HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: "Separation of Church and State"
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:01:42 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1gl0u3INNelh@travis.csd.harris.com> jimb@rcx1.csd.harris.com (Jim Burmeister) writes:
>This topic has been discussed on alt.atheism before, but I have never seen a
>definitive answer.  Could someone provide one?
>
>Occasionally we hear someone point out that the words "separation of church
>and state" don't appear in the U.S. Constitution--the wording is something 
>like "Congress shall pass no laws restricting the free exercise of religion"
>(inexact quote).  My question is, who first came up with the phrase "Separation
>of Church and State" and in what context was it used?  I would like as exact
>a reference as possible.
>
>-Jim Burmeister, jimb@csd.harris.com

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man
 and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship,
 that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not
 opinions, I contemplate with soveriegn reverence that act of the whole
 American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law
 respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
 thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

     [Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT.
      "The Complete Jefferson" by Saul K. Padover, pp 518-519]


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

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@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!
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: "Keep Christ in Christmas"
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:29:40 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

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.  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 or is this just kind of an after the
>fact investigation?  (ie. The person gets elected, and then someone decides
>to ask some questions about their religious beliefs.  In turn gets this gets
>interpreted as "hiding.")  
>
>-- 
>Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
>parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |


It sounds like damned if you do, damned if you don't.  If you display your
religious beliefs during the campaign you are roasted for mixing religion
and politics.  If you keep them to yourself you are accused of being a
crypto-fundamentalist.  I wonder how many crypto-atheists are entrenched
in our school boards, who never breathed a word to the voters about their
beliefs when they ran for office.

Indeed, since when does a candidate have to make public confession of his or 
her religious beliefs?  I thought we settled that issue with the election of
JFK.

Gerry Palo  (non-fundamentalist) 
(73237.2006@compuserve.com)
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 00:45:39 -0500 
From: Geoffrey Spear <gspear+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: something to the chri$tians

	First of all, your "book" was no doubt written by someone who knew
modern physics.  That doesn't make your religion any more viable than
Christianity.  It's just more modernized BS.  
-----------------------------------
Geoff Spear
Carnegie Mellon University
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Class of '96 (I hope...)
-----------------------------------
"You're redlining my bogometer!"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: vdp@mayo.edu (Vinayak Dutt)
Subject: Re: Science and choice
Reply-To: vdp@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Foundation/Mayo Graduate School :Rochester, MN
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 13:27:44 GMT

In article 3BI@mentor.cc.purdue.edu, greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Shawn Green) writes:
:In article <1992Dec16.030334.20463@nmsu.edu> epowers@spock.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) writes:
:  [stuff about science implying determinism deleted]
:I will quickly admit that I am way out of my depth here, so maybe someone who
:knows something can help me out.  Doesn't chaos theory say that not every
:event could be predicted even if you had perfect knowledge of everything that
:was happening in the universe at that moment in time?  If this is true, science
:would not necessitate a deterministic philosophy.
:
Th Chaos theory just says that as its impossible to know all the variables on which
a current event is dependent upon with 100 % accuracy, its impossible to predict
the event as a small variation in them might have huge variation in the outcome.
(Butterfly effect). If it were possible to determine all variables *exactly* then you
should be able to predict the event outcome, but Heisenberg sort of ruled it out :-)


---
-------------------------------------------------------
                                           vinayak dutt
                                   e-mail: vdp@mayo.edu
-------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Dec12.061710.16747@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 12 Dec 1992 19:15:25 UTC

In article <1992Dec12.061710.16747@midway.uchicago.edu> 
dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.005337.14823@nmsu.edu> 
sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>>	I ended Part 1 by asserting that the Bible is primarily a
>>psychological document, and that the long and bitter debate over its
>>didactic content had missed the point.  To continue in this review, we
>And in this, I assert, you are wrong. The hebrew testament is
>primarily a document concerning "God's" covenant with a 
>particular tribe of hebrews. 

Is there really a difference? Who is this "God of the covenant?"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Judge Sends Girl To Church
Date: 20 Dec 92 02:25:23 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

[reply to sidney@b11.b11.ingr.com]
 
>I was recently watching COURT TV when something very disturbing
>happened. They were showing different juvenile cases in a Texas court
>room, when the judge ordered a little girl to go to church and ask her
>pastor what church work she should perform for punishment.  The judge
>gave her a specific number of hours of "community service" to perform
>at her church
 
If the crime had been against the church (like vandalism), I wouldn't
have any problem with this.  Otherwise I'd think the ACLU might be
interested in taking this up as being a potential violation of
separation of church and state.

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: 910773f@axe.acadiau.ca (HEATHER LEE FYFFE)
Subject: Re: is it necessary to hate?
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:38:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.031253.9011@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>I wonder why Heather chose "The Buzzard" for her .signature.
>Do you think it's because prosletyzing Christians are the
>moral equivalent of carrion-eaters, only feeding upon those
>who no longer have the ability to defend themselves?
>
>Just wondering.

This post will be brief (you're all so upset I can tell...)

The Buzzard has been my nickname for many years, and I inherited it from a 
stupid joke about a camel and a turkeyvulture, and an ensuing disagreement 
about the joke.  Then it just stuck.  (See, I'm human too)

Buzzie
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Certainty, Sureness, Knowledge, Proof (Was:Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:41:08 GMT

In article <BzBxyL.FHI@news.cso.uiuc.edu> pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j) writes:
>>Questions:  1.  How is it that you are certain without positive proof?
>>            2.  How does "knowing" imply positive proof?
>>John A. Johnson
>
>This is how I decide, as an Objectivist...
>
>"Idea X is 'certain' if, in a given context of knowledge, the evidence
>for X is _conclusive_.

This sounds circular.  You could just as easily say,
"idea X is conclusive if, in a given context, the evidence
for X is certain".

>In such a context, all the evidence supports X
>and there is no evidence to support any alternative...

Except for certain axiomatic systems, like geometry,
this 100% vs 0% exclusivity rarely happens.

> "You cannot challenge a claim to certainty by means of an _arbitrary_ 
>declaration of a counter-possibility,...you cannot manufacture 
>possibilities without evidence..."
>			   Leonard Peikoff (Ayn Rand's Intellectual Heir)
>			   "The Philosophy of Objectivism" lecture series

Sure you can.  Many scientific advances were, at one time,
"possibilities without evidence".  The process of obtaining
evidence, and refining and restricting the possibilities,
is what scientific research does.

>Since there is no proof that God exists, I am certain that God does not exist.

Using this idea, the statement, "since there is no proof that
black holes exist, I am certain that black holes do not exist"
would have been correct, until recently.  
Black holes were theoretical constructs
(ie., possibility without evidence) which were allowed and/or
demanded by certain cosmological systems.  This "certainty"
is overturned with better observations.

Certainty is an emotion.  You have nicely described the conditions
under which you feel certain.  Out christian buddies have other
criteria for certainty, usually subjective experience or an
appeal to tradition.  Neither experience of certainty says
anything about the existence of God.
 
>PS: "I 'know' that God does not exist" implies that, based on my current
>    knowledge, God does not exist. Knowledge is contextual, and could
>    change based on future evidence.

True.  However, I've found that feelings of certainty result in
a tendency to overlook or distort new evidence.  This is why
I don't bother with it.  One aspect of "maturity"
and "wisdom" is the ability to function and prosper in the
face of continual uncertainty and ambiguity.

>People who claim "to know" is an
>    absolute that will never change are apparantly Omnipotent.

Nope, just certain.  :)

>Peter J Nelson
>pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu


-- 
| Eric |         --- Keep "Saturn" in "Saturnalia" ---

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:52:34 GMT

In article <BzB4Fn.ADu@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.060226.19427@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>  
>darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>> According to the FAQ, atheism is usually defined in this group as 
>> the "absence of a belief in any gods" (so-called "weak atheism"), rather
>> than the "belief in no god(s)" (so-called "strong atheism").
>
> [...]
> 
>> (To say that an atheist believes that God *may* exist seems an alien
>> concept to me, as I had always considered atheists and agnostics to be
>> distinctly different groups.)

> It's not as simple a dichotomy as you seem to think.
>
> For example, I "believe" (on the preponderance of evidence) that there is  
> no god. I suppose that makes me a "strong" atheist in your book.
>
> However, I also believe that it is possible that I might be mistaken. For  
> some reason, you seem to think it is not possible for a strong atheist to  
> hold that opinion. Does that mean I am a "weak" atheist after all?
>
> How about Bertrand Russell, who likewise admitted that it was possible  
> that he could be wrong? Was he a weak or a strong atheist?
>
> --
> Dave Seaman
> ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu

                               _
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose, n'est-ce pas?
     '
As we say in England, while awaiting Mr. Newton's response (JOKE).

Nice post from Mr. Seaman, and easy on the bandwidth too.....why can't I
seem to do that? Rats.

Christmas Cheer

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Bigger and Better Sins
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 15 Dec 92  13:03:56

WHO: holt_c@cubldr.colorado.edu (Lieutenant Wilkes)
ID: <1992Dec10.172246.1@cubldr.colorado.edu>
 
[CUT]
 
LW> "I don't know why, but this reminds me of the absolute
LW> weirdest sin I've ever been accused of. It came during
LW> my infiltration of the Church of Christ here on campus.
LW> Basically they said my sin was not having a girlfriend
LW> at that moment in time. Their actual words were, "You
LW> are depriving some girl of yourself." And I thought I
LW> was strange. Does anybody out there feel that I am
LW> depriving them.
 
So one should boink as many women as humanly possible, to
avoid this particular sin. . . . Hummm, maybe I'll become
a Christian after all!
 
That's Standard Christian Mindwashing (tm). First they make
sexuality a sin--- if you boink more than one person it is
a sin. Then they make not boinking a sin, just in case the
reason you / one does not have a girlfriend / other is not
because you / one is homosexual.
 
They get you going and cumming.
 
LW> Sincerely,
LW> Lieutenant Wilkes

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: is it necessary to hate?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:46:16 GMT

In article <910773f.37.724537200@axe.acadiau.ca> 910773f@axe.acadiau.ca (HEATHER LEE FYFFE) writes:
(some stuff deleted)
> In general, you'll find that today's young people are the ones trying to 
>change the church back to the way it is presented in the Gospels.  It is 
>only those so stuck in ritual and tradition and lack of thought who insist 
>on sticking to the old ways, as they cannot see how unbiblical they are.

Ah memories!  This is exactly the sort of thing that the Jesus
Freaks on my campus relentlessly told us 20 years ago.
This is just another outbreak of the Myth of the Primitive Church,
which seem to appeal to people looking for simple answers.
Although beginnings of the Jesus cult are not well
recorded (the earliest christian writings date to about 30 years
after the death of Jesus), it appears that the early followers
of Jesus couldn't even decide if they were a Jewish sect, or
something entirely different.  They couldn't agree on the question
of the divinity of Jesus, nor on the meaning of the sacraments,
nor on the proper forms of worship service, nor on the
organizational framework in which christianity should operate.

> A non-control-oriented Christianity is not a perversion, it's biblical and 
>a commandment.  A Christianity that is loving, caring, and supportive of 
>everybody, not just its members.  A Christianity that is friendly, where 
>noone needs to feel offended or pressured, but welcomed.  A Christianity 
>that, through the love of God, seeks to help and care for people in any way 
>it can, whether financially or emotianally or whatever, not just trying to 
>convert them.

The moral code in the OT is much more in concert with this 
description than is the "message" of the NT.  The only new
features in the NT are (1) that Jesus is somehow important
for salvation, and (2) the world is coming to an end soon.
The rest of the NT is second hand preaching from the OT or
from Jewish sects like the Essenes.

> What atheists lack, among those who wish to help mankind, is the sense of 
>community and support experienced in Christianity.

As one who has experienced it, I can say that this sense of
community is as much of a prison as it is a confort.

(false analogy between atheism, "me"-ism, and pop-psychology, deleted).

Christianity is the ultimate "me" religion; it's central focus is on
personal salvation, not on social welfare.  This is one of the
ways in which christianity is a step backwards from religions
like Judaism and Islam, which, despite their many problems,
spend more time discussing real human problems on this earth.


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Truth:  You ignore it, it ignores you.
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: D.J.Butcher@newcastle.ac.uk (Dave Butcher)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: "Keep Christ in Christmas"
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:13:34 GMT
Distribution: world, public
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU.


>As for the .sig, no matter what
>I say, the quote will always be true.
>
>
>-- 
>Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
>parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |

But what is the use of a truth that cannot be proven, how could you tell it was
the truth?  Because it 'sounds' like it 'should' be true?

Dave Butcher.
Nb.- Witty Quote goes here.

	D.Butcher@ncl.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: patc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Pat Caldon)
Subject: Re: Ignorance is Bliss.
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 06:13:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.004226.27298@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>
>In a previous article, sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) says:
>
>>In article <1992Dec16.165325.10737@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>>>mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus):
>>>> I'm game. Let's have all atheists use this line as part of our .sig's. Then 
>>>> we can identify each other in the other news groups. The gays and lesbians 
>>>> have their triangles, we can have this quote.
>
>But wait!  How about those of us who are both GAY and ATHEIST???  There's
>only so much room in a .sig, ya know!!
>

And what of those who are Atheist and Bisexual? Or just plain bi for that
matter?

>
>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Mike A. McAngus (mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)| The train today to Morrow leaves today
>>>> The Truth is still the Truth          | at 8:35.  At half-past ten tomorrow is
>>>> even if you choose to ignore it.      | the time it should arrive.
>>>
>>>Well gee whiz and golly gosh and all Mike, but ummm, don't you think that
>>>might just possibly piss Scott right off? We wouldn't want that. Would we?
>
>I WOULD!!  I WOULD!!
>
>>>
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>The Truth is still the Truth even if you choose to ignore it.
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Here is another variation of the theme:
>>
>>-- 
>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>>Truth:  You ignore it, it ignores you.
>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>How about this?
>
>TRUTH:It's not only a good I dea, it's the law
>
>or
>
>This is Truth
>
>This is your Brain on Truth
>
>Any Questions?
>

Better : This is your brain on God =>  ________

Or: You cannot find Truth without questions.

Or the current .sig. (Which I like. :^)

-- 
Pat Caldon.            |  The Mercy Seat is Burning, And I think my Head is 
patc@extro.ucc.su.oz.au| turning, and deep inside I'm longing to be done with
3:714/908.5@fidonet.org| all this weighing up of truth...  -- Nick Cave
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Dec12.053417.15150@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 12 Dec 1992 19:11:42 UTC

In article <1992Dec12.053417.15150@midway.uchicago.edu> 
dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>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.

Hmm. Certainly in the past one of the prime functions of religions was
to explain the mysteries of the earth, like the sun, moon, seasons,
triple Goddess, etc. In the present, science has assumed that function.
When something unusual happens now, we look to science for the
explanation and we are often comforted by what science has to say
although we may not always fully understand it. And we are also somewhat
comforted by ideas like: there is no cure for AIDS now, but scientists
are working on it.

So, in your opinion, why do people join religious movements  today?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Religion = Anything that's fun is bad.
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 22:21:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.191204.24816@bnr.ca> bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:
>Um, dude, I was refering to the "open" part of "open rational mind".
>Your statement "It is the inevitable result of being an open rational mind."
>doesn't sound very open minded.  Hence the contradictions (esp. the 'humble'
>part.)  You know, like satire?

I'm quite certain that I don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Please explain what you think "open-minded" means because I think that
you and I have different definitions, and that difference often leads
me to get a bit pissed at a lot of your articles.

For instance, in talk.religion.misc, you recently responded to Roderick
Moten's rantings about demons and things by calling it "superstitious
drivel" or something similar.  Were you being closed-minded?

PS: Those goofy smilies don't add much to your articles either.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j)
Subject: Re: Non-Religious Definition to Atheism
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:53:05 GMT

>Also, atheism defines something negatively. Whenever you
>define something negatively, it has negative connotations.
>Atheism is somewhat connotative of amorality or a lack of
>values in popular context. I would suggest a more positive
>term. Here are my suggestions:

>MATERIALIST
>SENSORISTS
>MATERIALISTIC UTILITARIANS.

I personally use "OBJECTIVIST", but that's an Ayn Rand definition.
Perhaps you could use "RATIONALIST" OR "REALIST".

>Edmund J. Ryan
Peter J Nelson
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j)
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:05:22 GMT

[...]
>But, in regards to picking a new name for ourselves (another thread)
>such as "objectivists" or "materialists" or "realists", I object.
>Atheist is good enough for me.
[...]

The terms "atheist","agnostic","theist" refer to disbelief/undecided/
belief in god(s). The terms "objectivist", "materialist", and "realist"
refer to overall philosophical outlooks. As an Objectivist, I am also an
atheist.  But that does not mean that I share the same philosophical views
(ie: ethics,morality,animal rights) as all other atheists.

>-Mike Noonan
Peter J Nelson
Newsgroups: alt.atheism