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?

[Zzyzx]

.

Since Christians rarely step forward and say "Here's an argument to show that donkeys can talk or people can walk on water,"

That is correct. Biblicists / Literalists claim that the tales are literally true then FAIL to present arguments or evidence to substantiate their claims and stories.

THAT is what I challenge.

then you're not showing a lack of credibility in their arguments

I am showing NON-EXISTENCE 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.

Anyone who presents the bible as truth DOES make a claim that the tales are true.

If they acknowledge that the bible is (or contains) myth, fable, hyperbole, exaggeration, fantasy, fiction, they have no need to defend the tales as true.

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.

That is now YOUR CLAIM. Kindly document that it is true and accurate.

Thank you for acknowledging (if inadvertently) that you cannot cite anyone making that claim in these debates (thus, your straw-man).

I make NO claim to know how life originated and do not debate the topic. Some people claim to KNOW the origin of life. I ask them to present evidence to READERS that they actually know what they claim to know – and can prove it.

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

So you set up your straw man and struck him down. Was that rewarding?

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.

Evidently, by your statement, few "intelligent Christians" debate here. Many have, over the years, attempted to defend bible "miracle" tales as literal truth – particularly the claimed "resurrection", "virgin birth", "water into wine", etc (and even talking donkeys – believe it or not).

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.

I do NOT ask that "every single facet of every poster's worldview should be dragged out and require objective validation.

INSTEAD, I ask that any claim or statement be substantiated – as Forum Rules require. Is that a problem somehow?

Most Christians do and always have believed in the virtue of faith;

What most Christians believe is THEIR problem, not mine. "Faith" has been defined as: "belief in what you know isn't true" (though it is more often defined as "belief in that for which there is no proof".

that there are aspects of belief which do not and should not require objective validation.

Those aspects, if they exist, should NOT be presented in DEBATE.

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!

I make no effort to convince anyone that their "worldview" is invalid. Instead, I address my comments to READERS (and don't care one whit about what the supposed opponent might think). I encourage readers to evaluate the merits of what is presented by Theistic vs. Non-Theistic debaters.

They are asked (on one hand) to "believe on faith" what they are told by dogma, doctrine and ancient tales by religion promoters. On the other hand, they are asked to examine the real world and draw conclusions from what they can observe, measure and learn.

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,

Do we give a "free pass" to the incredible tales presented in the bible as truthful?

often Christians get side-tracked with trying to defend claims which they hadn't proffered

If they say "the bible is true", they HAVE an obligation to defend the stories contained.

or are left to simply accept the ridicule borne of other people's subjective incredulity.

One can either defend what they present as truth, or they can fail to do so and let readers draw their own conclusions.

[Mithrae]

Since life exists, if it wasn't created then it must have arisen spontaneously.

That is now YOUR CLAIM. Kindly document that it is true and accurate.

It's called the law of excluded middle in logic. Either life began through the intervention of an external agency, or it didn't. If life began without the intervention of an external agency, this would be accurately described as spontaneous:

• 3. (of natural phenomena) arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting.
  4. growing naturally or without cultivation, as plants and fruits; indigenous.
  5. produced by natural process.

that there are aspects of belief which do not and should not require objective validation.

Those aspects, if they exist, should NOT be presented in DEBATE.

As I've pointed out, you alone have made reference to talking donkeys in this debate forum almost six times as frequently as the four top Christian posters combined - and I suspect that a few of those Christian posts would have been responding to you or other non-believers.

Would you like to do searches for 'virgin birth' or 'walking on water' to show us all how frequently Christians present those claims in debate, compared with your attempts to drag up that kind of discussion?

[Strider324]

Since life exists, if it wasn't created then it must have arisen spontaneously.

That is now YOUR CLAIM. Kindly document that it is true and accurate.

It's called the law of excluded middle in logic. Either life began through the intervention of an external agency, or it didn't. If life began without the intervention of an external agency, this would be accurately described as spontaneous:

• 3. (of natural phenomena) arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting.
  4. growing naturally or without cultivation, as plants and fruits; indigenous.
  5. produced by natural process.

that there are aspects of belief which do not and should not require objective validation.

Those aspects, if they exist, should NOT be presented in DEBATE.

As I've pointed out, you alone have made reference to talking donkeys in this debate forum almost six times as frequently as the four top Christian posters combined - and I suspect that a few of those Christian posts would have been responding to you or other non-believers.

Would you like to do searches for 'virgin birth' or 'walking on water' to show us all how frequently Christians present those claims in debate, compared with your attempts to drag up that kind of discussion?

The fact that they DON'T address these issues is simply evidence of how embarrassed they are that the text they depend on for the road to Paradise contains these sophomoric stories. Hell, I would avoid dealing with them as well. You seem to be making Z's point for him.

An analogy would be a murder suspect testifying in court -

"Hey, I was in Cleveland when this all happened."

"But a liter of her blood was found in your car, as was the murder weapon...."

"Why do you keep bringing that up?? You've brought it up a hell of lot more often than my attorney has! I told you I was in Cleveland....."

[McCulloch]

As I've pointed out, you alone have made reference to talking donkeys in this debate forum almost six times as frequently as the four top Christian posters combined - and I suspect that a few of those Christian posts would have been responding to you or other non-believers.

Would you like to do searches for 'virgin birth' or 'walking on water' to show us all how frequently Christians present those claims in debate, compared with your attempts to drag up that kind of discussion?

Thus we can all agree that while certain skeptics continue to bring up these issues, the Christian apologists continue to evade or ignore. Therefore the imbalance.

[Zzyzx]

.

Since life exists, if it wasn't created then it must have arisen spontaneously.

That is now YOUR CLAIM. Kindly document that it is true and accurate.

It's called the law of excluded middle in logic. Either life began through the intervention of an external agency, or it didn't.

If one wishes to cite logic to support their position, perhaps it would be prudent to learn more about "the law of excluded middle".

Many modern logic systems reject the law of the excluded middle, replacing it with the concept of negation as failure. That is, there is a third possibility: the truth of a proposition is unknown. A classic example illustrating the difference is the proposition: "It is not safe to cross the railroad tracks when a train is coming". One should not deduce that it is safe to cross the tracks if you don't know that a train is coming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

Bold added

Regarding origin of life (and the universe) my position is: the truth of a proposition is unknown. Would you care to dispute my position?

that there are aspects of belief which do not and should not require objective validation.

Those aspects, if they exist, should NOT be presented in DEBATE.

As I've pointed out, you alone have made reference to talking donkeys in this debate forum almost six times as frequently as the four top Christian posters combined . . .

Sure enough, I repeatedly point out silly stories and bible quotations that bible believers do not want to talk about.

Would you like to do searches for 'virgin birth' or 'walking on water' to show us all how frequently Christians present those claims in debate

Hey, let's search for mention of "god" and see how frequently I mention the topic vs. how often Christians do. Will that tell us something significant?

I understand that Christians don't want to DEBATE the truth and accuracy of their stories of walking on water, wine into water, virgins impregnated by spirits, donkeys talking, dead bodies coming back to life after days in the grave, etc, etc. If I was promoting the bible as "the word of god" (or whatever) I would certainly ignore those incredible (surpassing belief : too extraordinary and improbable to admit of belief) tales and hope that no one brought them into discussion.

, compared with your attempts to drag up that kind of discussion?

Yes, I focus upon defects in opponents' positions -- and ask questions they can't or won't answer. That seems to irritate some folks.

[Flail]

.
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?

IMO, atheists and non-believers take religion and notions of God much more seriously than do most Christians.

[Janx]

Because their position is based on faith any theist coming to this forum is defeated before they even get started; fundamentalists especially. I think that most theists understand this and therefore wouldn't waste their time debating a position that can't be debated.

The atheists? Just like the theists here I'm sure everyone's got their own motivation.

Though there is a certain appeal in picking fights you know you've already won I'm just here for giggles and to feel smrt.

[dianaiad]

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.

That would be true.

IF this forum were "Debating Atheism."

Since it's not, then not. You, the atheist, are here in a forum specifically set aside for the discussion of Christianity and religion. You are here because you are interested in the topic, you have ideas about it, and want to express them. There's nothing wrong with that.

I'm simply pointing out that you are here. I'm not in alt.atheism discussing you guys.

Let's face it...if you came to an LDS 'fast and testimony meeting,' and got up to give a talk (and you could, by the way, DO that) about how irrational theists, especially Mormons, are, would you really figure that it's the MORMONS doing the proselyting?

Now, if it were me insisting upon opening a meeting of the American Atheists with a prayer, you could say that I was doing a little proselyting....

Time and place, sir, time and place.

True, "Debating Christianity and Religion" is not a church meeting, nor owned by theists; it's not our property. It is, however, a forum devoted to the discussion of religion, and atheists don't come here to discuss dog training.

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.

Given that atheists have never been a group specifically targeted for lynchings, wholesale murder and other mayhem in the USA, I think that's just a wee bit paranoid, don't you?

I mean, it's not like you were a Mormon and had real evidence of exactly that sort of history to prompt your worries or anything.

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.

This thread.

I've seldom seen such a marvelous example of a mutual admiration society, coupled with a 'just how stupid ARE they' conversation regarding theists.

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?

Actually, yeah. We discuss things in class all the time. There's nothing like a Gospel Doctrine class to get the juices flowing.

[Mithrae]

The fact that they DON'T address these issues is simply evidence of how embarrassed they are that the text they depend on for the road to Paradise contains these sophomoric stories. Hell, I would avoid dealing with them as well. You seem to be making Z's point for him.

An analogy would be a murder suspect testifying in court -

"Hey, I was in Cleveland when this all happened."

"But a liter of her blood was found in your car, as was the murder weapon...."

"Why do you keep bringing that up?? You've brought it up a hell of lot more often than my attorney has! I told you I was in Cleveland....."

Except perhaps for the resurrection, that's a seriously flawed analogy. A better example would be the prosecution in this murder case repeatedly saying "You stole a candy bar from the shop when you were twelve, and beat up a kid when you were fourteen didn't you? Didn't you!?"

I'd further point out that in the conservative Christian worldview there's nothing embarrassing about most of these stories, and most conservative Christians aren't embarrassed by them. If Biblegod exists, such miracles throughout the unfolding of his plan through his chosen people are only to be expected. But unless it's your contention that lack of solid evidence for some or all of those miracles disproves Biblegod then, as in the case of my prosecution, you're just hammering your head against 'embarrassing' but virtually irrelevant details.

If one wishes to cite logic to support their position, perhaps it would be prudent to learn more about "the law of excluded middle".

Many modern logic systems reject the law of the excluded middle, replacing it with the concept of negation as failure. That is, there is a third possibility: the truth of a proposition is unknown. A classic example illustrating the difference is the proposition: "It is not safe to cross the railroad tracks when a train is coming". One should not deduce that it is safe to cross the tracks if you don't know that a train is coming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

I should point out that this wikipedia example of "don't know that a train is coming" doesn't even come close to negating the proposition. It's suggesting the unknown is an alternative to excluded middle by fraudulently adding uncertainty to the 'negation.' A little closer to negating it would be "when a train is not coming"; but the actual negation would be "It's not the case that it's unsafe to cross when a train is coming" which, depending on the semantics of the word 'safe,' can be the same as "It's safe to cross when a train is coming." At any point in time, with a given value for 'safe,' it is either safe to cross or it is not safe to cross - there is no other option. Negation as failure (if I read it right) allows for the fact that real-world scenarios rarely allow for the full precision of formal logic, but the presence of that concept in some modern logic systems doesn't invalidate the law of excluded middle.

Regarding origin of life (and the universe) my position is: the truth of a proposition is unknown. Would you care to dispute my position?

I don't dispute that scientists don't know how life began - that's precisely my point. But without the intervention of an external agency, life can only have arisen spontaneously from existing basic molecules in accordance with natural laws. Some might suggest that an 'external agency' could be aliens, rather than a god, but that leaves the mystery of how alien life began, which again cannot be demonstrated through evidence. Some might suggest that biological life did not begin, but rather always existed, which is logically possible but absurd given our big bang cosmology and again, unprovable. Thus most atheists accept the standard view that life began spontaneously on Earth some 3 billion years ago; but as I've said, it's not often proffered in debate because, like many Christian beliefs, it can't be demonstrated with evidence.

Thus we can all agree that while certain skeptics continue to bring up these issues, the Christian apologists continue to evade or ignore. Therefore the imbalance.

Agreed. Perhaps Christian posters should start making a habit of bringing up the origins of life, and graciously accept the honest response that "I generally presume such-and-such because it fits and follows naturally from other aspects of my worldview, but don't mention it in debate because really I don't know and can't prove it."