--- In [email protected], "qntmpkt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --"Lon" <at46gordonsquare@> wrote: > > > As could be expected, Harris batted Sullivan's pseudo-argument > out of the park into the next county. I was tempted to abandon > reading the entirety of Sullivan's text after a few paragraphs, > but, optimist, kept doggedly on, wondering if he'd ever begin to > make sense ... but, no, it was too much to expect. > > Bravo for Harris's well-reasoned dismantling of Sullivan's > gibberish.
Did you notice how much of Harris's response was devoted to beating the stuffing out of a straw man, i.e., the purported miracles of Jesus? Sullivan didn't invoke those miracles at all in his argument. To my mind, whenever someone expends a lot of effort in creating and then demolishing a straw man, it's an indication that he senses the rest of his argument is deficient in some way. What was it about Sullivan's argument, I wonder, that made Harris feel something was lacking in his response? > > Lon > > -- > wrote: > > > > http://www.tinyurl.com/yrs9fo
