HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 4 Oct 92 15:07:43 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1almc4INNg1n@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <5751@tuegate.tue.nl>, wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:
>>Pharisees are reported to have plotted against Jesus, that they hated
>>his guts (enough to frame him for execution by Romans, all according to
>>the same Biblical source) and that after the Temple incident any Temple
>>guard or money changer or supporter of the Pharisees could have been
>>trusted to identify Jesus who (still according to the same sources) must
>>have had national fame - why else was he welcomed so much in Jerusalem?
>
>Just like you can count on every eyewitness to a crime to be able to identify
>the suspect these days, right?  

I don't suppose the authorities then knew as much as people nowadays.
Carl seems to be bent on presenting the *then* authorities as modern 
bureaucrats having the benefit of lots of experience and jurisprudence 
and results of psychological research, and moreover extremely worried
about a possible miscarriage of justice.  The story of the Gospels do
not support that. 
As this discussion seems not to be possible without adducing elements
not in the Gospels, let me present a plausible conversation.
High priest:  We have confidential information that this Jesus will be
tonight in Getsemane.  Get him.
Chief officer: How many people should I take. 
HP: It might be a plot or a trap, actually I don't trust this Judas. I
never trust traitors. Better go there with all the people you have.
CO: How do I know who it is?  All these Galilean country bumpkins look
alike in the dark.
HP: That's your business. What do I have officers for?  Last week the
whole city was filled with his devotees shouting Hosanna, and umpteen
moneychangers lost their capital when he whipped them around and their
tables fell over in the crowd.  I told you to have some people tail him.
They know him by sight, don't they?  Get some of those moneychangers to 
assist you.
CO: They are not allowed to carry swords.
HP: Do I have to think for you?  They may carry sticks.  The more the
better.
CO: Can we not have the snitch to point him out.
HP: Are you out of your mind?  There's half a chance that this is
some kind of trap. But take the snitch anyway, if he's double-crossing us
I'll have his skin. Don't let him go until you're certain you got the
right guy. Better don't make any mistake, or else.
CO: Yes sir. Certainly, your holiness.  What is he charged with, actually?
HP: Wanting to be king and threatening to destroy the temple.  If that
wont do, add `disturbing the peace' and `insulting an ordained priest
in public'.
CO: At your orders.

JWN


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:11:36 GMT

In article <k4_p54f.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.223827.26557@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>In article <vn#pa5=.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep26.145922.22060@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Rich, the dictionary defines religious beliefs as those beliefs
>>>>concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe
>>>>especially belief or worship in God or gods.  Superstition, on the
>>>>other hand is defined as an irrational belief in the ominous
>>>>significance of a particular thing or circumstance. Therfore, in
>>>>my mind, if somone has a set of beliefs that deal basically with
>>>>the first definition, then even if the set of beliefs consist of
>>>>something which we may think as irrational doom & gloom, I would
>>>>put it in the first category.  If however, I have an isolated
>>>>belief e.g. if I knock on wood three times, I am averting
>>>>disaster, this would be a superstition since it does not tie in
>>>>any way with the first definition.  Does this make sense to you?
>>>
>>>So are you then saying that 'knock[ing] on wood three times' to
>>>avert disaster does not related to 'the cause, nature, or purpose
>>>of the universe'?  I am not sure that I do follow you. 
>>
>>Exactly, there is nothing is this belief, in and of itself, that
>>has any relevance to the cause, nature or purpose of the universe.
>
>Lets see, cause - knocking in wood, effect - aversion of disaster.
>It is clearly causal. And since there is no apparent explicit relationship
>between cause and effect, there must be a more fundamental relationship.
>I can see no realtionship that is not rooted in the fundamental nature
>of the universe (whatever that is) which could have the power to avert
>disaster. 

One more time... sure it's causal, *anything* can be said to be causual.  What
does it tell you in general, however, about the cause of the universe?

>
>>This is not to say that you couldn't have a set of religious
>>beliefs that would contain this belief.  In that case, it would
>>not be superstition. 
>
>Christians have the same evidence of the existance of god, heaven, and
>hell that the fellow knocking on wood has this will bring good luck.
>How is it that one is superstition, and the other is not? 

My such claims!

> 
>>>Rich
>>>payner@netcom.com




-- 
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: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: KOSHER? In a Pig's Eye!
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:24:56 GMT
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs

In <roelle.717686439@uars_mag> roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:

>The following question remains to be answered: "Is
>there a secular basis basis for the practice of keeping Kosher?"

Why?
No.
-- 
/|/-\/-\       I'll leave you with this saying:
 |__/__/_/     If a person is FAMOUS in this country, they have to go on
 |warren@      the ROAD for MONTHS at a time and have their name misspelled
/ nysernet.org on the SIDE of a GREYHOUND SCENICRUISER!!
From: gpkatch@alcor.concordia.ca (Gary Katch)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Faith and sceptics.
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:55:58 GMT
Organization: Concordia University
  Computing Services C-1012
  1455 De Maisonneuve West
  Montreal (Quebec) H3G 1M8
  "sci.skeptic"
  "kinsler@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Paul Kinsler) "
  "05 Oct 92 07:19:32 GMT"
  <Bvn0CL.9rI@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au>
X-Tel: (514) 848-7632
  Fax: (514) 848-7622
Originator: gpkatch@alcor.concordia.ca

Paul Kinsler writes [*]:
...
>|> Do you know of any cases where a skeptic has retarded
>|> the advancement of knowledge?
...
>I read one in the paper just today. Some Australian doctors
>came up with a new treatment for ulcers, but couldn't convince
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the skeptical Pharm Companies to support them.
...
>But it was the skeptical reaction to something against
>conventional wisdom which held up the development of a 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>viable product.

It was skeptical reaction to a new treatment;  this is a long way
from conventional wisdom.

-- gk
From: biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Dream analysis therapy
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:19:54 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

Does anyone know of good sources debunking the use of 
dream analysis for psychotherapy? Has there been anything
that would imply such therapy could actually be harmful?
I'm not looking for sources that debunk psychotherapy
in general. The more recent, the better.

A friend of my roomate is spending big $$$ for such
"professional" therapy.
From: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Idea for FAQ file
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:32:19 GMT
Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 18641@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
> 
> Can people think of famous examples, in the past, when
>[delete]
> 
> (b) The skeptic view was, in fact, proved wrong
> 
>     (eg. "X-rays are a hoax" Lord Kelvin 1900,  etc etc)
>
> [delete]
>  
> Category (b) should be the most taxing and most interesting.

In category (b), I submit the duck-billed platypus, originally dismissed as a hoax.

---
1. Bill Gascoyne
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Quake Day - Plus 1
Date: 29 Sep 1992 08:14:50 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <JAD.92Sep24142133@pimlico.nsa.hp.com>, jad@nsa.hp.com (John Dilley) writes:
>That's what separates the psychics from ... well,
>the physicists for example.  They're there before and after the theory,
>working to uncover the truth.

Oh?  Where are Pons and Fleischman, then?  Oh, that's right, they weren't
physicists, they were electrochemists!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Crucified for Prophecy's Sake? (was: What did Judas betray?)
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:43:36 GMT

In article <KENTD.92Sep29215814@zappa.FtCollins.NCR.com> kentd@FtCollins.NCR.com (Kent Dalton) writes:
>>>>>> 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.

Sure rules out stoning...

>
>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.

Supports but does not define crucifixion...

>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.
>
>--

IMHO: To believers, this Psalm is indeed a prophesy of Christ's suffering and
death, but to non-believers it probably isn't...

>/* Kent Dalton                   * EMail: Kent.Dalton@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM */

-- 
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: Fwd: J. Witnesses
Date: 4 Oct 1992 01:54:16 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <QemuMyG00UzxA6AUlE@andrew.cmu.edu>, Daniel Read <dr3u+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
==The basic problem with the "reward"/selflessness schema is that
==the reward is known beforehand. With such foreknowledge, I
==doubt it is possible to act "purely" on so-called altruistic
==motives, since you know you'll be getting a dog bone when
==it's all over.

==If religion is to function on altruism, any rewards of such
==altruism must be kept a secret from the religion's own
==practitioners.

=Response:
=
=Surely you don't mean that its impossible to act selflessly (or is this a 
=synthetic a-priori judgement), but that it is impossible to PROVE that you 
=are acting selflessly.  Suppose you offer me a million dollars to donate
=a kidney to save someone's life.  I donate the kidney.  Now it doesn't
=necessarily  follow (as implied above) that I donated the kidney for a
=million dollars, but I would find it dificult to prove that I hadn't.

Please note that the person whom you quotes said `to act "PURELY" on so-called
altruistic motives' (my emphasis added to HIS emphasis, which apparently was
lost on you.  The claim is that there would be SOME non-altruistic component to
your choice;  i.e., that the million dollars had SOME influence on your
decision.  The fact that you state that you "would find it difficult to prove"
that you hadn't donated the kidney for the money seems indicative of the fact
that you would, in fact have donated it, at least in part, for the money, since
otherwise, there's a VERY simple way to prove otherwise:  Refuse the money.  In
my case, I simply wouldn't donate the kidney, since I've only got one to begin
with.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sampling and human hea
Date: 24 Sep 92 00:39:08 GMT

Reply-To: Rick_Moen@blyth.com
 
In article <1992Sep19.005247.14162@u.washington.edu>, mpark@milton.u.
washington.edu (Michael Park) wrote as follows:

> I guess I'm just not asking the right question :-)?!  Let me try one
> more time:  It is generally accepted that the limits of human hearing
> are 20-20,000Hz approx.  Someone told me (in e-mail) that a British
> lab had determined that, although pure tones above ~20kHz are indeed
> inaudible, listeners could detect "nuances" in music up to ~35kHz....

Yes, nobody did answer that, but what the heck are "nuances"?  It's
difficult to answer the exact question asked when one does not know the
meaning of the primary term in question.

I personally still find it odd that no one addresses the known and
acknowledged problems of present-day consumer-grade digital electronics.
-- the inadequate sample size, the excessively sharp low-pass filters,
and the usually crappy analogue-stage electronics.  We were told that
the first generation of gear was perfect, then that the next generation
was somehow even better, but all we get to address the basic problems is
over-sampling, which does not properly address any of them at all (most
of them being frozen into the current standards).

Cheers,
Rick M.

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Well known scientifc facts
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 04:15:06 GMT

In article <47953@shamash.cdc.com> dternes@mips.COM (David Ternes) writes:
>Since the discussion above is about temperature differences of body parts
>and temperature differences during the day a couple of questions came to
>mind.
>
>Is there any significant difference in body temperature between the sexes?

Yes, the study by Mackowiak concluded that women were warmer that
men with an average temperature of 98.4 versus 98.1 in men.  They
also concluded that blacks tend to be warmer than whites although
statistically insignificant (if it was statistically
insignificant, then how did they conclude this?)

>Is there any significant difference in body temperature athletic and
>non-athletic individuals?

The articly didn't mention that...

>
>E. David Ternes                                       dternes@udev.cdc.com
>          Goal: To live either in obscurity or in competance.


-- 
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
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17012 alt.alien.visitors:6971
From: of@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Fibre Optics)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: SPRING HEEL JACK
Date: 27 Sep 92 10:33:55 GMT



I have a fascinating book, "The Reader's Handbook". It was first
published in 1897, the version I have was updated by Rev. E. Cobham
Brewer and published in 1911. It contains the following entry:-


Spring-Heel Jack. The marquis of Waterford, in the early parts of the
nineteenth century, used to amuse himself by springing on travellers
unawares, to terrify them ; and from time to time others have followed
his silly example. Even so late as 1877-8, an officer in her
majesty's service caused much excitement in the garrisons stationed at
Aldershot, Colchester , and elsewhere, by his "spring-heel" pranks. In
Chichester and its neighbourhood the tales told of this adventurer
caused quite a little panic, and many nervous people were afraid to
venture out after sunset, for fear of being "sprung" upon. I myself
investigated some of the cases reported to me, but found them for the
most part Fakenham ghost tales.
-- 
Peter Harris   G4BDQ  |         Unusual exploding disclaimer  ->    (}|){//)
Fibre Optics *-----------------------------------------------------(--PAF !-)
Southampton University| "Relax in the safety of your own delusions" (/}|{\\)
of@ecs.soton.ac.uk    |           Kerry Wendell Thornley              |||
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Kosher? in a pig's eye
Date: 27 Sep 92 02:27:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.171520.14704@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
(Robert McGrath) wrote as follows:

> Excuse me, you just explained the problem:  complex rituals such as
> "Just using the wrong cup would have been a problem" are irrational
> and border on the neurotic.  If it were not based on the theory that
> it was required by a supernatural being, this person would be
> thought to be crazy.  It is also very rude to impose such silliness
> on a guest.

