It's all subjective—subjectively speaking

T-stone I realize that Steve now says by 'murder' he really meant 'abortion', by 'rape' he really meant 'child pornography' and by robbery he meant 'organized crime'."

SH: T-stone is such a liar. In my original post I gave examples of what I meant.

Moreover, my examples will naturally be pegged to the counterexamples offered by the disputant.

T-stone: Never mind trying to reconcile this with the "public policy part...

SH: Another lie. I've specifically explained how this translates into public policy.

T-stone: Steve: Moral frameworks developed under different worldviews aren't as satisfying to me as the moral framework that comes with *my* worldview. Yeah. Duh...Gee, Steve Hays isn't satisfied by secular morality?

SH: Yet another lie. He imputes to me a word I didn't use, then proceeds to criticize the usage as if it were my usage.

Moreover, this isn't Der Fuersprecher's usage either. He used the word "satisfactory." T-stone substitutes the word "satisfying," which has emotional and subjective connotations not present in "satisfactory." T-stone is such a liar.

T-stone: This is a CRUCIAL POINT we Christians must face: we start with arbitrary foundations, too!...Starting from a neutral position, my morals are no more "justified" than an atheists.

SH: So why is he so judgmental of Christians who disagree with him?

T-stone: I can argue that they are better on the merits, and I do that, but let's not pretend that theism isn't predicated on subjective belief. It's just insulting to those that read this.

SH: But, according to T-stone, they have no non-arbitrary grounds to feel insulted.

T-stone: But Christians, and Buddhists, and Hindus and Bahais are all in the same boat.

SH: If true, then we're all in the same sinking boat.

But how is T-stone in a position to make such a claim? Is it *objectively* true that we are all in the same boat?

Notice how T-stone tacitly and illicitly assumes the very viewpoint which he denies to everyone else.

T-stone: To suggest otherwise is to fall in the trap that Steve and Calvindude languish in: the idea that what *they* believe is normative for everyone else.

SH: Is T-stone making a normative claim? Is his belief that Calvindude and I fall into the trap of normativity itself a normative belief? Or is it a non-normative belief?

If the latter, then we can safely dismiss his objection as self-refuting.

T-stone: Nevermind that the Christian foundation is as subjective as the atheist's, if not more.

SH; Is his claim that "the Christian foundation is as subjective as the atheist's, if not more " itself a subjective claim?

T-stone: (obligatory reminder: subjective does *not* mean false. A subjective belief can be perfectly *true*).

SH: And to what would a subjective belief need to correspond to be true? An objectively accessible fact, perchance?

T-stone: Let's just cut to the chase. Steve said previously, the *hypothetical* consideration that there is no God is just not an option for him. Maybe it is for you, too. But if so, you've closed yourself completely off from reasonable conversation and discussion with atheists; you can't hope to make a decent argument if you can't even contemplate the other side of the coin.

SH: It you take the position that everything is subjective and falsifiable, then *you* (T-stone) are the one who has closed yourself completely off from reasonable conversation and discussion with atheists or Christians or anyone else; *you* (T-stone) can't hope to make a decent argument if you can't even contemplate the other side of the coin if everything is up for grabs.

Reason and argument are only meaningful if everything is not dubious—otherwise, there would be no benchmark for truth and falsehood.

T-stone: The Apostle Paul went to Mars Hill and understood the Greeks. He didn't *endorse* or accept their theology, but his brain was big enough, and his heart was big enough to understand it well enough to explain the Gospel to them.

SH: Did St. Paul every treat the existence of God or the inspiration of Scripture as a defeasible hypothesis?

T-stone: Paul was able to connect and persuade because he was able to understand and reasonably assess the other guys' paradigm.

SH: How do you "assess" the other guy's paradigm if, according to you, everything is subjective and arbitrary?

T-stone: He simply presented a better paradigm than the one the Greeks had in place.

SH: A better subjective and arbitrary paradigm.