HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Another Free Will Question
Date: 30 Jul 92 08:34:44 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <1992Jul29.140314.19480@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> ehamrick@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Eric N Hamrick) writes:


>     I am curious, if free will is our gift on Earth, is it taken away
>   when we get to heaven.  If not, then sin is most certainly present in
>   Heaven if the souls are allowed to make their own decisions.  I'd
>   appreciate any comments.

Wrong newsgroup.  Try soc.religion.christian

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  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  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Moderated newsgroup
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 11:07:00 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

Traffic seems to be picking up in alt.atheism.moderated.  We're up to 30
articles, about 20 of which arrived today.  Therefore I propose to stop
cross-posting everything to alt.atheism on August 1st.

Just a warning, so those of you whose system administrators still haven't set
up the group have a few days to sort things out...


mathew
[ To persuade recalcitrant system administrators that the group is for real,
  you could point them at Spaf's list of moderated newsgroups in
  news.announce.newusers.  But please tell them that the mail address listed
  is wrong; it should be atheism@mantis.co.uk, not mathew@mantis.co.uk.
  (They both work, of course, but life is easier for me if I don't have all
  my mail shoved into the same folder.  Also, when I go on holiday I can
  get atheism@mantis.co.uk forwarded to a temporary replacement moderator...)]
-- 
"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

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Subject: Re: free will
Organization: Xerox PARC
Date: 26 Jul 92 05:34:32 GMT

Graham Matthews' dictionary inqury, <graham.711863680@galois>:

-Khan:
>>You are just a creature of God.
-Graham:
>Do you know what the words "fuck off" mean Khan?
>
That Khan said something Graham didn't like and that Graham is vulgar.


Best wishes,
             Jarek
------------------------------------------------------
 .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
 `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Richardson TX
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:48:41 GMT

In article <graham.712128597@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
>Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
>Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 05:29:57 GMT

>Graham:
>>Why [didn't God] make everything as it is now?
>Jarek:
>>That is HOW, Oh Graham, my dear 'aGNOStic'?
>Graham:
>>I see nothing in my original question that contradicts my agnosticism 
>Jarek:
>>In <graham.712111389@dumas> Graham Matthews suggests that all is clear
>>when an agnostic says "the world as it is now":
>>What does it mean "as it is now"? HOW should God make this world?

>"As it is now" - whats so difficult about this. Pick a time - some
>point in history - say 5 minutes ago - thats 15:34 Sunday 26 July 1992
>my time. Now (assuming the existence of God as per the original poster)
>why did God not make the world exaclty as it was on 15:34 Sunday 26 July
>1992? Why did God bother making a world way back whenever he made
>it and let it evolve to the world of 15:34 Sunday 26 July 1992?
>Why did he just not build the world of 15:34 Sunday 26 July 1992
>directly?

>Its a pretty simple question really. Whats more it has nothing to do 
>with agnosticism. So whats your point? Or do you just like playing the 
>smug policeman?

>So my question stands as "WHY didn't God make everything as it is
>now". Your introduction of "HOW" is just an irrelevancy.

>Jarek:
>>I want
>>to check how far does your agnosticism go... I want to find out whether
>>it is a real agnosticism or just a fake shield.

>The question has nothing to do with my agnosticism?

>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

Hey Jerek, this is nice challenge to your theistic evolutionist view. We 
literally have no way of knowing whether or not we should consider it a 
serious option for belief if you don't attempt to answer it. Come on, give 
it a try.
				-(*k.b., better in person)-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Bell                                    Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc                   You can force any entertainment
P.O. Box 833875                                 on a people except the consistent
Richardson, TX 75083-3875                       pursuit of a topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: NATHAN BISHOP MIDDLE SCHOOL v. DANIEL WEISMAN
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 05:36:01 GMT

Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.021634.17496@digibd.com>
>merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:

>> The parties to the recent SC decision were Jews who objected to the
>> school's graduation prayers (which were watered down to Generic God [TM]
>> after the Jewish familty objected after their older daughter's graduation
>> had the entire gathering pray to (who was to them) a false messiah).

...
>While I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusions, it is not at all
>clear that the family regarded the benediction delivered at their
>second daughter's middle school graduation as being offered to a "false
>god".  They were offered by a Rabbi.

No, I meant the graduation of their first daughter, when it was specifically
a prayer to Jesus, whom they (presumably) regard as a false messiah.

The school tried to placate them by having a Rabbi deliver a more generic
prayer when it came time for their next daughter to graduate.  Conceivably,
the school could have gone back to the previous, overtly Christian prayers
if they had won the case.  Fortunately the plaintiffs didn't drop the suit
and won.

Thanks for all the followup info.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 06:13:00 GMT

rezkmah@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
>Hi,
>Would you mind an intruder?  
>I have been following this discussion for a while and I cannot resist
>intervening at that point.  I can see the extremely high order and 
>organization from the atomic level to that of the galaxy as pure and 
>clearcut evidence for the existance of a creator.  They certainly do 
>not suggest habhazardness, or do they ?!
>
>N.B.  Looking for serious discussion, i.e., no sarcasm please.

This position is known as "the argument from design". Refutations of
it are covered in the FAQ and in standard books on theological 
philosophy.

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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Organization: Xerox PARC
Date: 26 Jul 92 04:35:11 GMT

In <graham.712111389@dumas> Graham Matthews suggests that all is clear
when an agnostic says "the world as it is now":

-Graham:
>>>Why [didn't God] make everything as it is now?
-Jarek:
>>That is HOW, Oh Graham, my dear 'aGNOStic'?
-Graham:
>I see nothing in my original question that contradicts my agnosticism 
>
What does it mean "as it is now"? HOW should God make this world? I want
to check how far does your agnosticism go... I want to find out whether
it is a real agnosticism or just a fake shield. Yes, I am malicious etc. 

As for the "words as of a drunken one": I was counting on your, hmmm...


Best wishes,
             Jarek
------------------------------------------------------
 .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
 `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: timpson@nntpd2.enet.dec.com (Steve Timpson)
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:46:45 GMT


In article <Brpynp.Er5@watserv1.waterloo.edu>, dmcanzi@watserv1.waterloo.edu (David Canzi) writes...
>In article <1992Jul20.175947.21159@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> timpson@nntpd2.enet.dec.com (Steve Timpson) writes:
>)In article <1992Jul20.135600.19367@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, ury@humus.cs.huji.ac.il (My Friend Of Misery) writes...
>)>Why is it so difficult for ppl to understand that There is no god?
>)
>)        Why is it so difficult for you to understand thaty There is a god?
>)
>)        Steve With_his_devils_advocate_hat_on        
> 
>Fancy that... a Devil's advocate advocating God...
> 

        It's a terrible job but somebody got to do it 8^)


        Steve Food_for_the_Grays

-----------------------------------------------------------------------        
        A man who overcomes others is strong.
        Yet, a man who overcomes himself is mightier still.

                                --Confucious
-----------------------------------------------------------------------        
        Ahhh! Micro Brain!  Eat any good books lately?

                                --Q        
-----------------------------------------------------------------------        

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Robert Sherman and the water tower
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:01:08 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

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.

My own opinion is that American Atheists (the organization Sherman is
associated with) does not act in the benefit of atheists in American
society when it undertakes projects like this.  It fosters the
atheist-as-rabid-anti-religionist image. 

That's not to say that the suit is necessarily *wrong* -- assuming the
water tower and sign are municipal property this clearly (to me)
violates the "establishment of religion" clause of the first amendment
to the constitution.  It says that this community officially considers
itself to be one of church-goers, and furthermore one of people who go
to churches characterized by a particular hand-clasping form of
prayer.  Read: mainstream Christian, others need not apply.  Such a
sign is likely to make uncomfortable someone who does not attend a
"church", whether because they are not religious, or because they
attend a "temple" or "mosque".  "No particular religious affiliation"
means something different when you mean that it is equally acceptable
to Episcopalians and Presbyterians, and another when it is broadened
to atheists, Moslems, and Buddhists.
-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.
From: atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Electronic Matchmaker
Date: 27 Jul 92 05:08:03 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska

In article <62879@cup.portal.com>, Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com writes:
> Women atheists, having a problem finding a non believer?  I am about 
> to launch a free electronic matching service on Usenet.  
> Unfortunately, more guys than gals have expressed an interest so far.  
> If you would like to see the fourth draft of my questionnaire so we 
> can alter it to also fit women's needs as well as men's, either send 
> me mail or look at the copy I posted in alt.personals.  
>  
> This service is serious and I already have 139 men and 98 women signed 
> up so far.  The site of the service has already been selected and 
> programmers are being lined up for the construction of the 
> listserver.  
>  
>                                                             Eric Klien


    If you find an Electronic Match out in the desert, does that suggest the
    existence of an Electronic Matchmaker?

    Just kidding, Eric.  Hope your new enterprise is very successful. If
    you ever get so many women you need to recruit some old married guys,
    let me know.

    Don
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: lighten up, people
Keywords: faith
Date: 27 Jul 92 09:17:03 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <Brxn7q.Hoy@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mr. Mensa ) writes:
>
> [...]
>
>	3) God is not a person! [...] He (see above note) does
>	not have a physical existence. He is a spirit of Love. [...]
>
> [...]
>
>	If anyone wants to pursue these discussions any further, do not
> hesitate to e-mail me, too. I am a VERY open-minded person, but I still
> have not some across anything that explains things better that the 
> existence of a God, whatever YOU may believe this God to be.

Could you give one or two examples of these "things" which you think are best
explained by invoking the existence of a God? What specific properties does
this God have which make it the best or only explanation for each "thing"?

>	thomas ehardt
>	tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

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: rad@genco.bungi.com (Bob Daniel)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: lighten up, people
Keywords: faith
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:37:35 GMT
Reply-To: rad@genco.bungi.com (Bob Daniel)
Organization: Gentry & Assoc. Excelsior Springs, MO

In article <Bs17E3.Ku1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mr. Mensa ) writes:
>duncan@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Duncan McCardle) writes:
>	and I believe in God. I believe that He (or whatever pc pronoun you
>	see fit to insert) created the Universe. BUT: I also believe 100% in
>	the natural laws that control the Universe (ie Big Bang, Worm Holes,
>	Black Holes, etc.) I am VERY interested in correspondance with someone
>	who has a differing opinion on this.

Not illogical perhaps, but it certainly is speculation.  Is this god a being?
How could one know.  I have some semi-Deistic tendancies of thinking there
is a creator of some sort but I recognize it as speculation w/out basing any
metaphysical beliefs on it.  Applying any attributes to 'the cause' can 
lead into a series of speculations which increase exponentially and (likely)
further away from the "truth".

I noticed you say "believe".  Does this mean you have faith in the Big Bang,
Worm Holes, etc., actually occurring?  I'm not a scientist but read up on
the latest in cosmology in Scientific American and am beginning to realize
how faith based cosmology is becoming (not as objective as science should be).
This is intended to be an observation and not a bash as my only major source
of the science is just one magazine.  I'd be interested in hearing from you 
any beliefs or certainties to validate the claims in cosmology.  I'm just 
as much a skeptic of claims of cosomology as I am skeptic of theistic claims.
guess that makes me the truely objective; to be objective towards cosmology 
("objective science?"). :-)  Do you feel most cosmologists are psuedo-
scientists?

Bob Daniel
rad@genco.bungi.com
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Dull Technical Question
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 16:33:21 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

The archive-server@mantis.co.uk has assorted info files relevant to this
newsgroup and the moderated one.  In order to save on space and modem time, I
want to store and send them in some sort of compressed format, uuencoded or
xxencoded.

There are at least three options I'm willing to consider:

1. UNIX compress, .Z extension.
2. ZOO archives
3. ZIP archives

I can make an MS-DOS compress program available if option 1 is chosen.

For option 2, Zoo sources should be available for all sorts of machines.

For option 3, I have a freeware unZIP program for MS-DOS, Mac, OS/2, UNIX,
VMS and probably Atari ST, supplied with source.

So, could those who have a definite opinion as to the best of the three
options please drop me a line and express it?


mathew
[ Amongst the options I'm not willing to consider are ARC, ARJ, PAK, tar, and
  StuffIt. ]

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Ethics -- a quest
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:57:08 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Research

In article <1992Jul27.054849.26631@StarConn.com>, agray@StarConn.com (Andrew J. Gray) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> I just read another feeble attempt to prove the existence of God
|> (Spinoza), in my quest for a cogent discussion of ethics.  The work I
|> just read was in fact titled "Ethics", but strikes me as more or less a
|> vehicle for Spinoza to say that God "must necessarily exist".
|> 
|> Can anyone provide pointers to a discussion of ethics that is NOT based
|> on Judeo-Christian mythology?
|> 
What about classical philosophy --- e.g. Aristotle's "Nichomachean Ethics",
or Plato's dialogues?

(I'll suppress the urge to re-open the argument about
why I dislike the term "Judeo-Christian", but I will point out that Spinoza
was not Judeo-Christian; he was Jewish.)

-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
From: brianc@jekyll.ucsf.edu (Brian Colfer)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Blind Watchmaker...
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:14:42 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Francisco, Dept of Lab Med

>brianc@jekyll.ucsf.edu (Brian Colfer) writes:
>>If I say nature is so wonderful then there must be a god and 
>>by definition god is wonderful... then am consistent to if I do not
>>apply the same standard to god?

Scott says that causality works with things in this world and therefor
we should assume that there is a cause.  He goes on to say that since
god is supernatural then the same expectations should not be made about
her.

Why do you assume that causality does not apply to god?  

Scott you seem to imply two points in the creationist arguement.
First, the universe is wonderful and therefor must be the product
of theistic causality.  Second, theistic causality is not subject to
the same criteria ... by definition.   

This seems to me  to be quirky because the existence of the natural is
dependent on the existence of the supernatural but you are asking us to
accept the existence of the supernatural based on the qualities of the
natural.  If one accepts the initial premise that there is supernatural
god then of course the leap to the acceptence of creation is easy.

Let me put it another way.  The reason you give that we can assume
natural causality is our experience with nature but the reason we can
believe in god is because of the wonders of natural causality.


>Because of our experience with things in this world, we have come to 
>expect things to have a cause, and therefore assume that causality must
>hold for the origins of life.  

In this first sentence you describe the general expectation of
causality in nature.  But this expectation is not from things of a
supernatural origin...  If we can easily expect supernatural causes
for natural things then why not for supernatural things?  

Why cannot natures qaultities stand on their own... if
the supernatural's quailities

Scott:
>However, a god is not within our realm of experience (at least not in
>the same way as physical objects if you believe the people who say they
>communicate with a god via prayer),

Hmmm yes of course prayer as physical cause for a supernatural effect.

Scott:
>there is therefore no reason to assume that the causality which we
>observe for physical objects should apply to a supernatural god.
I have  couple 

  -  'There is no reason to assume X about god.' Since god can do
	 anything she wants to do isn't it true that by definition we
	 cannot assume anything about god?

  -  'the causality which we observe for physical objects' Do you mean
     to limit the type of causality ... you say "the" causality are you
     implying that there are others?
-- 
Brian  Colfer          | UC San Francisco        |------------------------|
                       | Dept. of Lab. Medicine  | System Administrator,  |
brianc@labmed.ucsf.edu | S.F. CA, 94143-0134 USA | Programer/Analyst      | 
BRIANC@UCSFCCA.BITNET  | PH. (415) 476-2325      |------------------------|
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14491 soc.culture.pakistan:12857 soc.culture.arabic:2906 talk.politics.mideast:17323
From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
Subject: Burn in the brimstone fires of Heaven
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:34:21 GMT


Thought you might find this funny.



 The temperature of Heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority
is Isaiah 30:26, "Moreover, the light of the Moon shall be as the light of
the Sun and the light of the Sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven
days."  Thus Heaven receives from the Moon as much radiation as we do from
the Sun, and in addition 7*7 (49) times as much as the Earth does from the
Sun, or 50 times in all.  The light we receive from the Moon is one
1/10,000 of the light we receive from the Sun, so we can ignore that ...
The radiation falling on Heaven will heat it to the point where the heat
lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation, i.e.,
Heaven loses 50 times as much heat as the Earth by radiation.  Using the
Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiation, (H/E)^4 = 50, where E is the absolute
temperature of the earth (-300K), gives H as 798K (525C).  The exact
temperature of Hell cannot be computed ... [However] Revelations 21:8 says
"But the fearful, and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake
which burneth with fire and brimstone."  A lake of molten brimstone means
that its temperature must be at or below the boiling point, 444.6C. We
have, then, that Heaven, at 525C is hotter than Hell at 445C. -- From
"Applied Optics" vol. 11, A14, 1972