HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smmcafee@mtu.edu (Sean McAfee)
Subject: Re: Atheist Clubs at universities
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:11:04 GMT
X-Posted-From: pace2.cts.mtu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <716274413.23932.0@unix7.andrew.cmu.edu> Christopher Dalton <cd27+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor) writes:
>>Some friends of mine and I have been considering forming an
>>'Athiest Club' on campus (as Clubs Day draws near), and are
>>looking for some imput from people who either have ideas or
>>experience with this.

>If nothing else, such a club could make buttons and T-shirts with witty 
>sayings on them.  Buttons and T-shirts with obviously atheist sayings on
>them ("Jesus is a myth") would let other campus atheist/agnostics know 
>that they are not alone.  This may seem silly, but isn't this part of the
>reason there are sexual orientation or ethnicity based clubs?

When I was at college in California two years ago, I saw a guy wearing a
shirt with the rather blunt proclamation "CHRISTIANITY IS STUPID.  Give up."
Not bad.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's for real, all right.  But real what?  It doesn't       Sean McAfee
talk...Is it evil?  Good?  Or just a GEEK!"                smmcafee@mtu.edu
Nick, "Brother Power, the Geek" #1
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: assholes
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 03:49:17 GMT

graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) 
>As far as I can see it has everything to do with constructive logic.
>As far as I understand the field it is one in which to prove that
>there exists an X (having properties PX) satisfying some property P, 
>one must produce an X having the property P. It is not enough to
>derive that the propery P follows from the properties PX.

torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>  1) The statement "there exists an X satisfying PX and P" does not
>follow in any logic that I know of merely from a derivation showing
>that "the property P follows from the properties PX". A proof of the
>existence of something having properties PX is also needed.
>
>  2) It is correct that in constructive logic, a proof of a statement
>of the form "there is something X having properties PX and satisfying
>property P" can always be unfolded into a proof yielding an explicit
>instance of such an X.
>
>3) But what does this have to do what you have been saying? I quote:
>>I disagree. The point of the constructivist proof is that to say
>>that "there do not exist P that are Q" is meaningless unless you can
>>produce at leat on object staisfying P and one satisfying Q. 
>
>  Here, and throughout this exchange, we have not been concerned with
>proofs of existence statements, but with proofs of the *negations* of
>existence statements.

Here I am in error - I had not made the connection about the negations
of existence statements! Thanks for (at last) a constructive reply.

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: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 21:38:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Colorado Springs, CO
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

From the keyboard of rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla):
:After all, it would seem to me that if one indeed believed
:that homosexuality was sinful and imperilled another's soul,
:he would have a duty to inform him of that, at the very least.

This isn't very sound Christian theology.  There aren't special
sins that disqualify you as a saved person.

--tom
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist


	And on the seventh day, He exited from append mode.
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The End of the World is Nigh!!!
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:37:08 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Sep15.052042.1784@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <92255.184401U55870@uicvm.uic.edu> David James Alexander Hanley <U55870@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>
>After reading the fascist garbage coming out of the supporters of the OCA
>and CFV. I would have a hard time condemning someone who takes advantage
>of them, after all I'd rather have an ordinary con artist end up with the
>money than the fascist scum who would otherwise.
>

  I can't believe I'm saying this, but---

  If you live in the States, be sure to catch Thurday's edition of
  'Donahue'.  I understand the OCA will be on to talk about Ballot
  Measure #9 (the "no special rights" initiative).  If I guess
  correctly, Lon Mabon, the head of the OCA, will probably be the
  guest.  Watch this guy.  He's really quite slick, and could almost
  make you believe his bigotry if you didn't have all the available
  information.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
From: jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: worthless comic strips
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:37:13 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


Jesus bin Panthera? That's a new one...
'least, one I never heard before... where's it from?
##
-- 
Jessica McGeary
jmm25@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University
Remember! Arguments should be FUN!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
Subject: Re: atheist population
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:25:08 GMT

In article <3nsnn2b@lynx.unm.edu>
bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>How many atheists?  Good question.
>
>Some of more reliable sources say that it's somewhere around 2% or so
>(and they usually define atheism in a rather strong sense so as to
>weed out "agnostic" views.)
 
Don't believe George Gallup.  For years, the US Census reported around 7%;
recent studies show that it may be as much as 9-10%.
 
>An interesting survey (and I'd have to ask my friend for the source)
>showed that only 2% of the American public would consider the
>possibility of voting for an atheistic candidate for President.
>Without knowing his views on any issue, 98% of the public would reject
>him out of hand for claiming to be an atheist.
 
This figure may be likewise skewed.
 
I'm still searching for the reference, but a possibly unscientific magazine
poll showed that over 50% of people responding wouldn't mind voting for an
atheist, if he or she were qualified for the job.  I'll post that if I can
ever find it.
 
Wayne Aiken                                            "You can BE what
PO Box 30904            slack@ncsu.edu                  you WON'T!!"
Raleigh, NC  27622                                       --"Bob"
(919) 782-8171          StarFleet BBS: (919) 782-3095
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: dead JW and evolution (was: benefits of religious belief)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 00:04:09 GMT

In article <95428@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>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(*).
>(*) or at the very least, any offspring produced this late in life would
>do little to boost fitness. 

Hm?  "fitness" as far as genes are concerned depends on the existence and
survival of offspring bearing them.  It doesn't matter when the offspring are
produced, if they survive.

>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

Actually, it can.  Even if a trait is always expressed past the _average_
age of reproduction it still can be selected on.  When a species has an average
age of reproduction, that means some reproduce before that age and some after,
not that they all reproduce at that exact age.  Dying past the average age
still reduces the rate, because it cuts off the tail of this distribution.

"Evolution" also applies to traits spread non-genetically.  If a meme leads
to its host's death, its host has less time to spread it, and the meme will be
less successful; and there's no maximum reproductive age for memes....
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: assholes
Date: 7 Sep 92 14:10:34 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
> In article <JLTiqB8w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
> >We *have* a moderated group.  alt.atheism.moderated.
> 
>   *You* have a moderated group.  Doesn't show up at my site.

Well, the moderated group has had over four hundred articles, so it isn't
exactly me talking to myself.  It's in Spaf's list of alt groups in
news.announce.newusers.  It's carried by uunet.  I suggest you ask your system
administrator what's happened to it at your site.


mathew
-- 
Bush/Quayle in '92!
God Bless America!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Circular Reasoning?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:21:15 GMT

In article <11SEP199208311085@rosie.uh.edu> st1lv@rosie.uh.edu (McLeod, Stephen) writes:
>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.  

Uh, hold on.  In my catechism, it was clear that everyone has
free will.  Everyone (at least adults) has the ability to know
the difference between good and evil, and the ability to
choose one or the other.  Free will is not predicated on
belief or non-belief.  Christians may suggest other benefits
in return to caving-in to their silliness, but free will is
standard equipment.  Unless ... is your S.O. some sort of heretic?
Is she interested in founding her own cult?

>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?

Actually, it seems like a non-sequitur.  You can't do actions
based on being seven feet tall unless you are seven feet tall.
What has this to do with free will?

No wonder I gave up discussions like this!

(stuff deleted)


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Logical Fallacies
Date: 10 Sep 92 09:56:49 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <wxsnbbp.madhaus@netcom.com> 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.

A couple of important corrections to this!  Firstly, it's REDUCTIO, not
 REDUCIO.  Secondly it's nothing to do with SLIPPERY SLOPE.  In fact it's an
often-used proof technique in mathematics or logic, not a fallacy at all.

It works like this.  Suppose you are trying to prove some theorem T, given
axioms A1, A2, ..., An.  Then hypothesize that T is false, ie that ~T is
true, as well as the axioms.  Then try to deduce (starting from ~T and all
the As) some deduction as well as its direct opposite.  This is a
contradiction, and shows that the combined set of ~T and the As is, as a
whole, inconsistent.  It doesn't say which of the assumptions (~T or the As)
is wrong, but generally you have more confidence in the As than in ~T, so
you throw out ~T and the conclusion is phrased as A1, A2, ..., An |- T.

A good example of RAA in action is the proof that the square root of 2 is
irrational.  It goes like this.
1	Let r = square root of 2.  Let T be "r is not rational".  Prove T.
2	Assume r is rational.  (Ie assume ~T.)
3	Then we can write r = a/b where a and b are whole
	numbers with no common factor.  (One of the axioms.)
4	Squaring both sides gives r^2 = (a^2)/(b^2).
5	But r^2 = 2 by definition.  So (a^2)/(b^2) = 2.
6	So a^2 = 2*b^2
7	So 2 is a factor of a^2.
8	So 2 is a factor of a.
9	So we can write a = 2*x where x is some integer.
10	So 4*x^2 = 2*b^2.
11	Dividing each side by 2 gives: 2*x^2 = b^2.
12	So 2 is a factor of b^2.
13	So 2 is a factor of b.
14	So 2 is a factor of both a and b.
15	This is a contradiction of step 3.
16	So assuming that root 2 is rational, when taken along with all the
	other axioms, leads to a contradiction (an "absurdity").  We have
	to throw out something, and conventional mathematics throws out
	"root 2 is rational".  If you wanted to, you
	could start a new branch of maths where root 2 is rational, but
	you'd have to give up some other axiom to maintain consistency.
	(In fact that's how non-euclidean geometries were found.)

Not everyone accepts this as a valid technique.  It relies on there being
no "middle ground", so that everything must be true or false.  I don't
know how it relates with incompleteness, for example.

-Norman
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Is atheism experimentally refutable?
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 12:04:09 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <1992Sep5.163946.28195@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <dlnnwt+@lynx.unm.edu> 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.

>On the other hand, "God" is itself a concept which people have default
>assumptions about:
[...]
>In this case, saying "I don't believe God
>doesn't exist" is misleading too, since people have specific god(s) in mind
>when they ask that.

I'll agree with that.

And say that if the responder can pick that up, then he should
probably explain that to the person asking.

I have my own concepts as to what "god" is.  Other people have
different concepts.  When somebody asks me if I believe in god, I
usually start by defining "god" and then giving my stance on the
non-existence of such things.

And if that doesn't satisfy them, I usually get a, "No, no, no...I'm
talking about...," description of what they mean by "god" and the
conversation goes on from there.

Again, English isn't based upon formal logic...things aren't defined,
certain assumptions are not explicitly stated and are not always known
to all parties, words mean different things to different people....

-- 
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: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Undecidability and the FAQ
Date: 9 Sep 92 12:44:24 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <NNcqqB3w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>> Thus, it does provide a counter-example to the FAQ which states that
>> the undecidability of a statement is, in itself, undecidable.

>Did you catch Torkel's comment that the FAQ file actually says that the
>undecidability of a statement S in T is itself undecidable in T?

Yes...that's what the FAQ says, too.  I'm saying that it isn't true in
practical terms.

Yes, the consistency of the axioms is undecidable from those axioms.

So?  We're assuming they are.

Thus, we have a "practical" consistent system which means that our
undecidable statements are "knowably" undecidable.

We don't allow for the possibility that our axioms are inconsistent
since to do so throws everything into question.

-- 
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
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:17096 talk.religion.misc:16116
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: atheist population
Date: 12 Sep 92 19:17:08 GMT
 <1992Sep4.205511.3169@spdc.ti.com> <3nsnn2b@lynx.unm.edu>  
 <18rlggINN5u4@bigboote.WPI.EDU>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a4@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <18rlggINN5u4@bigboote.WPI.EDU>
johndunk@planet10.WPI.EDU (John Dunkelberg) writes:

> >Some of more reliable sources say that it's somewhere around 2% or so
> >(and they usually define atheism in a rather strong sense so as to
> >weed out "agnostic" views.)
> 
> BUZZZZ.... wrong answer.
> 
> According to the 1992 Information Please Almanac, a 1990 survey showed
> over 14 million people who said that they practiced no religion.  The
> total population given by the survey was roughly 175 million, giving
> the "non-religious" an 8% of the population.

I think that you are likely to get quite different results if you ask
people if they are strong atheists than if you ask them if they are
non-religious.
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: god is not relevant
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:46:30 GMT

In article <qkmn_m_@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>[deletions]
>We also find that the word "atheist" comes with way too much emotional
>baggage for the world at large.

Any "emotional baggage" is for those who have problems with the word Atheist.
I call myself an Atheist precisely because of the reactions I get out of others

>Thus, we have adopted two other phrases for dealing with others:
>
>NRP (which stands for "No Religious Preference")
>Non-theist
>Brian Evans

Atypical means not typical.  Similarly, Atheist means not theist.  It appears
that you are avoiding the term Atheist because you fear the recriminations
of simple minded fundamentalists.  But this only leads to more discrimination
of Atheists in general if those who really are Atheists are afraid of proclaim-
ing this.  The Atheist "movement" is in the process of learning this from
the gay movment: Atheists must be proud of who they are and unafraid of what
others may think.

Also, as mentioned in other articles, can someone elaborate on the dis-belief
versus non-belief concept.  I fail to see the difference between "I don't
believe god exists" and "I believe god doesn't exist."  I think this stems from
many Atheist's stance toward religion (anti-religious) compared to those who
are the same in terms of belief but not necessarily anti-religious.
Now, if this is the reason why people don't like the term Atheist, you may
actually have a reasonable gripe here, just don't mistake it for a different
belief.  In fact, I know theists who are anti-religious and I would claim
that everyone should be anti-religous regardless of their belief in god,
based on the history of organized religion.

jc
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jim Copeland                                            COPELAND.5@OSU.EDU |
|     "This world is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy              |
|      for those who feel." - Horace Walpole                                 |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Subject: Re: Christianic Sacrifices
Originator: cmgrawbu@c00554-1403br.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:42:40 GMT




>>I think you are missing at least part of the point.  Lots of hubbub is made
>>about "Satanic sacrifices" these days.  What is being pointed out is that far
>>more people are killed in the name of YHVH than in the name of Satan.


Now wait, are you sure about that. Are you talking about today-- in modern
times?? Now maybe during the Inquisition (isn't that what is was called?)
Xians killed--- but today?? Especially since a lot of Satanic stuff is
underground.


Chris
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.homosexuality