(urth) Religious writers and audiences

[brunians at brunians.org]

This is off to the side.

.


> If by "radical," you mean to look at the term's etymology, it comes from
> Latin's sanus, or something like "healthy." So when you say that atheists
> are insane, you *really* mean that they are not healthy or do not have a
> world view that allows them to have a healthy
> intellectual/emotional/spiritual (or some combination thereof) life.
>
> Fine (although using the word "sane" doesn't clarify anything about what
> you think is "unhealthy" about atheism). And you've said you use the
> radical meaning primarily when you choose your terms. Again, fine. But it
> strikes me as lacking civility or even a simple willingness to be clearly
> understood when you use a term in a way that likely isn't shared by
> others. Insane, of course, to most people means "crazy" rather than "not
> healthy." But it appears manipulative to put that out there when it seems
> designed to provoke a response and an argument. It's especially
> manipulative if you then act like a guru-on-the-mountain who asks
> patronizing questions about the meaning of words.
>
> Words have meanings, but they also have effects. The way you constantly
> address the meaning of words is fine, but you seem to either ignore the
> way they will be received by people who don't share your sense of
> "radical" words...or you do it to provoke people. I have no idea what your
> actual intention is, and I'm not making any guesses. But this does seem to
> be a pattern.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "brunians at brunians.org" <brunians at brunians.org>
> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
> Sent: Sun, June 6, 2010 12:37:33 PM
> Subject: Re: (urth) Religious writers and audiences
>
> 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
>