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!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Evidences for Anthropocentricism Message-ID: <1226@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Tue, 16-Jul-85 12:26:38 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1226 Posted: Tue Jul 16 12:26:38 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 04:17:10 EDT References: <2127@pucc-h> <1215@pyuxd.UUCP> <855@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 62 >>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. [ROSEN] > Why should anyone care about survival, or maximal freedom, or optimized > benefits? [WINGATE] Because we happen to like those things. Don't you? Don't survival, continuing to live, and acquiring benefits bring pleasure to living? >>>"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. But so many do just that, take it in a very literal minded fashion, even though you may feel more enlightened than they. Either the author was "inspired by god", or he/she was speculating on the nature of the creation of the universe from a subjective perspective. Since so much of the story is clearly false, one can assume that the author wasn't getting the word straight from god's mouth, thus the latter is more likely true. >>>>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. How about the passages in which it is claimed that the earth was created before the sun, the moon, and the other planets (let alone the stars). That would seem to make the earth the focal point of the universe, would it not? I'll point out the specific passages if you like, but clearly we are not just talking about little individual passages, we are talking about the whole scope of the story! -- "Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr