HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: epowers@spock.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Science and choice  
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:03:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.052054.14749@midway.uchicago.edu>  
dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell) writes:
> In article <1992Dec5.115155.26324@nmsu.edu> epowers@dante.nmsu.edu (POWERS)  
writes:
> >Daniel S OConnell (dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu) wrote:
> >: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
> ....
> >: What happens indeed? Just because "God" knows, doesn't mean
> >: >you< know, therefore, you continue to operate with "free will".
> >: 
> >: The real question is: what difference does it make? We all 
> >: operate under the premise that we have "free will", don't
> >: we?
> >	The other question is, will you also accept the other consequences
> >of this premise, or will you only believe it when it's convenient? :)
> >						Erik Powers
> 
> Okay Erik, I'll bite: what are the consequences?
> 
> Dano

	You got it.  Here's a good one, that always manages to net a few  
flames:  When I do work in my particular field of science (evolutionary  
biology) I must assume that every situation I encounter is the result of the  
situation that existed previously.  This assumption is universal in the  
sciences, and is what allows us to say that an experiment done correctly is  
repeatable, i.e, if you plug the same variables into the physical situation you  
will get the same results out.  This, however, does not allow for free will.   
Anything you do or think is the result of the way energy and matter interact,  
and is not affected by any outside force (eg, the supernatural).
	So you must "choose":  either you must base an important part of your  
philosophy on science and deny free will, or you'll have to find something  
outside of science to base it on.
	Hope you enjoy!
						Erik
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: "Separation of Church and State"
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 06:23:56 GMT

In article <BzH9Gy.r0r@austin.ibm.com> frank@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner) writes:
>
>This thread has degenerated into a pointless byzantine debate.  What is
>more important, the interpretation of what so-called "founding fathers"
>meant in the Constitution 200 odd years ago, or the reality of
>contemporary America? 
>
>I mean, are obsolete ideas worth preserving?  Were these founding
>fathers infallible?  Clearly not!  Legislators and the courts should
>strive to make the law of the land applicable to the necessities of the
>day, and not engage in the preservation of unfair or anachronistic laws
>subject to misinterpretations and ambiguities.
>
>Any form of government that is based on, or endorses any religion or
>creed is, by definition, non-egalitarian and basically unfair to people
>outside that religion or creed.  Therefore such governments cannot be
>considered democratic but rather theocratic.  
>-- 
>
I agree with all but one thing: there is nothing wrong with a law being
non-egalitarian.

	Sven

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: FLAME: atheists should mind their own damn business
Date: 13 Dec 92 17:14:04
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<1992Dec12.202025.810@abo.fi>
	<1992Dec13.182905.23540@timesink.chi.il.us>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: harry@timesink.chi.il.us's message of Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:29:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.182905.23540@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:

   In article <1992Dec12.202025.810@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka) writes:
   >
   >      WARNING: the following is 100% napalm, and it's ablaze. Not
   >recommended for sensitive readers.
   >
   The whole thing was rather mild IMHO... Yawn...

So not only a twit, but a macho twit too.  Oh well, poodles are always
more annoying and more aggressive than golden retrievers.  Actually,
flies can be even worse, although they can be dealt with with a
dustbuster.

   >In <1992Dec12.071137.16343@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us writes:
   >
   >> I don't have anything against atheists really... just leave me and
   >> my world alone.
   >
   >      THIS, you're posting on OUR newsgroup?!? Look who's talkin',
   >asshole! Matter of fact, if I hadn't seen that one line on top of all
   >this drivel, I never would have responded - but you asked for it!

   Oh, I'm so sorry to spark a controversy in alt.atheism... I didn't
   mean to get y'all excited... NOT!

I have to say that this is even worse than the fundies.  They at least
are trying to prove a point.  You're simply trying to pick a fight.

   I support it wholeheartedly... I simply loathe those who pick it up as
   a battle cry and stir up trouble where none existed before. Sort of like
   me... I'm stirring up trouble here where y'all are complacent and happy
   in yer little niche. Ya know what? Y'ALL DON'T LIKE IT...

And you're just trying to pick a fight without even trying to accomplish
something.  There's nothing wrong with stirring up trouble if one has a
real reason to stir up trouble, but you don't even pretend to have a
reason.

   I WILL NOT! I like it here. It's now my mission to disturb your
   sensibilities and make you think about other peoples feelings besides
   your own... I happened to like the seal of the City of Zion, Illinois.
   It gives me great pleasure to know that, after the court ruling, the
   new seal was emblazened with the motto "In God We Trust". That'll show
   you to what lengths the majority will go to foil your "Bah Humbug"
   attitude towards the beliefs we hold dear...

It certainly shows us what lengths you're willing to go to to be
annoying.  Doesn't tell us anything about any majority.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write lpf@uunet.uu.net
From: Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org (Ian Douglas)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: The constancy of the universe
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:20:00 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 5:7102/119 - Zero 2 Infinity, CT

Hi all!

On 12 Dec 92, rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu wrote to All:

 >>  >> I know I exist.
 >>
 >>  db> What do you mean by 'know', and what do you mean by 'I' ?
 >>
 >> Does the terminal in front of you exist?

 rle> I don't know....

Mmm :-)

Why did you answer the question? Did you see it? or merely imagine it :-)
Do you exist?

If you are going to answer, "I don't know", what do you mean by 'I'?

Cheers, Ian


--  
INTERNET: Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Preaching to parts of the body (what I saw on TV yesterday)
Date: 11 Dec 92 13:59:16 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Dec8.204431.8431@u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>Whenever I see a religious salesperson on TV, I lay my hands on the
>top of the set and scream "Brain, THINK!"  So far, no positive results
>to report.

That's because you're appealing to a non-existent entity.
(Yes, I'm an a-religious_salesperson's_brain-ist.  I don't believe
such a thing exists.)

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:23508 alt.slack:3454 talk.religion.misc:23720
From: bpb9204@tamsun.tamu.edu (Brent Burton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.slack,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 13 Dec 1992 01:41:25 -0600
Organization: Texas A&M Univ., Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: tamsun.tamu.edu

Geoffrey Spear <gs32+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|
|> God doesn't have to approximate pi; He knows it.
|
|	Funny that the Bible says it's 3, then, isn't it?  If God was really
|responsible for the Bible, you'd think he'd avoid such blantant mistakes.

Awww, give him a break.  He was just appealing to the laybeliever.  Didn't
want to distract with unnecessary details, ya know.

Actually, my New American Scientist Bible has pi listed to 15 places.
Also, the world was created in 6.8 days, not the aforementioned 7 (again,
rounding for the masses).

-Brent
-- 
+-------------------------+
| Brent Burton    N5VMG   |    
| bpb9204@tamsun.tamu.edu |  
+-------------------------+ 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus)
Subject: Re: Atheists should mind their own damn business
Organization: Big Bulging Buffalo Bladders -R- Us
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 08:28:18 GMT

In article <10947@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.004700.5788@cis.ohio-state.edu> sheikh@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu (rizwan a sheikh) writes:
>>
>>At least we didn't make fun of your ORGANization, Hairy.
>>
>>And don't think that just because some of the newbies on a.a take you
>>seriously that the rest of us do. You will have to do better than what you
>>have done so far.  Keep trying.
>>
>>Jim Copeland
>>on a friend's account
>
>  Yup.  Seems being an atheist still doesn't necessarily allow you
>  to see when the hook is firmly buried in your rectum, and Harry's
>  toying with the reel.
>
>  It's times like this I wish alt.atheism.moderated appeared on at
>  sight.
>
>Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

Yup... I've got a big one... he's running with it! Lookit 'im go!
Yeeeeeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaw!
- Harry
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jelliott@athena.mit.edu (Jesse C Elliott)
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 05:39:05 GMT

>The strong atheist says " I KNOW God doesn't exist!"
>
>The weak atheist says "I don't know for sure, but I BELEIVE God doesn't exist".
>                                   
>The agnostic says "I don't know if God exists or not, so I'm not taking sides".
>               or "We CANNOT know if God exists or not, so it is pointless
>                   to be either atheistic or theistic."
>
>Fine line, I know, but thats the FAQ def.
>
>When you begin looking at a group of people up-close, you find
>it gets harder and harder to put them in nice, neat piles.
>
>Brian /-|-\

If one looks at the word "atheist" from an etymological point of view,
one sees that it means "not theist."  Hence, an atheist should be one
who does not believe in a god, as opposed to one who believes that there
is no god.  Such a person I would call "anti-theist."  Of course,
this is all a matter of taste.

I suggest the following:

(1) The theist says, "I believe in a god."  In other words, he says, "I
    have reason to believe that there is a god."

(2) The atheist says, "I do not believe in a god"  In other words, he
    says, "I have no reason to believe that there is a god."

(3) The anti-theist says, "I believe that no god exists."  In other words,
    he says, "I have reason to believe that there is no god."

(4) The agnostic says, "I have no reason to believe that there is a god,
    nor do I have reason to believe that there is no god."

(5) The confused say, "I have reason to believe that there is a god and
    to believe that there is no god."

(6) The unreasonable say, "I do not reason."

(7) The rest say, "I don't give a shit."

Under these definitions, one is exclusively theist or atheist;
the agnostic is atheist but not anti-theist; the atheist is exclusively
anti-theist or agnostic; and the confused are theist and anti-theist.

If you prefer to substitute "weak atheist" for my "atheist" and "stong
atheist" for my "anti-theist", that's fine.  Perhaps the above results
sound more conventional that way.

As far as what you call a "strong atheist", I would hope that few people
claim such *knowledge* of the non-existence of a god.  And if someone did
have such claim to such knowledge, I would surely like to know how such
knowledge was obtained.  (Are there really any "strong atheists" out there?)


Jesse

N.B.: I think that the actual *manner* of classification above is what
matters most.  A rose by any other name, etc., etc., etc..

Perhaps, when asked, it is best to just state what you believe.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cfairman@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman)
Subject: "Militant" Atheist?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 21:15:07 GMT

Harry (who else?) writes:

 I despise the militant, activist atheist not
for his beliefs or non-beliefs... but for the ridiculous lawsuits they
file and the living hell they put their kids through. Like the stroke
that sued the Boy Scouts of America for crying out loud... like his
little boy is going to be made welcome now... bullshit! He will be one
alienated little boy who will be the target for all sorts of abuse at
the hands of his peers. But his dad can hold his head up high, 'cuz
he stood up for what he believes in. What a load of self-serving crap!
- Harry


What makes this lawsuit ridiculous? Because it is against discimination?  And 
what is so horrible about fighting the Zion seal?  I have to mention spearation of church and state _again_, bexause you seem to've been sleeping when it was taught in school.  It is possible that one kis will be ridiculed by his friends.
Growing up an Atheist, I was often ridiculed by my friends, and their parents.
It's part of being a minority.  That doesn't make it right or ethical.  Oh,
you must be a moralist, because you want to get into Heaven.  The kid, not
the Dad wanted to be a Boy Scout.  The kid. He had to swear something stupis about serving god and refused.  Like any good father, the Dad tried to get this
discriminatory practive stopped.

Militant Atheistss are  pressing lawsuits because the government is willfully
violating the Constitution.  I don't think your posts are very useful or
informative.  But, it's a free world.  Right?  Oh except in Arkansaw.  You
can't run for public office unless you swear a belif in Awlmighty Gawd
(that's god to you I'm sure.).  This is worth a lawsuit as it violates the
Constitution.  geez, I'm repeating myself.  Perhaps it's because I assume
you have a thick skull.  And to protect such a small brain...

Carolyn
 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: A "DISPROOF" OF GOD ?
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 15:41:25 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <Bz6uDI.qv@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, skillian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Seth James Killian) writes:
> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>  
>>	Hmmmmm......
>>	
>>	There are some chri$tians who claim that god holds atoms together..
>> 
>>	But then they claim that god is all powerfull (omnipotent).
>>	
>>	God=omnipotent
>>	God=force that holds atoms together
>>	then....
>>	the force that holds atoms together=omnipotent=God
>> 
>>	WAIT !!!!!!!
>> 
>>	Atoms  can be split. There for therefore the force that holds them
>>together can be overcome !
[...]
> 
> 	Wow.  A truly stunning piece of philosophical wizardry.  Just putting
> 	the incredibly silly nature of this argument aside for a moment, your
> 	disproof itself is flawed.  The word atom is actually Greek and it 
> 	originally meant "the smallest possible unit" or something like that.

Wow, if we look at your post, we realize that it is primarily gobbledegook
since most of these words nevr existed in ancient Greek.

> 	This is not what is today meant by the term atom, as there are   
> 	obviously smaller components than the atom itself, 

The fact that you went on to say this makes me wonder why you said the above in
the first place. The wonderful thing about language is that it evolves! Words
change their meanings, and you can't shoot down an arguement made in 1992
based on the meaning of a word used some 2000 odd years ago.

>       So, if we look at the true meaning of
> 	the word "atom", then it cannot be split and you have failed to 
> 	disprove one of the silliest arguments for the existence of God that
> 	I have ever heard.

No. You are using the definition of the word "atom" in another language than
the one that the original arguement was made in (English). Agreed though; it
*was* one of the silliest arguements for God that I've ever heard.

>       A truly misguided logical progression; it's 
> 	frightening that people such as yourself are actually allowed to
> 	continue to eat the food that could be going to feed starving brine
> 	shrimp population of the world.

Fortunately for you, we are not all prompted to starve those who fail to make
a clear arguement in favor of brine shrimp. (Er--I mean starve them in favor
of the brine shrimp, not that they make an arguement in favor--oh, nevermind)
 
Yours in Azazel,
--Semhaza
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: proof
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:31:57 GMT

casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
>
>I am willing to be part of an objective discussion about why I believe in God
>and what the basis for my belief is founded in facts (no, I can't offer concret
>proof in 30 words).  I'm not interested in a flame war, I seriously would like
>a discussion based on analysis.  I can't claim to know everything

Mm, okay, I'm interested to hear what you have to say.

>Ok, my 30 words =>
>
>An empty grave, It would take take even more faith not to beleive, Historical
>Accuracy of the bible, Completeness of the Spiritual model given in the bible,
>personal experiances, Answers.

Let me try to respond to these, as I've thought through them many
times before.

An empty grave: I find it hard to believe that someone could have
stolen the body of Jesus, but I find it harder to believe that Jesus
became an 'angel'.

Faith: Throw out science, and give me a few thousand years, and I'll
most likely be able to eventually reach the same empirical
understanding of the universe that we hold today.  Throw out the
Bible, and give you a few thousand years, and you may very likely come
up with a completely different religion that bears no resemblance to
Christianity.

Historical accuracy: The Bible can be considered to be historically
accurate in many places without having to support a lot of the
"miracles" it talk about.  On the other hand, the Bible has already
been demonstrated to be quite _in_accurate in several places.

Completeness of the spiritual model: I think this came about a s a
result of being refined over centuries.I think that if a group of
people were to believe for hundreds of years that the earth is run by
mice, they could also eventually come up with a consistent explanation
for this.

Personal experiences: I find it hard to believe that a lot of the
people I've spoken with are making things up when they say they've had
visions of Jesus, or so forth.  But I find it harder to believe that
these visions could actually have happened.  I'm therefore forced to
conclude that there's something else at work here, such as possibly
that these people have such "personal experiences" because they
subconsciously want to.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /  carborundorum.                                               -- Rousseau
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: proof
Date: 14 Dec 92 06:02:09 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <casivils.724130930@node_508ba>, casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov
(craig sivils) wrote:
> An empty grave, It would take take even more faith not to beleive, Historical
> Accuracy of the bible, Completeness of the Spiritual model given in the bible,
> personal experiances, Answers.

Concerning historical evidence, this is NOT a clear issue at all. I would 
state that most Christians are Christians by faith, and they hope that
the historical evidence will some day be independently verified as well.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Keywords: Bible--psychology--fundamentalism
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 08:17:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.061710.16747@midway.uchicago.edu> dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.005337.14823@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>
>>	I ended Part 1 by asserting that the Bible is primarily a
>>psychological document, and that the long and bitter debate over its
>>didactic content had missed the point.  To continue in this review, we
>
>And in this, I assert, you are wrong. The hebrew testament is
>primarily a document concerning "God's" covenant with a 
>particular tribe of hebrews. 

Did I wind up in alt.non.sequitur by mistake or something?  I think
Cohen is primarily concerned with new testament Christianity, not
the hebrew testament.  Besides, even if we were exclusively discussing
the OT, it still might be illuminating to examine it as a psychological
document in order to attempt to explain how it is that a small band of
Jews have managed to maintain their culture while surrounded by a hostile
world.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: me@vikings.austin.ibm.com (Michael E)
Subject: Editing money: I LIKE IT! I LIKE IT!
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:36:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: what's that? 

In article <MMEYER.92Dec14095020@m2.dseg.ti.com> mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.071137.16343@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
>> If you don't like "In God We Trust" on US Currency,
>
>	... cross it out.  This post has inspired me to resume what I
>had been doing a few years ago - cross out that obnoxious quip on
>every piece of paper currency that crosses my path.  Thanks.
>
>-- 
>Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
>Texas Instruments, Inc.,  Plano TX                       +--------------------+
>Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
>                                          Who says I should question authority?

What a magnificent protest method! 

Submit your protest ideas- I nominate this the best idea for 1992 (regardless how long it's been around).

;)
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:23774 alt.atheism.moderated:472 news.answers:4586