HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: FAQ file
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:36:36 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <0wV8iB11w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk writes:
>smaurer@artin.helios.nd.edu (sean maurer) writes:
>> To whoever flamed Jon Newton for not reading The FAQ:
>> My news reel thing doesn't have it anywhere on it even it I 
>> wanted to read it (again)
>
>Then your news system is set up incorrectly.  I suggest that you tell whoever
>runs it.
>
>
>mathew

  Well, the FAQ expires after about 3 days on my system too, and as
  far as I know it doesn't appear anywhere but on this group.  I
  don't see why you can't post it every couple of weeks for people
  who are new or unfamiliar with the intricacies of news.

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

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.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:8341 rec.scouting:892
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,rec.scouting
Subject: Re: another greeting
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:49:36 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr02.192817.19169@CS.ORST.EDU>, johnh@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (John
Holeman) writes:
 
> If this is not the case then there must be some enviromental cause if homo-
> sexuality and the people who claim they had no choice in the matter are wrong.
> They must have chosen at some point in life.

Even if we leave out the biological issues with homosexuality, could you 
also explain why atheists are not allowed to enter scouting, based on
biological and social rules? If not, then we have a yet another biased
society.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: tcbruno@athena.mit.edu (Tom Bruno)
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:24:53 GMT

>  A note on the concept of good, bad, & evil.  There is no such thing as evil.
>Bad is just entropy, and good is the lack of entropy.  


Hey!  I LIKE entropy...

- tom
  tcbruno@athena.mit.edu
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:47:30 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)

In article <graham.702608591@bizet>, graham@maths (Graham Matthews) writes:
>The proof is in the pudding! Somehow Matthew manages to slip judaism
>into an argument over paranoia!

Somehow that's essentially all I've been posting on.  You are confused
if you think this is amazing.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
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: 8 Apr 92 14:10:47 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: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)

In article <graham.702698163@bizet>, graham@maths (Graham Matthews) writes:
>>Since he hasn't told me what "God" means, and I am clueless--Jewish
>>tradition doesn't help me here, since it teaches that God is totally
>>unknowable--I really don't know how to answer his question.

>>[What] do you mean by "God" that he deduced I believed in?

>Easy, God = any of the Gods mentioned by any known religion.

Well, yes, that much I figured.  But the fact that the mention them
frequently doesn't mean that they define or explain them very well.

Can you *please* fill in this void?

AtDhVaAnNkCsE
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: different planet (was paranoid etc)
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:42:38 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <4340@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk> martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman) writes:
>
>The passage appears to be teaching as a moral guide that it is
>acceptable to massacre large numbers people and take over their
>city if they follow a different religion from you, and the
>general extrapolation that ANY act is acceptable if the perpetrator
>believes that god has condoned it (eg by the government saying
>"god is on your side"). I and (I think) many other atheists, for
>this reason, do not think that instilling an absolute moral
>code into children from the bible is a good idea, as they will
>grow up not questioning authority and thus be prone to manipulation
>and "just following orders" of a potentially nefarious nature.
>

  This theme is even more obvious in Romans 13:

    "You must all obey the governing authorities.  Since all
    government comes from God, the civil authorities wre appointed
    by God, and so anyone who resists authority is rebelling against
    God's decision, and such an act is bound to be punished."

  So I guess the Nuremberg trials were nothing more than a sinful
  rebellion against God, as were the recent trials of the East
  German border guards accused of shooting attempting defectors, as
  have been the recent uprisings by the 30 or so million blacks in
  South Africa.  

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

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.
From: arktik@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Ryan Daum)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: "Where did the universe come from" is an illogical question
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 17:38:17 MDT
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems, Edmonton, AB, Canada

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.  Theists tend to say thing such as "nothing can't come from 
nothing" ... therefore God must exist to cause the action (btw, this 
logic has holes -- is God something? etc.)

What I'm thinking is, isn't the question of "Where did reality come form" 
illogical?  We exist: There is some form of reality in which we are 
present.  To say otherwise is illogical.  It is also illogical to take 
yourself out of it and conceptualize a reality in which reality isn't.  

To place yourself out of reality and try to observe it is impossible 
since reality is an all-encompassing thing ... to eliminate reality and 
then try to say where did something come from insinuates that there 
*could be nothing.*  Nothingness is an impossibleness.  Nothing==false.

Therefore reality cannot be measured in beginnings and endings, it must 
be measured as it is.  To say "where did time begin" is also irrational 
as well.

Well, I really muddled that up, but I hope you get the point.  how could 
a person take themselves out of all-encompassing reality and then try to 
compose a reality in which there is no reality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  arktik@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca -- Ryan Werner Daum -- "A man leaves his
----------------------------------------------------  impress on life and
 Opiate on LambdaMOO ... Epicurus on DikuMUD      --  outside of that 
 Citadels, TinyMUCKS                              --  there is nothing."
---------------------------------------------------- Jean-Paul Sartre
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:32:17 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 <1992Apr7.004642.553@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>		 Whether or not we have been misrepresenting Judaism
>is irrelevant to whether we are unpleasant or not.

No, quite often that is the precise unpleasantness.  When people who
really don't know Judaism start trying to insist in the face of a short
and simple correction that religion has to be defined by an abstraction
of Christianity, that is both a misrepresentation and unpleasant to boot.

>						    Why is it that
>you have such a complete and utter inability to distinguish between
>intellectual disagreement and personal unpleasantness?

Again, continuously criticizing Judaism based on Christian understandings
is highly unpleasant to Jews in general.  You may think your comment that
modern rabbinic Judaism is, in practice, just like Christianity except for
the dietary laws is no more than an intellectual disagreement.  This is
untrue.  The facts are easy to find, they show quite easily that you have
no idea of what you are talking about, yet you prefer to just spout it.

To consider an extreme case: do you believe that the holocaust revisionists
are merely engaged in an intellectual disagreement?
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: The Canaanites(was Re: Achilles heels for religion?)
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 08:04:51 GMT

Rob:
>>So the story is an improvement for its time, in
>>that it emphasizes the triumph of righteousness
>>over unrighteousness, rather than glorifying
>>brute strength per se.

(Douglas Graham) writes:
>Well I think that the story needs a little more improvement for our
>time.  This has been one of the big causes of war throughout history.
>One group of people decides that it is more righteous than another,
>and decides that it is their duty to wipe out the immoral bunch.
>The problem is that it is the righteous bunch who get to define
>"righteousness".  If Hitler had won WWII, our history books would
>speak of how the Nazis had rid the world of the evil Jews, and made
>the world safe for the righteous Nazis.  IMO, any decent moral teaching
>should emphasize that there is no such thing as righteousness.  Only
>self-righteousness.

This is why I asked Rob "whose righteousness"?

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: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:33:27 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 <1992Apr9.185831.16835@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.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: yohan@doc.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Date: 13 Apr 1992 18:37:48 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: doc.ksu.ksu.edu


Can we please drop the discussion of semantics???!!!  That wasn't the main point
of my article.  It was adressed to those people who believe, not think, that
God(s) does not exist.  Alot of quotes in this newsgroup have said atheists, by
definition, are those who haven't drawn a conclusion about God.  Afterwards, I
checked out some generic dictionaries, and they said that an atheist was someone
who denies that god can exist, while an agnostic feels that God's existance can't
be proven.  The point of the article was NOT to define what atheist means.


Jon Newton
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: More "Best Wishes"
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:21:34 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Mar30.204412.7547@rz-berlin.mpg.de>, dabrowski@rz-berlin.mpg.de
(Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
> 
> In <22092@goofy.Apple.COM> Kent Sandvik wants only cream:
> 
> > It is very interesting to note that lack of evidence is OK in
> > metaphysics, while it's a requirement in science. Do we learn
> > anything from this?
> > 
> Yes of course. That science is well defined and objective, and that
> metaphysics is not well defined and subjective. Let me also remind
> you that we can't escape from metaphysics. Not only cream, my dear!

To cite dear Wittgenstein, one of your fellow countrymen:
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent."

That about metaphysics. Back to some real issues, thanks.

Cheers,
Kent
From: yohan@festus.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: logical?
Date: 16 Apr 1992 18:41:09 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: festus.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <1992Apr16.212313.4380@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, ehamrick@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Eric N Hamrick) writes:
>     Is it logical for a perfect creator to create imperfections?
>   Perfection implies no mistake is ever made.  So I assume that
>   the creator is imperfect, or we are perfect.  And I doubt we
>   are perfect.  What are some views on this logic?
>
>          -Eric Hamrick


I essentially agree, but this depends on your definition of perfection.  I think
this is definitly a good arguement to make against christianity.  On the other
hand, the universe could be a perfect creation by god's standards.  The universe
is god's work of art we are just an insignificant speck.


Jon Newton
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: WEEMBA and DABROSKI Angst (Was: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:32:08 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
> In article <F0wuiB3w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis (From A to B) writes:
> >This from the man who thinks that the FAQ file's [former] assertions regardi
> >religion and religious practice could only be the result of brainwashing and
> >belief.
> 
> Considering that it was totally false, it could not come from observation
> or intelligent inquiry or any other rational thought process.

I think this sums up your problem quite succinctly, Matthew.  You think that
everyone who disagrees with you either doesn't care about the truth, or is
stupid.


mathew

-- 
Hail Eris! / "Our whole economy's based on fear and death; how long can we get
away with this?" --- Jello Biafra / Message for Kodak: Bring back Dan Bredy! /
PGP RSA public key available on request / Desperately seeking Negativland's U2
CD / Just another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: deductive "proof" of HIghest Intelligence, defined God.
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 07:54:45 GMT

(Kent Sandvik) writes:
>> >Yes, I've done some personal thinking lately (!) about why the universe
>> >is so quiet. There has to be a reason why we don't have any connections
>> >with any other intelligent beings in this universe.
>> > [various reasons deleted]

Me:
>> Two much simpler explanations Kent:
>> 
>> a) the universe is very big - the probablity of bumping into Earth
>> is therefore small.
>> 
>> b) other life does exist but we wouldn't recognise it, and it wouldn't
>> recognise us.

Kent:
>A couple of problems, the most natural physical wavelength to broadcast
>information is the wavelength of hydrogen. So far we have not found
>anything intelligent transmitted over this broadcast address.

It doesn't matter what the natural wave length is. If the universe is
real big then the messages are going to take a very long long time
to reach us.

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: choy@skorpio.Usask.CA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: What is religion?
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:46:27 GMT
Reply-To: choy@skorpio.Usask.CA
Organization: University of Saskatchewan

Religions have many ideas. If one were to adhere to a religion, it may
make life comfortable. Is religion a heuristic? Can we choose a religion
to use? Is everything that we do adhering to some religion, namely our
own heuristic?

Henry Choy
choy@skorpio.usask.ca
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 00:49:52 GMT

In article <72931@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.184804.27039@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <72905@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>>Matthew, you claimed that it was necessary to lie to your Calculus students
>>in order to teach them.
>
>No, I claimed that _I_ did.  And that certain corners on the truth
>were necessary when _I_ taught calculus.
Even that is unsubstantiated---i.e. only your opinion. You have a
controlled study on YOUR teaching?[Gee, that sounds hard. I guess
it just means it's an assertion without proof.]

>It was frankly anecdotal.  It wasn't opinionated, and it happened to
>be true.
And it is still unsubstantiated by any sort of empirical DATA. You
may have heard of the concept.

>>					 Don't you have the slightest
>>clue how to empirically demonstrate something?
>
>As I am not claiming that there is One True Way of teaching calculus, I
>really don't see what the need for controls and all that is.
You were making an empirical claim about what was necessary when
you taught calculus. Empirical claims require proof. It's the nature
of the beast.

Note: What is necessary is not necessarily the same as what you felt
to be necessary. I'm prepared to accept the claim that you felt it
to be necessary without proof.

-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: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 01:03:11 GMT

(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.

(Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>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.

The proof is in the pudding! Somehow Matthew manages to slip judaism
into an argument over paranoia! And at the same time come close to
suggesting that the original poster is ignorant of Judaism. And for
icing on the cake Matthew even goes so far as to suggest that alt.atheism
is populated by all these naughty naughty people who spend their lives
misprepreseting Judaism.

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: CL234106@ulkyvx.louisville.edu (Y. CAO)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Need Input
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:05:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: vlsi.1992Apr7.160542.19994
Organization: University of Louisville
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Bartley's nonjustificationist view of rationality (Was: Better answer
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:29:00 GMT
 50@dumas> <1992Apr8.020638.7782@xanadu.com> <92106.082526J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <92106.082526J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>, John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> writes...
>[summary of Bartley's pan-critical rationality]

There is an argument that Bartley's theory is logically inconsistent
in the book _Evolutionary Epistemology_, which is co-edited by Bartley.
(I cannot remember the other editor's name.)  I'll try to remember to
look it up and post some details.

Jim Lippard           Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy   Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:40:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: ulkyvx.1992Apr7.134025.1
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <6APR199219534716@milori.ccit.arizona.edu>, lippard@milori.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
> In article <1992Apr6.211058.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes...
>>The doctrine of original sin does indeed seem to predict that 'all
>>have fallen short', and all will fall short.  
>> 
>>As I said before, there does not seem to be a type of soul associated
>>with free will which can be guaranteed not to sin.  Or rather, it is
>>not clear that there is such a type.
> 
> Really?  So Jesus might well have fallen short of moral perfection?
> Or did he lack free will?

Well, I was wondering if you would bring up that special case.  As Kristin
Blais explained, in catholic theology Jesus was in fact capable of sin.
The teaching continues that he did in fact always choose not to sin.  This
point is really quite crucial since catholics believe that Jesus' temptations
were not mere charades, etc. 

In summary, I would say that the God does not exist proof fails for the same
reason the argument from design fails:  Possible circumstances (many universes/
no free-will without moral evil, etc.) can be imagined which vitiate the 
reasoning.




Joe Deasy
         

> Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
> Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
> University of Arizona
> Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cosc143u@rosie.uh.edu (91F9774)
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 07:22:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.211058.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes...
>In article <9204052219.AA13936@CSUFresno.EDU>, davidch@ZIMMER.CSUFRESNO.EDU (David Choweller) writes:
> (The free will argument)
>The doctrine of original sin does indeed seem to predict that 'all
>have fallen short', and all will fall short.  
> 
Seems like there were two who made it.  I remember the line of begats.
X begat Y and Y's days were 546 years
Y begat Z and Z's days were 312 years and then Z walked with god.
Z begat Aa and Aa's days ...

Neat line that.  "Walked with God."  Has a nice ring to it.  Anyway, my
somewhat rambling point here is that I think all didn't fall short.  I 
think 2 made it before Jesus.  One was (maybe) Elijah?

(Rest of involved and interesting argument deleted)
---
Stephen McLeod
The Eternal Student

Newsgroups: alt.atheism