Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!laura
From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Logic based on different sets of assumptions (part 2 of 2)
Message-ID: <5221@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Mar-85 16:01:11 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5221
Posted: Tue Mar 12 16:01:11 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 12-Mar-85 16:01:11 EST
References: <589@pyuxd.UUCP> <4898@cbscc.UUCP> <4899@cbscc.UUCP>, <390@cybvax0.UUCP> <5201@utzoo.UUCP>, <658@pyuRe: Logic based on differentTue, 12-Mar-85 16:01:11 EST
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 17

Rich, i read very well. Here is what I read:

> 	Paul overlooks the Allah
> 	proposition, the Buddha proposition, the Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva
> 	proposition and a zillion others just like his.  What all those
> 	"propositions" have in common, is an assumption of one or more deities.

This means that the Buddha proposition, being one of those propostions,
has an assumption of one or more deities. And Buddhism does *not* have
an assumption of one more more deities. There are Buddhists who believe in
one or more deities, adn there are Buddhists who do not -- it is not
in any way part of a Buddha proposition.

Are you so enamoured of your concepts that you see them everywhere?

Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura