(urth) Religious writers and audiences

[John Watkins]

The Latin root is "sanus."  I suspect that it and "salus" derive from a
common P.I.E. root, as they were practically synonyms in ancient Rome.
"Sanus," in ancient Latin, had roughly the meaning of our phrase "sound in
mind and body."

Atheism is a "religion" is what is meant by "religion" is a keystone or
foundational belief or set of beliefs, not subject to
falsification, enabling the mind to order and interpret the universe.  Some
people like this definition of religion; to me it seems jury-rigged to
incorporate secular metaphysical positions in order to artificially class
them as the same sort of thing as mystic or traditionally religious
metaphysical positions.  I think the nature of the thing the believer
believes about the universe is different enough in kind from the nature of
the thing the unbeliever believes about the universe to warrant separate
categories.  But I also think it's a little misleading to suggest that the
religious believer and only the religious believer has, as it were, ultra
vires views about the nature of the universe.
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 1:37 PM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

> Atheism is just another religion.
>
> You are required, if you adhere to this religion, to insist that it is not
> a religion.
>
> Now.
>
> What does the term sane mean?
>
> What is the radical meaning of the term sane?
>
> .
>
>
>  don't see people who disagree with me as insane.
> >
> > Once again you play fast and loose with terms.
> >
> > .
> >
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Urth Mailing List
> >> To post, write urth at urth.net
> >> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Urth Mailing List
> > To post, write urth at urth.net
> > Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100606/38975f58/attachment-0004.htm>