November 27, 2009
jim has challenged me to what he offers as a "better way to debate." He's written a rebuttal to last week's post Asteroids, Cathode Rays & Requisite Knowledge, and invited me to write a response to his rebuttal, which he's agreed to post in its original entirety on his blog.
I accepted the challenge, and my response follows.
October 30, 2009
Well, well! A post about trolling from he who’s been labeled a troll! No, this isn’t going to be another boring argument about why I think so-and-so is mistaken in labeling me a troll. Nope, not today.
I’m still waiting on something in the mail that relates to the next post I need to write. So, today’s quick post is going to clarify that yes, I still think trolling is generally a disruptive activity that tends to obscure clear resolution of intelligent debate. However, this post will also clarify my position that – depending on the actual motives of the person labeled the troll – trolling can also be an effective strategy that can actually promote clear resolution of intelligent debate.
July 1, 2009
Yep, you saw that right. First I somehow won a shared award for "Best Atheist / Skeptic Site of 2009", and now this. The other day, I emailed Mojoey from Deep Thoughts and said:
Hey, quick question: I think your Atheist Blogroll is an excellent service. I'm not an atheist, but certainly consider myself a rationalist / skeptic / freethinker, and was wondering if I could get added to your blogroll? Technically, I consider myself an agnostic theist. I believe, but will not know until I die… I make a distinction between belief and knowledge… [I later elaborated] I don't know that God exists, but I sure do believe it. So in that sense it's understood by many of my readers that I'm somewhat agnostic. I hope that makes sense. I usually try not to call myself anything, preferring for others to make their own assumptions, as we know they will.
May 8, 2009
I don't know if it's the full moon or last night's aforementioned adult beverages or what, but I simply cannot seem to stop thoughts of logic from forcibly invading my mind today. You implied that it's reasonable to want to be with those we love forever, and I agree, but assuming you accept stock claims of theism's irrationality, have you thought of the disadvantage this puts you at?
If loving others is at least a partial motivation for theism, are not the subset of theists who share said motivation at least partially sustained by a rational and reasonable proposition?