HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:05:16 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adminstration / Boulder Labs

In article <25024@castle.ed.ac.uk> loki@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Kashko) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.201550.15888@newsgate.sps.mot.com > titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:

[I purportedly]
>>claimed that the Supreme Court's decision in the peyote case
>>somehow resulted from a mis-statement made by George Bush in 1988 while cam-
>>paigning for President.  How did a mis-statement in extemporaneous remarks
>>cause this ruling?
>
>	Because the off the cuff statements of powerful people are often
>treated as commands by the less powerful ("Who will rid me of this
>troublesome priest?")

That's a bit of stretch in the United States, at least at the moment,
but the President does set the tone.

The President thinks atheists [and presumably agnostics, pagans, new-agers,
etc] aren't really full citizens?  Let's try to convince Congress to pass
a law striping Wiccan's of the tax-exempt status.  After all, Wiccan's
are really just witches 'hiding' under another name.  Jesse Helms' did.
(Everyone who is surprised, raise your hand).

Or let's have a 'non-demoninational' prayer in a public school, and by
the time someone complains and the case works its way up to the Supreme
Court Bush will have named enough Justices that we can get rid of this
burdensome law.  The current _National Review_ is still fuming over
the loss of Lee v. Weisman.

Finally, the leader of an extremely heterogenous society such as the
United States should be _extremely_ careful not to encourage a "tyranny
of the majority."  S/he should always be inclusive of minorities, except
perhaps for those who are inherently disruptive (e.g., the KKK).  For
Bush to casually dismiss a large group of people for no reason other
than a different opinion on theological issues is alarming, to say the
least.


Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reply to Gregg Skinner -- Christians and the Law
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:44:20 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <graham.714392382@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>
>Given that you have some error in your interpretation of the bible
>(something you admit to) and that you do not have access to the actual 
>meaning of the bible (you only have your interpretation of it), there is 
>no way you can discern how far you have drifted from the standard.
>
>jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>>    Having an absolute moral standard, even if imperfectly interpreted,
>>    is better than having no absolute standard at all, and being adrift in
>>    a sea of humanistic moral choices.
>
>But what is an imperfect interpretation of a moral standard? An
>interpretation is quite simply a "humanistic moral choice" (to use your 
>words).

It is logically possible that, if god exists, it could by means
of its occult powers cause jim to know with certainty that
he has interpreted the bible correctly. Note that this knowledge
must be of a different kind from ordinary knowledge, which always
carries with it the possibility of error or misjudgement.

I personally think that, in the absence of any evidence for the
existence of such a special kind of knowledge, any claims of
knowing the correct interpretation of the bible are suspect.
In fact, I would consider it more plausible that a person
claiming to have the special divinely-dispensed knowledge mentioned
above is lying or deluded than that they actually have some
such special knowledge.



Xref: sparky alt.atheism:15596 soc.motss:36349 talk.religion.newage:3942 alt.pagan:8184 alt.sex:27286 talk.religion.misc:14474
From: dcwst8+@pitt.edu (David C Winters)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.motss,talk.religion.newage,alt.pagan,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Get these guys off here! (was Subject?)
Date: 22 Aug 92 00:02:04 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Aug21.174719.25628@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> berninge@iron.ecn.purdue.edu (James A Berninger) writes:
>Chris Colvin is probably not a pseudonym.  A quick look at the
>newsgroups line, and some cross-checking, brings up the "Survey"
>thread from last week -- will you go to heaven? etc.  That thread
>was posted by Chris and Susan Colvin, 70253.2621@CompuServe.COM.

So, Jim, you're saying that the Colvins were considerate and thoughtful
enough to go to the expense of getting a Compu$erve account just so that
they could "save" us from ourselves?

How nice of them.

>This calls for a new addition to the old "KILL" file...

Nah, don't "killfile" 'em, conduct an "Electronic Exorcism."

--
David "Jester" Winters
dcwst8@unix.cis.pitt.edu *OR* winters@vms.cis.pitt.edu

	Illigitimi non carborundum
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ccx018@cch.coventry.ac.uk (Leslie Griffiths (Griff))
Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please Read This One!
Organization: Coventry University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 11:36:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.081539.290@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.182201.28629@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>, simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>> 
>> Simon
>> -- 
>> Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk

>Simon, cut the crap, OK?  As someone else pointed out, this post was
>gated through Compuserve and the original posters will probably never
>see your caustic wit.
>
>So why did you respond to this stuff?  Was it to beat your chest and
>provide a good show for the approval of your atheist peers?  How
>clever of you!  Seize your chance to take the oath, fly the flag, and
>salute smartly -- what a *good* atheist you are!  ;)
>

I thought it was quite witty actually. And bandwidth spent bringing smiles to
faces is never wasted.

>Jim B.

Cheers



-- 
Griff				\\         	ccx018@uk.ac.cov
^^^^^		       		 :-=       	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
		        	//
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: paulk@convection.engin.umich.edu (paul kominsky)
Subject: Re: Shroud of Turin (was DOES GOD EXIST?)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 17:16:24 EDT
Organization: Rarely
Originator: paulk@convection.engin.umich.edu


daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:
> Paul Kominsky mentions the Shroud of Turin shows Roman coins on the eyes of 
> Jesus, and that this is evidence for the shroud's authenticity:
> 
> Excuse me Paul, but coins on the eyes is a Pagan Greek custom, to make sure
> the dead had money to pay Chiron for their passage across the river Styx.  As
> such it would be an incredibly unlikely custom for orthodox Jews to adopt
> (especially once you realize that it is the Jewish custom to bury the body
> with no possessions at all, and that the body is simply wrapped in wide strips
> of torn fabric, (which in itself is another reason to dismiss the shroud)).  I
> doubt you will just take my word for it though, so I will point you to an more
> authoritative source.  A very good article on the subject is:

Yes, I've heard of this, though I've not read that particular article.  
However, since the burial of Jesus was supposed to be a provisional 
burial and not a final burial, these objections may not apply.  (And,
my understanding was that it was the coin in the mouth, not over the
eyes, that was meant to pay for passage in the Greek custom.)

Also, I thought a coin was found in one of the burial crypts whose
discovery was reported earlier this week.

pjk
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:15572 alt.politics.bush:2420 alt.politics.clinton:2511
From: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The "civilized" west
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:59:43 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com writes:

>Recently, some of my friends had to go through the US Immigration and
>Naturalization Service (INS) for immigration to the US. They had
>to state that they were not members of the Communist Party
>and that they never were affiliated (of course, they were not, in any
>case).

The Constitution does not establish entry into the country as a right
for non-citizens.  This means that the government can deny entry to
people for doing things that it can't stop citizens from doing.  I'm
sure when somebody said that the Communist Party is legal, they meant
that it is not possible to prosecute someone for being a member.
However it's possible to do more subtle things, including denial of
entry, deportation, and also preventing members from getting security
clearances, etc.  I suppose that means it's in sort of a gray area:
legal but officially discouraged.
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: DOES GOD EXIST? Not so different from prev post)
Date: 14 Aug 1992 16:36:04 GMT
Organization: Bellewether Bovines, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(THIAGARAJ JOHN : THIRD) once again attempts the impossible:

 		 Can the existence of God be scientifically proved?

No, no, no, and no. Although I am able to hold somewhat grudging
admiration for someone who can sit at a terminal and enter in a
500+ line post, I also wonder what kind of chutzpah it must take
to attempt the proof you do when so many have failed for so long.

I will leave the fine points for others and merely moan about
the repeated use of "!!!!" and  CAPITAL LETTERS for effect. It
makes the post (for me) akin to reading those comics in the
newspaper that are unfunny, irrelevant, and long in need of
euthanasia.
 
One of the more egregious sweeping generalizations:

 wanted to be SURE! I questioned the existence of God! Also I
 questioned the opposing doctrine of evolution. I did not seek

The existence of god and the theory of evolution are not
necessarily opposed. In fact, most christians I know (and
my uncle is a minister) both believe in the theory of god
AND in the theory of evolution, although that clearly makes
no difference to you.

 There are the two possibilities of origins - special creation
 by a Creator God, and the theory of evolution. It has become 

Again, I think you put yourself between a rock and a hard
place by declaring this.

 Even many professing Christian denominations have accepted it, 
 if only passively.

"<standard.net.response:> please show references (tm)"

I can't bear to go on with the rest. I am glad you have found
after 56 years a faith that helps bring meaning to your life,
but please do not be surprised if you get "blasted". IMNSHO,
your arguments are not very persuasive, although your zeal is.

Dano
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:51:21 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Aug17.141934.12009@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>
>The old covenant has been upgraded to the new covenant.  This example
>is one if the reasons I think the new covenant is an improvement.
>--
  
  In the same manner that DOS 4.0 was an upgrade :)

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

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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: coop2b34@crchh75d.BNR.CA (Carey Dula)
Subject: Re: A Struggle With Christianity
Reply-To: coop2b34@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell Northern Research, Richardson Texas
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:27:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.135809.101@news.uwyo.edu>, gooseman@news.uwyo.edu writes:

|>     Since then I have had run-ins with the Mormans and the Jehovah's
|>Witnesses. Both of these groups have shown me just what kind of hypocritical
|>people Christians are.

John, this statement is akin to saying "I was a slave under communism so I hate
democracy."  Both Morman and Jehovah's Witness teachings are radically
divergent
from those of the Bible (i.e. Christian).  They are religions.  Christianity is
a relationship.

You think Christians are hypocrites?  So do I.  I am.  A lot of other things
too.  You should question anyone who claims to be saved and will not
acknowledge that he or she is a sinner.  Romans 5:6 says "...Christ died
for the ungodly."  That's me and you both.  I wish that my life perfectly
matched my profession.  It doesn't.  That's just evidence that I NEED
Christ.

Biblical teaching is not the master of slaves as many make it out to be.

It is very easy to drag the Levitical system (the OT law) past the cross
(when the veil in the Temple was torn in half symbolizing the end of the
Levitical priesthood) and place the believer under the law.  Doing this is
a sure way to produce a defeated life full of standards that no one but
Christ could ever meet.  He did meet them, however, and did so for all who
will accept Him as their substitute.

I dated a girl for four years who had been in Catholic school all her life and
she couldn't tell you the first thing about the Bible.  She was familiar with
Catholic liturgy, however.  When we actually sat together and read the Bible,
she was overjoyed and amazed at the sight of what was actually there.

I hope that you will someday learn these things and can share this joy
yourself.

I feel safe saying that if we live long enough, we will all reach a time in
life when the most important question for us is "what is our relationship to
Christ?"  There is no one who cannot call upon Him for salvation -- even the
likes of me.

I hope that I have not upset you.  It is not my intent.

|>
|>					John Brengman
|>
|>					gooseman@corral.uwyo.edu


Carey J. Dula                                       phone (214) 684-5012
e-mail: carey.dula@x400gate.bnr.ca                          ESN 444-5012
"There are two places where socialism will work:  In Heaven, where it is
not needed, and in Hell, where they already have it."  Winston Churchill
>>>>>>>>> MY OPINIONS ONLY.  PLEASE COMPLAIN TO ME, NOT BNR. <<<<<<<<<<<
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: More on history
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:51:36 GMT

feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:

>In article <1992Aug14.142509.28179@linus.mitre.org> jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:
>>
>>What I'm looking for is specific instances in which the biblical account is
>>different than that available from extra-biblical sources.  The major
>>things (the flood, exodous, egyptian plagues, creation) are obvious and I'm
>>looking more for things like misordered/matched rulers, for instance.
>>The history of the bible SHOULD be correct in a large number of places, since
>>a lot of the text originated when it was current events.  There are errors,
>>though, that should disallow claims as to it being used as a historical
>>reference book (much as I'd be slow to credit the Illiad, though it has a lot
>>of Med geography as a geography reference book).
>>
>>Inclusions, anyone?  What is your favorite obscure mismatch?
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@rod.mitre.org
>>The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
>>They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.


>Herod the Great, whom the NT credits with the massacre of the
>innocent, died four years before the relevant time.

No, it is recognized that the date of the year '0' and the date of Jesus'
birth do not coincide.  He is said to have been born about 4BC...The
persons adopting the calander blew it.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: tcbruno@athena.mit.edu (Tom Bruno)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A question of morals (Was Re: Islamic revolution)
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:03:54 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <graham.713695763@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>(Kevin Nechodom) writes:
>>>Is there objective moral reality?  Assuming that it does exist, how is
>
>I will go out on a limb here and say that an objective moral reality does not
>exist. As far as I can see all moral systems come down to guessing at the
>axioms that will underly the system - and how can you measure the objectiveness
>of these axioms?
>
>As an example of a moral system, consider any moral system based on 
>Christianity. The underlying axioms of such systems are a) god is moral
>andfd b) god is honest (aassuming his existence).
>
>graham

I hope that there's room on that limb for two of us, Graham.  I think one
of the best 'proofs' (used VERY loosely) of the nonexistence of an objective
moral reality is the comparison of the Old World and New World cultures.
When the Catholic missionaries evangelized the newly-conquered lands of Mexico,
they had an awful lot of problems-- the easiest of which being the complexity
of Mesoamerican languages.  However, as the Spaniards soon realized, Mexican
cultures did not rest upon the same 'moral' assumptions as did the Christian
world.  It was an impossibility to convey the concepts of 'evil' and 'sin,'
unless you modified the terms to imply disorder or chaos in a system.  In fact
the closest translation ever made for the word 'sin' in Nahuatl was something
meaning 'a mistake caused with harmful effects.'  However, the local people
used this same word for when they messed up a weaving, or dropped a bowl!  
These difficulties in concept translation appeared all over the New World, as
missionaries learned the languages and tried to teach the catechisms.  

When you encounter civilizations that do not even begin to understand our
Western concepts of 'malevolence' and 'evil,' (the New World was probably
heavily influenced by the dualism of the Orient, since both culture-groups
came from the same ancestral stock-- or at least, the New World-ers are
separated linguistically and genetically least in time from the Orient) you
realize that even what we might think of as our 'most objective' moral 
yardstick-- i.e., emotions, gut feelings, basic personality types -- are just
as influenced by genetics and environment as everything else in the world.
 

>--
>Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
>Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
>graham@maths.su.oz.au


tom bruno
archaeology
mit

'So don't tell me about the land of Nod,
 Where we're supposed to sit at the right hand of God...'
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: HAVE YOU READ THIS ?.............
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:20:17 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <2asJ02nA1eC801@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>In article <16841A740.NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu> NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug11.231925.1@acad2.alaska.edu>
>>atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
>>>
>>>I should finish the Bible, too, but I've read enough to know it
>>>sucks.  Some things are simply a waste of time.
>> 
>>Is there a Cliff Notes version of the Bible for those people who aren't
>>masochistic enough to wade through the whole thing?
>
>Yeah, the book of John and/or Romans will give you a good picture.

NOT.  (As the cutesy expression goes).

These would be a good place to go for the Reader's Digest version of
what modern Christians think the Bible says, but just reading these
will form a rather poor idea of what the Bible as a whole, or even the
New Testament as a whole, says.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Biblical errors
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:54:19 GMT


I've had a little success with the historical error collections (send more,
including things like anachronisms), now how about flat-out biblical errors?
Things like the famous "pi=3" and "grasshopper with four legs".

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Survey
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 02:39:42 GMT


In a previous article, 70253.2621@CompuServe.COM (Chris & Susan Colvin) says:

>When you die, where will you go?  (in the ground is not a valid answer)

Sorry...in the ground is the _only_ valid answer.

>
>If you were to die today, would you go to heaven?

No.  It's not possible to go somewhere which does not exist.

>
>If you were to die today and God asked you, "Why should I let you into my
>heaven?" What would you say?

I would say, "You set up the system that made it so hard to devine what truth
is...by allowing so many "truths" to coexist was stacking the deck.  You
owe me heaven because you did not make it self-evident that _this_ truth was
the only truth.  Instead, you presented us a multitude of "truth" and left
it up to us to decide which one was real."

>
>What is my "agenda" for asking these questions?  Just curious.

Hope this satisfies your curiousity.

>

-- 
*...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.****************
From: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please Read This One!
Date: 21 Aug 92 09:42:01 MST

In article <graham.714383925@galois>, graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
> (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>> What's wrong with this picture?  A fundie in alt.atheism telling us
>>> what type of articles are appropriate?
> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>>Who?  Me?  Fundie?   Com'on Doug, you can do better than applying 
>>misappropriated labels.  What if I labelled you as a godless-pinko-
>>commie-atheist?  Would that be an accurate assessment of who you are?
> 
> Its funny Jim but I have always thought of you as a fundie ..
> 

Graham, the point I was making is that Doug is labelling me into a
classification to which he (and others here) attach additional
connotations not applicable to me.  I may very well be a "fundie",
but I'm not what Doug and many other here mean when they say "fundie".

If all they meant by the word was a person who believed in the 
fundamental doctrines and teachings of the historic, orthodox
Christian faith, then I'd have no problem with that.  The problem
is that's not all that he and others here mean by the term.

It's just like if I were to label you an "atheist" I also considered you
to be a socialist and a communist ready to support the next Stalinist
regime that came along. 

All fundamentalists are not "fundies" in the sense of the term used 
here in a.a., just as all atheists are not Stalinists.


> Douglas Graham
>>> any theories on what it is that makes fundies post such obnoxious
>>> drivel?  Do you think that the religion might have something to do
>>> with it?
> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>>Yep.  That's it.  Just like its their perverse nature that makes
>>homosexuals break into churches and shout obscenities or pass out
>>condoms in schools, 
> 
> Why is this perverse. Sounds sensible to me.

Why am I not surprised?   Sounds like a typical humanist-pinko-
bleeding_heart-commie (i.e. atheist) response to me!  :)  

That's just a joke intended to emphasize the point above -- keep your
shirt on, OK?

> 
> graham
> --
> Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
> Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
> graham@maths.su.oz.au

Regards,

Jim
Newsgroups: alt.atheism