Evidence for strong atheism

[joobz]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

(1)

As far as I can tell, you are NOT "out" here. Perhaps you can refer me to the post or other information here where you are "out".

Oh, you want to know my personal information.
Well it isn't hard to determine my identify on this website.

It's even more suspect that you want so badly to have this information at your site. That doesn't sound like the desires of an honest man.

Originally Posted by RLBaty

(2)
As oft noted here, I am willing further consider my argument and the claims I have made for it here, concurrently with the same being presented on my list.

Yes, you claim this, but you have yet to demonstrate this. The ball is in your court.

Originally Posted by RLBaty

Did I insinuate that?

Considering you were not descriptive of what you meant by "coming out", yes you did. Your lack of clarity in defining your meaning isn't my failing.

Originally Posted by RLBaty

The simple fact of the matter is that, for all you know, the natural origin for the idea/concept of God is, as I have claimed, a "belief" inferred from atheism.

You believe it.
I don't.

So you believe in a supernatural origin?
Yes, I know. That's clearly what I am asking you to defend. I've given you a very clear opportunity to refute my argument. I've stated where man has the ability to do so based upon cognitive studies. You can show me how I am wrong, by explaining where these studies are false.

[RLBaty]

Originally Posted by joobz

That's clearly what I am asking you to defend.

Oh, I've been quite aware of the efforts, such as you further demonstrate, to change the subject.

The issue I have introduced, along with an argument and a variety of claims I make for it, is the inference from atheism which, to date, is a matter of "belief"; lacking in empirical confirmation.

Quite UNcontroversial; the reaction here being quite interesting as it has "evolved".

Atheists believe it.
This theist, and all or many others, doesn't.

It's not about me defending theism.

The topic I have taken up is the affirmative, positive inference(s) from atheism which are noted as being a matter of "belief"; the observation regarding Dennett which I quoted being unrebutted. That it has passed in favor of further, misguided bantering from my adversaries is another point of interest in my forming of opinions regarding this venue and its active particpants.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

Oh, I've been quite aware of the efforts, such as you further demonstrate, to change the subject.

please don't project yourself onto me. You were the one who attempted for multiple pages to get viewers to your website.

Originally Posted by RLBaty

The issue I have introduced, along with an argument and a variety of claims I make for it, is the inference from atheism which, to date, is a matter of "belief"; lacking in empirical confirmation.

belief in the loosest sense. But, my argument goes one step further.
I don't simply claim that belief in god "could" have originated by man. What you call the imagination origin.
I'm stating that it was inevitable based upon what we now know about human mental modelling ability. Just like we mistakenly see faces where a face shouldn't be, we see agency where agency isn't.
Consider this a type of mental optical illusion. We see patterns where they aren't all the time. We even have new data to suggest that this organic origin of the god concept is supported by my argument.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21533.full

the advantage of my argument is that it is fundamentally testable. If one could inhibit this social modelling ability, would that also inhibit the capacity to invent/imagine god?

Originally Posted by RLBaty

The topic I have taken up is the affirmative, positive inference(s) from atheism which are noted as being a matter of "belief"; the observation regarding Dennett which I quoted being unrebutted. That it has passed in favor of further, misguided bantering from my adversaries is another point of interest in my forming of opinions regarding this venue and its active particpants.

Your quote of dennett was rather obscured in a mound of poor syntax. I apologize for not commenting on it. I agree to some extent with his position. Although, as I hypothesize that the god belief to be an inherent aspect of our cognitive make up, I do go one step further to suggest that we can test the hypothesis that god is merely a byproduct of our mental capacity.

[Bad vibe]

You based an arguement on claims/assumptions which several posters asked you to back up with evidence, your response was handwaving and a failure to do so. Your whole arguement is built on a foundation of sand whilst the structure may not have fallen down it still sank and all the while you dance round smiling claiming to be a master builder......sorry nobody is impressed.

[Bad vibe]

Is it just me that has an image of his Goliath staggering about punch drunk and bleeding from every orifice all the time muttering "never hurt abit" like the de-limbed knight in Monty Pythons Holy Grail yelling at a disgusted Arthur "come back n I'll bite ya legs off "?

[joobz]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

That's good to hear.

That should lay to rest any dispute about the normal process of introducing the participants, or allowing them to introduce themselves, should you wish to "come out" and play the role of "David" to my "Goliath" in the propsed discussion.

What "Goliath"?

[RLBaty]

Originally Posted by Bad vibe

Is it just me that has an image of his Goliath staggering about punch drunk and bleeding from every orifice all the time muttering "never hurt abit" like the de-limbed knight in Monty Pythons Holy Grail yelling at a disgusted Arthur "come back n I'll bite ya legs off "?

As you demonstrate, it is quite possible and undisputed, that folk are able to exercise "imaginative" powers to create images of stuff that doesn't exist; once the ideas reflected in the non-existent image are "revealed" to them.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

Oh, I've been quite aware of the efforts, such as you further demonstrate, to change the subject.

It isn't a change of subject, it is the subject, as introduced by you. Your entire argument boils down to the claim that early humans could not have invented gods, therefor they must have known about them through reason and/or revelation. Your inability to support your assertion, along with your failure to address the evidence that early humans (who had the same brains that we have today) most certainly were able to imagine gods, results in the collapse of your entire argument.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

It has already been conceded that folks here will dispute what I have done; they have been impressed, and they haven't yet been able to properly deal with it.

I must admit that I am impressed by your single-minded ability to ignore the failures of your argument.

Quote:

We can deal with their problems further if "David" ever "come out".

This repeated use of the same few phrases over and over makes you appear to be unimaginative. A bit like this guy:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Bad vibe

Is it just me that has an image of his Goliath staggering about punch drunk and bleeding from every orifice all the time muttering "never hurt abit" like the de-limbed knight in Monty Pythons Holy Grail yelling at a disgusted Arthur "come back n I'll bite ya legs off "?

Back around page 11 or so.

[caniswalensis]

Hi RLBaty,

Would you mind posting a link to your site, or directing me to a link if you have already posted one? I am curious and would like to do some reading there.

Thanks, Canis

[Bad vibe]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

As you demonstrate, it is quite possible and undisputed, that folk are able to exercise "imaginative" powers to create images of stuff that doesn't exist;

You're nearly ther.........

Originally Posted by RLBaty

once the ideas reflected in the non-existent image are "revealed" to them.

no......nope .....backsliding again.......and now I have the disturbing image of you opening your rain mac and gyrating your hips. See imagination is pretty much unlimited if you use it.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

As you demonstrate, it is quite possible and undisputed, that folk are able to exercise "imaginative" powers to create images of stuff that doesn't exist; once the ideas reflected in the non-existent image are "revealed" to them.

So then nothing can be imagined unless it really exists? Leprechauns, dragons, little grey aliens? Really? Humans haven't the capacity to create concepts entirely in their imaginations?

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Bad vibe

You're nearly ther.........

no......nope .....backsliding again.......and now I have the disturbing image of you opening your rain mac and gyrating your hips. See imagination is pretty much unlimited if you use it.

I think his point is that just because god COULD be created through imagination doesn't mean it HAD to be created through imagination. As such, we are left with an argument similar to the evolution/abiogenesis distinction. Just because we see evidence for the diversity of life originating from naturalistic means doesn't mean abiogensis is also a result of natrualistic means.

His point, i think, is that one CAN'T exclude god on natural grounds and therefore Strong atheism is also an unsupported belief system. A point that I find uninteresting as I mostly agree with it.

However, I think it is quite possible that we could find an origin to god beliefs using cognitive science research. If one eliminated/hindered the social other model capacity of our brain, would that hinder god from occurring? Conversely, if one overstimulated that aspect, would it give god like revelations? Such a study would nearly effectively eliminate god as a real entity, but merely a mental byproduct of our emergent cognitive skills.



Of course, even that isn't 100%, but neither is the evidence for the naiver stokes equation. There still exist no proof that naiver stokes is valid under all circumstances. But it is so effective for so long, that I think it safer to assume it is than to build an entire belief system on the off chance that it isn't/

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

So then nothing can be imagined unless it really exists? Leprechauns, dragons, little grey aliens? Really? Humans haven't the capacity to create concepts entirely in their imaginations?

His reasoning makes no sense in many ways if that's what RLBaty is really implying. He's trying to connect this idea with the other idea "explain the color purple to a blind person"

[RLBaty]

Originally Posted by Bad vibe

(I)magination is pretty much unlimited...

Those who "believe" it accounts for the origin of the idea/concept of God obviously "believe" it to be so.

So, what's the fuss about; that's what my argument and the claims I have made for it deal with.

Oh, that's right; y'all just don't like me surfing in here and pointing out such a simple, fundamental inference from atheism.

[RoboTimbo]

Nope, didn't faze me a bit. Anyone else?

[Agatha]

Why the unnecessary quotes? Are you trying to get a mention on this site?

That gods - all gods - could be the product of the collective imaginations of people, folklore to explain the world around them is, I think, indisputable. Human imagination is pretty much limitless. The fact that some religions contradict others makes it unlikely that all religions are true, and began by divine revelation.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

Oh, that's right; y'all just don't like me surfing in here and pointing out such a simple, fundamental inference from atheism.

As long as you can take time out of your busy day monitoring your own site, waiting for someone, anyone, to post there.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

Those who "believe" it accounts for the origin of the idea/concept of God obviously "believe" it to be so.

So, what's the fuss about; that's what my argument and the claims I have made for it deal with.

If you have multiple people misunderstanding you, then the problem is likely your's. Simplify your sentences. Avoid using needless asides, and you will be able to create more informative posts.


ETA:
I've never seen anyone use a semicolon as much as you do. It's like you have stock in orphaned punctuation.

[yy2bggggs]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

The issue I have introduced, along with an argument and a variety of claims I make for it, is the inference from atheism which, to date, is a matter of "belief"; lacking in empirical confirmation.

There's no such thing as an inference from atheism. Atheism is simply lack of belief in gods. The only thing you can infer from someone's atheism is that they lack a belief in gods.

Quote:

The topic I have taken up is the affirmative, positive inference(s) from atheism which are noted as being a matter of "belief"; the observation regarding Dennett which I quoted being unrebutted.

Demonstration of a thing's existence is positive. Disbelief in a thing's existence pending lack of demonstration that the thing exists is negative.

What you are doing is rephrasing disbelief in a thing's existence due to lack of demonstration of the thing's existence as a positive inference that the thing doesn't exist deriving from the fact that the disbeliever rejects the notion that the believer who has not demonstrated the existence nevertheless has special privy knowledge of the existence.

This is sophistry. It amounts to an attempt to try to substitute a claim for private knowledge as a demonstration of existence. Such an attempt rightfully has no effect on most sane people.

It's much simpler than this. The thing hasn't been demonstrated to exist. Ergo, there's no reason to believe it does. You need not go further.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Associative learning , pattern recognition and confimation bias are notably absent from your list.

> (A) Revelation, or
> (B) Imagination, or
> (C) Reason?

>(D) Associative learning (which can lead to Skinerian superstition)
>(E) Pattern recognition allows for many many false positives
>(F) Confirmation bias

RLBaty

Whilst you are engaging in your "Your mama..." taunts and gibes, you could perhaps take the time to respond to this post.

[yy2bggggs]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

I have repeatedly noted how UNcontroversially simple it is.

It is inferred (yes, inferred) from atheism that the origin of the idea/concept of God has natural causes as opposed to being the result of revelation.

No, atheists simply don't believe in a god. Since they don't believe in a god, then yes, it's trivial that they don't believe that god revealed himself to you.

However, you are implying two facts that are not inferred by atheism, as all atheism is is a lack of believing in god. These are:

• Atheism implies that your idea of god is a result of natural causes.
• Atheism implies that your idea of god is not a revelation.

Neither of the above are true. Not all atheists reject the supernatural, and it's also not implied by atheism even that you didn't somehow get your idea of god through revelation. You may have had a revelation of some deep meaning behind the universe, for example, that you mistake for god.

So long as the person doesn't believe that your revelation came from a god, there's room for that person to be an atheist.

Quote:

My argument is merely a valid, logical way in which to frame the issue in a positive format consistent with the subject header of this thread.

You may wish to further qualify it by specifying that you're talking about strong atheists. But even strong atheists can believe in the supernatural, and in revelation. So you need a better argument. In general, if you try to enumerate something, you should be very wary of two things. First, it's extremely difficult to come up with an exhaustive enumeration list. Second, it's all too easy to come up with alternative options that are not mutually exclusive. This is a general principle that should apply to all philosophical claims you make, not just those attacking atheism.

Quote:

One or more atheists here have explicitly and/or implicitly affirmed the truth of the premises and demonstrated that my proposition, that they "believe" such to be the case, is also true.

But this is irrelevant. I'm an atheist, and I don't eat meat. That makes me an atheist and a vegetarian. But that does not make atheists vegetarians, nor vegetarians atheists. To correctly claim that atheism implies vegetarianism, you're going to have to do a lot better than find one or more atheists here who don't eat meat.

Quote:

Game, set, match!

This is an example of imagination rather than revelation.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

I have repeatedly noted how UNcontroversially simple it is.

It is inferred (yes, inferred) from atheism that the origin of the idea/concept of God has natural causes as opposed to being the result of revelation.

Atheists explicitly affirm that that is their "belief".

good for you.
If that was your entire point, you could have simply stated that and no one would have cared. Instead, you attempted to gussy up the argument in convoluted sentence structure.


Now, of course, how much weight you put into the word belief is a different matter. Given your use of quotes, I shall assume you are being intentionally obtuse with it.

Originally Posted by RLBaty

If you wish to further discuss the particulars, you know the drill; find "David" and "send him out".

yawn.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by yy2bggggs

However, you are implying two facts that are not inferred by atheism, as all atheism is is a lack of believing in god. These are:

• Atheism implies that your idea of god is a result of natural causes.
• Atheism implies that your idea of god is not a revelation.

Neither of the above are true. Not all atheists reject the supernatural, and it's also not implied by atheism even that you didn't somehow get your idea of god through revelation. You may have had a revelation of some deep meaning behind the universe, for example, that you mistake for god.

So long as the person doesn't believe that your revelation came from a god, there's room for that person to be an atheist.

excellent point, I rescind my previous post.

[Foster Zygote]

Is anyone else reminded of Lewis' lame "liar, lunatic or lord" argument?

[yy2bggggs]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

So, do I get extra credit for presenting an exhaustive list:

> Reason
> Revelation
> Imagination

By what means are you ensuring that it is exhaustive? Dancing David has a few other ideas.

I know it's not mutually exclusive. Reason often entails quite a bit of imagination.

Quote:

How your claim by any other name can be properly identified as being composed of one or more of the three is just another subject for discussion at such time as "David" might "come out" and it becomes relevant to the discussion.

I claim that I have yet to see evidence for the existence of a god. Lacking that, I have no reason to believe there is a god. I don't believe there is a god because I haven't been given reason to believe it.

I have no idea what you're talking about with this "David" thing. Perhaps, since you're playing a game of gotcha, you think that this is the game people are supposed to play, and maybe by "David" you mean somebody who forces you to change your mind about something.

If that's the case, I have a feeling you'll never find David. I'm not interested in your finding David myself, nor do I see sufficient potential value to solicit your forum.

I'm just a simple guy. I like my eggs yolkless, my ham still on a happy pig, and my beliefs justified.

Quote:

Your other comments are mostly of a similar sort.

Well I'm flattered that you recognize that I'm consistent somehow.

Quote:

The match ended! I won!

If you say so, but I'm not sure I moved you any, and you haven't moved me. Declaring victory on every post simply seems quixotic to me.

[Ron_Tomkins]

There may come a day when some people (but I doubt all of them) will understand that there is a giant, massive, ridiculously large and left-to-explain gap between "I, personally, can't mentally conceive how this happened" and "Thus, Goddidit"


... but I won't be holding my breath for that day of enlightenment.

[gambling_cruiser]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

So, do I get extra credit for presenting an exhaustive list:

> Reason
> Revelation
> Imagination

How your claim by any other name can be properly identified as being composed of one or more of the three is just another subject for discussion at such time as "David" might "come out" and it becomes relevant to the discussion.

Your other comments are mostly of a similar sort.

The match ended! I won!

A rematch remains for "David" to accept or reject; acceptance requiring that he "come out".

You seem to be disappointed that nobody takes you serious and plays the "David" on your silly little site.
You can wait until the cows come home and nobody will show up to play your silly game there.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

I have repeatedly noted how UNcontroversially simple it is.

It is inferred (yes, inferred) from atheism that the origin of the idea/concept of God has natural causes as opposed to being the result of revelation.

Atheists explicitly affirm that that is their "belief".

My argument is merely a valid, logical way in which to frame the issue in a positive format consistent with the subject header of this thread.

One or more atheists here have explicitly and/or implicitly affirmed the truth of the premises and demonstrated that my proposition, that they "believe" such to be the case, is also true.

Game, set, match!

If you wish to further discuss the particulars, you know the drill; find "David" and "send him out".

More overgeneralization and false dichotomy.

I am a pluralist so such simplitic thinking seems rather imposed and artificial to me. Most observable events fall along a spectrum of results and most observable events seem to be multivariate.

Now the other issue is that you seem to be baiting more than discussing.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

So, do I get extra credit for presenting an exhaustive list:

> Reason
> Revelation
> Imagination

How your claim by any other name can be properly identified as being composed of one or more of the three is just another subject for discussion at such time as "David" might "come out" and it becomes relevant to the discussion.

Your other comments are mostly of a similar sort.

The match ended! I won!

A rematch remains for "David" to accept or reject; acceptance requiring that he "come out".

Um this David has already pointed out that your categories seem rather limited and artificial.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Um this David has already pointed out that your categories seem rather limited and artificial.

Typical "rule setting to limit the argument to what I can handle" thinking, isn't it?

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

So, do I get extra credit for presenting an exhaustive list:

> Reason
> Revelation
> Imagination

How your claim by any other name can be properly identified as being composed of one or more of the three is just another subject for discussion at such time as "David" might "come out" and it becomes relevant to the discussion.

Your other comments are mostly of a similar sort.

The match ended! I won!

A rematch remains for "David" to accept or reject; acceptance requiring that he "come out".

Not much point to it if you've already claimed to have won, is there?

Now, if you were to admit here that your argument has been thoroughly demolished and it was just a lame attempt at getting traffic to your site, I would consider visiting your site.

Do we have an accord?

[joobz]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

The match ended! I won!

If you believe you've won, then I guess there's nothing left to discuss.

Originally Posted by RLBaty

A rematch remains for "David" to accept or reject; acceptance requiring that he "come out".

We are out here. As I mentioned. And as you failed to answer my question regarding the activity of your site, I went there to see and it turns out I was right. Only you had posted on Sunday. Since then, one to two others have been in attendance. As such, I see no reason to spend my energy at a location which receives such little attention.

If you have an actual argument or point to make, feel free to make it.
If you are afraid to do so, go ahead and continue making your bizarre lists of JREF members who responded to you and your running tally of post counts and page views since you posted on this thread. Just keep in mind that while you may feel the activity in response to your posts is high, it's only a tiny fraction of the activity and exchange of ideas that goes on at the JREF forum. It's why I think your request to continue the conversation at your site is laughable.

Posts here reach more people with a wide ranging backgrounds of education and expertise. I've learned a lot here. So could you. Indeed, you already have. After all, you seemed to not know what anthropomorphism was, nor the advances in cognitive science that relate to the subject. Just think what more you could learn if you abandoned your sophistry and games.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

The numbers speak more about the matter than you apparently are willing to acknowledge.

The funny thing is, those numbers are generated by a thread that you didn't even participate in until page nine. Declaring the number of views to be indicative of your effect on this forum is either silly or dishonest.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

The funny thing is, those numbers are generated by a thread that you didn't even participate in until page nine. Declaring the number of views to be indicative of your effect on this forum is either silly or dishonest.

False dichotomy.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

I figure that if I believe I have won, then I am simply putting myself on the same field with my skeptical adversaries who think they have won something or 'nother in this discussion.

I have never claimed to "win". It's a silly thing to do in a debate as the goal of a debate should be to get to the truth. If the debate succeeds at that, then everyone wins.

Originally Posted by RLBaty

If you think there's nothing left to discuss, one has to wonder why so many have been going on and on and on about it.

Because you clearly don't believe the statement. Otherwise, you wouldn't continue.

Originally Posted by RLBaty

The only problem regarding the proposed "rematch" is the logistics. I've patronized about 32 JREF adversaries in the course of this discussion which, despite possible opinions to the contrary, seems to have considerable interest.

I think you are confused here. There are 32 participants. not "adversaries". I am not an adversary of anyone's here. My goal is mutual edification. What is your goal?

Originally Posted by RLBaty

The proposed one on one rematch, to be at my place or concurrently there and here, would be easy enough to set up; if "David" is willing to "come out" and play that match.

If you want a one on one debate, then it is possible to set up a moderated debate here. It has happened in the past and can happen again. I see no reason to post at a website that is so desolate.

Originally Posted by RLBaty

I will gladly lead that discussion into my argument and the claims I made for it.

Your phrasing here is quite telling.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

Maybe we are getting close!

Lots to chat about, but I prefer to stick with the what caused all the fuss; my argument and the claims I have made for it.

I would love to see that.

I simply don't know why you keep evading the discussion.

Originally Posted by RLBaty

If "David" wants to "come out" and work on setting up a one on one chat about that, to be posted by the participants at my place and here, I am willing work to produce that exchange.

Would you like to set up a moderated thread here? I can see if we can arrange it.
If me, that's fine. If someone else, that's fine to.
However, and I want this to be Ultimately clear, I do not speak for JREF. I do not speak for anyone other than myself.

Originally Posted by RLBaty

I care little whether or not you see any reason for a concurrent posting here and there by the individual participants.

If you wish to copy paste the content here to there, that's fine.

Originally Posted by RLBaty

If there is no "David" willing to agree to such a simple, logistical detail, it is unlikely that the discussion is going to be produced and we can have our differing opinions about why any "David" would refuse such a proposal.

ok.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

Well, we have some mutual interests in trying to produce a discussion of my argument and the claims I have made for it.

I don't know why any legitimate "David" would evade having a concurrent exercise; one where we both post our contributions to each site.

Well, as I said, my goal isn't to bring hits to your site. Secondly, your adversarial approach and need to label things as "david" and "Goliath" is just not welcoming or interesting. It's a bit childish and I do not wish to have a childish discussion.
My goal is constructive open discussion in a public form. your site doesn't provide that for me. If you wish to use it as a repository of the discussion, that's fine by me. Maybe someone else would entertain your whimsy in this matter.

Originally Posted by RLBaty

I am not the one evading that discussion, and I have already brought my earlier, unilateral discussion here to a reasonable conclusion.

if it's unilateral, it's not really a discussion or debate, is it?
That's just preaching. As such, you are most definitely evading discussion.
Such behavior doesn't bode well for a one on one debate.

Moreover, this forum has rather strict rules regarding derailing and your continued request to take it elsewhere could be likely considered such a derail. Now, in the interest of open discussion, most here have likely not minded your derail as it may lead to an actual discussion. that is, of course, up to you.

No one else, but you.

Originally Posted by RLBaty

If "David" does not want a concurrent discussion, HE is welcome to do the "cut and paste" here for the JREF crowd that can't find there way to my publicly available archives.

I am not interested in that task.

Originally Posted by RLBaty

If there is legitimate interest in such a discussion, let me know.

If not, that's fine.

As I noted earlier, my time is now getting limited, but I'll try to keep up with any legitimate interests in producing the discussion such as I have proposed.

you have your answer.
I've given you my interests. Others have stated their's. Perhaps someone will take you up on your terms. Note that that person wouldn't be a "david" as that person would only be a representative of himself. Just like I only claim to represent myself. However, You are likely not going to find a person to argue with you at your site as it serves no draw.

Perhaps that's what you were hoping for after all?
You can now return to your site of 3 members and claim the JREF forumites are "afraid" to discuss things with you. Would that please your ego enough?

[Pup]

Originally Posted by RLBaty

I don't know why any legitimate "David" would evade having a concurrent exercise; one where we both post our contributions to each site.

Why are you evading continuing the discussion here? If you think it's concluded, then there's nothing more to discuss on your site either. If you think there's more to discuss on your site, there's no reason for you to avoid discussing it here.