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