Is our Forum unbalanced?

[Zzyzx]

.
We are US based and the majority of members appear to be US citizens – a nation that claims to be 80% Christian.

Why are Atheists (who supposedly represent 15% of US citizens) present in numbers virtually equal to Christians? The numbers are presented in "Statistics" section.

There are supposedly more than five times as many Christians as Atheists in the US – why aren't they present in such proportion in the Forum?

Why are the top five all-time posting members Non-Christian? Why do Atheists have 100 thousand posts compared to 70 thousand for Christians (by user group)? Why are the top two or three posters most weeks and months Non-Christians?

Can anyone legitimately say that Forum Rules, Guidelines, Polices, and Moderation favor any theistic position?

Is it accurate to note that Non-Christians seem to remain active far longer than Christians – judging from the "date joined" that appears below ID at left side of posts?

Are Non-Christians more capable debaters than Christians (or more intelligent, better educated, more articulate, less bashful, etc)?

Why the disparity?

[100%atheist]

I think it is because Christianity as virtually any religion is not disputable for its adepts. This means there is nothing to debate for an average US Christian. Perhaps, one can make a conclusion that Atheists are about five times more likely to debate Christianity than Christians.

[Question Everything]

As far as moderator actions go, they look to me to be about as even handed as you can get. I have seen Christians and atheists alike get moderator warnings and even banishment when appropriate.

As to why atheists tend to post more than theists, I think it is because of the nature of debate itself. I don't know about anyone else but to me the way you debate something is to present evidence to support your side and your opponent presents evidence to support his side. The weight of the evidence decides the winner of the debate.

Theists don't seem to see things that way. Their attitude is usually that something someone said long ago trumps all the mountains of evidence we get from the work of the world's top scientists and archeologists that has accumulated over hundreds of years. They hold this position even if we have no idea who said it or why it was said. Sorry, but that won't cut it in debate.

[nursebenjamin]

Why the disparity?

Christians generally don't like their beliefs questioned, or debated.

[Strider324]

Effective debate relies on Reason and Logic. Religion is the abnegation of these attributes.

[LiamOS]

I think that a substantial portion of American Christians are both incapable and unwilling to debate or even question their own faith. Naturally, this is true of American Atheists too, but due to the Christian majority, such an effect is much less pronounced among non-Christians.

[Wootah]

I think one reason is that Christianity is presumed true for Christians and so they find it less likely to need to debate it. I think also that at the end of day having your beliefs challenged is not fun and certainly not likely to be profitable in terms of evangelism.

So speaking for myself I am here because I want to test my beliefs. I say X and see what response comes back and then I can think on that. I think that is why there are more posts by atheists - I need you to post to then see what objections there are so that I can work out what I think about them.

[Zzyzx]

.
It appears to me that the Christians who debate most often, vigorously and/or adamantly tend to be:

1) Fundamentalist, Biblicist, Literalist, and/or Fanatical.

And

2) Dogmatic (defined as "Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles"; "positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant"; "a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises"


Thus, the Christian position most frequently presented tends to be based upon Dogma, which is defined as "A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true" – RATHER than upon reasoning or evidence (which are fundamental to debate).

When "the playing field is level" and Christians cannot "pull rank" by citing the bible as authoritative, there is NO "plan B" – no reason that can be offered to convince others to accept as truthful and accurate the claims and stories that form the basis of the belief system they promote or defend.

Most Apologist debaters seem unaware that in debate one supports what they say with documentation OTHER than the source that originates the tales – and commit the blunder of circularity.

What I have seen of "Christian to Christian debate" tends to be "my dogma vs. your dogma" or "my interpretation of scripture vs. your interpretation of scripture" – none of which can be substantiated by anything more than the bible and opinion. That "evidence" and "reasoning" may suffice in church or in Christian-friendly environments but it is insufficient when attempted in debate where substantiation is expected and required.

Another disadvantage of Biblicism in debate is the tendency to try to defend all of Christendom – until that becomes obviously impossible -- then distancing themselves from "not Real Christians" (which can ignite internecine warfare – with Christian pitted against Christian condemning each other as Not Real Christian)

Surprisingly, many Christian debaters are NOT aware of basic facts about the nature, history and development of the bible that are known to scholars and theologians (unknown authors, written long after claimed events and conversations, selection and editing by committees, no eyewitnesses, unknown sources of information, not written by disciples, changed in places, etc. etc.

Finally, and perhaps most important, those who revere the bible seem to feel compelled to defend all the "miracle" tales as true stories – from virgin birth, to stars stopping overhead, to walking on water, to talking donkeys and snakes, to dead bodies coming back to life after days in the grave – ALL of which contradict what we know of the real world. Claiming "it happened once upon a time because these stories say so" is not very convincing or compelling in debate (though it may work in church or among fellow believers).

On the other hand, there are Christian members who are NOT Dogmatic or Biblicist – but are Liberal, Tolerant, Modern or Post Modern -- and who present a very different picture of Christianity. However, they apparently constitute a tiny minority among Christians in the population and among Christian debaters – and they often debate against their more dogmatic brethren (allied with Agnostics and Atheists in that regard).

[fredonly]

Since atheists dominate this site, there is a built-in attraction: atheists have their positions reaffirmed. Of course, that is counter-productive to debate - which requires contrary views.

Many bars provide free drinks to the ladies, to get them into the places that would otherwise have mostly men. We should offer free drinks to Christians, to get them in the door.

[Zzyzx]

.

Since atheists dominate this site,

WHY do "Atheists dominate this site"?

Atheists are outnumbered five to one in the US population by Christians (according to surveys). Why can they "dominate" a debate site -- in which they are NOT given favorable treatment? How is that possible?

Are they smarter? Better educated? More capable? More literate? Better debaters?

OR do they represent the stronger debate position? They do not feel compelled to defend tales of invisible, undetectable, supernatural "gods" or "spirits" -- or try to convince readers or opponents to believe what they claim "on faith alone". They don't have to try to explain tales of "supernatural" events that are said to have happened "long ago and far away" (and not since) - and which defy all we know of nature and the real world we inhabit.

Many bars provide free drinks to the ladies, to get them into the places that would otherwise have mostly men. We should offer free drinks to Christians, to get them in the door.

I have written many theological schools and invited faculty and students to join our debates, thinking that surely someone could defend fundamentalist / supernaturalist positions -- but to no avail. I have also challenged a "famous fundamentalist debater" / theology professor to debate on our level playing field -- again zilch (at least he responded to claim lack of time).

Maybe we could offer "one free unsupported claim" (since they take them anyway).