[ErrantX]

Indeed. It was the whole point of the article, really though. The writer took each of the "new atheists", listed their theories and pointed out where it doesn't sync with the writers views.

But there were also no solutions (something the writer calls dawkins et al on a few times) to the fundamental questions - until the end when Ayn Rand is presented as the answer (and I mean her works in the possessive)

[dk]

The article argues every step for a reality-based ethics. And the author has one in mind, not surprisingly. Advocacy is not a crime and arguments are not invalidated by conclusions.

Responding in the form "I agree that..." or "I disagree that..." could start an interesting discussion.

[ErrantX]

> Advocacy is not a crime and arguments are not invalidated by conclusions

Of course; I just wish that the writer had mentioned this at the top so I could have given the arguments context. I've read Rand and personally don't find her useful so all that reading led to... nothing insightful (for me anyway) :)

There was a lot of use of "The fact is" - this is just bad rhetoric. I didn't feel these sections were well enough argued/presented to constitute a solution to the questions posed earlier in the piece.

Ultimately I just felt the conclusion was poor - the article posed a lot of questions and never really addressed them, except to say read Ayn Rand.