HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:21:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.224717.1993@prime.mdata.fi>, iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
|> Am I seeing wrongly, or is there a connection between one's IQ and one's
|> religiousness? Of all people I know, I know only about 8 exceptionally smart
|> people (IQ>125), and all of them happen to be atheists. On the contrary, the 
|> dumbest people I've seen (eg. unable to use a remote control) are the most
|> religious. Observing other atheists that I don't know (from this group for
|> example) leads me to make a conclusion that on the average, atheists have a
|> much better sense of logic (and thus usually have a higher IQ) and think much
|> more clearly than religious people. From my own experiences, I can say that
|> freeing oneself from the grasp of religion requires a certain level of logical
|> thinking. Coincidentally, all these 8 people are mathematically gifted.
|> When I speak of atheism here, I mean it to be a lack of belief in any god or
|> superstition.
|> Opinions?
|> 
|> BTW, if this offended you, go to a church instead of coming to alt.atheism.
|> --
|>  __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
|> /o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
|> \__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
|>    `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
Although I think that you are right in general, I wanted to add that all (6)
the exceptionally smart people  I know (IQ>125), including myself, are Christians 
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.




Onar.



  
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 28 Dec 92 18:20:30 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland

In article <BzyFGu.KJD@dale.cts.com> npm@dale.cts.com (Nancy Milligan) writes:
>If Christians, or Bible believers, are so happy, so morally well-
>adjusted wouldn't it stand to reason that most criminals would
>be atheists?  Well, they aren't.  Something like 95% of them
>believe in a god, and some percentage of them go to church. 

What amazes me, is that so many people call themselves Christians, but:

1) Have never read the Bible (unless forced at school)
2) Don't care about most of the commandments
3) Go to church only at Christmas, if at all
4) Donate little to the church, if at all

Have people lost the meaning of Christianity? These people could as well
be atheists, as it wouldn't change their life much.

--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A nation chosen by GOD?
Date: 31 Dec 92 01:37:50 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

[reply to pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu]
 
>As I clearly noted, I *forwarded* the article. *None* of the contents,
>drivel or otherwise, were mine!
 
What was it in the forwarded article that you thought would be of
interest to us in alt.atheist?

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 04:43:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.162355.8674@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <Stafford-221292170738@stafford.winona.msus.edu> Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (John Stafford) writes:
>>Consistent in my experience, too.  However, I do find among some of the
>>brightest (and intellectually brave) a compelling interest in
>>transcendental consciousness or the idea of a greater 'mind' but not
>>the conventional notion of a god.
>
>Environment, personality and idealistics are also important factors, 
>but not as important is logical intelligence. You can also find atheists
>among the dumbest people.

One question:  How do you know they are not as important?

I don't know, but I'm starting to suspect you people are seeing what
you'd like to see.  I have NOT seen this correlation, in my own
personal interactions with intelligent people (or "logical
intelligent" people, if you prefer.)  No one has provided a citation
to any sort of study yet that would confirm OR deny the alleged
correlation.  All I've seen are arguments like "Well, within my circle
of friends, I've observed a correlation between intelligence and lack
of belief."  I believe Onar then responded with, "Well, in MY circle,
most everyone with IQ>125 is Christian," to which Iikka responds by
saying that he ought to raise the cutoff to an IQ of 160.  

The fact that I have pointed this out has earned accusations of
"emotional attachment" to Christianity by Iikka.  I responded by
saying that my emotional attachment is only to decent intellectual
standards, which in Iikka's mind somehow confirms the correlation he
is trying to show.  (Ironically, he does not seem to mind that he may
have an "emotional attachment" to the idea that atheists are more
intelligent than theists.)

My friends, if a Christian came here and said, "On the basis of my 8
intelligent friends, who are all Christians, I conclude that
Christians in general are more intelligent that atheists," you'd flame
said Christians to ashes.  You'd certainly ask for more hard evidence
of such an assertion.  Yet I get flamed by the likes of Iikka, for
daring to question such questionable methodology.  I'm sorry if it
upsets you, but I have no intention of holding my fellow atheists to
standards less rigorous than the standards I would apply to Christians
making equivalently outrageous statements.  If you have good, solid,
statistically significant data in support of your position, then let's
have it Iikka!  Otherwise don't waste my time.

SD
 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Distribution: world,public
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 00:35:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.162821.4675@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>
>This is still statistically insignificant, anecdotal evidence.

1000 people statistically insignificant?

>Sorry, I thought this was a rhetorical question related to your sentence 
>"Proof?" above.
>Now I will say that, given the context, I don't understand what you are asking.
>What is the point I'm evading?

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.

>: >Where is your statistical study of this area of intelligence?
>:
>: On my desk.
>
>Could you post the results and email a copy to me?

No thanks. Only to a person who does something with them.

>Given that Mr. Doe and I are arguing that your personal experiences are not 
>significant, pointing to your belief and saying that Xians will suppress 
>evidence is begging the question.

If you don't find my experiences significant, why don't you have some experien-
ces for yourself. This isn't a thesis or anything, just a sincere observation.
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?

>: People tend to believe what they have most proof of. Intelligence is used to
>: deduce which of the options is the 'most' correct.
>
>Intelligence is used to decide which option is most workable.  Utility and 
>Truth are not necessarily synonymous.

So why on earth are you demanding a definition of intelligence, when you are
giving one yourself?

>: And the stuff in the Bible is pointless without proper study. Gotcha.
>
>I'll also ask the Xians for proof of their assertions.  When the Xians state 
>that god exists, we in this group ask for corroboration independent of their 
>holy texts.  When you state that Atheists are more intelligent than Xians, it
>is reasonable for people to ask you for corroboration independent of your
>circle of friends.

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.

>-- 
>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: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 01:43:30 GMT

Stephen Doe (sdoe@nmsu.edu) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec19.224717.1993@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka
 Paavolainen) writes:
: >Am I seeing wrongly, or is there a connection between one's IQ and one's
: >religiousness? Of all people I know, I know only about 8 exceptionally smart
: >people (IQ>125), and all of them happen to be atheists. On the contrary, the

: >dumbest people I've seen (eg. unable to use a remote control) are the most
: >religious. Observing other atheists that I don't know (from this group for
: >example) leads me to make a conclusion that on the average, atheists have a
: >much better sense of logic (and thus usually have a higher IQ) and think muc
h
: >more clearly than religious people. From my own experiences, I can say that
: >freeing oneself from the grasp of religion requires a certain level of logic
al
: >thinking. Coincidentally, all these 8 people are mathematically gifted.
: >When I speak of atheism here, I mean it to be a lack of belief in any god or
: >superstition.
: >Opinions?
: >
: >BTW, if this offended you, go to a church instead of coming to alt.atheism.
: >--
: > __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
: >/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
: >\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
: >   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
:
: Ah, here's the first post in the series.  Well, old bean, in this
: first post you didn't:
:
: tell us the size of your sample (later you say it's 1000)
:
: tell us how you prevented any bias from creeping into your
: observations (oh, that's right, you're not biased at all.  Yeah,
: right, give me a break)
:
: tell us how the sample was selected
:
: tell us how you determined degree of religiousness, and IQ, for the
: 1000 person sample you later refer to
:
: etc.

You also proved that Iikka referred to 8 friends.  A point he kept denying!!!

:
: Do you see what I am getting at now?
:
: At most, tentative observations like this should prompt us to see if
: such a correlation exists.  In and of itself, this just doesn't cut it
: as a "proof" of your correlation, not without a lot more to back it
: up.  This isn't a bedtime story, you can't just make sweeping
: generalizations on the basis of such flimsy evidence.  Ah, but I
: forget, my emotional commitment to decent intellectual standards and
: fairness have blinded me to the Gospel as propounded by Iikka
: Paavolainen.
:
: It still seems to me that this correlation is just being used as a
: convenient device to dismiss theists with the wave of a hand.  Ad
: hominem all the way.
:
: SD
-- 
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. |
From: joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Date: 2 Jan 93 03:48:45 GMT
Organization: The Courts of Chaos

In article <1992Dec31.164029.7377@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>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:
>
>OK, how about Mark 9:1.  Or are you saying that there is a 2000 year old person
>walking around somewhere?


"I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before
they see the kingdom of God come with power".

This could be referring to the Transfiguration or maybe even the day of
Pentecost.  The verses prior to it (8:34-38) suggest the Transfiguration.


>Mike McAngus 			 | You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 


-- 
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
|Joe.Beiter@arden.linet.org               The Long Island Network Project   |
|The Courts of Chaos Semi-Public Access   Long Island New York: USA         |
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Women. . . SHUT UP!
X-Sender: newtout 0.05 Dec 30 1992
Date: 01 Jan 93  10:48:10

Who: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
ID: <nyikos.725160159@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
And mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
 
>> "Of course not, consider RCAR (Religious Coalition for
>> Abortion Rights?) and Catholics for Choice.
 
PN> "How about posting stats on membership in these two
PN> organizations?
 
Why don't you just CALL them? Also call "Prayerfully Pro-Choice
Coalition" here in Orange County. There are several large "Catholics
for Choice" groups in Orange County and Los Angeles. Since you wonder
what their membership is, get off your lazy butt and and ask them.
 
PN> "And how about posting documentation that these people are not
PN> atheists?"
 
Gee, you're more dense than usual. Catholics are -NOT- atheists,
they are theists. Most Pro-Choice people are Christians, though
not all Pro-Choice people are Christians, or theists. Several
members in the group I'm associated with are Jewish. The Jews are
there because, as one Holocaust survivor in this Pro-Choice group
put it, she did not want to see Christians bring about another Nazi
Germany here in America. The Christians are there because they are
ashamed of how their errant sisters and brothers of the faith are
behaving--- terrorizing little girls and women, bombing medical
facilities, smashing windows, using "stealth tactics" in local
elections to force their occultism into public education, just
to name a few "worldly" acts of evil.
 
The TRUE Christians are the ones defending a woman's and girl's
rights to be self-determinate, and the right to choose to abort
her pregnancy if she decides to. The anti-Christians are the ones
who seek to destroy these fundamental rights, and bring about another
Age of Darkness, where a woman has no rights save to remain barefoot,
pregnant, and dependent upon her male masters.
 
PN> Anyone can call themselves "Religious" and "Catholic" [note
PN> absence of words like "Roman" and "Greek Orthodox"] in these
PN> free-for-all times."
 
And who the bloody hell are you to say whom is or is not Catholic
and or religious? The Pro-Choice coalition I support has several
dozen Christians as members--- they defend womens' clinics via
not only putting their bodies between their Christofascist brothers
(i.e. people like you and "Operation 'Rescue'") and the girls and
women said Christofascists terrorize, but they also pray that God
will soften the hearts of Christofascists like you, and learn a
little compassion and a lot of ethical and moral behavior.
 
To demand that a girl or woman reproduce, is an utmost EVIL, and
must be countered by any means available.
 
PN> Peter Nyikos
PN> Cc: cash@zeppelin.convex.com, with a request to e-mail me
PN> follow-ups.

--- Maximus 2.01wb
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Abortion: When does life begin?
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:26:50 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <ednclark.725007794@kraken> 
ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

>>>> The abortion issue really boils down to a question of CONTROL
>>>> and DOMINATION by rich, powerful white males, of women, to continue

>>> The polls tend to indicate that 'rich, white males' support  
>>> abortion rights much more so than the general population.

>> I think he might be talking about *really rich* white males, who,
>> [...] have the ability to make great masses of other people, 
>> especially poorly educated and religious people, hold the
>> "correct" opinions.

So tell me, who are these 'really rich white males' who have
manipulated the opinions of the masses?   I'm really interested 
in finding out how they managed to do it.  Do they hide in
people's closets, and jump out to hypnotize people into believing
that they should oppose abortion?  

> I think  he is probably referring to the vote chasers, who happen to be 
> very rich white males.  They read surveys like the one above and consider 
> how many votes they will get if they publically assert an opinion for or 
> against abortion. 

How awful!  Politicians are actually listening to peoples'
opinions on abortion!  This must be stopped at once!   


Doug Holtsinger
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Oops (was Omniscience)
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:22:20 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA13198; Mon, 21 Dec 92 10:49:44 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA13884; Mon, 21 Dec 92 10:49:41 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0511; Mon, 21 Dec 92 19:48:58 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

My previous post was quoted wrongly. It should have begun with:
...............................................................................
>>
>> From the definitions of my Catholic youth. Omnipotent meant being able to do
>> absolutely everything and anything.
>>
>Yes, but not absolutely everything and anything for all time.  It's
>the "for all time" bit I'm asking about.

No, it included all the time. Omnipotent was restricted by nothing, as
restrictions and omnipotence (tm) do not go along.

...............................................................................
   Benedikt
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Violence in the bible?
Date: 25 Dec 92 16:51:33 GMT
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland

I remember someone saying (in this newsgroup) that in some part of the old
(or was it new?) testament god commanded some people to kill or destroy others.
Where was this exactly in the Bible?

--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 24 Dec 92 04:29:05 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

[reply to noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com]
 
>>We atheists of course avoid this problem because we deny the existence
>>of a soul or any other kind of mind/body duality.  Killing is wrong in
>>our view not because it deprives a soul of its human body but because
>>it deprives a sentient being of the experience of life.  The more
>>sentient the being, the worse the crime.  Killing an adult ape is thus
>>worse than killing a fetus which is not yet capable of any self-
>>awareness.  In our eyes, it is morally inconsistent to be against
>>abortion unless one is also a vegitarian.
 
>Oh , so *that's* what we atheists believe!  :->
 
Well, um, actually I started out assuming that most atheists would agree
with the first two sentences.  What comes after that is admittedly my own
reasoning.  The 'our' in 'In our eyes' just kinda slipped in there. :-).
 
>Actually, I have to disagree.  Perhaps its arrogant of me, but I'll
>pick the human over the animal any day, no matter the sentience level
>invovled.  If you had a chance to save a baby or a grown gorilla from
>an onrushing truck, which would you pick?  I also support animal
>research on the grounds that it saves human lives.
 
Saving a baby is quite a bit different from saving a fetus which has no
meaningful brain function.  I think it would be morally preferable to
do an experiment requiring that the subject be sacrificed afterward
on a permanently comatose human rather than an animal.  However, if my
wife were pregnant with a wanted pregnancy and it was a question of
saving her fetus as opposed to saving a gorilla, I'm sure I would choose
the former.  It is the same situation ethically as if you were given a
choice of having your child or two strangers killed.  I can't imagine a
parent who would pick the first choice, but wouldn't an system of ethics
that considered this to be moral be necessarily internally inconsistent?
 
I have been struggling with these questions lately.  I see no
qualitative distinction between the consciousness of man and other
higher mammals, only a quantitative one.  I believe from my own
observations that animals can comprehend death and have a sense of self,
a view supported by research on gorillas.  Given that, I can't see how
there is any ethical difference between killing and eating a pig and a
severely retarded human.  Since we would never do the latter, we
shouldn't do the former.  I will admit that I haven't put this into
practice.  I'm not a vegitarian.  I support the use of experimental
animals.  Yet I feel vaguely guilty about both of these positions.
 
Is there a philosopher in the house?

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas)
Subject: Re: Violence in the bible?
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 05:21:03 GMT

joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter) writes:
>schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes:
>>Interesting!  So, in summary, the Bible calls for the death penalty 
>>in these cases:
>>o  Murder
>>o  Witchcraft
>etc...
>>Comments, Xians?
>This applied to the jews for the jews to carry out.  The jews were to be 
>submissive to the law.  A death sentance is not 'murder' but justice.
>It is made clear from book one that the wages for sin is death.

So are you saying you think it's fine to kill people because they
have broken the laws as set out out in the bible?  Be honest.

Martin
--
Your eyes are weary from staring at the screen.  Your eyelids feel very heavy.
You feel sleepy. Notice how restful it is to watch the cursor blink. Close your
eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt
otherwise.  When you awake you will follow up this post and enthusiastically
agree with it.  Then you will send all your money to martin@cs.curtin.edu.au.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism