HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up?
Date: 12 Jan 1993 21:44:20 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <12JAN199314155474@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
|> In article <1isoslINNaee@fido.asd.sgi.com>, 
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes...
|> 
|> >Well, then.   Perhaps you had better hire an accountant to balance your
|> >check book.
|> > 
|> >From Mr Tice's answers, I take it that his general method is to set up
|> >a kind of dichotomoy between "reason" and "something else", and then
|> >claim that choosing "something else" is a valid choice.    My usual
|> >response to that is to ask how people run the rest of their lives, and
|> >if they apply the "something else" choice consistently.  Of course, we
|> >can turn this into a million line debate, but i think that's the guts of
|> >it.
|> > 
|> >jon.
|> 
|> Checkbook? I balance it about once a quarter. It's really a no-brainer,
|> since I have no car, no tv, no stereo, no job, no family, no income,
|> no credit and very few expenses, and I pay for everything besides 
|> utilities, rent and infrequent large expenses -- with cash.

And the question was, do you trust yourself to balance your check
book, or pay the right amount in cash, or buy what you need rather
than irrelevant things?

If you do, then you are using the same rationality you claim you
don't trust.

jon.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25411 talk.religion.misc:25579 alt.pagan:15117
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:40:11 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <root.726502852@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>You make the assumption that I don't support true equal access.  You are
>wrong.  I really don't care who or what is on TV, so long as NOONE is
>restricted.  You want equal access for everyone EXCEPT Christians.  Nice
>double standard you have there.
>

  Then you wouldn't mind a television show that broadcast live
  infant sacrifices in a Satanic ritual, now would you?


  (Don't jump on me, David.  It's a hypothetical).


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

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: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Agreement on this implication?
Date: 7 Jan 93 07:43:36 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <TORKEL.93Jan5205334@bugs.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel
Franzen) wrote:
> 
> In article <C0Dyx4.4Dn@sus.edu.eur.nl> bidewolf@sus.edu.eur.nl 
> (Ronald de Wolf) writes:
> 
>   >If this implication is correct,then logically the imperfectness of the world
>   >(on which most people agree,I think) implies the imperfectness 
>   >(in the opinion of most people) of God.
> 
>   Note, however, that most people probably do not use "perfect" in the sense
> of Leibniz. This is the best possible world, according to Leibniz, in the
> sense that there is as much existence, form, and variety in it as is at all
> possible.

Was Leibniz one of the ontologists keen to aspire God as the way
to extend self awareness (the classical Descartes' dilemma with
the whispering deamon)? In other words you need God to create the
universe instead of a deamon :-).

Cheers,
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
Predictions: Soon moving to Newton DTS, bye bye.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Reality- What's Probable?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:04:25 GMT

In article <1ivjtdINNh32@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>Don't be silly.   You simply presented self-contradictory attributes.
>
>What's impossible is to prove the non-existence of something which
>is not intrinsically self-contradictory.   An entity that could, at
>least in principle, exist.
>
>Your example has no bearing on that.   
That's true. I postulate the existence of a purple tiger such that
if I were (at any time) to look under my desk, I would have (at any
time following that) a noticeable memory of seeing it.
Just looked under my desk. No memory of seeing the tiger. Doesn't exist.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25200 talk.religion.misc:25361
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Moron Posts Again!
Date: 7 Jan 93 10:34:38 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <2935465598.10.p00168@psilink.com> p00168@psilink.com (James F. Tims) writes:
[...ace list of studies deleted...]
>I previously stated an agreement with the drift of the above studies.
>Even most atheists stand against me in this, and I don't understand why.
[...]
>I agree that there are no completely satisfactory measures of intelligence,
>nor even any satisfactory definitions of what is to be measured. 
>Intelligence seems to me to at least be something, though, and every tack we
>take in trying to catch the elusive winds of thought carries us further
>toward workable definitions.  
                           
I too believe that 'intelligence' is related to IQ though it's not the 
exact same thing.  The main reasons for the unpopularity of this view are 
(a) the 'ruling classes' (which you do have in the USA, whatever anybody 
says) don't actually want a meritocracy, because they didn't get where they 
are on merit for the most part; 
(b) overbaked socialism mistakenly equates measurement of an attribute with 
unfair discrimination based on that attribute.
[I'm broadly socialist but can see some of the flaws in some of the current 
dogma]
----IMHO!----[of course, as a Mensan, I'm biased]

Thanks for posting the list of studies.  

  No Trespassing: 4/17ths of a haiku.     D.Budd@mcc.ac.uk   fax 6040
  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England    (44|0)61-275-6033  
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ikonen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Ian Konen)
Subject: Re: Weekly bible lesson (have an open mind!) NOT!
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:37:06 GMT

In <1iusfuINNgse@aurora.engr.LaTech.edu> mchenry@engr.latech.edu (Michael Q. McHenry) writes:

>Dennis Gray Jr. writes: 
>>
>>Our lesson this week comes from First Samuel chapter 25:
>>	
>>	[lots of text with paragraphs starting with numbers 
>>	 separated by colons deleted]
>>

>Actually, while I was deleting the rest of Dennis' text, I noticed what may have 
>been sarcasm.  Not quite sure how to respond to theistic sarcasm.  But that is
>leading me away from my central point, which is "zzzzzz".  One of the truly
>great things about being an atheist is that you get to sleep in on sunday mournings
>if you want to and not have to listen to some fanatic dribble on about this 
>verse or that verse or these verses or them verses.  But, sigh, the concept of
>a weekly bible lesson in a.a is..  well..  you know, I gotta hand it to Mr. Gray.
>And yes!  for all of his great effort, he has won himself a glorious, fun-filled,
>all expense paid, one-way trip into my kill file!!  (audience applause light)

Please don't take this as a flame, but please read the entire article before
responding to it.  I'd be willing to bet you didn't if you only "noticed what
may have been sarcasm."  Having read the entire article, I am certain it was
clearly sarcastic, and an obvious attack on the bible.  I mean, do you really
think a bible-quoting Christian would say...

>>  And damn it, that's what it says in The Book!
        ^^^^^^^
This isn't the only time this has happened.  I have seen it happen here a few
times where someone will post something from a fanatic perspective, and only
explain at the end the end how he/she heard someone else say this, and isn't
it a riot?  Meanwhile someone else will come along and rip the article to
pieces with attacks on the post and the poster him/herself, and finally after
the disclaimer will say, "oh sorry.  Thought you were serious."

It's not entirely the responder's fault either.  Posters often don't consider
how much sarcasm is in the voice, and that what sounds sarcastic when heard
comes out looking serious in print.  I know this article doesn't specifically
apply to alt.atheism, but this is where I've seen is happen the most.

>---
>Quinn McHenry                 "If you would be a real seeker after truth, it
>mchenry@engr.latech.edu        is necessary that at least once in your life
>Biomedical Engineering         you doubt, as far as possible, all things."
>Louisiana Tech University                   - Rene Descartes

							-Ian Konen

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: tp0x+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price)
Subject: Re: Genital-grabbing
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:10:42 GMT

In article <1i2qqqINNhsr@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>
>	I think at several points in the OT (if my memory of bible
>class in HS serves me right) putting your hand between someones thighs
>was something they did to "seal" a promise, I think Abraham had ordered
>a servant to make a promise and told his servant to put his hands between
>his legs while making the promise...

Yes. Think of the word "Testimony" -- an oath sworn on the testes.
This concept was apparently not unknown to the Romans either.

Apologies if this response is redundant -- I haven't been keeping up with
the messages.


      Tom Price   |    tp0x@cs.cmu.edu   |   Free will? What free will? 
 *****************************************************************************
  plutoniumsurveillanceterroristCIAassassinationIranContrawirefraudcryptology




Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Believers: What Would Make You Not Believe In GOD?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:23:00 GMT

As did Mr. Hanley, you also took the portion you focussed on out of
context Mr. Meyer. 

Try again.

-- Sdt

In article <MMEYER.93Jan12121401@m2.dseg.ti.com>, mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes...
>In article <11JAN199315111090@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>> If I believed there was no GOD, well --- I'd be planning how to cause
>> or be out causing "accidents," which change society and politics. Like
>> poisoning foods and derailing trains. I could become rich, just by
>> jerking with the stock market, and there would be nothing worthwhile
>> in having this discussion.
> 
>	So you NEED belief in God to remain moral?  That's really sad.
>	Doesn't mean God exists, though.
> 
>-- 
>Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
>Texas Instruments, Inc.,  Plano TX                       +--------------------+
>Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
>                                            Remember: If you drive - use a car.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25501 talk.religion.misc:25661 alt.pagan:15157
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Religious Taxation (was: Madeleine Murray O'Hare)
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 16:26:23 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:

>In article <root.726530815@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>
>>Your comments on theism/atheism and theistic/non-theistic state seem to
>>support my point.  If the governemnt *forbids* religion from PBS, that is
>>promoting non-religion over religion.  In other words, all views, except
>>religious ones are permitted, and religious ones are excluded.  Hardly in
>>line with the 1st Amendment.
>
>No, it just isn't mentioning religion. If the government allows programs
>that say "we don't believe in god(s)" that would be promoting non-religion.
>By not allowing either, they are in line with the first amendment.
>
>Why do some believers think that not mentioning religion at all is the
>same as denying religion?

It's not 'non-mention,' though.  There have been Christian critical
programs on PBS.  But the ability of Christians to respond in the same
media and same way is limited or non-existant.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25764 talk.religion.misc:25937
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:47:57 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1isn3eINN62n@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

}} In that case, how would you feel about your children bringing home
}} tracts from the Church of the SubGenius, the Discordians, or the
}} Church of Satan?  The Unification Church?  The Scientologists?  The
}} Children of God?

} I think we already know the answer to this one, from the Christian
} Groups that have attempted to have Yoga lessons banned, or insisted on
} having what they thought were satantic symbols removed from football
} team logos.

And why not?  If Christianity is to be banned, then these other
religions ought to be banned also.

} When arguing for equal time for Christianity, Christians claim that
} they wouldn't mind other relgions being represented.  In real life,
} they behave somewhat differently.

If Christianity is to be accorded equal time, then fine, other
religions can be represented also.  If Christianity is to be banned --
_AS_IS_CURRENTLY_THE_CASE_ in many public institutions -- then, by
God, all other religions must be banned also!  You got a problem with
that, bub?
-- 
The views expressed herein are   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously   ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
as this would hold such views??? ||
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24867 alt.pagan:14902 talk.religion.misc:25059
From: jeon@carson.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Bible translations, or Does God Speak Latin?
Date: 4 Jan 1993 12:21:07 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu
Keywords: Catholic, Latin, Bible

As I understand it, the persistence in using Latin served two purposes
in old Christianity.

One, the Latin, which was hardly understood by ordinary people
nevertheless had the effect of magic words, sort of like saying
Abracadabra, nobody really knows what it means, but that is precisely
why it seems magical. 

Two, related to the first, is a matter of power of the clergy. They
were in some sense like shamans who knew what magical words to say
when something bad or for that matter good happened.

Note that (then new) protestant churches, including Lutheran and
Anglican, translated bible after
they were separated from catholic. The intention probably had as much
to do with freeing people from the (magical) power of the catholic
clergy as to do with spreading the good news. 
What was the key event that made Luther protest against the
catholic church? 
Selling indulgences by the church!
In other words, (magical) power that was being corrupted badly.

Not everything that goes on in a religion has to do with spirituality,
you know.

Opinions expressed here are mine and mine only.
From: s0499528@let.rug.nl (R. Dijkhuis)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faulty IQ reasoning (Was: Re: iq<->religion: connection?)
Date: 5 Jan 93 11:23:35 GMT
Organization: Faculteit der Letteren, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, NL

In article <2935295193.0.p00168@psilink.com> "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:
>From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
>Subject: Re: Faulty IQ reasoning (Was: Re: iq<->religion: connection?)
>Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 05:12:03 GMT
>>DATE:   Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:35:44 EST
>>FROM:   John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
>>
>>In article <X9yuwB4w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> says:
>>[in response to an incredibly long thread I stopped reading months ago]
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>I'd like to suggest that both the "sincere observer" and mathew are
>>conducting pretty shoddy psychological research.  Casual observation,
>>however sincere, lacks the necessary rigor for determining the
>>correlation between intelligence and theistic beliefs.  If I remember
>>correctly, proper research indicates the correlation is about zero.
>>
>[...]
>
>Oh, splendid, Mr. Johnson!  Bully for your memory.  Produce something.  
>I posted dozens of studies showing just the opposite, that the 
>correlation is quite high.  Just "shoddy studies," I suppose. At least it was 
>something besides a fond personal opinion.  At least it was something, while
>you seem to have just discarded all of them and substituted the power of 
>your own opinion.  
>
>What infuriating hubris!  Pompous, pedantic bullshit!  I pounded the 
>keyboard for hours, looked through books, and came up with quite a bit 
>in support of atheists being smarter; but you, lazily, with a prissy wave of 
>your lousy memory, toss my work over your shoulder without so much as a 
>mention.  Something besides your stinking recollections would be grand, 
>Mr. Johnson, especially since they seem so selective.  Post us 
>a non-shoddy study, Mr. Johnson, that supports your position (other than 
>the four that I included with your preferred result).  Anything would be 
>better than "proper research indicates the correlation is about zero,"  
>including leaving this empty, infuriating, condescending, stultifying,
>(dare I say stupid?) 

Those are exactly the words I would use to describe statements implying that 
being an atheist makes you smarter

pronouncement out of your post, completely.  In the 
>absence of supporting documentation, and in the face of what I have 
>posted on this thread, your statement is without justification or merit.

Reinder D uit de Bijlmer B.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: autopsy@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Gregory Baumgartel)
Subject: Re: Why must you act this way?
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 05:46:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.181314.9181@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
> Humans prefer to blame God for all the wrongs of this world.  Kind of 
> hypocritical when most people don't believe in God in the first place.
>
Allocating blame to God seems like a fairly plausable reason why people
dreamed him up in the first place.  The notion of a God relieves us
(humankind) of responsibliliy, depending on individual beliefs.  IMHO, without 
belief in God, humans would accept more responsibility for their own actions.
	I also have another thing that bothered me about the idea of a God. 
If God created us, then where did God come from?  

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 12:56:03 GMT

In article <SCG.93Jan4191028@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu writes:
>iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>
>>What amazes me, is that so many people call themselves Christians, but:
>
>>1) Have never read the Bible (unless forced at school)
>>2) Don't care about most of the commandments
>>3) Go to church only at Christmas, if at all
>>4) Donate little to the church, if at all
>
>>Have people lost the meaning of Christianity? These people could as
>>well be atheists, as it wouldn't change their life much.
>
>um, i thought being a christian meant accepting jesus christ as your
>lord and savior.  i didn't realize that it was, instead, reading the
>bible, following the commandments, going to church every sunday, and
>giving away 10% of your income.

Well, aren't the 'rules' et al in the Bible and commandments, and going to
church and donating to the church service to God?

>
>*sigh*
>
>somehow, i suspect that many (most?) of the people who claim to be
>christians have no real idea what it means to 'accept jesus christ as
>one's personal lord and savior'.
>
>--
>As a practical matter, if a trusting and supportive relationship between a
>parent and a child has not already been established, it is unlikely that the
>state can create in a moment of crisis what the parents were unable to develop
>over the course of the preceding years. -- Judge Maxine Chesney (CA Supr Court)


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/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: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 12:31:18 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
> In article <1993Jan4.185129.29260@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka
> >In article <0PZuwB6w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> >>iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
> >>> Intelligence is superior to stupidity, but atheism is not an equate to
> >>> intelligence. Thus, atheism is not 'superior' to religion.
> >>
> >>   A > B            C != A        =>    C <= D
> 
> >More like:
> > a>b       c!=a     d!=b     =>   c!=d 
> ie. they aren't 'related' point by point
> 
> This isn't what you originally said, and it's still not logically valid.
> To state a relationship between 2 things, and then say that 2 other things 
> are not the same as the first 2 things, says nothing about any possible 
> relationship between the second 2 things.  

Example:

a=2 b=1 c=3 d=3


mathew