HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:34:37 GMT

>dobbs@ast.saic.com (Lynn Dobbs) writes:
>>What we need is a new word to describe a person who doesn't care
>>it there is a god and wouldn't worship one if it existed. I don't
>>fear a possible existence of a god, I just don't care. My rather
>>strong reaction of in-the-face fundamentalists is based solely in
>>their desire to be in-my-face. Actually, Individualist may be the
>>correct word!
   I find this most puzzling... If you knew of the presence of a God and you
attributed your existance to this entity, how could you ignore an reject
that which created you? Now only is this naive and childish, but it seems
exceptionally ungrateful, and narrow sighted. If you were sure there was 
a God then how could you reject all that you him? I can clearly see you are
not an individualist, but a secular humanist more appropriately. Your
concern is solely for the self. 
   Are you aware how dangerous and vindictive your selfish and blind
mentality can be to our society? If you reject the hand that feeds you, how
quick will you be to feed the hand that beckons you? You my friend are a
Yuppie, and beyond that - a selfish one. I think the fall of western
civilization will come solely because mankind does not "Do unto others as he
would have them do unto you." From what you have told me, if you would
reject the God that made you, would you reject the friend that aids you? You
disappoint me, and I hope you have left your terminal unattended.

Steve Franklin
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: The Mega Test
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:23:40 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <01GSCALOR5JM9VVHVS@ccfvx3.draper.com>, Kjeld Hvatum writes:

> Not at all.  The item has demonstrated at least fairly good content
> validity.  In other words, it was answered "correctly" by the great
> majority of those who did very well on the rest of the Mega Test,
> including those who did well on questions requiring only logic.

This is true, although irrelevant, since a question could certainly
correlate well with score and still be provably wrong, as I know
you're aware.

> Finally, let me concede that item #25 may be flawed in the way it
> operates for a significant minority of people who "should" have gotten
> it right.

As an interesting data point, the only two non-verbal questions among
those I submitted answers to that I got wrong were (with a very high
degree of certainty) #25 and #26!

> Perhaps you could even convince the author that it's a bad question.
> But I don't see how you can make something a lot cleaner.  If
> you invent a similar item, someone else will probably find some other
> objection to it.

Not really.  The other 10 spatial problems (with the possible exception
of #30) are quite good.  Why not have two more questions like them?
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618

"S.B., with an I.Q. of 161, failed to complete his course of study,
running away instead with his professor's wife."
H. J. Eysenck, _Know Your Own I.Q._
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: S106495@UMRVMA.umr.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:59:29 GMT
Organization: Univ of MO - Rolla

I think something that should be asked here is: if a group of
people have a higher IQ, than are they automatically considered to be
right?  I would say that 1) IQ is a fickle concept at best, not all
factors in human intelligence, such as background, style of thinking,
openness to ideas, and honesty to self and others in reporting them, are
measurable. 2) Even if one gruop has a higher intelligence (by whatever
definition you put on it), that does not put their arguments much
further above scrutiny than any other group.  The educated people are
still human and prone to error.  I don't care how many high-iq people
are athiests or religious so much as WHY they are so.  Statistics have
innumerable possible falls (such as post facto ergo ex facto(the
barometer making rain) and whether or not mensa has an UNUSUALLY high
number of athiests/theists or is just a representative sample of the
population.My own view about religion is I have had a "religious
experience" but still have had doubts about my faith at times.  I
believe such things are not well understandable (agnostic think it is
called).  All I know is God is at best subtle about how he reveals
himself, else he/she/them would have made us more able to believe.

    -Mike Belrose, U of MO-rolla
From: clong@romulus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: The Mega Test
Date: 13 Dec 92 08:42:11 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <01GS5NNTYXG29VUY4S@ccfvx3.draper.com>, Kjeld Hvatum writes:

> You seem to be insisting that an item must have a provably
> correct answer.  If so, you have to throw out a lot of IQ test
> items, many of ETS's SAT verbal analogies, etc.

Unlike the Mega Test, the SAT may be taken as many times as you
wish, and no one was ever excluded from anything due to a single
missed question on the SAT.  This makes quite a difference, as I'm
sure you'll agree.
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618

"S.B., with an I.Q. of 161, failed to complete his course of study,
running away instead with his professor's wife."
H. J. Eysenck, _Know Your Own I.Q._
From: exujbl@exu.ericsson.se (Jerry Blackerby 214-907-7810)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Math Problem
Date: 17 Dec 92 13:27:12 GMT
Reply-To: exujbl@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

Several years ago, Scientific American ran a Martin Gardner series on
math problems.  Several columns that he presented used the number 4 and
various mathematical symbols to equate to different totals.  He published
them with 2 fours, 3 fours, and 4 fours.  As I seem to remember, with
4 fours he could show all totals from 1 to well above 100 using the
various math symbols.  

Does anyone remember this?  Is it published in any of his books, and
if so, where?

Thanks,

Jerry

==================================_=====================================
|| Jerry Blackerby          ||   | ~~   ||  Practice random kindness  ||
|| 214-907-7810 (w)         ||  \,  _}  ||  and senseless acts of     ||
|| exujbl@exu.ericsson.se   ||    \(    ||  beauty.                   ||
========================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Followupsto: rec.org.mensa,alt.atheism
Organization: University of Central Florida
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:59:46 GMT

crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford) writes:
>>I do, by the way, believe that there is a positive correlation between
>>intelligence and atheism, but to me it's always seemed akin to the way
>>some people, particularly young people, try to be "different" by adopting
>>the same patterns as the group of people with which they want to associate.
>>In other words, atheism seems to be the "in" thing among the intellectual
>>elites, so those who wish to seem intelligent frequently adopt atheism
>>so that they may scorn those "stupid" enough to believe in God.  

>Agreed.  For right or wrong, it's fashionable among intelligensia.

Hogwash.  This smacks of a blatant attempt to explain away a trait of
your peer group that you do not share.  It is my suggestion that you engage
some atheists in conversation to find out why they became that way before
you make sweeping generalizations of this sort.  I think you will find
that most of them became atheists through quiet introspection of their
beliefs, rather than any kind of social pressure.

>Frankly, it seems to me that among highly rational persons, there should be 
>few or no atheists.

>Those who consider themselves christian do so, in my opinion, for reasons
>other than logical ones.  Family values and upbringing or an emotional
>resonse to cultural pressures seem to me to be the primary motivators in 
>producing christian convictions.  As every christian I've ever respected 
>has told me, christianity is a faith, not a logical consequence.  In order 
>to believe in the existence of a god, one has to prefer that explanation 
>to all others on grounds which are fundamental to the heart and not the 
>intellect.  It is inherently illogical to conclude with confidence in the 
>existence of a god based on the evidence available to us.  A purely rational 
>being would _not_ decide with finality that a god does or does not exist.

Hmmm... Has anyone seen my Occam's Razor around?

>Therefore, to be an atheist OR a christian is an equally illogical leap of
>faith.  The truly rational individual is an agnostic; they conclude that
>insufficient data is available to decide that a god is or is not.

Let me ask -- are you an agnostic about Santa Claus, or do you flat out
not believe in him?

mark
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: The Mega Test
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:32:54 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <01GSC9K9BS7M9VX7CB@ccfvx3.draper.com>, Kjeld Hvatum writes:

> Throw in the LAIT, the LIGHT, and the Quest Test, which just appeared in
> OMNI (Dec 1992), and you have more tests than I can imagine anyone
> wanting to take.

Does the Mega Society accept all the above tests?  I thought they
accepted just two.  I was planning on sending in my answers to be
included in the Omni report, but if the Mega Society will accept the
results I'll probably sit on it until I can get some more work done
(I'm at about the 54/59 mark now; anyone else working on this?).

>>and no one was ever excluded from anything due to a single
>>missed question on the SAT.  This makes quite a difference, as I'm
>>sure you'll agree.

> That's absurd.

You're correct, of course.  I only meant to refer to the very top
scores on the SAT.  The difference between a 42 and a 43 on the
Mega Test is quite dramatic; no one has ever been excluded from
anything for getting a 1550 instead of a 1560 on the SAT.
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618

"S.B., with an I.Q. of 161, failed to complete his course of study,
running away instead with his professor's wife."
H. J. Eysenck, _Know Your Own I.Q._
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 05:17:00 GMT

cjdcosta@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER J DCOSTA) writes:
>>>   Are you aware how dangerous and vindictive your selfish and blind
>>>mentality can be to our society? If you reject the hand that feeds you, how
>>>[...]
>>	You are right that the mentality you describe is destructive.  You are
>>not right, in my view, in judging him to have that mentality.  He merely 
>>rejects the Judeo-Christian (and some others) idea that God *wants* something
>>from us, rather than being above what words we whisper at night.

>Whoa, Matt. Firstly, the triple-quote is by Lynn Dobbs, who, unless I'm badly 
>mistaken, is a 'her'. 
Oops.  Terribly sorry, Lynn.

>Secondly, what is touted above as a Judeo-Christian idea 
>may be more accurately described as a misconception shared by far too many of 
>the Judeo-Christian sects. Thirdly, I believe Lynn is entitled to her views
>and whether she cares about her creator or not is her business. 
I never said she is not.  Just because I characterize a view negatively does
not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that I think she should be forced
to change that view.  She is certainly entitled to it.  I doubt I implied 
otherwise, but if I did, I am sorry.

>One little observation on the 'I don't fear, I don't care' aspect.. it's 
>interesting to see how brave people can be when it comes to 'standing up to 
>God'.. The idea that God could be intimidated to the point of wanting to hand 
>down retribution (..yeah, like lightening bolts) to the little human daring to 
>stick it's tongue out at Him is absurd. It's far more likely that He would be 
>amused at these poor mortal pretensions. The worst thing that could happen to 
>Lynn would be something like her getting a food dehydrator instead of a Mink 
>Coat for Christmas :-) Who said God can't play practical jokes? 
I agree with you completely about God not really being all that 'hurt' or 
prone to strike her down.  I still think, however, that to not care is...well,
I dunno.  It jsut sits bad with me.  I suppose it should just end there.

Peace,

______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc 
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: dtl8v@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Heracleitus)
Subject: Re: What is God? (Was: Atheism and Intelligence)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 17:09:30 GMT


  I've never heard of Martin, but I refer you to other famous minds who
have NOT palated atheism:

Immanuel Kant--Critique of Pure Reason--proved that the existence or
non-existence of God cannot be proven by philosophical reasoning of any
sort.  It's not a purely rational decision.

William James--On the Varieties of Religious Experience--showed how
religious faiths of many various sorts fit into a pragmatic
philosophical system that helps make decisions that are forced but
non-rational.

C.S. Lewis--Mere Christianity--explains the foundations of the
Christian doctrine in a non-sectarian way and refutes many
misunderstandings of how God's omnipotence could be consistent with
typical rational understandings of universal (natural) laws.

  Hope this broadens your perspective on the argument a little.


Doug Lamb
University of Virginia
dtl8v@Virginia.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: radams@bnr.ca (Rodney Adams)
Subject: Re: The Mega Test
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:17:40 GMT

In article <Dec.13.03.42.10.1992.5242@romulus.rutgers.edu> clong@romulus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
>In article <01GS5NNTYXG29VUY4S@ccfvx3.draper.com>, Kjeld Hvatum writes:
>
>> You seem to be insisting that an item must have a provably
>> correct answer.  If so, you have to throw out a lot of IQ test
>> items, many of ETS's SAT verbal analogies, etc.
>
>Unlike the Mega Test, the SAT may be taken as many times as you
>wish, and no one was ever excluded from anything due to a single
>missed question on the SAT.  This makes quite a difference, as I'm
>sure you'll agree.

Not exactly true.  While the SAT can indeed be taken as many times as
you would like, one never takes exactly the same test again.  Each
instance of the SAT will have different questions and may be normed
differently from other versions of the test.  Millions take ETS's 
tests each year, so there is no shortage of data with which to norm
the various versions of each of their tests.  If he's lucky, those
taking Hoeflin's tests in a given year may number in the hundreds,
so many multiple versions of the Mega Test are not feasible.  However,
I would not consider the Titan and Ultra tests as being different tests,
but rather as being different versions of the Mega test - all have the 
same number of questions and the same question types.  If you were to
take the same version of the SAT again, you would have an unfair 
advantage because of things like having more time with the reading
comprehension section because you're familiar with the passages or
having checked on a difficult analogy that you remembered from the first
time you took it.  With the Mega test, one gains additional information
about your answers by knowing how many you had answered correctly - 
information that someone taking the test for the first time would
not have available.

As for no one being excluded from anything due to a single missed question 
on the SAT, that's simply not true.  A single answer can make a difference
between 850 and 900 (the cutoff for some universities, I believe) or
between 1240 and 1250 (the cutoff for Mensa), etc.  While a single answer
alone may or may not count for a 10-point difference, a single answer
could at least, when rounding off the results, make such a difference.
If the norming of the Mega test is at all accurate, those being excluded
from something due to a single missed question on the SAT would be more
numerous than those being in your situation, i.e. being excluded (for now,
at least) from the Mega Society due to a single missed question on the
Mega test.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney G. Adams
The opinions expressed above are not necessarily those of my employer.
As if you didn't already know that....
From: J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: midnight/noon AM/PM?
Date: 21 Dec 92 02:13:46 GMT
 <BzD9Gt.2pC@world.std.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b1@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <BzD9Gt.2pC@world.std.com>
rhs@world.std.com (Richard H Schwartz) writes:

> I don't have the reference, but this was settled in court a few 
> years ago!  (I read it in the newspaper, so it must be true :-) )
> 
> Seems some town put up a sign:
> 
>  		  Metered Parking
> 	          Two Hour Limit
>                 Except 12 PM to 6AM
> 
> (or something similar).
> 
> Someone who parked longer than two hours in the middle of the 
> afternoon challenged the ticket.  The judge ruled that 12 PM
> is indeed 12 noon, but I think he let the ticket stand because
> the intent of the sign was clear despite the error.

Actually, the guy who fought the case appeared on "The Tonight Show" a
few years back -- he even brought in a picture of another sign at the
same location that stated 12:00 PM meant noon.

Unfortunately, Johnny Carson no longer hosts "The Tonight Show".


--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
"I should have known it would be bad vodka when all the label said was
'Russian Vodka'."
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: S106495@UMRVMA.umr.edu
Subject: s106495@umrvma
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:49:27 GMT
Organization: Univ of MO - Rolla

------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org (Ian Douglas)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Atheism and Intelligence
Date: 16 Dec 92 09:17:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: catpe.3353.2B30C983
Organization: FidoNet node 5:7102/119 - Zero 2 Infinity, CT

Hi all!

On 12 Dec 92, Lynn Dobbs wrote to All:

 LD> This does raise the question -- is intelligence correlated with curiosity?

Yes. Why do you think so :-)
I see it as always trying to tie up loose ends in my mind - to connect all the facts available to something else in my mind - to connect the networks and interconnections.
Geez, that was badly put...

 LD> --Lynn
 LD> "Who is John Galt?"

A good friend of mine....

Cheers, Ian


--  
INTERNET: Ian.Douglas@f119.n7102.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: simonich@croatia.eng.hou.compaq.com (Chris Simonich)
Subject: Re: midnight/noon AM/PM?
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:28:22 GMT

In article <01GSCK3O3Y1K9VXMSF@ccfvx3.draper.com> skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum) writes:
>
>>From: Roger Tipley <tipley@solo.eng.hou.compaq.com>
>>Message-ID: <1992Dec10.213608.7935@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>
>>
>>This question has been bandied about our hall for a few weeks.
>>Perhaps this august group could give us a definitive answer.
>>
>>We all agree which day the times 23:59:59.9 and 00:00:00.1 belong
>>to (the first is obviously P.M. of one day and the second is A.M.
>>of the next day).  The argument is about which day the instant of
>>midnight (24:00:00.000..) would be associated with.
>
>The practical answer is that digital clocks switch the day when they
>roll over all the digits.  Since digital clocks usually don't display
>fractions of a second, 12:00:00 a.m. is what they display for the whole
>first second of the new day.  It would be awkward to switch the day one
>second after the new day had started.
>

Uh, what if someone builds a clock that works a different way....we're
hosed.

--
======================================================
Christopher Simonich        simonich@twisto.compaq.com
Compaq Computer Corp.       [713] 374-1898

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 19:19:35 GMT

ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:

>schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes:
>>>Their focus of attention
>>>remains the same--on the idol.

>>Atheists are people who do not believe that the idol exists.  You can't
>>get much more different from a fundamentalist than that.

>Atheists believe the idol exists.  How could they deny religions exist?  They
>deny that the idol has any significance, however, since they think there is no
>God to back it up.  Instead, they see the idol as destructive, and wish it to 
>be gone (well, not in all cases, which is why the analogy is slightly flawed).

So, substituting 'religion' for 'idol', it is your claim that the focus of
religion is religion, and the focus of atheism is religion.  Wrong on both
counts.  

The focus of religion is on some higher power (assuming it exists).  While
many atheists are certainly anti-religion, that is clearly not their focus.
If religion were nonexistant, there wouldn't cease to be atheists.

mark
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: The Mega Test
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:43:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.132202.8998@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil) writes:
}For the fourth time, I request that Chris Long post a copy of the text
}of question 25 of the Mega Test and a description of any pictorial
}information in it.

He already did.  Wait for it.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                Do not meddle in the affairs of
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483  dragons, for you are crunchy
Santa Monica, CA  90405                        and go well with ketchup.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum)
Subject: Re: midnight/noon AM/PM?
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 09:48:00 GMT


>From: Roger Tipley <tipley@solo.eng.hou.compaq.com>
>Message-ID: <1992Dec10.213608.7935@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>
>
>This question has been bandied about our hall for a few weeks.
>Perhaps this august group could give us a definitive answer.
>
>We all agree which day the times 23:59:59.9 and 00:00:00.1 belong
>to (the first is obviously P.M. of one day and the second is A.M.
>of the next day).  The argument is about which day the instant of
>midnight (24:00:00.000..) would be associated with.

The practical answer is that digital clocks switch the day when they
roll over all the digits.  Since digital clocks usually don't display
fractions of a second, 12:00:00 a.m. is what they display for the whole
first second of the new day.  It would be awkward to switch the day one
second after the new day had started.

If you want to split mathematical hairs, argue about how it's
possible for 11:59:59.99999... p.m. of the old day and
12:00:00.00000... a.m. of the new day to be the same.  :-)