Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site rabbit.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!alice!rabbit!jj
From: jj@rabbit.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: Bible & Const. reply promised-answers to questions.
Message-ID: <1683@rabbit.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Jul-83 11:19:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: rabbit.1683
Posted: Tue Jul 12 11:19:34 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 13-Jul-83 20:12:41 EDT
References: <265@cbscd5.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 30
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).
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.
Still not a believer in organized religion.
rabbit!jj
P.S.
unc!tim:
If you think that you should consider an article's content
regardless of its style of argument, you're terribly nieve.
Please read your favorite historical commentary, especially the
part about the rise and fall of tyrants. Any writing that is
tailored to deliberately use emotion to sway the reader is by definition
both suspect and biased. If I were to post an article using the same
tactics, stating that those who used religion as an excuse for evil
were hypocrits, (sp, I know) but that those hackers who used their
computer skill to steal did not believe that they evil because their
beliefs had no moral code, thus we should not trust hackers, who have no
moral code because they are hackers, you would most certainly
object violently. There is exactly no difference between that argument
and the argument that Mr. Dubuq made.
I consider your response, then, either foolish or (more subtly
than most) prejudiced.