RS <<And I've shown how it can, at least as well as yours can.
>Now, out of your own fingertips, you
>have admitted as much.
RS <<No, I have not. That is a distortion of my words.
>You appear to believe that atheism is of equal status with theism in the
>"subjectivity" departement. Is that your belief?
RS <<Of course it is. I have only pointed that out several dozen times.
>If so, you have not made a positive case.
RS << Yes I have, and I have made it again in this letter.
[Same letter:]
RS <Since when does the burden of proof rest on the one who *doesn't*
believe in God?
Gadzooks! This is like arguing with the Mad Hatter. He says one thing, asserts
the opposite, asserts it's all the same, or that he never said it in the first
place, or he dives into a tea cup and starts calling people names (see below).
This is easily the most surreal debate I've ever been engaged in. Russell
follows the pattern of his patron saint, Tweedledee, who explained:
"Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it should be; but
as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
I'll retire to Bedlam.
<<No, others on the group have repeated your assertions, showing that you have
a good chearleeder squad, but that's about it.>>
A nice insult to the group, who all manifest the ability to think for
themselves, and who have left you detailed, logical and thus far unrefuted
messages. And you denigrate them all with a name?
Civility, I guess, is not one of the humanist moral virtues.