These two statements contradict one another. First you say that the statement
"If God does not exist, then anything is permissible" is "absolutely correct",
meaning that, if there is no God, then, in your eyes, there is absolutely
nothing
to stop one from murering, or raping, or stealing. Then you say that you "don't
know" if you would behave morally or not. Which is it? Would you be compelled to
behave morally in the absence of a God, or wouldn't you? Please figure this out,
because it is rather difficult for me to argue with someone who does not even
know where he stands. My moral foundation may be subjective, but it is
apparently
a great deal more well-defined than yours.
>But I do know one thing: your opinion that I would be "a sick person" is
>meaningless under materialism.
Bald assertion. That's all your arguments consist of. You claim that everything
is meaningless under materialist philosophy because materialist philosophy is
subjective, but Judeo-Christian philosophy is just as subjective. If you were
intellectually honest, you would apply the same standard to your own morality.
>It reflects only your subjective opinion, and
>that is the main problem you have been repeatedly shown by several people in
>this forum.
And the problem that I have repeatedly dealt with. Why have you continued to
ignore my responses?
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.