HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Joe Moody)
Subject: A Word from Kierkegaard
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: University of Notre Dame
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 18:31:44 GMT


Philosopher Soren Kierkegaard took his greatest leap to say:

"Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation
may not
come that far, but none comes further."

It's absurd. It's illogical. It's infinity. Get it? Got it? Good.

Joe
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: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:40:29 GMT

Joe Beiter (joeb@arden.linet.org) wrote:
: In article <9212291743.AA21979@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS
.DE (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:

[death of innocents, people born with sin, martyrdom, and other fun topics 
deleted]

: >>>but even when one buys into Christianity, to say that he *has fulfilled th
em*
: >>>is counterfactual.
: >
: >>in what way?
: >
: >He has not fulfilled them. Jesaia 9:6-9 is one example, if memory serves.
:
: I've not heard of the book of "Jesaia".  Is that the Hebrew name or Greek
: or just a really bad typo? :-)

OK, how about Mark 9:1.  Or are you saying that there is a 2000 year old person
walking around somewhere?

:
:
: >Those who take the Bible as a Rorschach, interprete the parts of what we are
: >supposed to see symbolically, too.
:
: That would be a very incorrect way of approaching the Bible.  The Bible says
: that we are to expect lies and deception from our own hearts.  To approach
: the Bible as a Rorschach we would have to seek out what is in US not the
: Bible itself.
-- 
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: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Iikka's Claims
Date: 31 Dec 92 07:58:34 GMT
Organization: Rogaland University Centre


>>Where did I brag abou tmy IQ??
>
>I didn't save it, but there was a post in which you said that about 1
>person in 2000 gets higher than 160 pts. You said that you bust most
>tests at over 170, and your score as a child was 150+. Sounds like
>bragging to me. As you were presumably not included in the study you
>mentioned, it is not relevant, unless you meant to imply that your
>opinion is more valid than others.
>


Waaaait a minute. Iikka did not write that article. *I* did in answering Iikka. 
It was not meant as bragging. He started by saying that the 8 brightest people
(IQ>125) he knew were atheists. And I replied that of the 6 brightest people I 
know, only one is an atheist. The rest are Xtians. Then he challenged me how many
there would remain if the threshhold was set to 160. And I replied that only one
did. Or two if I counted my latest test results, but I did not put my trust in
these since they yielded unreasonably large IQ values. Therefore I stick with my
official IQ testing at age 6 which was below 160. 


Onar.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Science and choice
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Distribution: world, public
Date: 24 Dec 92 01:17:02 GMT

kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim Gunnar St|vring yhus) writes:

>Thats why I said "As far as it is possible to test for randomness,".

>A polarized photon has 50% chance of going through a 45 degree polarization
>filter. Unlike an atom nucleus, photons have no observable parts that can keep
>local variables, or as you call it:"beneath the level of the event".

>It is alway possible to make physical theories without randomness, but those
>theories still possible to make, are becoming more and more messy.

>Good bye, Determinsm.

Beside the point that if the universe is deterministic on a
sub-atomic level then we still have free will on the macroscopic level of
awareness, the fact that we cannot determine the causes does not mean the
universe is not deterministic. It is only pragmatically non-deterministic.
Personally, I beleive that if we think we have free will we have it. Whether
or not the universe is deterministic or not is irrelevant. The fact that if
we were able to predict the movements and reactions of every sub-atomic
particle we would be able to predict what the reactions of someone will be
is irrelevant, the person is still exercising free will.

Jeff.
From: s0499528@let.rug.nl (R. Dijkhuis)
Subject: Re: IQ scores
Organization: Faculteit der Letteren, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, NL
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 11:46:25 GMT

In article <ednclark.725159573@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
>Subject: Re: IQ scores
>Date: 24 Dec 92 01:12:53 GMT
>bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>
>
>>  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.
>
>Why, what's wrong with posting IQ scores? What is wrong is implying that
>this figure somehow makes you a superior person or that the figure somehow
>lends weight to your argument.
>
>Jeff.
>

Maybe someone who sends his/her IQ scores doesn't do so with the intent of 
implying superiority. Maybe he/she does. In any case, it's intimidating. In 
effect, someone who posts an IQ score tells those who disagree "Shut up! I'm 
smarter than you." The IQ scores, in this case, ARE being used to imply 
superiority, which is what the argument is all about. Two parties try to 
prove they are superior to the other, and use their own IQ scores to impress 
each other. 

BTW, another reason why this is bad is that IMHO it is a waste of bandwith. 
This is alt.atheism, not alt.too.clever.by.half. Posts should be about 
atheisM not atheisTS. If you want to argue that atheism is superior, that's 
fine. But confusing this with your own personal superiority is...well...not 
a very intelligent thing to do...(ouch).

Reinder
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I.Q. & Brains
Date: 30 Dec 92 00:14:50 GMT
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland

In article <2934730199.1.p00168@psilink.com> "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:
[studies deleted]

>Are there highly intelligent Xians?  Most certainly, but they do not 
>apply their reasoning to religion.  Perhaps the best hypotheses to 
>explain the phenomenon of the intelligent professing deep religiosity are
>1) Ignorance.  Intelligence does not imply correct information.
>2) Compartmented personality.  The scientist and the prayer-maker never meet.
>3) Knavery.  The statement of belief is a sham to serve another purpose.
>4) Fear of censure by friends and family.
>5) Delusions or insanity.
>
>  ,...,.,,
> /666;    ',    jim tims
>////;    _~ -   p00168@psilink.com
>(/@/----0-~-0
> ;'  . `` ~ \'
>  , `    ' , >
>;;|\..((   -C---->>Xians are taught not to think, but to believe from faith.
>;;| >-  `.__),; This method fails on IQ tests; explains some results, maybe.
>

Excellent information. What did you use as a source?

--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 29 Dec 92 23:53:18 GMT
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland

In article <1992Dec29.170030.7556@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>
>>What if we lift the limit to 160?
>>
>
>Only 1 pr 2000 or so has an IQ greater than 160. I think I know only one who
>exceeds this limit. (He is a christian) But when one gets as high as that one 
>cannot rely on most tests. I personally bust the charts (>170) of many 
>intelligence tests but I think my true intelligence is reflected by the test I 
>had at the age of 6 which yielded an intelligence of 152. But I don't quite see
>your point in raising the limit. It seems like you have not dealt very much with
>axioms (unquestion-ed/able assumptions). It is possible to build a completely
>rational and coherent mental universe on axioms which necessarily does not
>coincide with the common awareness of "reality". This allows for severely
>intelligent people to act out religious, often fundamentalistic beliefs. In fact,
>one of the most intelligent (logically) people I know is also one of the most
>irrational I know.  

So you're saying that they just go with what the preachers and Bible call
axioms? And thus, they won't have anything to think about. What about when
they read the Bible or visit sermons? They consider everything to be axioms
or sel-explanatory?

>
>
>>>except one who is an atheist. 
>>>
>>>Religion is often connected to feelings. Feelings are unintelligent and if you
>>>yourself are not very intelligent, your feelings will make sense and seem 
>>>coherent. How often haven't you heard Christians say "Listen to your heart"? Such
>>>a statement shows that they allow their feelings to rule their world. This is
>>>harder for someone whose rationale exceeds her feelings. She will be more able to 
>>>cut through and behave rationally despite of her feelings. She will also be able
>>>to see that her feelings are *not* coherent and therefore is less likely to
>>>become religious.
>>
>>Yes, when they are right-brain dominant, their feelings govern more. 
>>In one way right-brain intelligence is intelligence, that's why I specified
>>that it has to be logical (left-brain) intelligence that causes atheism.
>
>
>Onar.
>
>


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/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
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: is it necessary to hate?
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 10:17:13 GMT

HEATHER LEE FYFFE (910773f@axe.acadiau.ca) wrote in response to Charles 
Hedrick:
: Basically, I agree.  My only wonder is how you could hear the call of God in
: your heart and respond and _not_ be a Christian, as the word simply means
: one who believes in the divinity of Christ.

My wife has heard "the call of God" in her life and is not a Xian.  There have 
been instances that she describes as "God said 'Yo, you might want to do this'"
and things work out (I keep arguing for coincidence and serendipty but that's
a matter of perspective).  Mary is not interested in any religion that
considers her a second class citizen simply because of her gender and,
unfortunatly, your particular brand of religion is based as much on the
writings of Saul the misogynist as they are on the alleged sayings of JC.
-- 
Mike McAngus (mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)| Let the raucous sleigh bells ringle   | Tom
The Truth is still the Truth	   | Hail our dear old fried Chris Kringle |Lehrer
Even if you choose to ignore it.   | Driving his reindeer across the sky
I wasn't sure if anyone would join | Don't stand underneath when they fly by. 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: zitsky+@CS.CMU.EDU (Mark Ryan Miller)
Subject: Re: Searchers
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:12:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.013213.2910@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye) writes:
|>  
|> The postings here seem to be mostly from atheists and fundamentalists
|> with minds made up.  I'm curious to know if there are many searchers
|> lurking.  Perhaps you were raised to believe in God but the facade is
|> starting to crack.  Are there people who started reading this group as
|> theists and have since become atheists?  Vice versa?  Is the discussion
|> here helpful to people struggling with religious doubts?
|> 
|> David Nye
|> nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu

Well, I'm still wondering if this newsgroup can help me understand more about my decision to become an atheist.  I was raised a Christian and was involved in
a very unusual church going experience for most of my child years.  I became an atheist after I started questioning if I was a good Christian.  After trying to talk to my minister about why I should stay in the church, he just said
"here's the door, have a nice time".  So I left, and after a long difficult 
time in which I questioned my Christian beliefs, I became an atheist. 

I didn't make the decision by reading this newsgroup, but hoped that this
would be a good source of information.  I think I'm somewhat open minded, especially since I was able to adopt Buddhism as a belief system, which was difficult, seeing how indoctrinated I was as a child.  "Switching" religions involved a lot of guilt, and fear on my part.

I'm not going to suggest that Christians stay out of this group.  I think it would be great if people could have discussions of controversies, reasons for being atheist, life stories, bad and good experiences with religion, etc.
But what seems to happen is that Christians get here and try to convince atheists that they need Christ or are missing something.  If there wasn't so much proselytizing, it would be a much better group.

--Mark
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: is it necessary to hate?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:38:39 GMT

In article <3369.2B34BCE8@catpe.alt.za> Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org (Ian Douglas) writes:

>I crossposted ONE 'atheist propaganda' message. Is that what you mean by 'too much'? I did crosspost two more, but they were 'Christian propaganda', from the summary of The Mind of the Bible Believer.

Whoa!  *Christian* propaganda?  Anything but, I'm afraid. :)

And for anyone wondering:  yes, part 4 is coming soon.  Just got
caught in finals week & work, that's all.

>I did not cross post it for propaganda purposes, but merely to start
a discussion. No body could refute what was said, so they did not.

Ah, but wait for the *next* one! :)

SD
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:18:29 GMT

In article <BzMCF5.12C.1@cs.cmu.edu> rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Robert Huss) writes:
>
>	It is safe to assume that the more intelligent people will have
>thought about their beliefs more, and will probably reject many fundementalist
>concepts.  Of my more intelligent friends, I would say they are certainly
>more tolerant of other beliefs, and more likely to be liberally religious,
>if not atheist.  Clear thinking is great, and we all like to be clear thinking
>and have clear thinking friends, but clear thinking doesn't mean you will
>become an athiest.  I have intelligent friends who have questioned the faith
>that they were brought up in, but have still come to terms with some form
>of religion, and are definitely not atheists.  I would say that it is highly
>unlikely that you will become an atheist if you were raised in a certain
>religion, and are not very intelligent.  Without intelligence it is difficult
>to change any views that you were socialized towards.
>	I think it is very dangerous to start believing that any group
>you belong to is inherently supperior.  This has been believed time and
>time again, and has been wrong time and time again.  It is likely that we
>atheists tend to have friends who are atheists.  Therefore, the people
>we know are both intelligent and atheist.  This is not a very good
>reference for statistics.

Intelligence is superior to stupidity, but atheism is not an equate to
intelligence. Thus, atheism is not 'superior' to religion.

>	IMHO, intelligence will lead you to clear thinking, which may lead
>you to atheism, but I think clear thinking will also lead you to tolerance.
>Discussions like this are just breeding grounds for missunderstanding and
>anger.  Especially comments like your last sentence.

Tolerance comes from the environment you were brought up in. Since I was 13 I
already found loopholes in Christianity as it was taught to me, and so many
stupid and ridiculous things were told to me. Then when I removed myself from
church records (=became an atheist), people looked at me as I was some sort of
wacko. I'm afraid that as long as Christians don't have tolerance for atheists,
and don't stop pestering them, I cannot have tolerance for them.

Your second last sentence seems quite pointless, as, as a fact, intelligence
is directly in relation to a person's faith, but like most things in this world
, it isn't absolute, of course.

My last comment still holds. Read the FAQ.

>
>Bob Huss.


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
From: nightsng@anarky.tch.org (Nightsong)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A little food for thought (pizza?)
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 02:59:37 PST
Organization: The Canned Ham, San Jose, CA.

> When I was going through  my adolescent angst or existential crisis or
> whatever you want to call it, my main concern was to define myself.  I
> had previously beendefined by my parents and dependant on them for
> everything.  Assuming responsibility for oneself is scary.  So we look
> for the "meaning of life" to tell us what to do, how to behave, how to
> handle this big shift.  I wanted to know what God's rules were, just as
> children are happier when they know their boundaries.

I have myself defined pretty clearly; it is just who to believe (or  if 
to believe anyone) that I wonder about.  Such as --
 
 1. Is there a way to prove the people who believe in a God right or 
wrong?
 2. Is there a way to prove the people who believe in many gods right or 
wrong?
 3. Is there a way to prove the people who believe in no gods right or 
wrong?
 4. Is there a way to prove the people who believe in reality right or 
wrong?
 5. Is there a way to prove the people who do NOT believe in reality 
right or wrong?
 6. Is there a way to prove ANYTHING is right or wrong?
 
All these questions assuming that you do not know for sure that this is 
reality.  Although some of them are about this.

The answer to all of them is no and I cannot believe all of them at once 
to be yes without doublethink (triplethink? quadruplethink?) so I am 
*EXTREMELY*  confused.  
 
-Nightsong

------------------------------
"I am so used to confusing people that being confused confuses me and I 
 am currently confused"
                                -me
------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: maf@birch30.cray.com (Mike Fenton)
Subject: Party Ideas Followup.
Originator: maf@birch30
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 21 Dec 92 13:08:45 CST


        I have recieved a few good (and bad) party idea's.
        I thought I'd share some of the better ones.
        <cfairman@leland.Stanford.EDU> writes:
> Well, on alighter note you could have a Solstice Party.  It doesn't
> have the same fervor as your ideas.
<gink deleted>
> The advantage of the Solstice party is that I have an opportunity
> to explain how Christains appropriated the Solstice to aid in
> converting the pagans they didn't kill :^).
 
        <p00168@psilink.com> writes:
> Of course the music must include the "Vatican Rag" by Tom Lehrer.
>
>         First you get down on your knees,
>         Then you play with your rosaries.
>         Ave Maria, Gee it's good to see ya,
>         Doin' the Vatican Rag.
>
> 2,4,6,8, time to transubstantiate.
 
 
        kmr4@po.CWRU.edu writes:
> All dress up as your favorite religious person, Jesus, the Pope,
> Mary, etc...
 
        I love this!  Since I have long hair and a beard it will be
        simple to put on a robe and sandles.  I'm gonna use it.
        Thanks!
 
        madhaus@netcom.com writes:
> Maybe you could
> back some Jesus cookies, like crosses with Jesus hanging from
> his arms and legs, with red food coloring around the Five Wounds.
> Yum!  Yum!
 
        I'm gonna use this one too.  It's simple enough to bake
        ginger bread men on ginger bread crosses. Thanks.
 
        I'm also going to print out and display all the responses
        that were posted and emailed.
        <U16244@UICVM.UIC.EDU> writes:
>  Sounds like lotsa fun, but where do you reside?????
 
        Well, it is a private party in St. Paul MN, but if
        someone local is able to convince me I may be willing
        to invite them.  I do enjoy meeting fellow atheists.
        Maybe I'll have another theme party for easter and
        make it more public.  We'll toy with the idea.
 
        Still a couple more days until the party, keep those
        ideas coming.  I'll post after xmas and let you humans
        know how it went.
        MAF

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:00:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.123815.655@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.035933.21189@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:

>>Here the premise is easily disproved by going out and observing
>>non-pink elephants.  Some Christians make it a bit harder, by making
>>their God non-disprovable (exists outside space-time, inaccessible to
>>our five senses, etc.)  Thus they guarantee that we can't disprove his
>>existence, but also guarantee that they can't prove his existence
>>either.  So we are reduced to using more circumstantial lines of
>>reasoning, such as pointing out that the Bible's record of God's
>>barbarity plays havoc with the notion of a loving God.  Christians
>>then usually make additional assumptions ("God must know best") to
>>save their premises.  So I think it is reasonable to conclude doesn't
>>exist, but that's not the same as disproving him--how can you disprove
>>something that has been defined in non-disprovable terms?
>
>But hat about using reasoning on the premises? They don't bother as they
>conclude them to be axioms?

I think so.  For example, take the question of God's justice.  The
Bible records many acts of God that would be deemed wicked, had a
human committed them.  Since the Christian takes God's justice as
axiomatic, you'll likely hear a response like "it just seems unjust,
but because God knows so much more than we do, and is, by definition,
just, his actions must be just too."  (An interesting thing to do is
to read the Book of Job from the Bible.  Job makes no bones about God
being responsible for injustice, and complains about it at great
length; God's reply is basically that as the Almighty, he can do as he
wills.)  

I like to make a distinction between being "logical" and "reasonable."
To me, "logical" means being able to reach a conclusion via logic when
given some set of premises.  And "reasonable" to me means not only
being able to use the laws of logic, but also being able to question
and identify incorrect or absurd premises.  Thus the Christian can be
"logical" without being "reasonable."  

SD


Newsgroups: alt.atheism