everything ok!

part2/test/atheism/53068

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+From: [email protected] (dean.kaflowitz)
+Subject: Re: about the bible quiz answers
+Organization: AT&T
+Distribution: na
+Lines: 18
+
+In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Tammy R Healy) writes:
+> 
+> 
+> #12) The 2 cheribums are on the Ark of the Covenant.  When God said make no 
+> graven image, he was refering to idols, which were created to be worshipped. 
+> The Ark of the Covenant wasn't wrodhipped and only the high priest could 
+> enter the Holy of Holies where it was kept once a year, on the Day of 
+> Atonement.
+
+I am not familiar with, or knowledgeable about the original language,
+but I believe there is a word for "idol" and that the translator
+would have used the word "idol" instead of "graven image" had
+the original said "idol."  So I think you're wrong here, but
+then again I could be too.  I just suggesting a way to determine
+whether the interpretation you offer is correct.
+
+
+Dean Kaflowitz

part2/test/atheism/53257

@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+From: [email protected] (Chris Faehl)
+Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics
+Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
+Lines: 88
+Distribution: world
+NNTP-Posting-Host: vesta.unm.edu
+
+In article <timmbake.735265296@mcl>, [email protected] ("Clam" Bake Timmons) writes:
+
+> 
+> >Fallacy #1: Atheism is a faith. Lo! I hear the FAQ beckoning once again...
+> >[wonderful Rule #3 deleted - you're correct, you didn't say anything >about
+> >a conspiracy]
+> 
+> Correction: _hard_ atheism is a faith.
+
+Yes.
+
+> 
+> >>Rule #4:  Don't mix apples with oranges.  How can you say that the
+> >>extermination by the Mongols was worse than Stalin?  Khan conquered people
+> >>unsympathetic to his cause.That was atrocious.But Stalin killed millions of
+> >>his own people who loved and worshipped _him_ and his atheist state!!How can
+    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     
+> >>anyone be worse than that?
+> 
+> >I will not explain this to you again: Stalin did nothing in the name of
+> >atheism. Whethe he was or was not an atheist is irrelevant.
+> 
+> Get a grip, man.  The Stalin example was brought up not as an
+> indictment of atheism, but merely as another example of how people will
+> kill others under any name that's fit for the occasion.
+
+No, look again. While you never *said* it, the implication is pretty clear.
+I'm sorry, but I can only respond to your words, not your true meaning. Usenet
+is a slippery medium. 
+
+[deleted wrt the burden of proof]
+> 
+> So hard atheism has nothing to prove?  Then how does it justify that
+> God does not exist?  I know, there's the FAQ, etc.  But guess what -- if
+> those justifications were so compelling why aren't people flocking to
+> _hard_ atheism?  They're not, and they won't.  I for one will discourage
+> people from hard atheism by pointing out those very sources as reliable
+> statements on hard atheism.
+> 
+Look, I'm not supporting *any* dogmatic position. I'd be a fool to say that
+in the large group of people that are atheists, no people exist who wish to
+proselytize in the same fashion as religion. How many hard atheists do you 
+see posting here, anyway? Maybe I'mm just not looking hard enough...
+
+> Second, what makes you think I'm defending any given religion?  I'm merely
+> recognizing hard atheism for what it is, a faith.
+
+I never meant to do so, although I understand where you might get that idea.
+I was merely using the 'bible' example as an allegory to illustrate my
+point.
+
+> 
+> And yes, by "we" I am referring to every reader of the post.  Where is the
+> evidence that the poster stated that he relied upon?
+
+Evidence for what? Who? I think I may have lost this thread...
+
+[why theists are arrogant deleted]
+> >Because they say, "Such-and-such is absolutely unalterably True, because
+>          ^^^^
+> >my dogma says it is True." I am not prepared to issue blanket statements
+> >indicting all theists of arrogance as you are wont to do with atheists.
+> 
+> Bzzt!  By virtue of your innocent little pronoun, "they", you've just issued
+> a blanket statement.  At least I will apologize by qualifying my original
+> statement with "hard atheist" in place of atheist.  Would you call John the
+> Baptist arrogant, who boasted of one greater than he?  That's what many
+> Christians do today.  How is that _in itself_ arrogant?
+
+Guilty as charged. What I *meant* to say was, the theists who *are* arrogant
+are this way because they say ...  Other than that, I thought my meaning
+was clear enough. Any position that claims itself as superior to another with
+no supporting evidence is arrogant. Thanks for your apology, btw.
+
+> >
+> >> I'm not worthy!
+> >Only seriously misinformed.
+> With your sophisticated put-down of "they", the theists, _your_ serious
+> misinformation shines through.
+
+Explained above.
+
+> 
+> --
+> Bake Timmons, III
+> 
+> -- "...there's nothing higher, stronger, more wholesome and more useful in life
+> than some good memory..." -- Alyosha in Brothers Karamazov (Dostoevsky)

part2/test/atheism/53260

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+From: mathew <[email protected]>
+Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
+Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
+X-Newsreader: rusnews v1.02
+Lines: 50
+
+[email protected] (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
+>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Robert
+>Beauchaine) writes:
+>>Bennett, Neil.  "How BCCI adapted the Koran rules of banking".  The 
+>>Times.  August 13, 1991.
+> 
+> So, let's see. If some guy writes a piece with a title that implies
+> something is the case then it must be so, is that it?
+
+Gregg, you haven't provided even a title of an article to support *your*
+contention.
+
+>>  This is how you support a position if you intend to have anyone
+>>  respect it, Gregg.  Any questions?  And I even managed to include
+>>  the above reference with my head firmly engaged in my ass.  What's
+>>  your excuse?
+> 
+> This supports nothing. I have no reason to believe that this is 
+> piece is anything other than another anti-Islamic slander job.
+
+You also have no reason to believe it *is* an anti-Islamic slander job, apart
+from your own prejudices.
+
+> I have no respect for titles, only for real content. I can look
+> up this article if I want, true. But I can tell you BCCI was _not_
+> an Islamic bank.
+
+Why, yes.  What's a mere report in The Times stating that BCCI followed
+Islamic banking rules?  Gregg *knows* Islam is good, and he *knows* BCCI were
+bad, therefore BCCI *cannot* have been Islamic.  Anyone who says otherwise is
+obviously spreading slanderous propaganda.
+
+>                                      If someone wants to discuss
+> the issue more seriously then I'd be glad to have a real discussion,
+> providing references, etc.
+
+I see.  If someone wants to provide references to articles you agree with,
+you will also respond with references to articles you agree with?  Mmm, yes,
+that would be a very intellectually stimulating debate.  Doubtless that's how
+you spend your time in soc.culture.islam.
+
+I've got a special place for you in my...
+
+...kill file.  Right next to Bobby.  Want to join him?
+
+The more you post, the more I become convinced that it is simply a waste of
+time to try and reason with Moslems.  Is that what you are hoping to achieve?
+
+
+mathew

part2/test/atheism/53261

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+From: [email protected] (Dan Schaertel,,,)
+Subject: Re: Christian Morality is
+Reply-To: [email protected]
+Organization: Eastman Kodak Company
+Lines: 21
+Nntp-Posting-Host: 129.126.121.55
+
+In article [email protected], [email protected] (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
+|>
+|>  Yet I am still not a believer.  Is god not concerned with my
+|>  disposition?  Why is it beneath him to provide me with the
+|>  evidence I would require to believe?  The evidence that my
+|>  personality, given to me by this god, would find compelling?
+
+The fact is God could cause you to believe anything He wants you to. 
+But think about it for a minute.  Would you rather have someone love
+you because you made them love you, or because they wanted to
+love you.     The responsibility is on you to love God and take a step toward
+Him.  He promises to be there for you, but you have to look for yourself.
+Those who doubt this or dispute it have not givin it a sincere effort.
+Simple logic arguments are folly.  If you read the Bible you will see
+that Jesus made fools of those who tried to trick him with "logic".
+Our ability to reason is just a spec of creation.  Yet some think it is
+the ultimate.  If you rely simply on your reason then you will never
+know more than you do now.   To learn you must accept that which
+you don't know.
+
+

part2/test/atheism/53262

@@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
+From: [email protected] (Jim Halat)
+Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
+Reply-To: [email protected] (Jim Halat)
+Lines: 129
+
+In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (mathew) writes:
+>[email protected] (Mark McCullough) writes:
+>>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Jim Halat) writes:
+>>>Atoms are not objective.  They aren't even real.  What scientists call
+>>>an atom is nothing more than a mathematical model that describes 
+>>>certain physical, observable properties of our surroundings.  All
+>>>of which is subjective.  
+>> 
+>> This deserves framing.  It really does.  "[Atoms] aren't even real."
+>> 
+>> Tell me then, those atoms we have seen with electron microscopes are
+>> atoms now, so what are they?  Figments of our imaginations?  The
+>> evidence that atoms are real is overwhelming, but I won't bother with
+>> most evidence at the moment.
+>
+>HA HA HA!
+>
+>Sorry, but having studied cell biology, I have to say that "I can see it
+>through an electron microscope, THEREFORE it is real" is a laughable
+>statement.
+>
+[...stuff deleted...]
+
+Thank you.  I thought I was in the twilight zone for a moment.
+It still amazes me that many people with science backgrounds 
+still confuse the models and observables with what even they
+would call the real world.
+
+-jim halat
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Jim Halat) writes:
+>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
+>
+>>You were a liberal arts major, weren'tcha?
+>>
+>>Guess you never saw that photo of the smallest logo in the world--
+>>"IBM" made with noble gas atoms (krypton? xenon? I forget the
+>>specifics).
+>>
+>>Atoms, trees, electrons are all independently observable and
+>>verifiable. Morals aren't. See the difference?
+>
+>
+>Just for the record ( not that any kind of information would be
+>likely to affect your thinking ) I have an MSEE -- focus in
+>Electromagnetics -- from Penn.
+>
+>A photo of the smallest logo in the world does not an atom make.
+>What was observed is something we can measure that matches what 
+>the mathematical model we call an atom had predicted.  
+>
+>Much in the same way that we need BOTH a particle model and a
+>wave model for light, the atomic model is a mathematical
+>representation of physical phenomena.  A model that can and
+>probably will continue to change over time.  That makes it 
+>subjective (the model that is).  However, the model gives us an
+>objective way to talk about the physical world.
+>
+>To put it another way, the Quantum Mechanical model of the atom
+>allows for discussion of the atom that will give repeatable and
+>unambiguous results, which is objective.  However, as Bohr and
+>Einstein duked it out mid-century, the interpretation of
+>those reapeatable, observable measurements is quite subjective.
+>Bohr said that the observable randomness of atomic motion was
+>inherent in the nature of the universe.  Einstein said particle
+>motion was deterministic, but it was our measurement shortcomings
+>that introduced the randomness.  They were talking about the
+>EXACT same results, though.
+>
+>-jim halat

part2/test/atheism/53265

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+From: Nanci Ann Miller <[email protected]>
+Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics
+Organization: Sponsored account, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
+Lines: 33
+NNTP-Posting-Host: po4.andrew.cmu.edu
+In-Reply-To: <timmbake.735196735@mcl>
+
+[email protected] (Bake Timmons) writes:
+> There lies the hypocrisy, dude.  Atheism takes as much faith as theism.  
+> Admit it!
+
+Some people might think it takes faith to be an atheist... but faith in
+what?  Does it take some kind of faith to say that the Great Invisible Pink
+Unicorn does not exist?  Does it take some kind of faith to say that Santa
+Claus does not exist?  If it does (and it may for some people I suppose) it
+certainly isn't as big a leap of faith to say that these things (and god)
+DO exist.  (I suppose it depends on your notion and definition of "faith".)
+
+Besides... not believing in a god means one doesn't have to deal with all
+of the extra baggage that comes with it!  This leaves a person feeling
+wonderfully free, especially after beaten over the head with it for years!
+I agree that religion and belief is often an important psychological healer
+for many people and for that reason I think it's important.  However,
+trying to force a psychological fantasy (I don't mean that in a bad way,
+but that's what it really is) on someone else who isn't interested is
+extremely rude.  What if I still believed in Santa Claus and said that my
+belief in Santa did wonderful things for my life (making me a better
+person, allowing me to live without guilt, etc...) and then tried to get
+you to believe in Santa too just 'cuz he did so much for me?  You'd call
+the men in white coats as soon as you could get to a phone.
+
+> --
+> Bake Timmons, III
+
+Nanci  (just babbling... :-))
+.........................................................................
+If you know (and are SURE of) the author of this quote, please send me
+email ([email protected]):
+Spring is nature's way of saying, 'Let's party!'
+