Subject: Re: lisp editors
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 2000/06/27
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Christopher Browne
| So I quite disagree that ignoring "religious" considerations is
| valid; a whole lot of it _is_ quite religious, whether there's a
| "god" involved or not.

  Only if you already believe that "religious" is a useful reduction
  of the observed phenomena and you are willing to ignore (or worse,
  embrace) the abjectly mystical connotations.  I maintain that
  religion is the result of a small number of well-understood human
  psychological needs, but some are somehow kept from understanding
  these issues in the continued belief in the "mystical".

  Not all things not understood are irrational in basis.  Not all
  things irrational are religious.  However, all things religious are
  mystical _and_ irrational in nature.  Dragging religion into a
  discussion is an _insult_ to those who want to understand and
  demystify what they observe.  Dragging the organized religions into
  the incredibly silly "wars" is deeply disrespectful of them, and
  whatever they have done to deserve scorn, disrespect is uncalled

  But meta-discussions suck, so I'll end here.

  If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.