HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: The Canaanites(was Re: Achilles heels for religion?)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 00:53:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr06.210827.25916@watson.ibm.com> strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
>In article <graham.702262529@bizet>, graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>give my contribution with the disclaimer that it's my
>personal view, not necessarily the "traditional Jewish view".
>Remember, I'm not Orthodox.  If you want traditional Jewish
>views, Matthew has already posted two sources which you
>can look up.  Since he did post the sources, I disagree
>that he's been evasive.
Well, I didn't see them, and as far as I can tell he hasn't
reposted them on my request. Would you mind doing so?

-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: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:38:41 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 <1992Apr7.192306.12441@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>Show me the controlled studies that show that controlled studies are
>>necessary, as you keep insisting, for honest teacher self-evaluation.

Well: show me already.  You are evading.

>>I think you're just making it up on the spot.

>No, I'm simply demanding the same proof I demand for any empirical
>claim I find questionable.

What is it you find questionable?  You can question anything.  

>			    Science has a certain methodology, Matthew.

>You're making what is basically a scientific claim, and there are
>established procedures for verifying such a claim--controls are part
>of that procedure.

This is maximally idiotic.  I am not making a scientific claim.  I've
denied that for you twice now.  I am making a historical claim.  Ie, I
tried method A and it failed, and I tried method B and it worked.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Evasion
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:16:56 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <92097.134726J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>, J5J@psuvm (John A. Johnson) writes:
>>It seems to me that you enjoy confusing people by being evasive.
>
>Uh no.  I intended to leave room for doubt.  No more, no less.  OK, a
>little bit more.

"Are you being evasive or not?"

"I'm not being entirely unevasive, but then I wouldn't go as far as to make a
positive assertion regarding my state of evasiveness.  I think we have to
look at whether I'm being evasive or not in the wider context of other
people's reaction to my articles.  Besides, what do we really mean by
'evasive'?  I hope that answers your question."


mathew

-- 
Hail Eris! / "Our whole economy's based on fear and death; how long can we get
away with this?" --- Jello Biafra / Message for Kodak: Bring back Dan Bredy! /
PGP RSA public key available on request / Desperately seeking Negativland's U2
CD / Just another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:34:07 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 <1992Apr7.191947.12360@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>Total nonsense.  When I didn't cut corners, I could see students
>>freeze or get bored or otherwise panic.  

>Opinion.

Not opinion.  These are all easily recognizable physical reactions.

>>>And it is still unsubstantiated by any sort of empirical DATA. You
>>>may have heard of the concept.

>>And I mentioned empirical data: my students' grades and their evaluations.

>Who graded them?

The professor and TAs together.

>Evaluations are not, IMHO, a wonderful way to measure understanding.

No.  But my assertion that I was a good teacher is more than my opinion.

>>>You were making an empirical claim about what was necessary when
>>>you taught calculus. Empirical claims require proof. It's the nature
>>>of the beast.

>>You are really getting ridiculous: I know what worked when I taught.
>>I was there, you weren't.  As I mentioned to Mr B, it *may* have been
>>that mischievous twinkle in my eye or that guilty tap of my foot that
>>got my students to learn calculus, but I the cause-effect between my
>>teaching and their learning was pretty clear.

>No, what I am challenging is PRECISELY the claim that it is
>cause and effect. Does the phrase post hoc fallacy ring a bell?

Yes.  How does it apply in this case?  The fallacy is when a causative
mechanism is deduced from just coincidences.  I could see explanations
make sense or fail to make sense.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:8083 rec.scouting:812
From: 92dms@vax.cc.williams.edu (Bat Rastard)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,rec.scouting
Subject: Re: another greeting
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:35:00 GMT
Organization: Williams College Center for Computing
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <sd6g9INNfur@doc.ksu.ksu.edu>, yohan@doc.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes...
> 
>Kent:
> 
>Even if we leave out the biological issues with homosexuality, could you 
>also explain why atheists are not allowed to enter scouting, based on
>biological and social rules? If not, then we have a yet another biased
>society.
> 
>Cheers,
>Kent
> 
>Me:
> 
>Well, I can kind of see the scout's point.  I was a cub scout (yipee), and a
>God-fearing little Christian who didn't question what his parents taught him (but
>I'm feeling MUCH better now).  I distinctly remember that God was rather
>important in the scouts, and I beleive that it was in part of your oath.  Anyway,
>the scouts discriminating against atheists be any different than the catholic
>church prohibitting atheists from becoming priests?
> 
>Jon Newton
The difference is that the catholic church makes no pretense of being a 
completely open organization.  BSA has.  They have accepted funds from the 
United Way, an organization which requires the recipients of its funding not to 
restrict their membership on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, race, or 
religion.

Dan Sissman, Troop 277 Alumnus, Eagle Class of 1987
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: what did god do before creation
Date: 9 Apr 92 11:31:44 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> In article <-#g+cAB@engin.umich.edu>, ingles@finch.engin.umich.edu writes:
> >  Let me put it this way: As far as our best understanding goes, there
> > are uncaused events and something can come from nothing. According
> > to QM, a very successful theory in science, this is so.
> 
> First of all, your 'best understanding' is not the way I see things.
> Secondly, QM doesn't say "Something comes from nothing":  'something'
> and 'nothing' are not QM terminology.  Now if you mean, a particle may
> tunnel from here to there at any second, well that tells me that that 
> particle started over there and came over here.  Now it is true that some
> events are unpredictable, but so far as we know, certain conservation
> laws are not violated, so that something never comes from nothing, it
> always takes energy.

No, we're not talking about quantum tunnelling.  We're talking about virtual
particles.

Imagine a bit of completely empty space.  An electron and positron pop into
existence from nowhere, wander about a bit, then collide and disappear again. 
This happens many times, with no pattern in the appearances.  It's completely
random.


mathew

-- 
Hail Eris! / "Our whole economy's based on fear and death; how long can we get
away with this?" --- Jello Biafra / Message for Kodak: Bring back Dan Bredy! /
PGP RSA public key available on request / Desperately seeking Negativland's U2
CD / Just another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:01:50 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <graham.701947669@bizet>, graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
writes:
> 
> Matthew Weiner:
> >>>What was the point of presuming that this was some kind of stumper?
> 
> Eric:
> >>Why should I CARE what the Jewish tradition thinks is righteous behavior
> >>or not? Or any tradition for that matter?
> 
> Ken Arromdee:
> >Because you were talking about Judaism.  It helps to know what one is 
> >talking about before talking about it.
> 
> Thats just the point Ken, Rob and I were *not* talking about Judaism.
> We were talking about what *I* should teach my children as righteous.
> But surprise suprise Matthew assumes we are taking about Judaism.

..sigh, I assume Matthew has taken the role of the Jewish
Though Police. Amazing that networks produce such roles.

Cheers,
Kent
PS: Yes, my wife and I could sit in the same room without thinking
about sex. I guess we are freaks.
From: slambert@willamette.edu (Sean Lambert)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Backward Masking
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:09:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: willamet.1992Apr8.230909.5401
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Willamette University, Salem, OR



	I don't think that I totally understand the meaning of
	back-masking, if the only way that you could hear it is by
	playing you record/cassette/whatever backwards, then why do so
	many religions blow a chunk about it...obviously it is put there
	manually and not spiritually, so what is the big deal.  If the
	only way that you could hear the stuff is to play it backwords,
	then what is the big deal.  Does anyone have any information on
	subliminal(sp?) messages, which in my opinion would make a lot
	more sense to make a fuss over than back-masking.


	sean................................slambert@willamette.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 7 Apr 1992 17:05 MST  
 <6APR199219534716@milori.ccit.arizona.edu> <1992Apr7.173652.25560@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Apr7.173652.25560@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, nathans@coos.dartmouth.edu (Nathan Shafer) writes...
>In article <6APR199219534716@milori.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@milori.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr6.211058.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes...
>>>The doctrine of original sin does indeed seem to predict that 'all
>>>have fallen short', and all will fall short.  
>>> 
>>>As I said before, there does not seem to be a type of soul associated
>>>with free will which can be guaranteed not to sin.  Or rather, it is
>>>not clear that there is such a type.
>>
>>Really?  So Jesus might well have fallen short of moral perfection?
>>Or did he lack free will?
> 
>   Well, strictly speaking, Jesus was exempt from Original Sin by virtue
>of his parentage (i.e. he was born of a virgin). So with regard to Joe's
>statements, there is such a type, but it was a one-time exemption.
>Generally speaking, Joe is doctrinally correct.
> 
>   However, with regard to the question "So Jesus might well have fallen
>short of moral perfection?", many Christians will answer, "Yes, he well
>might." Jesus' exemption from Original Sin ensured that Jesus was *capable*
>of remaining morally perfect, but there was nothing to guarantee that he
>would. That has always been my understanding of the temptation story about
>Jesus, that there was always a chance that he *might* fail, thus making
>his success that much more blessed.

If moral perfection is impossible without special exemption from original
sin, then the standards of morality violate the "ought implies can"
condition.  That's the metaethical principle that no one can have a duty
to do anything which is impossible for them to do.

There are other instances of people described as "perfect" in the Bible
besides Jesus, I should point out.  I believe that Noah in the OT and 
Zacharias and his wife Elizabeth in the NT are examples.  (See Luke
1:6 for the latter:  "And they [Z & E] were both righteous in the sight
of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of
the Lord.")

>Nathan Shafer
>Dartmouth College, NH
Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: WEEMBA jests or admits atheism? (Was: Re: WEEMBA and DABROWSKI Angst
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:44:46 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: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)

In article <1992Apr9.210604.19267@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>There are certain characteristics often assigned to God which are not
>typically assigned to Nature.  For instance, God is usually assumed
>to be a sentient being, while "nature" isn't.  When we get to
>specific gods, other characteristics are added.

And when I run this argument by certain rabbis, they describe this
"sentience" in ways that some AI types do regarding the Chinese Room.

Since they know I am willing to believe in the sentience of the latter,
they have then arranged it so that I am willing to agree with the former.

Now, is this just a word game?  It looks like it to me.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: For Matthew: The Israelites vs. other Canaanites
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:52:18 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <72013@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P
Wiener) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Mar30.235515.15774@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric
Rescorla) writes:
> >We were discussing, I believe the claim that the Jewish tradition
> >includes giving, kindness, etc.....
> >
> >Consider the following, which seems to be what God ordered the
> >Israelites to do:
> 
> I said before that I am not interested in quoting over and over again
> the numerous traditional explanations sources for problematic Biblical
> passages.  There are thousands of them, and it gets boring fast.

..and also lacks good explanations. Yet again I think we could see 
clearly, that issues related to Jewish religious ideas are not 
black-and-white. The Old Testament is full of stories where people
kill people in the name of God, and I would not call such passages
exampels of kindness from the Jewish people. There are few, if any
religious, that could claim this.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Book of John
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 7 Apr 1992 17:17 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Apr7.190106.2894@news.nd.edu>, smaurer@artin.helios.nd.edu (sean maurer) writes...
>People (atheists) assert there are numerous'
>errors in the Bible and I was just wondering if someone could point out
>to me the "errors' in the Book of John. Thanks
>sean.

Sure.

Before John the Baptist was cast into Prison (John 3:23-24), he says that
without a doubt Jesus is the son of God (John 1:25-34).  After this explicit
recognition of the Messiah, Jesus goes on to perform works and miracles
(John 2:1-2, 2:14-16, 2:23) and then starts baptizing (John 3:22).  But
then, after John the Baptist is thrown into prison, he sends two of his
disciples to Jesus to ask him if he is the son of God (Matthew 11:2-3,
Luke 7:18-22).  [This could mean an error in either John or Matthew and
Luke.  John reports no baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist.]

John 3:22 and 3:26 specifically state that Jesus baptized people.
John 4:2 says that Jesus did not baptize anyone, but his disciples did.

In John 3:13, Jesus says that "no one has ascended into heaven," but
2 Kings 2:11 says that Elijah did just that.  Either Jesus was mistaken
or the Old Testament is.

In John 5:31, Jesus says, "If I alone bear witness of myself, my witness
is not true," while in John 8:14 he says, "Even if I bear witness of
myself, my witness is true."  [This isn't really a contradiction.  The
first sentence says the witness of others is a necessary condition for
truth, while the second verse says that his own witness doesn't make it
false (though you have to read in the assumption that this means his
own witness *in addition to* the witness of others--without that assumption
there does appear to be a conflict).]

In John 2:14-16, the casting out of the moneychangers from the temple
occurs at the beginning of Jesus' preaching career.  In the synoptics,
it occurs at the end, shortly before his death (more plausible, in my
opinion).

According to John 18:12, Jesus was arrested by a Roman cohort and officers
of the Jewish priests, while the synoptics make no mention of any Roman
involvement, saying only that he was arrested by the "multitudes" sent
by the priests (Matthew 26:47, Mark 14:43, Luke 22:47).

I've got plenty more of these in my pamphlet, _Fundamentalism is Nonsense_,
which you can get by mail order from me for $4.  (P.O. Box 42172, Tucson,
AZ 85733-2172)

>Sean Maurer smaurer@artin.helios.nd.edu

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:8433 sci.philosophy.meta:579
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: CAUSALITY!!!!!!!
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 00:09:36 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.205713.1739@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au> poplog@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au writes:
>   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...
If this is the argument, it's been dealt with incorrectly.

>   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 is an incorrect conclusion. Causality cannot be proven, but it is
trivially disproven. Simply show that in successive trials state A
generates state B and then state C.

-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? 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: WEEMBA jests or admits atheism? (Was: Re: WEEMBA and DABROWSKI Ang
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:59:30 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.163425.20412@watson.ibm.com> strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
>|> In a word, yes.  Certain rabid, anti-religious atheists might not agree
>|> with me, but in my book, any person who regards gods as metaphors is an
>|> atheist.
>Would you consider an Orthodox Jew who intellectually believes
>that God is not anthropomorphic, but who nevertheless puts on tfillin
>and tallit, recites the Shema, davens 3 times a day, wears fringes, 
>observes Shabbat, etc., an atheist?

I don't think "believing in gods [only] as metaphors" and believing in a God
who is non-anthropomorphic is necessarily the same....
--
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:10:20 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <01050133.05at1a@caligula.cts.com>, edw@caligula.cts.com (Ed Watkeys)
writes:
> 
> I haven't been around alt.atheism very long (a month or so), but in this time,
> more than anything else, I have gotten the feeling that Matthew P Wiener has
> a persecution complex, is rude and generally a sour kind of person. I don't
> think these feelings are unfounded -- I have about twenty messages from him
> currently waiting to be expired, and he has never once been what I would call
> pleasant. Is there a reason for all of this? The point of this group, I
imagine,
> is too discuss things, and being evasive and relying on semantics to 'win'
> arguments is counter to the spirit of this goal. As is calling atheists
essentially
> lap dogs for Christians and anti-Semites and liars.

.. I was once watching the Ron Reagan talk show where pro-choice and 
pro-life people were, eh, talking, or actually shouting. Anyway, at the
end of the show one of the audience asked a specific question to the
RC representative, who was the most load and mannerless during the show.

The question was: "Why are you so angry?".

I think religious discussion could be done using manners teached
by our parents. I'm always amazed to see how a religious or a Christian person 
ends up using uncivil and otherwise disrespectful comments, while many atheists 
and agnostics, who should be the lost souls, seems to keep the discussion on
a more constructive level.

I guess I'm not always that polite, so apologies for any crude comments
and irony that I sometimes use (it's part of my earlier life as a journalist;
we need to write in a special way in order to get the attention).

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: alt.atheism