<<In a related story, Jim Bell continues to refuse to hold his own philosophy
to the impossible standard that he holds Russell Stewart's.>>
Hmm, your news service appears to be as loose with the facts as you are. What
is the "impossible standard"? Logical consistency? Every member of the
discussion, with the inexplicable exception of Pim, has shown you otherwise.
cannot condemn other people's behavior. Now, out of your own fingertips, you
have admitted as much. But holding the presupposition of an objective moral
order allows for universal condemnation, just as it allows for the opposite,
universal moral obligation. Consistent. Case closed on issue #1.
What other "impossible standard" might you be referring to? a reasonableness
standard? I.e., the reasonableness of the Christian belief system? That, too,
has been ably presented, met only with weak conjectures (Jesus the eccentric!
They apostles were the "dirty dozen," co-conspirators with a death wish!) not
based in reality.
You appear to believe that atheism is of equal status with theism in the
"subjectivity" departement. Is that your belief?
If so, you have not made a positive case. Now your time has come. What
evidence do you have to give us to support the proposition "God does not
exist"? Remember, now, it's not a response to say "I don't think there is any
evidence FOR his existence."
You want to be consistent about applying standards, then go ahead. Make your
case.
Jim