Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion

Well, there's the fact that God doesn't exist ... but apart from that I can't think of anything.

Well of course it doesn't. The Koran's got all this crazy stuff in it about fictional characters like Adam and Eve, their supposed children Cain and Abel, some guy called Noah who survived some sort of mythical flood, an imaginary wizard called Moses who parted the Red Sea (as if!), some chap called David who allegedly killed someone called Goliath, some bloke called Jonah who's supposed to have lived inside a whale, and some chappie called Jesus who healed the blind and the leprous and raised the dead.Obviously there's no historical or archaeological support for any of this.Now, you were saying how the Koran was different from the Bible? Pray continue with your most interesting narrative. Have you ever read the Bible?Sheesh.(I need not, I think, bother asking if you've read the Koran.)Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And yet when the same stories appear in the Koran and the Bible, you claim that the Koran lacks historical and archaeological support which the Bible possesses. The fact that it was written by one person actually gives it the unity of thought and purpose which the Bible so singularly lacks.

And you have in fact been provided with arguments. The fact that you personally have babbled incoherently about these arguments (or "responded to" them, as you like to call it) does not mean that they have not been provided. Indeed, it is hard to see how you could have "responded to" them had they not been provided.

لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله Let's see. Comparing the holy book of one religion, claimed to be inspired by God, containing stories about Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood, the Exodus from Egypt, Jesus raising the dead ... with the holy book of another religion, claimed to be inspired by God, containing stories about Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood, the Exodus from Egypt, Jesus raising the dead ... ah yes, idiotic. I mean, where's the point of comparison?No, clearly if the Bible should be compared with anything it should be compared with something with which it has some points of similarity, such as a giant inflatable rubber pineapple. That would make perfect sense.

Right. Just as one cannot claim that no-one knows who killed Jimmy Hoffa, and then conclude that it wasn't Napoleon.What would we do without your finely-tuned sense of logic to set us all straight?

Apparently you have missed the fact that you have been provided with "a single argument" --- indeed, more than one.Otherwise your complaint that you have repeatedly asked to be provided with a single argument makes no sense.

Well, you'd think so, wouldn't you?And yet here we are.

As you would know were it not for your crippling illiteracy, I did not say that you had been provided with an argument that you haven't responded to (thought this may in fact be the case). I merely said that you had been provided with arguments.

As you would know were it not for your chronic illiteracy, arach wrote that "none of the books of the new testament were written by people who personally knew christ (prior to the resurrection, in a real corporeal physical sense, anyways)". Which is true of Paul even according to the most orthodox of Christian views.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Of course. Of course "king" means "not a king", and "will rule in Israel" means "will not rule in Israel".I think I'm getting the hang of hermeneutics. So when Genesis says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", it means "In the beginning God did not create the heavens and the earth", right?After all, if we started taking the Bible literally we'd believe all sorts of silly things.

My, my, what a nasty piece of work you are to be sure.However, neither your real character nor your fantasies about my imaginary character seem germane to the topic or my post.According to you, the OT predicts "a great king that will rule in Israel".Clearly Jesus did not fulfill this prediction.

Why can't the prophecies be about Percy? He's the Internet King (moderator) of the EvC forums (Internet Israel). There's no evidence that that's how they were intended, any more than there's evidence that they were meant to be about Percy.In particular, it should be pointed out that none of the Jews understood them in that way. When they read about a great king ruling over Israel, they did not understand it as meaning that someone who was not a king would not rule over Israel but would instead become the cult figure of a new religion that would persecute the crap out of them for the next coupla thousand years. Otherwise they'd probably have looked forward to the advent of this "messiah" chappie a whole lot less. Yes, because it's a church and not the Kingdom of Israel.You can make any prophecy fit anything if you change the meanings of the words entirely. Here, I've got a prediction for you. In the coming week you'll win the lottery.Now get back to me in a week and I'll explain to you what I actually meant by that. Here's a hint --- by "win" I don't mean win, and by "the lottery" I don't mean the lottery.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Perhaps you were dropped on your head as a child. Who can say? I prophecy that tomorrow you will see a grufflepuff, by which I mean an animal with five heads and purple wings that incessantly plays the trombone.If you don't see anything fulfilling that prophecy tomorrow, then let me ask you this. If you don't believe in the veracity and accuracy of my claims, how can you claim with absolute assurance that none of the things you see tomorrow are grufflepuffs?It is ludicrous to assert with certain assurance that my prophecy has not been fulfilled and believe at the same time that I am unreliable and inaccurate.