From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Reverse FAQ....
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 21:34:01 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1inmq0INNp99@gap.caltech.edu> werdna@cco.caltech.edu (Andrew Tong) writes:
[deletions]
>>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?  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.  

 Need I point out that on soc.rel.xian, the nearest thing to an 'inverse'
of this newsgroup, there are several posts a week deploring the 'godless
atheist conspiracy' and so forth? The difference is that s.r.c. is
*moderated*...

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

 Depends, of course, on how you define 'anti-Christian.' There are some
posts that are simply potshots, but I think the vast majority of nominally
'anti-christian' posts are in *response* to Christian posts.

>And my major point lies in the FAQ itself.  It is geared toward answering
>attacks on atheism from Christians.  This fact, by itself, shows that much
>of this group is not alt.atheism, but rather alt.atheism_is_better_than_
>Christianity.  In light of this context, Christian participation in this
>group is almost expected.

 While it may wind up being a self-reinforcing cycle, it is undeniable that
the vast majority of theists posting on alt.atheism *are* Christians.
It is unsurprising that the most frequently asked questions are from
Christians. When most of the "attacks on atheism" come from Christians,
is it surprising that the responses would be directed toward Christians?

>BTW: I'm not criticizing the ridiculing of Christians.  We all need to be
>ridiculed every now and then, when we start to take ourselves (or this group)
>too seirously.  I'm criticizing the illogical and _incorrect_ criticisms/
>ridiculing of christianty.  And my whole point is to establish that many
>fundamental atheist conceptions of Christianity are simply wrong, illogical,
>or inconsistent.

 I'll be interested in seeing your 'anti-FAQ' then. Could you point out
a few of the incorrect criticisms of Christianty? Bear in mind that quite
a few atheists here were *raised* as Christians and so have more than a
passing familiarity with it...

>>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.

 Many atheists already *have* heard the 'other side of the story', often
in painful detail. I went to a Catholic high school, I've read many of
C.S. Lewis' apologetics, and I've read a fair amount of the Bible, for
example.

>>constructive.  In nearly any forum in which atheists participate, there is
>>always some Christian butting in with his two cents worth.  Do atheists go
>>into your churches and shout down your ministers?  (If so, give me times,
>>dates, places, and contacts -- I may want to join in :) )
>
>Alt.atheism is hardly a church.  It is a forum for the discussion of atheism
>by atheists.  The fact that christians are here can be explained simply by
>looking at the content of the FAQ,

 Again, the sequence was christian->faq, not faq->christian.

>                                   and by considering the general contempt
>and condescention that atheists seem to have toward Christians.

 I think it's more of a condescension toward Christianity than toward
Christians. "Love the believer but hate the belief," if you will. Nor
is this by any means universal among atheists, even on alt.atheism.

>                                                                 Of course,
>there are those Christians who are here trying to convert, and I guess that
>_that_ type of "butting in" would be inappropriate.  But I don't see any
>problems with a person coming into this group and pointing out a few logical
>inconsistencies in atheist thinking.

 Nor would you find this unwelcome; however I have not seen too many
examples of this ere now...

>                                     I'm hoping that you guys don't
>discriminate against the logic of a person by the person's religious beliefs.
>Logic is logic, right?

 Indeed. Again, I look forward ot seeing your "-FAQ".

>>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

 People attempting to teach creationism in public schools. The "no selling
on Sunday" style laws still enforced in places, and on the books in many
more. The president of the United States saying atheists should not be
considered citizens. "In God We Trust" on the money.
 Some of these are more annoying than others, but they hardly indicate an
'atheist' society.
 Especially when you count the non-governmental intrusions. I don't
know how many people have knowcked on my door, trying to introduce me
to their 'deity du jour.' I've been 'witnessed to' on trains, buses,
etc. When was the last time an atheist knocked on your door and said,
"Have you heard about God? Well, forget it."?
 BTW, "prayer" is not "banned" in school. *ORGANIZED* prayer, instituted
by the administration, is. *Big* distinction.

>>I had the pleasure of living and working in Indonesia which is primarily
>>Moslem and watching the Christians (expecially the expatriates) squirm when
>>they were no longer the dominant culture.  Quite a pleasure.  Seems they
>>can dish it out at home, but can't take it abroad.  What!  No Christmas
>>tree in the Cafeteria!  We can't preach in public!  Will someone turn off
>>that goddamned loudspeaker in the Mosque!  You mean the stores are closed
>>every afternoon for prayer!  Quite a laugh riot for me.  I think I understand
>>now why there are so many religious wars.  People get quite pissed off about
>>this kind of stuff.
>
>Interesting.  You favor the curtailing of human rights as long as it is the
>rights of Christians that are being curtailed?  What human being can take
>a violation of human rights?  If you wish to criticize Christians limiting
>the rights of people in the west, you must also criticize non-christians 
>limiting the rights of Christians anywhere else.

 Hardly. I imagine that the author found the conditions as annoying as the
Christians... with the difference that atheists are *used to it.* The
Christians were complaining about essentially the same treatment that
atheists get everywhere. I certainly don't want *anyone* to have to go
through that kind of stuff... but it seems hypocritical for Christians to
deplore it elsewhere and inflict it at home.

>>So altogether I think a few flames of Christianity in this newsgroup is quite
>>acceptable and a very mild reaction.  There are other newsgroups for Christians
>>to read if they are offended.
>
>Yup, I agree that they're fine.  But they should at _least_ be logically
>coherent.  (Much like your previous attack wasn't particularly coherent. I'll
>be sure to include it in my Anti-FAQ.  I need all the easy arguments I can
>get.)

 Which 'previous attack'? Or do you mean the Moslem/Christian bit? As I
have explained, that was *not* an attack. Nor was it incoherent; I found
its point perfectly clear.

>>I guess the above could be considered a "standard attack on Christianity",
>>or perhaps it is non-standard, I don't know.
>
>Oh, FAQ questions don't need to be standard.  That was a slip-up on my part.
>
>But it _does_ seem typical.  A bunch of logical, clear, good points with
>a few illogical statements thrown in.

 Could you give a few examples of this?
[deletions]

 Sincerely,
 
 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know this?" -- Woody Allen