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