<<Does anyone have a coherent argument to throw against me? I'm getting
bored.>>
You're not getting bored; you're getting hammered. You have failed to mount a
coherent answer to ANY of the substantive points several correspondents have
now posted. 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? If you do, please back it up with specific
arguments, and not aspersion about someone's character, as in:
<<Perhaps I have not been as tactful about it as I should have. So
let me restate my opinion: You are incredibly narrow-minded and more than a
little arrogant. You need to open up your mind, or *you* will not be taken
seriously.>>
Thanks for the tact. ;-) But seriously, Russ, consider:
<< I have also presented my opinions about your character>>
Opinions about a person's character are really out of line in a debate. That's
called the ad hominem fallacy. It adds nothing and only reflects poorly on the
credibility of the person using it. Using character invective only leads you
into murky waters, as in:
<< 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."
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. 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! You admit your moral opinons are subjective.
Then, for some strange reason, you emphasize that they are NOT supernatural in
origin.
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!
Russ, you have made the admission, now all that's left is for you to see the
consequences of this belief system. I've put those in a separate post,
entitled "Consequences of the Materialist System."
Jim