From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Joe Nunes)
Subject: Atheism (Re: Bible in the Schools)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
In article <1168@csm9a.UUCP> japplega@csm9a.UUCP (Joe Applegate) writes:
>Atheism with it's disregard for a creator and it's embrace of evolutionary
>thought leaves only one reason and goal for existance: the developement
>of mankind. For it hold humanity as the goal of evolution... and the further
>evolution of man as the goal of the universe. Thus it is a homocentric
>religion (most others religions are theocentric).
Speak for yourself. I am an agnostic (leaning towards atheism more than towards
theism) and the existence (or non-existence) of a creator is not an important
factor on my life. However, I most certainly *do not* have, as my single reason
for existence, the development of mankind. You are assuming that one needs a
reason for existence. I totally disagree with that point of view. I believe
there is *no* purpose to life, nor is there any goal to be achieved. My sole
strategy is to try to maximize my happiness and the happiness of those around
me. Period. I couldn't care less about the evolution of man. The argument that
a lack of a God-centered religious belief implies a human-centered religious
belief is totally invalid. One doesn't have to play either game.
>More than that it is a belief system. As a geologist who has studied not
>only my field of geochemistry but also biochemistry and at one point
>cosmology and general astonomy... I find it takes more faith to believe
>in a self creating and perpetuating universe than one with a creator.
Once again, speak for yourself. Personally I find that the concept of a
non-created universe is as intellectually plausible as the concept of a
non-created God. Or if you prefer: it is just as easy for me to believe in a
*non-conscious* creative force in the universe (e.g. energy) as it is for me
to believe in a *conscious* force (e.g. God).