Your self-confidence is inspiring, if more than a little misguided.
>You have failed to mount a
>coherent answer to ANY of the substantive points several correspondents have
>now posted.
That is an absolute lie. You have simply cut out the most substantial parts
of my posts and responded to the trivial ones.
>In my post entitled "Consequences of Materialist System" I give
>extensive quotes from THREE eminent currenty thinkers. Are you going to claim
>that each of them is incoherent?
I'll have to read it and find out.
[Distraction from the issue at hand deleted.]
><< I have also presented my opinions about your character>>
>
>Opinions about a person's character are really out of line in a debate.
Not if that person's character causes them to use dishonest debating tactics.
>That's
>called the ad hominem fallacy.
Wrong. An ad-hominem argument is using personal attacks *in place of*
substantive
arguments. I have provided substantive arguments, and you have simply
ignored them.
><< I *never* in any way stated or implied that Bill
>Hamilton is amoral. I have had contact with him before, and I have plenty of
>respect for him.>>
>
>Ah, but when I made the EXACT SAME argument as Bill, you said: "In fact, your
>inability to understand this simple concept makes you look like a more than
>slightly amoral person."
I didn't see any similarities between your argument and Bill's.
>Well, if Bill manifests the same concerns I do on this "concept," your brush
>tars him also. You see? That's the problem with putting character issues into
>your posts. So let's get back to the issues, and stay there.
That's what I have been doing all along.
>Here we go:
>
>JB <Now, to the matter at hand. You claim a moral system because of "what I
>know and feel in my heart." In another post, you say, "Because it does." Can't
>you admit that both of those are subjective expressions?
>
>RS <<Of course they are. So what? That still doesn't make them supernatural or
>Judeo-Christian in origin.
>
>Even though you completely missed the point, you have finally made the
>admission we've been looking for!
I have never denied that my position is subjective! Have you read a single
thing that I have written?
Now we can add "straw-man" to "quoting out of context" as one of your favorite
debating tactics.
>Well that's the point Bill, Chuck, Paul and I have been making all along!
>Subjective opinions are NOT transcendent! They are therefore not applicable to
>everyone. That is why the materialist cannot make universal moral
>pronouncements!
Therefore, since Christian morality is a subjective as any other, it is just
as non-applicable.
>Russ, you have made the admission, now all that's left is for you to see the
>consequences of this belief system.
So far, the consequences have been that I treat my friends, family, girlfriend,
and just about everyone else with respect. Scandalous!
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.