First, let me say that I am an atheist, an agnostic, a non-believer---all of these. So, I have no religious fantasies to defend.

Second, for some reason unknown to me, I have developed the habit of approaching all new ideas (new to me) with skepticism. I use whatever skills I have to analyze, reason and search for evidence. By “evidence” I mean that which can not be disputed by the vast majority of rational beings. That said, I realize that there will always be some who will dispute what I accept as evidence and who still think of themselves as rational. All of which goes to show that even concepts like “reason” and “rational” are somewhat subjective, thus leading to the conclusion that “evidence” comes down to that which most people believe is true. In this light, can there be proof of anything?

All philosophical concepts begin with one or more premises. Since premises can not be proved to everyone’s satisfaction, it seems we are left with only the...

Isn’t it a part of human nature to want to compete? We participate in sports in the hope of winning; we play card games, enter talent shows and beauty contests, participate in spelling bees and quiz shows---all with the goal of emerging as victor. Isn’t our motive in a dialogue the same as in a debate, i.e. to present the better argument and hopefully to persuade the other to our way of thinking? If so, then the challenge is: how to go about this constructively so as to avoid alienation and instead build trust and goodwill.

Here are some things to avoid:
1) a superior attitude (I’m OK, you’re not OK)
2) closing the door on new ideas or info.
3) put-downs; making the other person feel unvalued.
4) hidden agendas; not being honest.
5) being defensive, or causing the other to be defensive (acting out of emotion
rather than reason)
6) interrupting.

Things to do:
1) listen and give feed-back:...