Don't condescend to me, Jim. And don't think you can re-paint your
deceptions, mischaracterizations and outright bigotry as "vigorous
debate". I have had plenty of vigorous debates where respect and
consideration for another's views were still a part of it. Indeed,
I have shown a lot more respect for your views than you have for
mine.
But
>if you continue to post irrationalities, it will continue to be pointed
out to
>you.
Another lie. My arguments have been rational and consistent, and
your failure to deal with them is not my fault.
>Bad argumentation does that to me. You can throw out words like
>"arrogant" and "childish", but that doesn't solve anything.
No, because you will never open your mind enough to consider another
point of view. But that won't stop me from pointing out the truth.
>For example, I ask you for a positive case proving atheism, and you cry out
>that you don't have the "burden of proof."
Talk about irrationality. How the hell am I supposed to provide
logical, scientific evidence concerning something that is supernatural
and completely unfalsifiable? Furthermore, by your own standards, I
can assert that the universe was created last Tuesday by a God who
happens to agree with everything I have said (and ever will say),
and anything appearing to the contrary is really just a deception
on His part. Can you prove me wrong? Nope. Therefore, I must be
right.
>I point out that, ok, you haven't
>made a positive case, and you rail, "Yes I have."
Yes. I have made a positive case FOR MY MORAL SYSTEM. I have *never*
claimed to have made a positive case for the non-existence of God;
indeed, I have pointed out many times that my opinion on God's
existence is nothing more than my opinion. But you don't care, do
you? You're more interested in your mental perception of me than
the truth. You'd rather ignore the substantial issues and focus
on meaningless peripheral ones. You're not here to have a rational
debate, you're here to boost your ego.
So, for the last time: No, I can't disprove God's existence. So what?
I have explained several times that, not only am I not required to,
but even if you could prove His existence, you still have no more
rational, objective, logical basis for following Him than I do for
following my own internal morality. Your argument is a house of cards.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.