HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Examined by the judge
Date: 12 Apr 92 17:01:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: skyblu.12APR199210013805
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <5305@pdxgate.UUCP>, news@pdxgate.UUCP (Net News Account) writes...
>From: allenroy@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (callen roy)
>Path: rigel!allenroy
> 
>"Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my
>anxious thoughts.  See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead 
>me in the way everlasting."  Ps. 139:23-24
> [commentary on this verse deleted]

What does this have to do with alt.atheism?  If you have some argument
or comment pertaining to atheism, it belongs here, but sermons do not.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:09:54 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)

In article <graham.702781849@bizet>, graham@maths (Graham Matthews) writes:
>You seem to be missing the point Matthew. Neither Eric nor I are debating
>whether or not your method got through to the students. Congratulations
>for teaching them calculus. What both of us are disputing is your claim
>that 'had you taught them the full mathematical truth (whatever that
>may be) you would not have had as much success'. This is a scientific
>claim - you should then verify it in a scientific manner. 

That's not my claim.  My claim is about what happened, not what might
have happened.  I tried and failed with certain methods (too much truth)
and succeeded with others (a careful mixture).

Even a pronouncement that certain forthcomings were an approximation was
subject to inclusion or exclusion.  One example involves the proof of the
chain rule.  The straightforward proof has a subtle error: division by
zero occurs when g(x+h)=g(x)--the fix is to replace the appropriate
difference quotient with the derivative.  For a certain level of student,
pointing out this detail is a distraction the first time around.  Saying
that I'm leaving something out on what looks so straightforward can be
a confidence inhibitor.

Teaching can be a tricky business.  You want to get the students to think
for themselves--and to have the confidence to challenge you--yet you also
want them to accept a certain amount of your authority.  There are no fixed
rules for this, and in my experience, literal truth proved to be a useful
option, but not a necessity and sometimes a definite hindrance.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
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 19:19:47 GMT

In article <73038@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.004952.649@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>No, I claimed that _I_ did.  And that certain corners on the truth
>>>were necessary when _I_ taught calculus.
>
>>Even that is unsubstantiated---i.e. only your opinion. You have a
>>controlled study on YOUR teaching?[Gee, that sounds hard. I guess
>>it just means it's an assertion without proof.]
>
>Total nonsense.  When I didn't cut corners, I could see students
>freeze or get bored or otherwise panic.  
Opinion.

>>And it is still unsubstantiated by any sort of empirical DATA. You
>>may have heard of the concept.
>
>And I mentioned empirical data: my students' grades and their evaluations.
Who graded them?

Evaluations are not, IMHO, a wonderful way to measure understanding.

>>You were making an empirical claim about what was necessary when
>>you taught calculus. Empirical claims require proof. It's the nature
>>of the beast.
>
>You are really getting ridiculous: I know what worked when I taught.
>I was there, you weren't.  As I mentioned to Mr B, it *may* have been
>that mischievous twinkle in my eye or that guilty tap of my foot that
>got my students to learn calculus, but I the cause-effect between my
>teaching and their learning was pretty clear.
No, what I am challenging is PRECISELY the claim that it is
cause and effect. Does the phrase post hoc fallacy ring a bell?

-Ekr




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh?
From: martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: different planet (was paranoid etc)
Date: 8 Apr 92 12:16:41 GMT
Organization: British Telecom

In article <73051@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
> 
> I evade questions that are irrelevant, or that can go on forever.  Eric
> brought up his literalist reading of Joshua 8 in a discussion on how the
> Bible is used by Jews to teach morality to children.
> 
> It wasn't relevant, and so it wasn't worth an answer.  He kept insisting
> I was evading, yet when I asked him for what its relevance was, *he*
> kept evading, yet no one took him to task for this.  Why not?  On the
> third try, he finally admitted what its relevance was: none.
> 
I do not recall you asking Eric of what relevance the passage was, or
Eric evading the question, or admitting there was none. Are you sure
all of this happened?

As a recap, as far as I see the issue (and I wouldn't want to put
words into anyones mouth so this is just my personal opinion), the
relevance is:

The passage appears to be teaching as a moral guide that it is
acceptable to massacre large numbers people and take over their
city if they follow a different religion from you, and the
general extrapolation that ANY act is acceptable if the perpetrator
believes that god has condoned it (eg by the government saying
"god is on your side"). I and (I think) many other atheists, for
this reason, do not think that instilling an absolute moral
code into children from the bible is a good idea, as they will
grow up not questioning authority and thus be prone to manipulation
and "just following orders" of a potentially nefarious nature.

The question remaining is, how (as you suggest) could the passage
be interpreted in any way other than a massacre? True, references
have been posted, but what about a quick summary? I mean, if this
interpretation exists, it HAS to mean that here the bible is simply
wrong, which is big news for christians and a.a.
From: J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: WEEMBA jests or admits atheism? (Was: Re: WEEMBA and DABROWSKI Ang
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:43:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: psuvm.92107.084352J5J
 <92104.101634J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> <65397@apple.Apple.COM>
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Penn State University

In article <65397@apple.Apple.COM>, mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) says:
>
>(I also don't think that a subject is 'of higher order'
>or 'unfathomable' by virtue of being hard to convey. I
>think, for example, that the object of Buddhist practice
>is perfectly straightforward and even mundane; it
>simply doesn't lend itself well to description.)
>
>If I am right, and if other people have similar experience,
>then it may be that some vague or self-contradictory
>communication is a sincere attempt to convey a difficult
>message. In fact, I think of poetry as being in this
>category; if you object that poetry is often clear,
>I will respond that much poetry is clear by artful choice
>of indirection; poetry is the art of using a lie to
>tell the truth.

I agree entirely.  But WEEMBA was giving us no poetry, nor has he
been falling short in a sincere attempt to communicate.  Rather,
he has been setting traps, evading, and playing word and mind games
just for kicks.  Not that I mind, but a pity those who have been
bamboozled by him.

>>These kind of stories (which also can be found in the Sufi, Buddhist, and
>>Taoist traditions) I find valuable precisely because they shake the
>>the rigidity of analytic thinking.  But if the result is solipsism,
>>feeling lost or confused, or permanent inactivity, I think the potential
>>value of the lesson has not been fulfilled.
>
>I agree. If I try to convey a message that is not suited
>to simple explication, and if my delivery is greeted
>with confusion, then I have failed, and the vague or
>self-contradictory vehicle isn't poetry, it's just
>vague and self-contradictory.

While WEEMBA has masterfully escaped self-contradiction, he has
managed to be vague to his own advantage quite often.
-----------------------------------
John A. Johnson (J5J@psuvm.psu.edu)
Department of Psychology Penn State DuBois Campus 15801
Penn State is not responsible for my behavior.
"Don't take yourself too seriously/There are precious few things worth
 hating nowadays/And none of them is me." -- Todd Rundgren
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie)
Subject: Re: Kinnock is atheist
Originator: torrie@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 10 Apr 92 01:42:58 GMT

tony@mantis.co.uk (Tony Lezard) writes:

>g9129499@cc.uow.edu.au (Jeremy Lawrence) writes:

>> The Australian, 8/4/91, states (quote/paraphrase from memory):
>> " Interestingly, he [Neil Kinnock (sp?)] is likely to become the first
>> British Prime Minister in living memory to admit to being atheist."

>I gather that this is yet another area of principle in which he
>has changed his opinion in his desperate bids to get himself
>elected. (ie. now he believes in god.)

  It appears not as I watch the TV now...
  I don't see why he should bother, since the U.K. must be one of the least
likely constituencies to care whether you're religious or not (unlike this
hell-hole, the U.S.).

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Torrie.  Stanford University, Class of 199?       torrie@cs.stanford.edu 
Blasphemy is a victimless crime.                     NZ for the America's Cup!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: WEEMBA jests or admits atheism? (Was: Re: WEEMBA and DABROWSKI Ang
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 04:06:50 GMT

In article <92101.134646J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>I know very few Jews who would affirm the above in a literal sense.
>>Many of us would affirm this in a metaphorical sense --- that is,
>>we would teach lessons containing language roughly like this.
>>Does that make most of us atheists?
>In a word, yes.  Certain rabid, anti-religious atheists might not agree
>with me, but in my book, any person who regards gods as metaphors is an
>atheist.  I myself have been know to light candles on Imbolc, and I do
>not think this makes me any less an atheist.  Welcome aboard.

I think "welcome aboard" may be a bit premature here.  The problem is that
Matthew hasn't actually _said_ that he believes in gods only as metaphors; he's
just trying to get us to _think_ it.  He is either a theist trying to mislead
us into thinking he's an atheist, or else an atheist who acts just like a
theist pretending to be an atheist; and the latter may be nice if you like
recursion, but only serves to obfuscate when used in a discussion group.
--
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: yohan@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Re: Truth
Date: 15 Apr 1992 22:21:54 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kitty.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <1992Apr15.172713.5358@access.usask.ca>, choy@skorpio.Usask.CA writes:
>
>In the article <1992Apr15.092327.19633@athena.mit.edu> by
>David E. Hollingsworth (starpath@bard.mit.edu, NeXTMail: yummy), I get
>reply
>
>>> > What do we know to be true?
>
>>	Nothing without assumption, but if we don't assume a few things,  
>> we can't conclude anything either, and that's not very useful.
>
>I wasn't asking "what tautologies are known?". I'm asking "what is true
>without proof (and perhaps without logic)?" (Maybe logic as we know it
>works.)
>
>Henry Choy
>choy@skorpio.usask.ca
>


Nothing can be known for certain.  You have to make a few assumptions to have a
foundation for your other beliefs.  I myself would be VERY interested in hearing
about anything we know for certain.

Jon Newton
From: simon@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Simon)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Book of John
Date: 8 Apr 92 12:17:43 GMT
Organization: One Hundred Pounds Per Second

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.

OK. Let's concentrate on the Crucifiction business:


Q. Does the Jewish council meet at night to try Jesus?
Luke: NO
Mark: YES (two meetings, one at night, and one the next morning)
Matthew: Cribbed off Mark
John: No council at all.


Q. What day did the last supper occur on?
Synoptics: The day of Passover
John: The day before the day of Passover.


Q. Is Judas Iscariot a real bastard?
Synoptics: YES, he betrayed Jesus.
John: NO, Jesus was already a wanted man and Judas had no part in it.


Q. When does the murder plan start?
Synoptics: At the healing of the man with the withered arm.
John: At the healing of the cripple on the Sabbath in Jerusalem (not Galilee).


Q. When do matters come to a head?
Synoptics: The scene in the Temple followed by the parable of the Wicked
           Husbandmen. No mention of Lazarus.
John: The preaching at Tabernacles and the raising of Lazarus. In fact,
      John has the scene with Lazarus at the point where all the others
      have the scene in the temple.


Q. Who was present at the interview between Pilate and Jesus?
John: Noone. How does the Gospeller know what was said?
Synoptics: The Jews.


There is loads more than this. See "The Unauthorized Version" by Robin
Lane Fox.


################################################################################
# Simon Day @ BT, Angel Centre, London          simon@cyborg.bt.co.uk          #
################################################################################
# "The exoteric, state-organised section of the Christian Church persecuted    #
# and stamped out the esoteric section, destroying every trace of its          #
# literature... in striving to eradicate... gnosis from human history.         #
#                               -      Dion Fortune, "The Mystical Qabalah"    #
################################################################################
From: martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:29:02 GMT
Organization: British Telecom

In article <1992Mar31.210234.14722@watson.ibm.com>, strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
> 
> |> I'm not interested in generating examples of "good morals." I'm
> |> interested in whether children are taught to act in a manner which
> |> will be generally likely to make them happy.
> |> 
> 
> These two paragraphs imply a difference of value systems between
> Eric and me.
> 
> The second paragraph sounds like hedonistic ethics:  maximize
> your own happiness --- don't think about others, including
> future generations.  My value system is very much concerned
> with being fair to others, being helpful towards the disadvantaged,
> and replenishing and improving the earth for the sake of
> future generations.
> 
I think it's a tad on the thick-skinned side to assume that
the welfare of others does not have any implications for 
one's own happiness. 

Meaning, if I act only according to my own preferences, and
only according to what makes me happy, a fair amount of
choices are to make other people happy, because that's
one of the things I like.

Interestingly, some of the christian morals go a bit over
the top on this and order you to always put others first.
This is a bit impractical as the "other" that you are
putting first, must surely feel similarly compelled to
reject you're treatment in order to avoid having put
himself first and thus inconvenienced you. Two christians
arrive at a door and go "after you", "no, after you" etc
for ever as they can't get through it without one of
them sinning?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: starpath@bard.MIT.EDU (David E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: Re: What is religion?
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 20:40:10 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.174301.6377@access.usask.ca> choy@skorpio.Usask.CA  
(I am a terminator.) writes:
> 
> David E. Hollingsworth (starpath@bard.mit.edu, NeXTMail: yummy) replies
> 
> 
> >> > Is everything that we do adhering to some religion, namely our own
> >> > heuristic?
> > 	Atheists do not have a religion, because they do not have the  
> > associated set of required heuristics.    Thus, nothing atheists do  
adhers  
> > to some religion.
> 
> 
> What is the "associated set of required heuristics"? Do you have a
> specific set in mind?
	Well, religion requires a set of theological heuristics.  You can  
associate particular theological heuristics with particular religions,  
hense, the "associated set of required heuristics".

> I was saying that religion is a heuristic.
	Fine.  I proposal alternate defintions, because I view religion to  
be more than just a set of ideas.  (BTW, ONE heuristic?  Are you saying  
that you can't divide religion into smaller parts?)

> Now if all heuristics are religions
	Hold on!  You defined reigion in terms of heuristic; now you are  
trying to conclude something by going the other way around.  Just because  
all lairs are human doesn't mean that...

> then everyone has some kind of religion. The word religion
> may have been given a connotation that confuses us into believing
> something good about mere heuristics.
	I agree that religion has been given connotations that are often  
confusing.  But there _are_ good things about "mere" heuristics.  They  
allow us to _do_ things.

> Henry Choy
> choy@skorpio.usask.ca
--
David E. Hollingsworth
starpath@bard.mit.edu
NeXTMail: yummy
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:43:56 GMT

In article <sd60cINNfu6@doc.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@doc.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>
>Can we please drop the discussion of semantics???!!!  That wasn't the main point
>of my article.  It was adressed to those people who believe, not think, that
>God(s) does not exist.

The point of the postings in response to your article has been that
your article was therefore addressed to a group of people who are not
those who read this newsgroup.

>  Alot of quotes in this newsgroup have said atheists, by
>definition, are those who haven't drawn a conclusion about God.  Afterwards, I
>checked out some generic dictionaries, and they said that an atheist was someone
>who denies that god can exist, while an agnostic feels that God's existance can't
>be proven.  The point of the article was NOT to define what atheist means.
>
>Jon Newton

Dictionaries are not the best guides to the fine points of philosophy;
in particular these usages stem largely from *theological*
definitions, i.e. these represent categorizations of nonbelievers by
believers.

Whatever term you care to use, "people who believe, not think, that
God does not exist" (as you define the terms) are not the people who
call themselves atheists in this newsgroup.  Sorry, but that's life.
If you want some even greater entertainment along these lines, check
out alt.satanism.
-- 
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: smaurer@artin.helios.nd.edu (sean maurer)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: FAQ file
Date: 12 Apr 92 03:01:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr12.030104.13892
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

To whoever flamed Jon Newton for not reading The FAQ:
My news reel thing doesn't have it anywhere on it even it I 
wanted to read it (again) and besides Jon's post raised
questions not covered in the FAQ (as evidenced by the number
of reponses he got. I personally found the article interesting
and well thought out (aprat from the entopy analogy that he
still hasn't explained). In short, he had good points and I
thought the attacks were a little uncalled for.
just MHO.


--
Sean Maurer smaurer@artin.helios.nd.edu
From: J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: WEEMBA and DABROWSKI Angst (Was: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:35:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: psuvm.92099.153559J5J
 <92099.082248J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> <73256@netnews.upenn.edu>
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Penn State University

[spelling of Jarek's last name in header corrected]
In article <73256@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P
Wiener) says:
>
>In article <92099.082248J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>, J5J@psuvm (John A. Johnson)
>writes:
> . . .  I don't think I've said anything in the past two
>months or so that was about _my_ beliefs as such, so I'm wondering how
>you made your conclusion.

You haven't.  I admitted that I jumped to conclusions and that I may
have been mistaken.  But since it does not matter to you whether or
not I was mistaken, it does not matter to me whether you'll ever
find out how I reached my conclusion.
>
[that (tentative) conclusion was:]
>>I assumed that you believed that you had a relationship with the
>>totally unknowable Jewish God by virtue of your ancestry.  Do you,
>>or do you not believe you have such a relationship?
>
>Judaism claims this, correct.  I do not know enough about the supernatural
>to counter such a claim.  Do you?

An interesting reply.  I cannot claim any knowledge about "the
supernatural" because that term is an oxymoron for me.  To me, nature
is "everything that is."  Thus, "supernatural"--something beyond
everything that is--does not make sense to me.  I cannot know--or
believe in--something that does not make sense to me.

That, BTW, is one reason why I cannot believe in God, defined as a
supernatural being.

But your statement, "I do not know enough about the supernatural to
counter such a claim," suggests that you believe that "the
supernatural" exists--but that you don't know much about it.

If what you intended to say was, "I do not know enough to decide
whether supernatural beings exist," then you are an atheist in
my book (see my other post, WEEBA jests or admits atheism?).

Perhaps you could clarify your position (if you feel like it).

. . .
> . . . Would you buy that one Jewish definition--a Jew
>who works on the Sabbath?  Does it accord with your definition?  Would the
>not working--not for holy reasons but for sheer mundane reasons--make a
>difference to you in *your* thinking about atheism?

If a Jew who worked on the Sabbath believed him/herself that this act
made him/her an atheist, I would also call that person an atheist.
As for a Jew not working on the Sabbath for mundane rather than holy
reasons:  there is simply not enough information in this case to
decide whether he/she is an atheist by any definition.
-----------------------------------
John A. Johnson (J5J@psuvm.psu.edu)
Department of Psychology Penn State DuBois Campus 15801
Penn State is not responsible for my behavior.
"A ruthless, doctrinaire avoidance of degeneracy is a degeneracy of
 another sort.  Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing
 metaphysics is a part of life."  - from _Lila_ by R. Pirsig