HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:58:31 GMT

In article <73446@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.155653.14279@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In order for you to do a good job of teaching, was it necessary for
>>you to lie?
>
>Yes!  Note that this is an existential assertion on my part.
This is a scientific/empirical assertion. Now prove it.

-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: davidch@ZIMMER.CSUFRESNO.EDU (David Choweller)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is belief in Jesus Necessary for a moral society?
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:43:10 GMT

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is belief in Jesus Necessary for a moral society?
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: California State University, Fresno
Keywords: 

In article <5APR199221261464@rosie.uh.edu> cosc143u@rosie.uh.edu (91F9774) writes:
|>SM:My honest opinion is that we need to lay the moral systems into our young before
|>SM:they begin thinking and then when they are ready for rational thought then we
|> 
|>i.e., lie to them about the existence of God, and then later tell them we
|>aren't sure.  What kind of example would this be setting?
|> 
|Whoa... I wasn't saying anything about god, per se.

Sorry, that was a knee-jerk reaction.

|I'm saying instill in them "murder is wrong", "stealing is wrong", and other
|basic moral structures as *axioms*.  It seems to me that religious people do
|this at least once a week while non religious parents often let it slide until

I don't know how true this is.  Are there any studies that bear this
out?  This is an honest question.

|it becomes an issue.  I'm speculating that the rise of weak morality we are 

Why do you think there's weak morality now?  Are you associating
morality with sexual conservatism?

|seeing is related to the decline in religion and hence strong moral training 

During the crusades, and the burning of witches at the stake, religion was
pretty strong, but we didn't get any moral behaviour then.  I think the
connection between religion and moral behaviour is tenuous.

|while young.  Today a lot of parents seem to rely on convincing their children
|what is right and wrong instead of *instilling* what is right and wrong.

What's wrong with this?  That way we can instill in children the value of
independent thinking and questioning, instead of accepting everything
on faith.  We can make them wary of reliance on absolute principles,
and more ready to compromise with others when there are differences.

|---
|Stephen McLeod
|The Eternal Student
--
                                                 davidch@zimmer.CSUFresno.EDU
    Sam:  How's life treating you?
    Norm: It's not, Sammy, but you can!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 23:03:41 GMT

In article <73490@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.185831.16835@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>>In order for you to do a good job of teaching, was it necessary for
>>>>you to lie?
>
>>>Yes!  Note that this is an existential assertion on my part.
>
>>This is a scientific/empirical assertion. Now prove it.
>
>This is a historical claim on my part.  No more no less.
[Note. There may be another version of my response floating around, which
I tried but may have failed to nuke.]

No, Matthew. The claim that you taught by lying and by not lying
and that lying worked better is a historical claim. The claim that
lying was necessary(even for you) in order to do a good job is
not.

-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? 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: WEEMBA jests or admits atheism? (Was: Re: WEEMBA and DABROWSKI Angst
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1992 22:36:14 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Research

In article <1992Apr9.210604.19267@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
|> In article <73453@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
|> >>Let me try some reflective listening.  Matthew Wiener, are you saying that
|> >>god(s) have been so poorly defined for you that you do not have sufficient
|> >>information to decide whether or not to believe in any of these gods?
|> >Uh no.  There's the Christian version, which I certainly don't believe
|> >in.  There's the Big-Guy-in-the-Sky-with-Beard version which I certainly
|> >don't believe in.  They may be poorly defined, but they are defined well
|> >enough for me to reject them.
|> 
|> >It depends on whom you ask.  Smullyan has, in one of his books, a
|> >conversation between an ideal theist and an ideal naturalist.  At one
|> >point the theist says "Why not call that God?" and the naturalist replies
|> >"Why not call it Nature?"
|> 
|> There are certain characteristics often assigned to God which are not typically
|> assigned to Nature.  For instance, God is usually assumed to be a sentient
|> being, while "nature" isn't.  When we get to specific gods, other
|> characteristics are added.
|> 
|> Do you believe in an intelligent God who created the universe, who exists
|> (in some sense in which Zeus and Santa Claus do not), who existed before there
|> were any people around, and who later spoke to humans as recorded in the
|> Tanakh, who gives orders and rules for morality (at least to Jews)?
|> --
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?
-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jews in the "real world" (was Re: Judaism and the FAQ file))
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:13:35 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)

In article <22585@goofy.Apple.COM>, ksand@apple (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>> get the point across.  Maybe Kurt Sandvik thinks he's onto something with
>> his babbling, but by his own admission, he's not.

>I don't know of anyone named Kurt Sandvik, not even in my own family...

Sorry....

>Anyway, more concerning babblings, it seems that you are a master in
>this trade. I would state that Jewish men thinking about sex during
>their religious activities is a prime example of such babblings.

It's documented as a concern in the literature.  Maybe you believe
that people are saints able to control their every thought, but I
don't.

>I have many Jewish friends, and such statements would certainly hurt
>their feelings - to be defined as animals during a holy event.

Who said anything about animals?

>As for any other religions where there's no need to think about 
>sex during the ceremonies,

I never said there was a need.

>			    if you consider this to be babblings,
>it clearly demostrates your ignorance about other customs and 
>traditions.

If you can't get what I say right--even close--you're babbling.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:32:35 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)

In article <1992Apr9.183804.16479@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>Historians deal with the self-serving nature of primary documents all the
>>time, and have ways to read past such literalisms.

>Hmmm...Funny how you have such confidence in this sort of criticism
>when you think it defends your point.

This is backwards.  The historians I'm familiar with come to the con-
clusion that the Pharisees were the majority party, so I have confidence
that this includes seeing past potential self-serving distortions.

>conclusion that the Pharisees were not dominant. Do you have
>a citation to support your claim that they had come to the conclusion
>you say? Note that I am challenging a positive claim by you. You
>have the burden of proof, not I.

You can look in Paul Johnson's A HISTORY OF THE JEWS for starts.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: WEEMBA and DABROSKI Angst (Was: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:24:56 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Distribution: world,public
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson)

In article <92094.152745J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>, J5J@psuvm (John A. Johnson) writes:
>I, myself, have disagreed (sometimes vehemently) with assertions made by
>atheists in this group because I found the assertions incoherent or
>unsupported.  What in the world makes you think that I think that only
>belief differences lead to disagreements?

USENET.  What else?

In this case, I have made no mention of my own beliefs, yet I get
categorized as a theist, apparently because I disagree with atheists
regarding Judaism.

>>Very funny.  If someone posts an article with an acid test for theism--
>>parallel to yours--and I refuse to respond to that, will you then start
>>assuming that I'm a theist?

>>If not, why not?

>I cannot answer your question without seeing the specific acid test.

Here you go:

|>I'll consider you an atheist if you answer "YES" to the first question
|>below and "NO" to the second question:
|
|>1.  Are you a theist?
|
|>2.  Do you believe you do not have a relationship with God?
|
|>That's my acid test.

I will not respond to this one either.

>Your statement from the initial line of this post:
>>>>Really now.  Who said I was a nonatheist?
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>suggests that perhaps you are not a nonatheist.  But, because you did
>not come right out and say, "I am an atheist, and whoever said I was
>a nonatheist was mistaken," you left room for doubt.

That was my intention.  My personal beliefs or lack thereof are irrelevant
to the discussion--I want people to respond to my assertions and arguments,
not what they think I might believe.

>						       I tried to
>remove the doubt by asking you if you are an atheist.  You
>refused to label yourself as such.  When people refuse to label
>themselves, I assume the label does not apply.  Therefore, I
>will continue to assume that you are not an atheist until you are
>willing to say, "I am an atheist."

Why don't you help me out?  Which God do I believe in?  Describe  |  H    g
in detail, please, because I sure as hell don't understand `God'. |  e     r
Do I count as atheist in your book if I merely don't believe in	  |  '      e
a trinity involving a man-deity and some incest?  What if that	  |  s    t  p
foot-long purple frog that follows me around all day is really	  |        h
the Creator of the universe?  Not that I believe it's the Creator |< l      i
or anything, just that it's a foot-long purple frog, but how do I |< y    k  s
really know?  I believe in this Frog, yes, but if it turns that	  |< i     i
this Frog is really that Omnipotent after all, does this qualify  |< n      b
as belief in God?  If you're going to put the theist label on me, |< g    !  o
you're obligated to fill in some details, please.		  |  .     !
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: edw@caligula.cts.com (Ed Watkeys)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 19:48:32 EST
Organization: Guerrilla Networking Project
Reply-To: edw@caligula.cts.com (Ed Watkeys)
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v4


In article <72934@netnews.upenn.edu> (alt.atheism), weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
> In article <1992Apr6.184627.26979@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> >"I'm responding to some very unpleasant people. You don't notice
> >since you've apparently decided that any unpleasant remarks that
> >attack the right group are not really unpleasant after all," which
> >is a remark which certainly could be interpreted as a mite paranoid.
> 
> Especially if the person in question was only reading a.a for the one
> month--as he stated--and is also very ignorant of Judaism--a likely
> prospect--and thus has no idea of how various posters have been mis-
> representing Judaism for quite some time now.

You have got to be one of the most insulting people I have ever met! You don't
know anything about me, aside from the fact that I once posted that a lot
of people don't understand the Balfour Declaration. I think the following
is pretty amusing...

1. A person has been on alt.athesim for a month.

2. Therefore:
 a. the person is ill informed about Judaism.
 b. the person is incapable of any judgement concerning character.

Also, I've seen how we atheists misrepresent Judaism -- It seems that we
misrepresent your brand of Judaism, which aside from yourself, no one can
understand. For instance, your "Orthodox Judaism is not sexist" conviction
seems more based on semantics and casuistry than any sort of logic.
> 
> >Don't you see a certain irony in that? Now, your response is kind of
> >unrelated and a weak insult besides, so it lacks snap. Surely you can
> >do better.
> 
> Sigh.  The snap has been replaced with velcro after my last lobotomy....

?????

> -- 
> -Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
> 

Ed

--
Ed Watkeys (Drexel U. Comp Sci)  "...if you wish to strive for peace
edw@caligula.cts.com              of soul and pleasure, then believe;
edw%caligula@phlpa.uucp           if you wish to be a devotee of truth,
ls.com!phlpa!caligula!edw         then inquire...." -- Nietzsche
From: martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Clergy Abuse
Date: 8 Apr 92 11:54:50 GMT
Organization: British Telecom

In article <bosullvn.702679980@unix1.tcd.ie>, bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie (Bryan O'Sullivan) writes:
> In <9532.29E0E938@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org (David Rice) writes:
> 
> >In the next few days I'll post a few Clergy Abuse reports. What
> >Christians are doing to little boys would make a hard-core
> >porno enthusist blush with shame.
> 
> Is it just me, or do other people also get the impression that Iain
> Jameson's and David Rice's interests run a little to the bizarre?
> 
> this matter come off as irrelevant to atheism or even christianity,
> and they smell a little of sour grapes to me. Any comments?
> 
I think that the point is that numerous christians repeatedly assert
that the bible is the only source of morality, that dedicating
your life to following the instructions in the bible is the only
way to lead a moral life, and that believing in god in some way
makes you more moral than not believing in god (at least god
thinks so!).

These examples of priestly perversion, apart from giving all
us over-grown adolecsents a chance to have a laugh at the
christians' expense, does point out that the above is not
rigorously true, especially in terms of ludicrous vows
of celibacy and sexual repression in general being a
contributary factor.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.satanism
From: kemnitz@netcom.com (Greg Kemnitz)
Subject: Re: Backward Masking
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 18:36:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Apr8.105311.5844@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00rkspicher@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:

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



Well, the exact message is allegedly "There's Power in Satan."  Having
tried this, I've heard something that sounds roughly like it, but it is
hardly compelling evidence.



		Jon Rhein
		jon@postgres.berkeley.edu
		posting from a friend's account
From: dlyndes@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (David Lyndes)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: "Where did the universe come from" is an illogical question
Date: 15 Apr 1992 00:40:58 GMT
Reply-To: dlyndes@deltahp.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: Barrios Technology @ NASA/JSC; Houston

In article <graham.703164866@dumas>, graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
|> [Ryan Daum]
|> >|> >Many Atheists and Theists alike use the question of "Where did the 
|> >|> >universe come from" as a platform on which to support their particular 
|> >|> >opinion.  [...]
|> 
|> Me:
|> >|> What you are confused about is what you mean by 'reality'. If you do
|> >|> not define 'reality' as 'everything there is', but rather as say 
|> >|> 'everything we percieve' then it is indeed possible for an observer to
|> >|> imagine being outside of a reality [...]
|>
|> (David Lyndes) writes:
|> [...]
|> >If your intent was to find a way to to ask "where did everything come
|> >from", but exclude a supernatural being from that "everything", you'll
|> >have to come up with some other way to explicate "everything".
|> 
|> My intent was merely to show that Ryan's problem is all in how
|> you define reality. Thats all.

My intent was to express skepticism that "reality" could be defined
in any way, short of being completely ad hoc, and still have the
question make sense.
-- 
+-------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| David K. Lyndes                     | "Kill the head and the body will      |
| Barrios Technology                  |  die."                                |
| email: dlyndes@deltahp.jsc.nasa.gov |  - Hunter S. Thompson                 |
+-------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer nor of God. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: WEEMBA and DABROSKI Angst (Was: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:53:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.l0qjd5b.barry
Distribution: world,public
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <graham.702607240@bizet> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>when John asks you
>'are you an atheist' he is quite clearly asking whether you fit the
>description of the word atheist *AS DEFINED BY THE DEFINTION HE HAS
>GIVEN YOU*.

	John didn't define "god", Graham. I'd have great difficulty
answering his question, too, and I'm not even trying to be difficult.

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:51:10 GMT

In article <73209@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.212243.14200@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>Glad to know you're omniscient. Now give me some data.
>
>What omniscience?  I can recognize when a student freezes rather easily.
>This requires no special talent, just care and alertness.
>
>If this talent seems omniscient to you, I'd say the problem is with you.
No, I just don't believe you HAVE that talent. I might if you
provided some empirical data to support that claim.

>>Boffo. Now produce something standardized that we can agree on
>>as a good measure of calculus learning.
>
>I couldn't care less if you agree with my measures.  You're the first
>person I've come across who thinks teacher evaluation of students needs
>controls or standardized tests or the like.  I've written letters of
>recommendation and have yet to see my evaluations questioned as needing
>other support beyond my word.
You must not get out much.

>>Good. Substantiate that.
>
>No, you substantiate it.  You call UCB and ask for comparative ratings
>of TAs in the early 80s, when I taught calculus.  I even got some TA
>teaching award, I think it was '81 or '82.
That's not substantiation.
I pointed out already that TA evaluations are not a good measure
of teaching ability.

>>You have alleged that this is causative mechanism. I am pointing out
>>that it could be coincidental--or at least improperly controlled.
>
>Once, it could be coincidental.  Hundreds of times, no.
Improperly controlled hundreds of times? Quite possible.

>Nope, I did not control for mischievous eye twinkles or guilty foot
>tapping.  But I don't believe they were the cause, and I wouldn't
>bother controlling for them either. 
So?
I know what you believe. I'm asking you to provide some data
to support it. Without doing so, your conclusion is unjustified
opinion.

>>The empirical truth value of your assertion is non-related to
>>the vehemence with which you claim it to be true.
>
>That's correct.  It just happens to be true, though.
Good. Prove it.
-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: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Keywords: God
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:33:33 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Apr16.135553.4080@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> zeisset@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Stephan Zeisset) writes:
>
>Why do a lot of atheists think if there is a god, he must fit
>into their view of the world ?

  Well, isn't the bible supposed to essentially be his
  autobiography?  He's given us a good template on which to judge
  his personality.

>Why do you think you can apply the laws of nature to the one who
>created them ?
>In fact, human perception IS limited.
>If I throw a dice - can you predict if it will be 1,2,3,4,5,6 ?

  Yes, with a 1 in 6 probability of being correct on a fair die. 
  What does this have to do with perception?  So what if the
  observer has every relevant piece of information available to
  predict the outcome of the toss?  Have you heard of QM? Chaos
  theory?  Perception ain't always the problem; sometimes the very
  act of perceiving *causes* the indeterminism.

>If the outcome is 2 - can you tell me why ?
>
>Stephan.

  The blade cuts both ways.  If humans had unlimited perception (try
  to define *that* term), it would probably do away quite tidily with
  your god if the last 200 years of scientific progress is any
  yardstick.

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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

Well, I vote for us to believe in an honest lawyer. There's a 
better chance that one exists than there is a chance that there is a god. 

No jesus, know peace.  Know jesus, no peace.