Militant atheism has become a religion

[patrice]

234. "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

The basis of atheistic thinking, empirical rationalism, and all logic and faculties referred to as reason, all of the processes to which those labels (reason, logic, rational, etc.) refer are the product of who/what we are. Our sensory and perceptual apparati are physical filters which are stimulated by the phenomenological universe and produce, amongst other things, empirical rationalism, logic, and reason. We know that those properties are encoded into "reality" and that's why we who are also a product of reality can extract them, but just as facts like light we can't see, wave-lengths of sounds we can't hear, some number of dimensions beyond the 3, 4 if you count time, that we can process (what is that 9? or 11? dimensions "total"?), not to mention this http://htwins.net/scale2/ suggest that there is very likely more to "reality" than our rather impressive minds can recognize. And, though it has nothing to say about that which is beyond it's own disciplines, science itself does not deny the predicate in my sentence just previous to this one. That other stuff is a null set to science, indeterminate, NOT 0.

Now, of course, none of that means that non-rationalists can just go off and say whatever they want about a more WHOLE reality, as they apparently have done waaaaaaay too much. And I personally think more religious language misses the mark horribly by excluding rational theology, though I do not hold science to the same standard, because the nature of science would not permit saying anything one way or another, not yes, not no, about that which cannot be rationally recognized.

I'm a little like Albert Einstein. I think what religion usually refers to as God is a mistake or an outright lie. I have trouble referring to their definition of god, because a definition of something that would be God is an oxymoron. But neither do I pretend that rationalism is that God that I deny knowledge of, especially since rationalism itself makes no such claim.