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 Religion (reposting) Message-ID: <1263@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sat, 20-Jul-85 13:05:18 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1263 Posted: Sat Jul 20 13:05:18 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 22-Jul-85 06:29:41 EDT References: <1182@pyuxd.UUCP> <800@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <1202@pyuxd.UUCP> <2127@pucc-h> <1215@pyuxd.UUCP> <1298@uwmacc.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 93 >>>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? [SARGENT] >>[Rich Rosen] >>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. > Hardly, my foot. Why should any of these be optimized? That is, why > should any of them be optimized, given your outlook? I may *agree* > that these things should be optimized, but what reason can *you* give, > other than bare assertion, that they *should* be? You have given us an > "ought" without a reason for the ought, other than just "I say so". [DUBOIS] I thought I just said: because cooperation maximizes freedom, overall benefits, stability. Why should such things be maximized or optimized? Because we like them!!! Would you rather have a moral code based on self-annihilation? > Perhaps there is a presupposition lurking somewhere in your rationale... > bolstered, presumably, by wishful thinking that "freedom" (undefined) and > "benefit" (also undefined - both probably subjective) are of some value. I don't think so. Freedom in the sense it is described here means freedom from external coercion or interference. The limits of such freedom, in order to maximalize it, should end "before my fist reaches your nose" or some such witticism. Benefits? Economic well-being. Health through cooperation in sanitation and food growth. Opportunities for exercising freedom. Are there any of those you don't like, where you'd rather a society chose the opposite? > Perhaps you are right - but why should anyone believe you are? You > can't give a reason, so you end up with proof by assertion. I just did. You're the one whose position is solely based on assertion, my friend. Assertions about assumptions. >>>"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. > Baloney. Your postings consist mostly of *assertions that there is such > evidence*; but you rarely give any. Funny how you chose to conveniently leave out the rest of the paragraph in which I did just that. This is getting boorish. >> I thought it was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. > You thought wrong. If what it says is correct, then it cannot by > itself be the *whole* truth, being finite. Huh? Come off it. If you have counterarguments, let's hear them. Don't come off badgering me about the use of a pithy phrase! Pretend it just said "the truth" (which is what it meant), now offer a counteropinion. Have anything to say now that the opportunity for smug trivialism about "it's not the 'whole' truth, nyah, nyah". >>Ask a creationist, who won't even accept the incredibly beautiful >>notion (put forth by a Christian clergyman) that the whole creation > An unnamed Christian clergyman - maybe you had a wishful-thinking > dream. (You can disprove this by naming him.) Unfortunately I can't. It was quite a long time ago. Do you honestly doubt that a Christian would say that which you AGAIN chose to leave out above (about evolution being a beautiful interpretation of the Genesis story)? Is the idea so repugnant to you? I do hope someone does remember the man's name. I believe it was said during or around the time of the Scopes trial, and perhaps it was part of the testimony. Your attempt at vilification only serves to point out how desperate you seem to be regarding this notion: no Christian could POSSIBLY have said THAT, Rosen MUST be lying. >>story is [q]uite 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". > Focal in what sense? Like as in first having created the earth before all the other "heavenly bodies", having created them in relation to the earth. Sounds pretty "focal" to me. -- "Because love grows where my Rosemary goes and nobody knows but me." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr