HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Pythagorean Reform Church
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 00:43:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.164408.17607@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <92251.113411E59140@TRMETU.BITNET> <E59140@TRMETU.BITNET> writes:
>
>>About false numbers, I was never easy with the so called complex numbers,
>>who has ever heard of two numbers multiplied together to give -1|(Well, I
>>_have_ heard it, and a so-called proof but hearing and believing are two-
>>sorry, the Square Root of 4- different things.)
>
>The reason why old-time Pythagoreans are uneasy about sqrt(-1) is that this
>is an irrational number--essentially for the same reason sqrt(n) for any
>rational number n not a square is irrational.  Of course, we more modern
>Pythagoreans have come to realize that the true problem lies in the
>transcendental numbers, and not in algebraic numbers at all.
>
>When you fundie bean-bashers grow up a little, you might want to consider
>the more intellectually defensible and culturally respectible liberal
>Pythagorean tradition.  Don't let bozos like Fnord or whatever his name is
>make you think that all Pythagoreans are like the people at the Institute
>for Rational Number Research.  Some of us are aware that irrational numbers
>*do* exist, and might not even always be an unquilified evil!

But the reformed church is moderate, the restrictions on bean eating
will be lifted. However math has been asking the wrong questions.
It has wandered off into wondering more about what happens when you
operate on non physical numbers rather than worrying about how the
world can be modeled with finite numbers. Why should I believe that
a theory is complete when it requires each and every particle to have
access to an infinitly fast infinite turing machine?
It should be possible to exactly model the real world on a computer
rather than just inexactly model it. If the world cannot be modelled
on a computer then where are these mysterious logical operations we
forgot to include in our logic (and more importantly how do we build
one?)?



-- 
------          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  . . . .
    
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:17226 alt.politics.homosexuality:5996
From: infante@acpub.duke.edu (Andrew  Infante)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:29:55 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Eric, I've been following this thread for over a week now, and here's what
I've concluded:

You don't believe in morality.

Ergo, _you_ cannot be one to decide what is right or wrong because it is
inherent in morality.

Thus, you have no point arguing right or wrong.  period.

later.

andy
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Undecidability and the FAQ
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:28:35 GMT
 <1992Sep8.172338.23120@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  <!msntsk@lynx.unm.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a4@newshost.dartmouth.edu

bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:

> No.  Godel proved, within ZF, that the CH can't be proven false.
> Cohen proved, within ZF, that the CH can't be proven true.
> 
> These two results, when taken together, lead one to claim that the CH
> is undecidable...within ZFC.

I'm having trouble determining from your reply whether you disagree
with me, or simply misunderstand me.  I'm going to assume you disagree
for the moment.

No one has proven *in ZFC* that CH (or any other proposition) is
undicidable in ZFC.  To do so would entail proving *in ZFC* that CH was
not a theorem of ZFC.  This would constitute a proof *in ZFC* of ZFC's
consistency.  And if ZFC asserts it's own consistency, it can be shown
to be inconsistent.

I think if Godel and Cohen had proved ZFC's inconsistency, I would have
heard about it.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Free will - the "Jarekian" heresy.
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 11:29:09 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <dabrowsk.715231939@liveboard10> dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>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? So God is still expected to know best. If you don't
>think that He is a Stupid Encyclopeadian but rather a Wise one :-D.

But, to take a tack I've heard from several physicists and
mathematicians, the cat is either alive or dead.  This is from the
classic experiment of a cat-in-a-box with a nucleus that has a 50-50
chance of decaying...and if it does, it triggers a laser to kill the
cat.  Well, the coin has been flipped...is the cat alive or dead?
There are those who claim that it is in some "meta-state" of being
neither alive nor dead until somebody looks in the box.

Nonsense, I say.  The cat is either alive or dead, we just don't know
which.

And thus, if this god is capable of knowing, then the action has been
fixed.  If this god has the capability of knowing what the result of
an action is before that action occurs, then that action has a fixed
outcome.  The cat is either alive or dead, we just don't know
which...but we can find out.  If god can tell that the nucleus is
going to decay, then the cat is going to die...whether or not he
actually takes the time to look.  The fact that he *can* take the time
to look is all that is needed.

From the cat's point of view, it is either alive or dead.  From our
point of view, we don't know.  That doesn't change the fact that the
cat is either alive or dead...and our taking a look doesn't change the
state of the cat.

-- 
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: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Anti-Christian, yes.
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992
Date: 15 Sep 92  10:49:56

Tag: Mark Schlegel (schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel))
 
> "bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>TP> "To be anti-Chri$t...
>TP> anti(against) + Chri$t = against Chri$t
>TP> It is immpossible to be against what does not exist..
>TP> "Chri$t"..c(-: or is there a wee bit of a flaw in my
>TP> formulation ?
 
MS> "Your reasoning seems faulty to me, the original poster is
MS> against Christ as a concept (in his opinion, a concept without
MS> the quality of existence) not as a person or being that exists."
 
I said I was anti-Christian, not against Christ. "Christ" equals
"one who is christened", of which there have been MANY (in the
scientific and intellectual arenas for the greater part). Mozart
also comes to my mind as Christ. I've never heard of a religious
Christ that passed my idea of one christened (except for perhaps
St. Francis of Asisi, whom I admire because of his extremes in
passion and amusing activities due to mental illness). Since Jesus
didn't exist, he can't very well qualify as a Christ.
 
There have been many scientist Christs, that have literally saved
millions single-handedly---- a claim no religious Christ can make.

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: aldavi01@orion.spd.louisville.edu (Arlie Davis)
Subject: Re: Would you do ANYTHING God told you....?
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 03:42:52 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In <192m52INNqd2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:

> >	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,

> At first glance I (see above about "my God would never...") probably would have
> answered in that manner.

What manner?  You no parse good.

> >	IF God asked you to buy an Uzi and start shooting children at a
> >	nearby playground ? WOULD YOU DO ANYTHING GOD TOLD YOU ?
> >
> >	THE QUESTION IS NOT IF GOD WOULD ASK YOU, BUT IF GOD DID ASK YOU
> >	TO DO IT, WOULD YOU DO IT.

> As before, God would not ask this of anyone, but if the act was not against
> God's law and He commanded me to do such a thing, it would be done.

Ah, yes, but your God's law is what your God says it is, no?  There is
the conflict -- do you stick to your human morals / ethics, or do you
do what the 90ft-tall Jesus says to do?  Including *kill your own son*?

> >	I am serious about this question. Note, part of the premise of this
> >question is that it is CLEARLY God telling you to do this (a voice, a vision
> >, what ever would convince you....)

> Please don't start flaming and calling me of anyone else a childkiller.
> This question was, in a way, one of those "no-win" questions.  I know that
> it's to find out how dedicated we, as Christians, are.  Please fon't take
> things the wrong way.

Hmm.  Still evaded the question.

[-- deleted --]

> 	If God told you to kill your son (like he did Abraham), would
> you do it ?

> 	This question you have not answered. I did NOT ask if your god
> would or would not ask you to do it. I asked if YOU would do it IF your god
> asked you to.......why not answer the question...

Hear hear.  I'd like to see an answer.

Personally, I don't qualify to answer the question.  :)

-- 
lrwx------   1 aldavi01 emacsstu       9 Jun  6 12:43 .signature -> /dev/null
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Calling facts "theory"
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992
Date: 11 Sep 92  21:48:34

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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: god is not relevant
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:32:43 GMT

jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
: 
: Also, as mentioned in other articles, can someone elaborate on the dis-belief
: versus non-belief concept.  I fail to see the difference between "I don't
: believe god exists" and "I believe god doesn't exist."  I think this stems from
: many Atheist's stance toward religion (anti-religious) compared to those who
: are the same in terms of belief but not necessarily anti-religious.

I claim to have a friend named Jedediah Q. Fudpucker.  Do you believe
such a person exists or not?  To say "I don't believe Jed exists" is
different than saying "I believe Jed doesn't exist".  The first means
to lack knowledge of existence, the seconds claims to have knowledge
of non-existance.  Another example would be UFOs.  I don't believe
they exist, but I wouldn't claim I know they don't.  The same is true 
for Santa Claus (although I have my suspicions ;-)).

Without evidence of existence, it is reasonble to withhold judgment.
In general, it is absurd to make absolute claims about the non-existence
of something.  Exceptions to this would be when this something leads
to a contradiction or absurdity.  The existence of a deistic creator 
god is beyond our knowledge.  Since time began with the big bang, how
can we conceive of its "cause"?  It is absurd to claim as fact that 
this type of creator god doesn't exist.  The most that can be said is 
that such a postulate doesn't provide any useful information to the 
question.  All you have done is pushed the question of origins back 
one level.  At this point, Occam's razor kicks in and we rightly 
discard the postulate.  We lack evidence of existence, we don't have 
evidence of non-existance.  To a very small extent, lack of evidence 
is evidence of non-existance.  However, it is not *proof* and we must 
accept the possibility, however slight, that some evidence may be 
forthcoming.

-- 
Jeff Young                         |          God is coming
Opinions expressed are mine alone. |      and boy is She Pissed!
From: sham@cs.arizona.edu (Shamim Zvonko Mohamed)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: End of the World... US only, apparently
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:12:18 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <18688.2ab35b9e@levels.unisa.edu.au> 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (Wild Child) writes:
>I think this is just an American thing. After reading that, I went to
>check out a couple of barcodes - NONE of the real digits looked anything like
>the three guard bars - ours consist of two thin lines extending lower than the
>rest of the barcode.

In article <BuJ2GK.BvB@phage.cshl.org> pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
>but two thin lines extending lower than the rest of the barcode
>IS a six. two thin lines is the code for a six.
>they DO extend below the barcode, that is why they are CONTROL codes.

I don't know which code you have in mind, but in the UPC code (the thing you
see on consumer items), the code for the digit 6 is not two thin lines. UPC
incorporates a checksum also; the code for 66666-66666 is 3 thin, then 11 sets
of thick/thin, then 4 thin (this includes the guard bars).

>does anyone know the ISO for this thing?

I have a program that will print UPC codes on any PostScript printer (like the
Apple laserwriters). If anyone is interested, I'll be glad to mail them a copy.

-s
--
  Shamim Mohamed / {uunet,noao,cmcl2..}!arizona!shamim / shamim@cs.arizona.edu
  "Take this cross and garlic; here's a Mezuzah if he's Jewish; a page of the
    Koran if he's a Muslim; and if he's a Zen Buddhist, you're on your own."
 Member of the League for Programming Freedom - write to league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is atheism experimentally refutable?
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:06:51 GMT
Organization: Xerox PARC

In <1992Sep2.045811.5524@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Joe Francis writes:

>strong atheism does not entail a type of "faith" similar to the
>Christian variety.   
>
What does 'similar' mean in this context? Indeed, beliefs (or 'faith')
of strong and weak atheists are usually different than those of a theist
but this difference is as trivial as the difference between beliefs of
two different religions (No, I didn't say that atheism is a religion).
Where's the IMPORTANT difference (if there IS any) and for what is this
difference important? 

>And to parody a high school teacher I once had (public high 
>school, no less!):
>RI know [devils] exist.  TheyUre after me every day!S
>
She probably meant the pupils :-D.


Best wishes,
             Jarek
======================================================
 .-----.            Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com       
 `-> <-'       I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
From: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Date: 9 Sep 1992 18:03:41 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, bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) says:

>                        
>95% ?!?  Wow!   Seems a bit high to me.  I think that it is more like 5%, but
>it seems like 95% because ignorance is loud.  Most people (Christians,
>Atheists,
>Hindus, et al) are reasonable.  They live a sane and normal life, either
>keeping
>their views to themselves or just saying "who knows?".
>Jarek is NOT in the minority for his positions, just his posting of such.
>The rest are small, but DAMN are they annoying! : )
>
>Brian /-|-\
>

I agree. Most religious people I know are not offensize about their views.
It's the obnoxious ones you notice, though.
-- 
+-------------+------------------+
| Damien Neil | dpn2@po.cwru.edu | 
+-------------+------------------+
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Dealing with theistic relatives
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:53:35 GMT
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center

In article <1992Sep12.041952.782@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.172810.14388@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>>
>>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. 
>
>Because (borrowed from Robert L. Holmes' _On War and Morality_):
>
>   What the people of today's world need first and foremost is ruthless
>   honesty about themselves and about their condition -- for it is more
>   serious than they want to believe.
>
>Leaving people alone to live in a fantasy world shows no more respect for
>them than do the assholes who filled them full of nonsense in the first place.

Self righteous atheism is just as distasteful as rabid fundamentalism. Most 
people are not going to be convinced to change their religious views in the 
course of an hour long debate. Their basic belief systems evolve over many 
years. Making one's mother uncomfortable for the sake of some philosophical
debate "victory" sounds rather cruel to me. Robert Holmes sounds like a real
asshole. How about "live and let live"?

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Beliefs are refusals to check the facts
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:06:55 GMT
Organization: Wesleyan University

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.

   Not quite.  It's also a statement that cannot be checked with observations.
 
> 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 :-)

   Hey, lets just break out the torches and stakes :-)
                |
               \|/
> Waiting for flames 
> 
>                             Christoph Schiller

Karl 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rswiftrw@cc.curtin.edu.au (Rod Swift)
Subject: Re: god is not relevant
Organization: -=[ Curtin University of Technology ]=-  Perth, Australia
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 06:31:20 GMT

allen@well.sf.ca.us                Allen B. Ethridge writes::::::::::::::::::::

> Or is god relevant?  If so, how and why?  What's he/she/it needed for?

God is needed for those people who rely on Christianity as they cannot stand
on their own two feet.  God is simply an emotional crutch used by people who
need a distorted reality through a book of lies.

Rod
-- 
|            . . .   . . . . .        "Dear God.  We paid for all this stuff|
|        +  +  +     +  +  +  +  +        ourselves, so thanks for nothing."|
|    *   *   *       *   *   *   *   *                                      |
|R    o    d         S    w    i    f    t      -- Bart Simpson saying grace|
+-----------------------------------+---------+-----------------------------+
|  Curtin University of Technology  |  Perth  |  RSWIFTRW@cc.Curtin.edu.au  |
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Date: 7 Sep 92 21:16:45
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: mathew@mantis.co.uk's message of 7 Sep 92 11:23:46 GMT

In article <BuaqqB2w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:

   1. Introduction to atheism.  Aimed at theists.  Takes the form of a dialogue
      between an atheist and a theist who doesn't really know much about
      atheism.  Covers things like "Isn't atheism a religion?", "What are the
      justifications for atheism?", "What's agnosticism?" and so on.  Written,
      needs some more editing before I post it for people to read.

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.  If it
takes the form of a dialog, but the "dialog" is really a monologue, then
it really winds up looking rather silly.

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

   There are two problems.  On the one hand, we don't want it to look
   like atheism is purely a reaction against Christianity.  On the other
   hand, almost all of the "problem posters" are Christian (although
   recently we've seen an increase in the number of evangelical Moslem
   posters).

I'd like something I can use in a non-Christian context.  I rarely have
problems with evangelical Christians that I can't deal with by slamming
the door in their faces, but I'd like to "use" the FAQ for purposes
other than that (namely, dealing with Jewish relatives).
--
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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism