Religious writers and audiences

brunians at brunians.org · 06 Jun 2010, 19:20 · 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 15:20:11 -0400
Subject: (urth) Religious writers and audiences
In-Reply-To: <4C0BF438.60306 at verizon.net>
References: <mailman.27346.1275850856.5093.urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net>
	<4C0BF438.60306 at verizon.net>
Message-ID: <f6182d27247859d336e32ff072cfd6ff.squirrel at brunians.org>

This is a pretty interesting discussion.

And it would never have happened if I had not unfairly ACCUSED all
atheists of being insane.

.


> I completely agree. Sometimes I think one could separate "principled" or
> organized atheism from unthinking atheism, but then there is probably too
> little of either to bother with. To me, anyone who insists on atheism is
> indulging in belief, not reason. Unfortunately, such people tend to
> represent us to the world at large.
>
> At any rate, there is also deism, which, in proving that atheism and
> religion can coexist, also indicates that they are different domains.
> There is simply no point is trying to settle either question; we see the
> world as it serves us.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 14:30:36 -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:
> 	<AANLkTimlEXmSxsEFcxvvrRooDTw-lqtdIQlMukxLVAZE at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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