--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > 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.
No, your claiming it is a crock is a crock. You know perfectly well what points this is in reference to and it isn't the one you are providing. > > 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 As you know Judy, your quote was not in the posts (or part of the post) where you castigate me for mocking religion. If you let it go at this statement I wouldn't agree, but I couldn't accuse you of shielding religious beliefs. But if you accuse me of using "insulting language" you are doing exactly what I said above, shielding the religious children from bad Curtis and his mockery of their precious beliefs. You have gone way beyond the case you made above to show your disapproval of my tone, my phrases, and the fairness of my criticism from your point of view. You were using personal shame as a sophist's trick to mask a weak counterargument. > > 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. And you are egregiously and quite deliberately misrepresenting which aspect of your many statements I was responding to specifically. You don't get it both ways Judy. You don't get to claim one thing and do another. That privileged is reserved for religious people. > > That's 50 for me. I'll respond more this evening or > tomorrow. I hope you do. This has been an interesting ride. >
