HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: On God and Science
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 10:09:00

Monday December 21 1992, minsky@media.mit.edu writes to All:

mme> Certainly, this universe would seem to permit lots of different kinds
mme> of life.  But even if this one were uniquely suitable for humans --
mme> for example, if there were abundant natural supplies of tuxedos and
mme> other indispensible necessities, that would prove nothing at all.
mme> Because if I had the job of making universes, I would adopt the
mme> simplest of all strategies, namely, to set up an enumeration of all
mme> possible sets of laws, and create a different universe for each of
mme> them.  To be sure, almost all of those universes would be
mme> uninhabitable by anything, but who cares.

I would be sufficiently impressed by getting *one* universe up and running.
This, to my mind, illustrates the difference between someone with high-level
computers who works with AI, and someone who works with accounting packages on
PCs :-)

It also demonstrates that it's no use giving the former more expensive
hardware, because they'll never be satisfied with what they have until they can
create an infinite set of virtual universes.

jds

 * Origin: What horrors wait for me in this, the Phantom's Opera? (3:632/351)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Chuck Missler and imminent Armageddon
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: world,local
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:27:00 GMT

In article <schumach.725651223@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
}
}>I have found Chuck [Missler] to be a most helpful teacher. He does go on
}>a bit about astronomy and warfare but where he does concentrate
}>on the fundamentals of life in Christ, he is mature and insightful. It's
}>straight down the line, conservative Christianity.
}
}But how can you tell? I mean, if he commits such shameless and 
}ignorant howlers when we can check up on him (that is, when
}he talks about science), why should one trust his judgment on
}other matters?

This is really a central point in most religions and other "wild" theories
espoused about things that we cannot (any longer) detect.  If we can check
SOME of the stuff, and it is not as claimed, why should we believe the claims
made that we CANNOT check?  This is one of the central problems between
biblical literalists and science - it just isn't the way stated.  And if
the "facts" stated we KNOW are wrong, that cases doubt upon the rest.

Ibid other oddities.  When we can tell that at least part is wrong, why trust
the stuff we can't check?


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Subject: Re: Hormesis/Homeopathy
Reply-To: kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:33:52 GMT

In article <1h31d3INNfm0@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.173125.21260@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
>=>The basis of homeopathy is to find a substance which, in sufficiently large
>=>doses, would produce EXACTLY the same symptoms as the disease being treated.
>=>Now you're saying that the symptoms should be slightly different. You're
>=>stretching the definition of homeopathy far beyond what is reasonable. At this
>=>rate, you'll soon include all of non-surgical medicine under the definition.  
>=>Why don't you just give up and admit that you're not talking about homeopathy?
>=
>=My assumption here is that two different irritations may not produce "EXACTLY"
>=the same "response from the body" although the outward symptoms may appear
>=to be "EXACTLY" the same. I am just pointing out a possibility, not trying
>=to convince you that this is true. I do this often and I think that you take
>=it to mean that I actually believe something is true.
>
>I see.  Glad to hear that you finally admit to being flat-out liar.  Thanks for
>the confession.  Perhaps, having now admitted this failing, you can attempt to
>remedy it.  Would that Derek Abbot were so honest.

Carl, when I say "I do this often and I think that you take it to mean
that I actually believe something is true", I am not saying that I am lying
to you. I am saying that the point I am making is only a possibility. A
possibility that might be true. I have not decided one way or another.

If I was saying these things knowing that they were false, then I would
be a liar. But... this is not happening. I am attempting to shake your
rigid certainty about things by posing possibilities that may be true.
That's all I am doing.
 
>=My dictionary doesn't have this word. What does "hormesis" mean? I would
>=gladly use it if it would more acurately describe homeopathic-like reactions
>=at higher dilution strengths.
>
>Hormesis is the idea that exposure to a substance at a level that is at the
>very limit of being able to produce clinical symptoms will tend to enhance
>the body's defense mechanisms.  However, for hormesis, you need a high enough
>dose that it *DOES* produce clinical symptoms.

Sounds interesting.


---------------------------------------------------
Dave.Kraus@SanDiego.NCR.COM                       |
(619) 485-2504                                    |
---------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
From: pierres@microsoft.com (Pierre Stromberg)
Subject: Re: Chuck Missler and imminent Armageddon
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:17:03 GMT
Organization: Sausage, SPAM, Baked Beans, and SPAM Incorporated.
Distribution: world,local

In article <28DEC199219414469@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>While visiting my parents over the holidays, my stepfather gave me
>a cassette of a lecture by Chuck Missler to listen to.  
>
>I think this guy is a complete crank, but any comments on the above
>(especially #2) would be appreciated.  I would particularly welcome
>any information about criticisms of Mr. Missler by Christians which
>I could send to my parents.


     Oh my God ! I actually attended one of this spacecadet's lectures
at the Seattle Center when he was in town. He pretty much said everything
you mentioned in your post. But I recall at the end of his lecture he
exhorted the crowd to "...get involved in politics at a grassroots level.
Run for local government, take over the school boards." That's almost a
direct quote. The audience gave him a standing ovation and the hair on the
back of my neck stood up.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Pierre Stromberg         Microsoft Corporation         Redmond, Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
uunet!microsoft!pierres   pierres@microsoft.UUCP   decvax!microsoft!pierres
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" - Samuel Johnson
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: homeopaty... NBC's dateline
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:03:28 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Dec16.004108.6953@sci.ccny.cuny.edu>, dac@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (David A Cooke) writes:
|> 
|> 	Not very.  For one thing, the immune system generally recognizes
|> protein, not inorganic substances, so that would throw any of the inorganic
|> homeopathic remedies (e.g lead) out the window.  No matter how many 
|> homeopathic potions of say, arsenic, you take, it will not remedy arsenic
|> poisoning.  

Well, I agree in principle, but your choice of example is a little off :-)

It is my understanding that one *can* develope a tolerance ('immunity') to
arsenic over time by taking small, gradually increasing doses.

Of course this must be done *before* the fact, not afterwards as a cure.
Also, it involves *measurable* doses, increased over time to normally toxic
levels - quite different than the operation of homeopathic remedies.

(Actually, I suspect that this is *not* an immune type response, just an increased
tolerance for the substance).

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Hypnosis and Repression (was Ritual Abuse Taskforce....)
Date: 31 Dec 92 22:57:34 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <2933882820.3.p00168@psilink.com>, p00168@psilink.com (James F. Tims) writes:
|> 
|> Part of the role which we define as a hypnotized subject we have (to 
|> my mind, at least) borrowed from the archetypical religious trance, and 
|> to play the role we give cultural/normative evidence of the trance-like 
|> state to tell those watching what to expect of us -- i.e., we act 
|> hypnotized.  Though I agree that much testimony for hypnosis exists, 
|> that evidence seems circular at best:  We are going to hypnotize you -- 
|> you know what that means, right? -- ok, here we go.  Are you doing it yet?
|> There.  See?  He's hypnotized.

It goes a little beyond that.  I have been hypnotized.  I was most certainly
in a *real* trance state.  Now, objectively I cannot distinguish the resulting
state from the standard alpha-state of pre-sleep, so I would say that it is
probably just a fairly normal alpha-state trance (similar to that produced
by most other methods, from biofeedback to meditation).

The 'memories' I got in the hypnotic state were essentially identical to the
"lucid dreams" that heve been discussed here previously.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:17:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Tunnels #1.
Organization: the HP Mtn.View Resp. Cntr.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic

Time to generate a FAQ on John_-_Winston.  

John is really quite a nice guy.  You just need to read here for a while
before making judgment.  There are a lot of theories on who and what 
John_-Winston is...everything from a University study to Bat-Shit crazy
to just someone having fun..
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Homeopathy
Date: 23 Dec 92 09:31:59 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1h7peoINNk5q@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM> greg@antizen.EBay.Sun.COM writes:

>I've also had wonderful results in treating my 5 month old daughter for
>teething irritability and pain with homeopathics.

A condition that is rather subjective, and "teething irritability" will
go away by itself, I guess.  Pain in little children (is my experience)
can be influenced strongly by parental attention.

>
>Here's my experience with Homeopathy so far;
>

Extensive report about Greg's asthma. 
Summary: He had it as child, and it came back when he was older (a very
common occurrence).

>My asthma
>has been at a manageble level for the last year and I have been 
>off all systemic
>medications for that long. I do abuse my Albuterol inhaler quite a lot however.

>                                                             However Saturday,
>I used my inhaler 1 time in the morning (1 puff is half a dose) and another
>single puff in the evening. Even on a good day, I normally use it 4 to 6
>times, a total of 8 to 12 puffs.
>
>Yesterday I didn't use it until 3 hours after waking (I ALWAYS use 
>it about 5 to
>10 minutes after waking) and then only because I exercised at the gym. Today,
>again I've only had one puff just before lunch. This all followed a severe 
>respiratory infection I've been fighting the last 2 weeks. 
>Not that the infection
>is clearing, my asthma appears to be lifting, for the first time in 2 years.
>
>In short, it appears that I may be able to be asthma free, as opposed to being
>stuck with it for the rest of my life. Considering that Western medicine claims
>that asthma is incurable and can only be managed, I pretty happy with the 
>results of the last 3 days.
>

I would like to advise Greg to consult a lung doctor, instead of relying 
on Emergency Room treatment and an inhaler.  There are nowadays quite a
lot of efficient drugs against asthma, and prednison (as far as I know)
isn't used that much anymore for long term treatment.  From what I know,
asthma goes up and down (I've had it for 50 years), so a couple of
weeks with less complaints isn't that special.  Controlling asthma with
an inhaler might not be such a good idea, after all, each attack does
a little bit of damage to the lungs, and in the long run a wrongly 
managed asthma may result in emphysema (an irreversible loss of
elasticity of the lungs, which reduces the volume of air that one
can breathe).  But somebody "in the current information flow on
asthma" might know that.  I would immediately consult *my* lung doctor
if I were too need chronically more than a few puffs (of anything) a
day. 

JWN



Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Re: Hoagland? What's the deal?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: 23 Dec 92 14:35:59 GMT

graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM) writes:

>In article <roelle.724974838@uars_mag>, roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes...
>> 
>>Even when the inconclusive images are released there would be
>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>statements made that they had been "defocused" to hide the (Choose

>>Curt Roelle

>Why "inconclusive"?

Inconclusive from the point of view of those that would have to shell
out $1 for every $100 bet.  Given that an image clearly shows a pile
of boulders what's to stop the propagation of a new theory, such as
destruction of the Martian Sphinx by derilect Russian Cosmospheres
left on autopilot, or that it was purposely defaced by the Mars people
who have since gone underground into their hollow planet?  Are those
boulders or are they stones? 

Of course this is an exaggeration -- to make a point.  In short,
you cannot convince all of the people even some of the time.

>Jim Graham 

Curt roelle@sigi.jhuapl.edu

(Personal opinions do not reflect client or their customers)
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Psychics' Predictions Fizzle For 1992
Date: 3 Jan 93 02:20:07 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


In article <1993Jan2.171125.1@stsci.edu> hathaway@stsci.edu writes:
>I mean, does _anyone_ put any $money$ on these things,

I see ads on TV for 900 numbers that would allow me to consult a
psychic. If these ads weren't making money for someone, they wouldn't
be there.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Skeptical Inquirer Winter Issue is on the stands!!!
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:32:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.152055.17734@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> rosch@cpdw.enet.dec.com (Ray Rosch) writes:
>
>The Skeptical Inquirer's winter issue arrived  in the mail yesterday.  This
>quarter's cover story is on Psychics who 'help' police solve crimes as well as 
>many other interesting, sane, rational articles debunking psi-, alien abduc-
>tions etc.
>A notice in SI says that it is now being distributed at various Book Stores and
>newstands throughout the country.  [I have seen it at Barnes & Noble bookstores,
>specifically in Nashua, NH]

Hmm, are they implying this is new?  I've been able to pick it up
at the local Bookstop for at least two years now.

--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
From: frandag@math.ksu.edu (Francis Fung)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics,alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranormal,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Sarfatti Forteana
Date: 31 Dec 1992 00:52:34 -0600
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: hilbert.math.ksu.edu

That's a neat thing you mentioned about the possibility
of a word being borrowed backwards. I know of no  example
of such either, but a borrowing from French to Hebrew is
a more probable place for such a thing to happen
given the writing directions. Intriguing question.
Incidentally, do you by any chance know the
derivation of the word "Yankee"? Just a non
sequitur. :) Have fun!
From: joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: What did Judas betray?
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:42:02

Thursday December 10 1992, dickb@bilver.uucp writes to All:

du> There was ALWAYS
du> a reason for rabbis to translate theologically-significant actions
du> into something the old law could deal with. If crucifixion (the Roman
du> norm) could be equated to hanging from a tree, then the victim was a
du> sinner with a terrible destiny.

Your argument rests on two legs: firstly, that the reasoning of the Rabbis of
the time is as you describe; and secondly, that the whole "accursed of G-d is
he who hangs on a tree" bit is an accurate translation.

I do not believe either of these. As regards the first, you're projecting an
almost childlike simplicity upon some people with extremely sophisticated and
logical minds. The reasoning process they employed is amply recorded in
existing documents, and direct comparisons of the sort you describe are rarely
if ever made, certainly not when the cases are so dissimiliar.

The limitations of this medium make it inconvenient to describe the
fundamentals of the logic system they used, but there's a good overview in the
preface to the Steinsalz (English) edition of the Talmud. They lacked the later
mathematical developments of logic, but they had very fine minds indeed.

This is not to say that the simile could not not have been used as propaganda,
but I don't think it would have. It's not a terribly good simile (see next
point) and Jesus simply didn't have that much of an effect on Judaism.
Christianity itself didn't either, apart from reinforcing a ghetto mentality.

As regards the second issue, it's a fine point of grammar but the verse in
question actually says that a person hung on a tree (that is, for display
purposes after lapidation) is an affront to G-d, not that the person is cursed
*by* G-d. He's the subject, not the object. It's sort of like burning your
country's flag; it's an affront to the country, but it doesn't reflect on the
flag per se.

The word used is hard to translate (at this hour), but it's the opposite of
"bless". That's not a good translation either - in English it has spiritual
connotations. In Hebrew, being blessed basically means that you have physical
rewards. If you're blessed, your flocks are fertile, your pastures are green,
your trees bear fruit and so forth. If you're anti-blessed then none of this
happens. The words "enrichment" as opposed to "cheapening" or "devaluation"
come to mind. By hanging a corpse for public display you demonstrate a lack of
respect for the Source of humanity, thereby cheapening or devaluing It.

jds

 * Origin: What horrors wait for me in this, the Phantom's Opera? (3:632/351)
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Wednesday, 30 Dec 1992 17:57:10 CST
From: <U19807@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
 <1992Dec28.192307.14583@walter.bellcore.com>
 <eharbin.725572840@convex.convex.com> <1992Dec30.013728.9285@fsl.noaa.gov>

In article <1992Dec30.013728.9285@fsl.noaa.gov>, bear@kestrel.fsl.noaa.gov (Bear
Giles) says:

>Copernicus did not publish his results until after his death out of
>fear for his safety.

Oops....

I guess that answers my question on why poor old Nicolaus wasn't handed over
to the Inquisition during his lifetime. Feel free to ignore the paren-
thetical comment concerning this subject from one of my posts.

      ** Chris Krolczyk,esq.  * DISCLAIMER: My opinions are in **
      ** Maniac-at-Large      * no way endorsed by the Univer- **
      ** U19807@UICVM.BITNET  * sity of Illinois at Chicago.   **
      ** u19807@uicvm.uic.edu * So much for frivolous lawsuits.**
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Looking for Daniken sceptic
Date: 22 Dec 92 01:45:49 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <SSAMMY.92Dec21154013@fleming-03.cs.strath.ac.uk> ssammy@cs.strath.ac.uk (Paul Sammy 4th Year iE/CES) writes:
| [....]
|I'm looking for a book that purports to reveal the
|inconsistencies and downright lies that Eric Von Daniken
|(allegedly) wrote in his "Gold of the Gods" series.
|
|I know it exists (I've read it somewhere), but I'm not sure
|of the title or the author.
|I think its called "Gold of the Gods Revealed" or something
|similar.

It's called "The Space Gods Revealed" -- sorry, can't remember
the author, but if you really want it, email me and I'll find
out.

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Crucifixion of Jesus?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: world,local
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 00:52:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.020611.10243@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>
>Jim, the English translation I have barely supports this the
>theory.  I have transcribed the NIV translation below of the
>passages you site.  If both of these texts started out as word by
>word copying, then the translation certainly leaves something to
>be desired!  Note, for example, that Matthew doesn't even mention
>that the paralytic is lowered through the roof.  This certainly
>can't be a by-product of translation, now can it?  Looking at the
>English, this is about as good a case of paraphrasing a commonly
>known account that I can think of. 

From "Introduction to the First Three Gospels" by William Barclay
(Professor of Divinity & Biblical Criticism at the University
of Glasgow, AND a believing Christian)

   One of the most interesting facts which emerge on a close
   study of  the first three gospels is that Matthew and Luke
   seem deliberately to 'improve' Mark. They alter certain
   things in Mark in order to improve Mark's style and Mark's
   material. They sometimes improve his vocabulary ... they
   sometimes improve his style ... Mark is prepared to put things
   in a way from which Matthew and Luke shrink, because they are
   more aware of the theological implications than Mark is. Matthew
   and Luke tend, so to speak, to 'protect' the apostles. They tend
   to omit anything that might look like a criticism of the apostles...
                              p. 88-89.

So your "non-copying" hypothesis is rejected even by the mainstream of
scholars who are themselves Christians.

Stating the matter bluntly, Matthew and Luke were derived from Mark
because the preceeding document was felt to be Theologically Incorrect,
and in need of improvement.

 

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!


     "Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that
      they are not even superficial."

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic