HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Middle East Technical University - Computer Center
Date: Monday, 7 Sep 1992 11:34:11 TUR
From: <E59140@TRMETU.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Pythagorean Reform Church

In article <Bu0BxD.JG3@world.std.com>, entropy@world.std.com (Lawrence C Foard)
says:
>
>I have a wonderful message to bring to the world!
>
>Last night the number 4 came to me in a dream and told me that I
>must bring the pythagorean Gospel to the world!
>
>The number 4 said that the message must be spread throughout the
>whole of the world, passed out in Airports, in Harvard Square
>and on the internet. The number 4 was saddened to see that the
>world has reverted to eating BEANS, and belief in false numbers!
>
>With the divine guidance of 4 I am starting the Pythagorean Reform
>church to spread the Gospel far and wide. With the guidance of 4
>I hope we can soon bring the message to the world over the PBN
>(Pythagorean Broadcasting Network).
>
>
At last|| All my life I have known that some day someone would under-
stand my obsession with the number 4 and look what happens|  Unknowingly
I had been a diciple of the PRC--and needless to say I don't like BEANS|

About false numbers, I was never easy with the so called complex numbers,
who has ever heard of two numbers multiplied together to give -1|(Well, I
_have_ heard it, and a so-called proof but hearing and believing are two-
sorry, the Square Root of 4- different things.)
>
>--
>----          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!         ----
>\  /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers        \  /
> \/   and bean eating ways. Accept the #4 into your heart! \/
>     Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568
Please rush me information about how to start the local chapter of the PRC
and any other revelations from the FOUR.

faithfully yours,
Neyir
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: End of the World...
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:23:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.140939.9757@digibd.com> merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>millernw@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Neal Miller) writes:
>>Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
>..[quoting EOW material]
>
>>>	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.
>
>Bar codes have three solid bars used as scanning delimiters; one at each
>end, and one in the middle.  People with little knowledge of computer bar
>codes claim the solid bars code a digit "6", thus 6xx6xx6 is embedded in
>all bar codes.  They don't, of course; 666 refers to Unix universal rw-rw-rw-
>permissions :-)

UNIX is the Antichrist!  I knew it!  :-)

>
>---
>Merlyn LeRoy
-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: siemens@mprgate.mpr.ca (Curtis Siemens)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: worthless comic strips
Keywords: creationist propaganda
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:18:15 GMT
Reply-To: siemens@mprgate.mpr.ca (Curtis Siemens)
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd.

>> How long has B.C. been pulling this stuff?
> 
>Coupla years that I know of.

Many people replying to this thread make is sound like other people
can't have there own opinions.  If J. Hart wants to put creationist
messages in his cartoons, so what.  Isn't he entitled to his opinion?
If you don't want creation opinions in cartoons then evolution opinions
should be eliminated from cartoons also.  But just assuming that he is wrong
according to your opinion is really no basis because the opposing person
can also think the same thing of you.

Curtis
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
From: gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Pythagorean Reform Church
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 16:44:08 GMT

In article <92251.113411E59140@TRMETU.BITNET> <E59140@TRMETU.BITNET> writes:

>About false numbers, I was never easy with the so called complex numbers,
>who has ever heard of two numbers multiplied together to give -1|(Well, I
>_have_ heard it, and a so-called proof but hearing and believing are two-
>sorry, the Square Root of 4- different things.)

The reason why old-time Pythagoreans are uneasy about sqrt(-1) is that this
is an irrational number--essentially for the same reason sqrt(n) for any
rational number n not a square is irrational.  Of course, we more modern
Pythagoreans have come to realize that the true problem lies in the
transcendental numbers, and not in algebraic numbers at all.

When you fundie bean-bashers grow up a little, you might want to consider
the more intellectually defensible and culturally respectible liberal
Pythagorean tradition.  Don't let bozos like Fnord or whatever his name is
make you think that all Pythagoreans are like the people at the Institute
for Rational Number Research.  Some of us are aware that irrational numbers
*do* exist, and might not even always be an unquilified evil!
-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprect-Karls University 
                gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: worthless comic strips
Keywords: creationist propaganda
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:26:20 GMT

In article <m8snn6l.mvp@netcom.com>, mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
> In article <1992Sep9.150914@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
Ashlock) writes:
> >   It just gets worse.  B.C. is now replaying the entire Republican
convention.
> It's a comic strip.  Get a clue and a sense of humor.
> 
> >   In particular, Mr. Hart's claims in the last two weeks are:
> It's a comic strip.  Get a clue and a sense of humor.
> 
                  .
                  .   [Van Pelt repeats his theme; a small joke]
                  .
                    [Dinosaurs and hominids] 
> You needed talk.origins to point that out to you?  Hmmmmmmm.

   Yeah, I'd been reading it too long and forgot this was bogus.
> 
> It's a comic strip.  Get a clue and a sense of humor.

   But, at present, its NOT a "comic" strip and it doesn't have a sense of
humor, hence my objection.  The republican disinformational hatemongering
pig-dog psuedo-christians are ruining the comic pages for goodness sake.

   Not only that, the comic pages are the most read.  This may be serious.
There's got to be some reason why this brain-dead propaganda is going so far;
I think I'm on to something.

Are you asserting that hateful misinformation is O.K. on the comic pages? :)


> Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.discrimination
From: lisbon@vpnet.chi.il.us (Gerry Swetsky)
Subject: Re: Net.Citizen.Arrest Of Net.Citizen Attempted
Organization: Vpnet Public Access
Distribution: rec
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 16:49:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.042202.1336@auto-trol.com> katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
>awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>: I'm amused.
>: 
>: Someone, who for sake of privacy shall go unnamed, has placed me under
>: "net.citizen.arrest."  What does this mean?  I'm not sure.  I don't
>: know what newsgroup this individual reads my posts on, as a number of
>: them have been crossposted like crazy.
>: 
>Said missive was a form letter. I got one too. You'll just have to try
>harder to get some *REAL* hate mail, Andrew!

    Please don't post this drivel to chi.general.  Thanks.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: esp51@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: assholes revisited
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:48:24 GMT


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?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: End of the World...
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:23:28 GMT

In article <bt.920909181412@bailey.cpac.washington.edu> bt@bailey.u.washington.edu (bt garner) writes:
>millernw@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Neal Miller) writes:
>>>I, for one, am scared.  Not of October, 1994, but of the decisions that
>>Oops... My mistake... I meant September 1994, like it makes a difference. ;-)
>
>It makes a *huge* difference.  I'd hate to throw a month long "End of the 
>World" party in the wrong month.  I'd be the laughing stock of all my friends,
>but at least it would only be for a month.  Or maybe we just wouldn't have 
>a party at all.

Wait a minute!  To "be the laughing stock of all my friends" seems
to be a key ingredient in the founding and distribution of religions;
certainly many christians take great pride in appearing loopy
to "the world".  Do you have secret messianic aspirations?

Actually, we should start a new religion for people who don't believe
that the world is coming to an end, and we'll hold "services" whenever
one of the endtimer's predictions fails to come true.  I could
suggest several alternatives for a "sacramental" beverage...

>bt garner			"Look to the future, forget about today; 
>bt@cpac.washington.edu		 look to the future it's the only way."


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: god is not relevant
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:35:01 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Sep4.190528.4581@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>, tino@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (allen.j.tino) writes:
> (stuff about definition of atheist deleted)
> 
> A distinction must be drawn between just lacking a belief and actively
> disbelieving a belief.  If atheism means just the lack of a belief in
> god, then my friend's month-old baby and cat are both atheists since
> they certainly lack a belief in god.  That definition would make the
> term pretty useless. 

   What makes you think they don't?  Even if they didn't, why does calling them
atheists make the term useless?

Karl Magnacca

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: End of the World...
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:09:39 GMT

millernw@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Neal Miller) writes:
>Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
..[quoting EOW material]

>>	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.

Bar codes have three solid bars used as scanning delimiters; one at each
end, and one in the middle.  People with little knowledge of computer bar
codes claim the solid bars code a digit "6", thus 6xx6xx6 is embedded in
all bar codes.  They don't, of course; 666 refers to Unix universal rw-rw-rw-
permissions :-)

---
Merlyn LeRoy
From: kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: worthless comic strips
Date: 12 Sep 92 22:36:59 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <18qsh9INNblt@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary) writes:
>
>Jesus bin Panthera? That's a new one...
>'least, one I never heard before... where's it from?

According to contemporaneous Jewish texts, Jesus is refered to as (among other
things) "Yeshua ben Panthera" or Jesus, Son of Panthera.  Panthera is presuma-
bly the name of a Roman soldier who was Jesus's father.  Robert Sheaffer
discusses this heavily in his book _The Making of the Messiah_.  Using those
aforementioned texts (including the Toldoth), Sheaffer advances the idea that
Jesus was the illegitimate child of Mary and Panthera (or Pantera)--thus the
big fuss that Joseph makes after learning of Mary's pregnancy in one of the
Gospels.

I'm about half-way through Sheaffer's book, and it's pretty interesting
reading.  You might want to check it out.  Sheaffer also gives extensive notes
on his references, so you could check some of the original source material.

>##
>-- 
>Jessica McGeary
>jmm25@po.cwru.edu
>Case Western Reserve University
>Remember! Arguments should be FUN!


--
*Ka Chun Yu                 * "Deputy dog dog a ding dang depa depa deputy     *
*kachun@as.arizona.edu      *  dog dog a ding dang depa depa . . ."            *
*                           *                         --"Don't Let's Start"    *
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: tino@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (allen.j.tino)
Subject: Re: god is not relevant
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:00:33 GMT

From article <1992Sep4.205134.3104@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
> In article <1992Sep4.190528.4581@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> tino@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (allen.j.tino) writes:
>>I use "atheist" to refer to someone who rejects (dis-believes)
>>the existence of god, regardless of why.  This is separate from the
>>issue of whether god is relevant or not.  (Relevant for what purpose?
>>Even if there was a god, would I care?)
>>
>>A distinction must be drawn between just lacking a belief and actively
>>disbelieving a belief.  If atheism means just the lack of a belief in
>>god, then my friend's month-old baby and cat are both atheists since
>>they certainly lack a belief in god.  That definition would make the
>>term pretty useless. 
>>
>>This is not to say that disbelief in god is the same as belief that
>>god does not exist.  Someone who believes that god does not exist
>>would be an atheist, but the converse does not follow.
> 
> Well now, if a theist is one who believes in gods (an active state) then isn't
> anyone else an atheist (the a- simply meaning not a theist)? In a strictly 
> literal sense, that is. This distinction between not believing and disbelieving
> seems to be more a matter of semantics than a real difference in effect. Of 
> course, by my definition, there is no such thing as an agnostic, which probably
> is offensive to some who think of themselves as such. Sorry to offend, but 
> agnosticism seems to me to be a nonposition, although one which I find quite
> acceptable when dealing with a subject as meaningless and irrelevant as
> imaginary deities. 

You have a point: in some sense anyone lacking a belief in god is
an "a-theist".  But I can't help but think that's a trivial form of
atheism if the lack is merely due to ignorance.  To be aware of a
concept and to reject it is a much stronger position than to not hold
a concept simply because you never heard of it.
_______
Al Tino
tino@globe2.ATT.COM
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Undecidability and the FAQ
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<TORKEL.92Sep5173048@bast.sics.se> <=lqn!#f@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 13:55:57 GMT

In article <=lqn!#f@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:

   >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"?

  Of course it isn't, unless one takes the view, which I do not, that
nothing not provable in ZFC is known to be true. In fact, in claiming
to know that it is not provable in ZFC that CH is undecidable in ZFC,
I am implicitly claiming to know that ZFC is consistent, which is not
provable in ZFC either.

  Although it has all been said before, I repeat the simple points
involved.

  The statement "A is undecidable in T" implies that the theory T is
consistent, whatever the statement A may be. This follows from the
definition of "A is undecidable in T" as meaning "neither A, nor the
negation of A is provable in T". A theory (using classical logic) in
which not everything is provable is consistent.

  For the T at issue here, this is provable in T.

  In particular, in ZFC it is provable that "if CH is undecidable in
ZFC, then ZFC is consistent".

  Hence, by Godel's second theorem, (assuming the consistency of ZFC),
it is not provable in ZFC that CH is undecidable in ZFC.

  I await with interest...etc.
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is atheism experimentally refutable?
Date: 7 Sep 92 13:43:21 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
> Thus, I claim that a person who doesn't have a belief in the existence
> of supernatural entitties and also doesn't have a belief in the
> non-existence of supernatural entities isn't being completely honest
> by merely saying, "I don't believe god exists."  Because, in order to
> state the true feelings of the person, there needs to be an, "I don't
> believe god doesn't exist."  People expect other people to reveal all
> relevant information.  If I asked you how many pets you had and you
> replied, "I have two cats," I'd have every reason to feel deceived if
> you also had four dogs and a llama.

If you ask *how many*, yes.  But if you ask "Do you have any pets?" the
answer "I have two cats" is perfectly reasonable, even if the person does
have four dogs and a llama.  One might tend to expect a pet owner to
enumurate all his pets, but it's not unreasonable not to.

Consider "Do you have any animals on your farm?"  "I have over five hundred
sheep".  Is the farmer deceiving you by failing to mention a sheepdog, two
chickens and a farmer's wife?


mathew
-- 
Bush/Quayle in '92!
God Bless America!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:32:31 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Sep4.184928.3478@csrd.uiuc.edu>, skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
> merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
> 
>>>I say Christianity *does* take
>>>Paul seriously.  As evidence for this I note the inclusion of many of
>>>Paul's letters in the religion's canon and the heavy use of quotations
>>>from these inclusions in Christian teaching.
> 
>>I say it takes him seriously, but with insufficient reason to do so.
> 
> You're talking in circles now.  Let's review the high points.
> 
> --You assert that Christianity prescribes the death penalty.  You
> point to the Levitican law in support.

   Is that prescribes or proscribes?
 
> --I point out how the words of Paul, which I think Christianity take
> seriously, seems to counter this idea.
> 
> --You suggest that the words of Paul are not essential to Christianity.
> 
> --But now you agree that Christianity does take Paul seriously.

   Because they are taken seriously does not mean they are essential.  I think
Paul is taken much too seriously for Christianity's own good; if they went back
to just Jesus I suspect they would be a lot less bigoted, sexist, etc.

Karl Magnacca

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 16:13:47 GMT

skinner@sp2.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>>That's an observation; most christian sects obviously DO take him seriously.
>>I don't see why they OUGHT to, but they do.

>Then it seems we have agreement: Christianity does take Paul
>seriously.

>Given that, perhaps you would be kind enough to explain again how it
>follows that "Christianity prescribes the death penalty for homosexual
>acts."  Remember: The words of Paul, which Christianity takes
>seriously, suggest that grace has superceeded any need for penalties.

But I say that christianity shouldn't take Paul's word that god's penalties
can be ignored.

>Remember also that to prove the assertion, you shall have to show that
>Christianity *must* do this;

No I don't.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: arras@bfws46.forwiss.uni-erlangen.de (Mike Arras)
Subject: Re: atheist population
Organization: FORWISS, Uni Erlangen, Germany
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 21:44:57 GMT


In article <1992Sep4.205511.3169@spdc.ti.com>, achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>   I wonder if anyone has any idea what proportion of USA citizenry is atheist?
> ...
>taken. Has anyone out there ever seen any estimates? I'm curious as to how 
>much political clout we potentially have.

	Some guy who was a guest on a radio talk show talked about
atheism for an hour and said that 11-13 % of Americans are atheists.
I beleive him (he was not guessing, rather stating a fact, but I
don't know if it's absolutely correct).  Towards the end of the show
he answered questions from callers, rather defended atheism and
just ripped callers "logic" apart.  It was great!

Mike
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Beliefs are refusals to check the facts
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:01:55 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

schiller@prl.philips.nl wrote (in article <1992Sep9.145024.16775@prl.philips.nl>):
>A belief is a statement which the believer refuses to check with 
>observations.
>
>Using this  definition, the distinction between scientific 
>descriptions of the world and religious descriptions become 
>rather clear. In science ALL statements are checked  with
>observations, whereas in religion, if you try to do that, you get
>thrown out from the group :-)

"Well, OBVIOUSLY the Sun is pulled across the sky every day by God,
What, you expect me to believe that the Earth is round?!  It's
OBVIOUSLY flat!  And the sun moves, we don't, so your theory that we
orbit the sun is preposterous!"

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.  Neither side has an
explanation for everything.  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 >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism