[SynchroBlog] September 17th Synchroblog

[igneousquill at gmail.com]

Matt,

I agree and was aware of that problem when I made the suggestion.  It
was intended as a concession  to those uncomfortable with allowing
potentially militant atheists a seat at the table.

Adam G.

On 9/4/08, matthew.stone at optusnet.com.au <matthew.stone at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> PS. Just saw Adam's comment:
>
> "That said, fine.  Let's just include people of religious traditions
> who accept the existence of a deity, deities or at least a spiritual side of
> life."
>
> Problem is twofold. Firstly, there are many religious traditions that don't
> accept the existance of a deity as commonly defined. Secondly, there are
> many people who label themselves atheist who do pursue spirituality or a
> sorts.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> Adam G.
>
>
>
>
>> matthew.stone at optusnet.com.au wrote:
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> Well, in terms of the conversations being about "faith", I would argue
>> that is a very Christocentric assumption to begin with. Few traditions
>> emphasize "faith" as much as Christianity. Judaism and "Pure Land"
>> Buddhism and certain strands of "Bhakti" Hinduism come to mind, but not
>> too many others.  So the very language of "interfaith" is something I
>> find highly problematic. I have never done the research but I am willing
>> to bet money that the term "interfaith" originated out of a country that
>> was historically influenced by Christendom. Suffice is to say, i don't
>> think that "faith" language is an issue just for Atheists.
>>
>> Now just to clarify, lest I be misheard, I am not arguing that Atheists
>> should have a priveleged role in the conversation either, much as they
>> would like to assume that one is owed to them. I do not think we should
>> "seriously pursue" their concerns over and above other concerns. All I
>> would suggest is we be open to offering them a seat at one very large
>> and very round table. To be honest I am really keen to see how cope in
>> an open dialogue with Buddhists. I note that Dawkins, Harris and co.
>> tend to flounder like gulping fish when forced to speak about Buddhism
>> as a religion, when forced to engage pantheists as well as monotheists.
>> To be honest I half expect Atheists to self-exclude themselves from so
>> open and pluralistic a discussion.
>>
>> So yes, lets take care to define it well. It is not about theism vs
>> atheism. Its more about (to be a little but cheeky here) inviting all
>> theisms - monotheisms, pantheisms, atheisms and polytheisms - to
>> converse over a broad range of topics in an atmosophere of mutual
>> respect towards mutual understanding.
>>
>> As for what topics, I think why do people suffer could be one worth
>> starting with.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> > Phil Wyman <pastorphil at salemgathering.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SynchroBlog mailing list
>> SynchroBlog at p2ptrust.org
>> http://p2ptrust.org/mailman/listinfo/synchroblog_p2ptrust.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> SynchroBlog mailing list
> SynchroBlog at p2ptrust.org
> http://p2ptrust.org/mailman/listinfo/synchroblog_p2ptrust.org
>


-- 
Adam G.
http://igneousquill.blogspot.com