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!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: "Secular Humanism" banned in the US Schools.
Message-ID: <1994@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 30-Oct-85 00:23:34 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1994
Posted: Wed Oct 30 00:23:34 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 31-Oct-85 08:04:15 EST
References: <1900@pyuxd.UUCP> <1753@akgua.UUCP> <1953@pyuxd.UUCP> <620@spar.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 31
Xref: lsuc net.politics:1765 net.religion:534

>>> Gimme a break Rosen.  I didn't twist Goedel and I didn't
>>> offer proof you dufus...I said maybe....I said "if we extrapolate.."
>>> Most people recognize this as specualtion...not proof.
>>> Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}

>>1.  You most certainly did twist Godel.
>>2.  Most people don't use a speculation as proof of a belief.  If that's
>>	not what you're doing, then what proof DO you have for your beliefs?
>>3.  Nice tone coming from a (to use Wingate's punctuation technique)
>>	"cHRISTIAN'.
>> Rich 

>      1. Show us, Rich. What is illogical about God as a truth that is not
>         verifiable from within a rational, empirical system? [ELLIS]

The assumption that THAT is that truth, that a god exists with your particular
favorite attributes for god in mind, and for that matter the assumption that
anything necessarioly exists of that form with deliberate willful power
and intelligence.

>      2. You have no proof for your religion, either, Rich. 

Which religion?  Anit-assumptionism?  Non-presumptivism?  As opposed to
your Crutch of the Holy Assumption (with its "devils", Skinner et al)...

>      3. You betchum, Red Rider..

Or to put it another way, SMASH your head against the wall...
-- 
"Wait a minute.  '*WE*' decided???   *MY* best interests????"
					Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr