HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Undecidability and the FAQ
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<TORKEL.92Sep7145557@isis.sics.se> <6lsn6yh@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:38:19 GMT

In article <6lsn6yh@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:

   >I disagree with your first sentence.  The statement "A is undecidable
   >in T" doesn't "imply" that T is consistent...it assumes it is.

 Sorry, but now you're venturing into the realm of senseless
babbling.  "A is undecidable in T" implies "T is consistent" (for
theories T that use classical logic) in the same sense that "x is a
multiple of 4" implies "x is even". If you don't understand this, you
will understand nothing in logic.

  Your remaining comments are, as usual, irrelevant to the point at issue,
viz. that it is not provable in ZFC that CH is undecidable in ZFC.

  It seems you have an unhappy love affair with mathematics, hence your
chosen designation "mathemagician". I really don't know what more to say
to you. The mathematics of your dreams is perhaps nice and interesting,
but it isn't mathematics.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Free will - the "Jarekian" heresy.
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:33:03 GMT

(Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>In <1992Aug29.151018.7211@ac.dal.ca> Sean Hartigan wrote about the
>meaning of omniscience:
>-Jarek:
>>> God should be ABLE to know all future free actions, 
>>> not HAVE to know all future free actions
>-Sean:
>> [Such a God] might not know, for example, that he is only a sub-God 
>> of another bigger God, never having bothered to find this out.  
>>
>Imagine yourself as such a being. Wouldn't you, first of all, learn
>about which things you have to know and what consequences would this
>knowledge have? 

Jarek projecting his ideals onto God yet again! Jarek how do you know
what a God would do? You are just guessing.

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: U55870@uicvm.uic.edu (David James Alexander Hanley)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The End of the World is Nigh!!!
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:44:01 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

In article <1992Sep9.173254.12259@tcom.stc.co.uk>, bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk (Bruce
Munro) says:
>
>If anyone wants a good laugh then I suggest popping over to
>soc.religion.christian and reading about how the world is going to
>end next year (again :-)). Apparently some bible-thumping radio host
>called Harold Camping has it all sussed from some biblical verses and
>has written a book all about it.  The funny thing is seeing all the
>crowd over there taking it deadly seriously. What a bunch of losers!

  Pretty much anything posted on soc.religion.christian is going to be
pretty funny.  Or asinaine.  Or scary.  I wonder if I can convince them
to sell me their houses cheap?  They ought to if they really beleive it.

>
>On a related note, hasn't some Korean church predicted the end of the
>world next month? Someone told me a story that the followers of the church
>are so convinced of it that they're giving away all their wordly goods
>before it happens. They're going to feel pretty bloody stupid in
>November, the silly sods!

  I think I'll run, not walk, run, and make freinds with some devout
koreans.


DAVE!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth)
Subject: Additions to Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)???
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 00:26:17 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Keywords: FAQ, atheism

In article <BuaqqB2w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
Good ideas deleted to save some bandwidth.

>2. Introduction to reasoned debate.  Also known as "Logic 101".  Describes
>   what constitutes a logical argument and what doesn't.  Covers common
>   mistakes like "A => B therefore B => A", assumptions include conclusion,
>   and so on.


I hope that the FAQ will give actual examples of these falacies...
All apples are fruit.  Therefore all fruit are apples.
Einstein was the greatest of scientists and he believed that fruits are
apples, too.
It is inconceivable that there are any fruit that aren't apples.
Trees bear fruit.  Apples grow on trees.  Therfore all fruit are apples.


Can we come up with other examples of flawed logic and identify the names
of the above?


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Another quote
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:36:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.124254.6597@iscsvax.uni.edu> marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>Ever hear this one:
>
>        Without science, Christianity is lame.
>        Without Christianity, science is aimless.
>

Nope. Sounds rather silly. Must have been a Christian came up with this one.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
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 03:42:20 GMT

graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
>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.

torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>  I can't make any sense of this. To avoid lengthy babbling about its
>obscurities and peculiarities: could you please rephrase in clear terms
>what you are saying?

Oh no the infamous Torkel ...
Seriously all I am saying is that from a constructivist point of view
that claim that "square circles do not exist" is not only a logical
question it is an empirical one, because you must produce an object x
satisfying circle(x), and an object y satisfying square(y), to verify
the claim. Producing these x and y is an empirical question.

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: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Your Heaven
Date: 9 Sep 92 09:21:00 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992

Tag: frisinv@alleg.edu
 
??> "You die."
 
Let's hope so.
 
??> Oops, you were wrong and there is a god (or more that one
??> god or some goddesses or a giant carrot with divine powers...).
??> You were a nice guy during your life so this being asks you to
??> join it in heaven."
 
Then again God could just as easily HATE nice guys. Who's to say?
 
??> "Now a [in] day heaven consists mostly of information exchange,
??> practicing various artforms and sciences, and lotsa
??> philosophizing on whatever the topic of intrest is that day."
 
Gee, heaven sounds just like a normal day on Earth.
 
??> "If you're lucky, you might get build a new universe or two.
??> would you accept the invitation even though you spent your life
??> in the firm belief that such a place exists (the alterative is to
??> cease to exist. Not out of spite, there just isn't an alterative
??> existance)?"
 
It would be just as foolish and inane to refuse to believe that
"such a place" exists when one is in it, as it is to believe that
God and heaven exists when there is no evidence that it does, in
the here and now. Theists wrongly believe in God and Heaven though
there is no logical reason to; atheists who found themselves in
the situation you describe would probably assume that they were
still alive but suffering mental illness---- I would.

--- Maximus 2.00
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: One example of the benefits of religious belief
Date: 6 Sep 92 08:50:48 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK


In article <asZiqB13w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>International Guardian, Friday August 28th.  Quoted without permission.
<...>
>   Sir Montague Levine, the Southwark coroner, said the refusal by Brian 
>   Hunt "placed an intolerable burden on the professionals dedicated to 
>   saving life".

Indeed.  Pity that they should be obliged to bother with such creatures.

>   Doctors warned him that if the bleeding increased his life could be in
>   danger, but he still refused blood. He underwent surgery three days 
>   later but bleeding continued and he went into a coma.

It is outrageous that the surgeons' time and attention, as well as the
means that have gone into this (that's the normal people's tax pounds)
should have been wasted in such a silly way.  Everyone has the right
to get medical treatment, but no one should be allowed to abuse it.
Either one wants to live or one doesn't.

>   Sir Montague recorded a verdict of death by misadventure.

What misadventure?  Make that "death by religion".

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Beliefs are refusals to check the facts
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 05:10:02 GMT

(Brian Kendig) writes:
>>I think a better definition of 'belief' would be "a premise, supported
>>by evidence and conjectures, which someone holds to be true."

Premises are never supported by anything. If they were they would not
be premises. People seem to get confused here. A lot of people make
the following mistake, and I think you are too Brian,

	1)	assume A
	2)	now having assumed A, I notice some "observed fact" F
			that agrees with A (ie: does not contradict A)

Now F is not supporting evidence for my premise A. The relationship
between then is one way from A to F only.

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: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Another quote
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:00:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep9.124254.6597@iscsvax.uni.edu>, marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu writes...
>Ever hear this one:

>        Without science, Christianity is lame.
>        Without Christianity, science is aimless.

Hmm.  I'm a scientist who studies the auditory perception of words.  How, pray
tell, is Christianity going to clarify how words are recognized?

Here's a better one:

	Without science, Christianity is lame.
	Without Christianity, sciences gain.

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*      I'm the person that	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*      the president
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*      warned you about.    
******************************************************************************
From: jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christianic Sacrifices
Date: 13 Sep 1992 06:51:52 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


But my dear, dear boy. I do not believe in the god of the Bible. At least,
not the one that people generally think of (as there were several other,
though strongly disliked, gods running around in the background, usually
getting Israel into trouble).  And I'm more of a pagan sort of person
than I think the fundies would like. She is far kinder than we give her
credit for...

I guess my time as an editor is just showing. I think I would have ignored
the whole thing if it had said "the idea of God" or "the belief in God" 
instead. Thassall.

(BTW- wasn't there a war that began over some man's ear being chopped off?
That's at least one that wasn't based on what 'God' wanted.)
-- 
Jessica McGeary
jmm25@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University
Remember! Arguments should be FUN!
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:25:54 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <190pucINNduq@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:
>In a previous article, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) says:
>>>Please expand on what "whatever means necessary" includes.  I take
>>>it that it does not include the accusation that your persecutors
>>>are unjust, wrong, immoral, whatever.
>>Hmm...I guess if I thought it would be effective, I would accuse
>>my persecutors of all those things. However, it would be intellectually
>>dishonest, but seeing as I'd be trying to stay alive, and I don't
>>believe in morality, I couldn't call it wrong, and probably would do it.
>>I do think, however, that it would be most likely logically flawed.
>>(I.e. I'd be lying).
>
>Hmm... Y'know, I think I can catch you in a logical fallacy here, Eric.
Yes, I saw this coming.
I don't think it's a logical fallacy.

>Let's see... You assert that morality is nonexistant, or at least its
>existance is unproven. Therefore, to use it is "intellectually dishonest."
>However, you state that "if I thought it would be effective, I would accuse
>me persecutors of [immorality]."
Yes, these are both true.

> Therefore, you will do whatever is in your
>best interest.
This is untrue, nor did I ever state it.
I do things that I find to be enjoyable.

> In this case, though, wouldn't it be in your best interest
>to support Douglas's statement that bigotry is immoral?
Not clearly. I'm enjoyiung disagreeing with it.

> If you manage to
>invalidate his claim, you will be unable to use the same argument to defend
>youself should you ever need to. Therefore, you are not being logical about
>this. :-)
It is my considered opinion that the enjoyment I am getting out of
having this argument is greater than the probability of me being able
to use this argument effectively * the probability of me needing to
use this argument * the probability of my invalidating it here in
a lasting fashion * my loss of enjoyment if I am unable to convince
people that persecuting me is immoral.

Therefore, it IS in my best interest.
-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: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: God Is Montey Hall
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992
Date: 15 Sep 92  10:48:22

Tag: Jeffrey Clark (ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark))
 
>>Drew> "If this 'evidence' were not there, would you have any
>>Drew> choice about accepting the story of the creation?  You
>>Drew> cannot have a choice unless there is an alternative
>>Drew> available.  God makes two doors and says, 'Go through
>>Drew> door #1.' When you go through door #2, you say, 'God
>>Drew> didn't make this door. It made itself.'"
 
>DR> Suppose, for the sake of killing time, God did create these
>DR> "two doors" ["creationism" as in the myth in the bible being
>DR> one "door,", the evidence that proves evolution, i.e. the fossil
>DR> record, geologic column, ice cores, coral samples, lab
>DR> observations, etc., etc., etc. being the other "door"]. Why
>DR> would He make the evidence for evolution as so utterly convincing
>DR> that it is, if He wanted people to "choose" creationism? Was it
>DR> to test humans' faith or their stupidity? To test their piousness
>DR> or judge the depths of their abysmal ignorance?
 
JC> "It is a possibility that God means us to take door #2. He just
JC> left such a horrifically small amount of proof of his own
JC> existence in an ambiguous book that he meant for it to be
JC> ignored. This is to sort the sheep from the lambs. Only those
JC> willing to use blind faith in their lives go through door
JC> #1 and onto the reject pile (i.e failed specimen). But those
JC> willing to accept the evidence, use thought and logic, willing
JC> to make a stand against the current orthodoxy etc go through
JC> door #2 and onto Nirvana where we can all keep God (whom we were
JC> all sure never existed, as he casually points out that that was
JC> want he meant us to think) company with some intellectually
JC> stimulating conversation. Maybe he wants us to come and solve
JC> one of his problems like where did he come from. Just conjecture,
JC> but it's a possibility!"
 
Now that I think about it some more, and since you pointed out
the obvious, YOU'RE RIGHT. God most definately would not wish
to spend Eternity with blind, ignorant True Believers! He would
much rather spend the time with thinking, questioning, thought-
provoking, witty and conversational atheists!
 
To expand on the same enlightened possibility you introduced:
God, like myself, must prefer women with a lot of brains, instead
of big breasts and empty heads. (Of course He and I will settle
for what We can get.) Can you imagine the HELL spending Forever
with dullards would be?!

--- Maximus 2.00
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Date: 8 Sep 92 10:27:14 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:
> It would be nice if the theist's part were to be taken from actual
> quotes rather than an atheist imagining what a theist would ask.

They're all questions which theists have actually asked.  It's not like a
Socratic dialogue; the imaginary theist doesn't say things like "Am I being
foolish in asking..." or "Do you have any other comments to make now that
you have demolished my arguments?"

> That doesn't mean it can't be presented in a question and answer format,
> but if so it should be presented as "Here are questions that we have
> been frequently asked about atheism, and here are the most common
> answers to these questions."

Most of the questions are ones which are currently in the FAQ file.  What
I've done is reorder them, so that we start off with first principles ("What
is an atheist?") and proceed from there towards the really tricky ones ("How
do atheists justify moral behaviour?").

The remaining questions are ones which expand on side-issues which crop up
when answering other questions -- for example "But isn't not believing in X
the same as believing in not X?"

The basic idea (suggested by Ken Arromdee, I think) was to re-write the FAQ
in such a way that it formed a coherent whole which you could read from start
to finish, rather than a bunch of questions and answers in random order.  I
started out trying to write the thing in essay form, but that way it's hard to
bring up side-issues without making the prose convoluted and hard to follow.

What it really needs is hypertext; I've thought about building a Hypercard
stack about atheism, but that'll definitely have to wait a while.

>                               But to have an imaginary theist ask
> questions that can easily be shot down is simply setting up a straw man.

Oh, they're not straw-man questions which can easily be shot down.  The
imaginary theist is sometimes quite persistent, too, and doesn't concede
points easily.  ("Even if atheism isn't a religion, surely it's still based
on faith?")

Perhaps the best answer is wait and see.  Sorry it's taking so long, but I am
doing this in my spare time and it's quite hard work.  There'll be plenty of
time to discuss and alter the new stuff before I consider replacing the old
FAQ file.


mathew
-- 
Bush/Quayle in '92!
God Bless America!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: I still seem to be God
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 14:26:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.154508.2095@ncsu.edu> cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes:
>
> The argument is not if we can prove that you aren't God--- but can you
> prove that you are.

Gosh, are you saying that the proponents of a God-theory are obliged
to _prove_it_to_be_true_ before they should be taken seriously?

For some reason that's not one we hear from theists very frequently.

Please prove that the claims made by your religion are true, particularly
the central claim of the existence of God.

> It will be the fallibility of your argument that will prove itself.

On the contrary, I think you've shot yourself straight through the foot
with this commendable, if new-found, insistence on proof up front.


> Chris

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Marx? was: Re: Dealing with theistic relatives
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 10:27:42 GMT


In a previous article, jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth) says:

>In article <esposito.3.716504399@uncg.edu> esposito@uncg.edu (Andrew Joseph Esposito) writes:
>>
>>The audience makes the arguement.  I'd quote Marx in an Academic setting, 
>                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Which Marx?  Was it Groucho, Chico, Zeppo, Harpo (did he use a horn, or his
>harp?),

You forgot Gummo!!

 or that muscian Richard?
>
>
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Assembly of God???  Strange.. *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // I was not aware that the diety  *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // was available in source form..." *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
From: jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: worthless comic strips
Date: 13 Sep 1992 06:46:28 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


I think the problem with Popeye had something to do with hypersensitive
British anti-abortion weirdos.  I'm not sure, though.

I'm SO glad my paper didn't carry BC before I left for college.
-- 
Jessica McGeary
jmm25@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University
Remember! Arguments should be FUN!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dbell@maths.tcd.ie (Derek Bell)
Subject: Re: Dealing with theistic relatives
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 19:45:34 GMT

achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.134535.8927@maths.tcd.ie> dbell@maths.tcd.ie (Derek Bell) writes:
>>bwilliam@iat.holonet.net (Bill Williams) writes:
>>>Oh yeh... I'll give you some advice so you can answer quick on your feet
>>>to the question (by a misty eyed Mother) :
>>>"Well then, if you think there is no god, then whre did Granpa go when he
>>>died?"
>>>--- Answer : "I guess he went wherever he thinks he went"
>>
>>	Mother:"He thought he was going to heaven; so you think there's a
>>heaven, how can you be an atheist?"
>> 
>>>DO NOT SAY HE ROTTED IN THE GROUND, to your mother.
>>
>>	But your solution allows her to pull the mat from under you in a
>>debate.
>
>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. 

		I thought the original question was an attempt by the mother
to persuade her child to be a theist. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted it, or
came across as rude; I didn't mean that. I agree that her feelings should be
respected.
-- 
Derek Bell {dbell%maths.tcd.ie,belld%{unix1,vax1}.tcd.ie}@cunyvm.cuny.edu 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism