(urth) Religious writers and audiences

[David Stockhoff]

That thought occurred to me but I sidestepped it. 

Tony's understanding is closer to mine. Agnosticism has always struck me as atheism within a theistic context, as one might refer to a disease within a clinical context. If a priest turns atheist, he doesn't join a Unitarian church---he just nurses his doubts. Within that context it is ideologically impossible to conceive of true atheism, or even to use the word politely. In a word, it is a euphemism.

But that's just a hunch. I suppose what I do is more like "rejecting belief in a divinity but accepting the possibility that a divinity exists, and continuing as though the possibility does not in fact exist."

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

Message: 6
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 16:09:17 -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:
	<AANLkTinhKvnRVDKsz-TC_ht0B0g0SjEoTOo3yXc_Y06r at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

I don't know that I accept that...there's a word for the position of
rejecting belief in a divinity but accepting the possibility that a divinity
exists, and that word is "agnosticism."

On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Tony Ellis <tonyellis69 at btopenworld.com>wrote:


> > John Watkins wrote:
>   
>> > > Atheists by definition reject the existence of a
>> > > deity.
>>     
> >
> > Well, no. Atheists by definition reject *belief* in the existence of a
> > deity. Not the same thing.