HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Higher ideas in the Bible ?
Date: 8 Sep 92 10:43:36 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

Mathemagician <bevans%carina.unm.edu@lynx.unm.edu> writes:
> In article <Ha9gqB2w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
> >Not that bizarre.  I believe in Newtonian mechanics, but I also know it's
> >wrong.
> 
> Well, now, I'm not sure I go along with this.
> 
> That is, I don't believe in Newtonian mechanics, per se.  I use it all
> the time, but not because I know it's true.
> 
> For the things that I need to use mechanics for, Newtonian mechanics
> is a very good approximation that is easy to use...kinda like
> estimating, but with a bit more rigor.

But that's the sense in which I believe in all physical equations.  A very
good approximation that's easier than actually trying the experiment, like
guessing or estimating but with a bit more rigour.

So the sense in which I choose to believe Newtonian mechanics is the sense in
which I choose to believe (say) Ohm's Law.

I know that Newtonian mechanics is wrong, in the sense that there is another
theory which gives better estimates in all circumstances.  However, I choose
not to use this other theory for a number of reasons.

> I know that when I drive somewhere, the amount of time it takes is
> related to how fast I go...but I drive at such slow speeds that the
> difference in time is negligible (not to mention the infinite number
> of orange barrels lining the street making the journey longer no
> matter how fast I go) so I don't bother with transformations.

I don't really think about whether the difference is negligible or not.  One
of the exercises I did in my physics course involved answering a bunch of
mechanics questions; the trick was that for some of them, Newtonian mechanics
was perfectly sufficient (and much quicker than the alternative), but for
others it was actually necessary to do things properly to get a reasonably
accurate answer.  The object of the exercise was to teach me to work out or
recognize when a problem needs relativistic corrections to be taken into
account.

In practice, I have to admit that I usually don't bother thinking about
whether relativistic corrections are required.  (Even when I'm calculating
spaceship movement in SFRPGs.)  Unless it's really obvious that it's going to
be important, I don't even consider the possibility.

Still, I don't claim to be a good physicist.


mathew
-- 
"When nothing's funny it gets easy to laugh 
 at the drop of a hat, or a bomb" -- DEVO
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:371 alt.atheism:16594
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: More alt.atheism.moderated administrivia
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:50:13 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

Another hundred articles have now been archived away, with index.  Last
month's rejects are available also.  Send a mail message to
archive-server@mantis.co.uk saying

   help
   get atheism/index

for more information.


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Higher ideas in the Bible ?
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:50:16 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

Jonathan Egre' <jonathan@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> If you think about it, "higher ideas" in morality, theology and ethics
> *must* mean "ideas closer to what we believe today".  You cannot deny this 
> without admitting that your own morals and ethics are "wrong"; and that 
> would be quite bizarre ("I belive in X, but I also know that X is wrong").

Not that bizarre.  I believe in Newtonian mechanics, but I also know it's
wrong.


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:373 alt.atheism:16601 talk.religion.misc:15727
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: One example of the benefits of religious belief
Date: 3 Sep 92 12:41:45 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism.moderated
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

International Guardian, Friday August 28th.  Quoted without permission.

   Blood refusal caused death of Jehovah's Witness

   A Jehovah's Witness bled to death for his beliefs, despite hospital 
   doctors' warnings that his life was at stake if he refused blood 
   transfusions, an inquest in London heard yesterday.

   Sir Montague Levine, the Southwark coroner, said the refusal by Brian 
   Hunt "placed an intolerable burden on the professionals dedicated to 
   saving life".

   The inquest heard that Mr Hunt, aged 49, a technician, of Bromley, 
   Kent, was admitted to Lewisham hospital with severe rectal bleeding on
   May 22. He signed two forms, drawn up in consultation with a Jehovah's
   Witness committee, refusing blood under any circumstances.

   Doctors warned him that if the bleeding increased his life could be in
   danger, but he still refused blood. He underwent surgery three days 
   later but bleeding continued and he went into a coma. He died on May 
   26.

   Dr Andrew Houghton, senior surgical registrar at the hospital, said: 
   "I have no doubt that this patient would still be alive if we had been
   able to deal with him in the normal way."

   Sir Montague recorded a verdict of death by misadventure.

   After the inquest, Pauline Colclough, the dead man's sister, 
   apologised to hospital staff for "the wicked waste of their time" 
   caused by her brother's attitude.

   She added: "I think he joined the witnesses for company at the start 
   and was then brainwashed. I wonder if they realise the heartache they 
   give relatives by their refusal to let members receive blood."

Cruel and offensive comments follow.  Hit 'n' to skip them.


The report doesn't say why he was suffering from rectal bleeding, so one can
only guess. Bizarre sexual practices, perhaps?

I wonder what the legal forms said?  "I, Brian Hunt, being of unhinged mind
and damaged body do solemnly swear..."

Death by misadventure? Death by complete stupidity more like it. Evolution in
action, as Pournelle might say.


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard
From: jonathan@mantis.co.uk (Jonathan Egre')
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Sunday Liquor Sales
Date: 3 Sep 92 08:40:56 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

Jim Cook <jcook@space.mit.edu> writes:

>   If it took God 7 days to create earth and the begining day was Sunday then
>  the 7th day being used for rest should be Saturday and not Sunday.  So
>  somewhere along the line some church changed the rules and has caused us all
>  to sin because one of the Ten Commandments state that: " Thou shalt keep the
>  Sabath."  So I say who cares if you work on Sunday or not we have been trick
>  into working on the real sabath day (Saturday) anyway. 

This is quite correct.  Originally, Christianity was just a more "progressive"
sect of Judaism, and their holy day was Saturday.  "Sabbath" is basically the
(old) Hebrew word for Saturday.

The Christian holy day was changed to Sunday around 300 AD essentially to
fit in with the dominant religion of the day, which worshipped Sol Invictus,
the invincible sun god. 

The modern Christian's answer to this fact is that it is still important
to set one day aside for God, even if it's the wrong day. 

This is getting well off the proper subject matter for alt.atheism.moderated
- I expect that the moderator may start refusing articles soon...

--
Jonathan Egre' / jonathan@mantis.co.uk / jonathan_e@cix.compulink.co.uk      
                 Voice: +44 223 421094 / Fax: +44 223 421093
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: End of the World...
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:03:47 GMT

In article <BuJ9Ar.CxF@phage.cshl.org> pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:

>some kind of sync code? too complicated. if i were building scanners
>for this thing, i would scan the digits and:
>

How about a fundie version?

>	if (digits[FIRST] == 6
>	&& digits[MIDDLE] == 6
>	&& digits[LAST] == 6) {
>		ok();
                end_is_near();
                weeping_gnashing();
                head_for_the_hills();
                horsemen(4);
>	} else {
>		beep();
>	}
>-- 
>-- Pat Monardo
>-- pjm@cshl.org


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: HEDDEN@ESDSDF.dnet.ge.com (Jerry D. Hedden)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: looking for a quote
Date: 10 Sep 1992 08:18:03 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

 
pdj7631@zeus.tamu.edu (Unbeliever) asked who said:
>
> "If atheism is a religion, then health is a disease".
> 
This is a truly outstanding quote.
I, too, would like to know said it.
It would make a great bumper sticker.
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: pay attention!
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:33:11 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Sep8.145917.1@jaguar.uofs.edu> dfm2@jaguar.uofs.edu writes:
>Hold on tight, readers, you're about to go for a ride...
>
>TRUE OR FALSE
>
>2. God exists.
>TRUE by definition.  God is defined as that which exists, or literally,
>"I am that am."  Its the nature of God and his works that can be debated.
>If you only believe in randomly moving quarks, you should know that there
>is no such thing as random.  God is whatever makes those quarks move, and
>what makes quarks quarks.  If that is a mathematical equation, then God
>is Math.

By whose definition?


Chris Lee
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: New Ideas For Ted's Use
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992
Date: 11 Sep 92  21:52:52

Tag: mike.siemon mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon))
 
MS> "Y'know, there are times when I *do* think the best
MS> explanation is that Ted [Holden] is pulling our
MS> collective [Leninist?] leg: [stuff, stuff, stuff]"
 
I heard an explanation that answers the question "Where
did all the water go?" when creationists like Ted are
asked about the "Noah's Flood" myth. The answer was so
Ted-like, that I thought folks in this newsgroup would
like to hear it. I bet Ted wishes he had thought of it!
It matches his "house flys came from planet-x" rants.
 
----------
Question: If there was a world-wide flood that destroyed
most life on earth, where did the water go afterwards?
 
Answer: At that time the world was flat. Once the water
fell over the edges (sorting the geologic column as it
went), God made the world round.
----------
 
Now, if you're quick of mind, you'll wonder how the water
got to be there in the first place. Well, you see, a flat
earth has less Felt Effect of Gravity because the mass
was spread out over a larger surface area. Surface tension
at the edges kept the water on the earth-plate. All God had
to do was give Earth a little kick with Her black foot
(you =DID= know She's black, right Ted?), and the surface
tension was broken, thus draining the Earth. You see, it was
the sphereafying of the earth that increased the Felt Effect
of Gravity that Ted is rightly convinced of--- he only erred
about the Flying-Bumper-Car-Venus part.
 
This explains EVERYTHING. Now that you think about it, this
is the BEST explanation, and the only one that covers all
the facts.

--- Maximus 2.00
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:17166 alt.politics.homosexuality:5974
From: infante@acpub.duke.edu (Andrew  Infante)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:55:55 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Eric...for your perusal...

moral : [reprinted without permission from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary]

1: a. of or relating to principles of right or wrong in behavior : ETHICAL
<~judgments>
b. expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a ~poem>
c. conforming to a standard of right behavior
d. sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgement
<a ~obligation>
e. CAPABLE OF RIGHT OR WRONG ACTION (how's that one, Eric?)

Here's a good one - thus _your_ point, and you probably knew it all along...

2: probable, though not proved : VIRTUAL <a ~certainty>

and 

3: of, relating to, or acting on the mind, character, or will <a ~victory>

morality : moral conduct.

Ok, then, Eric.

Pick your favorite definition, then tell us why you don't believe in
morality.

Right and wrong - just word?

And, if its #2, then kiss your own smug ass and chalk it up to
arguing a pointless point.

later.

andy
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Christianic Sacrificesdir
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:36:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.111312.6677@iscsvax.uni.edu> marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
}In article <1992Sep10.194057.5945@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}> In article <1992Sep10.133408.6644@iscsvax.uni.edu> marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
}> }It may be so that churches are "seeped in evil", but not all of them. 
}> 
}> Given that you don't survive an encounter with one that it, how are you
}> suppose to know BEFORE they go out and kill the heathen.
}> 
}> OR whoever they happen to accidently grab and burn?
}> 
}> The FIRST mistake would be the LAST mistake.  Sorry, but I don't care to
}> play such games.  Running fast and far sounds like a VERY reasonable course
}> of action.
}
}Don't stay away from Christ because of some crazies.

No, just stay away from the crazies.  Who apparently happen to reside in
christian churches.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:36:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.114943.5403@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.164704.27205@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>That is pretty weak coming from someone who clearly
>>misunderstood my entire position. If you aren't asserting that
>>there are moral values, why are you bothering to post? If you
>>are asserting it, then it is up to you to substantiate.
>My position is simply that you are being literally sophormoric.  You
>should have taken an intro ethics class when you were an undergraduate,
>and you could have argued this crap with the TA. It isn't relevant to
>real-life discussions about real-life issues, and it is annoyingly
>stupid.
Well, Gene, perhaps I can familiarize you with a new concept.
It's known as a "kill file." If you don't want to read what
I write, use one. If not, have the decency to shut up.

Acting as if I'm somehow doing you harm by posting my views is
quite simply inane.

-Ekr






-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Free will - the "Jarekian" heresy.
Date: 16 Sep 92 01:28:44 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <exukjb.146.716228341@exu.ericsson.se>, exukjb@exu.ericsson.se
(ken bell) wrote:
> >I think it's another nail in the coffin concerning understanding
> >how omnipotence works. For me it's another good excuse why I don't
> >want to get involved in figuring out how Gods think.

>> An undiscussable god might as well be no god at all.

Right, maybe we are all discussing a mere abstraction that we
paint in our mind, and has no reality base whatsoever. What a joke!

Cheers,
Kent
"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is atheism experimentally refutable?
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:29:25 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <ylqn+6h@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>In article <72087@apple.Apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:

>>This strikes me as a very peculiar rule of thumb, but for all I know it
>>may be the one most people use. Past experience suggests to me, though,
>>that the normal course of conversation is sufficient to prevent any
>>issue of 'dishonesty' in the vast majority of cases.

[...] (example of broken conversation deleted)

>And the discussion gets bogged down into whether or not it is possible
>to not believe in both the existence and non-existence of god.  To the
>responder, the concept of not believe in either one is hard to
>grasp...they feel that a person must have some "stong" stance on the
>subject rather than leaving the question "up in the air."  (Please
>note that I am not saying that agnostics can't make up their minds.
>I'm using bad vernacular that often exists within the minds of those
>who take a "strong" stance by making a definite statement...there's a
>difference between being wishy-washy and not being able to come to a
>conclusion due to lack of information.)

Perhaps you are right, and that's why I often find myself explaining to
someone what I mean by something. On the other hand, I don't think
explaining what I mean is a serious inconvenience, I suspect I would
fairly often have to explain what I mean whatever strategy I use,
and it always seems to work out without serious difficulty as long
as everyone involved in a conversation is actually interested in
what others are saying.

When the last condition isn't satisfied, I don't think a conversation
is salvageable whatever approach you take.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Stephen Hawking - National Public Radio
Date: 7 Sep 92 18:57:36 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep7.150850.3621@tcom.stc.co.uk>, bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk
(Bruce Munro) wrote:
> Oops! Hawking split up with his wife recently and moved in with one his
> nurses! I read it in a Readers Digest article about him. The article
> also described an occasion where Shirley Maclaine visited him to talk
> about the origin of the universe.  Apparently she's got into
> metaphysics and stuff and was travelling round talking to all sorts of
> gurus and scientists about it. Anyway, she asked Hawking whether or not
> he though a god had created the universe, he answered in the negative,
> which would seem to indicate atheism/agnosticism.

Yes, OOPS myself, I heard that yesterday myself. Has anyone seen
the movie with Hawking? Worth seing? Any issues about his world
views in the movie?

Kent

"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:46:13 GMT

skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>>>I say Christianity *does* take
>>>Paul seriously.  As evidence for this I note the inclusion of many of
>>>Paul's letters in the religion's canon and the heavy use of quotations
>>>from these inclusions in Christian teaching.

>>I say it takes him seriously, but with insufficient reason to do so.

>You're talking in circles now.  Let's review the high points.

No I'm not; you just can't seem to grasp the possibility that
Jesus was the son of god, but Paul made a lot of erroneous statements.

>--You assert that Christianity prescribes the death penalty.  You
>point to the Levitican law in support.

>--I point out how the words of Paul, which I think Christianity take
>seriously, seems to counter this idea.

But Paul has to show that he has the authority to overturn laws from
his god, and I don't think he has shown this.

>--You suggest that the words of Paul are not essential to Christianity.

No, I suggest that Paul's words have no authority to change Leviticus.

>--But now you agree that Christianity does take Paul seriously.

That's an observation; most christian sects obviously DO take him seriously.
I don't see why they OUGHT to, but they do.

>To a lesser extent, this is how it has been with the entire effort to
>support the assertion.  I grow tired of the ever-shifting definitions
>of Christianity.  I am now unable to even understand what religion you
>refer to in your assertion.  I suspect you're not even sure as well.

You seem to be the only one confused here.
Is it so hard to understand?  Is it impossible for you to entertain the
idea that Paul could have been completely wrong, yet Jesus was still the
son of god?  These are independent claims, yet you seem to be unable to
divorce one from the other.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: assholes
Date: 7 Sep 92 17:02:50 GMT
	<ocTiqB7w165w@mantis.co.uk> <1992Sep5.212728.3127@cs.yale.edu>
	<graham.715833468@galois>
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <graham.715833468@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
 writes:

   >Actually I think it is a fair question. A constructivist would argue
   >that the "claim that square circles do not exist is a logical one" is in
   >fact an empirical question, in that to prove this claim you must produce
   >an object satisfying the property "circle" and one satisifying "square"
   >for the claim to be proven. And this is emprical.

  I can't make any sense of this. To avoid lengthy babbling about its
obscurities and peculiarities: could you please rephrase in clear terms
what you are saying?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh)
Subject: When Grandma Died...
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:50:50 GMT

Recent articles on "dealing with theistic relatives" reminded me of 
what happened when my grandmother died.  As the coffin was slowly 
being lowered into the ground, Christian relatives and friends sang a 
hymn in tears that described how they'll meet again when Jesus comes.  
My wife cried too, standing next to me.  

A few days later, my wife asked me if I knew why she cried at the
funeral.  She said, "I know that I'll see your grandmother in heaven, 
but when *you* die, I won't even have the *hope* of seeing you again."
She feels justified in feeling so, because, as she puts it, "You're
the one who changed."  Since I had to say something, I told her that 
if God is willing, he may someday convince me to believe in him once 
again, or that his plan may be something more grand than we can ever
imagine.

I would like to hear from others who face similar issues in living 
with a theistic wife or husband, especially if you changed your
religious beliefs after your marriage.

Regards,
Young Huh
yhuh@ihlpe.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism