From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reverse FAQ....
Date: 10 Jan 93 21:58:21 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1inmq0INNp99@gap.caltech.edu> werdna@cco.caltech.edu (Andrew Tong) writes:
>
>In alt.atheism you write:
>
>>Why do Christians think they have to preach to us in alt.atheism?  And then
>>criticize us for ridiculing Christians?  Do atheists go into other news
>>groups and "take on" the believers?  I know you are commanded to spread
>>the word, but can't we have a little corner of our own for discussion
>>among atheists?  It only seems polite.  
>
>So you're saying that if Christians stopped posting to alt.atheism, then
>the atheist participants in the group would stop looking down upon (the
>majority of) christians?  That the people in alt.atheism ridicule Christians
>only because they are here?  That atheists have a common respect for the ideals
>and beliefs of Christians? 

He didn't say any such thing. He asked why Christians are motivated
to preach tp the readers of alt.atheism. If you are a Christian then
perhaps you could shed some light on that question instead of
interposing some unrelated agenda of yours. Or, if you aren't interested
in answering the question, let it pass uncommented.

>I'm sorry, but the major impression that I get from
>this group is that atheists believe that Christians are the brainless scourges
>of the world, the cause of a majority of the world's (or at least America's)
>problems.  Since this group IS public, then this sentiment is BOUND to attract
>Christians.  

I agree. Perhaps this is your answer to the above question (in which
case the business above about atheists' attitudes toward Christians
is simply irrelevant, isn't it?)

>Anybody keep any statistic as to how many alt.atheism posts are _not_ merely
>anti-Christian posts?

How would you distinguish them? Whose criteria would you use?

>And my major point lies in the FAQ itself.  It is geared toward answering
>attacks on atheism from Christians.  

Natural enough, since the majority of non-atheist posters to alt.atheism
are Christians (or at least claim to be). The usual purpose of an FAQ
is to provide to conscientious posters a guide to the assumed protocols
and etiquette of a newsgroup, and to discourage people from re-posting
material that has been seen so often as to drain it of any interest
for the readers of the newsgroup. If you read the FAQ then you must
realize that it invites posters who believe they have a new angle on
a previously refuted argument to try their luck, though it is advisable
to familiarize yourself first with the state of the art on the
argument in question. We just don't want to see 'Hitler was an
atheist; look what he did' for the 4 million and first time because it's
already come up and been dealt with 4 million times before.

>This fact, by itself, shows that much
>of this group is not alt.atheism, but rather alt.atheism_is_better_than_
>Christianity.  

Only in the same sense that soc.religion.christian is actually
soc.religion.christianity-is-better-than-other-worldviews.

>In light of this context, Christian participation in this
>group is almost expected.

I would say that, given the demographics of the net, Christian
participation is certainly expected. As to whether it is desired,
I think we'd need a poll to determine that. However, I do
feel confident that, on balance, readers of alt.atheism don't
want low-quality participation. The FAQ's purpose is to
contribute in some small way to improving the quality of
discourse.

>And my whole point is to establish that many
>fundamental atheist conceptions of Christianity are simply wrong, illogical,
>or inconsistent.

Now *that* would be interesting. I hope you will get about it
(and observe the guidelines presented in the FAQ in the process).

>>When I read and post to alt.atheism (except when I am trying to get garbage
>>removed) I am interested primarily in what atheists think.  I have seen/met
>>a few reasonable believers whose opinion I respect for the other side of a
>>discussion and that is nice, but generally speaking I want to know what the
>>atheists think.
>
>OK.  I'll keep in mind that maybe many people in this group simply don't want
>to hear the other side of the story in alt.atheism.  This probably won't
>stop me from posting a completed anti-FAQ, though.   Please excuse my little
>bit of impoliteness and/or inconsideration.  But this is something I think is
>important.

Please note that the paragraph to which you respond above does
admit of the niceness of a repsectable presentation of the other
side of the debate. I think you will find that attitude widespread
among a.a readers (though, no doubt, you will also encounter
readers who simply froth at anything posted by a Christian. Such
are the hazrds of open-access communications).

>Logic is logic, right?

Right.

>>As far as ridiculing Christianity goes, it does not bother me or any other
>>atheist I know.  Some of us would like to go beyond that, but from time to
>>time it is just necessary because we live in a society where CHRISTIANITY 
>>IS RAMMED DOWN OUR THROATS.
>
>Is this still the case?  With prayer banned in schools and even the phrase
>"merry Christmas" banned on public buildings (in Maryland, for one...  They
>require "season's greetings" or something like that) it seems as if
>atheism is officially sanctioned by our society.  Or at least anti-Christianity

Yes, it is still the case. For example, not only is it legal in
the U.S. to discriminate against someone for being an atheist,
in some places (e.g. Arkansas, atheists are barred from holding
public office). The U.S. military gives G.I.s time off from their
duties to attend chapel services unless they are atheists, in
which case they have to keep working. And so on.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc