HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: In the Infinite Universe
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:58:40 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug25.080155.27593@sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
>Subject: Re: In the Infinite Universe
>Date: 25 Aug 92 08:01:55 GMT

>In article <1992Aug24.231033.14013@mprgate.mpr.ca> siemens@mprgate.mpr.ca 
>(Curtis Siemens) writes:

>   >Sorry to burst your proof, but ACTUAL INFINITES do not exist.

>   On the contrary, actual infinites do exist. In fact there are
>infinitely many atoms in the universe. Or perhaps you have an
>a priori argument to show that there are not?

>   >If an actual infinite did exist, then
>   >I could do ordinary math with that quantity, and produce an
>   >infinite (concept here :)) amount of contradictions.

>  This is on the face of it nonsense.

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. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        Abstract Arts BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 27 Aug 92 20:36:36 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <BtnAGE.8G@news.cso.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>Isn't this the problem, then?  Rather than expand the legalities of
>marriage and divorce to another group of citizens, I advocate dropping
>state-sanctioned marriage altogether.

  Er, could you wait at least until next year?  My wife and I have a tax
  deduction due in mid December, and I'd like to get at least one
  year's benefit for 9 months of hell!

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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:36:56 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

What utter bullshit.  Neither of you understands anything about
probability or the human perception of patterns.
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618

"In a study of schoolboys, an educator discovered a correlation between size
 of feet and quality of handwriting.  The boys with the larger feet were,
 on the average, older."        Wallis & Roberts, _The Nature of Statistics_
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR OR LUNATIC? (continued)
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:49:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.212236.24748@meaddata.com> joyce@meaddata.com  writes:
}I cannot personally conclude that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic. The
}only other alternative is that he was the Christ, the Son of God, as
}he claimed.

Then you personally don't know the logic that you are pretending to.  For
instance, how about if we go "liar, lunatic, or lied about"?  Would you
conclude that you, or those who taught you, are liars?
From: atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Don't be an idiot.
Date: 30 Aug 92 15:42:02 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska


In article <Aug.30.03.48.00.1992.12942@athos.rutgers.edu>,
hedrick@athos.rutgers
.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
> atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
> 
>>Jean Piaget, a foremost psychologist and learning theorist,
>>described learning as "disequilibrium," a state of mind created
>>by the influx of new information that conflicts with our
existing
>>"schemata" or mental pictures.  Our reaction to the new data
>>determines whether we learn or not.
> 
> and proceeds to assert that people who believe in religion are
> dominated by this, which atheists are not. 

No, no, you missed it entirely.  It is how we all react to new
data that determines whether we learn or not.  I said that
atheists, as freethinkers, react differently than those who have
rigid schemata--that is, we learn, religionists don't.


 This effect (which is
> related to "cognitive dissonance") is well known, and affects
> everyone.  You can see it operating in all areas: religion, politics,
> even science.  It is folly to claim that you are exempt.

I didn't say I was exempt from disequilibrium.  Quite the
contrary.

  Fortunately
> for all of us, people do manage to change their opinions due to
> evidence.  Sometimes they have to be hit over the head a few times by
> the evidence, and of course people do vary.


Religionists get hit over the head daily, but their schemata
seldom changes.  In this respect, they cannot learn.


  But I'm sure we can find
> this sort of thing happening among atheists as well as those who
> believe in religions.  Those who are convinced it doesn't happen
> to them are likely to be most at risk.


Convinced _what_ doesn't happen?  You've got the whole thing
backwards.

Don't be an idiot.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)
Subject: Is .moderated dead?
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:38:35 GMT


What is happening with alt.atheism.moderated?  Is it
dead or is it just our site that is not receiving it?
I was seeing articles untill about a week ago.



--
Eli Chiprout
Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
emc@doe.carleton.ca
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: LIFE GOES ON UNTIL YOU DIE
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:35:45 GMT

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?

Why burden yourself with groundless belief? But even if death does mean
the extinction of consciousness, what of it? Think back to a time
before your birth, before Derek became conscious. Wasn't so bad then,
was it? Were you worried about your impending consciousness? 

>I mean it scares the shit out of me to think
>that in say 40 or 50 years time (maybe tomorrow)

Maybe in an hour, maybe riiiiight NOW!!! Did I frighten you? No? Then
you're cured. 

>if you pursue atheism to its logical conclusion life becomes ultimately
>futile,meaningless and insignificant.

And life is changed by your taking up a religion? Oh, perhaps you
mean _your_ life may become meaningful. Well, just show us which
piece of it is yours, and we'll watch it to see what happens. The
problem is in your wanting life to mean or signify something other
than itself. What is that something? 

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho
From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is atheism experimentally refutable?
Date: 4 Sep 92 00:15:13 GMT
Organization: Xerox PARC

In <71921@apple.Apple.COM> Mikel Evins writes:

> There is [a difference between not(believe X) and believe(not X)], 
> as the thought experiment demonstrates. 

Which thought experiment, and how is this difference relevant to the
matter under discussion? Do we really have to repeat the old battle
about beliefs and lack of beliefs? 


Best wishes,
             Jarek
======================================================
 .-----.            Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com       
 `-> <-'       I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
From: yohan@festus.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: LIFE GOES ON UNTIL YOU DIE
Date: 25 Aug 1992 16:20:02 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: festus.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <1992Aug25.164924.15706@sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>In article <17dm64INNcau@apollo.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@apollo.ksu.ksu.edu
> (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>
>  >What is your definition of evidence?  Do you want to read it in a Medical
>  >Journal?  Logical arguements can act as legitimate evidence,
>
>  You're babbling. The statement "logical arguments can act as legitimate
>evidence" is sadly lacking in meaning. Please try to make contact with
>reality.


1)  You're wrong.  What do you use as "evidence" in a purely philosophical arena?
    BTW, you never gave me your definition of evidence.
2)  People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

This is about all the response your postings merit.


Jon Newton
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.motss,sci.physics,alt.religion.emacs,talk.religion.newage,alt.pagan,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Subject: Re: Subject?
Followup-To: alt.stupidity
Keywords: dumb dumb dumb
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:38:27 GMT

In article <BtpB5L.AGr@news.larc.nasa.gov> carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.134921.28421@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, mwsn_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Matthew Weasner) writes:
>|> In article <25660@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>|> >In article <34544@cbmvax.commodore.com>, kominetz@cbmvax.commodore.com (John Kominetz - CATS) writes...

>|> >>  "The higher you fly, the faster you fall."          -- Laurie Anderson

>|> >    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|> >That's not true.  You have a defective .sig.

>|> actually, in a way, I think it is true. You accelerate at the same rate. 
>|> (9.8 m/s ?) So if you are higher, you get more time to accelerate.

>Um, Matt?  Have you ever heard of terminal velocity?  Ask a sky diver 
>sometime.

Well, if you guys really want to know the answer - the air is thinner at 
higher altitudes, and because of this, the terminal velocity is higher
in the upper reaches of the atmosphere. Thus, the higher you fly, the
faster you will fall, but your terminal velocity will decrease as you 
continue to fall...
   However, I personally think the initial statement is metaphorical to the 
use of drugs. I don't think it has anything to do with parachuting or free-
fall. Of course, never having flied "high" as such, I am in no position to 
discuss the ensuing "crash" associated with drugs. Just a hunch... 8)

steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: In the Infinite Universe
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:28:03 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <=1anh+m@lynx.unm.edu> jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.080155.27593@sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>>   On the contrary, actual infinites do exist. In fact there are
>>infinitely many atoms in the universe. Or perhaps you have an
>>a priori argument to show that there are not?
>
>This is not true.  If there were an infinite number of atoms in the universe,
>then there would be an infinite mass for the universe.  The universe could
>not expand, and would, in fact, collapse to an infinitely dense point 
>unless the universe, itself, were infinitely large.  If the universe had an
>infinite size, expansion would not make sensebecause it is meaningless to
>double or add 1 to infinite systems (who'd notice it?).  Current evidence
>suggests that the universe is expanding.  Most theories state that the
>universe started from a small point.

We could inhabit a universe in which there are an infinite number of
atoms, and whose radius is infinitely large. (In fact, that would have
to be the case; otherwise the mean density of the universe would
be infinitely high). It could also be the case that the space between
any two galaxies is increasing; this situation would not be 'expanding'
in the sense you describe above, but would nevertheless look
just like the universe we see.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Take Your God And ....
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 10:55:11 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli
Keywords: God

In article <10594@spark.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>In article <nkjn_mb@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>>She [_sc._ Athena] was one of
>>three goddesses deemed "the virgin goddesses" with Artemis (who turned
>>a man into a stag to be hunted by her hounds for having the audacity to
>>look upon her nude body while she bathed in a stream) being another.
>>I want to say that Hera is the third, but I'm under the impression
>>that Hephaestus was her child...

>Yes, at least he, and I think there used to be others as well.

He's the only one that comes springing to mind by name.  I do recall
that Hera was often very jealous of Zeus' children getting so much
special attention whereas her children were often overlooked,
sometimes even tortured, by Zeus.

>>which leads me to think it's Proserpina.

>You mean Persephona.  We should be consistent here.

Yes!  My mother is probably spinning in her grave right now.  I should
know better than to mix Roman and Greek names.


>I don't know what kind of virgin she would have made - I don't remember
>Hades having sons or daughters, but both his brothers had a huge lot,
>so it would be strange if he had none.

Well, it's the fact that I can't think of her having any that leads me
to believe that she didn't.  The fact that his brothers had a huge lot
really isn't of any importance considering that a) Poseidon doesn't
have a "wife" the way Zeus and Hades do, and b) Zeus had a lot of
children, but not too many by Hera.

It's interesting to talk about Persephone as there is a link between
her and the cult of the Virgin Mary (I do not use "cult" as in the
Moonies but in the history of the mythos of what is at present the
Virgin Mary...for a very good account of this cult, see _Alone of All
Her Sex:  The Cult of the Virgin Mary._)

Persephone is the wife of Hades and, as such, is the Queen of the
Underworld.  This has a direct link to current Christian teachings
that one method of salvation from Hell is to have the Virgin Mary
grant absolution...thus making her the Queen of Hell.

And it is part of this direct link that makes me think that Persephone
is the third of the triad of virgin goddesses of the Greek pantheon.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.emacs
From: genef@netcom.com (Gene Fornario)
Subject: Re: Where it came from (was Re: Survey)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 06:30:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <Btx2vq.MMn@apollo.hp.com> perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry) writes:
>>If someone has a copy of that story, I'd like to see it too.
>
>My copy of this came from mailing list to mailing list to...; I've
>deleted a passel of routing and rerouting information -- I don't know
>the ultimate origin.
>**********************************
> 
Story deleted for brevity:

Whew!  I had to read this twice, but apparently some people take even
cartoonish depictions of the devil quite seriously.  It is said that
when Dodge came out with a model of a car called "Demon", many devout
Christians refused to buy it on that name alone.

I have a friend who worked with me when I was stationed at Sheppard AFB,
in Texas.  He was from Houston, and listened to a country music station
there with the callsign KKIK.  He got a bumpersticker from them that
said "I'm a KiKKer" (Kicker is a reference to C&W being s***kicking music).
He lived off base in a Hispanic neighborhood, and got more than his
share of threats from people that thought he meant Klu Klux Klan.

But back to computers...I have discussed Unix over ham radio here in California,and have had more than one person thinking "eunichs".

Gene--

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine)
Subject: Re: A question
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University - Chemistry Dept. Programmer
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:40:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.080154.308@doc.bmd.trw.com>, jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes...
}In article <1992Aug25.043742.14071@news.duc.auburn.edu>, singram@eng.auburn.edu (Scott Ingram) writes:
}> Re: 10% of our population is homosexual.
} 
}I seriously doubt that it is more than 2%.
} 
[...deletia...]
} 
}> In the past several months, I have come to realize that the 
}> gay community is out there, but we heteros choose not to notice it.
}> 
}> Orion.
} 
}Your "notice" of the "gay" community reminds me of Sherlock Holmes
}noticing a flea on his dinner plate using his 5X looking glass.   :)
} 
}(If you don't "get it", your "statistics" are about 5 times too high.)
}Regards,
}Jim B.

Out of curiosity, what relevance does the percentage of the population that
is homosexual have on the government's discrimination?

}-IvArch->--------------------------Brett G. Lemoine-------------------->
}-Texas A&M University--------------Chemistry Department Programmer----->
}-Internet: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu-Bitnet: lemoine@tamchem------------->
}------"A person without a god is like a fish without a skateboard."---->
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Take Your God And ....
Keywords: God
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:08:30 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <nkjn_mb@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>She [_sc._ Athena] was one of
>three goddesses deemed "the virgin goddesses" with Artemis (who turned
>a man into a stag to be hunted by her hounds for having the audacity to
>look upon her nude body while she bathed in a stream) being another.
>I want to say that Hera is the third, but I'm under the impression
>that Hephaestus was her child...

Yes, at least he, and I think there used to be others as well.

>which leads me to think it's Proserpina.

You mean Persephona.  We should be consistent here.  Proserpina,
daughter of Ceres and wife of Pluto, is the Roman counterpart of the
Greek goddess Persephona, daughter of Demetra and wife of Hades.  I
don't know what kind of virgin she would have made - I don't remember
Hades having sons or daughters, but both his brothers had a huge lot,
so it would be strange if he had none.

-- 
 `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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: LIFE GOES ON UNTIL YOU DIE
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:16:16 GMT

Frank Doss writes

>Seems to me that the thing to fear about death is the loss of life.
>Life is all we have.

You do not possess life any more than you possess the air you
breathe. Life possesses *you*, and can as easily toss you away as
give you birth. So why cling so tightly to _it_? 

>When I die, I will be as real as a dinosaur.

The infant you once were now _is_ as real as a dinosaur...as is the
being you were 2 seconds ago. 

>Fear of death does not stem only from a fear of some mythical
>punishment in the mythical afterlife.

Fear of death doesn't stem at all from this for atheists. Are you
some kind of christian infiltrator? (raising eyebrow) mmmmm? 

>Fear can also grow from a fear of losing what one currently has. 

We're constantly losing what we have. You must be miserable.

>If you have nothing that you cherish in life, then I could see why you
>would not fear death.

Meaning, I suppose, that those who do not fear death cannot possibly
cherish life. More christian-sounding codswallop (I LUV that word!).
I cherish the transience of rainbows and orgasms over all their other
characteristics. 

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho
From: tino@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (allen.j.tino)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: god is not relevant
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:50:36 GMT
Organization: AT&T

From article <1992Sep02.193850.1579@bnr.ca>, by ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge):
> I've been spending way too much time thinking about what i believe and why.
> I've been especially concerned with the distinction between not believing
> that god exists and believing that god does not exist.  I started from
> not believing in the existence of god, but i've come to the conclusion that
> the god is simply not relevant.  So what difference does it make if he/she/it
> exists or not?
> 
> Now, is it reasonable to call oneself an "atheist" if one's position is that
> god is not relevant?  I don't think that "agnostic" is correct, since if god
> is not relevant then the question of god's existence is also not relevant.
> Is this atheism, and if not then what is it?
> 

I use "atheist" to refer to someone who rejects (dis-believes)
the existence of god, regardless of why.  This is separate from the
issue of whether god is relevant or not.  (Relevant for what purpose?
Even if there was a god, what would I care?)

A distinction must be drawn between just lacking a belief and actively
disbelieving a belief.  If atheism means just r cat are ata ists since
they certainly lack a belief in god.  That definition would make the
term pretty useless. 

This is not to say that disbelief in god is the same as belief that
god does not exist.  Someone who believes that god does not exist
would be an atheist, but the converse is not true.
_______
Al Tino
tino@globe2.ATT.COM

> Or is god relevant?  If so, how and why?  What's he/she/it needed for?
> 
> -- 
> allen@well.sf.ca.us                Allen B. Ethridge
> ethridge@bnr.ca                    Bell-Northern Research, Inc.
> my opinions are my own             Richardson, Texas
Newsgroups: alt.atheism