rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) (02/21/85)
> 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. > The above discussion is an oversimplification of *my* thought process, I hope so! > but 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? 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? :-) Ralph Hartley siesmo!rlgvax!cvl!rlh rlh@cvl.ARPA
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (02/25/85)
>>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