Religious writers and audiences

brunians at brunians.org · 06 Jun 2010, 20:36 · 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 16:36:38 -0400
Subject: (urth) Religious writers and audiences
In-Reply-To: <4C0C03B6.60601 at verizon.net>
References: <mailman.27396.1275855765.5093.urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net>
	<4C0C03B6.60601 at verizon.net>
Message-ID: <9ad66087a3d8374e7b83bdb6f7869d53.squirrel at brunians.org>

An agnostic reserves his opinion.

He does not know.

This is a rational position.

Knowledge is based upon experience.

If a person has not had experience to convince him of the existence of
God, it is not rational for him to believe in God.

This is true.

Neither is it rational for him to not believe.

This is the point in the discussion at which atheists prove, to their own
satisfaction, that they have no nose.

.


> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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