(urth) Religious writers and audiences

[David Stockhoff]

Yes, it is. 

And in a sense I agree with Brunians, because I too see the natural universe as screaming evidence of something---in my case the absolute unnecessariness of a anthropomorphized deity---and see no point in forming an argument connecting them. It just is.

However, I don't see people who disagree with that as insane. 

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

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 18:02:58 +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-W33547DB7D831FD0BAFD37585D40 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"


Fair enough. Guess I missed the memo on Brunians' views and I misinterpreted him. However it is in my opinion pointless to argue such views (or at least I have no interest in arguing those and for that I appologise to Brunians) when one takes "the natural world (as he defines it) and the entire universe to be an argument for his beliefs and in short, his observations are beliefs and his beliefs are observations".

 

Over and out.