* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 2:10 PM > Subject: Re: Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow > > > > Wow, a lot of words, without answering the question. I said > > "non-religous", not atheistic. > > OK, so I missed your switch from atheism which I was talking about, to > non-religious. It would have fostered clear communications if you > explicitly stated you agreed that I was right about atheists, but wished to > broaden the category. > > My original statement was: > > "I didn't cherry-pick some crazy group that happened to be atheistic." > > Clearly, from the start, I was looking at two cases: religious and > atheistic.
Actually, from the start, *I* was talking about non-religious. You started changing it to atheistic, as you brought out your same fuzzy reference to Marxism for the Nth time and tried to hammer the square peg into a round hole. > Non-religious is hard to define, because it is a soft category. > Are Dan, you are being absurd, as usual, when religion is being discussed. Non-religious couldn't be easier to define. It just doesn't fit into your straw man argument. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
