| 21 February 2003 at 19.04.11 ZuluTime
|
Posted by Indon [67.210.38.33 - 1Cust33.tnt40.hou3.da.uu.net] on 21 February 2003 at 19.04.11 ZuluTime:
-All right, This is a debate between myself and one Yahoo chatter by the name of brenton_spears. I'm posting it so that I can refer people to this on demand because he _continues_ to claim victory over me whenever he comes in, and I have this thing about dishonesty. Note that I removed the other chatters' text, but I left the Yahelite Log timestamps.-
IndonDasani : brenton; since an objective naturalistic morality can exist, why do you keep talking after I've noted such?
IndonDasani : seeing as your entire argument was based off of the flawed premise that it can not.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:37:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
brenton_spears : but it cant indon..it really can't you can't infer from the way things are ...the way they should be....that sort of thinking discloses a confusion of categories on your part...
IndonDasani : oh, my GOD!
IndonDasani : brenton; idiot. morality could exist as a part of natural law.
IndonDasani : ...and it's about time you noticed me...
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:38:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
brenton_spears : not even for aquinas was this done.....because his law of nature....presupposed that the nature whose law this was...was a creation of god...
IndonDasani : you know, gravity, electricity, morality.
IndonDasani : brenton; in a universe without a creator, the natural laws are randomly created. morality could well be such a law.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:39:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
IndonDasani : shall you now seek to fall back to a First Cause argument? :)
IndonDasani : sighs.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:40:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
brenton_spears : so far ive proven to the room 3 theses....1)..that a system of ethics requires a transcendent base 2) that the existence of such a transcendent base...argues strongly for the existence of a transcendent personal agent whose character it should be reflective of ...3) that amongst systems of ethics so grounded...the christian system seems the most cogent...and finally....that christianity therefore makes best sense of our moral experience as humans
IndonDasani : brenton; no, you have not proven statement one.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:41:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
brenton_spears : THIS IS WHAT I HAVE ESTABLISHED...during this discussion..
IndonDasani : you have LOST statement one.
IndonDasani : you have simply IGNORED that fact.
IndonDasani : your ignorance does NOT imply your victory in any sense.
IndonDasani : now, cut the disgusting dishonesty and FACE ME!
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:42:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:43:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:44:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
IndonDasani : dead; please don't talk to him. You'll give him an excuse to ignore me... again.
IndonDasani : I don't want him to have any excuse.
IndonDasani : no excuses, no escape routes.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:45:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
IndonDasani : ...and no more stalling.
IndonDasani : brenton; address the feasibility of a natural objective moral law.
IndonDasani : NOW!
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:46:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:47:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:48:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:49:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
brenton_spears : i have replied to your assertion that a transcendent base is unnecessary ...because 'nature'..the law of nature..the way things work...can constitute an adequate base...by pointing out to you that it is a category mistake to argue that the structure of material reality as we observe it..serves to disclose to us...the sort of behaviour which it should be incumbent upon us morally to enact....if moral dictates are to be universally binding they can't be somehow derived from a universe whose so-called physical laws, as these have been uncovered by physicists, are not necessary truths.....because quite simply.....physical theories describe the way things are....but yet ..contrary to hawking's naive claim concerning a unifield theory....they are not of such a character as that we should not be entitled to suppose that they could have been constituted otherwise than as they have actually been found by us to be...
brenton_spears : that is my answer to indon...
IndonDasani : brenton; a natural moral law does not need to TELL people how it works.
brenton_spears : if morality is to be binding universally it must have an empire de jure over all possible worlds..
IndonDasani : therefore, your point is invalidated.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:50:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
IndonDasani : mark; the alternative to a trancendent objective moral law.
IndonDasani : brenton; sorry, but a universe, is just one universe.
IndonDasani : and other worlds are different universes.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:51:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
IndonDasani : a morality can be universally binding and not apply outside of that universe.
IndonDasani : and citing that an objective morality needs to cross the universal barrier won't work, I might add.
IndonDasani : since it DOESN'T.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:52:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
IndonDasani : all an objective morality needs is to have a set of consequences which reward and punish a certain set of actions.
IndonDasani : these consequences can be natural ones.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:53:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
brenton_spears : if it doesnt need to do this....how then can it advertise itself as 'natural'...your designation of it as 'natural' would therefore be explanatorily vacuous..in other words the onus is on you to account for its putatively binding character...and my point is that you cannot do this with reference to nature because nature could have been structured otherwise than as it has been found by us to be
brenton_spears : that is my answer to indon,,,
IndonDasani : brenton; it doesn't need to advertise itself.
IndonDasani : you lose again.
IndonDasani : brenton; and we were speaking of the POSSIBILITY of such a moral system, not the existence thereof.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:54:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
IndonDasani : I am not obliged to prove it actually exists since I was merely disproving your claim that it was not POSSIBLE.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:55:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:56:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:57:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
brenton_spears : if then on your view a system of morality could serve to be commended to us by way of our identifying which particular actions of ours serve to 'reward' us and which serve the rather to set in train a set of consequences which have the effect of 'punishing ' us..wouldnt this system seem to extol selfishness as one of its cardinal virtues...
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:58:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
IndonDasani : brenton; following any objective moral system is in the best interest of a person, and therefore following it is a selfish act.
evolutionisaaafact : koko talks,but we have written language
brenton_spears : besides what if i have a different idea of what constitutes 'reward' than u do.....
brenton_spears : therefore even such a system as u have enunciated is necessarily viciously subjective...
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:59:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
brenton_spears : that is my answer to indon...
IndonDasani : brenton; well, if there is no objective definition of 'reward', then no objective morality can exist.
brenton_spears : YOU SUPPRESS THE clause...'unless morality were to be grounded in a transcendent base'....
brenton_spears : HOORAY
brenton_spears : ]
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:00:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
IndonDasani : brenton; false.
IndonDasani : if morality were so grounded, it would be the same.
brenton_spears : I HAEV PREVAILED O ROOM OVER INDON,,,'
IndonDasani : brenton; wrong.
brenton_spears : one of this room's hardest and toughest 'nuts'......
brenton_spears : imagine that
brenton_spears : i have proven my first thesis...
IndonDasani : brenton; you're claiming victory without cause.
IndonDasani : you are lying.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:01:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
IndonDasani : it is possible for a natural moral system to adjust for individual neural systems.
IndonDasani : neural systems being a natural phenomena.
IndonDasani : therefore, it is possible to have a CUSTOMIZED natural objective morality.
brenton_spears : and thereby also shall i have served to debunk that pestilent myth that i have been speaking IN ANYTHING BUT MY OWN PERSON...
IndonDasani : brenton; you're ignoring the argument's that's defeated you... AGAIN.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:02:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
IndonDasani : you have claimed victory prematurely because you realize YOU ARE NOT THE VICTOR.
IndonDasani : and you wish to escape.
IndonDasani : well, I'm not letting you flee so handily.
IndonDasani : your lies and bad argumentation end HERE!
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:03:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
IndonDasani : ah, I sense another large post coming up.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:04:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:05:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:06:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:08:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:09:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
brenton_spears : yeah but how can the way we are neurally wired posit a base for ethics..if anything it would posit rather a justification for doing anything that we happened to find ourselves 'neurally' inclined to do..or (as the case may be) to think of as right...and if u say this can be avoided by the device of 'customizing' our respective neural systems.....the question would need then to be asked whether the specifications according to which our neural systems should thus be customized....are susceptible of moral description....in a word according to whose idea of morality should they be determined...and how do we have any assurance that this idea itself is not the product of imperfectly configured neural systems/
IndonDasani : brenton; false. the customization is in the form of REWARD.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:10:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
IndonDasani : furthermore, the brain is a chaotic system. brains end up differently depending on their input.
IndonDasani : therefore, both points are defeated.
IndonDasani : try again.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:11:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:12:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:13:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:14:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:15:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
brenton_spears : but if customisation is to be had in the form of reward the question would still need to be asked as to who would be the one saddled with the task of determining the shape of this reward...and who would be getting rewarded..and by whom.....could this reward be refused....but what if my concept of reward differs from yours..what if i do not wish to be customised in this way...on what basis then could u expect me to subject to such customisation.....ultimately your concept of morality portends the coming-to-life of machiavellian nightmare
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:16:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
IndonDasani : brenton; natural laws have the ability to discern output based on input.
IndonDasani : that's how computers work.
IndonDasani : naturally.
IndonDasani : furthermore, brenton, just because you wouldn't LIKE such a morality, doesn't mean it couldn't exist.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:17:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
IndonDasani : "I don't like it, ergo it does not exist," is not a valid debate point.
IndonDasani : so, try again.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:18:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:19:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:20:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:21:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
brenton_spears : yes but if a human being is nothing more than an organic computer it is hard to see what justification you could have for shaping him in a fashion contrary to his wishes..a fashion which you claim will ensure that he will be 'rewarded'.....but then on your view your forcing him to undergo such shaping contrary to his will..is not immoral..(nor is it even justified by crimes he committed)....but on the contrary instead is it the basis of your morality...WITH ALL DUE RESPECT..THE PARAllels between such a morality as this and the rule adopted by totalitarian communistic states...become frighteningly obvious
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:22:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
brenton_spears : ive having a terrible battle with indon....
IndonDasani : brenton; that whole statement just boils down to, "I don't like that kind of morality, it must not exist!"
IndonDasani : and that argument is called a fallacy.
IndonDasani : an appeal to emotion.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:23:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
IndonDasani : this universe COULD be a cold, heartless son of a bitch which arbitrarily makes us do shit we don't want to.
IndonDasani : we might not LIKE it, but it's a POSSIBILITY.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:24:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:25:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:26:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:27:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:28:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:29:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:30:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:31:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
brenton_spears : and would these people be willing to die for the subjects of their conditioning....in a fashion explicable in terms of their own morality....
IndonDasani : brenton; immaterial. we're dealing with the possibility of such a system, not the precise mechanics.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:32:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:33:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:34:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
brenton_spears : but such a system entails as i have argued the necessity of those whose responsibility it is to be administering it....being exemptio from the obligation of adherence to the dictates comprised within such a system,..they over-arch it because they determine its configuration...but who could these gods be????..
plautus_serious : No more arguing iwth this fool.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:35:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
brenton_spears : then the morality u have enunciated is determined by a few....and imposed by these few on the majority..IT IS NOT UNIVERSALLY BINDING...
IndonDasani : brenton; I already demonstrated that a natural system could provide output for input according to a set of rules.
IndonDasani : you're rehashing a point I already defeated.
IndonDasani : it is universally binding because the same rules govern the system of input/output.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:37:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:38:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:39:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:40:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:41:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
brenton_spears : who determines these rules.....the few for the putative benefit of the majority???.....then they won't need to adhere to these rules themselves at least in the sense of being above them till they are promulgated...in any case...why do u assume that 'nature' has to be moral in its workings...and if the 'reward' i am proffered is that of being longer-lived..what if i have different ideas...more particularly still...what if i were lame or crippled or handicapped...on your view...my reward might in that case turn out to be the expedient of either killing me or of shortening my lifespan...so that i dont suffer any longer or serve as an occasion for others to experience feelings of misery by way of their contemplating my own
IndonDasani : brenton; they're natural rules. they are determined the same way all natural laws are determined.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:42:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
IndonDasani : if you want to try going First Cause with this, you're welcome to try.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:43:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
brenton_spears : this is a perfect recipe for moral chaos...for a few...or those in whom power is invested,,arbitrarily imposing their will...on the majority...
brenton_spears : no i stand by my earlier thesis...
brenton_spears : thesis 1...
IndonDasani : brenton; why? couldn't such a system reward NOT owning things?
IndonDasani : so, your point is destroyed, AGAIN.
brenton_spears : that morality requires a trancendent base....
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:44:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
IndonDasani : that you're still holding to it despite the fact that I have DEMONSTRATED otherwise, does not make you anything but a liar.
IndonDasani : admit now that you ignore my argument simply because it DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOUR BELIEFS.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:45:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:46:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:47:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:48:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:49:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
brenton_spears : besides...why should be workings of nature be moral.....they are not even necessary....whatever physical laws this universe might be governed by havent been proven to have the character of necessary truths at least in the sense of it having been impossible that they should ever have been constituted otherwise than as they may presently be determined by us to be...
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:50:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
IndonDasani : brenton; sure, if we find a natural moral law, it might not be an absolute moral law. we might be wrong. Hell, gravity might not exist as we know it, either.
IndonDasani : but, objectively, aside from our ability to ken natural laws, it is POSSIBLE.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:51:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:52:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:53:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
brenton_spears : but what you cannot know to be absolute....what on your premises cannot be shown forth as indubitably absolute...cannot be commended to us as such...and therefore it cannot be cited as the reason why we should ALL BE moral...once again..this proves my point:....the only base that can adequately ground a system of ethics is a transcendent one...because on the premise that such a base were transcedent it would necessarily that the morality it grounds is absolute...
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:54:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
IndonDasani : we don't have to KNOW an absolute moral system exists in order for one to exist.
IndonDasani : so, there goes that point.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:55:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
IndonDasani : I should note also, that it's a rehashing of an earlier point.
IndonDasani : it seems you're running out of ideas.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:56:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:57:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:58:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:59:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:00:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:01:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
brenton_spears : an absolute moral system may exist even if we didnt feel we were in a position to be certain that it does exist....but unless we did feel ourselves to be in such a position...unless the premises we had adopted permitted our rationally deeming ourselves to be in such a position...we could in no way....consistenly enjoin upon the acceptance of all men whatever an absolute system of morality.....binding on the conscience of each and every man...and so therefore our position is reducible to (or at least is indistinguishable from) moral subjectivism.....ergo the only adequate base for an absolute system of morality binding on all...is a transcendent one......
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:02:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
brenton_spears : my first thesis is proved.....
IndonDasani : brenton; oh, please.
IndonDasani : give me 30 seconds to read your post.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:03:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
IndonDasani : brenton; since when did everyone have to adhere to this moral system in order for it to exist?
IndonDasani : since when did everyone have to have an instinctual need to follow this moral system?
IndonDasani : the answer is, never.
brenton_spears : now back to my argument...whew i really outdid myself this time...
IndonDasani : there is no neccessity for an instinctual need.
brenton_spears : Dr
IndonDasani : therefore, you lose THAT point as well.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:04:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
IndonDasani : and as for the rest of your point, about moral subjectivism, that's your "I don't like it" point again.
IndonDasani : which I already noted was a fallacy.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:05:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
brenton_spears : Dr Craig himself might express appreciation for my performance here...my debate with endon has ended....with my indisputed victory...
brenton_spears : hooray
IndonDasani : brenton; liar.
brenton_spears : i fought off so many tough customers here....
IndonDasani : you're doing it AGAIN.
IndonDasani : purposefully declaring victory when I do not address your posts within SECONDS.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:06:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
IndonDasani : when I give you MANY minutes for each reaction.
brenton_spears : craig is really my hero.....i really look up to him...
poeticheterosapien : I have seen debates over whether Ergaster should be considered "modern humans" or not... *shrug*
IndonDasani : craig must be a liar, as well.
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:07:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
brenton_spears : let's tabulate the scores now shall we,,,,,,
diogenes_is_pissed : brenton: 0, Indon 50
LOG DATA Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:08:23 IndonDasani, ATHEIST vs. CHRISTIAN CHAT:1
IndonDasani : brenton; how about you simply address the LAST argument-defeating point I made.