NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/atheism/26680

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-21 | 5.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!yale!news.wesleyan.edu!eagle.wesleyan.edu!kmagnacca
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Where is the good discussion? (a theist writes)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Date: 21 Jan 93 01:07:30 EST
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Wesleyan University
Nntp-Posting-Host: eagle.wesleyan.edu
Lines: 126

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Wayne Schuller) writes:
> At the moment, I consider I am very much wondering what the purpose of
> alt.athiesm is.
> [...]
> But as I understand it, most Christians who post to alt.atheism, just do it
> to clear up matters in which, they feel the discussions are interpreting
> scripture the wrong way.

   Some, certainly.  But most?  I doubt it.  Most of the more reasonable
ones argue various points with atheists, often not based on scriptural
interpretation.

> [...]  the point is that if athiests are
> going to look at scripture to help their dis-belief, then Christians can
> help in interpreting. Of course, no body can claim they are right, or that
> their interpretation is correct, but surely atheists can be open to Christian
> interpretation? I mean, it is what they base their life on, they must have
> something to contribute.

   So?  I haven't seen anyone rejecting Christian interpretations out of
hand, but simply pointing out that theirs is not the only one where it is
being presented as the One True Way [tm].  Out-of-hand rejection is relatively
rare, usually only occurring with an exceptionally rude poster.

> The purpose of this post is to say that lately it appears that a.a has
> dengenerated into a lot of Christian bashing. Is this needed in this
> group? Is not talk.religion.misc appropriate enough?

   Eh?  What makes t.r.m more appropriate for Christian bashing?  Anyway,
I would hardly say that making fun of the more nonsensical parts of religion
hardly qualify as "bashing."

> Some examples that i spent 2 minutes and just picked up before:
>
>>>    I found that when I was a ch(r)uch going theist and a chri$tian that
>>>chruch was a BIG bore. I know people who prefered ch(r)uch over sex. I never
>>>understood why.
>>This probably has more to do with their sex lives than
>>it does with their religion.
>
> Does the above constitute a good athiestic discussion?

   I think somebody left their sense of humor over in the corner.

>>Things to do to lively up church service:
>>1. Feign demonic possession
>>2. Ask alot of questions
>>3. Bring snakes and strychnine and hold a faith challenge
>>4. Confiscate collection plate
>>5. Bring Satan head projector
>
> I find this immature, does anyone else? I do not mean to offend the writer,
> as it represents alot that i have been seeing in a.a

   Immature?  A bit so.  Mildly humorous?  Definitely.  Taking demonic
possession, snake handling, or a Satan head projector seriously is far
more immature than making fun of them.

>> [thanking Jesus for athletic victory anecdote deleted]
>
> Does this have anything to do with athiesm? making fun of Christianity?

   Yes, it does.  Pointing out the idiotic beliefs of those who think
Jesus helped them win a basketball game has everything to to with the
nonsense inherent in most religions and are all the more reason to
reject them (not that there aren't enough already).

> If this all athiests discuss, and if making fun of religions is the purpose
> of a.a then i suggest it continue the way it is going.

   Are these articles all you read?  What about the other 90%, the ones
on free will and abortion and religion in government?  Do you just skip
over those as irrelevant?

> I have a real interest in atheism, about how they think, and what they
> believe (or choose not to believe).

   Well, if you do you don't seem to go about it very well.  If you think
the discussion is so bad, why don't you start a thread?  Ask a question of
your own if you're so interested in how atheists think, don't just sit
back and wait for a discussion to happen to you.

> If you have any flames against this post, then you have not understood what
> i am saying. read it again.

   I don't know if you call this a flame, but I see no reason why someone
with stronger bile should have to misunderstand what you are saying in
order to flame you.  You have essentially said that all the good discussion
that does go on here is worth nothing as long as there are articles poking
fun at Christianity.  I think some of the a.a regulars would find that a
rather offensive attitude.

> If you have anything positive to contribute, that does have something to
> do with atheism, then take it to the very quiet alt.atheism.moderated so
> it can be discussed there.

   Why?  I don't mean to put down the moderated group specifically, but
if things are so bad here why not encourage more positive articles here?
Have you completely given up hope?

> And i know you are all angry about theists posting,

   Who is?  If no theists posted here it would be a very dull group.
after all there would be precious few arguments and no one to make stupid
comments to make fun of.  I'm even willing to tolerate the occasional raving
fundie if they can come up with creative arguments.

> so why not take you
> atheistic discussions to the moderated group? Or is atheism about just
> putting down religions (especially christianity) constantly?
>
> thanks.
> schuller
>
> PS: yes, i have read the FAQ's.

   Funny, you'd never know it.  You seem to have the impression not only
that people here are representative of atheists in general but that they
have nothing better to do with their godless time than to make fun of
religion.  Have you ever actually met one?

Karl
------
"By the cold and religious we were taken in hand,
 Shown how to feel good, and told to feel bad."
                    --Roger Waters