Sean Faircloth and Peter Boghossian to speak at PSU on new secular initiative

6

This Friday, November 15, 2013 Portland, Oregon atheists, humanists and secularists should find themselves at Portland State University for an evening with Sean Faircloth and Peter Boghossian.

The subject of the nights talk is How to Create aSecular America: a pragmatic plan to thwart the religious right.

In an on-stage conversation with Peter Boghossian, Sean Faircloth will present strategies to turn the tide of politics in the United States toward a secular society.

This event is free and open to the public. You can get details by visiting this page here.

Written By: Dan Arel
continue to source article at examiner.com

6 COMMENTS

    • In reply to #2 by Roedy:

      I would like to see Boghossian tackle a JW or other fundamentalist. I suspect he is overly optimistic about what can be done based on the fact he hangs out with philosophers.

      Trust me, philosophers are way worse! Peter Boghossian is a cut above mere philosophers, his street epistemology actually makes sense.

      Stumping a Jehovah’s Witness is child’s play. Getting a philosopher to shut up is nearly impossible…

      • In reply to #3 by Peter Grant:

        In reply to #2 by Roedy:

        Stumping a Jehovah’s Witness is child’s play

        Stumping is easy, but that’s just the beginning. They commonly use three strategies:

        1. I am a mere mortal. Your logic is irrefutable, but I am easily bamboozled. The devil has a persuasive tongue.
        2. There must be an explanation for that. There has to be. The bible contains no errors. I will have to ask the overseer.
        3. Parrot some official explanation that makes utterly no sense. However, since an official explanation exists, that settles the matter. If it makes no sense, that just proves your lack of spiritual understanding.
      • In reply to #3 by Peter Grant:

        In reply to #2 by Roedy:

        Trust me, philosophers are way worse!

        But surely philosophers accept notions like evidence for and against a proposition is relevant. You don’t get that with JWs.

        • In reply to #4 by Roedy:

          Stumping is easy, but that’s just the beginning.

          It’s a good start though, and it usually makes them bugger off and stop ringing my doorbell for at least a week.

          In reply to #5 by Roedy:

          But surely philosophers accept notions like evidence for and against a proposition is relevant.

          Cue lengthy and convoluted discussion on the nature of evidence, subject verses object, the reliability of induction, etc, etc.

Leave a Reply