My Introduction

[JohnnyJersey]

Hi, I am Johnny from New Jersey (as my screen name suggests), and I'm new here, so introducing myself as was requested in the form letter I got in my mailbox upon completing registration.

I am a Christian, and I enjoy discussions about religion as I like to understand what other people think and why and how they think that way. I'm most fascinated by atheists who seem to have an obsession with religion. Already, I have noticed that the most prolific posters in these forums are mostly virulent atheists who seem to have a real anger or bitterness towards Christianity in particular and religion in general.

In any case, I appreciate discussions with anyone who can have a rational point to make and who understand Philosophy enough to do so. Unlike so many today who go with the trend that Science (or, Scientific Method) is the arbiter of logic and reason, I tend to stick with Philosophy as the field of study through which logic and reason are understood properly. I am particularly interested in Epistemology and other "knowledge" seeking fields of Philosophy and how they match up to Science, as I see this as the biggest gap between truth and people's "knowledge" today (regardless of religious belief).

So, I hope to have an enjoyable time and to learn something, and I also hope to be able to help some others learn some things as well! Thanks for having me!

[JohnnyJersey]

Welcome

I too am interested in Epistemology. It led me away from religion. I consider many religions as mostly harmless, but there are a number of dogmatic evangelical religious positions which, I believe, are not.

Thanks, McCulloch.

Interesting - it was my interest and subsequent study of epistemology (and ontology) which led me to solidify a Christian faith that had waned and all but vanished in my life. Through ongoing discussion, study, thought, etc. I seem to keep coming back to what I've learned in those studies to bolster my metaphysical beliefs.

Re dogmatic evangelical positions, I find some of them harmful also, particularly when they betray a true evangelical position in favor of bolstering a political agenda, as we see all the time in the USA. But I consider that to be a function of radical conservative politics coopting an evangelical cloak as opposed to evangelical dogma rationally translating into harmful radical right-wing political agendas.

[JohnnyJersey]

Welcome to the forum!

Well, I wouldn't say that the atheists here are particularly "angry or bitter". But I would say they seem to have more free time on their hands than do the Christians.

It could well be that some of the atheists take the extra time to engage, putting other pursuits aside, as opposed to the implication they have nothing else to do.

This atheist considers it his duty to his fellow humans to challenge religious dogma and / or claims at every opportunity.

But other'n that, welcome to the site JohnnyJersey.

I'm sure that's the case with many or most of the atheists here, joey, but I think any poster who is very prolific (atheist or theist) is likely going overboard to the point where they may have an addiction or obsession and it's unhealthy.

But other'n that, thanks for the friendly welcome.

[JohnnyJersey]

.
Hi JJ,

I will probably be one of your adversaries because I do not accept fanciful tales of "gods" and other "supernatural beings" (angels, devils, demons, ghosts (holy or otherwise), unicorns, centaurs, leprechauns, fairies, etc).

Do you promote or endorse any of these "beliefs"?

Hi Zzyzx,

I am not looking for adversaries. I am here for reasonable discussion and nothing more, and that does not involve having an adversary or adversarial interactions with others. I can discuss with someone with whom I disagree and be reasonable enough to respect the disagreement.

To answer your question, I do not endorse "fanciful tales" of anything, but I do believe in the supernatural and certain supernatural beings.

[Zzyzx]

.

I will probably be one of your adversaries because I do not accept fanciful tales of "gods" and other "supernatural beings" (angels, devils, demons, ghosts (holy or otherwise), unicorns, centaurs, leprechauns, fairies, etc).

Do you promote or endorse any of these "beliefs"?

Hi Zzyzx,

I am not looking for adversaries. I am here for reasonable discussion and nothing more

You may want to choose carefully the sub-forums in which you post. Many are debate format -- which DOES imply adversaries (a term defined as: one that contends with, opposes, or resists).

Some sub-forums are set aside for discussion without debate and some are set aside for special interest groups (such as Christians only).

and that does not involve having an adversary or adversarial interactions with others. I can discuss with someone with whom I disagree and be reasonable enough to respect the disagreement.

Debate necessarily involves adversary interaction. Discussion may not.

To answer your question, I do not endorse "fanciful tales" of anything, but I do believe in the supernatural and certain supernatural beings.

Which of the listed supernatural beings do you NOT believe in?

Do you accept as truthful tales of donkeys and snakes conversing with humans, dead bodies coming back to life after days in the grave, people living inside fish, people levitating into the sky? Would those be "fanciful tales" if claimed by a modern storyteller?

[JohnnyJersey]

.

WHY would you, of all people, ASSume that?

Myself, I allocate one hour per day for the forum. Yet, many people, especially non-Christians, are be able to post much more than me. How do you all do it?

Maybe we type faster???

Maybe we don't spend time praying for guidance, assistance or favors?????

Maybe we don't give away ten percent of our income to the preachers welfare fund or palace building funds, and therefore have to work less???

Maybe minds not cluttered with dogma and mysticism work faster or better???

Just want to point out that if you choose to open up the can of "maybe"s, some of them may not be so complimentary as the ones you mentioned. For example, one could easily add:

Maybe they are addicted and forsaking more important obligations to quell their addiction? (I speak from experience on that one)
Maybe they are angry and bitter and seeking an outlet for it which they can't find in real life?
Maybe they feel so strongly about their beliefs that they want to influence others to believe as they do, a form of "proselytizing" which many of them all too often bemoan Christians doing?

The "maybe" route can lead to a lot of possibilities. We will never know why for sure. What we can know for sure is that certain posters are far more prolific than others, since it can be quantified and measured easily.

.Actually, in my opinion, it is far easier to debate the side that does not make claims or tell stories that cannot be verified. In final analysis, what we do in debate can be summarized by "Is what you say credible". It must take a lot of time and effort to try to present arguments that appear to be credible when there is no evidence to support claims -- only conjecture and opinion (some of which is ancient and revered, some more personal).

Whether it's easier to debate from the affirmative or negative (or neither), the fact is that in this forum (and all others which are open to all) the affirmative side can be either the atheist's or the theist's. For example, when an atheist starts a thread affirming his point, he is now the one who has now made the claim.

My inference is that you were saying that perhaps atheists are more prolific because:
A. they type faster
B. their side is the negative and it is easier to argue than the affirmative, thereby enabling them to be more prolific in less time than those arguing the affirmative
C. there is evidence only on one side and not the other

Well...
A we will never know for sure one way or the other
B is invalid because atheists are not always arguing the negative but do argue the affirmative
C is false; there is evidence on both sides, whether or not that evidence is accepted as "valid" by the other side

In any case, from what I have seen, there is a huge disparity between the amount of posting from the atheists/agnostics vs. the theists/metaphysists.

[Zzyzx]

.

.Actually, in my opinion, it is far easier to debate the side that does not make claims or tell stories that cannot be verified. In final analysis, what we do in debate can be summarized by "Is what you say credible". It must take a lot of time and effort to try to present arguments that appear to be credible when there is no evidence to support claims -- only conjecture and opinion (some of which is ancient and revered, some more personal).

Whether it's easier to debate from the affirmative or negative (or neither), the fact is that in this forum (and all others which are open to all) the affirmative side can be either the atheist's or the theist's.

Notice that I say nothing about affirmative or negative or which is occupied by whom – but about “claims and stories that cannot be verified�.

Does anyone NOT understand that theism (particularly Fundamentalism) is BASED upon tales (stories) in a storybook and claims that the tales (no matter how incredible) are true?

When one sets out to prove or show evidence that dead bodies come back to life, donkeys and snakes converse with humans, people live inside fish, water turns into fine wine, storms calm with a command, people levitate into the sky, etc – they have a very difficult position to defend.

For example, when an atheist starts a thread affirming his point, he is now the one who has now made the claim.

Notice the great preponderance of claims made by Theists (particularly Fundamentalists / Literalists) – and the scarcity of claims made by their opposition.

I, for one, debating as a Non-Theist (not Atheist or Agnostic), primarily ask questions rather than making claims or telling stories. For instance, I do NOT claim that “gods� do not exist – but ASK why one of the thousands of proposed “gods� is deemed “real� and others are deemed “false� – when evidence has not been presented to verify one or negate the other.

I ASK why tales in a favored storybook are believed when writers are not identified, when tales cannot be shown to be true, when events purported to have happened are directly contrary to what we observe actually happens in the real world. Are competing storybooks equally accepted by Christians? Why a difference?

My inference is that you were saying that perhaps atheists are more prolific because:

Kindly read what I actually said rather than “inferring� your own words into my statement.

A. they type faster
B. their side is the negative and it is easier to argue than the affirmative, thereby enabling them to be more prolific in less time than those arguing the affirmative
C. there is evidence only on one side and not the other

Notice that what I ACTUALLY said was “it is far easier to debate the side that does not make claims or tell stories that cannot be verified.

A naturist / naturalist (opposing term to supernaturalist) can make claims concerning nature that CAN be verified (or refuted) by anyone willing to study the matter.

Supernaturalists make claims about invisible, undetectable “gods� or “spirits� based upon stories they hear or read (and possibly upon personal emotional experiences). NONE of those can be verified – only repeated ad nausea.

Well...
A we will never know for sure one way or the other
B is invalid because atheists are not always arguing the negative but do argue the affirmative
C is false; there is evidence on both sides, whether or not that evidence is accepted as "valid" by the other side

Refuting one’s own straw man is a remarkable achievement.

In any case, from what I have seen, there is a huge disparity between the amount of posting from the atheists/agnostics vs. the theists/metaphysists.

From what I have observed over several years and thousands of posts, is a HUGE disparity between the QUALITY of positing of Atheists/Agnostics vs. Theists/ Mystics/Fundamentalists – in favor of the former – as well as a difference in quantity.

Although I do not identify or debate as an Atheist or Agnostic, I observe that their positions are far better represented than those of Fundamentalism / Literalism (in particular). In my opinion at least part of the disparity is accounted for by the Non-Theists NOT having to try to defend incredible tales as truthful.

Theists who appear to be most successful and respected as debaters typically do NOT attempt to defend bible tales as being literally true.

[JohnnyJersey]

.

Hi Zzyzx,

I am not looking for adversaries. I am here for reasonable discussion and nothing more

You may want to choose carefully the sub-forums in which you post. Many are debate format -- which DOES imply adversaries (a term defined as: one that contends with, opposes, or resists).

Some sub-forums are set aside for discussion without debate and some are set aside for special interest groups (such as Christians only).

and that does not involve having an adversary or adversarial interactions with others. I can discuss with someone with whom I disagree and be reasonable enough to respect the disagreement.

Debate necessarily involves adversary interaction. Discussion may not.

Thanks for the advice. Indeed, I have posted in one thread in a "debate" forum, and that's fine. Discussion does include debate, and I am open to courteous, respectful debate. I prefer the term "opponent" to "adversary" as adversary connotes a more virulent form of opposition, which is not what I am seeking. So I will move forward with a willingness to debate in as respectful and courteous a fashion as possible. The free form format of the forums does indicate a casual form of debate as opposed to any formal debate, and that is what I wouldn't mind participating in.

To answer your question, I do not endorse "fanciful tales" of anything, but I do believe in the supernatural and certain supernatural beings.

Which of the listed supernatural beings do you NOT believe in?

Do you accept as truthful tales of donkeys and snakes conversing with humans, dead bodies coming back to life after days in the grave, people living inside fish, people levitating into the sky? Would those be "fanciful tales" if claimed by a modern storyteller?

As a Christian, I believe the Bible to be the Word of God, and any supernatural events or beings in the Bible are ones I believe to exist or have existed. Anything outside of that I regard supernatural events with skepticism of varying degrees (depending on the variables) but not outright disbelief necessarily.

[JohnnyJersey]

.

.Actually, in my opinion, it is far easier to debate the side that does not make claims or tell stories that cannot be verified. In final analysis, what we do in debate can be summarized by "Is what you say credible". It must take a lot of time and effort to try to present arguments that appear to be credible when there is no evidence to support claims -- only conjecture and opinion (some of which is ancient and revered, some more personal).

Whether it's easier to debate from the affirmative or negative (or neither), the fact is that in this forum (and all others which are open to all) the affirmative side can be either the atheist's or the theist's.

Notice that I say nothing about affirmative or negative or which is occupied by whom – but about “claims and stories that cannot be verified�.

You say that you find it easier to argue from the negative. You don't use that terminology for whatever reason (perhaps you're not familiar with it?) but that is what you are saying.

Does anyone NOT understand that theism (particularly Fundamentalism) is BASED upon tales (stories) in a storybook and claims that the tales (no matter how incredible) are true?

I thought everyone understood this.

It's very much like reading the tales in any history book and claiming the tales (no matter how incredible) are true. We do it all the time, don't we? I once read a book about Julius Caesar and how he had his army build a bridge so he could cross the Rhine, and after exploring that area of Germany he went back and had his army destroy that same bridge. An incredible tale, to be sure, with some questions left open as to how he accomplished such a feat with his limited resources and technology, yet it is a tale widely accepted as true.

When one sets out to prove or show evidence that dead bodies come back to life, donkeys and snakes converse with humans, people live inside fish, water turns into fine wine, storms calm with a command, people levitate into the sky, etc – they have a very difficult position to defend.

Every position is as difficult a position to defend as the framework of the debate and the premises accepted by each side of the debate. It is not more difficult to prove the aforementioned miracles than it is to prove the Battle of Hastings; what's difficult is agreeing upon what constitutes "evidence" and ultimately which worldview is right or wrong so that givens/premises can be agreed upon. Ultimately, they rarely, if ever, are.

"Proof" is relative, itself, to the framework. I cannot prove that a banana is yellow using math. I can not prove that 2+2=4 without math. The philosphical framework is the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes valid "evidence" and "proof".

For example, when an atheist starts a thread affirming his point, he is now the one who has now made the claim.

Notice the great preponderance of claims made by Theists (particularly Fundamentalists / Literalists) – and the scarcity of claims made by their opposition.

I, for one, debating as a Non-Theist (not Atheist or Agnostic), primarily ask questions rather than making claims or telling stories. For instance, I do NOT claim that “gods� do not exist – but ASK why one of the thousands of proposed “gods� is deemed “real� and others are deemed “false� – when evidence has not been presented to verify one or negate the other.

I ASK why tales in a favored storybook are believed when writers are not identified, when tales cannot be shown to be true, when events purported to have happened are directly contrary to what we observe actually happens in the real world. Are competing storybooks equally accepted by Christians? Why a difference?

My inference is that you were saying that perhaps atheists are more prolific because:

Kindly read what I actually said rather than “inferring� your own words into my statement.

Kindly understand that my inference is based on the explicit context of your post. You provided the idea that arguing from the negative is easier and that this was one of the potential reasons for atheists being more prolific on this site. Now, if you're going to tell me that you didn't mean that, then the idea that atheists don't argue from the negative would not support their prolificity.

So which is it? Did you mean that atheists tend to argue from the negative thereby increasing their number of posts (as I would then have correctly inferred)??? Or did you mean that atheists tend to argue randomly from either the negative OR the affirmative, and your example doesn't support your suggestions for why atheists are more prolific on this site? The context strongly suggests the former, while the latter would be an error on your part.

I hope you can understand that while individual phrases and statements taken out of context can be spun any which way, when those same phrases and statements are put into context the meaning is then revealed and can thus be inferred.

You used the word "inferred" as one would use "assumed" in your sentence above. Inference is not assumption, and it is not guessing. Inference is a rational, logical conclusion made in consideration of everything said. It involves very little, if any, guesswork.

Consider this:
Robert wanted ice cream. Robert had a dollar and ice cream costs a dollar at the ice cream truck. Robert went to the window of the ice cream truck and bought an ice cream for a dollar. Robert had his ice cream within a minute of deciding he wanted it.

I can infer from this that Robert was in close proximity to the ice cream truck, even though the paragraph doesn't SAY he was in close proximity to the ice cream truck. That is "inference".

A. they type faster
B. their side is the negative and it is easier to argue than the affirmative, thereby enabling them to be more prolific in less time than those arguing the affirmative
C. there is evidence only on one side and not the other

Notice that what I ACTUALLY said was “it is far easier to debate the side that does not make claims or tell stories that cannot be verified.

I notice that. Of course, in context, you made it clear that you either intended that to be representative of non-christians who post on this site or that you were making a completely irrelevant statement. So which would it be? I opted for the former.

Consider also the context wherein you used "we" - "maybe we type faster", etc. In continuing to discuss the reason for non-Christians posting less you offered up your own opinion about it being easier to argue for those who argue from a negative position. While you made no explicit statement linking this to your theory of why non-Christians post more, it is clearly within the context of that same discussion and defense you had been providing.

A naturist / naturalist (opposing term to supernaturalist) can make claims concerning nature that CAN be verified (or refuted) by anyone willing to study the matter.

Supernaturalists make claims about invisible, undetectable “gods� or “spirits� based upon stories they hear or read (and possibly upon personal emotional experiences). NONE of those can be verified – only repeated ad nausea.

Well...
A we will never know for sure one way or the other
B is invalid because atheists are not always arguing the negative but do argue the affirmative
C is false; there is evidence on both sides, whether or not that evidence is accepted as "valid" by the other side

Refuting one’s own straw man is a remarkable achievement.

Who refuted his own straw man? Or are you just making a statement that has nothing to do with this post?

In any case, from what I have seen, there is a huge disparity between the amount of posting from the atheists/agnostics vs. the theists/metaphysists.

From what I have observed over several years and thousands of posts, is a HUGE disparity between the QUALITY of positing of Atheists/Agnostics vs. Theists/ Mystics/Fundamentalists – in favor of the former – as well as a difference in quantity.

Although I do not identify or debate as an Atheist or Agnostic, I observe that their positions are far better represented than those of Fundamentalism / Literalism (in particular). In my opinion at least part of the disparity is accounted for by the Non-Theists NOT having to try to defend incredible tales as truthful.

Thanks for your opinion.

Theists who appear to be most successful and respected as debaters typically do NOT attempt to defend bible tales as being literally true.

Appear to be most successful and respected by whom? By the majority of atheists?

Democrats who appear to be most successful and respected by Republicans are those Democrats who tend to lean towards conservative and Republican policies.

So what does that say for either? Not much. Those that kowtow to their opponents are bound to be more seen as more "respected" and "successful" by their opponents when their opponents care more about getting their own way than arriving to any kind of fact or truth.

[Lux]

Hi, I am Johnny from New Jersey (as my screen name suggests), and I'm new here, so introducing myself as was requested in the form letter I got in my mailbox upon completing registration.

I am a Christian, and I enjoy discussions about religion as I like to understand what other people think and why and how they think that way. I'm most fascinated by atheists who seem to have an obsession with religion. Already, I have noticed that the most prolific posters in these forums are mostly virulent atheists who seem to have a real anger or bitterness towards Christianity in particular and religion in general.

In any case, I appreciate discussions with anyone who can have a rational point to make and who understand Philosophy enough to do so. Unlike so many today who go with the trend that Science (or, Scientific Method) is the arbiter of logic and reason, I tend to stick with Philosophy as the field of study through which logic and reason are understood properly. I am particularly interested in Epistemology and other "knowledge" seeking fields of Philosophy and how they match up to Science, as I see this as the biggest gap between truth and people's "knowledge" today (regardless of religious belief).

So, I hope to have an enjoyable time and to learn something, and I also hope to be able to help some others learn some things as well! Thanks for having me!

Welcome to the forum, Johnny In my humble opinion, we could use more logical and respectful christians in the forum, so here's hoping you fit that description.
I'm an atheist who is very interested in religion. I wouldn't say I have an obsession, just a particular interest in what drives people towards religion and towards god. I'm very interested in all human behavior, really.
I'm definitely not "virulent", and I'm not bitter either. I think you'll find that most atheists are not what (some) religious folks claim we are (be it dangerous, wicked, sad, bitter, minions of satan, etc). I do disapprove strongly of certain aspects of christianity, but I'll leave that for when we debate each other

[Lux]

Welcome to the forum!

Well, I wouldn't say that the atheists here are particularly "angry or bitter". But I would say they seem to have more free time on their hands than do the Christians.

Well, we DO have our Sundays free...