In his response to my letter, Geoff Watson made an attempt to refute my argument that moral relativism is a logically bankrupt philosophy. He accused me of muddling the issue because I attacked moral relativism while religion is what was in question. While Watson is correct in pointing out that I failed to make the distinction, he ends up refuting the very philosophy he supports. Watson said, "I believe what I want to believe, and as long as my beliefs do not cause harm to others I should not be criticized." Apparently my letter somehow managed to "cause harm" as Watson found it necessary to criticize me.
Watson goes on to attack religion by claiming that faith-based arguments cannot be proven, only debated. This is an easy assertion to make, but you cannot, a-priori, dismiss religious truth by claiming that it cannot proven. The statement is self-defeating as it is itself, faith-based.
If there is anything Watson and I agree on, it's his claim that all religions cannot be true. This is what I have been arguing all along. While it's possible that all religions are wrong, they cannot all be right.