Posted on 10/25/2002 12:14:19 AM PDT by jennyp
Au contraire, Junior. Every Marxist organization, from the Bolsheviks to Pol Pot, the old/new Black Panthers, SLA, etc. is an atheist organization. So were the syndicalists and anarchists who spread terror in Europe and America in the early 20th Century. But, as I said in reply to Misterioso, it would be more than just a little unfair to blame atheism, per se, for the crimes of these groups. So it is also grossly unfair (not to mention irRational) to paint with so broad a brush regarding crimes committed in the name of religion. Religion, like patriotism, makes a convenient excuse when one wishes to lash out at humanity in general. It doesn't mean there is anything fundementally wrong with either. And I don't think I am off base when I detect the smug, anti-religious bias of this article.
After employing the term "cult" for describing the mentality of those with whom you disagree, you claim you did not mean it in a derogatory way. That is disingenuous. And you continue the fiction that atheism is a religion. You've got to understand that atheism, by definition, is holding no belief in the supernatural. It is not believing as opposed to believing not. This is a ruse in common use by believers, perpetuated to confuse those who are less adept at language. I see now why you are uncomfortable with the "R" word.
I agree with his comments so far as they apply to actual terrorists (of any stripe, religious or non-religious) It is the slam job on religion in general to which I object.
I used 'cult' to describe a certain mentality, not to denote all those with whom I disagree, nor even all non-believers in a Supreme Being. While the word 'cult' may hold negative connotations for some, so would any other word I might have substituted for it. And it doesn't dispell the fact that, for some atheists and agnostics, the ideal of human reason serves as a God-substitute, ie., the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience commonly attributed to God are attributed (again, by some) to Reason, which they often spell with a capital 'R', as if to deify it. In this way, atheism can function as a de facto religion. The essence of religion is not a belief in a God or gods, for many people belief in God but practice no religion, while Buddhism, one of the great world religions, does not believe in any God or gods. The essence of religion is a reverential attitude toward some supreme ideal. Thus the 'cult of Reason' qualifies.
Finally, atheism makes a positive assertion about God, namely that He does not exist. It is agnosticism which makes no claim one way or the other concerning God's existence. In fact, there are many Christians who describe themselves as agnostics, since they don't know, in purely rational terms, that God exists, yet they have faith, an unyiedling inner certainty, in His existence. It is the atheist who declares positively that God does not exist.
Yes but his point is this "If something happened but you can't prove it to someone else, it really didn't happen". And that is Reason???
You obviously just made that up. I never said that.
You are a Libertarian, aren't you?
Rational thought is well founded in the survival imperative from which springs the tradition of 'morality' and 'faith'.
BUMP
No. And you still haven't provided us with anything to discuss, other than your little teasers which hint that you know something we don't about reason. I'm not interested in coaxing your opinions out of you, and I'm not running an intellectual kindergarten regarding your coy "what is reason?" questions. As I said earlier, if you can't give us your views, straight out, that's fine, but I'm done here.
. . . but it cannot be conducted except within a language. The immature brain has specialized neural nets which facilitate the learning of language(s) by children.Computers, even with the most sophisticated AI, do not understand "natural language" because such a language is part of human tradition and can be learned in no other way than by human tradition. Computers will have to be ordered very differently than at present to attain the language learning ability of blind, deaf mute humans.
Nor can rationality transcend that limitation.
The answer to your second question is, "Yes it is."As to the first, I refer you to my #14.
You make a valid and important point. The criteria of proof can often be PC.
Gee, THAT would be unfair, wouldn't it?
I think the Pythagorean school was pretty disturbed at the (to them, theological) implications of the discovery of the inadequacy of the rational number system . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.