HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Ken Arromdee <arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: FAQ critique
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:01:56 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Dec17.153412.20113@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Jeffrey D Koperski <jkopersk@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:
>Reply:
>        The point of appealing to theistic philosophers is that 
>        philosophers are the "experts in the field" when it comes
>        to arguments and evidence for the existence of God.
>        Certainly the truth of a belief does not
>        depend on numbers, but the justification one has
>        for a given belief does when those appealed to
>        are experts (persons well acquainted with the issues who
>        have had their ability and knowledge tested.

In the case of theism, though, there are complicating factors.

One is the absence of a level playing field.  If one philosopher is a medieval
Christian approved by the Church, whose philosophy says that the Church's God
exists, and another philosopher is a heretic, it's quite likely the first one
will win, not because someone tested him and lost, but because any test, and
especially any successful one, would drastically reduce the lifespan of the
both tester and his ideas.

The second is that philosophers are human beings, who may be blinded to flaws
by their religious beliefs.  Even if you wish to argue that atheists are
similarly blinded, since there are more theists than atheists this factor will
still bias the results.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Existence of gods (Atheism FAQ point 7)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 13:01:56 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

tonnes@chanur.imf.unit.no (T|nnes Brekne) writes:
> Point 7 in the alt.atheism FAQ states among other things:
>      [...] Disproving such a particular god may be done even though
>      disproving the existence of all "gods" cannot. [...]
> 
> First of all, such a statement must assume that God has some sort of
> physical existence---some ``physical component''. This is because the
> theories of the physical world as most people perceive it is capable
> of making statements about _only_ those phenomena having some
> existence within this perceived world. No such ``component'' has been
> proven experimentally to date.

This is the "But what if God is essentially non-detectable?" argument.  The
new FAQ file mentions this:

# "But what if God is essentially non-detectable?"
# 
# If God interacts with our universe in any way, the effects of his interaction
# must be measurable.  Hence his interaction with our universe must be
# detectable.
# 
# If God is essentially non-detectable, it must therefore be the case that he
# does not interact with our universe in any way.  Many atheists would argue 
# that if God does not interact with our universe at all, it is of no 
# importance whether he exists or not.
# 
# If the Bible is to be believed, God was easily detectable by the Israelites.
# Surely he should still be detectable today?
 
The new FAQ files should be out soon.  I made the changes people suggested,
and I've sent the files to the moderator of news.answers for approval.


mathew
-- 
You can communicate with me securely via PGP 2.1.  For information, send mail
to pgpinfo@mantis.co.uk.  For a big block of keys, mail pgpkeys@mantis.co.uk.
PGP public key fingerprint = B2 41 30 5F 5B 20 B9 D5  7C 8F 75 88 7C DA D8 C5
From: Ken Arromdee <arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: FAQ critique
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:04:53 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Dec17.153412.20113@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Jeffrey D Koperski <jkopersk@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:
>        That science does somehow 
>        disconfirm or contradict theism is an argument I have 
>        seen many times offered up by atheists.  If this were so, 
>        then theistic scientists (i.e., experts in the field of 
>        science) should be able to detect such conflicts and 
>        therefore must recant on one side or the other.  But
>        since there are rational theistic scientists, it does not
>        appear there is such a conflict.

Of course, science does not contradict theism, by itself.  But "theism" is a
broad category.  Certainly science does contradict some versions of theism, and
if these are common versions, pointing out the conflict has some merit.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
From: Jeffrey D Koperski <jkopersk@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Existence of gods (Atheism FAQ point 7)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:05:32 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Ohio State University

># "But what if God is essentially non-detectable?"
># 
># If God interacts with our universe in any way, the effects of his interactio
n
># must be measurable.  Hence his interaction with our universe must be
># detectable.
>#
># If God is essentially non-detectable, it must therefore be the case that he
># does not interact with our universe in any way.  Many atheists would argue
># that if God does not interact with our universe at all, it is of no
># importance whether he exists or not.
>#
># If the Bible is to be believed, God was easily detectable by the Israelites.
># Surely he should still be detectable today?
>

There is a key difference in the case of Israel.  God came to the Israelites
and revealed himself.  The Jews were not a people in search of such a being.
If God had not chosen to do so, then our knowledge of God would be much more
limited than it already is.  In fact, the theist's justification for believing 
in the existence of such a being would be, in my view, quite restricted without
some sort of special revelation.

This "detection criterion" seems to be flawed for indepedent reasons.  It is 
reminiscent of the Logical Positivist approach to ruling out the
"suspect" beliefs in moral and theological facts.  First, any good scientist 
believes in the existence of entities that are undetectable.  That is, no one 
holds that the only things that exist are objects within Earth's light-cone.
Objects outside the cone as well as, say, whatever is inside a black-hole, are 
not dectectable, yet we ascribe existence to them.

Second, numbers, sets, and a host of universals are undetectable when 
uninstantiated, but many philosophers and most mathematicians believe in the
existence of (at least) some mathematical entities (see, for example, Roger 
Penrose, _The Emporer's New Mind_).

A short review of 20th century philosophy will show that attempts to rule out 
theological discourse as "non-cognitive" (Carnap's term) or otherwise 
essentially flawed have always come back to haunt science.  That is, applying 
the same criterion to the "good discourse" of theoretical science rules out 
part of that discourse.  One atheist philosopher still carrying this torch is 
Kai Nielsen.  His debate with J.P. Moreland (_Does God Exist?_, Thomas Nelson, 
1990) would be helpful in reworking the FAQ.

Jeff Koperski
Dept. of Philosophy
Ohio State
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Administrivia
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 18:15:40 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

Alt.atheism.moderated has now reached 600 articles.  I've updated the old
article archives at archive-server@mantis.co.uk; send it mail saying

   help
   send atheism/index

for information.

I'm away from tomorrow until January 4th.  Tony will be here for a few more
days, and is taking over the moderation of the newsgroup again until I get
back.  Merry Xmas!


mathew
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Existence of gods (Atheism FAQ point 7)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 12:37:23 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

Jeffrey D Koperski <jkopersk@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:
> This "detection criterion" seems to be flawed for indepedent reasons.  It is 
> reminiscent of the Logical Positivist approach to ruling out the
> "suspect" beliefs in moral and theological facts.  First, any good scientist 
> believes in the existence of entities that are undetectable.

I don't think this is true.  Can you give an example?

>                                                              That is, no one
> holds that the only things that exist are objects within Earth's light-cone.

That's not the point.  Does anyone scientifically assert the existence of
things outside Earth's light cone?

> Objects outside the cone as well as, say, whatever is inside a black-hole, ar
> not dectectable, yet we ascribe existence to them.

I don't think we do.  Certainly I don't think you'd catch anybody
claiming that theories about the insides of black holes are anything
other than hypothesis -- not least because last I heard, we haven't
actually found a live black hole.

> Second, numbers, sets, and a host of universals are undetectable when 
> uninstantiated, but many philosophers and most mathematicians believe in the
> existence of (at least) some mathematical entities (see, for example, Roger 
> Penrose, _The Emporer's New Mind_).

In what sense do philosophers and mathematicians believe in the
existence of purely mathematical entities?  I'm afraid I'm singularly
unimpressed by Penrose's book, as were most of my friends...


mathew
-- 
Lung cancer and arteriosclerosis.
For people who like to smoke.
From: Mutant for Hire <mfterman@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Existence of gods (Atheism FAQ point 7)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:25:51 GMT
Reply-To: Mutant for Hire <mfterman@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Distribution: world
Organization: Mutant for Hire, Inc.

In article <1992Dec16.140532.2861@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, Jeffrey D Koperski <jkopersk@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:
>This "detection criterion" seems to be flawed for indepedent reasons.  It is 
>reminiscent of the Logical Positivist approach to ruling out the
>"suspect" beliefs in moral and theological facts.  First, any good scientist 
>believes in the existence of entities that are undetectable.  That is, no one 
>holds that the only things that exist are objects within Earth's light-cone.
>Objects outside the cone as well as, say, whatever is inside a black-hole, are 
>not dectectable, yet we ascribe existence to them.

The problem with your example is that scientists don't believe in things
that are undetectable. We bar interactions from things outside the light
cone, but there are things out there that have light cones from events
in the past intersect our world line at the present. Those things we
believe in. Anything from distances so vast that they wouldn't intersect
our lightcone now (assuming you follow certain theories of cosmology)
we don't believe in until we have reason to suspect their existance.

The thing is, if God affects the universe, there has to be a physical
side to God. If he has the capacity for revelation, during that revelation
He is physically observable and detectable.

>Second, numbers, sets, and a host of universals are undetectable when 
>uninstantiated, but many philosophers and most mathematicians believe in the
>existence of (at least) some mathematical entities (see, for example, Roger 
>Penrose, _The Emporer's New Mind_).

Some, but not all. And it depends a lot on how you define existance. God
is supposed to be able to affect the physical universe directly. The number
3 doesn't have that feature. There is a difference between numbers and
electrons. It is the physical existance of God that we are interested in
here. If you state that God is not composed of matter then we move the
question over to what is God composed of, since God has to be composed of
-- 
    Martin Terman, Mutant for Hire, Mean Ol' Top, Priest of Shub-Internet
    Disclaimer: Nobody else takes me seriously, why should you be the first?
mfterman@phoenix.princeton.edu mfterman@pucc.bitnet terman@pupgga.princeton.edu
"Sig quotes are like bumper stickers, only without the same sense of relevance"
From: 910773f@ace.acadiau.ca (HEATHER LEE FYFFE)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What if there is a god?
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:55:39 GMT
Organization: Acadia University

In article <05O9CPI@minnie.zdv.uni-mainz.de> haass@mzdmza.zdv.uni-mainz.de writes:
>From: haass@mzdmza.zdv.uni-mainz.de
>Subject: Re: What if there is a god?
>Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 16:56:51 GMT

>for ourselves, if we are told not to use it, because Big Daddy wants us to
>follow his will; oh yes, naturally he knews much better than ourselves what's
>good for us. either - or, decide yourself, because you can't have both sides
>at the same time. Seems as if we are not free to reject God, if he blesses
>only those who accept him. What are those blessings? I don't miss any! But
>what does it matter, if we reject him, since he loves us still? Brrr, I don't
>want to get his love, I think I don't need a clucking hen. If I would need,
>why did I become adult?


He knows what's best for us in the same way that a parent knows what's best 
for their child... if you let a little kid do whatever they thought was 
appropriate, they wouldn't live very long, would they.  So the parent, 
having lived longer, matured, and gotten a bit of intelligence, tells the 
child, `don't eat all those cookies, you'll get sick'.  The child hollers 
and screams, the child feels that the parent is forcing their ideals down 
the child's throat, the child does not believe in the authority of the 
parent.  Some children will rebel, and eat all the cookies.  Of course, the 
child gets sick, because the parent was, of course, right.  Some children, 
even if they disobeyed at firt, eventually realise that the parent was 
right.  Sometimes the realization does not come until years later, when the 
child says, `hey, the time they told me that, and I thought at the time that 
it was so illogical and stupid, well it makes sense now.  They were right.'
God is just the ultimate parent.  And someday, we'll all say, gosh, He was 
right.

Thanks for your time,

The Buzzard
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: openness of atheists (WAS Re: Religion = Anything that's fun is bad.) 
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 12 Dec 92 16:14:49 CST

In article <1992Dec12.075622.16643@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
>Being an atheist OPENS your mind? What a crock of shit!
>
>So organized religion has perpetrated some of the most heinous crimes
>and practices ever... I don't have to be an atheist to get offended
>by the Inquisition. Just remember, not everyone who believes in a
>guiding intelligience subscribes to an organized religion. I think
>kids should be exposed to all kinds of beliefs so they can make
>their own choice. IMHO, telling kids there is NO GOD is just another
>form of indoctrinating them into a almost fanatical belief system -
>an evangelical anti-religion if you please.

You, know you are right.  I think that it was Bhudism (sp?) that was not
suppossed to be an organized religion at first?  As to exposing people to many
beliefs, you should know that how a person is exposed to a belief can make
the child believe in it or not.  If you say, this is what happened, but some
people believe this, you are exposing the child to two different beliefs,
but which one do you think the child will believe in?  Most atheists I have
talked to (make that all I have known) are never told by another person
that there is no god.  They decide that for themselves.  The thing that 
parents do is not to include religion as a serious part of the childs 
rearing.  Of course telling a child that there is no god is just as bad
as telling them that there is one.  Does that make either side correct?
How is the child being encouraged to be a thinker?
>
>Frankly, I find the majority of people ballsy enough to publicly
>declare themselves "atheists" are nothing more than troublemakers
>who finally found a mission. They stir up shit, cost the taxpayers
>money and vanish into the woodwork having done nothing constructive.
>If this is you, go soak yer head...
>- Harry
Well, I hate to majorly disagree with you (NOT!), but I am forced to.
I am fairly open about my religious beliefs, in that if someone asks about
it, I will come straight out and tell them.  I have not yet seen an
reasonable person who just uses their religon for troublemaking.  How
are atheists costing taxpayers money?  I have found that it tends to be
that any atheist group tends to support itself.  If you are talking about
the court cases to help keep the state from recognizing any religion,
then that isn't much of a waste, because it is reminding the government
of the law that they had forgotten.  You seem to be simply arguing that
atheism is of no use.  If you are arguing something else, then I do
apologize for putting words in your keyboard, but this last paragraph
is highly offensive.  Perhaps you are saying that atheists should stay
"in the closet."  If this is the case, then I invite you to talk to a
number of other minority groups that I can think of, some of which are
less tolerant of that attitude than others.
:)M^2
 

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Religion = Anything that's fun is bad.
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 19:12:04 GMT

In article <kmr4.441.724211330@po.CWRU.edu>, kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M.
Ryan) writes:
|>In article <1992Dec12.223834.25381@bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA
(Brian Cash) writes:
|>>|>>>Being an atheist OPENS your mind? What a crock of shit!
|>>|>>
|>>|>>I agree. Because being an atheist is not the cause of an open mind.
|>>|>
|>>|>	I agree. It is the inevitable result of being an open rational mind.
|>>      
|>>And humble! Don't forget that!  We atheist's are the most humble on
|>>the planet! ;)
|>>And we would never hyperbolize in a hundred years.
|>>And we never fucking swear.
|>>And we don't begin everything with "And".
|>>And...
|>>
|>>The "inevitable result of [having] an open rational mind".  Sheesh!
|>
|>	I would consider that believing a proposition to be true, without 
|>any evidence to base such a decision to be irrational. To date, no one has 
|>been able to offer any evidence of such a belief in God. I do not include 
|>the circular argument pertaining to the bible. I can only concluded that 
|>since in the history of mankind, no one has found any evidence, which in 
|>itself is not in question, there are none available. Ergo, there is no 
|>evidence on which to conclude that god exists. I would also conclude that 
|>one believing that Pink Invisible Unicorns (tm) live in one's walls is not 
|>being very rational. Would you disagree? On what basis?

No.  But then again, I am an atheist. ;)

|>
|>	However, I am not sure there have been many purely rational being, 
|>if even ever. I am not sure I would ever even want to meet one. Each of us 
|>has a certain amount of irrationlism. Perhaps its inherent in us. Who knows?
|>
|>	Nor, have I stated that all, or even most athiests are rational.
|>
                                
Um, dude, I was refering to the "open" part of "open rational mind".
Your statement "It is the inevitable result of being an open rational mind."
doesn't sound very open minded.  Hence the contradictions (esp. the 'humble'
part.)  You know, like satire?

Brian /-|-\
=====================================================
"I agree with what you say, but I will fight your right to say it
to the death." -Otis Strict
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: Ignorance is Bliss.
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:47:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.004226.27298@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>
>In a previous article, sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) says:
>
>>In article <1992Dec16.165325.10737@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>>>mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus):
>>>> I'm game. Let's have all atheists use this line as part of our .sig's. Then 
>>>> we can identify each other in the other news groups. The gays and lesbians 
>>>> have their triangles, we can have this quote.
>
>But wait!  How about those of us who are both GAY and ATHEIST???  There's
>only so much room in a .sig, ya know!!
>
>
>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Mike A. McAngus (mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)| The train today to Morrow leaves today
>>>> The Truth is still the Truth          | at 8:35.  At half-past ten tomorrow is
>>>> even if you choose to ignore it.      | the time it should arrive.
>>>
>>>Well gee whiz and golly gosh and all Mike, but ummm, don't you think that
>>>might just possibly piss Scott right off? We wouldn't want that. Would we?
>
>I WOULD!!  I WOULD!!
>
>>>
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>The Truth is still the Truth even if you choose to ignore it.
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Here is another variation of the theme:
>>
>>-- 
>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>>Truth:  You ignore it, it ignores you.
>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>How about this?
>
>TRUTH:It's not only a good I dea, it's the law
>
>or
>
>This is Truth
>
>This is your Brain on Truth
>
>Any Questions?

Or

It's the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth, so help me G...
Oops.

Carl 'The Truth' Williams
--
Have you washed your brain today?
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|      Reporter: "Mr. Gandhi, What do you think of Western Civilization?"    |
|      Mr. Gandhi: "I think it would be a good idea!"                        |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: Quotes from the Bible.
Organization: SPS
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:04:14 GMT


In article H61@apollo.hp.com, (Joel H. Stave) writes:
>weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
>>
>> 30 and 10 can be significant to either 1 or 2 digits 
>> depending on the precision. In this case, it is to 1 digit, 
>> since without a stated precision, trailing zeros are not 
>> significant. Pi = 3 is correct to one significant digit. 
>> Rounding off is hardly twisting words.
> 
> The arguments that I was referring to involve people who claim that
> the bible is the "Word of God" *word for word* and that if it says
> "30" it is *exactly* 30.  They admit that the words were written down
> by men, but since the men were "divinely inspired" what they wrote
> was *perfectly* correct.  The idea of historical context or general
> description does not enter into these people's arguments.
> 

When you criticise people ignoring context and literary form, resulting 
in rather stupid interpretations, I will most certainly agree with you. 
However, one of my peeves is that net-people frequently use this "pi" 
passage to condemn the text as a whole, and in this particular case 
they are just as guilty of blatantly ignoring context and form as the 
fundamentalists.

---
Dave Weaver                | "The impression of design is overwhelming"
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com |       -Paul Davies (on the cosmos)