waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <Apr.20.03.03.35.1993.3863@geneva.rutgers.edu> jasons@atlastele.com (Jason Smith) writes: >In article <Apr.19.05.13.48.1993.29266@athos.rutgers.edu> kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) writes:  >= This is not true. Science is a collection of models telling us "how", >= not why, something happens. I cannot see any good reason why the "why" >= questions would be bound only to natural things, assuming that the >= supernatural domain exists. If supernatural beings exist, it is >= as appropriate to ask why they do so as it is to ask why we exist.  I beg to disagree with the assertion that science is a collection of models. Scientific models are a game to play, and are only as good as the assumptions and measurements (if any) that go into them.  As an example, I remember when nuclear winter was the big hype in atmospheric science.  It wasn't long after Sagan's admonitions that one of our boys was adding another level of reality into his model of the nuclear winter scenario at ERL in Boulder.  He decided to assume that the atmosphere is more like a two-dimensional thing, than a one- dimensional thing.  He also assumed that it rained and that the winds blow in the real atmosphere.  On returning to Georgia Tech, he showed a transparency of atmospheric cooling rates according to the year they were generated by the models.  There was an unmistakable correlation between the age (meaning simplicity of assumptions; i.e., remoteness from reality) of each model and the degree of cooling.  Whereas Sagan's model showed an approximate 40-degree cooling episode, the next model  in sophistication showed about half that, and so on until we got to our boy's model, which showed a 1-2 degree drop if the war happened in the winter and less than a 10 degree drop if it happened in the summer. He predicted that when we would include the presence of oceans, chemistry, the biosphere, and other indicators of reality in the models, we would probably see even less cooling.  Thus nuclear winter was reduced to even less than a nuclear autumn, one might say, to a nuclear fizzle.  To quote from H.S. Yoder,  	The postulated models have become accepted as the reality 	instead of the lattice of assumptions they are. 	Authoritarianism dominates the field, and a very critical 	analysis of each argument is to be encouraged.... Skepticism 	of the model approach to earth problems is warranted because 	many key parameters have not been included.  This statement surely applies equally well to cosmogony.  Only when convincing observational evidence substantiates the modeled results may one suggest that the model may describe the reality.  Just thought I'd clear that up before things really got out of hand.    --  boundary
In article <May.11.02.36.59.1993.28108@athos.rutgers.edu> dps@nasa.kodak.com writes: >In article 15441@geneva.rutgers.edu, loisc@microsoft.com (Lois Christiansen) writes:  >|>he can, especially homosexuality.  Let's reach the homosexuals for Christ.  >|>Let's not try to change them, just need to bring them to Christ.  If He >|>doesn't want them to be gay, He can change that.  [....]  >don't hate the people.  I don't.  I don't hate my kids when they do >wrong either.  But I tell them what is right, and if they lie or don't >admit they are wrong, or just don't make an effort to improve or >repent, they get punished.  I think this is quite appropriate.    Note the difference here. One is saying, if *Christ* disagrees with  a Christian being gay, *Christ* can change that.  The other is saying, if *I* think being gay is wrong, that a Christian cannot be gay, *I* need to tell them to change.   As Lois said, and as before her Paul wrote to the believers in Rome, WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE ANOTHER'S SERVANT?  -jen  --
>They believe the danger is real, but others may not. > >Does that mean that the first group are NECESSARILY arrogant in warning >others of the danger? Does it mean that they are saying that their beliefs >are correct, and all others are false? > >Some might indeed react to opposition with arrogance, and behave in an >arrogant manner, but that is a personal idiocyncracy. It does not >necessarily mean that they are all arrogant.  No the members of the first group are not necessarily arrogant.  But when I ask them if they are absolutely certain that the volcano will erupt, I expect them to say so "No, but I've chosen to believe some knowledgable people who have determined that the volcano will erupt," rather than, "Yes, I am absolutely certain."  When it comes to religious discussions, arrogance or at best naivete is reflected in the latter type of statement.  | Louis J. Kim                      ---  _ O                PH:512-522-5556 | | Southwest Research Institute    ---  ,/  |\/'            FAX:512-522-3042 | | Post Office Drawer 28510      ----      |__                 lkim@swri.edu | | San Antonio, TX 78228-0510   ----    __/   \    76450.2231@compuserve.com |
aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas) writes:  >It troubles me that there have been so many posts recently trying to support >the doctrine of Original Sin.  This is primarily a Catholic doctrine, with no >other purpose than to defend the idea of infant baptism. ... >If you read all of Ezekiel 18, you will see that God doesn't hold us guilty >for anyone else's sins.  So we can have no original guilt from Adam.    This neatly eliminates the need for a savior and "proves" that we can be saved by works alone!  If we have no original sin, then it is possible for us to save ourselves by not sinning.  I understand the reasoning behind your argument, but it leads to sheer folly.  Original sin is the reason we need faith to be saved.
Despite my trendy, liberal, feminist tendencies and the fact that I basically agree with what you are saying I will rebut:  (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes: > (Chris Mussack) writes: > > For all those people who insist I question authority: Why? > ... > Authorities sometimes tell people to do evil things.  People who "just > follow orders" have tortured and killed others in very large numbers, > and protest their innocence afterwards.   The basic question here is "how do I know what I am supposed to do?" This is true in every situation that comes up. Some people do not think about it at all and merely follow their impulses. I claim that is just as dangerous as "following authority". I could site sexually transmitted diseases, drug abuse, all manner of criminal activity, the savings and loan scandal, car accidents, eggs thrown at my house, all are examples of people not "following authority". I could easily argue that in the evil examples you gave the  problem was a leader not following _his_ authority and doing what  he wanted. Of course, where is the top of the chain? Therein lies  our search.   > When your authority starts telling you to do things, you should ask > questions.  Except for situations of pressing need ("I said shut the > hatch because the submarine is filling with water!"), any reasonable > authority should be able to give at least some justification that you > can understand.  I don't think it's as simple as you are claiming. "Pressing need" is ambiguous. Should I recycle or not?    Realize that I have four kids who, despite being very precocious  of course, are very tiring with their constant lack of understanding the tremendous knowledge I wish to impart to them.  > Just be sure to listen when authority answers.  Ahh! An ironic ending.   The irony I was implying in my initial pithy retort to the bumper  sticker cliche "Question Authority" was that I was questioning  the authority of the person telling me to question authority. It seems there is a certain segment of society that finds meaning only in being different, only in rebelling, forsaking everything for the sake of freedom. I question their integrity and fortitude.  There is another freedom that comes from doing a task correctly. Different people are at different levels of development in different areas. Part of the challenge of life is to find the right authorities to follow, we can't know everything about everything. Often  when learning a new skill or subject I will follow the teacher, perhaps blindly. Only when I have learned enough to ask appropriate questions should I question him, only when I have developed my skills enough should I challenge him. Once again, how do I know when I get to those stages?  If you have to be told to question authority, perhaps you shouldn't.
In article <C4zAyM.M9u@spss.com> goer@midway.uchicago.edu writes: > >I thought everyone who died simply went to Sheol.  The notion of going to >heaven is a Christianization based on those parts of the NT that speak of >an immaterial afterlife. > >   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%midway@uchicago.bitnet >   goer@midway.uchicago.edu          rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer > Where in the Bible is there *any* teaching about an immaterial afterlife? I was always taught that both the O.T. Jews and the N.T. Christians would have found the notion incomprehensible--as do I.  Don't we christians believe in the resurrection of the body?  Or do you mean by material simply the stuff made of the 100+ elements that we know and love too much?
In article <Apr.20.03.01.57.1993.3782@geneva.rutgers.edu> bruce@liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) writes: >I'd be fascinated to see such evidence, please send me your article! >On the negative side however, I suspect that any such simplistic link >    abstinence-education => decreased pregnancy, >    contraceptive-education => increased pregnancy >is false.  The US, which I'd guess has one of the largest proportion of  >"non-liberal" sex education in the western world also has one of the highest >teenage pregnancy rates.  (Please correct me if my guess is wrong.)  I've sent the article.  In terms of the group discussion, I wanted to point out that "non-liberal education" (head in the sand) is not the same as "abstinence education".  We had "non-liberal education" regarding drugs when I was a kid in the 60's, which didn't do us a lot of good.  But "abstinence education" regarding drugs has proven effective, I think.
In article <May.12.04.26.55.1993.9901@athos.rutgers.edu>, dozier@utkux1.utk.edu (Anni Dozier) writes: |> After reading the posts on this newsgroup for the pasts 4 months, it  |> has become apparent to me that this group is primarily active with  |> Liberals, Catholics, New Agers', and Athiests.  Someone might think  |> to change the name to:  soc.religion.any   - or -  perhaps even |> soc.religion.new.  It might seem to be more appropriate. |> Heck, don't flame me, I'm Catholic, gay, and I voted  |> for Bill Clinton.  I'm on your side!                        My sentiments exactly... which is why I'm unsubbing from this group. This is the 3rd 'christian' discussion list I have ever belonged to and once again I'm being chased away by the strife, anger, discontent, lies, et al .  As Paul (Saul) said, 'I come to preach Christ, and Him crucified' Don't let the simple beauty of faith in God get overshadowed by heady theological discussions or thousands of lines of post-incarnation trappings of some church.   As for the atheists/agnostics who read this list: if you aren't christian and if you have no intention of ever becoming one why on earth do you waste your time and mine by participating on a christian discussion list ?  I will continue to search for christian discussion (prayerful, spirit-filled, kind, humble, patient, etc.) in other circles.    --    Sheila Patterson, CIT CR-Technical Support Group   315 CCC - Cornell University   Ithaca, NY  14853   (607) 255-5388
Hmm...makes you wonder whether prayer "in Jesus' name" means "saying Jesus' name" or whether we're simply to do all things with the attitude that we belong to Jesus. 					Frank D.
In article 29201@athos.rutgers.edu, seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) writes: >In article <Apr.14.03.07.38.1993.5420@athos.rutgers.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes: >>In article 28388@athos.rutgers.edu, jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas) writes: >> >>>  This is why the most effective  >>>substance-abuse recovery programs involve meeting peoples' spiritual  >>>needs. >> >>You might want to provide some evidence next time you make a claim >>like this. >> >In 12-step programs (like Alcoholics Anonymous), one of the steps >involves acknowleding a "higher power".  AA and other 12-step abuse- >recovery programs are acknowledged as being among the most effective.  [deletia- and so on]  I seem to have been rather unclear.  What I was asking is this:  Please show me that the most effective substance-absure recovery programs involve meetinsg peoples' spiritual needs, rather than merely attempting to fill peoples' spiritual needs as percieved by the people, A.A, S.R.C. regulars, or snoopy. This will probably involve defining "spritual needs" (is it not that clear) and showing that such things exist and how they can be filled.  Annother tack you might take is to say that "fulfilling spiritual needs" means "acknowledging a "higher power" of some sort, then show that systems that do require this, work better than otherwise identical systems that do not. A correlation here would help you, but as you point out this might just be demonstrating swapping one crutch for annother. (however, I do feel that religion is usually a better crutch than alchohol, as it is not usually poisonous! :) )  I hope with that clarification, my question will be answerable. I actually did know about the 12 step program, its the question of what it does, rather than what it tries to do, that makes a difference to me. --- 			- Dan Johnson And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0
In <1993Apr5.170349.10700@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:  >In article <1993Apr2.230831.18332@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes: >>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes: >># sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: >># >We already kill people (death penalty), and that costs even more >># >money, so you could as well complain about this extremely barbaric >># >way of justice. >># >># But the death penalty is right. >># >># And how expensive can an execution be? I mean, I think rope, cyanide >># (for the gas), or the rifles and ammunition to arm firing squads are >># affordable. >># >># Now, perhaps lethal injection might be expensive, in that case, let's >># return to the more efficient methods employed in the past. >> >>Oh, sure, the death *penalty* is fairly inexpensive, but the trial and >>sentencing can run millions.  >> >>--strychnine	unless you wanna cut costs by skipping the trial and >> sentencing... you murderous little rat-bastard  >  Why as a matter of fact, I was thinking of that as a way to make >the system more efficient.  And the only murderous rat-bastards are >aboritionists.  Yeah, Simon's no rat-bastard, he's the Head Attack Puppy :-)   >Simon
In article <1993Apr20.151753.13020@udel.edu>, carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes...  >Wait a second, you're ignoring major facts here.  >There was NO attempt to simply serve a warrant. The BATF had a >no-knock warrant. The initial firefight began when the BATF threw >concussion grenades at the building. (BATF admits this!)  	When did the BATF say this? Everything I've seen from the BATF, 	from the official version to the dissident statements of BATF 	officers who conducted the raid claims that the Davidians were 	shooting at the agents long before they were within grenade  	range.   	Also, if the warrant is sealed, how do we know it was a 'no-knock'?                      _____  _____                   \\\\\\/ ___/___________________   Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________ ________________    \\/ / mst4298@zeus._____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_/ \_____        \__    / / tamu.edu  _____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_/     \__________\__  / /        _____/_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_/                 \_ / /__________/                  \/____/\\\\\\  			 \\\\\\
In article <C4z3xw.3EF@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu writes: | I like the way people call it "cruel and unusual punishment", as if | imprisonment isn't cruel, too.  Lethal injection pales in comparison. | And, they have a death sentence because they were convicted of a cruel | and unusual *crime*.  It's not what they did that matters.  It's what *you* do and what *I* do and what *we* do in response that matters.  Do we lessen ourselves by killing in response to killing?  It's vengeance.  That's all.  It's no deterrent.  It serves no purpose but to slake somebody's blood lust.  | It would be nice, though, if we never convicted someone of a crime they | didn't commit, and it would make the death penalty much more justifiable.  Yeah yeah yeah... and sure would be nice if we didn't apply the death penalty disproportionately to minorities.  I'll revisit my opinion on the death penalty when there are more whites up for it than blacks.  I.e., when hell freezes over.
rodger-scoggin@ksc.nasa.gov (Rodger C. Scoggin) writes:  ]Furthermore, in response to an earlier message, the 1992 U.S. est. output of ]sulfur dioxide (20 mill. tons) was equivalent to the entire output by the recent ]eruption of Mt. Pinautubo(Sp.).  Currently world carbon dioxide levels set at approx. ]360 ppm, in the past 120,000 years it has never gone above 280 (this info ]was found using ice core samples from the joint French/Russian/U.S. Vostok ]project).  Furthermore,  the background emmisions of chlorine compounds into ]the atmoshpere is about 0.6 ppb annually, it now sits at 3.5.  This OVERWHELMING ]data/info is found in the World Resources doc. published by Oxford University.  Good evidence.  ]The ozone hole in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres keeps getting bigger ]and stickin' around longer whilst skeptics ponder how wrong or corrupt all this ]data from government and international scientific institutions is.  It is a pity, that, ]if the skeptics are wrong and we base our complacency on their Limbaugh ]psycho babble, then we will find ourselves strapped by limited options with ]which to rectify the primal engineering of our industrial age.  What ozone hole in the northern hemisphere?  What exactly will happen if we get an ozone hole in the upper atmosphere? According to the senior chicken-little at NASA, as much more UV radiation as if one moved 100 miles south.  Certainly not the calamity that is being imagined by eco-lunatics.    CO2 is going up.  So what.  There's no evidence that the increase is due to burning fossil fuels, no evidence that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures, and no evidience that raising temperatures will do anything but good--ie make millions of acres of tundra into productive life-bearing land.
>>|>       Excerpts from "Insight" magazine, March 15, 1993                          *Paranoia part deleted.*
In talk.politics.misc, demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes: > >        Janet, how do you like your hostages? > >        A1) Quick-fried to a crackly crunch. > >        A2) Baked to a delicate crunch. >    Would you like fries with that, sir?
On 23 Apr 93 00:18:59 GMT, Clayton Cramer observed: : alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (amy lynn young-leith) writes: : # Can someone tell me why when Mr. Cramer spouts on about homosexuals, : # he only addresses homosexual men, and never, in any post I've read, : # addressed lesbians?  Granted, I stopped reading all his posts long, long : # ago, so perhaps I missed something.   : Because women very, very seldom molest children.  Un-hunh.  Yeah.  Right.  Sure.  You know that list of things that are stereotypically American -- Mom, apple pie, etc.?  You don't hear too many stories about Mom being a child molester, because such stories would simply be unAmerican.  But that doesn't say that it doesn't happen.
In article <1993Apr13.104856.25246@lclark.edu>, snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes: > In article <C581G8.Kw8@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: > >In article <15283@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: # ##For a while, homosexuals paid higher insurance rates than straights, # ##and with very good reason, until the government made it illegal to # ##do so. #  # Well if we go by this philosophy how many Children do you think # we help pay for with our insurance premiums???  Children who obviously # cannot be afforded, since the insurance companies have to pay for # all of the prenatal and birthing.....  What about the children born # with horrible flaws who cost the system an arm and a leg to be kept alive? # We all pay because we are all part of this society and we should take # care of one another.....  Oddly enough, dependent coverage costs a bit more than for one self alone.  But if you really believe your claims, you could make a lot of money starting the "Homosexuals Health Insurance Co." and refuse to insure "breeders."  But I shudder to think what your premiums will be like.  # Bil Snodgrass III
In article <C4xAwp.tAK@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes: > In <1993Apr3.041411.23590@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes: # #  "Abortions destructive of the fetus must be permitted, even # #   just before birth, if they promote what the [Supreme] Court # #   calls ``health'' #  # Yes, Doug, we all know that Roe v. Wade prevents states from prohibiting # abortions necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman.  Only # very stupid people (such as yourself) confuse a discussion of mental health # related to "Jane Doe", who was in a mental institution, and attempt to claim # that this same argument could be applied to a woman who decided she wanted # an abortion because she was having a "bad hair day". #  # As you well know, the facts are that there are about 100 third-trimester # abortions performed in this country annually, and those are *only* done for # *serious* health reasons. # -- # Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)  Hmmm.  Human gestation period is something like 39 weeks.  That means third trimester abortions are those done after 26 weeks.  In consulting a 1989 World Almanac, I see that 1% of abortions in 1983 were done at  21 weeks or more.  That's about 1268 abortions in 1983 after 21 weeks. Unless the number of abortions performed has dropped dramatically, or a LOT of abortions are done between 21 and 26 weeks, I think you are wrong.  By the way, Roe v. Wade allowed states to adopt very, very broad prohibitions on third-trimester abortions, but some states, such as California, declined to do so.  It was reported* that what finally  stopped third trimester elective abortions in the Bay Area wasn't law,  but that the only hospital doing them ran out of nurses, then doctors, willing to do them.  Not surprisingly, the bay area NOW chapter was terribly upset about this.  I remain pro-choice, but when pro-choicers compare abortion in a clinic to a religious ritual in a church, you have to start wondering a bit if the pro-life criticism of abortion as modern human sacrifice doesn't have a grain of truth to it.