HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Logical Fallacies
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 05:36:32 GMT

madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>REDUCIO AD ABSURDUM
>Similar to Slippery Slope, this argument trivializes a statement
>into a ludicrous example.  One Reducio ad Absurdum example would
>be: If you're going to let 18-year-olds vote, why not 12-year-olds?
>Why not 5-year-olds?  Hell, let everyone vote!  Then big families
>have more votes, and kids will vote for whoever promises free candy.

One should also be careful about mistaking genuine question for
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM. Take censorship. I would argue that once you
censor X then you can make a case for censoring Y, then Z, ...
This is not an absurd argument - it is simply a way of questioning
and finding out where the boundaries are.

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: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: assholes
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 03:38:16 GMT

graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>>(mathew) writes:
>>(Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>This isn't fair and you know it, Matthew.
>>>The nonexistence of God--unless one accepts Brian Evans's proof--is
>>>an empirical question . The claim that square circles
>>>do not exist is a logical one.
>>>The comparison is therefore invalid.
>>
>>Actually I think it is a fair question. A constructivist would argue
>>that the "claim that square circles do not exist is a logical one" is in
>>fact an empirical question, in that to prove this claim you must produce
>>an object satisfying the property "circle" and one satisifying "square"
>>for the claim to be proven. And this is emprical.
>>Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
>>Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
> ^^^^^^^^^

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> Hm...Me thinks that I'm a bit outclassed. I think I'll bail while I'm
> still ahead. Point taken, Graham.
> -Ekr

I don't think you are out-classed Eric. I am only a small-fry at this
stuff, a beginner cutting his teeth at the beginning of a Phd in the
stuff. You should see what the masters write - absolutle gibberish! :-)

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: st1lv@rosie.uh.edu (McLeod, Stephen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Circular Reasoning?
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:31:00 GMT
Organization: University of Houston
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In a recent discussion with my religious SO she said that the free will that
non believers think they have is only an illusion and that only believers have
true free will.  
Now, of course I put her on the spot as to what it was that she could do that
would be impossible for me?  I mean obviously, I thought any action she could
take would be something I could choose to do (just for spite) and she being
a bright girl saw where it was going.  After a few meaningful seconds of silence
she said...

You can't do something based on your belief in God unless you believe in God.
(Examples: Go live in a monestary, become a Nun)

Well-- okay, but it seems like a circular argument.  First off, isn't it?

Second, aren't there a whole lot of things a religious person wouldn't be free
to choose either then?  Anyway, we went back and forth over the circular
thing so that is my main question.

She said "If A then B and If B then A" was circular reasoning.
I said she is saying "If A then A."  Seems to me like her example is a tautology
but I must admit its been a couple years now and the logic terms grow rusty.
---
Stephen McLeod       My doctors didn't want me to take digestive enzymes.  
The Eternal Student  Said take "Maalox."  It's odd because the de's work!?
                     Doctors seem to have a problem with anything that isn't a
                     chemical and possessing "scientific" packaging.
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Dealing with theistic relatives
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 20:11:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.145335.9150@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.041952.782@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep11.172810.14388@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>>>
>>>Why should you wish to get in a debate with your mother? If she finds
>>>comfort in mythology, let her. You do not have to have respect for her
>>>beliefs, but you can certainly show respect for her and her feelings. 
>>
>>Because (borrowed from Robert L. Holmes' _On War and Morality_):
>>
>>   What the people of today's world need first and foremost is ruthless
>>   honesty about themselves and about their condition -- for it is more
>>   serious than they want to believe.
>>
>>Leaving people alone to live in a fantasy world shows no more respect for
>>them than do the assholes who filled them full of nonsense in the first
>>place.
>
>Self righteous atheism is just as distasteful as rabid fundamentalism. Most 
>people are not going to be convinced to change their religious views in the 
>course of an hour long debate.

No, but you might manage to kickstart a brain or two.

>Their basic belief systems evolve over many 
>years. Making one's mother uncomfortable for the sake of some philosophical
>debate "victory" sounds rather cruel to me.

If this were just about some silly debate victory, I honestly wouldn't
give a shit about it.

>Robert Holmes sounds like a real asshole. How about "live and let live"?

Yeah, advocating that people be told the truth about themselves sure does
sound like something only a real asshole would do.  Anyway, don't blame him.
He wasn't talking about religion in particular.  I happen to think though,
that people can never be realistic about their predicament as long as they
believe that some nice guy in the sky is looking out for them.
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?
Date: 5 Sep 92 22:12:52 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <Aug.30.19.43.16.1992.16449@athos.rutgers.edu>,
hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) wrote:
 
> Weaseling (though I would use a word without such a negative
> connotation) is not such an unreasonable choice for a Christian.  One
> of the best-known scholarly theories about Mark is the "messianic
> secret", the idea that Jesus never said directly that he was the
> Messiah, but hinted it.  There are a number of good reasons why he
> might have done that, ranging from a concern that it might have been
> misinterpreted as giving a military role that he didn't want, to
> wanting people to come to that conclusion for themselves.

The problem with this scenario is that it directly implies Jesus
sharing knowledge with his Apostles, and thus the Gospels don't 
contain the full knowledge of Christianity. Already this should
make this possibility either true (and suddenly create a situation
where we have hidden knowledge as in gnosticism). Or then this
case is not valid at all.

Actually the Gospels contain some evidence that Jesus told his
disciples more than what the Gospels record concerning the 
doctrines. My handy On Location data base yet again found this
in seconds:

MAT 13:10  And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou
unto them in parables?

MAT 13:11  He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to
know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.


Cheers,
Kent
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Undecidability and the FAQ
Date: 9 Sep 92 12:36:27 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <1992Sep8.172338.23120@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
>In article <=lqn!#f@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>The short answer to your question above is "no, it isn't the same". 
>When we prove that something is undecidable in ZFC, we necessarily
>prove that fact "outside" of ZFC.  Proving that something is
>undecidable in ZFC always requires more "power" than that provided by
>ZFC.

No.  Godel proved, within ZF, that the CH can't be proven false.
Cohen proved, within ZF, that the CH can't be proven true.

These two results, when taken together, lead one to claim that the CH
is undecidable...within ZFC.

>Does this help?

Nope.

-- 
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: jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Would you do ANYTHING God told you....?
Date: 14 Sep 1992 20:29:46 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


I think I can honestly say that no, I wouldn't. It isn't because I
wouldn't believe it was God, or that 'my God wouldn't ask me to';
it's because I simply do not have the stomach for it. God would have
to pick someone else, because a) I can't aim properly, hit with sufficient
force, use a knife accurately enough, etc., and b) I'd just plain puke.
How's that?
-- 
Jessica McGeary
jmm25@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University
Remember! Arguments should be FUN!
From: jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Beliefs are refusals to check the facts
Date: 10 Sep 1992 21:01:34 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


There are also those who believe things without even thinking of whether
or not to look for observations. The thought of refusing never even enters
their heads.

-- 
Jessica McGeary
jmm25@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University
Remember! Arguments should be FUN!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bwilliam@iat.holonet.net (Bill Williams)
Subject: Re: Calling facts "theory"
Organization: HoloNet (BBS: 510-704-1058)
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 10:56:49 GMT

Ahem....

In Science terminology the phrase "THEORY" carries just as much weight as
the word "FACT" does in laymans terms.

Therefore Pregnancy mechanisms can be called a theory, just as gravity
effects can be called a "theory"

It seems absurd that an athiest would try to feel the need to offer
arguments defending _XYZ_ THEORY as a fact (such as the Theory of
evolution) since a theory can be, when widely accepted as the best model,
CONSIDERRED A FACT!!!

I do, though, go out of my way to use the words Evolutionary Fact, instead
of Evolutionary Theory, not because I am a hypocrite, but because I am
baiting foolish christians with semantics.


PS: The pope decreed in the early 1980's that the Catholic church fully
accepts the fact of evolution over creationism.  So direct your
christianity arguments toward the vaticans view and wonder why even they
accept it (they also made a formal appology to Gallileo and admitted that
the earth did go around the sun and that they were wrong to persecute him,
(or something like that)

BWilliams
From: maf10@po.CWRU.Edu (Moses A. Fridman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Dealing with theistic relatives
Date: 12 Sep 1992 05:48:46 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


	The problem with convincing people that their heartfelt
beliefs are mythology is that it is a conversion;  since you can't
prove that God does not exist, you are forcing you conjecture on 
other people, which is what you athiests find so disgusting in 
evangelical religions like Christianity.  Let Mom believe in God;
though she may not want to let you alone to believe she is wrong, 
I think one's parents deserve respect.  
       
                                           Moses
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: uzr50f@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de (Mark Beinker, Raum 313, Tel.: 2751)
Subject: Re: god is not relevant
Organization: RHRZ, University of Bonn
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 10:12:16 GMT

I can't understand, why someone dislikes the word "atheism". "agnostic" for
example, has got a very special meaning, related to a very special
atheist school. In contrast, if you say "I am an atheist" it says no more
then that you don't beleive in any gods.
Well, if you create new words, you've got the advantage that nobody knows
what you're talking about.

Mark
EMAIL:uzr50f@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de

"I am an anarchist, like every sensible human", Merlyn said.
                                          T.H. White, The book of Merlyn
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:16589 talk.religion.misc:15713 sci.skeptic:15989 alt.religion.kibology:3728
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.religion.kibology
Subject: Reformed Pythagorean Reform Church needed?
Date: 5 Sep 92 19:01:55 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome


> 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?

(*) 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.

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,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.kibology
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Pythagorean Reform Church
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 20:15:57 GMT

In article <6lnn0#a@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.224050.21786@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>In article <0kmn#3=@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>>Of course 4 could also represent male+male marriage and 6 represent
>>lesbian marriage :-)
>
>No...even numbers are female; odd numbers, male.  4 would be
>representative of lesbian marriage, 6 would be gay male marriage.

Actually I suppose you are right, although a sexual relation between
identical numbers does seem a bit incestous :-)
But then they won't make kids so I guess its not all that bad.
I also made the mistake of starting at 1 for odd numbers, but who
would want to marry a set of genitals with no body?

-- 
------          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
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Reformed Pythagorean Reform Church needed?
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 12:31:22 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <1992Sep5.201800.13155@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <95424@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>>(*) 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!

Uh-oh...I'm beginning to see signs that the illustrious leader of this
newly (re)formed church is all to fallible.

V-8 isn't tomato juice...it's a vegetable juice of 8 different
vegetables of which one is tomato.

Quick now:  What are the other seven?

-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: pay attention!
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 04:25:22 GMT


[pretty good rant deleted; I give it 7 out of 10]
	So....has this ben submitted to the Rev. Ivan Stang for the next
issue of "The Stark Fist of Removal".
	You've probably got plenty of time.....
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:46:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.194712.24771@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>In article <1992Sep15.183849.11545@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>Ergo, _you_ cannot be one to decide what is right or wrong because it is
>>>inherent in morality.
>>>
>>>Thus, you have no point arguing right or wrong.  period.
>>
>>On the contrary. The arguments which have been presented for
>>the claim that certain actions are immoral are logically flawed.
>
>Look, if you don't believe in morality, then it is sheer stupidity to
>claim that it is logically flawed for somebody to say that, eg., murder
>is immoral.
No, that's not true.
For instance, I don't believe in Newtonian Mechanics, but it
would not be stupid for me to say that the claim that Newtonian
Mechanics implies that the velocity of light is constant is
logically unsupported.

Similarly, it is not idiotic for me to point out that whether
I believe in the Golden Rule or not, it does not imply
that attempting to "cure" gays is wrong.

>  There is no logic there to be flawed, and your incessant
>babbling about logic makes you look rather idiotic.
It depends on what we're discussing. In Mr. Webb's example of
the Golden Rule, there is logic and it is flawed.

In your case, you're simply asserting your beliefs as axiomatic.
They're simply unsubstantiated, which is why it is simply
noninteresting to discuss them.

> I'd
>say your philosophy needs a lot of work.
And I'd say your logic needs a lot of work.

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
From: marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: assholes revisited
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:21:40 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Sep9.184824.12775@cas.org>, esp51@cas.org () writes:
> 
> If you're happy and you know it kill a born again Christian.
> If you're happy and you know it kill a Jeeesus freak.
> If you're happy and you know it
> Kill a bible thumper just to show it,
> If your happy and you know it kill an individual who insists
> upon a literal interpretation of all the charming fairy tales
> in the Bible.
> 
>     oh well, it's not metered like traditional bow wow poetry,
>     but it's still timeless, no?

It's far from timeless...maybe tasteless?  Obviously stupid.  This "poem" has
no place here.  It does not support or argue atheism, it just tells us all that
we have a person who has BLIND HATRED towards people that he doesn't agree
with.  I argue against atheism, but I don't think that they need to be
"killed".  Both Christians and atheists are people and they deserve to be
thought of in a civilized manner, regardless if you like them or not.

Evan Marshall

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 11:49:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.164704.27205@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>That is pretty weak coming from someone who clearly
>misunderstood my entire position. If you aren't asserting that
>there are moral values, why are you bothering to post? If you
>are asserting it, then it is up to you to substantiate.

My position is simply that you are being literally sophormoric.  You
should have taken an intro ethics class when you were an undergraduate,
and you could have argued this crap with the TA.  It isn't relevant to
real-life discussions about real-life issues, and it is annoyingly
stupid.  You don't have anything intelligent to say, so you should shut
up.  My "position" is that simple.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprect-Karls University 
                gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie)
Subject: Re: End of the World...
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 00:01:27 GMT

In <1992Sep10.155455.20592@leland.Stanford.EDU> yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:

>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).

I actually saw an explanation in a crackpot book.  The guy looked at a
UPC barcode, which has guard bars at each end and in the middle, and
noted that they were similar to the bars for the digit 6.  He then made
the leap that the guard bars meant 6, and there were three of them...
--
John Brownie
School of Mathematics and Statistics   |    Wycliffe Bible Translators
University of Sydney NSW 2006          |    Graham Rd
Internet: jhb@maths.su.oz.au           |    Kangaroo Ground Vic 3097 AUSTRALIA
From: jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Physics and Morality
Date: 11 Sep 1992 19:53:16 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


Well, I thought I'd give it a shot, anyways. Just that it seems like 
killing folks, committing random crimes, attempting to maintain
the status quo by means of nasty things uses up more energy than does
using different methods... ah well.

Score one for Judge Murphy.
(btw- how obvious is it that this was written in high school, under the 
influence of books about Vulcan philosophy written by Trekkies?)
-- 
Jessica McGeary
jmm25@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University
Remember! Arguments should be FUN!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.homosexuality