HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: lighten up, people
Keywords: faith
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:33:33 GMT

Graham:
>>Interesting - is there any way to disprove the existence of God?
Ken Bell:
>Yes, there is. Anyone interested?

Sure.

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14558 soc.culture.pakistan:12881 soc.culture.arabic:2931
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Date: 29 Jul 92 13:40:47 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <1992Jul28.081051.1618@cco.caltech.edu> bes@cco.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi) writes:

>Let's see.... in the "fundamentalist" (whatever that word means) country 
>of Iran, you won't find 1/3 of women being sexually assaulted, as is the 
>case in the U.S.  In Iran, there are 9 women in the Parliament which is--

I think you'll find 1/3 is a slightly high estimate due to extrapolation 
from small samples; however the true figure IS much too high.  But I dispute 
that it doesn't happen in Islamic countries - I claim we just don't hear 
about it, as used to be the case in the 'west'.
For example, I hear many reports of Muslim women who were raped, but when 
they go to the police, it's one woman's word versus more than one man's 
word, so guess who ends up in jail?  the woman.
The only time my wife has been harassed on the streets of Britain was by 
Muslims.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  I don't take part in any sport that requires me to change clothes  |
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44)061-275-6033  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14264 sci.skeptic:13180
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 24 Jul 1992 11:25 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Jul24.071351.6555@cco.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes...
>In article <565coB21w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>>tke@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (thomas.j.epstein) writes:
>>If all you have to offer is "Hey, the answer to that question might be a
>>complete fabrication", then I'm afraid the answer I have to give you is that
>>every other 'fact' in the FAQ file *might* be a complete fabrication. 
>>However, those 'facts' were gained from a large number of people, and have
>>withstood scrutiny for many months.  Unless you can show that something which
>>has been in the file for months *is* a complete fabrication, I am going to
>>let it stand.
> 
>Fine.  If that's your policy, then you should allow the words "Mr. President"
>to remain in that item, since it hasn't been shown that those words were a
>complete fabrication.

As I have pointed out once before, and as Jim Perry has also pointed out,
the original version posted to the net did *NOT* have the words "Mr. President"
in it.  I also cited a published version of the transcript (in the Fall 1988
issue of _Free Inquiry_) which also lacks those words.  I previously asked
if anyone has ever seen a published, printed transcript which *does*
contain the words "Mr. President," and got no response.  I would be most
interested in knowing how those words got into the alt.atheism FAQ in the
first place--whose posting to alt.atheism contained those words, and where
did they get the transcript?

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:21:27 GMT

In article <RDgkoB3w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>> As they cast doubt on whether Bush said anything of the kind, the are *very
>> important* to the point being made.
>
>Please explain why they are important to the point being made.

Because those words give us reason to believe that the whole story was a
fabrication.  Consider an analogy:  If I told you that an astronomer had made
some observations of the 1988 supernova, you'd have little reason to doubt my
statement.  If, on the other hand, I told you that the astronomer had made the
observations at Palomar observatory, you'd be damned certain that I'd got part
of the story wrong, which would cast doubt on the rest of what I reported about
it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jarek's Challenge (was: We will see Return of Jesus!)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 13:01:51 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
> In <V8awNB3w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew says that reasonable is not the
> same as intellectually appealing and describes his own views as not 
> reasonable but intellectually appealing: 
> 
> -mathew [about Jarek's "I believe because I want to"]:
> >>>>> as reasoned positions go it doesn't have much intellectual appeal,
> -mathew: [earlier, about himself]:
> >> | [I have no beliefs because I don't] behave in a way which I
> >> | consider reasonable". 
> -mathew [now, about this puzzle]:
> >It's certainly "reasonable" to go to work every day.  But for many 
> >people it isn't "intellectually appealing".
> 
> It depends on the work and the people, mathew the FAQ keeper. Moreover,
> when you addressed me, you said "as REASONED positions go", didn't you?

Yes.  Just as "intellectually appealing" does not mean the same as
"reasonable", so "reasoned" and "reasonable" have different meanings (even if
they share six letters).

For example, Adolf Hitler's views on the Jewish people were certainly
*reasoned*, in that he argued for them in great detail and wrote at length
about the thinking which had led him to his conclusions.  His views were not,
however, "reasonable".

> So what did you really mean in your comment? Don't let me guess...

You don't have to guess.  As far as I can see, all you need to do to decode
my comments is use the normal meanings of the words involved.  I'll do it for
you:

> -mathew [about Jarek's "I believe because I want to"]:
> >>>>> as reasoned positions go it doesn't have much intellectual appeal,

"Your position is one which you have obviously thought about, and you support
it by argument.  It is therefore 'reasoned'.  However, I find that your
argument is unconvincing, and hence the position does not have much appeal to
me.  In short, the argument does not impress me with its grace or rigour."

> -mathew: [earlier, about himself]:
> >> | [I have no beliefs because I don't] behave in a way which I
> >> | consider reasonable".

[ I think you might have quoted that out of context or paraphrased it
  badly.  I'll explain only the unbracketed part. ]

"Reasonable behaviour is that which is sensible, moderate, not absurd,
tolerable, viewed as such by most people."
 
> -mathew [now, about this puzzle]:
> >It's certainly "reasonable" to go to work every day.  But for many 
> >people it isn't "intellectually appealing".

Hopefully the above amplification should make this final comment clear (or at
least less opaque).


mathew

-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a sense
of rampant impropriety." (From 'Fortran Five' by Simon G. Lawrence Leonard)
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 11:37:55 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> >So I do not have free will.  For example, I don't have free will with respec
> >to breathing underwater.  God chose to deny me that choice.
> 
> I'm not clear on this.  Who is forcing, coercing, or compelling you
> not to breathe underwater?

God is.  He made me in such a way that I am unable to breathe underwater.

Why couldn't he have made the authors of the Bible in such a way that they
were unable to misrepresent his word?

Why is the former not an imposition on my free will, when the latter is?

> >So... the next question is, why is the freedom to misrepresent God's word so
> >important when millions of other freedoms aren't?
> 
> Free will is important only w.r.t. things that are possible for us.
> As God chooses what things are possible for us, what makes up our free
> will is entirely an arbitrary decision on God's part.  So, I might
> paraphrase your question as, "Why did God give us the freedom to
> misrepresent his word?"  I don't know his motivations there.

But you admit that it must have been his choice?


mathew

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: 02/alt.atheism fre <cont>
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:58:32 GMT

In article <graham.711954127@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>Someone:
>>>What's really relevant here is that QM describes behaviour which is
>>>totally alien to the normal human experience. 
>(Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>But quantum mechanics still obeys the conservation laws of classical
>>physics. 
>
>I don't think it does Lawrence.

It better :-)
Take a look at the EPR experment, the paradox comes in because of
conservation laws. In the EPR experment if you know the state of one
particle you also know the state of the other particle because of
conservation of angular momentum.
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus Jokes
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:48:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

This one's a visual:

Q: Why did they decide to hang Jesus on the cross rather than stone him?

A: Because instead of doing this (cross yourself) at mass, they'd have to 
   do this: (make rock dodging motions).

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*   	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*    All generalizations are false.
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*       
******************************************************************************
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Date: 29 Jul 92 23:37:19 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <exukjb.36.712446189@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>
>  I think the universe is religiously ambiguous. 
>

  Then show me one thing that I can personally experience or verify 
  that points to god ambiguously or not.  

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

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_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
From: NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Robert Sherman and the water tower
Date: 21 Jul 92 23:40:26 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Jul20.154659.21597@news.acns.nwu.edu>
daphne@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Amy Kruse) writes:
>
>HI!  I was looking for some responses to Robert Sherman's latest removal
>project.  I live in South Holland and the water tower in our town has the
>saying "A Community of Churches"  and there is a pair of praying hands next to
>that.  No particular religious affiliation, and there is a wedding band on the
>man's hand.  Only hands are showing.  Mr. Sherman is now engaged in a lawsuit
>to get those hands removed from the water tower.  As an atheist, do you find
>those hands offensive?  I don't see and reason to remove them, I mean, we are
>a community of churches, pop. 30,000 and over thirty churches.  Would you
>support Sherman's push to get them taken off....and why?  Thanks I'd
>appreciate any replies......Amy
 
I say: more power to him.  I hope he succeeds.  Insofar as our government
must be kept separate from religion, public property must not be used as
religious billboards.  These people can paint purple Jesii all over their
homes, businesses, churches, etc. with their own money if they want, but
they are NOT free to use government property.
 
Some people say that suits like this are frivolous, nit-picky things; others
say that it gives atheism as such a bad image.  I tend to disagree with
this: in my experience, the small, relatively "inconsequential" violations
the praying hands are inevitably used as a springboard for further and more
blatant violations.  The slippery slope is alive and well when it comes to
separation violations.  There are a great many evangelists who do point to
such things as some sort of "evidence" that this a strictly christian country,
state, city, or whatever.  My personal experience with the street evangelists
is that they vigorously defend some horrific ideas by pointing to "In God We
Trust" on coins, "One Nation under God" in the pledge, and any similar
mottoes or symbols in official places.  Their arguments to the contrary, the
primary effect *is* the advancement and promotion of religion.
 
Some of these small communities need to have the "no establishment" clause
explained to them, and Sherman does a good job of that.
 
 
Wayne Aiken                                            "You can BE what
PO Box 30904            slack@ncsu.edu                  you WON'T!!"
Raleigh, NC  27622                                       --"Bob"
(919) 782-8171          StarFleet BBS: (919) 782-3095
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Praying to Mecca?
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:37:44 GMT

Ridha:
>...
>About the number of prayers (5), if somehow I come  up with an
>answer that somehow convinces you (let's assume), will you change
>your opinion about Islam and accept it as your religion and way
>of life? 

I am amazed no-one came up with the obvious answer to my question,
namely that if the number of prescribed prayers was 7 I would have
asked "why 7 prayers, why not 5, or ..?" :-)

graham

--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: lighten up, people
Keywords: faith
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:11:35 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <Bs40K1.pv@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tj32633@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Ronin) writes:
>	
>	I have been following this subject and I have not noticed any posted
>articles saying that Mr. Ehardt considered your questions as being a uneducated
>and hostile attack made by one who has not shown himself to be capable of an
>enlightening, non-emotional debate.  As I understand Mr. Ehardt is willing to
>discuss anything with anyone who wishes to talk about this particular subject. 
>	I have talked to Mr. Ehardt and he has answered my questions.
>	Can you please post whatever evidence that you have showing that  
>Mr. Ehardt refuses to talk to you and considers you hostile because the only
>evidence you have given so far is biased in your favor and I prefer to see both
>sides of the story before making a decision.

I refer to e-mail I received from Mr. Ehardt, and which I refrained from
posting directly because this is considered a breach of netiquette.

If Mr. Ehardt wants to give me permission to post his e-mail on the net,
then all will be revealed, as they say. If not, I'm afraid you'll just
have to take my word for it.

>Ted Jan                                       EMT-A
>tj32633@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu                      Basic Life Support Certified
>University of Illinois                        First Aid Instructor
>Illini Emergency Medical Services             Community CPR Instructor

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Date: 26 Jul 92 01:04:19
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<o189NB3w165w@mantis.co.uk>
	<1992Jul25.221142.15799@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu's message of Sat, 25 Jul 1992 22:11:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.221142.15799@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:

   In article <o189NB3w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
   >souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
   >> In article <graham.711589908@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) 
   >> >A bird has higher complexity than an airplane?
   >> 
   >> No doubt about it.  Wanna bet? even an insect is much more complex
   >> than a jumbo jet.  Man is able to construct an airplane, bute
   >> he cannot create a bird. He would fail miserably to do so.
   >
   >We can't create an everlasting $10 bill, but we can create a Cray XMP
   >supercomputer.  That doesn't mean a $10 bill is more complex than a Cray XMP.

   Is the supercomputer everlasting?  probably 10 or 20 years from now
   the Cray XMP design will be outdated and you will make fun of it.
   But a bird or an insect are wonderful creatures that continue
   to amaze man and continue to be studied by him.

Have you ever seen the cellular automaton called "life" invented by John
Horton Conway?  For a system with three very simple rules, on a two
dimensional plane, with two states and no memory, the complexity is
impressive.  Gliders, spaceships, glider guns, glider guns that are
configured to produce space ship factories...all derived from those
three simple rules.  This simple CA dominated the "Mathematical Games"
section of Scientific American for years.

Or take the Mandelbrot set.  Based on a simple mathematical formula, it
produces a fractal of amazing beauty.  And what's more, quite a few
other things drop out of this set.

The point being that it doesn't take divine design to produce things of
such sublime complexity.  Many very simple systems can do very nicely.
--
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 league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 11:30:33 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> >Given that guaranteed accuracy of transmission of God's word is not
> >incompatible with free will -- above, you say that you're not claiming
> >they're incompatible --  why do we find the Bible to contain errors?
> 
> I am not prepared to accept the "given."  I suggest that this premise
> may be false.  I think it is false.  However, I do not know that it is
> false, so I will not go so far as to make a claims to that effect.

OK.  Well, that's all there is to say, then.

See, my mortal soul could be in peril.  I want to know why there seem to be
errors in the Bible.  Answers of the form "Well, I suppose it's possible
that... but then again, maybe... or maybe not" don't cut it.  I'm looking for
a good explanation.

I mean, when there was an inconsistency in the FAQ file, people were
screaming for a full-scale investigation.  I said "Well, I suppose it's
possible that... but then again, maybe... or maybe not" and they yelled that
I was being irresponsible in posting the FAQ file when I couldn't answer the
question properly.

So, what does that make you when you advocate the Bible without being able to
answer a similar question?  It's not like the FAQ file, where we can afford
the luxury of casually waiting around.

> We agree that in general an entity can have conflicting wants.  Assume
> that God can have conflicting wants.  Then God does, or allows, things
> that he doesn't want because he has other, conflicting wants that are
> more important to him.  The thing the omnipotent God cannot do in this
> instance is fulfill conflicting wants.  Does this surely contradict
> God's being omnipotent?  No.  Weak omnipotence does not call for God
> to be able to do anything logically impossible.

Right, but given that position I want to know what the conflicting wants are
and why they conflict.  Otherwise it's just vague guesswork.


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14352 sci.skeptic:13250
From: rswiftrw@cc.curtin.edu.au (Rod Swift)
Subject: Re: 'Nuther g*d joke
Organization: -=[ Curtin University ]=-  Perth, Australia.
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 07:04:01 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.230939.23098@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
 
> 	Why does the writer put an asterisk in the word "god"
> 	E.G. "g*d" ?

Because g*d indicates a generic deity.

After all, christians are soooo good at arguing with each other on how
to worship the supposedly same deity.

G*d and ghod are both good generics when wanting to refer to a deity.

Rod
-- 
|            . . .   . . . . .        "Dear God.  We paid for all this stuff|
|        +  +  +     +  +  +  +  +        ourselves, so thanks for nothing."|
|    *   *   *       *   *   *   *   *                                      |
|R    o    d         S    w    i    f    t      -- Bart Simpson saying grace|
+-----------------------------------+---------+-----------------------------+
|  Curtin University of Technology  |  Perth  |  RSWIFTRW@cc.Curtin.edu.au  |