From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Hello All!
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:05:01
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: cb366@cleveland.Freenet.Edu's message of 9 Oct 1992 21:48:33 GMT

Something tells me that this posting's a more than just a little better
reasoned than most of this nature.  There are some genuine questions
here that deserve a response.

In article <1b4unhINNr3k@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
cb366@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark B. Bendiksen) writes:

   I am what most of you would probably call a "Jesus Freak".  I have
   spent some time reading through many of the posts on this newsgroup
   with much interest. I expected to find much more discussion on deeper
   philosophical issues (i.e. why you believe in no God, etc.). Instead,
   this group seems to be mainly a "club" whose members waste time and
   net space by coming up with clever ways to bash "crazy Christians"
   and anyone else who chooses to believe in an almighty creator.  If
   you scan through articles on religious newgroups I dare say you'll
   find little space wasted talking about "those nutty atheists who
   don't believe in God".

Well, most of us "don't believe in god" rather than "believe in no god."
That is, we take the "weak atheist" rather than the "strong atheist"
position.  Given that we see no affirmative evidence for a god, and that
it's impossible to disprove such an ill-defined notion (after all, we
can't prove that we weren't all created 1 second ago with "memories"
intact), most of us simply don't care too much about this one way or
another.  For myself, I don't believe in a god for the very pedestrian
reason that I've encountered nothing that seems to require the existence
of one.

By and large, we're not interested in bashing religion for the sake of
bashing religion.  If it weren't for the fact that most of us have been
pressured by family and others into believing something that we don't
care to, and into following rituals that make no sense, and seeing the
teaching of science bowdlerized for the sake of religious sensibilities,
this group probably wouldn't exist.  However, we have all seen lots of
this, and we're a bit sensitive due to a recent (and periodic) spate of
preachy postings ("Scott", for example), and this is rather annoying
(consider how you'd feel if someone invaded talk.religion.christian and
started spouting denunciations of the bible).

Take for example the recent discussion of the group in Canada that's
attempting to get computers removed from schools.  At one point a
comparison was raised between that group and the Amish, another
religious group that doesn't believe in using modern technology.  This
point wasn't belabored; as was pointed out, the Amish don't interfere
with anyone else's life, so no one here has any interest in interfering
with their lives.  It's only when other people interfere with us that we
get annoyed.

   Please don't get me wrong. I did read many fascinating and
   interesting posts while going through your newsgroup, but more often
   than not many posts consist of nothing more than hate for those that
   believe in God. Is that really constructive?

You're missing the point -- it's not hatred for those who believe in
god.  It's targeted against those who attempt to enforce their beliefs
on others who don't share those beliefs, or those who pester us with
tired "proofs" that have long since been debunked.  It's fear of those
like George Bush who, as president, states that he believes that
atheists shouldn't be considered good citizens and who might be in a
position to hurt us for our beliefs (or lack thereof).  It's anger at
being shut out of organizations such as the Boy Scouts for completely
irrelevant reasons.  It's anger at biology not being taught properly
because some parents are afraid that modern biology contradicts their
religious beliefs.  What we don't like is when religious beliefs start
affecting things that we think should be outside the purview of blind
faith and inside the domain of empirical reasoning.

   I know I'm inviting flames, and that's okay. But if you attack me
   with namecalling rather than by discussion of the issue, you'll just
   be proving my point.

I think it's a perfectly valid issue that you raised here, and it
deserves a serious answer.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu