In response to the Fri30May03 post by Omar Lughod:

> Paul asserted unequivocally that an atheist could not
> possibly give valid scholarly representation to the
> subject of religion.

What I said, Omar, is that it is absurd to imagine that an
atheist could be a bona fide expert in Religion. I can
defend that on logical grounds.

> To have a perspective is part of our human condition.
> But that does not preclude us from generating
> justified beliefs. For no atheist would count hirself
> as rational if they seriously considered their
> conclusions to be merely private confessions.

That's very true, Omar, and in fact I knew very well
that I was provoking an existential debate. The many
contradictions within Marxism must sooner or later
crumble like a house of cards. Better sooner.

> To assert otherwise is to begin in bad faith, as though
> only Hegelians of the right had a monopoly on
> intellectual integrity.

That is not true, Omar. Many thinkers besides Hegelians
have intellectual integrity. But people who claim to know
a field that is outside their expertise do not. Atheists,
by definition, have nothing to say and nothing to add
to the science of theology.

> That an argument is invalid must be demonstrated,
> not dismissed on irrelevant grounds.

I offer *plenty* of demonstrations, quotes, reasons
and observations, Omar. You should know that.
The frustration evidently arises because my points
are tautological -- air-tight. Thus the spurious claim
that my arguments are 'ad hominem' arises from mere
frustration. Marxists are atheists. That is a fact, not
an 'ad hominem' attack.

> What we admire in Hegel, presumably, is that
> he gives each position its due. He identifies both
> its virtues and prejudices, and achieves the sublation
> of which you speak.

Well, to be fair, Hegel did not write on the Internet,
and his output was mainly limited to a few thousand
pages of books and lecture notes. Also, Hegel did
*not* stoop to argue with just anybody -- he actively
avoided the parvenu.

> There have been many atheists who have given us good
> insight into religion: Freud, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer,
> Max Weber, and dare i say - Marx.

That is simply false, Omar. On logical grounds it is
false. These atheists (excepting Schopenhauer,
who was closer to Buddhism) gave us good insight
into *atheism*. It would appear that only atheists
believe they gave good insight into Religion.

It is logically a fallacy to expect theological insights
from atheists. Freud, for example, reduced God to
merely the infantile Father Figure. That is a very
limited, even ludicrous image of God. Marx and
his ilk thought that Das Kapital, when refracted
through the human mind, was God. Superficiality!
Nietzsche merely said that God is Dead, and went
about trying to speak all macho and manly, even
though he himself was tied to his mother's apron
strings -- he was truly a psychological case.

It is logically unassailable that atheists cannot
offer anything to philosophy but negativity. By
Webster's definition, atheism is 'a-theism', the
'absence of theology.' Based on that starting
point, all one can do is offer the negative.

> And i suspect that Paul's arguments in favor of
> religion have been strengthened by their opposition.
> For he has been forced to consider the perspective
> of the other, one of Kant's postulates for the
> enlightened individual, and one, i do not doubt,
> that Hegel would concur with.
>
> Omar

You are quite right, Omar, to notice that I have been
strengthened by the negative. I eat the negative like
vitamin pills.

Hegel also recognized that the Enlightenment, with its
sharp criticism of Religion, was *good* for Religion.
The Hegelian enjoys working with the negative.

However, the sad part is that the atheists do not
enjoy hearing the negative of their view. They lose
their cool. This is the best proof that their views
are decidedly one-sided.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo