EAllusion wrote:but that doesn't at all mean that everyone who can be considered an atheist (or considers themselves that) participates or even cares about this stuff
You are aware that I said the exact same thing in the very post you quoted, right? Having bad acne doesn't require you to participate in any broader bad acne community, but their exists one. Opposing slavery doesn't require one to participate in an abolitionist movement, but there existed one.
Yes, I am... so you should understand why it's problematic to call it a "community." It's not so much a community as it is a demographic. Calling it a community makes it sound like it's a subculture, and unwilling participants get attached to the stigmas of that subculture.
EAllusion wrote: You do understand that it's hard for all those people who share views to get together on the basis of those shared views if they have no way to communicate their shared views, right? The atheist community depends on people being able to signify that what they share is their rejection of theism. Sam Harris no likey. It's not that complex.
If your objection to this idea is based on the idea that Sam Harris wants no name at all for this demographic of people, I can understand your contention with it, but I don't think that's really the case (I mean, obviously, on the face of it, that's just silly, and I'd be very surprised if that's what he really wants). If he thinks "rationalist" covers it, then there's a name, whether you disagree with his definition of it or not.
Seriously, it's starting to sound like you're simply offended by his desire to remove a cherished label of yours.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
