I saw nothing in his response that I would consider an attack. (although this might actually be one)
Why do religious nuts always seem to assume an attack when you point out facts? I think it's because they know (way down in the depths of there subconscious) that they are trying to defend fairy tails with no evidence to support them, so when an atheist comes at there beliefs with the big stick of logic, and all they have is naked belief, they see it as an attack.
Would you say I was attacking a flat earthier when I give the evidence why I believe the earth is round? Would you say I was attacking someone who believed that the stork brought babies instead of fertilization?
I did, in fact, "attack" religion. I think my description of people who believe one of the fundamental tenets of Christian ideology -- the so-called "virgin birth" -- as "bat-shit crazy" could be fairly characterized as an attack. However, it was not my intent to personally attack mattish. I don't know if mattish is a Christian.
So the obvious reason for that is that you were standing too close to my house.
