Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekchips!teklabs!jeffma
From: jeffma@teklabs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: 'net.lobotomy revisited'
Message-ID: <2050@teklabs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 5-Jun-83 15:49:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: teklabs.2050
Posted: Sun Jun  5 15:49:21 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 8-Jun-83 02:03:21 EDT
Lines: 26


Somebody called "mam" at rabbit posted the following vacuous article:

	"Why does one have to defend one's beliefs.  If it is a purely 
	academic defense then what is the use.  We do not have to defend 
	our beliefs in morals, not [sic] do we have to defend our belief of
	what some one [sic] else tells us, ie we do not have to prove the 
	validity of what someone tells us, we simply take it on faith.  If 
	you believe in God, then believe in God and be a Christian, but don't 
	feel the need to defend it."
						From: mam@rabbit.UUCP

Unfortunately, mam, the human race didn't pull itself out of the swamp
by never questioning its own beliefs.  I, for one, would feel far more
comfortable if EVERYONE adopted a healthy attitude of self-criticism,
rather than get down on all fours and turn off their brains.  In that
sense I have far more respect for the strongly religious who engage in
intellectual discussions on net.religion than I do for those who never
bother to think about the basis for their beliefs (or are afraid to).

Are we wind-up toys, or are we thinking human beings?  How many would
prefer to sacrifice the sometimes painful process of critical examination 
for the impotent bliss of ignorance?

						Jeff Mayhew
						Tektronix