HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cnc@balboa.eng.uci.edu (Christopher Christensen)
Subject: Re: Is omniscience impossible?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 11 Nov 92 07:29:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.223934.3240@newsgate.sps.mot.com> weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
>cnc@balboa.eng.uci.edu (Christopher Christensen) writes:
>>Omniscience doesn't make sense in a relativistic universe.
>>Think about it:
>>
>>Suppose there is an object at a distance "d" from this allegedly
>>omniscient person.  The person's latest information about the object
>>will be out of date by "d/c" units of time (c = speed of light).
>>If the person was far enough away, you could be born, live out your
>>life, and die and the "omniscient" person wouldn't know about it for
>>hundreds of years.

>Your argument assumes that the "omniscient" person is bound in the 
>dimensions of space and time that we experience. 
>
>A being inhabiting additional dimensions of time and space would not 
>be limited in this way.

Not true.
Additional dimensions of space, while concievable, would not change
matters any.  Why would relativity apply to the 3 dimensions of space
that we now know, but not to "additional" ones?  Special relativity
can be trivially generalized to an n-space universe.  It still prevents
omniscience.

Additional dimensions of time sounds like nonsense to me.  Time is a
fundamentally different dimension than space.  We can move freely
through space, but not time.  Time has a direction, we can only move
"forward", to move "backward" through time introduces logical
impossibilities.

It is the dimension of time which limits our possible knowledge of
the universe.  By the time you get information about a part of
the universe, you have moved inexorably forward on the time axis and
your information is out of date.  By giving this wanna-be-omniscient-
being more dimensions of time, it only imposes more restrictions on
the being's knowledge.

Besides, there is no reason to assume the existence of additional
dimensions of space or time unless there is some way for us to interact
with them.  The dimensions that we know of seem to have a great deal of
interaction between them.  Seeing no evidence for interaction with
extra dimensions, I have to assume they do not exist.

Conclusion:  Omniscience is impossible.
Corrolary:   So is omnipotence.

--
|  Christopher  |  Computer Engineering graduate student, UC Irvine  |
|  Christensen  |  cnc@balboa.eng.uci.edu                            |
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21099 talk.bizarre:37833
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: morality????????
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 11:43:55 GMT
Followup-To: alt.stupidity
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>                                          I beleive that the reason that
> capital punishment has not been effective is because it hasn't been used
> enough and normally as a defensive (or reactionary) measure by the society
> rather than an offensive measure.

I see.  So the reason capital punishment is completely ineffective is that we
don't try it nearly enough.  The correct response when something doesn't work
is to try it again, harder, until it does work.

I'm glad you've cleared that one up.

Next time you get a headache, be sure to clear it the easy way, by hitting
your head with a hammer.  If it doesn't work, it's because you haven't tried
it hard enough.

> Anyway I like the island idea the best.

What, Transportation?


mathew
-- 
Civilization is just a temporary failure of entropy.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Help
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:42:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.192506.26872@samba.oit.unc.edu> Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes:
>wasting your breath because you know as well as I that there will never
>be what you would call proof unless God shows himself to each and every
>atheist in this world.
Yes, so what's your point?

> Every atheist I have ever encountered sticks to the
>tiring line, "If I didn't witness it, I don't believe it."
Funny, I don't know anyone who says that. I believe, for instance,
that LIF spectra of CS2 exist, even though I've never actually
taken one myself. The difference is that my friend who did take
such a spectrum told me how to do it if I wanted to. If I followed
his instructions and it didn't work, I'd be kinda skeptical.

>First of all let
>me ask you this: Did you witness any of the scientific proofs for anything
>beyond what one can prove in an ordinary lab setting? Probably not.
What do you mean "beyond what one can prove in an ordinary lab
setting"? I've seen individual molecular rovibronic states, personally.

>Thirdly, and I ask this out of sheer confusion myself (and I'd really like
>true opinions on what you make of this), I am aware that your wonderful
>scientists have now discovered a way to tap the area of the brain that
>triggers out-of-body experiences, and that they now in fact have a laboratory
>where one (with much money to blow) can experience an OOB.
That's funny. I've never heard of this.
You have a peer reviewed paper for this, I'm sure.

> Given that
>after coming back from one of these the person can relay information which
>occured in other rooms/states/countries/etc while they were 'gone', what
>do you make of this obvious proof that the human body entails more than
>its physical being? How would you explain this, and does this not provide
>a damn good proof that when we die we are only leaving our physical body?
I don't need to explain this, because I don't even know it exists.
Sounds like bullshit to me.

>I'd appreciate any input and anybody who would like to know where this
>laboratory is, I can certainly give you that info.
I'd settle for a paper in a refereed journal. Surely you have one.
-Ekr

    
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: *TRUE* Christians
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:03:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov06.103120.20881@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>Secondly, since we're talking mythology here, we have free reign to choose
>whatever we want to worship.  It seems highly pathological to me to
>give death such a prominent position in our mythology.  Why not celebrate
>life rather than death?  But that's a bit off the topic as well.

I think I'll respond anyway.

Christians don't believe Christianity is mythology in the sense you mean--
they don't believe it's a set of nice stories whose factual nature is
irrelevant.  Christians give death prominence because Christianity claims that
certain events involving a death are factual.  The prominence of death
immediately follows from belief in this factual claim.

This is merely the converse of the argument "How can you be an atheist?
Isn't that so discomforting?"  Maybe so, but if there is no God, I'm not going
to believe in one just because it makes me feel better.  This works for
Christianity-versus-paganism: if the facts fit the death centered religion,
just because it might be nicer to believe in a life-centered religion doesn't
make that belief a good idea....
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: "God is unfair" Bible passages.
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:53:49 GMT

In article <Bx8nwn.8q6@newcastle.ac.uk> J.M.A.Gilman@newcastle.ac.uk (J.M.A. Gilman) writes:
>    The story of Elisha and the two bears therefore discusses the
>wounding of a number of male youths, possibly thugs, NOT the     
>slaughter of innocent little children. Knowing God, I'm sure that,    
>while he does deal out violence to people, it is always those who
>deserve punishment, and the lads in question probably got a well-
>deserved lesson in respect for the elderly.

So God merely mauled a group of teenagers for calling his prophet names.
Forgive me if I still put this under the "God is unfair" category.

>    In the case of Lot, God did NOT destroy a city of innocent people,
>they were a bunch of gang-rapists, ...

God did not limit himself to destroying just the gang-rapists in the city.
Even if every adult man in the city was a rapist, he also destroyed all the
women and children when he destroyed the city.  This no doubt included a
number of innocent people.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: one lab
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:14:19 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64746.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Nov13.172458.20847@samba.oit.unc.edu> Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes:
>I have been informed by one fellow student here at GB that Maharishi
>International University (MIU) in Fairfield, Iowa is one institution
>where OOB's are studied and performed. This friend tried to get
>involved with it when he was down there but was told you must be a 
>student there to qualify.
>I'm sure there are other places, and will get back to you all on more
>when I get the time to do the research.

	MIU? Is it acredited? Have they any published abstracts?

Oh, you mean that one student, told you that these things were going on,
e.g. by word of mouth, not that you've actually witnessed these 'experi-
ments'.

Why am I not suprised?

You realize, that if this were possible, as you described it; the US will 
stop using the keyhole's, and investing in OOB technology.
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Keywords: Cure
Date: 7 Nov 92 16:58:28 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Nov6.135913.3366@newstand.syr.edu> dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:
>I am interested in making this world a better place to live, and in
>order to do so I think it would be beneficial if this group would
>think about ways of helping those who have religious leanings.  I do
>relize it would be inapropriate to lock up all Christians, Muslems, etc.
>in insane asylums, but surely there must be some way of stopping this
>defective mindset(s).  Perhaps we should start with the most severly
>disturbed individuals, such as priests and other religous leaders.
>I think maybe someone could establish an anonymous "Believer" line.
>This should be staffed by a psychologist and would give the Believer a
>reality check (sort of a first step towards mental health).
>I would like to hear some other suggestions - something that an individual
>could do to cure a Believer.  Lets see some action please!  

  Good post.  'Cept you forgot the smiley for those readers who
  weren't wearing their humor discriminator.

  I heard a radio interview with a pastor and his wife recently.
  They were discussing one particularly dark period of their past
  when the wife lost touch with reality.  Seems Satan and his
  Minions (you've probably seen them touring Vegas) influenced this
  woman by twisting scripture to confuse her.  She suffered dramatic
  weight loss due to excessive fasting, then apparently performed
  some other bizarre feats of possession that the two were too
  ashamed to recollect.  In a last desperate attempt at a Maiming
  for Jesus, she blinded herself in one eye (the old "pluck it out"
  bit).  

  Now, to the point: obviously, people who present such a threat to
  themselves and to those around them are in need of professional
  help.  But what you suggest is little different than the very behavior
  we're seeking to end in this country and on this net:  the pompous
  attitude that "I'm right, you need help, I'm only doing this for
  your benefit".  You've already taken the first step onto the
  slippery slope to declaring religion a disease.  Once that's
  accomplished, who says locking them up is such a bad thing?  History
  shows us what this level of arrogance usually accomplishes.

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

Bob Beauchaine bobb@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!

Organization: Freshman, H&SS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:19:12 -0500 
From: "Adam M. Donshik" <ad2u+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: A question

Seeing how this si a Bulliten Board about atheism, I was wondering if
anyone can help me by answering these questions:

In the begining of "time" Religion served a purpose to answer questions
which could not necessarily be answered by the real world  (such as the
reaason for the earth's movement, where we canme from), but now we have
a better grasp on what it is that we are dealing with, so, What purpose
does Religion serve now, in present society?  

Has it just become a control devise over humanity, or is it founded in
some cosmic truth that we are not aware of?  

Also, Does any one believe that religion has been warped into a pathetic
excuse for a societal control, or is it still puttereing along as it did
when it was originated?

I have incredible reservations about religion, but I do not think I can
just pass it off.  Too many people are swept up in it's wake to have it
(religion) be similar to a fly buzzing around annoying people. 

If anyone has any responses, please either e-mail me or post it on the
Bboard.  Thanks a lot.

amd
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: THE DIVINE MASTERS VS DUPED CHRISTIANS
Date: 12 Nov 1992 17:08:13 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


	[lots of deleted stuff that I at first thought was a joke]


	OH YEAH ???   PROVE IT !!!!!!

-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu | alias: White Rook
aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: eknipp@lobo.rmhs.colorado.edu (Ethan R Knipp)
Subject: Re: Don't believe anything you hear
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 15:08:50 GMT
Organization: Rocky Mountain High School, Fort Collins, CO

In article <e9FA02nN29zm01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:
>In article <Bx7ACM.27A@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> @expert.cc.purdue.edu (adamsma@expert.cc.purdue.edu) writes:
>>Okay, so you're an athiest.  Don't believe in any God, Devil, angels, demons,
>>good, evil.  Don't believe in any higher authority then yourself.  That's
>>you right as a human being.  However, your lack of belief doesn't change God's
>>infinite love, power, or being.  It doesn't change the fact that Jesus, the 
>>Son of God, died in a horrible fashion to save you from your sins.  It doesn't
>>change the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead and now reigns in Heaven 
>>at the right hand of God.  It doesn't change the fact that you can have 
>>salvation and eternal life by accepting Him as your personnal savior.  Don't 
>>believe.  It doesn't change anything.
>
>What purpose does your posting this achieve? What FACT that you think
>that somebody called Jesus existed? FIRST PROVE THIS. The son of god?
>ALSO PROVE THIS. Raised from the dead? DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH. Salvation?
>Eternal life? DON'T TALK RUBBISH.

        Ummm... I hate to say this, as a fellow atheist, but have you read 
Evidence that Demands a Verdict?  I has an explanation of all of the above.  
Admittedly, I have substantial evidence to disprove what is stated in 
Evidence, but you really should take a look at it.

>UNTIL YOU CAN BACK UP YOUR UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS THEY ARE JUST FIGMENTS
>OF YOUR DELUDED IMAGINATION.
>
>>
>>Sincerely, 
>>
>>Mark    
>
>Look, Mark, why didn't you try substituting another deity or the son of
>another deity in your argument, and read it to see if it made any sense
>at all to you, before posting such drivel. Your god is NOT a fact. It
>is an opinion, so your posting is on the same level as the jerks who shout
>their delusions in shopping malls or on street corners.

        This is true. |-]

>What would your reaction be if I were to post equally stupid unsupported
>assertions about, say Allah, on your favourite religious board?

        Y'know Chris, you'd probably get the same kind of reaction that you 
just gave.  Maybe a reaction is what Mark wanted?

>Chris Lee

        As Atheists, we have a great responsibility to be more logical and 
reasonable about our beliefs.  I will admit I have jumped down some Christian 
throats, but we should always endeavor to attack the Christian belief from a 
logical perspective, because Christians so seldom do so. |-]

Ethan Knipp
eknipp@lobo.rmhs.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto)
Subject: Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 06:43:45 GMT

Helo all

I'd like some comments (if you've read it)
on the book by Isaac Asimov calles 
Guide to the Bible. I think it deals with
the discrepancies' of 
the bible.
Any comments?

Frank Pinto
From: meyers@soda.berkeley.edu (Rob Meyers)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: World of Religion
Date: 10 Nov 1992 20:48:42 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu


	  RELIGIOUS VIEWS OF LIFE  

          Taoism    Shit Happens.
    Confucianism    Confucius say, "Shit happens."
        Buddhism    If shit happens, it isn't really shit.
             Zen    What is the sound of shit happening?
        Hinduism    This shit happened before.
           Islam    If shit happens, it is the will of Allah. 
   Protestantism    Let shit happen to someone else.
     Catholicism    If shit happens, you deserve it.  
         Judaism    Why does shit always happen to us.
     Agnosticism    What is this shit.
         Atheism    I don't believe this shit.
  Rastafarianism    Lets smoke this shit.
		       

----/|          Rob Meyers       | If I were to plug my mouth and nose just
\o.O |          meyers@soda      | before I sneeze, would the sneeze go out
=(_)=           c9c-br@po        | my ears or would my head explode?
                                    

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: epowers@spock.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:09:48 GMT

In article <92307.022853MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
> In article <1992Oct31.190047.8292@u.washington.edu>,
> kruegek@stein.u.washington.edu (Kirby Krueger) says:

> >Okay, first of all, you'll notice I intentionally avoid the word proof. I
> >won't attempt that.  And also, I don't say that belief in no god is  
accurate,
> >but it is a reasonable assumption.  Many of the reasons appear over and over
> 
> The fact that it is an unwarranted assumption is why it is unreasonable.
> You see lots of evidence backing up belief in no god. Theists see lots
> of evidence to back themselves up too. No progress is made. Why? Because
> both sides are assuming. Why assume there is no god, just because it's
> "reasonable"?
> Note: I take neither side, although I have more hope for atheists than
> for xians. My basic question is: why assume in the first place?

	You HAVE to assume something.  You, for example, have assumed that as  
you wrote this, your computer would accurately send what you wrote, instead of  
a Shakespeare play.  I have assumed this is actually what you wrote, and that  
you did not intend to post a Shakespeare play.  "Unwarranted assumption" is  
redundant, but not "unreasonable".  What you do with your assumption is what is  
reasonable or unreasonable.

> 
[bunch of stuff deleted]

> Well, atheism, meaning belief in no god, not just non-belief in god,
> is unreasonable because it is an unfounded assumption. It may seem
> reasonable, but that doesn't justify unfounded belief. Such beliefs
> are the core of xianity and other religions, and you don't think that
> they're reasonable...why not exclude atheism as well?
> 
> Martin Schulte
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth)
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 03:43:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.170147.8341@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) writes:
> 
> Science only considers natural phenomena and therefore any acts of
> God (supernatural) are, BY CONSTRUCTION, excluded from consideration.
> One cannot make conclusions from science about God's existence or lack
> thereof because the two are unrelated. 

Depends on what you mean by God. Read "Space, Time and Gravitation"
by Arthur Eddington.

>   -- Scott @Brandeis
> 

RKP
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Asserting No Gods
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:03:57 GMT
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.


In article <92314.054826MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>, MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
|>In article <1992Nov9.043152.25127@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
|>jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) says:
|>>
|>>There! You did it again!  You say that you don't treat them any differently
|>>and then say that it's not rational to assume none of them exist. 
Don't tell
|>>me that you believe in invisible-pink-unicorns.  If you don't and
still think
|>>that the God question is any different then you DO treat them differently.
|>
|>You seem to think that there are only two sides to this. You think that
|>if I don't believe they don't exist, then I must think they do. Let me
|>tell you about my side to this. I think I tried to get the differences
|>straight before, but I'll try again. They're all baseless beliefs. Not
|>one of them is proven. Therefore, they're all pointless. The only way
|>god-belief is different is that I usually end up talking about it more.
|>If you think that my not assuming unicorns exist is stupid, fine. Just
|>remember that to believe either way is groundless. The only thing that
|>I do that could resemble atheism at all is to not worry overmuch about
|>it. Since none of these things have appeared, I don't trouble myself by
|>sitting around worrying that they might exist.
|>
|>>You missed my point, namely that if you do treat these differently then you
|>>are doing so because of your assumptions, not because the questions are
|>>different.
|>
|>Your point seems to be to try real hard to make me slip up and mistakenly
|>say that I treat them differently. I haven't assumed either way regarding
|>theism, atheism, unicorns, flurgles, etc.
|>
|>Martin Schulte
                             
Am I the only one or does anyone else think these two
people are fighting each-other from the SAME side?
(Assuming no I.P.U. = assuming no God = assuming God = assuming I.P.U. ...)

Could someone bring up
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21108 talk.religion.misc:20940