You have not provided one shred of logical, objective evidence for the
existence of the transcendent moral system that you believe in. The LLL
debate is still ongoing, but as of yet, you have simply ignored the most
solid arguments I have presented. That's not a rational argument, Jim.
>Softly, but persuasively, now: Everyone who has participated in this
>discussion has seen the distinction but you, Russell.
That's an awfully arrogant and self-confident statement from someone who is
trying to "persuade" me.
>I don't think it's a
>matter of intellectual honesty with you, but what is it, then?
It is a matter of intellectual honesty, which is exactly why you are incapable
of comprehending it.
>Could it be a
>dog snarl? You know what I mean. When a dog is cornered, obviously surrounded,
>no way out, he snarls. That's all he has left.
Go ahead and slap all the labels on me that you want. The fact remains that
you have not provided one shred of objective, logical evidence to back up
your position.
>Your snarl is "Prove to me Christianity is true."
Your attempts to trivialize my questions will not make them go away -- they
only show how close to an uncomfortable truth I have come. You know that your
belief system rests on just as many subjective assumptions as mine does. The
only difference between us is that I have the intellectual honesty to admit
it.
>That does not answer the
>questions about internal consistency. You're still in that corner.
As are you. The difference is, I'm perfectly comfortable in this corner, and
I can function just fine within it.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.