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....