HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rpjday@cuug.ab.ca (Robert P.J. Day 277-3175)
Subject: Re: SCI.SKEPTIC.BIBLICAL  I vote [X]Yes!
Organization: Calgary UNIX Users' Group
Distribution:  world
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:51:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep02.498372@ll.mit.edu> andy@xn.ll.mit.edu (Andy Dean) writes:
>      Divert creationist mudslinging out of our dear beloved chat line
>and into a SCI.SKEPTIC.BIBLICAL?
>      "AMEN"!
>      Only you can stop the influx from talk.relig and talk.orig while
>we still have some mental bandwidth left.
>      How do we start the ball rolling on a new group?? Yo, moderator!

  Although I've only been here for a few weeks (and unable to post due
to idiotic news software), may I make a couple of suggestions?
  First, get the creationist stuff into talk.origins where it belongs.
Radical idea, I know, but hey, why the hell do you think it's called
talk.origins?  There are a few of us, I am sure, that like to read
both talk.origins and sci.skeptic, and are thoroughly tired of the
cross.postings.  I can generally get the drift of a posting reading
it just once, thank you.
  Secondly, I recommend that new groups be formed only as a last resort.
Proposing a new group is, IMHO, tantamount to saying that you are too
lazy to take the time to track down where that subject really belongs.
Also, it will only encourage more cross.posting because the original
thread will continue HERE, and will also be cross.posted THERE,
making the problem even worse, costing even more hundreds, if not
thousands of dollars.
  Finally, as I think we have all seen, the problems with filling
up bandwidth with cross postings generally comes from a small number
of individuals.  Lately, it seems that the major culprit has been
Drew Lawson, who is convinced that he has something worth saying and
is willing to flood the net saying it, usually in the wrong groups.
While it's almost impossible to stop this, it seems that there is a
possible solution.
  If Mr. Lawson, or whoever, insists on this type of behaviour, is it
really that difficult to track down his/her site, locate the sys admin
and make it clear that this person's actions are unwanted and contravene
the mandate of that particular group?  This is not censorship, it is
simply insisting that posters behave appropriately and restrict their
postings to the appropriate groups.
  As far as I can tell, the motivation for starting most new groups is
that some lazy, irresponsible and overly verbose individuals start
to flood a number of groups, driving everyone else away.  Starting a
new group to get away from them is equivalent to condoning such
behaviour and is a temporary solution only, as they will soon expand
to cross post there as well.  Idiotic verbiage, like data, expands to
fill whatever space given to it.
  I suggest we try to deal with these individuals first, in whatever
way seems appropriate.
  Any comments?

R. Day
Thoroughly tired of boneheads who live by cross posting ...
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16027 talk.religion.misc:15793
From: dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu (David O Hunt)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Pythagorean Reform Church
Date: 6 Sep 92 22:12:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.Ueej=7S00Uh7A4q21l
	<1992Sep6.203639.913@yvax.byu.edu>
Organization: Masters student, Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>	We demand a SINE!!!! And don't throw us any TANGENTS or false theorems.
>We have been SECANT the truth for a long time. :)

Interesting ANGLE.  All you need to do is get rid of some CIRCULAR logic
and things should be SQUARED away real soon.  I don't think it'll be
to TRIGGY...in fact, it should be a SINH, by COSH!

David
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 19:29:44 GMT

In article <1570@adpplz.UUCP> martin@adpgate.UUCP (Martin Golding) writes:
>No religion of which I am aware offers knowledge that bypasses reason.
>I'd be interested in hearing about it.

How about the Trinity?

>This is totally, irredeemably stupid. Do you toss geometry out the window
>because it doesn't explain how many pounds of hydrogen can be extracted
>from a liter of water?

Geometry doesn't claim that you _can't_ extract hydrogen from water.  If it
did, there would surely be something wrong with it.  Like it or not, many
religions _do_ make claims which involve science.  And you don't get to
automatically define all those claims as not-science, either; if a religion
says that scientists have no business studying the origin of the universe,
and science decides to do so anyway, it's not science that's poking around
where it doesn't belong.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: tad@ssc.wa.com (Tad Cook)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Life Spring...Request for References
Keywords: lifespring
Date: 6 Sep 92 00:12:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: ssc.1992Sep06.001201.1458
Organization: very little

In article <1992Sep2.193437.12947@unlinfo.unl.edu> jensen@unlinfo.unl.edu (michael jensen) writes:
>bchugg@leland.Stanford.EDU (Barron Deland Chugg) writes:
>
>>A good friend of mine has just taken the Life Spring seminar.  While
>>I hope he finds nothing but happiness in it, I am innately nervous
>>about these groups (what can I say, I'm a child of the cult infested
>>seventies).  I would greatly appreciate any references to this
>>organization that I can get.
>
>I believe that Life Spring is what Werner Erhardt of est (Erhardt 
>Seminar Training) formed after leaving/selling off est. 
>

I recall someone taking LifeSpring back in the 70s when another
friend was doing est.  I think Erhard started The Forum after
est.

>
>


-- 
 Tad Cook     |  Phone:  206-527-4089  (home)     |   MCI Mail: 3288544   
 Seattle, WA  |  Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA   |   3288544@mcimail.com 
              |  Internet: tad@ssc.wa.com        or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Worthless, compared to?
Date: 12 Sep 92 17:19:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <716191101.0@iphase.FidoNet.Org>, Cliff.Fleming@iphase.UUCP (Cliff
Fleming) writes... 
>      Maybe it took B.C. to strike home for you, but mindless right wing
>drivel has been going on in the comics for years. If you can stomach it, try
>reading The Family Circus. 

Agreed - once, during the Family Circus members camping trip, there was a scene
with the Father sitting in the background listening to the radio with a big 
grin on his face.  Meanwhile, in the foreground, Billy says to Dolly (or some
such combination), "Shhh, be quiet!  Daddy's listening to Rush Limbaugh!"
Oh, what I would've given to be able to subversively change that to "Shh!  
Daddy's listening to the Butthole Surfers!"

As for BC, the "offending" strips pissed me off not because these opinions 
were made, but that they were done so ham-handedly and simple-mindedly (read,
"unfunnily").  If a strip challenges my thought, I don't mind.  But when it's
a simple potshot, it has the effect of a slap in the face while your hand's 
tied behind your back.  An example of good right-wing humor IMHO is PJ O'Rourke
and his ilk... 

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*      I'm the person that	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*      the president
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*      warned you about.    
******************************************************************************
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Pseudoskepticism
Date: 9 Sep 92 10:27:20 GMT

Reply-To: Rick_Moen@blyth.com

Now that I come to think of it, in article <10394@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>,
pepke@gw.scri.fsu.edu, (Eric Pepke) also wrote as follows:

> ...The pseudoskeptic, on the other hand, tries to throw a bad toupee
> over bald ideology, and the result makes Sam Donaldson look good by
> comparison. In the process, the pseudoskeptic winds up doing most of
> the things that skeptics are supposed to reject: appeals to authority,
> ad-hominem attacks, guilt-by-association ploys, extensive iron-clad
> conclusions based on very little evidence, etc.

> ...Both Robert and Brian have been published in skeptical publications
> more often than many people on the net who are far more deserving of
> the opportunity.  Of course, the published material is of higher
> quality than what we see here, but the skeptical patina is still
> pretty patchy.

I happen to be quite familiar with Brian Siano's and Robert Sheaffer's
many years of articles in skeptical publications.  In fact, it is
possible that I may have read _all_ of them.  I am therefore curious
about your characterisation of their writings in such publications as
founded on appeals to authority, ad-hominem attacks, guilt-by-
association tactics, jumping to conclusions, and similar notable abuses
of rhetoric -- all in furtherance of their personal ideologies.

Given that this _serious accusation_, if untrue, would itself seem to be
a particularly disreputable sort of low-life personal slur (which would
be deliciously ironic, n'est-ce pas?), I assume you would not mind
showing their use of such tactics, in skeptical publications, to advance
their "bald ideologies", with only a "patchy skeptical patina".

Awaiting your _public_ reply with interest,
Rick Moen, Director
Bay Area Skeptics
Editor, _BASIS_


 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
From: carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: J. Witnesses
Date: 12 Sep 92 01:40:44 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC


  If I'm in a very bad mood, I'll sometimes try to convert the JW's
to Mormonism, or Buddhism, or some other religion about which I know
something and they know nothing.  (I succeeded once, though, and that
made the game a lot less fun.)

-- 
==============================================================================
Carl Fink          carlf@panix.com, C.FINK4(GEnie), or CF427620I@LIUVAX.BITNET
  "Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits"  -  Mark Twain
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16163 talk.origins:11082
From: ds0007@buhao (Dale Skiba)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:35:07 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu (David M.V. Utidjian) writes:
: In article <25952@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
: >In article <182qgkINN4jj@agate.berkeley.edu>, utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu (David M.V. Utidjian) writes...
: >> 
: >>SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE A THEORY!!! It can only dis-prove a theory.
: >>David Utidjian
: >
: >That's an awfully myopic view of science.  Consider the following theories:
: >
: 
: I think that you may have missed the fundamental point here Scott.
: 
: >(1) The Earth is round.
: 
: There is the fact that the earth is round.  This fact is made up of
: a bunch of little facts/data; such as, photographs, eyewitness accounts,
: circumnavigation, some Greek experiment to do with sunlight and wells,
: etc...... These facts exist independent of a theory to explain them.


The earth is NOT ROUND, it is roughly SPHERICAL.  Some flat-earthers
say that the earth is "round".  Then they elaborate to say that is is
a roughly circular round (flat) disk.  Since a 2 dimensional circle is
"round", they can and do use it to describe a flat earth.  I know I'm
being overly finicky, but I know there's a flat-earther out there that
would say "Yes, it is round, but only in 2 dimensions!"

--
Dale Skiba
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Reply-To: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Organization: Citicorp+TTI
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 06:33:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.164753.1872@gdr.bath.ac.uk>, lisjws@gdr.bath.ac.uk
(J W Smith) writes:
> It is not incompatible BUT you cannot hold a scientific belief in god.
> Why? Because science, as you so clearly point out, can only tell us about
> appearances whereas religion claims to have the 'truth'.

I think I agree...but I don't understand why you said this.  Did someone
suggest that one COULD "hold a scientific belief in god," or that one
should try to hold such a  belief?  All I was saying was that science
doesn't address the issue--but obviously one can hold beliefs that lack
scientific justification.  What were you getting at, with this?

> One small question - If religion can give us the 'truth' why do you bother
> with the second rate information that science gives us?

Because that "second rate information" has predictive value in
situations where the revelations of religion do not.  Nothing in the
Bible gives me a way to calculate ballistic trajectories or predict the
behavior of mixtures of various chemicals.  It really isn't so much
"second rate information" as it is information about topics on which the
Bible, and other religious scriptures, are silent.  Maybe chemical bonds
form the way they do because God wills it to be so, and not because of
valences and molecular geometries...but the Bible doesn't discuss the
subject at all, and introductory chemistry texts DO.  When I want to
know whether a jar of something is likely to blow up in my face if I
pour water into it...the Periodic Table offers me information about the
matter at hand, even if it is "second rate," while the Bible offers me
advice about how to be a good person.

---------

A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God knew the
facts of the case.

Some mailers apparently munge my address; you might have to use
bsmart@bsmart.tti.com -- or if that fails, fall back to
72027.3210@compuserve.com.  Ain't UNIX grand?
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: idealord@dorsai.com (Jeff Harrington)
Subject: IdEAL ORDER Psychic TV Zaps Dan Quayle on Brinkley Sunday
Organization: The Dorsai Embassy +1.718.729.5018
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:21:07 GMT


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: Soul
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 02:31:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.175307.29575@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes:
>In article <1992Sep7.013605.8876@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>>Marc> Finally if there is no soul, why do we need anything else including... 
>>>Marc> .... GOD? Is this line of reasoning faulty, if so please respond. 
>
>Yes, this reasoning is faulty. The hebrews prior to about the 1st century
>AD didn't have this conception of soul. For them, the soul was simply
>your life, inseparable from your body. If there was life after death,
>it would be a resurrection of the whole person, toenails, earlobes and
>all.
>
>There isn't really any reason to believe that JC taught it either.
>The idea of the transcendent soul entered Judeo-Christian thought
>by way of the platonists, and first appears in christian apologetics
>about 100-200 AD.
>
>References supplied upon request (ie. my reference files are at home.)
>
>Personally, I think it is _ALL_ a bunch of hooey.
>
>Regards,
>	Max G. Webb


I don't know where you are getting your references from, but a
quick check shows 125 references to the word soul in the Bible
with 10 of them in the NT.  For example, in the OT Proverbs 22:5,
in the NT Matthew 10:28 "Do not be afraid of those who kill the
body but cannot kill the soul..." The definition of earthly "life
inseparable from the body" doesn't seem to make sense there. Nor
does Jesus's claim to be "not of this world" (e.g. John 8:23) lend
any credence to your theory that Jesus didn't believe in a
transcendental soul.  The argument between the Saducees and
Pharisees had to do with the Resurection of the Body, not the
existence of the soul which was referenced throughout scripture
repeatedly. This Resurection had to do with the eventual reunion
of the body and soul together on the last day of the world.
-- 
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: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Pseudoskepticism
Date: 10 Sep 92 06:23:58 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <715345310.3@wyrm.rbbs-net.ORG> Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen) writes:
>In article <10394@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, pepke@gw.scri.fsu.edu (Eric
>Pepke) spake thusly:
>
>> There was that flame war between Rick Moen of the Bay Area Skeptics
>> and ....
>
>Eric, for the record, what happened was roughly as follows:  (1) Bozo #1
>is (briefly) meeting moderator for Bay Area Skeptics, heckles from the
>audience a parapsychologist guest speaker, then says from the podium

From what I know of the matter, I think that Rick has traced the origins
of the feud pretty much correctly. Bozo #1 felt that BAS ought to
be doing things thus-and-such, instead of this-way-and-that. When his
splendid advice was pretty much ignored, this launched him on a private
crusade to demonstrate that those who scorned him were all rogues
and fools. 

The only significant omission from Rick's account are those incidents
where Mr. Moen, under provocation from Bozo #1, seriously lost his cool,
thereby giving his opponents valuable ammunition. (Of course, *I* would 
never do that!)

Hey, folks, we're all of us human. Skeptics, even. All that business
about anger, passion, jealousy, etc. etc. applies even to dealings
between skeptics.

Now let's get back to the serious stuff, like aroma therapy.



-- 
  
        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: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Reply-To: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Organization: Xerox
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:20:55 GMT

Since the notion of reincarnation is as plausible as non-reincarnation,
there is no need to attempt to either prove or disprove it. The best response
to this stuff is to point out that much of the "past-life regression" stuff
is the work of hucksters getting paid for "putting you in touch with your past
lives". Anyone doing this for personal (e.g. monetary) gain should be avoided
like the plague. (BTW, almost all major religions believe in reincarnation,
even Christianity, in the form of "resurrection").

Erik "Napoleon (or was that Patton) in a past life" Radmall

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Erik Radmall                    | Xerox Corp.
eradm@brahms.wbst845e.xerox.com    | Knowledge-Based Systems Competency Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: Soul
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:08:42 GMT

In article <1023@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.023132.2686@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes:
>|I don't know where you are getting your references from, but a
>|quick check shows 125 references to the word soul in the Bible
>|with 10 of them in the NT. ...
>
>Yes, the Bible texts include a word which is traditionally translated
>as 'soul'.  It did *not* mean what we now mean by that word.  As the
>prior poster said, the hebrews used the word to refer to the life of
>the body, inseperable from it, and having no *independent* existance.
>
>And none of Jesus teaching are inconsistant with this view.

Perhaps I am missing something here, but how would you reconcile
Jesus's teachings with that view of the soul?  I am curious
because this is not the first time I've heard that statement made
and it does not square with my limited knowledge of Jesus's
teachings.  I am no linguist myself so I will accept that the
original Hebrew/Aramaic word used in the Bible in and of itself
did not necessarily mean an *independant* soul.  However, it does
not necessarily follow that this was the actual meaning.  For
example, if I refer to the breath of life, the words breath and
life do not necesarily mean soul.  Both refer to something
concretely tied to the body.  However, I could refer to the soul
using those words especially if I didn't have a precise word in my
vocabulary to refer to it.  As far as the Old Testament is
concerned, there is a section in 1 Samuel that refers to Saul
consulting a medium so that he could communicate with Samuel (and
does).  It appears that at least in that case, something else must
be taken into account other than the straight Hebrew definition.

>sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)


-- 
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: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: NOTICE:"Bigfoot/Sasquatch" Sightings Request
Date: 14 Sep 1992 03:34:04 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


   Our research group is currently investigating reports and sightings of the
animal known as "Bigfoot" or "Sasquatch". If you or somebody you know has had
such a sighting, or come across what may be evidence supporting the existance
of such an animal, please get in contact with us in one of the following
formats:
 
o Leave a private message in electronic mail.
o Call Thomas Hill at 216-362-6529.
o Or write:
 
  Thomas E. Hill
  16124 Richard Dr.
  Brook Park, OH 44142
 
 Contact with us can be totally anonymous if you wish. We are especially
interested in Ohio sightings but are by no means limited to investigations in
that state. Please, serious responses only.
-- 
"A large creature about 7 1/2 to 8 foot tall. It was greyish black in color,
and as it went away from me I seen the backside of it walking as a man would
walk on it's hind legs."- Former Sheriff Oliver Potter, Vancouver, Washington
The Cryptozoology Information Network. Want on our Email mailing list? Amiga!
From: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Dead Sea Scrolls
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:19:27 GMT
Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 8530@athena.cs.uga.edu, mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
>
>Prejudice against evangelicals is, after all, prejudice.
>

I'm not so sure.  I once heard it said that it's not prejudice to hate
lawyers because no one was born a lawyer.  :-)

---
1. Bill Gascoyne
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16287 talk.origins:11211