Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Logic based on different sets of assumptions (part 2 of 2)
Message-ID: <658@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 11-Mar-85 19:28:37 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.658
Posted: Mon Mar 11 19:28:37 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 12-Mar-85 10:16:08 EST
References: <589@pyuxd.UUCP> <4898@cbscc.UUCP> <4899@cbscc.UUCP>, <390@cybvax0.UUCP> <5201@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: Huxley College
Lines: 44

> From Mike Huybensz:
> 
> 	The dishonest thing about all this is that here is where Occam's razor
> 	should properly be applied, not as in all the places in the previous
> 	note where Paul tried to misapply it.  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.
> 
> These propositions do *not* have this in common. You have Rich Rosen's
> disease. I know a good many Hindus and even more Buddhists who would be
> appalled that you consider either the Buddha, or Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva
> deities. [LAURA CREIGHTON]

Disease?  I don't think *I'm* the one with the disease, since I'm not the one
who, in one breath, complains that Rich Rosen fails to call "god"-less belief
systems by the name religion, and in the next breath calls the claim that
Buddhists consider Buddha to be a deity by the name "Rich Rosen's disease"!!!!!
Please refrain from such faulty categorizations.

>> These "propositions" all share the "natural flow" with the scientific
>> viewpoint.  Things happen -- that is the natural flow. These "propositions"
>> just use a diety to power or direct the happenings.  Thus, the diety is
>> an excess assumption.  It may exist, but it gives no more explanatory
>> power.  [more MIKE HUYBENSZ]

> Excuse me, but things do not happen. If you think that they do you are
> stuck up to your ears in maya. When you finally understand that things do
> not exist and thus do not happen, then you will be a lot closer to
> enlightenment. In the meantime, how about not misprepresenting Buddhism,
> okay?  [LAURA CREIGHTON]

First off, Mike wasn't talking about Buddhism or about ANY religion in
particular.  He was, as I was referring to the notion of the "natural flow".
As I explained in my reply to Paul Dubuc, giving the "natural flow" its own
will (in a given belief system) is creating the notion of god (irrespective of
its existence/non-existence).  Bequeathing the "natural flow" with a will and
with the power to control such things (or claiming that it has such properties)
is the "excess assumption" to which Mike was referring.  Re-read what Mike
said again, Laura, without force-fitting ANY religious precepts into it.  He
hit the nail on the head.
-- 
"Right now it's only a notion, but I'm hoping to turn it into an idea, and if
 I get enough money I can make it into a concept."       Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr