HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu (Brad Kepley)
Subject: Re: interminable ad hominem argument
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:30:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.115114@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.232424.20345@cs.unca.edu>, kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu
>(Brad Kepley) writes:
>
>Grant Edwards>>>
>
> The church demands that it's pronouncements be believed without doubt
>or evidence.  Science doesn't make that demand.
>
>Dan Ashlock>>
>   Speaking as an atheist and secular humanist I must take some issue with this
>statement.  Theologians in many churches argue til they're blue in the face,
>doubt things all over the place, and pile up mountians of historical and
>cultural evidence.  Likewise bible study groups often have ferocious arguments
>in which doubt runs rampant and evidence of all sorts is presented.
>
>Brad Kepley>
> 
>   Yes, Malcomb Muggeridge said that only Atheists had no doubts.
>
>Dan Ashlock:
>
>   Was that a stupid cheap shot or merely stupid?  You said so little I can't
>tell...
>
>   ...in any case Malcomb was wrong.  My point was that religious people do
>doubt (religious scientists do it as well as scientists for some reason :})
>just like the rest of us.  What on earth was you point?
>
>Dan
>Danwell@IASTATE.EDU

Sheesh...take it easy huh Dan?  Call it what you want, I just thought it was
an open admission by a Christian that he had doubts.  Many people act like
Christians are so robot-like. OK?
From: batman@apple.apple.com (Ken Laws)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Glub Glub... Any Floods in Human History?
Date: 12 Jan 93 04:09:48 GMT
Organization: Timeline

I was talking to a friend of mine about how I'd heard that most flood myths
originated from an event that may have happenned in the Tigris and Euphrades
delta area a few thousand years ago. So, is there evidence that a flood in
that valley may have turned into "THE FLOOD?"

Part 2: my friend said he'd heard of "geological evidence" of the ocean level
rising a couple hundred feet sometime during humanity's existence. Sounds
like creationist pseudo-science to me. Anyone know where this idea came from?

Thanks,

Ken.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
From: snorthc@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Stephen Northcutt - K31)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Reply-To: snorthc@relay.nswc.navy.mil
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center	
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:35:05 GMT


Jon Livesey writes:
>In fact, I've never yet met a Christian who would undertake to tell
>me what "christian values" are, although, like Mr Ata, quite a number
>of them think that referring to them as though they exist and have a 
>definition, is quite OK.

Well a christian is someone who has accepted Jesus Christ into their
heart to be their Lord and Savior.  The values of a christian would
be the teaching's of Jesus:
	The firstest and mostest commandment being:
		Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself
	Values of a christian must include:
		humility
		Earnest effort to not cause strife (mediate peace)
		generosity
		honesty
		sobriety
		chastity
		and other mom and apple pie sorts of words.
	

>My interest in Christians is in how they affect me, and the society
>in which I live, and to that extent, my external view of "christian
>values" is sinply 'what Christians do".

Which is completely fair!  By their works you will know them.

>Christians do all kinds of things, claiming to be acting as Christians,

All kinds of things is right again.  First a note per objectivity,
I have seen lots of traffic with the flavor of: christianity sucks
because this christian did this bad thing, but surely you are aware
there are christians busy right now doing good things as well.

>When churches support someone like Hitler, and then try to brush it
>off later with "not our values", I have to conclude that they have
>learned precisely nothing.

Same problem as above... if you have read your history you know some
of the churches did not support Hitler and some pastors paid quite
dearly for this.

By the way "church" today is applied to unitarian universalists and
satanists... this is not the same as "ekklesia"(sp?) the gathering of
the "called".

The simple point is anyone can claim to be a christian, and almost
any gathering with a good lawyer can claim to be a church (e.g. scientology).

So what to do?  How to get out of the flame muck into some reasonable
and provable to skeptics turf? 

Well perhaps we could start with the question are there any "real" christians?
a Real Christian(tm) would have to embody the teachings of Jesus Christ,
but they don't have to be perfect (that is the why of Christianity).

So let me see:  I will nominate Mother Teresa as a candidate

If we can find that there indeed exist Real Christians(tm), then is there
a Real Church (not to be confused with The One True Church) which would
be at a minimum a gathering of/for multiple Real Christians(tm).

To be straight with you, I have no idea what to nominate as a Real Church,
which I think is a big cause of the confusion.


================== We Design and Build Fine Networks ===================
		Stephen Ray Northcutt (703) 663-4447
Disclaimer: The Public Affairs Officer speaks for this Naval Lab, not me!
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22032 alt.messianic:3861 alt.atheism:25039
From: creilly@maths.tcd.ie (Colman Reilly)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why does Eire get so much press?
Date: 5 Jan 93 19:58:07 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.

p00168@psilink.com (James F. Tims) writes:

>Boy!  I'll say they don't participate!  Anybody with some real 
>statistics on the "strife" in Ireland?

>Estimating about 1000 violent deaths in Ireland in the last quarter 
>century, this works out to about 40 murders/bombings/whatnots per year, 
>or about 1/100000 population per year.  As one of the safest, least 
>violent places on the globe (relative to really dangerous places, like 
>Atlanta or <Anytown, USA>), where does Ireland get this reputation?
>They ship children from Ireland to Detroit for the summer "to get them away 
>from all the violence" back in Dublin.  ("Begora, Colleen.  Seems pretty hot 
>here in the summer in County Cork.  I think the children would be more 
>comfortable in the Sudan this year, don't you?" )8-O

a) Total deaths are about 2000. I think. I seem to remember them passing 
	that point last year.

b) The violence is effectively limited to Northern Ireland, and concentrated 
	in mostly urban areas.

c) There ain't no violence in Dublin.

d) It suits some people to claim the violence is greater than it is for 
	propaganda reasons. 

And anyway what else would the media write about? They're only interested in 
people dying anyway.

Colman

-- 
Colman Reilly (creilly@maths.tcd.ie) [+353-(0)1-7022280]
c/o School of Mathematics,18.05 Westland Row,Trinity College,Dublin.

"Nothing so strong as gentleness; nothing so gentle as real strength." 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Why does Eire get so much press?
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:59:13 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   6 Jan 93 11:05:23 GMT
>FROM:   R. Dijkhuis <s0499528@let.rug.nl>
>
>In article <2935339904.1.p00168@psilink.com> "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:
>>From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
>>Subject: Why does Eire get so much press?
>>Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:56:11 GMT
>>>FROM:   Steve Lang <lpzsml@unicorn.nott.ac.uk>
>>>
>>>In Article 38465 of alt.atheism, U16244@uicvm.uic.edu (David James Alexander Hanley) writes:
>>[...]
>>>>churches.  If only they could tell their people in Ireland to stop
>>>>shooting protestants..
>>
>>>
>>>The Vatican do tell their people in Ireland to stop shooting protestants.
>>>And the vast majority of Catholics, like most Protestants in Northern
>>>Ireland do not participate in such violent actions.
>>>
>>>Steve Lang.
>>>
>>
>>Boy!  I'll say they don't participate!  Anybody with some real 
>>statistics on the "strife" in Ireland?
>>
>>Estimating about 1000 violent deaths in Ireland in the last quarter 
>>century, this works out to about 40 murders/bombings/whatnots per year, 
>>or about 1/100000 population per year.  As one of the safest, least 
>>violent places on the globe (relative to really dangerous places, like 
>>Atlanta or <Anytown, USA>), where does Ireland get this reputation?
>>They ship children from Ireland to Detroit for the summer "to get them away 
>>from all the violence" back in Dublin. 
>
>Ah, mr. Tims again. Learn some geography. Ireland != Northern Ireland. 
>Dublin, capital of Ireland (which is not Northern Ireland) is safe except if 
>you say in public that you want an abortion. Belfast, capital of Northern 
>Ireland (I repeat: Northern Ireland, which is NOT, I repeat NOT Ireland) is 
>violent. Bombings and other attacks take place in Northern Ireland and on 
>the English mainland. 
>
>Reinder
  ,...,.,,
 /666;    ',    jim tims
////;    _~ -   p00168@psilink.com
(/@/----0-~-0
 ;'  . `` ~ \'
  , `    ' , >
 ;|\..((   -C---->> Getting out of alt.messianic, that's all.  
;;| >-  `.__),;;    

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: interminable ad hominem argument
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 06:23:42 GMT

In article <1idqqgINNomj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.043055.29548@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>|> In article <1993Jan4.193810.3651@rosevax.rosemount.com> grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>|> >zellner@stsci.edu writes:
>|> >: 
>|> >: |> >>Thousands (if not millions) of people have been tortured and killed in
>|> >: |> >>the service of christianity.  
>|> >: 
>|> >:  >  - Hitler was Roman Catholic.
>|> >:  >  - Atheists were not allowed to become member of the SA 
>|> >: 
>|> >: There have been plenty of wicked people who really believed in the 
>|> >: conservation of energy and momentum.  Does that imply that such beliefs
>|> >: are incorrect?
>|> >: 
>|> >
>|> >If the laws of conservation of energy and momentum were claimed to be
>|> >the one-and-only source of morality and ethics, then the existence of
>|> >"wicked" people who claimed to believe in the conservation of energy
>|> >would be problematic.
>|> >
>|> >However, the laws of physics do not claim to provide any moral or
>|> >ethical guidance.  Thus the existence of wicked people who believe in
>|> >the conservation of energy and mementum says nothing about the
>|> >validity of those beliefs.
>|> >
>|> 
>|> I can't resist :) How about: Some scientists have been known to		:)
>|> fradulently report their results which sometimes go undetected for	:)
>|> a while, perhaps not at all.  Therefore, any scientific results		:)
>|> that are published should not be believed. "What", you say?		:)
>|> "These cheaters not "real" scientists"?  What is a scientist?		:)
>|> After we get about two or three definitions: Well obviously, it is	:)
>|> impossible to define a scientist since we can't make up our minds.	:)
>|> Therefore a scientist is anything you define it to be. 			:)
>|> 
>|> Does this sound familiar?
>
>Good grief.    Mr Ata, scientific results *aren't* believed.   Didn't
>you notice the name of the newsgroup your are posting to?

Good grief.  So you disagree with the statement!  Why am I
suprised? :) Of course, this means that "scientific results" can't
be defined, right?

Enter Tongue-in-cheek mode

So scientific results aren't believed, eh?  Well, that's good
because I expect you to take up cigarette smoking.  You don't
believe all those results reporting that it can give you lung
cancer, etc.  It's a conspiracy, I tell you, and because you don't
believe anything that's published, you will start smoking, right?
Or did you plan on doing some lung experiments in your basement
because you don't trust those scientists... 

Exit Tongue-in-cheek mode

>
>
>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
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: critique of Lyall Watson
Keywords: debunking
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:24:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <stevens.15@odie.ee.wits.ac.za>, stevens@odie.ee.wits.ac.za (Fred Stevens) writes...
>Hi, 
> 
>Does anyone have any info pertaining to the analysis of claims made by Lyall 
>Watson in his books and talks?

Take a look at Ron Amundson's "The Hundredth Monkey Debunked" in the Summer
1985 _Skeptical Inquirer_ (reprinted in the Fall 1986 _Whole Earth Review_
and in Ted Schultz's _The Fringes of Reason: A Whole Earth Catalog_
(1989, Harmony Books) with a reply from Watson and nice pictures by
Norman Dog).

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu (Dave Weingart)
Subject: Re: Was How to Handle Scientific "Unorthodoxy"
Nntp-Posting-User: @cornell.edu
Organization: CUMC
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:54:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.213538.13925@Princeton.EDU>, rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D. Nelson) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan4.150229.9424@mail.cornell.edu> phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu (Dave Weingart) writes:
|> [using a wider screen than the 80 cols that is more typical, resulting
|> in hard-to-read text, much of which I have deleted]

Or, in this case, using xrn's default composition screen, none of which is
particularly relevant, but lightens the tone a tad.
|> RN:  This is easy to agree with, especially since the explanation 
|> for the conservatism is tautological.  My point is that it is bad
|> science to reject data simply because they don't fit a current world
|> model, and to assume incompetence or fraud as the explanation for the
|> data; this is especially the case if such judgements are made by people
|> with little or no direct knowledge of the research.  

Perhaps, but neither is it good science to use data to build wonderous new
castles in the air when they can be explained using current theory.  If
you come up with a consistent and repeatable telepathic experiment that
simply _cannot_ be explained by current physics, that's one thing.  But if
your data are indistinguishable from noise, or have valid explanations in
current theory, is it the function of the scientist to say "Hey, this could
also be explained _this_ way if we stretch reality just a little!" or is
it the function of the scientist to say, "This is reality (however grim)"
and point out that the data fit it, end of discussion (barring new data as
above)

|> RN:  Because depending on "people claim[ing] psychic abilities" for
|> information relevant to scientific questions is totally inadequate, 
|> whether proponents or skeptics do it.  

Which, however, seems to make up the vast majority of the field.

|> RN:  Yup.  But he/she is also willing, indeed eager to learn what there
|> is to inform judgements.  It is a poor scientist who is skeptical of
|> anything about which she/he knows nothing. 

Or takes the word of someone else at face value when it contradicts what is
an accepted model.

-- 
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.
From: rice@sumex-aim.Stanford.EDU (James Rice)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Why does Eire get so much press?
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:51:32
Organization: Knowledge Systems Lab, Stanford University
	<16B50B46B.DSTEPHEN@cmsa.gmr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpp.stanford.edu
In-reply-to: DSTEPHEN@cmsa.gmr.com's message of 8 Jan 93 17:49:42 GMT

The \em{per capita} murder capital of the US is now
East Palo Alto.  Announced a couple of days back.
It weighs in at about 2X that of DC.

Note that EPA is very small and is probably no worse
than parts of LA, Oakland, Detroit or DC, but lying
with statistics is fun anyway.


Rice - used to live in EPA.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott)
Subject: Re: Satans E-mail.
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:38:48 GMT
X-Posted-From: iamac-1.dml.georgetown.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1993Jan9.203318.8395@rosevax.rosemount.com>,
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) wrote:
> 
> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> : > tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates) writes:
> : >John...I'm your friend too..  
> : >
> : >Please send my letter:
> : >
> : >Dear Satan:
> : >
> : >	 I need money.  Please send me lots.
> : >
> : >			       Thank-you.
> : 
> : You forgot to seal your Soul in an envelope, and send it along.
> : 
> 
> Is my soul small enough to fit in the data field of an ethernet
> packet?  (I'm out of stamps.)

You could ask Satan if he'll send the money C.O.D.  Does the post office
handle such things?

By the way, when I was growing up, my best friend and I routinely traded
souls.  Trouble is, we did it so often that we lost track of who had whose
soul.  So if I offered the one I've got to Satan for money I've got a
fifty-fifty chance of sending my friend to hell and keeping the money for
myself.

--John L. Scott
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: Glub Glub... Any Floods in Human History?
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 04:58:45 GMT

jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles) writes:

>And, in the other direction, the sea level along the eastern seaboard
>of the US was once much higher (or the continent was lower).  The existing
>coastal plain is former continental shelf.  The line of the former coast
>is marked by a so-called "fall-line" - a line where there's an abrupt
>rise in the land.  This is the line at which all the rivers on the
>east coast had rapids and falls so they were not navigable beyond

The so-called continental shelf is really just part of the continent which
happens to be underwater at the moment.  Sea level does not cause the fall
line either.  Think of it like this:  A continent is a slab of granitic
"scum" floating on the more dense mafic material of the mantle and sea
floors.  This slab has fairly abrupt edges.  Now, we add water to the
picture:  Depending on how high the water is, and how thick a given
continent is, the shoreline may be at the steep "edge" of the continent,
or may cover part of the continent to produce a continental shelf.

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22098 talk.religion.misc:25347 alt.messianic:3892
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc,alt.messianic
Subject: Re: interminable ad hominem argument
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 6 Jan 1993 14:04 MST  
 <1993Jan6.043055.29548@hfsi.uucp> <1993Jan6.193248.12088@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Jan6.193248.12088@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes...
>In article <1993Jan6.043055.29548@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>I can't resist :) How about: Some scientists have been known to
>>fradulently report their results which sometimes go undetected for
>>a while, perhaps not at all.  Therefore, any scientific results
>>that are published should not be believed. "What", you say?
>>"These cheaters not "real" scientists"?  What is a scientist?
>>After we get about two or three definitions: Well obviously, it is
>>impossible to define a scientist since we can't make up our minds.
>>Therefore a scientist is anything you define it to be.
> 
>The first problem is that science is fairly good about catching cheats.  The
>reason you should usually believe published results is not that every single
>published result has been checked by another scientist, but rather that the
>existence of checking means that frauds are rare and have limited lifespans.
>Not that they don't occur at all.

You should take care to distinguish science the process from science the
collection of political institutions.  The latter frequently opposes the
former.  (See, for numerous examples of pervasive problems, Robert Bell's
1992 book from John Wiley & Sons, _Impure Science_.)
   Also, many (if not most) published results these days are never cited
by anyone else, let alone replicated.  Fraud can actually be quite difficult
to detect.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22030 alt.messianic:3860 alt.atheism:25037
From: rice@sumex-aim.Stanford.EDU (James Rice)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Date: 5 Jan 93 11:43:33
Organization: Knowledge Systems Lab, Stanford University
	<1993Jan5.002733.5359@cs.unca.edu> <C0D77L.7tH@ecf.toronto.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpp.stanford.edu
In-reply-to: vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu's message of Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:59:45 GMT


Yes, papal infalibility is an official dogma (axiom of
faith) of the catholic church.  This was proclaimed in
1870 by Pius (!) IX.

To quote a passage that puts this bull in the broader
picture of Catholic power politics, here's a bit from
"Alone of All Her Sex" by Marina Warner (a very
interesting book on the cult of the (virgin!) Mary, from
my 1978 edition published in paperback by Quartet in the
UK (I don't know if its available in this country, but
it's worth looking for) p236-7:

"... On December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX proclaimed the
Virgin Mary the Immaculate Conception, the only human
creature ever to have been preserved from all taint of
original sin.  Pius' Bull, \em{Ineffabilis Deus}, now
declared this to be dogma, a mandatory belief for all
those who acknowledge the spiritual authority of Rome.

... By proclaiming dogma a belief that had been stormily
discussed since the twelfth century, he also asserted
the position of the pope as the single, divinely
inspired head of the Church and implied that the Church
alone was the true spiritual guide and not the
individual conscience, as the men of the reformation and
their heirs had maintained.  The Bull was therefore an
important strategic move in the long battle of Rome
against its detractors, and once again, as with the cult
of \em{Maria Regina} in eighth-century Rome, the
interests of the papacy were bound up with the cult of
the Virgin.  It was only logical that Pius IX followed
up the Bull of 1854 with another, in 1879, proclaiming
the infallibility of the pope a dogma of the Church."




Rice - no wonder Catholics all seem to feel so guilty
about not believing all that they are told they should.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Zacharia Rifkin, The Twelfth Planet
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 7 Jan 1993 11:37 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

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

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic