Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In article <475### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom 
> says...
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> In article <475### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom 
>>> says...

[snipped some old context].

>>> **instead** of theirs.
>> Sorry Patrick for not using the words with exactly the same meaning as 
>> you. I just wanted to make absolutely clear that being an atheist is 
>> simply part of who I am. It is in every cell of my body, in every 
>> thought that even remotely touches ethics, in how I interact with others 
>> and in all my scientific work. In short it is part of me the same way as 
>> believe in a God is for some others, that is why I said it is a 
>> religion. If some moron rejects that word because in his views that 
>> implies that it has to be unfounded, so be it. If you think it is an 
>> irrational emotional thing, think again. Besides if you think that for a 
>> true believer in God that is only for emotional reasons and that that 
>> can't be rational, you can not be more wrong than that.
>>
[snipped a large text that is largely based on your idea on what a 
religious person or an atheist should believe. Interesting but irrelvant.]
> 
> Let me put it another way. If, by your definition, atheism, which only 
> demands that you either reject, or strongly suspect the nonexistence of, 
> gods, is a religion, 
I have never said that. I said that I am an atheist and in a religious 
way, not that atheism is a religion. So your premise is wrong. Logical 
says that from a false premise you can derive anything. Hence you can 
from here on deduce anything.
[snipped some invalid conclusions].

I try to answer Darren elsewhere, perhaps that might shed some light. (I 
hope not).

Post a reply to this message