HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: Entropy Limited, Vancouver Canada
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 05:22:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.152154.10721@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.041450.5026@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca> ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep28.011018.27240@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>In article <1a4qjnINNf10@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>>>[...]
>>>>Perhaps because we haven't seen a definition of "spiritual needs"?  He *DID*
>>>>ask you for a definition.  Is this another of those things like a "soul" that
>>>>can't be defined, but it exists because you want it to exist?
>>>
>>>I didn't perceive his question as being any more than rhetorical.
>>[...]
>>    If you're going to write things like "I think you are confusing social 
>>needs with spiritual needs" it's only fair that you make some effort
>>towards characterizing your perception of the distinction. 
>>[...]
>No, he asked the question and then went ahead and defined it
>himself.  I was only pointing out that his definition was
>confusing.

First, what you _really_ wrote (see above) was "I didn't perceive his 
question as being any more than rhetorical." Second, if you felt that he
was giving a confusing definition, would it not have been more constructive
to give one that you considered less confusing, rather than simply
dismissing his question as "[not] being any more than rhetorical"?

>            If he or anyone else really is interested in a
>definition of "spiritual needs" vs. "social needs" I will be happy
>to continue the discussion (probably Email is more appropriate but
>I won't object to it here).

As I already wrote (see above), if you're going to write things like 
"I think you are confusing social needs with spiritual needs" it's only 
fair that you make some effort towards characterizing your perception 
of the distinction. At the risk of seeming ungracious, it seems to me that
this was a plain enough request for clarification and that your failure to
respond to it is at odds with your claim that you "will be happy to 
continue".

-- 
ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca   {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!eslvcr!ted   (Ted Powell)
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: UN-WISE QUOTES
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:21:14 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Sep29.192106.1429@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>               Modern orthodox "scientists" are still saying SIMILAR 
>          things AGAINST UFO Spacecraft, Gravity Neutralization, 
>          Electromagnetic Propulsion, Free-Energy Technologies, 
>          Biological Transmutations, Hollow Earth Theory, Natural Anti-
>          cancer Remedies, Cold Fusion, Radionic/Psionic Devices, 
>          Astrological Influences, etc., ETC.. 

How stupid can one get? First of all, there never was any scientific
reason why we couldn't build a 'flying machine'. Secondly...

- UFO's. I don't think anybody's saying ther _can't_ be any, just there
  doesn't appear to be evidence that there _are_ any. Further, most
  (all?) of the stories that accompany UFO-sightings are rather ridicul-
  ous.
- Hollow earth? Hehehehe.. evidently you don't think observational
  evidence mean anything.
- Astrological influences, for crying out loud! By what mechanism?

I'll leave the other points to more knowledgable people.
-- 
-Tero Sand
  EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi     Snail mail: Auroran Sairaala os. 6-1
  (if that doesn't work, try                    Nordenskioldinkatu 20
   cust_ts@kruuna.helsinki.fi)                  00250 Helsinki 25, Finland
From: w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Chimpanzee vs Human DNA
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:18:20 GMT
Reply-To: w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk
Organization: Chemical & Process Engineering Dept, University of Newcastle, UK.

swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>The evidence for the branching sequence amoung humans, chimps, and gorillas
>is equivocal.  Yes, the DNA and some protein sequence data technically show
>the human-chimp branch point after the gorilla branch point.  *But*, when
>you analyze the numbers for error bars (or statistical significance, which
>amounts to the same thing) it turns out that the gorilla and chimp branch
>levels are closer together than the error range, and thus cannot be said
>to be clearly different.

>Also, some other data, such as arm and hand anatomy, indicate a closer
>relationship between the gorilla an chimp than either has with humans.
>[In particular, they share anatomical adaptations for 'knuckle-walking',
>which we lack, and which have never been found in any hominid, not even
>Australopithecus afarensis].

But the lifestyle of the gorilla and chimp are must closer together than
either is to the lifestyle of humans.  So you would expect there to be
greater physical similarities between those 2, than between them and 
humans

>Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Subject: Re: I visited the icr in p
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:17:51 GMT

>>>>> On 24 Sep 92 00:39:43 GMT, Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen) said:

Rick> In article <LEET.92Sep17085811@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Rick> wrote as follows:

> Actually, we shouldn't be talking about anything but skepticism in
> this newsgroup, and we should be doing that based on evidence, not
> opinion.  THAT, however, would cut the volume of this group to
> probably a tenth of its current volume.  (Wow - just imagine!)  If it
> wasn't for the fact that several CSICOP members and other skeptics are
> also involved in responding to creationism, this wouldn't come up here
> at all.

Rick> Lee, two matters:  (1) The only "members" of CSICOP in any meaningful
Rick> sense of the term are its Executive Council members, and I don't believe
Rick> any of them are up here.

Thanks for the clarification, Rick.  I was using the term "members" in
the looser sense, and I wasn't even referring to this newsgroup - I've
read anti-creationist articles by skeptics in books, for example,
where their bios  referenced some sort of association with CSICOP.

Rick> There is at least one CSICOP Fellow here (hi, Robert!),

And a fine fellow he is indeed!

Rick> a subcommittee head or two, and probably a CSICOP Scientific or
Rick> Technical Consultant, but these aren't "members" in any
Rick> meaningful sense.

I will exercise caution in my use of terminology in the future.
Is a subscriber to SI considered to be a "supporter" or "contributor",
as is true of other, similar journals? 
--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and
Integrated Measurement Systems |  by thy words thou shalt be condemned."      
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  - Matthew 12:37                          
Beaverton, Or 97005            |                                
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |                                         THUMP!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Christian distortions (was Crucified for Prophecy's sake?)
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:18:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.141403.202958@uctvax.uct.ac.za> naturman@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
>
>All this arguing is pointless, since Jesus is a mythical character. The name
>"Jesus the Nazarene" is based on a person who live c. 100 BC and Matthew and
>Thaddaeus are based on his disciples. This guy was confused with a guy named
>Ben-Stada who lived during the Roman period. The crucifixion myth is rather
>late, being partly based the three historical false Messiahs crucified by 
>the Romans. The Jesus myth also has many borrowings from the pagan myths of
>Osiris, Attis, Dionysus etc. 

>
>*****************************************************************************
>* Baby Doc Naturman                                                         *
>* USS Enterprise                           "It's life Jim,                  *
>* Final Frontier                                  but not as we know it."   *
>* naturman@uctvax.uct.ac.za                                                 *
>*                                                       Spock of Vulcan     *
>*****************************************************************************

Well, I don't know about everyone else in this group, but I think that a
fellow that goes by the name of Baby Doc Naturman from the USS Enterprise
is definitely a mythical character!
-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Soul
Date: 5 Oct 92 11:03:54 EST

In article <1992Oct2.221454.23552@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
[...]
> Mark, you ask many good questions.  I probably can't answer all
> your questions and a lot of what I say is all IMHO or what I
> believe.  It is possible to have "two" levels of memory.  For
> example, if I get struck by a car and get amnesia, I might forget
> my identity and everything about my life up to this point.  So we
> say that the memory is gone at one level.  On the other hand, if
> my memory happens to return intact, then it is obvious that my
> memory "loss" was just an illusion to my consiousness, that it was
> there all along, but was hidden.  I envision the soul to be much
> the same way.  I believe that the soul, when it was created by
> God, knew God.  God was in soul's memory with everything good that
> comes from Him.  Now, when the soul was infused into the body,
> this knowledge or memory of God was hidden since from the physical
> standpoint, no such knowledge had been gathered by the brain which
> is where our consciousness now interfaces. Think of it as
> temporary amnesia.  After death, I believe that we are cognizent
> not only of our prenatal memory of God but all the lifetime
> memories we have accumulated.  It is then that the first judgement
> takes place with everything unveiled and unhidden.
> 
> If my belief is correct, then we will all have intimate knowledge of 
> exactly how the soul operates one day! :)

Does this mean  that God created a situation where we could have had direct
knowledge of Him, not interfaced through books and interpreters, but this 
direct contact was hidden.  We were then given free will to rediscover God with
secondhand evidence, while the physical  world contains evidence contrary to 
some interpretations of the written word that theoretically supports the
existence of God?

GXKambic
sd

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17055 talk.religion.misc:17263
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus and the Moneychangers (was: What did Judas betray?)
Date: 28 Sep 92 10:07:41 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1992Sep28.041948.15142@bilver.uucp> dickb@bilver.uucp (Dick Biow) writes:
#I don't believe the money-changer incident happened. Nobody was allowed to 
#carry a weapon, like the whips John has Jesus take with him, except for the 
#guards.
#Jesus never would have been allowed to approach the money-tables, any more than
#a robber would.

Maybe, but the original question was about the internal consistency of
the Bible story.  So  *assuming* the arrival into Jerusalem and the Temple
incident and the acrimonious face-to-face remarks about Pharisees all did
happen, isn't it contradictory that the party that went out to arrest
Jesus needed Judas to do the identification?
Especially given the part of the story that the religious authorities
had been thinking about a possibility for making an arrest.
This question has only been answered by various posters by somehow inferring
that the Bible story is not correct.  But my question was: how do people
who assume the Bible story to be entirely correct resolve the contradiction?

Incidentally,  the version John gives of the arrest doesn't involve the 
Judas kiss. That's another contradiction.

JWN
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Soul
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:32:22 EST

In article <1992Sep30.152426.10798@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
[...]
>>>
>>>I would define soul as that spiritual part 
nonmeasureable.
>>>of us humans that
>>>defines us in God's image. It is a separate entity, 
But unfindable and with no external properties.
>>>infused into the body before birth, and leaves the body at death. 
For which there is no proof.
>>> Because it
>>>is the part of us that is like God, it is intrinsically and
>>>naturally immortal. 
Do you mean by its nature, but it has natural effects such that  it can be
observed?
>>> Furthermore, it is the principle behind our
>>>intellect and reasoning ability.
What do you mean here by principle?  If it is like God, should be not be
infallible, omniscient, etc.?
>>
>>Hmm.  No well-defined properties.  Just a bunch of metaphysical hogwash.
>>Not a very useful definition, I'm afraid.
> 
> TRANSLATION:  Well you gave me a definition, but I really don't know what
> to do with it.  Yeah!, I'll attack the definition, that's what I'll do!

He attempted to find some common ground so that there could be
an independent, objective, determination of the existence of the soul.  The
only hope seems to be in the word "natural" such that if you mean that the soul
can cause reproducible effects in the world  that can be measured. From what I
remember of this thread, there does not seem to be any common ground here. 
Come to think of it, it was an attack.  

Oh, well, just another hopeless skeptic.

GXKambic
sd

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17071 talk.religion.misc:17311
From: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus and the Moneychangers (was: What did Judas betray?)
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:35:18 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

dickb@bilver.uucp (Dick Biow) writes:

>I don't believe the money-changer incident happened. Nobody was
>allowed to carry a weapon, like the whips John has Jesus take with
>him, except for the guards.  Jesus never would have been allowed to
>approach the money-tables, any more than a robber would.

The account in John implies that he made the whip at the time: "In the
temple, he found people selling ... Making a whip of cords, he drove
..."
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: johnson@spectra.com (boyd johnson)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Organization: Spectragraphics Corporation
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 16:09:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.170509.17560@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>In article <739nj7k.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>
>>Of course, an angry crowd of Jews would shout "stone him!", not
>>"crucify him!". Surely they would not cry out for a Jewish man to be
>>executed by the Roman enemy in a manner incompatible with Jewish law.
>
>It is quite clear that the chief priests and Pharisees wanted to
>execute Jesus, but did not want to do it themselves.  

He may have been crucified rather than stoned to fulfill prophecy.
Check out:
	Psalm 34:20
	Psalm 22:13-18


-- 
======== Boyd Johnson    nosc!spectra.com!johnson  San Diego, Ca. ========
From: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Object-oriented creation (Was Re: Creation
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:32:56 GMT
Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 6@sycraft.com, ken@sycraft.com (Ken Richardson) writes:
> 
> There is, after all, a high degree of similarity between DNA programs
> and computer programs.
>

You flatter yourself.  Please demonstrate that you (or anyone!) knows enough about
DNA to make this kind of a statement.

---
1. Bill Gascoyne
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.folklore.urban
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:07:16 GMT

JRowe@cen.ex.ac.uk (John Rowe) writes:

: 	I thought the secret of balancing eggs upright was to use a
: little slight of hand to put down a small pile of salt or similar
: and balance the egg on that. Another UL?

No, you just balance it upright.  Eggshells aren't smooth, and you can
always find a spot on which the egg will sit.

Try it!

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  Mary Tyler Moore's
Rosemount Inc.                                |SEVENTH HUSBAND is wearing my
                                              |DACRON TANK TOP in a cheap
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |hotel in HONOLULU!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: Tuesday, 29 Sep 1992 18:32:39 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Chimp ``Language'' (Was: Re: Chimpanzee vs Human DNA)
 <92272.225700RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> <1992Sep29.130725.6525@hsr.no>
 <lchlb0INN6tq@news.bbn.com>

there was a question about chimp syntax.  the sagan/lady article also
mentioned a chimp who developed his own syntax, which the authors considered
very much harder than being taught syntax.  this chimp would, for example,
say (well, hit the keys for, whatever) "tomato bite" and then bite a tomato.
he wouldn't say "bite tomato."  "noun verb", never "verb noun".

as a side note, this chimp also had the ability to foretell the future...
not in the nostradamus sense; in a much more mundane sense, but interesting
nonetheless.  he would type things like, "chase jump tickle" and then
proceed to chase somebody around the room, then jump around for a while,
and then tickle somebody.  thus, he had a real sense of planning, of what
his actions were going to be, in the future.

this article seems neater and neater the more i think about it.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kentd@FtCollins.NCR.com (Kent Dalton)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Crucified for Prophecy's Sake? (was: What did Judas betray?)
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:58:14 GMT
	<1992Sep29.160944.26657@spectra.com> <nw+pma_.sheaffer@netcom.com>
Organization: NCR Microelectronics, Ft. Collins, CO
In-reply-to: sheaffer@netcom.com's message of 29 Sep 92 19:17:31 GMT

>>>>> On 29 Sep 92 19:17:31 GMT, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) said:

Robert> In article <1992Sep29.160944.26657@spectra.com> johnson@spectra.com (boyd johnson) writes:

>He may have been crucified rather than stoned to fulfill prophecy.

FWIW, I doubt the Jews and Romans were terribly concerned with making
Jesus's death fit the prophecies :^)

>Check out:
>	Psalm 34:20
>	Psalm 22:13-18

Robert> Not having my Bible handy, I assume that these verses must then
Robert> say something like, "The Messiah will be nailed to a cross by
Robert> Romans", or perhaps
Robert> "The Son of David will be crucified by the enemy of the Jews,"

Robert> It must be something like that, right?

Not even in the ball park :^). Here are the quotes from the KJV I have
on-line:

034:020 He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.

022:013 They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a
        roaring lion.
022:014 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint:
        my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
022:015 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue
        cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of
        death.
022:016 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have
        inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
022:017 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
022:018 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my
        vesture.

--
/**************************************************************************/
/* Kent Dalton                   * EMail: Kent.Dalton@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM */
/* NCR Microelectronics          * Phone: (303) 223-5100 X-319            */  
/* 2001 Danfield Ct. MS470A      *   FAX: (303) 226-9556                  */
/* Fort Collins, Colorado 80525  *                                        */
/**************************************************************************/
..  I want a COLOR T.V. and a VIBRATING BED!!!
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Well known scientifc facts
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 01:22:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.001210.25053@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes in part:
|> >
|> REM:>Of course, the "if this holy number was wrong then your whole religion
|> REM:>called science is wrong" folks couldn't care less about such issues.
|> REM:>For them I simply say:  the previous estimate was very close, and
|> REM:>so the new study actually largely CONFIRMS the previous study, showing
|> REM:>that "the religion called science" is more valid than ever.
|> 
|> If it confirms the study, then how come the author of the study
|> was so perplexed that they could have been wrong for so long and
|> with such a vast number of measurements?  That is the question
|> that I originally asked which was mirrored by the same question
|> from the author.  It was not meant as a "proof" that science can't
|> give you any knowledge, which some people are interpreting it as,
|> but rather as an examination of the potential limitations of
|> scientific knowledge.  If you want to ignore that anomoly, then
|> close your eyes and keep on going, but it is something that I care
|> to think about...

I'm not sure I actually "ignored the anomoly".  I indicated that I didn't
think it is a very "anomalous" anomoly.   I say this because:
  1.  lots of people already knew the old "fact" was wrong,
  2.  the "error" has no practical consequences,
  3.  the "error" has no theoretical consequences.
It's a mystery to me why either you or the original author was so 
flabergasted that some fact that "everybody knows" was wrong after 
so many years.  Practically everything that "everybody knows" about 
science is "wrong" in some technical sense.  (E.g., "the earth goes 
around the sun").

If your point is that all knowledge is uncertain, even rock solid
"scienitific fact", you are correct.  Trite and boring, but correct.
This kind of anomoly is endlessly factinating to those afflicted with
an urge to ponder history and philosophy of science.  I got over those 
diseases many years ago.  For me the most important lesson is one
I already learned a long time ago--don't trust that last decimal 
place!

Part of my remarks were addressed neither to you nor to the original author
but to the motivations of the popular press and others who love this kind
of "see--those scientists aren't so smart after all" stories.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu