HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 14:40:19 GMT

mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:

>skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>> >skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>> >> >But to get back to the point, am I to take it that you're claiming that
>> >> >error-free transmission of God's word is incompatible with free will?
>> >> No.  It's not incompatible, since everyone with free will could choose
>> >> to transmit God's word error-free.  I claim that free will allows for
>> >> the possibility of errors in the transmission.  We have the errors,
>> >> and God's desire to preserve free will is an explanation for them.
>> 
>> >Sorry, bad phrasing.
>> 
>> >Are you claiming that if transmission of God's word is forced to be
>> >error-free in any way, free will will be impossible?
>> 
>> No.  The claim quoted above is the claim I am making.

>The claim quoted above concerns what is allowed by free will.  I'm asking you
>what would be allowed given guaranteed accuracy of transmission of God's
>word.  Your answer does not relate to my question.

I agree that the second part of the answer relates only marginally.
My answer to your question is: No, I am not claiming that.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Jarek, where are you (trash bin)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 07:53:26 GMT

In article <dabrowsk.712132273@liveboard10> dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>WARNING: A GIGO exchange. 
>
>Graham Matthews '}' writes to Jarek '>':
>
>MOTTO: Khan: "You are just a creature of God."
>
>}}} Do you know what the words "fuck off" mean Khan?
>>>That Khan said something Graham didn't like and that Graham is vulgar.
>}Think again Jarek. In fact think. It may be a new experience.
>}
>To you...

And on a totally unrelated note, here's an excerpt from the
CANONICAL LISTING OF ALT.FLAME STEREOTYPES posted to alt.flame and
talk.religion.misc and other fine newsgroups near you:

>>*The Young 'Un*
>>
>> Description: Infantile.  Learned the limits of his/her flaming ability
>>              in Junior High School.  Has sometimes been pithed.
>> Comments:    Insists in engaging in 'dick-size' wars.  Tends to worship
>>              their elders-and-betters and will follow-up to just about
>>              anything.  Their sigs usually contain Bart Simpson.
>> Sample Post: Elmer Q. Foobar (Dick-cheese!) writes:
>>               > "You don't know what you're talking about, spoo-breath!"
>>               "I know you are, but what am I???"
>> Pro's:       Can easily be betrayed by viciously posting their hero-
>>              worshipping mail.  Usually fall for the 'misc.test' trick.
>> Con's:       Will never, ever, leave.  Not even if they've been obliterated.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ahmed@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ahmed El-Habbash)
Subject: Re: "Sin" is a myth
Organization: DSG, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:41:09 GMT

In <n0630t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

>Tag1: Graham Matthews (graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews))
>Tag2: Bev Beasly:(address unknown)
> 
>>>>BB> "Covering is prescribed for women to protect themselves from
>>>>BB> men, so that the man will not stare lustfully at the women.
>>>>BB> Women are to cover all except for the face and hands, some
>>>>BB> women in other countries cover their face and hands."
> 
> 
>>>DR> Your rationalizations of women being responsible for curbing
>>>DR> the 'lusts' of men is vile, disgusting, and abhorant to me.

Should one always conform to your sick rationalization to be acceptable.

> 
>>BB> When a woman, such as myself, dresses in a dignified and
>>BB> modest manner, she has less of a chance of being verbally
>>BB> or physically abused, note the words 'less of a chance',
>>BB> I'm not saying 100% all of the time.
> 
Who will understand 100% in this group?
> 
>Amen! (Smile.) I am master of my body, ruler of my mind, thoughts,
>and deeds--- I refuse to place blame on externals. I do not need a
>God, nor a "holy" book, to instill a sense of honor, ethics, and
>morals: in most people, such qualities are congenital (I believe,

It seems that you do not understand the meaning of the word "congenital".
Most your ethics and morals are a product of some thing external to you,
be it a society, religion, or any other influences. It is true that you
have your innate nature, but that will normally be dominated by the
norms of your society. You may come back from time to time to your
innate nature, but you will find that it is difficult to withstand the
currents, unless you rely on a great force to support you. Following 
your lust and low desires is not a return to your innate nature.

>since humans have evolved within societies where these qualities
>were survival traits).
> 
>For a woman to be so enslaved, so self-prisoned to believe that
>it is HER responsibility to "curb" the behavior of 49% of the
>entire population. . . . well, that seems to me like she has been
>criminally abused. It also assums that men are INCAPABLE of using
>their brains instead of their balls, which I also find insulting.

No don't worry, she is not assuming that for men, and never mentioned
that neither directly nor indirectly, but this is your ill reasoning.
> 
>It seems Ms. Beasly bases her self-inflicted neurosis on occultism
>(he religion), which she probably received FROM HER MALE MASTERS.
>Such as woman not only cannot see her chains; she encourages other
>women, actively or passivly, to bind themselves "for God."

Binding one self to God cannot be compared to being bound to sick
ideologies of handicapped *claimed rational* men.
> 
>If Ms. Beasly ever finds out how she has been used, do you think
>she'll blame the men to enslaved her, or herself for allowing it?

She probably would blame herself for wasting her time writing and
talking to blinds and deaf people in this group.
>--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rjg@doe.carleton.ca (Richard Griffith)
Subject: Re: Insane Finn
Keywords: crazy finnish child abuse physics
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:12:31 GMT

In <1992Jul23.150908.13421@cs.yale.edu> smith-jeff@CS.YALE.EDU (Jeff Smith) writes:

>This strange man beleives that God talks through his 5-year old daughter,
>Hanna-Maria (no relation to Hanna-Barbarra), telling him about the "true"
>structure of space and time.  Enjoy!

Read the above noted article in alt.best.of.internet somewhere virtually near
you.

Where do these people get their ideas. Creative 5-year olds.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: Ivan Panin
Keywords: Prove, Bible
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:53:31 GMT

karlth@rhi.hi.is (Karl Thoroddsen) writes:

>I was reading through some pamphlets a few days ago and came across a 
>piece of paper by Ivan Panin.  The paper tried to prove the Bible's 100%
>correctness by maintaining that no mortal could have written it. 
>According to Panin every chapter of the greek version of the bible contains
>a 7*x large vocabulary, 7*x letters in the vocabulary, etc.  Panin then 
>states that it would have taken mortal men 1000s of years to create a
>book so crammed with "7 features" and thus it was god's work.

>Any info?

Yes. Read anything by Robert Anton Wilson. Or better yet, get our friend
Ivan to read it. Pretty soon he'll believe RAW is God.

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l  M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the  rem
james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Free will (from Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 05:53:26 GMT

Jarek:
>BTW, I said that I won't reply to this thread, and I kindly asked that
>this information be retained as long as I am being quoted... Please...

Why won't you reply Jarek? Feel like you are on shakey ground or something?

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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: 02/alt.atheism fre <cont>
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 03:43:57 GMT

(Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>What's really relevant here is that QM describes behaviour which is
>totally alien to the normal human experience. 
>But quantum mechanics still obeys the conservation laws of classical
>physics. 
(Graham Matthews) writes:
>>I don't think it does Lawrence.
(Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>It better :-)
>Take a look at the EPR experment, the paradox comes in because of
>conservation laws. In the EPR experment if you know the state of one
>particle you also know the state of the other particle because of
>conservation of angular momentum.

Indeed my mistake. I was thinking of conservation of actions in
relativity.

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: tcbruno@athena.mit.edu (Tom Bruno)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: a butterfly?
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:42:17 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <28JUL199212180687@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> hanlon@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Casey Hanlon (SVER)) writes:
>Saw a news release the other day where some minister somewhere here
>is the USA had captured a butterfly that when its wings were spread
>had a picture of jesus on it.  Hmm, I wonder how they determined it
>was jesus?  It looked more like Charles Manson to me.  But then
>Charles Manson was jesus wasn't he.
>
>Casey Hanlon 


Are you sure it wasn't just Ted Nugent?


tom bruno
archaeology
mit
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: denmckinnon@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (NEIL MCKINNON)
Subject: Re: matthew's and Jim's views of free will
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University 
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 15:56:09 GMT

In article <zlsiida.1026@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
>From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
>Subject: matthew's and Jim's views of free will
>Date: 23 Jul 92 09:03:07 GMT

>If Jim's right, then our path through life is a one way single lane road 
>with no junctions, and whether or not we enjoy the scenery or hate it is 
>also totally predetermined.  In fact, this posting was already predicted by 
>the configuration of the Big Bang.  We're reduced to a spark of 
>consciousness trapped in a vehicle we can't control.  Even leaving by 
>suicide wouldn't actually be our own choice.

>I don't want this to be true.
>I'd like somebody to tell me it isn't.
>Without invoking God in any form, because the only evidence of God 
>acceptable to me is direct experience of His presence (if you can provide me 
>with that, drop by immediately!)

>+--Great Quotes of our Time-------------------------------------------+
>|        You should never have a hobby that eats                      |
>+--------------------------------------Amarillo Slim Preston----------+          
>|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England  (44)061-275-6033   |
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------+

Don't worry Dave, most of the time the illusion of free will is as good as 
the real thing!

Neil.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 05:04:47 GMT

Graham:
>>Its made even more perverse by that fact the God is going to punish
>>for all eternity those whom his word never reached.

Greg Skinner:
>Hmmm.  If you're talking about the same God I'm talking about,
>I don't know how you can be sure of that.

Maybe we are not talking of the same God. I was talking of a fairly
standard model of the Christian God.

Ok Gregg with you God what happens to those who don't have a belief
in him/her?

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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Atheism and spiritual feelings (was Re: Atheism and culture)
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 06:18:35 GMT

Graham:
> I said that you do not practice agnostic theism.
Jarek:
>And I said that "I have spiritual feelings about God so I MAY believe
>that there's God". To what you replied: 
Graham:
>>An agnostic would not credit those "spiritual feelings" to "God".
>>He/she would not credit them to anything.
Jarek:
>This is a negative agnosticism; 

Another Jarek re-definition. Sorry but I am not going to take the bait.
You may call what I practise "negative atheism" and by implication what
you practise "positive atheism" if you will, but I have no intention of
starting a discussion on what are clearly meaingless re-definitions.

Jarek:
>we will see whether YOU practice this
>kind of agnosticism (another thread, mind you). As for me, I stressed
>that I *_MAY_* believe that there's God, just as I *_MAY_* believe that
>there's Graham. 

And I said *PRACTICE*. Read for a change.

graham

PS: I do not appreciate getting an email version of everything you post to
me Jarek. It fills up my mail box. Moreover it is very bad net etiquette to
send unasked-for email in this volume. Do not send me email.
--
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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ception@admiral.uucp (brad davis)
Subject: atheism....
Reply-To: ception@admiral.uucp (brad davis)
Organization: The Grid/Waffle BBS, 203-661-2873, -1279, -0450, -2967
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:17:49 GMT

I agree with Jim here.  Simply because an atheist isnt arrogant enough 
(as many religious figures are) to consider him or herself infallible 
about his or her beliefs that does not make him an agnostic.  Ive always 
thought of an agnostic as someone who doesnt care to hold an opinion, or 
more simply put, doesnt care if there is a god, or perhaps simply cant be 
bothered.  See the basic problem is that in religion, there isnt much 
room for doubt.  If you believe in god you are supposed to believe in him 
all the way and mister priest or rabbi or whatever doesnt want to hear 
about how you think maybe there isnt a god even though you believe there 
is one.  So i could understand the difficulty in the religious point of 
view when confronted with the idea that atheists dont 'have to be' 
steadfast or positive about their beliefs.  

Brad

--
ception%admiral.uucp@yale.edu (brad davis) <yale!admiral!ception>
The Admiral's Public UNIX - Greenwich, CT - System Administrator: Doug Fields
(HST/V32) (203)661-2873 -- (PEP/V32) -1279 -- (V32) -0450 -- (V29/MNP6) -2967
>FREE!< Unix shell accounts, Usenet access, and Internet-style mail available
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: 'Nuther g*d joke
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 18:04:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.223620.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> rswiftrw@cc.curtin.edu.au (Rod Swift) writes:
>I was attacked on the street the other day by a g*d-believer and he said
>to me...
>
>	"Know G*d, know peace.  No G*d, no peace."
>
>And I turned around to him and said...
>
>	"Stuff it up ya shirt ya hippy git!  Know G*d, know
>	 problems.  No G*d, no problems!"
>
>He was very upset.  I received applause.

Interesting.  I wouldn't have thought that this would work very
well in a verbal exchange.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism and culture
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:07:22 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <Tow2NB3w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>> No. It is based upon the assumptions that a) cause and effect
>> obtain; b) memory and other history phenomena are, on the whole,
>> reliable; c) the future will resemble the past in all but
>> matters of detail; d) reasonably reliable communication
>> is possible.
>
>I think I'd count the assumptions of science slightly differently.  I don't
>quite understand what c) has to do with science.  As I see it, the laws of
>physics could suddenly change next Tuesday, and science could continue. 
>(Although it would obviously have a lot of catching up to do.)

We need c) if we want science to have predictive power.
If the future is drastically different from the past then
no prediction is possible. There is no correlation between
gathered data and what is likely to happen.

>I'm not so sure cause and effect is necessary, either.  We can say that a
>certain event x is associated with some other event y and do science on that
>basis, without actually having to know that x causes y.  In fact, more
>subtly, from x being associated with y we tend to infer that x causes y.
>I think science could continue without that inference.  (Maybe not all
>science, but plenty.)

I think you're right about cause and effect, although
I also think that it is a widely held assumption. More
precisely, I suspect it isn't *strictly* necessary for
science, but is necessary for much science as usually
practiced.

>I think modern science as practised has a number of other assumptions.  One
>that springs to mind is the assumption that other scientists do not
>deliberately attempt to mislead the scientific community.

I didn't intend for my list to be exhaustive, but
I would have included this assumption as part of b).
From: marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Burn in the brimstone fires of Heaven
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:45:19 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <willimsa.712431261@unix1.tcd.ie>, willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams) writes:
> 
> Thought you might find this funny.
> 

Yes, I did.

> 
> 
>  The temperature of Heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority
> is Isaiah 30:26, "Moreover, the light of the Moon shall be as the light of
> the Sun and the light of the Sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven
> days."  Thus Heaven receives from the Moon as much radiation as we do from
> the Sun, and in addition 7*7 (49) times as much as the Earth does from the
> Sun, or 50 times in all.  The light we receive from the Moon is one
> 1/10,000 of the light we receive from the Sun, so we can ignore that ...
> The radiation falling on Heaven will heat it to the point where the heat
> lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation, i.e.,
> Heaven loses 50 times as much heat as the Earth by radiation.  Using the
> Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiation, (H/E)^4 = 50, where E is the absolute
> temperature of the earth (-300K), gives H as 798K (525C).  The exact
> temperature of Hell cannot be computed ... [However] Revelations 21:8 says
> "But the fearful, and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake
> which burneth with fire and brimstone."  A lake of molten brimstone means
> that its temperature must be at or below the boiling point, 444.6C. We
> have, then, that Heaven, at 525C is hotter than Hell at 445C. -- From
> "Applied Optics" vol. 11, A14, 1972
> 

Whatever!  (Was that actually written down somewhere?)


Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14155 talk.religion.misc:12501
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Faith in the Word (was: Drinking & christian living)
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:56:19 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.


In article <nyarko.711815655@ee.ualberta.ca> nyarko@ee.ualberta.ca (David Nyarko) writes:
>
>I have no idea of the age of the child when these words were spoken. 
>Regarding children and the age at which they could be used by the Devil,
>I have personally known an 11 year old girl and her 10 year old brother,
>who were a witch and a wizard. The girl actually being the head (queen-
>witch) of a gathering of witches and wizards far older that her. They
>were obviously demonic possessed. 

  Indeed?  This is an intriguing statement.  How exactly does one
  verify demonic possession, and in what way is it obvious to the
  observer?

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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"But writing is a legal way of avoiding work without actually
stealing and one that doesn't take any talent or training."

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
Subject: RFD: Abolishment of Reasonable
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:32:23 GMT


I propose that we abolish the use of the word, 'reasonable' in
this newsgroup.

Too often it crops up in postings like, "Any REASONABLE person could
see this." , etc. Or, "If we take a REASONABLE interpretation of it",
etc.  

Usually what follows the R-word is NOT reasonable.


Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14349 sci.skeptic:13249
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: FAQ File Reminder (read it or eat hot killfile)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 92 19:50:07 BST
Followup-To: poster
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

[ This is a canned posting ]

This is a reminder about the alt.atheism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
file.

The file exists to help new readers avoid embarrassing themselves by asking
questions which have been covered over and over again.  Please read it before
posting.

To find a copy:

1. Check the newsgroup alt.atheism.  There should be a copy of the latest
   version of the FAQ file.  Look for the subject line "Alt.Atheism
   Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)".

2. Check the newsgroup news.answers for the same subject line.

   If you don't find anything in steps 1 or 2, your news system isn't set up
   correctly, and you may wish to tell your system administrator about the
   problem.

3. If you have anonymous FTP access, connect to pit-manager.mit.edu
   [18.172.1.27].  Go to the directory /pub/usenet/alt.atheism, and you'll
   find the latest version of the FAQ file there.

4. If you don't have FTP, send mail to mail-server@pit-manager.mit.edu
   consisting of the following line:

      send usenet/alt.atheism/Alt.Atheism_Frequently_Asked_Questions_(FAQ)

   The FAQ file should be mailed back to you automatically.

5. (Penultimate resort)  Send mail to info-server@mantis.co.uk consisting of
   the following line:

      send atheism/atheism.txt

   and our poor overworked modems will try and send you a copy.


mathew
-- 
Ceci | n'est pas une pipe.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism