HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Removing "god" from morality. (was: Moral liberty)
Date: 3 Jan 93 10:31:28 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

In article <765346d7014974t228@witsend.uucp> "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com> writes:
              [ Stuff I wrote deleted ]
>
>  Dream on!  The classic phrase is "*enlightened* self interest."
>  As the parent of ADHD kids, I can assure you that knowing what
>  is in your own interest and seeing your way to doing it are
>  two quite different things.  (The example that springs to mind
>  is of an occasion two weeks ago when I took two of the three
>  to a party.  The third, despite knowing that I couldn't be
>  late and repeated reminders, simply wouldn't get ready.)
>
What is ADHD? I'm confused. I don't have trouble doing what I choose to do.
Does ADHD have something to do with this? Did you ask your third child what
his or her reasons were for not getting ready? How did he or she feel about
getting ready?
                 [ More stuff I wrote deleted ]
>
>  As I said above, this simply won't work reliably.  There are
>  innumerable examples of behavior which we KNOW we should change,
>  but don't.  What DOES work is directing behavior until the
>  desired patterns are ingrained.  Ask any animal trainer, or
>  teacher who works with LD kids (no, I'm NOT equating them!)
>
Maybe you misunderstand me here. I'm not advocating getting children
to behave the way they should, but rather the way they want. I think it is 
the parents' obligation to show the child how a behavior is in the self
interest of the child. I don't think the child should be required to do 
anything that is not in his or her enlightened best interest. This is just
a recognition that ultimately the child chooses how he or she will behave.
The child is not an extension of the parent. I think an important step is
teaching the child that every action has consequences. I'm suggesting
that both the parent and the child can benefit from the child's enlightened
self interest. I don't think the child's enlightenment can come through
telling the child what he or she should do, but rather two way
communication, as opposed to one way discussions.

>  You appear to have fallen into the romantic notion (central to
>  Xtianity) of the dominance of thought over action.  Wrong-o.
>  (See the "Torture and the mind: _Star Trek_ vs. _1984_" thread.)
>  This is a particularly Xtian dogma; even other Abrahamic religions
>  don't share the form which has shaped so much of Western culture.
>
I agree that the mind is influenced by external events, such as being 
tortured, reading a book, or making love. Thought still has dominance over
action. I think this is true in spite of being christian dogma. I'll bet
that at least 5% to 10% of christianity has some value. Not too much money
though, I'm poor.

                      -John David Munch
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Religion = Anything that's fun is bad.
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 09:34:41 GMT

Simon Clippingdale (simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk) wrote:
: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish):
: > --
: > Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |
: > parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
: 
: 
: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale):
: > Boy, now there is a patronising, condescending, righteous, sickening,
: > vacuous, tautological, holier-than-thou, whining, irritating, pompous,
: > pious and altogether thoroughly obnoxious .signature if I've ever seen one.
: 
: 
: Brian Kendig (bskendig@netcom.com):
: > No, actually, I rather like it!  I've been seriously thinking of
: > adding it to my own .sig.  "The truth is the truth even if you choose
: > to ignore it."  This is especially true for Christians, who ignore the
: > truth in favor of devoting their lives to cleverly-constructed fairy
: > tales detailed in a book that also tells them how they should live
: > their lives -- because, after all, it's easier to try to interpret the
: > words in a way you like than it is to take responsibility for your own
: > actions, isn't it?
: 
: 
: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus):
: > I'm game. Let's have all atheists use this line as part of our .sig's. Then

: > we can identify each other in the other news groups. The gays and lesbians 
: > have their triangles, we can have this quote.
: > -- 
: > Mike A. McAngus (mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)| The train today to Morrow leaves to
day
: > The Truth is still the Truth          | at 8:35.  At half-past ten tomorrow
 is
: > even if you choose to ignore it.      | the time it should arrive.
: >                                       |                    The Kingston Tri
o
: 
: 
: Well gee whiz and golly gosh and all Mike, but ummm, don't you think that
: might just possibly piss Scott right off? We wouldn't want that. Would we?
: 
: Christmas Cheer / Bah Humbug
: 
: Simon
: -- 
: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
: The Truth is still the Truth even if you choose to ignore it.
: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Well, it took three days for me to see responses to this.  I used that .sig for
1 1/2 days then changed and now I've changed back. :^)  Nice to know what the 
turnaround time is.
-- 
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.
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 22 Dec 92 00:47:46 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Dec21.135856.5629@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>
>More often than not, the intelligent person will be drawn away from Christian-
>ity after discovering these contradictions. Thus, he/she is 99% sure that the
>stuff in the bible is false. Only if he/she wants to create a 'false God',
>try to convince himself of the existence of God, to give a sense of security
>and happiness, will he/she revert to Christianity.
>As the saying goes, people want to make themselves believe the better more than
>the worse, no matter how irrational it might seem.
>

  A cursory glance at modern Catholocism and some forms of
  Protestantism should show you that you don't even need to be in the 
  top quartile of intelligence to create false gods.  You don't have
  to be drawn away from Christianity in the face of contradictions.
  Instead, you have the option of re-molding Christianity. These churches
  have thrown off the literalistic interpretation of the Bible.
  They have, in many cases, dispensed with any meaningful concept of
  hell.  They have created a god who is indeed all loving,
  mysterious; a god who does offer salvation even to those
  who do not believe, never-you-mind what the Bible says.

  As mankind's collective intelligence increases, god gets further
  relegated to the cracks.  I'm afraid, however, that there will
  always be those who can keep finding those ever smaller crevices
  in which to stick him.  If religion in the world dies, it will be
  a slow and painful death for us all.

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

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: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: Violence in the bible?
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 00:17:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.210451.6935@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>No trouble.  In what "different way" do you look at it?  And what does you friend
>think now?

It suddenly seems like such a savage/brutal tome. I'll have to inspect it more
closely sometime.

Like I said, it was a mite too late: my friend left for home; she lives a few
hundred kilometers from where I live.
Maybe next time... 8)

--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/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: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: I.Q. & Brains
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 06:20:57 GMT

In <1992Dec30.051751.22583@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:

>>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.

>While you may consider these possible reasons, there are plenty of
>further possible reasons.

>You forget about the possibility of a religious experience or
>mystic experience specific to the person who experiences it.  Such an
>experience may give a specific individual the rational reasons to be
>religious.  However, such a person's reasons, while rational to him/her,
>cannot be sensibly challenged by others as they have not had the same
>experience as s/he did.

Also, another reason an intelligent person may be "religious" (I do not 
necessarily mean Christian, but religious in a general sense) is 
because s/he is comfortable with, say, a belief 
in a God, and with a lack of evidence for or against such a
belief, chooses the belief that is most comfortable to him/her.  I
personally see no problem with this reason for religiosity, as it is
simply a personal choice in what one is comfortable with in a situation
where there is no evidence either for or against a particular position.  

(I know some will shout "Occam's Razor", but this does not make the 
above reason for religiosity either wrong or illogical.)

 Fred Rice
 darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 21 Dec 92 13:58:56 GMT
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland

In article <ofBEMFy00Uh_I2BY9m@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>    Though I agree with the general idea behind Mr/s. Paavolainen's
>post, that intelligence deters religious belief, I think that when a
>intelligent person is ensnared into a religion that they are most
>devout.  
>    Let me attempt to explain the mechanism that makes them devout. 
>Let's consider christian believers since I am most familar with
>christianity. The Bible has much silliness and contradictions.  The
>intelligent christian will have more ability to conjure up some way of
>making silly passages seem intelligent and some way of reconciling
>seeming contradictions than would a stupid christian.  By the act of
>making the Bible make sense to himself, the intelligent christian has
>reenforced his own belief in the Bible as the truth.  Thus, the
>intelligent christian has a greater stake in christianity than does the
>stupid christian.

More often than not, the intelligent person will be drawn away from Christian-
ity after discovering these contradictions. Thus, he/she is 99% sure that the
stuff in the bible is false. Only if he/she wants to create a 'false God',
try to convince himself of the existence of God, to give a sense of security
and happiness, will he/she revert to Christianity.
As the saying goes, people want to make themselves believe the better more than
the worse, no matter how irrational it might seem.

>    If my theory is right, then it has implication for atheists who
>argue with chirstians on this bboard or elsewhere.  By poiniting out a
>contradiction in the Bible to the intelligent christian, we may simply
>be conditioning him to have greater faith in christianity.  (Atheist
>should not forget that a clever mind can always find some way to justify
>even the most blatant of contradictions.  This is called apologetics.)
>

For an intelligent person to achieve this state, he/she must have an extra-
ordinary personality/will. Believe me, this kind of person is rare.

>Michael Loomis


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/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: patc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Pat Caldon)
Subject: Re: An open question on the A.A FAQ/Intro ...
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 01:30:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.204710.14651@dbased.nuo.dec.com> news@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson) writes:
>    As a guarantee in advance, this is NOT a covert attempt to proselytize.

Thankyou!

>
>        Q:  For anyone (currently an atheist) who has had this experience
>            (having spent time in prayer trying to reach God), what did it
>            mean for you to have tried to reach God?  (In other words what
>            were you praying for and what sort of answer were you hoping
>            to receive?)

I had at one point "found" God, and believed, in the sense that I believed
entirely in the validity of the scriptures and the creeds. I prayed for
just about everything from family cohesion to personal understanding. I also
prayed that I might "grow closer" to God. The answers that I was hoping to
receive are pretty much obvious.

>    One point from the outline was that some people are atheists because in
>    the course of their education, they are influenced by authority-figures
>    (particularly in the realm of science) who are also atheists -- which
>    is to say that some follow the course of their 'intellectual superiors'
>    due to the fact that they ARE viewed as authorities (which, I believe,
>    is similar to the notion that some people become religious because the
>    authority figures in their life are also religious).  If anyone has
>    something to say on this point, I'd be willing to listen to it as well.

The only "authority figure" that I listened to in any sense was T. Lucretius.
I was very much impressed with his writing and his views on religion. Although
he is "an authority-figure in the realm of science" I doubt very much if it
was the science that had an effect on me. The lines which had the greatestr
effect were those in book5 ll 1169-1203, where he questions the piety of
those doing ridiculous things in the name of the gods.

-- 
Pat Caldon.            |  The Mercy Seat is Burning, And I think my Head is 
patc@extro.ucc.su.oz.au| turning, and deep inside I'm longing to be done with
3:714/908.5@fidonet.org| all this weighing up of truth...  -- Nick Cave
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Distribution: world,public
Date:  4 Jan 93 02:38:45 GMT

rkoehler@author.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bob Koehler) writes:

>In article <aaronk.219.725650703@county.lmt.mn.org>, aaronk@county.lmt.mn.org (Aaron S. Kurland) writes...

>[...]

>>From The MENSA FAQ (note religious affiliation below):
>> 

>[...]

>>  49% Christian, 3% Unitarian, 9% Jewish, 7% agnostic, 3.6% atheist,
>>  9% no religion
>> 

>  So OK, atheists maybe are not joiners.  They didn't "join" the popular
>  concept that a deity exists, they didn't join a church, and they (maybe)
>  don't join MENSA.  I'm sure I qualify for membership in MENSA, but my ego 
>  doesn't need it.

This is quite possible. I am an atheist Mensan but I only joined at the
absolute low point of my academic career. I did very very poorly in my
undergraduate degree (got kicked out twice from BSc before finally enrolling
in BA and accidentally completing it before I could get back into the BSc,
however I am doing much better in my post-graduate studies and have landed a
research job) and looked to have no job prospects and a shattered confidence
(not in myself but in other's view of me), so I joined Mensa and it did help
me to get my job. However I would not have joined otherwise (eg if I had
done very well in my u/g degree and would have walked into a job). 

Just as an aside I have contributed to rec.org.mensa and whilst there I
noticed that all seemed to be atheist/agnostic types, also reading the
literature from Mensa, most contributors have an atheism/agnostic bend. To
say that half are christians surprises me greatly.

Jeff.

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24771 talk.religion.misc:24943 alt.pagan:14825
From: popec@freeside.com (PopeC)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: did I like miss your point?
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 05:46:12 CST
Organization: Rivendell BBS / Hou, TX. / +1 713 941 2236

jginther@epas.utoronto.ca (James Ginther) writes:

> In article <C073MM.IA8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
> (B.A. Davis-Howe) writes: (some deleted)
> >
> >  As for the use of
> >Latin, it was used by scholars as the universal language, however, it was 
> >against Canon Law in the Roman Church for anyone who was not a priest to
> >interpret the scriptures, and it was forbidden to translate it into any
> >laguage of the people.  The official position was that people, if they read
> >the scriptures directly, would misinterpret them and disagree with the Roman
> >Church.
> 
> Fascinating.  I am quite curious, though, as to exactly where in Canon
> Law this may be found.  Is it found in Gratian's Decretum or does it
> appear even earlier than that? And if so, in what major collection? I
> don't remember seeing this, but I would be happy to be instructed if I
> have missed it. 
> 
> 
> 
> J.R. Ginther
> Centre for Medieval Studies
> 
> ________________________________________
> If I had any opinions that counted, they
> would be my own.
> ________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


Perhaps if you were to research the trial and execution of William 
Tyndall for the translation and printing of the scriptures, you may find 
the laws that were used to justify this execution.  That Tyndall was 
executed in Holland is known, and that it was his printing of the new 
testament that was his crime is also known.

**********************************************************************
* Pope Charles - Subgenius pope Of Houston & The Golden Triangle Area*
*       Laughing at everything in the Universe, including the        *
*       concept of laughing at everything in the Universe.           *
*               rivdell.sccsi.com    Houston, Texas                  *
**********************************************************************
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: In Job, Lucifer was proved right!
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 13:09:32 GMT

David Butler (alpinist@eskimo.com) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec30.221033.22612@zeus.franklin.edu> scruggs@zeus.franklin.e
du (Kevin Scruggs) writes:
: >In article <1hspfdINNl1o@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell T
urpin) writes:
: >>Oh, the morals that can be drawn from this story!  Lucifer was
: >>proved right about Job and Yahweh wrong.  Does this mean that we
: >>should take Yahweh's attitudes about how people are and what they
: >>can be with a grain of salt?  Does the story show that Yahweh
: >>does not know as much about the people he created as he thinks he
: >>does?
: >  It brings up an interesting question: if one's actions can be
: >predicted with certainty (by even a deity) can it be said that free will
: >really exists?...
:
: I can look at my past and see exactly what choices I made.  I know with
: certainty what I have already done.  Does that mean I did not have free
: will at the time?  If the past can be fixed and free will still exist,
: then why would free will not exist just because the future is fixed?
: Or in other words, if I know what choices I already made and had free
: will at the time - couldn't the choices I will make be known and still
: be the result of free will?

Ah, but if your future is fixed do you really have free will, or just the 
illusion of free will?  Are you a free agent or just an actor playing out a 
previously prepared script?  If the Xian god exists, can you surprise god?
-- 
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
From: joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Date: 2 Jan 93 01:26:23 GMT
Organization: The Courts of Chaos

In article <1992Dec31.131034.14786@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.234815.25495@arden.linet.org> joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter) writes:
>[much deletia]
>>
>>assuming of course God is a figment of my imagination.  Question: if my
>
>If ever there were a reason to read the FAQ before posting, this is it.
>When you post meaningless drivel in support of chritianity, the atheist
>has no choice but to assume you are prostlatyzing.

I read the FAQ (pretty damm boaring).  Like I said, if you don't appreciate
my 'meaningless drivel' then don't ask me about it.  I'm here to observed
the viewpoint of "Joe Atheist".  If for some bizzare reason you find my
interaction offensive or nausiating... please feel quite free to hit
the 'ol (N)ext key.  It would really cut down on the useless and plentifull
"Gads you make me sick" chatter.

>By the way, I am extremely interested in finding out why you are so 
>convinced that there are no invisible pink unicorns prancing about in
>my attic. I am, of course, making here an assumption about your beliefs.
>If you believe otherwise, I apologize.

Exactly what I mean about interaction.  I respond to this which in turn
someone else thinks I'm "shoving God down there throut". 

But if you are serious about your question,  For One: you seem to be the
only one claiming you have invisible pink unicorns in your attic.

I'm not sure what you assumed but yes I am a "Christian".

-- 
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
|Joe.Beiter@arden.linet.org               The Long Island Network Project   |
|The Courts of Chaos Semi-Public Access   Long Island New York: USA         |
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 03:45:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.161954.8588@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.172158.11967@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>n>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 
>>
>
>What if we lift the limit to 160?

Or 200?  What, are we talking about eligiblity for Mensa or something?

SD