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!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Evidences for Religion (reposting)
Message-ID: <1340@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 27-Jul-85 22:43:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1340
Posted: Sat Jul 27 22:43:48 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Jul-85 07:13:46 EDT
References: <1215@pyuxd.UUCP> <2154@pucc-h>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 32

>>>>what is the basis for "higher" views?  Evidence pointing to the existence
>>>>of things like "souls", or a special status for human beings as being
>>>>unassociated with the rest of the "animal kingdom"?  Or wishful thinking
>>>>that there are such things in the absence of evidence (and in the presence
>>>>of counter-evidence)?

>>>"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.

> You specifically said "in the presence of counter-evidence".  Evidence that
> some specific doctrines may be rooted in wishful thinking does not constitute
> evidence that the entire gamut of spiritual-oriented world views is false.
> Perhaps you didn't mean it this way, but the effect of this exchange has been
> to make you appear to make an assertion and then back off when it was
> challenged.

That's why I love subjective opinions lkke yours, Jeff.  The counterevidence
I was referring to involves the nature of the beliefs themselves, how they are
formulated in direct contradiction to known scientific views of the world in
favor of what is wished for.  Rather than being a toy played with by an
intelligence, the universe seems more like an integrated interweaving machine
running according to its "mechanisms" without the introduction of an external.
To insist on such an external in the absence of evidence for one is to go
against the evidence of the universe as it is.  It's nice of you to judge the
effectiveness of "this exchange" on your own subjective terms.
-- 
"There!  I've run rings 'round you logically!"
"Oh, intercourse the penguin!"			Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr