[SynchroBlog] September 17th Synchroblog

[Phil Wyman]

Hey Matt,

I have spoken with Hemant from Friendly Athiest, and we've shot e- 
mails back and forth a number of times - seemingly great guy.

Apart from this point, here's my disagreement with the inclusion of  
atheism into and inter"faith" dialog.  The assumption of the dialog  
is that it is about faith.  If the inclusion of a Sam Harris type of  
atheist (note today's post on Friendly Atheist is about Sam  
Harris) ;-) brings the dialog to simple God vs. no god discussion in  
the post replies it has not become interfaith at all.  I think there  
is a place for blogs on the importance of our of worldviews in human  
interaction under another banner than inter"faith".

I am not thinking of this as exclusionary to atheists, merely as  
being well defined.  If atheists want to be included in the dialog  
that's fine as long as there is an understanding that it is  
inter"faith" - a compilation of faith writings.  Thus no one is  
excluded.  But a serious pursuit of increasing atheist writings is  
best left for another SynchroBlog.  This is no different than the  
recent question of whether Neo-Pagan writings belonged in the  
original Christian SynchroBlog list.

That's my thoughts, ;-)
Phil


On Sep 3, 2008, at 6:13 PM, matthew.stone at optusnet.com.au wrote:

> I agree with Adam and would very much argue for the inclusion of  
> atheists ... provided they agree to some basic ground rules. I have  
> long been of the opinion that we play into atheist hands when we  
> treat them as a special belief system. If we exclude them that is  
> precisely what we would be doing. Why not have some fun and see how  
> they handle a level playing field? It would be sure to stimulare  
> conversation. We just need to find the sort that can hold their  
> tempers. I do have one atheist blogger in mind who seems to be able  
> to manage that - http://friendlyatheist.com. He's the eBay Atheist  
> that generated some global comment some time back. Admittedly some  
> of th people who comment on his site are angry but I have found  
> that he himself has some aptitude for interfaith.
>
> The basic ground rule I insist on in interfaith is "respect for  
> others". That does not preclude disagreement, or even criticism  
> (Erin I actually disagree with you there, if we're uncritical and  
> only emphasize the positives it can get wishy washy real quick)  
> just flaming and vilification and disrespectful attitudes. I have  
> been doing it for years with Pagans and Satanists and all sorts and  
> I find it works. You do have to be prepared to bump people who fail  
> to master the art of respectful disagreement though. So i think we  
> would need to set up a three strike clause or something.
>
> Matt

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://p2ptrust.org/pipermail/synchroblog_p2ptrust.org/attachments/20080903/32c26205/attachment.html