HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 00:24:20 GMT

>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.





Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,alt.atheism
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata - FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 13:08:04 GMT

In article <93004.025143U16244@uicvm.uic.edu> David James Alexander Hanley <U16244@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.022547.24574@cs.unca.edu>, kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley)
>says:
>>
>>
>>  The Catholic Church is led by fallible men who make foreign policy
>>mistakes and have many skeletons in their closets, and they can be
>
>  Really?  I thought the catholic church is lead by the pope, who,
>according to catholic doctrine, is infallable.

This is a large distortion of the doctrine of infallability.  If
you're interested, send me Email and we can continue this
discussion.

>
>SEND E-MAIL TO : hanley1@earth.eecs.uic.edu


-- 
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: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Date: 5 Jan 93 21:35:01 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,alt.atheism
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <C0D77L.7tH@ecf.toronto.edu>, vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN) writes:
|> I'm not up on the specifics, but I do know that as late as about 1979 the
|> Vatican came out with a statement saying that the VATICAN AND POPE WERE
|> INFALLIBLE AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC FOLLOWERS WERE NOT TO QUESTION THEM IN
|> THE LEAST (IE. IT WAS A SIN TO DO SO ).  ...

What you probably read was a newspaper account of a translation of a Vatican
statement.

It was probably seriously distorted, newspapers tend to like to make things simple
and black-and-white.

My understanding of the Roman Catholic doctrine (admittedly second-hand) is that
only certain statements by the Pope are infallible, namely those made 'ex
cathedra' ("from the church").  It is also held (I believe) that the pronouncements
of certain church councils are infallible.

The issue you rmember was probably due to a number of U.S. bishops getting into
'liberal' theology, and deciding to question fundamental Roman Catholic doctrines.

An actual Roman Catholic could probably give you a more detailed answer.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:21962 alt.messianic:3826 alt.atheism:24856
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 4 Jan 1993 02:55:34 CST
From: David James Alexander Hanley <U16244@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
 <93003.033055U16244@uicvm.uic.edu> <1993Jan3.151154.18933@cs.unca.edu>

In article <1993Jan3.151154.18933@cs.unca.edu>, kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley)
says:
>
>>In return, the vatican got 10%(!) of germany's tax money, and a lot of
>>dead jews and attheists( russians ) which is undoubtedly what they
>>wanted.
>
>I think this is pretty outrageous, can I insult your mother?

  If it will make you feel better.

>Your hatred is showing....

  _Really_?  You're the one flaming and insulting mothers here.

>The Vatican hid and protected Jews from the Nazis.  They had an immense fear

  Yeah, and hitler was the founder of the united jewish college fund.

>of the communists (with good reason) and chose the Nazis as the lesser of
>two evils since the Nazis, at least, intended to let the churches survive
>under Nazi control whereas the communists were destroying every church they
>could get their hands on.  What the Vatican did had nothing to do with

  Really.  So the church chose to support the murder of millions of
people, instead of the destruction of useless churches?  Interesting.
This also means the Catholic church must have had inside knowledge
that Germany would attack the Solviet union, since they were allies
at the start of the war.  Thanks for supplying this crucial component
to my theory.  And I think it's splendid that the CATHOLIC church is
so concerned over Lutheran( German ) and Eastern orthodox( Russian )
churches.  If only they could tell their people in Ireland to stop
shooting protestants..

  Also mentioning how the churches were allowed to survive under
German control reminds me of these interestign stories I heard about
priests divulging confessional information to the secret police
that might get people killed.  Niiiiccceee.

>the Vatican wanting to kill Jews and Atheists, but if you insist that it is,
>why don't you balance this with how many Christians were killed by the
>Jewish Atheists of the Soviet Union Bolshevic leadership?  Ah...but that

  By the solviet _JEWISH_ATHIESTS_?????  Do you know ANYTHING about the
situation in that part of the worls at that time???  Apparently not.

>would be politically incorrect. It's okay to be bigoted about Catholics
>but not Jews or Atheists.

  False, ignorant, and irrelevant.  Why don't you learn about history,
geography, and religion as they pertain to this discussion and come
back?  Wasting bandwith discussing matters you demonstrate you know
nothing about is silly.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.
He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for
protection to his own" - Thomas Jefferson, 1814

SEND E-MAIL TO : hanley1@earth.eecs.uic.edu
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Zacharia Rifkin, The Twelfth Planet
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:16:23 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:

> Has anyone heard of the above book?  I am asking on behalf of a
> friend who has a family member involved with some cult-like group
> based on the ideas in this book.  I gather that it's some kind
> of Jewish ancient astronauts theory.


	Uh, I don't know much about it, but the authopr's name is Zecharaia
Sitchin.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org

"Do I BELIEVE in the Bible? Hell, man, I've even SEEN one!!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc,alt.messianic
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: interminable ad hominem argument
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:32:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.043055.29548@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>I can't resist :) How about: Some scientists have been known to
>fradulently report their results which sometimes go undetected for
>a while, perhaps not at all.  Therefore, any scientific results
>that are published should not be believed. "What", you say?
>"These cheaters not "real" scientists"?  What is a scientist?
>After we get about two or three definitions: Well obviously, it is
>impossible to define a scientist since we can't make up our minds.
>Therefore a scientist is anything you define it to be.

The first problem is that science is fairly good about catching cheats.  The
reason you should usually believe published results is not that every single
published result has been checked by another scientist, but rather that the
existence of checking means that frauds are rare and have limited lifespans.
Not that they don't occur at all.

You are again confusing the concepts of "some mistakes" and "lots of mistakes".
Scientists aren't perfect--they make some mistakes.  But I don't criticize
Christianity merely because some Christians make mistakes, but because the
mistakes were common, widespread, and affected a lot of people for a very long
time.  I criticize the Inquisition not because one Christian tortured someone
to save his soul, but because a _lot_ of Christians tortured a _lot_ of people.

The second problem is that if someone performs experiments to test hypotheses,
etc., he's basically practicing science.  But someone who is acting kind to
his neighbor is not necessarily practicing Christianity, because Christianity
is defined by beliefs and actions like baptism, and the "kind to your
neighbor" part is secondary.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Characterization of quack theories
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Distribution: sci.sceptic
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:41:03 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.



>   As a student, I've got to say that most of the science education
>I recieved, especially at the lower levels, was totally facts and
>regurgitation, and very little critical thought.  Most of even the


Well, there are a hell of a lot of facts to learn. Quite a few of these
are needed to give beginning students a foundation to build from. You
can't start teaching biology with a cladistics vs. punctuated equilibrium
debate, or astronomy with a hot vs. cold dark matter debate [oops, now
CDM is out; have to find another example]. Kids have to go through
the bad old ickiness of memorizing the boring facts of spelling,
grammar and pronounciation before they can write sonnets or blank verse.
Doctors and engineers damn well better have the dull facts of their
professions cold before they're turned loose with scalpels and CAD
systems.

Admittedly, learning ONLY facts and never method leaves one fit only
to be a tradesman, but first things first: learning method and never
facts leaves one fit only to be a philosopher.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: seligman@CS.Stanford.EDU (Scott Seligman)
Subject: A once-in-a-lifetime coincidence...
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: sci
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:29:17 GMT

... occurs, on average, several times every second.



Scott Seligman

Internet:  seligman@CS.Stanford.EDU
UUCP:      {uunet,decwrl,sun}!cs.stanford.edu!seligman
Packet:    kn6ev @ n0ary.#nocal.ca.usa.na
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: interminable ad hominem argument
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:39:44 GMT

danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
: In article <1993Jan7.175751.699@rosevax.rosemount.com>,
: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
: > The church demands that it's pronouncements be believed without doubt
: > or evidence.  Science doesn't make that demand.
: 
: Speaking as an atheist and secular humanist I must take some issue
: with this statement.  Theologians in many churches argue til they're
: blue in the face, doubt things all over the place, and pile up
: mountians of historical and cultural evidence.

[...]

: I think what you getting at is that the claims made are often
: difficult or impossible to quantify and that all doubt, debate,
: evidence, etc. takes place within a set of assumptions that
: themselves have absolutely no rational basis.  Assumptions like,
: "There is a God and we have Half a Clue about what He wants".

Exactly.  It was those underlying, undoubtable statements to which I was
referring.  Claims like...

  Exaclty one god exists.

  Jesus was his son, Mohammed was his prophet, etc.

  God knows that I exist (and cares).

  People have eternal souls.

  When the body dies, souls are reincarnated, go to heaven, go to
  hell, go to Poughkeepsi, whatever.

Maybe they can't decide what color the virgin Mary's eyes were,
whether Jesus had bothers or sisters, or how many angels can dance on
the head of a pin.  Those debates aren't enough to convince me that
churches are committed to open and free inquiry.

The fact that people think questions like those matter would lead me
to suggest that they find a hobby.  I suppose arguing those questions
is their hobby.

: You seem to be confusing churches in general with the way some
: churches somtimes treat their lay members.  For that matter, I, in
: my capacity as a qualified scientist, often find myself asking that
: my pronnouncements be beleived without any evidence.  Usually when
: the person I'm talking to is too ignorant to understand the evidence
: or too lazy to look at it, but still...

But if asked, you _could_ come up with evidence.  And if my past
experiences with scientists is typical, given the time and an
attentive listener you would be happy to do so.

: Dan
: Danwell@IASTATE.EDU

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  HUMAN REPLICAS are
Rosemount Inc.                                |inserted into VATS of
                                              |NUTRITIONAL YEAST...
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22318 alt.messianic:3964 alt.atheism:25675
From: dvp@oasis.icl.co.uk (Dave Parry)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas betray?
Date: 7 Jan 93 13:45:33 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: The Mountains of Madness
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
> 
> Churches, by their nature tend to be nationalistic and supportive
> of their governemnt.  This is human nature.  Given any conflict,
> I'm sure you will find the tendancy for most churches or religious
> groups in that country to be sympathetic towards that country and
> certainly not towards an avowed enemy.  Of course, this again has
> nothing to do with Christian teaching and everything to do with
> human nature.
> 
Hmmmm. IMHO, a religion (of any persuasion) should, by default, be
above nationalistic leanings, should in fact be independant of nation
states. It's first (and arguably only) loyalty should be to God.

We have a situation here in the UK where the Queen is the head of the
Church of England, and where, I believe, nominations to senior
positions in the church are made by the Prime Minister. This mix of
politics and religion is, to my mind, totally wrong.

I do not subscribe to any formal religion, but must admit I admire
Jehovah's Witnesses for attempting to be true to what (IMHO) religion
should be - independant, 7-days a week, without hypocrasy. They do not
aspire to be politicians, neither do they flaunt wealth as some
churches do. Also, they provide all manner of support for their
members to help them in their daily lives - from making marriages work
to raising children. This to me is what religion should be - helping
people through their daily lives. WHy don't I subscribe to it? Their
views on blood and their belief that the Bible is the literal word
of God. I can't believe these things - or rather have seen nothing yet
to convince me. However, as a practising religion, the more mainstream
ones could learn a thing or two from it (again IMHO).  

Dave


> >
> >jon. 
> 
> -- 
> 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

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------              Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year          -------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From:  (relgov)
Subject: Re: Why does Eire get so much press?
Organization: AA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:00:47 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism

In article <2935506688.1.p00168@psilink.com>, "James F. Tims"
<p00168@psilink.com> wrote:
> Since Belfast is about 1/5 the size of Detroit, assuming that all 2000 
> or so deaths from "strife in N. Ireland" were in Belfast (which they 
> weren't, of course), they should match 1 year's Detroit totals with 5 
> years' of their own in Belfast.  Detroit kills about 2000 per year, and 
> it's taken Belfast 25 years to reach that total.  The Irish just can't keep 
> up with solid American-style violence.  For all the sound and fury on 
> US television coverage of N. Ireland, it's child's play compared with 
> Detroit, with drug warfare, muggings, rape, police brutality, etc.
> 

Oh puhlease!, why don't you exaggerate some more, let's say 30,000 killed
in Detroit (definitely an eye catcher).  Please reference your numbers.  I
believe New York barely reaches the 2,000 figure, and they are an order of
magnitude larger in population.

Recent posts suggest Belfast with a population of 1.5 million?  Detroit's
population is below 1.0 million and has been for awhile.  Furthermore, the
murder rate is ~550/yr as I recall reading recently.
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why does Eire get so much press?
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 12:38:15 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

"James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:
> I thought the people in the south wanted it all to be one Eire. The people 
> in the north wanted to remain part of the UK.

Er, maybe once, but these days the people in Eire generally don't care
whether Northern Ireland becomes part of Eire or not.  They just want people
to stop killing each other.


mathew
-- 
"Blows and wounds cleanse away evil, and beatings purge the inmost being."
                                                          (Proverbs 20:30)

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,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 04:48:39 GMT


Sorry if it seemed like I was being "diversionary" etc.  I was trying
to be sarcastic since I couldn't take the charge against the Catholic
Church seriously, I just didn't succeed very well, apparently. What
I was trying to point out was that

1) I don't think that Vatican policy was to kill Jews.
2) It seems clear to me that saying that Catholic policy was to 
   kill Jews (and Atheists) was simply meant to insult Catholics
   and attack their religion.

I didn't make the point very well, I'll admit.  If there are any Jews
reading this thread who thought I was serious about "Jewish Atheists"
I want to appologize.  I was trying to poke fun at someone who said the
Nazis killed "Atheists" when it's pretty clear to me that the Nazis 
went after potential political enemies (or ones they considered potential
enemies) and Jews and a few other nationalities.  The attempt to make 
Atheists victims of the Nazis when what the Nazis were attacking was
Bolshevics seemed ridiculous to me.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:05:15 -0500 
From: David O Hunt <bluelobster+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Satans E-mail.
	<scottj-110193163524@iamac-1.dml.georgetown.edu>

On 11-Jan-93 in Re: Satans E-mail.           
user John L. Scott@magic.dml. writes:
>> : You forgot to seal your Soul in an envelope, and send it along.
>> : 
>> 
>> Is my soul small enough to fit in the data field of an ethernet
>> packet?  (I'm out of stamps.)
> 
>You could ask Satan if he'll send the money C.O.D.  Does the post office
>handle such things?

Wouldn't that be S.O.D.?  Soul On Delivery?  :P

David
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Psychics' Predictions Fizzle For 1992
From: cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:25:16 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

A Joke:

A man goes to consult a fortune teller. He waits for quite a while for
his turn. Eventually he is led into a room where a woman sits in front
of a crystal ball. ``I charge $20 and answer two questions'', she intones.
``Twenty bucks for two questions!! That a bit pricey isn't it?'', he
exclaims putting his money on the table. The woman pockets the money
and replies, ``Yes it is. Now, what's your other question?''

--
                                                                     ___
Bill Rea                                                            (o o)
-------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w---
| Bill Rea, Computer Services Centre, | E-Mail   b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| University of Canterbury,           | or     cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| Christchurch, New Zealand           | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc