Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-h Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:aeq From: aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Evidences for Religion (reposting) Message-ID: <2127@pucc-h> Date: Sat, 13-Jul-85 02:55:58 EDT Article-I.D.: pucc-h.2127 Posted: Sat Jul 13 02:55:58 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 14-Jul-85 08:43:49 EDT References: <1182@pyuxd.UUCP> <800@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <1202@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: Purdue University Computing Center Lines: 43 From Rich Rosen (pyuxd!rlr, of course): > What I was referring to as the "lower" view is simply the view of human beings > as they are, biological organisms, animals as it were, with the basis of their > existence in a physical world, with no pretty flourishes about special status > or specially designated purpose assigned by an external, just what *is*. I posted an article a while back asking the questions I'm about to ask, but (since news from here didn't get past ihnp4 for a while) you may never have seen it. 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. > That view is certainly lower than "higher" views, but what is the basis for > those 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! > This sudden acceptance of the possibility of extra-terrestrials is a > modification to the literal "truth" of the Bible, is it not? Not necessarily. The Bible doesn't really say anything on the subject one way or the other; after all, its concern is with human beings. In that sense it is anthropocentric, but again, it was written to help humans toward a fuller, more joyous and freer life on this earth, so it could hardly be otherwise (and it would be of negligible use to humans if it were). -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h!aeq If you don't bet your life on at least one wild-looking chance before you die, then you won't have really lived....