There is another reason I am declining but have probably said enough already to bring out the irrational vitriol of the thin-skinned. So rather than explain myself, which is not necessary, I wish you success in your experiment, which is more likely to be successful without my contribution.
I dunno, Hank. You seem to want to pretend that intellectualizing the kinds of problems raised in this "insipid" article spares you the necessity of confronting critical existential issues. Case in point: What is so particularly glorious about "individuals who have chosen to be entirely responsible for their own lives?" Existentially, it really doesn't matter whether one chooses to be responsible or one refuses to be responsible. One is responsible for what one does in either case.
One dislikes seeing a person deliberately try to give offense to others -- as you clearly do with regard to Christians and Christianity. Can you find no better bete noir in this world to beat up on than Christians? Gee, that would be such a refreshing change!
You may find one day that rationalism cannot take you as far as you need to go. But I wouldn't worry about that too much. For when (or if) that day comes, you'll get the help you need -- provided you don't refuse it.
Thanks for the courtesy of writing, Hank, to inform me of your wish to decline my invitation. I'm wishing you well.
Well, I deliberately avoided any reference to what could be construed as "Christian" as opposed to merely religious, because all of my comments would apply to Muslims, and most other religions as well, and except for my comments on what happens "at" death, would apply to the most absurd superstition of all, secular humanism. (It's absurd because it makes a pretense of being rational and scientific.)
The article was by an avowed Christian, but if it had been written by a Christadelphian, Swedenborgianist or Gnostic, the comments would have been the same, and I suppose I would been accused of "beating up" on Christadelphians, Swedenborgians, or Gnostics. So, please explain to me why Christians are a protected group that one is not supposed express any ideas contradicting theirs, else it is beating up on them.
Do you think you are "beating up" anyone who happens to disagree or is offended by the beliefs you express? Do you consider the disparaging remarks you make about autonomists, beating up on them? Do you consider Objectivists, your bête noire and is that why you criticize them and use them as examples of what you disagree with. Or, do these just happen to be the ones that make the arguments you disagree with, and so are the correct targets of your own arguments.
A question. If there is one thing you know, and did not arrive at that knowledge by a process of reason, how did you acquire that knowledge, and how do you know it is true? You can disparage reason if you like, but I can explain how I know everything I claim as knowledge. If I am mistaken, I know exactly the process I used to arrive at that mistake and can therefore correct it. If what one believes is true is not by any identifiable process, how could a mistaken view be corrected? Or are mystic sources of knowledge infallible?
(You are the only one I know who accuses me of "beating up" Christians. There are probably others with that same opinion, but, most understand I give Christian views a great deal of latitude and have great respect for those Christians who have sincerely sought to understand their religion, especially those who understand two Biblical principles and live by them, "you cannot do wrong and get away with it," and "it is a sin to do less than your best." The Christians who get upset with me are usually these whose Christianity is nothing but a cover for violating one or both of those two principles.)
After all, it is the, "eyes of our understanding," God promises to open (Eph. 1:18), not the throats of our credulity (Mat. 23:24), by which anything can be swallowed (including camels). The invitation of God is, "Come let us reason together." (Isa.1:18)
Hank