HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shag@aero.org (Robert M. Unverzagt)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Papal Infallibility [was Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up?]
Date: 7 Jan 1993 17:02:08 GMT
Organization: Organization?  You must be kidding.
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <C0G3KH.EC1@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:
> In article <RICE.93Jan6091725@hpp-ipc-2.stanford.edu>, rice@sumex-aim.Stanford.EDU (James Rice) writes:
> 
> [quotes article on papal infallibility]
> 
> |> Although there is clearly a lot of discussion on this issue, I think
> |> it is reasonable to conclude from this that the pronouncement is
> |> retroactive and is woolily worded enough to allow it to cover almost
> |> anything the pope says/does with the possible exception of kissing the
> |> ground at airports.  It also gives the church a possible out in that
> |> it allows them to say ~"he wasn't \em{really} talking about
> |> faith/morals, he was just giving a personal opinion."  Maybe they
> |> could even hint that he wasn't being a real xian.
> 
> No, I believe "ex cathedra" statements are clearly labelled as such, and are 
> also quite rare.  RC teachings on contraception and priestly celibacy, for 
> example, have not been elevated to the level of infallible dogma.  
> 

Recalling my RC teaching from long ago, the Pope has only spoken
"from the chair" three times.  One of the three things (here my
memory is even more fuzzy) was that Mary was born without sin, one
was on the perpetual virginity of Mary, and I forget the other
one.  Or I may be completely wrong.  Can someone help here?

Shag

-- 
       Rob Unverzagt        |   Last call for alcohol.
  shag@aerospace.aero.org   |   Last call for freedom of speech.
unverzagt@courier2.aero.org |                            - Jello Biafra
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:21979 alt.messianic:3828 alt.atheism:24906
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Date: 4 Jan 1993 20:57:59 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan4.134934.28892@eng.ufl.edu>, mjw@mailbox.eng.ufl.edu (Mike Wohlgemuth) writes:
|> 
|> The point that you are missing is that if you claim to speak for a higher moral
|> authority, and yet you fail to act with any sign of higher morals, then your
|> claims are rather pointless.  It seems rather pathetic to me that people outside
|> the Church have to point this out.  I would feel much more comfortable if the 
|> Vatican would just admit to its mistakes when it makes them and try to do better
|> next time.  Sure, it would lose political face, but why should it care?

Seconded.    I think it's worth noting that the Church teaches that 
confession is good for the soul, and that one needs to acknowlege 
ones faults.

How can any of us have any confidence that episodes like cooperation
with the Nazis won't be repeated, when the church and its followers
spend their time trying to rationalise away what happened, instead
of saying frankly "Yes, we screwed up, and we're going to find out
why".

And that's another good question.   Forgetting all this crap about
"lesser of two evils", exactly why *did* it happen? 

jon.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mrgreen@next16pg2.wam.umd.edu (Mara Rachel Greengrass)
Subject: Re: They Made Us.
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:22:56 GMT

In article <73429@cup.portal.com> John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:
> Subject: Who Made Us?

Who made us?

Why it was the space aliens wasn't it?  Then, they became reincarnated as  
us, then they kidnapped us to do tests on, then they took us on neat trips  
to fascinating planets...Wow, those are such pretty lights, and neat  
things climbing up the walls........

Mara R. Greengrass
Skeptic
Anthropologist
Archaeologist
Agnostic
From: michaelb@cse.fau.edu (Michael Rogero Brown)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: BiosphereII
Date: 6 Jan 93 16:16:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

In article <1992Dec30.144509.27202@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu> jacobson@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Eliot T. Jacobson ) writes:
>
>Last I heard the ocean was dying, the co-2 was getting
>out of hand, and their farming was a failure.
>
>Heard on the Leno (formerly Carson) show:  "put scientists
>is a glass bottle and close it... they forgot to poke holes
>in the top!"
>
>So what is the latest news?

Well, the latest issue of _Whole Earth Review_ had a cover article on
Biosphere-2 at age 1.  The author is definetly pro-B-2.  He in fact took
exception to all the negative reports on B-2 (ie the secret co-2 scrubbers,
the injured crewmember smuggling stuff in when she returned).  Good info, tho.


-- 
<< Michael Rogero Brown                      | Disclaimer: I speak     >>
<< CS Graduate Student-Florida Atlantic Univ |  only for myself.       >>
<< Internet: michaelb@sol.cse.fau.edu        | All my opinions are     >>
<< BitNet: m_brown@fauvax                    |  that: mine & opinions. >>
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22253 alt.atheism:25534
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up?
Date: 9 Jan 93 23:56:39 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <8JAN199323235160@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
|> 
|> So are you an atheist? Are there special kinds of atheists apart
|> from agnostics? (I'm not curious about "atheism," any more than 
|> I am about "theism" ... only about atheist.)

I deleted the preaching, but there was a question.   Asking if 
someone is an atheist is problematic if you have a particular 
meaning of the word in mind.

I was told at an early age that I would have to make up my own
mind about God and religion.   When I thought about it long 
enough, I concluded that the burden of proof lay with those who 
asserted the existence of God, and that, given that each culture 
has produced a different relgion, and a different view of God, 
it was at least slightly unlikely that we had it right.

I'm not interested in "disproving" the existence of an entity
for which there is no concrete evidence.  On the other hand, I
don't carry around some strong "belief" in the non-existence
of this supposed entity.    If I opened the paper tomorrow and
read that concrete evidence of some non-human advanced entity 
had been discovered - by scientists, I wouldn't give you twopence 
for what some lying christian might claim - then it wouldn't 
phase me in the least.   I would simply start wondering if we 
had run across a powerful alien - and if so, what might their
relgion be like? - or if there was some way in which we could 
provoke this entity to demonstrate supernatural powers.

I suspect that if that above scenario came to pass, Religion 
itself would enter a phase of great confusion.   Much greater
confusion than that experienced by any atheist.

So you tell me.   Am I an atheist?

jon.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22062 alt.messianic:3872 alt.atheism:25119
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why does Eire get so much press?
Date: 6 Jan 93 12:57:44 GMT
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century

jim@specialix.com (Jim Maurer) writes:
>creilly@maths.tcd.ie (Colman Reilly) writes:

>>c) There ain't no violence in Dublin.

>Maybe not now, but there has been in the not too distant past.
>Someone I know was almost blown up at a bus stop right next to TCD a few
>years ago! It was right by Dawson Street, I can't remember the name of the
>street right off hand.

There hasn't been a terrorist explosion in Dublin (apart from a few 
firebombs - literally crackers) in 18 years. Could you give more
details as to what happened to your friend?

There is violence in Dublin, but I think Colman was referring to
terrorist violence. Of that, there is very little.

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive  P a u l   M o l o n e y    "I'm pretty witty and you're itty bitty    pe
james  Trinity College, Dublin     And isn't it a pity the city can't see?   vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas betray?
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:32:43 GMT

ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
:
: Again, let me reiterate that since all Christians do not necessarily
: act in a Christ-like manner, then the relevancy of whether a person
: who commits evil happens to be Christian is nil.
:

No, it isn't.  The christian church claims to be a source of
moral/ethical guidance and strength.  I'm an electrical engineer and
claim to provide (in exchange for money) guidance and expertise on
electronics.  I can't claim, after cashing the check, that I don't
know anything about electronics -- but that's OK, since the vast
majority of the population doesn't either.

Since the only verifiable claims made by religion must relate to
observable behavior during this one and only life, the behavior of
adherents to a religion is the only thing by which that religion can
be evaluated.  If you admit that christians are just as evil as
everybody else, then doesn't that lead you to conclude that other
religions (or none at all) are just as valid as christianity?

:
: You will find a lot of evil in all kinds of people whether they be
: Christian, Moslem, Jewish, Buddhist etc.  The common denominater
: here is "people" and not the religion.
: 

So you admit that religion is useless in the areas of morality and
ethics?  You seem to be saying that people are good/evil despite of
(or independently from) their religion.

: 
: A glimmer :) The Inquisitors *were* in all liklihood Christian.
: But what does this prove? 
: 

If the cardinals, bishops, popes, priests, ministers, and faithful can
err grossly in matters of ethics and morality, then what reason do we
have to take their word for anything else?

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  NANCY!!  Why is
Rosemount Inc.                                |everything RED?!
                                              |
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Psychics' Predictions Fizzle For 1992
Summary: So ....
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:42:45 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1993Jan06.120737.11447@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>, paul@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Paul Fidler) writes:
> 
> Speaking of which, let's get back to the subject line.....
> 
> From the _Weekly_World_News_, Oct. 22, 1991, cover:
> 
> "PREDICTIONS FOR 1992--WORLD'S TOP PSYCHICS PEER INTO THE NEW YEAR!
> 
>   JANUARY: MYSTERY ILLNESS WIPES OUT HOLLYWOOD!
> 
>   FEBRUARY: OPRAH REVEALS SEXUAL ENCOUNTER WITH SPACE ALIEN!
> 
>   MARCH: AMERICANS GET $5000 EACH FROM U.S. GOV'T!
> 
>   APRIL: EARTHQUAKE SPLITS ALASKA IN TWO! 
> 
>   MAY: GARTH BROOKS SWIMS ENGLISH CHANNEL!
> 
>   JUNE: FIDEL CASTRO FLEES CUBA IN RUBBER DINGHY!
> 
>   JULY: NOSE SPRAY STOPS HEART ATTACKS--INSTANTLY!
> 
>   AUGUST: LIZ TAYLOR GIVES BIRTH TO BABY AT 60!
> 
>   SEPTEMBER: DAN QUAYLE CAUGHT WITH PLAYBOY BUNNY!  
>      and     DOCS CREATE FOUR-LEGGED WONDER TURKEYS!
> 
>   OCTOBER: GUNS N' ROSES HEALS CRIPPLED FAN ON MTV!
> 
>   NOVEMBER: BEVERLY HILLS 90210 CAST GETS SEX CHANGE!
> 
>   DECEMBER: ELVIS APPEARS ON CHRISTMAS EVE!
> 

so, don't keep us in suspense. Which came true and which didn't :-)


marc colten
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu (Dave Weingart)
Subject: Re: Psychics' Predictions Fizzle For 1992
Nntp-Posting-User: @cornell.edu
Organization: CUMC
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:24:53 GMT

In article <MMEYER.93Jan5131146@m2.dseg.ti.com>, mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan4.202155.14634@mail.cornell.edu> phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu (Dave Weingart) writes:
|> > "Bigfoot is a space alien...and he fathered Elvis's love child!
|> > Amazing pictures!"
|> 
|> 	Wait a sec... he >fathered< >Elvis's< love child?... :-)

Damned straight!  Remember, such things are possible when you live at the giant
face on Mars...

|>   When an eel bites your thigh / As you're just swimming by / That's a moray...

Oooohhh...._never_ hand a filksinger a prompt like that!

-- 
73 de David Weingart  KB2CWF    In the event I am captured or killed, the
phydeaux@cumc.cornell.edu       Cornell University Medical College and the
phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu   Department of Academic Computing will disavow
phydeaux@src4src.linet.org      any knowledge of my opinions.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
From: dave@tygra.Michigan.COM (David Conrad)
Subject: Re: Why does Eire get so much press?
Organization: CAT-TALK Conferencing System
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 16:56:22 GMT

In article <2935506688.1.p00168@psilink.com> "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:
>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.

Where did you get this number?  I'm pretty sure that it's high by about
a factor of 8.  I don't think we've even reached 1 murder per day here
in Detroit yet, although I realize that's still pretty bad....

David R. Conrad
-- 
=  CAT-TALK Conferencing Network, Computer Conferencing and File Archive      =
-  1-313-882-2209, 300bps-14400bps, V.32/V.32bis/TurboPEP New users use 'new' - 
=  as a login id.  AVAILABLE VIA PC-PURSUIT!!! (City code "MIDET")            =
   E-MAIL Address: dave@Michigan.COM
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: It's Good In Theory, But... (Re: Characterization of quack theories)
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:35:16 GMT

In article <1io07mINNt89@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>, ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay) writes in part:
|> In article <1993Jan8.194315.20491@netcom.com> noring@netcom.com 
|> (Jon Noring) writes:
|> |In a private e-mail communication with a physicist e-mail friend who knows his
|> |quantum mechanics and does not totally agree with Sarfatti, he stated that
|> |some of these other physicists are just jealous, closed-minded, and react the
|> |way they do because they are afraid that the ramifications of Sarfatti's
|> |research would undermine many of the "paradigms" (sorry Russell) that they
|> |hold dearly (after all, if you've devoted 20+ years of your life with one set
|> |of "paradigms" (sorry Russell), it is emotionally difficult, and for some,
|> |impossible, to change course in mid-life.)
|> 
|> Speaking as an participant in some of these discussions, I feel
|> obliged to say that I don't find this very credible. It is true that
|> the social phenomenon you describe can occur. Having examined the
|> physics and participated in part of the discussion, however, I don't
|> believe that it is what has been taking place in sci.physics.

And so on from quite a few folks.

Which is more reasonable:  that a whole bunch of competant people are 
ALL so blindly prejudiced that they can't see the merit of one guy's
view, or that Sarfatti is so in love with his own ideas that he is
blind to their goofiness.  Any argument that is posed to support the
claim that conventional scientist X is blinded by his social environment
applies just as strongly when applied to Sarfatti himself.

IMHO, this entire line of argument is pointless.  The alleged sociology
of science will never advance science one kuhnometer[1].  Sarfattis
ideas may have no merit, some merit, or a lot of merit, but calling upon
the (empircally shaky and logically faulty) pop social psychology of 
"science" is irrelevant to that evaluation.  Can we please save the 
bandwidth and end this ramble.

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

[1]  The kuhnometer the ISO (the I Said-sO) standard unit of paradigm shift, 
Newton to Einstein ~= 10^100 kuhnometers.

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dfox@quack.sac.ca.us (David Fox)
Subject: Re: Velikovsky Criticisms Wanted
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: 11 Jan 1993 07:06:56 UTC

In article <8341@lib.tmc.edu> draper@odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu (E.J. Draper) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.182915.10798@psych.toronto.edu> Stuart Grant,
>grant@psych.toronto.edu writes:
>>I found _Scientists Confront Velikovsky_ quite good in dealing with
>>_Worlds in Collision_, particularly Sagan's chapter. Can anyone 
>>suggest a book that deals with Velikovsky's later stuff?
>
>Check out some back issues of _The Sceptical Inquirer_.  I read an
>article about two years ago, also written by Carl Sagan, that utterly
>destroys Velikovsky.

Another good reference is Carl Sagan's book _Broca's Brain_, where he
devotes a whole chapter (plus an appendix discussing collision physics,
the time-scale which is IMHO the crux of Velikovsky's argument).

>anybody would want to invest time and effort in dealing with such obvious
>nonsense.

_Broca's Brain_ also devotes much (besides Velikovsky issues) to what I
would consider obvious nonsense.  The trouble is, most people don't think
it's obvious nonsense. :(

>      |E|J-  ED DRAPER
> rEpar|D|<-  Radiologic/Pathologic Institute
>             The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
>             draper@odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu
--
David Fox
dfox@quack.sac.ca.us

"The opinions expressed are not mine, but are those of bad Thetans from
the Galaxy of Xenu.  Anyone know where to obtain stolen E-meters?"

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 01:51:11 GMT

>Yes, I'm quite sure I want to say that.   Millions of people smoke,
>and millions of people watch Rambo movies, but I don't think that
>either tabacco or Stalone are of any particular worth.
>If all you mean by worth is that at the end of the week the Priests
>trot down to the bank with a bag of money, well.....

Okay...okay...what's the point of even discussing it then?
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,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: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 07:08:46 GMT

In article <1idq1bINNomj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.043709.29638@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>|> In article <1iadi5INN1v7@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>|> >In article <C0CnAL.CsL@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>, sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:
>|> >|> In article <1ia8cnINNpeh@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>|> >|> |> 
>|> >|> |> How can any of us have any confidence that episodes like cooperation
>|> >|> |> with the Nazis won't be repeated, when the church and its followers
>|> >|> |> spend their time trying to rationalise away what happened, instead
>|> >|> |> of saying frankly "Yes, we screwed up, and we're going to find out
>|> >|> |> why".
>|> >|> 
>|> >|> I don't know about the Roman Catholic church, but I believe the Lutheran 
>|> >|> church in (West) Germany did precisely that after the war.  I'll see if 
>|> >|> I have any references in my files.  
>|> >
>|> >That would be great.   It would be the most definitive answer to the
>|> >"no major denomination cooperated with the nazis" claim that started
>|> >this discussion.
>|> 
>|> I don't remember anyone making this claim?  Do you have any references?
>|> 
>|> The discussion, the way I remember it, was a statement that
>|> Hitler's regime was not based on Christian values.  How you come
>|> up with the statement you made above is beyond me.
>
>To which I replied that this claim was misleading, since Christian
>churches certainly cooperated with Hitler and the Nazis.   I thought 
>you had been disagreeing with that.   Was I wrong?
>
>Are you instead saying that the main denominations *did* cooperate with
>Hitler?
>

I am saying that a Church's cooperation or lack of cooperation had
nothing to do with how Christian Hitler's values were.  The same
goes for his regime.  And then I am asserting that his regime was
not founded on Christian values.

>If you are, and there is certainly plenty of evidence that this is so,
>then I wonder how anyone can claim Hitler's regime wasn't based on
>christian values.
>
>If Christian churches associated themselves with his regime, then are
>they not accepting his values as their own?

No they are not neccesarily.  They are merely associating with him
for whatever reason.

>
>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
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22105 alt.atheism:25206
From: kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu (Brad Kepley)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Date: 6 Jan 93 23:58:30 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville

In article <1idq1bINNomj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.043709.29638@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>
>Are you instead saying that the main denominations *did* cooperate with
>Hitler?
>
>If you are, and there is certainly plenty of evidence that this is so,
>then I wonder how anyone can claim Hitler's regime wasn't based on
>christian values.
>
>If Christian churches associated themselves with his regime, then are
>they not accepting his values as their own?
>
>jon.

Oh boy...oh boy... ;)
Ever wonder why people on Earth just can't seem to get along?

p.s.  Howcome my messages keep getting chopped off at the end?
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism