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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: What?
Message-ID: <584@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Feb-85 12:18:02 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.584
Posted: Mon Feb 25 12:18:02 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 08:32:10 EST
References: <66@cvl.UUCP>
Organization: Huxley College
Lines: 49

>>Consider the following statements:
>>	A.  God created men in his own image.
>>	B.  Ubizmo created men in his own image.
>>	C.  Men created God in own image.
>>	D.  Men created Ubizmo in his own image.
>>Which statement is 'true'?  You may believe that the first statement
>>is the correct one.  (Rich will probably disagree, claiming that the
>>second statement is the correct one).  I cannot 'prove' that 
>>statements A or B are false.  yet, statements A and B seem to mutually 
>>contradict each other, whereas statements C and D are not inconsistent 
>>with each other.  My rationalization is that statements C and D are
>>more likely to describe the situation.  [???????]

> A => ~B
> B => ~A
> Therefore C & D ????
> 
> Run that by me again.  [HARTLEY]

OK.  The point was (I would guess) that since both A & B pose contradictory
concepts of the creation of the universe and its all-powerful deity, since
both statements cannot be true, and since the nature of the evidence behind
the A & B notions is based on subjectivity (clouded in imposition of
preconceived patterns onto perceptions of phenomena---anyone who can say that
three times fast wins a cookie!), it seems much more reasonable that, rather
than A or B being a correct notion (since both seem based on equally flawed
roots), C and D are correct.  I hope that clarifies.

>> it may give you an idea how non-religious person judges issues of faith.

> Maybe some non-religious people.  If there really are such people.
> Everyone has a religion of some kind.  Even Rich Rosen has a religion
> of sorts.  If he dosn't, why does he spend his entire waking life
> posting to the net?

I fail to see the logic in that line of reasoning.  I must have a religion be-
cause I spend 25 hours a day posting to the net?  Is my terminal a shrine? :-)

> That is, if he realy exists.  I remain unconvinced.  I
> think it more likely that his rather voluminous postings are the work
> of an entire materialist society posting under a common pen name.  Or
> perhaps he is a supernatural being (Ubizmo?)  who has gotton onto the
> net somehow.  Ubizmo loves us so naturaly he wants to decieve us, right?
> :-)

I've been found out.  (Materialist society?  You mean like the ILGWU? :-)
-- 
"When you believe in things that you don't understand, you'll suffer.
 Superstition ain't the way."		Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr