HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jeff@don't.want.email
Subject: Re: God is dead, dead, dead....
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 03:02:40 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri-Rolla, Missouri's Technological University

In article <1992Nov3.051651.18169@csus.edu> eliota@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu  
(Eliot Anderson) writes:
> dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell) writes:
> : (Eliot Anderson) sticking around after the first round of rebuttals,
> : writes:
> 

GEE, If he is dead........ Then he must have been alive at one time!

So how do you know is he is dead then?  Did you go to his funeral?

Jeff
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 21:36:03 GMT

In article <25834@optima.cs.arizona.edu>, sham@cs.arizona.edu (Shamim Zvonko Mohamed) writes:
|>In article <1992Nov3.213601.7536@leland.Stanford.EDU> yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:

|>> - Do you oppose the use of public funds to be used to purchase
|>>   religious books for public libraries?
|>
|>Another strawman. If a religious institution owns a widget manufacturing plant,
|>does that mean that no public works can use those widgets? No. 

Now, apply this reasoning to a private organization offering education
(or health care) as its widget.  _If_ school vouchers are to be offered
as an alternative to state run public schools, then there is no reason
to discriminate against parochial school based upon separation of
church and state.

What distinguishes the education widget from other widgets?

|>When college education becomes free
|>for all, we can talk about outlawing these outright grants.

|>Again, this government has decided, reprehensibly, to not provide basic health
|>care to the citizens. I have to admit I don't know a lot about Medicare, but if
|>it just provides funds that the patient can use as they see fit, yes, I would
|>oppose those funds being spent in non-secular hospitals.

Why must the government monopolize social benefits to the exclusion of
the private market?  

Why do you feel that this monopolization is beneficial?

-- 
Dan Yergeau                         He's dead Jim.  Take his phaser
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU        and I'll get his wallet.
From: jdblair@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: <None>
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:56:33 GMT
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

What I've noticed so farw
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Subject: Re: Fool! There is no God!
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 17:02:45 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA27727; Mon, 9 Nov 92 09:46:36 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA26830; Mon, 9 Nov 92 09:46:34 -0800
X-Received: from kate.ibmpcug.co.uk by natalie.ibmpcug.co.uk id ae07734;          9 Nov 92 17:42 GMT
X-Received: from mantis by kate.ibmpcug.co.uk id aa17139; 9 Nov 92 17:40 GMT
X-Received: by mantis.co.uk (1.65/waf)via UUCP; Mon, 09 Nov 92 17:03:40 GMTfor alt.atheism.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet
X-Comments: Civilization is a momentary failure of entropy
X-In-Reply-To: <11375@hogg.ed.ac.uk>

iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
> In article <rex.720833929@cyclops> rex@cyclops.itc.gu.edu.au (Rex Baker) writ
> [replying to me on the subject of the death of Jesus of Nazareth]
> <Professor Ambrose Fleming, emeritus professor of Electrical Engineering
> <in the University of London,....one of England's outsanding scientists...
> 
> Where on earth does electrical engineering come in?  Jesus was
> crucified, I think, not electrocuted.

Just as well, or Catholics would be walking around going "BZZZZZZT!" and
shaking violently.


mathew
-- 
"... A socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to
 leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy
 capitalism and become lesbians." -- Pat Robertson on Feminism

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:20653 talk.religion.misc:20471
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:10:30 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64746.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Nov5.220940.14904@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
>Are you saying that we can't see the effects of God's actions here in the
>natural world?  How do you know this?
>This is what puts believers and agnostics in a quandary -- namely, you set
>up this separate reality (the supernatural) then you say we can't know
>or experience this reality.  The question then is what has compelled you
>to imagine the existence of this supernatural reality in the first place?
>Why attribute to the supernatural what we can simply say to be currently 
>unknown?


	Sounds alot like tachyons, don't you think?
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:20629 talk.religion.misc:20437
From: jstump@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (John E. Stump)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Date: 4 Nov 92 14:42:29 GMT
Organization: IBM AWD Austin, TX

In article <1992Nov2.234051.9383@EE.Stanford.EDU> bill@isl.Stanford.EDU (Bill Moore) writes:
>In article <1992Nov2.212312.23613@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
>>The Galileo case shows exactly why science and faith (religion) are
>>opposed to each other, the pope's remarks not withstanding. Simply compare
>>how the two propose to discover the truth: religion by revelation and the
>>authority of the Church; science by reason, logic, and experimentation. In
>
> [....]
>
>But my main point here is that science and religion are not
>necessarily opposed simply because they use different approaches.

I beg to differ. Most everything science investigates goes against
religious beliefs. Our search for human ancestors, evolution theory
development, and astromony are excellent examples. The only places that
science doesn't seem to interfere with religion is in those areas that
the ancients who invented religion didn't know anything about in the
first place.

>I don't think it's appropriate to use religion to determine
>scientific truth anymore than it is to use the scientific method
>to understand our true nature. 

Just what is "our true nature?" We are just animals on this planet!
Life and nature in general follow certain predictable patterns that fit
the scientific method very nicely. All religion can do is show how
vulnerable and weak the human mind can be.

>Maybe a little crossover, OK, but
>by and large there are some things science is useful for, and,
>in my opinion, some cases where it doesn't cut it. Ditto for religion.
>And at the risk of imflaming some of you scientists out there,
>seems to me that the goals of religion are fundamnetally more important
>than those of science- knowing who you are matters a whole lot more than
>what you understand about quantum mechanics.
>

This is a pretty weak excuse for making up lies about our origins and
"place" in the universe. I'm not at all saying that science has all the
answers, but at least it is willing to admit that and then go searching
for those answers. I know who I am. Why do I need religion to tell me?
What do they know about me? Not a damn thing.

>
>Bill

john

-- 
#include <disclaimer>    /* not speaking for IBM blah blah blah */
#include <address>       /* auntbea.austin.ibm.com!jstump@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com */
#include <witty_saying>  /* "Remember: digest your food completely" */
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: morality????????
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:01:37 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <ednclark.721007809@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:
>
>Precisely, here's a couple of other backing points. If we allow a murderer
>or rapist to continue in this society, they are contributing to the violence
>of the society we live in in more than one way. Not only are they likely
>repeat perpetrators, but they are likely to influence others who may not
>have been violent and also are given the opportunity to reproduce and raise
>kids with a role model murderer or rapist parent. 


  A bold statement, requiring commensurate proof.  Can you provide
  any?  Sounds a lot like the homosexual recruiting argument.  Are
  you aware of any violent criminals who blame a criminal role model
  as the root cause of their problem?  Any psychologists who make
  this suggestion?  I haven't, but feel free to enlighten me.

>Anyone who commits these
>crimes has forfeited their right to remain within our society. I do not
>beleive in retribution and I beleive these people have gone beyond a second
>chance, they are unsafe to be allowed to live in our society. Many societies
>have exiled particularly nasty offenders rather than execute them, maybe
>this is a solution.
>

  Unless you catch the criminal with the smoking gun in his hands
  and the body on the ground, are you comfortable sending innocent
  people to permanent exile?  Or death?  I still say the capital
  punishment argument is premised on a perfect justice system which
  never makes mistakes.  I'm sure you've heard the argument that our
  judicial system is set up so that a few guilty men go free rather
  than convict an innocent man.  If only this were true.

>No gaurds, no doctors, no tvs, no electricity, no guns,
>nothing, just a picket to make sure no-one gets in with a method to get
>out and who cares if they get overcrowded.

  With this level of compassion, it's no wonder you're pro capital
  punishment.

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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!
From: gdr11@phx.cam.ac.uk (Gareth Rees)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: leave us alone!!!!
Date: 7 Nov 92 15:55:54 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <1992Nov7.151001.967@infodev.cam.ac.uk>, I write:
|>                                 My lack of religion is an 
                                                         ^
There was supposed to be a 'not' in here ----------------^

|> important part of my life, nor, I suspect, that of most 
|> atheists.

-- 
Gareth Rees <gdr11@phx.cam.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:34:36 GMT

ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
: In article <1d1ikhINNf8r@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
: >
: >That's true.  The Christians in both the Crusades and the Conquest had motives
: >to behave as they did:  Their Christianity DEMANDED that they act as they did.
: 
: I disagree with you totally.  You and I both know that it was much
: more than religious belief that drove the Crusades and the
: colonization of America.  Earthly things such as power, land,
: conquest and politics all played a major role with religion being
: used as a tool.

Why should we believe that God could command such things in the OT,
but when they are performed since the days of Christ, they aren't?
This is a blatant double standard.  Why can't Christians see this?
Their religion and God has their basis in economic/political power 
struggles since its very inception.  Read the Old Testament!
-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
Organization: Freshman, Art, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Sun,  8 Nov 1992 00:31:53 -0500 
From: Jennifer Lynn Urso <ju23+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: leave us alone!!!!
	<1992Nov7.151001.967@infodev.cam.ac.uk>

i'm sorry, but i think there's a difference between discussing what
atheism is about and trying to quibble over whether who's right and
who's wrong.
the majority of the time, some of the christian subscribers are trying
to tell us that we're wrong or we're heathens, or whatever(i don't know).
i have ABSOLUTELY nothing against discussing with people why i believe
what i believe and why i don't believe what they believe.
also, i don't mind discussing matters that we may differ upon.
what i'm saying is that i don't understand the point of posting on a
board that you have nothing to do with and telling us that they're wrong.
sure freedom of speech, hell yeah.
it's my freedom of speech to say that i get tired of being persecuted
because i don't believe in what the majority of american society
believes in.


jennifer urso:  the oh-so bitter woman of utter blahness(but cheerful
undertones)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Proof that there will never be a 'Rapture'
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:56:27 GMT


In a previous article, awmurray@eos.ncsu.edu (ALAN WAYNE MURRAY) says:

>Proof by Blatant Assertation that there can NEVER be a Second Coming/
>Rapture or what have you.
>
>Statment:					Reason:
>1.  Jesus will return like a			New Testament.
>    "thief in the night".  No one,
>    verily, no ONE, will expect him.
>
>2.  At any given moment, at least ONE		Blatant Assertation:
>    whacko/fundy/person	 is predicting Jesus'    I hereby blatantly assertate 
>    Second Coming (ie The Rapture (tm)).         that Jesus will return to the
>                                                 earth as foretold today...
>                                                 ....tomorrow...the next day...
>                                                 ....the next day...etc...
>                                                 ....ad infinitum...
>
>Conclusion:
>Jesus will NEVER have a 'Second Coming' because there is always at
>least ONE person who expects it at any given interval of time.
>Therefore, there will be NO RAPTURE while man is still alive and
>thinking. 
>
>-alan

Excellant example of Fundy logic!
Now if we could only get them to acknoledge Douglas Adams' "Bable Fish"
proof of the non-existance of god(s), we'd be all set!!

>
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  //   No God, Know Peace   /\     * 
*                    Kelley L. Miller  //  Know God, No Peace    /P \    *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  //                        /____\   *
*****************  James Trafficant for US Senate, 1998  *****************
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
From: mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC)
Subject: FAQ for this group?
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 03:15:57 GMT


Is there an FAQ for this group?
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Son Of The FAQ File: Part 2
Date: 4 Nov 92 15:06:58 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

Ken Arromdee <arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> writes:
> You don't need to search all possible places where something might be in orde
> to show it isn't there; as I pointed out a short while back, God is often
> defined such that his presence is testable--has so-and-so city remained
> destroyed, do all Christians never lack food or clothing, etc.
> 
> Now, it is _possible_ to define God so that his presence is not testable.  If
> you define God in this way, you really do have to search everywhere in the
> universe to see that he's not there.

OK.  Fair comment.

> search is wrong.  (And the statement is certainly _phrased_ to _sound_ like
> you always have to do the search, even though several paragraphs later the
> FAQ does admit that specific claims of God might be testable.)

Yes, sorry, I slipped up there.

> >that it is impossibl e to formulate a meaningful prayer which will be
>                      ^
> Gotta watch that line joining....

Yeah...  The editing was done using TeachText on a Mac, as I didn't have
anything better at the time.  The program I used to re-wrap the resulting
text sometimes inserts bogus spaces.

Does the good news mean we can remove the Bush quotes from the FAQ now?  :-)

Response to the re-written stuff so far:  Three supportive messages, one
query, one flame.


mathew
-- 
"... A socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to
 leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy
 capitalism and become lesbians." -- Pat Robertson on Feminism
From: Keith Allan Schneider <keith@cco.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Pascal's wager
Date: 12 Nov 1992 19:01:26 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

Ervan Darnell <ervan@rice.edu> writes:


>I just finished reading the FAQ regarding Pascal's Wager. 
>It always seemed to me that the question of how probable Heaven
>is in this context is part of what makes the wager work.
>The premise is that the reward is infinite; so, any finite
>price is worth paying.  But, in general the reward and probability
>of achieving it are inversely proportional.  If we are asked
>to reason about infinite rewards, it seems we must also consider
>infinitismal probabilities.  Multiplying the two together can
>have any finite value (or countable value, before I get nitpicked
>to death).  Therefore, it does matter what the cost of bothering
>to believe is.

Oh, but don't forget about the other religions.  They have infinite
rewards, as well as infinite punishments (on your scale).  So, while
believing in a particular religion may be worth the effort if it were
the only religion, but since there are other possibilities, you simply
summing a number of positive and negative infinities, resulting in zero.

Basically, no matter which religion you practice, you will be violating
any number of other religions.  How can you be sure that you have picked
the correct one?  You can't, so don't believe in any of them.

keith
From: Ervan Darnell <ervan@rice.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Pascal's wager		
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:52:29 GMT
Reply-To: Ervan Darnell <ervan@rice.edu>
Distribution: world
Organization: Rice University


I just finished reading the FAQ regarding Pascal's Wager. 
It always seemed to me that the question of how probable Heaven
is in this context is part of what makes the wager work.
The premise is that the reward is infinite; so, any finite
price is worth paying.  But, in general the reward and probability
of achieving it are inversely proportional.  If we are asked
to reason about infinite rewards, it seems we must also consider
infinitismal probabilities.  Multiplying the two together can
have any finite value (or countable value, before I get nitpicked
to death).  Therefore, it does matter what the cost of bothering
to believe is.

Cast the argument as the usual social discussion about playing
the lottery.  Assume that entering the lottery costs no money,
the pay off is $1 billion, and everyone on the planet enters.
Your chance of winning is 1 in 5 billion.  The expected value
is 20 cents.  The opportunity cost to go somewhere to fill
out the form is $20 (worth of your time).  Is it rational
to enter?  Straight analysis of expected value would say 'no'.
These arguments tend to break down at such high probability
levels though.  There is no obviously correct answer to this
question.  The argument does not change as one approaches
infinity.
From: Ian Konen <ikonen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Pascal's wager 
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:55:37 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA

In <BxKnFI.9DF@rice.edu> Ervan Darnell <ervan@rice.edu> writes:


>I just finished reading the FAQ regarding Pascal's Wager. 
>It always seemed to me that the question of how probable Heaven
>is in this context is part of what makes the wager work.
>The premise is that the reward is infinite; so, any finite
>price is worth paying.  But, in general the reward and probability
>of achieving it are inversely proportional.  If we are asked
>to reason about infinite rewards, it seems we must also consider
>infinitismal probabilities.  Multiplying the two together can
>have any finite value (or countable value, before I get nitpicked
>to death).  Therefore, it does matter what the cost of bothering
>to believe is.

>Cast the argument as the usual social discussion about playing
>the lottery.  Assume that entering the lottery costs no money,
>the pay off is $1 billion, and everyone on the planet enters.
>Your chance of winning is 1 in 5 billion.  The expected value
>is 20 cents.  The opportunity cost to go somewhere to fill
>out the form is $20 (worth of your time).  Is it rational
>to enter?  Straight analysis of expected value would say 'no'.
>These arguments tend to break down at such high probability
>levels though.  There is no obviously correct answer to this
>question.  The argument does not change as one approaches
>infinity.

> 
Well, I don't know what the FAQ says unless it's the same as alt.atheism's,
but the essential problem with Pascal's wager is that it doesn't prove God's
existance, merely that haveing a religion is statistically better than not. 
Yes, I would agree that a Christian is statistically better off than I am,
because he might possibly go to heaven (infinite reward) for only sacrificing
a little freedom (finite cost).  However, if I were to become a Christian
because of the validity of Pascal's wager, surely God would know I didn't
really have faith, and would banish me to hell.  This is of course assuming
Christianity is right, and not one of the other hundreds of religions...yet
another problem with Pascal's wager...it doesn't indicate which religion has
the best odds, only that atheism has the worst.  Anyway, this is probably all
redundant, because I can't imagine this isn't all in the FAQ.
							Ian Konen
Newsgroups: alt.atheism