Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fortune.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!fortune!rpw3
From: rpw3@fortune.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: No willing Atheists? - (nf)
Message-ID: <2873@fortune.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Mar-84 07:05:28 EST
Article-I.D.: fortune.2873
Posted: Wed Mar 28 07:05:28 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Mar-84 05:39:01 EST
Sender: notes@fortune.UUCP
Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA
Lines: 20

#R:ssc-vax:-1600:fortune:21900016:000:769
fortune!rpw3    Mar 28 02:19:00 1984

Tom Ruschak uses the term non-theist as if it were the same as atheist.
It isn't. From the point of view of an actual non-theistic perspective,
such as Buddhism, atheism is a form of theism, as David Norris implies,
since it makes as assertion that "there is no X". While the agnostic is
not convinced whether to believe the theist or the atheist, the non-theist
simply says that the entire issue of an external "thing" misses the point.

Because everything is impermanent, all of that energy expended in grasping
towards (or away from) some presumed permanent reference just creates more
suffering.

Rob Warnock

UUCP:	{sri-unix,amd70,hpda,harpo,ihnp4,allegra}!fortune!rpw3
DDD:	(415)595-8444
USPS:	Fortune Systems Corp, 101 Twin Dolphin Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065