Skip to content

D
Distributed-Search-Engine
Commit f7462b15 authored by tammam.alsoleman's avatar tammam.alsoleman
Browse files
Options

add the Docs

parent 06ea0849
Expand all Hide whitespace changes
Inline Side-by-side
Showing with 54910 additions and 0 deletions
storage/49960 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51060 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51119 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!sdd.hp.com!nigel.msen.com!yale.edu!ira.uka.de!news.dfn.de!tubsibr!dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de!I3150101
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Gospel Dating
Message-ID: <16BA711B3A.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>
Sender: postnntp@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (Mr. Nntp Inews Entry)
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
References: <16BA1E197.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> <65974@mimsy.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 19:08:25 GMT
Lines: 93
In article <65974@mimsy.umd.edu>
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>>Well, John has a quite different, not necessarily more elaborated theology.
>>There is some evidence that he must have known Luke, and that the content
>>of Q was known to him, but not in a 'canonized' form.
>
>This is a new argument to me. Could you elaborate a little?
>
The argument goes as follows: Q-oid quotes appear in John, but not in
the almost codified way they were in Matthew or Luke. However, they are
considered to be similar enough to point to knowledge of Q as such, and
not an entirely different source.
>>Assuming that he knew Luke would obviously put him after Luke, and would
>>give evidence for the latter assumption.
>
>I don't think this follows. If you take the most traditional attributions,
>then Luke might have known John, but John is an elder figure in either case.
>We're talking spans of time here which are well within the range of
>lifetimes.
We are talking date of texts here, not the age of the authors. The usual
explanation for the time order of Mark, Matthew and Luke does not consider
their respective ages. It says Matthew has read the text of Mark, and Luke
that of Matthew (and probably that of Mark).
As it is assumed that John knew the content of Luke's text. The evidence
for that is not overwhelming, admittedly.
>>>(1) Earlier manuscripts of John have been discovered.
>
>>Interesting, where and which? How are they dated? How old are they?
>
>Unfortunately, I haven't got the info at hand. It was (I think) in the late
>'70s or early '80s, and it was possibly as old as CE 200.
>
When they are from about 200, why do they shed doubt on the order on
putting John after the rest of the three?
>>I don't see your point, it is exactly what James Felder said. They had no
>>first hand knowledge of the events, and it obvious that at least two of them
>>used older texts as the base of their account. And even the association of
>>Luke to Paul or Mark to Peter are not generally accepted.
>
>Well, a genuine letter of Peter would be close enough, wouldn't it?
>
Sure, an original together with Id card of sender and receiver would be
fine. So what's that supposed to say? Am I missing something?
>And I don't think a "one step removed" source is that bad. If Luke and Mark
>and Matthew learned their stories directly from diciples, then I really
>cannot believe in the sort of "big transformation from Jesus to gospel" that
>some people posit. In news reports, one generally gets no better
>information than this.
>
>And if John IS a diciple, then there's nothing more to be said.
>
That John was a disciple is not generally accepted. The style and language
together with the theology are usually used as counterargument.
The argument that John was a disciple relies on the claim in the gospel
of John itself. Is there any other evidence for it?
One step and one generation removed is bad even in our times. Compare that
to reports of similar events in our century in almost illiterate societies.
Not even to speak off that believers are not necessarily the best sources.
>>It is also obvious that Mark has been edited. How old are the oldest
>>manuscripts? To my knowledge (which can be antiquated) the oldest is
>>quite after any of these estimates, and it is not even complete.
>
>The only clear "editing" is problem of the ending, and it's basically a
>hopeless mess. The oldest versions give a strong sense of incompleteness,
>to the point where the shortest versions seem to break off in midsentence.
>The most obvious solution is that at some point part of the text was lost.
>The material from verse 9 on is pretty clearly later and seems to represent
>a synopsys of the end of Luke.
>
In other words, one does not know what the original of Mark did look like
and arguments based on Mark are pretty weak.
But how is that connected to a redating of John?
Benedikt
storage/51120 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:51120 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1934
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!uunet!pipex!ibmpcug!mantis!news
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: university violating separation of church/state?
Message-ID: <930405.175842.5d8.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 17:58:42 GMT
References: <199304041750.AA17104@kepler.unh.edu>
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v1.01
Lines: 29
dmn@kepler.unh.edu (...until kings become philosophers or philosophers become kings) writes:
> Recently, RAs have been ordered (and none have resisted or cared about
> it apparently) to post a religious flyer entitled _The Soul Scroll: Thoughts
> on religion, spirituality, and matters of the soul_ on the inside of bathroom
> stall doors. (at my school, the University of New Hampshire) It is some sort
> of newsletter assembled by a Hall Director somewhere on campus. It poses a
> question about 'spirituality' each issue, and solicits responses to be
> included in the next 'issue.' It's all pretty vague. I assume it's put out
> by a Christian, but they're very careful not to mention Jesus or the bible.
> I've heard someone defend it, saying "Well it doesn't support any one religion.
> " So what??? This is a STATE university, and as a strong supporter of the
> separation of church and state, I was enraged.
>
> What can I do about this?
It sounds to me like it's just SCREAMING OUT for parody. Give a copy to your
friendly neighbourhood SubGenius preacher; with luck, he'll run it through the
mental mincer and hand you back an outrageously offensive and gut-bustingly
funny parody you can paste over the originals.
I can see it now:
The Stool Scroll
Thoughts on Religion, Spirituality, and Matters of the Colon
(You can use this text to wipe)
mathew
storage/51121 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:51121 soc.motss:139944 rec.scouting:5318
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.motss,rec.scouting
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews.watson.ibm.com!watson!Watson.Ibm.Com!strom
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts"
Sender: @watson.ibm.com
Message-ID: <1993Apr05.180116.43346@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 93 18:01:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
References: <C47EFs.3q47@austin.ibm.com> <1993Mar22.033150.17345@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> <N4HY.93Apr5120934@harder.ccr-p.ida.org>
Organization: IBM Research
Lines: 15
In article <N4HY.93Apr5120934@harder.ccr-p.ida.org>, n4hy@harder.ccr-p.ida.org (Bob McGwier) writes:
|> [1] HOWEVER, I hate economic terrorism and political correctness
|> worse than I hate this policy.
|> [2] A more effective approach is to stop donating
|> to ANY organizating that directly or indirectly supports gay rights issues
|> until they end the boycott on funding of scouts.
Can somebody reconcile the apparent contradiction between [1] and [2]?
--
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
storage/51122 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!sdd.hp.com!nigel.msen.com!yale.edu!ira.uka.de!news.dfn.de!tubsibr!dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de!I3150101
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses
Message-ID: <16BA711EF4.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>
Sender: postnntp@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (Mr. Nntp Inews Entry)
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
References: <bskendigC4KD1z.CDC@netcom.com> <1p8v1aINN9e9@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> <16BA5DA01.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> <1993Apr5.091139.823@batman.bmd.trw.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 19:24:19 GMT
Lines: 114
In article <1993Apr5.091139.823@batman.bmd.trw.com>
jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>> Didn't you say Lucifer was created with a perfect nature?
>
>Yes.
>
Define perfect then.
>> I think you
>> are playing the usual game here, make sweeping statements like omni-,
>> holy, or perfect, and don't note that they mean exactly what they say.
>> And that says that you must not use this terms when it leads to
>> contradictions.
>
>I'm not trying to play games here. But I understand how it might seem
>that way especially when one is coming from a completely different point
>of view such as atheism.
>
Take your foot out of your mouth, I wondered about that already when I
was a Catholic Christian. The fact that the contradiction is unresolvable
is one of the reasons why I am an atheist.
Believe me, I believed similar sentences for a long time. But that shows
the power of religion and not anything about its claims.
>>>Now God could have prevented Lucifer's fall by taking away his ability
>>>to choose between moral alternatives (worship God or worship himself),
>>>but that would mean that God was in error to have make Lucifer or any
>>>being with free will in the first place.
>>
>> Exactly. God allows evil, an evil if there ever was one.
>>
>
>Now that's an opinion, or at best a premise. But from my point of view,
>it is not a premise which is necessary true, specifically, that it is
>an evil to allow evil to occur.
>
It follows from a definition of evil as ordinarily used. Letting evil
happen or allowing evil to take place, in this place even causing evil,
is another evil.
>> But could you give a definition of free will? Especially in the
>> presence of an omniscient being?
>>
>"Will" is "self-determination". In other words, God created conscious
>beings who have the ability to choose between moral choices independently
>of God. All "will", therefore, is "free will".
>
The omniscient attribute of god will know what the creatures will do even
before the omnipotent has created them. There is no choice left. All is known,
the course of events is fixed.
Not even for the omniscient itself, to extend an argument by James Tims.
>>>If God is omniscient, then
>>>clearly, creating beings with free moral choice is a greater good than
>>>the emergence of ungodliness (evil/sin) since He created them knowing
>>>the outcome in advance.
>>
>> Why is it the greater good to allow evil with the knowledge that it
>> will happen? Why not make a unipolar system with the possibility of
>> doing good or not doing good, but that does not necessarily imply
>> doing evil. It is logically possible, but your god has not done it.
>
>I do not know that such is logically possible. If God restrains a
>free being's choice to choose to do evil and simply do "not good",
>then can it be said that the being truly has a free moral choice?
>And if "good" is defined as loving and obeying God, and avoiding
>those behaviors which God prohibits, then how can you say that one
>who is "not good" is not evil as well? Like I said, I am not sure
>that doing "not good" without doing evil is logically possible.
And when I am not omnipotent, how can I have free will? You have said
something about choices and the scenario gives them. Therefore we have
what you define as free will.
Imagine the following. I can do good to other beings, but I cannot harm them.
Easily implemented by making everyone appreciate being the object of good
deeds, but don't make them long for them, so they can not feel the absence
of good as evil.
But whose case am I arguing? It is conceivable, so the omnipotent can do it.
Or it would not be omnipotent. If you want logically consistent as well, you
have to give up the pet idea of an omnipotent first.
(Deletion)
>
>Perhaps it is weak, in a way. If I were just speculating about the
>ubiquitous pink unicorns, then there would be no basis for such
>speculation. But this idea of God didn't just fall on me out of the
>blue :), or while reading science fiction or fantasy. (I know that
>some will disagree) :) The Bible describes a God who is omniscient,
>and nevertheless created beings with free moral choice, from which
>the definitional logic follows. But that's not all there is to it.
>There seems to be (at least in my mind) a certain amount of evidence
>which indicates that God exists and that the Biblical description
>of Him may be a fair one. It is that evidence which bolsters the
>argument in my view.
That the bible describes an omniscient and omnipotent god destroys
the credibility of the bible, nothing less.
And a lot of people would be interested in evidence for a god,
unfortunately, there can't be any with these definitions.
Benedikt
storage/51123 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Political Atheists?
Message-ID: <1pi2qlINNoeh@gap.caltech.edu>
Date: 2 Apr 93 19:05:57 GMT
References: <1p39fgINN8f8@gap.caltech.edu> <1p8s7dINNfg1@gap.caltech.edu> <1993Mar30.205434.26115@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1pcol6INNq2s@gap.caltech.edu> <1993Mar31.195807.5467@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 11
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>The motto originated in the Star-Spangled Banner. Tell me that this has
>>something to do with atheists.
>The motto _on_coins_ originated as a McCarthyite smear which equated atheism
>with Communism and called both unamerican.
No it didn't. The motto has been on various coins since the Civil War.
It was just required to be on *all* currency in the 50's.
keith
storage/51124 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!news.dfn.de!tubsibr!dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de!I3150101
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: An Anecdote about Islam
Message-ID: <16BA7123EF.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>
Sender: postnntp@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (Mr. Nntp Inews Entry)
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
References: <1pd5nr$89r@s1.gov> <113689@bu.edu> <16BA4AB7F.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> <114127@bu.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 19:45:34 GMT
Lines: 28
In article <114127@bu.edu>
jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>>When they are victimized they are Muslims. When they victimize others
>>they are not True Muslims (tm) or no Muslims at all.
>
>>Quite annoying.
>
>I don't understand the point of this petty sarcasm. It is a basic
>principle of Islam that if one is born muslim or one says "I testify
>that there is no god but God and Mohammad is a prophet of God" that,
>so long as one does not explicitly reject Islam by word then one _must_
>be considered muslim by all muslims. So the phenomenon you're attempting
>to make into a general rule or psychology is a direct odds with basic
>Islamic principles. If you want to attack Islam you could do better than
>than to argue against something that Islam explicitly contradicts.
>
It was no criticism of Islam for a change, it was a criticism of the
arguments used. Namely, whenever people you identify as Muslims are
the victims of the attacks of others, they are used an argument for
the bad situation of Muslims. But whenever deeds by Muslim that victimize
others are named, they do not count as an argument because what these
people did was not done as a true Muslims. No mention is made how Muslims
are the cause of a bad situation of another party.
Double standards.
Benedikt
storage/51125 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Date: 2 Apr 1993 20:43:17 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <1pi8h5INNq40@gap.caltech.edu>
References: <1psrjmINNr9e@gap.caltech.edu> <1pdbej$hio@fido.asd.sgi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
(reference line trimmed)
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
[...]
>There is a good deal more confusion here. You started off with the
>assertion that there was some "objective" morality, and as you admit
>here, you finished up with a recursive definition. Murder is
>"objectively" immoral, but eactly what is murder and what is not itself
>requires an appeal to morality.
Yes.
>Now you have switch targets a little, but only a little. Now you are
>asking what is the "goal"? What do you mean by "goal?". Are you
>suggesting that there is some "objective" "goal" out there somewhere,
>and we form our morals to achieve it?
Well, for example, the goal of "natural" morality is the survival and
propogation of the species. Another example of a moral system is
presented within the Declaration of Independence, which states that we
should be guaranteed life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You see,
to have a moral system, we must define the purpose of the system. That is,
we shall be moral unto what end?
>>Murder is certainly a violation of the golden rule. And, I thought I had
>>defined murder as an intentional killing of a non-murderer, against his will.
>>And you responded to this by asking whether or not the execution of an
>>innocent person under our system of capital punishment was a murder or not.
>>I fail to see what this has to do with anything. I never claimed that our
>>system of morality was an objective one.
>I thought that was your very first claim. That there was
>some kind of "objective" morality, and that an example of that was
>that murder is wrong. If you don't want to claim that any more,
>that's fine.
Well, murder violates the golen rule, which is certainly a pillar of most
every moral system. However, I am not assuming that our current system
and the manner of its implementation are objectively moral. I think that
it is a very good approximation, but we can't be perfect.
>And by the way, you don't seem to understand the difference between
>"arbitrary" and "objective". If Keith Schneider "defines" murder
>to be this that and the other, that's arbitrary. Jon Livesey may
>still say "Well, according to my personal system of morality, all
>killing of humans against their will is murder, and wrong, and what
>the legal definition of murder may be in the USA, Kuweit, Saudi
>Arabia, or the PRC may be matters not a whit to me".
Well, "objective" would assume a system based on clear and fundamental
concepts, while "arbitary" implies no clear line of reasoning.
keith
storage/51126 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.centerline.com!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: >>>>>>Pompous ass
Message-ID: <1pi9btINNqa5@gap.caltech.edu>
Date: 2 Apr 93 20:57:33 GMT
References: <1ou4koINNe67@gap.caltech.edu> <1p72bkINNjt7@gap.caltech.edu> <93089.050046MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <1pa6ntINNs5d@gap.caltech.edu> <1993Mar30.210423.1302@bmerh85.bnr.ca> <1pcnqjINNpon@gap.caltech.edu> <kmr4.1344.733611641@po.CWRU.edu>
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 9
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>>Then why do people keep asking the same questions over and over?
>Because you rarely ever answer them.
Nope, I've answered each question posed, and most were answered multiple
times.
keith
storage/51127 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.centerline.com!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: >>>>>>Pompous ass
Message-ID: <1pi9jkINNqe2@gap.caltech.edu>
Date: 2 Apr 93 21:01:40 GMT
References: <1ou4koINNe67@gap.caltech.edu> <1p72bkINNjt7@gap.caltech.edu> <93089.050046MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <1pa6ntINNs5d@gap.caltech.edu> <1993Mar30.205919.26390@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1pcnp3INNpom@gap.caltech.edu> <1pdjip$jsi@fido.asd.sgi.com>
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 14
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>>How long does it [the motto] have to stay around before it becomes the
>>>default? ... Where's the cutoff point?
>>I don't know where the exact cutoff is, but it is at least after a few
>>years, and surely after 40 years.
>Why does the notion of default not take into account changes
>in population makeup?
Specifically, which changes are you talking about? Are you arguing
that the motto is interpreted as offensive by a larger portion of the
population now than 40 years ago?
keith
storage/51128 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.centerline.com!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Keith Schneider - Stealth Poster?
Message-ID: <1pia4eINNqjg@gap.caltech.edu>
Date: 2 Apr 93 21:10:38 GMT
References: <mam.03kh@mouse.cmhnet.org> <1p6s0cINNhg6@gap.caltech.edu> <1993Mar29.195958.13915@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1p8rajINNf3n@gap.caltech.edu> <1993Mar30.184909.20567@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1pcrriINNrd6@gap.caltech.edu> <sandvik-310393173357@sandvik-kent.apple.com>
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 12
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>>To borrow from philosophy, you don't truly understand the color red
>>until you have seen it.
>Not true, even if you have experienced the color red you still might
>have a different interpretation of it.
But, you wouldn't know what red *was*, and you certainly couldn't judge
it subjectively. And, objectivity is not applicable, since you are wanting
to discuss the merits of red.
keith
storage/51129 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:51129 talk.religion.misc:82761 talk.origins:40400
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.centerline.com!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
Message-ID: <1pi966INNq93@gap.caltech.edu>
Date: 2 Apr 93 20:54:30 GMT
References: <1993Mar19.175329.21327@rambo.atlanta.dg.com> <C4BA1q.4pE@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <1993Mar25.225025.16037@rambo.atlanta.dg.com> <C4ICzs.6F@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <1993Mar31.234354.11694@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 19
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
>>[...] it is patently untrue (as has been demonstrated ad
>>nauseum) that the complexity of life is a contradiction of the second
>>law.
>My point is that order does not come from disorder.
It does not... or it can not? When you freze water, you've created an
ordered crystal from a disordered liquid. Overall, the entropy is
increased, but locally order is increased.
>... the creation od DNA by random processes is incalculably remote.
And, you find the idea of a god more likely?
Besides, we can apply the anthropic principle to circumvent any
probablilty problems.
keith
storage/51130 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.centerline.com!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Keith Schneider - Stealth Poster?
Message-ID: <1pi9uoINNqfv@gap.caltech.edu>
Date: 2 Apr 93 21:07:36 GMT
References: <mam.03kh@mouse.cmhnet.org> <1p8rajINNf3n@gap.caltech.edu> <1993Mar30.184909.20567@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1pcrriINNrd6@gap.caltech.edu> <1993Mar31.224831.13186@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 25
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>But, if you were to discuss the merits of racism, or its psycholgical
>>benefits, you would do well to have experienced it personally.
>When you speak of "experiencing religion" you mean someone should believe in
>a religion.
That's right, and this is pretty impossible, right? It would be ideal if
we could believe for a while, just to try out religion, and only then
determine which course of thought suits us best. But again, this is not
possible. Not that religion warrants belief, but the belief carries with
it some psychological benefits. There are also some psychological
burdens, too.
>When you speak of "experiencing racism", do you mean that someone should
>believe in racism, or that they should have racist things done to them? For
>parallelism, the former must be what you meant, but it seems to be an odd
>usage of the phrase.
Well, if there were some psychological or other benefits gained from racism,
they could only be fully understood or judged by persons actually "believing"
in racism. Of course, the parallel happens to be a poor one, but you
originated it.
keith
storage/51131 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!sdd.hp.com!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Date: 2 Apr 1993 21:22:59 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <1piarjINNqsa@gap.caltech.edu>
References: <1p9bseINNi6o@gap.caltech.edu> <1pamva$b6j@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1pcq4pINNqp1@gap.caltech.edu> <11702@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>>But, you don't know that capital punishment is wrong, so it isn't the same
>>as shooting. A better analogy would be that you continue to drive your car,
>>realizing that sooner or later, someone is going to be killed in an automobile
>>accident. You *know* people get killed as a result of driving, yet you
>>continue to do it anyway.
>Uh uh. You do not know that you will be the one to do the
>killing. I'm not sure I'd drive a car if I had sufficient evidence to
>conclude that I would necessarily kill someone during my lifetime.
Yes, and everyone thinks as you do. No one thinks that he is going to cause
or be involved in a fatal accident, but the likelihood is surprisingly high.
Just because you are the man on the firing squad whose gun is shooting
blanks does not mean that you are less guilty.
>I don't know about Jon, but I say *ALL* taking of human life is
>murder. And I say murder is wrong in all but one situation: when
>it is the only action that will prevent another murder, either of
>myself or another.
You mean that killing is wrong in all but one situtation? And, you should
note that that situation will never occur. There are always other options
thank killing. Why don't you just say that all killing is wrong. This
is basically what you are saying.
>I'm getting a bit tired of your probabilistic arguments.
Are you attempting to be condescending?
>That the system usually works pretty well is small consolation to
>the poor innocent bastard getting the lethal injection. Is your
>personal value of human life based solely on a statistical approach?
>You sound like an unswerving adherent to the needs of the many
>outweighing the needs of the few, so fuck the few.
But, most people have found the risk to be acceptable. You are probably
much more likely to die in a plane crash, or even using an electric
blender, than you are to be executed as an innocent. I personally think
that the risk is acceptable, but in an ideal moral system, no such risk
is acceptable. "Acceptable" is the fudge factor necessary in such an
approximation to the ideal.
keith
storage/51132 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Message-ID: <1pibj5INNr4t@gap.caltech.edu>
Date: 2 Apr 93 21:35:33 GMT
References: <1pa0stINNpqa@gap.caltech.edu> <1pan4f$b6j@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1pcqf3INNqt7@gap.caltech.edu> <11703@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 50
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>>I think that about 70% (or so) people approve of the
>>death penalty, even realizing all of its shortcomings. Doesn't this make
>>it reasonable? Or are *you* the sole judge of reasonability?
>Aside from revenge, what merits do you find in capital punishment?
Are we talking about me, or the majority of the people that support it?
Anyway, I think that "revenge" or "fairness" is why most people are in
favor of the punishment. If a murderer is going to be punished, people
that think that he should "get what he deserves." Most people wouldn't
think it would be fair for the murderer to live, while his victim died.
>Revenge? Petty and pathetic.
Perhaps you think that it is petty and pathetic, but your views are in the
minority.
>We have a local televised hot topic talk show that very recently
>did a segment on capital punishment. Each and every advocate of
>the use of this portion of our system of "jurisprudence" cited the
>main reason for supporting it: "That bastard deserved it". True
>human compassion, forgiveness, and sympathy.
Where are we required to have compassion, forgiveness, and sympathy? If
someone wrongs me, I will take great lengths to make sure that his advantage
is removed, or a similar situation is forced upon him. If someone kills
another, then we can apply the golden rule and kill this person in turn.
Is not our entire moral system based on such a concept?
Or, are you stating that human life is sacred, somehow, and that it should
never be violated? This would sound like some sort of religious view.
>>I mean, how reasonable is imprisonment, really, when you think about it?
>>Sure, the person could be released if found innocent, but you still
>>can't undo the imiprisonment that was served. Perhaps we shouldn't
>>imprision people if we could watch them closely instead. The cost would
>>probably be similar, especially if we just implanted some sort of
>>electronic device.
>Would you rather be alive in prison or dead in the chair?
Once a criminal has committed a murder, his desires are irrelevant.
And, you still have not answered my question. If you are concerned about
the death penalty due to the possibility of the execution of an innocent,
then why isn't this same concern shared with imprisonment. Shouldn't we,
by your logic, administer as minimum as punishment as possible, to avoid
violating the liberty or happiness of an innocent person?
keith
storage/51133 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Political Atheists?
Message-ID: <1pibspINNr6j@gap.caltech.edu>
Date: 2 Apr 93 21:40:41 GMT
References: <16B9510654.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> <1odn7pINN9nb@gap.caOrganization <1pcrjmINNr9e@gap.caltech.edu> <11704@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 26
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>>If I kill this person [an innocent person convicted of murder],
>>then a murder would be committed, but I would not be the murderer. At least,
>>I wouldn't "reasonably" be considered a murderer, with "reasonable" being
>>introduced as a fudge factor necessary to account for the inability to be
>>totally objective due to a lack of absolutely true information.
>If society collective decides to carry the burden of executing
>it's citizens, then it also carries the blame for their innocent
>blood. Each and every voter who casts a ballot in favor of
>capital punishment is in part guilty of the murder of each and
>every innocent victim of the system.
Why are only those people in favor of the system to blame. If society
accepts such a system, then each member of society is to blame when
an innocent person gets executed. Those that are not in favor should
work to convince others.
And, most members of our society have accepted the blame--they've considered
the risk to be acceptable. Similarly, every person who drives must accept
the blame for fatal traffic accidents. This is something that is surely
going to happen when so many people are driving. It is all a question of
what risk is acceptable. It is much more likely that an innocent person
will be killed driving than it is that one will be executed.
keith
storage/51134 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!wupost!uunet!news.tek.com!vice!bobbe
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Don't more innocents die without the death penalty?
Message-ID: <11733@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Date: 5 Apr 93 19:54:50 GMT
References: <2942881697.0.p00168@psilink.com>
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR.
Lines: 26
In article <2942881697.0.p00168@psilink.com> p00168@psilink.com (James F. Tims) writes:
>
>By maintaining classes D and E, even in prison, it seems as if we
>place more innocent people at a higher risk of an unjust death than
>we would if the state executed classes D and E with an occasional error.
>
I answer from the position that we would indeed place these people
in prison for life.
That depends not only on their predisposition towards murder, but
also in their success rate at escape and therefore their ability
to commit the same crimes again.
In other words, if lifetime imprisonment doesn't work, perhaps
it's not because we're not executing these people, but because
we're not being careful enough about how we lock them up.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
storage/51135 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!wupost!uunet!news.tek.com!vice!bobbe
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Ancient islamic rituals
Message-ID: <11734@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Date: 5 Apr 93 20:02:06 GMT
References: <1993Apr3.081052.11292@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR.
Lines: 33
In article <1993Apr3.081052.11292@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>I propose
>that these two trends -- greater level of general depression in society
>(and other psychological problems) and greater sexual promiscuity -- are
>linked, with the latter being a prime cause of the former. I cannot
>provide any evidence beyond this at this stage, but the whole thesis
>seems very reasonable to me and I request that people ponder upon it.
>
Damn right you can't provide any evidence for it.
Rarely are any widespread social phenomenon reducible to such a
simple premise. If they were, psychology would be a hard science
with roughly the same mathematical soundness as physics.
Your premise may well be right. It is much more likely, however,
that it reflects your socialization and religious background, as
well as your need to validate your religious beliefs. Were I to
pretend to have all the answers (and I don't), I would say that the
xenophobia, guilt, and intolerance brought about by adherence to
fundamentalist religions play just as large a role in depressing
the members of our society.
Your mileage obviously varies.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
storage/51136 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!wupost!uunet!news.tek.com!vice!bobbe
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Message-ID: <11735@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Date: 5 Apr 93 20:16:20 GMT
References: <1993Apr3.045142.28639@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1pj9bs$d4j@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1993Apr3.212139.14076@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR.
Lines: 47
In article <1993Apr3.212139.14076@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1pj9bs$d4j@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>I would say that one innocent person killed is in some sense
>>as bad as many. We certainly feel that way when we punish
>>someone for a single murder.
>>Now if we reform system X, by reducing the number of deaths
>>by one, we produce system XX. I'd say we should not go back
>>to system X, even though by doing so we would re-introduce only
>>a single extra death.
>
>Bob seems to think that one is as bad as many in a sense somewhat stronger than
>the one you indicate.
>--
Yes, I do.
My argument is that the sole purpose of the death penalty is to
kill people. That is it's primary (and I would argue only)
purpose. To continue to kill people by a practice that has
almost no utility, especially when you know you will be killing
innocents, is unconscionable.
At the very least, the existence of the prison system and our
transportation system are based on their merits to society, not
their detriments. We are willing to accept a few lost innocent
lives because there is an overwhelming benefit to the continued
existence of these systems. One has to stretch the evidence and
the arguments to make the same claim for capital punishment.
Just in case I wasn't clear again: We maintain a capital
punsihment system that kills innocent people and provides us with
no net positive gain. Why?
Were you to pin me in a corner and ask, I would have to respond
that I don't belief the state should have the right to take life
at all. But I won't open that debate, as it seems others are
tiring of this thread on a.a anyway.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
storage/51137 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:51137 talk.religion.misc:82762 talk.origins:40404
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!gatech!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu!smullins
From: smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins)
Subject: Return of the Abused Creationist thread (was Re: The _real_ probability of abiogenesis)
Message-ID: <C50yJL.4zC@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Summary: Return to a dead thread
Keywords: Bass Ale, indeed a fine brew.
Sender: Who else?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
References: <1phnkoINNbk@ctron-news.ctron.com>
Distribution: world,local
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 19:09:21 GMT
Lines: 60
In article <1phnkoINNbk@ctron-news.ctron.com> king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
>To: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>>Funny, there's absolutely nothing in these numbers supporting Jack's
>>implication that "the probability of one protean molecule forming" is
>>less than 10^-50
>
>As I recall the figure for just one of the molecules forming is 1 : 10^-114.
>
>>[lists 5 steps for determining probability of abiogenesis]
>
>Its going to take a little time for me to do this Andy. Hope you'll be
>patient :).
>
>Just so you understand where I am coming from, even though I am a theist,
>I don't totally reject the possibility that this complex creation could have
>just come together on its own. Can I assume you are equally as objective?
>
>Most of my discussions on this net (which has been very little in recent
>years), have been with other theists over doctrinal issues. I have rarely
>ventured into the "origins" arena, because there is so much speculation
>involved. What hard data there is (e.g. DNA "program" that in proper sequences
>tells the cells how to divide and form), tells me that there must have
>been a Designer behind it all.
>
>Nonetheless, I remain open minded. I wonder how many can claim that on
>this net.
This is exactly the type of thing I was talking about before. A creationist
appears on t.o, makes a completely unsupported statement the facts of
which he/she is completely ignorant, is taken to task, and finally replies
with a subtle insult. (actually two insults)
Just to make sure I am being fair let's check a few details. Jack, you don't
know anything about abiogenesis, do you? (this is no sin, I know next to
nothing about it either) I mean, anything other than this "10^50"
probability thing which you got wrong in the first post.
The speculation involved is really your own, isn't it? How much _biology_
do you know, even apart from abiogenesis? Any classes past high school?
Read Chris Colby's FAQ? How much paleontology, geology, etc do you know?
Or are you speculating that its all speculative? Do you have any basis
upon which to imply that to keep an "open mind" one must allow that
the earth, universe, and all the creatures in it could have been created
~10,000 years ago? None of this is intended as a flame. To say that
you don't know a subject is _not_ the same as calling you an idiot. I
don't know _much_ about these areas, but then I am not the one
calling into question all of mainstream science. In other words, where
do you get off calling it speculative unless by this you also mean that
all of physics, chemistry, etc are also speculative in some sense?
You may have, in fact, not been implying that the rejection of creationism
is a sign of close-mindedness, or that the theory of evolution is especially
speculative, in which case I have merely misinterpreted
you. In this case the worst thing you could be accused of is unclear
prose.
>Jack
Scott
smullins@ecn.purdue.edu
storage/51138 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu talk.religion.misc:82764 alt.atheism:51138
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pitt.edu!pogo.isp.pitt.edu!joslin
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions
Message-ID: <7912@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Date: 5 Apr 93 20:41:08 GMT
Sender: news+@pitt.edu
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
References: <bskendigC50tnu.Ino@netcom.com>
Organization: Intelligent Systems Program
Lines: 44
Someone writes:
>I found a list of Biblical contradictions and cleaned it up a bit, but
>now I'd like some help with it.
I'm curious to know what purpose people think these lists serve.
Lists like this seem to value quantity over quality, an "argument
from article length." And the list you have here is of poorer
quality than most. Since the quotes seem to be taken from an
on-line bible, I doubt that there will be much problem with
verses quoted inaccurately. But that isn't the problem here.
I've known a lot of fundamentalists in my life, but none who
denied that there were errors in transmission, etc. And many of
the contradictions here -- Solomon having 40,000 horse stalls in
one verse, and 4,000 in another -- are just the sort of
contradiction that fundies don't have a problem with, in my
experience. So how do these sorts of contradictions amount to
anything more than attacking a straw man?
Some of the others are just silly, or rely on taking quotes out
of context, or have reasonable explanations. But even the ones
that are genuine contradictions need to have more said about
them than what is given here. (At the very least, some effort
should be made to understand and respond to the common replies
given by fundies.) Look for example at the research that Dave
Butler put into an article examining a false prophecy about Tyre.
That would be an excellent start for an anti-inerrancy list that
would have some teeth. (One well-researched and documented
contradiction is worth more than one hundred quotes taken out
of context and thrown together in a list.)
Lists like this that just toss a bunch of quotes together to
make a bible verse salad just don't cut it. Those of us who
want to argue against inerrancy should find this sort of thing
as embarassing as the fundies should find Josh McDowell.
dj
P.S. You can find some good material at ftp.rutgers.edu in
/pub/soc.religion.christian/others/contradictions. The quality
is very uneven on both sides of the argument (it is just a
compilation of things many people have written), but some of
it would be useful in an anti-inerrancy FAQ. After exams, I
might be willing to help put it together.
storage/51139 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!pooh!halat
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: There must be a creator! (Maybe)
Message-ID: <30066@ursa.bear.com>
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Date: 1 Apr 93 21:24:35 GMT
Reply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Sender: news@bear.com
References: <16BA1E927.DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU>
Lines: 24
In article <16BA1E927.DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU>, DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU (Brad Porter) writes:
>
> Science is wonderful at answering most of our questions. I'm not the type
>to question scientific findings very often, but... Personally, I find the
>theory of evolution to be unfathomable. Could humans, a highly evolved,
>complex organism that thinks, learns, and develops truly be an organism
>that resulted from random genetic mutations and natural selection?
[...stuff deleted...]
Computers are an excellent example...of evolution without "a" creator.
We did not "create" computers. We did not create the sand that goes
into the silicon that goes into the integrated circuits that go into
processor board. We took these things and put them together in an
interesting way. Just like plants "create" oxygen using light through
photosynthesis. It's a much bigger leap to talk about something that
created "everything" from nothing. I find it unfathomable to resort
to believing in a creator when a much simpler alternative exists: we
simply are incapable of understanding our beginnings -- if there even
were beginnings at all. And that's ok with me. The present keeps me
perfectly busy.
-jim halat
storage/51140 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!wupost!emory!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!pooh!halat
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Americans and Evolution
Message-ID: <30069@ursa.bear.com>
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Date: 1 Apr 93 22:50:11 GMT
Reply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Sender: news@bear.com
References: <93089.143048IO30436@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> <j0=5l3=@rpi.edu>
Lines: 10
In article <j0=5l3=@rpi.edu>, johnsd2@jec322.its.rpi.edu (Dan Johnson) writes:
>In article 143048IO30436@MAINE.MAINE.EDU, <IO30436@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> () writes:
Dan Johnson-
You don't know me, but take this hand anyway. Bravo for GO(DS) = 0.
Beautiful! Simply beautiful!
-jim halat
storage/51141 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!yale!yale.edu!newsserver.jvnc.net!louie!udel!wupost!uunet!pipex!bnr.co.uk!bnrgate!bmerh85!bmers30!dgraham
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Speculations
Message-ID: <1993Apr5.211924.18459@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Date: 5 Apr 93 21:19:24 GMT
Sender: news@bmerh85.bnr.ca (Usenet News)
References: <1993Apr1.190230.18485@proxima.alt.za> <UfjElCG00Vp3E7i6Vo@andrew.cmu.edu> <930405.172903.4w6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 17
In article <930405.172903.4w6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>> If this god is truly omnipotent as you folks like to claim, then why can't
>> he terminate eternity?
>
>For the same reason he can't flibble glop ork groink.
>
>The thing you are demanding that he must be able to do, has no meaning in its
>own terms.
This is a classic example of excessive faith in reason. The fact that we
have trouble talking about something doesn't imply that it is impossible; it
simply implies that it is hard to talk about. There is a very good chance
that God *can* flibble glop ork groink. Charlie Wingate can flibble glop
ork groink, and he isn't even God.
--
Doug Graham dgraham@bnr.ca My opinions are my own.
storage/51142 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!sdd.hp.com!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Date: 2 Apr 1993 22:23:00 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 191
Message-ID: <1piec4INNrud@gap.caltech.edu>
References: <1p3bn9INN98r@gap.caltech.edu> <1p5p1j$ijd@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1p6rgcINNhfb@gap.caltech.edu> <1p88fi$4vv@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1p9bseINNi6o@gap.caltech.edu> <1pamva$b6j@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1pcq4pINNqp1@gap.caltech.edu> <1pdhh7$jsi@fido.asd.sgi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>Much though it might be fun to debate capital punishment itself,
>this is probably the wrong group for it. The only relevance here
>is that you don't seem to be able to tell us what capital punishment
>actually is, and when it is murder. That is, when you tell us murder
>is wrong, you are using a term you have not yet defined.
Well, I've said that when an innocent person has been executed, this is
objectively a murder. However, who is at blame is another question.
It seems that the entire society that sanctions any sorts of executions--
realizing the risks--is to blame.
>There is a *probability* of
>killing an innocent person by shooting at random into the air, and
>there is a *probability* of killing an innocent person when the
>state administers a system of capital punishment. So when you do
>either, you know that they actions you are taking will sooner or
>later result in the killing of an innocent person.
Yes, but there is also a probablity that you will kill someone doing
any raondom activity. Presumably, you had not isolated yourself totally
from the rest of society because of this.
>>And, driving will kill people, as will airlines, but people continue to do
>>both.
>Driving and flying are not punishments inflicted on unwilling
>prisoners by Courts. They are risks that we take upon ourselves
>willingly.
And I argue that our law system is a similar risk. Perhaps an innocent
person will be punished someday, but we work to prevent this. In fact,
many criminals go free as a result of our trying to prevent punishment
of innocents.
>If our own driving kills someone else, then sure, there is a moral
>issue. I know at least one person who was involved in a fatal
>accident, and they felt vey guilty afterwards.
But, such accidents are to be totally expected, given the numner of vehicals
on the road. Again, the blame is on society.
>>No I'm not. This is what you said. You were saying that if there were such
>>a false witness that resulted in an innocent person being convicted and killed
>>, it would still be the fault of the state, since it did the actual killing.
>No, I just commented that the state does the killing. It does not
>depend on there being false witnesses. How could it? The state
>does the killing even in the case of sincere mistakes
Yes, but the state is not at fault in such a case. The state can only do
so much to prevent false witnesses.
>>It is possible. So, what are you trying to say, that capital punishment
>>is always murder because of the possibilty of human error invalidating
>>the system?
>I'm saying capital punishment is murder, period. Not because of
>this that and the other, but because it involves taking human life.
>That's *my* definition of murder. I make no appeals to dictionaries
>or to "objective" morals.
Okay, so this is what you call murder. But, the question is whether or not
all such "murders" are wrong. Are you saying that all taking of human life
is wrong, no matter what the circumstances?
>If we, as a society, decide to murder someone, then we should say
>that, and lists our reasons for doing so, and live with the moral
>consequences. We should not play word games and pretend that
>murder isn't murder. And that's *my* opinion about how society
>ought to be run.
But, this is basically how it works. Society accepts the risk that an
innocent person will be murdered by execution. And, every member of
society shares this blame. And, most people's definitions of murder
include some sort of malicious intent, which is not involved in an
execution, is it?
>>But, we were trying to discuss an objective moral system, or at least its
>>possibilty. What ramifications does your personal system have on an
>>objective one?
>No, we were not discussing an objective moral system. I was showing
>you that you didn't have one, because, for one thing, you were incapable
>of defining the terms in it, for example, "murder".
Murder violates the golden rule. Executions do not, because by allowing
it at all, society implicitly accepts the consequences no matter who the
innocent victim is.
>>We're not talking about reading minds, we are just talking about knowing the
>>truth. Yes, we can never be absolutely certain that we have the truth, but
>>the court systems work on a principle of knowing the "truth" "beyond a
>>reasonable doubt."
>Sorry, but you simply are not quoting yourself accurately. Here
>is what you said:
> "And, since we are looking totally objectively at this case,
> then we know what people are thinking when they are voting to
> execute the person or not. If the intent is malicious and
> unfair, then the execution would be murder."
>What you are doing now is to slide into another claim, which is
>quite different. The jury being *persuaded* beyond a serious
>doubt is not the same as us knowing what is in their minds beyond
>a serious doubt.
Reading the minds of the jury would certainly tell whether or not a conviction
was moral or not. But, in an objective system, only the absolute truth
matters, and the jury system is one method to approximate such a truth. That
is, twelve members must be convinced of a truth.
>Moreover, a jury which comes from a sufficiently prejudiced background
>may allow itself to be persuaded beyond a serious doubt on evidence
>that you and I would laugh at.
But then, if we read the minds of these people, we would know that the
conviction was unfair.
>>But, would it be perfectly fair if we could read minds? If we assume that
>>it would be fair if we knew the absolute truth, why is it so much less
>>fair, in your opinion, if we only have a good approximation of the absolute
>>truth?
>It's not a question of fairness. Your claim, which I have quoted
>above is a claim about whether we can *know* it was fair, so as to
>be able to distinguish capital punishnment from murder.
Yes, while we could objectively determine the difference (if we knew all
possible information), we can't always determine the difference in our
flawed system. I think that our system is almost as good as possible,
but it still isn't objectively perfect. You see, it doesn't matter if
we *know* it is fair or not. Objectively, it is either fair or it is not.
>Now there's a huge difference. If we can read minds, we can know,
>and if we cannot read minds, we can know nothing. The difference
>is not in degree of fairness, but in what we can know.
But what we know has no effect on an objective system.
>>I think it is possible to produce a fairly objective system, if we are
>>clear on which goals it is supposed to promote.
>I'm not going to waste my time trying to devise a system that I am
>pretty sure does not exist.
Why are you so sure?
>I simply want people to confront reality. *My* reality, remember.
Why is *your* reality important?
>In this case, the reality is that, "ideal theories' apart, we can
>never know, even after the fact, about the fairness of the justice
>system. For every innocent person released from Death Row, there
>may have been a dozen innocent people executed, or a hundred, or
>none at all. We simply don't know.
But, we can assume that the system is fairly decent, at least most likely.
And, you realize that the correctness of our system says nothing about a
totally ideal and objective system.
>Now what are we going to do? On the one hand, we can pretend
>that we have an 'ideal' theory, and that we can know things we can
>never know, and the Justie System is fair, and that we can wave a
>magic wand and make certain types of killing not murder, and go
>on our way.
Well, we can have an ideal system, but the working system can not be ideal.
We can only hope to create a system that is as close an approximation to
the ideal system as possible.
>On the other hand, we can recognize that all Justice has a small
>- we hope - probability of punishing the innocent, and that in the
>end we do bear moral responsibility even for the probabilistic
>consequences of the systems we set up, and then say, "Well, here
>we go, murdering again." Maybe some of us will even say "Gee, I
>wonder if all this is strictly necessary?"
Yes, we all bear the responsibility. Most people seem willing to do this.
>I think that the second is preferable in that if requires people
>to face the moral consequences of what we do as a society, instead
>of sheltering ourselves from them by magic ceremonies and word
>games.
We must realize the consequences of all our actions. Why do you keep
separating the justice system from the pack?
>And lest I forget, I also don't think we have an objective moral
>system, and I believe I only have to take that idea seriously
>when someone presents evidence of it.
I don't think our country has an objective system, but I think such an
objective system can exist, in theory. Without omniscience, an objective
system is not possible in practice.
keith
storage/51143 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!sdd.hp.com!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Date: 2 Apr 1993 22:25:11 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <1pieg7INNs09@gap.caltech.edu>
References: <1p3bn9INN98r@gap.caltech.edu> <1p5p1j$ijd@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1p6rgcINNhfb@gap.caltech.edu> <1p88fi$4vv@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1993Mar30.051246.29911@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1p8nd7$e9f@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1pa0stINNpqa@gap.caltech.edu> <1pan4f$b6j@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1pcqf3INNqt7@gap.caltech.edu> <1pdj7l$jsi@fido.asd.sgi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>Now along comes Mr Keith Schneider and says "Here is an "objective
>moral system". And then I start to ask him about the definitions
>that this "objective" system depends on, and, predictably, the whole
>thing falls apart.
It only falls apart if you attempt to apply it. This doesn't mean that
an objective system can't exist. It just means that one cannot be
implemented.
keith
storage/51144 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:51144 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1935
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!wupost!uunet!pipex!marble.uknet.ac.uk!uknet!ic.ac.uk!rm03
From: rm03@ic.ac.uk (Mr R. Mellish)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: university violating separation of church/state?
Message-ID: <1993Apr5.195143.8740@sys.uea.ac.uk>
Date: 5 Apr 93 19:51:43 GMT
References: <199304041750.AA17104@kepler.unh.edu>
Sender: news@sys.uea.ac.uk
Organization: Imperial College
Lines: 33
Nntp-Posting-Host: 129.31.80.14
In article <199304041750.AA17104@kepler.unh.edu> dmn@kepler.unh.edu (...until kings become philosophers or philosophers become kings) writes:
>
>
>
> Recently, RAs have been ordered (and none have resisted or cared about
>it apparently) to post a religious flyer entitled _The Soul Scroll: Thoughts
>on religion, spirituality, and matters of the soul_ on the inside of bathroom
>stall doors. (at my school, the University of New Hampshire) It is some sort
>of newsletter assembled by a Hall Director somewhere on campus.
[most of post deleted]
>
> Please respond as soon as possible. I'd like these religious postings to
>stop, NOW!
>
>
>Thanks,
>
> Dana
>
>
>
There is an easy way out....
Post the flyers on the stall doors, but add at the bottom, in nice large
capitals,
EMERGENCY TOILET PAPER
:)
--
------ Robert Mellish, FOG, IC, UK ------
Email: r.mellish@ic.ac.uk Net: rm03@sg1.cc.ic.ac.uk IRC: HobNob
------ and also the mrs joyful prize for rafia work. ------
storage/51145 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!uunet!caen!usenet.cis.ufl.edu!usenet.ufl.edu!max.fiu.edu!kilman2y
From: kilman2y@fiu.edu (Yevgeny (Gene) Kilman)
Subject: Re: USAToday ad ("family values")
Organization: Florida International University, Miami
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 19:48:45 GMT
Message-ID: <C510D9.127@fiu.edu>
References: <C4rzz2.47J@unix.portal.com>
Sender: news@fiu.edu (Usenet Administrator)
Lines: 15
In article <C4rzz2.47J@unix.portal.com> danb@shell.portal.com (Dan E Babcock) writes:
>There was a funny ad in USAToday from "American Family Association".
>I'll post a few choice parts for your enjoyment (all emphases is in
>the ad; I'm not adding anything). All the typos are mine. :)
[Dan's article deleted]
I found the same add in our local Sunday newspaper.
The add was placed in the ..... cartoon section!
The perfect place for it ! :-)
Y.K.
storage/51146 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!yale!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!olivea!sgigate!odin!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: islamic authority over women
Message-ID: <1pq92q$9s2@fido.asd.sgi.com>
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Date: 5 Apr 93 21:41:46 GMT
References: <1993Mar30.040813.12364@ultb.isc.rit.edu> <1993Apr2.210133.22377@webo.dg.com> <1993Apr3.214741.14026@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
Lines: 11
In article <1993Apr3.214741.14026@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
>
> My claim is that a person that committs a crime doesn't believe in
> God, for the moment that the crime is committed, at least, whether
> they are originally believers or not. To believe is to do good.
> Your statistics indicate people that have declared atheism.
And doubtless, when an atheist does an act of charity
they temporarily become a Baptist.
jon.
storage/51147 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!yale!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!olivea!sgigate!odin!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Ancient islamic rituals
Message-ID: <1pq9js$9s2@fido.asd.sgi.com>
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Date: 5 Apr 93 21:50:52 GMT
References: <1993Apr3.081052.11292@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
Lines: 20
In article <1993Apr3.081052.11292@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>
> I propose that these two trends -- greater level of general
> depression in society (and other psychological problems) and
> greater sexual promiscuity -- are linked, with the latter being
> a prime cause of the former. I cannot provide any evidence beyond
> this at this stage, but the whole thesis seems very reasonable to
> me and I request that people ponder upon it.
I pondered it for all of ten seconds when I realised that since
we don't have any reliable statistics for sexual promiscuity,
and since the whole issue of "depression" isn't at all well
defined for earlier centuries, you are probably talking crap.
Of course, you could pull a Mozumder on us, and say that people
who are having sex outside marriage are *defined* to be depressed.
I can't say I'd ever noticed, myself.
jon.
storage/51148 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:51148 soc.motss:139981 rec.scouting:5323
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!news.bbn.com!noc.near.net!uunet!wupost!CSM560.smsu.edu!umn.edu!lynx.unm.edu!carina.unm.edu!anthropo
From: anthropo@carina.unm.edu (Dominick V. Zurlo)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.motss,rec.scouting
Subject: Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts"
Date: 5 Apr 1993 20:27:59 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <1pq4ofINNr2i@lynx.unm.edu>
References: <1osnh5INNllm@hoss.usl.com> <1pc81b$4p7@shrike.und.ac.za> <1993Apr5.011255.7295@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: carina.unm.edu
In article <1993Apr5.011255.7295@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:
>Now can we please use rec.scouting for the purpose for which it was
>established? Clearly we netnews voters decided that we did not want to
>provide a scouting newsgroup to give fringe groups a forum for their
>anti-societal political views.
Ok, this is the only thing I will comment on from Stan at this time...
part of this forum we call rec.scouting is for policy discussions and
related topics. This is a policy discussion, and involves related
topics. this is not a "fringe" group discussion. obviously, it
engenders strong feelings from all sides of the issues at hand.
Wether a particular view is anti-societal or not is your opinion,
and yours alone, don't try to make it seem otherwise.
If you do not wish to engage in this discussion, use a kill file.
If you wish to continue in this discussion, please do so, knowing
full well the implications that apply.
I know for myself that I plan on continuing with the discussion when
i have the wish to have input. I for one am tired of people trying to
say that this is not a matter significant for this group! It is, and
quite so. Especially for those of us who feel the impact more closely.
****************************************************************
* Dominick V. Zurlo * "If the world's an *
* WWW * oyster, why am I *
* Eagle Scout '87 * allergic to Mollusks?" *
* blacklisted '88 * *
****************************************************************
storage/51149 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Date: 2 Apr 1993 23:00:29 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <1pigidINNsot@gap.caltech.edu>
References: <1p9bseINNi6o@gap.caltech.edu> <1pamva$b6j@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1993Mar31.002303.4748@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <930401.111834.4c3.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>As for rape, surely there the burden of guilt is solely on the rapist?
Not so. If you are thrown into a cage with a tiger and get mauled, do you
blame the tiger?
keith
storage/51150 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Date: 2 Apr 1993 23:03:21 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <1pignpINNsp9@gap.caltech.edu>
References: <1pan4f$b6j@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1pcqf3INNqt7@gap.caltech.edu> <11703@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> <930401.113200.2K4.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>Perhaps we shouldn't imprision people if we could watch them closely
>>instead. The cost would probably be similar, especially if we just
>>implanted some sort of electronic device.
>Why wait until they commit the crime? Why not implant such devices in
>potential criminals like Communists and atheists?
Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning. You are proposing to punish people
*before* they commit a crime? What justification do you have for this?
keith
storage/51151 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:51151 soc.motss:139988 rec.scouting:5325
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornell!batcomputer!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!noc.near.net!transfer.stratus.com!sw.stratus.com!cdt
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.motss,rec.scouting
Subject: Re: EnviroLeague
Date: 5 Apr 1993 21:31:40 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Lines: 117
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1pq8fs$dr@transfer.stratus.com>
References: <1oghotINNmuf@fido.asd.sgi.com> <93080.190241DB0488A@auvm.american.edu> <C49nnM.Jv1@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> <1993Mar22.044558.17942@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> <C4Evpq.t3I@austin.ibm.com> <1pdlqf$62i@transfer.stratus.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com
A new alternative to Scouting for those "unacceptable to BSA" for reasons
of religious or sexual preference:
From: "BOYD R. CRITZ, III" <71611.365@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: EnviroLeague
"Birth Announcement" on March 7, 1993, from EARTH Forum, CompuServe
Information Service
===================================================================
FORMAL ANNOUNCEMENT
-------------------
(SM)
EnviroLeague
A new youth movement,"EnviroLeague," was recently born, according to its
founder, Boyd R. Critz, III (CIS ID# 71611,365), of Peoria, Illinois.
EnviroLeague exists for the education of youth, both male and female, in
matters concerning their values related to and responsibility for our
environment.
Incorporated as an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, its Articles and
initial applications for a service mark have now been filed. According to
Critz, its draft Bylaws contain the following statement of Mission and
Objectives:
MISSION
It is the Mission of EnviroLeague and its adult members
to foster and implement the improved education of young
people in the need to conduct their lives as Stewards
of The Earth, to leave The Earth in a better condition
than they found it, and to otherwise act as responsible,
moral and ethical users of their environment. To pursue
the accomplishment of this Mission, EnviroLeague shall
seek to serve as a catalyst, focusing in common cause the
separate efforts of all groups desiring the preservation,
improvement, and responsible use of the environment in
which we must all live.
OBJECTIVES
In pursuit of the Mission of EnviroLeague, its primary
objectives shall be:
(1) To establish a Movement involving as many
environmentally concerned organizations as
possible, said Movement having as its primary
focus the education and participatory
involvement of young people in appropriate areas
of environmental concern;
(2) To develop and provide to such organizations and
their branches a full complement of program
materials for their use, including suitable
uniforms, insignia and other badges, written
ideas, syllabi and information, literature and
other items as shall seem appropriate and
desirable;
(3) To serve as a "clearing house" for the exchange
of program ideas, materials and information
among said organizations; and
(4) To assist environmentally concerned
organizations to recruit and train the necessary
adult leadership for their youth programs.
EnviroLeague will operate through three "Program Divisions" serving youth in
the elementary, middle and high school grades, respectively. Service shall be
through formation of "EnviroLeague Teams," either by EnviroLeague itself or by
environmentally conscious organizations (or their local branches) wishing a
charter to use programs developed by EnviroLeague.
EnviroLeague, as it develops, will be controlled by the actual adult leaders
of each local Team, and will have no nationally imposed obstacles to
membership or adult leadership status not based upon relevant improper
conduct. Organizations accepting a charter may, however, impose certain
additional standards for their own use of the program material. Should such
organizations do so, EnviroLeague will commit itself to forming, as soon as
possible, new nearby Teams having no such restrictions, particularly as to
youth membership.
EnviroLeague will operate on the principle that youth will have much to
contribute to developing its programs. Thus, the top youth leaders of its
Teams for middle and high school youth may become involved in governing any
local administrative groups, and those for its high school youth may be
involved in similar functions at the national level.
Program materials are in development at this time. Copies of the "draft"
portions of the Mentor's Manual (manual for adult leadership) will be in the
EARTH Forum, Library 17. These files will be updated as development takes
place.
CompuServe is particularly proud that EnviroLeague's founder chose this
electronic medium to make the first public announcement of its formation.
This announcement is being made simultaneously in both the OUTDOOR and EARTH
Forums.
The electronic home of EnviroLeague is in CompuServe's Earth Forum - GO
EARTH - message and library areas 17, both named "EnviroLeague."
============================================================================
Subsequently, EnviroLeague's Initial Governance Council has held its first
meeting. Boyd Critz was elected as the first EnviroLeague Chief Guardian
(equivalent to Chairman of the Board or CEO). He can be reached at home
(309) 675-4483 in case of real need. Also, mail can be addressed to:
EnviroLeague
P.O. Box 418
Peoria, IL 61651-0418
Those interested in starting an EnviroLeague Team might just establish
contact, to receive a diskette (IBM DOS, ASCII) with initial information.
--
cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet...
storage/51152 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!CSM560.smsu.edu!umn.edu!uum1!mac.cc.macalstr.edu!acooper
From: acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Idle questions for fellow atheists
Message-ID: <1993Apr5.124216.4374@mac.cc.macalstr.edu>
Date: 5 Apr 93 12:42:16 -0600
Organization: Macalester College
Lines: 26
I wonder how many atheists out there care to speculate on the face of the world
if atheists were the majority rather than the minority group of the population.
It is rather a ridiculous question in some ways, I know, but my newsreader is
down so I am not getting any new postings for a bit, so I figure I might as
well post something new myself.
Also, how many atheists out there would actually take the stance and accor a
higher value to their way of thinking over the theistic way of thinking. The
typical selfish argument would be that both lines of thinking evolved from the
same inherent motivation, so one is not, intrinsically, different from the
other, qualitatively. But then again a measuring stick must be drawn
somewhere, and if we cannot assign value to a system of beliefs at its core,
than the only other alternative is to apply it to its periphery; ie, how it
expresses its own selfishness.
Idle thoughts...
Adam
********************************************************************************
* Adam John Cooper "Verily, often have I laughed at the weaklings *
* who thought themselves good simply because *
* acooper@macalstr.edu they had no claws." *
********************************************************************************
storage/51153 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!enterpoop.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!usenet
From: bobs@thnext.mit.edu (Robert Singleton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Americans and Evolution
Date: 5 Apr 1993 20:19:09 GMT
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Lines: 122
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1pq47tINN8lp@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
References: <1993Apr5.163738.2447@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: thnext.mit.edu
In article <1993Apr5.163738.2447@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
[deleted]
>
> ... over on alt.atheism we tend to recognise two
> categories of atheism. Function format due to mathew@mantis.co.uk, I
think:
>
> (i) weak - not(believe(gods))
>
> (ii) strong - believe(not(gods))
>
[deleted]
>
>
>
> I ... am [a strong atheist], and I must quibble with your assertion
> that the `strong' position requires faith. I believe that no god/s,
> as commonly described by theists, exist. This belief is merely an
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> opinion, formed on the basis of observation, including a certain
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> amount of introspection.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I fully accept that I could be wrong, and will be swayed by suitably
> convincing evidence. Thus while I believe that no gods exist, this does
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> not imply *faith* on my part that it is so.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Let me first say that "to believe that no gods exist" is in fact
different than "not believing in a god or gods".
I will argue that your latter statement, "I believe that no gods exist"
does rest upon faith - that is, if you are making a POSITIVE statement
that "no gods exist" (strong atheism) rather than merely saying I don't
know and therefore don't believe in them and don't NOT believe in then
(weak atheism). Once again, to not believe in God is different than saying
I BELIEVE that God does not exist. I still maintain the position, even
after reading the FAQs, that strong atheism requires faith.
But first let me say the following.
We might have a language problem here - in regards to "faith" and
"existence". I, as a Christian, maintain that God does not exist.
To exist means to have being in space and time. God does not HAVE
being - God IS Being. Kierkegaard once said that God does not
exist, He is eternal. With this said, I feel it's rather pointless
to debate the so called "existence" of God - and that is not what
I'm doing here. I believe that God is the source and ground of
being. When you say that "god does not exist", I also accept this
statement - but we obviously mean two different things by it. However,
in what follows I will use the phrase "the existence of God" in it's
'usual sense' - and this is the sense that I think you are using it.
I would like a clarification upon what you mean by "the existence of
God".
We also might differ upon what it means to have faith. Here is what
Webster says:
faith
1a: allegiance to duty or a person: LOYALTY
b (1): fidelity to one's promises
(2): sincerity of intentions
2a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(2): complete trust
3: something that is believed esp. with strong conviction; esp: a system
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of religious beliefs
syn see BELIEF
One can never prove that God does or does not exist. When you say
that you believe God does not exist, and that this is an opinion
"based upon observation", I will have to ask "what observtions are
you refering to?" There are NO observations - pro or con - that
are valid here in establishing a POSITIVE belief. All observations
can only point you in a direction - a direction that we might even
be predisposed to (by predisposed I mean, for example, people whoes
partents "believe in God" also tend to). To actually draw a conclusion
about the "existence" or "non-existence" of God requires a leap - and
you have made this leap when you actively say "I believe that God
does/does not exist". Personally, I think that both statements are
misguided. Arguing over the "existence" of God is precisely the wrong way
to find Him (and yes, I use "Him" because a personal God is the only
viable concept (IMO) - if a person wants to use "She" go ahead. Of course
God is neither He nor She - but we have no choice but to
anthropomorphise. If you want me to explain myself further I'll be
glad to.)
And please, if someone does not agree with me - even if they violently
disagree - it's in no ones advantage to start name calling. If a person
thinks I've misunderstood something in the FAQs, or if they they think
I have not read them well enough, just point out to me the error of my
ways and I correct the situation. I'm interested in a polite and well
thought out discussion.
> Cheers
>
> Simon
> --
> Simon Clippingdale simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
> Department of Computer Science Tel (+44) 203 523296
> University of Warwick FAX (+44) 203 525714
> Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
--
bob singleton
bobs@thnext.mit.edu
storage/51154 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!nm0w+
From: Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 18:40:31 -0400
Organization: Sponsored account, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <gfk=JTa00Vpd0K8HIf@andrew.cmu.edu>
References: <1993Apr5.020504.19326@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: andrew.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: <1993Apr5.020504.19326@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
> More horrible deaths resulted from atheism than anything else.
There are definitely quite a few horrible deaths as the result of both
atheists AND theists. I'm sure Bobby can list quite a few for the atheist
side but fails to recognize that the theists are equally proficient at
genocide. Perhaps, since I'm a bit weak on history, somone here would like
to give a list of wars caused/led by theists? I can think of a few (Hitler
claimed to be a Christian for example) but a more complete list would
probably be more effective in showing Bobby just how absurd his statement
is.
> Peace,
On a side note, I notice you always sign your posts "Peace". Perhaps you
should take your own advice and leave the atheists in peace with their
beliefs?
> Bobby Mozumder
Nanci
.........................................................................
If you know (and are SURE of) the author of this quote, please send me
email (nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu):
Lying to ourselves is more deeply ingrained than lying to others.
storage/51155 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!nm0w+
From: Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Dear Mr. Theist
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 18:43:46 -0400
Organization: Sponsored account, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <cfk=MWm00VpdQK8Hpi@andrew.cmu.edu>
References: <dl2021-010493162641@m249-67.bgsu.edu>
<1993Apr5.024150.10193@wam.umd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: po2.andrew.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: <1993Apr5.024150.10193@wam.umd.edu>
west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
> means to me. The full quote (Michael Crichton, _Jurrasic_Park_) was
> something like "The earth has existed quite contently for billions of
> years. We have been here but for the blink of an eye, and if we were gone
> tomorrow, the earth would not miss us.". I remember this quote to keep
> myself humble when thinking that we have progressed so far or that we
> are masters of this planet.
Cool quote.
> The earth doesn't need saving, it's existed quite happily with-
> out us, we are the ones who need saving.
Better watch it. The theists will jump on you for that... :-)
> Brian West.
> --
> THIS IS NOT A SIG FILE * -"To the Earth, we have been
> THIS IS NOT A SIG FILE * here but for the blink of an
> OK, SO IT'S A SIG FILE * eye, if we were gone tomorrow,
> posted by west@wam.umd.edu * we would not be missed."-
> who doesn't care who knows it. * (Jurassic Park)
> ** DICLAIMER: I said this, I meant this, nobody made me do it.**
Nanci
.........................................................................
If you know (and are SURE of) the author of this quote, please send me
email (nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu):
Lying to ourselves is more deeply ingrained than lying to others.
storage/51156 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!daffy!snake2.cs.wisc.edu!mccullou
From: mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Message-ID: <1993Apr5.203428.20461@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>
Sender: news@daffy.cs.wisc.edu (The News)
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.
References: <1psrjmINNr9e@gap.caltech.edu> <1pdbej$hio@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1pi8h5INNq40@gap.caltech.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 20:34:28 GMT
Lines: 109
My turn to jump in! :)
In article <1pi8h5INNq40@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>(reference line trimmed)
>
>livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>There is a good deal more confusion here. You started off with the
>>assertion that there was some "objective" morality, and as you admit
>>here, you finished up with a recursive definition. Murder is
>>"objectively" immoral, but eactly what is murder and what is not itself
>>requires an appeal to morality.
>
I think you mean circular, not recursive, but that is semantics.
Recursiveness has no problems, it is just horribly inefficient (just ask
any assembly programmer.)
>Yes.
>
>>Now you have switch targets a little, but only a little. Now you are
>>asking what is the "goal"? What do you mean by "goal?". Are you
>>suggesting that there is some "objective" "goal" out there somewhere,
>>and we form our morals to achieve it?
>
>Well, for example, the goal of "natural" morality is the survival and
>propogation of the species. Another example of a moral system is
>presented within the Declaration of Independence, which states that we
>should be guaranteed life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You see,
>to have a moral system, we must define the purpose of the system. That is,
>we shall be moral unto what end?
The oft-quoted line that says people should be guaranteed life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness as inalienable rights, is a complete lie
and deception, as the very authors of that line were in the process of
proving. Liberty is never free, it is always purchased at some cost,
almost always at the cost to another. Whos liberty is more inalienable?
Similarly for right of life. When one person must die if he is to save
another, or even a group of others, whos life is more inalienable?
That leads into the classic question of the value of the death penalty,
especially for serial killers. Whos life and liberty is more valuable,
the serial killer, or the victim? According to that beautiful line,
those two rights should be completely inviolate, that is, noone should be
able to remove them. This _includes_ government. Admittedly the serial
killer has restricted some people's life and/or liberty, but is not his
own life/liberty inviolate also? According to the declaration of independence,
it is.
>>>Murder is certainly a violation of the golden rule. And, I thought I had
>>>defined murder as an intentional killing of a non-murderer, against his will.
Oooh, I like that. It means that killing an infant is not murder because
it cannot be against its will. Reason, an infant has no will as such.
Similarly for people who are brain dead (easier to see), in a coma, etc.
Also, under current law, accidental killing is still murder. How will you
include that?
>>>And you responded to this by asking whether or not the execution of an
>>>innocent person under our system of capital punishment was a murder or not.
>>>I fail to see what this has to do with anything. I never claimed that our
>>>system of morality was an objective one.
>>I thought that was your very first claim. That there was
>>some kind of "objective" morality, and that an example of that was
>>that murder is wrong. If you don't want to claim that any more,
>>that's fine.
The only real golden rule in life is, he who has the gold, makes the
rules. I.e. Might Makes Right. That is survival. Now what is wrong
with that?
>Well, murder violates the golen rule, which is certainly a pillar of most
>every moral system. However, I am not assuming that our current system
>and the manner of its implementation are objectively moral. I think that
>it is a very good approximation, but we can't be perfect.
If you mean the golden rule as I stated, yes, almost every system as
implemented has used that in reality. Sorry, I don't deal as much in
fiction, as I do in reality.
>>And by the way, you don't seem to understand the difference between
>>"arbitrary" and "objective". If Keith Schneider "defines" murder
>>to be this that and the other, that's arbitrary. Jon Livesey may
>>still say "Well, according to my personal system of morality, all
>>killing of humans against their will is murder, and wrong, and what
>>the legal definition of murder may be in the USA, Kuweit, Saudi
>>Arabia, or the PRC may be matters not a whit to me".
WELCOME TO OZLAND!!!!!!! :)
What is NOT arbitrary? If you can find some part of society, some societal
rules, morals, etc. that are not arbitrary, please tell me. I don't think
there are any.
>Well, "objective" would assume a system based on clear and fundamental
>concepts, while "arbitary" implies no clear line of reasoning.
>
>keith
Sounds like euphemisms to me. The difference seems to be, that objective
is some reasoning that I like, while arbitrary is some reasoning that
I don't like OR don't understand.
M^2
storage/51157 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!yale!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!portal.austin.ibm.com!awdprime.austin.ibm.com!zazen
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Radical Agnostic... NOT!
Message-ID: <C51618.Is2@austin.ibm.com>
From: zazen@austin.ibm.com (E. H. Welbon)
Date: 5 Apr 93 21:51:08 GMT
Sender: news@austin.ibm.com (News id)
References: <1993Apr2.024324.21438@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Organization: Brownian Motion Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Lines: 34
The One and Only (jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
: In article <dl2021-310393180711@m249-66.bgsu.edu> dl2021@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie) writes:
: [first post I've seen from the ol' Bug-Zoo (BGSU)]
: > There is no means that i can possibly think of to prove beyond doubt
: >that a god does not exist (but if anyone has one, by all means, tell me
: >what it is). Therefore, lacking this ability of absolute proof, being an
: >atheist becomes an act of faith in and of itself, and this I cannot accept.
: > I accept nothing on blind faith.
: Invisible Pink Flying Unicorns! Need I say more?
There is also the question of what is meant by "atheist". A familiar
example of the importance of the meaning of the word is as follows.
The two statements following ARE consistent:
(1) I do not believe that you are wearing lilac socks
(2) I do not believe that you are are not wearing lilac socks
The two statements following are NOT consistent:
(3) I do believe that you are wearing lilac socks
(4) I do believe that you are are not wearing lilac socks
Statements (1) and (2) require no faith, they make no presumptions about
the nature of reality. Statements (3) and (4) require belief. Many
atheists (myself included) take the following position:
(5) I do not believe that there is a god.
(6) I do not believe that there is not a god.
That is , I harbor no beliefs at all, there is no good evidence
for god existing or not. Some folks call this agnosticism. It does not
suffer from "blind faith" at all. I think of it as "Don't worry, be happy".
storage/51158 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!yale!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!madhaus
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: So what is Maddi?
Message-ID: <madhausC5168z.4tA@netcom.com>
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Date: 5 Apr 93 21:55:46 GMT
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Lines: 12
As I was created in the image of Gaea, therefore I must
be the pinnacle of creation, She which Creates, She which
Births, She which Continues.
Or, to cut all the religious crap, I'm a woman, thanks.
And it's sexism that started me on the road to atheism.
--
Maddi Hausmann madhaus@netcom.com
Centigram Communications Corp San Jose California 408/428-3553
Kids, please don't try this at home. Remember, I post professionally.
storage/51159 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!yale!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
cs.utexas.edu!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!bdunn
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The wrong and the right.
Message-ID: <1piv3sINN3fr@gap.caltech.edu>
From: bdunn@cco.caltech.edu (Brendan Dunn)
Date: 3 Apr 93 03:08:44 GMT
References: <93090.141001E62763@TRMETU.BITNET>
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
Lines: 25
In article <93090.141001E62763@TRMETU.BITNET> <E62763@TRMETU.BITNET> writes:
>Hi.I'm a Turkish guy who had tried atheism,satenism and buddism at some instant
>s of hislife.Finally I decided on Islambecause of many facts which I intend to
> write here.From my point of view,you atheists are people who has dropped to a
>deep,dark well and thinking the only reality is the dusty walls of the well.But
> if you had looked a little bit upward you would see the blue skies.You'dsee t
>he truth but you close your eyes.Allah is the only GOD and Mohammed is his mess
> ager.now,let's generate some entropy in means of theology and thermodynamics.W
>hat's your point of view to the problem of the ''FIRST KISS''?That is,the first
> spark which was generated for the formation of the universe.Has it formed by i
>tself?You are bothering yourselves with the Big Bang but where is the first spa
>rk?Please think a bit.Think and return to the only reality of the universe:ISLA
>M|
Uh oh. This looks a bit too much like Bobby's "Atheism Is False" stuff. Are
we really going to have to go through this again? Maybe the universe is
cyclical! :) :(
--Brendan Dunn
storage/51160 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!yale!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
cs.utexas.edu!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Message-ID: <1pivdqINN3kd@gap.caltech.edu>
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Date: 3 Apr 93 03:14:02 GMT
References: <11700@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> <1993Mar31.230523.13892@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
<930401.112329.0u1.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> <11710@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu
Lines: 17
bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
> And in the US, even that argument doesn't stand. It costs far
> more to execute a criminal in this country than it does to feed,
> clothe, and shelter them for the remainder of their natural life.
> Some people believe this is a fault of our judicial system. I
> find it to be one of it's greatest virtues.
I assume that you are talking about the appeals processes, etc.?
Well, it should be noted that people who are imprisoned for life
will also tend to appeal (though not quite as much in the "final
hours."
Anyway, economics is not a very good reason to either favor or oppose
the punishment.
keith
storage/51161 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:51161 talk.origins:40407
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!yale!yale.edu!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!juliet.caltech.edu!lmh
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Americans and Evolution
Message-ID: <2APR199320114713@juliet.caltech.edu>
From: lmh@juliet.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.)
Date: 3 Apr 93 04:11:00 GMT
References: <1993Mar27.115953@IASTATE.EDU> <31MAR199321091163@juliet.caltech.edu> <1APR199313404295@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: California Institute of Technology
NNTP-Posting-Host: juliet.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Lines: 18
In article <1APR199313404295@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu<, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes...
<In article <31MAR199321091163@juliet.caltech.edu<, lmh@juliet.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.) writes...
<<Atheism (Greek 'a' not + 'theos' god) Belief that there is no god.
<<Agnosticism (Greek 'a' not + ~ 'gnostein ?' know) Belief that it is
<< not possible to determine if there is a god.
<No. Agnosticism as you have here defined it is a positive belief--a
<belief that it is not possible to determine the existence of any gods.
<That's a belief I'm inclined to reject. You have also defined atheism
<here as a positive belief--that there is no god. A fairly large number
<of atheists on alt.atheism reject this definition, instead holding that
<atheism is simply the absence of belief in a god. Michael Martin, in
<_Atheism: A Philosophical Justification_, distinguishes strong atheism
My mistake. I will have to get a newer dictionary and read the
follow up line.
larry henling lmh@shakes.caltech.edu
storage/51162 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usc!wupost!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Message-ID: <1pin25INN1f4@gap.caltech.edu>
Date: 3 Apr 93 00:51:17 GMT
References: <1pcrjmINNr9e@gap.caltech.edu> <1993Apr1.092956.944@news.wesleyan.edu>
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 62
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
(reference line trimmed)
SSAUYET@eagle.wesleyan.edu (SCOTT D. SAUYET) writes:
>First, I'll make the assumption that you agree that a murderer is one
>who has commited murder.
Well, I'd say that a murderer is one who intentionally committed a murder.
For instance, if you put a bullet into a gun that was thought to contain
blanks, and someone was killed with such a gun, the person who actually
performed the action isn't the murderer (but I guess this is actually made
clear in the below definition).
>I'd be interested to see a more reasonable definition.
What do you mean by "reasonable?"
>Otherwise, your inductive definition doesn't bottom out:
>Your definition, in essence, is that
>>Murder is the intentional killing of someone who has not commited
>>murder, against his will.
>Expanding the second occurence of `murder' in the above, we see that
[...]
Yes, it is bad to include the word being defined in the definition. But,
even though the series is recursively infinite, I think the meaning can
still be deduced.
>I assume you can see the problem here. To do a correct inductive
>definition, you must define something in terms of a simpler case, and
>you must have one or several "bottoming out" cases. For instance, we
>can define the factorial function (the function which assigns to a
>positive integer the product of the positive integers less than or
>equal to it) on the positive integers inductively as follows:
[math lesson deleted]
Okay, let's look at this situation: suppose there is a longstanding
feud between two families which claim that the other committed some
travesty in the distant past. Each time a member of the one family
kills a member of the other, the other family thinks that it is justified
in killing a that member of the first family. Now, let's suppose that this
sequence has occurred an infinite number of times. Or, if you don't
like dealing with infinities, suppose that one member of the family
goes back into time and essentially begins the whole thing. That is, there
is a never-ending loop of slayings based on some non-existent travesty.
How do you resolve this?
Well, they are all murders.
Now, I suppose that this isn't totally applicable to your "problem," but
it still is possible to reduce an uninduced system.
And, in any case, the nested "murderer" in the definition of murder
cannot be infintely recursive, given the finite existence of humanity.
And, a murder cannot be committed without a killing involved. So, the
first person to intentionally cause someone to get killed is necessarily
a murderer. Is this enough of an induction to solve the apparently
unreducable definition? See, in a totally objective system where all the
information is available, such a nested definition isn't really a problem.
keith
storage/51163 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!biosci!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!po.CWRU.edu!kmr4
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Message-ID: <kmr4.1442.734042992@po.CWRU.edu>
Date: 5 Apr 93 20:49:52 GMT
References: <1p9bseINNi6o@gap.caltech.edu> <1pamva$b6j@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1993Mar31.002303.4748@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <930401.111834.4c3.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> <1pigidINNsot@gap.caltech.edu>
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Lines: 29
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
In article <1pigidINNsot@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>As for rape, surely there the burden of guilt is solely on the rapist?
>
>Not so. If you are thrown into a cage with a tiger and get mauled, do you
>blame the tiger?
A human has greater control over his/her actions, than a
predominately instictive tiger.
A proper analogy would be:
If you are thrown into a cage with a person and get mauled, do you
blame that person?
Yes. [ providing that that person was in a responsible frame of
mind, eg not clinicaly insane, on PCB's, etc. ]
---
"One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that
say "Mom", because of the love of their mom. It makes for more
virile men."
Bobby Mozumder ( snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu )
April 4, 1993
The one TRUE Muslim left in the world.
storage/51164 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!daffy!snake2.cs.wisc.edu!mccullou
From: mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: Idle questions for fellow atheists
Message-ID: <1993Apr5.205357.20714@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>
Sender: news@daffy.cs.wisc.edu (The News)
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.
References: <1993Apr5.124216.4374@mac.cc.macalstr.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 20:53:57 GMT
Lines: 43
In article <1993Apr5.124216.4374@mac.cc.macalstr.edu> acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu writes:
>
>I wonder how many atheists out there care to speculate on the face of the world
>if atheists were the majority rather than the minority group of the population.
Probably we would have much the same problems with only a slight shift in
emphasis. Weekends might not be so inviolate (more common to work 7 days
a week in a business), and instead of American Atheists, we would have
similar, religious organizations. A persons religious belief seems more
as a crutch and justification for actions than a guide to determine actions.
Of course, people would have to come up with more fascinating
rationalizations for their actions, but that could be fun to watch...
It seems to me, that for most people, religion in America doesn't matter
that much. You have extreemists on both ends, but a large majority don't
make too much of an issue about it as long as you don't. Now, admittedly,
I have never had to suffer the "Bible Belt", but I am just north of it
and see the fringes, and the reasonable people in most things tend to be
reasonable in religion as well.
>Also, how many atheists out there would actually take the stance and accor a
>higher value to their way of thinking over the theistic way of thinking. The
>typical selfish argument would be that both lines of thinking evolved from the
>same inherent motivation, so one is not, intrinsically, different from the
>other, qualitatively. But then again a measuring stick must be drawn
>somewhere, and if we cannot assign value to a system of beliefs at its core,
>than the only other alternative is to apply it to its periphery; ie, how it
>expresses its own selfishness.
>
I don't bother according a higher value to my thinking, or just about
anybodys thinking. I don't want to fall in that trap. Because if you
do start that, then you are then to decide which is better, says whom,
why, is there a best, and also what to do about those who have inferior
modes of thinking. IDIC (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.)
I'll argue it over a soda, but not over much more.
Just my $.12 (What inflation has done...)
M^2
storage/51165 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.unomaha.edu!cwis.unomaha.edu!trajan
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Re: The Problem of Satan (used to be: islamic authority over women)
Message-ID: <1993Apr5.205351.11915@news.unomaha.edu>
Sender: news@news.unomaha.edu (UNO Network News Server)
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
References: <C50v70.55D@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 20:53:51 GMT
Lines: 103
In article <1993Apr5.165233.1007@news.unomaha.edu> trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu
(Stephen McIntyre) writes:
> Of course, Bobby then states that Satan has no free will, that
> he does as God wants him to. This brings up a host of
> paradoxes: is God therefore evil; do I have free will
> or is God directing me also; if God is evil, which part
> of his infinite self is good and which is evil; etc.?
> I would like for once a solid answer, not a run-about.
# I hope I gave you a fairly solid answer to this one: I simply don't agree
# with the embodied version of a Satan who is a separate creation or a force.
# I wrote:
>> The belief to which I ascribe is that evil is not a creation;
>> rather, it is "the absence of good." This fits with all the
>> logic about things having dual use: e.g., a knife can be used
>> to sculpt and it can be used to kill. Like entropy, evil is
>> seen in this view as neither force nor entity. Satan is,
>> therefore, metaphorical. In fact, there are several verses
>> of the Holy Qur'an which appear to support this view and several
>> Traditions as well.
>
>> For example, there is a Tradition that food should never be left open
>> on a shelf or table overnight, lest "Satan" enter it. It appears
>> that this is a reference to as yet undiscovered germs; thus, the
>> evil effect of spoiled food is described as "Satan."
>But there are many examples of Satan personified. Which am I
> to believe?
# And there are quite physical descriptions of Heaven and Hell in the
# Holy Qur'an, the Bible, etc. There have been times in the spiritual
# and intellectual evolution of the modern human when these physical
# descriptions of Heaven, Hell, and Satan were taken quite literally
# and that *worked* for the time. As I mentioned in the Tradition
# cited above, for example, it was sufficient in the absence of a theory
# about germs and disease spread by worms to simply describe the "evil"
# which was passed to a consumer of spoiled food as "satanic."
Which begs the question: if Satan in this case is
metaphorical, how can you be certain Allah is not
the same way?
# The bottom line here, however, is that describing a spiritual plane
# in human language is something like describing "color" to a person
# who has been blind from birth. You may want to read the book
# FLATLAND (if you haven't already) or THE DRAGON'S EGG. The first
# is intended as a light hearted description of a mathematical con-
# cept...
[some deleted for space saving]
# When language fails because it cannot be used to adequately describe
# another dimension which cannot be experienced by the speakers, then
# such conventions as metaphor, allegory, and the like come to be
# necessary. The "unseen" is described in terms which have reference`
# and meaning for the reader/listener. But, like all models, a compro-
# mise must be made when speaking metaphorically: clarity and directness
# of meaning, equivalence of perception, and the like are all
# crippled. But what else can you do?
This is why I asked the above. How would you then
know God exists as a spirit or being rather than
just being metaphorical? I mean, it's okay to say
"well, Satan is just metaphorical," but then you
have to justify this belief AND justify that God is
not some metaphor for something else.
I say this because there are many, many instances of
Satan described as a being (such as the tormentor in
the Old Testament book of Job, or the temptor in the
New Testament Gospels). In the same way, God too is
described as a being (or spirit.) How am I to know
one is metaphorical and not the other.
Further, belief in God isn't a bar to evil. Let's
consider the case of Satanists: even if Satan were
metaphorical, the Satanist would have to believe
in God to justify this belief. Again, we have a
case where someone does believe in God, but by
religious standards, they are "evil." If Bobby
does see this, let him address this question also.
[deleted some more on "metaphor"]
>> Obviously more philosophizing on this issue is possible, but I'm
>> not sure that the readers of this newsgroup would want to delve
>> into religious interpretation further. However, if anyone wishes
>> to discuss this, I'm certainly willing (either off line - e-mail - or
>> on line - posting).
Stephen
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ * Atheist
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ * Libertarian
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ * Pro-individuality
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ * Pro-responsibility
_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Jr. * and all that jazz...
--
storage/51166 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:51166 talk.religion.misc:82768 talk.origins:40409
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!digex.com!digex.com!not-for-mail
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
Date: 5 Apr 1993 16:51:04 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <1pq63o$n7t@access.digex.net>
References: <1pfq90$cbb@access.digex.com> <1ph4c8$8j6@shrike.und.ac.za>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.net
In article <1ph4c8$8j6@shrike.und.ac.za> dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace) writes:
}Herb Huston (huston@access.digex.com) wrote:
}
}: Actually, cannibalism is quite widespread. My favorite examples are sand
}: sharks and mackerel sharks. The fetuses begin cannibalizing each other, and
}: the one that is eventually born enters the sea with a full stomache. Would
}: you like some more gruesome examples?
}
}Fair enough - I'm pretty well aware of the examples used - and mine were very
}rapidly and thoughtlessly pulled out of thin air, but the point I'm making is
}that our non-cannibalism doesn't imply any `value' over other animals.
Did something happen while I wasn't looking? When did _Homo sapiens_ become
non-cannibalistic?
-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com
storage/51167 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu talk.religion.misc:82769 alt.atheism:51167 alt.pagan:29084
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!gatech!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!usenet
From: martini@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Sheilagh M.B.E. O'Hare)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Honor (was: A Parable For You)
Date: 5 Apr 1993 20:50:37 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <1pq62tINNof1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
References: <1p10thINNf8o@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <C4sGKt.Kqs@wolves.Durham.NC.US> <1993Apr2.190122.26169@radian.uucp>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tigger.cc.utexas.edu
While mark claims that his honor would demand that he apologize, it seems
that he would apologieze *if* he were wrong, which takes seeing that he
would be wrong in some situation or other.
Woolfie (lupus would be a cool name for a child) points out that his
brother would see himself as honorable, and not see his mother's point of
view.
My sister has played go between, twixt me and my mother, since I can't
seem to find words that my mother understands on some issues of boundaries,
and such personal things. Not that we dont talk, or anything quite so
drastic, but that it can be hard to reconsile two points of view..
thanks, wolfie, i see some of your point.. and mark, i may see yours,
but it doesnt quite follow the same path, to me, as wolfe's..
sheil
storage/51168 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:51168 talk.religion.misc:82770 talk.origins:40410
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!gatech!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!wupost!uunet!noc.near.net!ctron-news.ctron.com!ctron.com!king
From: king@ctron.com (John E. King)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
Date: 5 Apr 1993 16:03:52 GMT
Organization: Cabletron Systems Inc.
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <1ppl98INNio@ctron-news.ctron.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: saturn.ctron.com
To: anthonyp@riscsm.scripps.edu (Anthony Pelletier)
anthonyp@riscsm.scripps.edu (Anthony Pelletier) writes:
>This stuff is absolute giberish.
and
>I would post the real information, but in my experience you guys are not
>interested in facts. If you happen to be the exception to that rule and
>really would like to know what is known about the "RNA world" as we call it
>and what we can re-create, I would be happy to provide some information and
>references.
I believe you will find me the exception to the rule. I don't claim
to know everything. I would be very interested in your "real information".
By the way, what was giberish? Was it the four letter alphabet?``
Jack
storage/51169 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:51169 soc.motss:139998 rec.scouting:5327
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.motss,rec.scouting
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornell!batcomputer!caen!nic.umass.edu!umassd.edu!ulowell!ulowell.ulowell.edu!jvigneau
From: jvigneau@cs.ulowell.edu (Joe Vigneau)
Subject: Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts"
In-Reply-To: bevans@carina.unm.edu's message of 4 Apr 1993 12:19:20 GMT
Message-ID: <JVIGNEAU.93Apr5182106@cs.ulowell.edu>
Sender: usenet@ulowell.ulowell.edu (News manager - ulowell)
Organization: -
References: <merlyn.733766717@digibd> <1pijfo$1l4@fido.asd.sgi.com>
<1993Apr3.214557.24073@midway.uchicago.edu> <1pmjo8INN2l0@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 23:21:06 GMT
Lines: 21
In article <1pmjo8INN2l0@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
Just what do gay people do that straight people don't?
Absolutely nothing.
I'm a VERY straight(as an arrow), 17-year old male that is involved in the BSA.
I don't care what gay people do among each other, as long as they don't make
passes at me or anything. At my summer camp where I work, my boss is gay.
Not in a 'pansy' way of gay (I know a few), but just 'one of the guys'.
He doesn't push anything on me, and we give him the same respect back, due
to his position.
If anything, the BSA has taught me, I don't know, tolerance or something.
Before I met this guy, I thought all gays were 'faries'. So, the BSA HAS
taught me to be an antibigot.
Basically, It comes down to this: What you do among yourself is your own
business. No one else has the right to tell you otherwise, unless it
violates someone else's civil rights.
storage/51170 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!wupost!uunet!psinntp!wrldlnk!usenet
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Gospel Dating
Message-ID: <2943129589.0.p00261@psilink.com>
From: p00261@psilink.com (Robert Knowles)
Date: 5 Apr 93 23:01:15 GMT
Sender: usenet@worldlink.com
Organization: Kupajava, East of Krakatoa
In-Reply-To: <1993Apr5.163050.13308@wam.umd.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)
Lines: 22
>DATE: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 16:30:50 GMT
>FROM: Stilgar <west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu>
>
>In article <kmr4.1422.733983061@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M.
>Ryan) writes:
>> In article <1993Apr5.025924.11361@wam.umd.edu>
>west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
>>
>> >THE ILLIAD IS THE UNDISPUTED WORD OF GOD(tm) *prove me wrong*
>>
>> I dispute it.
>>
>> Ergo: by counter-example: you are proven wrong.
>
> I dispute your counter-example
>
> Ergo: by counter-counter-example: you are wrong and
> I am right so nanny-nanny-boo-boo TBBBBBBBTTTTTTHHHHH
> 8^p
>
This looks like a serious case of temporary Islam.
storage/51171 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!yale!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!caen!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!jcopelan
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: A word of advice
Message-ID: <1993Apr6.002655.27807@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
From: jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only)
Date: 6 Apr 93 00:26:55 GMT
Sender: usenet@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (netnews admin account)
References: <930401.113601.4C0.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> <65882@mimsy.umd.edu>
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Summary: was Re: Yeah, Right
Lines: 14
In article <65882@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>
>I've said enough times that there is no "alternative" that should think you
>might have caught on by now. And there is no "alternative", but the point
>is, "rationality" isn't an alternative either. The problems of metaphysical
>and religious knowledge are unsolvable-- or I should say, humans cannot
>solve them.
How does that saying go: Those who say it can't be done shouldn't interrupt
those who are doing it.
Jim
--
Have you washed your brain today?
storage/51172 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!nm0w+
From: Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Concerning God's Morality (long)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 20:15:34 -0400
Organization: Sponsored account, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <0fkAiaK00VpdQKDFEL@andrew.cmu.edu>
References: <1993Mar29.165428@IASTATE.EDU><1993Mar31.194921.941@news.wesleyan.edu><1993Apr <1993Apr3.095220.24632@leland.Stanford.EDU>
<1993Apr5.084042.822@batman.bmd.trw.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: po5.andrew.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: <1993Apr5.084042.822@batman.bmd.trw.com>
jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
> > Sorry, but there are no supernatural
> > forces necessary to create a pathogen. You are saying, "Since
> > diseases are bad, the bad entity must have created it." So
> > what would you say about acid rain, meteors falling from the
> > sky, volcanoes, earthquakes, and other QUOTE UNQUOTE "Acts
> > of God?"
>
> I would say that they are not "acts of God" but natural
> occurrences.
It amazes me that you have the audacity to say that human creation was not
the result of the natural process of evolution (but rather an "act of God")
and then in the same post say that these other processes (volcanos et al.)
are natural occurrences. Who gave YOU the right to choose what things are
natural processes and what are direct acts of God? How do you know that
God doesn't cause each and every natural disaster with a specific purpose
in mind? It would certainly go along with the sadistic nature I've seen in
the bible.
> >>Even if Satan had nothing to do with the original inception of
> >>disease, evolution by random chance would have produced them since
> >>humanity forsook God's protection. If we choose to live apart from
> >>God's law (humanity collectively), then it should come as no surprise
> >>that there are adverse consequences to our (collective) action. One
> >>of these is that we are left to deal with disease and disorders which
> >>inevitably result in an entropic universe.
> >
> > May I ask, where is this 'collective' bullcrap coming from?
>
> By "collective" I was referring to the idea that God works with
> humanity on two levels, individually and collectively. If mankind
> as a whole decides to undertake a certain action (the majority of
> mankind), then God will allow the consequences of that action to
> affect mankind as a whole.
Adam & Eve (TWO PEOPLE), even tho they had the honor (or so you christians
claim) of being the first two, definitely do NOT represent a majority in
the billions and trillions (probably more) of people that have come after
them. Perhaps they were the majority then, but *I* (and YOU) weren't
around to vote, and perhaps we might have voted differently about what to
do with that tree. But your god never asked us. He just assumes that if
you have two bad people then they ALL must be bad. Hmm. Sounds like the
same kind of false generalization that I see many of the theists posting
here resorting to. So THAT's where they get it... shoulda known.
> Jim B.
Nanci
.........................................................................
If you know (and are SURE of) the author of this quote, please send me
email (nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu):
Lying to ourselves is more deeply ingrained than lying to others.
storage/51173 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!yale!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!news.tek.com!vice!bobbe
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: islamic authority over women
Message-ID: <11740@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Date: 6 Apr 93 00:03:48 GMT
References: <1993Apr5.023044.19580@ultb.isc.rit.edu)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR.
Lines: 46
In article <1993Apr5.023044.19580@ultb.isc.rit.edu) snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
)
)That's your mistake. It would be better for the children if the mother
)raised the child.
)
)One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that say "Mom",
)because of the love of their mom. It makes for more virile men.
)Compare that with how homos are raised. Do a study and you will get my
)point.
)
)But in no way do you have a claim that it would be better if the men
)stayed home and raised the child. That is something false made up by
)feminists that seek a status above men. You do not recognize the fact
)that men and women have natural differences. Not just physically, but
)mentally also.
) [...]
)Your logic. I didn't say americans were the cause of worlds problems, I
)said atheists.
) [...]
)Becuase they have no code of ethics to follow, which means that atheists
)can do whatever they want which they feel is right. Something totally
)based on their feelings and those feelings cloud their rational
)thinking.
) [...]
)Yeah. I didn't say that all atheists are bad, but that they could be
)bad or good, with nothing to define bad or good.
)
Awright! Bobby's back, in all of his shit-for-brains glory. Just
when I thought he'd turned the corner of progress, his Thorazine
prescription runs out.
I'd put him in my kill file, but man, this is good stuff. I wish
I had his staying power.
Fortunately, I learned not to take him too seriously long,long,long
ago.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
storage/51174 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!yale!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!news.tek.com!vice!bobbe
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: islamic authority over women
Message-ID: <11741@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Date: 6 Apr 93 00:05:52 GMT
References: <1993Apr5.024626.19942@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR.
Lines: 17
In article <1993Apr5.024626.19942@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
>
>Peace,
Bobby:
Get this the hell out of your .sig until you 1) learn what it
stands for and 2) really mean it.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
storage/51175 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!wupost!usc!venice!batman.bmd.trw.com!jbrown
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Omnipotence (was Re: Speculations)
Message-ID: <1993Apr5.171143.828@batman.bmd.trw.com>
From: jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com
Date: 6 Apr 93 00:11:43 GMT
References: <2942949719.2.p00261@psilink.com>
Lines: 55
In article <2942949719.2.p00261@psilink.com>, "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
>>DATE: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 23:02:22 -0500
>>FROM: Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
>>
>>
>>> > 3. Can god uncreate itself?
>>>
>>> No. For if He did, He would violate His own nature which He cannot do.
>>> It is God's nature to Exist. He is, after all, the "I AM" which is
>>> a statement of His inherent Existence. He is existence itself.
>>> Existence cannot "not-exist".
>>
>>Then, as mentioned above, he must not be very omnipotent.
>>
What do you mean by omnipotent here? Do you mean by "omnipotent"
that God should be able to do anything/everything? This creates
a self-contradictory definition of omnipotence which is effectively
useless.
To be descriptive, omnipotence must mean "being all-powerful" and
not "being able to do anything/everything".
Let me illustrate by analogy.
Suppose the United States were the only nuclear power on earth. Suppose
further that the US military could not effectively be countered by any
nation or group of nations. The US has the power to go into any country
at any time for any reason to straighten things out as the leaders of the
US see fit. The US would be militarily "omnipotent".
But suppose further that the US holds to a doctrine/philosophy of not
interfering in the internal affairs of any nation, such as the current
civil war in the former Yugoslavian states.
Technically (in this scenario) the US would have the power to
unilaterally go into Yugoslavia and straighten out the mess. But
effectively the US could not intervene without violating its own policy
of non-interference. If the policy of non-interference were held to
strongly enough, then there would never be a question that it would
ever be violated. Effectively, the US would be limited in what it
could actually do, although it had the power to do "whatever it wanted".
The US would simply "never want to interfere" for such an idea would
be beyond the consideration of its leaders given such an inviolate
non-interference policy.
God is effectively limited in the same sense. He is all powerful, but
He cannot use His power in a way that would violate the essence of what
He, Himself is.
I hope this helps to clear up some of the misunderstanding concerning
omnipotence.
Regards,
Jim B.
storage/51176 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!yale!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!portal.austin.ibm.com!awdprime.austin.ibm.com!karner
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Islamic marriage?
Message-ID: <C51CJp.1LF8@austin.ibm.com>
From: karner@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner)
Date: 6 Apr 93 00:11:49 GMT
Sender: frank@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner)
References: <2942035589.0.p00261@psilink.com> <1993Mar26.085105.10096@Cadence.COM>
<C4qAv2.24wG@austin.ibm.com> <1993Apr2.103237.4627@Cadence.COM>
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division
Originator: frank@karner.austin.ibm.com
Lines: 50
In article <1993Apr2.103237.4627@Cadence.COM>, mas@Cadence.COM (Masud Khan) writes:
> In article <C4qAv2.24wG@austin.ibm.com> karner@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner) writes:
> >
> >Okay. So you want me to name names? There are obviously no official
> >records of these pseudo-marriages because they are performed for
> >convenience. What happens typically is that the woman is willing to move
> >in with her lover without any scruples or legal contracts to speak of.
> >The man is merely utilizing a loophole by entering into a temporary
> >religious "marriage" contract in order to have sex. Nobody complains,
> >nobody cares, nobody needs to know.
> >
> >Perhaps you should alert your imam. It could be that this practice is
> >far more widespread than you may think. Or maybe it takes 4 muslim men
> >to witness the penetration to decide if the practice exists!
> >--
> >
>
> Again you astound me with the level of ignorance you display, Muslims
> are NOT allowed to enter temporary marriages, got that? There is
> no evidence for it it an outlawed practise so get your facts
> straight buddy. Give me references for it or just tell everyone you
> were lying. It is not a widespread as you may think (fantasise) in
> fact contrary to your fantasies it is not practised at all amongst
> Muslims.
First of all, I'm not your buddy! Second, read what I wrote. I'm not
talking about what muslims are ALLOWED to do, merely what *SOME*
practice. They consider themselves as muslim as you, so don't retort
with the old and tired "they MUST NOT BE TRUE MUSLIMS" bullshit. If I
gave you the names what will you do with this information? Is a fatwa
going to be leashed out against the perpetrators? Do you honestly think
that someone who did it would voluntarily come forward and confess?
With the kind of extremism shown by your co-religionaries? Fat chance.
At any rate, there can be no conclusive "proof" by the very nature of
the act. Perhaps people that indulge in this practice agree with you in
theory, but hope that Allah will forgive them in the end.
I think it's rather arrogant of you to pretend to speak for all muslims
in this regard. Also, kind of silly. Are you insinuating that because
the Koranic law forbids it, there are no criminals in muslim countries?
This is as far as I care to go on this subject. The weakness of your
arguments are for all netters to see. Over and out...
--
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this posting are mine
solely and do not represent my employer in any way.
F. A. Karner AIX Technical Support | karner@austin.vnet.ibm.com
storage/51177 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!yale!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!olivea!sgigate!odin!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Message-ID: <1pqifj$fat@fido.asd.sgi.com>
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Date: 6 Apr 93 00:22:11 GMT
References: <1psrjmINNr9e@gap.caltech.edu> <1pdbej$hio@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1pi8h5INNq40@gap.caltech.edu>
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
Lines: 28
In article <1pi8h5INNq40@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> (reference line trimmed)
|>
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> [...]
|>
|> >There is a good deal more confusion here. You started off with the
|> >assertion that there was some "objective" morality, and as you admit
|> >here, you finished up with a recursive definition. Murder is
|> >"objectively" immoral, but eactly what is murder and what is not itself
|> >requires an appeal to morality.
|>
|> Yes.
|>
|> >Now you have switch targets a little, but only a little. Now you are
|> >asking what is the "goal"? What do you mean by "goal?". Are you
|> >suggesting that there is some "objective" "goal" out there somewhere,
|> >and we form our morals to achieve it?
|>
|> Well, for example, the goal of "natural" morality is the survival and
|> propogation of the species.
I got just this far. What do you mean by "goal"? I hope you
don't mean to imply that evolution has a conscious "goal".
jon.
storage/51178 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!yale!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!olivea!sgigate!odin!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Message-ID: <1pqiik$fat@fido.asd.sgi.com>
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Date: 6 Apr 93 00:23:48 GMT
References: <1993Mar31.002303.4748@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <11700@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>
<1993Mar31.230523.13892@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <11705@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> <1pic4lINNrau@gap.caltech.edu>
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
Lines: 15
In article <1pic4lINNrau@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
|>
|> >My personal objection is that I find capital punishment to be
|> >cruel and unusual punishment under all circumstances.
|>
|> It can be painless, so it isn't cruel. And, it has occurred frequently
|> since the dawn of time, so it is hardly unusual.
Koff! You mean that as long as I put you to sleep first,
I can kill you without being cruel?
This changes everything.
jon.
storage/51179 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!yale!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!olivea!sgigate!odin!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Message-ID: <1pqin2$fat@fido.asd.sgi.com>
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Date: 6 Apr 93 00:26:10 GMT
References: <1p3bn9INN98r@gap.caltech.edu> <1p5p1j$ijd@fido.asd.sgi.com>
<1p6rgcINNhfb@gap.caltech.edu> <1p88fi$4vv@fido.asd.sgi.com>
<1993Mar30.051246.29911@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1p8nd7$e9f@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1pa0stINNpqa@gap.caltech.edu> <1pan4f$b6j@fido.asd.sgi.com>
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
Lines: 20
In article <1pieg7INNs09@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> >Now along comes Mr Keith Schneider and says "Here is an "objective
|> >moral system". And then I start to ask him about the definitions
|> >that this "objective" system depends on, and, predictably, the whole
|> >thing falls apart.
|>
|> It only falls apart if you attempt to apply it. This doesn't mean that
|> an objective system can't exist. It just means that one cannot be
|> implemented.
It's not the fact that it can't exist that bothers me. It's
the fact that you don't seem to be able to define it.
If I wanted to hear about indefinable things that might in
principle exist as long as you don't think about them too
carefully, I could ask a religious person, now couldn't I?
jon.
storage/51180 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!yale!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
wupost!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgi!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: >>>>>>Pompous ass
Message-ID: <1pqj9j$fat@fido.asd.sgi.com>
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Date: 6 Apr 93 00:36:03 GMT
References: <1ou4koINNe67@gap.caltech.edu> <1p72bkINNjt7@gap.caltech.edu>
<93089.050046MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <1pa6ntINNs5d@gap.caltech.edu>
<1993Mar30.210423.1302@bmerh85.bnr.ca> <1pcnqjINNpon@gap.caltech.edu> <kmr4.1344.733611641@po.CWRU.edu> <1pi9btINNqa5@gap.calte
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
Lines: 20
In article <1pi9btINNqa5@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
|>
|> >>Then why do people keep asking the same questions over and over?
|> >Because you rarely ever answer them.
|>
|> Nope, I've answered each question posed, and most were answered multiple
|> times.
He: Fifty dollars if I can't answer your question.
She: What is the Big Bang theory.
He: The Big Bang theory is a recipe for cookies.
She: Fifty dollars, please.
He: Hey, I didn't say the answers would make sense.
jon.
storage/51181 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!yale!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
wupost!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgi!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: >>>>>>Pompous ass
Message-ID: <1pqjcm$fat@fido.asd.sgi.com>
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Date: 6 Apr 93 00:37:42 GMT
References: <1ou4koINNe67@gap.caltech.edu> <1p72bkINNjt7@gap.caltech.edu>
<93089.050046MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <1pa6ntINNs5d@gap.caltech.edu>
<1993Mar30.205919.26390@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1pcnp3INNpom@gap.caltech.edu> <1pdjip$jsi@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1pi9jkINNqe2@gap.caltec
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
Lines: 20
In article <1pi9jkINNqe2@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> >>>How long does it [the motto] have to stay around before it becomes the
|> >>>default? ... Where's the cutoff point?
|> >>I don't know where the exact cutoff is, but it is at least after a few
|> >>years, and surely after 40 years.
|> >Why does the notion of default not take into account changes
|> >in population makeup?
|>
|> Specifically, which changes are you talking about? Are you arguing
|> that the motto is interpreted as offensive by a larger portion of the
|> population now than 40 years ago?
No, do I have to? I'm just commenting that it makes very
little sense to consider everything we inherit to be the default.
Seen any steam trains recently?
jon.
storage/51182 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!hsdndev!wupost!psuvax1!psuvm!j5j
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Concerning God's Morality (long)
Message-ID: <93095.145928J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
From: J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson)
Date: 5 Apr 93 18:59:28 GMT
References: <1993Mar29.165428@IASTATE.EDU><1993Mar31.194921.941@news.wesleyan.edu><1993Apr
<1993Apr3.095220.24632@leland.Stanford.EDU><1993Apr5.084042.822@batman.bmd.trw.com>
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 48
In article <1993Apr5.084042.822@batman.bmd.trw.com>, jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com
responds to a lot of grief given to him
>In article <1993Apr3.095220.24632@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
>galahad@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scott Compton)
a.k.a. "The Sagemaster"
[ . . .]
>But then I ask, So? Where is this relevant to my discussion in
>answering John's question of why? Why are there genetic diseases,
>and why are there so many bacterial and viral diseases which require
>babies to develop antibodies. Is it God's fault? (the original
>question) -- I say no, it is not.
Most of Scotty's followup *was* irrelevant to the original question,
but this is not unusual, as threads often quickly evolve away from
the original topic. What I could not understand is why Jim spent so
much time responding to what he regarded as irrelevancies.
[ . . . ]
>> May I ask, where is this 'collective' bullcrap coming from?
[ . . . ]
>
>By "collective" I was referring to the idea that God works with
>humanity on two levels, individually and collectively. If mankind
>as a whole decides to undertake a certain action (the majority of
>mankind),
Well, I guess hypothetical Adam was "the majority of mankind"
seeing how he was the ONLY man at the time.
>then God will allow the consequences of that action to
>affect mankind as a whole. If you didn't understand that, then I
>apologize for not using one and two syllable words in my discussion.
I understand what you mean by "collective," but I think it is an
insane perversion of justice. What sort of judge would punish the
descendants for a crime committed by their ancestor?
>If you want to be sure that I read your post and to provide a
>response, send a copy to Jim_Brown@oz.bmd.trw.com. I can't read
>a.a. every day, and some posts slip by. Thanks.
Well, I must admit that you probably read a.a. more often than I read
the Bible these days. But you missed a couple of good followups to
your post. I'm sending you a personal copy of my followup which I
hope you will respond to publically in a.a.
John
The Sageless
storage/51183 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!olivea!sgigate!odin!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jews can't hide from keith@cco.
Message-ID: <1pqdor$9s2@fido.asd.sgi.com>
Date: 5 Apr 93 23:01:47 GMT
References: <1993Mar26.214151.20283@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1pint5$1l4@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1993Apr3.033446.10669@bmerh85.bnr.ca> <1pj2b6$aaa@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1993Apr3.071823.13253@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
Organization: sgi
Lines: 36
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <1993Apr3.071823.13253@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
|> In article <1pj2b6$aaa@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >In article <1993Apr3.033446.10669@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
|> >|>Er, Jon, what Ken said was:
|> >|>
|> >|> There have previously been people like you in your country. Unfortunately,
|> >|> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >|> most Jews did not survive.
|> >|>
|> >|>That sure sounds to me like Ken is accusing the guy of being a Nazi.
|> >
[my previous posting deleted]
|>
|> Yes, yes. This is a perfectly fine rant, and I agree with it completely.
|> But what does it have to do with anything? The issue at hand here
|> is whether or not Ken accused the fellow from Germany of being a
|> Nazi. I grant that he did not explicity make this accusation, but
|> he came pretty damn close. He is certainly accusing the guy of
|> sympathizing with those who would like to exterminate the Jews, and
|> that's good enough for me.
The poster casually trashed two thousand years of Jewish history, and
Ken replied that there had previously been people like him in Germany.
That's right. There have been. There have also been people who
were formally Nazis. But the Nazi party would have gone nowhere
without the active and tacit support of the ordinary man in the
street who behaved as though casual anti-semitism was perfectly
acceptable.
Now what exactly don't you understand about what I wrote, and why
don't you see what it has to do with the matter at hand?
jon.
storage/51184 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!olivea!sgigate!odin!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jews can't hide from keith@cco.
Message-ID: <1pqe02$9s2@fido.asd.sgi.com>
Date: 5 Apr 93 23:05:38 GMT
References: <1993Mar26.214151.20283@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1pint5$1l4@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1993Apr3.153552.4334@mac.cc.macalstr.edu>
Organization: sgi
Lines: 16
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <1993Apr3.153552.4334@mac.cc.macalstr.edu>, acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu writes:
|> In article <1pint5$1l4@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes
>
> Well, Germany was hardly the ONLY country to discriminate against the
> Jews, although it has the worst reputation because it did the best job
> of expressing a general European dislike of them. This should not turn
> into a debate on antisemitism, but you should also point out that Luther's
> antiSemitism was based on religious grounds, while Hitler's was on racial
> grounds, and Wagnmer's on aesthetic grounds. Just blanketing the whole
> group is poor analysis, even if they all are bigots.
I find these to be intriguing remarks. Could you give us a bit
more explanation here? For example, which religion is anti-semitic,
and which aesthetic?
jon.
storage/51185 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!sgiblab!sgigate!odin!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
Date: 5 Apr 1993 23:27:35 GMT
Organization: sgi
Lines: 28
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1pqf97$9s2@fido.asd.sgi.com>
References: <1p78iuINN6dp@dsi.dsinc.com> <C4nvEv.3CK@ra.nrl.navy.mil> <1p8aih$4vv@fido.asd.sgi.com> <C4oo5C.F6n@ra.nrl.navy.mil> <1p8ivt$cfj@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1993Apr3.100039.15879@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <1993Apr3.100039.15879@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
|> In <1p8ivt$cfj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> >Should we British go around blowing up skyscrapers next?
|>
|> I don't know if you are doing so, but it seems you are implying
|> (1) that the person accused of blowing up the WTC in NY actually did it,
|> and
|> (2) that Islamic teachings have something to do with blowing up the WTC.
I was replying to a person who attempted to justify the fatwa
against Rushdie on the grounds that his work was intentionally
insulting.
I think that to take a single sentence from a fairly long
posting, and to say
"I don't know if you are doing so, but it
seems you are implying....."
is at the very best quite disingenuous, and perhaps even
dishonest. If anyone care to dig back and read the full
posting, they will see nothing of the kind.
I trust you don't deny that Islamic teaching has "something
to do" with the fatwa against Rushdie?
jon.
storage/51186 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!sdd.hp.com!sgiblab!sgigate!odin!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: An Anecdote about Islam
Date: 5 Apr 1993 23:32:28 GMT
Organization: sgi
Lines: 15
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1pqfic$9s2@fido.asd.sgi.com>
References: <1pd5nr$89r@s1.gov> <113689@bu.edu> <16BA4AB7F.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> <114127@bu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <114127@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
|>
|> I don't understand the point of this petty sarcasm. It is a basic
|> principle of Islam that if one is born muslim or one says "I testify
|> that there is no god but God and Mohammad is a prophet of God" that,
|> so long as one does not explicitly reject Islam by word then one _must_
|> be considered muslim by all muslims. So the phenomenon you're attempting
|> to make into a general rule or psychology is a direct odds with basic
|> Islamic principles. If you want to attack Islam you could do better than
|> than to argue against something that Islam explicitly contradicts.
Then Mr Mozumder is incorrect when he says that when committing
bad acts, people temporarily become atheists?
jon.
storage/51187 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!vtserf.cc.vt.edu!csugrad.cs.vt.edu!csugrad.cs.vt.edu!not-for-mail
From: marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Kevin Marshall)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism
Date: 5 Apr 1993 19:39:54 -0400
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <1pqg0a$he6@csugrad.cs.vt.edu>
References: <1993Apr5.020504.19326@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: csugrad.cs.vt.edu
snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
>If Saddam believed in God, he would pray five times a
>day.
>
>Communism, on the other hand, actually committed genocide in the name of
>atheism, as Lenin and Stalin have said themselves. These two were die
>hard atheist (Look! A pun!) and believed in atheism as an integral part
>of communism.
No, Bobby. Stalin killed millions in the name of Socialism. Atheism was a
characteristic of the Lenin-Stalin version of Socialism, nothing more.
Another characteristic of Lenin-Stalin Socialism was the centralization of
food distribution. Would you therefore say that Stalin and Lenin killed
millions in the name of rationing bread? Of course not.
>More horrible deaths resulted from atheism than anything else.
In earlier posts you stated that true (Muslim) believers were incapable of
evil. I suppose if you believe that, you could reason that no one has ever
been killed in the name of religion. What a perfect world you live in,
Bobby.
>One of the reasons that you are atheist is that you limit God by giving
>God a form. God does not have a "face".
Bobby is referring to a rather obscure law in _The Good Atheist's
Handbook_:
Law XXVI.A.3: Give that which you do not believe in a face.
You must excuse us, Bobby. When we argue against theism, we usually argue
against the Christian idea of God. In the realm of Christianity, man was
created in God's image.
--
|""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""|
| Kevin Marshall Sophomore, Computer Science |
| Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA USA marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu |
|____________________________________________________________________|
storage/51188 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!headwall.Stanford.EDU!nntp.Stanford.EDU!cfairman
From: cfairman@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman)
Subject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions
Message-ID: <1993Apr6.000836.5541@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mr News)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
References: <1p8ivt$cfj@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1993Apr3.100039.15879@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> <1pqf97$9s2@fido.asd.sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 93 00:08:36 GMT
Lines: 26
joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
>Someone writes:
>>I found a list of Biblical contradictions and cleaned it up a bit,
>>but now I'd like some help with it.
>I'm curious to know what purpose people think these lists serve.
It's about time. Why do atheists spend so much time paying attention
to the bible, anyway?
Face it, there are better things to do with your life! I used to
chuckle and snort over the silliness in that book and the absurdity
of people believing in it as truth, etc. Why do we spend so little
time on the Mayan religion, or the Native Americans? Heck, the Native
Americans have signifigantly more interesting myths. Also, what
about the Egyptians.
I think we pay so much attention to Christianity because we accept
it as a _religion_ and not a mythology, which I find more accurate.
I try to be tolerant. It gets very hard when someone places a book
under my nose and tells me it's special. It's not.
Carolyn
storage/51189 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!wupost!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!ousrvr.oulu.fi!ousrvr!suopanki
From: suopanki@stekt6.oulu.fi (Heikki T. Suopanki)
Subject: Re: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses
In-Reply-To: jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com's message of 5 Apr 93 11:24:30 MST
Message-ID: <SUOPANKI.93Apr6024902@stekt6.oulu.fi>
Lines: 17
Sender: news@ousrvr.oulu.fi
Reply-To: suopanki@stekt.oulu.fi
Organization: Unixverstas Olutensin, Finlandia
References: <bskendigC4KD1z.CDC@netcom.com> <1p8v1aINN9e9@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>
<1993Apr3.183519.14721@proxima.alt.za>
<1993Apr5.112430.825@batman.bmd.trw.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 00:49:02 GMT
>>>>> On 5 Apr 93 11:24:30 MST, jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com said:
:> God is eternal. [A = B]
:> Jesus is God. [C = A]
:> Therefore, Jesus is eternal. [C = B]
:> This works both logically and mathematically. God is of the set of
:> things which are eternal. Jesus is a subset of God. Therefore
:> Jesus belongs to the set of things which are eternal.
Everything isn't always so logical....
Mercedes is a car.
That girl is Mercedes.
Therefore, that girl is a car?
-Heikki
storage/51190 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!ames!sgi!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Date: 6 Apr 1993 00:19:26 GMT
Organization: sgi
Lines: 15
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1pqiae$fat@fido.asd.sgi.com>
References: <1pgfvh$33a@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1993Apr2.065230.18676@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <11723@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> <930404.111651.1K0.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <930404.111651.1K0.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr2.065230.18676@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
|> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
|> >The "automobile system" kills non-driving passengers, not to mention
|> >pedestrians. You need not drive or even use a car to be killed by one.
|>
|> Indeed, and it kills far more than a system of public transport would. I am
|> therefore entirely in favour of banning private cars and replacing them with
|> trains, buses, taxis, bicycles, and so on.
Seconded. I cycle to work each day, and if we could just get
those damned cars and their cretinous drivers off the road, it
would be a lot more fun.
jon.
storage/51191 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!ames!sgi!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Date: 6 Apr 1993 00:20:23 GMT
Organization: sgi
Lines: 15
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1pqic7$fat@fido.asd.sgi.com>
References: <11702@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> <1993Apr1.180641.18861@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1pg14o$pnb@fido.asd.sgi.com> <930404.112127.2h6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <930404.112127.2h6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> > And we, meaning people who drive,
|> > accept the risks of doing so, and contribute tax money to design systems
|> > to minimize those risks.
|>
|> Eh? We already have systems to minimize those risks. It's just that you car
|> drivers don't want to use them.
|>
|> They're called bicycles, trains and buses.
Poor Matthew. A million posters to call "you car drivers" and he
chooses me, a non car owner.
jon.
storage/51192 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgi!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Omnipotence (was Re: Speculations)
Message-ID: <1pqjp2$fat@fido.asd.sgi.com>
Date: 6 Apr 93 00:44:18 GMT
References: <2942949719.2.p00261@psilink.com> <1993Apr5.171143.828@batman.bmd.trw.com>
Organization: sgi
Lines: 35
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <1993Apr5.171143.828@batman.bmd.trw.com>, jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
|> In article <2942949719.2.p00261@psilink.com>, "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
|> >>DATE: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 23:02:22 -0500
|> >>FROM: Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
|> >>
|> >>
|> >>> > 3. Can god uncreate itself?
|> >>>
|> >>> No. For if He did, He would violate His own nature which He cannot do.
|> >>> It is God's nature to Exist. He is, after all, the "I AM" which is
|> >>> a statement of His inherent Existence. He is existence itself.
|> >>> Existence cannot "not-exist".
|> >>
|> >>Then, as mentioned above, he must not be very omnipotent.
|> >>
|>
|> What do you mean by omnipotent here? Do you mean by "omnipotent"
|> that God should be able to do anything/everything? This creates
|> a self-contradictory definition of omnipotence which is effectively
|> useless.
|>
|> To be descriptive, omnipotence must mean "being all-powerful" and
|> not "being able to do anything/everything".
|>
|> Let me illustrate by analogy.
|> Suppose the United States were the only nuclear power on earth. Suppose
|> further that the US military could not effectively be countered by any
|> nation or group of nations. The US has the power to go into any country
|> at any time for any reason to straighten things out as the leaders of the
|> US see fit. The US would be militarily "omnipotent".
Did you check with the Afghans before posting this? They
might disagree.
jon.
storage/51193 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!griffin!kraken!ednclark
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: A Little Too Satanic
Message-ID: <ednclark.734052125@kraken>
Sender: news@griffin.itc.gu.edu.au
Nntp-Posting-Host: kraken.itc.gu.edu.au
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
References: <1pdbjj$a1g@s1.gov> <Afivwqa00VoqIBOZtz@andrew.cmu.edu> <65934@mimsy.umd.edu>
Date: 5 Apr 93 23:22:05 GMT
Lines: 33
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>Nanci Ann Miller writes:
>>My favorite reply to the "you are being too literal-minded" complaint is
>>that if the bible is really inspired by God and if it is really THAT
>>important to him, then he would make damn certain all the translators and
>>scribes and people interpreting and copying it were getting it right,
>>literally. If not, then why should I put ANY merit at all in something
>>that has been corrupted over and over and over by man even if it was
>>originally inspired by God?
>The "corrupted over and over" theory is pretty weak. Comparison of the
>current hebrew text with old versions and translations shows that the text
>has in fact changed very little over a space of some two millennia. This
>shouldn't be all that suprising; people who believe in a text in this manner
>are likely to makes some pains to make good copies.
>--
Do you honestly hold to that tripe Charley? For a start there are enough
current versions of the Bible to make comparisons to show that what you write
above is utter garbage. Witness JW, Mormon, Catholic, Anglican, and Greek
Orthodox Bibles. But to really convince you I'd have to take you to a good
old library. In our local library we had a 1804 King James which I compared
to a brand new, hot of God's tongue Good News Bible. Genesis was almost
unrecognisable, many of the discrepencies between the four gospels had been
edited from the Good News Bible. In fact the God of Good News was a much
more congenial fellow I must say.
If you like I'll get the 1804 King James out again and actually give you
some quotes. At least the headings haven't changed much.
Jeff.
storage/51194 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!wupost!uunet!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!griffin!kraken!ednclark
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Ancient islamic rituals
Message-ID: <ednclark.734054731@kraken>
Sender: news@griffin.itc.gu.edu.au
Nntp-Posting-Host: kraken.itc.gu.edu.au
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
References: <1993Apr3.081052.11292@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> <1pkqe2INN54n@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: 6 Apr 93 00:05:31 GMT
Lines: 27
cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl) writes:
>Why is it more reasonable than the trend towards obesity and the trend towards
>depression? You can't just pick your two favorite trends, notice a correlation
>in them, and make a sweeping statement of generality. I mean, you CAN, and
>people HAVE, but that does not mean that it is a valid or reasonable thesis.
>At best it's a gross oversimplification of the push-pull factors people
>experience.
I agree, I reckon it's television and the increase in fundamentalism.. You
think its the increase in pre-marital sex... others thinks its because
psychologists have taken over the criminal justice system and let violent
criminals con them into letting them out into the streets... others think
it's the increase in designer drugs... others think it's a communist plot.
Basically the social interactions of all the changing factors in our society
are far too complicated for us to control. We just have to hold on to the
panic handles and hope that we are heading for a soft landing. But one
things for sure, depression and the destruction of the nuclear family is not
due solely to sex out of marriage.
Jeff.
>>
>> Fred Rice <-- a Muslim, giving his point of view.
>> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
>cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu
storage/51195 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:51195 talk.origins:40420
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!gatech!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!juliet.caltech.edu!lmh
From: lmh@juliet.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Americans and Evolution
Date: 4 Apr 1993 19:14 PST
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 13
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4APR199319143209@juliet.caltech.edu>
References: <1993Mar27.115953@IASTATE.EDU> <1993Mar28.144624@IASTATE.EDU> <0bXI02tR3doG01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> <1993Apr3.195642.25261@njitgw.njit.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: juliet.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
In article <1993Apr3.195642.25261@njitgw.njit.edu>, dmu5391@hertz.njit.edu (David Utidjian Eng.Sci.) writes...
>In article <31MAR199321091163@juliet.caltech.edu> lmh@juliet.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.) writes:
> For a complete description of what is, and is not atheism
>or agnosticism see the FAQ for alt.atheism in alt.answers... I think.
>utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu
I apologize for posting this. I thought it was only going to talk.origins.
I also took my definitions from a 1938 Websters.
Nonetheless, the apparent past arguments over these words imply that like
'bimonthly' and 'biweekly' they have no commonly accepted definitions and
should be used with care.
larry henling lmh@shakes.caltech.edu
storage/51196 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!swrinde!network.ucsd.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!portal.austin.ibm.com!awdprime.austin.ibm.com!karner
From: karner@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner)
Subject: Re: Jews can't hide from keith@cco.
Originator: frank@karner.austin.ibm.com
Message-ID: <C51DAq.2Fqs@austin.ibm.com>
Sender: frank@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 00:28:02 GMT
References: <1993Mar26.214151.20283@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1993Mar30.185330.20906@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1993Apr1.131254.3439@Cadence.COM> <1pint5$1l4@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1993Apr3.033446.10669@bmerh85.bnr.ca> <1pj2b6$aaa@fido.asd.sgi.com>
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division
Lines: 50
In article <1pj2b6$aaa@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> In article <1993Apr3.033446.10669@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
> |> In article <1pint5$1l4@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> |> >
> |> Deletions...
> |> Er, Jon, what Ken said was:
> |>
> |> There have previously been people like you in your country. Unfortunately,
> |> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |> most Jews did not survive.
> |>
> |> That sure sounds to me like Ken is accusing the guy of being a Nazi.
>
> Hitler and the Nazis didn't spring fully formed from the forehead
> of Athena. They didn't invent anti-semitism. They built on a
> foundation of anti-semitism that was already present in Germany.
> This foundation of anti-semitism was laid down, not by the Nazis,
> but by the people I listed, and also by hundreds of years of unthinking,
> knee-jerk bigotry, on the part of perfectly ordinary people, and, of
> course, their pastors and priests.
>
> What we have to worry about today is not whether some Hollywood
> Hitler in a black uniform is going to come striding onto the German
> stage in one unprepared step, but whether those same bedrock foundations
> of anti-semitism are being laid down, little by little, in Germany,
> as we speak.
>
> And if so, they will be laid down, not by Hitlers and Himmlers, who
> will come later, but by "people like" the poster in question. The
> people who think that casual anti-semitism is acceptable, or even fun.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
Deletions...
> I did. Now may I suggest, with the greatest possible respect, that
> you go read some history?
>
> jon.
So, you consider the german poster's remark anti-semitic? Perhaps you
imply that anyone in Germany who doesn't agree with israely policy in a
nazi? Pray tell, how does it even qualify as "casual anti-semitism"?
If the term doesn't apply, why then bring it up?
Your own bigotry is shining through.
--
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this posting are mine
solely and do not represent my employer in any way.
F. A. Karner AIX Technical Support | karner@austin.vnet.ibm.com
storage/51197 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!po.CWRU.edu!kmr4
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Omnipotence (was Re: Speculations)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 01:05:55 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <kmr4.1443.734058355@po.CWRU.edu>
References: <2942949719.2.p00261@psilink.com> <1993Apr5.171143.828@batman.bmd.trw.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
In article <1993Apr5.171143.828@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>God is effectively limited in the same sense. He is all powerful, but
>He cannot use His power in a way that would violate the essence of what
>He, Himself is.
Cannot? Try, will not.
---
"One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that
say "Mom", because of the love of their mom. It makes for more
virile men."
Bobby Mozumder ( snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu )
April 4, 1993
The one TRUE Muslim left in the world.
storage/51198 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!po.CWRU.edu!kmr4
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 01:15:12 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <kmr4.1444.734058912@po.CWRU.edu>
References: <bskendigC4KD1z.CDC@netcom.com> <1p8v1aINN9e9@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> <SUOPANKI.93Apr6024902@stekt6.oulu.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
In article <SUOPANKI.93Apr6024902@stekt6.oulu.fi> suopanki@stekt6.oulu.fi (Heikki T. Suopanki) writes:
>:> God is eternal. [A = B]
>:> Jesus is God. [C = A]
>:> Therefore, Jesus is eternal. [C = B]
>
>:> This works both logically and mathematically. God is of the set of
>:> things which are eternal. Jesus is a subset of God. Therefore
>:> Jesus belongs to the set of things which are eternal.
>
>Everything isn't always so logical....
>
>Mercedes is a car.
>That girl is Mercedes.
>Therefore, that girl is a car?
This is not strickly correct. Only by incorrect application of the
rules of language, does it seem to work.
The Mercedes in the first premis, and the one in the second are NOT
the same Mercedes.
In your case,
A = B
C = D
A and D are NOT equal. One is a name of a person, the other the
name of a object. You can not simply extract a word without taking the
context into account.
Of course, your case doesn't imply that A = D.
In his case, A does equal D.
Try again...
---
"One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that
say "Mom", because of the love of their mom. It makes for more
virile men."
Bobby Mozumder ( snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu )
April 4, 1993
The one TRUE Muslim left in the world.
storage/51199 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!uunet!pipex!marble.uknet.ac.uk!warwick!str-ccsun!strath-cs!st-and!nrp
From: nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson)
Subject: Islam vs the Jehovah's Witnesses
Message-ID: <1993Apr5.110844.1567@st-andrews.ac.uk>
Organization: Society for Trying Really Hard
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 11:08:44 GMT
Lines: 25
In article <1993Apr2.223248.19014@Princeton.EDU> qpliu@princeton.edu writes:
>In article <1993Apr2.115300.803@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>>But God created Lucifer with a perfect nature and gave him along with
>>the other angels free moral will.
>
>>Now God could have prevented Lucifer's fall by taking away his ability
>>to choose between moral alternatives (worship God or worship himself),
>
>So Lucifer's moral choices are determined by his will.
>What determines what his will is?
>--
>qpliu@princeton.edu Standard opinion: Opinions are delta-correlated.
Bobby-
A few posts ago you said that Lucifer had no free will. From the above
it seems the JW believes the contrary.
Are you talking about the same Lucifer?
If so, can you suggest an experiment to determine which of you is wrong?
Or do you claim that you are both right?
-Norman
storage/51200 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!wupost!uunet!pipex!marble.uknet.ac.uk!warwick!str-ccsun!strath-cs!st-and!nrp
From: nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson)
Subject: Re: Had to share this
Message-ID: <1993Apr5.124018.3179@st-andrews.ac.uk>
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.
References: <1993Mar31.111235.6023@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> <1993Apr03.232325.23178@acme.gen.nz>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 12:40:18 GMT
Lines: 66
In article <1993Apr03.232325.23178@acme.gen.nz> kilroy@acme.gen.nz (earthbound misfit, I) writes:
>bena@dec07.cs.monash.edu.au (Ben Aveling) writes:
>
>> Warning - if you are anything like a devout Christian this post is
>> really going to offend and/or upset you.
>
>[...numerous Ctrl-Ls deleted...hehehe...]
>
>> I assume everyone here is familiar with the Christian `fish' symbol.
>> The one on the back of all those Volvos.
>> The one that looks (something) like
>> __
>> / \/
>> \__/\
>>
>> Or perhaps more like () ?
>> '`
>>
>> Well, I found out this morning where it comes from ...
>>
>> It's been stolen from the pagans, like so much else ...
>>
>> (Last last chance to be blisfully ignorant ;-]
>>
>> Hmm, how can I put it.
>>
>> Well, it comes from, this ...
>>
>>
>>
>> __
>> \/
>> ()
>> `__-'`-__'
>>
>>
>>
>> Sigh, I hate drawing with ascii chars.
>> Still, I think you can work it out from there ...
>
>If you haven't, go read "Skinny Legs and All" by Tom Robbins. If he's even
>50% accurate then most of the modern religions have been "appropriated".
>It's also a great book.
>
>Followups to alt.atheism, whose readers are probably slightly more authorative
>on this.
>
> - k
>--
>Craig Harding kilroy@acme.gen.nz ACME BBS +64 6 3551342
>"Jub'er lbh pnyyvat n obmb?"
Craig-
I thought it was derived from a Greek acronym. My Greek isn't up to much, but
it goes something like this:
Jesus Christ, God => Iesus CHristos, THeos => Ichthos
which is the Greek for "fish" (as in, eg "ichthysaurus").
Apologies for my dreadful Greek! Perhaps someone will correct it.
By the way, what does your sig mean?
-Norman
storage/51201 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!wupost!uunet!pipex!marble.uknet.ac.uk!warwick!str-ccsun!strath-cs!st-and!nrp
From: nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson)
Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism
Message-ID: <1993Apr5.125822.3769@st-andrews.ac.uk>
Organization: Association Against Having Fun With Your Clothes On
References: <1993Apr5.020504.19326@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 12:58:22 GMT
Lines: 23
In article <1993Apr5.020504.19326@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
[...]
>One of the reasons that you are atheist is that you limit God by giving
>God a form. God does not have a "face".
Wait a minute. I thought you said that Allah (I presume Allah == God) was unknowable,
and yet here you are claiming to know a very concrete fact about him.
You say that God does not have a "face". Doesn't the bible say that God has hindparts?
How do you suggest I decide which (if any) of you is right? Or are you both right?
God has hindparts but no face? Or does your use of quotation marks:
God does not have a "face".
allow you to interpret this to mean whatever you like?
>
>Peace,
>
>Bobby Mozumder
-Norman
storage/51202 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!paladin.american.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!siemens!princeton!ernie.Princeton.EDU!qpliu
From: qpliu@ernie.Princeton.EDU (q.p.liu)
Subject: Re: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses
Message-ID: <1993Apr6.014057.11324@Princeton.EDU>
Originator: news@nimaster
Sender: news@Princeton.EDU (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: ernie.princeton.edu
Reply-To: qpliu@princeton.edu
Organization: Princeton University
References: <bskendigC4KD1z.CDC@netcom.com> <1p8v1aINN9e9@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> <16BA5DA01.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> <1993Apr5.091139.823@batman.bmd.trw.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 01:40:57 GMT
Lines: 34
In article <1993Apr5.091139.823@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>In article <16BA5DA01.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>, I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>> But could you give a definition of free will? Especially in the
>> presence of an omniscient being?
>"Will" is "self-determination". In other words, God created conscious
>beings who have the ability to choose between moral choices independently
>of God. All "will", therefore, is "free will".
So these hypothetical conscious beings can ignore any influences of
their circumstances (their genetics, their environment, their experiences)
which are not all self-determined?
(Of course, the idea of Hell makes the idea of "free will" dubious.
On the other hand, the idea of Hell is not a very powerful idea.
"A Parable for You
"There was once our main character who blah blah blah.
"One day, a thug pointed a mean looking gun at OMC, and
said, 'Do what I say, or I'm blasting you to hell.'
"OMC thought, 'If I believe this thug, and follow the
instructions that will be given, I'll avoid getting blasted to
hell. On the other hand, if I believe this thug, and do not
follow the instructions that will be given, I'll get blasted to
hell. Hmm... the more attractive choice is obvious, I'll
follow the instructions.' Now, OMC found the choice obvious
because everything OMC had learned about getting blasted to
hell made it appear very undesirable.
"But then OMC noticed that the thug's gun wasn't a real
gun. The thug's threats were make believe.
"So OMC ignored the thug and resumed blah blah blah.")
--
qpliu@princeton.edu Standard opinion: Opinions are delta-correlated.
storage/51203 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!haven.umd.edu!wam.umd.edu!usenet
From: west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar)
Subject: Re: Gospel Dating
Message-ID: <1993Apr6.021635.20958@wam.umd.edu>
Sender: usenet@wam.umd.edu (USENET News system)
Nntp-Posting-Host: next15csc.wam.umd.edu
Reply-To: west@next02.wam.umd.edu
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
References: <kmr4.1433.734039535@po.CWRU.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 02:16:35 GMT
Lines: 35
In article <kmr4.1433.734039535@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M.
Ryan) writes:
> In article <1993Apr5.163050.13308@wam.umd.edu>
west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
> >In article <kmr4.1422.733983061@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M.
> >Ryan) writes:
> >> In article <1993Apr5.025924.11361@wam.umd.edu>
> >west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
> >>
> >> >THE ILLIAD IS THE UNDISPUTED WORD OF GOD(tm) *prove me wrong*
> >>
> >> I dispute it.
> >>
> >> Ergo: by counter-example: you are proven wrong.
> >
> > I dispute your counter-example
> >
> > Ergo: by counter-counter-example: you are wrong and
> > I am right so nanny-nanny-boo-boo TBBBBBBBTTTTTTHHHHH
>
> No. The premis stated that it was undisputed.
>
Fine... THE ILLIAD IS THE WORD OF GOD(tm) (disputed or not, it is)
Dispute that. It won't matter. Prove me wrong.
Brian West
--
THIS IS NOT A SIG FILE * -"To the Earth, we have been
THIS IS NOT A SIG FILE * here but for the blink of an
OK, SO IT'S A SIG FILE * eye, if we were gone tomorrow,
posted by west@wam.umd.edu * we would not be missed."-
who doesn't care who knows it. * (Jurassic Park)
** DICLAIMER: I said this, I meant this, nobody made me do it.**
storage/51204 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51205 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51206 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51207 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51208 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51209 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51210 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51211 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51212 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51213 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51214 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51215 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51216 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51217 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51218 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51219 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51220 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51221 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51222 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51223 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51224 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51225 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51226 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51227 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51228 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51229 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51230 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51231 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51232 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51233 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51234 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51235 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51236 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51237 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51238 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51239 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51240 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51241 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51242 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51243 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51244 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51245 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51246 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51247 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51248 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51249 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51250 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51251 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51252 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51253 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51254 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51255 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51256 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51257 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51258 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51259 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51260 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51261 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51262 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51264 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51265 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51266 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51267 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51268 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51269 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51270 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51271 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51272 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51273 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51274 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51275 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51276 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51277 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51278 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51279 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51280 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51281 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51282 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51283 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51284 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51285 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51286 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51287 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51288 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51289 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51290 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51291 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51292 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51293 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51294 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51295 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51296 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51297 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51298 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51299 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51300 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51301 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51302 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51303 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51304 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51305 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51306 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51307 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51308 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51309 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51310 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51311 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51312 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51313 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51314 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51315 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51316 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51317 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51318 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51319 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/51320 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/52499 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/52909 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/52910 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53055 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53056 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53057 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53058 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53059 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53060 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53061 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53062 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53063 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53064 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53065 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53066 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53067 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53068 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53069 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53070 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53071 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53072 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53073 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53074 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53075 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53076 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53077 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53078 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53079 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53080 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53081 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53082 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53083 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53084 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53085 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53086 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53087 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53088 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53089 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53090 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53091 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53092 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53093 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53094 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53095 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53096 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53097 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53098 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53099 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53100 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53101 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53102 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53103 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53104 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53105 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53106 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53107 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53108 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53109 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53110 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53111 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53112 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53113 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53114 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53115 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53116 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53117 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53118 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53119 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53120 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53121 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53122 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53123 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53124 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53125 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53126 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53127 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53128 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53129 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53130 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53131 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53132 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53133 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53134 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53135 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53136 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53137 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53138 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53139 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53140 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53141 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53142 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53143 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53144 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53145 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53146 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53147 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53148 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53149 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53150 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53151 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53152 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53153 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53154 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53155 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53156 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53157 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53158 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53159 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53160 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53161 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53162 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53163 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53164 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53165 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53166 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53167 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53168 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53169 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53170 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53171 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53172 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53173 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53174 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53175 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53176 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53177 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53178 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53179 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53180 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53181 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53182 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53183 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53184 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53185 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53186 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53187 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53188 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53189 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53190 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53191 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53192 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53193 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53194 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53195 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53196 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53197 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53198 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53199 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53200 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53201 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53202 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53203 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53204 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53205 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53206 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53207 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53208 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53209 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53210 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53211 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53212 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53213 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53214 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53215 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53216 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53217 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53218 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53219 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53220 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53221 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53222 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53223 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53224 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53225 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53226 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53227 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53228 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53229 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53230 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53231 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53232 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53233 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53234 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53235 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53236 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53237 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53238 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53239 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53240 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53241 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53242 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53243 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53244 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53245 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53246 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53247 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53248 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53249 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53250 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53251 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53252 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53253 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53254 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53255 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53256 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53257 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53258 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53259 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53260 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53261 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53262 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53263 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53264 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53265 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53266 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53267 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53268 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53269 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53270 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53271 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53272 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53273 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53274 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53275 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53276 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53277 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53278 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53279 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53280 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53281 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53282 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53283 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53284 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53285 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53286 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53287 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53288 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53289 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53290 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53291 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53292 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53293 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53294 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53295 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53296 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53297 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53298 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53299 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53300 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53301 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53302 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53303 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53304 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53305 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53306 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53307 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53308 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53309 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53310 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53311 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53312 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53313 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53314 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53315 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53316 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53317 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53318 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53319 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53320 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53321 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53322 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53323 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53324 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53325 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53326 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53327 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53328 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53329 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53330 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53331 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53332 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53333 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53334 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53335 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53336 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53337 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53338 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53339 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53340 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53341 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53342 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53343 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53344 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53345 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53346 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53347 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53348 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53349 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53350 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53351 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53352 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53353 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53354 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53355 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53356 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53357 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53358 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53359 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53360 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53361 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53362 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53363 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53364 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53365 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53366 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53367 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53368 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53369 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53370 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53371 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53372 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53373 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53374 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53375 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53376 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53377 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53378 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53379 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53380 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53381 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53382 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53383 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53384 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53385 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53386 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53387 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53388 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53389 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53390 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53391 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53392 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53393 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53394 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53395 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53396 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53397 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53398 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53399 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53400 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53401 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53402 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53403 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53404 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53405 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53406 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53407 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53408 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53409 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53410 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53411 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53412 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53413 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53414 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53415 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53416 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53417 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53418 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53419 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53420 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53421 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53422 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53423 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53424 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53425 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53426 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53427 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53428 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53429 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53430 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53431 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53432 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53433 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53434 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53435 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53436 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53437 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53438 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53439 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53440 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53441 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53442 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53443 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53444 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53445 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53446 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53447 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53448 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53449 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53450 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53451 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53452 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53453 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53454 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53455 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53456 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53457 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53458 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53459 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53460 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53461 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53462 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53463 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53464 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53465 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53466 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53467 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53468 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53469 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53470 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53471 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53472 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53473 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53474 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53475 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53476 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53477 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53478 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53479 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53480 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53481 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53482 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53483 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53484 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53485 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53486 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53487 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53488 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53489 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53490 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53491 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53492 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53493 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53494 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53495 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53496 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53497 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53498 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53499 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53500 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53501 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53502 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53503 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53504 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53505 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53506 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53507 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53508 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53509 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53510 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53511 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53512 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53513 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53514 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53515 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53516 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53517 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53518 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53519 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53520 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53521 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53522 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53523 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53524 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53525 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53526 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53527 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53528 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53529 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53530 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53531 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53532 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53533 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53534 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53535 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53536 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53537 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53538 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53539 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53540 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53541 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53542 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53543 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53544 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53545 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53546 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53547 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53548 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53549 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53550 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53551 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53552 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53553 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53554 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53555 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53556 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53557 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53558 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53560 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53561 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53562 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53563 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53564 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53565 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53566 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53567 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53568 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53569 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53570 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53571 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53572 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53573 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53574 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53575 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53576 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53577 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53578 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53579 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53580 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53581 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53582 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53583 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53584 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53585 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53586 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53587 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53588 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53589 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53590 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53591 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53592 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53593 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53594 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53595 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53596 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53597 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53598 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53599 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53600 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53601 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53602 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53603 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53604 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53605 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53606 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53607 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53608 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53609 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53610 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53611 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53612 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53613 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53614 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53615 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53616 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53617 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53618 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53619 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53620 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53621 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53622 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53623 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53624 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53625 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53626 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53627 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53628 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53629 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53630 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53631 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53632 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53633 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53634 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53635 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53636 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53637 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53638 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53639 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53640 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53641 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53642 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53643 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53644 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53645 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53646 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53647 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53648 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53649 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53650 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53651 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53652 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53653 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53654 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53655 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53656 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53657 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53658 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53659 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53660 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53661 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53662 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53663 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53664 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53665 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53666 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53667 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53668 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53669 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53670 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53671 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53672 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53673 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53674 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53675 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53676 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53677 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53752 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53753 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53754 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53755 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53756 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53757 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53758 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53759 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53760 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53761 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53762 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53763 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53764 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53765 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53766 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53780 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53781 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53782 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53783 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53784 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53785 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53786 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53787 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53788 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53789 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53790 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53791 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53792 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53793 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53794 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53795 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53796 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53797 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53798 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53799 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53800 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53801 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53802 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53803 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53804 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53805 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53806 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53807 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53808 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53809 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53810 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53811 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53812 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/53813 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54125 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54126 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54127 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54128 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54129 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54130 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54131 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54132 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54133 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54134 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54135 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54136 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54137 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54138 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54139 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54140 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54141 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54142 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54143 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54144 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54160 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54161 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54162 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54163 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54164 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54165 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54166 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54167 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54168 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54169 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54170 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54171 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54172 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54173 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54174 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54175 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54176 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54177 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54178 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54179 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54180 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54181 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54182 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54183 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54184 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54185 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54186 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54187 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54188 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54189 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54190 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54191 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54192 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54193 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54194 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54195 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54196 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54197 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54198 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54199 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54200 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54201 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54202 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54203 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54204 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54215 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54216 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54217 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54218 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54219 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54220 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54221 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54222 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54223 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54224 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54225 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54226 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54227 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54228 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54229 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54230 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54231 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54232 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54233 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54234 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54235 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54236 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54237 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54238 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54239 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54240 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54241 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54242 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54243 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54244 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54245 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54246 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54247 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54248 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54249 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54250 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54251 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54252 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54253 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54254 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54255 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54256 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54257 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54258 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54259 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54260 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54261 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54262 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54468 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54469 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54470 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54471 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54472 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54473 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54481 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54482 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54485 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
storage/54564 0 → 100644
View file @ f7462b15
This diff is collapsed.
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment

HIAST - GitLab