Gee deLayman, I dunno.

Maybe his commitment to intellectual integrity is stronger than yours.

The little discrepancies that you seem so willing to sweep under the rug, or "discuss privately among the fellowship" are things that he believes should be brought out into the daylight of serious investigation.

rw: I understand that Earl and I'm not trying to make your case any less analogous, just remaining consistant to the skeptics otherwise exacting intellectual standards in not allowing any frivilous or nebulous claims to be passed over in the guise of analogy.

rw: That depends on ones standard of what constitutes "good". Once an individual has made up his mind about a particular claim it becomes increasingly more difficult for him to rest in that bed again.

rw: Yes, funny isn't it. Even funnier still is the fact that you would have to utilize the information conveyed in this book to prosecute your case...and if you are successful in securing a verdict in your favor, that the information in this book is inaccurate, then you have no basis to prosecute any further claims against christianity and must cloe up shop, pull down your shingle and go into some other business. You see, Earl, in any attempt to question any biblical claim you must rely, for the most part, on this document. Now if you show this document to be un-reliable you have removed it from the list of exhibits against any further claims, such as claims against the christian God, therefore you basically have little more to contribute to your own cause. Since you would need to take your cue from information contained in this record, convincing yourself that it is in-accurate and unreliable renders any further prosecution of its claims moot. Counsel rarely calls a witness, proven to be false, to the stand on their behalf. So if you wanted to prosecute a charge, for instance, that the christian God is unjust, you would have to recall this witness to even level this charge. After having dishonored the witness you cannot then turn around and take any further action against the figurehead around which this record was written to describe.

So, in the interest of justice, I could grant you your case and say you've successfully demonstrated that there is sufficient doubt as to dis-allow any claims made in this record. But then I could hold your success over your own head like a dagger against any future attempts by you to utilize information contained in this record to further prosecute any other charges based on it.

What you and your cronies are hoping for is to silence the theist. Barring that, you would settle for making him out the fool. But that shoe fits as easily on either foot Earl, as I'm sure you're well aware. No one can make of another the fool without his cooperation. I am trying to prevent you from doing just that Earl in the future when you are tempted to recall some particular bible verse to support some future claim against God. If perchance there happens to be a witness of this trial in the crowd they will surely cry foul the moment you attempt this double standard...see what I mean?

I'm only thinking of your future Earl. You have a bright and promising future as a prosecuting attorney. Don't muck it up by thrashing the source and standard from which almost all current legality derives its jurisprudence. :d

eh hehehe, hehe......

.... Don't muck it up by thrashing the source and standard from which almost all current legality derives its jurisprudence.

If he's saying what I think he is, I seldom swear, but to this I have just to say, "You've got to be fucking kidding."

Koy,
Did I hewt your wittle feewings?

You are still doing it, you people seem to try to impress with run on sentenses that describe the minutia of every subject you are referring to in your point much like the one I am writing now.

You want proof?

I mean look at that thing, it is one sentense. You may be thorough and all that, but that statement could have been said with
20 words or less.

"sadly you are among the worst at not providing proof that god does not exist as Nomad asked."

51 words trimmed down to 18. The point is much clearer, easier to read, and more efficient at completing your thought. I can understand you rejecting criticism, it is natural. But I stand by my statement.

Whatsmore; I did offer a response to his original post, which I still stand by. It was brief, addressed his original post completely. It is interesting that you didn't seem to have any response to that. Perhaps it was too short. LOL

People appreciate it when you are efficient in communicating. They don't like to struggle to understand you. Your content and meaning may be ingenious, but if you are not able to convey it effectively, nothing is gained.

Boy, your gonna be pissed now I bet....

Dmv. I was being profoundly facetious.

Well, as Gilda Radner would have said

"Never Mind"

dmvprof, many posts in this debate don't fit in one page, because Nomad and his buddy theists do: A, nonA, then B, nonB, then C, nonC, then A, etc..., and the debate doesn't progress in knowledge anymore, it's sabotaged.

"I'm laughing at the superior intellect."

J.T.K.

And how are the Theists supposed to respond to this since it is devoid of any substantive analysis or discussion?

Well, don't respond Layman.