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 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.

No, he defines himself as a "a self-proclaimed non-theist tending towards ignosticism". In any case, he is irreligious in the traditional sense.

[Zzyzx]

.

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?

Heck no I don’t deny that “gods� exist. Maybe all of the thousands invisible, undetectable “gods� that are proposed, worshiped, feared, promoted or imagined by humans are REAL.

Some people, particularly fundamentalist believers / worshipers of “gods�, seem to think that they know that ONE (or a few) of the thousands of “gods� is/are real and that all others are “false gods�.

When they make claims and tell stories about their favorite “god� in public (particularly in debate), I ask for evidence that their preferred “god� is real or that others are not. The response NEVER includes evidence, only more tales and claims (plus opinions, conjecture, testimonials).

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?

I encourage people to THINK and to make sound decisions based upon evidence, observation and experience in the real world – NOT upon emotional appeals by god-worshipers attempting to promote their particular brand of worship – without evidence that what they say is true.

I oppose fraud, deception, coercion and pressure to conform.

Do you find that objectionable?

Why oppose tales of supernatural or gods when you are not an atheist?

Why are you so concerned about my personal motivations?

Do you think that you are capable of debating against the ideas I present – without relying on personal comments?

As I said, I oppose fraud, deception, coercion and pressure to conform – AND I regard as one or more of the above to present claims and stories about “gods� as being truthful when there is no evidence that the tales are any more than imagination – and no evidence that any claims pertaining to proposed supernatural beings, “spirits� or events are truthful and accurate accounts of characters or events that are literally true in the real world.

Can you show that to be in error?

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?

Again, why are you SO concerned about me personally? Can you not debate issues and ideas rather than personalities?

I spent a couple decades of my life in colleges and universities studying, applying and teaching Earth science and related subjects (geology, geomorphology, physical geography, biology, meteorology, climatology, hydrology, soils, etc).

I saw first-hand the mental limitations imposed upon the thinking and learning capabilities of students who had been indoctrinated to believe that “goddidit� and to reject actual study of nature.


Perhaps it would be illuminating for readers if YOU were to explain you motivation for spending so much time trying to rebut what I write? Tell them your reasons for trying to “defend the faith� (or whatever it is that you think you are doing).

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.

Perhaps that is what YOU would think or do. Do you not recognize that what you prefer or perform is not universal?

Why are you so interested in my thoughts and positions?

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?

That’s it – with variations on tales (such as personal opinions, conjectures, testimonials, etc based on the unverified tales) and promises added to the admonitions (“you can go to heaven if you worship as I say�).

Do you have something else to offer? Do you feel qualified to debate the topic?

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.

Spit it out – what are you trying to say?

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.

Do you feel qualified to debate the topic?

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.

Notice that you ducked the question by objecting to my use of “customers�.

How does a religion of conversion (competition) match a desire for pacifism?

Do religious organizations gather income (by whatever name known) by providing religious services to individuals?

I have had interesting discussions / debates with preachers who objected to my referring to their “flock� as customers. I typically asked where the “church funds� came from to pay their salary, build palaces of worship, to purchase real estate to make investments. All they were able to come up with as, “Well, WE don’t consider them customers�. To which I typically reply, “You provide religious services and take in money – show me how that is not a business and the ‘faithful’ are not customers.�

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.

Can you disagree WITHOUT personal comments? Can you DEBATE a topic without personal comments?

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.

Can you show that the proposed “consequences� are REAL?

Promoting a product or service (including religion) by proposing “consequences� that cannot be show to be real is DECEPTION.

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!!!

To WHAT do you propose that “science� is using “coercion� to CONVERT people?

Do you go to a medical doctor when ill? Do you use an automobile or a computer (both made possible by those who study “science�)?

Don't have unprotected sex, OR ELSE you will get an STD!!!!!

What a silly thing for medical people to say. Where do they come up with such things?

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!!!!!!!!

What is the religionist alternative? Walk off a cliff and pray to “gods� for the ability to defy gravity (like “supernatural� beings are often said to be capable of doing)?

BOOGA BOOGA!!! THE GREAT SCIENCE HAS SPOKEN, BOW AND OBEY!!!"

Thank you for demonstrating to readers a fairly common religionist response to what they perceive as “science�

Yes, “science� is a bogyman to those who attribute disease and disaster to invisible, undetectable “gods� and “spirits� – and who “explain� the unknown by making up tales (or repeating tales told by ancient storytellers).

Some say that “science� is “Booga Booga� when it is correctly pointed out that donkeys and snakes do not converse with humans, that people don’t walk on water, that virgins cannot be shown to give birth after being impregnated by “spirits�, that people dead for days do not come back to life, that the Earth does not stop rotating (“sun stood still�) for hours so a favored army can vanquish enemies, that seas do not part and storms do not calm on command, that water does not magically turn into fine wine.

Yup, that is all “Booga Booga�.

It must have been far easier to coerce people into worshiping “gods� when reasoned and verifiable cause and effect relationships were not known. An eclipse of the sun must have been a good recruiting tool for self-identified “prophets� and “priests� before humans learned about the solar system through <shudder> Booba Booga science.

Christianity has been and is promoted by coercion although it isn't supposed to be, by Christian standards.

Thank you.

Christianity has been used by many people for many purposes, some genuine, some not - some wrong, some not.

Thank you.

Which parts are “genuine� and which are “wrong�?

Show readers how to distinguish between “genuine� and “wrong�, and how to know which Christian “leaders� to follow and which to ignore.

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

Strange.

You agree – then say it is a stretch.

Is that an example of “Christian Logic�?

[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.

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.

Trying to be 'cute' as with your answer above is not engaging. No answers no engagement.

My 'opinion' was substantiated by the fact that I could not come up with any "prolific posters who are virulent atheists fiiled with anger and bitternees toward christianity"

So which was it - hyperbole or flamebait.

You can easily counter by coming up with the names of the posters you claimed to have observed who are mostly virulent atheists who seem to have a real anger or bitterness towards Christianity in particular

You can PM me and not risk the wrath of the moderators.

[Lux]

You can easily counter by coming up with the names of the posters you claimed to have observed who are mostly virulent atheists who seem to have a real anger or bitterness towards Christianity in particular

You can PM me and not risk the wrath of the moderators.

I'm relatively new to the forum, but if I was one of the "virulent" ones, it's fine by me if he says that here (as long as that's ok with the mods). I'd like to hear the reasoning behind that whole virulent and angry deal.

[bernee51]

You can easily counter by coming up with the names of the posters you claimed to have observed who are mostly virulent atheists who seem to have a real anger or bitterness towards Christianity in particular

You can PM me and not risk the wrath of the moderators.

I'm relatively new to the forum, but if I was one of the "virulent" ones, it's fine by me if he says that here (as long as that's ok with the mods). I'd like to hear the reasoning behind that whole virulent and angry deal.

Hi Lucia...you may put your feelings of guilt to rest ...as yet you do not count as prolific - nor have I witnessed you being in any way obnoxious.

Many christians I have met here and IRL just cannot come to terms with the fact that others just do not believe what they believe and see every question as a personal attack on their beliefs.

Why would someone attack something so wonderful as their belief - the chance for salvation and an eternal blissful existence at the right hand of their god - ...the 'attacker' MUST be angry at religion or god for some reason (maybe they were abused by clergy?) and hold bitterness in their heart as a result.

They cannot countenance the fact that their god and the religious belief attached to it is nothing more or less than the countless gods and beliefs that have than preceded it and from which, most probably, their god/beliefs have evolved.

[Lux]

You can easily counter by coming up with the names of the posters you claimed to have observed who are mostly virulent atheists who seem to have a real anger or bitterness towards Christianity in particular

You can PM me and not risk the wrath of the moderators.

I'm relatively new to the forum, but if I was one of the "virulent" ones, it's fine by me if he says that here (as long as that's ok with the mods). I'd like to hear the reasoning behind that whole virulent and angry deal.

Hi Lucia...you may put your feelings of guilt to rest ...as yet you do not count as prolific - nor have I witnessed you being in any way obnoxious.

Many christians I have met here and IRL just cannot come to terms with the fact that others just do not believe what they believe and see every question as a personal attack on their beliefs.

Why would someone attack something so wonderful as their belief - the chance for salvation and an eternal blissful existence at the right hand of their god - ...the 'attacker' MUST be angry at religion or god for some reason (maybe they were abused by clergy?) and hold bitterness in their heart as a result.

They cannot countenance the fact that their god and the religious belief attached to it is nothing more or less than the countless gods and beliefs that have than preceded it and from which, most probably, their god/beliefs have evolved.

Hi bernee! And thank you I don't really feel guilty, more curious to see what is considered 'virulent'.

I know what you mean. Many religious people I've met feel free to openly criticize or call 'misguided', 'blind', etc... those who don't share their beliefs. Yet if someone dares question or criticize anything about their religion, they consider it a personal attack or assume that the person is just sad (or virulent).

[Zzyzx]

.

Many religious people I've met feel free to openly criticize or call 'misguided', 'blind', etc... those who don't share their beliefs. Yet if someone dares question or criticize anything about their religion, they consider it a personal attack or assume that the person is just sad (or virulent).

Lucia,

Much of what we do here is expose the sorts of things you mention. Fervent Believers (Fundamentalists / Literalists) join the forum, attempt to bully all who disagree with their beliefs, throw out the usual platitudes, attempt to claim superiority by virtue of their religious beliefs -- and discover that they cannot push anyone around or force them to listen to sermons. Eventually most seem to learn that they cannot answer even basic questions about their stories and claims honestly and openly (without admitting that they believe "on faith alone" and without reasoning based on evidence).

They often become angry and hostile (as you see), bluster about for a while, then disappear. Notice that there are very few "old timer" Fundamentalists still positing.

It appears as though those who promote most forms of religion have not encountered opposition or challenge to their pronouncements -- perhaps being accustomed to a church or "Christians Only" environment (preaching to the choir). When they encounter a "level playing field" (where "faith" is not given special recognition and where the bible cannot be used as an authoritative source), they seem to fall apart.

[JohnnyJersey]

Heck no I don’t deny that “gods� exist. Maybe all of the thousands invisible, undetectable “gods� that are proposed, worshiped, feared, promoted or imagined by humans are REAL.

What is your basis for believing they possibly may be real?

Some people, particularly fundamentalist believers / worshipers of “gods�, seem to think that they know that ONE (or a few) of the thousands of “gods� is/are real and that all others are “false gods�.

When they make claims and tell stories about their favorite “god� in public (particularly in debate), I ask for evidence that their preferred “god� is real or that others are not. The response NEVER includes evidence, only more tales and claims (plus opinions, conjecture, testimonials).

So tales, claims, and testimonials are not "evidence"? Wow. Our legal system sure has that wrong, I guess.

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?

I encourage people to THINK and to make sound decisions based upon evidence, observation and experience in the real world – NOT upon emotional appeals by god-worshipers attempting to promote their particular brand of worship – without evidence that what they say is true.

You have yet to establish a lack of "evidence" on the part of every religious person.

I oppose fraud, deception, coercion and pressure to conform.

So do I.

Do you find that objectionable?

Nope. But you also seem to want people to conform to your idea of what "evidence" is rather than let people be non-conforming in regards to "evidence". So you're communicating a mixed message, at best, or a self-contradiction.

Why oppose tales of supernatural or gods when you are not an atheist?

Why are you so concerned about my personal motivations?

I'm not. I'm concerned with your rational motivations. If they happen to be personal, fine. But I'm not after personal motivation so much as rational motivation. Why YOUR rational motivation? Because I'm discussing/debating with you at the moment.

Do you think that you are capable of debating against the ideas I present – without relying on personal comments?

The only "personal" items being discussed here are those pertaining to belief. If you are unwilling to discuss your beliefs on the grounds that they are personal, that's absolutely your right, and you're welcome to withhold all your beliefs.

However, if you are willing and desiring to talk about your personal beliefs (and it is quite apparent that you are, as you do so in your many posts and threads), then you can't recoil in horror when someone with whom you are discussing or debating asks you about those beliefs which you yourself put out there to discuss or debate.

It's like someone saying, "I love ice cream," and another person responding, "You do? Me too! What's your favorite flavor?" and the original speaker retorting sharply in indignation, "How DARE YOU! How DARE YOU ask me such a PERSONAL THING, about what I LIKE! What's it to YOU what I like or don't like? Are you able to have a discussion without getting PERSONAL????!?! {HRMPH!!}"

As I said, I oppose fraud, deception, coercion and pressure to conform – AND I regard as one or more of the above to present claims and stories about “gods� as being truthful when there is no evidence

Can you show that to be in error?

Yes. Your assertion that "there is no evidence that the tales are any more than imagination – and no evidence that any claims pertaining to proposed supernatural beings, “spirits� or events are truthful and accurate accounts of characters or events that are literally true in the real world" is your biased opinion, based on the fact that you determine what "evidence" is acceptable or unacceptable.

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?

Again, why are you SO concerned about me personally? Can you not debate issues and ideas rather than personalities?

I'm not debating your personality. I am debating your personal beliefs, since you put them out there for discussion and debate, yourself.

Interestingly, you go on (just below) to answer the question very matter-of-factly, despite your indignance and (obviously feigned) reluctance to do so.

I spent a couple decades of my life in colleges and universities studying, applying and teaching Earth science and related subjects (geology, geomorphology, physical geography, biology, meteorology, climatology, hydrology, soils, etc).

I saw first-hand the mental limitations imposed upon the thinking and learning capabilities of students who had been indoctrinated to believe that “goddidit� and to reject actual study of nature.

Thank you. That answer didn't need all the bloviating accompanying it earlier.

So, your interest is based on your own personal experience and opinion about what you have seen first-hand, i.e. anecdote.

Perhaps it would be illuminating for readers if YOU were to explain you motivation for spending so much time trying to rebut what I write? Tell them your reasons for trying to “defend the faith� (or whatever it is that you think you are doing).

I'd be happy to. In my experience, even on this site in my short time here thus far, I have seen a lot of anti-Christian (and anti-religion) rhetoric from people who purport, either directly or indirectly, a superior ability to use logic and reason to arrive at their anti-Christian beliefs, either implicitly or explicitly. Having studied philosophy (in which logic and reason are intrinsic), I am well aware that logic and reason do not lead to a belief that God does not exist any more than they would lead to a belief that God does exist. In fact, I believe that logic and reason support God's existence more than they support His non-existence.

Therefore, it is my goal to point out, wherever I see it and have the logistical ability to respond, any instance of someone usurping (and I am using it correctly here, again) logic and reason as being on his "side" exclusively. This is why I rebut your posts, because you do exactly that.

I don't believe people ought to feel intimidated by self-proclaimed authorities on logic and reason (especially when they are deficient in those areas) to the point where they feel their beliefs are "disproven" through logic and reason.

The fact of the matter is that logic and reason can well support both "sides" of the argument about God. Some of us believe logic and reason better support God's existence, some don't; but even those who don't can use logic and reason to rationally support their beliefs. What I see is mostly anti-Christians claiming to have logic and reason on their side, typically through "science", and that is wrong.

Ultimately, my goal is for people to know the Gospel so that they may come to know Truth. It is their right to exercise their free wills to accept or reject it, and I respect that. I just don't want anyone to reject it because he was bamboozled by some flim-flam blowhard who claims all sorts of intellectual authority and superiority where he actually has none. And that would include most anti-God/Christian/religion scientists. Scientists who have no credibility in philosphy or religion should stick to science and not speak as authorities or experts on philosophy or religion.

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.

Perhaps that is what YOU would think or do. Do you not recognize that what you prefer or perform is not universal?

I believe the Truth to be universal. If others disagree, that's their prerogative. That doesn't mean I don't have the right to discuss or assert my beliefs.

Why are you so interested in my thoughts and positions?

I'm interested in your thoughts and positions on God/metaphysics because I am discussing that topic with you. This is a website expressly for "debating Christianity" and this forum is for "Christianity and apologetics". You are presenting your beliefs for the purpose of discussion, I am engaging in that discussion (against my better judgment, perhaps) and in doing so it behooves me to understand your position the best I can, which in turn entails asking questions for clarification or confirmation of what I understand from you.

That ought to be discussion 101, I shouldn't have to explain that much.

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?

That’s it – with variations on tales (such as personal opinions, conjectures, testimonials, etc based on the unverified tales) and promises added to the admonitions (“you can go to heaven if you worship as I say�).

Do you have something else to offer? Do you feel qualified to debate the topic?

Philosphical proofs, physical evidences, etc. are constantly offered by Christian apologists. So, no, what you indicate as being "all" that's offered is NOT "all" that's offered.

As for whether I feel qualified to debate the topic - yes. Isn't it obvious that I'm debating it? Again, something I shouldn't have to explain.

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.

Spit it out – what are you trying to say?

I said exactly what I wanted to say, which is that the inverse to your scenario is true as well. What is not clear about that? What is there to "spit out"???

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.

Do you feel qualified to debate the topic?

Yes. Do you ever stop asking people whom you are debating if they "feel qualified to debate the topic"? It is getting rather old.

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.

Notice that you ducked the question by objecting to my use of “customers�.

How can I answer a question that is not directed at anything I'm involved with? I don't object to your use of customers; that's your choice to ask about a religion that has customers. I'm simply letting you know that I cannot answer for such a religion because I am not involved in such a religion.

It's no different from if I asked you, "Do wife-beating clubs have monthly or weekly meetings?" If you answer, "I don't know, I'm not in a wife-beating club. My club is not a 'wife-beating' club, it's just a men's club. Go ask someone who's in a wife-beating club." ...It would be wrong of me to respond, "Ah, I see you are ducking my question by objecting to my use of "wife-beating".

How does a religion of conversion (competition) match a desire for pacifism?

For one thing, conversion is not the same as competition. For another, it is not the goal of Christianity for Christians to "convert" others into organized churches. It is the goal to spread the Gospel and live a life that witnesses of Christ. "Conversion" is done by God, and does not necessitate joining an "organized" church.

Do religious organizations gather income (by whatever name known) by providing religious services to individuals?

I have had interesting discussions / debates with preachers who objected to my referring to their “flock� as customers. I typically asked where the “church funds� came from to pay their salary, build palaces of worship, to purchase real estate to make investments. All they were able to come up with as, “Well, WE don’t consider them customers�. To which I typically reply, “You provide religious services and take in money – show me how that is not a business and the ‘faithful’ are not customers.�

They must be the stupidest preachers on earth if that's all they could answer. In Christianity, no monetary payment is required. Churches gain money from donations. Or, they don't. There are Churches that have no money, no funds, no building, no material possessions, and meet in people's homes. Church buildings, etc. are built if and when a Church decides they want one, and it is then done on donations. And don't try to equate donations with "payment", you will lose that argument very easily.

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.

Can you disagree WITHOUT personal comments? Can you DEBATE a topic without personal comments?

"Personal comments" is a broad and vague term. Almost everything you discuss with anyone else involves "personal comments" in the sense that if nothing else you are discussing with that person, personally. But personal comments in the form of ad homs, about a person's character, etc. is a different story. Yes, you can disagree with someone without ad homs.

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.

Can you show that the proposed “consequences� are REAL?

Promoting a product or service (including religion) by proposing “consequences� that cannot be show to be real is DECEPTION.

The Christian Gospel is neither a product nor a service; it is Truth that is imparted to all, and each person is free to accept or reject it by his own free will.

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!!!

To WHAT do you propose that “science� is using “coercion� to CONVERT people?

To their idea of certain natural truths.

Do you go to a medical doctor when ill? Do you use an automobile or a computer (both made possible by those who study “science�)?

Absolutely!

Don't have unprotected sex, OR ELSE you will get an STD!!!!!

What a silly thing for medical people to say. Where do they come up with such things?

Why do you say it's a silly thing for them to say? It's true. They should tell people such truths.

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!!!!!!!!

What is the religionist alternative? Walk off a cliff and pray to “gods� for the ability to defy gravity (like “supernatural� beings are often said to be capable of doing)?

No, there is no "religionist alternative". As a religionist (and I can speak for all), I do heed the advice of science regarding walking of a cliff, and I refrain from it.

BOOGA BOOGA!!! THE GREAT SCIENCE HAS SPOKEN, BOW AND OBEY!!!"

Thank you for demonstrating to readers a fairly common religionist response to what they perceive as “science�

That's not how a common religionist perceives science. That was my example that it is irrational to consider it "coercion" when negative consequences based on immutable truths are made known to an individual. To see Christianity as "coercive" is like seeing science as "coercive". Neither one is.

Yes, “science� is a bogyman to those who attribute disease and disaster to invisible, undetectable “gods� and “spirits� – and who “explain� the unknown by making up tales (or repeating tales told by ancient storytellers).

So now you're speaking on behalf of "those who attribute disease and disaster to invisible, undetectable “gods� and “spirits� – and who “explain� the unknown by making up tales (or repeating tales told by ancient storytellers)"??? How are you qualified to speak on their behalf? You got so indignant when I proposed my belief about what an "atheist" is, despite my not speaking FOR them, and yet here you are speaking on behalf of people with whom you disagree. Why the double standard?

You asked me, "Why don't you go ask an atheist what he thinks, how he defines atheism?" Well, I'm even more convinced now that I shouldn't, because you not only ask people what they think, you just go right ahead and speak for them. Another case of "do as I say, not as I do" on your part.

Some say that “science� is “Booga Booga� when it is correctly pointed out that donkeys and snakes do not converse with humans, that people don’t walk on water, that virgins cannot be shown to give birth after being impregnated by “spirits�, that people dead for days do not come back to life, that the Earth does not stop rotating (“sun stood still�) for hours so a favored army can vanquish enemies, that seas do not part and storms do not calm on command, that water does not magically turn into fine wine.

Yup, that is all “Booga Booga�.

Very, very few say it is "booga booga" - that is the charicature you put forth as a (false) stereotype of religious people. There are people who are not religious who think science is "booga booga", too.

As for your reference to miracles, you are wrong when you say it is "correctly" pointed out that they are used as a basis for disbelieving science. In fact, what makes them "miracles" is the fact that they defy what is accepted as scientifically true. You can't have a miracle, an event that defies science, unless you acknowledge the truth of science to begin with.

It must have been far easier to coerce people into worshiping “gods� when reasoned and verifiable cause and effect relationships were not known. An eclipse of the sun must have been a good recruiting tool for self-identified “prophets� and “priests� before humans learned about the solar system through <shudder> Booba Booga science.

Yes, it probably was, and that's why so many believed in false gods.

Christianity has been and is promoted by coercion although it isn't supposed to be, by Christian standards.

Thank you.

Christianity has been used by many people for many purposes, some genuine, some not - some wrong, some not.

Thank you.

Which parts are “genuine� and which are “wrong�?

Show readers how to distinguish between “genuine� and “wrong�, and how to know which Christian “leaders� to follow and which to ignore. [/quote]

There are two ways of knowing; either through extensive research and study, correctly applying logic and reason, or by having a True Faith in Christ and being guided by the Holy Spirit, and listening to Him.

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

Strange.

You agree – then say it is a stretch.

Is that an example of “Christian Logic�?

I didn't agree. Is your misunderstanding an example of "atheist reading skills"??

[JohnnyJersey]

.

Many religious people I've met feel free to openly criticize or call 'misguided', 'blind', etc... those who don't share their beliefs. Yet if someone dares question or criticize anything about their religion, they consider it a personal attack or assume that the person is just sad (or virulent).

Lucia,

Much of what we do here is expose the sorts of things you mention. Fervent Believers (Fundamentalists / Literalists) join the forum, attempt to bully all who disagree with their beliefs, throw out the usual platitudes, attempt to claim superiority by virtue of their religious beliefs -- and discover that they cannot push anyone around or force them to listen to sermons. Eventually most seem to learn that they cannot answer even basic questions about their stories and claims honestly and openly (without admitting that they believe "on faith alone" and without reasoning based on evidence).

Kettle, meet pot.

They often become angry and hostile (as you see), bluster about for a while, then disappear. Notice that there are very few "old timer" Fundamentalists still positing.

Fundamentalists tend to have lives (real ones, with work, friends, family, etc.) that get in the way of posting on the internet. I've noticed a tactic of atheists and anti-Christians is the "swarm" tactic - swarm a message board with posts, pat each other on the back, drown out the individual poster who disagrees, point to posters' absences and refusal to "debate" (which is actually a refusal to be baited into a nonsensical argument with an ignorant atheist who doesn't understand logic) and say, "See? They come around and then RUN away, defeated! Victory is MINE! I can't wait to tell the people at the Ren Faire/Star Trek Convention/Old Folks home/[insert geeky atheist club here]!!!!"

But thank you for confirming that there are very few old-timer, prolific posters that are Fundamentalists - it corroborates my earlier assertion that the most prolific posters are atheists.

It appears as though those who promote most forms of religion have not encountered opposition or challenge to their pronouncements -- perhaps being accustomed to a church or "Christians Only" environment (preaching to the choir). When they encounter a "level playing field" (where "faith" is not given special recognition and where the bible cannot be used as an authoritative source), they seem to fall apart.

It appears as though you have lived in the Bible Belt all your life and have not met too many people - atheist or Christian - who have brains and/or an education in logic and reason. I'm glad I live in civilization.

[JohnnyJersey]

Trying to be 'cute' as with your answer above is not engaging. No answers no engagement.

Where was I trying to be cute?

And just what do you expect me to be "engaging" in? From what I see, this is the "general chat" forum, and this thread is MY introduction. Mine. So, I am engaging in general chat in the thread I created about myself. So what are you talking about "engaging" in???

My 'opinion' was substantiated by the fact that I could not come up with any "prolific posters who are virulent atheists fiiled with anger and bitternees toward christianity"

Your inability to agree with me substantiates your opinion as subjective. Good for you, what else do you want?

So which was it - hyperbole or flamebait.

Neither - those are your empty accusations. I was simply stating an observation, and I stick by it. Don't ask me what you meant with your unsolicited opinion.

You can easily counter by coming up with the names of the posters you claimed to have observed who are mostly virulent atheists who seem to have a real anger or bitterness towards Christianity in particular

Counter what? I'm not arguing anything.

You can PM me and not risk the wrath of the moderators.

I have no need to prove anything to you; you don't believe me, that's your problem. You want to debate this, open a thread, and I might be there (don't hold your breath). You want to engage in general chat about me and my introduction, then here we are, indulge. It's not complicated, I don't know why you're looking for "counters" and "proofs" in this thread.