HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Date: 2 Oct 92 00:50:12 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <1992Sep28.192529.4385@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <1a4q2lINNf10@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep21.170238.25151@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>Carrying any position to logical extremes can produce
>>>unsatisfactory results.  For example, believing that this is the
>>>one and only life might tend to make me more selfish of myself
>>>having no care or consideration for anyone else.  I might even
>>>have fun breaking every social law in the book.  
>> 
>> Ah, yes.  This illustrates the underlying moral bankruptcy of so many of the
>> religious (not that I'm claiming that John belongs to this class):  It's only
>> fear of god that keeps them acting nicely.  Hence their frequent perception of
>> atheists as inherently immoral.
>
>Yes, I've heard this argument many times from fundmentalists.  They claim that
>Only God saved them from a life of sin, that he retrieved them from a sordid
>existance as a (insert one) alcoholic, wife beater, druggie, adulterer, child
>abuser, etc.  Obviously they would never have gotten any better on their own!
>
>Sarcasm meant.
>
>Sue


	I do have to rise in public opposition to what Sue says here. I am NOT
inclined to criticize good, honest atheists for their moral positions - to
exercise my right to a cliche, some of my best friends don't believe
in God, and I don't wish them to go to Hell. Sue is no friend of mine, and
I don't feel it is at all unchristian to comment that the above paragraph
is about the worst, most meanspirited thing I've seen on the Net in a very
long time.

	In the context Sue is speaking of, I don't think it matters a
great deal whether God exists or not. If religion, yes superstitious,
no brain religion helps some people to get through life, it is absolutely
not HER call to say that these people are in error. She should thank the
God who doesn't exist for helping these people out, because they DID NOT
make their lives better on their own. They had help.

	She might also consider the dilemma of a Godless universe that
makes people who need to believe in God, but does not give them one to
believe in. She should also consider the implications this statement
has for both the survival of both democracy (as we know it), and
unbelief (as we know it). Sooner or later comes the antichrist, a man 
who tries to take the form of God, and at least apparently succeeds...
whereupon we will no longer have to worry about debating the facts
of Jesus's trial.

	Bill R.



	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
government agency."
-- 
Bill R.
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 23:33:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.174521.25085@engage.pko.dec.com> pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:
>
>But Herod came back with an army and imposed his own control by force.
>Sanhedrin would never be the same after Herod became the king (not
>emperor) of Judea.  During his reign, he practically destroyed the
>former Jewish judicial system.  Read your Josephus again, among those
>whom Herod executed, how many of them got the benefit of trial before
>the Sanhedrin?

True enough. But Herod "the Great" was considered an abomination by pious
Jews (see the article on him in The Jewish Encyclopedia!). He would
not be seen as an example to follow. This is why the fable of the Massacre
of the innocents was arrtibuted to Herod. It's the sort of thing he *might*
have done, except there is no evidence whatsoever that he actually did.

In any case, by the time of the trial of Jesus, Herod was dead at least
30 years, and his kingdom was split among his successors.

>This only shows your lack of understanding of the political situations
>of those days.  The much divided Sanhedrin would probabily like to
>reclaim its former power.  But it lacked any real enforcement arm.
>The army was controlled by the Romans.  The temple guards were under
>the command of the priests, who were themselves much Hellenized and
>were the political foes of the conservative elements (Pharisees)
>within the Sanhedrin.  The internal division within the Sanhedrin
>also hindered its effectiveness in carrying out its verdict.

How much enforcement power would be required to take some guy out,
stone him, and hand his body on a tree?

>The high priests had the backing of the Romans and didn't really
>care much about the Law of Moses and the Jewish tradition.  

???????

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

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Soul
Date: 29 Sep 1992 09:24:34 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep28.010216.27146@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>In article <1a4mvtINNf10@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>Well, before we can answer your question about scientifically demonstrating the
>>existence of a soul, how about you give us a definition of soul that you're
>>willing to stick to throughout the rest of the discussion.
>
>I would define soul as that spiritual part of us humans that
>defines us in God's image. It is a separate entity, infused into
>the body before birth, and leaves the body at death.  Because it
>is the part of us that is like God, it is intrinsically and
>naturally immortal.  Furthermore, it is the principle behind our
>intellect and reasoning ability.

Hmm.  No well-defined properties.  Just a bunch of metaphysical hogwash.
Not a very useful definition, I'm afraid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17491 alt.conspiracy:10977
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:58:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <BvnHL8.E8u@mach1.wlu.ca> john7552@mach1.wlu.ca (Niall Johnson u) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep29.191436.1427@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>>
>>> 
>>>           
>>> 
>>>                  RUSSIA'S OPERATIONAL STAR WARS DEFENSE SYSTEM
>>>          
> 
>masses of purile drivel deleted
>
>>>                                    Robert E. McElwaine
>>>                                    B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
>
>Jesus f***ing Christ! What is with this guy! Every newsgroup and listserv
>I'm attached to seems to be attracting this man's drivel.
>
>The guy is definitely unhinged and has a CAPS LOCK fixation. What, doesn't

What surprises me is that nobody seems to have even *noticed* the name of
the great sage to which this is attributed, Dr. Peter Beter.

Actually, the name is NOT made up (at least not recently!). The guy had
been turning out paranoid drivel for many a year. I seem to recall that
he was peddling UFO conspiracies as well, back in the 1970s.

Maybe this secret Russian "Star Wars" system accounts for the UFO
captured on NASA's STS-48 mission, recently seen on Trash TV???   :)


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

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: chapman@ims.com (Dave Chapman)
Subject: Re: Well known scientifc facts
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:23:19 GMT

Let's assume for the purpose  of debate that the original measurement
of the average temperature of a healthy human body was off by 0.4
degrees F. The question in the original post was: How can we be so
sure that other more complex measurements are correct in light of the
fact that this one was wrong? 

The measurement of normal body temperature was off by about 0.5%.

One question that comes to mind is: How much would our concept of the
world change if ALL of our measurements were off by 0.5% ?

In the context of the creation/evolution debate the evolutionists age
of the Earth is changed from 4.55 billion years to 4.53 billion years.
In fact geologists don't claim more than 5% accuracy for geologic
dating.

In a very general sense all measurements were made by human
beings and therefore could be wrong. We already knew that before we
found out the the temperature measurement was wrong. We know we have to
be careful and skeptical. In this sense nothing has changed. We knew
that any given measurement could be incorrect and we still know that.
So now this post ends with another question. What other measurement do
you think is wrong and what evidence do you have to convince us that
it is wrong?
-- 
Dave Chapman   	       	       	    | The chickens are in the air.
Integrated Measurement Systems	    |
9525 SW Gemini Dr.		    | work 503 626 5373
Beaverton, Oregon		    | chapman@ims.com
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Well known scientifc facts
Date: 25 Sep 92 17:03:14 EST

In article <1992Sep24.122743.10247@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
[...]
> Question: if scientists can't get a mundane fact correct such as
> the average human temperature for over 100 years (the study that
> established the average temperature was done over a century ago
> with I believe quite a large sample rate), what makes them think
> that any of their other more complex "facts" are accurate?  Please,
> this is only a genuine query.

Silliness, silliness.  This is not a genuine query.  This is a ("name to be
filled in by the user" ism).  It clearly establishes that you do not understand
science.  Since you only "believe" that the study was done over a year ago, I
suggest that you first research body temperature, its natural variations,
methods of measurement, plus the history of the noted items, and then discuss
getting facts straight.

BTW, I surmise that you do not understand "facts", "hypotheses", "theories". 
Please refer to multiple discussions on this newsgroup for the past two years,
or any good fifth grade science book.

GXKambic
standard same depressing arguments again disclaimer
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: UN-WISE QUOTES
Date: 2 Oct 92 00:55:11 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <2027@snap> paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:
|In article <1992Sep29.192106.1429@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
|
|>          [Aircraft are impossible]  Simon Newcomb, 1901
|
|	   [Jumbo jets accurately described, then dismissed as
|	   impossible or incredibly expensive]
|>               "Another popular fallacy is to expect enormous speed to 
|>          be obtained.  It must be remembered that the resistance of 
|>          the air increases as the square of the speed and the work as 
|>          the cube... If with 30 h.p. we can now attain a speed of 40 
|>          m.p.h., then in order to reach a speed of 100 m.p.h. we must 
|>          use a motor capable of 470 h.p.... it is clear that with our 
|>          present devices there is no hope of competing for racing 
|>          speed with either our locomotives or our automobiles."  
|>          William H. Pickering, 1905
|
|The second half of this quote is actually quite reasonable,
|provided you bear in mind the phrase "present devices".  Basically he
|was saying that we needed a few orders of magnitude improvement.  He
|was right.

True, it is still rather interesting, from a historical perspective, to
see a statement like this that treats a *470 h.p.* engine as an amazingly
large one. (I wonder how he would have reacted to being told the horse-
power rating of a modern jet engine? I mean he *was* right, we *do*
need the kinds of horsepower he was talking about, and more)
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 01:52:08 GMT

In article <1alcmkINNk87@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.030539.14018@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>About as much as religion does. What can one say about 'god created the
>>>heavens and the earth' other than it is a causal claim. I see the distinction
>>>you are making, but not the difference.
>>
>>You mean to tell me that certain logical conclusions don't fall
>>into place for you if you accept the premise that a Supreme Being
>>(god) created the heavens and the earth?
>
>I can't think of any logical conclusions that follow from that assumption
>alone.  Perhaps you could enlighten us?  By the way, I'm still waiting for
>definitions of "spiritual needs" and "spiritual hunger."

It was given in a previous posting, hopefully you have received it
by now.  Note: I did not know that you were actually waiting for a
definition of that term until it was pointed out by someone that
you actually wanted a definition.  That was why it took so long.
I apologize.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
>


-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Totally Unrelated Drivel....
Date: 30 Sep 1992 00:16:13 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Sep29.161032.15089@nosc.mil> clarkk@nosc.mil (Kevin D. Clark) writes:
>    It seems to me (and I'm admittedly no expert) that if twins are genetically
>    identical (and here I may be wrong also) and had been raised in the same
>    environment that they would both be gay or straight...if sexual preference
You also have to allow for genetically identical individuals being affected
differently during development in the womb.  Lots can happen between that
single fertilized cell and the birth of a baby.
-- 
haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
haynes@cats.bitnet

"Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an Art."
        Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: holger@esfra.sub.org (Holger Stegemann)
Subject: Re: Famous Last Words
Organization: Ebert & Stegemann GmbH; Frankfurt/Main
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 09:39:50 GMT

In <1992Sep30.032716.5936@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:


>A number of people in this group refuted the suggestion that
>manned flight (as we know it today) was once thought impossible.


>Here are some quotes:


>"Heavier than air flying machines are imposible" Lord Kelvin, 1900.

>"Space travel is utter bilge" Dr. Richard van der Riet Wolley
>                              (Astronomer Royal, 1956)

[...]

>Anyone got more quotes like the above?

"You will never go to High School". (One of my teachers, 1972. He was wrong.)

Holger
-- 
-------------------- holger@esfra.sub.org -------------------
Holger Stegemann                    100016.633@compuserve.com
Staedelstr. 8, W-6000 Frankfurt 70  Tel. 069 / 619047 (Voice)
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: fact/theory/hypothesis (was Re: sci.skeptic: The FQA)
Date: 29 Sep 1992 03:37:55 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <5555@tuegate.tue.nl>, wsadjw@rw6.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:
>In article <lbrfifINNslc@news.bbn.com> ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>>
>>(A point to be made here is that someone who uses the phrase "X is just a
>>theory" to mean something like "X is merely an unsubstantiated guess" shows
>>only that they have no idea of the meaning of the terms that they are
>>using.)
>
>I can't resist sticking my nose into this too. The key word is "just".
>As you said, a theory is a model.  But the empirical facts (and the
>predictions and tests) of the model are not implict in the word "theory".
>
>After all, there are theories to explain the workings of acupuncture
>and homeopathy as well.  And what about "conspiracy theories"?

I thought it was pretty obvious that this thread was about the meaning of the
term "scientific theory."  Care to tell us about two scientific theories
that explains the workings of acupuncture and homeopathy?  I'll even help you
out.  One of them involves placebo effect.

>If someone says "It's just a theory" it might mean "Nice story, but
>the empirical content is empty, it makes no predictions, it is not 
>tested". 

No, in the context of this thread, when someone says "it's just a theory," they
mean thay don't have the slightest idea of the meaning of the term "scientific
theory."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Well known scientifc facts
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:17:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.143203.10852@njitgw.njit.edu> dmu5391@hertz.njit.edu (David M. Utidjian Esc stnt) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.013416.27338@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>
>>Now I'm curious, what would *you* call the *average* human temperature?  
>
>Well, how about we measure the entire population of the earth temperatures
>constantly throughout the day and night for an entire year, then
>*average* the results.
>
>I will guess that it will be around 98.something degrees farenheit.
>

>You seem to be saying that because there is a *new* and presumably
>*better* *average*, and we used the old one for so long, that this
>somehow says something about facts.
>So tell us, what does this study say about "scientific facts" other
>than that they may change?

Your assumption that the average temperature had changed is a novel one,
but I hadn't heard any reseacher make it yet.  If it is true, then it
answers my question.  If it is not, then it still stands.

>
>David Utidjian


-- 
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: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Some Real Physics (Was: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology)
Date: 3 Oct 92 21:39:13 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <30SEP199214535570@csa3.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>That's not what the original poster was talking about, as you can see
>from the question which you yourself reposted.  He was making a claim about
>the net gravitational pull of the Sun, vs. the Doctor.  That's the question
>to which I responded.

>But you're still doing the same thing that I complained about in the first
>place - what good are your words when a little calculation is at hand?
>Can't you see that your mumbings about "all of a person is essentially 
>the same distance from it" are useless to a skeptic?  Physics is built
>upon mathematics, not philosophy.
>
>Let's consider the tidal stress:

When we're doing this, let's not forget that the force to be considered between
the doctor and the baby is the gravitational force, not the tidal force. 
They're not in freefall around each other (unless, of course, we're assuming a
space habitat).  Furthermore, the net tidal force exerted on the baby will be a
function of the distance of the baby from the center of the earth (that *IS*
approximately the thing that's orbiting the sun), not a function of the length
of the baby.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: "jehovah" tribe of ren
Date: 1 Oct 92 04:56:20 GMT

In article <8409.10639@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM>,
lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas) spaketh:

> [ ... ... ... ]
> Stole your land...this is a joke.....your so called land is
> rented to YOU by the government bankers. You dont own squat
> anymore unless you live in the wilds of Australia, Canada, or
> South America.
> [ ... ... ... ]

Hey, Len!  Time to get that dosage adjusted again -- after which
please consider taking the foam-at-the-mouth, anti-Israel rants to talk.
politics.mideast, which newsgroup _this_ most assuredly is not.

Cheers,
Rick M.
Rick_Moen@blyth.com

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)