HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: In the Infinite Universe
Date: 30 Aug 92 08:08:17 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <92241.190933EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu> <EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>If you were to try to travel "around" the universe, you'd never make
>it: the universe would collapse ("Big Crunch") first (this is, of
>course, assuming the "Big Crunch" model).
>Consider this:  Let's try to graph a trip around the universe (we'll
>pretend that it's possible).

[cylindrical time-space diagram deleted for space]

I'm not sure at what you're getting.

You seem to be equating "coming back to the same point" as including
the same time at which you started.  If we are merely concerned with
spatial co-ordinates, then the only thing the time co-ordinate would
have to do with it is if when it changes, the spatial co-oridnates
also change.

There are, indeed, some definite problems with a "trip around the
universe," but they are inherent in the way space works, not
necessarily with time.  One such problem is that the universe is
expanding...finding your original position will be rather difficult
when the landmarks you used to set up a metric space have moved...this
is related to the frame of reference.

-- 
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
Organization: Masters student, Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Thu,  3 Sep 1992 10:03:14 -0400 
From: Jad Nehme <jn1a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: god is not relevant
	<1992Sep2.220150.2279@cco.caltech.edu>

Excerpts from netnews.alt.atheism: 2-Sep-92 Re: god is not relevant
Keith A. Schneider@cco.c (878)

> ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge) writes:

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

> Well, God is relevant to some people.  Some people need the comfort against
> the envirnoment.  Some people need to be assured that they will be eternally
> happy (since their life on Earth is so miserable).  Some people want
> to feel happy when someone dies...  hmm...
> Well, perhaps you should ask someone  in whose life God plays a major
> role.


Is the relevance of god dependent on its (should it be Its?) existence
or is it dependent on people's belief in its existence?
Let me explain in more detail: it seems that with god we can't know
what's happening.  For simplicity, let us assume it exists.  It could
just have given us the bible to see how fooled we are by a book.  There
is no way of knowing its intent because, in Christian's theory, he is
supposed to be, somehow, amazingly smart, even smarter then us.  After
all, the dude's omniscient and omnipotent. Since we can't know anything
about it even when assuming it exists, what is then the relevance of its
existence?  The question is not asking about the relevance of people
believing in it, but the relevance of its existence?

-Jad
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Virgin Goddess ....
Keywords: God
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:52:50 GMT

In article <nkjn_mb@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>
>It's dedicated to Athena...matron goddess of Athens.  She 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...which leads me to think it's
>Proserpina.
>

Virgin Goddess?  Now, there's an idea!  If only I could
remember where I heard it before ....

BTW, I heard on the radio this morning (normal secular radio,
mind you) that JC and his mom made an appearance yesterday
somewhere in Kentucky.  Lots of people claimed to see the
wonderful apparition.  When one of the lucky viewers was 
asked why some people saw the sight and others did not,
the answer was that you had to be a believer to see it.

Hmmm ...


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Goodbye
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:01:10 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

I just wanted to let you all know that I will be leaving my current
job, and for the nonce at least, usenet (or even e-mail!) access, as
of this Friday, the 4th.  I'm going to be relocating from the
Northeast down to the Charlotte, NC area, so that our nuclear family
can be closer to the extended portion.  I'll be working on becoming
part of the global electronic village, but I don't know how long it'll
take (convincing an employer that e-mail or even comp.* is an asset to
software development is one thing, alt.atheism perhaps a little
trickier)

Anyway, I've been reading and participating in these groups for
somewhat over three years, and I've always found the discussion
interesting and educational.  (Despite one poster's reaction to my use
of that phrase the other day, I do think I've learned quite a bit
here).  Keep it up.  I'll be continuing to participate through Friday,
but don't be upset if I don't respond further after that...  I can be
reached for a while longer via my wife at betsyp@apollo.hp.com

-jim


-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.
From: yohan@sam.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: assholes
Date: 2 Sep 1992 08:54:46 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sam.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <1992Sep2.084159.7166@news.ysu.edu>, ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>
>In a previous article, j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Some complete and total
>dickhead) vomits,
>
>>Wouldn't you really have to see all of existence to make
>>such a pompous claim as "there is no god"?
>>
>>I don't give two shits if you reject religion.
>>
>>
>>But for some bag of blood and bones that hasn't lived more than 100 years
>>on this blue ball of earth to reject the idea of "god" altogether. . .
>>
>>You'd have to be an asshole.
>>
>
>Speaking of assholes...
>
>Look, asshole, if you took the time to read the group, or the FAQ, you
>would realize that _MOST_ atheists NEVER make the claim "there is no
>God"(except for humor or emphasis).  Instead, we say "There is a lack of
>evidence concerning the existance of a god".
>
>Even a dickwad like you can make that distinction, can't you?
>
>(the more fuckheads I see like this, the more convinced I am that we need 
>a moderated group...<sigh>)
>
>-- 
>*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Peter...PETER!!  I can see    *
>*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // your house from here!"          *    
>*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // Jesus Christ, from the cross     *
>****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************


1)  Don't respond to this garbage; that's what the poster's want.
2)  A moderated group is censorship.  If you don't like what you begin to read,
then ignore it.  This little inconvienience is worth avoiding the mess of someone
determining what is postable and what is not.  Chances are that something is
going to get cut that someone wanted to read.  If you think that cuts could be
limited to crap like the "assholes" post, you might be right, but I vote against
taking that risk.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: kari@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Dave)
Subject: Re: Crusades, once more into the breach!
Followup-To: Same
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:32:38 GMT




Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: frisinv@alleg.edu
Subject: Re: A question
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:02:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.154203.5111@pellns.alleg.edu> frisinv@alleg.edu  
writes:

> the firm belief that such a place exists 

That should say _no such place exists_. 
----
Vince
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel)
Subject: Re: assholes
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 03:41:16 GMT

j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:

>Wouldn't you really have to see all of existence to make
>such a pompous claim as "there is no god"?

>I don't give two shits if you reject religion.

>But for some bag of blood and bones that hasn't lived more than 100 years
>on this blue ball of earth to reject the idea of "god" altogether. . .

>You'd have to be an asshole.

Ah, so to avoid being an asshole then you would have to be consistent
and continue your process with everything that you could possibly imagine
being true but for which you have little evidence.  So then I guess the
choice is between being a rational, sane asshole or an insane `non-asshole'.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: csfed@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Frank Doss)
Subject: Re: LIFE GOES ON UNTIL YOU DIE
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:23:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.211616.25229@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
>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_? 

What is this entity "life" that has the rationality to possess anything?
You are anthropomorphisizing electro-chemical reactions.

>>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. 

I have memories regarding some of my infancy as well as regarding 2
seconds ago.  The thoughts and memories are real and will continue to
live as long as I do.  The thrill of gaining new memories and thinking
new thoughts gives me the impetus to try new experiences and to continue
living.

>>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? 

My above quotation was a flame against beliefs in afterlife, in prelude
to show how one does not have to be religious to fear (or dread) death.

>>Fear can also grow from a fear of losing what one currently has. 
>
>We're constantly losing what we have. You must be miserable.

Fear: an unpleasant often strong emotion caused by anticipation of
awareness of danger.

A little fear is healthy.  A lot of fear is dangerous.  Fear out of
control will drive one to the loony bin.

>>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. 

You are reading that which I have not written.  You are applying xian
logic to my words.  Please do not insult me thus. :-)

>Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!

-- 

Frank Doss 
The above stated words are my opinions and do not reflect the opinions,
attitudes, or policies of my employer or any affilliated organizations.
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: assholes
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:32:59 GMT
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center

In article <1992Sep2.084159.7166@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>
>In a previous article, j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Some complete and total
>dickhead) vomits,
>
>>Wouldn't you really have to see all of existence to make
>>such a pompous claim as "there is no god"?
>>
>>I don't give two shits if you reject religion.
>>
>>
>>But for some bag of blood and bones that hasn't lived more than 100 years
>>on this blue ball of earth to reject the idea of "god" altogether. . .
>>
>>You'd have to be an asshole.
>>
>
>Speaking of assholes...
>
>Look, asshole, if you took the time to read the group, or the FAQ, you
>would realize that _MOST_ atheists NEVER make the claim "there is no
>God"(except for humor or emphasis).  Instead, we say "There is a lack of
>evidence concerning the existance of a god".
>

I'll add to this by saying there is no god as religionists in my experience
have defined it. There is a mental concept they have labeled "god", so in 
this respect, I suppose it exists (the concept). God was created by man in 
his own image. I've been called asshole and worse before. It really doesn't
hurt my feelings in the least, especially when coming from such a pitifully 
ignorant, wretched waste of human flesh. Get a life, and maybe someday you
can aquire a brain. With luck you may eventually acquire a capacity for
rational thought, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik (Hacker))
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Bush quote?(not the FAQ atheist one)
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:30:57 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <5khy1r+@rpi.edu>, mcgead@jacob.its.rpi.edu (Darren McGeary)
wrote:
>     I could have sworn that I just heard on the radio that George Bush has
> said something to the effect that 'You cannot be President if you don't
> believe in god'.  Has anyone else heard this?  I'm sure that they weren't  
> referring to the 'atheist quote' from years back.

He stated something that Democrats don't believe in one nation under
one God. The next clip on CNN showed Clinton and Gore step out from
a Church. Politics, politics...

Cheers,
Kent
---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.emacs
From: rodespai%munich.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Robert Despain)
Subject: Re: Where it came from (was Re: Survey)
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:10:03 MDT

[Much omitted -- bottom line is Texas rednecks offended by
demon/devil/logo from USENIX pubs covers.]

So how do these folks handle Arizona State University -- The Sun
Devils?

Other than refuse to schedule them in favor of such Texas schools
as the Horned Frogs?

Cheers,
Captain Curmudgeon
R.O.Despain@m.cc.utah.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mcgead@operators.its.rpi.edu (Darren McGeary)
Subject: Re: Bush no friend of atheists (but Clinton no better)
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:25:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.150321.13807@mcc.com> amck@mcc.com (Alan McKendree) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.195334.3774@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug27.152053.15655@mcc.com> ai.amck@mcc.com (Alan McKendree) writes:
>>>[political disclaimer follows]:  BTW, this is _not_ to say I support
>>>Bill Clinton in the upcoming election.  I've never heard either of them
>>>talk for more than 5 minutes on policy or programs before saying
>>>something with which I violently disagree.  I dread the next four years
>>>under the leadership of whichever wrong-headed, philosophically corrupt
>>>power-seeker gets the majority of votes this November.
>>
>>I think Clinton is the far superior alternative to a candidate whose party is
>>falling further and further into the clutches of its right-wing religious
>>faction.  Clinton may be religious but at least he's not trying to weaken the
>>separation of church and state with the money-for-private (i.e. "Christian")
>>schools that Pat Buchanan was pushing, and the whole family values non-issue
>>the Republican leadership has decided is the most important.
>>
>*IF* atheism were the one and only thing I cared about, I might vote
>for Clinton.  I might even do so enthusiastically.  But in addition to
>being an atheist, I am a capitalist and individual-rightsist, which
>takes Clinton right out of the running for my vote.  It was reported
>on the radio yesterday that he's promised to install some kind of
>"national health plan" within the first 100 days of his administration
>:-(, for an example of _one_ specific grandiose "in your face and in
>your wallet" scheme.
>
>As I said in my quoted paragraph above, I see this November as a true
>no-win regardless of the outcome.

   Sometimes its frustrating to see a post like the one above that
completely ignores a choice that fits this person very well.  And
that is the Libertarian Party candidate, Andre Marrou.
   If everybody who didn't vote for him just because they think it would
be a throwaway vote, actually did vote for him, we might actually get enough
votes so that the press couldn't ignore the Libertarian Party anymore.
   Unfortunately, when you combine the level of inteligence and the level
of apathy in this country, I don't see this has happening.


-- 
Darren McGeary -  mcgead@rpi.edu          Freedom of religion means freedom 
PRO-CHOICE - THE AMERICAN WAY             FROM religion!!
Banish religion from government!          -These are my opinions. They just
Atheists Unite!!                           happen to also be the right ones.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.religion.kibology
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Pythagorean Reform Church
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:42:08 GMT

In article <Sep04.044154.12174@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith) writes:
>In article <92247.115437HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET> HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET writes:
>>Is is possible to join the Reformed Pythagorean Reform Church which still
>>allows the eating of beans?
>
>No, but you can use Pi in calculations provided you do an act of pennance.
>I know somebody who would benifit by the cessation of beans, (okay, *I* would benifit by his cessation of beans), how do I convert somebody?

You must buy and indulgence this involves sending $100 in small unmarked
bills to the pythagorean reform church at

P.O. Box #108
217 Park ave.
Worcester MA 01609

I will pray over the money before spending it, thus removing your sin.

-- 
------          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  . . . .
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Stephen Hawking - National Public Radio
Date: 25 Aug 92 03:38:22 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug23.154527.25699@walter.bellcore.com>,
arturo@alcor.bellcore.com (A. Cisneros) wrote:
> There was a story this morning on National Public Radio (U.S.)
> on Stephen Hawking. It ended with what appeared to be a quote
> attributed to him: "Then we will know the mind of God".
> 
> What concerms me about this is that it tends to attribute
> to Hawking a belief he apparently does not hold. I read
> "A Brief History of Time" and it is pretty clear to me that
> he does not believe in a personal god. Is there anyone who
> knows him that can tell us whether Hawking uses "God"
> metaphorically for Nature? Is the NPR report inaccurate?

A TV program abut Hawking gave us a good insight into how
his wife -- a Christian -- was worried that Hawking was not
convinced that a God had created the universe. And that his
theories might suddenly kill the notion of a creator based
Big Bang (note, not Band!). While Stephen pointed out the view
that Big Band could be explained scientifically. I got the feeling
he was either a skeptic or a true agnostic/atheist.

It also showed that families where the parts have opposite world views
works! Take note, Bush, family values at it's best.

Cheers,
Kent

---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
From: tony@mantis.co.uk (Tony Lezard)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is .moderated dead?
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:46:40 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:

> 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.

Well it's alive at this end. Prior to today, about 8 articles went
out on the 28th and about 6 the day before, and so on. If the silence
keeps up, mail me. Actually use atheism-request@mantis.co.uk because
I'm going on holiday(*) in a couple of days and mathew's coming back
from his holiday and taking over the moderation of .moderated.

By the way, thanks to those who mailed me saying they could not get
.moderated. I'm leaving it to mathew to try and sort out.

(*) Phoenix, Santa Fe, NYC, Atlantic City... Anything you like-minded
individuals reckon I should do/see while I'm in these areas?

--
Tony Lezard
 Acting moderator, alt.atheism.moderated (submissions to atheism@mantis.co.uk).
  tony@mantis.co.uk / tony%mantis.co.uk@uknet.ac.uk / arl10@phx.cam.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A question
Date: 27 Aug 92 00:16:09 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,soc.motss
Organization: Apple

In article <20AUG199213272282@chemvx.tamu.edu>, lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu
(Brett G. Lemoine) wrote:
> 	The Republican party proclaims that it is the party of
> judeo-christian values and that the Democrats are godless, anti-family
> baby-killers. They claim that either you are either pro-family and 
> anti-homosexual, or that if you support the right of homosexual couples
> to the same legal protections that heterosexual couples presently enjoy
> then you are somehow trying to destroy the traditional two parent
> male-female family. I'm afraid I don't see the corelation. Do they
> perhaps fear that currently happy married couples will split because a
> gay man is allowed to visit his male spouse in the hospital as a
> legitimate member of family? Will divorce rates skyrocket because a
> lesbian woman and her partner may combine their income on one tax form?
> Would someone please like to explain to me how the "traditional" family
> could possibly be hurt by allowing homosexual couples the _same_ rights
> that heterosexual couples are granted?

We badly need a public interest in the Constitution of the US...

Cheers,
Kent

---
"George, sorry but I do look much better in my running shorts than you and
Bill..."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc