Hmmm. I think I see some misunderstandings. Let me try to clarify:
- I didn't mean to accuse you of demonising anything. At all. - I *don't* think it important that "every thought pattern" conform to logic. - Such conformity is not in keeping with what we know of human neurophysiology- it doesn't seem possible. Emotion runs through everything we do. Even if possible, such conformity hardly seems desirable, far less important... - I do, however, think it important for things labelled as logical to conform to logic, and for people claiming to be basing positions on logic to do so, or withdraw the claim. - I think that many atheists who claim to found their worldview in logic are likely fooling themselves. I can't so label any individual atheist who I don't know particularly well, however. Idiosyncratic apathy, ignorance, and rebellion against religion as an unpleasant authority figure are common reasons for atheism in my experience- and valid reasons too, arguably. - I can't support the idea that any complex human endeavour such as religion can be accurately broadly painted as "logical" or "illogical". - This is independent of your very real point (http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332) that we should not blindly accept "illogical" as an insult. - Your analogy was weakly related at best to what *I* was talking about for reasons that I mentioned; I am talking about irreligious people who demonise, while you seem to be talking about irreligious people who calmly muse. I'm sure it was quite pertinent, however, to the point that you were trying to make. - I liked the article for many of the same reasons that you do. I'm just noting that Sweeney's reasons apply widely to affiliations other than church and religious ones.
no subject
- I didn't mean to accuse you of demonising anything. At all.
- I *don't* think it important that "every thought pattern" conform to logic.
- Such conformity is not in keeping with what we know of human neurophysiology- it doesn't seem possible. Emotion runs through everything we do. Even if possible, such conformity hardly seems desirable, far less important...
- I do, however, think it important for things labelled as logical to conform to logic, and for people claiming to be basing positions on logic to do so, or withdraw the claim.
- I think that many atheists who claim to found their worldview in logic are likely fooling themselves. I can't so label any individual atheist who I don't know particularly well, however. Idiosyncratic apathy, ignorance, and rebellion against religion as an unpleasant authority figure are common reasons for atheism in my experience- and valid reasons too, arguably.
- I can't support the idea that any complex human endeavour such as religion can be accurately broadly painted as "logical" or "illogical".
- This is independent of your very real point (http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332) that we should not blindly accept "illogical" as an insult.
- Your analogy was weakly related at best to what *I* was talking about for reasons that I mentioned; I am talking about irreligious people who demonise, while you seem to be talking about irreligious people who calmly muse. I'm sure it was quite pertinent, however, to the point that you were trying to make.
- I liked the article for many of the same reasons that you do. I'm just noting that Sweeney's reasons apply widely to affiliations other than church and religious ones.
I hope this helps...
adrian