HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org (Ian Douglas)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Atheism and Intelligence
Date: 16 Dec 92 09:22:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: catpe.3354.2B30C986
Organization: FidoNet node 5:7102/119 - Zero 2 Infinity, CT

Hi All!

On 12 Dec 92, Burt Voorhees wrote to All:

 BV> "Religion, as it is commonly understood by both the
 BV> theologians and their opponents, is not what it is
 BV> believed to be.  Religion is a vehicle.  Its rites, moral codes, and
 BV> practices are intended to have a certain uplifting effect on certain
 BV> communities at certain times.  Because of difficulties in maintaining the
 BV> science of man religion was choosen as the vehicle for human development.
 BV> This fact has always been misunderstood by the shallow for whom the
 BV> vehicle has become the idol."

IMHO, religion is merely a tool of oppression of mankind. It is anti-mind.
You are required to suspend your critical logical faculties and merely BELIEVE.

Cheers, Ian


--  
INTERNET: Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.
From: S106495@UMRVMA.umr.edu
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Date: 16 Dec 92 01:27:57 GMT
Organization: Univ of MO - Rolla


 R. Crawford writes:---------------------------------
..
Theists base their lives and values on what they want to be true, not on
what they are logically compelled to admit _must_ be true.  If the latter
were the hallmark of theists, then I think they would have no choice but to
admit that all people on this earth are not equal, that the world is unjust
and arbitrary in the way that fate dealt to us all, and that daily events
are often monstrously cruel to the innocent.  Surely a god would not allow
such things unless they were part of a grand design which eventually balanced
these things out.  And since the only way these things may be `justifiable',
is for there to be such a plan, there should/must be a god.
..
I think the belief in a god requires a denial of logic and the acceptance
of facts not in evidence.  Therefore I think the only way to accept the
existence of a god must come from a willingness to hold logic in abeyance
and give one's self over to the desire to Believe....
------end quote
   This argument is an example of my Santa analogy.  Believing in a god and und
erstanding what that god is are two different things.  My belief is that god is
 not always "nice."  We are incapable of understanding what reason He has for a
llowing suffering, whether it be compassionate and enigmatic, or cruel, or lais
sez-faire, or insane, or just beyond us.My Catholic faith teaches that the pr
oblems are all a result of someone's sins, which are a result of free choice, b
ut that does not explain why suffering at all was allowed.
   On a slightly different topic, I consider agnosticism to simply be an admiss
ion that all we think is to some extent a guess, and it is still possible to ot
herwise think and believe.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: matt@severian.chi.il.us (Matt Crawford)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Politics and Intelligence
Date: 20 Dec 92 04:22:11 GMT
Organization: The Chrome Plated Megaphone of Destiny

1. No, from the proposition "intelligent implies liberal" you
cannot derive "extremely intelligent implies libertarian."

2. That's absurd.  First of all, Libertarianism, as preached by
every card-carrying Libertarian I've met, is not described in the
Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.  Furthermore,
libertarianism (again, as preached ...) is utterly simple to
understand.


I offer you a deal.  Show me a populous county which is run in
accordance with Libertarian principles and then I'll give
consideration to Libertarian candidates in my state and country.
I'll help you out -- I'll even vote for them at the city and
county level, when any run, even though I don't believe their
system can work.  Why?  It might deserve a test, and it's no
great trouble for me to move out of a county.

__________________________________________________________
Matt Crawford       matt@severian.chi.il.us       Java Man
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: nicolas@stam.nl (Nico Veenkamp)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Quest Test
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 11:30:54 CET
Organization: Stam Tijdschriften bv, Rijswijk, The Netherlands

The december 1992 issue of Omni has a short article and a copy of the 
Quest Test. It's all about analogies. Was this the same as one that 
someone posted awhile ago here on r.o.m. ?


      *================================================================*
      |  Nico Veenkamp	        | You write, we publish                |
      |  Stam Tijdschriften bv  | -------------------------------------|
      |  P.O. Box 235           | Internet : nicolas@stam.nl           |
      |  2280 AE  Rijswijk      | FidoNet  : 2:281/1.7                 |
      |  The Netherlands        | BIX      : nicolas                   |
      *================================================================*
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum)
Subject: Re: The Mega Test
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:46:00 GMT


>From: Chris Long <clong@romulus.rutgers.edu>
>Message-ID: <Dec.13.03.42.10.1992.5242@romulus.rutgers.edu>
>
>In article <01GS5NNTYXG29VUY4S@ccfvx3.draper.com>, Kjeld Hvatum writes:
>
>> You seem to be insisting that an item must have a provably
>> correct answer.  If so, you have to throw out a lot of IQ test
>> items, many of ETS's SAT verbal analogies, etc.
>
>Unlike the Mega Test, the SAT may be taken as many times as you
>wish,

I agree with Rodney.  The Titan Test, and the upcoming Ultra Test,
are pretty much different forms of the Mega test.  In fact, I was
going to ask the author why he hadn't simply called them forms
A, B, and C of the Mega Test, taking advantage of its recognition.
Throw in the LAIT, the LIGHT, and the Quest Test, which just appeared in
OMNI (Dec 1992), and you have more tests than I can imagine anyone
wanting to take.  As for the SAT, you can only take about 6 tests per
year.  If you wait a little longer, I'm sure you'll see even more tests
like the Mega Test.

>and no one was ever excluded from anything due to a single
>missed question on the SAT.  This makes quite a difference, as I'm
>sure you'll agree.

That's absurd.  If a test is used to make a binary decision, there will
always be a score level where the smallest score difference will change
the outcome, all other things held constant.  I'd agree with you only if
you meant that you cannot always know what that score level is, due to
other unpredictable factors which influence the decision.

Or perhaps you meant it's like voting.  With millions of voters, it's
very unlikely that any Presidential election will hinge on one vote.
But the count that matters on the SAT is the number of questions, and
since they are far fewer in number than the number of test-takers, I can
assure you that, each year, thousands of student rejections and
acceptances would have been reversed had they answered one item
differently on the SAT.

Or perhaps you simply meant to say that only on the Mega Test do you
know exactly what the cutoff level is.  With college admissions and the
SAT, you'll probably never find out what the effective cutoff was in
your case.

Incidentally, there are still educational situations which use
well-defined SAT and PSAT levels.  I believe NMSQT semi-finalists are
chosen by PSAT levels alone, via the selection index (2V+M).  Also,
didn't New York State award scholarships based on SAT levels alone?  And
don't some of the California colleges require a minimum SAT level of
those whose grades aren't good enough?  These are cases in which you
could indentify exactly those people who were excluded due to a
single missed question.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: radams@bnr.ca (Rodney Adams)
Subject: Re: Quest Test
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:38:38 GMT

In article <82eVVB3w165w@stam.nl> nicolas@stam.nl (Nico Veenkamp) writes:
>The december 1992 issue of Omni has a short article and a copy of the 
>Quest Test. It's all about analogies. Was this the same as one that 
>someone posted awhile ago here on r.o.m. ?

Same author, different test.  And the Quest test is MUCH harder than the
Crypto-Analogies test that Chris Long posted earlier.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney G. Adams
The opinions expressed above are not necessarily those of my employer.
As if you didn't already know that....
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: dobbs@ast.saic.com (Lynn Dobbs)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: SAIC
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:21:25 GMT

>   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

I have purposesly left the author of the above lines out of this post. I
feel strongly about this philosophy. My reaction my be overly strong and I
don't want this to seem like a personal attack.

PLEASE, everyone think about the hand that feeds you AND REJECT IT IF IT
FORCES CERTAIN RESPONSES IN ORDER TO KEEP BEING FED!

Every major advance in the world of science and art has come from a few
brave people rejecting the hand that fed them. Okay, too strong, most
major advances. My philosophy is not BLIND nor VINDICTIVE but it certainly
is selfish. I am not altruistic, nor do I wish to come in contact with
people who believe themselves to be altruistic. A totally unselfish act,
if there is such a thing, scares the hell out of me. 

Someone working for the "good" of others is the dangerous person. As an
example I site prohibition. For everyone's good the government outlawwed 
booze. What a "good deal" that was. 

I agree that blind emotional reaction to a stimulus can, and possilby will,
be dangerous. But thoughtful, rational reaction to a stimulus is absolutely
necessary to the continued existence of the rational brain. Otherwise, the
higher order functions would have no survival factor and would slowly
be replaced by some aspect of humanness that has a higher survival factor.
Blind faith, maybe?

So, if you wish to follow any self proclaimed leader merely on faith, go
ahead. But don't expect me to support your choice, approve of your choice,
or, if my ability to choose becomes endangered, allow your choice.

Lynn Bruce Dobbs
The belief in a supreme being IS A SELFISH ACT. 
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: johnson@sleipnir.pb.wes.mot.com (Mark Johnson)
Subject: Re: The Cone Problem
Reply-To: johnson@sleipnir.mnesouth.corp.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Wireless Enterprises, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:13:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.192529.4392@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>, simonich@croatia.eng.hou.compaq.com (Chris Simonich) writes:
=)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

Well, not exactly a cone, but that doesn't change the point.

=)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.....
=)
If you assume that an infinitely thin coat of paint is sufficient, you've
painted it.  Of course, the amount of paint required in this case is zero.
If the coat requires a nonzero thickness, you need an infinite amount.

As far as painting it by filling it up, you'll run into the problem that the
paint can spread only at a rate of the speed of light (at the outside), in
which case it will never reach the edges of the structure.  So, in reality,
you can't even fill it up with paint in a finite time.

"It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it."  --Steven Wright
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Johnson"                              |Just because you're paranoid doesn't|
| johnson@sleipnir.mnesouth.corp.mot.com |   mean they're not out to get you. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Let's face it; if our lawyers knew what went on here, they'd shut us down.  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org (Ian Douglas)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Resigned and imprisoned Puzzle
Date: 9 Dec 92 19:03:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: catpe.3298.2B278BCF
Organization: FidoNet node 5:7102/119 - Zero 2 Infinity, CT


On 07 Dec 92, mcsdc1al@dct.ac.uk wrote to All:

 mau> He can not escape.  He will only be released if he tells them why he
 mau> resigned.

 mau> The question is what, given the restraints upon him, should he do.

 mau> NB Escape is impossible.  He does not want to reveal the reason for his
 mau> resignation.  Mail me solutions and, please, be serious.

1) give a false yet plausible reason.
2) say he changed his mind, and withdraws his resignation. Once he is out of jail, guess who goes missing...

Cheers, Ian


--  
INTERNET: Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: S106495@UMRVMA.umr.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:48:27 GMT
Organization: Univ of MO - Rolla

xxxxx I never implied that gut instinct was a replacement for rational
thought.  I meant that if we define one system of "logic" as best, we
exclude improvement s in our methods of thinking.  I believe quantum
physics obeys some logic      similar to our own, but we must redefine
our perspectives on it to understand.   Another alternate logic I am
speaking of is neural networks.  These are        computer algortithms
where the machine takes the factors toward a given         conclusion,
and thru trial and error perfects an algorithm to give a conclusion.
For example, it would take an list of approved insurance applications,
and    rewite its formula to match the applications that were accepted
so that in the  future it could decide to accept the application.
xxxxx The point is all forms of thought must be evaluated on their
merits and   from time to time our thought processes should change.  I
cannot use gut         instinct to write a computer program any more
than I can use logic to write a  joke.  Some balance must be struck
between the two for many tasks, especially   creativity and problem
solving.  There is no algorithm to come up with new ideas, but you can't
just "use the force" to get them either.  Neural networks will probably
be able to solve some problems using neither gut instinct nor
syllogisms.  All ideas must be scrutinized, but it is variety that makes
us strong.note to gill: I thank you for your patience in dealing with
people who must seem very strange to you.  I urge you to continue to be
open minded, since you never know what you might find if you look for
it.
From: eager@eagercon.com (Michael J. Eager)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: worm puzzle
Date: 11 Dec 92 08:47:56 GMT
Reply-To: eager@eagercon.com
Organization: Eager Consulting

In article 1g50gfINNhtt@rave.larc.nasa.gov, yaros@sab57.larc.nasa.gov (Steve Yaros) writes:
>In article <85014@ut-emx.uucp>, ifaq570@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Kitchen) writes:
>|> >tim@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au (Tim Roberts) writes:
>|> >
>|> >: I posted this in the rec.puzzles group some time ago, and I don't think anyone
>|> >: has come up with a solution yet....any Mensans care to try ?
>|> >: 
>|> >: Baby Worm is 10cm long.  Mummy Worm wants to knit a blanket for it that will
>|> >: cover it while its asleep, though she doesn't know in what position Baby Worm
>|> >: will sleep (straight, curled up, etc).  What is the minimum area of blanket
>|> >: required to guarantee that Mummy can cover Baby Worm with the blanket ?
>|> >: 
>|> >: All usual assumptions apply - Baby Worm is of negligible thichness, blanket
>|> >: should be two-dimensional, etc.
>|> 
>|> 	Poor little chilly Willy the worm.  
>|> 
>|> 	Well, maybe one of us smartapples can help the worm family out.
>|> 
>|> 	I would say that the smallest area would be that of a 1/2 circle,
>|> radius 5cm.  It will cover the tiny nematode under the following conditions..
>|> 
>|>   (...much deleted...)
>|> 
>|> Allen Kitchen		Licking Insomnia by working it to death...
>|> ifaq570@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
>
>After much thought about this problem...through one very boring stage play and 
>a cowboy version of "Don Pasquale", no less...I came to the same conclusion as 
>Allen...a semi-circle of radius 5cm ought to do it, assuming the blanket is 
>reversible and can be flipped over if the worm configures itself to the left
>instead of the right.
>
>Minimum area, I hear you cry?  pi*r^2/2, approximately 39.27 cm^2.
>
>Steve from Norfolk


I came to the conclusion that a half-circle will cover the worm quite a while
ago, but I can't convince my self that it is the minimum.  

Anyone got a convincing argument that anything smaller than a half-circle
will not work?


---
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: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:43:07 GMT

In article <Bz8518.7t5@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:
>On second thought, my previous post may have been in error.  His view that he
>'just doesn't' care is...well... akin to what you described.
>
>Matt I.
>

You talkin' to me?  I said, you talkin' to ME!?!  I don't see nobody
else around here.  You gotta' be talkin' to ME!!!  Who you talkin'
to?!?

GM("Appropriate Oscar Clip")S
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: bbs-phaedrus@jwt.UUCP (larry wink)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Reply-To: bbs-phaedrus@jwt.UUCP
Organization: The Matrix
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 14:39:49 GMT


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!

Amen.

 --Larry Wink
 Internet: fdmwink@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu or ljw@pro-magic.oau.org
 Bitnet: fdmwink@ucf1vm     Usenet: bbs-phaedrus@jwt.UUCP     GEnie: l.wink   
    "Truth, from her first appearance, is an enemy." - Tertullian
                            The Christian's Defense
From: bl275@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dan Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: What is God? (Was: Atheism and Intelligence)
Date: 19 Dec 92 04:40:11 GMT
Reply-To: bl275@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dan Diaz)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand) says:
>
>Just because you can't prove that some type of God does or does not
>exist doesn't mean that its not possible to disprove the existence of
>a *particular* God.

In my favorite book on the foundations of positive and negative atheism,
'Atheism: A Philosophical Justification', Michael Martin argues
convincingly of the difficulties inherent in the existence of a god with
the supposed attributes of the Judaeo-Xian god.  Martin shows how the
attribute of omniscience conflicts with god's disembodiness, his moral
perfection and his omnipotence.  In an elegant argument which makes use of
set logic, Martin shows that because an omniscient being must know the set
of all truths, god as an omniscient being cannot exist.

Martin's unrelenting arguments do not end here.  Unlike mortal beings, god
is imagined to be perfectly free to act as he wills.  Martin shows how
perfect freedom is incompatible with both limited and unlimited
omniscience.  

As a former born-again christian, I very much enjoyed Martin's well-written
arguments.  I saw more clearly than before how major tenents of the
christian faith are foundationally incoherent.  I recommend this easy to
read inexpensive book to anyone interested in the philosophical foundations
of modern atheism.
-- 
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"
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: The Mega Test
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:31:56 GMT

In article <Dec.15.16.32.53.1992.27645@remus.rutgers.edu> clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
>In article <01GSC9K9BS7M9VX7CB@ccfvx3.draper.com>, Kjeld Hvatum writes:
>
>> Throw in the LAIT, the LIGHT, and the Quest Test, which just appeared in
>> OMNI (Dec 1992), and you have more tests than I can imagine anyone
>> wanting to take.
>
>Does the Mega Society accept all the above tests?  I thought they
>accepted just two.  I was planning on sending in my answers to be
>included in the Omni report, but if the Mega Society will accept the
>results I'll probably sit on it until I can get some more work done
>(I'm at about the 54/59 mark now; anyone else working on this?).

Call me forgetful or just not an OMNI fan, but am I to infer from this
that another Omni article appeared with a test more recently than
the one I took back around 1978-80?  I was under the impression that
that test (LAIT?) was no longer accepted.  Is the new test the Mega
test we've been discussing?  Is the LIGHT any "better" than the LAIT,
and if so, what caused the LAIT not to be accepted?  Or was it just
that everyone assumed it wasn't accepted because Langdon is now taking
over 12 years to score them?

TIA

GMS
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa