HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:59:35 GMT
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 15:22:56 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
> In article <1992Dec28.120715.22908@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikk
> >In article <1992Dec28.073845.4935@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writ
> >>In article <1992Dec21.143854.6231@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iik
> >>>In article <1992Dec20.021251.1@acad2.alaska.edu> atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu wr
> >>>[BTW, what about putting some of this into the FAQ?]
> >> 
> >>Ask mathew about that; he's the keeper of the FAQ.  I'm willing to lay
> >>10 to 1 odds though that he'll find the same objections to this I do.
> >
> >I don't think that Mathew's opinions are much changed by your outbursts. But
> >I'm not expecting him to agree with me or the person from Alaska. You're
> >just hindering our talk.
> 
> I think that for mathew to include this in the FAQ, he'll want
> something more than your "sincere observations," especially with
> people like Onar Aam running around with "sincere observations" that
> contradict yours.

The "sincere observation" that high IQ correlates with atheism is certainly
an interesting one.  I'm afraid that the last time I did an IQ test it
indicated that I had an IQ of 68, and so I'm rather predisposed to (a) doubt
the correlation you suggest and (b) doubt the usefulness of IQ tests as a
measure of intelligence of any variety.

Of course, feel free to argue that I really am a moron.


mathew

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN)
Subject: Re: Nailing Christianity: Sufficient Support for Atheism?
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:09:12 GMT

In article <76147@apple.apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>In article <1icejnINNqvs@shelley.u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>>
>>Plus, bashing xtianity is so damn easy!
>
>On the other hand, bashing anything is pretty damn easy.

Ahh, but to bash easily with logic and reason- now thats the amazing
part.  Atheists should be the most balanced, content people around.
After all, we have science, history, psychology, sociology, and almost
any other -ology you can think of behind us.

-Nick
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: house@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house)
Subject: Re: logic, omni-, theism, and atheism
Organization: University of Southern Queensland
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:29:08 GMT

jeon@carson.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon) writes:

>we atheists tend to
>be very strong in logic.

Whenever someone says anything like this about themselves, you just _know_
a real logical howler is coming soon...

>If a theist accept the validity of logic, he/she cannot even conceive of
>converting atheists because the (non-) existence god is an axiom.

and there you go!  Last time I looked, most sane atheists had reasons for
their non-belief in god, even if only the reason that far too little
evidence was forthcoming in his favour.  Their atheism was a conclusion,
not an axiom.  (Apologies to any atheists to whom I have credited too
much intelligence.   :-)  )

--

Ron House.                 USQ
(house@helios.usq.edu.au)  Toowoomba, Australia.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: A nation chosen by GOD -- New-Israel
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:25:00 GMT

In article <2935683547.1.p00261@psilink.com>, 
"Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes...

>READ THE FAQS AND GET BACK WITH US.

Oy, I had to put on my shades to read your hints RK.

I read the FAQs several days ago. The one with all the latin is cute.

You don't have to go to the moderated group though, they were here
a couple of thousand messages back.

Still haven't figured out what you think is "preachy" though??

   |
-- J -- 
   |
   |  Stephen  
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: some 'corrections' and thoughts
Keywords: infallible, freewill,C/catholic
Date: 11 Jan 93 12:37:16 GMT
Distribution: alt.atheism
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <1993Jan6.094900.2796@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> wendymas@gnu.ai.mit.edu (femme fatale) writes:

>3 - the free will argument. I recently had a discussion about this with my
>boyfriend and it does not follow that just because God knows what i'm going
>to do means that i have no free will. so big deal. God knows what i'm 
>going to do. What's the connection between God knowing what i'm going to
>do and me knowing what i'm going to do? divine intervention? Highly
>Unlikely. God can know what i'm going to do and i can not know. These are NOT
>dependent events in any way, shape or form. God may know that i'm going to
>choose to become a dentist in 20 years but i certainly do not know and will
>not know. it's a choice i am *going* to make but just haven't yet. anyway,
>i've made my point.

YOUR knowledge doesn't matter.  If it can be known, now, by any being, that 
you will be a dentist, then even though it feels like you choose it, you 
didn't, because the definition of choice is that there is more than 1 way 
for you to go, and in this case there is only dentistry.
Not sure about this?  look at it this way-
God knows that you will become a dentist.  You have freewill.  Choose not to 
be a dentist.  If it worked, God was wrong!  If it didn't, where'd your 
freewill go?


        Never believe an experiment until it is confirmed by theory 
    Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England    (44|0)61-275-6033
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Removing "god" from morality. (was: Moral liberty)
Date: 10 Jan 1993 00:52:30 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <106524@bu.edu>, wooyoung@bu.edu (WooYoung Chung) writes:
|> 
|> About your second point, you might be right that religious 
|> people may not be more moral than atheists.  However, what's 
|> important is whether these religious people are more moral 
|> than if they were NOT religious themselves.  

Well, except that the religious==moral thing usually comes up
in the context of conversion.

If someone tells me that they are more moral as a religious
person than they would be as an atheist, then that's fine by
me.

It's when they imply that *I* would be more moral as a religious
person that I complain.

jon. 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: I'm on a coffee break now
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 04:03:00 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

STILL POSTING HIS MINDLESS CHRISTIAN DRIVEL IN ALT.ATHEISM,
MALCOLM LEE WRITES:

>I had already used my mind.  I am not a high school dropout, but a university 
>graduate in Comp Sci.  

ON THE OTHER HAND THIS SAME FELLOW CLAIMS THAT HE CANNOT FIGURE OUT HOW TO
EDIT HIS NEWSGROUP TO EXCLUDE ALT.ATHEISM.  HE IS EITHER A LIAR OR A FOOL.

MALCOLM!!

HERE IS YOUR NEWSGROUP!!!!

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc

NOW IF YOU CAN STOP HALLUCINATING FOR ABOUT 5 SECONDS, FIND THE KEY
MARKED "DELETE" ON YOUR KEYBOARD.  WITH ME?

MOVE YOUR CURSOR TO THE LINE WHICH CONTAINS THE NEWSGROUP AND PLACE IT
RIGHT BEFORE THE CHARACTERS "ALT.ATHEISM".  STILL WITH ME?

NOW PRESS THE DELETE KEY AT LEAST 12 TIMES!!!!!!!

THERE, NOW THAT NASTY CROSS POSTING TO ALT.ATHEISM IS GONE!!!!!!

NOW YOU CAN NOW GO BACK TO HALLUCINATING, BIBLE READING, AND
WORKING ON YOUR PH.D. IN COMPUTER SCIENCE.
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Who knows the mind of God?
Keywords: hypocrites backflip Jesus God Christians Jeff Clark
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:30:13 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1ij4uiINNs73@fido.asd.sgi.com: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
:In article <ednclark.726466826@kraken:, ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
::
:: So Fundies, Christians or Born Agains (Whatever you want to call yourselves)
:: what is it: do you know your God intimately, or don't you know him at all?
::
:: Hint: You can't have both and stay out of mental asylums.
:
:Which nicely raise the question: what features distinguish religions
:from lunatic asylums, anyway?

  Tax exempt status.


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Who knows the mind of God?
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 06:20:56 GMT


In a previous article, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) says:

>In article <ednclark.726466826@kraken>, ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>>
>> So Fundies, Christians or Born Agains (Whatever you want to call yourselves)
>> what is it: do you know your God intimately, or don't you know him at all?
>>
>> Hint: You can't have both and stay out of mental asylums.
>
>Which nicely raise the question: what features distinguish religions
>from lunatic asylums, anyway?
>
>jon.
>
At the house of religion of your choice, you get free grape juice and crackers
once a year.

At the asylum, you get it every day.

That's all..

-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  /\/\   These are the REAL  *         
*  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu/Kelley L. Miller  / /__\      Gay 90's!!      *           
*-------------------------------------/____\-----------------------*  
***************** Oxymoron: Freewill Christianity ******************
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ethridge@crchh403 (Allen Ethridge)
Subject: Re: Weekly bible lesson (have an open mind!)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:45:18 GMT
Organization: BNR, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Scott S Parish (parsons@cis.ksu.edu) wrote:
: dgray@menudo.uh.edu (Dennis Gray Jr.) writes:
: 
: 
: >Our lesson this week comes from First Samuel chapter 25:
: [Deletions.]
: >The story turns out in a "moral victory" for Davis's team, but here's
: >the real message in this scripture.  You see, being God's choosed
: >people, we have the right to take other people's sheep and other
: >goods.  We can especially do this if they do not recognize that we are
: >far superior to them and bow at our feet and offer us anything we
: >want.  After all, we didn't kill them immediately upon arriving here,
: >did we?  Hell, we didn't even take their sheep without demanding them!
: >That's right!  And damn it, that's what it says in The Book!
: 
: I can see you didn't bother to read any more than what you thought
: necessary.  David wasn't demanding Nabal's sheep or anything else.
: David was asking Nabal to return the hospitality David had shown to 
: Nabal's servants when they were in the wilderness with David's men. 
: While out in the wilderness David protected them so that nothing
: they had was lost (v.16).  Now, David in a time of need was asking for a
: little hospitality.  What David got in return was a resounding insult 
: (v.14) -- a bad breach of protocol in those days.  Thanks for sharing 
: your opinions, even if they were slightly misinformed.  Next time you 
: try to teach a bible lesson you might want to read the whole chapter.
: 
So, like, according to Christianity, it's OK for me to kill somebody if
i'm first kind to him and then he insults me?

Even with this additional explanation it still comes down to David and
his people killing and stealing from Nabal and his people over a disagreement.
In civilized societies this is considered criminal.  It follows, then, that
the Christian god condones murder and theft, at least when it serves his
purposes.

Or are you saying that morality is relative?  Is it a Christian belief that
morality changes from culture to culture and society to society?  There are
no god-given absolute morals?
--
allen@well.sf.ca.us
ethridge@bnr.ca
my opinions are my ow
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: A little food for thought (pizza?)
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 23:32:13 GMT

Nightsong (nightsng@anarky.tch.org) wrote:
: > When I was going through  my adolescent angst or existential crisis or
: > whatever you want to call it, my main concern was to define myself.  I
: > had previously beendefined by my parents and dependant on them for
: > everything.  Assuming responsibility for oneself is scary.  So we look
: > for the "meaning of life" to tell us what to do, how to behave, how to
: > handle this big shift.  I wanted to know what God's rules were, just as
: > children are happier when they know their boundaries.
:
: I have myself defined pretty clearly; it is just who to believe (or  if
: to believe anyone) that I wonder about.  Such as --
:
:  1. Is there a way to prove the people who believe in a God right or
: wrong?

Right?  Yes.  Produce concrete evidence to the existence of a specific god.
Wrong?  No.  See FAQ on proving a universal negative.

:  2. Is there a way to prove the people who believe in many gods right or
: wrong?

Right?  Yes.  See above.
Wrong?  No.  See above.

:  3. Is there a way to prove the people who believe in no gods right or
: wrong?

Right?  No.  See above.
Wrong?  Yes.  See above.

:  4. Is there a way to prove the people who believe in reality right or
: wrong?

Right?  Yes.  Demonstrate the observable world around them.
Wrong?  Yes.  Take "reality" away while maintaining individual identities, and 
then demonstrate that "reality" was all an illusion.

:  5. Is there a way to prove the people who do NOT believe in reality
: right or wrong?

Right?  Yes.  See "Wrong" answer to 4. above.
Wrong?  No.  If they don't accept the evidence of their own senses, there is 
nothing else to point to.

:  6. Is there a way to prove ANYTHING is right or wrong?

Right?  Yes.  Demonstrate that the phenomenon exists.
Wrong?  Yes.  Demonstrate a counter example exists.

:
: All these questions assuming that you do not know for sure that this is
: reality.  Although some of them are about this.
:
: The answer to all of them is no and I cannot believe all of them at once
: to be yes without doublethink (triplethink? quadruplethink?) so I am
: *EXTREMELY*  confused.
:

Where did I go wrong by answering "Yes" to some of the above questions?
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
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
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: BELIEVERS: WHAT WOULD MAKE YOU NOT BELIEVE IN GOD?
Organization: I'm on a coffee break now
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:58:31 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

>> FROM:   Robert Huss <rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU>
>>>Subject: Re: Nailing Christianity: Sufficient Support for Atheism?
>>>	There is a great deal of debunking of Christianity going on
>>>on this group, but is this really sufficient grounds for Atheism? 

>>Robert Knowles <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
>>Debunking religion does not disprove the existence of god.  We really do
>>not have to disprove the existence of god.  We simply do not accept the
>>existence of god until that existence is proven.

>martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:
>Instinctively I agree with this, but we need to ask ourselves 'What would
>constitute proof?' in this case.  What *would* prove to you (or me)
>that a god existed?  This has worried me recently, because I can't think
>of a single objective proof.

A lot of times atheists are told that they mainly attack religion and provide
only negative viewpoints.  However, I was at an atheist meeting in town and a
professor from Rice University who periodically teaches classes on atheism told
our group that when he holds his classes he divides the class into two groups,
atheists and believers, and then asks the following question:

To the atheists:  What would make you believe in god?

To the believers:  What would make you not believe in god?

The professor claims that atheists are usually quick to name several scenarios
which would make them accept the existence of god, but that the believers are
somewhat stunned by the question and usually cannot give an answer.  I have
seen many atheists post interesting things that would make them at least start
thinking that there was a god, including things like temporary suspension of
certain natural laws (like gravity!) and similar things.  I would be hard
pressed to remain an atheist if all the stars lined up in the night sky 
forming a bright banner which read:  

HEY DUMBASS, YOU'RE WRONG, HERE I AM!

or something along those lines, but I am not sure what else would be convincing
proof of the existence of a supposedly omnipotent being.  Maybe people have 
other ideas.  Of course we haven't defined the being in question, but use
the usual omnibeing, if you wish.

Also, since a fair number of god believers also read this newsgroup, I am 
curious what would make them no longer believe that god existed.

All in the interest of a better understanding...
From: eradm@wbst845e.xerox.com (Erik Radmall)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Immoral Jerry Fallwel
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:52:43 GMT
Reply-To: eradm@wbst845e.xerox.com
Organization: Xerox Corporation

In article 541110bb2@ofa123.fidonet.org, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org () writes:
[stuff deleted]
>      
>      Jerry doesn't care about the cocaine and heroin that was  put
>      aboard  Pan  AM  flight 103 by his CIA, which  blew  up  over
>      Lockerbee, Scotland (Los Angeles _Times_ July 17, 1987).  Nor
>      does  he  seem to care about the CIA warning its'  operatives
>      off  the airplane minutes before it took off, but failing  to
>      warn  the citizens of the bomb they believed to be on  board.
>      Nor  does Jerry seem to care about the Reagan / Bush  coverup
>      that followed (_Time_, April 27, 1992).
>      

This was shown to be a hoax perpetrated by a con man. Time's reputation
suffered immensely from the shoddy nature of the reporting of this
fabrication. I'm surprised you didn't catch this. This entry casts
a great shadow of doubt on the rest of your material -- especially the
references to war casualties. While I personally think Jerry is another
evangelical slimeball, don't hurt your cause with blatant misinformation.

>      Jerry  doesn't  care  about  the 1,500  dead  civilians  from
>      "Operation Just Cause" (Panamanian invasion) whos only reason
>      for being killed by American soldiers is because they were in
>      the way. Nor does Jerry care about the five-to-one wounded of
>      civilians to combatants in the Panama invasion. Jerry doesn't
>      care about the coverup that followed the American bombing  of
>      the Tropic Hotel in Panama.
>      
>      Jerry  ignores  200,000  dead in  the  recent  Oil  War  with
>      Hussein, where George Bush did everything possible to prevent
>      the  Soviet  negotiation that would have lead to a  peaceful,
>      face-saving  pullout  of Iraqi forces from  Kuwait.  Official
>      American body count of US forces is 23--- Commanded Brets  of
>      US  34Th. MASH unit reported personally putting in body  bags
>      60  dead  American  boys in the FIRST  HOUR:  where  are  the
>      missing bodies? Why was the 34Th's medical records taken away
>      AT  GUN POINT, only to vanish somewhere on the trip from  the
>      Middle East to Washington?
>      
>      Does  Jerry  care  about the two million Kurds  that  Harvard
>      University estimates will die as the result of the Oil War?
>  
> Jerry Falwell clearly is part of the problem of moral and ethical decay
> in  America, when he tells his cult members that Bush's crimes are okay
> because the laws he has broken are "mans' laws, not Gods'." Seems to me
> that killing people is something Christians should be just as concerned
> about as non-Christains.
> 
> --- Maximus 2.01wb



---
Erik Radmall -- eradm.roch803@xerox.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:12:36 GMT

In article <C0L1tA.BHr.1@cs.cmu.edu> drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
>mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes:
>
>>> What are the reasons for emotions?
>>
>>	Trivial.  It seems to me that emotions can easily be
>>understood in an evolutionary context.  Love causes creatures to
>>cooperate with each other, to enhance each other's chance of survival.
>
>I *really* hate to seem like I'm agreeing with this bozo...but yeah,
>let's discuss this.  Love often seems to be anti-survival, to be
>honest.  Example: I love my mother.  Because of that love, I would
>sacrifice my life for her.  Obviously anti-survival for me.  My mother
>is old, cannot have more children, will probably die soon.  Also
>anti-survival for the race.  Yet, I perceive that I would do so, out
>of love.

The emotions you speak of evolved, I think, during a period of time in
which it was relatively uncommon for people to live as long as your mother
has (if, indeed, they evolved that recently!).  It is only relatively
recently, in terms of evolution, that humans developed the ability to
survive much past the time of infertility (note that, even today, the time
of fertility is *still* longer, on average, than the time of infertility,
even if you include childhood in the time of infertility).

Indeed, I would argue that emotions probably evolved long before humans
came on the scene.  You can find examples of anger, for instance, in almost
any species on the planet, right down to insects.  You can find examples of
love in many of the more complex species, e.g. cats and dogs.

I think it is highly unlikely that humans have a monopoly on love.

>The other emotions you suggest are easily explained by reason.  Love,
>in my mind, seems to be the sole exception.

With any luck, the above has helped in this.


BTW, for those of you who have trouble defining love, try the following
on for size:

    love - any emotional attachment.

It's probably not a perfect definition (is there any such thing?), but it
seems to cover most of the bases...


-- 
Kevin Brown					kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
	    This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
			Any questions?