HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:43:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.160431.7309@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>[deleted]
>>>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.
>>
>>Thank you Onar--you and Iikka have just illustrated my concern over
>>using anecdotal evidence in support of something.
>>
>>SD
>
>I don't think you are being fair to me now, Stephen. I gave my counter example to
>show that 8 people is way too little statistical data to make bold statements
>about, although I do agree that there seems to be some link between logical
>abilities and atheism. But I think that to generalize and say that the percentage
>of atheists in a domain of people is proportional to the intelligence of that
>domain is somewhat exxagerated.

Yes, my whole point was that 8 people is too little statistical
data--that's why I reposted what you said.  I didn't mean to imply
that you were using your six friends to prove the opposite of Iikka's
proposition.  I agree with what you say above.

SD


Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24698 talk.religion.misc:24866
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I praise the lord and so do I.
Date: 31 Dec 1992 17:57:27 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In article <1992Dec30.232955.176377@zeus.calpoly.edu> jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch) writes:
>For a long time I have wanted to explore a hypothesis of mine, but every time 
>I explained it I was scoffed at.
>My hypothesis is this: People with multiple personalities have an accurate
>perception of the world, and people with only one personality are limited
>and handicapped.
>
>I don't understand why so many people laugh at my hypothesis, when it is
>exactly what christian dogma teachs.
>
>                    -John David Munch

Well, part of me agrees with your hypothesis,
part of me disagrees, part of me is not sure,
part of me doesn't care, and part of me
is busy fighting the Battle of Waterloo.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi!  I'm .Siggy, the National .Sig Foundation poster child.
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Date: 30 Dec 92 01:53:38 GMT
Organization: The Courts of Chaos

>>
>>Justice, when it is Just, is OK.  You appear to assume God has your sense
>>of what is acceptable and what is not.
>
>This is an example of one of my biggest objections to christianity:
>the abuse of language.  A typical dialogue with a christian begins
>with such bland pleasantries like "God loves you" and "Believe and
>gain eternal life".  Only later, after much discussion and study,
>does one learn that the meaning of such words as "love", "life",
>and "justice" actually contain a different meaning than they do
>in normal discourse.

abuse of language?  How does one abuse language?  I'm not out to 'trick'
you or confuse you.  If the gospel is that confusing to you then I'd say
you did very little "study".  Try finding out *why* they are telling you
'God loves you' instead of taking the face value..... that is if they 
know.  Several people have pointed out that many if not most Christians don't
even know whats really in the Bible.  As a Christian I've observed this to
be true.....sadly.

>>Did you actually know the people God
>>killed?  How do you know they didn't deserve death in the eyes of God?
>
>The only reason that YOU believe that these people deserved death
>is your willingness to abandon independent judgement in favor
>of trust in an arbitrarily selected religious tradition.

Naw I grappled with it.
God created man for a specific reason.  Fellowship. He is, by his own 
definition, Holy and will not tolorate sin.  If HIS creation does not
work the way he intended it to, does he not have the right to scrap it?

Oddly enough, I'm still trying to figure out why the animals had to be
killed if they were doing what they were supposed to.

>>For your assumption of contradiction to hold water you would have to know
>>both God and the people that were killed intimately.
>
>Wrong.  When I hear a story of a child being killed, I don't
>really have to know the child or the killer to conclude
>that a breech of justice has occured.  But then, I'm just
>a plain ol' human who thinks that human life has an inherent
>value;  maybe if I achieved your level of God-consciousness
>I would be able to know which humans "deserve" death.

Our differences lie in blame.  You blame God for doing what he said he 
would do.  I blame those that were responsible for incurring his wrath.



-- 
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
|Joe.Beiter@arden.linet.org               The Long Island Network Project   |
|The Courts of Chaos Semi-Public Access   Long Island New York: USA         |
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: Bible translations, or Does God Speak Latin?
Keywords: Catholic, Latin, Bible
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 02:53:03 GMT

cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:

>Are you nuts?  Where the hell is the beauty in hearing someone babble
>gibberish at you and sitting there bored for an hour while he does it,
>with his back turned to you all the time?  How the hell am I supposed
>to gain enlightenment if I can't understand what the hell is being said?

If you ask the question, I can't explain it to you.  I'm not schooled
in the intricate terms of aesthetics.  I find the old Latin masses to be
beautiful.  I also think that the Orthodox liturgies, particularly in
Russian or Syrian, are also beautiful.  I guess I'm strange.  I like the
old Gregorian chants too.

It may relate somewhat to the use of Hebrew, Latin or Enochian in some
rituals of ceremonial magick, as far as "enlightenment" goes.

>You make it sound like the "downfall" of the church is due to something
>like, "Damn!  Now that they can actually UNDERSTAND us and know what
>we're up to, they don't like it!"  Too bad.

Yeah, that's sort of it! <g>



-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheists & agnostics
Date: 23 Dec 92 21:14:07 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Dec23.052830.8191@ucc.su.OZ.AU> patc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Pat Caldon) writes:
>The question was "Is Buddhism atheist?" 

The answer depends upon what you mean by the question. Buddhism per
se is atheist in that it does not assert the existence of any
god or supernatural being, and, in fact, the Buddha discouraged
speculation about such beings as unproductive.

On the other hand, there is no rule against believing in Gods
in Buddhism, and over the past 2500 years sects have appeared
that are more or less theist. In addition, much custom has
grown up around the practice of Buddhism, and much of it may
be interpreted (including by some of its practitioners) as
theistic.

>I said that it is derived
>from Hinduism, not in the sense of a joke, but in many ways seems (to my
>admittedly limited perception) to have a common philosophy, reincarnation
>being a prime example. As such it is not inconsistent (IMHO again) to
>suggest that Buddism is not atheist. (quadruple negative urrgh) Again
>from what I have seen of Buddist ritual (use of prayer wheels, for instance)
>it doesn't seem to be atheist. 

Firstly, the doctrine of reincarnation in Buddhism is not so
straightforward as to permit a simple identification of it
as a theistic belief. For one thing, there are clear statements
in the Buddha's teachings that there is no 'soul' or specific
identity that can be reincarnated. The doctrine of reincarnation
means something else. Besides that, there is no logical necessity
of the existence of gods in order for the conventional notion of
reincarnation to happen.

Depending upon the individual or cultural interpretation of
the meaning of a prayer whell, you may in some cases take
their use to be evidence of theistic beliefs in a practitioner
of Buddhism.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 21 Dec 1992 05:19:32 CST
From: <U16244@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God as dark matter

In article <1992Dec20.231046.24874@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) says:
>
>I heard a new one this weekend in a discussion about religion. The claim was
>made that God is actually the unaccounted for mass of the universe known as
>"dark matter."
>
>When I asked why call it God, the response was "Why not?" End of discussion.

  I would of course, assign the name "barney" to it and end the conversation
there.

>
>What other strange arguments have people encountered in their dealings with
>religionists?

Sorry, usenet restricts articles to 100K.  I couldn't even start....

  --DAVE!!
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Violence in the bible?
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:31:48 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec29.200705.22493@arden.linet.org>, joeb@arden.linet.org
(Joe Beiter) wrote:
> 
> In article <schnitzi.725571303@eola.cs.ucf.edu> 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

> 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.

I remember that someone important in Christianty told his followers
that he didn't come to break any existing laws. The question is how
Paul got by with the legal trick to suddenly defining a new covenant
with God, where the originator's words were twisted...

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
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: God, what use is it ?
Date: 2 Jan 93 18:38:44 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu



	No, I am not asking god what is the use of living...


	I am asking what's god good for ?


	I mean , what has he done for me TODAY- what- did you
say he made the sun rise ? NOT The sun tends to take care of itself.


	Ok, look, I might be interested in this whole god stuff if
there was only a reason. I have no "purpose" in life (except trying
to get as much in-the-sack-time with transvestites as MUCH as possible)
Look, if your god can send me a Corned beef on Jewish Rye better than 
my friend Noah's then I might be interested (I would want to be SURE that
HE sent it).

	Ok......all powerful you say.....well then, I am going to 
wait for THE ultimate CORNED BEEF ON JEWISH RYE, to be gliding
down from the heavens, delivered by an angel or whatever means
god wishes to choose.


	Another thing that could do for me is to show me THE
BEST spot to pick-up HOT TRANSVESTITES for dates, and a CHEAP MOTEL
nearby to take them to. Now if God took me there, gave me some ca$h to
spend & a chance to have a wild night of sex then I might be interested.



	Well...you said he is all powerful....so I'm waiting



-- 
A. TRENT PHILLIPS |" A mirror is a negative space with a frame and a place for
  also known as   | your face, it reveals what the rest of us see. It conceals
   WHITE  ROOK    | what you'd like you to be."--Blue Oyster Cult
-------bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu-----aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu-------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 04:57:34 GMT

In <ednclark.724641730@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:

>Actually, I thought an agnostic was someone who didn't beleive in anything.
>That is they are not entirely sure that next time they let go of their pencil
>that it will definitely fall down even do the said pencil has performed this
>behaviour every time that agnostic can remember (remembering of course that
>any memory may have been artificially induced). Agnostic is not sure that
>New York exists because she has never been there and even if she had it may
>have been destroyed or the visit was just a fantasy of hers. A great
>description of what I thought was an agnostic is given in the fourth book of
>Douglas Adam's trilogy, HitchHiker's Guide To The Galaxy. I don't know if
>you Americans have heard of it, but if you haven't, it ranks up their with
>Monty Python as the best of British comedy (and I severely recommend you get
>hold of a copy). The particular character described was in fact the Ruler of
>the Galaxy, though he himself wasn't sure about the fact, and the two main
>characters decided that the Galaxy was in good hands.

>Therefore an agnostic is not just unsure about the existence of God or Gods
>or Goddesses, but is unsure about anything. Of course therefore they would
>say that one can never be sure of anything even whether or not other people
>can be sure about something. Therefore a true agnostic would not say 
>1) -> "I don't know and you don't either"
>2) -> "It is unknowable"

>but would say

>1) -> "I don't know and I don't know if you know either"
>2) -> "It is currently unknowable for me"

>Of course anyone who actually lived like this would quickly die: The last
>breath I took like all the others I remember, were not poisonous, but then
>those memories may be artificially induced or the air may change between my
>last and next breath.......

Hmmm...

I had come across the two definitions of agnosticism discussed here in
other postings, namely
(1) "I don't know if God(s) exist(s), and I'm not looking too hard", and
(2) "It is impossible to know if God(s) exist(s)."

I had not come across the definition in the posting above.   

I would call the philosophical outlook described in the above posting as
"Philosophical Skepticism", i.e. the philosophical viewpoint that
nothing is knowable (except, perhaps, one's own thoughts).

Of course, if anyone actually put a viewpoint of Philosophical
Skepticism into practice, s/he would probably quite quickly be thrown into a
mental asylum!  (But it wouldn't cause them too much worry, because they
wouldn't know if the mental asylum actually existed or not....)

Actually, at this moment in time, I consider myself to be a
follower of the viewpoint of Philosophical Skepticism.  But I actually
live my life as a Realist (as most of us do).

(This does not make me an atheist.  I suppose I am actually an agnostic
theist.)

 Fred Rice
 darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au   
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: The Steve Martin movie "Leap of Faith"
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 23:56:58 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: alt.atheism

In article <1992Dec28.183255.27446@prime.mdata.fi>, iikkap@mits.mdata.fi
(Iikka Paavolainen) wrote:
> That's what religion is all about: faith. They have blind faith in God, and
> blind faith in priests, preachers et al. The key word here is blind: God is
> all, and knows all and knows what is best. Sometimes I (a strong atheist) have
> dipped into blind Christianity to see what it is like, and it actually feels
> good, that you have somebody watching over and making sure everything goes
> well. Everything works perfectly until you start to think about things
> (how can these things be, hell etc.), when all the glamour and comfort dis-
> appears. Most people don't want to bother themselves by thinking these things
> out because a) there are already so many people who are believers, thus it
> must be correct, and b) these priests et al must have thought everything out
> thouroughly for them.

Most religious cults are based on the basic need a human being
has to feel part of a tribe that has a mission in life. That's why
we want to associate ourselves with the hacker world, fandom, 49:ers
fans, Hare Krischna and so on. It's eventually one of the basic
archetypes, originating from the earlier primal stage where the 
tribe stood for the stability.

In other words faith is the glue that binds together the tribe. Same
concerning faith in 3am hacks, or faith in Joe Montana :-).

So if the people really enjoyed the movie, they appreciated it 
based on various expectations, and if the expectation was biased
on a belief in religious faith, then the movie succeeded. I think if 
religious people enjoyed "Leap of Faith" it shows that the
director (who was it?) succeeded in producing a Hollywood style
mainstream ticket winner -- even on the expense something sacred
such as religion.

Or also, maybe there was a hidden hint about faith in the end
of the movie, where the actors gladly accepted the outcome? I
haven't seen the movie, but reading the original post I thought
about lemmings.

Cheers,
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,talk.religion.misc
From: mfterman@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Mutant for Hire)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: mfterman@phoenix.princeton.edu (Mutant for Hire)
Organization: Mutant for Hire, Inc.
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 17:22:10 GMT

In article <C09uE0.JM5.1@cs.cmu.edu>, drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
>It's a really good thing that Satan doesn't read this newgroup, or else he
>might find out what an idiot he's being.  He might very well just say "to
>hell with it" (sic), go away and make the Lord mess with the lives of the
>believers instead.

That's already happened in one fiction series. In the comic book Sandman,
at one point the protagonist goes to Hell, runs into Lucifer, who has just
been kicking demons and damned souls out of Hell, announces his retirement
being sick and tired of being used as part of the divine plan.

Later on, God takes two angels, kicks them out of Heaven to run Hell. One
of them is extremely unhappy about leaving a state of grace. The line on
the cover of that issue was "While some may fall, others are pushed."
Lucifer is last seen sunning himself on the beaches of Australia, admiring
the sunsets.

-- 
    Martin Terman, Mutant for Hire, Mean Ol' Top, Priest of Shub-Internet
    Disclaimer: Nobody else takes me seriously, why should you be the first?
mfterman@phoenix.princeton.edu mfterman@pucc.bitnet terman@pupgga.princeton.edu
"Sig quotes are like bumper stickers, only without the same sense of relevance"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 30 Dec 92 16:07:22 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <parsons.725691151@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>jwest@wisc (Jeff West) writes:
>
>[Deletions from previous posts.]
>
>>As for the rest of you post I only have 2 comments.
>
>>	1.)  Why did your god "deliever into the hands of Satan" such a
>>	     righteous man as Job?  Why did your god need to torture a
>>	     true believer?  Wasn't his obedience and faithfulness enough?
>>	     Or is it just your gods form of entertainment?
>
>Satan was the one coming before God accusing Job of only serving God
>for the cash, land, camels, sheep, etc.  So, to prove Satan wrong He
>allowed Satan to rake Job over the coals.  It wasn't so much to punish
>or torture (as you put it) Job, as to put Satan in his place.  That's 
>just MH interpretation of the story.  And, in the end God blesses Job 
>seven times more than he had to begin with; which just goes to prove
>Romans 8:28, "And we know that all things work together for good to
>them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his]
>purpose."
>

But your god is supposed to be omniscient so it would know anyway.
So it didn't need to......

> 
>-- 
>Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
>parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |

Chris Lee                    |  Biblical contradictions are still |  Me
                             |  contradictions even if you choose |
                             |  to ignore them.                   |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc