HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 5g72wheelerj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John C. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: god exists, 2nd part
Date: 22 Jan 1993 08:29:49 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 5g72wheelerj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsd.csd.mu.edu

(continued from previous posting) much of the Jewish Orthadoxy, agree
that the book of Ecclesiastes was written at least two generations
after Soloman's death, although the author claims to be Soloman.
     III - Ever take a look at the 2nd bozook of 2nd Kings (specifically
verses 23-25)? It's a wonderful story about god sending 2 female bears
to tear 42 small children (youths in the NRS trans.) to shreads for
making fun of Elisha's baldness; let's not forget that "Jesus loves
the little children."
     III' - Along the same lines, let's not forget the 19th chapter
of Genesis, in which Lot offers his two virgin daughters to a mob
and is then sighted as the only rightous man in the cities; or the
passage at the chapter's conclusion in which Lot himself then impregnates
them himself.
     IV - Let's also not forget some of the very last words of Moses,
as he surveyed Canaan across the Jordan: "A perverse and crooked 
generation shall be burnt with hunget and devoured with burning heat
. . . the sword without and terror within shall destptroy the young
man and the virgin, the suckling and the man with grey hair . . . I
will make mine arrows drunk with blood and my sword shall devour flesh . . .
<<Can it be doubted that this man's ideas and personality have certainly
left their mark upon history (even as I type, I think of Even Greater
Serbia, the slaughter by Cortes (cross and sword in hand) of the entire
Aztec nation, Puritan "religious freedom" (hence we now have Rhode 
Island, Connecticut, and witchburning stories), the Spanish Inquisition,
etc. . . but I am straying from the immediate issue>>.
     V - There are also great stories in Judges, like the one about
sinated Eglon, a Moabite tyrant so fat that Ehud couldn't pull his
sword back out; or Jephthah, who swore if god gave him victory, he'd
sacrifice the first thing he saw when he got home - which turned out
to be his daughter.  

At any rate, there are obviously many things in the Hebrew mythology
known as the old testament which are entirely contradictory with the
doctrine and theology espoused in the new testament (one of which is
the fundamental shift in emphasis from material/physical/community 
oriented rites to the personal/spiritual/"my kingdom is not of this
earth."  My contention is the following: if one chooses to place faith
in one thing or another, that is his decision; but that person hits
murky waters when attempting to empirically legitimate such; if I were
to buy the new testament, I would be revolted by the old, and vice versa.
Summarily, faith is beyond the bounds of rationality.

John Wheeler
Milwaukee, WI
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<TORKEL.93Jan21194341@bast.sics.se>
	<1993Jan21.200916.26386@ulrik.uio.no>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:33:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.200916.26386@ulrik.uio.no> solan@smaug.uio.no 
(Svein Olav G. Nyberg) writes:

   >Whether A has meaning or not enter into it when you demand that

  You misunderstand my comment. Meaning does not enter into the definition
of the sentence A. The question whether A is a true sentence in English.
naturally involves meaning.

   >The sentence is not meaningless because it is paradoxical, but because
   >it is not constructive, i.e. built from elements already possessing
   >meaning.

  This is a different suggestion from that of Baruch, and also one that
may be taken as a starting point for a consideration of the paradoxes. Again
it is inadequate as it stands.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: Jose Garcia <jgarcia@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Evidence for the market
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:06:57 GMT

violett@indiana.edu writes:
>Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>
>>Hee hee.  Then why do I have such faith in the free market, in
>>limited circumstances?
>
>I am a little bit confused as to what your definition of free market is.  A
>free market defined only under "limited circumstances" is not a free market,
>it is a regulated market.  I guess in this context Gorbachev, Clinton, and
>anybody else more liberal than Stalin, is pro-free-market.
>
>
>---
>Andrew Violette
>Junior, Computer Science
>Indiana University
>



     Then you (or was it someone else) have referred to Japan as a free
market. I allways hear people using Japan as an example of what a free market
can do. These examples are flawed. The U.S.A is a much more free market than
Japan and although its economy is strong hasn't being doing very well.

   Japan is a country with massive trade restrictions, not to mention
government telling companies what  to do in a very active way.

    Does this sound like a free market to you?
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Ignoring the Unknown
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:42:22 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu

leon@cs.weber.edu (Leon D. Atkinson) says:
 
>|> What I can't accept is any claim to certainty; there's just something
>|> so arrogant about it that it has the opposite of the intended affect;
>|> I refuse to even consider the point argued.
>|>
>|> Bill
>
>In other words, since you tried to understand reality, failed and gave up,
>you find it insulting that anyone else would be successful.  This is the same
>thing as congressional 'Soak the Rich.'  Punish those that are successful
>BECAUSE they are successful.
 
This is just pathetic, not only in its laughable irrelevance regarding
the "soak the rich" business, but in its sad failure to understand
what the original poster is saying.
 
What Bill *is* saying is that he finds claims to CERTAINTY arrogant.
Not claims to UNDERSTANDING.
 
There's all the difference in the world between saying "capitalism is a
good thing and here's why" and saying "capitalism is a good thing and I
am so absolutely CERTAIN that it is (following as it does, after all,
from 'A=A') that I don't even need to consider other positions".
 
Such arrogance is bad enough when restricted to a relatively limited
subject like economics or government. But it becomes positively comical
when it takes the form of proclamations that one "understands reality"
(whatever *that* is supposed to mean).
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: svanegmo@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Stephen Van Egmond)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 06:33:29 GMT

Many parts of the post make sense.  But there is one major gaping hole in it:

On what basis can you claim that some of the parts of the bible make sense or
are logically acceptable, and therefore the entirety of it all is 100%
accurate?

To take a relatively simple example, consider the story of Adam and Eve.  Do
you accept the idea that they were the first members of the human race?
If so, have you ever taken a genetics course?  Ever wondered why children
produced by incest often have major health problems?  Do you believe that
all the species of animals on the earth can be placed in a boat (however large)
built out of wood?

Bible discussion on alt.atheism takes the form of complaining about the Bible's
reference to pi as being 3.  This is patently ridiculous.  I hope this doesn't
turn into something similar.

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: God doesn't exist
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 05:08:49 GMT

In article <ked-240193222625@m248-104.bgsu.edu>, ked@2001.bgsu.edu (Burly) 
writes:

>	I don't want to knock God's existence.  I would like to be a believer. 
>Someone out there convience me that he's out there and that he does exist.

SG	Just disconnect your mind from reality. Whatever results is God. 
________________________________________________________________________________
	"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
                                                              AYN RAND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASSD.EDU>
================================================================================
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Active vs. Passive Injury of Others
Keywords: Ayn_Rand,Abortion,Georges_Sorel
Date: 21 Jan 93 23:28:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan21.192730.7421@mks.com>, hugh@mks.com (Hugh Brown) writes...
>In article <C162Hr.32B@news.cso.uiuc.edu> pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j) writes:
>The Objectivist position (elaborated only by Peikoff in lecture as far
>as I know) is that abortion even up to birth is legitimate but
>indicates a certain immorality (for lack of a better word) because the
>woman could easily have decided much earlier than that late date.
>As such, it is indicative of a failure to think or decide.

	Okay.  Makes sense.


>Clarification on entity in this context:  entity refers to the
>separateness and independence.  (please do not misconstrue me
>to mean that 3-year-olds are not independent thus abortable.)
>The fetus is attached to the mother and cannot live without her.

	Wait a minute.  You just said that abortion "even up to birth"
involved immorality because it could have been done earlier.  But
then you seek to justify abortion by bringing up the notion of
entity.  Is a late abortion a little immoral or not immoral at all?
If it is not immoral, why should a late abortion even have a tiny
hint of immorality?

	Do you see my point?  Explanation?


Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Seeing Only What You Look For
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:00:41 GMT


Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: czeller@ih-nxt04.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher M Zeller)
Subject: Re: what i think of ayn rand
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:33:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.172804.1992@sctc.com> smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith)  
writes:
> >Robert B. MacMillan <RMACMIL@auvm.american.edu> writes:
> 
> Despite Rand's glorification of reason and logic, her writing style is
> highly charged with emotion. She advocates emotional repression at the
> same time that she manipulates one's emotions in favor of her point of
> view. The objective message is anti-fascist but the subjective message
> is emotionally coercive.
   Emotionally coercive?! Isn't that what rhetoric is all about? Without 
any set form of mathematical, logical meathod for proving a philosophy
that is all we are left with. Her meathods are one of necessity, but they 
are no different than those used by anyone who has ever given a speech
or wrote a pursuasive essay in their life. The way you say it makes it
sound like she is some sort of deceptive sphengali controlling the minds
of millions of supporters. That is just simply untrue.
 
> While this doesn't match any "political" definition of fascism, it is
> an attack on one's ability to think logically about the issues. This
> is a propagandistic approach to rhetoric. For obvious historical
> reasons, many people associate such rhetoric with coercive government,
> i.e. fascism. In other words, they're reacting to Rand's actions
> rather than her words.

If this is true then it must also be true for you as well, after all, you
are using the same meathod right now when you are trying to prove your
point. But then again so am I. That is not to say it is bad, it is a 
mere fact of life given the poor pursuasive tools that language provides.

> 
> It's incredible how well her style worked, as evidenced by hordes of
> Randites who honestly believed that true individualism required word
> for word agreement with everything she said. Fascinating.

For your infromation, not everyone who follows Rand agrees on everything,
neither do they agree with everything that Rand says. If this were no
so, we wouldn't even have this service. We would all just read her 
novels and repeate them. I don't think that is what is happening here.
Sure we all agree on the basic philosophy, but that is no  more coercive   
than any other nation or culture. Stop trying to find evil plots in  
everything. You aren't likely to be very successful. 

	Chris Zeller
From: KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Utopia YES
Date: 28 Jan 93 03:39:03 GMT
Organization: From a land Beyond Political Correctness
NNTP-Posting-Host: cc210-1.cl.msu.edu


     Ever since I answered a posting to Metzger in which he stated that Utopia
cannot exist (I referring to him as a Social Darwinist), I've been asked by a
few posters whether I believe Utopia can exist.
     My answer:  Yes.
     I find it hard to believe that many readers of a.p.o would blindly state
that utopia isn't possible when Ms. Rand herself describes a utopia within
Atlas Shrugged--the Atlantis section(s).  This in indeed the objectivist
Utopia, with every participant not only productive but actively expanding him
(or her) self BOTH in the "hard" sciences and the arts.  Judges also own
companies and delve into the arts (this because the law has become so simple
that courts are all-but-unnecessary), all the inhabitants greet each others
more like comrades than friends or businesspeople (and more like true comrades
than even the communists could ever conceive of), and the leader of the group
(Mr. Galt) more a first amongst equals than an actual ruler or even elected
official.  Not only that, but how many nations (or even cliques, for that
matter) could run themselves with the absence of a leader for 11 months out of
the year?
     To understand why Ms. Rand would avoid the term "Utopia" (Perfect world)
and instead use the term "Atlantis" [a fragile island (of Objectivist society)
surrounded by a vicious, angry sea (aka a collectivist world) ready to swallow
the island up], we must understand Rand's experiences in Soviet Russia.  These
experiences would lead her to disavow the possibility of a perfect world even
as she would envision one herself.
     And as for death, WHO WANT TO LIVE FOREVER?  NOT ME!  Death reminds one of
the need to accomplish SOMETHING.  If I could live forever, what incentives can
exist to remove the resulting complacency?
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch)
Subject: Re: God doesn't exist
Reply-To: baruch@nynexst.com
Organization: NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 14:52:44 GMT

In article 29640@crash, mdc@crash.cts.com (Milo D. Cooper) writes:
> In article <C1FqD7.Hos@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gambit@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
> =
> =The fact that every entity does not require a cause is obvious, because the
> =Universe (if we take it to be the totality of existence) obviously did not
> =have a cause.  There could be nothing to cause existence, because it would
> =have to exist itself.
> =
> =Benjamin W. Lagow
> 
> 	How is it, then, that from such a nihilistic origin of life
> emerged conscious life aware of its past, and thus concerned with its
> future?  Logic is subject to the dictates of experience.

Are you seriously suggesting that anything with memory must have been created
by some supernatural agent?  I think you are trying to say that consciousness
has no place in science or reason.  You are saying that it is not possible for
consciousness to evolve without the hand of a supreme being.  I want to know
your proof.  You have just made a very strong statement -- I can't believe
you until you show me proof of your statement.

--Rob
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Deliberate Ignorance
Date: 27 Jan 93 06:17:33 GMT
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]


Conan the Ball-bearing? Ok, in the true spirit of Libertarianism, I
can accept that. I do have a little difficulty with your defence of
logic however.

   I don't deny that logic is a useful tool, but I question its
ability to discern Truth. Everyone uses logic, some more effectively
than others, but logic can't guarantee its conclusions. The best we
can expect from logic is the discovery of evidence that might,
eventually lead to a working hypothesis. The connection though is
indirect and not at all necessary (in a logical sense).
   What we fail to include in our logical formulae is our own
preferences; what we -want- to be true. Our desire for a particular
outcome (or the avoidence of same) is as much a determinant in what we
discover as that which we claim to study. Every decision is subjective
by its very nature, and every logical conclusion is a decision. A
conclusion whether logical or otherwise is really the decision to
stop looking for alternatives and is therfore, premature.
   Objectivists seem to believe that their reliance on logic is, in and
of itself, sufficient to give them credibility, it isn't. As a matter
of fact, their insistence on the validity of logic to the exclusion of
everything else, makes them seem simple minded. Real people are a
complex of perceptions, subordinating every intellectual and sensual
attribute to logic ignores the fullness of being human.
   Objectivists sre enamoured of Science, thinking that past successes
mean something. The ability to create 20th century Science existed
even before civilization, it's just that people lived by a different
set of possibilities. There have always been brilliant minds,
genuises, our generation has no significant margin in that regard,
it's all more aquestion of emphasis than value. To define ourselves by
the current state of Science is ridiculous, evrything channges.
   Your reference to Quantum Physics may not be as cogent as you
believe. Physics of whatever variety, has become very adept at
describing observed events, but it's still not entirely certain that
they -understand- what they describe. An engineer on the other hand,
has to know exactly what is required, hunches won't cut it. Who would
you rather have build a bridge, an engineer or a quatum physicist?
   Science suggests possibilities, engineers test and exploit the
possibilities; again a question of emphasis. I don't mean to denigrate
Science or exalt Engineering, my point is that, in both cases, logic
is a fundamental element, but in neither case is humanity fully
defined. The resort to Science that is so typical of Objectivists,
simply dodges the very issues they claim address, namely, what is a
person, how does he relate to others, what are his obligations (if
any), and what sort of society best conforms to his nature ...

Bill
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: zell@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Joseph Zell)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:33:04 GMT

5g72wheelerj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John C. Wheeler) writes:

>Firstly, this is in no way an attack on faith or a "flame," but a
>statement from the point of view (quasi Kant/Kierkegaard) that religion
>is a matter of faith and faith alone - as is the denial or religion; the
>matter is simply not empirically verifiable.
>     I - Historians often measure the scientific ability of ancient 
>peoples by how well they were able to compute the value of PI, the
>ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter (currently listed by
>some computer as 3.14159...).  The Egyptians had it at 256/81, or 3.16049,
>the Babylonians 3 and 1/8, or 3.125; the Bible, however, mentions a 
>giant round cauldron at Soloman's temple 30 cubits around and 10 cubits 

Well, you assume that the cauldron is a perfect circle here. Maybe it
was more of an ellipse. :) Seriously, who knows what the thing actually
was? Even if cauldron was the best translation we have, doesn't mean it
resembled at all what we envision it to be.

I'm not trying to be a second defense for Jeff here, he got himself into
thos. :) I just happened to see this group, and wanted to add a few comments
of my own. 
Joe
>across - giving the Biblical value for PI at exactly 3.

You said it, not the bible. What was that in another post about stretching 
things to make them fit? I see your point, but unless there is more  info
about what the cauldron actually was(does it say it was  perfect circle?)
I really can't see making that statement.

Joe

-- 
Joe Zell               *  "I knew Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was my  
zell@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu  *  friend..."
                       *            -Ronald Reagan, 1992 GOP convention speech
From: rat@StarConn.com ((The Rat))
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Atlas Shrugged casting
Date: 27 Jan 93 04:45:26 GMT
Organization: Starnet-Public Access UNIX--Los Altos, CA  415-949-3133

All this talking about AS casting got my husband
and I to doing the casting thing again, so here
are our choices:

Dagny: Meryl Streep, Linda Hamilton, Karen Allen, or
       Debra Winger
Galt:  We're not sure yet. Maybe an unknown.
Rearden:  Harrison Ford (no offense, but everyone keeps
	  coming up with sort of chubby Italians (Pacino,
	   DeNiro--I don't get it! :-)) or Clint Eastwood
	   about 10-15 years ago
Ragnar:  Rutger Hauer or Sting
Francisco: I know this is kinda off the wall, but I think
	   Tom Cruise might make a stab at it. He's got
	   the intensity, and he can certainly play a 
	   playboy...
Wesley:   Ed O'Neill
Boyle:    Ned Beatty
Ferris:   Jack Nicholson
Taggart:  Michael Keaton
Akston:   James Sikking
Danagger:  Dan Lauria (dad on "Wonder Years")
Stadler:  Sean Connery
Eddie:   Kevin Pollak
Cuffy:   Tom Arnold or Danny DeVito

That's all we've come up with so far. 

This is fun!

Later,
--Rat
From: v055rylr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Amy Pascale)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: does it really matter (if god exists?)
Date: 28 Jan 93 02:32:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


 well, i'm not a "believer" in the typical sense of the word. i think that it
is a personal decision if "god" exists. i've found that people that have some
sense of belief in a higher being or force are generally happier, or at least a
bit more content than those who have decided that there is nothing out there.
i've gone through my devout believing stage (as a catholic), and then my
atheistic and agnostic stages, and i've come to the fact that there is
something there, although i do not know exactly what it is. i think sometimes
that belief is what gets me through when i see no point in anything anymore.
but that is just for myself. if there is actually a god or not doesn't really
matter, what matters is what makes you happier.


keep smilin'
amygurl
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism