----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 2:10 PM Subject: Re: Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
> Wow, a lot of words, without answering the question. I said > "non-religous", not atheistic. OK, so I missed your switch from atheism which I was talking about, to non-religious. It would have fostered clear communications if you explicitly stated you agreed that I was right about atheists, but wished to broaden the category. My original statement was: "I didn't cherry-pick some crazy group that happened to be atheistic." Clearly, from the start, I was looking at two cases: religious and atheistic. Non-religious is hard to define, because it is a soft category. Are people who belong to no organized religion but believe in God or a higher power non-religious. How about people who are spiritual, but not religious. So, I'll be happy to say that most people who are spiritual but not religious or who believe in God, but are not a member of a particular religion are and were not predominantly Marxist. I'll agree that most people who are agnostic on the subject are and were not Marxist either. But, the vast majority of atheists have been Marxist. By your switch of the topic, I take it that you are tacitly conceding this. I think the question of whether most non-religious people in the last 2 centuries were Marxist depends on what you call non-religious. Do you, for example, include people who believe in God or some higher power but do not belong to any religion in that category? The sites that quote higher numbers. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
