I think we'll leave it here. You're not going to define what you mean or say anything concrete. Not getting anywhere.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
my point was to get it out into the open. Only then can the real discussion take place
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ZeroIssueVoter
What out in the open? That ppl who don't believe in god write books on psychology of religion? Not a secret.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
No. That Lindsay's superficially plausible claims are sitting on dubious assumptions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ZeroIssueVoter
You're still not saying anything. He has a premise which includes not believing in god? That's not a secret. Its in the open
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
worse. His premise isn't argued for or supported. It's taken on faith.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ZeroIssueVoter
Its not a book about whether or not god exists. It doesn't claim to be. Not every book has to be.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ZeroIssueVoter
Why is this so important to you? Ppl write books based on the premise gods do exist & on the one that they don't.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ZeroIssueVoter
Not every book which touches on religion has to include arguments & evidence for or against the existence of gods.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
True. I'd be happy to accept a book that deftly avoids that. Psych of religion tries to, generally. Lindsay just didn't
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.