Moving goalposts

It can be very hard to debate with someone who can't maintain focus. Much time is wasted repeating the same point, or explaining what's already been said. Assuming I'm not being trolled of course. Here's an example...

Discussion	Commentary
Re: Deconstructing RGFSMCL links
Posted by JimC  on 21 Mar 2014 at 9:04AM
Regarding your reference to the Veale and Glass Evangelical Christian blog which you provided in another thread, they say, and I quote... “the theist is pointing out that atheism cannot explain the existence of moral values and obligations.”  This is a fallacious argument known as a Category Mistake. Atheism is not the kind of thing that provides explanations. http://tinyurl.com/rgfsmcl-049
Re: Deconstructing RGFSMCL links
Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 24 Mar 2014 at 1:34AM
False. Atheism offers all kinds of "explanations" consistent with the atheist world view: there is no god/are no gods, there is no fixed objective basis for morality or moral values, and a whole other host of negatives that repudiate every facet of a theistic perspective and its ramifications.  A negative view is still a view and has its own ramifications based on its assumptions--and it is a straw man argument and a category mistake to deny this fact.	The statement that "there is no fixed objective basis for morality or moral values" is not an "explanation from atheism". It's a statement. The classification of this as a "negative view" is unjustified. Just because the Apologist doesn't like the idea that there is no such thing as objective morality, that's just a fact. it is neither negative or positive. How can denying a fact be a straw man? And how can denying a fact be a category mistake? These statements demosntrate a complete lack of understanding of logical argument.
Re: Deconstructing RGFSMCL links
Posted by A Pantheist on 24 Mar 2014 at 2:05PM
How are these "explanations"? They are simply statements.
Re: Deconstructing RGFSMCL links
Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 27 Mar 2014 at 12:44AM
Those "explanations" regarding the nature of things result from atheism's single tenet.  If there is no god/gods, then therefore there is no fixed objective basis for (common) morality or moral values and imperatives.	The apologist ignores the point made by the Pantheist that what he considers to be explanations are statements, and simply refers to them as explanations again!  He then states that if there is no God then there is no fixed basis for morality. But this is begging the question because the Apologist is assuming a priori that objective morality comes from God.
Re: Deconstructing RGFSMCL links
Posted by JimC  on 27 Mar 2014 at 12:22PM
That so-called "result" is not a result. The statement that there is no objective morality does not necessarily follow from the assumption that gods don't exist.  The other flaws in your argument are: a) Treating the assumption that objective morality exists, as if it is a fact. b) Treating the assumption that your God is the basis of objective morality, as if it is a fact.
Re: Deconstructing RGFSMCL links
Posted by An Atheist  on 27 Mar 2014 at 3:14PM
Perhaps it hasn't occurred to A Christian Apologist that the Bible was written by humans, not written by and/or inspired by "God". Actually I believe that Santa Claus is the real basis of objective morality.	Comedy gold.
Re: Deconstructing RGFSMCL links
Posted by A Pantheist  on 27 Mar 2014 at 3:24PM
Seems quite a plausible theory to me, would that be SMFR? Santa	Haha!
What about people who are both atheist & asantist (Santa non-believers), where do they get their moral framework from?	Hoho!
Re: Deconstructing RGFSMCL links
Posted by An Atheist  on 27 Mar 2014 at 4:29PM
Yes, as a matter of fact that is SMFR. Well all I can say is that if anyone is asantist they better expect a lump of coal on Christmas eve this year. Of course there's always the tooth fairy,  I'm pretty sure she has a higher moral frame of reference -- that would be TFHMFR.	OK that's enough comedy.
Re: Deconstructing RGFSMCL links
Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 29 Mar 2014 at 12:29AM
JimC said:  The statement that there is no objective morality does not necessarily follow from the assumption that gods don't exist. If so then please explain what you believe to be the fixed, objective basis for morality and moral imperatives from your non-theistic (anti-theistic) perspective--thanks!  Treating the assumption that objective morality exists, as if it is a fact is no different from your counter assumption that it doesn't, but to clarify, it exists for all those who share a religious perspective that offers such, as I have stated many times previously.  Also as stated previously, that fixed moral reference need not be a Christian one in order for it to function as such.	Pretty sure I've answered this question before, but happy to do so again. It is quite a bizarre idea to think that objective morality exists for people who share a religious perspective. Surely it's a fact the the members of any religion do not agree on several moral issues, just like non-religious people do?
Re: Deconstructing RGFSMCL links
Posted by JimC  on 29 Mar 2014 at 12:37AM
There is no fixed, objective basis for morality. That's why most people agree on many moral issues, but not all. And that's why what people believe to be right and wrong varies over time, regardless of what you call their "shared religious perspective". Gay marriage is one of many examples.
Re: Deconstructing RGFSMCL links
Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 29 Mar 2014 at 2:10AM
My challenge to you was to provide an objective basis of morality from your perspective. You offered an irrelevant and off topic response. Thanks for once again validating the fact that for all your claims and all of your tautologies, you really are incapable of giving an honest and on topic response to counter challenges to your perspective. I will never tire of pointing this fact out.	This comment seems to completely ignore everything I said.  How can i respond to a challenge to provide the objective basis of morality when I've said it doesn't exist? And how can my response be irrelevant and off topic when I've directly answered a question specifically aimed at me? Was I supposed to ignore the question? Was it a trick? If so... DOH! I fell for it.
Re: Deconstructing RGFSMCL links
Posted by JimC  on 29 Mar 2014 at 2:16AM
I thought I made it clear that from my perspective there is no such thing as objective morality. I don't understand why that's irrelevant or off topic.
Re: Deconstructing RGFSMCL links
Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 29 Mar 2014 at 2:24AM
Perhaps you have a point--perhaps not. Please present such elsewhere if you are willing to discuss such on topic.  Meanwhile, regarding the current topic of this thread, I welcome the fact--yet again--that you are unwilling to address your disingenuous posits in your RGFSMCL tautologies! Please continue to dig yourself into a deeper hole on the matter through your demonstrable inability/unwillingness to address this on topic issue--thanks!	So it seems I'm being criticised for answering a question that I was asked!  What on earth is going on? I will assume I'm not being trolled, so I will explain the story so far, see if that helps...
Re: Deconstructing RGFSMCL links
Posted by JimC  on 29 Mar 2014 at 9:36AM
To recap: You provided three links to the Veale and Glass blog. I saw nothing in those blogs that we haven't discussed here in the past, and I gave cross references to the counter arguments presented here in the past. You promptly abandoned that topic and started a new one which was mainly ad hominem. The few theological points that you did raise were again repeats of previous discussions (as far as I could tell) and again I provided cross-references with the previous responses. Then as part of this thread, you specifically asked me to "please explain what you believe to be the fixed, objective basis for morality and moral imperatives from your non-theistic (anti-theistic) perspective--thanks!"  I answered your question... There is no fixed, objective basis for morality. And I gave an example to support that opinion. Then you said that was "irrelevant and off topic", followed by more personal comments.  So I repeated the point and asked you why it was off topic. And you suggested I "present such elsewhere". Followed by more personal comments.