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.