Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Evidences for Anthropocentricism Message-ID: <855@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 02:15:42 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.855 Posted: Mon Jul 15 02:15:42 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jul-85 07:31:44 EDT References: <2127@pucc-h> <1215@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 49 In article <1215@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >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. Why should anyone care about survival, or maximal freedom, or optimized benefits? >> "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. There is evidence >that the creationist line as spouted by the Bible is, in a literal sense, >fallacious, despite numerous attempts by wishful thinkers to prop up >creationism with augmented wishful thinking. But that's only a problem if you are going to take that section of the Bible in a very literal-minded fashion. Besides, it don't prove A.C.. There is no solid evidence as to why that particular account was written; Rich's claim is mere speculation without some independent evidence of what the author was thinking. >>>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). > >I thought it was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Ask >a creationist, who won't even accept the incredibly beautiful notion (put >forth by a Christian clergyman) that the whole creation story is wuite >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". It does not. Cite verses if you are going to make a claim like that. Give to the Coast Guard Youth Auxiliary! Charley WIngate umcp-cs!mangoe