From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: The purpose of moderation (was Re: More on non-NT sources)
Date: 24 Sep 92 10:02:42 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

William Mayne <mayne@phi.cs.fsu.edu> writes:
> In article <1992Sep9.190537.23235@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jkopersk@magnus.
[...]
> >[my thanks to the temporary moderator who helped me track down 
> >one of the respondents to my original post] 
> 
> What the hell is a moderator for if such inappropriate stuff with
> no content related to atheism is posted? Those of us who have any
> interest in New Testament sources and theological discussions know
> where to look for them. This is like a street preacher invading
> an atheist meeting or a private home.

Firstly, I must point out that I let the article through partly because it
was a summary and thank-you note associated with an article which Tony passed
through whilst I was away on vacation.  Since he's not currently here, I
suggest that we defer any discussion of whether this *specific* article was
appropriate until he returns some time next week.

Secondly, you seem to be suffering misconceptions about what the moderation
of this newsgroup is for.  It has never been my intention to restrict
discussion to topics of direct relevance to atheists, as atheists are such a
diverse bunch it's hard to know what they want to talk about.

My task is, I think, to remove preaching, definition wars, and postings
asking stuff covered in the FAQ file.  You may not personally be interested
in investigating New Testament sources, but other atheists are; it's
interesting to trace the development of Christianity, as one can gain insight
into how and why it grew to be so widespread.  Discussing the reliability and
content of historical records which mention events described in the Bible is
not preaching, as there is debate and analysis going on.

I think most atheists would agree that some of the events mentioned in the
Bible occurred, although obviously not in exactly the way described.  Even if
it is all myth, it's important to know about the NT sources if you want to
involve yourself in a debate with Christians on whether the Bible is accurate
or not.

If you want an example of the sort of posting that *will* get bounced, here's
one which arrived this morning:

Some anonymous person writes:
> One of the major tenets of atheism seems to be - you cannot prove the
> existance of a omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient deity.  May I suggest a
> challenge to you all (just in case it has not already been done):
> 
> Can you conclusively prove to me that he does not exist?
> 
> If you cannot prove this are you taking atheism on faith alone?
> Isn't faith one of the primary components of any religion?

Now, if the majority of readers of this newsgroup think I should widen the
scope of the moderation to get rid of anything not directly related to
atheism, then I'm perfectly willing to do so.  But we don't exactly have too
much traffic here, and I don't think there's really much to say that is of
relevance to *all* atheists.

Of course, part of the traffic problem is caused by people taking threads
from the moderated group and redirecting them into the unmoderated group.  So
far I've tried to avoid the temptation to do the reverse (except when the
group had just been created and needed something to spark discussion).


mathew
-- 
Bush/Quayle in '92!
God Bless America!
God Bless Family Values!