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