HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: University of Central Florida
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 19:03:31 GMT

crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford) writes:

>. . .most 
>atheists of my acquaintance are bright and yet are willing to state with 
>certainty that a god cannot exist . . .

Honestly, I think we are dealing with a different class of atheist.  Most
atheists I know of (myself included) are of the NOT(BELIEVE(GOD)) variety,
as opposed to the BELIEVE(NOT(GOD)).  These sort of quibbles over
definitions are commonplace on alt.atheism.

>>>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?

>Yup.  I'm an extreme agnostic when it comes to Santa.  All proof of his 
>existence is so mired in cultural history that his existence is impossible 
>for practical purposes.  The concept of a god has nowhere near the specific 
>literary ontology and readily refutable baggage that a Santa has.  

Infidel!  Obviously you haven't read The Book lately, especially the
passage about "And what to my wondering eyes doth appear..."

No, seriously, when God is defined specifically, as in the Bible, he
becomes just as falsifiable as Santa Claus.  It is the claim of that there
is a "higher power" that one cannot logically make a conclusion about, one 
way or the other.

mark

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: CADS_COLE@GALLUA.BITNET (Kevin Cole; Washington DC)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: Gallaudet Research Institute
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:08:31 GMT

Greetings from the void,

To answer one comment that came up in this thread:

As a former member of Mensa, I guess I can say that not all people who qualify 
choose to join, or stay with an organized intelligencia.

As for religion, I think most people need an anchor of some sort which they use
as a point of reference.   The nature of the beast is to see patterns in the 
world and try to extrapolate other patterns.  We could all go around doubting 
our five senses, but I suspect we don't, other than as an intellectual 
exercise.  I for one, (when I'm not entertaining myself) take it on faith, that
my senses are reporting a consistent, if not fairly accurate picture of
reality.  When someone gives me a nice, handy algorithm for linking information
reported by my senses, and that algorithm allows me to predict what my senses
will report the next time something happens, I adopt it and say "This is a
piece of the Truth, until I find an easier or more complete algorithm."  
Science is the algorithm that seems to work best for me.  It's a highly evolved 
and complex religion, but if you think about it, we take everything on faith.

I've read a little about some of the skeptics groups, and one in particular. 
It seems to me that the Amazing Randy and his 'Psychic Debunking Squad" are not
as open-minded as they think.  If they encounter a phenomenon for which Randy
hasn't invented the illusion, he goes off and invents the illusion and says "If
I can do it with trickery, then it cannot be done without trickery."  Then they
set up a controlled experiment with enough controls to make the outcome prove
their point.  This is a ritual of the religion science. 

Is light a particle or a wave?  What is the nature of time?  What is the sound
of one hand clapping?  Can God make a trap that s/he/it cannot get out of?  Are
these questions really all that different from one another? 

Many people have trouble with a guy who drives the chariot of the sun across 
the sky, but accept without question a guy who walked on water and cast out 
demons.  What makes one more believable than the other?  

Well, I'm rambling.  Time to quit.
-- 

 ========== U.S. Mail =============================== E-Mail =================
 Kevin Cole      <Flatline>           |  Bitnet: CADS_COLE@GALLUA.BITNET
 Gallaudet Research Institute  (GRI)  |  Internet: KJCOLE@GALLUX.GALLAUDET.EDU
 Washington, D.C.  20002-3625         |  UUCP: ...!psuvax!gallua.bitnet!kjcole
 (202) 651-5575  x4592                |  The WELL:   kjcole
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: anderson@cs.uiuc.edu (Andy Anderson)
Subject: Re: Politics and Intelligence
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 17:24:31 GMT

In <1992Dec19.073227.28458@linus.mitre.org> crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford) writes:

>BTW, in a similar vein, I've been wondering where the recent (I think) appeal 
>among young (semi)intellectuals for libertarianism and rebublicanism sprang 
>from.  A few years back, it was typical for most college kids to be socially 
>idealistic, to be active at least vocally in supporting the needs and rights 
>of minorities and the dispossessed.  But now, most college kids seem to fall 
>somewhere between Ronald Reagan and Lyndon LaRouche.

Without going into a lengthy debate (I don't have the time; I'm grading a
stack of finals), I think the young `(semi)intellectuals' of my generation
are as socially conscious as previous generations.  The difference, I 
believe, is that the 80's taught us about the economics involved with
(un)controlled spending on programs.  We don't want anyone's rights trampled
on, but we don't want to put a second mortgage on (what will be) our
government either.  As a result, I believe we tend to be more economically
and philosophically conservative, while still being socially liberal.

As for falling between Reagan and LaRouche, I really haven't noticed this.
In fact, during this last election I was regularly called names from evil
to Nazi and Fascist.  I wasn't even asked about my views on any issues...
(But, that's another thread.)

>I can't believe that worsening economic conditions are solely to blame.  Times
>were also very bad in the late 70's and early 80's and as many kids weren't so
>coldly mercenary about getting through college with minimal effort and entering
>corporate America.  It seems like idealism and activism are all but dead among 
>those who used to be the most optimistic about the changes the future may hold.

Coldly mercenary?  Getting through college with minimal effort?  *OUCH!*
Let me put it this way:  I have become `heavily leveraged' to have the
oportunity to go to college (and grad school).  I don't have the luxury
of being idealistic about the future.  My goal is to be able to eat while
paying back the money I've been borrowing. (Having a few toys along the
way would also be nice. :-) )

However, I must believe "deep down" that the future will be better, or
else I would not have gone this far in debt!

>Or is it just me?  Is my generation gap showing?

Maybe.  :-)

Andy

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:16:41 GMT

gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>>On second thought, my previous post may have been in error.  His view that he
>>'just doesn't' care is...well... akin to what you described.
>>
>>Matt I.
>>
>You talkin' to me?  I said, you talkin' to ME!?!  I don't see nobody
>else around here.  You gotta' be talkin' to ME!!!  Who you talkin'
>to?!?
He he he.  No offense meant.  Musta been crabby that day.  I harp on people 
who 'don't care' about certain things when I have too little sleep.

>GM("Appropriate Oscar Clip")S
Matt I.

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 15:36:53 GMT

In article <1geri1INN5b7@uwm.edu> radcliff@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (David G Radcliffe) writes:
>crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford) writes:
>
>: What are the opinions on the existence of Jesus Christ?  As I see it we
>: may hold one of 4 positions:
[....]

>An agnostic is not just a person who does not claim to know whether 
>God(s) exist or not.  Agnostics believe that it is not *possible* 
>to know whether or not He/She/It/They exist. 
>

Just a nit, but a more general definition of an agnostic is one who
believes it is not possible for Them to know At This Time whether a
god exists.  (It's not necessary for a person to "know" that is
"not possible" to know, as I'm sure you'll admit (I have Faith that
you'll admit it, you see...)).

GMS
From: arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Angus H Rodgers)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: The Mega Test
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:56:06 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London

In <Dec.10.23.05.22.1992.26404@remus.rutgers.edu>
clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:

>[...] For example, what do you say to someone who's worked
>100+ hours on it, only to be kept out of the Prometheus Society because
>they gave the "wrong" answer to #25?  "Tough"?  "Spend another 100+
>hours working on the Titan Test"?

Gasp! I thought I had virtually "cheated", by spending 28+ hours on the
Mega Test, at a time (July 1985) when I had the "advantage" of being
unemployed.

Just out of curiosity: just how long do people typically spend on these
untimed tests?

Incidentally, Q.25 was one of the first questions I answered, but it
was the very *last* question on whose answer I *decided* (having
rejected my first answer).

(Not a Mensa member; just visiting; hope that's OK.)
--
Gus Rodgers,  Dept. of Computer Science, | 
Queen Mary & Westfield College, Mile End | 
Road, London, England.   +44 71 975 5241 | 
E-mail (JANET):   arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk | Post in haste, repent at leisure.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: The Mega Test
Date: 11 Dec 92 13:22:02 GMT
Reply-To: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

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.


                                -- edp (Eric Postpischil)
                                "Always mount a scratch monkey."
                                edp@rusure.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:42:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.155702.20597@cbnewse.cb.att.com> gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford) writes:
>>It's by their faith that christians are christians, and 
>>atheists are atheists.  
>
>>So as I tried to say before, those who have have faith (pro or con) could 
>>have gained it not from the intellect, but only from the heart.
>
>I understand that it's a drive people have to glorify this "thinking with
>the heart", but it's still a good idea to use reasoning to evaluate it.

I don't mean that a conclusion based on input from the heart in any way
resembles logical `thinking'.  And I certainly don't mean to glorify
a process which excludes or ignores the logical cognitive process.  I mean 
exactly what I said, that faith is a product of desires and not logic.

>It's a bit of an insult to say that all Christians and atheists are thinking
>with their "hearts" and not using any criteria whatsoever to evaluate the
>results of doing so.  I think what you mean is that they are thinking with
>their emotions, 

Well... it's not really thinking, as I define thinking.  

Theists base their lives and values on what they want to be true, not on 
what they are logically compelled to admit _must_ be true.  If the latter
were the hallmark of theists, then I think they would have no choice but to
admit that all people on this earth are not equal, that the world is unjust
and arbitrary in the way that fate dealt to us all, and that daily events 
are often monstrously cruel to the innocent.  Surely a god would not allow
such things unless they were part of a grand design which eventually balanced
these things out.  And since the only way these things may be `justifiable',
is for there to be such a plan, there should/must be a god.

Thinking will not lead you to believe in god, in my opinion, no matter how
much you do of it nor how well you do it.  Faith requires something more.
I think the belief in a god requires a denial of logic and the acceptance
of facts not in evidence.  Therefore I think the only way to accept the 
existence of a god must come from a willingness to hold logic in abeyance 
and give one's self over to the desire to Believe.

>but I also think you know that Only using emotions without
>logical reasoning is impractical and dangerous and allows people to act
>without evaluation of the actions.  Logic doesn't mean only yes or no,
>but obviously takes into account the probability of a conclusion leading
>to positive results of some kind.

No disagreement from me, but I think you're discussing a horse of a different
color.



-- 

| Randy Crawford        crawford@mitre.org        The MITRE Corporation
|                                                 7525 Colshire Dr., MS Z421
| N=1 -> P=NP           703 883-7940              McLean, VA  22102
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: jlc5f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Jean L. Cooper)
Subject: Re: s106495@umrvma
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:49:39 GMT

Although we are not all Mensans here, I don't think that
ANY of us can claim to have the "one true opinion.  It is
a common opinion, and oft-stated maxim, in Mensa that if
you have five Mensans in a discussion, you have, at the 
minimum, 10 opinions.  Most Mensans like to "argue" 
because the give and take of "argument" reveals new
facets of any problem, not because they believe that
they can be proven "right" on a given question.
--
Jean L. Cooper    (BITNET: JLC5F@virginia.edu   CIS: 70253,1114)
"The true University of these days is a Collection of Books." 
                                           --Carlyle                        
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: The Mega Test
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:40:42 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.

More to the point, the SAT is not, and does not claim to be, a test or
measure of intelligence.

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: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 00:10:49 GMT

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) 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. 
	Just because the man wouldn't worship the God doesn't mean that he
would reject it.  Not all religions even require that you worship.  Tao, for
example, is a religion in which the Tao creates all and asks for nothing in
return.  I think it is impossible, personally, for a true God to be 'owed'
anything.  God is above that.

>   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.
	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.

>Steve Franklin
______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc
From: fsmgs@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Michael Schmahl [Black-Robe Mage])
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: midnight/noon AM/PM?
Date: 19 Dec 92 01:04:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: raven.1992Dec19.010447.21072
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network

Richard H Schwartz writes
] 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.
] 

Clear!??  Hardly...  If the city is dumb enough to let this happen, I don't think  
the ticket should stand


--
CONFIG.DAT not found.  Reboot universe?
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: radams@bnr.ca (Rodney Adams)
Subject: Re: The Mega Test
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Tx.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:52:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.161740.272@bnr.ca> radams@bnr.ca (Rodney Adams) writes:
>between 850 and 900 (the cutoff for some universities, I believe) or
          ^------ I realized immediately after I sent this that some of
                  your terminals may interpret this character as a five.
                  It's really a nine, of course ;)

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney G. Adams
The opinions expressed above are not necessarily those of my employer.
As if you didn't already know that....
From: burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Burt Voorhees)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re:Intelligence & Logic (was Atheism and Intelligence)
Date: 13 Dec 92 04:15:41 GMT
Distribution: na

There is a flaw in the idea that intelligent people tend to be more
logical, and hence will accept atheism more easily on the grounds that
there is no _logical_ proof in the existance of God.  The flaw is that
logic, as we tend to use the word, is a very limited form of thinking.
Logic is a tool of thought, and there are different logics which apply
in different circumstances.  Somebody who claims that "logic" is the
standard of intelligent thought is in much the same position aws a
carpenter who claims that all construction problems can be solved with
a hammer.
The proto-Indo-European root for reason is _ar_ (also, interestingly,
the root for art) which has the meaning of "to fit together."  Reason
is how we fit together a personal and social view of the world.  The
tools used in this construction are logics.  One such logic is formal
logic, the modern descendent of Aristotelean logic.  But this logic
by itself does not fit reality since it is timeless--the Law of
Contradiction forbids change.  Another logic is Hegelian dialectics.
This deals with continual change, but cannot deal with permenance and
the existance of limits (thesis/anti-thesis/synthesis sequences are
endless).  A third logic, called trialectics, was developed by the
modern philosopher Oscar Ichazo.  This deals with cycles of change
and permenance.  And we're still only talking about analytical
reasoning.  There is also analogical and empathetical reason.
One kind of intelligence, it seems to me, deals with facility in
weilding the tools, and this is what most intelligence tests measure.
Another kind of intelligence relates to the intuitive recognition of
when each tool is appropriate in the moment of experience.  It's all
very well to be a verbal master of brilliant puns, but when the child
stubs her toe she's not looking for a witty response...
On the basis of formal ligic there is no possibility of proving (or disproving)
the existance of a God.  We can't even prove the consistency of ordinary 
arithmetic.  So the only reasonable (in the larger sense) attitude is
suspension of judgement.  That gives time for other forms of reasoning
to come into play.
bv
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: jdaumier@vieux-maitres.fr (Jean de Daumier-Smith)
Subject: A Test
Reply-To: jdaumier@vieux-maitres.fr (Jean de Daumier-Smith)
Organization: Les Amis Des Vieux Maitres
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 07:12:21 GMT



    Hi! How are you going now? I am fine here. First I should say that I
 am very sorry for wasting you so much time for reading my news which is
 of no use, I think. But please be patient. Maybe I can provide you some
 useful information in the near future or right in tomorrow!
    However, before I can do that I should practise how to post a piece of
 news. This is just a try to testify my operating of posting news.
    Dieu vous garde.  A bientot.

Jean de Daumier-Smith
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Favorite Beverages
Date: 20 Dec 92 13:30:16 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


To get off the other subjects:

Hot herbal tea
Hot apple cider with cinammon
Hot cocoa with real whipping cream

Cold spring water, no ice, with a twist of lemon or lime
Cold apple cider, no ice
Cold grape juice, no ice
Cold cranberry juice with ice

Cold fruit juice (most types) mixed with carbonated spring water

Real eggnog
-- 
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