--Right, but the strawman miracles are in the same category as some of the items Sullivan brings up (aspects of Catholocism that are remote from his direct experience & feel-good inspirations based on the Bible and the history of the Church). Harris lumps the whole ball of wax into one pinada and (somewhat blindly) hits it with his baseball bat. Some strikes, some misses.
- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "qntmpkt" <qntmpkt@> 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 >
