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