I enjoyed On Liberty, but man, that's it. My guys, lately, are mostly in the field of linguistics and conceptual metaphor, and embodiment theory (Lakoff and Johnson, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, John Dewey, William James); second generation cognitive neuroscience (Antonio Damasio, Joe LaDoux), epistemology (Micheal Polanyi, Witgenstein), Philosophy of religion (mostly Smart and his other pluralists).
(Or your vision may also be biased. Yeah, I'm thinking the latter.) Look, it's actually quite simple, if there's something you take issue with that I've written, then quote it so we both know what you have in mind. And then make an argument for why it doesn't work. trying to disparage a response by innuendo will not get you far in a debate. In my experience, you know, sometimes (often even), the truth looks pretty wimpy. Rarely is it ever huge and bellowing -- that's why it's so damned hard to really find. Most the time, the best we can approximate truth is to simply admit what are data is and how we think it bears on our conclusions. I will tell you this, there isn't anything I've shared with you that you can't verify for your own self. So, given your predicament, I'd get busy. You're wasting way too much time trying to defend ill-conceived, hasty formulations.
I just want to be able to tell who's who at the next atheist convention. Seems like a lot of the attendees don't reason their denial of deities. Then there's the agnostic type who claim to be atheist but who'd have a come to Jesus moment if he appeared before them. Or the molested types. Or the commies. Or the Objectivists. Or peaceniks who think all war is about religion. I don't find any Reason in your belief system, fwiw. Just a resistance to even the slightest possibility. That may, in fact, qualify you as an actual atheist instead of a pretender. I don't think poorly of atheists or secular humanists, etc. to each his own. But if one claims there isn't sufficient (or any) evidence to suggest a deity exists, they're not exactly denying a deity exists. There just isn't a reason (yet) to believe. You can't know for certain. This person is an agnostic. I don't believe in deities, but I'm not an atheist. A come to Jesus moment is infinitesimally small, incredibly unlikely, but I think only a fool claims to know for certain.
Why ... the agenda to only speak the truth, to not assert in place of argument, and to always defer to the wisdom of those wiser than you. What else?
Yeah, I hear that, but it seems more like a need to pigeon hole a fairly diverse bunch (molesters, molested, objectivists, peaceniks, etc), what's that all about? I haven't presented a belief system for you to find Reason in. Although I have Reasoned in every exchange we've had, if that counts. :-( I have explained what is entailed in the atheist position as one who calls himself an atheist (though I prefer naturalist). My understanding can be verified as 'right in line' by consulting the work of others knowledgeable enough to write on the subject. That's very liberal of you. Close, but the claim is "There is insufficient evidence for FORMING THE BELIEF in gods ... or godish, god-like things. It is about belief itself, not the existence of the object of the belief. It's saying that belief is not willed, but rather happens because something demands a stance one way or the other. In this case it doesn't. And I think only a fool claims to know anything for certain. Were actually close.
Wow man... You failed completely to say my agenda. Reminds me of some shotgun approach; trying to fish me to reveal what I'm saying. Then again; you went AWOL on this thread and started arguing about things that had nothing to do with this thread. It's a given you wouldn't be perceptive.
Yeah, sorry. It was just a bit too obvious for my tastes. To comply would have been too much like committing a sin -- giving in to what the other wants merely to serve his...appetite. Oh no, I promise. I know what you're saying. It's just that, getting you to say more of it is not something I am interested in accomplishing. LOL. Ouch.
