jj@rabbit.UUCP (07/12/83)
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!<boy am I sorry I ever read this newsgroup>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 <who at least means well and believes what he says> made. I consider your response, then, either foolish or (more subtly than most) prejudiced.
Pamela@unc.UUCP (07/17/83)
This has to be a first. I have gotten two replies to an article,
both of which are from people who are on the same side of the issue
that I am, both of which castigate me, and neither of which I can
understand. Isn't netting wonderful? The first of this pair of
articles was from Steve Bellovin, accusing me of factual errors, but
not saying what they were. Steve just presented a lot of facts, none
of which contradict any of my assertions. Clarification will, I hope,
be forthcoming.
The second of this pair is from rabbit!jj. I really don't know
what he (?) is talking about here -- I'll reprint the offending
paragraphs here, and if anyone can tell me what it is that jj is
talking about, I'd appreciate your letting me in on the secret.
If you think that you should consider an article's
content regardless of its style of argument, you're
terribly nieve [sic -- read naive]. 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 [sic -- missing were] 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 <who at least means
well and believes what he says> made.
I consider your response, then, either foolish or
(more subtly than most) prejudiced.
Look, people, if you are going to accuse me of something, tell me
what it is, in nice clear terms, like I do when I accuse someone of
something. What jj seems to be saying is that because I did not
castigate Paul for using emotionality in his arguments, then I am
prejudiced against Paul. Say what? In any case, the record will show
that Paul uses emotion less often than jj, with his insults (I was
shocked to learn that I was "nieve" and foolish) and repetitions of
"I'm sorry I ever read this newsgroup", with the obvious corollary
that he is better than everyone else in the group. Won't someone
explain to me what's going on?
______________________________________
The overworked keyboard of Tim Maroney
duke!unc!tim (USENET)
tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hilltim@unc.UUCP (07/18/83)
Mea culpa time! That last article, asking Steve Bellovin and rabbit!jj what it was that they were talking about, bore the (inappropriate) name of Pam Troy. I had set my USER environmental variable to her name so she could post an article, and forgot to change it back for mine. The article was from me, not Pam. Apologies for the mistake. ______________________________________ The overworked keyboard of Tim Maroney duke!unc!tim (USENET) tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA) The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
pmd@cbscd5.UUCP (07/18/83)
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