HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:45:03 GMT

mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>> >God [...] made me in such a way that I am unable to breathe underwater.
>> 
>> >Why couldn't he have made the authors of the Bible in such a way that they
>> >were unable to misrepresent his word?
>> 
>> Possibly because giving humans the ability to make the choice to
>> misrepresent his word was more important to God than the accurate
>> transmission of his word.
>
>So it's more important that people be able to intentionally distort the
>teachings of the Bible than that God's word should get to all people? 
>That's a pretty odd sense of priorities.  I've heard of God moving in
>mysterious ways, but that's downright perverse.

Its made even more perverse by that fact the God is going to punish
for all eternity those whom his word never reached.

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: ss@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Scott Stuart)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Positive and negative assertions
Date: 29 Jul 92 09:04:58 GMT
Reply-To: ss@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Scott Stuart)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <BRUCE.92Jul23114028@suprenum.supr.scm.liv.ac.uk> bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) writes:

>>>>My own feeling is that Occam's razor is sufficient justification.

I've never read anything about Occam's razor, and it doesn't seem to be
in the FAQ, so could some kind sould email me a brief description of 
Occam's razor or a reference to something to read?


many thanks,
	scott
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Date: 25 Jul 92 14:22:32 GMT
Organization: Xerox PARC

In <graham.711863392@galois> Graham Matthews prefers it it obvious:

>Nor is it obvious that there is one.
>
One obvious statement, please?

Do alt.atheists think only about what is obvious? If yes, then this
explains a lot... If not, then what was the purpose of your comment,
Graham? (Isn't it, unfortunately, obvious? :-D)


Best wishes,
             Jarek
------------------------------------------------------
 .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
 `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
From: simon@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Simon)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: God's creation (was: Re: Existence of a god.)
Date: 30 Jul 92 08:38:05 GMT
Organization: One Hundred Pounds Per Second


A while back, it was said:

>>"As it is now" - whats so difficult about this. Pick a time - some
>>point in history - say 5 minutes ago - thats 15:34 Sunday 26 July 1992
>>my time. Now (assuming the existence of God as per the original poster)
>>why did God not make the world exaclty as it was on 15:34 Sunday 26 July
>>1992? Why did God bother making a world way back whenever he made
>>it and let it evolve to the world of 15:34 Sunday 26 July 1992?
>>Why did he just not build the world of 15:34 Sunday 26 July 1992
>>directly?

Who is to say that he didn't?


################################################################################
# Simon Day @ BT, Angel Centre, London          simon@cyborg.bt.co.uk          #
################################################################################
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:24:30 GMT
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development

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

>skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>> >Anyway, can I then take it that you do *not* claim that guaranteed accuracy
>> >of transmission of God's word is incompatible with free will?
>> 
>> Yes.

>OK...

>> [I think this discussion is becoming muddled because it has gone on
>> for several weeks.  I will stop now, lest anyone be tempted to start a
>> "you said this" fighting match (mathew is not likely to do this, but
>> others are).  mathew is welcome to continue via email.]

>I'll continue here, because as far as I'm concerned the whole of the last
>couple of weeks is irrelevant in the light of your response above...

>So, forgetting the last two weeks entirely...

>Given that guaranteed accuracy of transmission of God's word is not
>incompatible with free will -- above, you say that you're not claiming
>they're incompatible --  why do we find the Bible to contain errors?

I am not prepared to accept the "given."  I suggest that this premise
may be false.  I think it is false.  However, I do not know that it is
false, so I will not go so far as to make a claims to that effect.

Here is the point to which I suggest we need to back up if we are
to understand each other:

>Ah, so now you're saying that God has to do things which he doesn't want to
>do -- that, given that we are to have free will, he has to allow the book to
>be transcribed inaccurately even if he doesn't want to.

>But that contradicts his being "omnipotent", surely?

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.
--
Gregg Skinner  g-skinner@uiuc.edu   I do not speak for any organization.
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Blasphemy in Greece
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 11:29:53 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

stoesser@i31s21.ira.uka.de (Achim Stoesser) writes:
> In article <emc.711295828@reg>, emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
> |> I believe however that the cross symbol predates Christianity.  Anyone
> |> know for sure?
> 
> Yes, definitely. Several kinds of crosses were uses as religious symbols.
> One of the oldest was the Swastika, if my memory serves (no kidding).

The swastika is a religious symbol in Buddhism, so don't be surprised if you
see big Buddha statues with swastikas painted on the front.  The arms go in
the opposite direction to the Nazi swastika, though.


mathew
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Woman Hating Women
X-Sender: newtout 0.01 Jul 13 1992
Date: 30 Jul 92  14:25:14

Tag: Bev Beasly (unknown address)
 
BB> "And where do you get off using that tone?"
 
Your highly distressing, women-insulting message professing the
belief that women are in any way responsible for "curbing the
lusts of men" would make any sane individual use "that tone."
One of my women friends, Cathy, was raped by her uncle when she
was very young--- come here and tell her it was her responsibility
to "curb his lusts!" She'll hand you a fat lip, and she's a sweet
lady.
 
BB> "Do you think that these crimes, be it rape, verbal, physical
BB> abuse, is the man's fault alone?"
 
GoodFuckingGrief ==OF COURSE IT IS!== There is not a woman on
Earth that could MAKE ME rape her! No one can MAKE ME strike
another! It is MY choice, and MY CHOICE ALONE on how I think,
the deeds I perform, the ethics and morals I live by.
 
Your irrational belief is dangerous because it redirects the
responsibility of criminal, abusive behavior away from the
criminal and towards the victim. It is only a short step to
turn that around in your fuzzy little head to where you could
start to believe that others are responsible for YOUR actions.
 
Just as I know a few men that hate other men, I have known some
women who hate other women. The difference between these women
and yourself is, they realize they hate women, and you do not
understand that your irrational belief is a form of hate with
the target being other women.
 
Followups to alt.flame, perhaps.

--- Maximus 2.00
From: Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: a butterfly?
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 09:44:39 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

hanlon@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Casey Hanlon (SVER)) writes:

> 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.

Nice going, particularly as no-one knows what Jesus looked like.
I wonder how many butterflys he had to capture before he found one
with the effect he wanted.

And have you noticed that if you change a few words in this posting
you can get the story I read five minutes ago about the tree with
the bark that looks like Mary? My reply would be virtually identical
too.

--
Tony Lezard IS tony@mantis.co.uk OR tony%mantis.co.uk@uknet.ac.uk
OR EVEN arl10@phx.cam.ac.uk if all else fails. Great! Kept my .sig down to two
lines!

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:39:11 GMT

Graham:
>It is the state of the world and all its parts at that time.
>Now before you say something like "how do you know this state
>exists" remember that I am replying to another article in which
>the assumptions are that :-
>
>a) God exists
>    ^^^^^^^^^^
>b) God made the world
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>and hence the world exists.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(DeWayne Mitchell) writes:
> I agree whole heartedly.

I suggest you read the context Dwayne. I am not saying I believe
these things, I am saying that they were the assumptions of the
original poster.

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: neal.abrams@execnet.com (neal abrams)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: god violates physical
Date: 21 Jul 92 04:55:11 GMT
Reply-To: "neal abrams" <neal.abrams@execnet.com>
Distribution: alt
Organization: Executive Networks Information

SL>Religious folk always seem to bring up this 'free will' stuff to
SL>weasle out of the logical implications of omnipotence &
SL>omniscience.  But I've yet to figure out just exactly what it is.

     I suggest that the problem isn't with "religious folk" trying to
weasle out of anything, but simply the fact that you have trouble with
the concept.

SL>Ex:How does one determine if one has free will or not?
SL>Perphaps some experiment?

     What about the human ability to choose between right and wrong?
Animals don't appear to have such an ability, yet it's apparent that
humans do.

SL>It seems to me, that if this can't be done then all this talk of
SL>'free will' is meaningless/moot.

     What about the human ability to love?  Animals don't love nor do
they have pride?  Can animals create?  Do they have an imagination? 
In my opinion all these things add up to free will.

                                                         
                                                      Neal
---
 ~ DeLuxe} 1.25 #950 ~ Wisdom is properly applied knowledge.
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Extent of omniscience
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:44:39 GMT

In article <EKREM.92Jul27155833@guam.vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at>,
ekrem@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Ekrem Saban) writes:
|>>In article <zlsiida.970@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave
budd) writes:
|>>
|>>   Just how omniscient is god supposed to be?  I have read postings
that imply
|>>   omniscience across time as well as space, and others where this
view would
|>>   imho lead to a logical contradiction.  If relativity's 4D space-time
|>>   continuum is a fact and not just a calculational convenience, wouldn't
|>>   omniscience HAVE to include the time dimension?
|>
|>Relativity shows us which natural laws are existing for matter, or
|>better, they try to model them. 
|>
|>God, however, is neither of matter (as the reason of His existence is
|>He Himself, and as matter is created by Him), nor does He obey to any
|>law: He is the Exalted in Power, the Irresistable, the Supreme. So,
|>His power can't be cut by laws or anything else, and He needs nothing
|>but Himself.  
                       
How did you come to know this?  Are YOU omniscient? :-)
On a more serious note, typing dogma in response to a question
(ie. He is All Powerful; it follow from this that he (sorry, He)
can do anything!  QED) is not very constructive.  By the way, you 
might want to answer his question on omniscience instead of bringing up
omnipotence.  They are similar, but not the same.

PS  Two notes:

1) To Dave: Omniscience means EVERYTHING.  You can't ask "How long is
forever?".

2) If God (not g*d) is not of matter, then shouldn't we call God "It"?
"He" can be
seen as the generic male/female pronoun, but a non-physical God would be
neither.
("It" is appropriate for non-corpral forms, such as concepts (ex. 'It is
a good idea.')
I would NEVER imply that God is just a concept. I would imagine "It is
the Concept";^/

Brian /-|-\
=========================================
My opinions are law.
"Who? Me? Sarcastic? Nahh!!"
From: ss@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Scott Stuart)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A Contradiction in Terms? [was: Reasons for enlightenment]
Date: 23 Jul 92 09:30:42 GMT
Reply-To: ss@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Scott Stuart)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <graham.711857263@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>Yes I would love this too. I was at some cliffs the other day and was
>thinking to myself how I would love to be able to fly so that I could
>just dive off these cliffs and have fun.
>
>Why did God deprive us of this ability?


He did give us this ability.  Thats what hang-gliders are for. :-)

scott

You probably want to skip the rest of this, hit 'n' now.


Now I have to come up with a signature long enough for my news server to 
accept the article, sorry everyone. Maybe this is already enough?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi)
Subject: Re: A question for Muslims out there
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:49:04 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.201419.25590@news.unomaha.edu> trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
>When reading this newsgroup and when talking to Muslims at this school, one
>     phrase I often see or hear coming out of the mouths of the Islamic
>     faithful is "peace be upon him", or PBUH for short.  I'm curious--
>     why is this only stated after the name of a prophet, such as Muhammed
>     or Jesus.  Why isn't this phrase stated after the mention of God?  Is
>     it that you hold more respect for the prophets (maybe God isn't 
>     deserving of peace), or is there another reason?  This may be a dumb
>     question, but as I see it there's a discrepency.
>     
>Trajan
>

No question is dumb.  As an average Muslim, here is my opinion:

That is because God is the *source* of peace.  In fact one of the names
of Allah (the One God) is The Peace.  Muslims say a phrase which may
be translated as "May the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him"
or commonly known as "Peace be upon him (PBUH)" whenever the name of
a prophet is mentioned out of respect of those prophets.

>P.S.  Sorry I'm posting on this newsgroup, but the censors at soc.religion.
>      islam take far too long to post.

I know what you're talking about.

Peace.

Ridha.
From: Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 09:53:09 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
>In article <39988@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> ss@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Scott Stuart) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul25.220613.15611@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> souissi@ec.ecn.purd
>>>When was the last time an airplane crashed? And I certainly
>>>don't recall a bird hit his noze on the ground because there
>>>was some ice on his wings.
>>When was the last time that an airplane crashed into a glass plate and 
>>killed itself while trying to escape from a cat?
>When was the last time an airplane got caught by a cat?

And so on.

This bird/plane crap is to the best of my memory the most pointless
and absurd thread I have ever read on alt.atheism.

Perhaps a moderated group wasn't such a bad idea after all...

--
And don't talk to me about killfiles either.
Tony Lezard IS tony@mantis.co.uk OR tony%mantis.co.uk@uknet.ac.uk
OR EVEN arl10@phx.cam.ac.uk if all else fails.

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14154 sci.skeptic:13067
From: zafar@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Syed Zafar Kazmi)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Praying to Mecca?... and Evangelists
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:12:08 GMT
	<1992Jul12.071756.7428@athena.mit.edu>
	<1992Jul12.180525.11733@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
	<1992Jul13.015517.29741@athena.mit.edu>
	<1992Jul20.090716.204@fmg.bt.co.uk>
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University
In-reply-to: ghbr@fmg.bt.co.uk's message of 20 Jul 92 09:07:16 GMT


>>>>> "Hossein" == Hossein Bagherzadeh Rafsanjani <ghbr@fmg.bt.co.uk> writes:

Hossein> In article <1992Jul13.015517.29741@athena.mit.edu> suheil@athena.mit.edu (Suheil I Laher) writes:

> The Muslim may be anywhere at any given time, but at the time of prayer it is
> certain that he is in the place of prayer if he is a true Muslim.
Hossein>                ^^                              ^^
Hossein> Oh, I thought women can be "Muslims" too.  But then, Qoran would rather talk to
Hossein> men (about "their women" too) than to all believers.


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.


Zafar Kazmi
From: frazier@maxwell (Greg Frazier)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Oh no, not again
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:57:36 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

jeon@milton.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon) writes:
: 
: If A says either hell or heaven, my action has no influence on where I
: am going. Thus, even if I have free will, it is of no use.
: 
: Suppose A says, that depends on your action now. Then, I should
: ask, what action will I take? If A says, there are several possible
: moves you can make, such, such and such.
: 
: Then I should ask, well, do you know which one of those I'll make?
: 
: Suppose A says yes. Then, again, I have no choice in my action to
: improve my chances for going to heaven, after all.

God's knowledge of what you are going to do is not involved
in forcing you to do any particular thing.  Rather, his
knowledge is not limitted by time, so he is aware of the
choices you make before you make them.  Think of it this way -
there are two games of chess, both of them you vs. your
universe (I don't mean to imply that we are competing against
the universe - this is just a metaphor for our interaction with
it).  One game is played in its entirety, and then the second is
played with the exact same moves.  You are playing the first game,
God is playing the second.  You have complete freedom in choosing
your moves, but God gets to have seen the entire game played before
it starts.  But, God being God and all, the second game does not
occur temporially after the first.

: It is not the action of knowing that abolishes the free will, the
: mere possibility of knowing your ACTUAL future is adequate to get rid
: of any chance of real free will.

(1) Since I don't know of anybody who has been told their future,
this has never been violated.  (2) One might argue that it is not
the possibility of knowing your future that would destroy free
will, but the actual knowledge itself.  That is to say, if God
did tell, then there would be no free will, but since It has
gifted us with free will, It chooses not to tell.

: To the also patient theists, would you now stop saying omniscinece and
: free will in the same sentence ?

Good luck, Jeon.  Since even a dyed-in-the-wool atheist such as
myself remains unconvinced, I think you are going to continue
to hear "omniscient god".
--


Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jarek's Challenge (was: We will see Return of Jesus!)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 10:36:42 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
> -mathew [about Jarek's "I believe because I want to"]:
> >>>as reasoned positions go it doesn't have much intellectual appeal,
> >
> And that's how mathew defended his claim that he has no beliefs
> (during discussion reduced to "no zero-order propositions"):
> 
> /------ 10 Dec 91 17:53:17 GMT -------------
> | Message-ID: <iJ4qcB7w164w@mantis.co.uk>
> +--------[fragments]------------------------
> | When you thought I was saying "I must have zero-order propositions", 
> | I was actually saying "I must have zero-order propositions if I am 
> | to behave in a way which I consider reasonable".
> \-------------------------------------------

What makes you think that "reasonable" and "intellectually appealing" mean
the same thing?

It's certainly "reasonable" to go to work every day.  But for many people it
isn't "intellectually appealing".


mathew
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Disproof for the existence of god
Date: 29 Jul 1992 22:37:27 GMT
Organization: You Got My Attention, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird
Keywords: faith


Graham Matthews writes:

  Interesting - is there any way to disprove the existence of God?

Kenneth Bell responds:
 
 Yes, there is. Anyone interested?

Well Mr. Bell, I am for one. Not only that, but I remember hearing 
of prize money available from some guy who left a bunch of it in
his will (over a million bucks) for anyone who could satisfactorily
do what you claim.

So post away, and think about how you're going to spend all that money!

Toodles,

Dano
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14429 sci.skeptic:13305
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 16:07:36 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
> Now that we know that the "Mr. President" came from a posting in which
> someone was not quoting from a transcript they had at hand, but from memory,
> this whole argument is a waste of time.  There is plenty of evidence for
> a *single* version of the quoted transcript (which I have appended verbatim
> below from a published source which I *do* have in front of me) which does
> not contain "Mr. President," and *no* evidence that there is any published
> source that does contain those words.  Can we go on to something else now?

I've updated the file with the version from "Free Enquiry".


mathew

Newsgroups: alt.atheism