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