HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Time Travel (did I get into sci.sceptice by accident?)
Date: 23 Jan 1993 00:56:59 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: syndicoot.engin.umich.edu

In article <16B5E11C80.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>In article <lYk=FBC@engin.umich.edu>
>ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>>
>> No, under certain assumptions (not pathological assumptions, either!) it
>>might be possible to go backward in time with out anybody going faster than
>>light.
[deletions]
>Ok, but this does not imply a place out of time. As far as my understanding
>of Relativity goes it says: no time, no space.

 Ah, but it does imply that 1960 A.D. 'still exists' physically in a
direction we can't normally perceive, and similarly 2010 'already exists'
in the opposite direction-we-can't-normally-perceive.
 Since all of these 'moments' exist in a four-dimensional continuum, to
a five-dimensional being they could all be perceived 'at once.' And *it*
could experience time on an axis orthogonal to all our dimensions.
 Again, I don't say that I think such a being exists. Just that it is not
logically inconsistent.

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: "Inaccurate scientific knowledge from a bunch of silly atheists"
Date: 22 Jan 93 20:38:34 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <930122.120350.8F3.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge) writes:
>
>I think that's a somewhat dismissive attitude to take, given some of the
>people who post here.  John A. Johnson and Marvin Minsky spring to mind; we
>also have highly trained biologists, geologists, physicists and
>mathematicians posting.
>

  And engineers.  Don't forget the engineers. 


  Geez.  No one ever remembers those of us who have to actually
  implement all of that hi' falutin' research the rest of you are so
  actively engaged in. BBBBIIIIIGGGGGG smiley.

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

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: suopanki@stekt7.oulu.fi (Heikki T. Suopanki)
Subject: Re: RELIGION & PRESIDENTS
Reply-To: suopanki@phoenix.oulu.fi
Organization: Unixverstas Olutensin, Finlandia
	<93022.002158U16244@uicvm.uic.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:31:35 GMT

>>>>> On Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:21:58 CST, David James Alexander Hanley <U16244@uicvm.uic.edu> said:

David>   As a side note, i heard the prime minister of england is an atheist.
David> Is this true??  Wow, this could never happen here.  Are there any more
David> freely-elected atheist high-powered officals? ( in the world ? )

Although church and state are not separated in Finland, religion isn't
really part of politics (there is however a small christian party).
If the President thank god for achieving something he would make
a fool of himself.

We almost got an atheist president in 1956 and a former
Prime Minister, who is now trying hard to become the new President, is an
atheist. There are many atheists in the Parliament, but I am not sure
how many. It really isn't so important.

Also I think Olof Palme (former Swedish Prime Minister who was
murdered) was an atheist. I'm not positive tho.

-Heikki
--
"If two men are having a fight and the wife of one tries to 
 help her husband by grabbing hold of the other man's 
 genitals, show her no mercy; cut off her hand."
	- Deuteronomy 25:11-12
From: westsh@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: re:religion in general
Date: 21 Jan 93 15:00:32 CST
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

re:religion in general
mostly, i agree with your letter. my problem with it is your comment about
using religion as a reason of abstaining from the consumption of animal
flesh. you say instead of worrying about religion, we could be solving
world hunger. the key to solving world hunger is surprisingly simple.
if all americans became vegetarians, we would be able to feed the world 
three times over!!!!! albeit, religion is not a good reason for this, but 
it works just the same. i agree religion of any kind is bull, but some of
it has good ideas: like not killing people or animals. i am also glad that
someone pointed out that christianity is  not the only culprit. all
religions are is a way to explain things without thinking.
susan hamilton west
the info on world hunger can be found in VEGETARIAN TIMES(i'm not sure what
issue).
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Anthropologically observerved "super-natural" events?
Date: 27 Jan 93 07:32:40 GMT
Reply-To: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (White Rook)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, jhigbee@cs.weber.edu (Jonathan C. Higbee) says:

>
>Greetings:
>
>My anthropology teacher mentioned that in her field work she
>experienced some not readily explainable things such as rain
>dances working and knives bending against sternums in Bali. She
>mentioned that other anthropologists had observed similar data;
>that when such data is observed it's usually just recorded and
>set aside, since what's observed is outside the "normal
>traditional" anthropological data.
>

	Well, one way to prove the rain dances is to have these guys go to 
an area with a drought. Needless to say, do NOT hold your breath waiting for 
the drought to break =-)


>I don't know whether group belief with all participants in a given rite
>having to believe in what will happen actually explains what occurs.
>Perhaps there's extra parts to our being which we don't currently 
>understand. Perhaps science will someday describe how these seemingly 
>para-normal [yet actually fully natural] things happen
>
>No doubt that some things which occur are figments of peoples
>imagination and/or religious frenzy, but is every seemingly
>super-natural occurance to be dismissed? Given sufficient
>experience in the study of different cultures, does one observe
>seemingly super-natural things not currently explainable by
>science?
>
>I welcome your comments.
>
>
>Jon Higbee
>
>jhigbee@cs.weber.edu or icarus.weber.edu
>
>
>
>

	I do not have enough info concerning the rest of it. But I know 
Radio Moscow on the shortwave  used to have a question/answer bit where
they came up with interesting answers to some of this stuff, real interesting.


-- 
A. TRENT PHILLIPS |" A mirror is a negative space with a frame and a place for
  also known as   | your face, it reveals what the rest of us see. It conceals
   WHITE  ROOK    | what you'd like you to be."--Blue Oyster Cult
--------------------------bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu--------------------------
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why Xians Post in Alt.Atheism
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 12:35:26 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.98

nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye) writes:
> I wonder if anyone has looked at the mental health of atheists versus
> theists.  Certainly many schizophrenics are excessively and often
> bizarrely religious, but I wonder about average folks.

I suspect you may have the causal relationship the wrong way round. I believe
schizophrenia is caused by chemical imbalance in the brain, and the symptoms
include hearing voices or hearing your own conscious or subconscious thoughts
spoken to you.  I suspect, therefore, that schizophrenics develop religion
because of their mental illness, rather than the other way around.

Philip K. Dick's book "VALIS" is relevant, here.  It's a semi-fictional
account of Dick's struggle to come to terms with his own religious
experiences, experiences which sound much like the symptoms of mild
schizophrenia.


mathew
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cfairman@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman)
Subject: John Lennon
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 23:00:34 GMT


ierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes about John Lennon's song
"Imagine". Indeed, Lennon was an Atheist, though I think a weak one
with a liking for the mystical.  Acid'll do that to you, I guess.
It's a wonderful song, great around the winter holiday time...

Carolyn
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: y41@aixterm1.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (Jeffrey Hazelwood)
Subject: RELIGION & PRESIDENTS
Organization: University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 10:20:41 GMT

Ok, I just watched Clinton's swearing in ceremony and I couldn't believe how
religious is was.  Since I'm in Germany, we saw it live but with German
news anchors.  They couldn't believe how religious the whole thing was
and found it amusing that the government could carry on in such a way. I 
found the innaguration disgusting. In America, if you don't preach about
God or carry on about religion you have no chance in hell(grin) of becoming
president! Just once I would like to see the president say, "Look folks
there is no God. Stop praying, get off your asses and do something about
our problems." or after winning a war "Don't thank the Lord for winning,
thank the fucking Tomahawk cruise missiles and the stealth fighters!" 

KINISON MODE=ON

WHY THE HELL WAS BILLY GRAHAM THERE?!?!

KINISON MODE=OFF

To sum it up, there was...The Homeboy Baptist Choir..Billy Graham..Clinton...
the Lord...Benediction...more prayers...Amen...

What do you other atheists think about this? 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMAIL: Jeffrey T. Hazelwood                    Universitaet Heidelberg
       Ploeck 61/106                            Heidelberg, Germany
       6900 Heidelberg, Germany                  
EMAIL: y41@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de     "Hitler was Catholic." 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jwest@wisc (Jeff West)
Subject: Re: Buddhism - A religion of atheists?
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: 27 Jan 93 13:49:14 CST

:   Still, I was amazed by the immense breath and depth of Lao Tzu's
:   philosophies.  It's one of the most amazing things I ever came across.
:   If u r interested, I can explain the essense of Tao (based on the
:   original text) sometimes.
: 
:   Regards.
: 
:   CHADE MENG

I'd be interested in a thread of this topic Chade.

Jeff

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

    - Calvin & Hobbs

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
From: brumleve@iboga (Dan Brumleve)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:17:12 GMT

delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu (Scott C DeLancey) writes:

>In article <01050133.ohmnd7@distant.uucp> edw@distant.uucp writes:

>>Not to inject reason into this, but could you ask these questions for me?
>>
>>Assuming, for the sake of argument, that God says homosexuality is immoral,
>>can you tell us why He says it's immoral? If it's because He says so, please
>>tell us *why* He says so. Now, we have your *real* reason for thinking that
>>homosexuality is immoral. Unless you can explain *why* God says homosexuality
>>is immoral, you're making your god look pretty arbitrary, or, alternatively,
>>you're making morality beyond human comprehension, which would make me wonder
>>why we're being held accountable for things that we can't even begin to
>>comprehend.
>>
>>You see, the Divine Command theory of morality doesn't work, even to fellow
>>believers. You're going to need to fall back onto some other moral theory.
>>
>>I'll be looking forward to your *real* justification for condemning
>>homosexuality.
>>
>>Ed
>>
>>
>Huh?  Was this addressed to *me*?

>Scott DeLancey

     I think he misinterpreted your quote from the Bible as slimy
fundamentalist drivel, instead of a demonstration that the Bible does
indeed comdemn homosexuality.

-Dan

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:27179 talk.religion.misc:27765 alt.pagan:15998
From: p00168@psilink.com (James F. Tims)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Religious Taxation (was: Madeleine Murray O'Hare)
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:46:57 GMT
Organization: none
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>FROM:   Norman R. Paterson <nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk>
>
>In article <7H1wXB1w165w@circle.raleigh.nc.us> lance@Circle.Raleigh.NC.US (Lance A. Brown) writes:
>>emd@oneb.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>>
>>> > Lance A. Brown (lance@Circle.Raleigh.NC.US) wrote:
>>> > : This point has been covered before.  Succinctly, the power to tax an
>>> > : organization is a power to destroy it.  I agree that churches should pay
>
>...
>
>I don't think that the problem is that the power to tax is the power to destroy 
>- in fact, quite the reverse.  If you start to tax religious organisations, then
>they will be justified in claiming representation (no taxation without ...).
>This will lead to churches lobbying government, and that is the problem.  The
>-Norman

Good point.  I had forgotten that one!

-jim
From: jwest@wisc (Jeff West)
Subject: Re: CHRISTIANS ARE BEING DUPED!
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: 26 Jan 93 10:43:32 CST


Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!  ;-)

Jeff

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

    - Calvin & Hobbs
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Strong atheism ought to explain theism (Was: Re: Atheism is dogmatic.
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:04:17 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <77654@apple.apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>In article <11212@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>>In article <77482@apple.apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>>>In article <11194@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>>>I have memories of experiences of beings that I think deserve to be
>>>called gods. Of course, maybe I don't count as I am (apparently) an
>>>atheist. I suppose it's because I can tell the difference between
>>>experiences that (for example) people on the net are going to consider
>>>real and ones they aren't, and because I am skeptical by temperament.
>>
>>  You just shot yourself in the foot.  There was apparently some
>>  discernable factor of the experiences you are recalling that makes
>>  them of the variety you know we find unconvincing.  Hence, these
>>  experiences were not the same as you daily experiences, and don't
>>  qualify as the kind to which I was referring.
>
>No I didn't. They are 'daily experiences'. 
>
>I honestly can't tell what the 'kind to which [you were] referring'
>means.

  I'm talking about the kind of experiences you mention that you can
  tell people on the net will be skeptical of.  *How* can you tell?
  What's different about these experiences than, say, observing your
  hand at the end of your arm?  If you can tell the difference, than
  these experiences fall outside of the realm that you and I call
  normal mundane sensation.
  
  I want an example of an encounter with god that was in every
  detail as real to you as sitting at your terminal typing a reply
  to my post.  Ideally, all of the senses would be involved.  If
  not, something akin to a conversation with another person will do,
  where you hear actual words, and see a complete solid body. 

  I want to hear of something so real to you that you could not tell
  it apart from the routine of your daily life.

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

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!
From: C106LR4H@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Willing land to God (was: testing)
Date: 28 Jan 93 22:33:35 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo


  Oh man! Sorry i messed up, but see above somewhere article I wrote, I
forgot to change the Topic after I figured out how to do the posting. :)
                                                   -Eric
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jwest@wisc (Jeff West)
Subject: Re: A Challenge
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: 26 Jan 93 10:38:21 CST

cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
: So it wouldn't be worth the effort to get opposing groups together to try to 
: set up a forum for debate?  
: 
: MAC

What would it accomplish MAC?

Jeff

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

    - Calvin & Hobbs

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - with Dan)
Subject: Re: Buddhism - A religion of atheists?
Organization: Institute Of Systems Science, NUS
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:46:21 GMT

T.G.Nattress@newcastle.ac.uk (Graeme Nattress) writes:
: Oh dear!  According to the above article on Budhism I'm a sort of Pseudo
: Budhist!!!   And I always thought I was a Strong Atheist with Humanist
: tendancies...  :-)  :-)
: 
: Graeme,
: {---    T.G.Nattress@uk.ac.ncl -----------------------------------------}

I have news for u.  I am a Strong Buddhist AND a Strong Atheist with
Humanist tendancies. :)

Regards.

CHADE MENG
------------------

 Which came first, Rationality or Atheism?


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: gj156879@alfred.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879)
Subject: Re: Buddhism - A religion of atheists?
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:48:45 GMT

Although my knowledge is sketchy on the matter, the Taoist philosophy
seems to be godless as well.  (Sort of)  From what little I've read,
they have "gods", but recognize them as an internal manifestation.
That is, they don't exist "out there", but exist inside you.  The gods
are more label than substance.  What do we call this hunk of our
personality?  Let's call it Thor, or whatever...

An idea that has appeal to me...

                                        Nik
                    Any clarifications on whatever I'm talking about
                    would be extremely helpful...
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism in pop culture
Date: 23 Jan 93 06:07:05 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1993Jan21.184622.10774@cs.ucla.edu> pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:
>Somebody sent me the words for John Lennon's hit song "Imagine". Lennon
>and his song are before "my time", but they seem to hint at atheism.
>Was he an atheist?

Yes.

>Can you think of any examples of explicit atheism expressed in pop
>songs or other pop culture works?

One of my favorites is a John Lennon song from "Plastic Ono Band", his
first post-Beatles album (which, although it is not a Beatles album,
is my favorite 'Beatles' album). I reproduce its lyrics here for
your enjoyment.

God

God is a concept
By which we measure our pain
I'll say it again
God is a concept
By which we measure our pain
I don't believe in magic
I don't believe in I-Ching
I don't believe in Bible
I don't believe in Tarot
I don't believe in Hitler
I don't believe in Jesus
I don't believe in Kennedy
I don't believe in Buddha
I don't believe in Mantra
I don't believe in Gita
I don't believe in Yoga
I don't believe in Kings
I don't believe in Elvis
I don't believe in Zimmerman
I don't believe in Beatles
I just believe in me
Yoko and me
And that's reality

The dream is over
What can I say?
The dream is over
Yesterday
I was the dreamweaver
But now I'm reborn
I was the walrus
But now I'm John
The dream is over
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jstump@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (John E. Stump)
Subject: Re: Let's try these proofs
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:06:06 GMT
Organization: IBM AWD Austin, TX

In article <1993Jan22.172946.29855@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>yea027@marshall.wvnet.edu writes:
>>
[silly stuff deleted]
>>	Now when God is the sovereign of the universe, is it 
>>not logical that you submit willingly to His commands and
>> model your life according to the way of life He set for 
>>mankind?  You can find that way of life explained fully in 
>>Islam.
>
>This is something I've never understood.  How can you make the jump
>from "there must be some sort of Prime Mover that is the source of
>existence" to "God exists in precisely the way explained in this
>book"?
>
>-- 
>_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
>/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
>_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
>  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
> /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau

There is something else I could never fathom. Why can't theists believe
that the universe simply exists, without a concious creator? They can
easily believe that god exists without a creator; why not the universe
too and remove one layer of complexity?

I don't claim to know how the universe came about, but I am very sure
that it was not by some "concious" power who purposely created it.

john
-- 
John Stump (jstump@netftp.austin.ibm.com)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A Challenge
Date: 27 Jan 93 11:06:30 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.98

cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
> So it wouldn't be worth the effort to get opposing groups together to try to 
> set up a forum for debate?  

I doubt it.  My experience is that Usenet is actually *better* for these
debates than real life, because on Usenet all participants can respond
point-by-point, can't be interrupted, and can retrieve previous sections of
the debate for reference and quotation.  And the oratory skills of the
preacher don't help him sway the audience.


mathew