HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 11:51:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.044332.27661@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>In article <1992Dec25.162355.8674@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>>Environment, personality and idealistics are also important factors, 
>>but not as important is logical intelligence. You can also find atheists
>>among the dumbest people.
>
>One question:  How do you know they are not as important?

How do you know that 1+1 is 2?

>
>I don't know, but I'm starting to suspect you people are seeing what
>you'd like to see.  I have NOT seen this correlation, in my own
>personal interactions with intelligent people (or "logical
>intelligent" people, if you prefer.)  No one has provided a citation
>to any sort of study yet that would confirm OR deny the alleged
>correlation.  All I've seen are arguments like "Well, within my circle
>of friends, I've observed a correlation between intelligence and lack
>of belief."  I believe Onar then responded with, "Well, in MY circle,
>most everyone with IQ>125 is Christian," to which Iikka responds by
>saying that he ought to raise the cutoff to an IQ of 160.  

125 is a low level

>
>The fact that I have pointed this out has earned accusations of
>"emotional attachment" to Christianity by Iikka.  I responded by
>saying that my emotional attachment is only to decent intellectual
>standards, which in Iikka's mind somehow confirms the correlation he
>is trying to show.  (Ironically, he does not seem to mind that he may
>have an "emotional attachment" to the idea that atheists are more
>intelligent than theists.)

As many people probably know, it is much easier to get an emotional
attachment to Christianity.

>
>My friends, if a Christian came here and said, "On the basis of my 8
>intelligent friends, who are all Christians, I conclude that
>Christians in general are more intelligent that atheists," you'd flame
>said Christians to ashes.  You'd certainly ask for more hard evidence

"8 friends" seems to be stuck in your skull. Suppose we won't be getting
anywhere before you broaden your vision.

>of such an assertion.  Yet I get flamed by the likes of Iikka, for
>daring to question such questionable methodology.  I'm sorry if it

When did I flame you? You started be flaming *me*, wake up!

>upsets you, but I have no intention of holding my fellow atheists to
>standards less rigorous than the standards I would apply to Christians
>making equivalently outrageous statements.  If you have good, solid,
>statistically significant data in support of your position, then let's
>have it Iikka!  Otherwise don't waste my time.

You can have all the time you want by not posting your flames.

>
>SD
> 


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: The constancy of the universe
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:53:35 GMT

In article <BzFM1K.KA8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehibm5.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>
>>In article <Bz7KqK.HsL@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@meibm4.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>>We *do* really exist.  We just don't "know" what it *means* to "exist"
>>>(physically)...or what "really" means...or what "means" means...
>
>>	"We"? Sorry, I do not know if you really exist...
>
>Yeah, sure, a non-sentient AI program could rattle off the post you just read
>without batting a diode...  UH HUH, suuuuuure.
>
>I didn't say you *knew* I existed, I said we *do* exist.  Even if this
>"elaborate computer simulation" we are in is *simulating* me, or you, or
>anyone else is irrelevant.  We still "exist" within the "reality" of the
>simulation--which is as "real" as you're going to get.

There are other possibilities. For example, none of us exist except
for yourself, and we are just figments of your imagination. This is a
Berkeleyian style reality admittedly, but you get to play god. 
 
>-Rob


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: npm@dale.cts.com (Nancy Milligan)
Subject: Re: Is Santa Claus God?
Organization: Titan Linkabit Corporation
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:50:34 GMT

I personally can't remember believing in Santa Claus, though I'm
sure that I was told that he brought my gifts.  I also don't
recall any major disappointment when I found out that I had
been hoodwinked.  When I read the article by the woman who
thought it was a disservice to try to make your children
believe in Santa, I thought she was being extreme.

I would most likely choose to not tell my children their
gifts come from Santa Claus, and if they somehow picked up
the belief on their own, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
--
Nancy P. Milligan 				npm@dale.cts.com
Titan Linkabit					cts!dale!npm
		  Gravity is no laughing matter.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 01:49:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.230954.1235@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.194627.15692@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>>>
>>>Here is a brief summary of some studies, which I am sure will interest
>>>no one on this thread.  For every study there is the counterargument
>>>that it proves nothing. 
>>
>>[Long list of studies deleted]
>>
>>Now *that's* more like it.  You could learn from this guy, Iikka--he
>>actually went out and found something to substantiate this position.
>>Also, he takes due note of the fact that counterarguments exist to
>>these studies.
>>
>>Why couldn't you go do this, Iikka?  Why did you need to flame and
>>insult instead?
>
>I'm sorry, but I have a tendency to laugh at people like you. *You* should
>take example to this person, as this is what I wanted as replies to my post.
>Contrary to your beliefs, not everyone is like you. 

I do not believe that I ever stated such a belief.  Though it would be
nice if such as you were capable of understanding simple declarative
and interrogative statements.

>What I don't understand, why you have to make up such things that I insulted
>or flamed you. I have no intention whatsoever to insult people in discussions
>as it is both naive and just creates a lot of junk posts. As you probably
>notice, you haven't been much of a benevolent factor in this discussion. Well,
>I suppose I have all the info I need on this subject.

I think that accusing people who voice concern over your methodology
in this matter of having an "emotional attachment" to the contrary
position (thereby insinuating that the opinions of such people are
worthless) is a flame.  What I don't understand is why you just didn't
say, "Yes, I understand your concern that my preconceptions could bias
my observations, which is why I am seeking more information, to
correct for this."  I'm not making this up, you really did accuse me
of having an emotional attachment to Christianity.  Your posts since
have been nothing but a batch of insults, to which I admit I have
responded in kind.

I would like you to admit that your observations, i. e., anecdotal
evidence, *could* be colored by pre-conceptions.  But you won't, I
know.  So much for Mr. Rationality.

SD
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: IQ scores
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:06:32 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.


  Seems there's been a lot of posts containing IQ scores recently
  here.  So here's my input:

    I don't have clue one as to my IQ score other than knowing it's
    probably higher than that of the average german shepherd.  Oh, I 
    do know one other thing:  it's high enough to help me realize
    that I shouldn't post it unsolicited to the net.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jwest@wisc (Jeff West)
Subject: Re: The Book of Job
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: 31 Dec 92 12:35:31 CST

parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish) writes:
: sumner@math.scarolina.edu (David Sumner) writes:
: 
: 1.  Satan is not Omniscient; therefore, to answer the accusation
: God would either have to a) tell him plainly that Job wouldn't
: curse Him, b) as someone so humourously proposed, used the old 
: Jedi mind trick on Satan or c) allowed Satan to do what he did.
: 
: 'C' is the best response I think God
: could make.  What better way to show a fool his folly than by
: letting him do it himself?


Ok one more question and then I'll quit beating an obviously already
dead horse.  (no Job pun intended 8-))

It looks as though your saying the following:

That your god allowed Satan to do as he pleased with Job.  Does this
mean that satan couldn't have if your god had said no?
If that is true then does satan need gods ok to deal bad things on all
people?  i.e. Is all the evil that you attibute to satan first ok'ed
by your god?
If he doesn't need god's ok why did he need it with Job?  If he does,
then why does your god keep condoning millions of satans miseries on
the people he "loves so much" each and every day?


: 
: I realize you'll probably not see it the same way.  Just try not
: to take up a lot of bandwidth to say "Did too."

Just a short, "Did to."

: 
: -- 
: Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
: parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |

Jeff West

---------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not denial.  I'm just very selective about the reality I accept.

    - Calvin & Hobbs

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Violence in the bible?
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:53:34 GMT

Joe Beiter (joeb@arden.linet.org) wrote:
: In article <schnitzi.725571303@eola.cs.ucf.edu> schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Sch
nitzius) writes:
: >Interesting!  So, in summary, the Bible calls for the death penalty
: >in these cases:
: >
: >o  Murder
: >o  Witchcraft
:
: etc...
:
: >
: >Comments, Xians?
:
: This applied to the jews for the jews to carry out.  The jews were to be
: submissive to the law.  A death sentance is not 'murder' but justice.

Matt 5:18 says it applies to you too.

: It is made clear from book one that the wages for sin is death.

And the wages of living a pure life (Job, JC, JC's mother) is death.  No-one 
gets out alive.
-- 
Mike McAngus 			 | As if I needed Another time consuming hobby.
(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)		 | 
The Truth is still the Truth	 | This Post exploits illiterates.
Even if you choose to ignore it. | 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov (James L. Felder)
Subject: Re: I still wouldn't worship it.
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Sverdrup Technology, Inc.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 14:58:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.013107.158783@zeus.calpoly.edu>,
jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch) wrote:
> 
> 
>   If some entity turned off the force of gravity for half a second today,
> then I would immediately become a theist, in the sense that I would 
> say that god existed. I still wouldn't worship it. My first reaction
> would be to figure out how I might be as powerful as this god. If I knew
> there was some way to turn off gravity, I would want to know how to turn 
> it off. Knowing how to turn it back on again would be helpful too.
>   If this god said he wanted my "soul", I would ask him what the heck is
> a soul, and I'd tell him to keep his grubby hands away from mine. If this 
> god said there is an afterlife and I had to choose between living in hell
> or heaven for all of eternity, I'd tell him that in this afterlife I would
> come and go as I pleased to where ever I pleased, and any entity that 
> tried to keep me confined to only one place would get their ass kicked.
>   I am not a violent person, but I am an individual. I will never submit
> myself to any other entity, no matter how much more powerful they are than
> me. If this god threatened my life, then I would do my best to kill god.
> I am saying all of this to point out that my atheism is much deeper than
> merely not believing in god. Thoughts?
> 
>                       -John David Munch

You would really believe there is a God just because gravity got turned off
for a few seconds?  Not me.  How would I know that this entity is really a
"God" and not just some powe tripper from the next solar system whose
technology blows mine clean out of the water.  Like Arthur C. Clark said
(appox.) "technology, sufficiently advanced enough, is indistinguishable
from magic".

Just think what you could do if you could travel back to biblical times
with a walkytalky (and someone on the other end), a camera, some body
armour, and a moderatly powered CO2 laser.  You would have little
difficulty setting your self up as a God.  Not that it would be easy.
Humans, thankfully, are skeptical.  Someone would, sooner or latter, risk
your "rage" and try to see what you were made off, but I think you get my
point.

James L. Felder            (216)891-4019         -My opinions are MINE-
Sverdrup Technology, Inc.  jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov  I think that should
NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland 44135        cover all bases, 
                                                  don't you.

"Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge -
    other people gargle, and some people have sewage poured down their
throats
    and are told it is wisdom"
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:41:34 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec30.015338.23357@arden.linet.org> joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter) writes:
>
>>>For your assumption of contradiction to hold water you would have to know
>>>both God and the people that were killed intimately.
>>
>>Wrong.  When I hear a story of a child being killed, I don't
>>really have to know the child or the killer to conclude
>>that a breech of justice has occured.  But then, I'm just
>>a plain ol' human who thinks that human life has an inherent
>>value;  maybe if I achieved your level of God-consciousness
>>I would be able to know which humans "deserve" death.
>
>Our differences lie in blame.  You blame God for doing what he said he 
>would do.  I blame those that were responsible for incurring his wrath.
>

You still don't know what an atheist is, do you? Why should an atheist
blame anything on something that only exists in YOUR imagination?

>
>
>-- 
>|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
>|Joe.Beiter@arden.linet.org               The Long Island Network Project   |
>|The Courts of Chaos Semi-Public Access   Long Island New York: USA         |
>|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
From: joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Date: 30 Dec 92 01:20:13 GMT
Organization: The Courts of Chaos

In article <MRMIKE.92Dec29110050@michelotti.ae.ge.com> Mike Passaretti <passaretti@crd.ge.com> writes:
>
>joe> and then proceed to be crucified, boiled in oil, stoned,
>joe> sawn in half etc...  knowing full well the lie they were
>joe> dying for.  The fact is, they either witnessed the
>joe> fullfilling of these prophecies and deemed it worth dying
>joe> for or they fudged and knew the real truth.
>
>
>Actually, if my memory does not fail me, John die of natural
>causes.  People have died for many ideas.  This does not make
>thos ideas just, right, or correct, only capable of creating
>such strong devotion in their followers that they will die for
>them.  People have died to give power to lies before too.
>People are strange that way.  

Yes John was put into a cauldron of boiling oil but was not killed.  He was
then banished to the Isle of Patmos.  All for not shutting his trap about
Jesus.  The rest were martyred.  Whatever they believed they REALLY believed
it.


-- 
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
|Joe.Beiter@arden.linet.org               The Long Island Network Project   |
|The Courts of Chaos Semi-Public Access   Long Island New York: USA         |
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 19:28:02 GMT

Jon Livesey (livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec31.020043.25959@arden.linet.org>, joeb@arden.linet.org (Jo
e Beiter) writes:
: >
: > Hitler had no right to do what he did.  Hitler is not God.
:
: I'd hate to misunderstand you here.   Is Hitler not
: being God the *reason* why he had no right to do what
: he did?
:
: Would God have the right to do what Hitler did?
:
: jon.

Of course god would have the right to do what Hitler did, because god is 
omnijust and omnibenevolent and therefore if god did it it would be right.
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Violence in the bible?
Date: 31 Dec 92 02:32:31 GMT
Organization: The Courts of Chaos

>>This applied to the jews for the jews to carry out.  The jews were to be 
>>submissive to the law.  A death sentance is not 'murder' but justice.
>>It is made clear from book one that the wages for sin is death.
>
>So are you saying you think it's fine to kill people because they
>have broken the laws as set out out in the bible?  Be honest.

Me personally?  Hell no I think its damm harsh.  What sane human being could
stand up and say "I think you should die because you thought of 'doing' Mrs.
Henderson"? (knowing full well I thought of it myself).
God (of The Bible) is not like us.  You're talking a different set of scales
here.  
Not that I'm trying to convince you there is a God.  I'm just trying to defend
my own belief and hoping one of you can help me with my "self deception" (if
it is such) and at the same time try and understand how you people can be 
so convinced Hes not there.  Just to restate my intentions for being here.


-- 
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
|Joe.Beiter@arden.linet.org               The Long Island Network Project   |
|The Courts of Chaos Semi-Public Access   Long Island New York: USA         |
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Violence in the bible?
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:23:50 GMT

Joe Beiter (joeb@arden.linet.org) wrote:
: >>This applied to the jews for the jews to carry out.  The jews were to be
: >>submissive to the law.  A death sentance is not 'murder' but justice.
: >>It is made clear from book one that the wages for sin is death.
: >
: >So are you saying you think it's fine to kill people because they
: >have broken the laws as set out out in the bible?  Be honest.
:
: Me personally?  Hell no I think its damm harsh.  What sane human being could
: stand up and say "I think you should die because you thought of 'doing' Mrs.
: Henderson"? (knowing full well I thought of it myself).
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So, if I never thought of "doing" Mrs. Henderson (I'm assuming we are talking 
about sex with a married woman who is not your wife) then I am justified in 
executing the man who did "do" Mrs. Henderson (assuming he is not Mr. 
Henderson)?

As you point out, no sane person could condone such "justice".

: God (of The Bible) is not like us.  You're talking a different set of scales
: here.

If the "justice" is immoral by our limited standards, how can it be moral by a 
"different set of scales"?  From human experience, justice tends to become more
humane as peoples philosophical basis expands.

: Not that I'm trying to convince you there is a God.  I'm just trying to defen
d
: my own belief and hoping one of you can help me with my "self deception" (if
: it is such) and at the same time try and understand how you people can be
: so convinced Hes not there.  Just to restate my intentions for being here.

I'm "convinced Hes (sic) not there" because he has never given me any evidence 
that he is there.  Nor has any other diety given me such evidence.
-- 
Mike McAngus 			 | You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)		 | right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth	 | or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it. | back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Thank you!! (was Re: REQUEST: Quotes of founding fathers concerning religion and government
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 05:37:39 GMT


In a previous article, ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) says:

>
>
>I am involved in a "discussion" (accually the other party is not discussing,
>he is preaching) concerning whether the US is a "Christian" nation.
>
>I remember seeing a list of quotes concerning the founding father's attitudes
>on religion, and would be greatful if someone who has downloaded that list
>would e-mail it or post it to me.
>
>E-mail at ae642@yfn.ysu.edu
>
>Thank you.
>

To all those who kindly and promptly replied to my request, thank you.
You have given me exactly what I need, and more, from the sourses cited
I think I'll be able to put together a first-class essay on the subject.

Again, Thanks.  


-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  /\/\   These are the REAL  *         
*  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu/Kelley L. Miller  / /__\      Gay 90's!!      *           
*-------------------------------------/____\-----------------------*  
*      Joseph's marriage proposal to Mary:  "You're WHAT!!!"       *
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: axeman@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (Samir Chopra)
Subject: Re: atheists & agnostics
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:59:22 GMT

>patc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Pat Caldon) writes:
>> >patc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Pat Caldon) writes:
>> >> I don't know a great deal about Bhuddism, however, the idea that we will
>> >> attain Nirvana and be incorporated into a god-like figure is at odds
>> >> with atheism, as stated "the lack of belief in god or gods."

I don't think there is anything in Buddhim that says that you will
be incorporated into a god_like figure. There are *no* Supreme Beings
in Buddhism. None.        

Samir
-- 
"You guys are gonna smoke in the other room, the smoke will come drifting in
here..it'll look like rose stems, but there's tiny nooses hanging from them.."
Support the Freedom of Choice Act | 11/3/92: Restoration of Democracy Day
Newsgroups: alt.atheism