HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 03:59:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.235318.19058@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.170030.7556@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>>
>>>What if we lift the limit to 160?
>>>
>>
>>Only 1 pr 2000 or so has an IQ greater than 160. I think I know only one who
>>exceeds this limit. (He is a christian) But when one gets as high as that one 
>>cannot rely on most tests. I personally bust the charts (>170) of many 
>>intelligence tests but I think my true intelligence is reflected by the test I 
>>had at the age of 6 which yielded an intelligence of 152. But I don't quite see
>>your point in raising the limit. It seems like you have not dealt very much with
>>axioms (unquestion-ed/able assumptions). It is possible to build a completely
>>rational and coherent mental universe on axioms which necessarily does not
>>coincide with the common awareness of "reality". This allows for severely
>>intelligent people to act out religious, often fundamentalistic beliefs. In fact,
>>one of the most intelligent (logically) people I know is also one of the most
>>irrational I know.  
>
>So you're saying that they just go with what the preachers and Bible call
>axioms? And thus, they won't have anything to think about. What about when
>they read the Bible or visit sermons? They consider everything to be axioms
>or sel-explanatory?

What Onar is saying is that their reasoning, from the premises they
accept, is not logically flawed.  But the results could be wrong
because the *premises* are wrong.  That's not the same as saying that
they made a mistake in their logic.  Here's a little example:

	Major premise:  All elephants are pink.

	Minor premise:  Mathilda is an elephant.

	Conclusion:  Mathilda is pink.

*Given* those premises, the conclusion follows logically.  The
conclusion is incorrect because the *premise* is false, not because
the reasoning *from* those premises is faulty.  

Here the premise is easily disproved by going out and observing
non-pink elephants.  Some Christians make it a bit harder, by making
their God non-disprovable (exists outside space-time, inaccessible to
our five senses, etc.)  Thus they guarantee that we can't disprove his
existence, but also guarantee that they can't prove his existence
either.  So we are reduced to using more circumstantial lines of
reasoning, such as pointing out that the Bible's record of God's
barbarity plays havoc with the notion of a loving God.  Christians
then usually make additional assumptions ("God must know best") to
save their premises.  So I think it is reasonable to conclude doesn't
exist, but that's not the same as disproving him--how can you disprove
something that has been defined in non-disprovable terms?

SD
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject:      Re: God etc.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 14:48:31 MEZ
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA11810; Wed, 23 Dec 92 06:13:18 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA02862; Wed, 23 Dec 92 06:12:50 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0507; Wed, 23 Dec 92 15:11:35 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

John Emery types:

(Deletions)
>The observed fact that humankind has always searched for something
>outside of himself points to the conclusion that we are incomplete in
>ourselves. Some might say it is a learned behavior, nevertheless if
>we really didn't need something beside ourself and outside of ourself
>then there wouldn't be such searching as is evident cross-culturally
>throughout the ages.

The same form of reasoning could be applied to explain the craving for
drugs that can be found in any culture. You will probably regard that
as a form of misguided urge for religion,  but I doubt that you can come
up with an experiment that can tell which urge is the original one:
the one for drugs or the one for religions.
Please note that there are people who lead lives without drugs and without
religion.

As far as the concept of learning goes, there are many, highly different
forms of religions (if the term describes it at all) in different cultures.
The common denominator is fairly small, and it has been often explained to
be rather a social effect than one that can be explained from the individual
alone.

>There seems to be an inbred need for meaning, significance, and to
>be loved.  I have observed that it is through relationships that
>we seek this: in marriage, in friendship, in partnership, in
>child-parental bonds, etc.

I doubt that people do so for meaning or significance.

>Religion has been people trying to fulfill their deepest need of
>having a relationship with the greatest person of all: God.
>Oft times, it takes the form of rituals which seek to please this
>Almighty One.  Other times it is forms of service and good works
>to accomplish the same.

With the context given above, this is wrong. Most religions do not
make statements about a single god. And under the assumption that
the searching and supposed incompleteness is the effect of something
that exists outside, how come that religious views of morality and
service differ so much? Is there more than one cause for searching
outside? If so, why do you restrict yourself to 'God'.

The one way interaction you mention is not what I call a relationship.

(Preaching deleted)

>I realize that many people have many different ways to try and fill
>this need.  The fact of the presence of religion testifies to this.

It is true, it exists outside, we long for it, and it exists of mutually
contradicting subsets? I don't believe this.
   Benedikt
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: world,public
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:16:51 GMT

Iikka Paavolainen (iikkap@mits.mdata.fi) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec26.230321.27048@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writ
es:
: >>On my desk.
: >
: >Then by all means, tell us more about this study.  If you're correct,
: >it's just the sort of substantiation that OUGHT to have been provided
: >by this thread in the first place.
:
: First tell me what is unclear.
: I suppose you have your own sources, too?
:

NONONONONONO!  You made the claim that Atheists are more intelligent than 
Xians.  The sole support you've offered for this assertion is an anecdote.  Mr.
Doe and I have challenged the limited nature of your sample.  So put up or shut
up.  We are not making a claim, you are.  We simply doubt the accuracy of your 
observations.
-- 
Mike McAngus 			 | As if I needed Another time consuming hobby.
(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)		 | 
The Truth is still the Truth	 | This Post exploits illiterates.
Even if you choose to ignore it. | 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Violence in the bible?
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 03:14:10 GMT

Iikka Paavolainen (iikkap@mits.mdata.fi) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec27.173134.4956@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mik
e A. McAngus) writes:
: >Iikka Paavolainen (iikkap@mits.mdata.fi) wrote:
: >: 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 ot
her
: >s.
: >: Where was this exactly in the Bible?
: >
: >Dt 7:1-2, Dt 7:16-26, Dt 21:10-18, Jos 7:20-21 followed by Jos 8:1-2.  There

: >are other references to the populations of entire cities being executed, but

: >these are places where god is reported to actually have commanded the
: >slaughter.
: >
: >Jos 11:16-23 is also relevant.
:
: Thanks. Dammit, just a day too late (not your fault, though, I posted a bit
: late). I just had a debate with a very religious relative of mine, and one
: thing she said is that there is no God-commanded violence in it.
:

Well, I just came off of "iq<->religion connection" in which you flamed Stephen
Doe and myself for not doing research.  A Bible and Concordence are all you 
need to find such references.
-- 
Mike McAngus 			 | As if I needed Another time consuming hobby.
(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)		 | 
The Truth is still the Truth	 | This Post exploits illiterates.
Even if you choose to ignore it. | 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: A Word from Kierkegaard
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 01:19:11 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: alt.atheism

In article <j1moody-271292132202@hesmac13.hesburgh.lab.nd.edu>,
j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Joe Moody) wrote:
> Philosopher Soren Kierkegaard took his greatest leap to say:
> 
> "Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation
> may not
> come that far, but none comes further."
> 
> It's absurd. It's illogical. It's infinity. Get it? Got it? Good.

I guess it's the classical 'let's explain something unexplainable
with rational tools' cite :-).

I think Socrates had his point about this:
"I only know that I know nothing"

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24770 talk.religion.misc:24942 alt.pagan:14824
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 05:38:35 CST
Organization: Rivendell BBS / Hou, TX. / +1 713 941 2236

mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:

> Tammy Stark Blandino (lib1p@jane.uh.edu) wrote:
> : In article <1992Dec31.183939.3539@radian.uucp>, markbr%radian@natinst.com (
> rkbr) writes...
> : >In article <1992Dec31.000558.8172@nwnexus.WA.COM> pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter
> . Hampe) writes:
> : >>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> : >>
> : >>>iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
> :
> : ..stuff deleted....
> :
> : >Huh? How many "fanatic atheists" have *you* *personally* ever met?
> : >I sure don't know anyone that would qualify as one: certainly none
> : >of them that I've know would think in terms of imposing their will
> : >on the believers, even if they did think the believers were deluded
> : >or stupid. I *sure* have known *plenty* of fanatic believers, who
> : >would impose their will on me, if they could.
> : >
> :
> : Does the name Madeleine Murray O'Hare ring any bells?
> :
> : Tammy
> 
> How, exactly, is Dr. O'Hare a fanatic.  Because she contested an 
> unconstitutional school prayer practice?  Because she opposes the 
> unconstitutional entanglement of religion in Federal and State government?
> Dr. O'Hare does not prosletize her atheism (yes she does speak before groups 
> who invite her, but if they invite her then they expect to hear her opinions)
> 
> Read the woman's writings and listen to her speak before you start calling he
> a fanatic.
> -- 
> Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have n
> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear i
> 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


Madeline Murray O'hare is afanatic.  I have been a member of American 
Atheists.  I am an atheist.  But being a fanatic is nOT a bad thing in 
and of itself. What is bad is being a fanatic about things that are 
wrongheaded or false.   What we need are more fanatics about things worth 
being fanatiocal about, and less fanatics trying to jam nonsense down our 
throats, whether it is religous, speudoscintific, or political nonsense 
down our throats.


Poe Charles, the SubGenius fanatic.


**********************************************************************
* 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: martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas)
Subject: Christian racism
Keywords: Christian racism depiction of christ
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 08:21:56 GMT

Related to my recent post "Evolution implied by the Bible" is
another question that's always worried me about the racism in
contemporary Christianity.

Every Christian bible or movie I've ever seen depicts Christ and his
followers as very nordic-looking people, for some reason, especially
Christ.  Even the Turin shroud has an image of a man with a very thin
face and long nose.  

Not once have I seen the point raised that the characters in the 
Bible were much more likely to have been dark-haired, dark-skinned
and not overly tall, and had the same physical characteristics that
most middle-eastern people share today.  I suspect many Christians
would be a whole lot less comfortable about things if they knew
Jesus looked more like Saddam Hussein than some skinny Thor.

I doubt many people associate their bible to the middle-east at all,
despite it being completely set there.  I know Christians who 
absolutely can't stand Jews, and yet worship the King of the Jews in church.
(Come to think of it, same with Hitler)

Other things that bother me is the complete absence of any mention
in the bible of things happening in other great civilizations of
the world.  Do the Pyramids crack a mention?  Is there a single
reference to the great achievements of the Chinese?  Not to mention
the remains of dinosaurs and what-not.  These are undeniable important
events in the world.

Suddenly God's view of himself and his creation as expressed in the
bible looks very piddly indeed... confined as it is to a small number
of people in one corner of the Mediterranean over a very short time span.

I didn't notice any discussion of these ideas in the FAQ.
I would like to know what others think about them... have these 
points been discussed before?

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
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:11:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.141114.11620@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.210152.19416@arden.linet.org> joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter) writes:



>Seems that Stephen Doe has done us all a favor by warping the subject very
>badly. Here are the facts:
>
>1) I have NOT made any theses or hard statements, thus I am indifferent
>2) This was meant as a poll for opinions, NOT an argument
>3) I can believe that some people are offended, but then say what your
>opinion is, DON'T flame me.

I have a hard time believing you don't have an emotional attachment to
your thesi--I mean, "sincere observation."  Does the fact that it is
only a sincere observation mean you don't need to back it up?  Does
that mean we are assholes for pointing out that your pre-conceptions
*might* have an effect on your observations.  

My opinion, Iikka, is that 1) IQ is probably not as good a measurement
as you think 2) you have a huge emotional attachment to your position,
blinding you to the possibility that even people as intelligent as
yourself may arrive at a different belief--I think you need this
notion of atheistic superiority to bolster your self image, hence the
hostility to those of us who pointed out any weaknesses in your
position.  

You could have saved yourself from getting flamed, if instead of going
on about my "emotional attachment" to Christianity, and other absurd
and insulting statements that anyone interested can see for themselves
in your previous posts, you had answered my posts rationally.  I think
most of us can see that your anecdotal evidence is a load of crap, and
that your criticism of my saying so has just been one long ad hominem
attack.  You've done a lot to show that atheists can be just as
irrational when it comes to deeply held beliefs as any theists.

SD
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils)
Subject: Re: Job and Satan
Organization: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Date:  3 Jan 93 20:42:08 GMT

In <1992Dec31.190443.18046@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:

>I remember hearing the Job story as a child, and asking how having
>new children replaced the ones that were killed.  Isn't that tale
>a frightening one to tell a child?  "You can be replaced."  The story 
>was clearly written from a "women and kids are property" mentality,
>which is why it so sticks in our craw today.  And I believe this
>is a good illustration that the Bible was written by people who
>were thoroughly limited in their worldview, not by an omniscient
>entity who would have forseen the changes in people's views on
>personhood, rights, and property.

     If we are going to hold up logic as the bulkhead of the attack on how
the bible doesn't make sense and God can't exists, then lets look at the whole
story.

It says that God gave Job multiple times what he had before, yet he has the
same number of wives and children.  Either 

     1.  God shorted Job

     2.  The wives and children were not replacements but additions, this 
         point would beg the question of what happened to the original family.
         (I know they were killed, but for a Christian, that does not equate
         to lost)

So once again there is a stalemate.  I will beleive that Jobs family followed
God, went to heaven and Job ended up with twice the family he had before.

You will beleive that God shorted Job.  You may beleive as you wish, but please
watch the quantum leaps of logic.


				Craig


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire)
Subject: Re: Is Santa Claus God?
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
Distribution: alt.atheism
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:09:50 GMT

In article <BznHzE.43r@news.cso.uiuc.edu> pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j) writes:
>npm@dale.cts.com (Nancy Milligan) writes:
>>What do other atheists think about Santa Claus?  And for that matter,
>>how many of us celebrate Christmas?  Should we?  Even if we say
>>we're celebrating the winter Soltice, that's still a religious
>>holiday for druids.
  

In the Dallas paper yesterday there was a letter to the editor from a
woman who said that teaching children that Santa Claus is real, then
having them find out that he is not, might lead them to the same views
about God and Satan.

I thought that this might be a good thing, but I'm sure I didn't have
the reaction she was looking for.

-Bill

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: is it necessary to hate?
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 01:25:51 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: alt.atheism

In article <3401.2B38AE26@catpe.alt.za>,
Steve.Hayes@p0.f20.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes) wrote:
>  KS> I would otherwise agree with the statements. Unfortunately
>  KS> Christianity has had its dark ages when the evangelism effort of the
>  KS> good message had produced very aggressive and cruel actions. In other
>  KS> words Christianity as any other mass movement systems relies on the
>  KS> internal inertia, and  sometimes this social force could mutate into
>  KS> something that the  original idea opposed.
> 
> True indeed. But atheism has also had its dark ages. Just consider the last 70 >years or so in the USSR, where some 20 million people perished because they >failed to understand the only way to universal happiness. 

I agree, and there's something in common with both the atheist/political
movement and middle Ages Christianity. And that key word is 'fanaticism'.
Another good key word is 'prejudices'.

I don't need to justify atheism mostly because I'm not an atheist :-).
 
> Of course you could say that that wasn't your brand of atheism, but I could equally well say that the other wasn't my brand of Christianity. 

Agree, however mass movements are created using political or religious
ideas, and as such they easily backfire. I must say that if a religious
idea is created by an omnipotent God, certainly this being should know
the possible outcomes and make sure that the idea is not misused. In the
case of political atheism we are dealing with human beings that don't
have this vision. In other words the theistic side has to justify
why their God didn't make sure that the religion wasn't misused. The
political side (communism) has already agreed that they erred...
 

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jwest@jake (Jeff West)
Subject: Re: Stupid Family Values
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Distribution: alt.atheism, alt.atheism.moderated
Date: 22 Dec 92 09:17:30 CST

Q: Know how to get a nun pregnant?

A: Dress her up like an altar boy!


Heard that from a 'Springs' friend recently and just couldn't resist
posting it.

Jeff


--

---------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not denial.  I'm just very selective about the reality I accept.

    - Calvin & Hobbs

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire)
Subject: Re: Is Santa Claus God?
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
Distribution: alt.atheirm
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:09:23 GMT

In article <BznHzE.43r@news.cso.uiuc.edu> pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j) writes:
>npm@dale.cts.com (Nancy Milligan) writes:
>>What do other atheists think about Santa Claus?  And for that matter,
>>how many of us celebrate Christmas?  Should we?  Even if we say
>>we're celebrating the winter Soltice, that's still a religious
>>holiday for druids.
  

In the Dallas paper yesterday there was a letter to the editor from a
woman who said that teaching children that Santa Claus is real, then
having them find out that he is not, might lead them to the same views
about God and Satan.

I thought that this might be a good thing, but I'm sure I didn't have
the reaction she was looking for.

-Bill

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24630 talk.religion.misc:24803