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]

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.

While I welcome you here it is intersting to note that the first thing you do is come in with an ad hominem.

Virulent by definition means "actively poisonous; intensely noxious"...labling people you do not know is not conducive to confidence in your motives for being here.

And how is questioning the claims of any religion, in thsi case christinaity, evidence of 'anger or bitterness'.

If anyone is dispaying those traits it is you...

why are you angry enough at atheists to label them obnoxious or poisonous.?

Thank you for the welcome, bernee.

I think you may have misread my post. I don't label "atheists", as in all atheists, as virulent. I said that in my observation, out of the most prolific posters here, most of them are virulent atheists. As for the posters who are not very prolific, I don't know if they are atheists, Christians, agnostics, or what. I also do not know if they are virulent or amiable.

I'm new here, and my first impression of those posters who are most prolific is that they are mostly (not all) non- or anti-Christian, and bellicose. I bring it up because I prefer and appreciate anyone who is more open-minded and pacifistic, more cerebral and much less impetuous, in his or her approach, whether he or she agrees or completely disagrees with me.

I try my best not to generalize, and I don't believe I made any generalization about "atheists" at large; I did state my observation on the most prolific posters I've seen here, however, that they are atheists and espouse belligerence in the tone their posts.

Thanks for your welcome, and I look forward to discussions in the future.

[bernee51]

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.

While I welcome you here it is intersting to note that the first thing you do is come in with an ad hominem.

Virulent by definition means "actively poisonous; intensely noxious"...labling people you do not know is not conducive to confidence in your motives for being here.

And how is questioning the claims of any religion, in thsi case christinaity, evidence of 'anger or bitterness'.

If anyone is dispaying those traits it is you...

why are you angry enough at atheists to label them obnoxious or poisonous.?

Thank you for the welcome, bernee.

I think you may have misread my post. I don't label "atheists", as in all atheists, as virulent. I said that in my observation, out of the most prolific posters here, most of them are virulent atheists. As for the posters who are not very prolific, I don't know if they are atheists, Christians, agnostics, or what. I also do not know if they are virulent or amiable.

Well with some 6500 posts against my name there is no wondering why I might have identified with the epithet 'profilic'.

On what basis did you decide I, being prolific, was 'virulent'?

I'm new here, and my first impression of those posters who are most prolific is that they are mostly (not all) non- or anti-Christian, and bellicose.

And, with respect, being new here, pehpas waiting five minutes before labelling others would have been a more inclusive approach.

Is anyone who is non christian also anti christian and bellicose...or am i misreading you again?

I bring it up because I prefer and appreciate anyone who is more open-minded and pacifistic, more cerebral and much less impetuous, in his or her approach, whether he or she agrees or completely disagrees with me.

Is claiming, tacitly or overtly, of the exclusivity of christianity over all other beliefs a sign of open-mindedness.

As I regard divisive religious beliefs such as the monotheisms - the religions of conversion - as being religions of violence - how does this match with your expressed desire for pacifism.

I try my best not to generalize, and I don't believe I made any generalization about "atheists" at large; I did state my observation on the most prolific posters I've seen here, however, that they are atheists and espouse belligerence in the tone their posts.

Do you describe questioning the beliefs which you m\seem to hold strongly as evidence of belligerence?

If I say that the god of christianity is clearly a concept that has evolved - and is evolving - and christianity itself a syncretism - is that belligerence?

Thanks for your welcome, and I look forward to discussions in the future.

Likewise - may you be happy, kind, loving and peaceful.

[JohnnyJersey]

Thank you for the welcome, bernee.

I think you may have misread my post. I don't label "atheists", as in all atheists, as virulent. I said that in my observation, out of the most prolific posters here, most of them are virulent atheists. As for the posters who are not very prolific, I don't know if they are atheists, Christians, agnostics, or what. I also do not know if they are virulent or amiable.

Well with some 6500 posts against my name there is no wondering why I might have identified with the epithet 'profilic'.

True, you would be prolific.

On what basis did you decide I, being prolific, was 'virulent'?

I didn't. I said most (i.e. not all) of the prolific writers, as far as I have seen, are virulent atheists.

I'm new here, and my first impression of those posters who are most prolific is that they are mostly (not all) non- or anti-Christian, and bellicose.

And, with respect, being new here, pehpas waiting five minutes before labelling others would have been a more inclusive approach.

So you suggest I should have only waited five minutes rather than the hours I read and waited to post, over the course of a couple days, before labeling? Don't you think that hours are better than just 5 minutes?

Is anyone who is non christian also anti christian and bellicose...or am i misreading you again?

Yes, some who are non-Christian are also anti-Christian. So "anyone" who is non-Christian can also be anti-Christian, but not "everyone" who is non-Christian is also anti-Christian. Did I say it more clearly this time?

Is claiming, tacitly or overtly, of the exclusivity of christianity over all other beliefs a sign of open-mindedness.

No, because it is a claim that can be made by the open-minded or the closed-minded. The claim in and of itself is neither open- nor closed-minded, nor a sign of either.

As I regard divisive religious beliefs such as the monotheisms - the religions of conversion - as being religions of violence - how does this match with your expressed desire for pacifism.

It doesn't. But how you regard religious beliefs really has no bearing on how I vierw religious beliefs.

I try my best not to generalize, and I don't believe I made any generalization about "atheists" at large; I did state my observation on the most prolific posters I've seen here, however, that they are atheists and espouse belligerence in the tone their posts.

Do you describe questioning the beliefs which you m\seem to hold strongly as evidence of belligerence?

No. I look at the manner in which it is done to determine belligerence.

If I say that the god of christianity is clearly a concept that has evolved - and is evolving - and christianity itself a syncretism - is that belligerence?

In and of itself, no, but depending on the context of that statement with other statements you make it could be part of a belligerent tone. It is not a very detailed statement, and again the context would determine the open- or closed-mindedness of terms such as "clearly" that you use, since if it were truly "clear" it wouldn't be debated. But that statement, as is, with no context, is not belligerent, to me.

Thanks for your welcome, and I look forward to discussions in the future.

Likewise - may you be happy, kind, loving and peaceful.

And may you also be happy, kind, loving, and peaceful.

[bernee51]

Thank you for the welcome, bernee.

I think you may have misread my post. I don't label "atheists", as in all atheists, as virulent. I said that in my observation, out of the most prolific posters here, most of them are virulent atheists. As for the posters who are not very prolific, I don't know if they are atheists, Christians, agnostics, or what. I also do not know if they are virulent or amiable.

Well with some 6500 posts against my name there is no wondering why I might have identified with the epithet 'profilic'.

True, you would be prolific.

On what basis did you decide I, being prolific, was 'virulent'?

I didn't. I said most (i.e. not all) of the prolific writers, as far as I have seen, are virulent atheists.

What you actually said was: "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"

Perhaps you could help clarify your observation, i.e. that which you noticed, by listing those with anger and biiterness toward christianity who are virulent atheists and also prolific posters along with examples to support your opinion.

Based on my long experience on this forum, I suggest your 'observation' was at best hyperbole, at worst flame baiting.

[JohnnyJersey]

On what basis did you decide I, being prolific, was 'virulent'?

I didn't. I said most (i.e. not all) of the prolific writers, as far as I have seen, are virulent atheists.

What you actually said was: "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"

Correct.

Perhaps you could help clarify your observation, i.e. that which you noticed, by listing those with anger and biiterness toward christianity who are virulent atheists and also prolific posters along with examples to support your opinion.

I wouldn't break the rules of the forum by singling people out. I made a general observation, which is opinion, and I choose to keep it general. I see no need to single out individuals for critique.

Based on my long experience on this forum, I suggest your 'observation' was at best hyperbole, at worst flame baiting.

OK, thank you for sharing that.

[Zzyzx]

.

Well with some 6500 posts against my name there is no wondering why I might have identified with the epithet 'profilic'.

True, you would be prolific.

On what basis did you decide I, being prolific, was 'virulent'?

I didn't. I said most (i.e. not all) of the prolific writers, as far as I have seen, are virulent atheists.

I am another “prolific poster� who is not an Atheist, let alone a “Virulent Atheist�.

I vigorously oppose promotion of ANY religious dogma without evidence of truth (aside from the religious propaganda itself) – particularly those religious tales that claim supernatural abilities for “gods� or other characters.

When supernatural religious tales are challenged, when proponents or promoters are asked to show evidence they speak truth, all that is offered are more tales and an admonition to “believe on faith alone or you will go to hell� (or something similar).

Yes, some who are non-Christian are also anti-Christian. So "anyone" who is non-Christian can also be anti-Christian, but not "everyone" who is non-Christian is also anti-Christian. Did I say it more clearly this time?

That is better; however, the first thought a person expresses is often their real opinion – subject to “clarification� when challenged.

It is interesting to note that a Non-Christian can be encouraged to become Anti-Christian through the efforts of promoters and defenders of Christianity that alienate others by claiming superiority or exclusiveness based upon religious belief – and by Christian failure to “practice what they preach (instead begging off with ‘Christians are forgiven’ for any transgression other than ‘blasphemy of the holy spirit’.�

Is claiming, tacitly or overtly, of the exclusivity of christianity over all other beliefs a sign of open-mindedness.

No, because it is a claim that can be made by the open-minded or the closed-minded. The claim in and of itself is neither open- nor closed-minded, nor a sign of either.

CORRECTION: The CLAIM of exclusivity for Christianity CANNOT be shown to be “open minded� REGARDLESS of the person making the claim.

As I regard divisive religious beliefs such as the monotheisms - the religions of conversion - as being religions of violence - how does this match with your expressed desire for pacifism.

It doesn't. But how you regard religious beliefs really has no bearing on how I vierw religious beliefs.

How does a religion of conversion (an actively competitor for customers) match a desire for pacifism?

How does a religion which demeans or dismisses the beliefs or convictions of others in its promotion of itself a match for pacifism?

Do you deny that Christianity has been, and IS, promoted by coercion? When one is threatened with “hell� or “eternal punishment� unless they worship the “right god� with the “right� rituals somehow NOT a form of coercion?

[bernee51]

I wouldn't break the rules of the forum by singling people out. I made a general observation, which is opinion, and I choose to keep it general. I see no need to single out individuals for critique.

I have no such qualms...I will readily name the prolific posters who are virulent atheists fiiled with anger and bitternees toward christianity.

They are....

um...

oh well.

Based on my long experience on this forum, I suggest your 'observation' was at best hyperbole, at worst flame baiting.

OK, thank you for sharing that.

Your welcome

...so which one was it.

[JohnnyJersey]

I am another “prolific poster� who is not an Atheist, let alone a “Virulent Atheist�.

So, as someone who is not an atheist, you don't deny the existence of God or gods, correct?

I vigorously oppose promotion of ANY religious dogma without evidence of truth (aside from the religious propaganda itself) – particularly those religious tales that claim supernatural abilities for “gods� or other characters.

Why would you vigorously oppose promotion of beliefs which you yourself are not certain to be false? Why oppose tales of supernatural or gods when you are not an atheist? As a self-proclaimed non-theist tending towards ignosticism, why would you spend so much time on something that you tend to believe is not even cognitively meaningful?

I think someone who truly believed the concept of god/s was not cohesive enough to even discuss would not waste time by trying to discuss it, let alone arguing against it.

When supernatural religious tales are challenged, when proponents or promoters are asked to show evidence they speak truth, all that is offered are more tales and an admonition to “believe on faith alone or you will go to hell� (or something similar).

That's all that is offered? Really? That's quite a broad statement - are you sure about it?

It is interesting to note that a Non-Christian can be encouraged to become Anti-Christian through the efforts of promoters and defenders of Christianity that alienate others by claiming superiority or exclusiveness based upon religious belief – and by Christian failure to “practice what they preach (instead begging off with ‘Christians are forgiven’ for any transgression other than ‘blasphemy of the holy spirit’.�

It is interesting to note that the inverse of the above scenario is possible and occurs, also.

CORRECTION: The CLAIM of exclusivity for Christianity CANNOT be shown to be “open minded� REGARDLESS of the person making the claim.

Thanks for your opinion, it's too bad you don't substantiate it with any reasoning.

How does a religion of conversion (an actively competitor for customers) match a desire for pacifism?

You may want to ask someone who is in a religion that is about customers; my religion has no "customers" as part of the belief system.

How does a religion which demeans or dismisses the beliefs or convictions of others in its promotion of itself a match for pacifism?

By promoting pacifist values. Disagreeing with the beliefs of others is not an anti-pacifist behavior. Disagreement is disagreement. Contrary to what some people believe, disagreement need not be adversarial and bellicose. Respecting the right of others to disagree and not becoming belligerent over the disagreement is a way of peacefully disagreeing.

Do you deny that Christianity has been, and IS, promoted by coercion? When one is threatened with “hell� or “eternal punishment� unless they worship the “right god� with the “right� rituals somehow NOT a form of coercion?

If you want to extrapolate "coercion" out to mean frank talk about consequences then perhaps. I guess it's similar to the coercion science uses to convert people - "Don't eat a lot of sugar, OR ELSE you will be DIABETIC!!! Don't have unprotected sex, OR ELSE you will get an STD!!!!! Don't walk off a cliff, OR ELSE the law of gravity says you will be FORCED to PLUMMET to the earth, causing PAINFUL INJURY or DEATH!!!!!!!! BOOGA BOOGA!!! THE GREAT SCIENCE HAS SPOKEN, BOW AND OBEY!!!"

Christianity has been and is promoted by coercion although it isn't supposed to be, by Christian standards. Christianity has been used by many people for many purposes, some genuine, some not - some wrong, some not.

The "coercion" angle you take here is a real stretch.

[JohnnyJersey]

I wouldn't break the rules of the forum by singling people out. I made a general observation, which is opinion, and I choose to keep it general. I see no need to single out individuals for critique.

I have no such qualms...I will readily name the prolific posters who are virulent atheists fiiled with anger and bitternees toward christianity.

They are....

um...

oh well.

So, in the end, you did have qualms about breaking forum rules. Wise choice.

Based on my long experience on this forum, I suggest your 'observation' was at best hyperbole, at worst flame baiting.

OK, thank you for sharing that.

Your welcome

...so which one was it.

I don't know, it's your unsubstantiated opinion to begin with, so it's your call as to which unsubstantiated option it is.

[Goat]

I am another “prolific poster� who is not an Atheist, let alone a “Virulent Atheist�.

So, as someone who is not an atheist, you don't deny the existence of God or gods, correct?

I believe ZZ defines himself as an ignostic.