Sure. Besides the doggedness of his adherents, which is quite striking, he seeks to define a moral frame outside the religions he so abhors, without really outwardly recognizing, much about the concurrent evolution in philosophy, tradition, politics, empires, and chance.
-
-
That's not what I assume. I'll tell you what I do assume: there are few practical rationalist systems of reasoning for much of human affairs. Spirituality works for some people. For me, I ascribe beliefs to chance and the birth lottery. I don't see a justification to proselytize
-
...one over another.
-
But perhaps that is the indifference with which my acquaintance spoke. Maybe limitation, or is it? So it goes.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.