HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas betray?
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:51:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.173243.29801@rosevax.rosemount.com>, grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:

|>  . . .  The christian church claims to be a source of
|> moral/ethical guidance and strength.  I'm an electrical engineer and
|> claim to provide (in exchange for money) guidance and expertise on
|> electronics.  I can't claim, after cashing the check, that I don't
|> know anything about electronics -- but that's OK, since the vast
|> majority of the population doesn't either.
|> 
|> Since the only verifiable claims made by religion must relate to
|> observable behavior during this one and only life, the behavior of
|> adherents to a religion is the only thing by which that religion can
|> be evaluated.  If you admit that christians are just as evil as
|> everybody else, then doesn't that lead you to conclude that other
|> religions (or none at all) are just as valid as christianity?

An interesting question.  The problem, of course, is the "just as evil" part.  
I can't think of anyone (off-hand) who's claimed that Christians aren't evil.  
What some might claim (I'm not sure) is that they're just less evil than 
they would be if they weren't Christians.  Now that's a much harder 
hypothesis to test.  What scale do you use, and what's the control group?  
Nothing I've seen on this thread seems to me to provide much evidence one 
way or the other.
	By the way, I see that there are now several sub-threads going here, 
with different cross-posts.  Despite complaints to the contrary, I like 
having the thread on sci.skeptic, since that's the only one of the groups 
that I read (occasionally, at that).


-- 
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
	The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC, 
Stanford University, or the DOE.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:47:56 GMT

kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
: cburian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher J Burian) writes:
: 
: >kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
: >
: >>psychotherapists claim that tens or even hundreds of thousands of
: >      /\ 
: >       Insert space here... 
: 
: Why? the OED2 and Webster's Ninth New Collegiate spell it as I do.
: 

By inserting a space it becomes two words: an adjective modifying the
following noun.

  "It's a joke, son!"

     --Foghorn Leghorn

I've been told that that line in particular (and the Foghorn character
in general) was borrowed from a radio character named Senator
Claghorn. But, I've never heard the radion show in question, and I'm a
WB cartoon fan, so I'll use the above attribution.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  It's a hole all the way
Rosemount Inc.                                |to downtown Burbank!
                                              |
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Robert Huss)
Subject: The FAQ: faulty logic used?
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:33:35 GMT

From the FAQ:
>3.7.4:   What about cellular changes in plants within crop circles?
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Yes, what about the changes?  Although this is another claim that is
>widely circulated among ufologists and cerealogists, the evidence is
>simply not very good.  A few photographs of alleged changes in the
>"crystalline structure" of wheat stems were published in some
>magazines and UFO publications.  The method used was spagyrical
>analysis.  This is a technique involving crystallization of the
>residue of organic material after harsh processing, invented three
>centuries ago and popularized by Sir Kenelm Digby. Digby is known for
>other wonderful inventions like condensation of sunlight and the
>development of sword salve (which you had to put on the weapon rather
>than on the wound, in order to cure the wound).  The fact that this
>technique was tried at all casts serious doubts on the "researchers"
>involved.

	Isn't the argument at the end of this paragraph a fallacy?  I don't
remember the name of the fallacy, but I'm certain that it exits, and goes 
something like this:
	You cannot invalidate one conclusion by pointing out unrelated
incorrect conclusions by the same person.
	Spagyrical analysis may very well be an invalid test, but pointing
at 2 invalid tests by Digby isn't sufficient to show this.  I'm pretty sure
Einstein had a few incorrect theories, but we this doesn't invalidate his 
other theories.

Bob Huss.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: "amy lynn young-leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Characterization of quack theories
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 19:45:28 -0500

In article <1993Jan8.204034.20285@CERIS.Purdue.EDU> dheisler@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Dave Heisler) writes:
>I can't help but disagree with most everything Russel says.
>I keep thinking of Ratchel Carson and "Silent Spring" she
>was ostracized by well, gee, near everyone. even had
>threats on her life.
>why? because she challenged people's thinking. Has nothing
>changed in the scientific community?

Before things can change in the scientific community, they have to
change in the academic community which produces the members of the
scientific community.  As of yet I don't believe this has happened to
such an extent that we can really expect to see the effects.  

Look at how people are taught in our educational system:  "This *is*
the right answer.  Remember it and place it on the test.  Those other
things that people are trying are just crap.  I don't want to hear
about them, because *this* is right."  

amy
-- 
alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
			    All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             I.U. probably doesn't agree with me.  I don't speak for
                    them so it doesn't matter, now does it? 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D. Nelson)
Subject: Re: Robert Jahn
Summary: Information on Anomalies Research
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:29:55 GMT

This is a combined response to two posts:

=From: pjd@cocamrd.mel.cocam.oz.au (Pat Dooley)
=
=I recently saw a bit of a TV program on a Robert Jahn of Princeton who claimed
=to be able to demonstrate that people could influence random events. THe show
=showed a couple of experiments, one involving beads (?) and another involving
=some electronic kit. My recollection is hazy but I wonder if anyone can tell me
=more about Jahn?
=
=From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
=Subject: Re: Robert Jahn
=
=This sounds somewhat garbled.  I, too, would welcome more authoratative
=comment on any significant recent Jahniana.

Robert Jahn is Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at
Princeton University, and Dean Emeritus of the School of Engineering and
Applied Science.  Among a wide variety of responsibilities, he directs a 
program called Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) that he
established about 13 or 14 years ago.  The research explores interactions 
of human consciousness with various physical systems, using the best
available equipment and experimental designs, incorporating 
multidisciplinary research experience as well as the wisdom of
constructive critics.  The large body of data from several physical
experiments and a companion program examining information transfer 
provides evidence for anomalous correlations of experimental results
with the intentions of human operators.  

The two experiments in the "garbled" descriptions above are probably our
10 foot tall Random Mechanical Cascade device in which 3/4" polystyrene 
balls bounce through a quincunx array of nylon rods to distribute into an 
array of 19 collecting bins, and an electronic Random Event Generator that 
samples binary events from a highly refined and calibrated commercial 
white noise source, respectively.

To the satisfaction of scientists who are familiar with the work, all
the usual concerns of skeptics (e.g., artifacts, data selection, fraud,
etc.) are excluded in these experiments.  The effects are small, but
internally consistent and highly significant statistically.  The
research originally sought to establish whether any anomalies could be
demonstrated in carefully controlled experiments, but progressively has
turned to exploration of conditions and parameters that may inform
attempts to understand and explain the effects.

For those with a non-trivial interest in the research, a number of 
publications and technical reports are available, and the laboratory 
maintains a mailing list for announcement of new papers.
I will send a publication list to a postal address and add your name to
the mailing list on request.  There is also a book by Robert Jahn and 
Brenda Dunne, "Margins of Reality", Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1987, in
which the research is described along with background and implications.

Roger
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Characterization of quack theories
Date: 13 Jan 93 02:16:45 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Followup-To: somewhere.else
Organization: Edinburgh University

Followups set to somewhere.else, because I don't know where the right
place to discuss this is but it isn't here.

Quoting maufd@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J S Graley) in article <1iv1mhINNpg2@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk>:
>In my experience, the 'regurgitation' approach to education is demanded by the
>_pupils_, not the teachers. While many science teachers are interested in 
>real science (which has no more to do with regurgitating facts then, say, 
>english), most students are more concerned with their exam results and they
>believe memorising the rules without question is the best method.

And who created the exams?
  __                                  _____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley   pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \\ //
/\__/ Trust me. I know what I'm doing. \X/ 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
From: kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:09:46 GMT

>>  However, the German Churches *did* recommend Naziism to their
>  followers
 
I am quite sure that you would admit that many, many people in Germany
would change their past if they could.  The difference between me and
you is that I don't think of Christians as somehow different than the
rest of us.  I don't know for certain if you honestly think they have
to be above sin or if you just use that as a reason to beat up on them.
I have to say that I also have never met a Christian who was as rude and
dogmatic the Atheists here are (I know...waa!).  

So what is the point...cuz I only joined the thread due to what I thought
was a pretty unfair attack on the Catholic Church (still do)?  That
Churches are sometimes wrong?  Of course they are!  But they know that.
Have you ever read Benedicts 'Rule' or Martin Luther?  Churches are 
forever in a state of reform.  I've been called "ignorant" and "confused"
here enough to know where I stand but for what it's worth, you are ignorant
about Christianity, probably willfully so.
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:26:32 EST
From: <SASTPH@vm.sas.com>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
 <93011.084750SASTPH@vm.sas.com> <1993Jan11.181752.6816@cs.unca.edu>

In article <1993Jan11.181752.6816@cs.unca.edu>, kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu
(Brad Kepley) says:
>
>In article <93011.084750SASTPH@vm.sas.com> <SASTPH@vm.sas.com> writes:
>>In article <C0M0r8.5I8@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca says:
>> -------------
(Most of my original response deleted.)
>>                                                         If in fact
>>she was not suffering at the (however remote in
>>time) hands of satanic abusers, then her therapist is the abuser.
>
>I think we better be careful that we don't just begin a new witchhunt with
>the therapists as target.  If these "memories" are not real, the therapist
>may be unwittingly providing the opportunity for these people to fantasize,
>but that doesn't necessarily mean they are "causing" the "memories".

Fair enough.  I concede that a therapist could be "unwittingly providing
an opportunity for these people ot fantasize," but that just means that
the therapist is incompetent instead of outright evil.  I would still hold
the therapist responsible for the continuing pain and anguish of his/her
patient.  Therapists who allow their patients to fantasize
such events and call it "therapy" are at best incompetent.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
From: kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu (Brad Kepley)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:48:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.135041.970@klaava.Helsinki.FI> cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
>
>Strange, that people (= John ATA Something, apparantly you, and most of
>the "others" - perhaps even a lot of the atheists) don't seem to get the
>point even when it is spelled out.
>To repeat: the point is that if somebody is religious, that says diddly
>squat about his/her morals. _That_ is the point.
>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	Tero Sand
>-- 

Well, that is your point anyway.  I don't think you'll find many Christians
who think that Christianity is mainly about morals.  You don't understand
Christianity.



Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
From: kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 01:46:45 GMT

Dear jon:
   You have a real hard time with  "lesser of two evils". How do you 
feel about Churchill given his "make a deal with the devil himself" to
get rid of Stalin?  

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Date: 9 Jan 93 03:28:52 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
Organization: (The Afterlife of Gogol, Inc.)

In article <1993Jan6.235830.8496@cs.unca.edu>, kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu
(Brad Kepley) wrote:
> In article <1idq1bINNomj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

> >If Christian churches associated themselves with his regime, then are
> >they not accepting his values as their own?
> Ever wonder why people on Earth just can't seem to get along?

If people can't get along when having a discussion on this newsgroup,
how would we expect them to get along out there in the world?

Humans are human.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
Usenix member # 6110.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu (Dave Weingart)
Subject: Re: Psychics' Predictions Fizzle For 1992
Nntp-Posting-User: @cornell.edu
Organization: CUMC
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:21:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.134711@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
|>    Also, yes, obviously people put money on these things.  What is the
|> yearly cashflow of the National Enquirer?  People who buy that crap
|> sometimes buy it with money squeezed out of their children's food budget.

I can't say that I squeeze the food out of my son's mouth, but I _do_ buy the
_Weekly_World_News_ (lowest of the low!), because, IM(NS)HO, you simply can't
buy more entertainment for that amount of money!

"Bigfoot is a space alien...and he fathered Elvis's love child!  Amazing pictures!"

-- 
73 de David Weingart  KB2CWF    In the event I am captured or killed, the
phydeaux@cumc.cornell.edu       Cornell University Medical College and the
phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu   Department of Academic Computing will disavow
phydeaux@src4src.linet.org      any knowledge of my opinions.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Date: 5 Jan 1993 00:50:04 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan5.002420.5296@cs.unca.edu>, kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
>
> >[Churches are] of no particular worth.
>
> Are you sure you want to say that?  Churches are obviously worth 
> something to millions of people who give time and money to them.  
> That makes about as much sense as saying that Biology is of no
> particular worth.

Yes, I'm quite sure I want to say that.   Millions of people smoke,
and millions of people watch Rambo movies, but I don't think that
either tabacco or Stalone are of any particular worth.

If all you mean by worth is that at the end of the week the Priests
trot down to the bank with a bag of money, well.....

jon.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22300 alt.paranormal:2772
From: s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: California to be Destroyed May 8, Nostradamus Says
Date: 11 Jan 1993 17:59:51 GMT
Organization: Fachschaft math/inf, Uni Karlsruhe, FRG
NNTP-Posting-Host: irau31.ira.uka.de

In article <1993Jan11.115352.6063@linkoping.trab.se> ath@linkoping.trab.se (Anders Thulin) writes:

>dated by their number in the various Centuries of verses. It's usually
>only the people who are heavily involved in Nostradamus business who
>can make sense of it.

Can they?

>There has been once fairly well-known interpretation of a verse that
>said something about a falling wall. Some claimed it predicted a

Hmmm... the Berlin Wall?

>catastrophe at Wall Street, some that it referred to California
>sliding into the Pacific some time during the 1990's -- I wasn't
>interested enough to remember.  It may be that that verse is popping

Ah no, I forgot... Nostradamus' "prophecies" are always to be
interpreted in a negative fashion... 

Can someone give me a Nostradamus example that doesn't smack of
b*lls*t?  ;;-)

Olaf
-- 
| Olaf Titz - comp.sc.student  |   o     | uknf@dkauni2.bitnet | old address |
| univ. of karlsruhe - germany |  _>\ _  | s_titz@ira.uka.de   | is still    |
| +49-721-60439                | (_)<(_) | praetorius@irc      | valid       |
  "My heart is human - my blood is boiling - my brain IBM" - Mr. Roboto
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: <None>
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:24:10 EST

In article <eharbin.725547983@convex.convex.com>, eharbin@convex.com (Edward Harbin) writes:
> In <1992Dec27.235003.4413@rosevax.rosemount.com> grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
[..]
> On the other hand, in what non-Christian country would you choose to live?
> This century has tried several experiments in explicitly anti-religious
> statecraft - and the body count has been stupendous. In the enlightened regimes
> of Hitler and Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot you have exemplars of what you seek;
> and aren't you proud? Probably not, for it's unlikely that you hold the
> non-religious to the same standards you reserve for the religious, or identify
> yourself with the fruits of that point of view.
The Crusades, the Inquisition?  Maybe we learned something in the process, but
those activities were some very anti-specific-religion doings. How about the Ku
KluxKlan, and the Aryan Christian Nation?  Rather religious statecraft I would
say.
> It was in Christian societies that both modern science 
Based on work in China, Arabia, Greece, etc.
> and 
> liberal democracy evolved. This was not accidental. 
Liberal theology is not well liked by the powers  that be in the churches,
because it asks to overthrow the establishment.  It may have developed under
the freedom, but please provide some evidence that it is supported by the
modern day religious establishments.

> Nor is it accidental that
> wherever you find human suffering, Christians are in the forefront with aid
> aid and comfort. The Christian ethos has much of which to be proud.

Like Pat Buchanan declaring war on "liberals" at the Republican convention
(whoops - sorry, he couldn't be a "real" Christian.)
> 

George Kambic
sd

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,alt.atheism
From: vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:51:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.002420.5296@cs.unca.edu> kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
>>It's ironic that someone who wants care to be paid can't even bother
>>to match the right quote to the right poster.
>
>Yep, you're right.  Sorry about that.  I have a real hard time 
>following who said what on internet.  It would be nice if it was
>easier to look back at who said what but I don't see any pointer
>to the message that was addressed.  How do you know  where the
>previous message came from?  I'm used to Bix and local BBS's where
>each reply contains a pointer to the message you are replying to.
>I can't figure the message header out at all.
>Again, sorry  :)
>
>But on the subject:
>
>>[Churches are] of no particular worth.
>
>Are you sure you want to say that?  Churches are obviously worth something
>to millions of people who give time and money to them.  That makes about 
>as much sense as saying that Biology is of no particular worth.
>
>
>
>
>
My impression was that he meant that they are just buildings.  They can be
be easily rebuilt, their religion could exist without them.  Sure people
like their churches, etc., but they are of no "particular" worth.  Let me
put it this way- would you let the Nazis kill people as opposed to the 
Bolsheviks destroying churches.  Of course not. 

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic