HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: "Separation of Church and State"
Date: 16 Dec 92 10:56:19 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

Jim Burmeister (jimb@rcx1.csd.harris.com) wrote:
: This topic has been discussed on alt.atheism before, but I have never seen a
: definitive answer.  Could someone provide one?

Before we go rushing off discussing just US politics (again) let me remind
people about the situation on the United Kingdom. Here the head of state,
the monarch, is also Defender of the Faith. Bishops are appointed by 
Parliament (at least technically) and have seats in the House of
Lords (the upper house). The law even requires that all children at school
take part in Christian religious assemblies.

In the United Kingdom Church and State are completely intertwined. 
We desperately need disestablishment.

		Aaron Turner		aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
From: sheikh@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu (rizwan a sheikh)
Subject: Re: "Keep Christ in Christmas"
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:11:33 GMT

In article <parsons.724176718@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>sheikh@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu (rizwan a sheikh) writes:
>
>>You missed the point of the original post, namely that these fundamentalists
>>were HIDING the fact that they were fundamentalists.  None of those in your
>>example acted in this manner.
>
>No, I didn't miss the point of the original post.

You must have missed something, because this is the second time you responded
to my paragraph above.

>Anyway, when was the
>last time religion came up as a subject in your local elections?  I can 
>only speak for my locale, but the issue has never been raised about what 
>a candidate's religious affiliations are.  Are these "stealth candidates"
>_actively_ hiding their affiliations...

Yes, but it is more than hiding religious affiliations, it is concealing the
fact that they are fundamentalists with fundamentalist beliefs.

You really should read some of the articles that Mady listed for you.  It would
really help explain to you what is going on.  I don't have the one I read in 
the Washington Post so I can't give you a lot of details.

Jim Copeland
on a friend's account
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Quotes from the Bible.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:37:28 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu

In article <910773f.38.724539646@axe.acadiau.ca> 910773f@axe.acadiau.ca (HEATHER LEE FYFFE) writes:
>I agree, that may be stretching it.
>_But_, you must remember that handsbreaths and cubits were very subjective 
>measurements.  Is it possible that the description given is only meant to 
>give an idea of the size of the thing, and not to provide blueprints of how 
>to build yourself another one?  Isn't this known as significant figures?
>Would you rather 31.415926etc cubits?  The Bible is the word of God, but it 
					^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>was written by men, who at that time simply didn't have such precise 
>measurement equipment, and even today that kind of appoximation is common 
>in all but scientific and architectural texts.  Just because somebody 
>rounded off when they described a circumference does NOT imply that God 
>thinks pi=3.


	So, according to God's word, is pi=3 or not?

>Yeah, that's what it says, in Joshua (I don't know offhand exactly where).
>Once again though, remember that this was written by a man (Joshua himself I 
>believe, though I may be wrong), and for all the evidence he saw, the sun 
>stopped moving.  I'm sure we all, as children, thought the sun moved until 
>someone explained to us how WE are the ones moving... Well, noone had 
>explained it to Joshua, as noone had figured it out yet.  This statement by 
>a man is again no reason to conclude that God thinks the sun revolves around 
>the Earth.  

	It "the sun stopped moving" the word of God(tm)?
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------			The Truth is still the Truth
		      Even if you choose to ignore it.
From: yohan@citation.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Agnosticism Response
Date: 11 Dec 1992 15:22:46 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: citation.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <ByyrJt.Kyv@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j) writes:
>[example of Earth's roundness/flatness deleted]

Oh, and much more which relates the example of the earth's shape to the question
of god's existence.  How convenient.

>>>Once again, you are using a question that deals with reality to prove your
>>>point. I can prove that the Earth is round through scientific means. As I
>>>have said before, the agnostic equates groundless questions (God's existence,
>
>>You are obviously afraid and unable to answer these question, because you have
>>avoided it several times.  The questions I am refering to is:
>>How do you know that god's existence is a groundless question?  How do you know
>>that god's existence doesn't deal with reality?  Stop repeating yourself and
>>answer these questions.
>
>Give me a definition of the "God that deals with reality". Show me a case
>where reality can only be explained by a "miracle" or other "works of God".
>Apparently, you are asking me to prove the non-existence of something
>that has no definition! (Quite a job! Actually, it sounds like a PhD thesis.)

Stop trying to weave your way out of this one.  You know exactly what I mean by
"God that deals with reality".  The question of god is very pertinent to the 
origin of the universe as I have stated several times before in DIRECT response
to your quotes.  You are obviously afraid and inable to debate or rule out such a
possibility.  Either stop using your tired and evasive lines or give up the
arguement.

>
>>You completely ignored the first paragraph of this post, which shows that god's
>>existence could deal with reality and is a pertinent question.The fact that you
>>hide from this question implies that you have no response.  Therefore your
>>arguements and your conclusion that god does not exist has no basis. Therefore,
>>it is very possible that you are as rational as some christian having faith.
>
>So what are you saying? That certain things can ONLY be described by the
>existence of God? Refresh my memory, and tell me how "god's existence

Again you try to throw up a smoke screen.  I have made it crystal clear that the
existence of god COULD coexist with certain events in history such as the origin
of existence.  I never said that some inexplicable event had to be attributed to
god, which I'm sure you actually knew in the first place.

>could deal with reality and is a pertinent question." My entire argument

How about you look back a little in this arcticle and about 10 others from the
previous 2 or 3 weeks.

>with Agnostics is based on their belief that God's existence IS a pertinent
>question. As an Atheist, I say that God's existence is NOT pertinent,
>as it has NO BASIS in reality.

WHY NOT?

>
>>>Peter J Nelson
>>Jon
>Peter J Nelson

Jon
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Finnish Bible Translation
Date: 12 Dec 92 19:36:59 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.


I think I'm having trouble with my news poster, so if you've
seen this request before, sorry in advance.

Would any Finnish speakers help me out with translating a
passage from two Finnish bibles?  The more responses the better.

This is from Jeremiah 29:10, in the Finnish bibles designated
KR33 and KR92.

KR33:
   Silla nain sanoo Herra: Vasta kun ne seitsemankymmenta
   Baabelin vuotta ovat tayttyneet, mina katson teidan puoleenne
   ja panen taytantoon teita kohtaan hyvan lupaukseni ja
   palautan teidat tahan paikkaan.

KR92:
   Nain sanoo Herra: Kun Babylonian seitsemankymmenta vuotta
   ovat kuluneet, mina otan teidat jalleen huomaani.  Mina
   taytan lupaukseni ja tuon teidat takaisin omaan maahanne.

Thanks!

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
From: Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org (Ian Douglas)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 19 Dec 92 11:55:03 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 5:7102/119 - Zero 2 Infinity, CT

Hi All!

On 16 Dec 92, Simon Clippingdale wrote to All:

 SC> EARL OF GURNEY: If there's anything you'd like me to explain, fire away.

 SC> CLAIRE:         How do you know you're ... God?

 SC> EARL OF GURNEY: Simple. When I pray to Him I find I'm talking to myself.

Brilliant :-)))

Cheers, Ian


--  
INTERNET: Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils)
Subject: proof
Summary: 30 words max
Keywords: Jesus,Proof
Organization: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Date: 12 Dec 92 03:28:50 GMT

I'm new here, so before I take my 30 words let me give the disclaimer.

Yes, I am a Christian, Yes I have a brain, Yes, I ask questions.  
I hear a number of people who's case against God is:
I never met a Christian who had an IQ above 40 => God can't exists ( no-one
would hang around these people )
(sure, I paraphrased it but you get the point)

I am willing to be part of an objective discussion about why I believe in God
and what the basis for my belief is founded in facts (no, I can't offer concret
proof in 30 words).  I'm not interested in a flame war, I seriously would like
a discussion based on analysis.  I can't claim to know everything

Ok, my 30 words =>

An empty grave, It would take take even more faith not to beleive, Historical
Accuracy of the bible, Completeness of the Spiritual model given in the bible,
personal experiances, Answers.

one last note, it would not be fair to criticize my answer for being terse when
the request asked that it would be in 30 words or less.

				Craig

Still working on some fancy logo
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Robert Huss)
Subject: YO! READ THIS (not an answer, a question) (WAS: Re: Truth)
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:11:00 GMT


Well, it's been 2 days and there has not been a single response to my post
titled Truth, and I realized maybe that the title suggested that I was
providing the truth, and turned anyone off from reading it.  This isn't so.
Please look at what I had to say, and comment:


In article <BzD70p.E8v.1@cs.cmu.edu>, rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Robert Huss) writes:
|> 
|> 	This concept of Truth has been brought up in another discussion, and I think it might be interesting enough to get it's own subject line.  The possibilities are:
|> 
|> 1.	There is only one Truth.  One way the universe was created, one
|> correct way to believe, one way to be Right.  
|> 
|> 2.	There is one Big Truth, which allows for some divergence at lower levels,
|> so there could be more than one way to believe and still be right.  There is still only one way the universe was created, but multiple ways to believe,
|> and multiple ways to be right.  
|> 
|> 3.	There is no such thing as One Truth.  Each person's truth is unique.
|> There are multiple ways for the universe to have been created, multiple ways to
|> believe, and multiple ways to be right.
|> 
|> 
|> 	Agreement on the subject of Truth doesn't mean we have to agree on
|> what the truth is.  Can anyone provide other possibilities for the existance
|> of Truth? 
|> 	My personal choice is number 2.  I'm not absolutely sure of the Big Truth, but I think that it doesn't matter a heck of alot which way we believe.
|> This is because I don't happen to believe in god, so obviously it wouldn't really matter what we believe.  However, there are those who would agree with 2, who
|> do believe in a god, but don't believe that you have to be Christian to be right.
|> There could be a god, who encouraged many forms of religion, all with some
|> common ground.
|> 
|> 	I think 3 is kind of neat, although I don't buy it.  There are theories
|> about multiple universes, mutliple dimensions and such which might allow 3
|> to flourish.   Perhaps our "souls" are interfacing in this dimension via
|> these bodies, but there are other possible dimensions, and other possible
|> creations of the universe.  Therefore, when we die, our "souls" would
|> return to their respective home dimensions, and the alternate realities would
|> be experienced.
|> 
|> Bob "I vote for 2" Huss
|> 
|>
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: "Keep Christ in Christmas"
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 17:44:37 GMT

Scott S Parish (parsons@cis.ksu.edu) wrote:
: fsrey@rama2.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Rex E. Young) writes:
:
: >In article <parsons.723946184@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu>
: >parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
: >> fsrey@trantor.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Rex E. Young) writes:
: >>
: >> [deletions]
: >> >I do take offense to the rising tide of extreme Christians attempting
: >> >to put their majority on school boards.  As mr. 'jc' said in his
: >> >posting, this is dangerous, and must be countered.  I would pull my
: >> >children from school and teach them at home before I would allow
: >> >people with such narrow beliefs dictate how my children would be
: >> >educated. [deletions]
: >>
: >> Substitute "Liberals" or "atheists" or "homosexuals" for "Christians" in
: >> that first sentence and you can see the similar view taken by Christians
: >> of the current system of education.
:
: >I suppose that I could get defensive and point out that I know of no
: >Liberals, atheists, or homosexuals making strong attempts at electing
: >(and I emphasize electing--That they would be there would be the fault
: >of every American that didn't vote in that particular election) people
: >that support their issues primarily.  But, I can also admit that I
: >didn't think a whole lot about what I was writing at the time.
:
: First example I can think of occured in the Presidential election
: that we just had.  Liberals certainly weren't supporting Bush.
: Athiests were not supporting Bush, and were actively campaigning for
: Clinton.  Homosexuals were promised many things by Clinton and
: actively sought to elect him.  NOW wasn't supporting Bush.  As for
: this occuring on school boards and in other local elections, please
: don't tell me it doesn't happen.  After all, that's what campaigning
: is all about.  It just may not happen in your local elections.

So liberals, feminists, atheists, homosexuals and other left-leaning groups 
supported Clinton.  So what!  How is this relevant to the attempt to 
re-introduce a specific brand of religion in the public schools?  I'm an 
atheist and a liberal and I voted for Clinton, not because I liked him but 
because I did not want Bush to nominate the successors to Stevens, White and 
Blackmund on the Supreme Court (at least one, and maybe all three of these men 
will resign in the next four years).  How is this related to teaching or not 
teaching Christianity in the public schools?
-- 
Mike A. McAngus	(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org) 

Like I really need another time-consuming hobby.
This Posting Exploits Illiterates.
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Summary: Someone apologizes
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: world,public
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 06:10:12 GMT

frank@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner) writes:

>I think it's you who is being dense.  What Stephen was trying to point

Yes, Stephen pointed out that I hadn't read the entirety
of his post, which was true: my mistake. 

<Brief History of Religion deleted>

I don't know what you mean by "creationism", but if you are
referring to `theories' that assert biblical inerrancy, you
will not find an adherent in me.

For one thing, I don't think religion and science, perhaps
like, say mustard and Mozart, have much overlap. This does
not mean however, that one cannot enjoy mustard AND 
Mozart.

>But science and the understanding of the universe progresses inexorably,
>at times in spite of religion.  Well why not, good science tends to

I would argue that this depends on how you define religion;
again, I do not think religion and science need be competitive.
I believe some people like to think that way, because it tends
to make certain types of arguments more "black and white" and
forces discussion into a zero-sum game, where there is much
heat and little light.

>Do your words ring a little hollow?  Yeah, thought so.  Now go out and
>be fruitful.  Educate yourself, don't just assimilate all the crap in the
>"good book."

Which "good book" are you referring to? Surely you wouldn't
limit yourself to just one book? 

Dano

It suddenly dawned on me what the subject of this thread is.
You must think I'm a "bible-believer". Aha. No Wonder.
--
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Keywords: Bible--psychology--fundamentalism
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:34:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec6.113418.19447@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:

A deconstruction:

>	               An Historical Perspective
>
>	A generation ago the proposition that conservative Christian
>churches were about to enter a phase of very rapid growth would have
>struck sociologists studying religion as absurd; one might as well
>have expected astronomers to flock to the geocentric model in droves.

Sociologists are often the last to know; remember they spend
more time trying to explain, than predict. Your "geocentric model"
quote is particularly suspect as we shall see below:

>Statistics on church membership indicated a continuing decline.  The
>prevailing opinion was that religion served to explain the origins of
>the universe, and one's relation to the universe.  As the more
>competent natural sciences increased man's knowledge of the universe,
>conventional religion became more and more irrelevant.  Unless

Once I see such (IMO) absurd generalizations as above, I tend
not to follow the rest of the article, figuring there will be
similar lapses in logic.

I would argue that anyone who opines that people join religious
movements in order to "explain the origins of the universe"
simply does not understand why people DO join religious
movements.

In that case, it is no wonder such people are taken by surprise.

Dano
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Dealing with annoying e-mail
Date: 14 Dec 1992 03:08:27 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


	PS: In case I did not make it clear, the junk put into my filespace
by the "core dump" would be an 8meg or so file under the name "core".
I would Email the person this 8meg core file.....their box would jam
real good...

-- 
A. TRENT PHILLIPS |" A mirror is a negative space with a frame and a place for
  also known as   | your face, it reveals what the rest of us see. It conceals
   WHITE  ROOK    | what you'd like you to be."--Blue Oyster Cult
-------bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu-----aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu-------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: Religion = anything that's fun is bad.
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:09:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.185429.23798@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.005116.16799@doug.cae.wisc.edu> mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec12.213637.19852@timesink.chi.il.us> harry@timesink.chi.il.us (Harold Platypus) writes:
>>>In article <9212121433.AA02595@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:

>
>>Ever hear of kill files?  It would be easy to kill any article mentioning
>>you. :)  Not that I would do that, but some people can.  Also, their is
>>a n key.
>
>Awwww... that's not fair. Just because I offend your sensibilities you
>advocate killing everything I post? Only an intellectual coward would do
>that... as if atheistic ramblings couldn't stand the test of discussion.
>

Gee, I hope you read every single piece of junk mail you get. . . only
a coward would do otherwise. . .

>>>filter me if you dare... HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...
>>>- Harry
>>
>>Why?  I so much prefer the argument.
>>
>
>Me too... that's the only reason I'm here.
>- Harry
Yeah, I kinda figured that.

SD


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: is it necessary to hate?
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 00:41:16 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: alt.atheism

In article <3366.2B34BCD1@catpe.alt.za>,
Steve.Hayes@f20.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes) wrote:
> I have come across tolerant and intolerant Christians, and tolerant and 
> intolerant atheists. Not that I think tolerance arises from a wishy-washy 
> "it doesn't matter what you believe" kind of thing. But as a Christian 
> I believe that there is a difference between evangelism and proselytism.
> Evangelism is telling someone good news. Proselytism is trying to recruit
> someone to your movement by hook or by crook. You can't ram good news 
> down someone's throat, because if you try, whatever else happens, the 
> good news will be perceived as bad news, and thus will no longer be good.

I would otherwise agree with the statements. Unfortunately Christianity
has had its dark ages when the evangelism effort of the good message
had produced very aggressive and cruel actions. In other words Christianity
as any other mass movement systems relies on the internal inertia, and 
sometimes this social force could mutate into something that the 
original idea opposed.

This is true of any other mass-oriented ideas. So I would like to extend
this to any other religion and political movement, and not only 
Christianity itself.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000