I think so. One is innate (in the theory I was using) and one is empirical (observed).

And by saying that religious belief is innate of course I mean that the mind is set up to be ready to accept belief. Other factors (cultural for example)fill in the detail.

Yes... I suppose I just come down on the side that 'empiricism' may not observe everything, and isn't an answer in itself. The notion of a transcendental agent is fantastic, but the notion of a single human who lives entirely outside of societal factors (which would be necessary, to my mind, for an 'absolute empiricism') is fantastic too. I would no more purport to defend Theism absolutely than I would denigrate empiricism absolutely (or the opposite of each). I just refuse to believe that empirical science holds the answers to everything, or that it has the tools with which to observe everything (cf most social sciences, psychoanalysis, philosophy and huge swathes of neurological science), let alone interpret the findings. This doesn't really make me a defender of religion, so much as it marks me as a devout fence-sitter.

No man is an island indeed...

Although I'm no fan of Dawkins, I don't see how what he proposes suggests a negative dialectic - assuming you're refering to it in the context of Adorno and Horkheimer.

the problem is folks like Dawkins take the horrifying flaws in human religious institutions and condemn the divine because of it. All agreed, these molesting scumbags are not deserving of sympathy, and they are clearly not sincerely religious/faithful men if they are fucking children.. I mean, honestly, why "..fuck with children, they're too small!"

We all agree that fucking children is wrong, but atheists see it as grounds to condemn religion, like an "ah HA!" moment, but as I said before, child molestation is even MORE PREVELANT in our various social institutions even than it is in the Catholic Church! Does Dawkins want to become an anarchist and throw out society?

You misunderstanding me.. sure Dawkins has published some brilliant science, but ALL of his books/articles/blogs/rants/lectures against religion are all fluff. I have NEVER seen Dawkins use any substantial scientific arguments to discredit religion, and I sincerely challenge you to find me an article/book/lecture/blog by Dawkins or Hitchens or any of these blah blah woof woof dudes using scientific data, the scientific method, statistical analysis, equations, etc etc...

Sure, Dawkins is a brilliant scientist, but when it comes to arguing about atheism he is a terrible theologian, and a royal cunt.

Not quite the same, no - I'm sort of alluding to (Lyotard's) incommensurability but not quite in the sense that both dialogues are valid - it's still a dialectical relationship, but it's a negative, deleterious or 'false' one rather than Adorno's dialectic of a sort of impossible becoming.

Send me a PM if you want this made clearer.

fuck Vatican Trolls and Richard Dawkins...let's kill em all !!!

what you say would have some weight if it werent for the fact that the rapists are being protected because they are religious figures.
I say it always, if you want to have your own religious practice, i will stand for your right to do so. But if we arent arresting people because theyre religious people, im getting pissed off

suchfriends is not protecting paedos by the way, my last post might have suggested that