is this you being snide? can't tell for sure.
>
> i'm sorry. i don't have time to screw around here. is there some reason for
> the link?
aren't we always screwing around, here? the point of the link is that it's about asking questions.
>
> also: what happens when scientific inquiry means you no longer believe in
> science? *grin* thought you'd like that. you and dwayne anyway.
and ian. :)
and could it end any other way? lol
>
> i won't be getting involved with this. joanna's comments really pissed me
> off. i fail to see why i should find any of this stuff inherently
> interesting. nor should i have to be called rabid. i get that shit often
> enough around this hell hole. who needs it in the lbo hole? not me. thanks.
let that go.
do people really need reminding that i call myself an atheist? i don't believe in any god you care to name, and calling myself agnostic is just pointless and, well, wussy, frankly. do i count as "rabid"? probably not, but only because i don't spew venom about some undefined thing called "religion" every time fingers tap keyboard.
i've been trying to carry on a more sophisticated conversation, here, which is one reason i was so taken aback by your rather gross generalization that prompted my "are you serious?" remark. the other is that it was from you, but i guess you were reacting "rabidly"?
i notice even chuck0 seems to be more careful these days to talk about fundamentalists. why do we require clinical precision when we talk about p/e ratios and types of calories and brands of leftism but not when we talk about social-cultural phenomena like religions?
perplexed,
j
-- http://www.brainmortgage.com/
Among medieval and modern philosophers, anxious to establish the religious significance of God, an unfortunate habit has prevailed of paying to Him metaphysical compliments.
- Alfred North Whitehead