HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: exumfs@exu.ericsson.se (Mark Steph)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Backward Masking
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:21:42 GMT
Reply-To: exumfs@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems

In article 1@eagle.wesleyan.edu, kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu () writes:
>In article <22898@goofy.Apple.COM>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>>  
>> However in the case of Rush this whole issue is really hilarous, anyone
>> who has followed the lyrics of Peart knows that their world view does
>> not contain any kinds of references to occult, religion or mysticism.
>> Quite the contrary, this is one of the few bands who promote secular
>> humanism.                                                    ^^^^^^^
>> ^^^^^^^^
>   GASP!  NOT SECULAR HUMANISM!  You mean they expound that vicious philosophy
>preached by the Antichrist himself, Isaac Asimov?
>   That's probably the reason they were pointed out.  Pity about Isaac.
>
>Karl Magnacca

Actually, I believe they are closer to Objectivism (of Ayn Rand fame).  Their earlier
albums contained very explicit Objectivist philosophy and one album was "dedicated
to the genius of Ayn Rand".

They are, however, most certainly atheist, not satanic.  (See .sig for example.)

---
Mark Steph             | He's not afraid of your Judgement
exumfs@exu.ericsson.se | He knows of horrors worse than your Hell
Opinions are my own -- | He's a little bit afraid of dying,
noone else wants them  | But he's alot more afraid of your lying
                       |      -Neil Peart, "The Weapon"
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:20:13 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
> In article <eePNiB12w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) wr
> |> There's Heinlein's favourite example: where is the commandment against lyi
> |> There's only a commandment against one specific sort of lying, bearing fal
> |> witness against someone.  Also, the Bible seems none too clear on what
> |> constitutes lying.
[...]
> I don't claim to be a Heinlein expert, but if you quote correctly,
> then I think Heinlein is misinformed about the Bible and (Jewish) Biblical
> tradition.  (I'm assuming that "Heinlein" means Robert Heinlein,
> the science fiction writer.)  Does Heinlein write this as himself, or
> is this the opinion of some fictional character like Lazarus Long?

It's something expressed by a character in the infamous "Number of the
Beast", though that doesn't tell us it isn't Heinlein's opinion...

> There are specific Biblical injunctions against dishonest business
> practices, false weights/measures, putting "stumbling blocks before
> the blind" by exploiting someone else's ignorance, etc.  And
> there are whole books written about lashon ha-ra, which encompasses
> slander, gossip, spreading rumors, etc.

I know all that.  Nevertheless, it remains true that lying in general isn't
prohibited in the commandments, nor is it particularly well-defined.  I know
that various other bits of text say that it's not a good thing, but that's
not the same as having a commandment against it.

I'm not entirely sure why this thread seems to be turning into a discussion
of Talmudic law, either.


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 A to B - mathew@mantis.co.uk or mcsun!uknet!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:34:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: netnews.73208
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 <1992Apr7.211645.14076@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>No, Matthew, it is simply ill informed.

>>How would you know?  It wouldn't make a bit of a difference to you.

>What wouldn't?

Exactly.

>>I managed to annoy some Indians when I stated some falsehoods about
>>Indians speaking English.  If I kept going with my falsehoods, I'd
>>say the Indians would have direct grounds for calling me unpleasant.

>You might. I'm not sure I would. Would depend on the situation.

I got one or two restrained but not particularly happy responses.  I
apologized and looked up the facts and ran a reality check by some
Indian friends before posting on the topic again.

I was unpleasant to them just by virtue of my ignorance.

>>>					 Merely because ignorance
>>>and rudeness are correlated in your case doesn't mean it's generally
>>>true.

>>What ignorance are you referring to?  You're the one who doesn't know
>>much of anything about Judaism.

>Matter of opinion, my boy, matter of opinion. You seem to know equally
>little about history. Or is it just that you don't know how to
>conduct a rational discussion.

No, it's not a matter of opinion.  You postd a massive lack of awareness
regarding modern rabbinic Judaism when you thought it consists of just
dietary laws and the Sabbath.  The historical record regarding the
dominance of the Pharisees during the Second Temple era is rather solid.

>>>I have yet to see one that is, but I don't think it's in principle impossible
>>>that one could be.

>>Wrong.  They cannot engage in such massive lying without being unpleasant.

>Glad to know I'm dealing with an omniscient individual.

What omniscience?  How could *you* recognize the unpleasantness?

>Do you ever see anything in any terms other than black and white?

Sure.  But when someone is totally out of their league, I'll say so, with
no shades of gray about it.

>Are you suggesting that it's impossible in principle for one to
>believe that the holocaust didn't happen without being unpleasant?

If they don't say or do a thing about their beliefs, they are not
being unpleasant.  Anything beyond that is unpleasant.

>Suppose you'd simply been fed an incorrect history and were trying,
>like most people do, to hold on to your worldview. You'd have a lot
>of incorrect facts, but you wouldn't be lying.

But you would be unpleasant.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:30:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr8.193003.27389
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <73279@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.155110.24488@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>I couldn't care less if you agree with my measures.  You're the first
>>>person I've come across who thinks teacher evaluation of students needs
>>>controls or standardized tests or the like.  I've written letters of
>>>recommendation and have yet to see my evaluations questioned as needing
>>>other support beyond my word.
>
>>You must not get out much.
>
>Not an answer.
I don't see a question mark in the above paragraph. Do you?

>>>Once, it could be coincidental.  Hundreds of times, no.
>
>>Improperly controlled hundreds of times? Quite possible.
>
>And highly improbable.  Do you believe that flood geology is a serious
>contender for explaining countless uncontrolled coincidences in the
>geological record?  I don't.
No, but I do believe that teaching is a highly complex phenomenon,
and I'm concerned with several obvious sources of error.

>>Good. Prove it.
>
>You can refuse to look at the data all you like.  You can insinuate that
>all sorts of unknown miraculous coincidences occurred.  Whooptie doo.
You can assert that you're right all you like, but that doesn't
go one nanometer more towards proving it.

-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: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: No-one cares anymore. (was Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?)
Date: 8 Apr 92 07:18:01 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

in article <1992Apr7.004642.553@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) says:
> Nntp-Posting-Host: rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
> 
> In article <72934@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr6.184627.26979@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>> [[ It appears from the deleted extracts that both participants in  ]]
>>> [[ this discussion are now theorising about how the net as a whole ]]
>>> [[ is evaluating them as a result of this thread from Hell.        ]]

So, at some personal risk to myself, I dare to offer an opinion...

Yes, Matthew is paranoid.

Yes, Eric is misrepresenting Judaism, and seems resistent to learning
about the subject.

Yes, Eric and Matthew are both being unpleasant.

Yes, Eric is making himself look foolish in my eyes at least with the
sort of standards he is trying to hold Matthew to on examples from
calculus classes and so on.

Yes, Matthew has also made himself look foolish in my eyes at least in
the past with some of his posts -- he may even feel the same way himself.

No, I do not think the above comments accurately reflect the usual
standards of the two persons involved. In the past, they have both
had a fairly high signal-to-noise ratio, IMHO.

No, I do not want to contribute further to this thread. If either of
you challange me to justify any negative comments above I give advance
notice that I will collapse like a burst balloon, retract everything,
deny it was me who posted, anything you like.

BTW The subject heading of the article to which I responded really sucks.

Thank you. Chris Ho-Stuart
From: IO00198@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Just some weird dude)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I FOUND THIS AMUSING
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:24:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: MAINE.92098.122454IO00198
 <1992Apr3.191949.16035@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
 <92097.111119IO00198@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
 <1992Apr6.224300.11653@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Organization: University of Maine System


In article <1992Apr6.224300.11653@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
nathans@coos.dartmouth.edu (Nathan Shafer) says:
>
>You presume too much from the name. Baptists as a separate denomination
>originally came into being over the issue of adult baptism vs. infant
>baptism, taking the position that baptism is really a choice that should
>be made by a rational adult, and not by a child's parents before that
>child is old enough to know the choice that is being made. Also, Baptists
>prefer baptism by immersion (as opposed to baptism by "sprinkling" or
>partial immersion) for some unknown reason, possibly for the strength of
>its connection which what it symbolizes (death and rebirth).
>
>   However, despite both of these, Baptists do not believe that baptism is
>what saves. They see it as a sacrament that confirms the choice to follow
>Christ, but acknowledge Christ as the mechanism of salvation. Very few
>Baptists are going to tell you that baptism is absolutely necessary for
>salvation.
>
>Nathan Shafer
>Dartmouth College, NH
Point well taken.
______________________________________________________________________
  COREY GRAY   IO00198@MAINE.MAINE.EDU  |  A WET DOG SWIMS IN THE RAIN
                                        |  BUT A DRY MARTINI LAUGHS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: astiles@isis.cs.du.edu (adam stiles)
Subject: how one person sees it .....
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 17:07:52 GMT


At one point I tried to become a believer, and started trying to
understand what it meant, and I came to the following conclusions:

1. God gave us all our own free will to choose whether or not to follow
   Her/Him. 
2. That free will has been abused, leading to all the suffering in the
   world today.
3. God wants to help those who are suffereng, but if She/He did anything
   directly, then there would be no purpose in our esistence because the  
   onus is on us to carry out God's will, ie alleviate suffering, because 
   we are the mechanism She/He must use.

And sudenly it all stopped mattering as to whether or not there really was
a God, because from the above God is a redundant quantity. It doesn't
explain the creation of the Universe {I believe that to be a serious
accident} but it explains the world's suffering and what constitutes a
good way of life. My responsibility in the above is to do right but for MY
OWN and OTHER PEOPLE'S sakes,, not for any unknown being.
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Date: 16 Apr 92 13:18:28 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <1992Apr16.004714.4858@rhrk.uni-kl.de> wichmann@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de (Arne Wichmann) writes:
>
> I think, as there is an infinite number of theories which don't involve
> any god, there are an infinite number of theories involving a god.
>
> The point that I make is that there is no conclusion that can be drawn about a
> god, if there is one.

Are you implying that the more theories there are which involve X, the more
likely X is to exist?

There are, equally, an infinite number of theories involving Holy
Higher-Dimensional Blue Bananas and, by your logic, no conclusion
can therefore be drawn about the existence or otherwise of HHDBBs.

The problem is one of lack of evidence in support of all these theories,
which causes me to estimate their probability of being true as arbitrarily
close to zero.

From which I *do* conclude (provisionally, awaiting new evidence) that
they are wrong.

> Na duw na feistr - o unrhyw fath na chr^ed
> Arne Wichmann (wichmann@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de)


Cheers

Simon
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Every morning when you wake up and look in the mirror, check yourself
for signs of collective identity" - Consolidated on "This Is Fascism"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: spinoza@next05wor.wam.umd.edu (Prince Lev of the Domovoi)
Subject: Re: Red Sea.
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:06:53 GMT

In article <house.702520877@helios>  writes:
> J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson) writes:
> >Imagine a
> >scientist who is collecting data and then God stepping in to make
> >normally impossible things happen (like parting the Red Sea).
> 
> BTW, I read that recent simulations have shown that freak wind  
conditions
> in the Red Sea should be able to part it.
> 
Not to mention earthquakes.

lev
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: saj@b15.b15.ingr.com (Steve Jernigan)
Subject: Book of John
Keywords: contradictions error
Organization: Intergraph, Huntsville AL
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 20:26:10 GMT



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.

[Thought Provoking Contadictions Deleted...]

>Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
>Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
>University of Arizona
>Tucson, AZ 85721

As a Christian, this is what I read this news group for.  Something to
challange my beliefs and not just an annoying flame war.

Thanks Jim

Steve J.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: starpath@bard.MIT.EDU (David E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: Truth
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 09:23:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.033458.13891@access.usask.ca> choy@skorpio.Usask.CA  
writes:
> What do we know to be true?

	Nothing without assumption, but if we don't assume a few things,  
we can't conclude anything either, and that's not very useful.  Assuming  
one's own existence is pretty useful.  So is assuming that "reality"  
"exists" "in some sense" "as it appears".  (All those phrases in quotes,  
'cause they can all be broken down if stepped on hard enough...)
	Actually, the most safe thing to say that we "know" to be "true"  
is mathematics, 'cause we merely make statements given assumptions.  It's  
only the "real world" stuff where we start acting like our assumptions are  
true.
	I'm not sure than an adequate response can be given to that  
question, nor can I imagine why that question would need to be asked  
without any context.

> Henry Choy
> choy@skorpio.usask.ca

--
David E. Hollingsworth
starpath@bard.mit.edu
NeXTMail: yummy
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jews in the "real world" (was Re: Judaism and the FAQ file))
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:02:09 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <71752@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P
Wiener) writes:
> 
> In article <22100@goofy.Apple.COM>, ksand@apple (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >This is not the case with most other religious sermons, mixed groups
> >are common, and the use of sexual signalling is considered something
> >extremely rude during a religious event. Isn't this the case with
> >Jewish tradition as well??
> 
> Yes, it's considered extremely rude.  Meanwhile, you don't know what
> you're talking about, starting with the idea that services are based
> on a "sermon".

OK, services instead of sermons, let's use that word then. Anyway,
other religions have solved this dilemma by using common sense.
Why does Jewism need separation of sexes to solve it?
 
> >> Would you consider smoking vs non-smoking separation a form of
> >> discrimination?
> 
> >I would consider it if there were separate spaces for women 
> >and male smokers, [...]
> 
> Try answering the question.

It was answered above, as you read.
 
> >All in all, separation of sexes is a tradition, admit that, there's
> >nothing practical involved, [...]
> 
> That's precisely where you are mistaken.

So what's the fuzz with keeping males and females separated during
the 'services', it works fine with other religions? Either you
are right, and all the other 4 billion people are wrong, or then
it's the other way around. Actually, this was a silly statement,
every religion is right.

Cheers,
Kent
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:36:30 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 <1992Apr9.194943.17707@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>Well, if they are so obvious, spell them out.  I also believe that
>>teaching is a highly complex phenomenon, which is why I had no qualms
>>about deviating from the truth to minimize confusion.

>Did you control for the material discussed? I.e. did you do the
>same material several times with the same tests using the two
>methods?

Yes. I taught the identical course several years in a row.  I recycled
quizzes and so on, and adjusted my explanations based on what worked
and what didn't.  This was from year to year, and from morning section
to afternoon section.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:23:06 GMT

In article <73039@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.005113.710@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>Not at all. Necessary and work are two different things. You claimed it was
>>necessary for you. I'm not sure I accept your judgement about what
>>was necessary. So, prove it was.
>
>Show me the controlled studies that show that controlled studies are
>necessary, as you keep insisting, for honest teacher self-evaluation.
>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. 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. 

-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: ingles@eastengin.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: More "Best Wishes"
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 16:22:13 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor


In article <1992Apr1.035327.7555@rz-berlin.mpg.de>, dabrowski@rz-berlin.mpg.de (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:

[chaff deleted]

> -Ken:
> >>>>>But of course, this isn't enough.  If I tell God that he can 
> >>>>>have his forbidden fruit back, he isn't going to take it.
> -Jarek:
> >>>>He will take it, Ken. But to "tell God" anything you must first 
> >>>>believe that He exists. [This statement caused misunderstanding]
> >
> In other words: If you don't believe in God, it is illogical to talk
> to Him. "God, even though You don't exist, please take away from me 
> the consequences of the choice I never made. I accept your non-existing
> will and I want to submit to your non-existing commands!"  
> 
>              Jarek

 Jarek, follow along on a thought experiment with me, will you?

 You and a friend are walking along in a dark forest. Your friend
stops suddenly and says, "I'm sure I heard a twig snap back there!
Someone's following us!"
 You didn't hear anything, but you stop and listen for a while.
You don't hear anything, so eventually you both move on.
 Your friend stops again. "There it was again! There's *definitely*
something out there!"
 You're unconvinced, but you say, "All right. IS THERE ANYONE OUT
THERE? C'MON OVER, LET'S TALK!"

 Do you see the relevance to this thread? Even if you don't know
if God's out there or not, you can still say, "Hey! Let's talk!"
Why is this so hard to understand?
 If God won't talk when people who are not totally convinced ask,
then that's *God* choosing not to communicate rather than a
failure of the people asking.

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@caen.engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.