Why do Theists dominate the banishment list?

[Zzyzx]

.
Why do Theists dominate the banishment list?

Theists predominate in the list of people who are banned for repeated rule infractions. For example, of the last ten people banned, seven or eight are Theists. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 860481d25f

Why is this?

[bluethread]

However, that is probably self selecting. I would think that the title of the site would attract theists with various levels of expertise in argumentation and debate,

Those who limit their attraction to the site title and do not have the wherewithal to investigate further seem unlikely to have much 'expertise in argumentation and debate'.

but would tend more likely attract non-theists with expertise in argumentation and debate.

Why so?

Is this an attempt at excuse-making?

No, it is an attempt at an explanation. If there were a site called "Debating Secularism and Science", I probably would not go there, while a non-theist might be more inclined to. I would think that the theist that would go to such a site would either actively oppose those things, or at least have some experience discussing them. Where non-theists would be attracted because that philosophy and practice tends to align with their views, regardless of their experience with argumentation and debate. So, I posit that it is the same with this site. Many theists are attracted simply because the philosophy and practice mentioned align with their views, without regard for their experience with argumentation and debate, while the non-theist tends to have more experience or inclination for argumentation and debate. In short, he theist tend to come for the Christianity and Religion, and the non-theists tend to come for the Debate.

[Neatras]

On reddit, at least, there are two distinct subreddits, /r/debateanatheist and /r/debateachristian. Both are contained microcosms, with a number of people lingering there to answer questions from those that come in.

We find that in the majority of cases, the "home team" does extremely well in answering questions, with more civility in the /r/debateachristian camp due to the lower occurrence of trolls coming in simply to scoff, "ask" an accusatory question, and then leave. As a result, /r/debateanatheist has become jaded, but no less competent.

So at least in this case, we discover that the home team usually does very well in conveying their ideas. And yet, even there, in /r/debateanatheist, the number of trolls and others who are incapable of debating in an ethical manner come at a higher rate than the "other side."

So why, here, on supposedly Christian home turf, are the numbers of those who manage to go over boundaries and end up banned so much higher?

This doesn't seem to just be a polarity issue, with an appropriately reciprocal number of banned accounts for different sides. It's an overwhelming slew of theists going overboard, failing to meet the challenge of etiquette, and subsequently being removed.

My point overall is that it appears to be non-reciprocal.

[Zzyzx]

.

Is this an attempt at excuse-making?

No, it is an attempt at an explanation. If there were a site called "Debating Secularism and Science", I probably would not go there, while a non-theist might be more inclined to.

Are you presenting arguments as one who has 'expertise in argumentation and debate'? Or, the opposite?

I would think that the theist that would go to such a site would either actively oppose those things, or at least have some experience discussing them.

It may be prudent to avoid projecting one's personal characteristics or preferences onto others. Some people 'go where angels fear to tread' and others fear to stray from the straight and narrow or to seek any challenge -- with all degrees of variation between.

Where non-theists would be attracted because that philosophy and practice tends to align with their views, regardless of their experience with argumentation and debate.

It seems reasonable that Non-Theists would be likely to frequent Non-Theist sites and that Theists would frequent Theist sites. Thus, this site should have a preponderance of Christians (since that is specified in the site title).

With Theists 'on their own turf' it seems reasonable that they should present powerful / compelling arguments.

OR, is the argument being presented that Christian debaters here do NOT possess knowledge and debate expertise?

So, I posit that it is the same with this site. Many theists are attracted simply because the philosophy and practice mentioned align with their views, without regard for their experience with argumentation and debate, while the non-theist tends to have more experience or inclination for argumentation and debate. In short, he theist tend to come for the Christianity and Religion, and the non-theists tend to come for the Debate.

Is this to say that Theists joining the site typically do NOT realize (or cannot determine) that this is a debate site when the first word in the site title is 'Debating?

If that be the case, a lack of discernment and judgment might help explain a lack of success.


In my observation over the past ten years as a member, a moderator and an administrator, many people LEARN to debate here. Many of us (me included) had limited debate experience when they (we) joined.

I observe, however, that many who are accustomed to a protected environment (such as church) where opposition views are not permitted, seem to have difficulty adjusting to debate – particularly when their theistic position is not given preferential treatment.

All the above may account for SOME of imbalance in these debates. However, I credit MOST of the imbalance to Apologists having a weak debate position since it involves (or necessitates) attempting to defend stories that cannot be shown to be true and accurate. Belief, emotion, opinion, conjecture, testimonials, etc may be convincing in church but are not credible evidence in public debate where scriptures are not accepted as proof of truth or as authoritative.

Of course, Theists have the option of using sub-forums that DO accept the Bible as authoritative and proof of truth – BUT many attempt to debate in the C&A sub-forum in which no theistic position is given preferential treatment – and often find themselves at a disadvantage when 'The Bible says so' does not carry any weight.

Another major disadvantage for Apologists is that they debate against many who are FORMER Christians -- and who know the turf from the inside -- and know its faults and weaknesses.

All this combined appears to increase frustration of many Apologists and lead them to become hostile, abusive, uncivil -- and reap the benefits of repeated rule infractions.

[Peds nurse]

Hello my most precious friends!!

I believe, that some Christians join this forum to change the minds of those who don't believe. I also think, that when strong opposition is encountered, they tend to take things very personally, as if they failed in some way, because they didn't convince anyone of what they believe their truth is. There are some pretty tough questions asked on this forum, and I for one, am not very good at answering them (but it doesn't stop me from trying). I also wonder, if it is difficult for some to come to the realization, that it's okay to not have all the answers.

My approach is simple...love first, and use words when needed!

[Neatras]

Agreed, it's very easy to overlook the fact that someone's religious beliefs can often be an integral part of their identity; a rejection of those beliefs can be misinterpreted as a personal attack, when in reality it is no such thing.

As noble as it would be to honor that integral link between belief and behavior, that wouldn't accomplish my goal of dissecting arguments. One should be willing to detach their identity from their arguments when they walk in the door, so that they can demonstrate truth that isn't unique to the individual. Objectivity is how we, as a community, grow and experience reality.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 15 by Neatras]

If only one could push the detach button, so that those silly little things called feelings wouldn't get in the way! We could have some pretty cool debates, and provide less work for moderators!!

[bluethread]

.

Is this an attempt at excuse-making?

No, it is an attempt at an explanation. If there were a site called "Debating Secularism and Science", I probably would not go there, while a non-theist might be more inclined to.

Are you presenting arguments as one who has 'expertise in argumentation and debate'? Or, the opposite?

This is the general chat thread. So, I am bluethread chatting in general about my observations. If you are looking to pick a fight or for accredited education, you might want to try a different forum.

I would think that the theist that would go to such a site would either actively oppose those things, or at least have some experience discussing them.

It may be prudent to avoid projecting one's personal characteristics or preferences onto others. Some people 'go where angels fear to tread' and others fear to stray from the straight and narrow or to seek any challenge -- with all degrees of variation between.

When one is asking a speculative question on a general chat forum, why would one suggest that one not speculate based on one's personal characteristics?

Where non-theists would be attracted because that philosophy and practice tends to align with their views, regardless of their experience with argumentation and debate.

It seems reasonable that Non-Theists would be likely to frequent Non-Theist sites and that Theists would frequent Theist sites. Thus, this site should have a preponderance of Christians (since that is specified in the site title).

With Theists 'on their own turf' it seems reasonable that they should present powerful / compelling arguments.

OR, is the argument being presented that Christian debaters here do NOT possess knowledge and debate expertise?

You are ignoring theists without powerful/compelling arguments coming here just because it is presumed to be "their own turf". Imagine their surprise when they are criticized for just speculating on the general chat forum, let alone the C&A forum.

So, I posit that it is the same with this site. Many theists are attracted simply because the philosophy and practice mentioned align with their views, without regard for their experience with argumentation and debate, while the non-theist tends to have more experience or inclination for argumentation and debate. In short, he theist tend to come for the Christianity and Religion, and the non-theists tend to come for the Debate.

Is this to say that Theists joining the site typically do NOT realize (or cannot determine) that this is a debate site when the first word in the site title is 'Debating?

If that be the case, a lack of discernment and judgment might help explain a lack of success.

Well there you go. People tend to focus on what interests them and tune down, if not out what does not.

In my observation over the past ten years as a member, a moderator and an administrator, many people LEARN to debate here. Many of us (me included) had limited debate experience when they (we) joined.

I observe, however, that many who are accustomed to a protected environment (such as church) where opposition views are not permitted, seem to have difficulty adjusting to debate – particularly when their theistic position is not given preferential treatment.

That speaks to my point. Many people come with little debate experience. So, why would a theist with little debate experience come here? Well, it does say Christianity and religion in the title. Why would a non-theist with little debate experience come here? Maybe because they are interested in seeing debate. Therefore, it seems to follow, among those who come here for reasons other than debate, most would be theists. Atheist from backgrounds that do not expose them to debate, would have little reason to come here, expect to learn debate, in which case learning debate rules would tend to be important to them. However, theists from backgrounds that do not expose them to debate might no care much about the rules, because debate is not the primary draw for them.

All the above may account for SOME of imbalance in these debates. However, I credit MOST of the imbalance to Apologists having a weak debate position since it involves (or necessitates) attempting to defend stories that cannot be shown to be true and accurate. Belief, emotion, opinion, conjecture, testimonials, etc may be convincing in church but are not credible evidence in public debate where scriptures are not accepted as proof of truth or as authoritative.

Of course, Theists have the option of using sub-forums that DO accept the Bible as authoritative and proof of truth – BUT many attempt to debate in the C&A sub-forum in which no theistic position is given preferential treatment – and often find themselves at a disadvantage when 'The Bible says so' does not carry any weight.

Well, presuming that you are using the term weak as a descriptive and not a pejorative, I would concur, especially for the neophyte literalist. Literature, especially ancient literature, is not as easy to understand and explain in a modern context and many theists are not generally well versed in literary criticism. It's kind of like a believer in the big bang theory defending it without a knowledge of physics and spectral analysis. In that case, "Neil DeGrasse Tyson says so" only goes so far.

Another major disadvantage for Apologists is that they debate against many who are FORMER Christians -- and who know the turf from the inside -- and know its faults and weaknesses.

All this combined appears to increase frustration of many Apologists and lead them to become hostile, abusive, uncivil -- and reap the benefits of repeated rule infractions.

Yes, catch phrase Christians can get tripped up by those who are familiar with those catch phrases. However, those catch phrase Christians often become catch phrase detractors. People who debate catch phrases do quickly get frustrated, when they are asked to do the work of proper analysis. I do not think that this is really the fault of the literature, but laziness on the part of the person looking at it.

[Escobar]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Because this forum is dominated by atheists. Many internet forums are now dominated by atheists who either run them to taunt theists or they infiltrate religious forums to taunt theists.

I have been involved in almost every forum on the internet and they're all pretty much the same. The reason theists get dominated by atheists is because theists do not have any knowledge about how they're created. They only have a book to read and in that book, it doesn't say anything about how we're created other than a "God" who did it. Without a theist knowing who God is or what his voice sounds like, they have no confidence or knowledge to convince anyone other than stupid people who join their cults.

[Zzyzx]

.

Because this forum is dominated by atheists.

There is an imbalance – the question asked is 'Why'?

Many internet forums are now dominated by atheists who either run them to taunt theists or they infiltrate religious forums to taunt theists.

Neither of those apply here. The site is owned by a devout Christian and accomplished debater who developed the site to further debate.

It is NOT a 'religious forum' but a debate forum – that welcomes all points of view. 'Infiltrate religious forum' does not apply.

I have been involved in almost every forum on the internet

That is QUITE a claim.

and they're all pretty much the same.

Many of us have observed considerable differences between Internet debate forums (and between religious debate forums specifically). It is mildly surprising that someone would characterize them as "pretty much the same'.

The reason theists get dominated by atheists is because theists do not have any knowledge about how they're created.

Is this to say that those who know how they are / were created have an advantage? Since neither Theists or Non-Theists 'know how they're created', how does that lack of knowledge give Atheists an advantage (or Theists a disadvantage)?

They only have a book to read and in that book, it doesn't say anything about how we're created other than a "God" who did it. Without a theist knowing who God is or what his voice sounds like, they have no confidence or knowledge to convince anyone

If this is intended to mean that many Christians cannot present sound arguments based on knowledge of the God they worship (or their religious texts), I do not disagree.

other than stupid people who join their cults.

Unlike many Internet debate forums, this Forum emphasizes civility. We do not refer to individuals or groups as 'stupid people'.

Most of us also recognize that not all religions are properly referred to as 'cults'. That term has a specific definition that excludes most major religious groups. It is used primarily in a pejorative manner or intent (best avoided).

We should be able to make our points without blanket condemnations or emotional remarks / rants.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 19 by Zzyzx]

It's impolite for me to reference Escobar's other posts on this forum rather than address the argument he's made here, however I do believe that his very recent inclusion into this forum, and the kinds of claims he's made elsewhere can help to indicate how reliable his information is.