Paulie Want a Cracker?
Paul Manata just can't help projecting himself. Upon discovery of this blog and my response to his attack on my moral system, he's posted another supposed refutation on his own blog. I really don't need to or intend to address the bulk of it, since Paul hasn't added anything new to his criticism. Even if Paul has, as he claims, left my moral system "lying on the floor bleeding," he still has advanced no arguments for Christian morality, and has in fact wiggled away from my critique of DCT by insisting that I only directed my criticism there to make up for the 'obvious' deficiencies in my own moral system. But even if objective secular morality is wrong (which it isn't), Christian morality doesn't win by default. So I think readers of both blogs would be fascinated to hear how Paul justifies Christian morality, when he has already admitted that he has willingly given up moral autonomy.
But I think the more interesting part of his post is the beginning, where he's addressing this blog for the first time. Paul says, "Zachary Moore (and Franscois Trembley) have started a blog in response to my blog. They call my arguments ridiculous and say that I have horrible arguments for the Christian faith and just as bad of ones against secularists. Why start the blog, then? Cannot your average man see through my deceit? Isn't it far more important to take on those who have the good arguments?" Although it's a minor point, I think it reflects poorly on Paul to butcher Franc's name as he has. It's right at the top of the page, for crying out loud! Secondly, the same question could be posed to Paul himself. If I (and Franc) are so obviously unreasonable and illogical, why has Paul gone to the trouble of "refuting" my arguments at length for two installments of his own weblog? Paul just can't help projecting his own psychology, it would seem. Paul claims about this blog that "I think the type of "reasoning" laid out above would barely get a response, let alone an entire blog devoted to refuting the idiotic ravings of a lunatic." So why go to the trouble of writing lengthy "refutations" of a lunatic? Wouldn't someone who put serious effort into doing so only show himself to be insane? Would such a person be likely to provide boastful false accounts to cover up his fears? "One must remember that I debated Moore before and as a result he had to drop his original theories on epistemology, truth, and ethics. So I'm not that worried by the newer, more confident, Moore." Whatever you say, Paul. Here, have a cracker.