Urth Net

← back to the conversation

Religious writers and audiences

brunians at brunians.org · 06 Jun 2010, 18:58 · from 2010-June.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: brunians at brunians.org (brunians at brunians.org)
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 14:58:10 -0400
Subject: (urth) Religious writers and audiences
In-Reply-To: <4C0BE7B5.7090004 at verizon.net>
References: <mailman.27306.1275847020.5093.urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net>
	<4C0BE7B5.7090004 at verizon.net>
Message-ID: <4e0caeead02c173640a6c6916567131c.squirrel at brunians.org>

John, I am seriously well impressed.

.


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



An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net