Now you write,
<<By your own admissions, and this is a paraphrase so please don't bother demanding that I find these exact words in anything you said, which is childish, the statement "All atheists are ethical" is false.>
Admissions, Cobe? I never had to "admit" that the statement "all atheists are ethical is false," because -- pay attention now -- I have never believed anything to the contrary, or implied such a ridiculous thing, in those or any words.
Saying that I made such an "admission" implies that I had once believed otherwise. This implication is false, and is a permutation of the argumentation technique to which I have already taken lengthy exception alas to no avail:
<<I see you've abandoned your argument that atheists are as ethical as believers.>>
Just as the word "admit" can be used to produce a false impression that one has been forced reluctantly to change one's position, the phrase "you've abandoned" can, and was, used by you to produce a false impression-- that I had earlier made the argument that atheists are as ethical as believers but had now "abandoned" that position in favor of another one.
Please tell me:
1. Where did I abandon the position I continue to hold and have always held, and express a different one?
2. Why would I have to "admit" something I never doubted, and if you think I did doubt it before my "admissions," where did I express those doubts?
Everything else in your post is kindergarten logic, and reflects my position and that of all adults who can walk and chew gum. What it is doing in this discussion of whether I abandoned anything or admitted anything I can't imagine, though the word "obfuscation" comes to mind.
Implying that I have anywhere asked for "exact words" for anything is another obfuscation. Please cite anyplace I have asked for exact words. Show me where I merely implied such a requirement.
I decided earlier to choose only one verbal trick, the "abandoned" one, in objecting what I consider a disreputable argumentation technique.
You declined to engage the point, though a handsome reward was on offer.
Now you have slipped in the word "admissions."
You post that I have "admitted" something that I had never held a position contrary to.
You chose those phrases, they didn't sneak onto the page.
"Abandoned your position" has a meaning. "By your own admissions" has a meaning.
So show me two things, now:
1. The "admissions" of mine, in any words. Show me where I said or implied, in any words or way, before this vaunted "admission" of mine to the effect that the statement "all atheists are ethical" is false, that all atheists were ethical. Cobe, prior to an "admission" I'd have to have expressed a contrary opinion, right? Or implied one? Or what would there be to "admit"? Show me the contrary opinion.
2. Show me also where I "abandoned," by word or implication, the argument that "atheists are as ethical as believers."
I await a link to any post of mine that justifies your use of "admissions" and of "abandoned."
I see you've posted a second message to me. I'll check it out now. |
