HelenM

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Demigawd

<strong>What's rational about reading a book or painting a picture?</strong>

I'm bored so I rationally decide to do something that interests me such as read a book or paint a picture. Rational does not equal robotic or emotionless.

AbbyNormal

galiel,
I find your comments on engineers to be very interesting....I am an engineer and this hasn't occurred to me. Myself, I came into engineering seeking a practical way to apply my love science and the natural world. It so happens that I'm a critical thinker as well and I've assumed that this is a "prerequisite" for the field.
Really, when it comes down to it, solving engineering problems requires knowing a few laws and following them through, throwing in some creativity along the way.
I like your comment on binary thinking. I observe it all the time, but just never put it together in the right way. The engineers I work with are almost always dogmatic in their approach to both engineering problems as well as current events. "It's just my opinion, which happens to be right" is the mind set of more than a few individuals I can think of around my office. Sound familiar? A black-and-white view of the world leaves little room for critical thought. The dogma of technical field may, in some sense, be just as dangerous as the dogma of religon.
Lots to think about here.....

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: AbbyNormal ]</p>

AbbyNormal

Rationality is not the be-all and end-all of mankind. I consider myself a rational person though I still enjoy music, fiction, dance, theater, or just sitting and watching the world go by. We run into trouble when people fail to apply rationality when it's needed. Rationality helps us make informed decisions. Art, fantasy, and emotion make life more interesting and allow us to express ourselves in an infinite number of ways. A healthy mix of rationality and emotion is what the "be-all and end-all" should be. But you need the rationality to know when you should think and when you can feel.

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: AbbyNormal ]</p>

Rusting Car Bumper

Atheism does not posit that "there is no purpose to our existence." Atheism is simply an answer to one question. An atheist could be a secular humanist or a Buddhist and as such one or the other may or may not say there is a "purpose" to life.

This often made mistake that you make is basically made because you apply "Atheism" to describe something that it was not intended to describe.

Nonsense. A secular humanist who is an atheist would make definate statements of values and knowledge and might even claim that they are objectively knowable. So would an atheist who is a Randian Objectivist. As such these are incompatible with nihilism.

Starting with understand what "atheism" is and thus what can be said to cover is a good start when trying to "do better."

DC

Gemma Therese

Augustine ... Merton ... Stein ... Aquinas???

galiel

HeathenDawn, the main problem with all your arguments is that they are all, all of them, straw men. You redefine the word "progressive" to mean something almost exactly opposite of its common meaning in political discussions; you define atheism in such a strange way that it is hard to even get a handle on your objections. You seem incapable of understanding what the lack of a religious dogma is like, otherwise you would not keep stating that atheists "believe" this or that or the other thing. And you repeat the all to common confusion between "being rational" and "lacking emotion". This is usually inexcricably linked with neo-Luddism, as it tends to think that rational thought is somehow "cold" or "mechanical" or "anti-human". This is simply incorrect.

I do not mean to be offensive, and I have tried to avoid an ad hominem in this post. I honestly think you do not understand what critical thinking is all about, and I honestly think that you did not understand my post at all.

I also think that you choose not to review history in order to draw your conclusions about the relative benefit of organized religion bs. scientific understanding in terms of the tangible, measurable and verifiable benefits to humankind.

Starboy

HelenM & Heathen:

It is our rationality that makes us human. There is nothing special about being irrational. Stop thinking with your womb.

Starboy

galiel

Irrational. (which doesn't mean useless, incidentally, and it doesn't mean incapable of occasionally lucid thoughts, or incapable of making a contribution to humankind, and I never implied otherwise)

The issue is the cumulative effect of organized religion as followed by billions os people over thousands of years, vs. the cumulative effect of a rational society. One can always find individuals who can transcend unreason, just as one can always find otherwise reasonable people who have odd quirks or superstitions. There is a fundamental difference, however, between those who see the world through the tinted eyes of a obedient follower of dogma, and those who see the world through the free eyes of a self-realized rational human.

Hobbs

Had I not erased a paragraph noting that before I posted a response, you would not have needed to post this point. I do agree, but for the sake of brevity I decided against saying something. Now that you have noted it, I will add that I have studied both science and engineering (though I ended up in philosophy, but with one of my focuses on philosophy of science), and I find your characterization to be accurate.

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: Hobbs ]</p>