From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 9:40 AM To: 'Minarchists@yahoogroups.com' Cc: 'marketliberal@yahoogroups.com' Subject: Re: Reasonable POV, Yes? Allen Hacker wrote: > Atheism and Objectivism are religions too, > you know: a god-construct is not > required for something to be a religion. If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. > You can't define all religion in > terms of just one or just one type. Merriam-Webster gives two relevant definitions: 1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural; 2) a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Atheism satisfies neither definition, because it replaces faith with skepticism and concludes that neither God nor the supernatural are real. You could try to argue that having any epistemology whatsoever is a form of faith, but then you're essentially redefining the words "faith" and "religion" to mean something like "belief" and "belief-system". That may be a fun way to poke a village atheist in the eye, but it's just not a serious epistemological analysis. > Bhuddism doesn't have god is still a religion. Most Buddhists believe in the supernatural/paranormal, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature. > If you can't prove your proposition as to how > things work then it's not facts. it's a belief system. > And that is the essence of religion. All synthetic propositions are subject to doubt. It would be silly to define any belief in a synthetic proposition as essentially religious. > The truth is, atheists do all those things under the > aegis of "secular humanism", which, at their own request, > was ruled a religion by the US > Supreme Court. Same decision that named Buddhism and > Confuscianism religions despite their being without a > superior entity. This an easily-corrected misconception about Torcaso v. Watkins (1961). See Myth #4 at http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/cherry_18_1.01.html "Edward J. Williamson" wrote: > Objectivism rejects anything in the physical > world that is not supported by irrefutable > empirical evidence Irrefutable empirical evidence is an oxymoron. Synthetic (i.e. empirical) propositions are always subject to doubt. You could be a brain in a vat. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/ "DJ Entropy" wrote: > An atheist believes in zero number of Gods > (something that requires faith, which is the > foundation of all religions). So is the belief in zero number of Santa Clauses yet another religion I'm a member of? By your reasoning, I'm an adherent of infinitely many religions. A superior analysis is to say I'm an adherent of zero religions. "Paul" wrote: > Nothing Chuck Muth or any Republican says has > any value. They are all worthless, lying, idiotic, > scumbags, including those in the RLC. Thank you for this timely example of irrational zealotry. Brian Holtz 2004 Libertarian candidate for Congress, CA14 (Silicon Valley) http://marketliberal.org