HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lion@netcom.com (carl loeber)
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 05:56:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

davidch@ZIMMER.CSUFRESNO.EDU (David Choweller) writes:
>|In my view, this argument against the existence of God is weak primarily
>|because it doesn't deal with the purpose of creation.  Now, if you could
>|show that God had a certain good purpose in creating the world, and it was
>|possible to attain that good purpose, and God has in fact, or will in fact,
>|fail to attain that purpose, now that would be something!

>You are right.  We must finally go to the purpose of creation.
>The way I see it, no purpose can justify much of the suffering that takes
>place in the world.  The problem is, you're not saying what this good
>purpose is.  Some theists say it is the glorification of God. Well, this
>doesn't cut it.  Putting sentient beings through torture so that they
>wwill be better able to glorify you isn't benevolent; it's downright
>


some Christians say that the purpose is simply the simply life and growth, eteranlly.  And that that they might have JOY in living.  All suffer but it is still possible to have joy nicht wahr?

:r HI
.
Friends:

As a developement of the free will hypothesis.

If the Highest Intelligence (God) wanted to allow humans to grow,
even given that HI is loving, could He not then allow them to fail
and be responsible, to grow to be independent learning agents, much
as a father and mother will treat their offspring after weaning
them?

Carl Loeber          lion@netcom.com              San Jose
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: WEEMBA and DABROSKI Angst (Was: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 00:40:40 GMT

(Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>One Jewish definition is that an atheist (for a Jew) is
>someone who does not keep the Sabbath.  Is that acceptable
>to you?  The fact that I visit my rabbi Uncle Farley every
>Sabbath and out of respect for _him_ do not engage in any 
>Sabbath violations suddenly make me a theist in your eyes?

This is all irrelevant drivel Matthew. The defintion of 'atheist'
John is using has been given by his 'acid' test (and is a fairly
standard and clear definition of atheism). Now when John asks you
'are you an atheist' he is quite clearly asking whether you fit the
description of the word atheist *AS DEFINED BY THE DEFINTION HE HAS
GIVEN YOU*.

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

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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: house@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house)
Subject: Re: Do Atheists have Thier Own "Faith"?
Organization: University of Southern Queensland
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:46:47 GMT

lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>There are at least two ways out of this.  1. Redefine "omnipotent" to mean
>not the power to do anything whatsoever, but the power to do whatever is
>logically possible to do.  (Most theists take this route, I believe, and
>admit that God cannot create square circles.)  2. Just say yes.  God can
>create a stone that he can't lift, but only by limiting his own power and
>ceasing to be omnipotent.  (But then, it's not unliftable because it's
>too big, but only because God has changed him/her/itself.)

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?"

I also add that I >don't< think god is omnipotent in any sense, but just
that the above is an invalid demonstration of this truth.

>There is a good discussion of paradoxes of omnipotence in J.L. Mackie's
>book _The Miracle of Theism_.  Mackie draws a parallel with a sovereign
>nation issuing declarations that limit its own sovereignty.

I have one of Mackie's books (on ethics) and a bigger dill I hope never
to meet.  I gives me no encouragement to try another one.

--

Ron House.                 USQ
(house@helios.usq.edu.au)  Toowoomba, Australia.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Argument by authority
Date: 7 Apr 92 02:26:32 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

> 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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is belief in Jesus Necessary for a moral society?
Date: 8 Apr 92 10:35:58 GMT
Organization: British Telecom

In article <2APR199217093163@jane.uh.edu> cosc143u@jane.uh.edu (91F9774) writes:
>
>I recently read Flannery O'Connors "A good man is hard to find."  In it she
>has the the main villain present the case that without belief in jesus there
>is no point in being decent to anyone else.  Since there is no definite promise
>of a big reward for living in a kind fashion, you should take advantage whenever
>you can.  If you can get away with killing someone and it is to your benefit,
>then you do it.  Obviously, it is written from a pretty small point of view
>(it only applies to America, not the world in general) but it does make me 
>wonder the following.  As a person of belief so weak as to almost be non
>existent, I wonder how other people of no belief (and perhaps as my self, low
>belief) live in a moral fashion?  If so, why?
> 
It's the other way round. 
A christian (like those in armies fighting with "god on their side")
believes that he can kill as many people as he likes provided that
god approves or he repents and believes in Jesus.

An atheist doesn't go round killing people because he has human
compassion and empathy and knows that cooperation is essential
to the successful functioning of society. And the cops help a
little.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:8009 alt.satanism:1268
From: ogorman@unix1.tcd.ie (Lucifuge)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Backward Masking
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:51:55 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

>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 was recently talking to a fundamentalist who gave this argument concerning
>>> the rock group Led Zepplin and Satan:
>>> 
>>>        " If you play 'Stairway to Heaven' backwards it says, "Hail Satan" over
>>>        and over again.  The technology is(or was) not available to place this
>>>        there on purpose.  And the voice patterns speaking it frontwards would
>>>        never be able to match anything that closely backwards.  It was put 
>>>        there by Satan.  Since Satan exists, God must also exist. "
>>> 
>>>   I laughed at this.  But I have tried to find something on backward masking 
>>> or similar occurances.  I can not find anything about it and am interested.
>>> Can anyone point me in the right direction, or specifically:
>>> 
>>> 1.  Is backward masking technologically possible?
>>> 2.  How is it done?
>>> 3.  Are there other groups besides Led Zepplin which used it?   
>>> 4.  Are there any good books, articles, etc. on the subject. 

Sorry I didn't catch the original post so I have to use this. 

1&2 Backmasking is simply the recording of a message/piece of music
backwards on an audio recording and then recording (but preserving the
backwards segment) music over it. I can't see any technical difficulty.
You have backwards piece on tape A and music on tape B. You mix the two
to obtain music w/backmask on tape C. Your friend is quite simply wrong.
The Beatles used backmasking *long* before 'Stairway'.

3. It's a generic heavy metal thing. Practically every group has used
it. Also, Kate Bush. Off the top of my head...probably lots more...

4. Avoid anything by rabid christian fundies at all costs....

Ollie (hi Semhaza)!
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:19:18 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <72838@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P
Wiener) writes:
> Considering that mathematicians and physicists floundered around not
> really understanding the calculus for centuries shows that knowing the
> truth is not necessary here--far more persuasively than any controlled
> experiments ever would.

Science does not ever claim to know the truth - unlike religion which
claims this. In that sense science has nothing to loose while chasing
the truth, while religion looses it's credibility when it's shown
the doctrines are false.

Cheers,
Kent
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:12:35 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
> I presume you're still confused that I'm claiming my methods work with all
> teachers.  No such luck.

So not only have you failed to try honesty in your teaching, you're not even
offering evidence that your lying technique will work for others.  I suppose
you know how worthwhile that makes your anecdotal 'evidence'?


mathew
[ "Hmm.  On all occasions when I've written bug-free code I've been wearing
   training shoes.  Of course, I've not tried wearing any other sort of
   footwear, and I'm not suggesting that my conclusions apply to anyone else,
   but nevertheless my personal experience suggests strongly that trainers
   are necessary for writing good code." ]

-- 
Hail Eris! / "Our whole economy's based on fear and death; how long can we get
away with this?" --- Jello Biafra / Message for Kodak: Bring back Dan Bredy! /
PGP RSA public key available on request / Desperately seeking Negativland's U2
CD / Just another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: No-one cares anymore. (was Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?)
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:42:08 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk

In article <702717480.10195@minster.york.ac.uk>, cjhs@minster writes:
>Yes, Matthew is paranoid.

Anybody want to explain this?  I have no disagreement with people
who think I'm obnoxious, rude, unpleasant, sour, etc.  But this
particular claim does not make much sense to me.

The first time this was brought up was when I mentioned that one
of the reasons that Christianized readings of Jewish theology are
highly disliked by Jews (as opposed to readings that merely get it
wrong) is because there are Christian groups who target Jews for
conversion, and use these Christianized readings.  I truly wish
this were mere paranoia, but it's not.  Some may have thought my
charge of "closet Christian" was perhaps a paranoid belief that
Mathew and others were doing this on behalf of such people, but
it was not.  It was just normal Weemba rudeness.

The latest is Mathews' reading my misreading of an ambiguous sentence
as paranoia.  That is a newbie notion if any.  Stick around USENET long
enough, and see how your parse-success rate declines to atrocious
levels.

>No, I do not want to contribute further to this thread. If either of
>you challange me to justify any negative comments above I give advance
>notice that I will collapse like a burst balloon, retract everything,
>deny it was me who posted, anything you like.

OK, never mind.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: WEEMBA and DABROSKI Angst (Was: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:49:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.g0qjqlb.barry
Distribution: world,public
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <92097.134726J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson) writes:
>Belief in ANY God will disqualify you from using the label "atheist"
>to describe yourself.  Define God any way you wish.

	This is a trivially false statement.

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:17:41 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
> In article <ekTyiB2w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) wri
> |> I know all that.  Nevertheless, it remains true that lying in general isn'
> |> prohibited in the commandments, nor is it particularly well-defined.  I kn
> |> that various other bits of text say that it's not a good thing, but that's
> |> not the same as having a commandment against it.
>  
> It's not at all clear that lying is wrong in *every* situation.
> For example:  military secrecy during wartime, telling someone
> they have a terminal disease --- these situations call for
> particular discretion and a blanket rule against deception may
> not be correct.

It's just as unclear that killing is wrong in *every* situation.  Yet we
still have "Thou shalt not kill,"

> Would you like to give an example of a form of lying which
> you believe (a) should be prohibited (b) is not prohibited
> by Jewish law (c) is prohibited by some other code which
> you believe to be more comprehensive.

I could give examples of (a) indefinitely, I don't know enough about Jewish
law to talk about (b), and (c) is also easy.  It would be a fairly off-topic
discussion for alt.atheism, also.

> I'm not quite sure how you expected anyone to respond to your
> post on the Bible's moral code without introducing the commentaries
> and scholarly legal opinions of what the Bible's moral code means.

I expected talk about the Christian bible.


mathew
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mcbride@owlnet.rice.edu (Douglas Foster McBride)
Subject: American Atheists address needed
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 04:43:31 GMT


I need AA's mailing address, as I am trying to order some
of their Darwin Fish bumper stickers.  If anyone knows how
much these cost as well, please let me know.

Thanks a lot.

---------------------------------------------------------------
"Look for my corpse in the color supplement!" -- Andy Partridge
Doug McBride			        mcbride@owlnet.rice.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------


--
From: exumfs@exu.ericsson.se (Mark Steph)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Book of John
Date: 12 Apr 92 18:36:29 GMT
Reply-To: exumfs@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems

In article 10491@b15.b15.ingr.com, saj@b15.b15.ingr.com (Steve Jernigan) writes:
>
>
>In article <1992Apr7.190106.2894@news.nd.edu>, smaurer@artin.helios.nd.edu (sean maurer) writes...
>>>People (atheists) assert there are numerous'
>>>errors in the Bible and I was just wondering if someone could point out
>>>to me the "errors' in the Book of John. Thanks
>>>sean.
>
>>Sure.
>
>[Thought Provoking Contadictions Deleted...]
>
>>Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
>>Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
>>University of Arizona
>>Tucson, AZ 85721
>
>As a Christian, this is what I read this news group for.  Something to
>challange my beliefs and not just an annoying flame war.
>
>Thanks Jim
>
>Steve J.


Try reading *Atheism: The Case Against God*, by George(?) Smith.  This points out
many contradictions between the 4 gospels and also has evidence to show that the
gospels were not even written by Matt, Mark, Luke & John (and were written 50-150
years after Jesus's death).

The book also covers other commonly argued topics about theism.
---
Mark Steph             | He's not afraid of your Judgement
exumfs@exu.ericsson.se | He knows of horrors worse than your Hell
Opinions are my own -- | He's a little bit afraid of dying,
noone else wants them  | But he's alot more afraid of your lying
                       |      -Neil Peart, "The Weapon"
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:8020 talk.religion.misc:6317
From: FisKer@cup.portal.com (Scott M Martin)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Revisionist bible thumpers
Date: 7 Apr 92 09:39:06 GMT
 rwick.ac.uk> <92094.223525U30471@uicvm.uic.edu>
  <4APR199209512214@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: The Portal System (TM)


I was a member of the Christian InterVarsity group at Santa Clara 
University, and we didn't have any 'edited' bibles. In fact, everyone
brought their own; there was no officially sanctioned version. Of course,
this was only at SCU -- who knows what goes on elsewhere?!
From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Who did Cain marry? His sister?
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:42:39 GMT
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

In <22954@goofy.Apple.COM> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

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

Yes, reproduction through imperfect parthogenesis.

--
As usual, JIMHO.
	  Gavin...                  Plus qu'il n'en faut.           
	  willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie
From: dlyndes@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (David Lyndes)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Definitions of atheism
Date: 13 Apr 1992 03:01:52 GMT
Reply-To: dlyndes@deltahp.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: Barrios Technology @ NASA/JSC; Houston

Several threads have been spilling a lot of bytes over the definitions
of atheism and agnosticism.  Maybe this will help clarify (and maybe not).

(1) There are a number of different uses of the words, both in common
    use and technical use.  All a person needs to do when something
    turns on the "meaning" is to say something about what (s)he means,
    and we can all understand.
(2) Sure, etymologically a word may have some root, atheism comes
    from greek meaning "no-god".  But the meanings of words change.
(3) Atheism has to do with belief.  Belief can range
    over a large number of values, as in:
    - I believe that P
    - I believe that P to some degree (strongly, somewhat, not at all, etc)
    - I believe that P is false
    - I withold judgement on P
    - I provisionally accept that P
    Belief is not an either-or situation!
(4) Agnosticism sometimes has to do with belief, other times with knowledge.
(5) Common uses include:
    "atheism"     - the "ism" that there is no god.
    "agnosticism" - the "ism" that we cannot know whether any god exists.
    "agnosticism" - an agnostic is one who witholds judgement on
                    whether or not there is a god.
    Note that one could be an agnostic in the 1st sense and still be a
    theists or an atheist.  That is, one could say "we cannot know, but
    I believe anyway."
-- 
+-------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| David K. Lyndes                     | "Kill the head and the body will      |
| Barrios Technology                  |  die."                                |
| email: dlyndes@deltahp.jsc.nasa.gov |  - Hunter S. Thompson                 |
+-------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer nor of God. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:8154 alt.satanism:1314
From: rolfl@karl.uio.no (Rolf Lindgren)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Backward Masking
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:21:17 GMT
	<8APR199215152365@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Institutt for Humanistisk Informatikk, Blindern, Oslo, Norway

So far as backward masking goes: There's still the problem: Does it work?
Is it possible to _change_people's_minds_ using BM?

Well, there's been done some research on subliminal messages, ie.
(usually) visual messages that are displayed so fast that you're not aware
you've seen them.

These messages have some effect on monopolistic competition. They can't
make you buy soda pop, but they can direct your choice of brand if you
were already going to buy...

I haven't got any sources though, this is what I heard at a lecture. 


--
Rolf Lindgren		| 	"The opinions expressed above are 
616 Bjerke Studentheim	|  	 not necessarily those of anyone"	
N-0589 OSLO 5		|             rolfl@hedda.uio.no 
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:8107 alt.satanism:1289
From: 00rkspicher@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Backward Masking
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:53:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: bsu-ucs.1992Apr8.105311.5844



> In article <1992Mar31.235053.489@miavx2.ham.muohio.edu>, bstadnik@miavx2.ham.
> muohio.edu writes:
>> 
>>   I was recently talking to a fundamentalist who gave this argument concerning
>> the rock group Led Zepplin and Satan:
>> 
>>        " If you play 'Stairway to Heaven' backwards it says, "Hail Satan" over
>>        and over again.  The technology is(or was) not available to place this
>>        there on purpose.  And the voice patterns speaking it frontwards would
>>        never be able to match anything that closely backwards.  It was put 
>>        there by Satan.  Since Satan exists, God must also exist. "
>> 
>>   I laughed at this.  But I have tried to find something on backward masking 
>> or similar occurances.  I can not find anything about it and am interested.
>> Can anyone point me in the right direction, or specifically:
>> 
>> 1.  Is backward masking technologically possible?
>> 2.  How is it done?
>> 3.  Are there other groups besides Led Zepplin which used it?   
>> 4.  Are there any good books, articles, etc. on the subject. 
>> 

Back-masking is pretty popular for some musical groups. Pink
Floyd uses it in the Wall ("Congradulations, you have just found
the secret message ..."), And ELO (Electric Light Orchestra) use
it in a very large amount of their material (On the album "Time",
the second to the last song is played in reverse as the
background to the second song) None of the songs have "satanic"
messages on them, but the technology does exist. Just take what
you want to have backmasked, record it, play it backwords, then
try to find something which sounds like it to say forwards. 
Repeat until you actually find something which you can play with
enough to have it make sense.  Trial and error, not mention a lot
of time. 

As for the "hail Satan" message in Stairway to heavan, well, *my*
copy doesen't have one ... and I've *looked*. 

RKS