Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Shoving one's beliefs down others' throats
Message-ID: <742@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Jun-84 11:07:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.742
Posted: Wed Jun 13 11:07:51 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 14-Jun-84 00:20:44 EDT
References: <615@osu-dbs.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 56

> I have heard this complaint many, many, many times.  "All Christians (at
> least all those who evangelize a lot, particularly in a public place)
> are doing nothing more than expressing their desire to cram their own
> private, personal belief system down others' throats."  Well, it's an
> interesting point, but I'd like to address it from another angle.
> [STATISTICS FROM NET.RELIGION FOLLOW]
> (My!  We are a *verbose* bunch!)  All statistics are current as of 12 Jun
> 1984 at around 10am.  Osu-dbs uses standard 2-week expiration of articles.
	:
	:
> So much for the "Christians flame their beliefs down others' throats" argu-
> ment; non-Christians do it just as much.

Rather than spout witticisms about misuse of statistics (such as we've seen
here), let me say how remarkable it is that Karl has used quantity as a yard-
stick rather than content.  Even a cursory examination of the contents of most
articles would show that a very large number of articles (including my own AND
those of many Christians) make use of significant amounts of *inserted* *text*
from other people's articles.  Thus making statements about length of articles
from any group or person is totally irrelevant.  (The fact that quoting from
many articles of the religionist point of view has actually aided enormously
in making my case stronger is actually a good example of why this is so.)

More importantly, taking a good look at content will lend support to Dick
Dunn's claim.  Non-religionist articles either ask for answers to questions
about holes in the thinking of those who believe in a religion (these are
often called "attacks") or serve to counter tirades and/or blatant
proselytizing on the part of religionists by tearing them apart logically.
(The articles, not the people who submitted them :-).   Although we do get
the occasional article from those like labelle or partridge (I don't think
partridge's was in net.religion) that reveal someone fed up with illogic and
unable to sit back and watch what they consider ridiculous sustained as the
status quo (often these are just cathartic tirades themselves), we get many
more clearly manipulative and proselytizing articles from religionists, such
as the noise from Larry Bickford on humanism.  Often we see a religionist step
out into the light and make a pronouncement (people like Ken Arndt and Ray
Jender), who seem to say something broad and seemingly important once and then
fade back, failing to answer any of the resulting questions that arise from
disbelievers.  (leaving that task to Jeff and David, most of the time).  I hope
to review many of the points that have been addressed by responses to such
articles that were left unanswered, and post them to the net for (hopefully)
answers from the religionist camp.

This is not to say that non-religionists don't say things to promote their
point of view (e.g., the publishing of the Humanist Manifesto, which actually
evolved from people like Larry asking for what positive tenets humanism had in
relation to its deriding of religious tenets).  But, again, a look at content 
and method shows non-religionists using logic to break down religious belief
into its component fallacious parts, and religionists either consulting the
bible or condemning us all to eternal damnation (or both).  Some have been
more so than others; in fact some others are actually discussing what we have
in common rather than where we differ, and finding out a few things in the
process.
-- 
This unit humbly and deeply apologizes for having and expressing opinions.
This will not occur again.  (BEEP)		Rich Rosen   pyuxn!rlr