HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: bug in FAQ file
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:56:00 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Sep28.175327.3513@unixg.ubc.ca> morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:

>Now we are going in circles.

Oh, probably.  Which might explain why I'm bored as hell with this thread.
Perhaps you could start afresh by explaining exactly what *you* think
is wrong with Pascal's Wager.

>>>-- God can only be bad to you if he exists to do so.
>>>-- A non-existent God can do nothing to you (I call this the Mafia
>>>   principle:  a dead witness can't testify against you)
>>>
>>>This logic is only bad if OTHER jealous gods exist who will punish you
>>>for believing in a non-existent god.  However, that amounts to a whole
>>>slew of additional premises that were not part of the original argument.
>>
>>Well, you're right.  The logic is certainly bad.  Atrocious in fact.
>
>It's not.  It is actually quite good.  I have even graciously pointed
>out the conditions under which the argument fails.  Rigourous to the end.

Er, well, I suppose if you're allowed to change to rules of logic by
adding little footnotes at the end of your "proof", then I'll have
to concede that your logic is good.  Keep an eye out for the flock
of pigs that was last seen flying in your direction.

>But I understand your objections.  It seems like Pascal was making an
>assumption that was more like:
>	-- Either the Christian God exists, or no gods exist.

I think you're catching on.

>This premise seems undefensible, but it must be stated if we are ever going
>to put these other gods to rest.

You're right, this premise is undefensible, and I do not accept it.
It seems to have been pulled out of thin air.  Now where are we?

>They are not particularly relevant to
>this discussion, since the FAQ makes this point in detail, and I am not
>disputing it.

On the contrary, it seems to me that it is exactly these other gods that
do an admirable job of pointing out that Pascal's Wager generates information
from nothing.  I would guess that any argument for God which, by simple
word substitution, can be transformed into an argument for a 19DDB, is
probably violating information entropy.  The other gods are simply a useful
device to help us simple folk point out the flaws in these arguments
without having to get PhDs in information theory.
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: coylh@eskimo.celestial.com (Ray E)
Subject: Re: Atheism uber alles?
Organization: Eskimo North -- Seattle, WA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:02:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.193104.18644@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> jack@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (John Stump) writes:
>(Maybe this should be in talk.origins, but I can only subscribe to so many
> news groups)
>

[...]

>I hypothesize that in another century science will have produced so much
>undeniable evidence to our origins, as well as discount most of the bible, that
>the majority of people will be atheists, while a small, die-hard lot will
>cling to their unfounded beliefs. I only hope that I will still be alive when
>this happens. Or, at least I can witness it from Heaven. :-) (that was a joke).
>
>What do y'all think? Will atheism rule in the near future?
>

No, religion will survive as long as there is fear, conflict, and ignorance.

	Fear is a part of us.  "There are no atheists in foxholes."

	Conflict comes from diversity, which is, on a peaceful level,
	desirable.  Wariors believe that god is on their side.  The
	creating urge grows strong indeed when death is realizable.

	Ignorance is inevitable.  Religion will fill the gaps in our
	knowledge that science can not.  Or at least, until science does.


There are plenty of other more convenient religions to turn to, after
christianity has been dismissed.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
coylh@eskimo.celestial.com	"I doubt, therefore I might be."
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christianity is Stupid
Date: 24 Sep 92 10:23:18 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:
> Er, thanks, but actually, I meant the T-shirts! If you have any info on
> them, I'd be doubly grateful.

They're available from Negativlandmailorderland at the address I gave, or
from RecRec records (I can look up the address and ordering details, it's in
the booklet of my "Helter Stupid" CD.)


mathew
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King)
Subject: Doug and Torkel (was Re: Correcting Creationists)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 01:39:43 GMT




Rousseau once said, of the permanence of nations, that "if Sparta and
Rome fell, what state can hope to last forever?"

After watching this two-person thread degenerate into name-calling
and snappy one-liners, I wonder if we can modify Rousseau's dictum
to apply here:

`If Douglas and Torkel fell into esoteric flame-wars, what thread can
hope to last forever?'

Come-on guys, how about you shake hands and change topics?



Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: GOD is EXISTENCE, HANNU is GOOFY
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:47:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.093515.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi> hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.215440.25625@u.washington.edu>,
>sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep25.154002.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi>
>hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:
>>>
>>> If God is 'Existence' as is defined in the Holy Bible
>>> (in 2nd Moses 3:14-15 and in gospel of Johannes 8:28-29),
>>> then who dares to assert that God does not exist. ?
>>>
>>>         Hannu.
>>
>> Me.
>>
>> Next question?
>>
> Don't take the trouble, you asserted just that you yourself does not exist.
>
>          Hannu.

Then who do you think you are talking to?  Do you frequently
communicate with non-existing creatures?

To summarize the game to this point:
1.  I exist.
2.  The "god" mentioned in the above quotation does not exist.
3.  Equating "god" with "existence" removes any significance 
from the term "god"; it means that "god" is another synonym
for "existence" or "universe".  A similar trick can be played
with any term:  e.g., GIZMO is EXISTENCE.
4.  Hannu is a member of the subset of humanity known as GOOFY.

Thank you for playing.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: School discipline (was Re: worthless comic strips)
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:15:12 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.



/  Scientific Yoga is amazingly like Scientific Creationism.  Claims are made
/about what certain positions do, many of which are completely unsupported by 
/any kind of scientific study.  When you look into where the claims the these
/positions do what they say, you find the "scientific" claims are really just 
/a "clean up" of the religious beliefs of what the position does.

/  ie. A position (I've forgotten which one) is claimed to strengthen the lower
/back.  Did someone ask a chiropractor what position would be good for
/strengthening the lower back?  No, they just took the position that "releases
/the snake god coiled at the base of the spine" and restated this in
/non-religeous terminology.


Yoga minus the religion is just stretching.  

If someone tells me that stretching a certain way gives lower back strength,
and then weaves a religious story around it, the kinesiology of the stretching
will still be valid, with or without the story.  It's important to correctly
understand the cause-and-effect direction here.  Did the religious story
select a stretching exercise, or did the stretching exercise spawn a
religious story?

There used to be a belief among Hebrew women (2,000 years ago) that 
heating a knife before using it (in childbirth, cutting the umbilical
cord) scared the death demons away. The heat reminded them of
Hell, the eventual resting place of devils in Hebrew belief.  Since the
demons didn't want to be reminded of that, they fled.  What the women were
accidentally doing, of course, was sterilizing the knife.  

It worked; they didn't know why it worked, so they wove a religious 
explanation around a scientific fact.

[digression]
Same with martial arts.  Masters used to teach that certain punches, kicks, 
and stances had strength or power because the spirits of the animals told 
them.  Well, it turns out that the particular stances, kicks & punches are 
just common sense stuff anyhow, as evidenced by the fact that the fighting
styles recur in different cultures on different continents.  Simultaneous
discovery of an effective fighting style.




  Yoga does have some benefits, but many of the claimed benefits are just
rationalizations of religious beliefs.  Sounds an awful lot like creationism.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Great Proposal !(?)
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1992 13:40:11 GMT

In article <ebolog.10@elaine.ee.und.ac.za>, ebolog@elaine.ee.und.ac.za
(EDWIN BOLOGNA : THIRD) writes:
|>
|>Atheists are always saying that God does not exist and laugh away any proof 
|>Christians use to prove His existence.
|>
|>So here is my proposal : You prove to us that God does not exist!
|>
|>And please don't use your usual irrational logic and childish insults!
|>
|>Please post your replies so that other people may also read them or if you 
|>feel embarassed mail it directly to us at (TJOHN@ELAINE.EE.UND.AC.ZA).
                                      ^^
|>
|>Many Thanks for any logical and well thought out arguments.
|>
|>	Cheers from E.B.
              
The difficulty in proving that God does not exist is usually in the
vague definition
of God.  Are you refering to the possability of ANY diety, or  do you
have a religion
in mind?  Atheist's tend to put the burden of proof on the believers,
and this makes 
sense:  YOU are asserting an idea (God), so YOU should show it is true.
God is not taken as a "given fact" that people must come up with a way
to reject.
People are not responsible for "disproving" things that are not known by
the senses
(dieties, UFOs, ghosts, sub-atomic particles, black holes, etc).
Most athiests feel that God does not exist because the proofs are invalid
(see COLD FUSION).
My philosophy class went over several proofs for and against the
existance of God,
and we went through each one and tore them to shreads.  If a "proof"
existed either
way, the opposing side would be a lot smaller than it is today.

BTW God does exist.  She should be getting back on the Net soon (I hope).

In Colleen's Name,

Brian /-|-\


PS  Who is "us"?

==================================================================
Burden of Proof is a Bitch, ain't It?
From: scott@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Scott G Goddard)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: You're Invited!
Date: 7 Oct 1992 00:50:38 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu

    To all Atheists, reading these comments made by you are very upsetting to 
me.  There shouldn't be a discussion of whether or not God exists, it's not
about that.  It is a fact that God exists, I don't have to prove that because 
when you are a Christian,like me, you know I in you're heart(without a doubt).

     That's why you are all cordially invited to enjoy the blessing of God and 
his family for eternity!R.S.V.P.

     Did you know that God has a special invitation for you?  He doesn't 
require that you dress up to approach Him or turn over a new leaf to impress
Him.  You can come just as you are.  This is the most important invitation you
will ever recieve.
     The Bible is God's open invitation:"Seek ye the Lord while He may be 
found, call ye upon Him while He is near."  Jesus invites you, "Come unto Me,
all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."
     Don't be afraid to come to Him.  He knows each of us inside-out, our 
strengths and potential and our fears and weaknesses.  He knows too all the 
things that we would like to hide from Him and the rest of the world.  God, who
is totally pure and holy, hates our sins, but He loves us.  He wants us to turn
from our sins to the forgiveness He offers:"Let the wicked forsake his way, and
the unrighteous man and his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and He
will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon."
     Jesus Christ died in our place, so that we no longer have to suffer 
punishment for our sins.  He promises, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that
sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is 
passed from death unto life."
     He invites you to enjoy new life in God's family, beginning the moment you
trust Him as our Lord and Savior.  Will you recieve Him into your life now-or 
will you risk missing all He offers you for eternity?
     God calls.  How will you respond?  "As many as recieve Him, to them gave 
He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His sons 
name."

   Get your heads out of the darkness, there is so much that can be offered to
you through Jeses.  Just look.

Bible references: Isaiah 55:6, Matthew 11:28, Isaiah 55:7, John 5:24, John 1:12

Please believe me, everyone needs Jesus in their life, it is incomplete without
Him. Please respond. (I hope in a positive way)
                                      Love:  Scott Goddard
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18201 sci.skeptic:17156 talk.origins:12250
From: rblewitt@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Richard Blewitt)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Object-oriented creation (Was Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!)
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:14:55 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: University of California, San Diego

>I mean, consider for a moment: If you were the Creator, and you were about
>to create life, what techniques would you use to put order and simplicity
>into the task?  Object-oriented techniques!

Perhaps, but your suggestions are setting you up for a big fall, see
below.

>What are object-oriented techniques?  They are a philosophy and approach to
>computer programming that promote code re-use.  And computer programs are
>not unlike DNA programs.

Actually, they are rather different.  I've done all sorts of
computer programing (admitably, I haven't done oop stuff) and I've
done my share of DNA manipulation, including protein and gene
design.  There are vast differences between the two.  In any event,
I'll let this simplistic analogy slide, and continue to destroy the
rest of your argument.

>In fact, object oriented programming makes reusing code easier than *not*
>reusing code.  So extending this to its natural conclusion, I would expect
>the process of creating life to be a more simple and orderly process by
>reusing DNA rather than not.

But this would cause predictions that can be shown false, and in
fact are.

>So while at first sight it may seem astounding that chimps and humans have
>99% similarity in their DNA, I would be surprised if that were *not* the
>case, considering the similarity of the overall "systems".  Assuming, of
>course, that object oriented techniques were applied in their creation.

HOWEVER, this would imply that the code would be reused everywhere
it is needed, giving many proteins (and genes that encode them) 90+%
similarity in widely divergent species.  This is not the case.  It
would also indicate that midochondrial DNA should be the same in all
eucaryotes.  In reality the differences are large even in the
ammount of DNA present.

Even in the 1 class of protiens that maintains a very high degree
of similarity, at the amino acid level, across all eucaryotic species,
the DNA similarities, particularly at the third codon position,
shows very significant differences, in agreement with evolutionary
predictions.  A creator using OOP techniques would use the same DNA
code for the same protein sequence.

Personally, if I were a creator, I'd just take a lifeless rock of a
plannet, toss in some water methane ammonia, and a few trace
elements, give it some heat and light, wait 4.5 billion years, and
take credit for any intelligent life that happened to show up :)

Rick


-- 
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________.sig____________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
The generic .sig          Rick Blewitt     rblewitt@ucsd.edu
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18195 sci.skeptic:17143 talk.origins:12239
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christianity is Stupid
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:46:45 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Sep27.135113.9406@cs.ucla.edu> robert@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Rob Karmolinski) writes:
>
>FYI, it took unil 1989, (yes, NINETEEN
>EIGHTY NINE; thanks Elf!), for the Vatican to *pardon* Galileo, for his
>heretical views that the earth revolved around the sun  (unfortunately,
>his death sentence could not be commuted).
 
   Not to interrupt a perfectly good anti-christian rant, but
   Galileo wasn't sentenced to death, was he?  I thought he was
   sentenced to house arrest until his death of natural causes.

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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"Above all, a god needs compassion"    James T. Kirk
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:33:51 GMT
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

suresh <suresh@halcyon.com> writes:

>"God is Dead" Friedrich Nietzsche 19th century
"Nietzsche is Dead" God 20th Century
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: donita@scic.intel.com (Donita Thompson)
Subject: Biblical killings
Summary: David Rice article???
Organization: Intel SCIC, Beaverton, OR
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:37:10 GMT

Hello,

This message is for David Rice. Someone said if I came here to 
alt.atheism, there was a really great long article about all
the biblical killings in the bible -- a MUST for when xtians come
to the door wanting to expound their bullshit on one. I searched 
over 541 articles. David, can you send it to me? Or repost?

Thanks...
From: cf603@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: No, no, no...*I'm* the one, true god
Date: 29 Sep 1992 12:14:00 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cf603@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Sill)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, esposito@hamlet.uncg.edu (Andrew Joseph Esposito) says:
>In article <19n2uuINN17e@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cf603@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Sill) writes:
>>*I'm* the one, true god.
>
>Take a number.

Yes, that's the point, isn't it?

-- 
Dave Sill
Play: cf603@cleveland.freenet.edu
Work: de5@ornl.gov
From: joeb@pdnfido.fidonet.org (Joe Beiter)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Replies to David.Rice (Maximus) stuff
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:24:01 GMT
Organization: The Source for Source Pub Access Unix

In article <92270.101915U55870@uicvm.uic.edu> U55870@uicvm.uic.edu (David James Alexander Hanley) writes:

>>How many people (vs cultures) have been preserved by the humanitarian efforts
>>of missionaries?
>
>  Good question.  Let's see.. The spanish slaughtering the native
>americans with the blessing of the church..  The same with the english
>and the french, the catholic church looking the other way during the
>holocaust..  Why, look at all the lives saved by GOD right there!

Nice response.  Now what about all the Christian sponsered orgs out there 
attempting to bring some good to the third world?  I don't consider anyone
condoning the murder of natives (American or other) in the name of Christ
Christian.  Exactly what did you expect the Catholics to do during the 
holocaust?  Kill the Germans?  Tell them "Now don't be doing that"?  

Obvously you'd be quite happy if all the missionaries pulled out of whatever
humanitarian efforts they're engaged in so the people benefiting can just wait
for it to trickle down via public taxes and crooked third world governments 
for the sake of ignorance (atheism).

>  Assuredly not.  Nor would I be willing to trade christian faith healing
>for real medicine.  In fact I would prefer the witch doctor dance to
>christian anything, because the dance is interesting to watch while
>christian services make me want to vomit.

Christian faith healing?  You mean the kind where we go to the doctor and
have faith in God's ability to create somone that is able to learn to cure
people?  If the services you go to make you vomit, I highly suggest you find
another church ;->.

>> Would you turn down digging in the dirt for the days Grub
>>cassarole for irragation channels and lessons in agraculture?
>
>  If that was a correct scentence, I might answer it.

How would you like me to rephrase it?

- JoeB

-- 
-=@=-=@=-=@=-=@=-::
- JoeB           Joe.Beiter@HauppaugeNY.NCR.COM
                 joeb@pdnfido.fidonet.org
-=@=-=@=-=@=-=@=-::
Newsgroups: alt.atheism