(urth) Religious writers and audiences

[David Stockhoff]

John

I'm curious about those "ultra vires views." Do you have an example in mind?

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

Message: 6
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 13:46:05 -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:
	<AANLkTin8lgX9p2e9e81RxgWOAZcFauw1EHeAxOLavgeO at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

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: