Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Logic based on different sets of assumptions (part 2 of 2)
Message-ID: <413@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Mar-85 13:39:34 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.413
Posted: Tue Mar 12 13:39:34 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 14-Mar-85 03:24:54 EST
References: <589@pyuxd.UUCP> <4898@cbscc.UUCP> <4899@cbscc.UUCP> <390@cybvax0.UUCP> <5201@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 31
Summary: 

In article <5201@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes:
> These propositions do *not* have this in common. You have Rich Rosen's
> disease. I know a good many Hindus and even more Buddhists who would be
> appalled that you consider either the Buddha, or Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva
> deities. I know fewer Moslems, but those I know would claim that Paul's
> God and Allah are *exectly* *the* *same* God and so he is not ignoring
> their ``propositions'' -- merely the revelation of the Koran, which is,
> of course, a very serious mistake -- rather much like the mistake both
> Moslems and Christians agree that the Jews made in ignoring the
> revelation of the New Testament.

My intent was not to find dieties in all religions (as you argue Rich does),
but to show that there is a proliferation of hypothetical dieties.  My
ignorance of the particulars and variation of religions is profound:
I make no pretense in that direction.  It was unnecessary for the point I
was attempting to make: that gods are unnecessary hypotheses for explaining
nature.

> Excuse me, but things do not happen. If you think that they do you are
> stuck up to your ears in maya. When you finally understand that things do
> not exist and thus do not happen, then you will be a lot closer to
> enlightenment. In the meantime, how about not misprepresenting Buddhism,
> okay?

(I'm glad I looked up maya.)  Yes, to your point of view I am up to my ears
in maya.  I do not intend to misrepresent Buddhism, or any other point of
view.  I'm sorry that you took such an uncharitable (in the logicians sense)
interpretation of what I wrote.  Perhaps you're too immersed in maya also? :-)
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh