HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Free Will
Date: 4 Sep 1992 00:13:27 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird
Keywords: free will, determinism, 1-800-EAT-PIZZA

     <devil's advocate mode ON>

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

 I don't know WHY we act the way we do. That is impossible to know. However,

Of course, this would tend to support an assertion
or view that free will exists ;)

 Is it possible to choose something of which you have no conception?
 In other words, in making a choice, you can only choose among the
 possibilities of which you are aware. It was impossible for me to choose
 to become a Zoroastrian at age 8, because I didn't even know that 
 Zoroastrianism existed.

This is much harder to contradict. Hmmmmm. What say you allow
someone else to make a choice for you, ultimately resulting
in a choice of which you were previously unaware?
 
 Can we choose outside of our conditioned responses, in the sense of 
 rebelling against our social training, or our habits, etc? Of course,
 obviously people do it all the time. How is this possible? Because
 of what I have called our "nature. "

And this "nature" could be "free will?"

 This is another issue, I think. These guys felt that if you cleared your
 head sufficiently of nonsense, good would be the same for everyone.
 A very complex issue!  But I think I dealt with the definition thing
 last time.  What counts as far as "choice" goes is what APPEARS BEST TO
 ME.  The same for you, the same for Jeff Dahmer, Hitler, Gandhi, etc.

Or there could be the neurotic or psychopathic personality which
would tend to choose self-destructive options, making them more
"pre-determined" also.

 Actually what I said is that we go with what APPEARS best at the time. 
 
Taking this further, the person always goes with what
appears to be the best decision at the time, this means
that they always choose what the most want to do, this
in turn means a person is always doing what the most
want to do at the time? If this is correct, what are
the ramifications for personal responsibility?

 Is there such thing as the net.police?

Oh no, of course not <putting away doughnut and coffee>.

               I would say we can only ever observe, we can never conclude.

Yet, we *always* arrive at some sort of conclusion(s)
-- even if it is always based on incomplete information
-- in order to make a choice (the apparently best one).

<devil's advocate mode OFF>

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil (God ain't what you think!)
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:23:41 GMT
 <l9kp31INNkto@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> <1992Aug25.180426.7129@ac.dal.ca>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>Now - this means that God KNOWINGLY created a universe in which babies
>die in burning cars, children are beaten to death, etc ad nauseam.

>And in which people choose evil.  If he wanted to, he could have created
>people who had free will but no DESIRE to choose evil. That is, people
>with the ability to choose evil, but no desire to. People who found evil
>too ugly to even contemplate seriously. There are some people like that now.
>Why not everybody? 

>Voila! Problem solved! A universe with free will and no evil! 
No, not at all.  For if there were no possibility for them to chose evil,
then there would be no free will!  In order for a person to freely chose
not to do evil, the real, logical possibility of evil must exist.  Thus, in
order for free will to truly exist, evil must truly exist.  And there must
be a real chance that it can be chosen.

>Because God did NOT do that (apparently), he MUST want evil to exist.
>He must WANT people to sin, and fail, and be separate from Him. 
>Because that is the kind of universe he created. And omnipotent beings
>ALWAYS get what they want. 
Clearly evil was created by God, along with everything else.  It is a
product of God's desire for freely given love and worship.  Unless there is
the real, true possibility that these would not be given, then there is no
free will...I don't believe God wanted automotons.

>BTW, on alt.atheism about 8 mos. ago, we had a contest to see who could
>dream up evil-less creations given God's reputed powers. We came up with 
>several nifty ones - any ideas out there?

Was this a 'best of all possible worlds' type discussion?  The point is,
that in order to have free will, there will always be some person who is
slightly less good than the others.  By scales, this person is 'evil', even
though by our scale he/she might be nearly perfectly good.

Taking a look, we can eliminate the 'most evil thing'..let's say Hitler...and 
then we now have another 'most evil thing'...say Stalin.  We can continue
to do this but never eliminate the 'most evil thing' (or least good thing)
unless and untill we get to a point were there is no free will, or only God
is left standing...

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 06:36:46 GMT

In article <25AUG199211121196@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.cci
.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>I've removed rec.arts.books and rec.humor from the distribution of
>this article.  (I didn't notice that rec.humor was there earlier, and
>ended up receiving several pieces of hate mail for an earlier posting.
>Thank you, whoever added it.)
>
>In article <1992Aug19.222409.7629@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FS
) writes...
>>In article <19AUG199200230764@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.c
it.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>>I fail to see the moral relevance of ex nihilo creation versus creatio

>>>from preexisting materials.  If human beings were able to create intel
igent
>>>life ex nihilo, I still don't see any reason to think that enslaving o

>>>killing that intelligent life would be morally permissible.
>>>
>>What do you mean by "morally permissible"?
>
>Permitted by moral standards.  Morally right and good.  Not wrong.
>
>Now how about answering the question?  What is the difference between
>creation ex nihilo and creation from preexisting materials such that
>intelligent life created in the former manner is the owned property
>of the creator to do with as he pleases, while exactly the same intellig
nt
>life created in the latter manner has autonomy?
>
Cause maybe if the raw materials were there it might have sprung into it's
own being, but if they weren't then an act of will would have bben needed?

Big Al.  I dunno, sounds like a good explination to me.






Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Biblical errors
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:10:44 GMT

In article <BtpLo3.C2v@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
}In article <1992Aug28.160227.28801@newsgate.sps.mot.com> 
}weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
}>"pi = 3" *IS CORRECT* to one significant digit.
}>Please show the intellectual honesty to remove this one from the lists
}>of biblical contradictions/errors.
}
}Ah, well I am not THE keeper of the official list of Biblical E's and O's.
}Perhaps you should plea elsewhere. I think we can let the readers decide this 
}one, don't you think? After all, this "intellectual honesty" is a slippery 
}thing. If one digit accuracy is good enough for you, than it will have to do.

Doesn't bother me.  Just sorta wonder why some things are only approximate
while untestables are suppose to be THE thruth, exactly.
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: JW humor
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:30:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.114538.19882@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>
>>This is religion we are talking here; what made you think that logic
>>has anything to do with it?
>
>	Because we (JWs) use it. 

 He,he Andreas made a funny

 Even withing a religious context, any discussion of watchtower theology
 by necessity, requires that logical concepts be ignored.



-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ender@shiva.UU.NET (Pete Walsh)
Subject: Re: Proof that the USMC is ToolOfTheDevil[tm]
Organization: UUNET Technologies, Inc
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 04:05:06 GMT


Rip the M.A.R.I.N.E.Guy (Muscles Are Required, Intelligence Not Essential) sez:
|> Well, the first part of it is the *real* quote.  'Tell it to the
|> Marines' came about along time ago when some Brit Navy Capt was
|> telling the King about his travels in the seas around the equaltor,
|> and in particular about seeing flying fish.  Well, the King asked the
|> old grizzled Marine Seargent who happened to have been on the same
|> ship if it was true.  The King knew that if the Marine said it was
|> true, then it must be true...  Hence forth if the King wanted to make
|> sure something was true he would 'tell it to the Marines'.
|> 
|> 
|> Note: The details of said story are shakey, but the meaning of the
|> works is there.  If you want to know the truth, ask a Marine...


Just be prepared to give him enough time to run find out from the nearest Navy
man...

=)

HI RIP!  =)

"From the halls of Montezuma, to what's left of Tripoli..."  (to the tune of
"Ode to Joy")

Hmmm...  I still prefer the Navy's (though the Marines are admittedly higher
lifeforms than the Army and ESPECIALLY the Chair Farce... =) )

"Let's go get laid my boys, let's gooooooOOOOOOO get laaaaaaaaaaaiiiidddd..."

|> 
|> rip
					._______________________________.
-- Ender				|				|
Secretary to the President of the RFA	|	PARTY 'TIL SHE'S	|
CoHost of the ARC/RFA BeaChat '92	|	      CUTE!!		|
Dino/Grace's Big Bro and Official Poster|_______________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Wrong Pronoun
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:57:46 GMT

00jdbecktel@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:

>In file 21555 you are referring to God as a she so you say. WRONG.... It says
>in Genesis that God created man in his own image, so how can God be a woman 
>when it says otherwise in the Bible.                          

Ever get the idea that not all of the people here are Christians?  Hmm?
There are pleny of female gods hangining around...

The Christian God (referring to the composite of the Trinity), has no sex.
That's part of what trancendence is all about.  Although the construct of
the Trinity assigns male anothropomorphisms to the 'Father' and 'Son', the
Holy Spirit is arguably female*...;-)  "Wisdom/Sophia"....

* Nicene Creed notwithstanding.  I'm referring to the OT references...

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil (God ain't what you think!)
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:07:46 GMT
 <adams.714835421@spssig> <1992Aug26.153544.7158@ac.dal.ca>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>In article <adams.714835421@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>> No, not at all.  For if there were no possibility for them to chose evil,
>> then there would be no free will!  In order for a person to freely chose
>> not to do evil, the real, logical possibility of evil must exist.  Thus, in
>> order for free will to truly exist, evil must truly exist.  And there must
>> be a real chance that it can be chosen.

>See what I mean? God could tell our hypothetical people: "Look, if you do
>X, Y, Z, that will be evil. Don't do it. "  They now have the choice to do
>X, Y, Z, or not.   BUT - do they want to?   God created these hypothetical
>people in such a way that they DON'T. So they freely choose not to. 
>Evil remains an unrealized possiblity in this world. 

>(Note: if you smell a fish here, you're onto something...!)

I do smell a fish! ;-)  In your logic again.  If God created people who
would ALWAYS chose the right way, they aren't truly free!

>> Clearly evil was created by God, along with everything else. 

>Thank you! I thought I'd never hear a Christian admit this inescapable 
>conclusion of their doctrine. Glad to be wrong, for once...:)

Hey, I read the owner's manual.  Isaiah 45:7 is darn clear.  And Job backs
it up 100%, as does ex-nihilo creation.  God *MUST* be responsible.

Are you new around here?  I've been saying this for over a year on the net
now...;-)

>God, being omnipotent, could create ONLY people who would freely love and
>worship him. To deny this is to deny his omnipotence. BUT - he didn't. 
>He created people who he knew would freely chooseto reject him. 
>Since he CHOSE to do this - God must WANT this to be the case. As far as
>I can see, there is no way out of this, except to revise your theology.

If there was no real chance of turning away, then there is no real free
will.  There must be a real, logical possiblity that the person will turn
away for there to be free will.  If there is no such possibility, then
there is no free will.  Your version of creation has no such *real*
possibility.

>Better accept it - either God is not omnipotent, or he's not omniscient,
>or he's not very nice, or he's so far beyond our comprehension that your
>theology is worthless, or he is just a flawed rational construct.

He's so far beyond comprehension that my theology is effectively worthless.
But it's all I've got to work with based on the witness of Scripture.

To quote Him: "My thoughts are higher than your thoughts, and my ways are
higher than your ways"

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:14:01 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>In article <sbuckley.714432253@sfu.ca>, sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen
>Buckley) wrote:
>>   well no.  let me explain it in other words.  i grant the reality of 
>> spiritual experiences with or without jesus.  they are all real.  thus
>> i am not doing special pleading.  what i am saying is that i believe
>> from my experience, study, reflection and prayer that non-jesus experiences
>> are not rooted in the God(tm), the one creator god.

>OK, if I make a similar unlogical statement and boldly say that
>from my experience, study, reflection and prayer jesus experiences
>are not rooted in the God(tm), the one creator god, will that 
>now objectively destroy your argument.

  no. i'd just disagree with you.

>Or if I state that by prayer, contemplation and reflection I do
>know that the great Cherry Coke God is the creator of this universe?
>Did this sound more convincing? 

>Please, note, you and I are products of our our brain that collects
>input every second. To boldly state that one's personal view is
>the one and only right one is as impossible as any other statement
>done by a human being.

  i do not believe that *I*, my identity, is fully a product of my
brain.  neither of us can *prove* our assertions, we must believe what
we do on faith alone.  and i don't say my view is right because it
comes from me or is somehow a subset of me, but rather *because* it 
is eternal, separate and objective.
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Various Religions
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:12:57 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1888f7INN2ej@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>-*----
>Note followups.
>
>-*----
>In article <1992Aug29.194930.10566@access.digex.com> minx@access.digex.com (minx) writes:
>> ... I was just saying that atheism is a religion that calls the 
>> bible fiction.
>

  Great.  Another mutton-head who considers atheism a religion.  

  Let's look at the word, shall we?  A-theism ==> No-theism ==>
  No-belief-in-any-god(s). Period.  End of story.  Doens't qualify
  as a religion in my book.  Or are you one of those people who
  actually believed the Supreme Court when it declared Secular
  Humanism a religion?

>Which is still a pretty silly thing to say.  

 Yeah, but since when has that stopped them?

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

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: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<adams.715098634@spssig>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 20:28:17 GMT

In article <adams.715098634@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>It's really immaterial whether or not the Serpent was Satan.  Obviously,
>the NT writers thought that to be the case.  The Serpent can, if you wish,
>be simply thought of as a great deceiver, the one who brought down Adam and
>Eve.

Who ate the fruit? Let's have a some responsability for a change, OK?
You were delivered FROM slavery and have free will, you are free, but
with that freedom comes responsability for your actions. Don't go
blaiming your failures on Eve or the snake or the Devil or anyone else,
it is you who is responsable. You ate the fruit of knowledge, now make
use of it, as was intended.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15124 alt.atheism:16098
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik (Hacker))
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:34:46 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug17.171006@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren
Vonroeschlaub) wrote:
>   Are you saying that the properties of water change if there is a whole lot of
> it?  Keep in mind that the amount of water needed to even approach moving
> something the size of India would turn even the most sturdy ark into toothpicks
> in a matter of seconds.

Actually, you hit the nail to the coffin of the Noah's Ark myth. If the
water
was strong enough to change mountains, it didn't seem to do much with a
tiny,
small wooden ark. 

This is the dilemma of the fundamentalist scientific forces. They are keen
to explain things scientifically so the world today conforms to their
bizarre
theories. However when the *same* theories are used against their ideas,
they start using 'deux ex machina' tricks, such as 'God's hand presumably
saved the ark from destruction'. You can't have both, most likely God did
everything
from beginning to the end, including covering it all up so the world would
get a fresh group of skeptics wondering why the Bible is false. Or then
both
scientists and Bible scholars would *all* agree.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Think of that
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:17:57 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA

starpath@bard.MIT.EDU (David E. Hollingsworth) writes:

>In article <1992Aug31.155444.18537@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi  
>(Antti Siivonen) writes:
>> 
>> 	To a smart person simple things are too complicated. 

>	Perhaps this is because humans have a tough time intuiting the  
>difference between simple things and complicated things.

>--
>David Hollingsworth starpath@bard.mit.edu Send me NeXTMail or kill me
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>"This is the last straw...this man has got to go!"  -- A Christian
>radio show's statement about Massachusetts Gov. Weld, upon reporting
>that he is funding an organization intended to prevent suicide
>among teen homosexuals.

This is an excellent quote!  It typifies Christian intolerance very nicely...

Wulf                    | "Martha, it's another one of those CS majors asking
jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu |  if cow chips are pin-compatible with 68040s..."
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15419 alt.atheism:16374
From: jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 1 Sep 92 02:06:03 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA

ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO) writes:

>>I don't see any "moral obligation ... to preserve" either--at least, if
>>"preserve" means the taking of positive actions.  I do see a moral
>>obligation not to destroy.

>No, I meant preserve as "not to destroy", not necessarily a positive action.

>Yes, we do disagree.  The true creator of a sentient being
>(especially one who can create and recreate the same being
>repeatedly at will, which creating out of nothing certainly
>implies) has the moral right to destory completely its creation.
>I am firmly convinced of this...

Why?  Killing one sentient being and replacing it with another does not bring
the old one back...


>-- 
>John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     hfsi!ata@UUNET.UU.NET
>HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet.uu.net!hfsi!ata
>7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
>McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14590 sci.physics:13379 sci.chem:3167
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Date: 24 Aug 92 01:30:14 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: na
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <1992Aug21.230035.9668@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>    I think you got the gist of this argument.  That is, the 'great 
>    scientists' that believed in creation lived before Darwin.

Certainly sounds right to me.

>    In fact, I think that to believe in creation as a scientific
>    theory (except maybe the 'give it a kick and let it evolve for 
>    20 billion years' school) automatically disqualifies one from 
>    being a 'great scientist'.
>

I'm not sure how your exception qualifies as creation _and_ a scientific
theory. But where you go wrong is the automatic disqualification. In the
(what certainly appears to be) tremendously unlikely event that a scientific
theory which is significantly "creationist" becomes accepted, there would
have to be among the proponents a truly awesome scientist.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc