Anyway, here is a line from his latest offering, with my response, CC'd to a friend of his who is even less coherent most of the time:
(referring to God's creating the universe)
1) Christianity accounts for this - man is sinful. It is expected that any and all human beings exhibit bad behavior, including those three behaviors.
2) Which does not mean it's winked at or tolerated; merely that it is expected.
3) Christianity also can account for moral judgments being objective. So dishonesty and hypocrisy are definitely, objectively wrong.
4) A naturalistic worldview can say nothing more than "I feel/it seems to ME that those things are wrong" but can offer no evidence as to why.
5) Further, any attempt to offer an argument as to why results in question-begging assertions such as "those things are wrong b/c they do not coincide with building a good society".
6) Yet further, that kind of statement leads to a (further question-begging) infinite regress, since there is no final arbiter of what is right and wrong. So there is none at all.
7) Natural selection expects that animals (such as leopards, amœbæ, and human beings) be "mean" - outlasting or killing a competitor is not "nice". So I can't imagine what problem you'd have with that anyway.
Basically, ___, you're emoting. Emoting has its place and all that; I'm not knocking it. But you're supposed to represent the rational worldview, the one who has all the reasonable, scientific answers. When you stray off into comments like these, you make yourself look pretty foolish. It may be private correspondence now, but if you let yourself get in the habit of writing like that, odds are it will eventually come out and be exposed in front of more than just me and a sympathetic friend.