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?

[dianaiad]

.
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?

(laughing very hard)

Every post in this thread so far has been from an atheist, or at least a non-religious, poster.

You've been so busy congratulating each other for your perspicacity and criticizing the theist's thought processes and beliefs that you are about to dislocate your shoulders from the sheer back patting process.

Y'wanna know the answer to your query?

Honestly?

It's because the atheists in here are:

A. as religiously devoted to their non-belief as any theist is, but
1. theists who are as completely devoted to their opinions have someplace to go; church, meetings, groups....they have lives, but
2. atheists, in order to practice their non-beliefs and preach them, have to go to forums and discussion groups in order to discuss their non-beliefs with others, and to talk others into agreeing with them; if one were a theist, it would be called 'proselyting." In other words, you are, when coming here, going to church.


Theists who come here are masochists. We KNOW that the atheists outnumber us by quite a substantial number here, and still we come, because we like to argue. Or debate, if you want to be politically correct about it. We do so because we like writing, because writing helps us form our own thoughts and beliefs. We know that we aren't going to get any approval here. Nobody pats us on the head and tells us how good a job we are doing when we score a point.

Atheists, however, get that a lot. This thread is a beautiful example of that.

Why is this forum unbalanced? It is, y'know--you've just proven that. It's unbalanced because theists have somewhere ELSE to go to church.

[Ragna]

.
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?

(laughing very hard)

Every post in this thread so far has been from an atheist, or at least a non-religious, poster.

You've been so busy congratulating each other for your perspicacity and criticizing the theist's thought processes and beliefs that you are about to dislocate your shoulders from the sheer back patting process.

Y'wanna know the answer to your query?

Honestly?

It's because the atheists in here are:

A. as religiously devoted to their non-belief as any theist is, but
1. theists who are as completely devoted to their opinions have someplace to go; church, meetings, groups....they have lives, but
2. atheists, in order to practice their non-beliefs and preach them, have to go to forums and discussion groups in order to discuss their non-beliefs with others, and to talk others into agreeing with them; if one were a theist, it would be called 'proselyting." In other words, you are, when coming here, going to church.


Theists who come here are masochists. We KNOW that the atheists outnumber us by quite a substantial number here, and still we come, because we like to argue. Or debate, if you want to be politically correct about it. We do so because we like writing, because writing helps us form our own thoughts and beliefs. We know that we aren't going to get any approval here. Nobody pats us on the head and tells us how good a job we are doing when we score a point.

Atheists, however, get that a lot. This thread is a beautiful example of that.

Why is this forum unbalanced? It is, y'know--you've just proven that. It's unbalanced because theists have somewhere ELSE to go to church.

Oh, Dianaiad, I have been off for two weeks but thanks for letting me know nothing has changed - your typical comments made me feel "home".

Obviously I disagree with everything, but I can't reply now (not that I think you don't know what the answers to that are, anyways).

Just minor remark: turn generalization mode off for thoughtful comments .

[fredonly]

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.

The point I was making is that that this site isn't necessarily representative of Christians in general. This is why I had answered the question why they dominate this site. There are other forums where Christians dominate. For example: Reasonable Faith Forum. I've actually been hanging out over there, lately. I'm currently recovering from a lengthy, frustrating debate with a Christian on that forum.

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).

More to the point of your questions: I think most Christians feel they have little reason to debate. They aren't searching for truth, they believe they already have it. Since their beliefs aren't based on reasoning, they have no specific logic to be tested. The only reasons they might debate would be to gain converts (which is why there are a disproportionate number of evangelicals around here) or to demonstrate the alleged soundness of their fideistic rationalizations (in the case of the Reasonable Faith forum). On the other hand, most of the atheists around here are (I suspect) former Christians who arrived at their current position through their own rational analysis - so rationality is the basis of their position; there is testable logic.

But ask yourself this: why are you here? Why do you want to debate Christians? Do you think you're going to convince them you're right? Are you testing your own logic? Whatever your reasons, contrast these with the reasons a Christian might have for debating with atheists.

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

In my circles, nothing works better than free booze. But you might also try suckering them in, giving them some hope of converting you.

[100%atheist]

(laughing very hard)

Every post in this thread so far has been from an atheist, or at least a non-religious, poster.

Are you okay? Wootah responded with a post, and I actually agree with his post. Fredonly responded with a post. Now, it's you. So, some facts do not come together here, Diana.

You've been so busy congratulating each other for your perspicacity and criticizing the theist's thought processes and beliefs that you are about to dislocate your shoulders from the sheer back patting process.

It's rude.

Y'wanna know the answer to your query?

Honestly?

It's because the atheists in here are:

A. as religiously devoted to their non-belief as any theist is, but
1. theists who are as completely devoted to their opinions have someplace to go; church, meetings, groups....they have lives, but

This implies you often watch pictures like atheists wandering on the streets doing nothing, and having nothing to do on Sundays. This makes no sense.

2. atheists, in order to practice their non-beliefs and preach them, have to go to forums and discussion groups in order to discuss their non-beliefs with others, and to talk others into agreeing with them; if one were a theist, it would be called 'proselyting." In other words, you are, when coming here, going to church.

This stick, Diana, has two ends. If you suggests that Atheists come to this forum to proselytize, then you must agree that you are here for the same reason.

In some respect you might be correct; I can easily imagine many Atheists who want their word out, Atheists who want to be understood and at least accepted as citizens with equal rights (you remember Bush's sentence that he doesn't know that Atheists are the US citizens, don't you).

By the way, I can't talk for everyone, so I can tell you my reason for being here. I want to learn what Christians think of Atheists and how far they are ready to go to (a) consider Atheists as absolutely normal and equal group of people or (b) start killing atheists.

Theists who come here are masochists. We KNOW that the atheists outnumber us by quite a substantial number here, and still we come, because we like to argue. Or debate, if you want to be politically correct about it. We do so because we like writing, because writing helps us form our own thoughts and beliefs. We know that we aren't going to get any approval here. Nobody pats us on the head and tells us how good a job we are doing when we score a point.

You better speak for yourself rather than for all theists on this forum. As an example, many on this forum including me like and agree with what Slopesholder posts here. Thus, your argument goes down the drain.

Atheists, however, get that a lot. This thread is a beautiful example of that.

From theists? Maybe.... but "a lot"?? Give me an example.

Why is this forum unbalanced? It is, y'know--you've just proven that. It's unbalanced because theists have somewhere ELSE to go to church.

Can you debate in Church?

[Dr_Quantum]

Well firstly, just because statistics say that 80% of US citizens are atheist doesn't change a thing because I'm British, and i'm sure many other nations use this website for debate.

Secondly, Just because people put on paper/census that they are christian doesn't mean they actually are, infact out of the so called 80% I would dare say that at least 50% either understand very little about the religion, or simply don't even practice it.

Finally, I truly believe that many religious 'bury their heads in the sand' so to speak and just try and reach the end of their days without being converted to atheism.

[Zzyzx]

.

More to the point of your questions: I think most Christians feel they have little reason to debate. They aren't searching for truth, they believe they already have it.

Yes, those who believe they already possess "TRUTH", have no incentive to learn anything that may conflict with their preconceived notions.

Since their beliefs aren't based on reasoning, they have no specific logic to be tested.

Agreed. That is demonstrated repeatedly in these threads.

The only reasons they might debate would be to gain converts (which is why there are a disproportionate number of evangelicals around here) or to demonstrate the alleged soundness of their fideistic rationalizations (in the case of the Reasonable Faith forum).

A major motivator for some is their personal EGO. Some actually think they are superior because they worship a "god" – and that makes them better than the "inferiors" who either worship "false god" or who decline to worship "gods".

On the other hand, most of the atheists around here are (I suspect) former Christians who arrived at their current position through their own rational analysis - so rationality is the basis of their position; there is testable logic.

It seems that way to me. Non-Theists appear to be those on whom Christian indoctrination did NOT work (or who rejected it after some time in favor of reasoning and evidence).

But ask yourself this: why are you here?

I have answered this many times. I debate here to present ideas to READERS who may be searching for answers to their own questions about spirituality. I present ideas for THEM to consider in opposition to the religious propaganda that permeates our societies. Some have never encountered sound and reasoned opposition to the usual religious claims, tales, promises and threats.

Why do you want to debate Christians?

I enjoy challenging the claims of knowledge about invisible, undetectable "gods" and their supposed supernatural abilities and feats.

In the past I debated Biblicists face-to-face and one-to-one, but decided that was a waste of my time. If they have the nerve to debate, they probably are fanatical in their beliefs and unwilling to even think about any ideas that conflict with their indoctrination / teaching / beliefs.

Now, I debate where thousands of readers read and evaluate what is said. It is very gratifying to post a new topic and see that there are twenty views in less than an hour (and sometimes almost immediately). Someone must be interested.

Do you think you're going to convince them you're right?

HECK NO. Once a mind is locked in worship mode, I have NO illusions that it can be changed anytime soon. Later on they may realize they have bought a bill of goods – but I don't hold my breath.

Are you testing your own logic?

Once in a great while something is said by an Apologist that causes me to reexamine my own logic / conclusions / positions. Occasionally I have been known to modify my position – usually in relation to something said by one of those I regard as Thinking Theists (such as SlopeShoulder, Jester and a few others).

Whatever your reasons, contrast these with the reasons a Christian might have for debating with atheists.

Theists' whole life may rest upon their religious beliefs – so they have GREAT investment in being right. It must be frustrating when they cannot show anything more than opinion, dogma and unverified tales to back up their emotions.

I suspect that many begin to question their "faith" before leaving the Forum.

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

In my circles, nothing works better than free booze. But you might also try suckering them in, giving them some hope of converting you.

I am willing to ply people of any persuasion with my homemade wine – but that is as far as it goes.

Suckering them in here is no more demanding than asking questions that they cannot or will not answer because to do so would destroy Biblicist / Literalist "arguments" – and make that obvious to readers. Many become irate when they realize that they have backed themselves into a corner trying to defend tales of talking donkeys and dead bodies coming back to life after days in the grave as literally true.

[Mithrae]

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).

Hmm... In this sub-forum, the four most active Christians have made posts with 'talking donkey' as follows:
Otseng - 3 posts
micatala - 1 post
cnorman18 - 12 posts
Jester - a whopping 16 posts

This compares with 191 posts about talking donkeys by Zzyzx. It's not quite scientific methodology of course, but I'd say you're a little off the mark in saying that those who revere the bible "seem to feel compelled" to defend all the miracle tales. On the contrary, those miracles tales are often elevated by non-believers as the central and most important point of discussion; essentially, if we can't prove that a donkey talked then it's irrational to be a conservative Christian.

Looking back, I don't believe you responded to my comment on this subject in a previous thread:

• Can you demonstrate that under scrutiny the gospel stories about donkeys talking

  Can you demonstrate that under scrutiny the gospels contain any stories about donkeys talking? It's good to see you again Zzyzx, but disappointing that your method of discussion is still rather imprecise.

  Yes I can. . . . (snip quote from Numbers 22)
  
  Is that or is it not a tale of a donkey conversing with a human? Is it a true story?
  
  Is it necessary to show that the bible also tells tales about people walking on water, storms calming on command, virgins being impregnated by “spirits�, stars leading people and stopping over a specific location, water turning magically into wine, and dead bodies coming back to life after days in the grave?

  That's not from the gospels, it's from the pentateuch. It seems that precision regarding the subject at hand means very little to you even when you're called on it, and this raises the question of what kind of 'scrutiny' you had in mind.
  
  In every related thread in which I've read your posts, I've seen exactly this same litany of bible miracles, as though it proved something. Rather than engaging in intelligent discussion about the possibility or otherwise of the miraculous (as we see from ChaosBorders and WinePusher), your repeated comments look more like an argument from personal incredulity: Because you and others consider those tales to be implausible, we should consider the writers to be fundamentally unreliable unless proven otherwise.

To the extent that some non-Christian debaters use that style of 'reasoning,' I'd say that there is indeed an imbalance against conservative Christians. It's akin to a Christian saying "You're an atheist? So prove that life can arise spontaneously from simple component molecules. Can't do it? Guess you're wrong then!" Unlike conservative Christianity however, non-theism doesn't consist of a well-defined package of beliefs to challenge. The Christian who demonstrates that adherence to moral principles is irrational without a god, for example, hasn't really scored a point. Christians are thus left in the position of essentially being wholly on the defensive against a barrage of well-rehearsed arguments against the bible and, even if they managed to present a coherent worldview with some measure of evidentiary support for specific points, would be perceived as losing the overall 'battle' because of the many demands and counter-arguments which haven't been answered.

[Zzyzx]

.

Hmm... In this sub-forum, the four most active Christians have made posts with 'talking donkey' as follows:
Otseng - 3 posts
micatala - 1 post
cnorman18 - 12 posts
Jester - a whopping 16 posts

This compares with 191 posts about talking donkeys by Zzyzx. It's not quite scientific methodology of course, but I'd say you're a little off the mark in saying that those who revere the bible "seem to feel compelled" to defend all the miracle tales.

Not many attempt to defend the "talking donkey tale" as literal truth (wisely perhaps). However, quite a few attempt to defend tales of dead bodies coming back to life as literal truth. Perhaps that is because talking donkeys are not central to their religious beliefs but the claimed "resurrection" of Jesus IS a basis of Christianity.

I cite the tale of talking donkeys, walking on water, virgin birth, stars stopping, water into wine, "resurrections" quite frequently to call attention to the incredible (surpassing belief : too extraordinary and improbable to admit of belief) bible tales that many Biblicists attempt to defend as literal truth. This is to demonstrate before readers the credibility or lack in their arguments.

On the contrary, those miracles tales are often elevated by non-believers as the central and most important point of discussion; essentially, if we can't prove that a donkey talked then it's irrational to be a conservative Christian

If Jesus was not "divine" and did not "perform miracles" and "come back from the dead", Christianity is based on fallacy or fraud. The donkey tale may not be critical, but the resurrection tale certainly is critical.

Is it literal truth? How can one KNOW that? If one is only guessing, Christianity is guesswork.

Is that or is it not a tale of a donkey conversing with a human? Is it a true story?

Is it necessary to show that the bible also tells tales about people walking on water, storms calming on command, virgins being impregnated by “spirits�, stars leading people and stopping over a specific location, water turning magically into wine, and dead bodies coming back to life after days in the grave?

That's not from the gospels, it's from the pentateuch. [/quote]
OH? Shall we do a little bible reading together?

Jesus calming a storm is from Luke 8:22-25 and Mark 4:35-40. Are those gospels or are they not???
The virgin birth tale is from Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:26-35. Are those gospels or are they not?
Water into wine is from John 2:1-11 (is that gospel)?
The claimed "resurrection of Jesus" is reported in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – are those gospels or are they not????

It seems that precision regarding the subject at hand means very little to you even when you're called on it, and this raises the question of what kind of 'scrutiny' you had in mind.

Evidently the "caller" has a little misunderstanding about the bible.

Evidently Christians are LESS informed about religious matters than Non-Christians.

Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions.

On average, Americans correctly answer 16 of the 32 religious knowledge questions on the survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. Atheists and agnostics average 20.9 correct answers. Jews and Mormons do about as well, averaging 20.5 and 20.3 correct answers, respectively. Protestants as a whole average 16 correct answers; Catholics as a whole, 14.7. Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons perform better than other groups on the survey even after controlling for differing levels of education.
http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-P ... urvey.aspx

No wonder things seem a bit lopsided in these debates.

In every related thread in which I've read your posts, I've seen exactly this same litany of bible miracles, as though it proved something.

The bible "miracle" tales may be intended to "prove something" (such as the divinity of Jesus). However, there is no evidence that they are anything more than imagination and/or wishful thinking by writers long after the supposed events (writers who were evidently NOT witnesses to what the wrote about).

Rather than engaging in intelligent discussion about the possibility or otherwise of the miraculous (as we see from

Okay. Let's start with an "intelligent discussion" of the talking donkey. WHAT intelligent do you have to say?

Because you and others consider those tales to be implausible, we should consider the writers to be fundamentally unreliable unless proven otherwise.

Correction: In honorable debate, if you defend a position that various "miracles" are true, you ARE expected to substantiate the claim with something OTHER than the source that makes the claim.

Whether others consider the tales implausible is irrelevant. Present your case to readers.

To the extent that some non-Christian debaters use that style of 'reasoning,' I'd say that there is indeed an imbalance against conservative Christians.
Thank you.

It's akin to a Christian saying "You're an atheist? So prove that life can arise spontaneously from simple component molecules. Can't do it? Guess you're wrong then!"

If the "Atheist" ACTUALLY claimed that "life can arise spontaneously from simple component molecules" you might have a point.

WHICH "Atheist" debating here has made that claim? OR are you trying for a straw man?

Unlike conservative Christianity however, non-theism doesn't consist of a well-defined package of beliefs to challenge.

That is correct. Non-Belief is not a "well-defined package of beliefs to challenge".

"I don't accept your tales of leprechauns, fairies, dragons, demons, or gods" IS not a body of belief.

Do you feel compelled to defend a package of beliefs if you do not believe in leprechauns or fairies?

The Christian who demonstrates that adherence to moral principles is irrational without a god, for example, hasn't really scored a point.

That is correct – because the Christian has not shown that any "god" is involved or that their claimed "morals" are anything other than choice.

Christians are thus left in the position of essentially being wholly on the defensive against a barrage of well-rehearsed arguments against the bible

Christians present their well-rehearsed arguments FOR the bible and encounter well-rehearsed arguments AGAINST the bible. That is the nature of debate.

What happens is that the "well rehearsed arguments for the bible" DEPEND upon belief in the bible. The "proof" that tales in the bible are true is . . . . . "the bible says so". No credible extra-biblical sources are cited to verify that Jesus performed "miracles" or was "divine" or "came back from the dead".

and, even if they managed to present a coherent worldview with some measure of evidentiary support for specific points, would be perceived as losing the overall 'battle' because of the many demands and counter-arguments which haven't been answered.

Exactly. Those who make claims of knowledge ARE on the defensive to SHOW that they speak truth.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 11:

...
It's because the atheists in here are:

A. as religiously devoted to their non-belief as any theist is, but
1. theists who are as completely devoted to their opinions have someplace to go; church, meetings, groups....they have lives, but

Actually, this atheist has a "life", and don't much care for the not so subtle ad hominem.

2. atheists, in order to practice their non-beliefs and preach them, have to go to forums and discussion groups in order to discuss their non-beliefs with others, and to talk others into agreeing with them; if one were a theist, it would be called 'proselyting." In other words, you are, when coming here, going to church.

She says while responding within this forum. 'Parently it's dianaiad who doesn't have a life.

Theists who come here are masochists. We KNOW that the atheists outnumber us by quite a substantial number here, and still we come, because we like to argue.

Actually, Christians outnumber atheists on this site. Scroll down to "User Groups". There's 365 Christians and 343 atheists as I type this.

Is this an example of the thinking involved in "knowing" God exists?

Or debate, if you want to be politically correct about it. We do so because we like writing, because writing helps us form our own thoughts and beliefs. We know that we aren't going to get any approval here. Nobody pats us on the head and tells us how good a job we are doing when we score a point.

I'll remember that'n the next time someone says the Bible is the "word of God".

Atheists, however, get that a lot. This thread is a beautiful example of that.

Why is this forum unbalanced? It is, y'know--you've just proven that. It's unbalanced because theists have somewhere ELSE to go to church.

The irony of you posting in this forum about how you have a church to go to is not lost on many.

[Mithrae]

This compares with 191 posts about talking donkeys by Zzyzx. It's not quite scientific methodology of course, but I'd say you're a little off the mark in saying that those who revere the bible "seem to feel compelled" to defend all the miracle tales. On the contrary, those miracles tales are often elevated by non-believers as the central and most important point of discussion; essentially, if we can't prove that a donkey talked then it's irrational to be a conservative Christian

Not many attempt to defend the "talking donkey tale" as literal truth (wisely perhaps). However, quite a few attempt to defend tales of dead bodies coming back to life as literal truth. Perhaps that is because talking donkeys are not central to their religious beliefs but the claimed "resurrection" of Jesus IS a basis of Christianity.

I cite the tale of talking donkeys, walking on water, virgin birth, stars stopping, water into wine, "resurrections" quite frequently to call attention to the incredible (surpassing belief : too extraordinary and improbable to admit of belief) bible tales that many Biblicists attempt to defend as literal truth. This is to demonstrate before readers the credibility or lack in their arguments.

Since Christians rarely step forward and say "Here's an argument to show that donkeys can talk or people can walk on water," then you're not showing a lack of credibility in their arguments by repeatedly bringing these things up. You're attempting to emphasise that beliefs which they hold but rarely present in debate are incredible. Hence my comparison example:

It's akin to a Christian saying "You're an atheist? So prove that life can arise spontaneously from simple component molecules. Can't do it? Guess you're wrong then!"

If the "Atheist" ACTUALLY claimed that "life can arise spontaneously from simple component molecules" you might have a point.

WHICH "Atheist" debating here has made that claim? OR are you trying for a straw man?

Since life exists, if it wasn't created then it must have arisen spontaneously. However that has never been observed by humans, all experimental efforts to recreate the right conditions in which it could occur have so far failed and there's not even any accepted model as to how it occurred (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis). Since it is essentially unprovable, as you've noted it's quite rare to see atheists making that claim in a debate context despite being a logical consequence of atheism.

Similarly, most intelligent Christians don't make claims about talking donkeys, virgin births or walking on water in a debate context*, even if they happen to believe those things to be true when asked. You say that "In honorable debate, if you defend a position... you ARE expected to substantiate the claim," but I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who agrees that every single facet of every poster's worldview should be dragged out and require objective validation.

Most Christians do and always have believed in the virtue of faith; that there are aspects of belief which do not and should not require objective validation. Non-theistic examples of similarly subjective beliefs or values are not hard to find, morality being one I've already mentioned. This doesn't invalidate the whole worldview of any specific non-theist who embraces morality, or appreciates art, or campaigns for democracy. And neither is the Christian's whole worldview invalidated by those specific aspects which are accepted without objective validation - especially since, in most cases, there is little or no objective evidence against those specific beliefs!

Unfortunately those nuances can be as easy for Christians to miss as for atheists. So while demands for evidence regarding talking donkeys, virgin births and walking on water are often little more than red herrings or strawmen in an argument, often Christians get side-tracked with trying to defend claims which they hadn't proffered or are left to simply accept the ridicule borne of other people's subjective incredulity.

*Edit: Small change, since some notable Christians do debate the resurrection.