From: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:50:30 +0800
To: cypherpunks@EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: RE: Democracy... (fwd)
Message-ID: <199809171915.OAA15655@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> From: Matthew James Gering <mgering@ecosystems.net>
> Subject: RE: Democracy... (fwd)
> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 11:29:00 -0700

> > Atheism means that one believes that there is no God.
> 
> You trying to claim atheism is a religion itself is like the christians
> always claiming non-christians are satin worshippers.

Actualy this is a straw man. Very few Christians claim Buddhist, Muslim,
etc. are satan worshipers, Satan is a Christian ephigy. What they *do*
claim is that those folks are worshipping false idols and as a result
won't gain access to heaven at death.

Vasty different than your claim.

> Forget about the
> origination of the word,

There's your first problem, your argument won't stand in the traditional
architecture of society so you want to try to get me to throw it away.
This causes all terms, ideas, etc. to become irrelevant in effect forcing
me to play from a vacuum. Won't do it. Though it's a nice ploy on your
part.

> in today's reality most atheists simply forgo
> religion completely.

A personal philosophy is a religion, different words but same idea. If your
thesis is that for something to be a religion it requires some sort of
social approval you miss the whole point. Even Jesus recognized that a
persons religion didn't rely on a 'church' and the implied infrastructure.
This is the reason he told his listeners to pray in a closet alone.

> There is no reason to think that a god does exist, so why would one even
> need to think about or believe in the negative.

There is no reason to believe one doesn't either. If we take your claim at
face value you need to demonstrate your test that shows the irrelevancy
of god. God is not a belief in a negative, another straw man, but rather
a mechanism or expression of human psychology and the need for humans to
find patterns (ie reason) in things.

> > Ah, so there are personal beliefs that aren't religion and 
> > then there are personal beliefs that are?
> 
> Yes, beliefs based on valid reason,

Ah, another of your mistakes. Religion and by extension faith are not
constrained by reason or logic. It's this realisation that puts some
issues and aspect of human inquiry outside of the reach of science, logic,
etc.

> empiricism and science are not
> religious, the generally follow the path from conjecture to theory to
> fact.

If you're a pantheist they're the only religion (aka personal philosophy)
you've got. Shortcomings in your imagination are not a reflection upon the
rest of the cosmos.

> You may hold lots of personal conjecture that do qualify as
> beliefs but are not religious in nature, they are not exempt from
> empirical evidence and the laws of thermodynamics. Beliefs based on
> faith and mysticism are religious. Religion is irrational.

No, only some religions are irrational. The point you're missing is not
one of rationality or irrationality but rather transcendance.


    ____________________________________________________________________

                            The seeker is a finder.

                                     Ancient Persian Proverb

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------