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 (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Evolving Religions (track 2)
Message-ID: <1115@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Jun-85 18:38:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1115
Posted: Wed Jun 19 18:38:43 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Jun-85 10:33:05 EDT
References: <5437@cbscc.UUCP> <1096@pyuxd.UUCP> <300@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 20

>>> How does the requirement that a belief system have no deity (Humanism
>>> isn't necessarily atheistic.  I assume that you mean that Humanism may
>>> have objective validity *if* it is atheistic) insure that it may have
>>> objective validity? [DUBUC]

>>By refraining from speculative notions about deities that cannot be proven,
>>a belief system sticks to the real world of real people and things.  That
>>simple. [ROSEN]

> Since you've decided that you will not accept any evidence on the matter,
> Rich, this criticism carries no weight.  The best you can justify on that
> basis is agnosticism. [WINGATE]

You're evading the original point in question.  A belief system that DOES NOT
engage in speculative presumptions of the nature I've described lends itself
to stricter analysis (and less wishful thinking speculation) about the real
world.
-- 
"Ya dee apockety, rum fing f'doo.  Ni, ni, ni, YOWWWWWWWWWW!" 
				Rich Rosen 	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr