From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Date: 7 Sep 92 11:23:46 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
> Perhaps it would be good if someone took it upon themselves 
> to provide an archive file for all the rational "proofs" of
> [Gg]od and their rebuttals, and then just refer to it in the
> FAQ. That might cut down on rehashing.

I'm happy to do this if people suggest which proofs should be included.  The
problem is that most of the "proofs of god" which we see are disguised so as
not to look like what they actually are.  For instance, we see lots of
versions of "argument from design with a bit of handwaving", and hundreds of
variations of "proof by entirely circular argument".

> Also, the FAQ seems designed more for non-atheists as a
> primer of what the rules of debate are. It might be nice
> to say somewhere something along the lines of:
> 
>      If you are an atheist, Welcome to your own group!
>      or Welcome home, or something. . .
> 
> One may not get that welcome all the time when one makes it
> known that one is an atheist.

Good point.  I'm currently in the process of writing Son of the Alt.Atheism
FAQ file, a four-part extravaganza of contentious prose.  This will require
an intro, which will probably say "Hi!  If you're an atheist, welcome, you
may like to read <x> and <y>... If you're a Christian, ..."

>                               Along the same line, information
> on national and international atheist org.s would be good too.

I'm compiling this.  The state of play at the moment is that the new-model
FAQ files will be as follows:

0. Greetings and what to read.  Short.
1. Introduction to atheism.  Aimed at theists.  Takes the form of a dialogue
   between an atheist and a theist who doesn't really know much about
   atheism.  Covers things like "Isn't atheism a religion?", "What are the
   justifications for atheism?", "What's agnosticism?" and so on.  Written,
   needs some more editing before I post it for people to read.
2. Introduction to reasoned debate.  Also known as "Logic 101".  Describes
   what constitutes a logical argument and what doesn't.  Covers common
   mistakes like "A => B therefore B => A", assumptions include conclusion,
   and so on.
3. List of atheist organizations around the world, recommended books, where
   to buy Darwin fishes, and so on.
4. Everything else -- actual frequently asked questions which aren't covered
   by the other stuff.

Other stuff which might be available includes a list of logical fallacies. 
There are at least three of these drifting around at the moment; I'd like to
have one big list available.

>      Most atheists put truth first.  If searching for truth causes you to
>      become uncomfortable, that's too bad.
> 
> I think "truth" is a subjective term, and it indicates a value
> judgement. IMO, it would be better to substitute "empiricism"
> or "physical reality" for "truth" above.

I think that's even worse.  I'm not willing to say for sure that physical
reality even exists, let alone put it first.

> Let's face it, no one likes to be "approached" by a slightly
> deaf religious zealot bent on proselytizing and conversion of
> the great misinformed.
> 
> I would think posters/readers/lurkers in talk.religion.misc
> appreciate these types only slightly more than alt.atheist's.

Well, it's a while since I last read talk.religion.misc, but at that time I
don't remember seeing people get flamed for preachy articles.

> While the point is important, it tends to reinforce the belief
> that all theists are monotheistic, fundamentalist christians;
> perhaps since this seems so common on the net, it is unavoidable
> in the FAQ.

There are two problems.  On the one hand, we don't want it to look like
atheism is purely a reaction against Christianity.  On the other hand, almost
all of the "problem posters" are Christian (although recently we've seen an
increase in the number of evangelical Moslem posters).

This leads to a slightly schizophrenic tone in the current FAQ file, where
one minute it's talking in generalities and the next it's addressing
Fundamentalist Christians.  Hopefully this problem will go away in the
re-write.

>                For example, religions aid their own survival by inducing
>      believers to destroy unbelievers, by requiring believers to proselytize,
>      by discouraging believers from questioning doctrine, and so on. 
> 
> This is a sweeping generalization that is not true or no longer
> true for many religions.

s/religions aid/many religions aid/

>      Many, if not most atheists were previously Christians.
> 
> Wow! I didn't know this.

It makes sense to me, in the USA and UK at least.  I mean, in the UK
"religious education" is mandatory for all school children, and so most
children end up believing in God and Jesus for at least as long as they
believe in Santa Claus.


mathew
-- 
"When nothing's funny it gets easy to laugh 
 at the drop of a hat, or a bomb" -- DEVO
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.homosexuality