Stop Criticizing Christians:
There Are Good Ones, Too,
I am sure that you mean well in all that you say concerning atheism vs other beliefs such as god-beleifs. However, I see a pattern in that when you try to prove a point you continuously smack down anyone who does not beleive the same as you or that may live a different life. How can one be so invited by your derogitory remarks made to an understanding of what you beleive and why? You seem to think that "Christians" for instance are nothing but arrogant. That would be the same as a Christian, or any other belief, saying that an Athiest is nothing more than the same. Is a person not the same as who he accusess? However, I do agree that there are "Christians" that are arrogant. But not all of them are. There are also many Christians who are also service oriented and have a willingness to listen rather than beeting people over the head with the "bible". My suggestion is to lay off all the critisism and try to be a little bit more mindful, respectful, for other beliefs and try not to be so harsh rather to state it with an attitude of understanding and compassion. There are many who also do the same for athiests. By doing this I am sure that the reviews of the public, even those who do not agree with anything you say, will have a respect for your beliefs and opinions while all the more being more open to you as well. What I have said is only meant in good nature and as something for you to think about. Thank you for your understanding!
From: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: why?
Date: November 18, 2003 8:47 PM
Is a person not the same as who he accusess?
I do agree that there are "Christians" that are arrogant. But not all of them are.
The ones who are comfortable in their faith have no reason (and apparently no desire) to contact a web site whose function is to oppose antiatheist bigotry (notwithstanding the fact that almost anybody who erects an atheistic web site for any purpose will be seen by many, if not most, as engaging in either the bashing of religion or the proselytizing for atheism).
And so --
(Yawn!) Here we go again: I'm "damned" if I do and I'm "damned" if I don't. If I ignore your letter, I appear to agree with it; if I respond in an attempt to protect my reputation, I risk being described as you describe me in your letter! of fulfilling your description of me! Hah! The trick question in statement form!
Interestingly, my copy of the MailWasher E-Mail Filter flagged your letter as "spam," and it almost got snipped off like a cyber cipher along with the Pen¡s Patch ads and the instructions for getting phony V¡cod¡n. Perhaps it would have been better if I'd let the program go ahead and delete your file: at least I wouldn't have had to deal with yet another -- uh, "reader" (Yeah, right!) -- who appears not to have read more than a couple of pages of the web site, and yet knows so much about me that he has the audacity to say that I "continuously" (that is, "without interruption") behave in a specific way.
And ironically, what you saddle me with doing (and doing all the time, mind you) are the very things that I pride myself in not doing. These are the mistakes my associates and competitors make, the reasons I logged on in 1995 and started doing things differently from the way the others did them. My ability and willingness to transcend what you accuse me of doing are what my readers (and even my critics) tell me they like about my work. The most recent example (worth posting) is, "Perfect Handling of Foolishness, Boorishness, Ignorance," with David Curtis. There are many, many others.
And never mind the fact that our raison d'être is neither to defend atheism nor "smack down" Christianity: as part of our editorial policy, we only ever "smack down Christianity" when challenged by a reader to defend our atheism (because to criticize theism is the defense of atheism; atheism itself is nothing of substance and has no defense of its own, having no existence apart from the context of theism's god-claims).
You level some very serious charges, and yet all we know about you is that you signed this one letter "Daniel."&0042; I stand to have my reputation tarnished by a few quick strokes on your keyboard, and yet you take no such risk yourself, having sent a letter that is essentially unsigned. Yes, "Daniel," according to the database at RhymeZone.com, is so "very common" that one in 102 males in the United States have this as their given name. (Look up any given name or surname as a "definition.") "Daniel" is the 12th most popular name, says RhymeZone. You might as well not have signed it at all. In any event, you have nothing to lose (nothing) by writing what you did. (And I will not abuse my own policy by deeming your letter abusive enough to justify my posting your return e-mail address.)
You lodge serious complaints, and yet you provide for us no examples. You give us no range of letters that we can conveniently check to see if we might find some counter-examples. You simply bellow forth these awful sounding complaints and leave it at that.
Of course you haven't read much of our Letters Section, because I have posted at least two dozen examples of people doing to me just what you have done: complained without giving any examples.
Unless and until you provide us with some examples of just what it is that you're even talking about (see the previous Letter), we are forced to write you off as a whiner who is simply typing out unwarranted complaints for no other reason than that a substantial fraction of our readership will believe you simply because you said it, simply because you complained against an atheist.
Examples, please? URLs? Issue and page numbers?
Positive Atheism Magazine
Eight years of service to people
with no reason to believe
Note: In the original, I confuted the name "Daniel" with the name "David" and provided the stats for it. This mistake has been corrected.