HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 11:56:53 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

T.G.Nattress@newcastle.ac.uk (Graeme Nattress) writes:
> Either,
> 
>     1) God can be proven to exist,
>     2) God can be proven to not exist.
>     3) God's existance (or non-existance) cannot be proven either way.
[...]
> case 3: (which seems to prevail)
>     Splits up in 3 ways:
>            1) It will never be proven any way.
>                 Therefore whether you choose to be atheist or theist
>                 you won't be proved wrong.
> 
>             2)  In the future god will be proven to exist.
>                 case 1 applies
> 
>             3)  In the future god will be proven to not exist.
>                 case 2 applies.
> 
> So you can be a strong atheist and have the chance of been proved correct,
> or be whatever you want and never be proved wrong.
> 
> So if you're going to be an atheist you may as well be a strong one!
[...]
> If anyone sees some gaping flaw in the logic please point it out.  I just
> thougt of the argument this morning!

The obvious flaw to me is that you haven't taken account of the fact
that people's beliefs may differ from reality.  So for each of your
cases 1..3 there are two additional cases:

1a. You think 1 is the case, but actually 2 is the case.
1b. You think 1 is the case, but actually 3 is the case.

...and so on.

Note that this isn't the same as your sub-division of case three; for
1a I'm suggesting that you *think* that god can be proven to exist and that
you have such a proof, but in actual fact God is provably
non-existent.


mathew
-- 
Lung cancer and arteriosclerosis.
For people who like to smoke.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 14:21:49 EST
From: Betty Lee Dowlin, Choice, AC <BLD110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: view from a searcher

I have been reading with interest the postings on your newsgroup for several
weeks - that is as much as I am able as you all post so much it is hard to
read it all.  I have spent at least 6 hours in your company and I now wish to
add my own view.  I was somewhat motivated by David Nye's appeal to the people
like me who might be reading but not posting.

I feel obligated to reveal my beliefs before I post any opinions as it seems
me that several people have gotten into 'hot water' flying blind.  I was raised
in a protestant church but found as I grew older that I was disatisfied with
the lack of real answers I was able to get from anyone I trusted.  I spent a
number of years searching for truth.  And I probably in the quest have rested
for a time in almost every aspect reflected in the posts here.  I don't claim
to have great scientific understanding, or great spiritual understanding.  I
only claim to still be searching with truth as my shining goal.  I know it
sounds hoaky, sometimes very real things do.

Now I do appreciate those who want proof.  It is difficult to proceed, on what
someone who is into the physical as the only reality, on what appears to be
a suspention of mental  capacity and explore non-physical reality.  However to
dismiss as impossible the concept of a reality that is not manifest physically
is to cut yourself off from any experience that would point in that direction.
In rejecting religion you forgot to reject their concept of God.  You seem to
be under the to use your term "brainwashed" assumption that if God exists he
must be as the Jewish or Christian or fill in the blank sees Him.

I agree that most religions as they are practiced in the world today are not
very open to honest inquiry.  That is because most of the practicioners do
not know themselves what the answers are, and are trying to hold to what they
have been taught because it gives them some sense of security, and they think
if there is an afterlife and I have been wrong I can at least say I did my best
.
I guess what I am trying to say is if you really want answers about this life
and your purpose all you have to do is look for it.  I know this is going to
sound like the post about holding one's child over the cliff, but it is not.
The only dead end is a mind that has quit looking for answers and is afraid to
look anywhere those answers might be found.

                      Happy whatever makes you Happy,
                              Betty Lee Dowlin
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.sex.wizards,soc.men,misc.kids
From: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Subject: Re: A few facts about circumcision
Reply-To: mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:30:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.191202.13196@netnews.noc.drexel.edu>,
giamomj@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu (Mike G.) writes:
> In article <1992Dec15.163041@IASTATE.EDU> Marie Coffin,
> mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU writes:
> >What I'm trying to say is that we are a society obsessed with
> appearances. 
> >Given that, people who are concerned about leaving their sons
> uncircumcised
> >are probably expressing their anxiety quite honestly.  It's not necessary
> >to read any hidden agenda into it.  Grow up a little.
> >
> >
> >Marie Coffin
> 
> Well, Marie...
> 
> I'm not sure what your comments are getting at in the end but the thread
> here is that
> routine circumcision of newborn males is truly unfair and (probably)
> morally wrong.
> I know because I'm a male who was circumcised at birth and grew up with a
> father
> who is not cut...I have wondered all my life what having a  foreskin is
> like. Being a
> gay man, and with the penis being the main organ of sexual interest for
> most of us
> gay guys, I think to cut a piece of it off for  *no good reason* (forget
> the health and
> hygiene crap: we could pull all of our teeth out both before and after
> puberty and never
> have tooth decay or gum disease, either -) is unfair. In Europe, for
> example, the
> citizens have not suffered a de-eroticization of the prepuce, as they
> have in America.
> Now that plays into your "difference of appearance bit" but so what? Like
> so many 
> other things (and this seems *trival* - at first) people are "stuck" with
> their bodies
> from birth onward. Surgery and accidents are the only things that can
> change them.
> I think it best that the decision be left to the owner of the equipment.
> So - if you ever
> have a son, do him the favor your parents did your brothers...BFN.


Mike, are you a regular reader on here?  Probably not.  Did you read the
post I was responding too?  Apparently not.  I was *not* discussing the
pros and cons of circumcision (I happen to be opposed to it except in the
rare cases where it's medically necessary, and I don't need your advice
on how to treat my putative children).  

The previous poster was suggesting that fathers allow their sons to be 
circumcized so that the circumcized fathers will not have to admit that
they are "abnormal".  I consider that theory judgemental and ridiculous.
I was suggesting that parents have plenty of obvious reasons for choosing
circumcision.  I was also suggesting that the poster stop being so
self-righteous about the issue.  

Why don't you stop harping about the unfairness of life and settle down
to enjoy yourself with what you have?  Griping about not having a foreskin 
is about as stupid as a woman complaining that her genetic heritage didn't 
give her bigger breasts.  You can't do anything about it, so you might as 
well not worry.


Play hard and play safe,

			Marie Coffin
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jwest@wisc (Jeff West)
Subject: Re: is it necessary to hate?
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: 15 Dec 92 12:47:17 CST

: including everything in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, and including that
: the Christ Jesus was and is the Son of God, that he became Man, died and rose
: again for our salvation (including yours and mine) -- yet I also do not 
: believe that you or any atheist will fry in hell for your atheistic views
: or even your non-Christian religious beliefs, if you have any, to receive
: the healing power of this salvation.
: 
: Greetings of the season.
: 
: Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
: 
: "Eagles don't flock. You have to catch them one at a time."

I find the above statement interesting Gerry.  Isn't it a basic tenent of
Christianity that the only way to salvation is through Jesus?  (i.e. that
to be saved you *must* believe in him)
I don't see you saying this and was wondering how you reconcile this
difference?

Also let me add that I'm not trying to "set you up".  I appreciate the spirit
with which you sent this post and am not trying to get you into a position
where your called a stupid Christian.  I'm just very interested in Your point
of view and beliefs.

Jeff West
From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: FLAME: atheists should mind their own damn business
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:04:06 GMT
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <ksand-141292225219@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com writes:

> Ho ho, Merry Christmas, forget about semantical issues and be friends!

      Best suggestion I've seen on this thread yet.

-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-
 If you think I'm gonna be responsible for this crap, you're madder than I am.
    "No logic here today / Do as you got to, Go your own way..." -- G 'n' R
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Omniscience
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 11:54:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

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.

> 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."

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."

Do you think that tells us anything useful about omnipotence?


mathew
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Just how much smarter are atheists?
Date: 16 Dec 92 05:13:12 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

[reply to 910773f@ace.acadiau.ca]
 
>Everyone, whether they will admit it or not, knows that they have a
>soul.  No one can possibly believe that `I', what makes me `me', my
>thoughts, my feelings, my personality, is merely a product of atoms
>jumping around in the brain.
 
You know, this is a typical argument of theism.  You present no evidence
for a soul, just assert that we must believe in one, whether we know it
or not, as if we atheists are being obstinate children to persist in our
disbelief.  We wonder how anyone with any intelligence can believe in
something when there exists no evidence to support that belief.
 
The absurdity of the concept of the soul struck me one day when I was
thinking about the degree to which animals possess self-awareness.
Official Christian dogma, of course, states that only humans have souls.
The work with other primates such as the gorilla Koko who was taught to
communicate in sign language makes it hard to believe that such an
abrupt discontinuity exists.  If Koko can communicate complex thoughts
and emotions which appear to demonstrate self-awareness without having a
soul, why can't we?  If you admit that Koko has a soul, then how about a
dog or cat?  An insect?  It is impossible to pick a level at which an
organism becomes soulless.  Yet the concept demands that a soul be
something that is either present or absent.
 
The human brain is incredibly complex.  No one pretents to understand
the neurologic basis for self-awareness.  Yet you make the system more
complicated rather than less when you introduce a supernatural entity
such as a soul as the self-aware entity, just as it is less complicated
to think that the universe just exists than to postulate a god who just
exists and who created the universe.  The rational person picks the
simpler theory.  It truly amazes me that people can hold on to such
primitive superstitions despite mankind's great progress in science
and philosophy.  It must be a failure in our educational system.

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lgarde@scorch.apana.org.au (Leon Garde)
Subject: Re: A "DISPROOF" OF GOD ?
Organization: Craggenmoore public Unix system , Newcastle , Oz
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:14:39 GMT

mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:

|In article <1992Dec09.232704.24838@lobo.rmhs.colorado.edu> eknipp@lobo.rmhs.colorado.edu (Ethan R Knipp) writes:
|>In article <kmr4.359.723882362@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
|>>
|>>	Yes, you havn't taken one thing into considerations: maybe god 
|>>wishes these particular atoms to fly apart?	
|>>
|>>	e.g. maybe god is a pyromaniac?
|>
|>I know!   Atom's DIDN'T split until Americans (guided by God, of course) 
|>figured out how to do it, then God *let* them, so they could nuke the hell out 
|>of those little heathens! |-[

|Actually, the Europeans did it first.  Germans I think but I can't
|seem to remember their names.  They didn't even realize what they had
|done at first.

|Now, we were the first ones to have a chain reaction.


Hmm... all in context of 'god let them ' split the atoms ...

really, fission occurs naturally, fusion in the stars ...
those germans were first to mimic nature's fission reactors ...
(possibly fision warms the inside of the earth ?)

leon
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Weak vs. Strong Atheism
Date: 17 Dec 92 00:02:53 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA13602; Wed, 16 Dec 92 11:52:02 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA02326; Wed, 16 Dec 92 11:51:49 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0479; Wed, 16 Dec 92 20:51:08 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

Fred Rice types:

(Deletions)
>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.  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.

Agnosticism does not necessarily exclude belief. The Roman Catholic Church
says that we cannot know their god within our system.
However they say that a) that they believe it exists, and b) belief is
believed to help dealing with the overall system that is supposed to be
beyond our cognitive capabilities.


>I don't know, this definition of atheism to me seems to be one not used
>in the general community, at least in my experience.  Am I alone in
>thinking that the commonly used definition of "atheism" is assumed to be
>"strong atheism"?

It appears to me that some people even use agnostic for I don't know if
I believe or not. Anyway, the use of agnostic in English for, well,
'atheism light' baffled me, too. Looks as if Atheist is a dirty word
there.

>(To say that an atheist believes that God *may* exist seems an alien
>concept to me, as I had always considered atheists and agnostics to be
>distinctly different groups.)

Everybody has a threshold at which one starts to give up believing or start
to believe other things. For many, it is not necessary to rule out every
possibility of gods.
   Benedikt
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Monitored by islam (repost)
Date: 15 Dec 92 12:17:40
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<1992Dec7.042438.1678@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
	<1992Dec7.103757.15944@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
	<1992Dec9.080120.28144@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> <12011@spark.ed.ac.uk>
	<1992Dec15.062531.20628@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au's message of Tue, 15 Dec 1992 06:25:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.062531.20628@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:

   >>To be an atheist you require a positive _belief_ that God *does not* exist.

   I am obviously here talking about "strong atheism" (the only definition
   of atheism I had come across till the famous FAQ -- I still find
   considering "weak atheism" as atheism very weird, as I had always
   considered agnosticism and atheism distinctly different, yet using this
   new definition, agnosticism is now included in "weak" atheism).

Well, actually not.  Agnosticism, as used here, refers to a belief that
the question is undecidable.  Weak atheists don't even make that claim
-- simply that it's undecided (very different) and that there's no
evidence to support the hypothesis of a deity or deities.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write lpf@uunet.uu.net
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: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 06:41:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.060226.19427@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>,
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").
|>
|>I had never come across this definition of atheism (i.e. weak atheism)
|>before seeing it in this newsgroup.  Atheism, as I understood it, always 
|>meant strong atheism.
|>
|>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.  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.
|>
|>I don't know, this definition of atheism to me seems to be one not used
|>in the general community, at least in my experience.  Am I alone in
|>thinking that the commonly used definition of "atheism" is assumed to be
|>"strong atheism"?
|>
|>(To say that an atheist believes that God *may* exist seems an alien
|>concept to me, as I had always considered atheists and agnostics to be
|>distinctly different groups.)
|>
|> Fred Rice
|> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au   
|>

The strong atheist says " I KNOW God doesn't exist!"

The weak atheist says "I don't know for sure, but I BELEIVE God doesn't exist".
                                   
The agnostic says "I don't know if God exists or not, so I'm not taking sides".
               or "We CANNOT know if God exists or not, so it is pointless
                   to be either atheistic or theistic."

Fine line, I know, but thats the FAQ def.

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.

Brian /-|-\
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: is it necessary to hate?
Date: 16 Dec 92 05:14:02 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

[reply to mccall3080@iscsvax.uni.edu,]
 
>I see many people who find it necessary to go out of their way to bash
>people with religions.
 
The bashing is generally in response to posts by Christians which are
not so much calls for reasoned discourse as attempts to convert us.  It
wouldn't be appropriate to just thank them for their input and leave it
at that.  Granted, just calling them stupid makes for a less forceful
argument than debating the issues.
 
It is a rare theist in my experience who is content to just let us be
atheists.  Attempts by members of religious groups to legislate their
particular religious beliefs or to indoctrinate my children, despite my
desire to have they grow up free of superstitions, violates our civil
rights.  I don't think theism is harmless.  At the very least, it dulls
the ability to think critically and scientifically.  At the worst, it
seeks to discriminate against me for my lack of belief and force me to
observe its superstitious rituals against my will.  This attitude makes
peaceful coexistance difficult.

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus)
Subject: >>> I concede, please don't kill me...
Organization: Big Bulging Buffalo Bladders -R- Us
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 08:11:25 GMT


Contrary to what most people on the a.a group must think of me by now,
I'm definately not a theist or a fundie. What bugs me are the constant
news stories about the nearly militant atheists who, in their fervor,
trample everyone in their path (including their own children) to seperate
church and state. Do all atheists fit in this class of activists? Of
course not. They know who they are and there are plenty of them here.
I know because I've heard from many of them offline and they don't like
what I'm saying regardless of my eloquence (or lack thereof) in
expressing myself.

To clear up any misconception...
I know "In God We Trust" has no place on currency, but it's part of
US history like it or not. Some people (not me necessarily) need and
derive strength from these things. Removing it would (IMHO) be like
defacing a national monument simply because it has a religious symbol
on it. Yes, I do think that would be a bad thing.

There will always be some vestiges of religion in government because
it's of the people that make up our country. To sandblast it away in
the name of some idealist notion of pure seperatism would be a damn
shame and basically would be a denial of what we really are as a country -
a majority population of European Christians. I wouldn't expect to see
"In Mohammed (Allah, Krishna, etc.) We Trust" on money, and no, this
is not "fair" to the minorities. Sorry, I didn't create this situation.
The US is a sort of democracy, and the majority rules.

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. 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.

Oh, I can stand the heat of flames... I just wonder how many others
have been threatened for expressing their views here? 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...
- Harry (please don't kill me) Platypus  :-)