HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 31 Dec 92 01:20:17 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Distribution: world,public
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec30.215415.3377@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
> Another excellent question.  Many Christians too ask this
> question.  I believe that my God has a greater purpose than just 
> testing our obedience and faithfulness.  Obedience and 
> faithfulness are a means to an end.  They are tools. My God 
> appreciates our obedience and can even be "amazed" at our 
> faithfulness.  God can and does make use of these tools to 
> accomplish his plan.  You may ask what plan and to what end?  

Interesting notion. However, from my perspective: if you add
in the notion of 'mystery' concerning purposes in life, you 
add the additional burden of never knowing if something God
revealed is the ultimate purpose or not. In other words you
could end up in gnostic-style concepts, or let us say 'Twin Peaks'
style scenarios :-). In other words, you are never sure, even
if you trust a doctrine or a message, you are dealing with
an *omnipotent mind* you are never able to comprehend -- neither
understand the motivations behind the actions.

>     I believe God has at least two ends.  One is this:  God 
> wants everyone to come to Him, to enjoy his protection, to enjoy his 
> kingdom, and to basically keep him company.  He doesn't want to force 
> people to do any of this.  And God will use people like Job to help
> accomplish this end.  Usually God's people are grateful for
> having an acting part in his plan.  (There are exceptions.)

The question is if beliefs and faith in a particular doctrine
are valid or not. The believers wants this to be the truth,
the non-believer does not accept it, while the skeptic/agnostic
points out that this knowledge is not obtainable, so why care
about this.

In other words if the doctrine states that 'hopefully' God's
plan this time was to get people get back to God,  you still
have to think about problems related to possibilities you could
never comprehend. Let's say the classical 'get to me' scenario
when the herdsman gathers his sheep for sending them off to
the sausage factory :-).

Cheers,
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 02:32:23 GMT

iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:

>What amazes me, is that so many people call themselves Christians, but:
>
>1) Have never read the Bible (unless forced at school)

I think it's rather instructive that many who HAVE read the Bible are
no longer Christian because of it.

-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: world,public
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 02:52:27 GMT

Iikka Paavolainen (iikkap@mits.mdata.fi) wrote:
: In article <75972@apple.apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
: >Stephen Doe's request for journal citations was perfectly reasonable.
: >His criticism of your reasoning was completely justified, and he is
: >perfectly right to say that, as we are unwilling to accept such
: >feeble reasoning from Christians and other theists, we ought to
: >insist upon sound reasoning from atheists as well. All your snideness
: >in response to Stephen's perfectly justified requests does nothing
: >whatever to improve the quality of your reasoning (though you
: >could improve it whenever you like by complying with his requests;
:
: I am usually very friendly, but I just can't understand people who rush off
: to flame others, completely inconsiderately. And second, what Doe seems to
: have warped badly, is that I have no statements or thesis or premises made
: whatsoever, the post was asking for opinions and what other people could glea
n
: from their resources. Let's say, as a comparison, that someone asks you what
: if we take this route home instead of the usual one, it is shorter, I believe
.
: What kind of psycho goes saying "Give me substatial proof that that route is
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Another rational, non-emotional, non-inflammatory response brought to you by
Iikka Paavolainen.

Get a clue Iikka.  If the route is reasonably short, the driver can do an
experiment and learn the truth.  With sociological studies, experimentation is 
much more time intensive and fewer people are qualified to do the experiments.
Since you claimed to have, in your possession, proof of your assertion, why 
should I or Stephen Doe do the experiment over?

: shorter"? Most people would think for themselves and then agree or disagree.
:
: As for the Journal citations, if I had a study on exactly this statement and
: area, would I ask about it on the net? In this manner, I mean. I gave one
: journal that could give some way to the subject, but I doubt Doe will do
: anything with it.                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Another logical, non-emotional, non-inflammatory response brought to you by 
Iikka Paavolainen.
-- 
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: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 11:38:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.015958.19290@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>Another statistically significant sample.  Not.
>
>How *did* you prevent yourself from letting personal bias influence
>your conclusions, anyway?

Basically I'm indifferent to everything, until there is sufficient evidence
or rationality to prove it is useful or correct. I've learnt not to let my
emotions rule anything.

>Yeah, and you think that an "emotional attachment" to something
>you don't agree with, doesn't qualify as a flame.  

It wasn't meant as a flame, and that's what matters.

>
>You know what you sound like?  You sound like Christians who say that
>we allow willful pride or arrogance to blind us to the truth.  That's
>a very irritating position to take, because it's irrational.  It must
>be very comforting, for so many people to make that error.

Why do you think it's irrational?

>
>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
From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: Challenge to Agnostics
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:29:34 GMT

In article <ednclark.724898160@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>
>Yes, knowledge is never absolute, it just has a probability of truth to the
>owner of the knowledge. I am 100% sure of my own existence, and that other
>than that and this beleif no other thing can be 100% certain. Just for the
>record here is a run-down of my continuum:
>
>Prob.   Beleif
>
>100     My own Existence
>100     Nothing else is 100% certain
>99.9999 I have sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste available.
>99.999  That my senses reasonably accurately relate to me the environment
>99.999  The existence of my body, friends, car, house, and everywhere I've
>        been. Insert theory of probability and theory of gravity here.
>99.99   That Adolf Hitler existed, New York exists, and other things I see
>        in reliable texts and communication mediums. You could probably
>	insert the theory of evolution about here.
>99.9    That St Paul existed, William shakespeare and those things which are
>	pretty well accepted but minor bits of doubt hang if only due to
>	long periods of time between now and then.
>99      The existence of Jesus.
>50      That Jesus did actually think he was the son of a god, and did most
>        of the things attributed in the bible.
>0.0001  That Jesus did any form of miracle, such as walk on water, resurrect
>        Lazarus, or turn water into wine etc etc.
>0.0001  That there is some form of deity that magically can do amazing
>        things that we should worry about (ie either worship or defend
>	against).
>10^-10  That the judeo-christian God exists, and that Jesus is the way to
>        heaven, and that a God would give a shit what we think of
>	hime/her/they/it.
>

What about black holes, atoms, gravity, quarks?

What is your basis for assigning 100% probability to the statement that
nothing else is 100% certain?

At what point does a probability become so close to 100% or 0% as to be of 
no real or practical difference? For example:

What is the difference between the world we live in and a world without God?

or

What is the difference between the world we live in and a world with black 
holes?


Jim Copeland
-- 
Have you washed your brain today?
--
|      Reporter: "Mr. Gandhi, What do you think of Western Civilization?"    |
|      Mr. Gandhi: "I think it would be a good idea!"                        |
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 28 Dec 92 11:50:39 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland

In article <1992Dec28.044250.11398@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>You have IQ scores on 1000 people?  You have an accurate idea of how
>religious every one of these 1000 people are?  If you've done such a
>study, great, tell us more.  But I hope these are not just
>"impressions" you have gained from casual observations.

Being very interested in psychology, I like to 'analyse' people I meet. Using
the method of elimination on the masses is an easy process.

>>Proof of this 'intelligence' in Luther et al.
>>You must define intelligence for yourself to be able to state this.
>>You are bashing yourself with your own words.
>
>Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

If you originally thought out your actions, you wouldn't be at a loss of words.

>>No thanks. Only to a person who does something with them.
>
>Why are you afraid to do this?  Afraid we'll steal your thunder?  If
>it's at all rigorous, then it is just the substantiation your
>position needs.

So much work.

>>Anybody saying that my 'thesis' is not substatiated or sounds stupid, can say
>>what they want, because I don't have a thesis.
>>So what if you prove that intelligence has no effect on atheism? Easy?
>
>So we're not to ask for any kind of rigorous substantiation because
>you haven't presented a "thesis", just some "sincere observations."
>
>Is it possible you still don't see the fallacy of your position?
>
>You've basically admitted here you have no real proof of your
>position.  But of course, it's still rational to take your position.
>That's the sort of "reasoning" most of us live to disabuse Christians
>of, you know.

Correct. I *don't* have any real proof. "Sincere observations" don't require
hard proof. You've been imagining thing all along.

>>And? How true have you found the christians beliefs to be? Did you not use
>>intelligence to deduce your conclusion?
>>I am just getting more and more support for the original idea.
>
>The point of this discussion is that we are not going to hold you to
>more lenient standards than we would hold a Christian to, if they made
>the same sort of arguments in favor of a correlation between
>intelligence and Christianity.  You seem to admire scientists very
>much, why don't you go learn how a real scientist would attempt to
>show if your correlation existed?

You still didn't answer the question.

>
>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,talk.religion.misc
From: boylan@sltg04.ljo.dec.com (Steve Boylan)
Subject: Re: did I like miss your point?
Reply-To: boylan@ljohub.enet.dec.com (Steve Boylan)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 14:28:09 GMT


In article <C041Lq.I1o.1@cs.cmu.edu>, drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:

>                                                     The notion
> of the Bible being only in Latin and forbidden to the common man
> was a mistaken Roman teaching.

Er, wait a minute . . . didn't the Romans SPEAK Latin?  As I understand
events, in the 4th century a team led by St. Jerome prepared a version
of the Bible written in "Vulgar Latin", the language of ordinary folks.
For the next dozen or so centuries, Latin was basically the common
language of academia and international commerce;  the Catholic Church
simply used that common language for its own needs.  Only in the last
few centuries, as the role of Latin was usurped first by French then
English, that the conservatism of the Church caused the arguments over
continued use of Latin liturgy.

Some churches did use a Bible in the local language;  the "Authorized
Version" (or King James Bible) was published in England in 1611.

It's a pity, though . . . Latin is so much prettier than gutteral
English . . .     :-)

				- - Steve


--
Don't miss the 49th New England Folk Festival,
April 23-25, 1993 in Natick, Massachusetts!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 00:42:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.164624.4808@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>Well, you and I are attacking hir (I don't know the gender of Iikka) conception
>of intellectual suOCperiority. I do note that Iikka's arguments are getting 
>less rational as the debate continues.

Well, you really are getting low to degenerate the discussion into this. Only
one meaning for this: you are at a loss for words. I never team up to anybody
in an argument, because I want to have a strong personality.

So far I have had 2 against (you and Doe) and 5 who have had likewise
observations or ideas.

I have nearly all the info I need to end this discussion. Much of it has come
from your unthoughtful and unfriendly flamings without you being aware of it.
Thanks anyway.

>-- 
>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. | 


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/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: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Religionist
Date: 24 Dec 92 00:55:48 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <BzqE8x.B0J@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:
>    A religionist experiences himself as an asshole and wants God to turn him
>into a bubblehead.
>================================================================================
>	"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
>you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
>tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
>                                                              AYN RAND

Rand's faith in a rational universe is as touching as 
(some) Christian's faith that the universe is benevolent.
OTOH, maybe the universe is just the universe.


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
       A Lie is still a Lie, even if you believe it.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: world,public
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:19:34 GMT

Iikka Paavolainen (iikkap@mits.mdata.fi) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec28.210152.19416@arden.linet.org> joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe
 Beiter) writes:
: >In article <1992Dec26.220732.28497@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iik
ka Paavolainen) writes:

: >Still rather weak support of your 'study'.  I've not seen anything of your
: >so-called study but these threads but I would be suspicious of the nature of
: >your "abstract thinking" test questions.  Like the other gentleman pointed o
ut,
:
: I don't have a study I've made. And this is not a debate/argument.
: You can't have one unless you've made a thesis, can you?

SAY WHAT!!!!!!!

[although s/he deleted the attribution, I asked:]
: >>>Where is your statistical study of this area of intelligence?

[and Iikka responded]

: >>On my desk.

I'M RIGHT!!!  IIKKA PAAVOLAINEN IS A LIAR!!!

I wash my hands of you Iikka.
-- 
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. |
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Saturday, 26 Dec 1992 01:46:10 CST
From: <U16244@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: BE GLAD YOUR CIRCUM...
 <1992Dec24.031832.29044@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>

>In <1992Dec21.133500.13113@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
>y41@aix320d.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (Jeffrey Hazelwood) writes:
>>Folks this is the last comment on circumcision! (I hope!)
>
>>Be glad your circumsized!  A man without foreskin can have sex longer than
>>non circumsized people.  This is because the foreskin protects the head of
>>the penis and keeps it sensitive.  But, with circumsized people the head of
>>the penis is not as sensitive, therefore they can do the NASTY longer!!!!!!
>>If you don't believe me, ask DR. RUTH!!
>

   It's a rather moot point, because you can have sex as long as you
want if you learn some control.  It's silly to make things less
pleasureable to make them last longer.. I.E. "I'll drive this
ferarri 5 M.P.H so I can be in it longer.  If it's over too fast,
just do it again! =>:-)

  --DJH
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Rabid theists
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 11:45:13 GMT

kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu wrote:
: In article <1992Dec16.065529.19862@jcnpc.cmhnet.org>, mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (M
ike A. McAngus) writes:
: > kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu wrote:
: >
: > :    Actually it's much older than that.  In the "Star-Spangled Banner"
: > : in one of the later verses that nobody ever sings there is the line
: > : "and this be our motto, in God is our trust".  It was on coins not too
: > : long afterward.  What was added in the 50's was the line "under God" in
: > : the Pledge of Allegiance.
: >
: > On June 14, 1954 the words "under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegian
ce.
: > On July 11, 1955 the words "In God We Trust" replaced the words "E Pluribus

: > Unum" on all currency and coins.
:
:    It had been on at least some of them for a long time though, since
: the 1800's.  Also "E Pluribus Unum" is still on paper money.
:
: > On July 30, 1956 "In God We Trust" replaced "E Pluribus Unum" as the
: > national motto.
:
:    Are you sure?  I though EPU was still the official motto.

This is what I get for taking an article in _American Atheists_ at face value 
AND misreading the article besides.

1.  Public Law 140, signed on July 11, 1955 mandates "In God We Trust" on all 
currency and coins.  In fact, "E Pluribus Unum" continues to appear on coins 
(I'd be interested in learning on which paper money it appears).

2.  EPU was never the national motto.  It was simply used on the Great Seal and
was the defacto motto until Public Law  was signed on July 30, 1956.  At that 
time the national motto of the United states was "declared to be 'In God We 
Trust'".

I appologize for running off at the mouth and not fully reasearching my 
response before I made it.
-- 
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,talk.religion.misc
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:04:15 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Dec30.122043.410@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.195246.22383@arden.linet.org> joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter) writes:
>>
>>So what are you trying to say?  That there was no IQ<-->Athesim study actually
>>and that you just said this to see what kind of responses you'd get?
>
>Yes, I never had any study, and never said so (MY study I mean, I had a study
>of some psychologist, but the topic wasn't the same, but close). And yes,
>I wanted to see what people had to say on this subject and how strongly they
>would oppose it also.
>

  And you wonder why I accused of playing a mind fuck two days ago?
  Tell us, Iikka (is that your real name?), what is your actual IQ?
  Do you actually have eight friends?  

  The saddest point of all is that you don't even realize that
  almost no one here opposed your (supposed) thesis.  What was
  objected to was your methodology, transparent to some of us as it
  was.  

  You've been a bad boy.  Two demerits and no recess.  Come back
  when you've learned some interpersonal skills, a little honesty,
  and had a near fatal dose of humility.


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

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: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: Violence in the bible?
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:35:03 GMT

Interesting!  So, in summary, the Bible calls for the death penalty 
in these cases:

o  Murder
o  Witchcraft
o  Beastiality
o  Sacrificing to another God
o  Working on a Sunday
o  Promiscuity (if you are the daughter of a priest)
o  Cursing
o  Adultery
o  Fornication
o  Rape
o  Blasphemy
o  Cursing your father or mother

Comments, Xians?

------------------------------------------------------------
mark schnitzius           |  seeking guitar songbook for the
schnitzi@eola.cs.ucf.edu  |  clash's "london calling".  does
univ. of central florida  |  one even exist?  will pay top $
------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism