HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: In the Infinite Universe
Date: 31 Aug 92 08:23:33 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

ken bell (exukjb@exu.ericsson.se) wrote:
: Here's an apriori argument for the impossibility of infinite magnitudes. 
: If an infinite magnitude were possible, then it must be possible for 
: there to be a greatest number.  But there can't be a greatest number.  
: Hence, there can't be an infinite magnitude. 

Lots of people have commented on this, but there is a simple counter
example: real maths. Infinity is treated as a magnitude in both cardinal
and oridinal arithmetic. In both cases, there is no greatest magnitude
(no greatest infinity).
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: A question
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:51:30 GMT

CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG writes

>With the Liberal approach, tradional family would begin to include
>homosexual relationships which the Republicans (and myself) do not
>want. 

Why would you and the Republicans have homosexual relationships you
don't want?

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Undecidability and the FAQ
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<TORKEL.92Aug28173512@bast.sics.se> <8fgnmj#@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 10:36:41 GMT

In article <8fgnmj#@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:

   >You're calling Steven R. Lay, Ph.D., of the Department of Mathematics
   >at Aurora University a "casual reference"?  You're calling Dr. Keith
   >Devlin (Ph.D. from Bristol University) as a "casual reference"?

  Well, no, I didn't even use the term "casual reference". I said that you
have been misled by casual formulations. But perhaps you have only misled
yourself?

  Your remaining comments, which I have scrutinized carefully, have
no apparent relevance to anything in particular. The simple question at issue
is this, Is it provable in ZFC that the continuum hypothesis is undecidable
in ZFC? The simple answer is, No. Assuming, of course, the consistency of ZFC.
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: A Complete Retraction
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:31:09 GMT
Organization: Soceity for Putting Things on Top of Other Things

In various articles, madhaus@netcom.com wrote:
  [a lot of meta-spelling flames and personal attacks on Gregg Skinner]

In this article, madhaus@netcom.com writes:

A complete apology to Gregg Skinner for the level of personal 
attack and  for the orignal posting.  I think was was more than
carried away in trying to prove something, indeed I was thrown
off the planet.

Gregg was to the point in showing where I was in error in my posts.
It turns out he was referencing Douglas' usage, because his use
of "jive" was in quotes after Jim's first correction.

I still have a feeling that Gregg plays some context-switching games
but so far I have not proven them and have engaged in inappropriate
personal attack.  If I feel Gregg does this again I will let him
know privately.

I apologize for starting this entirely pointless thread.

Best regards, Maddi Hausmann

PS Now where's an easy target like Joyce when we need her? ;-)

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:16:20 EDT
From: <EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: I was wondering...

Here are some questions.  Maybe someone who is religious can answer them (or ev
en if you're not).


If God is a supreme being, then we must assume that he/she/it is MUCH more, if
not infinitely more, intelligent than we lowly humans.  Some problems arise fro
m this assumption.  First, what would an omnipotent and all-knowing entity do w
ith this universe, or for that matter, with us (human beings).  Consider: just
as humans with limited intelligence, we can many times predict the actions of a
n individual if we know certain things about this individual, such as certain p
ersonality traits, the environment in which the individual grew up in, etc.
Well, this all-knowing being with its infinitely greater intelligence should re
alize exactly what each human will do, how this human will react in certain sit
uations.  We are slaves to the situation; our actions in certain situations are
inevitable and unavoidable.  Is this "God," then going to punish us for somethi
ng over which we have no control?   Or, does he enjoy punishing helpless "other
s"? Is this "God" a sadist?  If he is infinitely intelligent, I cannot see how
this pointless punishment would be enjoyable for "him."

Another point:  typical humans (such as you and, I would like to think, I) do
 not get any enjoyment from sycophants brown-nosing (sorry for the euphemism)
 us.  Thus, this "God" shouldn't enjoy the ridiculous brown-nosing we treat it
with.  Did any one (from any Judeo-Christian background) ever really look at
their prayers while reading them?  They basically consist of putting yourself a
nd other humans down lower than dirt, while putting this "God" up on a pedistal
 and saying how great he/she/it (I can't make up my mind) is.

Is this world, or universe for that matter, just a plaything for this "God"?
Is this how an omnipotent being amuses itself?   I would think not.  Illogical
 in any case.

   <TACHYON>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist. (long!)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 06:43:27 GMT

locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (SCOTT C LOCKLIN) writes:
>>
>>>Agreed that it gives you some ease of mind. This is part of the crime
>>>of christianity; You should never have that peace, you should always
>>>strive for more. Please, no whining on how much you question your faith, how
>>>much anguish this causes you. This is the way it should be. It shows that there
>>>is the remnants of a thinking human being in there.
>>
>>  i think it is a shame that you see peace and a thinking human being
>>to be mutually exclusive.
> 
>I think its a shame how you twisted my original statement.

  well, i'm sorry i misunderstood.  but i didn't intentionally twist it.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 23:31:32 GMT

OTOH ...

My beloved Seattle Mariners baseball teams usually fields
nine players to start the game.  However, Dave Valle
(the catcher) is no good, and the starting pitcher
is normally not good either.  That leaves SEVEN players!

The starting time for Mariner's home games is SEVEN:30.

There are three tiers of seats in the Kingdome, and four
bases in the baseball playing field.  3 + 4 = SEVEN.

The Kingdome is SEVEN miles from my house.

QED:  The Seattle Mariners are GOD.

Thank you.  Please send donations to 
The First Church of Baseball, c/o this address.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (SCOTT C LOCKLIN)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist. (long!)
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:26:09 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <sbuckley.714809954@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>SCOTT C LOCKLIN writes:
>
>>>    had it order to obtain it.	And when one obtains salvation by
>>>    grace, his/her life does not become "peachy".  If anything, it
>>>    becomes more trying, more difficult, and with more suffering
>>>    than there was before.  But these are merely *physical*
>>>    manifistations.  God also grants the believer the "peace that
>>>    passes all understanding" such that one may have an inner joy
>>>    and peace regardless of the external circumstances one faces.
>>>    This is the "peachiness" that you refer to.  It is *spiritual*
>>>    "peachiness" and not physical "peachiness".  It is this spiritual
>>>    power that God gives the believer that gives real meaning to the
>>>    statement of Jesus that "...My yoke is easy and My burden light".
>
>>Agreed that it gives you some ease of mind. This is part of the crime
>>of christianity; You should never have that peace, you should always
>>strive for more. Please, no whining on how much you question your faith, how
>>much anguish this causes you. This is the way it should be. It shows that there
>>is the remnants of a thinking human being in there.
>
>  i think it is a shame that you see peace and a thinking human being
>to be mutually exclusive.
 
I think its a shame how you twisted my original statement.
-Scott


Xref: sparky alt.atheism:16514 talk.religion.misc:15595 sci.skeptic:15904 alt.religion.kibology:3707
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.religion.kibology
Subject: Re: Pythagorean Reform Church
Date: 4 Sep 92 11:17:09 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <Bu0BxD.JG3@world.std.com> entropy@world.std.com (Lawrence C Foard) writes:
>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!

Here in The Netherlands (also known as Holland, which is to the North of
Belgium) we have a spiritistic healer by name of Jomanda, who has a habit
of telling people with a complaint "that it is taken care of by the spirits,
and that s/he will know when the spirits have decided to do something
about the complaint by the number 4, which could mean:
a house number, 4 days, 4 weeks, 4 months, 44 days, 4 o'clock, the 
4th day of the week, the 4th day of the month, the 4th person, or 
anything else with a significant connection to 4."
Upon which the audience claps their hands politely, in admiration
for another (promised) miracle.

Of course I'm exaggerating this a bit, but not much.
JWN
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mehawk@agora.rain.com (Michael Sandy)
Subject: Re: Undecidability and the FAQ
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 03:04:01 GMT

Can it be proven that an assertion can't be proven to belong to
Provable, Provably False, Provably Undecidable?

That is, any proof would have to be infinitely long.

Completing the analogy somebody made earlier, we have three main choices
and two pathological:

1)  God Exists and we can Prove He/She/It Exists
2)  God does no exist and can be proven not to.
3)  The existence of God _CAN NOT_ be proved or disproved.

4)  God exists and can be proven not to exist
5)  God does not exist but can be proven to.

I include the latter two because there are strong tendencies among people
to say, "Even if there is no evidence for God's existence, or even
significant evidence against it, I have faith that I am part of His Plan."

Further, people are willing to accept all manner of "proof" that God
exists that do not force his existence.

The latter two imply that the Existence of God question somehow Transcends
logic, or that God can alter mathematical truths. 

(I wonder if some Mathephobia doesn't arise out of not wanting to accept
that proofs are 'More certain than God'  {sorry, can't recall the professor
who said it} )




-- 
Michael Sandy
mehawk@agora.rain.com
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"The above does not reflect the views of any organization."
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please Read This One!
Date: 25 Aug 92 02:00:57 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <10209@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert
Beauchaine) wrote:
>   Bullshit.  Condoms are statistically only 80% effective because
>   people don't use them correctly.  My wife and I have used condoms as
>   our only birth control device (no spermicide) over the last 7
>   years.  We have two children, and when we decided to produce(?)
>   them it took all of exactly 1 month on both attempts.  Don't tell
>   me that condoms aren't effective, else I'd have what appears to be
>   a perfectly natural Catholic or Mormon family by now.

Funny when you mention, my wife stopped using pills before the first
child was born, and I was skeptical that condoms would help us in 
our 'family planning'. It seems they have worked perfectly for the last
16 months. Also, my wife's body is not filled with weird hormones, 
so it's more natural.

It seems people that haven't use condomes don't know what they
are talking about -- I was one of those cases.

Cheers,
Kent

---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: skinner@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: A question
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:15:43 GMT

lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine) writes:

>Homosexuals are not allowed to marry the persons of thier choice.

Why is this a problem?  Who cares whether the government affirms one's
marriage?  I don't.

>Many states _still_ have antiquated laws on the books outlawing
>'sodomy' (often including oral and manual as well as anal sex).
>If you can give me _NON-religious_ reasons for this discrimination,
>I will drop my claim that the government is abusing the seperation
>of church and state by these practices. 

The reason may be societal.  Simply put, past U.S. society in general
had sexual taboos that included these things.  Parts of that society
evidently also thought their taboos should have the force of law.
(Was there a religious reason for this?  I am not aware of any.)
Looking back, it seems it would have been nice if there had been a
"separation of sexuality and state" amendment to the Constitution.
-- 
Gregg Skinner    g-skinner@uiuc.edu         I speak for no organization.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:16425 sci.skeptic:15804 talk.religion.misc:15499
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A Critique of Barbara Thiering's 'Jesus the man'
From: <HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET>
Date: Wednesday, 2 Sep 1992 20:48:30 MDT
Organization: Brigham Young University

I'd like a copy too.  I tried direct e-mail, but couldn't get through.

William Hamlbin
hiswjh@byuvm.bitnet
From: j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: assholes
Date: 2 Sep 92 04:39:49 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Yo mama

Wouldn't you really have to see all of existence to make
such a pompous claim as "there is no god"?

I don't give two shits if you reject religion.

But for some bag of blood and bones that hasn't lived more than 100 years
on this blue ball of earth to reject the idea of "god" altogether. . .

You'd have to be an asshole.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:06:53 GMT

skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>By "Suppose Christianity is true" you may mean "Suppose God exists and
>his actions are described in the Bible" and "Suppose Jesus Christ is
>the Son of God."  Given this, we also might suppose that God would
>like the world to have a religion.  God defines the religion.  We call
>this religion Christianity.

>Is that a fair paraphrase of your definition?

Sounds ok.

>This certainly sets up God's authority to define the religion.  But we
>still don't know what Christianity is.  Consider a parallel example.
>Define justice: "Suppose God exists as above.  Then justice is
>whatever God says it is."  Have we defined justice?

Yes; a definition might not tell you how to determine attributes of
what you're defining.

>Until we resolve what Christianity is, I won't comment much on the
>rest of your post.  I suspect our disagreement is with the definition
>of Christianity.  If so, debating what is or isn't part of
>Christianity may be pointless.  For instance,

>>What?  If Paul died before writing anything, we'd still have the
>>words of Jesus as related by all the other writers.  But this wouldn't
>>be christianity?

>I suspect I'm supposed to agree that the answer to this rhetorical
>question is "no."  But I would answer "yes," for Paul was so
>influential to the beginnings of Christianity that I think the
>religion would be fundamentally different without him.

Different, yes, but does christianity not exist without Paul?

>>  (I agree it would probably look different, but there
>>would still probably be a religion built on the supposition that Jesus
>>was the son of god).

>This sounds like an appeal to the definition of Christianity.  Is
>"religion built on the supposition that Jesus was the son of God" also
>part of your definition of Christianity?  Are there other inclusions
>we should know about?

No, just pointing out that Paul is not essential.

>>I still don't see why Paul must be considered right, unless you
>>take it as a given.

>In my opinion, Christianity takes Paul being right as a given.

And in my opinion, this is not justified any more than supposing
Joseph Smith was right.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: Paranoid musings on Jesus and the Buddha
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 02:49:59 GMT

if the point is that it is easy to creatively present
blasphemous ideas supposedly based on scripture, i agree.
w.r.t. Buddha i assume you are referring to these passages:

	I do not see in the world with its deities, its Maras and
	its Brahmas, in this generation with its ascetics and
	brahmans, with its princes and men, anyone more perfect
	in virtue than myself (S.i.139)

	I have no teacher and my like does not exist in all the
	world (M.i.171)

i dont see the same meaning in the above passages and
the alleged buddha word presented in the original post.
i hope you can see the difference, it would be a chore
to explain and i dont have the original post.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:18:01 GMT

cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
>: The purported claims of divinity by Jesus:
>: 
>: >From the gospel of John, chapter 8:
>: 
>:      "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
>:      At this, they picked up stones to stone him.
>: 
>: The reason they were going to stone him, is that "I am" is the way God
>: characterized himself to Moses, and every Jew knew that claim well.

>Excellent -- I had forgotten this passage, and concede a point. This
>passage should send a shiver up the spine of any student familiar with
>the OT. It is a fair claim to being God, to the point where I consider
>my question answered. A citation has been given.

	No. Jesus only said he had lived before Abraham. 

>:     "Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"  Then Jesus told him,
>:     "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those
>:     who have not seen and yet have believed."

>Ambiguous. I did in fact mention this passage in my post quoted above.
>It is not Jesus who makes a claim, but Thomas. Thomas' words can also
>be taken as an exclaimation, rather than as refering to Jesus as God.
>However, I do think this interpretation is a little forced. The writer
>of the gospel does fairly clearly intend this passage to indicate
>Thomas is confessing Jesus as God.

	No. It was rather common that time to call mighty people "gods". 

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: ydobyns@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (York H. Dobyns)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: In the Infinite Universe
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:58:22 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Aug24.231033.14013@mprgate.mpr.ca> siemens@mprgate.mpr.ca (Curtis Siemens) writes:
>Sorry to burst your proof, but ACTUAL INFINITES do not exist.
>Infinity is just a concept.  If an actual infinite did exist, then
>I could do ordinary math with that quantity, and produce an
>infinite (concept here :)) amount of contradictions.

What gives you the idea that our having a symbol for
something has anything to do with whether that thing exists? What about
the assorted peoples with no word for any number bigger than 3?
In any case, Cantor developed a consistent mathematics of transfinites
a century ago.

You don't think any actually infinite collections exist? How many
quantum states are available in a 1/r^2 potential? What is the density
of electromagnetic modes in the vacuum? Describe the density of the
singular point at the center of a black hole, or the magnitude of the
curvature tensor you would encounter there (in finite subjective time)
if you jumped in, without using "infinity."

>If you want a better statement of this read the book, "Colam
>Cosmological Argument" by William Lain Craig (PhD in philosophy).

Well, you've just alerted us to the existence of another philosopher 
who needs to be ignored; this one sounds almost as cute as Hegel's proof 
that only seven planets could exist.

If you want to learn more about the mathematics of transfinite quantities
and their role in set theory (together with prospects of actually
infinite collections) read "Infinity and the Mind," by Rudy Rucker
(PhD in mathematics, as I recall.)

York Dobyns		ydobyns@phoenix.princeton.edu
PhD in physics, as long as we're playing title-upmanship here.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism