HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mayne@sync.cs.fsu.edu (William Mayne)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: another greeting
Date: 1 Apr 92 17:42:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: mailer.1992Apr1.124248.21688
Reply-To: mayne@cs.fsu.edu
Organization: Florida State University Dept. of Computer Science

In article <11630@tamsun.tamu.edu> wjh0265@tamsun.tamu.edu (William Hobson) writes:
>I for one am getting sick and tired of this thread eating up all of this
>bandwidth and making this news group almost unreadable...

I can tell you from my own experience that many whites in the deep south
were sick and tired of discussion of civil rights for blacks in the late
1950s and early 1960s, and some still are. Do you get my point or do I
need to spell it out?

Bill Mayne
From: poplog@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: CAUSALITY!!!!!!!
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:57:13 +1000
Organization: University of New South Wales


   I think you are all missing the point in your argument about causality.
A scientific theory can not give you any idea about the nature of causality in
the universe because it just a theory.  It might work realy well if you assume
that there is or isnt causality, but the theory itself is still unprovable, so
it has no bearing on the debate at all.

   In fact the argument can be settled without relying on any modern science at
all.  The question of causality has alredy been dealt with by philosophers. 
The argument goes like this...


   Causality is defined as the connections between one state of the univese and
another.  That is, state B will always be preceded by state A, so it can be said
that state A caused state B to exist.
   But how do we know that state B is always preceded by state A?  The only way
to know is though experience.  We see that state B is always preceded by state
A, so we assume the causal relationship.  Therefore, all of our claims of
causality ar realy just based on past experience of it always happening that
way.  
   But just because we have always experienced a ceratin pattern does not mean
that it must always happen that way.  Therefore just because we have never
noticed (or recognised) a non-causal event does not mean that causality is     
absolute.
   i.e.  Causality can not be proven or disproven, we can not even prove that
our daily experiences are realy causal or just statistic coincidences.


   This means that there is no need for the existence of any God to create the
universe.  The universe can quite justifiably come into existence for no reason
at all.  It could be argued though that causality may be absolute even though
we can not prove it.  But this can not be used to prove the existence of a God,
so it is of no use.




       Matt.   8-)
     
 

        
  

 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Backward Masking
Date: 8 Apr 92 03:52:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: ulkyvx.1992Apr7.235238.1
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Apr5.235350.527@miavx2.ham.muohio.edu>, bstadnik@miavx2.ham.
muohio.edu writes:
> In article <1992Apr3.150442.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>> In article <1992Mar31.235053.489@miavx2.ham.muohio.edu>, bstadnik@miavx2.ham.
>> muohio.edu writes:
>>> 
>   [Question about backward masking deleted]
> 
>>>   I would post in the Satinist newsgroup, but figured their answer would be 
>>> just as biased.
>> 
>> Gee, that's pretty discriminatory. When someone asks me an objective question,
>> I try to give an objective answer with specific examples and references. Not
>> that the opportunity arises too often; people are usually just interested in
>> finding out what Satanists believe and why (morbid curiousity I suppose).
>                    ^^^^^^^^
>> 
>> I'm disappointed to find such assumptions in a normally rational newsgroup.
> 
>      Which is the precise reason I posted in this newsgroup, to get the most
> unbiased and factual opinions without bringing a supreme creator or some man in
> a funny red suit(not Santa Claus) into the picture. 

Your original post implied that you thought your question had some relevance
to Satanism but that Satanists were incapable of reason.  My point was that we
are in fact endowed with rational thought and can answer a factual question
without necessarily bringing an opinion into it, contrary to your assumption.
I was merely trying to clear up a misconception.
 
> By the way thanks for all you postings and mail.  It is a great help.  The
> books are great and I got all the answers I needed. 
> 
>> 
>> --Semhaza
>> 
>> P.S. I can spell 'athiesm' correctly, can you please try to do the same with
>                     ???????
>> 'Satanism'?
> 
> Did you actually graduate from high school or what?  Atheism- A,T,H,E,I,S,M.
> The proper spelling for the word meaning, "the belief that there is no God."

Since you asked, I did graduate from high school and am currently a straight-A
student in college.  I made a common typing error, transposing two letter that
were next to each other--a different order of mistake from yours.
 
> Now to the second point.  Satanist is capitalized just as 'God' is capitalized
> in the previous sentence.  I suppose it was originally something to do with
> respect or proper names, but that is how it is in every dictionary I have read. 
> What I wanted to say was in fact Satanist.  Either you are a total idiot, or
> you need glasses. (See your spelling for Satanist(s)).  

Your point?  If you want to be coherent, do so.  If you want to degenerate to
name-calling, e-mail me and save the bandwidth.
 
>   Brian- B,r,i,a,n.

--Semhaza:  S,e,m,j,a,z,a.  If you don't get it, read a book.
From: rlk@think.com (Robert L Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Organizations in the NE area?
Date: 16 Apr 1992 23:33:58 -0400
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: early-bird.think.com

Are there any social organizations in the Boston area for atheists?
There seem to be more than enough religious groups with social things
hanging off them, but I'd like to find some things where atheists would
be more welcome.
-- 
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: a better answer to Q14 (faith is necessary) in the FAQ
Date: 8 Apr 92 12:54:48 GMT
 <graham.702437350@dumas> <1992Apr8.020638.7782@xanadu.com>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Apr8.020638.7782@xanadu.com>, hibbert@xanadu.com (Chris Hibbert)
says:
>
[he is not sure whether he and Graham Matthews are talking about the
 same thing]
>
>But maybe that's what you meant.  If you mean something like
>"revisable opinion" when you say "assumption," and "equally worthy of
>being considered" when you say "equally possible", I guess you're
>saying the same thing as I am.  Do we agree on everything but
>terminology?

Yes, yes, I think we (you, Graham, and myself) do all agree.  It has
been about 20 years since I have read Bartley, but I remember his
position as being remarkably similar to Graham's and mine.

I've been meaning to reply to this post for several days now, but
have been wasting my time quibbling with WEEMBA.  Let me see if I
can ignore him for a while to concentrate on this Bartley thing,
which is indeed relevant to the concerns of atheists.

My intention is to dig up my notes on Bartley and reply with a
more detailed response.

John
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Tuesday, 7 Apr 1992 14:16:34 EDT
From: <IO10184@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: atheists@Maine


Hello all,

    This post is directed to any and all atheits, agnostics etc
who are attending, or live near the University of Maine in the
wonderful town of Orono.
    I was curious if there was any interest in perhaps having
informal get togethers or discussions about atheism or any
other issues of interest.
    Lately I've linked up with some people in my dorm (Hancock
hall) and I thought it would be interesting to find others
on campus who shared similar attitudes.

   Thanks for your time

**************************
*Pat Myers               *
*IO10184@Maine           *
*Local stuff:            *
*      143 Hancock Hall  *
*      581-8675          *
**************************
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@cclittle.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: what did god do before creation
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 16:38:44 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world,public


In article <1992Apr3.134120.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

[deletions, lots of 'em]

> Now false theories
> are often falsifiable and one can therefore say that they are definitely
> not undetectable.  One cannot of course say just what is the case for
> any particular theory without stating it explicitly.  However, one 
> should be careful not to say that all *presently* unfalsifiable statements are
> meaningless.  For example, one could say that ideas about hightemp
> superconductors at room temp are meaningless because unfalsifiable.
> But one day there might be such a supercond, and having a theory around
> *might* be useful (it might even be useful to make the stuff!)  
> Similarly, one day God might make himself know explicitly.
> 
> Joe Deasy

 God might someday make Itself known explicitly someday. Sure.
However, Since until then (assuming unfalsifiability as you
say) we have nothing to go on, behaving as if it were true is
not terribly productive in my estimation...

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@caen.engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: different planet (was paranoid etc)
Date: 10 Apr 92 14:29:16 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)

In article <1992Apr10.014259.4791@bmerh2.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30 (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>Jewish tradition encourages the questioning of authority.  Constantly.

>Which authority?  All authority?  Even that which is purported to
>from God?  Somehow I very much doubt it.

Then you really don't know what you're talking about.  Yes, even God.
The most extreme has been trials of God--with guilty verdicts.  The
most explicit rejection (not just questioning, _rejection_) of divine
authority is a famous Talmudic passage regarding a rabbinic debate
over some small dispute.  The vote was 70-1, and the lone holdout
started invoking divine authority for his position.  He said that
if he's right, the trees will show it, and they promptly bent over.
The vote was still 70-1.  So then he invoked a river to reverse its
course if he's right, the river reversed, and the vote was 70-1.
Finally, he said a voice from Heaven will prove that he's right,
and a voice from Heaven spoke, saying the holdout was right.  The
other rabbis didn't budge [one of them is reputed to have said,
"nu? the vote is now 70-2"].  And that night, one of the other
rabbis had a dream, where Elijah the prophet told him that God was
laughing over the whole thing, declaring "my children have won".

Note that it doesn't matter if you believe the story or not.  The
very fact that such a story would be recorded shows that arguing
with God--and winning even--is encouraged.

>					   I could refer to lots of
>passages in the OT,

Were the passages where Abraham, Moses, and Job argued with God deleted
from your copy?  Was the phrase "stiff-necked people" omitted?
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: poplog@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Bluntly
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:18:19 +1000
Organization: University of New South Wales

God does not exist. The end
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:01:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr9.230127.21100
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <73490@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>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.
No, Matthew, it's not. Your claim that you taught by lying and it
worked better by not lying is a historical claim. The claim that
it was NECESSARY to do a good job is not.

-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?
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:01:42 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 <1992Apr8.192549.27194@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In particular, the "it" was in reference to passing off Christian ideas
>>about God and religion and lumping them with Judaism.

>I would know mainly from Jews telling me, I imagine.

Well, several Jews have been telling you they find it unpleasant.  I'm
also sure many have told you they don't care about it.

>>There's Josephus, the Talmud, and even the New Testament itself.  One
>>easily accessible and good account is Paul Johnson's book.

>Well, that's not at all what I see in the New Testament. What I
>see is the Sadducees being dominant.

The Sadducees were dominant regarding the Temple and upper class power.  The
masses followed the Pharisees.  The Pharisees were also dominant outside of
Israel--away from the Temple--which was home for less than 1/3 of the Jews.

>				      The Talmud has a vested interest
>in portraying that picture, so I don't trust it much

Historians deal with the self-serving nature of primary documents all the
time, and have ways to read past such literalisms.

>						     --I'm not
>sure the NT does so much in this matter, but I'm not about to
>defend that.

The extent of Jesus' criticism shows that, at the very least, the
Pharisees were not a fringe group.

>	      There is quite a bit of Josephus, so would you mind
>being a bit more specific?

I'd have to look it up.

>>How about unpleasant(Jews, non-Jews speaking falsehoods about Judaism)?

>Really, though, Matthew, unpleasant({Rescorla,Matthews,Ingles(?),
>Mathew,...},Matthew Weiner) in instances where it is not at all
>clear we were speaking falsehoods about Judaism, e.g. the
>Calculus thread.

Ray Ingles and I have been having a mostly pleasant e-mail exchange, and
for the calculus thread, you've been making ridiculous demands.

>		  You've also been extremely rude about JEWS who
>have made comments you don't agree with about Judaism. (e.g. Yahweh
>cult.)

Jews being unpleasant about Judaism is certainly nothing new.

>       Sounds to me like unpleasant(Matthew,Anyone who says anything
>that Matthew doesn't agree with about just about anything.)

False overall, but I am unpleasant in response to many things.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
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: 7 Apr 92 19:20:15 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: mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B)

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 regarding
>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.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: goedel's proof for existence of god
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:58:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: skyblu.15APR199216580567
Distribution: na,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <12078.29ec7e6e@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, hjort@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes...
>In article <1992Apr13.172422.6509@eco.twg.com>, chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
>> By the way, have you seen this argument?
>> PREMISE: If the statement "If I am good, then I will go to Heaven" is true,
>> 	 then God exists.
>> PREMISE: I am not good.
>> CONCLUSION: God exists.
>> 
>> If you translate that into propositional logic, you really can
>> derive the conclusion from the premisses. You can't in modal
>> logic, because "If I am good, then I will go to Heaven" needs
>> to be universally true, and "I am not good" is only conditionally
>> true.
>> -- 
> 
>Acctually I have to say that this is a bogus proof in formal logic as
>I know it. The conditional has the following truth table:
> 
>  A  |  B  | A->B
>-----+-----+------
>  T  |  T  |  T
>  T  |  F  |  F
>  F  |  T  |  T
>  F  |  F  |  T
> 
>Thus if we know A is false (A=I am good) and that A->B is true, we still
>cannot say anything about B (whatever it may be).

The first premise says that if A -> B is true, then C.
The second premise says that A is false (and so by the semantics
of the material conditional, A -> B is true).
The conclusion says that C is true, which follows from the two premises.
The truth value of B doesn't affect the validity of the argument.

Another argument that looks something like the above is given by
Boolos and Jeffrey in _Computability and Logic_, p. 186, before a
proof of Loeb's Theorem.  It goes:

   Let S be the sentence "If S is true, Santa exists."
   Assume
      (1) S is true.
   Then by the logic of identity,
      (2) "If S is true, Santa exists" is true.
   From (2) we obtain
      (3) If S is true, Santa exists.
   And from (1) and (3), we infer
      (4) Santa exists.
   Having deduced (4) from the assumption (1), we may assert outright
      (5) If S is true, Santa exists.
   From (5) we obtain
      (6) "If S is true, Santa exists" is true.
   And by the logic of identity again we have
      (7) S is true.
   From (5) and (7) we conclude
      (8) Santa exists.

>> ===========================================================
>> Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
>> ===========================================================
> 
>					-Hans H Hjort

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: 13 Apr 92 21:46:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: ulkyvx.1992Apr13.174611.1
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Louisville

>> >>Without perfect foreknowledge of uncreated universes (something I do not accept
>> >>as a necessary characteristic of God)  it is impossible to tell what 
>> >>will happen in an
>> >>autonomous environment due to non-linearities in certain features of 
>> >>reality (not even considering free beings).  This is a clear result
>> >>of modern dynamics.  The mechanical universe of Leibniz is dead, killed by
>> >>a non-linear oscillator.  It is therefore somewhat rediculous to me to 
>> >>hear people argue that God must have had the means to stop certain 
>> >>individual evil things from occuring, simply be refusing to create 
>> >>those universes.  God may be able to run simulations of the universe,
>> >>but he can't tell which simulations will correspond to which actual universe.
>> > 
>> > Why should God's omniscience be limited to the physically possible?
>> > 
>> 
>> I am not talking about 'physical impossibilites' I mean (here and
>> everywhere) impossible for God=logically impossible.  Modern dynamics
>> says that many systems (perhaps most) have later states which cannot
>> *in principal* be predicted exatcly from earlier states, even for God.
> 
>  This is not true. I've noticed that you seemed not to know a
> lot about QM in other threads, now it seems that you do not
> understand nonlinear dynamics ("Chaos") well either.
>  What ND says is, for certain classes of systems, the future
> output of the system is sensitive to the initial conditions.
> A very small change in the initial conditions will lead to a
> vast change in the final output.
> 
> Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
>                             || not those of the University of
> ingles@caen.engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.


If God wants the universe to be autonomous, then he must allow qm
probabilities to act indpendent of his wishes.  Thus, all dynamical systems
have uncertainties in initial conditions not smaller than those required 
to satisfy the Heisenberg relations.  Nonlinear dynamics predicts that 
most such systems will have later states which are unpredictable due to such 
uncertainties.    

The world is not purely classical.

Joe Deasy