Isn't it funnier that he can't even follow what he quotes?
Of course, having arrive at an opinion that seems sound to us, we still must make out case- argue in the sense of providing good reasons and adequate evidence in support of them.
His case so far is summed up as this:
You cannot trust yourself because you are biased, no matter what your common sense and good reason tells you and listen to the system because it has the big picture.
Question: Then why argue against and question religion in his atheism forms? Just use his own logic and follow lah?
But whereas debaters must hold their positions at all costs, mature reasoners may not. The very process of making a case will often show us that what we thought was sound really isn't. We try to defend our opinion until and find that we can't - or at least try, not very well. And so we rethink our position until we arrive at one for which we can make a good case. From beginning to end, therefore, mature reasoning is a process of discovery.
Despite having multiple holes pointed out in his paper thin case, he has made no attempt at actually seriously answering them except to post one liners.
He said that just because somebody has a monopoly on power does not mean he is likely to become corrupted, but yet puts nothing in the way of proving why it will be so in our case.
Most of his "rebuttals" are Bulverisms, answers that touch nothing on the logical consistency of his opponents but instead bypasses any discussion or reasoning and goes straight to the "we are biased" and "we can't trust ourselves" and repeats that with much hyperbole like a mantra, as if repeating it again and again would help his case.
It seems to me that whatever january is doing in here, is neither mature reasoning, nor even debating. It is quite simply nonsense- a person who thinks that by being able to string together diverse disciplines in science and thought without considering the context and spirit in which to take them somehow makes his case valid simply because he could use "big" science and intellectual looking concepts and words.
He's pretty funny actually, once you realize that most of the time he does not even have half a clue of the concepts he's attempting to apply.
My advice? He really should listen and learn more and talk less.