Hi Marsha, Steven has already made the point ... As I said, what people actually believe - the beliefs that back-up how they act - in the house or the pulpit or anywhere else - are what matter (a great deal). Theists and those who apply that professed "faith" as "actual belief" to what they do and how they justify and explain what they do are a big problem. I agree already.
But seeing (and acting upon the fact daily) that theists and the faithful are "wrong" doesn't mean I need to accept the label "atheist". I'm not a "big-ender" but that doesn't make me a "little-ender". Disagreeing with someone doesn't mean I have to define myself in their terms. That seems to be Harris' (and Dennett's) point too. What doesn't matter is whether the label is "atheist" or "new atheist", "agnostic" - what does matters is what I "do" believe ... and how / why in action. It's the labelling (the dictionary definitions) that are the ivory tower exercise, once you're beyond the pragmatic need of looking up a word you don't recognise. Ian On 1/29/08, MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Ian, > > Doesn't matter much? Here's the problem as I see it. Do you think > the theology that is taught from pulpit is a philosophical > point-of-view. Each morning in the House of Representatives, the > ritual is to have a man-of-god start the proceedings with a > prayer. It usually starts about 10:00am. Listen a few mornings. No > philosophy there I can assure you. > > Isn't it nice to be in a little philosophical tower? > > Marsha > > > > At 12:35 PM 1/29/2008, you wrote: > >Thanks Steve, > > > >We understand each other I think (and Harris it seems). > >As so often happens we end up with a linguistic problem for something > >that doesn't really matter very much - the labelling for not > >believeing in anything unbelievable. > > > >How about "normal", "well-adjusted' or simply "sane" ;-) ? > > > >Ian > > > >On 1/29/08, Steven Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Margaret, Ian, > > > > > > > > > >I've been thinking this over for a few days to > > > >decide how to best answer and because I share > > > >commonality in my beliefs with what Marsha just > > > >posted about why she is is an athiest and > > > >with what Sam Harris wrote - which seems to imply > > > >not being an athiest - > > > > > > If you follow the link and read the rest of the speech (the part > > I excerpted was the end) called "The Problem With Atheism," Sam > > Harris gives his reasons why he thinks we (meaning people who do > > not believe in gods) should not call ourselves atheists (though he > > is considered on of "The New Athiests.") > > > > > > This speech was very contraversial in the atheist world. It is > > interesting reading. You can also watch the speech here > > > http://www.samharris.org/site/media_video/ > > > > > > >How do you define 'atheism'? If you or a group's > > > >definition has already been posted - sorry to > > > >have missed it. > > > > > > An atheist is someone who has considered the dogmatic claims of > > religion but is unconvinced. Harris says we shouldn't need a word > > for such a person since this is not a philosophical position. There > > are an uncountable number of things that we don't believe, but we > > don't label ourselves as unbelievers with regard to those things. > > He only grudgingly accepts the labelling. > > > > > > > > > > >I think it's funny that science has become an 'ism'. > > > > > > Scientism is the self-defeating philosphical position that only > > claims that are verifiable through scientific means are true. (This > > position is not verifiable through scientific means.) Harris does > > not subscribe to this philosophy. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Steve > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > > Archives: > > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > > > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > > > >Moq_Discuss mailing list > >Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > >http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > >Archives: > >http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > >http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > > ************* > DEFINITION of Marsha, I, me, self, myself, & etc.: Ever-changing > collection of overlapping, interrelated, inorganic, biological, > social and intellectual, static patterns of value. > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
