I used to think philosophers were very intelligent people, until I realized that most of what they did was to argue semantics. There's an old joke about a college dean who is talking to the chairman of the physics department and he says: Why do you need all this expensive equipment? Why can't you be like the math department, they only need chalk and erasers, just chalk and erasers. Or, better yet, why can't you be like the philosophy department, they only need chalk!
I have been trying to figure out which postings generate the most activity on this site, and it seems that any posting which is a question of semantics are the ones that generate the most activity. Mind/brain, Morals/ethics, atheist/agnostic, any topic for which there can be a dichotomy of concepts and for which one can argue about what the concept really means.
We do seem to agree as to logic, reason, and rationality being superior to belief, the supernatural and magic, but I find myself opting out of semantic arguments, they are too tiring and never seem to make any progress (except for one ongoing posting which refuses to let me choose not to receive email updates!).
I guess I'm just an old, jaded atheist who cannot find the enthusiasm to continue to flog dead horses. But then I have to remember that many of you are new to this and it's all rock and roll to you! So have at it, just don't take offense if I don't take an active part, I've done my time.