HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dobbs@ast.saic.com (Lynn Dobbs)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: SAIC
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:56:30 GMT

In article <Bz7ypq.5CB@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>dobbs@ast.saic.com (Lynn Dobbs) writes:
>>>What we need is a new word to describe a person who doesn't care
>>>it there is a god and wouldn't worship one if it existed. I don't
>>>fear a possible existence of a god, I just don't care. My rather
>>>strong reaction of in-the-face fundamentalists is based solely in
>>>their desire to be in-my-face. Actually, Individualist may be the
>>>correct word!
>   I find this most puzzling... If you knew of the presence of a God and you
>attributed your existance to this entity, how could you ignore an reject
>that which created you? Now only is this naive and childish, but it seems
>exceptionally ungrateful, and narrow sighted. If you were sure there was 
>a God then how could you reject all that you him? I can clearly see you are
>not an individualist, but a secular humanist more appropriately. Your
>concern is solely for the self. 
Secular Humanist? You haven't been talking to my friends. They would laugh
you out of the theater! 

Now, this is an arguement parents use. "You ungrateful child." 
Why should I love or worship my creator. If I am happy with my life, I
may wish to thank my creator, but that is a far cry from the demands of
most religions.  I especially won't love or worship a creator who
creates because the creator wants to be worshipped.

This kind of creator is the abused 16 year old girl who gets pregnant
because "the baby will love me." If anyone, mere mortal or almighty, 
wants me to love them, they better give me a damn good reason. A reason
one hell of a lot better than "see what I have sacraficed for you!"

I were to suddenly decide I needed to worship a god, it certainly wouldn't
be the christian god I learned in my youth. This is not a god of love, its
a god of abuse. Any all powerful being who supposedly created man with a
brain and who won't provide sufficient proof of its existence to ease the
mind of its children, doesn't deserve love or worship.

A good parent doesn't hide his knowledge and skill from his children; he 
helps them learn and grow. A good parent doesn't say "just believe."

So, I say again....
I don't care if a god exists. If one does, I wouldn't worship it anyway.
--Lynn
"Who is John Galt?"
From: eager@eagercon.com (Michael J. Eager)
Subject: Re: 8-queens problem.
Reply-To: eager@eagercon.com
Organization: Eager Consulting
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 18:34:11 GMT

In article Mw0@umassd.edu, rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:
>Hello all
>
>I apoligize if this problem has been brought up
>before. However, does any one knows the algorithm,
>or the answer?
>
>Thanks in advance
>
>Frank Pinto


There are 92 unique answers, including rotations and reflections.

The algorithm uses backtracking.  I give it as an assignment to my C
programming class.

In short, assume you have 8 demons, one for each column of the chess
board.  You hand the first demon a blank chess board.

The demon places a queen in its column of the chess board where it 
will not conflict with any queen currently on the board.  (If the 
demon is a friendly fellow, and this is usually the case, it makes 
a mark on all of the squares which the newly placed queen can attack.)
If there are no squares where it can place the queen, or it has tried
all of the squares in its column, it hands the board back.

The demon then hands this modified board to the next demon, who is 
following exactly the this same set of instructions.  If there is no next
demon, it hands the board to the scribe at the end of the line who
records the solution and hands the board back.

When the demon receives the board back from its neighbor (or the scribe)
it removes the queen it just placed (and erases any helpful marks it
made on the board) and goes back to the start of its instructions to
place the queen in another free square in its column.

When the first demon returns the board, the scribe has recorded all 
92 solutions.

---
Michael J. Eager		Michael.Eager@eagercon.com
Eager Consulting		(415) 325-8077 
1960 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306-1141

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto)
Subject: 8-queens problem.
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:06:17 GMT

Hello all

I apoligize if this problem has been brought up
before. However, does any one knows the algorithm,
or the answer?

Thanks in advance

Frank Pinto
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 06:10:01 GMT

In article <Bz6Dvv.919@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:
>So does the poster of this article basically mean to say that he believes in 
>nothing at all?  

Which article is that?

>I tend to think that agnosticism (a word that annoys me even 
>to type, for personal reasons) is basically a declaration faith should not 
>exist, perhaps does not exist, or whatever.  To be an agnostic is to say, 
>in my view, that one can never have faith in anything.  

What are the opinions on the existence of Jesus Christ?  As I see it we
may hold one of 4 positions:

1)  You are certain He did not exist.  (atheism)
2)  You think He did not exist.        (agnosticism)
3)  You think He did exist.            (agnosticism)
4)  You are certain He did exist.      (theism)

(Of course, the same would be true of a question on the existence of Allah).

Those who call themselves christians are only in the last camp, with atheists
only in the first.  To be resident in either groups 2 or 3 is to be uncommit-
ted, and in the the parlance of christianity, to have no faith.  Those without
faith are agnostics.  It's by their faith that christians are christians, and 
atheists are atheists.  

So as I tried to say before, those who have have faith (pro or con) could 
have gained it not from the intellect, but only from the heart.

>This is something with which I cannot agree.

THAT you cannot agree is of no interest to anyone.  Please tell us WHY you
cannot agree.


-- 

| Randy Crawford        crawford@mitre.org        The MITRE Corporation
|                                                 7525 Colshire Dr., MS Z421
| N=1 -> P=NP           703 883-7940              McLean, VA  22102
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: mlc9g@Virginia.EDU ("Matt Condon")
Subject: Re: Mensa test
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:11:05 GMT

Dave.Aronson@p11.f120.n109.z1.fidonet.org  writes:
> wagner@hp800.lasalle.edu (Jon Wagner) writes:
> You may already have won a million dollars, er, I mean, taken a test that is
> accepted by Mensa.  I see you're posting from an institution of higher learning,
> which means you have probably taken the SAT, or possibly even the GRE, and both
> of these are accepted.  Other accepted tests that are not usually considered
> "intelligence tests" include the LSAT, ACT, MAT, Army GCT (prior to 10/80), and
> more.  For more information, write to:
> 
>           American Mensa, Ltd.
>           2626 E. 14th St., Dept. ROM
>           Bklyn., NY 11235-3992
> 
> or call them at (718) 934-3700 (voice), or 1-800-66MENSA if you just want them
> to send you a brochure.  (The Dept. ROM bit is so they can track the recruitment
> value of Rec.Org.Mensa.)
> 
> 
Even better, the scores you need are listed in the Mensa FAQ
posted on this group...  That's where I found out I qualified
through prior evidence.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:24:54 GMT

schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes:
>>>>Their focus of attention
>>>>remains the same--on the idol.
>>>Atheists are people who do not believe that the idol exists.  You can't
>>>get much more different from a fundamentalist than that.
>>Atheists believe the idol exists.  How could they deny religions exist?  They
>>deny that the idol has any significance, however, since they think there is no
>>God to back it up.  Instead, they see the idol as destructive, and wish it to 
>>be gone (well, not in all cases, which is why the analogy is slightly flawed).

>So, substituting 'religion' for 'idol', it is your claim that the focus of
>religion is religion, and the focus of atheism is religion.  Wrong on both
>counts.  
Ah.  How tactful and gentlemanly the Usenet is.  I reallr do feel, however, that
the idol is religion.  The focus of religion, as an institution, bceomes the 
idol, the method, the particular ideas about WHAT God is exactly like.  God
is not the hwile foucs.  Likewise, Atheists don't deny that religions exist, but
they would deny that any of the actions of the religion are validated by any
form of deity.

>The focus of religion is on some higher power (assuming it exists).  While
>many atheists are certainly anti-religion, that is clearly not their focus.
>If religion were nonexistant, there wouldn't cease to be atheists.

I do agree with you that most atheists are not anti-religion.  I eluded to that
in my post.  
______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc 
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:55:21 GMT

schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes:
>>Their focus of attention
>>remains the same--on the idol.

>So people on both sides of the abortion issue are basically the same, since
>the focus of attention remains the same--on abortion?

No. They aren't exactly the same.  The analogy is not applicable ther, in my 
view.

>Atheists are people who do not believe that the idol exists.  You can't
>get much more different from a fundamentalist than that.

Atheists believe the idol exists.  How could they deny religions exist?  They
deny that the idol has any significance, however, since they think there is no
God to back it up.  Instead, they see the idol as destructive, and wish it to be
gone (well, not in all cases, which is why the analogy is slightly flawed).

>mark

Matt Ivaliotes
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: rhs@world.std.com (Richard H Schwartz)
Subject: Re: midnight/noon AM/PM?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:14:52 GMT

tipley@solo.eng.hou.compaq.com (Roger Tipley) writes:

>This question has been bandied about our hall for a few weeks. 
>Perhaps this august group could give us a definitive answer.  

>We all agree which day the times 23:59:59.9 and 00:00:00.1 belong
>to (the first is obviously P.M. of one day and the second is A.M.
>of the next day).  The argument is about which day the instant of
>midnight (24:00:00.000..) would be associated with.

>The dictionary definition of A.M. and P.M. would lead me to equate
>noon with "M", so it wasn't of much help.  Please help us out.  I
>want to know if I will be accused of subjecting people to a 14 hour
>meeting or a 2 hour meeting by scheduling the meeting from 10-12
>A.M.  I don't necessarily consider the time-of-day algorithm in my
>computer to reflect the right answer either.

I don't have the reference, but this was settled in court a few 
years ago!  (I read it in the newspaper, so it must be true :-) )

Seems some town put up a sign:

 		  Metered Parking
	          Two Hour Limit
                Except 12 PM to 6AM

(or something similar).

Someone who parked longer than two hours in the middle of the 
afternoon challenged the ticket.  The judge ruled that 12 PM
is indeed 12 noon, but I think he let the ticket stand because
the intent of the sign was clear despite the error.

-rich

-- 
             Richard H. Schwartz, Scheduling Systems Inc.,
            1000 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA  02138
                  (617) 864 8330; FAX (617) 864 8377
                          rhs@world.std.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 02:06:52 GMT

So does the poster of this article basically mean to say that he believes in 
nothing at all?  I tend to think that agnosticism (a word that annoys me even 
to type, for personal reasons) is basically a declaration faith should not 
exist, perhaps does not exist, or whatever.  To be an agnostic is to say, in my
view, that one can never have faith in anything.  This is something with which I
cannot agree.

______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc
From: radcliff@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (David G Radcliffe)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Date: 13 Dec 92 08:17:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: UW-Milwaukee Math Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford) writes:

: What are the opinions on the existence of Jesus Christ?  As I see it we
: may hold one of 4 positions:
: 
: 1)  You are certain He did not exist.  (atheism)
: 2)  You think He did not exist.        (agnosticism)
: 3)  You think He did exist.            (agnosticism)
: 4)  You are certain He did exist.      (theism)

This is a common misconception.  An atheist is anyone who denies or 
disbelieves in the existence of God or gods.  Certainty has nothing
to do with it.  Conversely, a theist is someone who believes in the
existence of God or gods. I do not believe that most self-described
atheists would assert that the non-existence of God(s) can be demon-
strated with certainty.

An agnostic is not just a person who does not claim to know whether 
God(s) exist or not.  Agnostics believe that it is not *possible* 
to know whether or not He/She/It/They exist. 

--
David Radcliffe                                
radcliff@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
From: clong@romulus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: The Mega Test
Date: 16 Dec 92 22:29:19 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <01GSCT45UWCI9VXMV8@ccfvx3.draper.com>, Kjeld Hvatum writes:

> That is, they could all be solved quickly if you could write fairly
> simple programs for an infinitely fast computer.

So could #25 and #26, assuming you define the correct answer in a way
analogous to Kolmogorov complexity.

> Without going into a lot of psychometric mumbo-jumbo, the theory is that
> the two types of questions measure slightly different things.

But if you're only trying to measure the underlying "g", what difference
would it make?  As far as I can see, the only role very ambiguous questions
serve is to punish those who think differently.  They especially have
no place on the Mega Test, which purports to measure very high IQs.

> Are you maintaining that an IQ test should only include items which
> are unambiguously soluble with deductive mathematical thinking?

It would cause fewer problems, wouldn't it?  But seriously, there is
no way to eliminate all ambiguity, but it should be minimized.  Is
the Mega Test a better test for having #25 and #26?  I'd say the
answer is a resounding no.
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618

"S.B., with an I.Q. of 161, failed to complete his course of study,
running away instead with his professor's wife."
H. J. Eysenck, _Know Your Own I.Q._
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum)
Subject: Re: The Cone Problem
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:05:00 GMT


>From: "Michael Schmahl [Black-Robe Mage]" <fsmgs@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu>
>Message-ID: <1992Dec19.005852.20898@raven.alaska.edu>
>
>One way of thinking of it is to say it requires an infinite area of paint to
> paint
>the trumpet.  I think it requires a positive finite volume of paint.

No, if you make the assumption that the paint thickness is
everywhere the same, the volume required is zero - no need
to speculate.  The reason is that as you extend x
to infinity, the paint thickness must vanish as 1/x, while
the area increases only as ln x.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:25:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.020327.18240@umr.edu> S106495@UMRVMA.umr.edu writes:
> ... As a footnote to my last post(beware thee who is too quick to hit "send")
>Agnosticism is acknowleging that all we know is to some extent a guess. (my def
>inition) but all people have beliefs to some extent.  Gil. Stewart(forgive if i
> get your name wrong) seems to hold the BELIEF that gut instinctsare very bad.

I am deeply offended that you have not studied the appropriate use of my name,
and am appalled at your lack of sensitivity.  (Yeah, right :-) )

>  I tend to have an opinion they are useful only rarely, but i have a tendency
>(belief?) that we limit ourselves if we only use one form of thinking, especial
>ly if we rely soley on reason.
>

Anyway, it's unfortunate that I can't completely cover my belief in a single
post, and unfortunate that you can't read all of my posts ( or not... :-) ),
but my position is, basically:

1) My experience has indicated to me that many problems that can be
solved by rational thought are instead treated to a primary extent
with "gut feelings" which people often refer to as "common sense",
or glorified as "human".  When, ironically, being "human" means,
in a large part, having a larger capacity for rational thought
than most animals.  And what is called "human" is what animals
posess.  Not "less important", but merely "different".  Hence my
problem with the former terminology.

2) I have described in the past what I believe the applications and
reasons for "gut feelings" are.  There are obviously evolutionary
reasons for not having to conciously reason out each action.  As has
been pointed out, our ancestors would very quickly have been philosophical
dead meat.  However, I believe that there is a stronger emotional
drive, or predispostion, if you will, to "gut feeling" and reflexes
than to rational thought.  This may be because a) reflexes are,
by their very nature, faster, and (my theory) b) the capacity
for rational thought developed later in the evolutionary cycle, and
is less well-developed.

I further believe that the two interfere with each other more than
most suspect.  We all know that stage fright can destroy a performance.
Some of us know that it can also enhance it.  We know that being
angry can interfere with rational thought.  We know that over-analysis
can impede artistic endeavors and enjoyment.

I believe that two major problems in society are primarily, use of
"gut feelings" much too often, resulting in the continual need for
"damage control", and the interference of rational thought with
"right brain" processes as rather distant, but still significant,
second.

GMS
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: S106495@UMRVMA.umr.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 23:26:27 GMT
Organization: Univ of MO - Rolla

------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:34:37 GMT
----franklin writes:
>dobbs@ast.saic.com (Lynn Dobbs) writes:
>>What we need is a new word to describe a person who doesn't care
>>it there is a god and wouldn't worship one if it existed.
...
   I find this most puzzling... If you knew of the presence of a God and you
attributed your existance to this entity, how could you ignore an reject
that which created you? Now only is this naive and childish, but it seems
exceptionally ungrateful, and narrow sighted. If you were sure there was
a God then how could you reject all that you him? I can clearly see you are
not an individualist, but a secular humanist more appropriately. Your
concern is solely for the self.
   Are you aware how dangerous and vindictive your selfish and blind
mentality can be to our society? If you reject the hand that feeds you, how
quick will you be to feed the hand that beckons you? You my friend are a
Yuppie, and beyond that - a selfish one. I think the fall of western
civilization will come solely because mankind does not "Do unto others as he
would have them do unto you." From what you have told me, if you would
reject the God that made you, would you reject the friend that aids you? You
disappoint me, and I hope you have left your terminal unattended.

Steve Franklin
------end quote
   I don't think I would go nearly as far as Mr. Franklin, but I do think it is
 a bad idea to not care there is a god given you believe in one.  Unless you be
lievethat your god will not interfere with your life or afterlife, or you can'
t do anything about either, than I think it would be VERY important to act on y
our belief in your god.  Please explain why you wouldn't care if you believed
there was a god.
  On a different topic, Santa is a good analogy to a god.  There may have be
en a historical "Santa Claus", but he didn't have flying reindeer nor give pres
ents to the whole world.  Similarly, I don't believe people can know what
God is like even if we believe He exists.  We have enough trouble trying to und
erstand ourselves and each other.
On the subject of impossible: Almost nothing is impossible, but that doesn't
 mean it will happen.(or has happened)  Santa is not impossible,but he is
ASTRONOMICALLY unlikely.As for God, the it is much harder to say....
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: simonich@croatia.eng.hou.compaq.com (Chris Simonich)
Subject: The Cone Problem
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 19:25:29 GMT

The cone problem centers around the idea of forming a shape (volume) which
has a finite volume, but infinite surface area.  I was once told that you
could fill such a volume with paint, but could not paint it.  Well....

Lets take the following as our example of the shape in question:

Use the curve f(x) = 1/x from 1 to +infinity.  Rotate this curve
about the X-axis.  We now have a cone.  Integrating to find the volume
and surface area we find that the volume is 2*pi and the surface area
is infinite.

Ok, now that we have a mental image of the shape, we could certainly
fill it with paint.  However, the surface area on the inside of the cone
equals the surface area outside the cone.  Since the cone is filled with
paint, the interior surface area must be "painted."  It follows that it
would be possible to paint the exterior surface with finite amount of paint.
It might take a while, but that's just a minor detail.....

Do you agree or disagree?

-----------------------------------
Christopher Simonich
simonich@twisto.compaq.com
phone: (713) 374-1898
From: bl275@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dan Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Politics and Intelligence
Date: 19 Dec 1992 04:46:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bl275@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dan Diaz)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, etbeteille@happy.colorado.edu () says:
>
>If it is generally true that the more "intelligent"
>among us (i.e. university professors, and other 
>alleged leaders of the mind) tend to be more liberal
>politically, would it follow that those who are

I seem to recall reading in the Bulletin that 1988 was a rare (only?)
instance in which a presidential preference poll of Mensans conflicted with
the preference of the population as a whole, the majority of Mensans having
preferred Dukakis over Bush.
-- 
Dizzy Dan         ddiaz@cwru.bitnet      bl275@cleveland.freenet.edu
Department of Molecular Genetics - Albert Einstein College of Medicine
"Dissertations are useless, archaic documents which will be elimated as 
soon as I have defended mine"