Well, some would say that encountering other people's cultural practices
on their home turf and expecting them to be exactly like at home is
_truly_ rude.  However, I've encountered far more objectionable and far
more bizarre rituals, at homes I've visited here in the USA:  It seems
to involve some depraved bit of arcana called "Sunday afternoon
football", and to entail large stretches of time staring at a screen and
making witless remarks, _while_ one has guests.  I'd take dairy/meat
restrictions over _that_ weird cult, any time.

Cheers,
Rick M.

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Subject: Re: Gerry Roston, I'm sorry.
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:12:43 GMT

>>>>> On 1 Oct 92 17:30:27 GMT, wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) said:

Jan> Probably Mr. Roston will comment on it in his usual acerbic way.

Done.

Jan> I remember discovering the liberating idea that life is
Jan> meaningless (even if God does exist).  This idea puts an end to
Jan> all laborious searching for meaning in improbable places (like
Jan> misfortune).  It makes it possible to enjoy life without having
Jan> to bother about the deeper meaning.

But what happens when life ceases to be enjoyable - and one is either
certain that enjoyment is gone permanently, or one cannot be certain
that it will ever return?  If life is meaningless, then death is not a
tragedy. (Of course, neither is the loss of enjoyment, but most people
won't cozy up to Kierkegaard that easily.)  Have you ever discussed
this with someone who has just become a quadraplegic, or someone
undergoing experimental chemotherapy?  You might look at the works of
Joni Earickson Tada.

Jan> Basically, "meaning" is a lot of cobwebs read into the tealeaves
Jan> of life.  If God exists and is good and infinitely good at that,
Jan> (let's *assume* that) then He would surely not have saddled us
Jan> with the task to discern those unfathomable meanings in life.

If (since) He is good, He would provide it (the meaning) for us,
written down, and we could then look it up as needed.  This dovetails
us nicely back into our other ongoing debate. :-)

Jan> The tendency to imbue all kinds of random events with "meaning" is 
Jan> one of the motors that keeps superstition alive.

It's not the random events that I was referring to, but rather the
overall trend.  If life itself is truly meaning-free, then the world
is neither better off nor worse off if I cease to exist.  No
evolutionary argument about my "helping the human species to survive"
can deny this.  In fact, if life is meaningless, there is no
difference between a doctor saving a life and a murderer taking one,
as long as they are doing so in accord with existential principles.

Jan> You don't recall what you did yesterday - it must mean you're
Jan> abducted by a UFO. In playing cards, you happen to draw the
Jan> telephone number of the former boy friend of your sister's
Jan> classmate - it must have been arranged by the spirit world.
Jan> Yech.

This form of superstition has re-entered Christianity (primarily in
the Charismatic branches in America) via Frank Peretti's books - every
good event was performed by an angel, and every bad one by a demon
(Peretti didn't want people to take his ideas to that extreme, but
people have).  Yech, indeed.
--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "If, after the manner of men, I have fought
Integrated Measurement Systems |  with wild beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  it me, if the dead rise not?  Let us eat and
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  drink; for tomorrow we die." 
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |  - 1 Corinthians 15:32                  THUMP!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: UN-WISE QUOTES
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:26:35 GMT

eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall) writes:
: |>
: |> >When the majority of seat-holders on the NYSE are picking stocks by the
: |> >stars, I'll start paying attention :-)
: |> 
: |> So THAT's why the world economy is in such a mess! ;-)
: 
: Forbes Magazine did an article a while back on picking stocks. Their method:
: a dartboard. The dartboard pick outperformed something like 2/3 of the "top"
: analysts on The Street! Personally, I would trust the stars long before I
: would trust some of these "analysts".
: 

If they really knew what stocks were going up and what stocks were
going down, they sure as hell wouldn't be telling people about it,
they would be buying and selling stocks.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  I have many CHARTS and
Rosemount Inc.                                |DIAGRAMS..
                                              |
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |