
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
		Of this I am very interested.


>
>>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
>
>Yes, there is. Anyone interested?

  You bet.

>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Kenneth Bell                                    Welcome to Mind Wars
>Ericsson Network Systems, Inc                   You can force any entertainment
>P.O. Box 833875                                 on a people except the consistent
>Richardson, TX 75083-3875                       pursuit of a topic.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 DeWayne