HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Steve Wart <swart@prodigy.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Pythagorean Reform Church
Organization: PTC Vancouver
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.0
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:56:12 GMT

In article <92247.115437HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET> <HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET> wrote:
>Is is possible to join the Reformed Pythagorean Reform Church which still
>allows the eating of beans?

Sounds to me like the First Pythagorean Heresy (but if all the elders are 
passed out in airports, you probably don't have much to worry about)
From: jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Circular Reasoning?
Date: 11 Sep 1992 14:56:28 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


Does that mean that non believers don't have the free will to become
believers if the believers get very convincing and factual all of a
sudden? (If being the operative word)

Just wondering.
##
-- 
Jessica McGeary
jmm25@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University
Remember! Arguments should be FUN!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Undecidability and the FAQ
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 12:38:51 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <4iHqqB3w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>> Correct.  I am stating that such a statement is incorrect.  Given an
>> axiom system assumed to be consistent, there are statements that can
>> be shown to be undecidable.

>Using only that system?

Yes...using only that system.

Cohen's result showed that there is more than one set theory, just like
there is more than one geometry.  In some, the CH is provably true.
In some, the CH is provably false.  In the one we typically use, it is
undecidable.

But only because we assume our system is consistent...not because we
know it is.

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I still seem to be God
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:07:07 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <BuM5xL.733@iat.holonet.net> bwilliam@iat.holonet.net (Bill Williams) writes:
>Yeah, verily I beseach you fellow Brothers and Sisters to join me in
>Enlighted Age of Colleen, The One True Messiah.

Prithee hold for a moment, good sir, for my confusion is great.
Yea is Colleen the One True Messiah?  From what I know, She is God,
and One True Messiah there is none, for ye be three, Her chosen prophets.

>The children of Colleen the All Powerful, will become as prosperous as
>grains of sand on a beach, for we are the chosen people.

Thou speakest well, prophet; but just how prosperous be the grains of sand
on a beach?  Numerous, aye, but wherewith dost measure their prosperity?

>They will renounce their heretical ideas or suffer the
>plight of having their tounges and eyes cut out in the proper Manner That
>Colleens Law dictates Shall Be Done.

Wouldst quote chapter and verse of the Law, prophet?

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Organization: Senior, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:34:09 -0400 
From: Ronald William Ely <re0t+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: RE:Would you do ANYTHING God told you....?

>	Would you do anything God told you to do ?
>
>	For example, if God told you to kill a 17 month old baby, would
>you do it ? I am not asking IF God would ask you to do such an evil thing,
>but would you do it if God told you ?
>
>
>	I have never heard a decent answer, most say something like "my
>God would never ask such a thing". But I am not asking if God would ask,
>but if God asked them to do it, would they do it ? So, let me put it
this >way,
>	IF God asked you to buy an Uzi and start shooting children at a
>	nearby playground ? WOULD YOU DO ANYTHING GOD TOLD YOU ?
>
>	THE QUESTION IS NOT IF GOD WOULD ASK YOU, BUT IF GOD DID ASK YOU
>	TO DO IT, WOULD YOU DO IT.
>
>
>	I am serious about this question. Note, part of the premise of this
>question is that it is CLEARLY God telling you to do this (a voice, a vision
>, what ever would convince you....)
   I don't think the answer "My God wouldn't ask me to do that" fails to
answer your question.  If a person truely believes that their god would
never ask them to do a thing, then if a being asked him to do it that being
couldn't possibly be his God. (they would simply assume it was the devil
trying to trick them or something of the sort)
  If nothing would convince you that this is really God telling you this,
then the scenerio is impossible.  You would have to know how you would act
if you had an entirely different belief system than you actually have--which
you couldn't possibly know!
    Of course, a god or godlike being might be able to alter someone's mind
and make them believe anything it wants him to.  The question then become
changed, however, into "what would you do if somone were altering your mind",
the answer to that question would obviously be "Whatever he makes me do!"
    Of course, you could ask the question "What would you do if A god (as
in a godlike creature, but not one that you would worship) asked you to do
[insert really bad thing here], what would you do?"  Well, I'm not a theist,
but my actions would be dictated by precisely how scared I would be at the
time, rather than by any logical or moral argument I could present.


    So, if you were a fish, would you prefer worms or bugs?

*************************************************************************
* Ronald Ely	: re0t@andrew.cmu.edu                                      *
* -Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right!- *
*************************************************************************
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: dead JW and evolution (was: benefits of religious belief)
Date: 5 Sep 92 22:45:47 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <asZiqB13w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:

>   A Jehovah's Witness bled to death for his beliefs, despite hospital 
>   doctors' warnings that his life was at stake if he refused blood 
>   transfusions, an inquest in London heard yesterday.

>   The inquest heard that Mr Hunt, aged 49, a technician, of Bromley, 
                                    ^^^^^^^
>Evolution in action, as Pournelle might say.

I realise this is a joke, but I feel the need to post a really
pedantic rebuttal anyway 8-)

Nope, at age 49 Mr. Hunt has probably made all the contributions
to the gene pool he would have had he not died(*). In addition, his
offspring (if any) are unlikely to suffer any fitness consequence
from a father dying at 49. Natural selection does not operate on
traits that express themselves after the average age of reproduction
in most species (although it can act indirectly on traits in species
that exhibit parental care). This is, in fact, why we -- as sexual
organisms -- are destined to die.

(*) or at the very least, any offspring produced this late in life would
do little to boost fitness. 

But, most importantly, this is not an example of evolution because 
it is highly unlikely that there is a Jehovah's Witness gene that 
causes these people to refuse blood.

>mathew

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Reformed Pythagorean Reform Church needed?
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 20:18:00 GMT

In article <95424@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>
>> Accept 10 into your heart! 
>
>I have now accepted 10 into my heart; one in each atrium and 4 in
>each ventricle(*). Is this the proper distribution or do I need to
>form a Reformed Pythagorean Reform Church?

Yes thats correct. One person once made the mistake of putting 4-sqrt(2)
in one side and 6+sqrt(2) in the other, it was not a pretty sight...

>(*) Notice that in short form this is A2-V8. V8, as you all know
>serves both as a vegetable juice and powerful automobile engine!
>Coincidence? -- you be the judge.

And also tomato juice!
-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Would you do ANYTHING God told you....?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:09:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.200544.28315@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}No, because my standards are not shared by God.  
}He'd do better to ask then explain why.  I respond very well to reason.


For instance:


"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill
every woman that hath known men by lying with them. But all the
women children, that hath not known a man by lying with them,
keep alive for yourselves." Numbers 31:17-18
 
"And the Lord our God delivered him before us, and we smote him,
and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at
that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the
little ones of every city, we left none to remain." Deuteronomy
2:33-34
 
"And we utterly destroyed them, as we did into Sihon king of
Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children of every
city." Deuteronomy 3:6
 
"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man
and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the
edge of the sword." Joshua 5:21
 
"For Joshua drew not his hand back, wherewith he stretched out
the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of
Ai." Joshua 8:26
 
"So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of all the
south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings:
he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed,
as the LORD God of Israel commanded." Joshua 10:40
 
"And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of
the sword, utterly destroying them, there were not any left to
breathe, and he burnt Hazor with fire." Joshua 11:10
 
"Then it shall be that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my
house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of
Ammon, shall surely be the LORD'S and I will offer it up for a
burnt offering ... And Jepthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and
behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with
dances, and she was his only child, beside her he had neither son
nor daughter...And it came to pass at the end of two months, that
she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his
vow which he had vowed, and she knew no man..." Judges
11:31,34,39
 
 
"And he went up from thence unto Bethel, and as he was going up
by the way, there came up little children out of the city, and
said unto him Go up thou bald head; go up thou bald head. And he
turned back, and looked on him, and cursed them in the name of
the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and
tare forty and two children of them." II Kings 2:23-24
 
 

I am MUCH nicer than this sadist!


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: Christianic Sacrifices
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 13:58:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.111312.6677@iscsvax.uni.edu> marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>
> [...]
>
> Don't stay away from Christ because of some crazies.

Amen. And don't let the fact that we're a bunch of amoral degenerate commie
baby-torturing, live-cannibalistic animal sodomists to a man deter you from
following The One True Way that is atheism.

Donations of cash money and young virgin goats to the address below.

Just in case, :-)

> In Him,
> Evan

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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: evolution and homosexuality
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Distribution: alt.atheism
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:42:46 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <MADAVIS.92Sep9164703@zeste.nmsu.edu>, 
madavis@nmsu.edu (Mark Davis) writes:
> Yes, yes, yes.  And if there were genes for homosexuality like ball
> bearings, then they would immediately disappear with one or two
> generations BECAUSE HOMOSEXUALS ARE NOT REPRODUCING.  And you think you
> are not oversimplifying?

This assumes that genes for homosexuality exist only in homosexuals.  Read up
about recessives again.

Furthermore, I know a lesbian couple with one kid and two more on the way.  So
much for homosexuals not reproducing.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Subject: Re: End of the World...
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 15:54:55 GMT

In article <millernw.716089780@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, millernw@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Neal Miller) writes:
|> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
|> 
|> >	Reject The 666 of (sic) computer bar code!
|> 
|> 	Sorry, but just how the hell are they integrating computer bar codes
|> into Revelation?   I *have* to know this one.

Someone, who was obviously much more well versed in numerology than 
I am, noticed that the encoding in *every* bar code contained the 
numbers 6 6 6.  I don't remember if they were only looking at cans 
of Red Devil(tm) ham or if they started taking every n bars so they 
could always get at least one 6, which they would repeat three times 
(because they would get a three in some other random way).


-- 
Dan Yergeau                         He's dead Jim.  Take his phaser
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU        and I'll get his wallet.
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Free will - the "Jarekian" heresy.
Date: 5 Sep 92 18:33:21 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <dabrowsk.715231939@liveboard10>, dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
> In <1992Aug29.151018.7211@ac.dal.ca> Sean Hartigan wrote about the
> meaning of omniscience:
> 
> -Jarek:
>>> God should be ABLE to know all future free actions, 
>>> not HAVE to know all future free actions
> -Sean:
>> [Such a God] might not know, for example, that he is only a sub-God 
>> of another bigger God, never having bothered to find this out.  
>>
> Imagine yourself as such a being. Wouldn't you, first of all, learn
> about which things you have to know and what consequences would this
> knowledge have? So God is still expected to know best. If you don't
> think that He is a Stupid Encyclopeadian but rather a Wise one :-D.

If God is smart enough to know all the right questions to ask, then
he surely asked himself (or whoever he asks to find out these things)
"What things do I need to know?" Having got the answer to this one, 
he then, no doubt, found out all the answers he would ever need. 
Making him effectively OMNISCIENT. 

So we are back to square one...

How could a loving God NOT look ahead and see who was going to damn
themselves, and them mercifully decline to create them?
Surely this question ( pertaining to the eternal fate of his children)
would be something he would ask himself (or whoever he asks..)

Your able-omniscient God, then, still creates the same theological problems
(with a slight heretical twist...:) as the old omniscient one. 

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Undecidability and the FAQ
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 11:55:52 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <TORKEL.92Sep5173048@bast.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>In article <1nnncpj@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>   >I await with interest why you claim that CH isn't known to be
>   >undecidable if we assume ZF is consistent.

>  I have claimed nothing of the sort. You're babbling, incoherently. Allow
>me to repeat: the simple point at issue is this, that it is not provable
>in ZFC that the continuum hypothesis is undecidable in ZFC. Do you
>understand this or not?

You just did.  Did you not just say that it is not provable in ZFC
that the Continuum Hypothesis is undecidable in ZFC.  Is that or is
that not claiming "that CH isn't known to be undecidable"?

I am hardly babbling...I am trying to get an answer out of you that is
something more substantial than, "Second Incompleteness Theorem," or,
"Do you understand this or not?"

Torkel, I have at least three mathematicians telling me that the CH is
undecidable if we assume ZFC is consistent.  I am told, directly, by
these mathematicians that the work of Godel and Cohen, when taken
together, prove that the CH is undecidable.  Godel proved that it
can't be proven to be anything but aleph-one.  Cohen proved that it
can't be proven to be aleph-one.

If that isn't a proof that the CH is undecidable, why don't you tell
me what it is that defines "undecidable" and why it can't be done?  Is
not "undecidable" the same as "unable to be proven either true or
false"?

It's like pulling teeth to get an answer out of you.  What is it about
taking the two results together that doesn't prove the CH to be
undecidable?

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Beliefs are refusals to check the facts
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:44:30 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <gstn01.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>
>All we have to draw conclusions from is the world around us.  Some
>people take some data to be facts and draw the conclusion that
>evolution happened; other people take other data to be facts and draw
>the conclusion that Creation happened.

I'll go along with that: some people have decided that certain of the
creation myths in their holy book (which are data) are facts, therefore
to them, everything was created that way. And yes, these are "other data"
because these are what is left when they have ingnored contradictory
evidence.

All religions have creation myths. Why should one religion's creation
myths be chosen as fact in preference to any other?

Some people have decided that the earth was formed on the back of a
giant turtle that rose out of the sea, because that is what their
religion says.

Some people have decided that the earth was formed when a giant bird
defaecated while it was flying over the sea, because that is what their
religion says.

>                                        Neither side has an
>explanation for everything.

The fundies do: "God" did it.


>                             Not _yet_, at least; it's quite possible
>that scientists will suddenly find a single equation that explains the
>universe, or that religious people will suddenly realize exactly why
>their god made the world just so.
>
>In order to form any philosophy about how the world works at all,
>you've got to start with some givens, and those assumptions might very
>well be proven wrong someday.  And you can't expand your philosophy
>without making a few hypothetical statements.
>
>I think a better definition of 'belief' would be "a premise, supported
>by evidence and conjectures, which someone holds to be true."
>
>     << Brian >>
>

Chris Lee
From: jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I still seem to be God
Date: 13 Sep 1992 07:00:03 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


Have patience, child. All shall happen according to Her will. Mulroney
must not be crucified until the proper time. Let the anticipation build
a little more, hmm?

On a different note: If God exists, then there should be a ceremony every
year, called "The Shaking of the <insert name of assorted heads of religions
here>". This God ought to show up once a year on the really important
religious folks' doorsteps, grab them by their collar, shake 'em so hard
their teeny little brains rattle, then yell "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG, YOU
STUPID SCHMUCK!!!!"- and leave. No telling them what they did wrong, just
let 'em try and mend whatever they think they're screwing up and see if She
is still pissed next year.

It would make things a lot more interesting in Rome and Jerusalem and Mecca
and all over the South, wouldn't it?
-- 
Jessica McGeary
jmm25@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University
Remember! Arguments should be FUN!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Dealing with theistic relatives
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:31:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.170154.9202@u.washington.edu> sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>In article <18dlu4INNrcn@wupost.wustl.edu> oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser) writes:
>>	Does anyone have any observations on dealing with religious relatives?
>>How does one breach the subject of being an atheist and deal with the 
>>inevitably negative response?
>>	Personally, I still find myself going to church with my parents
>>when I visit them, because I know that if I refused and explained why,
>>they wouldn't be happy campers, and I'd rather just waste an hour on
>>Sunday than deal with the hassle.  And I'm absolutely positive my
>>grandparents would flip out if they knew I was an atheist.
>>	Is it possible to be openly atheistic without alienating one's
>>family?  Is this perhaps why there are so few overtly open atheists?
>>	Private e-mail responses are encouraged, although you may wish
>>to post anything that would be of general interest.
>>
>>	-Scott Oser
>

Being raised Unitarian, it was not considered a problem when I decided to stop
attending church (about age 13). My dad continued to go (and was very active).
My mom went occasionally. I don't recall what my brothers did. Some of the
older relatives, who I'm very fond of, are quite religious. They don't preach
or try to force religion on me, and I doubt they are even aware of my religious
views. Usually we talk about hunting, the kids, and how other family members
are doing. Religion is not a topic for discussion at family gatherings.

Jeff Achenbach