HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: atheism discussion in soc.culture.jewish
Date: 22 Dec 92 12:08:12
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com

In case anyone's interested in following it, there's a discussion about
atheism going on on soc.culture.jewish.  Most of it's fairly prosaic,
the usual confusion of weak atheism with agnosticism, but if anyone's
curious to follow it, it's out there.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write lpf@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ed_eck@milkwy.enet.dec.com 
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:16:59 GMT


In article <1992Dec29.163307.21853@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, 
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes...


   [...]


> 
>It is sad.  Truly a pity.  But guess what?  God didn't create it that way. 
>He originally created us to live forever.  

Not at all. Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden specifically 
so that (from later in Genesis) they would not eat of the tree of 
life and live forever ("And become like Us."). God did not give them
eternal life when they were created and never intended mankind to have 
eternal life. At the expulsion from the garden, God only comdemned
Adam and his descendents to toil in the fields and Eve and all women 
to bear children in pain (and kick around the serpent now and then), 
not to suffer death. There is no evidence in Genesis that God 
sentenced Man to die. 


Also, bear in mind that when God announced his prohibition of eating 
from the tree of knowledge, Eve had not yet been created. There is
no evidence that she had been told of the prohibition by Adam. She 
can hardly be considered guilty of transgressing a rule she didn't know
about.
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 25 Dec 92 16:19:54 GMT
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland

In article <1992Dec22.172158.11967@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
n>Although I think that you are right in general, I wanted to add that all (6)
>the exceptionally smart people  I know (IQ>125), including myself, are Christians 
>

What if we lift the limit to 160?


>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.

Yes, when they are right-brain dominant, their feelings govern more. 
In one way right-brain intelligence is intelligence, that's why I specified
that it has to be logical (left-brain) intelligence that causes atheism.

>
>
>
>
>Onar.
>
>
>
>  


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas)
Subject: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 07:57:20 GMT

Christians among you: explain this.

If Man was created only thousands of years ago, and we are all
descended from common stock... why is there such a wide variety
in our genetic pool today?

Do you believe that the ancestors of people as diverse as South
American forest pygmies, Zulus, Europeans and Japanese were the
same as yours only a few thousand years ago?  If you do (and you
must, if you take the Bible at all seriously) then you must believe
a great deal of evolution has occurred since then.  If not, I 
would like to hear your arguments.

If you do admit this much evolution can take place in such a short
time (hundreds of generations) then what objections can you take
against the extension of the idea to the theory of Darwinian
evolution as it stands today?

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.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24533 talk.religion.misc:24764
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 30 Dec 92 04:35:36 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world,public
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu

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."

 
-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Distribution: world,public
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 11:44:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.034512.22314@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>
>Or 200?  What, are we talking about eligiblity for Mensa or something?
>

What if you try to find out what we are talking about, then reply, if you have
to.

>SD


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: epowers@huey.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Science and choice 
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:00:27 GMT

In article <ednclark.725008082@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey  
Clark) writes:
> kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim Gunnar St|vring \yhus) writes:
> 
> >In article <BzIww4.996@ecf.toronto.edu>, vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu  
(VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN) writes:
> > >   Someone who knows please expand on this:  isn't there completely random
> > > atomic events ( such as radioactive decay, I think ) that totally DESTROY
> > > any notions about the universe being causal ( ie deterministic and, so  
some
> > > conclude, no free will ).  I read this once ( possibly Hawking or Penrose  
)
> > > but can remember the exact claim, or any formal proof.  If this is true,  
then
> > > this has been known since the '30's and why is there this discussion?  
> 
> >Yes.
> 
> >As far as it is possible to test for randomness, there really are a lot of
> >absolutely random processes in nature. F.ex. which of the photons hitting  
the
> >film in your camera will make the film darker? (Actually quite few)
> 
> >It has been known since the 30's, but you know what people think of  
scientists:
> >mad, incomprehensible, ivory tower, responsible for pollution, atom-bombs,
> >nuclear fallout, atheists, closed minded, without human feelings, arrogant,
> >indecisive.
> 
> >This makes a lot of inertia to the truths of science.
> 
> >Seem to me scientists are a prosecuted minority.
> 
> Is it possible that such processes seem random merely because we do not know
> every possible causitive factor? IMHO, Radioactive decay seems random merely
> because we cannot measure what is happening beneath the level of the event
> which has instigated the event. We can't accurately predict weather as we
> don't know all the influential factors, however we do know now the dates of
> a coming eclipse, and the amount of energy produced by the decay of
> sub-atomic particles is proportional to the amount of mass annihilated,
> because we understand the mechanisms of such previously wonderous events far
> better now (not to say that such events are any less wonderous just more
> predictable).
> 
> Jeff.

	This is the best answer I've seen to the questions posed to me.  I  
can't improve on it, so I'll leave it be!
						Erik Powers
From: J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: re: searcher
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:42:58 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

In article <92355.234647BLD110@psuvm.psu.edu>, Betty Lee Dowlin, Choice, AC
<BLD110@psuvm.psu.edu> says:
>
[ . . .]
>
>I saw a friend of mine struggle to have a child, and finally be blessed with
>the joy of a daughter of her own.  No child was ever more wanted or loved, and
>yet she developed a fatal disease that cost her parents everything and they
>lost her in the end anyway.  Now I wondered why.  Why would life be set up in
>such a way that someone seemingly picked at random would have to endure such
>pain.

This presumes that a sentient being picked this couple to suffer.

>I saw myself - raised in a loving home, given all the advantages that a middle
>class family could give in the 1950's and 60's, and I met people with little
>or nothing in their childhood, and life and faith were an uphill battle.
>And I wondered where is the fairness here?  Where is the everyone is created
>equal?  What kind of a set-up is this?
>
>I think you get the picture.  No pastor, priest, minister or church member
>were able to answer these questions to MY satisfaction, and I started what
>has been for me a life long search.

Your question presupposes the existence of an intelligent being who,
in your words, "sets up" the system.  The cruelties to which you refer
suggest three possibilities:  (1) the creator does not care about fairness;
(2) we are too dim to perceive the fairness; or (3) there is no creator being.

I happen to lean toward (3).  In Nature, there is no fairness or justice (or,
alternatively, everything that happens is fair and just).  Fairness is a
concept that applies appropriately only to human social groups.  However,
we are so indoctrinated with the idea that everything should be fair (we
are taught from an early age to "play fair") that we think Nature ought
also be fair.  We go to great lengths to project fairness in Nature,
inventing concepts like an afterlife where we finally get our rewards
or karma and reincarnation, where we get additional chances to set things
right.  Quite a waste of mental energy, if you ask me.  Try living.

John A. Johnson
Nature is not a feminist -- Cynthia Heimel.
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:00:30 GMT
Organization: Rogaland University Centre


>In article <1992Dec22.172158.11967@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>n>Although I think that you are right in general, I wanted to add that all (6)
>>the exceptionally smart people  I know (IQ>125), including myself, are Christians 
>>
>
>What if we lift the limit to 160?
>

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.  


>>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.
>
>Yes, when they are right-brain dominant, their feelings govern more. 
>In one way right-brain intelligence is intelligence, that's why I specified
>that it has to be logical (left-brain) intelligence that causes atheism.


Onar.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 11:43:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.031457.29295@nmsu.edu> usenet@nmsu.edu writes:
>I don't know if anyone has been following this thread over the last
>couple of days, but since Iikka has indicated he hasn't much left to
>say, I have a few comments of my own to make on this discussion.

[Emotional rantings deleted]

You are making quite a fool out of yourself, not being able to defend your
point by yourself, and trying to get notice from others. Yuo are showing
very strong emotional behaviour, yet you said that you aren't. Look at what
you wrote and find the point. If you think you can't take it publicly, use
e-mail.



--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 07:58:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.172158.11967@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.224717.1993@prime.mdata.fi>, iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>|> Am I seeing wrongly, or is there a connection between one's IQ and one's
>|> religiousness? Of all people I know, I know only about 8 exceptionally smart
>|> people (IQ>125), and all of them happen to be atheists. On the contrary, the 
>|> dumbest people I've seen (eg. unable to use a remote control) are the most
>|> religious. Observing other atheists that I don't know (from this group for
>|> example) leads me to make a conclusion that on the average, atheists have a
>|> much better sense of logic (and thus usually have a higher IQ) and think much
>|> more clearly than religious people. From my own experiences, I can say that
>|> freeing oneself from the grasp of religion requires a certain level of logical
>|> thinking. Coincidentally, all these 8 people are mathematically gifted.
>|> When I speak of atheism here, I mean it to be a lack of belief in any god or
>|> superstition.
>|> Opinions?
>|> 
>|> BTW, if this offended you, go to a church instead of coming to alt.atheism.
>|> --
>|>  __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
>|> /o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
>|> \__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
>|>    `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
>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



Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: world,public
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 19:45:41 GMT

In article <BzyFGu.KJD@dale.cts.com> npm@dale.cts.com (Nancy Milligan) writes:
>If Christians, or Bible believers, are so happy, so morally well-
>adjusted wouldn't it stand to reason that most criminals would
>be atheists?  Well, they aren't.  Something like 95% of them
>believe in a god, and some percentage of them go to church. 

One can believe in God and go to church and still be far from the
narrow path.  Also, any hardened criminal can be washed
clean by the grace of God.

John M.
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: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 03:16:04 GMT

Peter C. Crayne (pcrayne@halcyon.com) wrote:
: Hi all. I am posting without first reading the FAQ! At least nobody on
: this newsgroup is likely to tell me that I'll be smitten down with flame
: for it. :-) (Except virtual flame, perhaps).
:
: Anyway, I was recently discussing religious matters with a friend who is
: semi-religious. I havn't decided whether I'm a weak athiest or an
: angnostic. I was relating the story of some prophet or other who, after
: communing with god in the wilderness comes back into town, wherupon he
: is teased by children. The prophet calls upon god to punish them, and
: god send wild animals to kill them, and they are devoured.
: My friend claims "I've read the whole bible and that story isn't in it".
: I am pretty sure it is, but I'm not really qualified to dispute him. I
: don't seem to have a bible anymore, and rejected church & sunday school
: at an early age. My bible knowledge is therefore fairly thin.
: Can anybody nail this one down for me?

2Kings 2:23-24.  This tells how Elisha, the prophet who succeeded Elija, curses
some small boys who tease him and then "two she-bears came out of the woods and
tore fourty-two of the children to pieces."
-- 
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. |
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: rewrite a song.....
Date: 30 Dec 1992 07:30:23 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


Instead of "Cop Killer" by ICE-T, how about "god Killer"


	I got my nails files
	opps...typo editor down


	I got my nails filed
	I got my boards all sawed off
	I got my hammer pulled off
	
	I'm a god filler, better you then me
	I'm a god killer, better nail the dweeb

	yeah....a song about killing a god ("jezus")


	(I know I'm sick)

<hell....it's 2:22am and I'm bored>

-- 
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: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Proof of Gods
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:35:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.000551.3979@scorch.apana.org.au> lgarde@scorch.apana.org.au (Leon Garde) writes:
}David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
}|Show this atheist (me) said scientific proof of "unique entity"
}|and I most definately will NOT become a theist. If there were
}|such proof, said being would not be supernatural, and not any
}|kind of god. Technologically advanced, perhaps. Alien from
}|space, probably. I'm not some South Pacific islander who will
}|protrate myself in front of a crashed airplane.
}
}
}as that proof could not possible prove god, but would prove the
}existance of some supernatural, intellectually advanced ( technology
}is inanimate?? , we need a new word for a.i. stuff), etc, being.

How about a unique identifier/description of this "Yahweh"?  Some
method of uniquely identifying heim/her/it?

I doubt if such exists - and as Pitt has shown, _I_ can pass the
same tests that "Jesus" can (I even have followers!  ;-))
From: BLD110@psuvm.psu.edu (Betty Lee Dowlin, Choice, AC)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: re: searcher
Date: 21 Dec 92 04:46:47 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

Roulen Rostainian writes to ask what questions I found the church unable to
answer for me.  So I'll try and relate a few and perhaps you will get an idea.

I looked around me and saw people I loved living in ways that according to the
church would cause them to be condemned to hell forever.  Now I could see the
beauty, love, and worth of these individuals and I wondered that I had more
love and compassion than God.

I saw a friend of mine struggle to have a child, and finally be blessed with
the joy of a daughter of her own.  No child was ever more wanted or loved, and
yet she developed a fatal disease that cost her parents everything and they
lost her in the end anyway.  Now I wondered why.  Why would life be set up in
such a way that someone seemingly picked at random would have to endure such
pain.

I saw myself - raised in a loving home, given all the advantages that a middle
class family could give in the 1950's and 60's, and I met people with little
or nothing in their childhood, and life and faith were an uphill battle.
And I wondered where is the fairness here?  Where is the everyone is created
equal?  What kind of a set-up is this?

I think you get the picture.  No pastor, priest, minister or church member
were able to answer these questions to MY satisfaction, and I started what
has been for me a life long search.  I have found some of my answers - enough
to know that the rest are there waiting for me to get to them.  What they are
is not important to this discussion.  My point was that we become blind to the
truth by our conceptions of what we think the truth must be.  I had to be
willing to let go of my need to control the answer before I was able to look
for truth wherever it might be.
                               Betty Lee Dowlin
Newsgroups: alt.atheism