HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Undecidability and the FAQ
From: chisnall@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (The Technicolour Throw-up)
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:11:39 +1200
Distribution: world
Organization: Computer Science,University of Canterbury,New Zealand

From article <1nnncpj@lynx.unm.edu>, by bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician):
> [...]
> I await with interest why you claim that CH isn't known to be
> undecidable if we assume ZF is consistent.  The point is quite simple
> to grasp:  we cannot prove from the axioms that the axioms are
> consistent.
> 
> To which I say, so?  We must assume they are for an inconsistent
> system is of little use.  Again, *of*course* we assume that the axiom
> system is consistent.  If it isn't, we cannot be certain of the
> answers we arrive at.
> 
> Therefore, assuming that ZF is correct, the CH is undecidable.  You
> said that, yourself.
> 
> How, then, can you say that the undecidability of CH is undecidable
> from ZF?  You are moving up one rung on the "meta-ladder."  Yes, we
> cannot know if ZF is consistent by staying within ZF.  So?
> 
> Tell me, directly...don't just say "Second Incompleteness Theorem" and
> expect that to be enough because obviously you aren't communicating
> your ideas to me...what it is that is wrong in saying that, given ZF,
> the CH is undecidable.  Claiming that it is unknown, within ZF,
> whether or not ZF is consistent doesn't make a difference...we're
> assuming they are consistent since an inconsistent system is of little
> use.

Let double quotes around an object denote the fact that said object is an
object of the formal theory ZF.  Due to the well known distinction between
language and meta-language we know that X and "X" are not the same thing.

What Cohen proved is, essentially, that ZF |- "con(ZF) -> CH is undecidable".
If we could then somehow show that ZF |- "con(ZF)" then we be able to show
ZF |- "CH is undecidable" by modus ponens.  By Godel however we can't show
ZF |- "con(ZF)".  We are therefore stuck with the relative undecidability of
CH, i.e. in loose informal english, we know that if ZF is consistent then CH
is undecidable.

This all assumes the consistency of ZF of course but note that it shows up in
two roles, con(ZF) and "con(ZF)", which aren't the same.  This dual usage of
the consistency of ZF may be whats been confusing you.

--
Just my two rubber ningis worth.
Name: Michael Chisnall  (chisnall@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz)
I'm not a .signature virus and nor do I play one on tv.
From: eperkio@cc.helsinki.fi
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: End of the World...
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:05:25 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <millernw.716089780@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, millernw@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Neal Miller) writes:
> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
> 
>> [most of the original post deleted for brevity] 
>>	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.

The relevant passages are evidently Rev. 13:16-18, which state that 
people without the sign of the Beast will not be able to buy or sell.
Have you looked at the price tags of modern supermarkets lately? ]>-)

By now every Finn should have a 'sickness insurance card', which
features a bar code.  Incidentally, so does my driver's licence, and
the card I use to borrow books from the local library.  We're doomed... 

Strange are the ways of a paranoid mind.

--
Esa Perki|               "I should honor you?  Why?"
eperkio@cc.helsinki.fi      - Prometheus to Zeus according to Goethe
IRCer Shade
From: ccx018@cch.coventry.ac.uk (Leslie Griffiths (Griff))
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The End of the World is Nigh!!!
Date: 10 Sep 92 08:43:38 GMT
Organization: Coventry University

In article <1992Sep9.173254.12259@tcom.stc.co.uk> bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk (Bruce Munro) writes:
>
>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!
--
>Bruce Munro.  <bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!uknet!stc!bruce

Helluva way to make a few fast bucks out of some suckers, 'though.

Cheers


-- 
Griff				\\         	ccx018@uk.ac.cov
^^^^^		       		 :-=       	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
		        	//
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Undecidability and the FAQ
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:23:38 GMT
 <TORKEL.92Sep5173048@bast.sics.se>  <=lqn!#f@lynx.unm.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a4@newshost.dartmouth.edu

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"?

I don't think I can improve upon Torkel's replies with respect to
accuracy and brevity, but perhaps someone saying the same thing with
different words will help make it clear.

The short answer to your question above is "no, it isn't the same". 
When we prove that something is undecidable in ZFC, we necessarily
prove that fact "outside" of ZFC.  Proving that something is
undecidable in ZFC always requires more "power" than that provided by
ZFC.

Simply put, we know CH is undecidable in ZFC, but we know this by
virtue of a proof outside of ZFC.  We also know that we *can't* prove
the undecidability of CH using just the tools that ZFC provides us
with.  We *have* to go outside ZFC to prove that CH is undecidable in
ZFC.  

Hence, "it is not provable *in ZFC* that the Continuum Hypothesis is
undecidable in ZFC" is different from saying "it is not provable that
the Continuum Hypothesis is undecidable in ZFC". The first is true. 
The second is false.

Does this help?

(PS:  Although I was a math major in my school days, it's been a while
and I'm rusty.  I hope Torkel or some other knowledgeable soul will
correct any inaccuracies above.)
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:17149 alt.slack:2367
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 14 Sep 1992 00:16:20 CDT
From: David James Alexander Hanley <U55870@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.slack
Subject: Forget about Jesus....



     HOW FORGETTING ABOUT JESUS CAN CHANGE YOUR WHOLE LIFE!

                  FRENZIED CAMP MEETINGS!
               STEP FORWARD AND TAKE THE PLEDGE:
                    FORGET ABOUT JESUS!


  I prayed once to jesus and he appeared before me in a host of
angels and said just to forget about him -- that he was sorry he
ever said anything to begin with.  Yes, folks, all thinking about
Jesus ever caused was religions - and even the faithful agree that
there are already too many of them anyway.

  For two thousand years people have been thinking about jesus.  Where
has it gotten them?  Into holy wars, into hassling their
neighbors about salvation, down the dark road to feudalism, etc.

             JOIN OUR DOOR-TO-DOOR CRUSADE
           TO HELP EVERYONE FORGET ABOUT JESUS!

  Even militant Atheists and Satanists make themselves miserable
thinking about jesus - or at least thinking about people who think
about jesus - all the time.  So, they too are invited to join Jesus
Anonymous and call a buddy for help whenever the urge to think about
jesus strikes.



  STREET EVANGELIST:  Pardon me, sir or madam, but have you forgotten
about jesus?
  SIR OR MADAM: Certainly not!
  STREET EVANGELIST:  Well, why don't you?  You might begin to see
things in a whole, new, liberated way!
  SIR OR MADAM:  Get away from me or I'll call the police!
  STREET EVANGELIST:  There are many interesting people besides jesus
to think about:  Vanessa Williams, Emperor Joshua Norton, Huey Lewis and
the news, Nivek Ogre..
  SIR OR MADAM:  You, sir, are a fanatic and an embarassment!

( Note: converations like this seldom convert sir or madam; they are,
however excellent for confirming the street evangelist in his or her
conviction that people might as well FORGET ABOUT JESUS )

  BE THE FIRST ON YOUR BLOCK TO JOIN THE MILLIONS WHO'D RATHER FORGET
ABOUT JESUS AND WOULD PREFER THAT EVERYONE ELSE - PARTICULARLY THE
RESIDENTS OF NORTHERN IRELAND - WOULD ALSO FORGET ABOUT JESUS.



"None as as blind as those who have no eyes"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Christianic Sacrifices
Date: 9 Sep 92 09:24:00 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992

Heard on the news this morning about a collection of recient
ritual murders by Christians. Two examples that I remember
clearly:
 
  A Mr. Sale asked his aunt, who was 75 years old, if she
  wanted "Eternal life in our lord, Jesus the christ." She
  said "Of course," so he promptly dragged her, while she
  kicked and screamed, into the bathroom and drowned her
  in the bath tub, which he had filled before hand for the
  Christanic sacrifice.
 
  When later he was asked why he did this, he said that
  "Jesus our lord god commisioned me to kill the minions
  of Satan." It was learned that Mr. Sale believed that
  his aunt was "possesed" by Satan. Later in his jail cell
  Mr. Sale said she WAS Satan, and that he was Jesus.
 
In another Christanic sacrifice:
 
  A mob of church members burned down a house, where they
  had heard "Satanic child sacrifices" were performed every
  Monday. They described the sacrifices in vivid, grand
  detail, including child molestation and infant canabalism.
  After the deed was done, they went back to their church and
  prayed, thanking their Jesus that no one in their company
  was harmed by the "Satanists."
 
  One of these Christians, however, still possessed a sence
  of guilt and morality. He went to the police a few days
  later, when he heard that a woman and child had been burned
  to death in the fire. One other Christian who participated
  later confessed, and the two named seven others--- these
  seven emphatically deny participation in the murders.
 
  It was later learned that the Christian mob had burned down
  the wrong house: their target was the neighbor's house, where
  every Monday evening a family of Seunies (native Columbians)
  had a barbeeque, where they butchered their dinner beforehand.
  The barbeeques consisted of goats, pigs, lambs and chickens:
  no children.
 
  The Seunies have since fled for their lives, fearing that the
  Christians will come back and finish the job. They looked for
  a new house as far away from a Christian church they could
  find, saying that Christian churches were "seeped in evil."
  (Who could argue with them?)
 
I wonder if these are some of the "Traditional Family Values"
Kind George "baby butcher" Bush want to force Americans to
adopt?

--- Maximus 2.00
From: marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Another quote
Date: 9 Sep 92 12:42:54 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

Ever hear this one:

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


Evan Marshall
marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: End of the World...
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 20:08:51 GMT

In article <davem.48.716235979@county.lmt.mn.org> davem@county.lmt.mn.org (David Mackmiller) writes:
>and 2 thin lines at the end.  These are some kind of synchronization codes, 
>which (I guess) also is the code for '6'.  Three of 'em gives you '666'.  So 

some kind of sync code? too complicated. if i were building scanners
for this thing, i would scan the digits and:

	if (digits[FIRST] == 6
	&& digits[MIDDLE] == 6
	&& digits[LAST] == 6) {
		ok();
	} else {
		beep();
	}
-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jackson@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Bruce Jackson)
Subject: Re: Dealing with theistic relatives
Organization: University of North Texas, Denton
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:43:58 GMT

In article <esposito.2.716174788@uncg.edu> esposito@uncg.edu (Andrew Joseph Esposito) writes:

>Why do you care what your relations know about you?  Don't tell them.  If 
>they ask tell them you do not like to discuss religion.  If they pry tell 
>them whatever, but do not make fun of their religion or offer your opinions 
>unless specifically asked.

So far so good.  There is nothing wrong with avoiding a subject that you
don't wan to talk about.

>You may lie, since you do not believe it is a 
>sin, to avoid a confrontation, or you may tell them exactly what you think 
>and feel.

I do not agree that it is ok to lie to avoid confrontation.  There may not
be any sin involved but there is a moral imperative.  Everyone must stand
for what they believe is true.  If what you believe is not worth defending
than it is probably not worth believing in.  This is not a personal attack
but I can not understand how anyone can advocate living a lie.  I have too
much respect for my relatives to lie to them about something this
fundamental; luckily they have enough respect for my position not to try
to belittle or make fun of it (I do not mind a healthy debate).

>Be forewarned:  If you tell the truth and you haven't given much thought to 
>debating your point of view or if you plan on using the "bible is wrong" or 
>the "bible is unaccurate" or any other bible attack, you could be in for a 
>converting.  

My experience is that the forensic skills of dogmatic theists are not
so sharp.  Also their argumentative skills seem to be inversely
proportional to their eagerness to argue.

Now when Johova's Witnesses, Mormons, or other such religious
representatives come knocking on my door I'd rather run them off
than waste my time on them but I wouldn't lie.  I did get very
upset when one group placed hateful anti-Catholic comic books
and other propoganda on my door since my wife and in-laws are
Catholic.  If I were home when they came around again I would
have given them a piece of my mind.

>Being vauge might work also.  Another thing I "hide behind" 
>is my former religion (my parents religion), Roman Catholisism.  I'm in 
>North Carolina, and Catholics are more misunderstood than Quantum Mechanics.

I've been tempted to claim I was Catholic, B'hai, New age, or
Eckenkar (sp?) just because these groups are even more disliked than
Athiests by the most vocal religionists in my area.  However, out of
respect for the people who earnestly hold these beliefs I do not
belittle their beliefs by mocking them.

Regards,

Bruce  -  jackson@cs.unt.edu





Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Is atheism experimentally refutable?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 16:39:46 GMT

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.  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.

On the other hand, "God" is itself a concept which people have default
assumptions about: most people will assume you mean a God vaguely resembling
the omnipotent, omniscient one who produces miracles and responds to prayers.
It's quite possible to not know if some kind of God exists, while actively
believing the nonexistence of (for instance) the versions of God described in
all churches you are familiar with.  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.
--
"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: marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Calling facts "theory"
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:09:51 GMT
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <n0955t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> Tag1: Bill Riggs (riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs))
> Tag2: <laa4qsINNftk@news.bbn.com> ingria@BBN.COM writes:
>  
> BR> ===========================================================
> BR> "As a historian, I would not hang my hat on evolution.
> BR> There is not enough data there to prove beans. Whether
> BR> Darwin was right or not depends quite solely on his ability
> BR> to have made a calculated scientific wild-ass guess.
> BR> ===========================================================
>  
> As a computer programmer, I would not hang my hat on round earth.
> There is not enough data there to prove beans. Whether Lucius
> was right or not depends quite solely on his ability to have made
> a calculated scientific wild-ass guess.
>  
> And naturally, my training in computer programming makes me an
> authority on round earthism, just as your historianism makes
> you an authority on evolutionary science.
>  
> BR> "[stuff deleted] Here's a radical suggestion: Forget about the
> BR> school board and the PTA. Forget that there are creationist
> BR> ministers outside the gates trying to destroy the truth. DON'T
> BR> WORRY ABOUT IT. Take all the information in Chapter 1 and move
> BR> it to the end of the book. At the end of the school year, run
> BR> through thst last chapter and teach evolution as a THEORY, not
> BR>                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> BR> proven fact. Then, in the last test, ask a single question...
> BR> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> BR> 'Take a position on the theory of evolution and justify your
> BR> position based on the information covered this year.'"
>  
> Say, now THERE'S an idea! Let's teach copulation as just a THEORY
> of pregnancy, not a proven fact. We should also, following your
> lead, teach that the Moon being made of rocks and dirt is just
> a THEORY--- after all, it could very well be made of Swiss cheese
> (prove me wrong). Let's explain to them that gravity isn't proven,
> but teach it as a THEORY.
>  
> Since evolution is a fact, and evolutionary theory is sound, what
> causes you to suggest that evolution be taught as other than proven?!
> 
> --- Maximus 2.00

Don't be stupid, please.


Evan
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God Is Montey Hall
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:33:32 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <n09abt@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>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!

(hee, hee, hee)  I am counting on this.  When xtians tell me
"boy, you will be really surprised on judgement day!", 
my answer is that I will tell God (or whoever is keeping
score) "Look, I used the brains you gave me in the best,
most honest way I could.  If you wish to spend eternity
in the company of wit and intelligence, I'm your boy.
If you really prefer narrow-minded, true-believing
sycophants, put me on the next bus to hell".

>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?!

Sure.  Just watch TBN or the Family Channel FOREVER!
>
>--- Maximus 2.00


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I still seem to be God
Date: 11 Sep 92 10:35:35 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <BuDID9.Hyn@knot.ccs.queensu.ca>, Colleen Davis <3005904@jeff-lab.queensu.ca> writes:
> Well, despite the number of Virulent Fundies on this
> newsgroup, none of them seems to have been able to 
> prove that I'm not God.  I even offered to convert to 
> Christianity if one of them could come up with the 
> proof-- privately, mind you, to those who made an 
> attemp, mind you, so lots of them don't know, I guess.
> 
> So, here it is, one final time-- after this, I'm moving to 
> New Zealand.  If someone can prove that I'm not God, I
> will convert to Christianity-- or another religion as 
> appropriate.  Yes, that's right, the stakes have been raised
> from a mere opportunity for flaming and intellectual 
> smugness to ONE IMMORTAL SOUL.  But, wait, there's more!
> If you can prove me wrong, I will even instruct the disciples
> Steve and Dave to convert and spread the word.  That's *Three
> Souls for the Price of One!*
> 
> colleen
> (still God)

If you were truly God, then we don't to prove you wrong.  You should have
already revealed yourself as God.  But since you haven't, then you're not God.

Anyway, I'm part of the Kingdom of God and you are not in control.


In Him,
Evan
From: U55870@uicvm.uic.edu (David James Alexander Hanley)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: The REAL beginning of the world.
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:49:17 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago


  I find it pretty funny when people try to convince me that the world began
in 4,004( or whatever ) B.C.  The funny part is that the fossils are explained
as ruses "to fool the unfaithful" or whatever.  I then counter by claiming that
the world is in fact 60 years old ( or 1 week, or 10 hours ) and that all
the infrastructure is just placed here by god just to fool us.  When they
say "But the bible says.." i reply "That's just to ensure you pagans go
straight to hell."


great fun.

dave.