--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: <snip> > But it did demonstrate one of my main points (thanks Sam > Harris) which is that religious ideas are held in a > protected class. They are shielded by people who don't > believe in them as if the people who believe them are > delicate children whose feelings must not be hurt by > someone challenging the idea as unsupported by reasonable > evidence.
This is a crock, and Curtis knows it's a crock. Yesterday: Curtis: > > > That is the shield I am talking about. Claiming that > > > someone is out of line for questioning the claims of > > > religion as if they were any other claim we evaluate. > > Me: > > No, that isn't what I said. I said I thought it was > > pointless--impractical, ineffective--in the context of > > opposing bad behavior. > Curtis: > OK That's all he said in response: "OK." He doesn't agree with my position, but yesterday he made it clear that he understood what it was. Today he egregiously and quite deliberately misrepresents it. That's 50 for me. I'll respond more this evening or tomorrow.
