Apollo BBS Archive

Apollo BBS Archive - May 4, 1990

Mail from Apollo SYSOP
Date: 05/03/90  Time: 22:51:38

I have no problem with that.   

Are you really making tee-shirts?

Okay Dork.....
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
 1:So far we have purchased 17 dozen, 100% pre-shrunk cotton t-shirts.  We have
 2:printed about 6 dozen to date.  We are awaiting word from Reason (A 
 3:Libertarian magazine) for their advertising rates, also about 25 different 
 4:shirt mfgs. for their prices.
 5:
 6:I have personally sold two dozen just by wearing one.  Several people have 
 7:bought three of them from me.  I went into a 7-11 the other day and the lady
 8:behind the counter said, "I must have one of those."  They are $8. per shirt
 9:with tank-tops going for $7.  We have small, medium, large and extra large 
10:in torquoise, white and pink.  We have black also but haven't gotten into 
11:the white ink, yet.
12:
13:The only model we have made says:  JUST SAY NO
14:                                   to drug laws,
15:
16:But we will be doing Melissa's, Zak's and Daryl's entry in the near future. 
17:I can conceivably see that nationally we could sell 10 million.  We each, 
18:Peter, Mike and I, make $1. per shirt profit (that's $1. each).
19:
20:Everything is still in the planning stages and all of us work full time so 
21:at this point in the game it is a little hard to go full bore.
22:
23:The check is in the mail and if you don't receive it, it is because of Paul 
24:Savage's idea to have everything sent to Ohio first.    -Roddy

Edit command:S

Saving message...

As for the message to which you replied...
[A]bort, [C]ontinue or [Z]ap:Zap

Mail from Apollo SYSOP
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 10:55:15

[A]bort, [N]ew only, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read

I have just now updated Daryl's profile so he may access his password.
I understand he is struggling.  Damn, it's a bitch to get started in life
now days.  Taxes and government have become so costly that one can't
maintain a new family if they have to start from ground zero in todays
world.  I feel sorry for the young people of tomorrow...  Maybe world peace
will bring about cuts in military spending, but somehow I don't think the
political bosses will ever give the money back to the working man.
        
        Sorry for babbling...

clif-
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
 1:I hear that people are so disenchanted with government that the census is a 
 2:wash out.  Hopefully our shirts will help to get some grassroots movement 
 3:going.
 4:
 5:Are we agnostic, yet?
 6:
 7:                                Love ya,
 8:                                 Rod

$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 6422
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: bob
Date: 05/03/90  Time: 22:48:03

I am barely a Christian. I believe in God. I don't believe Jesus is
God. In fact, I believe that is may be blasphemy to do so. I believe
that Jesus was a real person. I believe he was crucified. I believe the
tomb was empty as reported in the four Gospels. I don't believe in the
Virgin Mary. I do believe Jesus was an ordinary man, extraordinarily 
blessed by God. I do believe that men who preach God's message that we
should love one another as much as ourselves, to turn the other cheek, 
to forgive rather than judge, is hated by sinful men and will always
be killed by sinful men. I think that re-uniting with God is extremely
easy and difficult at once. It merely takes a prayer for me to God saying
in effect "I love you, God of the Universe that I see, even if you don't
exist" Strange isn't it ? But , it works, for by saying such a prayer
fills me with such a good feeling, I become convinced, not thru logic
but through faith the He exists and that He loves me. No having to
go through Christ to get to the father. Direct access. We all have it.

Message: 6423
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Roger/last
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 14:23:11

You must be referring to the god, Carl.  Carl never bothered to create a
hell because he is into recycling.  The cloak and dagger type gods all have
hells.                                  Rod

Public & Free Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 65295
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: s
Date: 05/03/90  Time: 21:10:30

I'd be interested in going to one of these basic classes, since I've never
been to one before, but I won't be here at the beginning of June.  I'd like
to know, though, when the next one is.

   -Gordon

Message: 65296
Author: $ John Cummings
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gun class
Date: 05/03/90  Time: 21:36:08

Hey, I remember one of those "basic classes." It was taught by a mean SFC
and I wound up with what is called "M-1 thumb."
John

Message: 65297
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Religion
Subject: Mike C.
Date: 05/03/90  Time: 22:18:21

  I kept repeating the thrust of my statement, that theism requires the
suspension of logic in the area of a basic life governing decision, because
it was important to keep the simplicity and self-evident nature of my
arguement in front of anyone reading the posts. You did admit, as the honest
theist must, that a leap to faith and away from reason is required to become
a theist. Without my stressing my original message over and over it would
have been much easier for discussion to drift away from it, and on to such
things as whether or not I am pure enough to be believed when I say
something, even if it is obvious.
  My further observation, that the theist should be recognized as a person
who has departed from reason in one important way, should not be a startling
revelation, even if it is uncomfortable to contemplate. It makes no specific
charge of irrationality against anyone on the rest of their existance, it
only notes that the theist has one foot in a world where logic means
nothing to them, and must strive to live a dual life of the mind as a
result. Some do it admirably, and others sink into an abyss where little or
nothing can be grappled with logically.
  If I have communicated clearly what I intended to say, it shouldn't have
been taken as in insult to anyone here. If it was, then I have stated it
poorly, and I regret having drifted into this matter.
   See You Later,
      Dean H.

Message: 65298
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Education_1of4
Date: 05/03/90  Time: 22:20:52

   On the subject of teaching, I recently ran across the following in an
essay called 'The "Official Truth" and the Death of Thought', by Karl
Hess. The essay was published in the May issue of Liberty.
   ...Wonderfully, there are a number of young teachers and a few fract-
ious older ones who are trying to buck the tide of official truth and
"basic education" and to move toward the encouragement of thinking.
   One attractive program is that of the Institute for the Advancement of
Philosophy for Children at Montclair State College, Montclair, N.J. Begin-
ning with the earliest elementary school grades and continuing into high
school, IAPC material is based on the premise that a gang of kids in a
classroom should be considered "a community of inquiry," as the Institute's
director Dr. Matthew Lipman puts it.
   Each of the segments of IAPC material consists of a fictional story of
about 90 pages and a huge teacher's manual. The story involves children of
the age to which the segment is being presented. The manual offers,
literally, hundreds of questions to get the kids thinking about the story
and the implications of its every paragraph.
   By the end of the first page of the segment on ethics, for grades 7-9,
the discussion involves killing and the differences between killing
animals and killing people. In the segment on reasoning in social studies,
the students actually are encouraged to discuss the fact that they are
being _forced_ to be at school.

   My favorite is a segment entitled _Harry Stottlemeier's Discovery, for
grades 5-6. The hero's name contains an anagram of "Aristotle" and is for
grades where a lot of government trained students still don't even know
how to read effectively, much less think effectively.
   On the first page of the story, poor Harry is caught daydreaming when
his teacher asks "What is it that has a long tail, and revolves around
the sun every 77 years?" Harry, flustered, remembers that the teacher
recently told them that "all planets revolve around the sun." He tries
"a planet" as an answer and is incorrect.
   Later on, on page two, he's still thinking about the correct answer,
Halley's Comet, but he's really _thinking_ about it and not just trying
to remember it. What a great difference!
   "So there are things that revolve around the sun that aren't planets,"
Harry said to himself. "All planets revolve around the sun, but not every-
thing that revolves around the sun is a planet." And then Harry had an
idea. "A sentence can't be reversed. If you put the last part of the
sentence first, it'll no longer be true. For example, take the sentence
'All oaks are trees.' If you turn that around, it becomes 'All trees are
oaks,' but that's false."
   Harry is so fascinated by his discovery (the kid has actually _learned_
something) that he goes on to explore it with his classmates. By the end
of the story, after many terrific, upbeat arguments and discussions of the
sort that most kids revel in, Harry's major discovery is made and exalted.
It's the syllogism.

   In a recent issue of _Technology Review_, the magazine of Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, it was proposed that even mathematics could be
approached by this discovery route rather than through the mind-numbing
rote process that leaves most students absolutely convinced that math is
a bore and never will be of use to them.
   The MIT proposal was that children should discover the utility of math
and the principles of math in about the same way that many mathematicians
have and do. They should solve problems related to their own lives. The
axioms of geometry, or instance, should be discoveries, the way they were
for Euclid, and not dictates from the teacher.
   Teachers who are used to doing exactly what they were taught to do
(over and over and over again) naturally detest an idea in which the
students so fully and energetically are encouraged to participate. Order
in the classroom might be disrupted by questions. And how are children to
know "what's right" if the teacher doesn't tell them?
   Worst of all, in the several hundred schools where IAPC material is in
use in at least one or two classrooms, there is an obvious problem with
timed, multiple-choice tests, the bureaucratic standard across the land.
Children who are involved with the IAPC material generally don't do well
on such tests. They try to think about the answer and they are slowed down
by questions in which several of the choices could be proper given this or
that interpretation. Have you ever seen a multiple-choice question where
you didn't want to argue about either the way it's framed or the way you
expect someone wants it answered?
   On essay questions, however, the IAPC kids are likely to go right off
the upper scale. They are intelligent learners, not rote robots.
   It is conventional wisdom to say that the great intellectual battles
are won or lost in the colleges. And surely there is good reason to say
that.
   But colleges do not provide the foundations. "Higher Education" has its
humble beginnings in the elementary schools. Might it not be that if
children were nourished on logic and inquiry back where the academic
stream begins, it would be tougher to sell them foolish nostrums and
political pies-in-the-sky?

  See You Later,
     Dean H.

Message: 65302
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: cliff/logic
Date: 05/03/90  Time: 22:28:06

There is nothing wrong with suspending logic in order to believe in
something that cannot be known through physical observation or logic.
There is no criticism intended, I am sure. The point is that some
of the folks who are theists are taking this personally. You shouldn't.
It's just a fact. Read Paul on the triumph of foolishness over worldly
wisdom. And I have never laughed at you. I understand your sincerity.
All I ask is that you listen to me too.

Message: 65303
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: bob/insult
Date: 05/03/90  Time: 22:28:56

better.

Message: 65304
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: rod/jesus
Date: 05/03/90  Time: 22:32:53

I think the BAC's have missed the point, which may explain why they
have so much animosity. The idea is to die with Christ, so that God
creates you as a new man. Too many BAC's think all you have to do is
believe and go on being your own nasty self. Dying with Christ, to
become part of the body of Christ is a serious matter, and something
that is at once very easy and also very hard. It is similar to the
attitude of a secular humanist who loves mankind so much they are willing
to give up their own egos for the benefit of the rest of mankind. It
is called love.

Message: 65305
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Religion
Subject: Dean
Date: 05/03/90  Time: 23:19:17

        Your observation  is a bunch of garbage.  I read every evolution
article I run across.  I love science books.  But my logic tells me there is
a God, so I must have gone beyond your logic... yes?  You obviously think
you know more about how I think, then I do.   Of course you are insulting,
when you tell a theist that he has suspended logical thought.  I am so
offended, that this will be my last response to this avenue of personal
belittlement you seem hell-bent on forcing us to swallow.

*=* the 'offended' Apollo Sysop *=*

Message: 65306
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger/logic
Date: 05/03/90  Time: 23:37:48

        I do listen to you Roger.   I even try to understand where you are
coming from.   I just don't buy the 'suspending logic' stuff because you are
trying so hard to defend what you think is correct logic.   I am not the one
trying to convince anyone my logic is more correct then theirs, so therefor
they don't THINK.  That form of attack belongs to you athiest and agnostic
thugs.   I am sure you have thought this out for years, using the logic you
understand.  I am even sure Rod has done the same.  But somewhere, you have
taken a different road.   I can handle that...but you can't?

                        *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

Message: 65307
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Vote
Subject: current question
Date: 05/03/90  Time: 23:40:41

        If you are a $tatus user and have not used your [V]ote in the [M]ain
menu, please do so.  Only a few more days before I close it out.

        If you are not a $tatus member... how come?  Better go see the
[$]cmd in the [M]ain menu and consider becoming one.

        *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

Message: 65308
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Answer!
Subject: Roger once over
Date: 05/03/90  Time: 23:49:21

But her husband would not find bits of her memory laying under her bed.
She might find the magazine, however, even though he looked at it by
himself.

Message: 65309
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: Answer!
Subject: Melissa/nudes
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 01:04:26

There is quite a bit of difference between fantasy and reality.  A man may
fantasize along with your stories, or with the pictures in a magazine.  But
most will not act on these urges.  A way to dispell pressure without hurting
your mate.  
 

Message: 65310
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: Answer!
Subject: Cliff/My opinion
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 01:06:17

No, you're not illiterate.  A dork, maybe.  You are a bit slow typing and go
off on rants, but when you try you do very good.  A case in point is your
evolution messages.  Very well prepared.  I thought they showed merit.

Message: 65311
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: War!
Subject: Last 500!
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 01:06:59

Hey, slow down a bit!  Either that or Cliff needs to get a 9600 baud modem.

Message: 65312
Author: $ Steve MacGregor
Category: Religion
Subject: Dean/Suspension
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 05:42:09

  And we keep telling you that there is no suspension of logic involved in
becoming a Christian.
  You are apparently equating the logic of life with the basic premises that
a person accepts.  We have a different set of premises than you do, but
operate upon them with the same logic that you use (those of us who are
logical, that is -- there are quite enough non-logicians on both sides of
the fence).
  Our beliefs appear illogical to you because you cannot apply logic to your
own set of basic premises to reach the same conclusions that we have.
 
                                       =(O,O)=  Hoot!

Message: 65313
Author: $ Steve MacGregor
Category: In search of
Subject: Pascalaholics
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 05:46:19

  I've been getting no answer from Pascalaholics Anonymous for over a week. 
Does anyone know anything about it?  Are they down for repairs?  Dead in the
water?  Lost their lease?  On vacation?

                                    =(O,O)=  Hoot!

Message: 65314
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Answer!
Subject: Melissa again
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 07:32:44

However, the principle is the same. The objection Ann had to a man looking
at girlie magazine was that it was an "insult?" (can't remember exactly 
what it was) to her. Likewise, Ann admiring another man would be an insult
to her husband, regardless of whether she saw him in a mag or on the street.
So, finding the mag under the rug or bed would be confirming evidence that
her husband had seen and most likely admired another woman would be the
same if he caught her admiring another man.

Message: 65315
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Answer!
Subject: Roger
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 08:03:23

Exactly!  How often do you catch YOUR wife in a glance?  See, you seem to
thinks these scenarios are compariable and yet they aren't.  If I woman
looks at a young hunk at the grocery store, her husband is never gonna know
unless she tells him about it, which isn't likely.  However, unless a man is
very good at concealing his magazines, a wife will find out at some point
that her husband has been looking at those women.  
And women are supposed to just accept it!  "Oh, we're men, dear.  It's are
nature to want to look at naked women.  Every man does it dear.  Just look
how profitable the industry is..."
 
Geez.  I am sounding like a feminist.  Yuck.

Message: 65317
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: melissa/glancing
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 09:14:53

You mean women just glance, not ogle ? Like men ? My point is that one
shouldn't do such things, even if the other person never sees it.
I sound like Jimmy (I've lusted in my heart) Carter. Oh, well, there's no
telling how far one will go to win a debating point. Anyway, the more 
general question is: "Is there any difference between behavior observed
and behavior hidden". Is it wrong if only detected ? Is it OK as long as the
other person doesn't know about it ? If it is wrong only when the other
person finds out, then having extra-marital affairs would not be wrong !

Message: 65318
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger on looking
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 09:35:13

I do not mind if my husband looks at other women - I look at men all the
time in his presence or not. I would not turn away from a nude pix of a man
nor do I expect him to turn away from a nude woman pix. However, I don't
want or expect either of us to get hooked on this thing. Need it! If he
started bringing Playboy home, I'd think he was nuts, resent it also and
wouldn't understand. 
Both of us are great people watcher. I just think there is a big difference
in looking at real people, admiring them, than the fantasy pix in the
magazines. 
I also do not think that men enjoy such pix anymore than a woman would - IF
we could see it all like the men get to. I had to laugh yesterday when I
read an article about Cosmopolitan Magazine and how they had the first male
nude photos - they showed Arnied, Burt posing - and it showed nothing at
all! A sham! If I am going to go to the trouble to see a nude Arnie, then I
want to see more than they showed, that's for sure. I would then buy the
magazine on occasion to see some of my hero's in ALL their glory! Lets face
it - they can air buff the pix, photograph it through cheese cloth, but the
size can't be stretched. hahahahahahahahahahahhaha. Oh! Did I say that?
To sum it up - such things that we are talking about is fine in moderation
only. If it causes any sort of trouble in a relationship, then it should be
abondoned immediately. -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 65319
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Melissa on men
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 09:46:06

Re: "We're just men dear" ....... that is so idiotic to me! 
 
If a man gives some gal the once over, that's alright. Ditto a woman doing
the same thing. But you and I know that's a lot different than hiding a
Playboy magazine under the bed or rug!  Kind of sounds like some 13 year old
sneaking a peek. 
 
You are not sounding like a feminist. I hate that word too. Your just
'calling it like it is'! -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 65320
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger/last
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 10:03:12

Having an extra maritial affair is wrong - EVERY aspic of it! I firmly
believe that if either of the marriage partners find a time in their
marriage that they want to do such a thing - don't want to prevent it - then
tell the other before you do it! It would still hurt, but not nearly as much
as betrayal, deceit, lying would do if found out and it usually is. If
telling the other person, that would give that person time to think it out
before the damage is done - time to decide if you want to stay or not - time
to try to patch things up before they went too far - time to reflect if you
love this person or not - time to figure out what you want to do with your
life if the other does this thing - to figure out if you can live with the
knowledge he/she wants someone else sexually. If not told and it is found
out, if that person decides to stay and forgive/forget - so much would be
lost, never to be retrieved back again. The person that was cheated on would
have to live with that knowledge the rest of their lives. Trust, which is
one of the most important things in a marriage would never truly be there
100% ever again! That person would probablly feel inferior, inadiquate,
lowly for a long time. Love for the cheater would not be the same pure love.
The list is a long one. I believe in sex before marriage - a person can go
to bed with many if that's their choice, but once a marriage comittment is
made, it should be stuck to for the rest of their lives or get out of it.
Too much distruction occurs when a loved one cheats. It is betrayal of the
first class. I do not believe it can't be prevented! We CAN control our sex
urges! Men & women. There's no excuse at all. Just my opinion.
                    -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 65321
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: James Hawley
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 10:34:59

Re: Evolution messages

        Why Thank you James...  Coming from you, it means a lot.

                        smile! *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

Message: 65322
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Answer!
Subject: James on modem
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 10:37:06

        I am still waiting for the check on the 2400 baud modem.  If you
want to see 9600 baud, you had better send MORE money!

                                clif-

Message: 65323
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dee on looking
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 10:41:43

        When your man stops looking at other women...then you had better
start worrying.  That's the nature of a healthy man!

                        *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

P.S.  Just make sure he doesn't TOUCH!

Message: 65324
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Steve on Dean
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 12:18:23

I've been trying to explain that to him for two weeks now.
Like Cliff says, I think he's hell-bent on forcing his belittlement
and personal views down our throats like it or not.
I hope it helps his ego.

Message: 65325
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: ann/moderation
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 12:48:34

So, it's all right in moderation. When I was first married, I subscribed to
Playboy, my wife read the mag. We went to the Playboy club --- it was the
in thing to do. BTW I MISS THE PLAYBOY CLUB ! Finally, we both tired of
the mag and haven't subscribed since. 

Message: 65326
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: ann on men
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 12:49:34

As I said in the prev. post, it is a matter of degree. The question is WHY
your husband would feel that he had to hide Playboy.

Message: 65327
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Sex & Love
Subject: Playboy
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 14:09:04

        I don't hide the Playboy, and Sandy likes to read it to.  So what
is the big deal?  Are you all so insecure you are afraid that your partner
may go astray.  I feel sorry for you then.

        A man is a man and won't quit being a man just because he marries.
And DITTO for the women.

        I also like to look at fine cars, and that does not mean I am going
to sell the one I now own.

                                clif-
Message: 65328
Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
Category: Question?
Subject: last
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 18:03:53

        Are you implying that IF you do look at another woman you are going
to sell me?           WAR ...... BUDDY!

Message: 65329
Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
Category: Sex & Love
Subject: Toilets
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 18:11:25

        I think men stand, as a matter of some sort of biological
instinct, to improve their 'eye - hand' coordination. I see nothing wrong
with a man trying to improve himself.
        As for women, having the man stand and forgetting to put the lid
down, allows us to improve on our quick reflexes and to heighten our mental
allertness.
        Now, who is going to clean up after that poor male figure who still
has not quite yet improved his 'eye - hand' coordination ........
well, why not flip a coin? (actually, if he made the mess he should clean it
up ...... be a responsible person, I say)

Message: 65330
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Last on Toilets
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 18:33:03

        I have come to realize just what a 'classy & sophisticated' board
Apollo has become.   GEESH!   By the way, the Toilets in the PHAntom Zone
need cleaning, and since Ann started this......

        It all boils down to the fact, that women in all their 'equal right'
crusades, have not been able to overcome the fact that they sit, and the
man can stand tall.  I would say that women are JEALOUS!

                                *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

Message: 65331
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Sex & Love
Subject: cliff/cars
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 20:11:38

You may not remember it, but the Ford Edsel does remind one of the
kinds of pictures one sees in Hustler.

Message: 65332
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Sex & Love
Subject: toilets
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 20:12:54

What a subject, eh ! From the heights of evolution to the pits of 
the -er pits, so to speak. 

Message: 65333
Author: $ John Cummings
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Sysop/logic
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 20:47:06

A. Motion without a plan becomes chaos.(Shake a box of fine crystal and you
get shards of glass, not a model of the Taj Majal.)
B. The world has developed not to chaos but towards a perfecting of its
nature.
C. That demands that there must have been a plan, which requires a Planner.
D. Therefore, there must have been a Prime Mover, a Planner to start the
world and keep it going--God.
That's an irrefutable logical argument--if A and B are correct, then so is
the deduction.
        I wish I had done that, but it was really Thomas Acquinas.

Message: 65334
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 22:27:54

  There is definately something wrong here. Message 65312 did not show up in
my $ scan and I only found it because Mike left a reference to it in a
message that did show up, so I did a find on 'STEVE' and located it.
   See You Later,
      Dean H.

Message: 65335
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Religion
Subject: Mike/Steve
Date: 05/04/90  Time: 22:42:04

  You make a leap of faith to become theist, then you say that your new
frame of reference supports a totally logical explanation for it. That
simply does not hold up. There was no logical basis for the leap in the
first place, and after it has been made it does not become a logical basis
for its own explanation. This type of circular reasoning could support just
about anything one might care to construct out of it, but it does not erase
the initial departure from logic.
  If it belittles a theist to admit that theism is not based on reason, then
it is too bad they have to admit it. The alternative would be to derive a
logical proof, and the closest thing I have ever seen to that is Aristotle's
derivation of a prime cause. Even that carried over a little bit of
mysticism from the earlier philosophers, but it did not even begin to prove
any of the tenets of Christianity or any other religion I am aware of.
   See You Later,
      Dean H.

Message: 65336
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dean
Date: 05/05/90  Time: 00:31:05

        Your profile looks fine to me...  There have been no changes to
Apollo that would cause you to miss messages.. but I have watched you [S]can
and you don't always read all posts.    
        I will keep an eye on you however...  

                clif-

Message: 65337
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Religion
Subject: Cummings/Logic
Date: 05/05/90  Time: 00:50:42

  On the irrefutable logic of Thomas Acquinas:
  
  A. Motion without a plan becomes chaos.
       We say this because when motion does not seem to become chaos,
    we assume a plan. We assume that out of all other possible outcomes
    which might have been, this is an intended result and that none of
    the others would have seemed just as planned if they had occurred
    instead. How many kinds of chaos approximate order just as much as
    the result we consider planned, and were just as likely in a purely
    random outcome? Motion with a plan can be just as chaotic as without
    if the observer hasn't been let in on the plan. The assumption of a
    plan based on the appearance of order does not an axiom make.
    
  B. The world has developed not to chaos but towards a perfecting of its
     nature.
       If the world had developed in infinitely different random ways,
    would not each which resulted in some kind of thinking species have
    tempted that species' members to assume that their existance proved
    that everything was planned. Infinitely numbered variations from the
    world and life-mechanics that we know could exist without having
    followed the plan that we assume lead to us. Whether or not this or
    any world has, or is developing toward, a perfecting of its nature
    is a purely speculative conclusion at best.

 C. That demands that there must have been a plan, which requires a 
    Planner.
      If, out of all the randomly possibly outcomes, we did not land one
    which brought us sentient life, we would not be demanding that there
    had been a plan. Even though this outcome might be just as likely as
    an infinite array of others which we cannot conceive, we are here so
    we demand a plan. Having demanded a plan (because we can not imagine
    that there might seem to be order without one) we now have to have a
    planner. It seems that we can not abide an appearance of order without
    known cause, and we can not abide an assumed plan without a further
    cause, but we can abide an assumed planner without cause.
    
  D. Therefore, there must have been a Prive Mover, a Planner to start the
     world and keep it going--God.
       So, we have arrived at the end of the road, which explains all the
     unexplainable elements of our existance. If we assume a God who has
     no cause, who was just always there, then what have we really gained
     over accepting the appearance of order in our universe as not having
     a known cause? God is certainly a kind of order in itself, therefore
     that demands a plan (see rule C.) If we exempt God from this require-
     ment with a wave of the 'God's intricacies are beyond our knowing'
     wand then we are left with a kind of order (God) which does not arise
     from any plan or cause or planner. Exactly the situation we could not
     abide from the simpler universe we had before we brought in God, and
     a total contradiction to the very logic we used to determine that
     there had to be a God.
     
       The questions which led us to embark on this search for an answer
     were quite valid and important, but the unfound answers left a
     God-shaped hole in our knowledge which had to be filled with
     something. A singular and almighty God has won out over the other
     attempts to fill that hole for the present time, but anyone could
     come up with their own variation which would be just as plausible.
       Here, I'll make up one on the spot: The lifeforce which inhabits us
     as we are born has existed forever, and the majority of it is not
     contained in living creatures at any one time, but travels through-
     out time and space as tiny, intangible, barely sentient, minutely
     powerful crystals which settle onto and into everything. They have a
     penchant for order, which they exert upon everything they touch.
     There, disprove that. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is on my side,
     so is the planned appearance of the universe.
       If the condition of the universe can be said to prove that something
     is behind it, it does not begin to tell us what. But for lack of
     followers, my facetious explanation is just a good as any. With a
     couple thousand years to polish the story I could do great things with
     it, I'm sure.
       See You Later,
          Dean H