HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Complete proof of Gregg Skinner's dishonesty
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:17:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.205826.28354@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
}m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}
}>In article <BtutJ3.L3n@apollo.hp.com> perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry) writes:
}>}In article <7!fn-8_.madhaus@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
}>}I have to stand by Gregg Skinner here -- I don't think he's done
}>}anything dishonest in this thread or elsewhere that I've noted, and I
}>}don't think he's the type.
}
}>How about making statements that have a direct logical implication that
}>is counter to the rest of his apparent posts?  When directly and repeatedly
}>asked about the specific contradiction, he has not given any response.
}>Does that count?
}
}I know to what Mr. Meritt refers.  There is no contradiction.  I
}presented a hypothetical situation ("Suppose...") in order to suggest
}a possibility in a lofty discussion of omnipotence and transmission of
}God's will.  For some reason Mr. Meritt took the hypothetical case I
}present as a concrete claim.  Then, when I wrote something in an
}entirely different thread which was counter to the hypothetical that
}Mr. Meritt thought was a claim, he perceived a contradiction.  As the
}first was not a claim of mine, there is no contradiction.
}
}Here are the supporting quotatations:
}
}(#>>>me, #>>Mr. Meritt, #>me, #Mr. Meritt)
}
}#>>>Consider a similar scenario for God.  He wants for humans to have free
}#>>>will.  Suppose he also wants an accurate Bible, but that conflicts
}#>>>with his other want.  He must choose.

AT which point you continue that specific argument.  Why don't you give the
entire contradiction I pointed out?  Since you now claim awareness, 
please state which:

1. Your hypothesis, as stated, is wrong.
2. There is no fr** will.
3. There never has been Jesus.
4. Jesus is NOT an accurate representation of Gods will (paraphrased.  Please
   correct if relevant).

Waiting...


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: In the Infinite Universe
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 23:45:13 GMT

In article <exukjb.108.715039120@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>Here's an apriori argument for the impossibility of infinite magnitudes. 
>If an infinite magnitude were possible, then it must be possible for 
>there to be a greatest number.  But there can't be a greatest number.  
>Hence, there can't be an infinite magnitude. 

You appeared to have put two clauses in an "if/then" where the second is not a
consequence of the first....
--
"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)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sjames@digi.lonestar.org (Stephen James)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Preaching in alt.atheism:  Just Say NO!
Date: 3 Sep 92 10:28:07 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <RLK.92Sep2102735@underprize.think.com> rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.213722.9103@tc.fluke.COM> emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
>
>   > I am sure that you think that you are doing great service for your
>   >god, but please do not continue this preaching here. Why don't you
>   >go over to the moslem or another religious newsgroup and talk to
>   >people who are already predisposed to believe in non-existant 
>   >creatures.
>
>   Perhaps because Stephen is as convinced that God exists as you are
>   that He doesn't.
>
>Whether it does or doesn't exist, we're really not interested in
>preaching here.
>--
>ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
>bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
>harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116
>
>Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu

Thanks Robert that is exactly what I was talking about. I got 
minmally flamed for it. Someone said that the orignal poster had
well thought out articles, that to me sounded like preaching


Stephen

-- 
  Stephen A. James (519-2511)    | "We are the people our parents
  sjames@digi.lonestar.org       |  warned us about"
  DSC Communications Corporation |  
  *** Standard Disclaimer ***    |  J Buffett - for president
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR OR LUNATIC? (continued)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:37:05 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug26.212236.24748@meaddata.com> joyce@meaddata.com  writes:
[a lot of unattributed material]
>----------------------If anyone is interested where I got this from,
>I'll let you know sometime.------------------------------------------

"Evidence That Demands a Verdict", by Josh McDowell, quoted word for
word and unattributed (lest anyone thinks any actual *research* or
*thought* went into this).  This book is about the most biased and
intellectually dishonest piece of garbage masquerading as research
that it's been my misfortune to encounter.  Just ignore these
postings. 

-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: LIFE GOES ON UNTIL YOU DIE
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 04:03:37 GMT

(Douglas Graham) writes:
>>What's wrong with being a Reductionist?
(Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
>Nothing,if you have no qualms with the conceit that goes with reducing the
>nature and workings of life to a handful of flimsy theories deduced from
>likely misinterpreted observations collected through extremely band-
>limited sensors.

Can you back up the claim that the senses have limited band-width? I
am not saying that I agree with reductionism, but to claim that 
reductionism is bad because of X requires some support for X to be
meaningful.

(Douglas Graham) writes:
>>What is so unfathomingly complex about life?
(Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
>Ever looked at it? I mean, pulled your nose out of the books and looked
>at it? What _isn't_ marvelously complex about it? Are you serious?

Pete you may be confusing variety with complexity. Think about it!

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: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: In the Infinite Universe
Date: 30 Aug 92 04:42:54 GMT
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney

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

The "must" part does not follow from the if part. Infinity is not a
magnitude.

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
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:16126 alt.pagan:8479
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Subject?
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:47:32 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK


In article <64830@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
>This is always good for a laugh:
>
>	If someone asks you to save their seat, turn to the seat and
>	start telling it loudly that it must repent its sins and accept
>	Jesus, and then start praying for it.
>
>This is most fun when the person who asks you to save the seat is a
>stranger in a theatre.

Er, it does sound good, but it could be somewhat embarrassing with a
complete stranger, couldn't it?  I mean, if he doesn't know you, he
couldn't be sure how you would react to the request (there are all
kinds of people around), and of course you can't know how he will
react to the joke.

On the other hand, if he is your fundamentalist friend who has often
told you stories about your salvation, there is no excuse for missing
the opportunity.  :-)

-- 
 `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
From: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: And now, a short break from posting...
Date: 26 Aug 92 08:52:33 MST

To those of you whom I have been discoursing with:

Pending obligations and time restrictions force me to take a short break
from a.a.  I have read through and downloaded posts requiring my response
up to the time of this post.  I will get to them and post them as well as
answer e-mail I receive.  If you reply to a post of mine just to blow off
steam, it is up to you whether you want me to read your comments by e-mail
or not.  But if you want me to consider your comments and provide an
answer, then send your response to me at:

Jim_Brown@oz.bmd.trw.com

And I will reply by e-mail or post as seems appropriate.

Thanks, 

Jim B.

(I should be back in a couple of weeks.)
From: 3005904@jeff-lab.queensu.ca (Colleen Davis (Dexter))
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: LIFE GOES ON UNTIL YOU DIE
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:06:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: ccs.1992Aug27.150643.21586
Organization: Antipodean Association

In article <1992Aug24.080325.526@maths.tcd.ie>, djohn@maths.tcd.ie (Derek John) writes:
> 
> 
> I'm interested to know how atheists cope with death.If youre like me
> and believe that death means the total extinction of consciousness
> how do you cope with it?

I don't have to cope with it.  It's going to happen and that's all there is
to it.  I have much more trouble coping with uncertainties like "What will
I be doing with my life in five years?"  Death is a certainty, so I have no
need to dwell on it.  

>I mean it scares the shit out of me to think
> that in say 40 or 50 years time (maybe tomorrow) I am going to cease 
> to exist in the most final and irreversible sense,

I think that for one thing, you don't know that for sure and for another 
thing, what are you afraid of?  Death is the natural end of life.  You might
as well be afraid of the sun coming up in the morning. 

> and that ultimately
> if you pursue atheism to its logical conclusion life becomes ultimately
> futile,meaningless and insignificant.This is something I just cant come
> to terms with and so most of the time I try not to think about it.
> I would be very interested to hear other peoples views on this.

Quite the opposite.  If you believe this is the only life you get, it becomes 
monumentally important that you make a decent effort at it-- no second chances.  
And, if you are an atheist, then this life is significant, since you need not 
compare this life to God, heaven, or whatever.  This is the biggest, most 
amazing life you will ever lead.  It is religion that reduces life to a 
triviality, since its main thrust is that the only purpose of this life is to 
earn a spot in heaven.  My life here is real, meaningful, and significant.

You need to quit dwelling on this sort of thing.  It's not healthy.

colleen

>                      
> 
> 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Stephen Hawking - National Public Radio
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 10:18:44 GMT


[Efforts to demonstrate that Stephen Hawking is a believer in the
traditional sort of God when he uses the word "God"...]

	Albert Einstein had suffered _exactly_ the same thing, and for
usage of the word "God" similar to Hawking's usage, as something of a
synonym or a metaphor for the laws of nature.

	He is cited as a believer in God by a heck of a lot of people
who would consider what he called "God" to be no God at all if they
looked carefully at his beliefs.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: How woould a Judeo-Christian God convince us he really was it!
Date: 25 Aug 92 01:54:52 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <21AUG199209493837@chemvx.tamu.edu>, lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu
(Brett G. Lemoine) wrote:
> 
> In article <ednclark.714378813@kraken>, ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes...
> }To start I'm an atheist and probably a mild agnostic (i.e. I beleive New
> }York exists though I've never been there).  But I challenge any one of my
> }atheist chums to tell me how the Judeo-Christian Biblical God (whichever
> }one) could prove he was who he said he was? I don't think he could do it 
> }(beyond tampering with our minds so that we all became fundies!)!
> 
> If you mean 'proof' in the mathematical or logical sense, he couldn't. No
> matter what he did to show his omni-<take-your-pick>, he could just be
> a super powerful alien (like Q in ST:TNG). There would possibly be a point
> at which he might convince me... but I'm not really sure what he could do/say
> to do that.

If you insist to use Q as an example -- he showed up frequently so
Captain Picard and the rest believed he existed. I guess the Christian
God should do something similar, or what. ST:NG is otherwise good
watching from the secular humanism point of view -- it shows how
people work together to solve problems instead of praying for outside
forces. My 15 month old boy likes the program, and I would rather
have him watching it than let us say "Days of our Lives".

Cheers,
Kent
---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi)
Subject: Re: assholes
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 08:09:38 GMT

In article <j1moody-010992233350@lafmac15.lafortune.lab.nd.edu> j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:
)Wouldn't you really have to see all of existence to make
)such a pompous claim as "there is no god"?
)
)I don't give two shits if you reject religion.
)
)But for some bag of blood and bones that hasn't lived more than 100 years
)on this blue ball of earth to reject the idea of "god" altogether. . .
)
)You'd have to be an asshole.

You sound insecure.  People who are confident in their own opinions are
rarely this hostile toward people with different opinions.
-- 
David Canzi
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:02:40 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>[Bible quotes from Mikel's friend, trying to show Jesus did claim he was
God, deleted.]

Funny, these, and a few other quotes I've been given in support of his
making this claim all seem to come from John alone.  Is there nothing in the
other Gospels?


|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 31 Aug 1992 15:32:22 CDT
From: <U19807@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?

Uh....I don't want to even come close to touching the argument that Joyce's,
er,"argument" is taken wholesale from "Evidence That Demands A Verdict",but
has anyone noticed that the argument-no matter its ultimate source-runs into
the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority (or whatever the hell it's called in Latin)
more than once?

Joyce (or the "Evidence" pamphlet) keeps attempting to use the sayings of
famous (or respected) men to essentially shore up a straw man argument that
states that "since these illustrious individuals believe in the Christian God,
he MUST exist,as they're so deserving of our respect". That might be able to
convince somebody who's into that sort of beknighted hero-worship,but it
harldy holds any weight as an opinion when you realize that (A) many "respect-
ed intellectuals"(such as,say,Bertrand Russell and Sigmund Freud) held views
that were anything but theistic or that (B) not everybody considers all argu-
ments by educated individuals as being meritorious or worth taking seriously.
Ask a nuclear physicist what influence Plato's doctrines had on quantum physics
and you'll have a good idea of what I'm getting at.

Quoting famous sources merely to use their fame to confuse debate is akin
to using a large dynamite charge to kill off roaches in the bathroom.

      ** Chris Krolczyk,esq.  * DISCLAIMER: My opinions are in **
      ** Agnostic-at-Large    * no way endorsed by the Univer- **
      ** U19807@UICVM.BITNET  * sity of Illinois at Chicago.   **
      ** u19807@uicvm.uic.edu * So there. Nyaah.               **
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: God posts again
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 10:50:12 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

Colleen, your comment is not that original...I remember when it was
first made in this group.

I can't recall the name of the person who first proposed it, but my
response was that he couldn't be god because I was...so there!  Nyahh!

And we actually got Jim B. involved in this (which is why he is
calling you a fool...most probably because he felt foolish trying to
debate why we couldn't be gods).

-- 
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: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:49:28 GMT
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development

merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:

>>I say Christianity *does* take
>>Paul seriously.  As evidence for this I note the inclusion of many of
>>Paul's letters in the religion's canon and the heavy use of quotations
>>from these inclusions in Christian teaching.

>I say it takes him seriously, but with insufficient reason to do so.

You're talking in circles now.  Let's review the high points.

--You assert that Christianity prescribes the death penalty.  You
point to the Levitican law in support.

--I point out how the words of Paul, which I think Christianity take
seriously, seems to counter this idea.

--You suggest that the words of Paul are not essential to Christianity.

--But now you agree that Christianity does take Paul seriously.

To a lesser extent, this is how it has been with the entire effort to
support the assertion.  I grow tired of the ever-shifting definitions
of Christianity.  I am now unable to even understand what religion you
refer to in your assertion.  I suspect you're not even sure as well.
--
Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Undecidability and the FAQ
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<TORKEL.92Aug30113641@bast.sics.se> <zjjnqz_@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 12:41:36 GMT

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

   >I'd like to know why you maintain that the Continuum Hypothesis isn't
   >known to be undecidable.  Are you claiming that Godel and/or Cohen
   >used principles outside of ZF?

   I have maintained nothing of the sort. You're still confused, but
there is no reason why you should be. Just try to think about
what you're reading.

  Since the statement "CH is undecidable in ZFC" implies that ZFC is
consistent, it is not provable in ZFC that the continuum hypothesis is
undecidable in ZFC, by Godel's second theorem.

   Hence ZFC and the continuum hypothesis afford no counterexample to
the assertion in the FAQ entry, that it is not provable in the formal
system itself that an undecidable statement is undecidable.

   Clear so far?

   What is provable in ZFC, and in fact also provable in elementary
arithmetic, is the hypothetical statement "if ZFC is consistent, then
CH is undecidable in ZFC".

  In proving these kinds of results, one often reasons about standard
models (and in the case of forcing, countable standard models) of ZF,
thus going beyond ZF, but there are standard techniques for extracting
elementary proofs of weaker statements from these arguments.

   So what "casual formulation" did I have in mind? Simply the casual
formulation "Godel and Cohen proved that the continuum hypothesis is
undecidable in ZFC". This is a casual formulation, because Godel and
Cohen did not actually prove this and never claimed to have done so.
What they did prove was the hypothetical statement, "if ZF is consistent,
then the continuum hypothesis is undecidable in ZFC".
From: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Contents of the 'Death Sea Scrolls': claim by Australian scientist
Date: 26 Aug 92 08:35:09 MST

In article <92238.165251A410JACQ@HASARA11.BITNET>, A410JACQ@HASARA11.BITNET (Jacqueline Cote) writes:
> A few weeks ago there was an article in a local newspaper that an Australian
> scientist (I forgot her name), who had studied (part of) the Scrolls claims
> that they state that Jesus *did not* die after his crucifiction, was revived
> with mirre and some other substance, and continued to live for another
> 30 years, travelling around and telling people about his visions. He married
> Mary Magdelen and had three children with her, two sons and a daughter.
> After the birth of his second son, he apparently left her to marry a Greek
> female bishop (?????).
>  
> Does anyone else have heard this story? If it *would* be true, it would
> have spectacular implications and it would also shed light why little
> to nothing is known to the world about the contents of the Scrolls.....
>  
> The story reminded me of another story I once read *years* ago, about
> one of the 'secrets' of the Vatican. That story claimed that there was
> evidence (in some convent in France) that indeed Mary and Jesus were a
> couple (after his 'death') travelling around and visiting places.
>  
> Comments, anyone?
>  
> Jacqueline
>  
> P.S.: just for the record: I'm an astrophysicist an (of course) an atheist.
> ________________________________________________________________________________
> Jacqueline Cote'     | Astronomical Inst., Un. of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
>                      | and: SRON Space Research, Groningen, The Netherlands
> jcote@sron.rug.nl    | phone: +31 (0)50 634014  +31 (0)50 418433 (home)
> a410jacq@vm1.sara.nl | FAX: +31 (0)50 634033

If you are gullible enough to believe that story, I have a question for you.
Would you be interested in buying some beach-front property in Arizona?
(There's lots of "beach" down there you know.)  Or how about the Brooklin
Bridge?  Or closer to home perhaps, the Eiffel Tower?

Regards,

Jim B.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism