HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN)
Subject: Re: Science and choice  
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Distribution: world, public
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 20:28:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.150908.17964@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>In article <BzDr52.3BI@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Shawn Green) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec16.030334.20463@nmsu.edu> epowers@spock.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) writes:
>>  [stuff about science implying determinism deleted]
>>
>>>	So you must "choose":  either you must base an important part of your  
>>>philosophy on science and deny free will, or you'll have to find something  
>>>outside of science to base it on.
>>
>>I will quickly admit that I am way out of my depth here, so maybe someone who
>>knows something can help me out.  Doesn't chaos theory say that not every
>>event could be predicted even if you had perfect knowledge of everything that
>>was happening in the universe at that moment in time?  If this is true, science
>>would not necessitate a deterministic philosophy.
>>
>>Comments/corrections from any net.physics-types?
>>
>>
>>Shawn Green
>>greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
>
>Not quite right. According to chaos theory, minute fifferences in 
>starting conditions will cause completely divergant results. Furthermore,
>accordding to the uncertainty principle, starting positions can't be exactly
>known. From these two we can conclude that whether or not the universe
>is deterministic, we, as observers, can never completely determine what 
>will occur.
>
>Robert Johnston
>

  Someone who knows please expand on this:  isn't there completely random
atomic events ( such as radioactive decay, I think ) that totally DESTROY
any notions about the universe being causal ( ie deterministic and, so some
conclude, no free will ).  I read this once ( possibly Hawking or Penrose )
but can remember the exact claim, or any formal proof.  If this is true, then
this has been known since the '30's and why is there this discussion?  


Nick

Are we human because of the way we look, or the way we are?
-----------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: Jesus and math
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:03:00 CST

In article <3288.2B263BB1@catpe.alt.za> Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org (Ian Douglas) writes:
>Hi all
>
>On 05 Dec 92, Carl Christensen wrote to All:
>
> CC> Hey, if He's going to claim omniscience, he can at least take PI out to a
> CC> few damn decimal places!!!
>
>Nah, 'decimal' wasn't invented yet. Or the decimal point.
>
>Can you write pi in Roman numerals :-)?

How about egytian fractions?  They had been invented. 
:)M^2
>
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheists should mind their own damn business
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:11:14 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Dec12.071137.16343@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:

>I don't have anything against atheists really... just leave me and
>my world alone. If you don't like "In God We Trust" on US Currency,
>don't look for it - ya know it's there. If a religious symbol in a
>municipal seal is offensive to you, don't seek it out... After all
>it's not a blinking neon sign in your face, you have to look for it.



 	I don't have anything against jews really... just leave me and my 
world alone. If you don't like "Heil Hitler" on US Currency, don't look for 
it -ya know it's there. If a swastika in a municiple seal if offensive to 
you, don't seek it out... AFter all, it's not a blinking neon sigh in for 
face, you have to look for it.


>If a book or movie or anything in my environment offends my
>sensibilities, I try to ignore it. Why do y'all have to stir up shit... 
>Most of us kinda like "In God We Trust" on the currency. It's kinda
>folksy and quaint, whether you believe it or not. Just look at it
>as if it were saying "When things are going down the toilet, and we
>can't stand to blame ourselves, we trust in God... 'cuz if there
>ain't one, we're all fucked!". That should put a new face on it...
>- Harry


	If a book or movie or anything in my enviroment offends my 
sensibilities, I try to ignore it. Why do y'all have to stir up shit...
Most of us kinda like "Heil Hitler" on the currency. It's kinda nostalgic 
and quaint, whether you believe the holocost happened or not. Just look at 
it as if were sayiny "When the country goes down the toilet, and we can't 
control the immagrant population, we trust in Hitler... 'cuz if he isn't 
with us, we're all fucked!".  That should put a new face on it...
-   Goring.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Atheists should mind their own damn business
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 18:44:20 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Dec12.071137.16343@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
>I don't have anything against atheists really... just leave me and
>my world alone. If you don't like "In God We Trust" on US Currency,
>don't look for it - ya know it's there. If a religious symbol in a
>municipal seal is offensive to you, don't seek it out... After all
>it's not a blinking neon sign in your face, you have to look for it.

 I thought hard before replying, but in the end my knee jerked and hit
the 'F' key. Anyway, I'm sure you mean well, but there's some things you
should consider.
 If it were only 'In God We Trust' on the money, or religious symbols on
county seals, I wouldn't care all that much. But it's not just that.
 It's also the 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance, added in the heat
of the McCarthy era.
 It's the religous laws in some areas that forbid certain goings-on on
Sundays.
 It's things like that Denver post article, where they see no problem
teaching kids that 'God holds molecules together.'
 It's the people who want their own creation myths taught in science
classes as fact.
 It's (as has been noted before) our current president stating that
atheists shouldn't be considered citizens or patriots.
 It's the people who want their specific morals enshrined in laws to
protect people from themselves.
 It's not being able to go to public events without wondering if there's
going to be a prayer beforehand.
 It's the people who want to bring organized prayer into schools rather
than letting kids pray when and if they want.

 Mind you, all this (and more) is just the stuff that the government has
something to do with. We see so much more religious stuff in non-governmental
areas, is it any wonder that we'd rather not see any more where it is
specifically not supposed to be?

>If a book or movie or anything in my environment offends my
>sensibilities, I try to ignore it. Why do y'all have to stir up shit... 

 I, too, try to ignore things that 'offend my sensibilities.' As I have
said above, that leaves a lot to ignore. When people start putting it
in the gov't, which has a direct effect on how I live my life, it's a
lot harder to ignore...

>Most of us kinda like "In God We Trust" on the currency. It's kinda
>folksy and quaint, whether you believe it or not. Just look at it
>as if it were saying "When things are going down the toilet, and we
>can't stand to blame ourselves, we trust in God... 'cuz if there
>ain't one, we're all fucked!". That should put a new face on it...
>- Harry

 Not particuarly. Who's 'we?' And, of course, 'In Odin We Trust' would
be even more folksy and quaint...

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: Science and choice
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 10:29:50 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <1992Dec16.030334.20463@nmsu.edu> epowers@spock.NMSU.Edu writes:

      Erik Powers continues down his line of, "science implies
determinism, which excludes free will" - which is a very good line in
itself, and I *still* haven't figured out any way to refute him.

      But it just dawned on me, for the first time I think, that said
line is pointless, because determinism is. Alright, so if every action
of every single neuron in my head is deterministic, and my every action
is theoretically predictable in detail since the Big Bang, maybe I don't
have free will. But it seems to be predetermined ever since the Big Bang
(aka above reasoning) that I'll disagree with mr. Powers anyway, whether
I want to or not. So there!

> 	So you must "choose":  either you must base an important part of your  
> philosophy on science and deny free will, or you'll have to find something  
> outside of science to base it on.

      Perhaps - but saying that I don't have free will after all gets us
nowhere. I'll just ignore you, because I have no other choice, for it
was predetermined I'd do so... :-)

-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-
 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: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: "Keep Christ in Christmas"
Date: 12 Dec 92 15:41:00 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu

madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:

[Deletions of numerous citations.]

>Now, will you please retract your totally erroneous statement?

It was not an erroneous statement; there was no "proof" in the first 
article.  I do thank you for supplying references.  Now, just one
more question--are these articles implying that this is wide spread
behavior?  I've heard the Religious Right Conspiracy stuff all before.
Personally, I think it is Liberal paranoia.

>>Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
>>parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |

>You know Scott, you really ought to stop using that quote if you
>aren't going to practice what you preach.

What was I lying about?  Nothing.  I merely pointed out that an assertion
was made in the first article.  And you promptly corrected that there
have been plenty of articles written on this subject.  There is no
deceit or deception in what I said.  As for the .sig, no matter what
I say, the quote will always be true.


-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Just how much smarter are atheists?
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:30:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu

In article <Stafford-141292105106@stafford.winona.msus.edu> Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (John Stafford) writes:
>> In article <1gbm3tINN73s@gap.caltech.edu> werdna@cco.caltech.edu (Andrew 
>> 
>> 	Its not the believing so much: A better question is:
>> 
>> 	Just how illogical must one be to believe in a proposition as being
>> unequivacly truth, without having any evidence?
>
>Some would argue that depending on 'logic' (in the functionalist
>and Newtonian sense) is an article of faith.  These people admit
>the possibility of a 'godness' and it doesn't conflict with their
>life's philosophy or scientific productivity.  Would you like
>citations?

	There is a significant difference between believing something and 
thinking something in unequivacly true. I have no problem with those who 
believe in a god, or a creater. Nor, do I find they are necessaraly 
illogical in their belief. In fact, there are several logical reasons for
one to have such a belief. Yes, certain people can cope with life better if 
they have a religion. If it helps them feel better, then it is a logical 
belief for them.

	However, they ought to be aware that it is a belief. However, to 
make a evalutation of the proposition, and make the conclusion that it is 
Truth(tm) is fallacious. Many Christians make such statements without a 
shred of honest evidence. That is what I find contemptous.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Science and choice  Was Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:24:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.224024.6818@nmsu.edu> epowers@spock.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) writes:
>
>	A system without gremlins is deterministic.  A system with gremlins is  
>indeterministic.

By this definition, I agree that science assumes determinism, but that is 
certainly not the definition commonly used.

Quantum mechanics is often considered non-deterministic because we like to
follow quantities like position and momentum, which turn out not to be 
fundamental properties of the system and can be predicted only to a probabi-
lity. But if we follow just the evolution of the state (e.g. the wave function)
than it is just as deterministic as classical mechanics.

But classical mechanics is also non-deterministic, at a more subtle level. 
Namely, we can only predict the behavior of the system if we know the initial
conditions to infinite precision. But that is not possible - not even in 
principle, if we allow the energy-time uncertainty of QM into the picture -
namely, to determine the state of the system to infinite precision, we need
infinite time. If you want to reason purely from classical mechanics, you can
still argue the same thing, except that it will involve more hand-waving.

So determinism in any PRACTICAL sense is NOT assumed by science.

	Sven

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Religion = Anything that's fun is bad.
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 22:38:34 GMT

In article <kmr4.421.724182530@po.CWRU.edu>, kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M.
Ryan) writes:
|>In article <b6vd02022e9P01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:
|>>>Being an atheist OPENS your mind? What a crock of shit!
|>>
|>>I agree. Because being an atheist is not the cause of an open mind.
|>
|>	I agree. It is the inevitable result of being an open rational mind.
      
And humble! Don't forget that!  We atheist's are the most humble on
the planet! ;)
And we would never hyperbolize in a hundred years.
And we never fucking swear.
And we don't begin everything with "And".
And...

The "inevitable result of [having] an open rational mind".  Sheesh!
                       
Some people...

Brian /-|-\
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Dealing with annoying e-mail: A real life example!
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 23:25:07 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Dec15.223454.26100@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
>Another way to deal with annoying email is to post it here for all to shred.
>So please send your responses, with an attached copy of the FAQ to this person.
>
>Now, I know posting email is contrary to netiquette, but I don't have time
>to respond personally right now, and much of his writing is covered by the FAQ.
>
>Just to set his email in the right perspective, he first sent me unsolicited
>email...[deletions]

 Even if it was unsolicited and unwelcome, I still think posting email
witohut permission is out of line. A simple pointer to the FAQ would
take as much time as posting this would... Just MHO.

 Sincerely,
 
 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know this?" -- Woody Allen
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:23530 alt.slack:3463 talk.religion.misc:23733
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.slack,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: 13 Dec 92 20:36:58 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

Geoffrey Spear <gs32+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>> God doesn't have to approximate pi; He knows it.
>
>	Funny that the Bible says it's 3, then, isn't it?  If God was really
>responsible for the Bible, you'd think he'd avoid such blantant mistakes.

Garbage.  The accuracy of the measurements is within a single digit margin
of error.  And note well that the text does NOT say that the measurement
was taken at the rim.  It simply says that it was '30 cubits around', and
then immediately talks about the decorations below the rim.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Date: 20 Dec 92 23:56:12 GMT
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

T.G.Nattress@newcastle.ac.uk (Graeme Nattress) writes:

           [Fred Rice's comments deleted]

>I seem to agree with your thoughts on the definitions of atheism, although
>thinking about it the weak defn seems more correct an opposite of theism.
>Maybe the roots of the word atheism do not show it's exact meaning.

>Would I be correct in saying that:

>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.

>Then if case 1 applied:

>    There would be no need for faith or belief in God because proof would be
>given.
>    Therefore what was proven to exist would not be a God because faith wouldn't
>be needed to acknowledge it's existance.

This seems to me to be incorrect. Why does a an existing God require faith.
I think something could be a God (ie omniscient, all powerful) without
requiring faith from piddly little earth slime.

>case 2:

>     Then strong atheists were correct all along.

>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!

>Well, that's how I see it.

>If anyone sees some gaping flaw in the logic please point it out.  I just
>thougt of the argument this morning!

>Graeme,

So therefore you can also be a strong theists and you may be proven correct.
And besides why is the criteria of choice the possibility of being proven
correct? Personally I like to have the choice which allows me to survive in
the most prosperous fashion in my environment. Weak atheism (although mine
tends toward the strong side, I think the probability of a Xtian God tends
toward the infinitisimal) seems to provide a foundation for a beleif system
that allows me maximum freedom to learn about my surroundings, so I choose
that (in other words I don't have to worry whether God or my local pastor
thinks what I'm doing is wrong, I just have to worry about whether I think
it's wrong).

Jeff.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: zitsky+@CS.CMU.EDU (Mark Ryan Miller)
Subject: Re: Dealing with annoying e-mail: A real life example!
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:19:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.223454.26100@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
|> Another way to deal with annoying email is to post it here for all to shred.
|> So please send your responses, with an attached copy of the FAQ to this person.
|> 

I'm an atheist, but I don't see what's so annoying in his letter.  He doesn't
seem to be rude.

|> Houston High School District, 1992 - the Thanksgiving/Pilgrim
|> package made no reference to Church, Religion, or God.  The
|> term Pilgrim was defined as "Travelers escaping political
|> persecution.  This removal of religion promotes an atheistic view.
|> 
|> Fort Lauderdale, Broward County Schools, 1980 - the history
|> text made absolutely no reference to God or Relgion in the
|> entire "Founding of America" section.  The physics text said,
|> "Before mankind became eductated enough to discard the 
|> superstitous belief in a Supreme Being..."  Obvious promotion
|> of atheism
|> 
|> University of Georgia, 1984 - the biology text says,
|> "... instead of maintaining the ridiculous notion of a
|> Supreme Being, science has advanced to the more enlightened
|> view which places no faith in theism."  Obvious promotion
|> of atheism
|> 

Well, I certainly don't want textbooks telling children that everything
was made by God, or that God blesses the atoms to keep them together,
but I don't approve of statements like the above in textbooks.  I left
Christianity for a reason, but I don't see the need to ridicule others
because of their religious faith.  And he does have a point about the 20%
keeping the 60% from doing what they want.  Citizens should be free to
practice religion or atheism as they see fit, but it seems to me that
some atheists spend most of their time trying to prevent Christians from
expressing their beliefs.

Like the case in Zion, Illinois in which the town was forced to remove
a religious symbol from the city seal.  I can understand if atheists
are being discriminated against, or being harrassed, but if no one in
the town wants to object, or has a problem with it, why should an 
"outsider" file a lawsuit??

--Mark
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: The (in)constancy of the universe
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:07:52 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <3351.2B30C95F@catpe.alt.za>, Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org (Ian Douglas) writes:
> Hi all!
> 
> On 12 Dec 92, rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu wrote to All:
> 
>  >>  >> I know I exist.
>  >>
>  >>  db> What do you mean by 'know', and what do you mean by 'I' ?
>  >>
>  >> Does the terminal in front of you exist?
> 
>  rle> I don't know....
> 
> Mmm :-)
> 
> Why did you answer the question? Did you see it? or merely imagine it :-)
> Do you exist?
> 
> If you are going to answer, "I don't know", what do you mean by 'I'?

Cogito me cogitare, ergo cogito me esse.

Cogito me esse me.

--Semhaza
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lucio@phyrql.Alt.ZA (Lucio de Re)
Subject: Re: Quotes from the Bible.
Reply-To: lucio@proxima.Alt.ZA
Organization: MegaByte Digital Communications
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 07:23:58 GMT

910773f@axe.acadiau.ca (HEATHER LEE FYFFE) writes:

>You're exactly right.  People will often twist the words to suit their own 
>meaning,  However, this is not necessary.  Taken in historical context, most 
>seeming questions explain themselves away.


>Buzzard

Oh dear!  The Buzzard doesn't love us anymore?!

BTW, I'm pleased to see you (HEATHER LEE) didn't vanish and still provide
some sensible retorts, albeit to selected topics.  You do deserve a better
handle, though :-)
-- 
Lucio de Re (lucio@phyrql.Alt.ZA)
The supernatural does not exist, but it gives me the creeps...
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA