(urth) Religious writers and audiences

[brunians at brunians.org]

What does that SA- SAN- root mean?

.


> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net