HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheists & agnostics
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 17:51:15 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

patc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Pat Caldon) writes:
> In article <u3NiVB15w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> >patc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Pat Caldon) writes:
> >> I don't know a great deal about Bhuddism, however, the idea that we will
> >> attain Nirvana and be incorporated into a god-like figure is at odds
> >> with atheism, as stated "the lack of belief in god or gods."
> >
> >Yes, but that's Hinduism.
> 
> I believe that there is something of the same concept in Bhuddism. However,
> I'm not really qualified to say - I've never spoken about Bhuddism to a 
> Bhuddist.

Well, could you at least learn to spell it?

> >Buddhism isn't really derived from Hinduism; in its early years, it was more
> >of a backlash against Hinduism.  You might as well argue that the Church of
> >the SubGenius is derived from Christianity.
> 
> I meant "derived" in the sense that Islam is derived from Judaism.

Yes, so did I.

> There is a common root, so to speak.

Indeed -- but so what?


mathew
-- 
Official Meta-Pope of the SubGenius Church of the Radioactive Jesus
(formerly Hamburgers for WOTAN, Inc.)

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Atheists should mind their own damn business
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:00:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.071137.16343@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
}I don't have anything against atheists really... just leave me and
}my world alone. 

Interesting.  You desire others to do that which you are unwilling.

You did notice that you posted your griping in alt.atheism, right?  That is
doing exactly that which you decry.

tsk tsk.
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Omniscience
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 12:22:59 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
> Mathew types:
> (Deletions)
> >> I thought I have adressed that. Time is resolved by the omnipotent has to 
> >> omnipotent all the time or it is not omnipotent (tm).
> 
> >But where did you pull that one from?  That's not part of any definition of
> >'omnipotent' I'm familiar with.
> 
> From the definitions of my Catholic youth. Omnipotent meant being able to do
> absolutely everything and anything.

Yes, but not absolutely everything and anything for all time.  It's
the "for all time" bit I'm asking about.

> >Then you are simply demanding "Solve p = ~p".  We can trivially prove from
> >the definitions (i.e. meaning) of the question that it has no solution, so i
> >tells you nothing about whoever you're addressing the problem to.
> 
> It tells me that the omnipotent and absolutely down to earth logic cannot
> coexist in the same reference system.

Only if you keep using your strange definition of "omnipotent".  Any
definition of omnipotent which is rendered impossible by a tautology
isn't much of a definition.

> >You can't get profound statements out of the inability to solve problems
> >which don't have a solution; otherwise you could just say "Solve sj jksdj
> >sdfj ksjd dfj."
> 
> A and not A has a value, it is always wrong. That does not apply to the
> sentence given, I assume.

Then consider the statement "A" instead of "A and not A".

> By the way, it applies to me as well that I can't solve problems that
> haven't got a solution for me. I am afraid that this implies also that
> I am Omnipotent, since I can by definition, solve all problems that have
> a solution for me, and the others don't count.

OK.  Get me a piece of rock from Phobos.  That problem has a definite
solution for you.

You confuse "problems which you cannot solve" with "problems which are
provably insoluble".


mathew
-- 
Lung cancer and arteriosclerosis.
For people who like to smoke.

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24034 alt.sex.wizards:4059 soc.men:21481 misc.kids:30869
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:21:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.170514.27543@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>
>On a related note, I found a weighty volume in the philosophy section of
>the University bookstore here called _Does God Exist?_ or some such, by
>Kung, who is described by the sleeve-note sycophants as a highly respected
>theologian cum philosopher who has set Christianity on a sound philosophical
>footing, or something like that.
>
>Well, I'm glad they thought so. A brief scan left me astonished by the
>enormous fallacy-count as the author `established' his position that
>the only rational worldview is the Christian one, and that atheism is
>susceptible to attack with the weapons of reason and skepticism, only
>to be found of course in the armoury of the Christian.
>
>And this was just next to, and about the same price as,  _The Logic of
>Scientific Discovery_ by Karl Popper. Conclusive proof that There Is No
>God as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, Hans Kung (with umlaut over the u). I have a book of his on eternal life
which I haven't completed yet. Just another Christian apologist, in my view.

Jeers


Jim Copeland
-- 
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: stave@apollo.hp.com (Joel H. Stave)
Subject: Re: Quotes from the Bible.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:33:29 GMT
Reply-To: stave@apollo.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Apollo Division - Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Dec16.223604.21789@newsgate.sps.mot.com>,
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
|> In article 1v8@apollo.hp.com, stave@apollo.hp.com (Joel H. Stave) writes:
|> > One thing to note.  In the various arguments that I have had with
|> > people who believe the bible word for word, they invariably interperet
|> > what it says and twist the meanings to fit the facts.  In *no* case
|> > have I ever been able to get them to admit that they are twisting the
|> > words and not taking it literally any more.  The above interpretation
|> > of the pi = 3 problem is a perfect example.
|> 
|> The pi = 3 non-problem is a perfectly lousy example. 
|> 
|> 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.

Just thought I'd explain what I meant a little further.

Joel Stave
stave@apollo.hp.com


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: renfield@camelot.bradley.edu (Dennis Depalma)
Subject: Re: Did Muslims Ever Forcibly Convert Others to Their Religion?
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 12 Dec 92 16:22:48 GMT

In <1992Dec12.053123.26553@nmsu.edu> epowers@dante.nmsu.edu (POWERS) writes:

>David Choweller (David.Choweller@launchpad.unc.edu) wrote:


>	As far as I know, the beginning of Islam was one of forced
>conversions, when Mohammed gave the Meccans a choice of Islam or the
>sword.  But you'll have to look that one up, since I have no reference.
>														
>Erik Powers

Ehh!! Wrong answer.  According to my Middle Eastern history professor last
year, one of the basic tenets of the Muslim faith (created by Mohammad to
prevent conflict with some of the other sects also in existence at the
time) "people of the book" (Christians and Jews) were not to be molested,
and other people weren't forcibly converted.  He just set things up so that
anybody who wasn't a Muslim suffered financially because of it.:wq

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: >>> I concede, please don't kill me...
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 20:12:41 GMT


In article <1992Dec14.081125.25913@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
>Nor am I personally responsible for the enslavement of the dark race,
>the Holocaust, female "circumcision", or any other of the ridiculous
>or offensive things I've been e-mailed about. Look, I have no bone to
>pick with anyone personally. If I seem heady out here it's because
>from the beginning I have gotton offline threats of everthing from
>wholesale cancellation of my posts to bodily harm at the hands of
>knife wielding satanists - all from what began as an editorial.

I don't believe that you changed your tune as a result of
receiving threats after your first article, because you came
on like gangbusters to start with.  However, I'm a bit concerned
that you're painting us all as a bunch of crazy fanatics who
enjoy sending death threats to those we disagree with.  If you
really did receive threats of bodily harm, I think you'd
be justified in posting these threats to the net, and I for one
would like to see them.

>Some
>people in a.a take this way too far. Yeah, I do take threats of
>violence on my person seriously as would anyone... believe it or not.

And you definitely ought to.

>Oh, I can stand the heat of flames... I just wonder how many others
>have been threatened for expressing their views here?

I'm sure a lot of atheists have been threatened with hellfire. :-)

>I must've wandered
>into a moral as well as a spiritual quagmire. I gladly leave you now,
>stupefied and wanting as I vanish into a puff of smoke... Puffffff...

Actually, I don't understand why people got so upset at you.  I thought
you were entertaining.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:46:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.183814.19530@unislc.uucp>, ttobler@unislc.uucp
(Trent Tobler) writes:
|>Brian Cash (bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA) wrote:
|>: 
|>
|>The agnostic says "I don't believe it is possible to know"... he doesn't say
|>anything about taking sides, and if he refuses to take sides, by default he
|>becomes an atheist, because if one is not a theist, one must be an atheist.
|>He could be a theist (I beleive in God, but I believe it is impossible to
|>know if he exists), or an weak atheist (I don't believe in God, and I believe
|>it is impossible to know if he exists), or a strong atheist (I believe there
|>is no god, but I believe it is impossible to know this)
|>
|>Note, there is a distinction between belief and knowledge.  (a)theism makes
|>a statement on belief, (a)gnostism makes a statement about knowledge.  One
|>could also be a gnostic theist (not only do I believe in God, but I
know!) and
|>a gnostic atheist (not only do I believe in no God, but I know!)..

I think I follow your definition of (a)gnostic and (a)theist, and
they make sense, but most people who call themselves agnostic don't
consider themselves atheist or theist.  Of course, most people
think schizophrenia is the same as multiple personality disorder,
so I wouldn't take their word on it.  I like your definitions better
because it gives a larger range of possible types.

|>
|>hmm.. I wonder if it is possible to be a gnostic weak atheist. ;)

Sure. "I know there is a God, I just don't believe in him!" :)

|>
|>: 
|>: When you begin looking at a group of people up-close, you find
|>: it gets harder and harder to put them in nice, neat piles.
|>
|>No, it is really easy.  Ask them to answer the question... "Do you
|>believe in god(s)?"  If a positive response, then theist you are, anything
|>else, including fuzzy responses (I don't know) is an athiest.
|>

This is still too general.  When you look at each person's belief 
(which, in most cases, goes deeper than the boolean believe/disbelieve)
you find a wide range of beliefs that would make it unfair to classify 
them together.  That's why the (a)gnostic and weak/strong were brought in.

Brian /-|-\

|>--
|>  Trent Tobler
                                       
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Re: Winter Solstice
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: alt.atheism
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 03:41:39 GMT

young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh) writes:

>From article <1992Dec6.010209.21998@leland.Stanford.EDU>, by cfairman@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman):
>>Well, it's that time of year again.  [...]
>>How many other celebrate the Solstice, and how many just bite
>>their lips when they hear prayers at Christmas dinner?

>What do you do in such situations?  
>What if they, perhaps your parents, asked you to offer a prayer, 
>thinking that you are a Christian?  

>Young Huh
>yhuh@ihlpe.att.com

Hang in there bub, spring is comming. Then  you can put up with Easter Hymns.
Conan the Libertarian

-- 
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ktikkane@phoenix.oulu.fi (Kari Tikkanen)
Subject: Re: Omniscience
Organization: University of Oulu, Finland
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:27:45 GMT

mathew@mantis.co.uk wrote  Wed, 16 Dec 92 11:54:00 GMT:
 >ktikkane@phoenix.oulu.fi (Kari Tikkanen) writes:
 >> I haven't considered time with my logic or definition and I think 
 >> it is irrelevant. I think Omnipotent means that everything is always 
 >> possible for him.
 >
 >Well, the "always" indicates to me that you're dealing with something
 >much more restrictive than omnipotence as the term is conventionally used.  I
 >therefore don't see that your logical proof has anything to say about
 >omnipotence.
 
Well, some religions accept that their God(s) is not Omnipotent. I'm trying to
prove that Judeo-Christian Omnipotent God cannot exist. In Finnish Bible it
says that "everything is possible for Him".  Let's study 2 possibilities:
 1) If there is a moment of time He is not Omnipotent, then He is still 
capable to restore himself to be Omnipotent. So he is potentially Omnipotent 
all the time. (This my and many christian's interpretation).
 2) He has been Omnipotent (2000 Years ago) but cannot restore it. He
has remained crippled for ever. (Because Kari released bad problem or because
somebody invented the huge stone problem in medieval times !?). Bad news for
christians. I think few christians would accept this and your opinions. (I know
some Jehovas Witnesses who think that God is not Omniscient all the time.)
 
 >> You can think the following problem with yourself:
 >>   C : " Make a problem D, so that nobody can EVER solve it."
 >
 >I think what you mean is "Make a problem D, such that nobody has ever been
 >able to solve it."
 >

Do you put words on my mouth? Does problem D exist before anybody releases or
finds it? (Well, it is philosophical question.) 

 >The problem is, that demands changes to the past.  You could just as well
 >say:
 >
 >E: "Do something so that no omnipotent being has ever existed or will ever
 >    exist."

I think E and C are different problems. Anyway:
Gratulations ! You found a new problem, which is impossible for Omnipotent.


PS. I leave now. I am away on my holiday for a few weeks. 
    Merry Pagan Christmas and Happy New Year !
----------------------- ktikkane@phoenix.oulu.fi -------------------
  Kari Tikkanen      |   .  . -#- |      b        |   begin  
  SF-90550 OULU      |         |  |  I = / f(x)dx |     s:=s+Eq(i);
  FINLAND            | .  .  Vega |      a        |   end
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 16 Dec 92 10:43:53 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

David Sumner (sumner@math.scarolina.edu) wrote:
:   If I read an article in today's 
: newspaper about someone claiming to be god, I would put 
: little stock in it. Why would I believe the writings of an 
: unknown author from thousands of years ago?
:

This reminds me of an argument a Christian of my acquaintance used in
an attempt to prove to me that Jesus must have been a historical figure.
Basically his argument was that noone would claim to be the Son Of God
without actually being so as it was so patently ridiculous. As it is
so unlikely that someone would say that then it must be true that he was
the Son of God. I was stunned by this lack of logic.

The appropriate response to this is to bring up the sorry case of one
David Icke (of the UK), former goal keeper and Green Party politician
turned turquoise wearing Son of God and harbinger of Doom. I suppose
he really must be the Son of God. 

(His former occupation brings a whole new dimension to the 'Jesus Saves'
 jokes, especially as Icke never was a particularly outstanding goalkeeper)

		Aaron Tuner		aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 11:39:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
> According to the FAQ, atheism is usually defined in this group as 
> the "absence of a belief in any gods" (so-called "weak atheism"), rather
> than the "belief in no god(s)" (so-called "strong atheism").

Er, no, not really.  The group is about a 50/50 split, I believe, between the
two.

The new FAQ tries to make this matter clearer: all atheists lack a belief in
God, some also believe that there is no God.  Bear this in mind when
addressing your posting to "atheists".

> To use the word "atheist" for "weak atheism" can be confusing.  For
> example, using this definition, an agnostic (one who believes that it is
> not possible to know if God(s) exist(s) or not) is an atheist.

No.  An agnostic may choose to believe in God.  He just doesn't believe it's
possible for him to know whether he's right or not.  I think most agnostics
don't believe in God, but I'm sure they're not all unbelievers.

>                                                             Since an
> agnostic admits the *possibility* of God existing, when one speaks of 
> atheists in general (as we are including "weak atheists"), an
> atheist may believe in the possibility of God existing.

Yes.  I think that this is fair enough.  I think most atheists here would
admit that it's *possible* that some sort of God exists.  They just don't
think it's likely, don't think there's any evidence, and hence assume it's
not the case.


mathew
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Editing money: I LIKE IT! I LIKE IT!
Date: 15 Dec 92 22:14:03 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

In article <kmr4.483.724435684@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>In article <MMEYER.92Dec15085923@m2.dseg.ti.com> mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes:
>>In article <1giqhdINN2an@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (
>Adam Trent Phillips) writes:>> I thought "defacing" US currency was a crime 
>or something like that ?>
>>	Only if it is done with intent to defraud, like trimming
>>pennies to the size of dimes for use in vending machines.  At least
>>that is my understanding.
>
>	Banks and businesses "deface" money all the time. Have you ever come 
>acrost a bill with some numbers stamped/burned on them? I suppose this is so 
>they can track a bundle of money in their possession. Why they just can't 
>use the "unique" number on the bill, I don't know. 
>	Heck, even K-mart is doing it. They send "Santa Bills". Its 
>basically a $1 bill, but with a picture of Santa glued over Washington.

I have heard of people who cross out the "in God we trust" on paper bills
being questioned and asked to cease and desist by the secret service.

I also thought that American Atheists sold a rubber stamp that would cross
out the God and print Reason above it.

Jim Copeland
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|      Reporter: "Mr. Gandhi, What do you think of Western Civilization?"    |
|      Mr. Gandhi: "I think it would be a good idea!"                        |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: is it necessary to hate?
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:44:34 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <910773f.37.724537200@axe.acadiau.ca> 910773f@axe.acadiau.ca (HEATHER LEE FYFFE) writes:
>Basically, I agree.  My only wonder is how you could hear the call of God in 
>your heart and respond and _not_ be a Christian, as the word simply means 
>one who believes in the divinity of Christ.

What if the god whose call you hear isn't the Christian one?
What if it's Cernunnons, or Osiris, or Shiva, or Tezcatlipoca?
People answering those calls are unlikely to believe in the
divinity of Jesus.

> What atheists lack, among those who wish to help mankind, is the sense of 
>community and support experienced in Christianity.  A religion (or non-
>religion) that teaches complete individualism, separatism, and me-ism can 
>never have the kind of powerful, loving, selfless bondings of friendships 
>which develop in Christianity, powerful friendships which all people need.

But atheism doesn't teach any of those things. In fact, if atheism
teaches anything at all it is that lacking a belief in gods is a
valid option. Consider Buddhism, which is atheist, and yet provides
as much a basis for loving community as an theistic religion.

>The modern pop psychology is all based on do-it-yourself, be your own boss, 
>how to get ahead of everyone else.  

I think you are simply exposing you ignorance of the varieties of
modern psychology, just as you above exposed your ignorance
of the varieties of religion. There are at least 5 major schools
of thought in modern psychology with different expectations
about people's goals and capabilities (behaviorism, humanistic
psychology, cognitive psychology, ego psychology, and transcendental
psychology).



Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mustang@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel M Engholm)
Subject: Re: Women. . . SHUT UP!
Reply-To: mustang@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel M Engholm)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:59:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.224233.9404@iscsvax.uni.edu>, mccall3080@iscsvax.uni.edu
writes:
>         I used to consider myself a feminist until I realized that my scope
was
> larger than that.  Yes, I think that our society is dominated by men, but it
is
> changing.  My beliefs are that ALL people should be treated with respect and
> treated equally.  I suppose that makes me a humanist.  
>         Melissa

I'm getting off the subject of the original post, but here goes.  At the last
national election, Iowa voters were asked to ratify the ERA to the Iowa
constitution.  Part of the wording was to the effect that no one should be
discriminated against on the basis of gender.  While they were amending the
constitution, why not make it more general than just gender?  Why not add
race, religion (or lack thereof :) and so forth?  Or simply stop at the
"no one should be discriminated against."
--
Dan Engholm                        |  Internet: mustang@iastate.edu
Systems and Network Administrator  |  US Mail:  371F Durham Center
                                   |            Iowa State University
(515)294-7588                      |            Ames, Iowa  50011-2163