HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:46:55 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <Aug.30.19.43.16.1992.16449@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>In my opinion, "Liar, lunatic, or Lord" was not one of Lewis' better
>arguments.  It doesn't take into account the most common agnostic or
>atheist position, which is that his words have been modified over
>time.  And by its tendency to produce black-and-white contrasts, it
>tends to lead to arguments that don't do justice to the subtleties of
>Christian theology.  However there is some point to his comments.
>Perhaps it's not as common now as when Lewis wrote, but many people
>tried to think of Jesus as a great moral teacher, but not as the
>Christ.  While Jesus may not have said "I am God", he did speak a lot
>about himself and his specific mission from God.  To see him as simply
>a moral teacher, you have to ignore much of what he was trying to say.
>Lewis was speaking to these people, who accepted the NT portrait of
>Jesus, but ignored half of it.

Ironically, Lewis's argument tends to rely heavily on the shock value
of the proposition that a central cultural icon of goodness such as
Jesus could be a liar or a lunatic (without getting past that to any
consideration of the shades of gray involved).  Consider the reaction
to recent revelations/accusations of plagiarism by Martin Luther King,
Jr.  

I would have to say, though, that this position is more an acceptance
of a cultural stereotype -- century upon century of Jesus being
portrayed as the perfectly moral man, as well as (in whatever sense)
God, rather than "the NT portrait" per se.  So I would tend to agree
that a reading of the gospel accounts leaves one with a very different
picture than this stereotype.  I say this from personal experience, as
one who at one time tended to argue the Jesus-as-moralist line, based
on this cultural image, until I actually read the gospels through and
was rather disappointed...  I still don't find much to support that
Jesus claimed any sort of divine status (Messiah, perhaps, clearly a
special mission from God, but something very different from what
subsequent Christian theology has produced).  There are nuggets of
morality in there, but much more petulance and casting out of demons.
The best-known moral statements are not particularly unique to Jesus
(or Judaism, for that matter).
-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR OR LUNATIC? (continued)
Date: 28 Aug 92 08:53:57 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

joyce@meaddata.com wrote:
....
: ----------------------If anyone is interested where I got this from,
: I'll let you know sometime.------------------------------------------

I would be interested in knowing where you got this from. This would
also seem to be helpful given that people are speculating at present.
Nothing wrong with using available material in a post, IMO; just let
people know what the source is.

Thanks -- Chris Ho-Stuart
From: Brennan.J.Murphy.53@nd.edu (Brennan J. Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Paper Topic Help.
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:16:45 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: University of Notre Dame

I am a Junior Philosophy major at the University of Notre Dame.  In my
Metaphysics 424 classs, I am required to to write 2 8-10 page papers
dealing with any aspect of metaphysics. There are 3 restrictions: 1)the
papers have t be about Metaphysics, 2) they have to be original papers and
3) they have to be not merely descriptive but critical.
Can anyone offer suggestions as to what would be an interesting topic and
where I can find background information on the topic?  I am interested in
Alvin Plantinga's work and as of now I would like to focus on some of the
questions he deals with.
Thanks for your help,
Brennan
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Undecidability and the FAQ
Date: 27 Aug 92 11:15:17 GMT
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <wjcn78h@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:

   >Well, I've found a bit of time to re-subscribe to alt.atheism, and I
   >went through my brain-child, the FAQ.

  Hello there, I see you're back and going on about the continuum
hypothesis as usual. As I have pointed out before, your comments,
apart from having no apparent relevance to atheism, are incorrect.

   >"Aleph-one" is
   >arrived at by taking 2 to the power of aleph-null.  "Aleph-two" by
   >taking 2 to the power of aleph-one, etc.

  Aleph one is not at all defined as 2 to the power of aleph null, but
as the smallest infinite cardinal greater than aleph null. The assertion
that aleph one is 2^aleph null is the continuum hypothesis.

  But why go on about this? You are apparently wedded to your
"mathemagical" mangling of set theory.

  As for the FAQ file entry, your comments are irrelevant, since what
is asserted in the entry is that it is undecidable "in the formal
system" whether an undecidable statement A is undecidable. I didn't
attack this formulation, since it is indeed true that if Godel's
second theorem applies to a theory T, then it cannot be proved in T
for any A that A is undecidable in T.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cf603@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:11:21 GMT
Reply-To: cf603@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Sill)
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


[Follows redirected to alt.atheism]

In a previous article, russ@math.okstate.edu (Horatio "Random" Hellpop) says:
>
>So, the reality of situations don't matter.  What matters is what someone
>claims.

Oh, I see.  So if one uses the "correct" definitions of "Christianity" and
"Christian", the reality that bad things are done by Christians doesn't
matter.

>By definition, the blood-thirsty individuals in question are not
>practictioners.
>
>See?

Yes, it's all clear now.

>It's pretty simple.  Those that follow to the best of their abilities the
>words of the Gospel do not, to use your example, hate people for not being
>Christians.  Those that DO use the name of Christianity to deliver a lesson on
>how to despise people _are_not_followers_of_Christianities_tenets_.

I got it, already.

>What would you suggest?

More effort by Christians to separate the wheat from the chaff.  They're
really giving you guys a bad name.

>I think faith is not something one has to defend; anyone who says that he
>takes nothing on faith is lying.

It's different to believe the sun will rise tomorrow than it is to believe
that there's an omniscient, omnipotent God, that Jesus was his son, that
Jesus died to forgive my sins, and that when I die my immortal soul will
reside in heaven.  The former is observable and explainable in terms of
simple physical processes.  The latter is based on some ancient documents
and not demonstrable in any concrete way.

>You are going down this path:
>
>Some people declare Christianity as their reason for hating some other people.
>Regardless of the fact that the tenets of Christianity actively teach against
>such behavior, the fact that the above happens is the fault of Christianity.
>Therefore, all Christians should be watched carefully.
>
>Quite frankly, I think I can live with your disdain, if that's its basis.

Okay, fine.  But I really think the level of tolerance "true" (by your
definition) Christians display for "false" Christians is, itself,
inconsistent with Christianity--or at least reflects very poorly upon it.

-- 
Dave Sill
Play: cf603@cleveland.freenet.edu
Work: de5@ornl.gov
From: che755v@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Stephen Hawking - National Public Radio
Date: 24 Aug 92 10:58:44 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

In article <1992Aug23.154527.25699@walter.bellcore.com>,
 arturo@alcor.bellcore.com (A. Cisneros) writes:
>
> There was a story this morning on National Public Radio (U.S.)
> on Stephen Hawking. It ended with what appeared to be a quote
> attributed to him: "Then we will know the mind of God".
>
> What concerms me about this is that it tends to attribute
> to Hawking a belief he apparently does not hold. I read
> "A Brief History of Time" and it is pretty clear to me that
> he does not believe in a personal god. Is there anyone who
> knows him that can tell us whether Hawking uses "God"
> metaphorically for Nature? Is the NPR report inaccurate?

The quote (and Hawking did say it) appeared on the BBC Horizons (?)
program "Master of the Universe" and may have appeared in "A Brief
History of Time" (but I can't remember for sure).

I think you'll find that he was actually taking a comment of Einstein's
as the underlying thought.  Einstein once said something like "I want to
know God's thoughts", by which I understand he meant the ultimate
goings on in the Universe.  Thus when Hawking says "Then we will
know the Mind of God" he means we'll understand those same "ultimate
goings on".

Comments/Additions/Corrections???

Peter D. Thomas
Centre for High Resolution Spectroscopy and Opto-Electronic Technology
Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi)
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:36:52 GMT

I'm reminded of a quote I saw in Henry Spencer's .signature file:

"There is nothing wrong with making mistakes, but... make *new* ones."
	-- D. Sim

This "trilemma" argument you've posted comes from decades-old sources
that are popular reading among Christians, such as the works of C. S.
Lewis.  If you'd used your brain instead of your scanner, you'd have
realized that the probability that you're the first Christian who has
found the trilemma argument and posted it here is so close to 0 that
God can't tell the difference.

-- 
David Canzi
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please Read This One!
Date: 25 Aug 92 01:58:14 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug21.082159.295@doc.bmd.trw.com>, jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
wrote:
> If people consistently do stupid things it's because they're naturally 
> stupid.  But I don't think it's stupid to resist the distribution of
> condoms, I think it is stupid to distribute them, and not for religious
> reasons.

It is stupid not to distribute condoms. It is stupid not to save
human lives.

> If condoms could actually help to prevent AIDS, I would be all for it.
> But they won't.  They can't.  If condoms are only 80% effective against
> pregnancy without the aid of a spermicide as reported in the little
> info sheets than come with birth control pills that discuss alternative
> birth control options, then how does anyone seriously think that condoms
> will help prevent HIV infection during long-term sexual activity?

It is stupid not not to solve the problem 80% and instead wait
for the 100% solution.

Sadly I must state personally, that if we have religions that prohibit
people from saving other human lives, it is a question of insanity
rather than stupidity. Jesus would weep.

Cheers,
Kent
---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Did the world end already?
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:20:30 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <17msulINN31b@wupost.wustl.edu> oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser) writes:
>	Could some knowledgeable person tell how Christians explain the
>various NT passages where Jesus claims that the end is IMMINENT, and that
>some of his disciples would live to see it?  I can't provide a verse 
>reference, but I believe the Gospels make this claim more than once.

The answer provided to me in my catechism classes (oodles of years
ago) is that the big J. was speaking from the perspective of
the infinite god, so "imminent" compared to eternity could be
a very, very long time.

>	Seems kind of hard to reconcile this sort of statement to our
>continued existence here.  Hey, maybe the world did end already, and
>we've all apparently wound up in hell! :-)
>
>-Scott Oser
>

You are right.  Every generation since the time of Jesus has taken
his statement to mean literal imminence in their own times.
The current proliferation of 'end-timers' is not new or unique.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Organization: Masters student, Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: lyu@cs1.uct.ac.za (L YU)
Subject: Re: Stephen Hawking - National Public Radio
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Cape Town
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:32:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.105844.89861@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> che755v@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>From: che755v@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
>Subject: Re: Stephen Hawking - National Public Radio
>Date: 24 Aug 92 10:58:44 +1000
>In article <1992Aug23.154527.25699@walter.bellcore.com>,
> arturo@alcor.bellcore.com (A. Cisneros) writes:
>>
>> There was a story this morning on National Public Radio (U.S.)
>> on Stephen Hawking. It ended with what appeared to be a quote
>> attributed to him: "Then we will know the mind of God".
>>
>> What concerms me about this is that it tends to attribute
>> to Hawking a belief he apparently does not hold. I read
>> "A Brief History of Time" and it is pretty clear to me that
>> he does not believe in a personal god. Is there anyone who
>> knows him that can tell us whether Hawking uses "God"
>> metaphorically for Nature? Is the NPR report inaccurate?
>
>The quote (and Hawking did say it) appeared on the BBC Horizons (?)
>program "Master of the Universe" and may have appeared in "A Brief
>History of Time" (but I can't remember for sure).
>
>I think you'll find that he was actually taking a comment of Einstein's
>as the underlying thought.  Einstein once said something like "I want to
>know God's thoughts", by which I understand he meant the ultimate
>goings on in the Universe.  Thus when Hawking says "Then we will
>know the Mind of God" he means we'll understand those same "ultimate
>goings on".
>
>Comments/Additions/Corrections???
>
>Peter D. Thomas
>Centre for High Resolution Spectroscopy and Opto-Electronic Technology
>Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:48:18 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Aug25.080154.308@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.043742.14071@news.duc.auburn.edu>, singram@eng.auburn.edu (Scott Ingram) writes:
>> Re: 10% of our population is homosexual.
>
>I seriously doubt that it is more than 2%.

  As Jim Perry has pointed out, you may question the correctness of
  the Kinsey report, but I see absolutely no support for your figure
  of 2%.  Could you please cite a credible source for this number?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine)
Subject: Re: A question
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University - Chemistry Dept. Programmer
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:54:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.211518.14502@spdc.ti.com>, achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes...
}>}Your "notice" of the "gay" community reminds me of Sherlock Holmes
}>}noticing a flea on his dinner plate using his 5X looking glass.   :)
}>} 
}>}(If you don't "get it", your "statistics" are about 5 times too high.)
}>}Regards,
}>}Jim B.
}>
}>Out of curiosity, what relevance does the percentage of the population that
}>is homosexual have on the government's discrimination?
}>
} 
}What relevance does this have to alt.atheism? 

The discrimination against homosexuals is nearly all religously based.

}By the way, last time I looked
}we were not governed by the Boy Scouts of America.

Go back and reread the original post in this line. It concerned the U.S.
government's discrimination by prohibiting homosexuals in the military
and same-sex marriages.

With regards to the BSA line, I would say that as a private organization,
they do have the right to discriminate in any way they see fit. As a
result, they and their supporters will lose my business, but that's all
part of this game we play called capitalism.

}Jeff Achenbach

I'd suggest, Jeff, that you make yourself more aware of the line of discussion
you're in before you began asking relevancy questions.

}-IvArch->--------------------------Brett G. Lemoine-------------------->
}-Texas A&M University--------------Chemistry Department Programmer----->
}-Internet: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu-Bitnet: lemoine@tamchem------------->
}------"A person without a god is like a fish without a skateboard."---->
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: god is not relevant
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date:  3 Sep 92 00:38:33 GMT

ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge) writes:

>I've been spending way too much time thinking about what i believe and why.
>I've been especially concerned with the distinction between not believing
>that god exists and believing that god does not exist.  I started from
>not believing in the existence of god, but i've come to the conclusion that
>the god is simply not relevant.  So what difference does it make if he/she/it
>exists or not?

>Now, is it reasonable to call oneself an "atheist" if one's position is that
>god is not relevant?  I don't think that "agnostic" is correct, since if god
>is not relevant then the question of god's existence is also not relevant.
>Is this atheism, and if not then what is it?

>Or is god relevant?  If so, how and why?  What's he/she/it needed for?

Unfortunately God's existence is relevant, as until we convince the majority
of fundies that God has no bearing on our lives they will continue to 
brainwash and psychologically maim large numbers of people, besides wasting
a large portion of the community's resources doing it.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,soc.motss
From: elle@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ellen Keyne Seebacher)
Subject: Re: A question
Reply-To: elle@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 15:39:45 GMT

[various people write...]
>}they don't mention that in the past the christian church has blessed
>}same-sex marriages.  Return to tradition[al] values!!
>
>I don't suppose you would have a reference to that? I'd really like to
>be able to use that information in an argument.

Try John Boswell's _Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality: 
gay people in Western Europe from the beginning of the Christian era
to the fourteenth century_.  University of Chicago Press, 1980; 424 pp.,
with plates, bibliography, and indexes.  Library of Congress reference
HQ76.3.E8B670; ISBN 0-226-06710-6.

--
Ellen Keyne Seebacher            elle@midway.uchicago.edu

               Hate is _not_ a family value.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:15986 alt.politics.bush:3094 alt.politics.clinton:3161 soc.motss:37133
From: hedrick@aramis.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,soc.motss
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:55:17 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

elle@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ellen Keyne Seebacher) writes:

>>}they don't mention that in the past the christian church has blessed
>>}same-sex marriages.  Return to tradition[al] values!!

>Try John Boswell's _Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality: 

Boswell apparently has talked about same-sex marriages in public
presentations.  However as far as anyone has been able to find out he
has not said enough nor published the necessary documentation to allow
his claim to be evaluated.  He is supposed to be working on a
publication.  Until we see it, it's going to be hard to evaluate the
claim.  He's a good enough history that I doubt it will be made up out
of whole cloth.  But there are going to be all kinds of questions,
like how widespread the practice was.  You can find some Christian
sect that's done just about everything.  Also, evidence can often be
construed several ways.
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Re New atheist newsgroup - .moderated
Date: 26 Aug 92 12:17:36
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au's message of 25 Aug 92 23:33:19 GMT

In article <18437.2a9b48d8@levels.unisa.edu.au> 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au writes:

   The moderater (he said he was...) is Tony Lezard, 
   tony@mantis.co.uk  I don't know if that address is complete or what,
   but try it anyway.

The correct moderation address is atheism@mantis.co.uk.
--
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 league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Rock
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:14:23 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <92241.194550EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu> <EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>Just curious here......
>Has anyone ever heard of "The rock argument" (I have never a formal name for it
>, so I took the liberty of naming it appropriately)
>Here it is:
>
>      Is God (I'll assume the Judeo-Christian God) all powerful?
>   ANSWER: Yes.
>      Then could he/she/it create a rock so massive that he/she/it would not be
> able to lift it?
>   IF ANSWER IS NO, Then: God is not all powerful, as something exists which he
> cannot create.
>   IF ANSWER IS YES, Then: God is not all powerful, as something exists which h
>e cannot lift.
>
>It's some kind of loop without an exit.  As dumb as it is, has anyone heard of
>it, and what do you think of it?
>
><TACHYON>

Yes, this argument is as old as ... well, as old as rocks.

Once, for relief of boredom, I posed this puzzler to a Jesus Freak
acquaintance.  His answer was, "Yes, god could make a rock so
large that he could not lift it, because he is all-powerful.  
But since god has not yet created such a rock, there is nothing
in the universe which he cannot lift, so he is still all powerful".
Ta-Da!  Not quite as mind-numbing as the "Believe in god
even though you cannot see it, since you believe in air and
you cannot see air, either" argument for god's existence.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |