HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Logical Fallacies
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 08:42:33 GMT

In article <716156555.27990@minster.york.ac.uk> cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk writes:

   >How do you distinguish these two cases?

  By (syntactic) inspection: do the assumption and the conclusion form
a pair A,not-A or do they form a pair not-A,A?

  The impression that the distinction is problematic is usually the
result of reflections along the following lines: if we take e.g. the
proof that sqrt(2) is irrational, this, too can be represented as
a classical reductio, since to assume that sqrt(2) is rational is
after all the same as assuming that it is not irrational.

  What this overlooks is that the distinction is one of syntax, not
semantics. We must look at the actual words used. "sqrt(2) is
not irrational" is indeed equivalent to "sqrt(2) is rational", but
this does not mean that the sentences are identical.

  Furthermore, "sqrt(2) is not irrational" and "sqrt(2) is rational"
are logically equivalent only given some notion of what constitutes
logic. These two statements are not equivalent in constructive logic;
hence the constructive acceptability of Euclid's argument, but not
of proofs by classical reductio.

  Of course within classical logic, any argument can if we like be
formulated as a classical reductio. This is not uncommon among
mathematics students. In proving A, they start by saying "let us
assume that A is false". Then they prove A, by an argument which
doesn't use the assumption, and conclude "but this contradicts the
assumption that A is false, so A is true". In classical logic this is
perfectly correct reasoning, but poor style.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Atheist Clubs at universities
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:07:36 GMT

smmcafee@mtu.edu (Sean McAfee) writes:

>>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.

I don't see much point in this.  Atheists have a bad enough rap already--
no need to incite more hatred.  Remember, these religious folk aren't usually
the most rational people...

keith
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Calling facts "theory"
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 14 Sep 92 13:01:09 GMT

In <18vr04INNo9p@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary) writes:


>The Catholic church has, yes, accepted evolution. And has apologized
>to Galileo, much good it'll do the poor man now. And even said that 
>the Big Bang theory of the creation of the Universe is consistent with
>what the Church believes, tho I don't think they're saying this is exactly
>how they believe it was created.

>But I'm still pissed at them for what they told Hawking and the other
>cosmologists. No looking too closely into the moment of creation, because
>that should be left a mystery and it's something that only God can under-
>stand anyway.

It is my understanding, based on conversations with a mathematician who
has carefully read Hawking's book on "....Time", that Hawking himself
does not look at the moment of creation, but instead has a vague theory
of circular time which it is impossible to follow from his popularized
account.

To Hawking, apparently, the universe has always existed and his
attempts to get around such things as the constant conversion of hydrogen
into heavier elements are incomplete at best.

By the way, I am a topologist, and a joke about my kind of mathematician
is that we cannot tell the difference between a doughnut and a coffee
cup.  From everything I have heard of Hawking, he seems to be the kind
of physicist who cannot tell the difference between time and space.

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

Yes, I have lots of fun over on talk.abortion.  I think I'll have
some fun over here too.

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: assholes
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:48:59 GMT

In article <cD3RqB11w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>> In article <LsHqqB4w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>> >Care to explain why?  It seems to me that I can build an empirical circle
>> >using compasses, paper and scissors, and then check experimentally whether i
>> >has four corners each of which is a right angle.  No theory is involved.
>>
>> An "empirical circle" is technically not a circle, but rather a
>> physical approximation of a mathematical construct.
>
>I'd say that a physical (or empirical) circle is an approximation to a
>mathematical circle myself.  Either that or there are an awful lot of people
>misusing the term "circle".
I'll buy that.

Doesn't help, though. I would say that "no square circles" is
vague. "No mathematical square mathematical circles" is logically
false and "No physical square physical circles" is empirical.

-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: L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Beliefs are refusals to check the facts
Date: 11 Sep 92 09:19:27 GMT
Organization: University of Bradford, UK
Originator: 90908502@muser

In article <1992Sep9.145024.16775@prl.philips.nl> schiller@prl.philips.nl writes:
>Having followed the discussion on beliefs in science and religion,
>I think one would get a clearer picture of what one means
>by beliefs if one clearly states that:
>
>A belief is a statement which the believer refuses to check with 
>observations.

This is a very convenient definition to label all religious beliefs as
irrational nonsense, (something I wouldn't disagree with).  
Unfortunately, it is easy to find counter examples.  I believe that 
my house still exists while I am at the university today.  Or, I believe 
today that the sun will rise tomorrow.  Neither of these can I verify 
absolutely with observations, however I still believe them.  

What we can say is that we are surrounded by evidence and counter-evidence 
for a particular belief, none of us can look at all the evidence available 
before coming to a decision as to the truth of a particular belief.  So we 
cut corners and select our evidence based on past experience, education 
and prejudice.  With that small amount of selective evidence, we can at
best only come to a probability for the truth of an assertion.  

It would be more accurate to say that belief is a probability of truth
based on incomplete evidence, whether the evidence is incomplete due
to lack of observation or unavailability.  Outside of theoretical
logic, we always have incomplete information.

It should be added that many people round off their probabilities to 
either absolute belief or absolute disbelief.  Not only does this show 
a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of belief but also is likely 
to severely piss off a large number of people with different views.
Very unproductive.

So what I should have said at the beginning is 'religion is very probably
irrational nonsense'

>
>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 :-)

I think you can say: "In science ALL statements are checked  with
SOME SELECTED observations based on previous scientific success, 
whereas in religion DIFFERENT observations are selected, usually based on
prejudice. 

-- 

Leonard               e-mail:  L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Would you do ANYTHING God told you....?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:05:44 GMT


No, because my standards are not shared by God.  
He'd do better to ask then explain why.  I respond very well to reason.
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The End of the World is Nigh!!!
Date: 15 Sep 92 05:20:42 GMT
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

In article <92255.184401U55870@uicvm.uic.edu> David James Alexander Hanley <U55870@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>  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.

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.

Before you flame me for using the word fascist loosely let me point
out that some of the groups behind the CFV are directly calling for
legalized genocide against homosexuals, if calling for the murder
of >30 million isn't nazi like I don't know what is.

-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: Colleen Davis <3005904@jeff-lab.queensu.ca>
Subject: I still seem to be God
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:39:09 GMT

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)
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Would you do ANYTHING God told you....?
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:16:08 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <88903@netnews.upenn.edu> stuart@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Joseph Stuart ) writes:
>From: stuart@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Joseph Stuart )
>Subject: Re: Would you do ANYTHING God told you....?
>Date: 14 Sep 92 16:52:30 GMT

>In article <192basINNl90@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>>       For example, if God told you to kill a 17 month old baby, would
>>you do it ? I am not asking IF God would ask you to do such an evil thing,
>>but would you do it if God told you ?
>>       I have never heard a decent answer, most say something like "my
>>God would never ask such a thing". But I am not asking if God would ask,
>>but if God asked them to do it, would they do it ? So, let me put it this way,

>Not only is this a merely evasive answer, but, in the case of Judaism, 
>Christianity and Islam, it is a mistaken answer since God asked Abraham to
>do just that.  Of course he didn't make Abraham carry through with it, but
>he did take the "joke" pretty far.  If he did it once, why couldn't he do
>it again?

>scott

No Abraham didn't, but Saul went into a nearby city and killed every man, 
women, and child. And when he came back from this slaugher-campaign, God
rebuked him because he failed to kill the cattle too, and other little
animals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        ANTHEM BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: End of the World...
Date: 10 Sep 92 23:59:49 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep10.002930.22158@newsroom.utas.edu.au>,
Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) wrote:
> 																			THE FINAL WARNING OF GOD
> 																						JESUS IS COMING
> 															 IN (sic) 1 AM 29TH OCT. 1992

Well, the same group is also operating here. I saved their paper,
and will write to a couple of their addresses after October 29.
Maybe it would get some of them realize the silliness behind it
all -- hopefully.

Kent

"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 17:54:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.143608.18514@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.193139.4493@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>>>Perhaps Mr. Rescorla, you could be a bit clearer about what your point
>>>is.  How the hell do you prove that anything is immoral?
>
>>I have no clue. That's why I don't make claims about
>>what is moral or not.
>This is idiotic.
On the contrary. The blind assertion of unsupported moral claims
is what is idiotic. I am merely pointing it out.

>  If you have no standard for deciding if someone has
>adequately demonstrated the immorality of something or other, why are
>you complaining that people are failing to meet this standard?
On the contrary, I do have a standard. Start with premises
I can agree with and show from them in a logical fashion
that certain acts are immoral. I suspect it's an impossible standard
to meet, but what that suggests is that the claim that certain
acts are immoral is unsubstantiated, not that I am somehow requesting
something unfair.

>For your information, most people seem to be using common-sense
>standards involving what causes harm (as that would be normally
>understood) to decide what is immoral or not.
>  For instance, if I were
>to break into your home, kick you out of you wheelchair, and choke you
>until you gave me everything of value which was handy, a common-sense
>perpective would tell us that this is immoral.
I don't have the slightest clue what you mean by "common sense".
This strikes me as in precisely the same class as claiming that
proposition Y is intuitively obvious. I.e. you are totally unable
to support it and therefore are resorting to merely asserting it.
Are you able to make a logical argument, or do you think that being
insulting and irrational will convince me?

>  You may disagree, but
>you disagreement has so far failed to acheive any kind of intellectual
>coherence.
No, it is your position, sir, which has no intellectual coherence.
Hell, it doesn't even have any intellectual foundation. Why should
I have any respect for propositions which you have quite clearly
pulled out of thin air?

I would point out, sir, that you are in the position of claiming
that certain acts are immoral. I am challenging that claim. It is
normative that propositions are assumed to be untrue until proved
otherwise. I am simply asking that you support your hitherto
unsupported assertion.

-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: Paranormal
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992
Date: 15 Sep 92  10:50:38

Tag: Shamim Zvonko Mohamed (sham@cs.arizona.edu (Shamim Zvonko Mohamed))
 
SZM> "A couple of questions about being atheist in a believer's
SZM> world:
 
=NOT YET= their world. God willing (smile), it never will be!
 
SZM> How important is atheism to you?"
 
Since I hold church/state seperation sacrosanct, I find that
some active functions of my atheism, i.e. mostly in the political
arena, is extremely important to me; also to others who count on
my defending their right of freedom from religion, whether they
know it or nay.
 
SZM> "Are your close friends also atheists?"
 
One is a theist (neo-Christian, i.e. Satanist). With all other
friends, the issue seldom comes up. Some times in political fights
(i.e. civil rights defense) the issue comes up.
 
SZM> Is your SO also atheist? Or, if you're single: would you go
SZM> into a relationship with a theist?"
 
I live with two women. One is Catholic, the other is undescribed.
Another womanfriend is Newage (rhymes with sewage), and another is
ethnic Jewish and religious Wiccan. I refuse to base relationships
on something as inoculous as religion: however, if they place
religion (just like any other addiction) before honor, responsibility,
and commitment, I'll quickly have nothing to do with them.
 
I find intellect and brain ability to be far more attractive in a
woman than her religion or lack of one. Let's say it never comes
up in bed.
 
SZM> "On a slightly different slant: any atheists out there that
SZM> believe in 'paranormal' phenomena?"
 
No one has ever demonstrated "paranormal" ability (i.e. phsychic,
"spoon bending" and the like), so why do people believe in it?
When the frauds are caught cheating, the True Believer says "Well,
they were just cheating THIS time, not the other times."
 
There is no such thing as paranormal phenomena. After 10,000 years
you would think that at least one person could prove they had the
psychic abilities they claim, but so far none have.

--- Maximus 2.00
From: millernw@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Neal Miller)
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:37:29 GMT

charless@sco.com (charles stross) writes:

>Lo, in article <1992Aug31.133413.202585@uctvax.uct.ac.za> it is written:
>>======================================================================
>>Extract from 'Seal of God' by F.C.Payne (1974):
>>
>>BIBLE NUMERICS - FIRST ASPECT
>>
>>The New Testament begins with the genealogy of Christ back to
>>Abraham. It is interesting to note that this genealogy itself is
>>divided into three sets of 14: Abraham to David (14), David to
>>Babylon (14), Babylon to Christ (14). See Matt. 1:17. It has two
>>natural sectiond, verses 1-11 and 12-17. I am but giving some
>>examples from the section 1 to 11, the latter section contains
>>similar phenomena which need not be enumerated. The following now is
>>from the Greek, in whick the N.T. is written. The actual numerics are
>>by Dr. Panin.

>BZZZT wrong!

>The N.T. was written in Aramaic and translated into Greek about one to
>two centuries later.

>... another one bits the bag ...

>[ rest of this meretricious idiocy deleted ]

	How does either argument prove or disprove that a god wrote the
bible, as the header of the article suggests?


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Neal Miller         | "Why not go mad?"  | millernw@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
 Clarkson University |     - Ford Prefect |     dark@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Date: 12 Sep 1992 04:59:10 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) says:

>I've been asked to support my claim that telling a gay teen-ager
>s/he's immoral, sinful, sick, going to hell, etc. is IMMORAL.
>
>Basic evidence:  You're dealing with a kid.  You should NEVER try to
>make a kid feel bad about themselves.
>
>Unless, of course, you feel good about making a teenager commit
>suicide.
>
Could you please give the definition of "morality" that you are using? I
just looked it up in the dictionary, and found this:

(Dictionary: The New Webster's Expanded Dictionary. Sorry, I can't afford
the OED.)

Moral: a. Relating to morality or morals; ethical; virtuous; supported by
                                                   ^^^^^^^^
reason and probability.

Virtuous: a. Marked by virtue; morally good; pure or chaste.
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hmm...Circular definitions?

Therefore: As I said, perhaps you should define morality. Otherwise, you
are standing on as shaky ground as any believer in God. This is why Eric is
challanging you on this point -- you are using a vague and undefined term.

"I believe in God."
"I believe in morality."

See? No real difference, unless you can point at something and call it
morality. I hope you can...I really want to know what it is, myself.
Honest!
-- 
+-------------+------------------+
| Damien Neil | dpn2@po.cwru.edu | 
+-------------+------------------+
From: jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christianic Sacrifices
Date: 11 Sep 1992 14:51:22 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


Er... if you're an atheist, why are you saying God is at the root of 
so many wars? Even those of us who are religious would mostly agree
that it's not so much God (as it seems to have been believed in the
Hebrew scriptures) at the root of 'holy' (NOT) wars any more, as it is
people's diseased ideas of what they think God wants.

You can do any evil you like in God's name, but She isn't going to accept
it. It would be like giving a rabbi a ham sandwich.
-- 
Jessica McGeary
jmm25@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University
Remember! Arguments should be FUN!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: Colleen Davis <cisc124@jeff-lab.queensu.ca>
Subject: Re: I still seem to be God
Organization: Queen's University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:52:56 GMT

bwilliam@iat.holonet.net (Bill Williams)

Erm, well, I don't really care for that cutting out of tongues
and eyes stuff.  

colleen
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy