Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cbscd5.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscd5!pmd From: pmd@cbscd5.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion Subject: RE: Re: Bible & Const. reply promised-answers to questions. Message-ID: <288@cbscd5.UUCP> Date: Mon, 18-Jul-83 13:25:20 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscd5.288 Posted: Mon Jul 18 13:25:20 1983 Date-Received: Tue, 19-Jul-83 19:20:20 EDT References: <265@cbscd5.UUCP>, <1683@rabbit.UUCP> Organization: Bell Labs, Columbus Lines: 62 From: jj@rabbit.UUCP Atheism is not a religion. Atheism describes the absence of religion. Some of those who are atheists band together to ?practice? their athiesm (whatever that means). Why do you think Atheism is not a religion? There are many atheists that dissagree with you. I would think Atheism requires faith on the part of its adherents since the non-existence of God (or gods) cannot be proved conclusively. You cannot say "I have found no reason to believe there is a god; therefore God definitely does not exist". God may exist apart from your knowledge. Secular Humanists definitely define their brand of atheism as a religion; and the Supreme Court has recognized it as such. It seems that, for legal and political purposes, we have to deal with atheism as a religion, whether it is or not. The writings of Karl Marx are NOT the "atheists bible". Such a suggestion repeats the guilt by association tactic that you, Mr. Dubuq, use almost continuously. I am disappointed to see the question even stated. You're right. I should have thought more about the question before I asked. As I said when I asked it, the question was raised in my mind by something a respondent opposing my article had said. I think I misunderstood the point that person was trying to get across and I was too hasty in asking the question on the net. I want you and everyone to know that I do not hold, and never have held, such a view and did not intend to imply such by asking the question. I am not too familiar with Marx's writings and the response made be wonder if Marx had ever written anything that is considered definitive of atheism--apart from his political views. I would also like to say that much of your response to what I have written is not helpful to me. You seem to care a lot about putting down my argument but very little showing me the right way. In your response to my original article you associated its style with that of the Moral Majority. When I objected to this tactic, you said that you were deliberately mimicking the style of my first article. Why then didn't you say so at first. I like to believe people are being straight with me unless they indicate otherwise. You seem to ignore the fact that many people err unconsiously in their reasoning when you suggest that I deliberately try to cloud the issue. You've said that I tried to connect unrelated philosphies and facts in my argument. How are they unrelated? You seem to know more about their acutal relationship (of lack thereof) than I do, but you give me no reason to belive you are right and I am wrong. You don't seem to care whether or not I continue in my ignorance. I also do not quite understand you disdain for "emotional" terminology. A certian amount of emotion is rightfully connected with certain issues. Emotionalism can be abused, but it can also be used to convey reality more accurately. I am not sure just what I did in my article to cloud the issue, but your assertion that execssive emotion is used to deliberately cloud the issue makes the assumption that you know more about the issue than another and your judgement as to whether the emotion is excessive or deliberate is accurate. This assumption I cannot accept without proof of the accuracy of your insight. I do appreciate all criticism that is intended to be helpful. Listening (though I may not agree) is the price I am more than willing to pay to help others to want to listen to me. Paul Dubuc ... cbosgd!cbscd5!pmd