<div>Well, just the one. Atheists by definition reject the existence of a deity. Pure reason cannot lead to the conclusion that no such being exists--at the very best it leads to the conclusion that we can't be sure whether such a being exists or not. Any opinion beyond that is, in a sense, beyond the purview of pure reason.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There are probably many atheists with other views that I might consider "ultra vires," but you guys don't exactly have a creed, so I'd rather not lump you together. And to tell the truth I don't really want to be embroiled in a religious controversy here--my point is that I think the rhetorical strategy of some theists to class "atheism" as a "religion" itself is of limited value, but that I find the rhetorical strategy of some atheists to class "religion" as a special kind of unwarranted belief about the universe is a question-begging exercise. Theists don't believe that the views of atheists are warranted; if they did, they'd be atheists.<br>
<br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 2:23 PM, David Stockhoff <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dstockhoff@verizon.net">dstockhoff@verizon.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">John<br><br>I'm curious about those "ultra vires views." Do you have an example in mind?<br>
<br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 6<br>Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 13:46:05 -0400<br>From: John Watkins <<a href="mailto:john.watkins04@gmail.com" target="_blank">john.watkins04@gmail.com</a>>
<div class="im"><br>To: The Urth Mailing List <<a href="mailto:urth@lists.urth.net" target="_blank">urth@lists.urth.net</a>><br>Subject: Re: (urth) Religious writers and audiences<br>Message-ID:<br></div> <<a href="mailto:AANLkTin8lgX9p2e9e81RxgWOAZcFauw1EHeAxOLavgeO@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">AANLkTin8lgX9p2e9e81RxgWOAZcFauw1EHeAxOLavgeO@mail.gmail.com</a>>
<div class="im"><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br><br></div>The Latin root is "sanus." I suspect that it and "salus" derive from a<br>common P.I.E. root, as they were practically synonyms in ancient Rome.<br>
"Sanus," in ancient Latin, had roughly the meaning of our phrase "sound in<br>mind and body."<br><br>Atheism is a "religion" is what is meant by "religion" is a keystone or<br>foundational belief or set of beliefs, not subject to<br>
falsification, enabling the mind to order and interpret the universe. Some<br>people like this definition of religion; to me it seems jury-rigged to<br>incorporate secular metaphysical positions in order to artificially class<br>
them as the same sort of thing as mystic or traditionally religious<br>metaphysical positions. I think the nature of the thing the believer<br>believes about the universe is different enough in kind from the nature of<br>
the thing the unbeliever believes about the universe to warrant separate<br>categories. But I also think it's a little misleading to suggest that the<br>religious believer and only the religious believer has, as it were, ultra<br>
vires views about the nature of the universe.
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5"><br>On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 1:37 PM, <<a href="mailto:brunians@brunians.org" target="_blank">brunians@brunians.org</a>> wrote:<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Urth Mailing List<br>
To post, write <a href="mailto:urth@urth.net" target="_blank">urth@urth.net</a><br>Subscription/information: <a href="http://www.urth.net/" target="_blank">http://www.urth.net</a><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br>