Definition of PROSELYTIZE
Yes thank you, I'm well aware of what the word means and have used it in context of noting the examples provided as proselytizing. Conversely, there appear to be some xtian proselytizers who remain unaware of how the description fits the content of some of their posts, (and then try to force-fit that description to my
responses to those proselytizing posts with some inane 'I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I' nonsense).
Actually, since it is insisted that proselytizing is going on in the Bible verse thread, I believe, then that proselytizing is happening from you, too, in order to sway people from discussing religious issues and instead, agree with the stance that there is no God; a *"cause."
No; challenging specious religious claims does not constitute "proselytizing" - that is a misapplication of the definition and a false characterization of what's taken place, (plus, the actual exchanges are
archived so, your misrepresenting them is disingenuous). My challenges to specious claims are not made "in order to sway people from discussing religious issues" since there was at least some expectation that such challenges would be met, (and some at least tried). The "stance" which I've always taken is that the burden of proof/substantiating a claim remains with the claimant, (that would be those religious adherents who've claimed that 'g-d' exists, sans evidence to support their claim), and haven't made a direct claim "that there is no g-d". Therefore, you're misrepresenting challenges to xtian claims as making an opposite claim. There is no "cause" being proselytized by challenging specious claims ... I challenge several types of claims, religious or secular.
You are consistently knocking just about any religious post in this forum. This type of proselytizing for that kind of cause is distasteful (using your word.)
Characterizing dissenting viewpoints as "knocking" is a subjectively-biased opinion. As an "opinion", it is a subjective interpretation and not objective evidence to support such prejudicial descriptors. To reiterate that point; challenging specious religious claims does not constitute
"proselytizing" - that is a misapplication of the definition and a false characterization of what's taken place. Lastly, the use of the word
"distasteful" was a quote from the other trolling xtian in this thread which was my subjective opinion of her, (and your), religious proselytizing posts. It is suspected that the cause of both of you xtians finding such challenges to your specious beliefs/faith to be "distasteful" lies within the blind-faith paradigm and a reluctance to question such religious convictions. I don't have such a reluctance and if you're 'free' to post such religious proselytizings on open forums, so too am I free to oppose them, (whether your characterization of such dissent is viewed as "distasteful" as I view your religious proselytizing or not; you can no silence/censor/inhibit/restrict an opposing viewpoint than I can yours).
Most Christians in here do accept anyone else's choice of what they believe or don't believe.
Those statistics are unavailable for verification of your claim however, there have been/are at least half a dozen xtians who have posted in direct contradiction to such a claim, (e.g., they do
not "accept" non-xtian viewpoints, (as opposed to 'beliefs'), and have tried various ad hominems, diversionary tactics, trolling/calling-out, dodging rebuttals and engaging in dissembling in lieu of actually 'accepting', (beyond any empty and contradictory assertions made that they do).
It is, ultimately, everyone's personal choice to believe what they think.
Indeed it is; which includes a personal choice to consider specious religious beliefs to be irrational/dangerous and to oppose them. Otherwise, that other "personal choice" mentioned becomes a biased one-way street, applying
only to religious adherents and not to non-religious dissention.
However, you do not show the same courtesy with anyone else's choice of Christianity, and continue to try and disregard their beliefs totally, disprove them, and make them look foolish and irrational.
Since the "same courtesy" is apparently
not being applied by several xtians to non-xtian dissent, it is unreasonable to expect such a "courtesy" to be exclusively-applied.
This is NOT following the Golden Rule listed in this thread.
That is a misapplication of the "Golden Rule" listed under FC posting policies since proselytizing religous adherents had/have
Initiated such threads and posts, (which tacitly imply that, since I choose not to be proselytized to/treated that way, those religious adherents doing so are the f
first to violate that "Golden Rule"). Several of those religious proselytizers have then gone on to "NO flaming, NO derogatory remarks to other members" portion of the rule when any burden of proof challenge arises. Many of those same religious adherents have then falsely characterized such challenges as making "derrogatory remarks", (but have been unable to provide quoted evidence
in context to substantiate that such remarks as they perceive to be "derrogatory" have been in
reply to previous derrogatory remarks made by those same religious adherents. Unremarkably, several of those adherents had proceeded to "report" only
'one-sided' versions to the moderator - omitting the portion where
they initiated the "flames" in violation of FC's posting policies.
There is no debating going on - it's completely one-sided with all rebuttal dismissive with the impression you are totally correct and the religious side are totally incorrect.
Well, 'that' particular characterization happens to be incorrect since there has been very little actual "debate" coming from the religious adherent side of the matter. In that regard, it has been somewhat "one-sided" with most of the religious adherents appearing to be content with making specious/unreasooned pronouncements/declarations, (sans substantiations), and then disparaging dissenting/reasoned rebuttals. Since I've never asserted that I'm "totally correct and the religious side are totally incorrect", that would be another specious declaration lacking evidence, (as in, a quoted post of mine asserting such a thing ... a random subjective 'interpretation' doesn't constitute such evidence - it must be a direct quote).
Religious debates are dropping in number now and while you might be ecstatic about that, as it seems ...
That's one of those 'subjective interpretations' previously mentioned. Although I haven't read many of the archived threads in the context of religious debates, I have read those I've participated in and either there
were more then than now or, that's another specious claim, (since it's relatively moot, it isn't worth the time & effort to me to go back and verify your assertion).
Yes, the ignore button can be used. However, that does not solve the issue, especially when newbies come in and get treated the same way.
On the contrary, having once been a newbie here myself, (as were all of us), I've endeavored to treat the majority with more patience than with the more senior members. If some newbie
first jumps right into the fray with some especially strident religious proselytizing, I've occasionally, (as in, not every time), challenged it, (as in, challenging what they've asserted, not the newbie
'themselves' ).
Yes, it's an open forum, but it's not a forum for people to come into and feel belittled for their stance on things. The open forum doesn't necessarily mean that you have to go into everyone of the threads, especially the religious ones, simply to make your disparaging remarks.
First, the FC forums are open to any FC member who chooses to post on extant threads. Such threads are not the exclusive property of those participating in them, nor some sort of 'free pass' to blurt out anything and expect no dissenting viewpoints in reply. To reiterate that point once again; characterizing dissenting viewpoints as "disparaging remarks" is an inherently personal and biased opinion. It disregards my personal & biased opinion that proselytizing posts made by religious adherents comprise "disparaging remarks" which eschew reason.
The report button is there for a reason. However, apparently people are afraid to use it now for fear of reprimand on them for using it when a poster is breaking or appears to be breaking 1 or 2 of the rules.
If any are "afraid" of using the "report button" it's likely because they've been previously chastised for
misusing it to make false reports, (and have been warned to discontinue such practices of "telling on" other members by submitted false accusations). On the other hand, my posts have been trolled, religious adherents have posted threads specifically to "call out" another FC member, (me), and been
intially-"flamed" and the ones doing so were warned by the moderator that those
Are violations of FC posting policies. Yet, you and they remain on FC, presumably 'surprised' that you've not been banned as the rules state, ("What if I break this rule? You will be banned for a minimum of 14 days and in a severe case your FusionCash account will be closed and all money will be forfeited"). This just goes to show that FC is even-handed in considering the situation.
"Satan hasn't a single salaried helper; the Opposition employ a million."
-- Mark Twain <-- satirical humor
Community Forum
Topic: Dumbing-down or wising-up? (Read 15927 times)