HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 09:56:23 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
> In article <graham.711589908@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) 
> >A bird has higher complexity than an airplane?
> 
> No doubt about it.  Wanna bet? even an insect is much more complex
> than a jumbo jet.  Man is able to construct an airplane, bute
> he cannot create a bird. He would fail miserably to do so.

We can't create an everlasting $10 bill, but we can create a Cray XMP
supercomputer.  That doesn't mean a $10 bill is more complex than a Cray XMP.


mathew
-- 
Ceci | n'est pas une pipe.
From: ss@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Scott Stuart)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Blind Watchmaker...
Date: 22 Jul 92 09:20:40 GMT
Reply-To: ss@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Scott Stuart)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Blind Watchmaker...
Summary: 
Expires: 
Reply-To: ss@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Scott Stuart)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U
Keywords: 

In article <Brr2Gq.7sp@cgl.ucsf.edu> brianc@jekyll.ucsf.edu (Brian Colfer) writes:
>If I say nature is so wonderful then there must be a god and 
>by definition god is wonderful... then am consistent to if I do not
>apply the same standard to god?



Because of our experience with things in this world, we have come to 
expect things to have a cause, and therefore assume that causality must
hold for the origins of life.  Scientific theories about the origin of life
on Earth assume that the basic building blocks are essentially similar
to the things we are accustomed to dealing with and therefore, causility
should hold for them.  However, a god is not within our realm of 
experience (at least not in the same way as physical objects if you believe
the people who say they communicate with a god via prayer), and there is
therefore no reason to assume that the causality which we observe for
physical objects should apply to a supernatural god.

scott
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Subject: Re: free will
Organization: Xerox PARC
Date: 26 Jul 92 06:29:42 GMT

graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:

[see "Jarek, where are you (trash bin)"]
From: silver@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (silver)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Free will (from Re: contradictions)
Date: 25 Jul 92 22:01:53 GMT
Organization: The Tally Ho

In article <denmckinnon.2.711815019@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au> denmckinnon@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (NEIL MCKINNON) writes:
>In article <dabrowsk.711681306@liveboard10> dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>>Omnipotence does NOT contradict free will. Though omnipotence implies
>>omniscience, omniscience does NOT imply that the omniscient being MUST
>>immediately know about all events (in the past, present, and future). It
>>only implies that this being IS ABLE to know that. The 'MUST' would, in
>>fact, CONTRADICT omnipotence by imposing a logically unnecessary limit
>>on the power of the omnipotent being. And if the omniscient being does
>>NOT have to know the details of our future, this unknown part becomes
>>the domain of free will. In other words, the omnipotent being MAY allow
>>for free will, though it does NOT HAVE TO allow for it.
>		Dear jarek,
>				You are overlooking one major property of an 
>ominiscient being.  He by definition must know all true propositions.  If a 
>future "free event" is available to him to know if he chooses then it must 
>necessarily be a true proposition.  Thus in his choosing not to know it he 
>forgoes his omniscience. 

I disagree: the property of the oniscient being is not knowing all true 
propositions (no free will), but given any proposition, knowing the truth
of it (free will, 'in the cracks')... thus if some omniscient being knows
whether or not you're going to eat oat bran tommorow for breakfast, it's
predetermined, no free choice on your part... but if an omniscient being is
totally unconcerned with it, you may or may not, who knows? until the 
omniscient being is asked, "will Tony eat oat bran tommorow for breakfast?"
the answer is up to Tony... 

--silver--                                     | "...Sloooow the plot down,
internet: silver@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu            | we'll scuttle the story
realitynet: silver Harloe@(512)/445-6087       | and run her aground..."
In the Village: Number Eight -- Be Seeing You! |        --MST3k/Mighty Jack






Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 00:53:44 GMT

(Ridha Souissi) writes:
>The above passage seems to advocate evolution.  The meaning I got
>is that man reached the current level of complexity naturally (by 
>evolution) over a very very long time.  I argue that there is no proof
>of this.

Want standard of proof do you require Ridha? There is *plenty* of
evidence that suggests that this is exactly what happened. All the
available data fits the current theory very well. Moreover what
theories in competition are there that have anything like the
explanatory power of evolution?

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
From: frazier@maxwell (Greg Frazier)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheists--born or made?
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:03:59 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
: in article <1992jul29.225332.1@acad2.alaska.edu> atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
: 
: 
:  >The following article was first published in the Alaska American
:  >Atheist newsletter (Feb. 1991).  The subject relates (however
:  >tangentially) to recent discussions on alt.atheism and talk.philosophy
:  >about the negative correlation between intelligence and superstition.
: 
:   A fine article! But is it any different from the proclamations of
: people belonging to various religious sects who claim that they alone
: have the courage to face the facts? All this "superiority" business is
: very silly. Among atheists, as among people who like their eggs hard boiled,
: you find the usual assortment of idiots, geniuses, and just plain ordinary
: people.

Two points differentiate this article from similar theistic claims.
First, the article was originally published in an atheist rag, and
then here.  So, it is not a proclamation to the world, or even an
attempt at justification or to get converts, but more an analysis.
Second, the article actually presents a hypothesis and some data -
nothing conclusive, mind you, but if one wanted to, one could set
up experiments to validate or refute the hypothesis.

A fun article (not that I necessarily believe it - the leap to
genetics, for instance, was a bit swift).

--


Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14106 sci.skeptic:13005
From: souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Praying to Mecca?... and Evangelists
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:02:46 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Jul20.090716.204@fmg.bt.co.uk> ghbr@fmg.bt.co.uk (Hossein Bagherzadeh Rafsanjani) writes:
>In article <1992Jul13.015517.29741@athena.mit.edu> suheil@athena.mit.edu (Suheil I Laher) writes:
>
>> The Muslim may be anywhere at any given time, but at the time of prayer it is
>> certain that he is in the place of prayer if he is a true Muslim.
>               ^^                              ^^
>Oh, I thought women can be "Muslims" too.  But then, Qoran would rather talk to
>men (about "their women" too) than to all believers.
>

The Qur'an often addresses women (if you want references, let me know).
But most often it addresses people (man&women) with the title
"O you who believe".  I thought you knew better coming from Iran
(as your name suggests).  BTW are you related to Hashemi Rafsanjani, the
Iranian president?

>-hossein
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Tun's Occultism
X-Sender: newtout 0.01 Jul 13 1992
Date: 25 Jul 92  10:10:58

Tag1: Lionel Tun (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun))
Tag2: Michael Ladomery
Tag3: Richard Harter)
 
LT> "Macroevolution is not observed nor observable.
LT> Commonly cited evidence (for the common descent
LT> of life) is merely interpretation of certain data.
LT> The same data can be interpreted in other ways
LT> which discount macroevolution."
 
Instead of making the bold assertion that there are
"other ways" and then not providing the world with
this information (information you must obviouly have
what no one else does --- quaint behavior, that), why
not just present the evidence and let it speak for itself?
 
I have yet to see any evidence, either irrefutable or
circumstancial, that "discounts" macroevolution, as you say.
 
There is, however, ample evidence that proves conclusively
that macroevolution has occured, and continues to occur.
 
LT> [...] The expectation that microevolution leads to
LT> macroevolution is based on faith that macroevolution
LT> occurred (which is based on belief in a certain
LT> interpretation of observable data). Such adherence
LT> to faith, and actions (evolution research) based on
LT> a belief system constitutes a religion."
 
That's one of the major flaws theists such as yourself
make; they attempt to apply their occult-based rationizations
where they do not apply. Theists very much need competition
to make themselves feel attacked and persecuted. Education and
science is counter to the theists' occultism, and thus people
of learning become "the enemy." Such theists attack education
and science to become "godly" and "choosen" in their own minds,
while the rest of civilization becomes educated and lives better
on the basis of scientific advancement.
 
Since history has shown the theist that other occult believers
(i.e. competing religions) make the best enemies, the theist
in their own minds makes the scientists and the educated into
THEISTS THEMSELVES, even though that may not be the case, and
their sciences into a "religion," which is not the case.
 
How do occultist like yourself keep it all straight?

--- Maximus 2.00
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What's the point?
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:25:41 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.

In article <33779@cbmvax.commodore.com> 
  Robert Weir - Manuals <weir@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com> writes:

>As I understand it, atheism is the denial of god's existance.
>
>But to get to this point you need to first understand what god is, 
>or at least understand what other people mean when they say "god" and
>then reject that god does exist. This seems rather pointless. By
>denying the existance of something, don't you validate its existance
>and then say simply, "Oh, by-the-by, that which I formally held to
>be true, I now hold as false? Denial is a weak argument.

>How can an atheist point of view be argued?

Why is it that a depressingly large number of these posts can be
answered by asking the poster if he/she would agree with the
argument if you changed every occurrence of "god" to "19 Dimensional
Divine Blue Banana"?

>RSW

C Frog
From: mayne@eta.cs.fsu.edu (William Mayne)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Robert Sherman and the water tower
Date: 25 Jul 92 18:17:21 GMT
Reply-To: mayne@cs.fsu.edu
Organization: Florida State University Computer Science Department

In article <1992Jul20.154659.21597@news.acns.nwu.edu> daphne@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Amy Kruse) writes:
>HI!  I was looking for some responses to Robert Sherman's latest removal
>project.  I live in South Holland and the water tower in our town has the
>saying "A Community of Churches"...
>As an atheist, do you find
>those hands offensive?...

As an American I find them offensive. I think Mr. Sherman has an open
and shut case under the First Amendment. I'm surprised that anything
like this still exists. The city is a governmental body and is supposed
to represent all the people. It is not supposed to be advertizing
churches.

>I don't see and reason to remove them, I mean, we are
>a community of churches, pop. 30,000 and over thirty churches.

That is only one church per 1,000 people - say several hundred
since you aren't precise about the number of churches. I would 
guess that the membership, let alone the attendance, of the average
church is much less than 1,000. Given the tendancy of people to form
small churches, either to have more intimate spiritual communities or
because they can't get along on theological points, I doubt the
numbers you've given exceed the average for the area. The presense
of churches does not make a town a community of churches. Are there
no atheists there? If there are an average number of bars would you
put "A Community of Bars" on the water tower?

> Would you
>support Sherman's push to get them taken off....and why?  Thanks I'd
>appreciate any replies......Amy  

Absolutely. And I will be surprised if the courts, even the current
conservative courts, don't agree. I've just told you why.

Bill Mayne
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism and culture
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:21:00 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <Ni8aoB24w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>> We need c) if we want science to have predictive power.
>> If the future is drastically different from the past then
>> no prediction is possible. There is no correlation between
>> gathered data and what is likely to happen.
>
>I was thinking of a hypothetical situation where the laws of physics change
>drastically on exactly one occasion, (say) October 15th 1993.

Hmm. It looks to me like there really is a necessary
assumption here, but that it is a little more complicated
than in my original formulation. It seems clear that
no prediction is possible if we don't assume some kind
of resemblance between past and future. I guess that
the assumption concerns a sort of gross isomorphism
between past and future, but allowing for possible
discontinuities (and corresponding breakdowns of the
predictive power of science across those doscontinuities).

Of course, practically speaking, we normally simplify
the assumption to the one I originally posed (the
future resembles the past except in matters of detail).
From: nht@cs.bham.ac.uk (Neville H. Thomas)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: did christ play with himself?
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:02:44 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham, UK


Derek and Clive (alias Peter Cook and Dudley More)
had something to say about this:
In one of their bawdy albums they relate that Christ was God above the
waist being holy and everything below human.
So the hands, being below the waist allowed him to masturbate.
-- 
Email: N.H.Thomas@cs.bham.ac.uk   Fax: +44 21 414 4281     Tel: +44 21 414 3736
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
From: ratter@b8.ingr.com (Ray Ratte)
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Summary: Silent thinker
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:24:33 GMT

I have been reading this group for a couple of months now and I want to thank

all of you. I have not changed my beliefs and I may have strengthed some. But

what I want to thank you for is making me think!

 _ _                 _ __
' )  )              ' )  )     _/_ _/_
 /--' __.  __  ,     /--' __.  /   /  _
/  \_(_/|_/ (_/_    /  \_(_/|_<___<__</_
             /
            '
Ray Ratte @ Intergraph Huntsville
ray@rayr.b25.ingr.com.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Crusades (Re: RELIGIOUS CONCEIT)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:21:22 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Jul20.234103.6084@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
>Can you cite a case where this occured? Perhaps under the Spanish Inquisition of
...
>Sorry, I didn't realise you were talking about the Spanish Inquisition; in that
>case what you say may well be true (as I said, it's not my field). The SI is 
>something of a special case, since there the I was being used as a political tool 
>by the Spanish monarchs.
...
>Please note that I am *not* defending the Inquisition of the concept of religious error
>which could be corrected by punishment (how could I? I'm an atheist!). I am reacting
>to the ignorant use of historical cliches as arguments against christianity.

I think the point here is that when most people make reference to "The
Inquisition" as an example of religion/Christianity gone awry, it is
to the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition, and not as a reference to
the institution of the Inquisition per se (although the very notion of
an orthodoxy police contains the seeds of its political abuse, whether
you call it The Inquisition or the House Un-American Affairs
Committee).

Of course as with most historical things popular culture has to some
extent caricatured the Spanish Inquisition, but it did exist and was
pretty nasty.  

    
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (The Phantom Coalminer)
Subject: Re: Free will (from Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:11:59 GMT

(NEIL MCKINNON) explains:
>(Jarek Dabrowski) writes:

>>Omnipotence does NOT contradict free will. Though omnipotence implies
>>omniscience, omniscience does NOT imply that the omniscient being MUST
>>immediately know about all events (in the past, present, and future). It
>>only implies that this being IS ABLE to know that. i
>   
>		Dear jarek,
>				You are overlooking one major property of an 
>ominiscient being.  He by definition must know all true propositions.  If a 
>future "free event" is available to him to know if he chooses then it must 
>necessarily be a true proposition.  Thus in his choosing not to know it he 
>forgoes his omniscience.  If you redefine omniscience to circumvent this 
>problem then you in a sense redefine God, and then you are a hell-bound 
>sinner like all the rest of us.

Exactly, Neil.

I think Jarek is missing the difference between omniscience, (i.e. all
knowing), and omni-sciens-potence.  (compound word invented for 
explanatory purposes from the three latin words, meaning *able* to know
all).  

>>omniscience, omniscience does NOT imply that the omniscient being MUST
>>immediately know about all events (in the past, present, and future). It

Omniscience DOES imply that it MUST know all events, for that is inherent
in the very definition of the word.  
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
From: gagrawal@cs.tamu.edu (Gopal Agrawal)
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:56:13 GMT

My last post was not posted completely for some reason. So I am reposting it.

>In article <1992Jul30.155352.21434@cco.caltech.edu> bes@cco.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi) writes:
>>
>>Another way in which it's wise for a woman to modify her lifestyle because
>>of rape is the choice of dress.  Scanty dress might increase the likelihood
>>of her being raped (depending on what the circumstances are).
>>
>
I don't think scanty dress has anyhting to do with the high incidence of 
rape. Go to any beach here and you can see women lying around in Bikinis 
and rarely does anyone ogle at them. On the flip side of the coin, even 
a Burqa clad women is not safe from the street Romeos in India (& like 
wise I'm sure that applies to pakistan too). Its the mentality of the 
society that is responsible for the rapes. Most of the women here are 
raped on dates. I seriously doubt if women here go dating wearing only a 
bikini. Scanty dresses would definetely be a turn on back home since 
it is construed as 'she's asking for it' but not here in US. Rape incidence
here is high, but its not the dress code that's responsible. 

While I agree that women must take some steps to prevent themselves from
becoming too vulnerable, I would rather leave that choice to them than to
men as to how it should be done. Its rather like saying "Driving a car 
increases the probability of your dying earlier than if you remain a 
pedestrian. So you must not drive a car". However, we have all chosen 
to risk death and drive a car hoping at the same time that safer cars 
and roads will be invented. The same goes for most women here. They 
prefer the freedom to work/socialize/achieve their dreams etc. at the 
risk of increasing their chances of being molested hoping at the same 
time that safer males are one day produced in the society. 

Limiting womens freedoms has not helped improve the male mentality one
bit. Day by day, an increasing number of guys act more like drooling 
kids groping for candy kept out of reach. By quoting lower rape statistics,
it is no indication that society has progressed. A society could just as 
well reduce the number of accident related deaths by banning all motorized
vehicles. 

regards,
--   
   ______ ______ ______ ______ __  |\/\/\/|
    ____/  __  /  __  /  __  /  /  |  \  /|   LIFE'S COMPLEX - IT HAS 
   / __   /   /  /   /  /   /  /   | (o)(o)   REAL & IMAGINARY PARTS  
  /   /  /   /   ___/  __  /  /    C      _) 
_____/ _____/ __/   __/ __/ ______/ | \___|  
E-mail - gagrawal@cs.tamu.edu       |   /   All Std. Disclaimers apply.
From: rezkmah@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:27:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.074422.23588@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, ury@humus.cs.huji.ac.il (My Friend Of Misery) writes:
> In article <1992Jul20.175947.21159@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>, timpson@nntpd2.enet.dec.com (Steve Timpson) writes:
> |> 
> |> In article <1992Jul20.135600.19367@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, ury@humus.cs.huji.ac.il (My Friend Of Misery) writes...
> |> >Why is it so difficult for ppl to understand that There is no god?
> |> > 
> |> > 
> |> >-- 
> |> >Ury Segal          | "I'm God, and so is my wife"
> |> >ury@cs.huji.ac.il  | I swear I'm gonna live forever. Tell my maker It can wait.
> |> >Phone: 02-971187   | DISCLAIMER: I Don't spell and I don't care
> |> 
> |> 
> |>         Why is it so difficult for you to understand thaty There is a god?
> |> 
> Because I don't have any proof. Now, can YOU answer MY question or you still want
> to keep waisting everybody's time?
> |> 
> |>         Steve With_his_devils_advocate_hat_on        
> |> 
> 
> -- 

Hi,
Would you mind an intruder?  
I have been following this discussion for a while and I cannot resist
intervening at that point.  I can see the extremely high order and organization
from the atomic level to that of the galaxy as pure and clearcut evidence for
the existance of a creator.  They certainly do not suggest habhazardness, or
do they ?!

                                                             Thanks,
                                                            M. A. Rezk

N.B.  Looking for serious discussion, i.e., no sarcasm please.