Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Evidences for Religion (reposting)
Message-ID: <1298@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Jul-85 14:54:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1298
Posted: Thu Jul 18 14:54:31 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 14:33:07 EDT
References: <1182@pyuxd.UUCP> <800@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <1202@pyuxd.UUCP> <2127@pucc-h> <1215@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center
Lines: 60

> If human beings, as you believe, are mere biological organisms, bags of
> protoplasm, collections of chemicals, pieces of meat, then why should there
> be even the rudimentary morality of non-interference rules which you have
> plugged many times?  Why should it matter in the least if one collection of
> chemicals -- if that's all it is -- is violently put permanently out of
> commission?  This seems to be a notable logical inconsistency between
> different parts of your beliefs. [SARGENT]

> [Rich Rosen]
> Hardly.  Chances of survival, overall longterm benefits, life in general,
> are optimized by cooperation.  Cooperation, and the maximal freedom and
> benefit for all, are optimized by non-interference.

Hardly, my foot.  Why should any of these be optimized?  That is, why
should any of them be optimized, given your outlook?  I may *agree*
that these things should be optimized, but what reason can *you* give,
other than bare assertion, that they *should* be?  You have given us an
"ought" without a reason for the ought, other than just "I say so".

Perhaps there is a presupposition lurking somewhere in your rationale...
bolstered, presumably, by wishful thinking that "freedom" (undefined) and
"benefit" (also undefined - both probably subjective) are of some value.
Perhaps you are right - but why should anyone believe you are?  You
can't give a reason, so you end up with proof by assertion.

>> "There you go again".  You have *never* cited any counter-evidence; you have
>> merely asserted its existence.  Don't try to weasel out of this; if you have
>> any actual hard *evidence* that God does *not* exist, cite it!

> I didn't say that I did.  I said that there was (and is) evidence that the
> beliefs are rooted in wishful thinking anthropocentrism.

Baloney.  Your postings consist mostly of *assertions that there is such
evidence*; but you rarely give any.

> I thought it was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

You thought wrong.  If what it says is correct, then it cannot by
itself be the *whole* truth, being finite.

> Ask a creationist, who won't even accept the incredibly beautiful
> notion (put forth by a Christian clergyman) that the whole creation

An unnamed Christian clergyman - maybe you had a wishful-thinking
dream.  (You can disprove this by naming him.)

> story is [q]uite metaphorical, and that evolution itself shows how
> beautiful the Bible is in telling that story in an imaginative way
> (actually he said that evolution was the most beautiful interpretation
> of the creation story he had ever heard).  In any case, the creation
> story also describes the earth as god's focal point of the universe, so
> I would have to say "yes, necessarily".

Focal in what sense?

-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois     {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
"More agonizing, less organizing."                                  |