Hi DMB, Mary, On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:05 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote:
> > Mary said to Steve: > We have no argument at all. I reject Sam Harris' definition of an atheist. > Sounds like he's just trying to get into theist's face with it. Pick a > fight. As long as my liberties are not violated, I support the right of > others to believe things I do not. That's only fair. > > dmb says: > Yes, Sam Harris is getting in their face and picking a fight. I love Sam > Harris. We need Sam Harris. If it were just a matter of letting people have > their secret beliefs, all tucked away from the world deep in their hearts, > we wouldn't even be talking about this. Isn't it just a bit disingenuous to > pretend that there's ISN'T a war on? I don't just mean foreign Islamic > militants but also the fundamentalists here at home... > Steve: DMB, I don't know how seriously to take such rants. After all, this is your standard rhetorical move, isn't it? You can never offer just a small quibble, which is what it seems to me that we have here. It's got to be life or death when you disagree me for some reason. Did you think your Chicken Little "sky is falling" thing would never wear thin? I'm not sure whether you really see a HUUUUUGE difference in our views, or if you are just doing that Chicken Little thing that you do. So let's be clear... You really see no possible way that someone could have innocuous religious beliefs? Given that as pragmatists, neither of us sees religion as having a true essence, we should recognize that there are lots of ways of being religious, right? Are all these ways necessarily evil? Should a pragmatist say that religion is essentially good or bad? Isn't that like saying that politics or sports or education are essentially one thing or another? Isn't the issue about how these practices are done rather than what these practices essentially are? Can't all these things be good or bad depending on how they are practiced? I think we probably agree about the answers to the above questions, but I suspect you think that all that is not the point. The question is, what should we do about the clear and present danger of religious fundamentalism? I agree that that is the important question. You seem to think that the in-your-face style of the new atheists is the best way to combat religious fundamentalism. I'm not so sure that it is, but I also don't claim to know what the best strategy is. I hoped we could discuss what that strategy should be, but unfortunately, the suggestion that we even discuss it is taken as a denial that we are at war. I am reminded of the conservative war-on-terror rhetoric during the dark days of George II. 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/
