HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Removing "god" from morality. (was: Moral liberty)
Date: 6 Jan 93 00:35:16 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <house.726206511@helios> house@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house) writes:
>One remark I have heard from (very) young children repeatedly
>is "It's not fair!".  Children seem very ready to absorb ethical
>concepts, but unfortunately, the adults around them usually discourage them.

I would take a young child's protestations about fairness with
a grain of salt. While my children have been receptive to
ethical ideas, their judgement about them is often colored
strongly by self-interest. "It's not fair" has often really
meant "it's not what I want." My younger one, who is now 5,
has responded to some situations set up specifically to be
fair to all involved with "it's not fair" when they involved her
not getting something she wanted.
From: geoff@tyger.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Believers: What Would Make You Not Bel
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:32:18 GMT
Reply-To: geoff@tyger.East.Sun.COM
Organization: SunSelect
NNTP-Posting-Host: tyger.east.sun.com

In article 11JAN199315111090@utarlg.uta.edu, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
##I believe you have a hard time distinguishing between "choosing"
##and "believing." They both seem like acts of will, right?? And an
##act of will is an act of will no matter what you call it. So 
##choosing to believe is believing in belief. Which is irrational?
##Even if it is funny.

You are a very confused person. Maybe you think that this kind
of stuff sounds profound, maybe like a Zen koan. It doesn't.

Here's a rather well written view of the relationship between
knowledge, belief and faith. Note that there is no suggestion that
any of this is voluntary, an act of will: 

   What distinguishes knowledge is not certainty but evidence.
   [...]
   Knowledge and belief, like most interesting terms, have many correct
   uses, and no distinction is likely to do perfect justice to all correct
   uses. At best, it can illuminate most. If it meets that test, then it
   is no very serious argument against it if an unenlightened application
   or an overliteral persistence leads to blunders.

   Belief has a wider sense in which it includes knowledge and a narrower
   sense in which it is contrasted with knowledge. [...] Belief in the
   [second] sense is distinguished by the lack of evidence sufficient to
   compel the assent of every reasonable person.
   [...]
   Faith is belief - usually belief in the narrow sense - that is held
   intensely, with some emotional involvement; and almost all statements
   that begin "I have faith that . . ." fulfill one further condition: one
   would be disappointed if one should be wrong.

   One can say "I have faith I shall recover." One cannot say, without
   doing violence to language: "I have faith that I have cancer." The
   degree of emotional involvement may differ greatly, and the
   disappointment if I should be wrong may range from brief regret,
   forgotten the next day, to a total breakdown. The word faith is by no
   means reserved for the last contingency, nor is it a good
   recommendation that it ought to be: it is too difficult to predict how
   a person will react if he is disappointed."

   (From Kaufman, Walter: _Critique of Religion and Philosophy_, Princeton, 1958)
---
Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect, Sun Select. (geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Faulty IQ reasoning (Was: Re: iq<->religion: connection?)
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:42:43 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   5 Jan 93 11:23:35 GMT
>FROM:   R. Dijkhuis <s0499528@let.rug.nl>
>
>In article <2935295193.0.p00168@psilink.com> "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:
>>From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
>>Subject: Re: Faulty IQ reasoning (Was: Re: iq<->religion: connection?)
>>Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 05:12:03 GMT
>>>DATE:   Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:35:44 EST
>>>FROM:   John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
>>>
>>>In article <X9yuwB4w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> says:
>>>[in response to an incredibly long thread I stopped reading months ago]
>>>
>>>>The "sincere observation" that high IQ correlates with atheism is certainly
>>>>an interesting one.  I'm afraid that the last time I did an IQ test it
>>>>indicated that I had an IQ of 68, and so I'm rather predisposed to (a) doubt
>>>>the correlation you suggest and (b) doubt the usefulness of IQ tests as a
>>>>measure of intelligence of any variety.
>>>>
>>>>Of course, feel free to argue that I really am a moron.
>>>>
>>>I'd like to suggest that both the "sincere observer" and mathew are
>>>conducting pretty shoddy psychological research.  Casual observation,
>>>however sincere, lacks the necessary rigor for determining the
>>>correlation between intelligence and theistic beliefs.  If I remember
>>>correctly, proper research indicates the correlation is about zero.
>>>
>>[...]
>>
>>Oh, splendid, Mr. Johnson!  Bully for your memory.  Produce something.  

[Rude and uncalled-for tantrum on my part deleted...]

>>Post us 
>>a non-shoddy study, Mr. Johnson, that supports your position (other than 
>>the four that I included with your preferred result).  Anything would be 
>>better than "proper research indicates the correlation is about zero,"  
>>including leaving this empty, infuriating, condescending, stultifying,
>>(dare I say stupid?) 
>
>Those are exactly the words I would use to describe statements implying that 
>being an atheist makes you smarter
>

I don't see anyone even suggesting that atheism raises IQ. Since your signoff 
indicates that English may be a second language, let me explain:  Almost 
everything I have seen [and posted] indicates that the more intelligent the 
individual (measured variously, from SATs to eminence in science societies)
the less likely it is that the individual will believe in god.  There 
are both stupid atheists and geniuses with faith, just that the odds favor 
atheism as intelligence (according to a variety of measures of intelligence) 
increases.  You are the first to introduce a _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ 
twist to the thread.  Congratulations, nitwit.

[...]
>
>Reinder D uit de Bijlmer B.

  ,...,.,,
 /666;    ',    jim tims
////;    _~ -   p00168@psilink.com
(/@/----0-~-0
 ;'  . `` ~ \'
  , `    ' , >
;;|\..((   -C---->That's some heady opinion you got there, Reinder. You must
;;| >-  `.__),;;  be real smart, huh?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Nailing Christianity: Sufficient Support for Atheism?
From: rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Robert Huss)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:56:23 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University


OK! I goofed.  I admit it.  I was wrong about my statement of migration
of religions.  I know that Islam and Buddism have spread beyond their
areas of origin.  I should have stated it more like this:

	I propose that Christianity is the only religion to change radically,
due to it's spread, and subsequent change in society.  Western society has
changed God from vengeful to loving.  Christianity now is based much more
strongly on the New Testament than the Old.  A few hundred years ago, the Old
Testament was much stronger.  
	I do not believe that other religions have changed so much as to make
obvious the inconstistencies in their writings.  Even though Islam has spread
(more than I realized), has it evolved as Christianity has?  Some one mentioned
that India is now 20% Islamic.  India's culture does have strong similarities to
Middle Eastern culture, especially with regard to women, so I can see the
compatibility with Islam.  
	Can anyone show where a religion has spread to different cultures and
not evolved to match the culture?

Bob Huss.
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Moron Posts Again!
Date: 11 Jan 93 04:31:27 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Edinburgh University

Quoting p00168@psilink.com (James F. Tims) in article <2935738048.2.p00168@psilink.com>:
>
>Intelligence, in the various definitions and methods of measurement in
>the studies, shows a negative  correlation to belief in the afterlife,
>belief in god, participation in  religious activities and what have
>you.  That's all.  That's all there  is to it.  There is no larger
>inference.  There is no practical significance.

Oops.  Sorry; I can't find the article on my system now, but I inferred
from some of the comments you appended to the survey list that you felt
there was something to be concluded from these results.

>>If only I owned a time machine, I'd go and see whether any such
>>correlation existed for phrenology.

>Done and done.  No correlation.  You don't need a time machine.  People 
>still have bumps on their heads.  I have bumps all over mine after this 
>disastrous forray into the world of net geniuses.

I didn't make myself clear... I meant that there was probably a positive
correlation between intelligence and belief in phrenology at the time
when the theory was most fashionable.
  __                                   _____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley   pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk  \\ //
/\__/ Trust me. I know what I'm doing.  \X/ 
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25046 talk.religion.misc:25217
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What a Hunk We Have in Jesus
Date: 11 Jan 1993 17:06:45 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In article <1993Jan8.231602.24967@adobe.com> mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:
>
>Which reminds me of a stand up routine I once saw on television, which
>went something like:
>
>  "Imagine what the world would be like if Jesus was hanged instead of
>   nailed to a cross. Then all the Catholics would be walking around
>   with nooses around their necks!"
>
>-- 
>Michael Wang
>mmwang@mv.us.adobe.com

Or, suppose Jesus had been stoned to death.  All xtians then would
have rocks in their heads!

Although, now that I mention it ...

-- 
---  Overheard on soc.religion.christian:
By our sin, you and I and Wesley Allen Dodd are guilty of killing
the Son of God, Jesus Christ; THAT IS worse than killing and raping children.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Churches taxed on property value?
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 14:17:13 GMT

Once upon a time, some folks in a tiny frontier town built a modest
church in a location that was, to them, a convenient distance from
the town.  The town boomed and became a city.  The members of the
congregation upgraded the building a bit (put in electricity back
in 1960) but the building remained pretty much the same.

Not so the property value, however.  What was once "out of town" is
now a hot new neighborhood for young upwardly-mortgaged professional
people.  Condo developers have offered the congregation millions for
the little plot of land the church sits on.

Now, if we restore the taxation of churches, should this church be
taxed on the inflated value of its land?  Something to think about
next time a pagan group purchases a quite plot somewhere out in
the countryside to serve as a site for rituals.


Paul Ciszek                      No nation was ever drunk when wine
                                 was cheap.
pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu                            --Thomas Jefferson
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I still wouldn't worship it.
Date: 6 Jan 93 11:53:09 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

ron house (house@helios.usq.EDU.AU) wrote:
: In article <jfelder-311292094328@latvia.lerc.nasa.gov> jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov (James L. Felder) writes:
: }You would really believe there is a God just because gravity got turned off
: }for a few seconds?  Not me.  How would I know that this entity is really a
: }"God" and not just some powe tripper from the next solar system whose
: }technology blows mine clean out of the water.
: 
: Surely, any being that acts like a super-powerful being can NOT be god,
: for that very reason.  God is outside time and space, so anything that acts
: in a material fashion within t&s cannot be god.  Therefore the behaviour
: described above would prove to me that it was not god.

Curious... are you saying God cannot heal? If not, how do you decide
what actions are "material"?

Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart
From: werdna@cco.caltech.edu (Andrew Tong)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reverse FAQ....
Date: 11 Jan 1993 22:30:21 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

Geoffrey Spear <gspear+@CMU.EDU> writes:

>Excerpts from netnews.alt.atheism: 10-Jan-93 Re: Reverse FAQ.... Michael
>Loomis@andrew.cm (3654)

>> 1.  Prayer is not banned in schools.  (The state is not allowed to
>> direct prayers in public schools.)

Sorry about the feedback to the wrong person....  But I'm hoping this'll
reach the right place....

Open prayer _is_ banned in some schools.  (By students, even.)

Of course, directed prayers are banned, and the banning of that is obviously
not an "official" sanctioning of atheism of any sort.

>> 3.  Mr. Tong claims that atheism seems officially santioned by our
>> society.  (This could represent simple paranoia rather than a lack of
>> logic.  Mr. Tong:  Satan, the General Motors Corporation, and I plan to
>> take demonic posession of your mother.)

Not officially sanctioned by the government.  Wait for the antiFAQ.  (And
please send me some questions before you start bashing preliminary answers...
I'm sure you've got some nagging complaints, anyways...)

>	Right.  In fact, what most people who complain about the lack of
>organized prayer in schools don't seem to understand is that the
>government *cannot* sanction ANY religious belief, including (ok, it's
>not a religious belief, but more of an anti-religious belief, but it's
>the same general idea) atheism.  For the same reason, to actually *ban*
>prayer in public schools would be unconstitutional, for the same reason
>that requiring it in schools would be.  For anyone who doesn't
>understand why this is so, re-read the First Amendment.  And remember

Exactly.  Which is why I found it so disturbing that _personal_ pray (spoken
out loud, of course) was prohibited in _some_ schools.  (You really can't
book anyone for closing his eyes and bowing his head....)
From: jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Believers: What Would Make You Not Believe In GOD?
Date: 9 Jan 93 22:47:55 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

In article <11097@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>
>AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
>

You okay dude?
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Believers: What Would Make You Not Believe In GOD?
Date: 11 Jan 93 21:44:00 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <11JAN199315111090@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
|> In article <11097@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, 
|> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes...
|> 
|> >In article <9JAN199303004506@utarlg.uta.edu> 
|> >b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
|> >>
|> >>Speaking as a believer, it's easy. Just simply chose not to believe.
|> >>GOD won't stop you. GOD will help if you chose to believe though.
|> > 
|> > 
|> >AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
|> > 
|> >I assume you haven't seen my posts regarding this very issue, so
|> >I'll be gentle.  Please explain to me how anyone can *choose* to
|> >believe something that makes absolutely no sense to them?  I can't,
|> >and I've tried.
|> 
|> I'm still catching up. But I have read the FAQ. Sorry about the 
|> chose/choose. 
|> 
|> I believe you mean to ask your question honestly. I choose not to now.
|> 
|> You may be trying to catch me in some verbal tangle, as evidenced by
|> your focus on spelling.

I'm sure Mr Beauchaine will answer for himself, but it does not seem
to me that he even commented on your spelling.

I think he's questioning what you mean when you talk about choosing a 
belief.

jon.
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: A nation chosen by GOD -- New-Israel
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:32:00 GMT

In article <1iuqdeINNo1k@seven-up.East.Sun.COM>, geoff@tyger.East.Sun.COM writes...
>In article 11JAN199323022824@utarlg.uta.edu, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>##Otherwise, I think you'll find that I write in such
>##a way that reminds myself of The Precense. 
> 
>W-h-a-a-t-? 
> 
>Since I'm not privy to the state of your mind (if any), how
>can I determine that you are writing in a way that reminds YOU of
>anything? (Much less a misspelled content-free capitalized thingamajig?)
> 
>Actually, I find that you write incoherent rubbish. Is that what you
>wanted to convey with this sentence?
> 
> 
>---
>Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect, Sun Select. (geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM)


Gee, GA. Are you in the habit of reading rubbish?

   |
-- J --
   |
   |  Stephen   "amazed that anyone bothers"

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang)
Subject: Re: What a Hunk We Have in Jesus
Organization: Adobe Systems Inc., Mountain View, California, USA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:16:02 GMT

In article <C0EDIs.Cpw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dennis@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Thomas A. Dennis) writes:
>From the INTERNATIONAL MALE catalog, Spring '93 edition, advertising a 
>"beautifully crafted sterling silver cross":
>
>"Mankind's most revered symbol has become fashion's newest and hottest accent!"
>
>Well, it's about time, eh?

Which reminds me of a stand up routine I once saw on television, which
went something like:

  "Imagine what the world would be like if Jesus was hanged instead of
   nailed to a cross. Then all the Catholics would be walking around
   with nooses around their necks!"

-- 
Michael Wang
mmwang@mv.us.adobe.com
From: geoff@tyger.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: looking for God
Date: 6 Jan 1993 18:41:53 GMT
Organization: SunSelect
Distribution: world
Reply-To: geoff@tyger.East.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: tyger.east.sun.com

In article 083705BLD110@psuvm.psu.edu, BLD110@psuvm.psu.edu () writes:
##
##I have a question for those of you who are sure that there is no evidence that
##God exists.  What is the life force? 

Good question. A semantically null phrase, perhaps? 

## What is that leaves that body when it dies?  

Neurochemical activity? (Taking "leaves" in a metaphorical sense.)

## When you pick a flower what flows from it that causes it to wilt?

"...what flows from it"? Nothing. "...causes it to wilt"? Biochemistry. So what?

##  What
##do you use to explain our complex ecosystem which can not operate without the
##full circle of elements, i.e. soil can not produce vegitation without humas.

Science, actually. The same process that lets us create the technology
that allows us to build the computers and networks that you are using
to read what I just typed. Or do you think that techology == magic, perhaps?


Cheers,

Geoff

---
Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect, Sun Select. (geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM)

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: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 10:35:39 GMT

mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:

>You are punishing God by rejecting Him.  A father would be pained if his son
>rejected him.  Same with God.

Oh.  Poor God.  I feel sorry for him.  Maybe he should take a hint.  He sent
his prophets, we killed them.  He sent a flood, plagues, earthquakes and
hurricanes, and we ignore him.  He sent his Son, and we killed him.  What
does it take for your God to figure out that we just don't like him all
that much?  Huh?  What do we have to do to get the point across?

>When I refer to God giving some painful lessons, these lessons are received 
>while we are on earth and there is still opportunity to repent.  These lessons
>are no more so than any caring parent would give his/her child.

Yeah, I know that if my daughter does one thing wrong, I'm going to kill her
without a second thought.  Then I'll tell my son to go let some guys beat him
up and kill him so that I can forgive her and let her come home.

>Reason cannot explain everything.  I am safe in saying that Mankind does not
>know everything and has not been able to reason everything out.

The fact that we haven't is no proof that we can't.  People said we couldn't
fly, either.  Ever see a plane?

>reasons for emotions?  I know for sure what I have experienced.  I have felt
>God's touch and I've glimpsed what visions He would have me see.  

You know that you've experienced, but there's no way you can prove what
they were.  They could've been the salami you had for lunch giving you
nightmares.

>are not so easily explained but they are nonetheless, real.  I've never taken
>drugs and I haven't touched a drop of alcohol for the 6 years since becoming
>a Christian, so my experiences were not delusions.  

Sure they were...they were just really good delusions.

>I've stood up in public
>proclaiming the good news of the Word of God.  This is something I would not
>have been capable of before.  Where does this power come from?  

Sure you could have.  You just didn't have lots of people encouraging you
to act like a damn fool before.
 
>I tell you, it is the power of God's Spirit.

I tell you, it is all in your head.

-- 
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: bidewolf@sus.edu.eur.nl (Ronald de Wolf)
Subject: Agreement on this implication?
Organization: EUR
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:58:15 GMT

Who agrees with the following implication?

If God is perfect (in the way person A sees perfectness),and God created the
world, then the world must be perfect according to person A.

NB: I'm not talking about 'absolute' perfectness,but only subjective
    perfectness.

NB: Leibniz used this (more or less) to justify his statement that
    'this world is the best of all possible worlds' (in his opinion,this
    followed from God's perfectness).

If this implication is correct,then logically the imperfectness of the world
(on which most people agree,I think) implies the imperfectness (in the opinion 
of most people) of God.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc