> Huh? You don't seem to get that positting a refutation with an inconsistent argument, refutes the argument. For example: "The laws of logic are man made, and eternal," is a contradiction which is self-refuting.
No, you still do not understand what I say. If I want to refute an argument of yours, I can give SEVERAL arguments, and those arguments can be mutually contradictory, but only ONE needs to be true to refute your argument. You can't counter with "but just a while ago you said something DIFFERENT!", because I can change my angle of attack as I see fit, as long as any argument taken on its own is consistent. What I said earlier is immaterial.
The fact that I have to keep explaining this just once again shows how unfamiliar you are with logic and philosophy, and I would once again urge you to actually study it, and actually study other views than your own to try and understand them, even if you do not agree with them. That is how true wisdom is gained, not by steadfastly sticking to one opinion and refusing to listen to others.