Some further responses to exapologist

When I meant "avoiding theism" I wasn't making a statement about your motives, I was making a statement about what one needs in order to define naturalism. One goal of a good definition of X is that it excludes paradigm cases of non-X. But surely there has to be more to naturalism than avoiding theism.

You had written:

So why isn't this sort of proposal naturalistically acceptable? Granted, it may not me *materialistically* acceptable, but who cares? Why must a non-theist be wedded to *materialism*? Of course, they need not.

This passage makes it sound as if in order for something to be naturalistically acceptable it has to be acceptable for a non-theist. Of course, absolute idealists are not theists per se.

I'm waiting for Absolute Idealism to make a comeback. If it happens, you heard it here first.