As traditional religions have. At which point, why bring in the tribalism of religion? Let's just have more people get on board with modern liberal values, the best science, and be more philosophically literate.

Also, while "best science" is pretty easily arbitrated, "best philosophy" seems like it can't be. The topics most relevant to anything in the vaugely religious family all seem pretty hotly contested. Making the effort either not feasible, or likely to have as many "denominations"...

I get the sentiment here, but I feel like the thing Goff describes is so far from how "religion" has been understood for the last 5 to 10 centuries that calling it that makes it less appealing to the people who would otherwise agree with him, and less appealing to people that want Religion.

My software lead calls it vibe coding, and we even have a chat channel now called vibing-with-cline

It's very silly, but apparently I'm also one of the most aggressive adopters on the program despite the fact that I've never been very into the space.

I'd love if you and Lance did some more stuff together. The last conversation I saw between you two felt like it ended just as it was getting to the real juicy stuff.

I've been clanker codung for work a bit the last couple weeks. It's utterly fascinating.

And add a Concrete, it'll change your life.

Their regular burger is kinda mid, but if you can get the A1 burger or green chilli it's much better.

For reference, the whataburger we have in Alabama has neither and their regular burger isn't even fancy BK quality.

Find you a Culvers though. Swap your fries for cheese curds,

I'd assume not if your correct about most stuff in philosophy of mind. I think on physicalism it would be pretty hard to argue that they aren't.

So yes, they are slaves.

I used to write quite a lot about politics, since 2016 I basically can't cool my seething rage long enough to put anything down worth sharing.

I hope that changes some day.

I can't speak for Randall obviously, but I have no interest in pandering to fundamentalists on either side of the theist/atheist divide.

If they want to have kiddie table discussions of the topic they are welcome to it, but I don't have time for that shit.

It requires being so attached to the Traditional Understanding of some communication combined with a strong need to separate your in group from a despised outgroup.

That sounds fundamentalist shit to me.

Randal is extremely clear on being against the Fundamentalist behaviors on both sides. These are meant to be eye openers and a call to be better.

Nitpicking the fact that he expanded a definition to more concisely make his point, is almost a perfect example of his point.

I sort of get where your coming from, but it seems like a lot of that is going to be based on reacting to the headline and not the article type behavior.

Randal isn't trying to Excuse religious fundamentalism because of the similar behaviors exhibited by some non religious people.

If it doesn't fit, stop acting like he is in error for not talking about you.

or if they are people who don't match the definition and just can't imagine that there are people who do.

I don't agree with Randall on lots of stuff, but the people complaining about this take baffle me. If the shoe fits and you don't like it, stop doing the thing.

I always wonder if the people disagreeing with Rauser's use of "atheist fundamentalist" are people that match the definition he has for the term and are mad at being called what they see as a derogatory term, 1/

I feel that, I don't speak to my father any more over it. I can't imagine what has to go wrong in someone's head/heart to be filled with that much hate and indifference.

Man, I really liked Blake when I first had encountered him, but haven't seen him much online in years. This was dissapointing from him.

Found Family is the best family, and poppa Fodder does ours proud day in and day out.

Huntsville Pride parade was awesome.

Holy crap, did not realize I needed this conversation in my life, but now that its an option I'm unreasonably excited. I hope @lanceindependent.bsky.social and @randalrauser.bsky.social can make this happen.

So it might be that I'm not even disagreeing with you. But the silliness that I see in that view is the idea that "deserve" has any coherence as a concept once you're on maximum dose luck-pull (Calvanism). Potentially the same for the idea of "just".

Hot take: calvanism is just luck-pilling to the highest possible degree. Everything about everything is subject to the whims and machinations of the celestial luck maker, and if your life (or afterlife) is shit, we'll you just got the shitty draw.

I don't see a way to draw this diagram differently such that calling panpsychism the middle road makes sense. **

Correction to the first sentence.

and similar to panpsychism in only taking one thing to be fundamental, I think you'd question my ability to carve up the possibility space.
Or maybe you wouldn't and physicalism is also a middle ground.

I don't see a way to draw this diagram differently such that calling panpsychism the middle road.
If I said physicalism was the middle between dualism and panpsychism because it's similar to dualism in taking physical as fundamental ...

As many words as you got into that run on sentance, I still feel like it's missing some necessary ones for me to know what you're saying.

About the number of fundamental types. And Neutral Monism saying both are right that there is only one fundamental type, but that it's neither physical or consciousness/mental.