(urth) Religious writers and audiences

[David Stockhoff]

I completely agree. Sometimes I think one could separate "principled" or organized atheism from unthinking atheism, but then there is probably too little of either to bother with. To me, anyone who insists on atheism is indulging in belief, not reason. Unfortunately, such people tend to represent us to the world at large.

At any rate, there is also deism, which, in proving that atheism and religion can coexist, also indicates that they are different domains. There is simply no point is trying to settle either question; we see the world as it serves us.

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 14:30:36 -0400
From: John Watkins <john.watkins04 at gmail.com>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Subject: Re: (urth) Religious writers and audiences
Message-ID:
	<AANLkTimlEXmSxsEFcxvvrRooDTw-lqtdIQlMukxLVAZE at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Well, just the one.  Atheists by definition reject the existence of a
deity.  Pure reason cannot lead to the conclusion that no such being
exists--at the very best it leads to the conclusion that we can't be sure
whether such a being exists or not.  Any opinion beyond that is, in a sense,
beyond the purview of pure reason.

There are probably many atheists with other views that I might consider
"ultra vires," but you guys don't exactly have a creed, so I'd rather not
lump you together.  And to tell the truth I don't really want to be
embroiled in a religious controversy here--my point is that I think the
rhetorical strategy of some theists to class "atheism" as a "religion"
itself is of limited value, but that I find the rhetorical strategy of some
atheists to class "religion" as a special kind of unwarranted belief about
the universe is a question-begging exercise.  Theists don't believe that the
views of atheists are warranted; if they did, they'd be atheists.