(urth) Religious writers and audiences

[John Watkins]

I think that's right.  brunians has repeatedly referred to his direct
experiences of what others would call the supernatural.  It may be that,
from his perspective (or feigned perspective), it makes as much sense to
deny the existence of God as to deny the existence of the sun.

Even if I shared this perspective, I'd like to think I'd understand that
most other people didn't and behave accordingly.

On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 10:05 AM, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net>wrote:

> Pedro
>
> Brunians is not being evasive. Rather, as far as I can tell, he considers
> the existence of the natural world (as he defines it) and the entire
> universe to be an argument for his beliefs; in short, his observations are
> beliefs and his beliefs are observations. There is no light between them and
> therefore no need to construct an argument for them.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 16:41:17 +0300
> From: Pedro Pereira <domus_artemis at hotmail.com>
>
> To: <urth at lists.urth.net>
> Subject: Re: (urth) Religious writers and audiences
> Message-ID: <COL105-W362F28CE7274F1620D236285D40 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
>
>
> What!??!?!
>
>
>
> I'm not reading a book and demanding that the author makes it "easier" for
> me; I'm asking for a straight answer from someone that accuses me (and
> others) of beying insane in an internet forum. But thanks for nothing. I'm
> not going to waste more time with this.
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20100606/72a99de5/attachment-0004.htm>