Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: I think I know I can know, you know?
Message-ID: <294@opus.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Mar-84 21:01:32 EST
Article-I.D.: opus.294
Posted: Fri Mar 30 21:01:32 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Mar-84 07:47:32 EST
References: <6562@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: NBI, Boulder
Lines: 23

<>
> The Atheist says there is no God.
> 
> The Agnostic says he doesn't think we can know.
>
> Both positions are unreasonable because they claim to have more knowledge
> about the topic than is humanly possible!

The Theist continues to preach religion in net.flame rather than
net.religion.  His position is also unreasonable.

But let's drop the religion for a moment and I'll flame about the logic.
Relabel:  atheist=X, agnostic=Y, theist=Z
There's a general illogic here.  The positions of Xs and Ys are labeled
unreasonable because they claim to answer a question which is alleged to be
unanswerable (or incompletely answerable).  But then, the Z position is
defended - even though it is an answer to the same unanswerable question!

If you blame your opponent for use of faulty reasoning, you probably
shouldn't expect to get away with it yourself.
-- 
Relax - don't worry - have a homebrew.
{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd