HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: contradictory nature of free will and omni-anything
Date: 23 Jan 1993 01:19:22 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: syndicoot.engin.umich.edu

In article <1993Jan22.170557.4387@st-andrews.ac.uk> nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson) writes:

[deletions]

>I think free-will is an illusion.  There's also a difference between being
>determined and being predictable, as I will try to show.  In the following
>I use the term "computer" to mean "hardware + software".
>
>A computer's behaviour is entirely determined (ignoring quantum effects for
>the moment).  It's progression from one state to the next is hard-wired.
>
>However, it is impossible to _predict_ what a given computer will do.  If
>you want to find out, you have to let it run, and wait for it to finish.
>(This is the basis of the halting problem: you can't even predict whether
>any given computer will halt or not.)

 Well, in *practice*, yes, things may not be predictable. But in principle
they need not be unpredictable. As an example, take the process:
 
 Given an integer:
     If even, divide by two.
     If odd, multiply by three and add one.
     Repeat.
 
 As far as anyone knows, any integer you do this to will eventually go
to one. But no one has proved it; there may be a 'loop' that doesn't
include the number 'one'.
 I could make a turing machine to run this procedure for all integers,
stopping if it finds a sequence that loops. Now, as far as anyone knows,
it will never stop.
 But, there is nothing that says that we might not find a proof that it
will or won't stop. Some clever individual may find a proof that all
integers go to one under that process. *Then* we would know.
 Or consider a simpler case; a Turing machine with one command: "Halt."
I can know whether or not that one will stop.
 The halting problem does not say that there is no way to know if a
program will halt or not; it says that there is no *algorithm* that will
tell for *all* programs.

 Also, what if we run the same program on two computers, but one is faster
than the other? If the faster one stops, we can know that the slower one
will stop.

 Now, in practice, it may prove too complex to figure out what a computer
will do. Even ignoring the possibility of cosmic rays messing with the
hardware, some programs are just too big. And, of course, for many systems,
the least uncertainty in the data will make prediction beyond a certain
point impossible.
 But this is in *practice*, notin *principle* as you state above.

>So I think we are determined but unpredictable.

 I tend to agree, but for different reasons. More precisely, I suspect
we are determined but we can't ever know it for sure, becuse we can't
test by predicting what someone will do.

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles               ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are going to the
stars!" - Robert A. Heinlein
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: Simon.N.McRae@dartmouth.edu (Simon N McRae)
Subject: Faith on Trial... and Winning!?/ Dostoevski
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b3@newshost.dartmouth.edu
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:20:48 GMT

I haven't read The Brothers Karamazov for at least four years.  I
remember certain parts very distinctly; other parts are hazy.  Anyway,
I'd be interested to get some feeback on the following comments and
questions, from either atheists or theists.

1.  IVAN FYODOROVICH'S STORY OF THE GRAND INQUISITOR.  I cannot for the
life of me remember the gist of his argument against God, only
fragments.  In any case, can someone briefly present and then comment
on the argument?  I mean, was it a typical 19th century anti-religion
argument, or rather something wholly unique?  Is the argument flawed
somehow?  Do some of its tactics still get used today?  I remember
agreeing with most of it, but then it wouldn't take much to gain my
sympathy for such a stance.  In general, though, is it persuasive?

2.  FATHER ZOSIMA.  I am an atheist, nevertheless I was deeply moved by
what Father Zosima had to say.  Funny, but I remeber this better then
the Grand Inquisitor.  Toward the beginning of the book, Father Zosima
receives commoners in front of his cabin at the monastery.  One woman
tells him that her young boy has just recently died from some illness,
and that his death has really devastated the whole family.  She then
asks Zosima why the child had to die, being that he did nothing wrong
and all.  Father Zosima replies with a speech of perfect understanding
and poignancy, really a beautiful moment in the book.  Later on, he
also gives a wonderful account of how unconditional love serves as the
basis for our experience of God's mercy.  Of course there is a lot more
to his faith that I cannot recall.  My question:  how out of line were
his religious ideas with the orthodoxy?  I know Father Fieropont, the
conservative one, didn't much care for Zosima.  And, deconstructionist
arguments against authorial intention aside, does this represent what
Dostoevski himself felt in any way?
    Later on Ivan Fyodorovich also brings up the needless suffering of
innocent children as argument against God.  How does Alyosha reply?

Thanks in advance for any replies.  IMHO, there are some points the
book raises which are really compelling. 

Simon.
From: jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Buddhism - A religion of atheists?
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:30:39 GMT
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.

In article <1993Jan26.013458.1092@nuscc.nus.sg> cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - with Dan) writes:
>
>Notice that Spiritual development (instead of Faith) is strongly
>emphasized in Buddhism and NOWHERE in its Central Doctrine was the word
>"God" even mentioned.  Buddhism is probably the only religion in the
>world where the believe in God is not encouraged.  It is also probably
>the only religion where followers are encouraged to scrutinize its
>teachings and blind faith is frowned upon.  Hence, it was able to avoid
>the dogmatism, Holy Wars and other evils that plagued all other
>religions.  It is one of very few religions with no conflicts with
>Science, even though it is much older than Christianity and Islam.
>Indeed, Buddhism has more *positive* impact on modern psychology, for
>example, than any religion has on any field of science.

Why then, is Buddhism considered a religion as opposed to a philosophy or
way of life?  Religion usually involves God and/or the supernatural.  In 
this case, one could be a Christian-Buddhist as easily as another could be
an Atheist-Buddhist.  So calling it the "religion" of Atheists seems
unwarranted, almost like calling Atheism itself a religion.

JC
--
Have you washed your brain today?
From: christen@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Carl Christensen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: HOW CAN I GET CHICK COMICS?
Date: 23 Jan 93 23:45:28 GMT
Organization: Temple University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Wesley E Nicholson (wesnich@athena.mit.edu) wrote:
: How can I get chick comics?  Perhaps I overlooked something,
: but I couldn't find an address among all the praise.

: Can anybody out there clue me in?

I don't know about Boston but here in Philadelphia they're usually
available from the loony with the billboard and megaphone that
travels up and down the streets hollering at people to be saved.

--

Carl Christensen                      christen@astro.ocis.temple.edu
Department of Computer Science
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA  19122   USA         (215) 735-6787
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: The First Cause argument (again)
Organization: SPS
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:04:20 GMT

I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:

      [Topic: The universe was caused by itself.]
>>To my understanding, this is not a possibility as it results in a logical
>>contradiction. If the existance of the universe is caused by the universe
>>itself, then the universe is both creator and creature. The universe would
>>have to exist and not exist at the same point in the same relationship.
>>As a logical impossibility, this is, therefore, not an option.
 
>It depends on the meaning of cause.
True. I am using cause in the verb sense: to make happen, to bring about.

>I think one point of Mathew's argument
>aims at that the original poster has brought up that something might be its
>own cause, his example is god. So, if something can cause itself a system
>that says there is the universe and it is its own cause is smaller that a
>system that says there is a universe, and a god, that is its own cause and
>has caused the universe.

I guess the difference is that as I see it, there is no good reasoning based
on physical laws to conclude that this universe is a self-caused or uncaused
system (perhaps other than wishing it to be so).

>In a sense, the universe, as it is now, is caused by the universe as it was
>a moment before, so it depends on the definition of universe and of cause
>if something cannot cause itself.

This, of course, is a fundamentally different kind of effect. The coming 
into existance of a system is hardly analogous to change within that system.

---
Dave Weaver                | "The impression of design is overwhelming"
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com |       -Paul Davies (on the cosmos)


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: paulette@seanews.akita.com (paulette brown)
Subject: Re:  RELIGION AND PRESIDENTS
Organization: SEANEWS - Seattle Public Access News + Mail
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:24:10 GMT

Freedom of [from] religion ought to extend 
to Presidents, too...

Am I the only one in the US who thought it 
was inappropriate -- if not downright 
distateful -- to have Billy Graham and his 
church prayers at the Inaugural?

paulette@seanews.akita.com
                                           
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:27183 talk.religion.misc:27767
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Where does Adam and Eve Fit In? Attn: Jeff West
Date: 29 Jan 93 00:13:14 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1993Jan28.070719.24947@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>
>> And you also are wrong about no recordings of speciation or at the
>> very least evolutionary change.
>
>Recorded speciation?  Got any references?
>

Clipped from Talk.origins---

Speciation has been observed 4 times in the last 110 years in the 
wild. It has been forced in the lab a few times (see the August 1992
issue of Evolution for a new example involving polychaete worms --
...)

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: creps@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: Good vs Bad (arguements)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:46:44 GMT

In article <1jndjvINN9so@male.EBay.Sun.COM> birge@guerciotti.EBay.Sun.COM writes:
>See I don't buy your basic premise that a sperm/egg are the same as a 
>zygote/embryo. However I'm sure you realize the Catholic Church agrees 
>with that assertion. However they use the argument to reach a conclusion 
>the exact opposite of yours. And I don't agree with them either. But a 
>logical evaluation of your premise would go something like this (it's been 
>18 or so years since I picked up a book on biology so you biologists 
>be gentle with the flames).

   The meaning of the beginning of this paragraph is unclear to me.
By "that assertion" you say the Catholic Church agrees with, do you
mean the other poster's premise about sperm/egg being the same as
embryo, or your not buying that premise.  The Catholic Church
certainly does not teach that the two are the same, but rather that a
human life begins at conception (when it is no longer a sperm/egg).

   Just wanted to clear that up.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Was Jesus the Anti-Christ?
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:19:08 GMT
Organization: University of Bradford, UK
Originator: 90908502@ccw207
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

William Twentyman (cscope@camelot.bradley.edu) writes:
>
> Matthew 12:22-28

>     Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute,
>   and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see.  All the 
>   people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?"
>     But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by
>   Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."
>     Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided
>   against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided
>   against itself will not stand.  If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided
>   against himself.  How then can his kingdom stand?  And if I drive out 
>   demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out?  So then,
>   they will be your judges.  But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of
>   God, then the kingdom of God has come to you.

> This passage poses two possibilities, either Jesus was an agent of God, or
> Satan.  Jesus's quote clearly implies that he is an agent of God, but what
> if the reverse were true?  If Jesus were an agent of Satan, he could simply
> appear to be divided against evil.  This would result in people believing
> he was an agent of God and actually draw people away from God.  If Satan
> were more interested in gathering souls than in leaving a few demons around
> to torment people, he would be making an enormous profit.

> This has been one of my biggest problems with Christianity, the possibility
> that it was a ploy by Satan to draw people away from God.  Can anyone see
> any flaws in my logic?  Anything I may have missed?

Yes.  It's clearly a lot of nonsense written by superstitious people
in a superstitious age.  Take any blind mute man to a medical doctor 
and ask him the cause.  Few would take seriously any suggestion of 
demonic possession.  Take out the mumbo-jumbo from this story and 
there is not much left.  Get a grip, this is the twentieth century! 

BTW How many angels can dance on the end of a pin?


-- 

Leonard               e-mail:  L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Where does Adam and Eve Fit In?  Attn:  Jeff West
Date: 28 Jan 93 18:47:11 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1993Jan26.221418.21886@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>
>I don't think that any of the examples of fossil man have been identified
>as true ancestors of modern man.  At least there is not scientific con-
>sensus (excluding creation scientists, of course, who naturally don't
>agree).  All the actual examples found so far are arguably dead ends 
>that for one morphological reason or another could not have developed 
>into homo sapiens.

Is this impression based upon recent reading of the literature, and
if so, can you cite any specific articles?

>Some of the more primitive Stone Age men are now thought to have been
>contemporary with homo sapiens.  There is an interesting article in
>the latest issue of Smithsonian that suggests that Neanderthal, definitely
>not an ancestor of homo sapiens, may have not only been contemporary
>but also somewhat cultured, at least much more so than previously thought.

Last I had heard, there was still controversy over whether Neanderthal
(i.e. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, a subspecies of Homo sapiens
different from our subspecies, which is Homo sapiens sapiens) was
an ancestor or an offshoot.

>
>One possibility that you rarely hear about is that the ancestry is
>the other way around.  As I understand it, morphologically, the known 
>Stone Age men are evolutionary dead ends.  They could not have evolved 
>into man. However, they could have evolved _from_ man.  I.e., a 
>deteriorating offshoot. The problem is, of course, that there are no
>fossil remains of homo sapiens going that far back. But now, in the 
>case of Neanderthal there may be.  

I should think so, considering that Neanderthal *is* Homo sapiens,
unless there has been a recent reclassification I am unaware of.
From: justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Big Questions (or, Why I am not a Christian)
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Date: 22 Jan 1993 01:52:22 GMT
Organization: none whatsoever
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: macintosh50.cco.caltech.edu

In article <1993Jan18.051019.5072@nmsu.edu>, epowers@mccoy (POWERS) wrote:
> In article <justinf-150193175343@macintosh50.cco.caltech.edu>  
> justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang) writes:

[my question on universe, purpose of, deleted.]
> > Any thoughts?

> 	Yes, actually, I do.  What does this have to do with Christian  
> doctrines?  As far as I know, the Bible makes no claims about the purpose  
> of "the rest of the universe".  Evolutionary theory makes no claims about  
> life on other planets except a few vague comments on the probability.   
> Evolution theory has very little to do with the rest of the universe, yet  
> you accept it here, while on the same hand rejecting another set of ideas  
> that also has little to do with the rest of the universe.  What is the  
> difference?
> 					Erik Powers

Did I ever say I rejected it? I didn't think I specified Christianity. I
just wanted to know how a near-infinite universe fit into Earth's decidely
anthropocentric religions. For instance, in the OT there's the bits about
how God made us in his image, and about chosen people, etc, etc. Did Jesus
have to die once for every intelligent species in the galaxy? (That's a lot
of times... :) And the bits in Revelations about the world ending... is
that just this world or the entire universe? (this last question is a
problem mainly for fundies)...etc., etc. I'm not singleing Christianity out
for attack, it's just the religion I'm most familiar with.

Justin Fang (justinf@cco.caltech.edu)
                               This space intentionally left blank.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jwest@wisc (Jeff West)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: 22 Jan 93 09:18:32 CST

jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb) writes:
: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
: 
: Get a life. Then have a nice one.
: :-)

It's obvious Jeff that you will find a 'justification' for any
holes poked in your *personal* beliefs.  Just because you go off on
your screwy tangents doesn't mean that you will PROVE anything.  So
instead of spending another 120+ posts of us telling you DOES NOT
and you telling us DOES TO let's just drop it here huh.

Got a life thanks and it's just dandy as it is!

Jeff West

---------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not denial.  I'm just very selective about the reality I accept.

    - Calvin & Hobbs

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jwest@wisc (Jeff West)
Subject: Re: Where does Adam and Eve Fit In?  Attn:  Jeff West
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: 25 Jan 93 11:33:26 CST

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
: Jeff West writes:
: 
: > Ok, as I understand it you take the creation of Adam and Eve as
: > described in Genesis literally, correct?  Meaning that we all have
: > decended from 2 people.
: 
: Before a number of people start taking your statement out of 
: context and begin flaming me, let me restate what I mean by
: "literally".  :-)
: 
: What I mean by literally, is that I try to interpret the passages
: in the Bible based on their content and the passages' literary form.
: 
: Brian Ceccarelli

Apparently Brian, you and I look at the word literal in two very
different ways.

Later in your post you say that A&E were possibly created while
Stone Age man exhisted.  Do you not believe that we are decended
from these people?  It's been shown for instance that the Stone
Age people of Europe are the forfathers of today's Europeans.

Are there two lines of people out there.  Ones who evolved and
the ones who were "created?"

Jeff West

---------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not denial.  I'm just very selective about the reality I accept.

    - Calvin & Hobbs

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:26763 alt.religion.all-worlds:117 talk.religion.misc:27195
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: contradictory nature of free will and omni-anything
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:28:52 GMT
Reply-To: odwyer@sse.ie
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1jq6eqINNm3f@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
#In article <1993Jan22.170557.4387@st-andrews.ac.uk> nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson) writes:
#
#[deletions]
#
#>I think free-will is an illusion.  There's also a difference between being
#>determined and being predictable, as I will try to show.  In the following
#>I use the term "computer" to mean "hardware + software".
#>
#>A computer's behaviour is entirely determined (ignoring quantum effects for
#>the moment).  It's progression from one state to the next is hard-wired.

No. If I stand beside your computer flicking the on/off switch, what sense
is there in what you say? You are viewing the computer as a closed system.
Nice try - but this closed system isn't the universe. Look what it's doing 
to the laws of thermodynamics. It has a funny idea of gravity too.

#>However, it is impossible to _predict_ what a given computer will do.  If
#>you want to find out, you have to let it run, and wait for it to finish.
#>(This is the basis of the halting problem: you can't even predict whether
#>any given computer will halt or not.)

True. If it were determined, it would still be unpredictable.  But you
have yet to show that even a computer's behaviour is determined.

# Well, in *practice*, yes, things may not be predictable. But in principle
#they need not be unpredictable. As an example, take the process:
# 
# Given an integer:
#     If even, divide by two.
#     If odd, multiply by three and add one.
#     Repeat.
# 
# As far as anyone knows, any integer you do this to will eventually go
#to one. But no one has proved it; there may be a 'loop' that doesn't
#include the number 'one'.
# I could make a turing machine to run this procedure for all integers,
#stopping if it finds a sequence that loops. Now, as far as anyone knows,
#it will never stop.
# But, there is nothing that says that we might not find a proof that it
#will or won't stop. Some clever individual may find a proof that all
#integers go to one under that process. *Then* we would know.

This is akin to the belief that one day science will explain everything
in the universe. How do you distinguish an infinite procedure from one
which is going to terminate in the next second.  How long will you wait 
before you hit the abort key?

[...]

# Also, what if we run the same program on two computers, but one is faster
#than the other? If the faster one stops, we can know that the slower one
#will stop.

Unless it blows up. Or I spill coffee on the disk. Or I trip on the power
cord. Dashed unpredictable these users - something about free will...

# Ray Ingles               ingles@engin.umich.edu

Frank O'Dwyer
odwyer@sse.ie