>And that's only after a couple of minutes with Google. I'm willing to
>bet others have similar exchanges that they could provide. Chris is not
>imagining things here.
>
>PC
>
chris was specifically talking about me. Do the archives turn up evidence of my aggressive atheism?
Also, that was Chuck0, correct? Who else belongs in this aggressive atheist category. Doug has supported Chuck's statements. Is it because Doug supports Chuck's position on religion or says things like "what's wrong with secularism"?
I'm really tired of the complete failure to name names and show your work. Not you, Paul, but Chris. He's happy to name names, just won't back up the claim. Just claiming that "aggressive atheism" occurs on this list or that there are a lot of aggressive atheists on this list hasn't been constructive so far, so maybe you could clear things up.
Also, my partner R, always thinks it's funny that religious people, of nearly any stripe, will agree that some primitive religions are just wacky. Believing the earth is a turtle and stuff like that. Why is it perfectly acceptable to agree that believing the earth is a turtle is wacky, but not ok for Wojtek to say what he says? I'd never thought about it quite that way, but there ya have it. It's an interesting question. It's accepting the idea that, otoh, people "progress" in their belief structure and come to have more sophisticated view of religion and yet getting upset with people, like Carrol, who claim that people will probably move beyond religion to a point where religion isn't really important to anyone and people will think of it as a curious pastime.
Obviously there an explanation for this distinction, but I'm not sure what it is. Anyone want to take a stab at it?
Kelley
"Finish your beer. There are sober kids in India."
-- rwmartin