Why are there so few christian here?

[juliod]

This is a great forum for debate. The moderators do a good job of keeping things under control without stopping anyone from posting.

Yet the most observable fact here is the reletive lack of christian posters.

I would expect there to be a lot more, given the popularity of amateur apologetics, and the biblical admonition to spread the faith.

I have a theory that is worthy of debate. I say that religion can only exist in protected environments. There must be an authority that prevents heretics and atheists from engaging in debate on equal grounds. Were there is no such authority, atheists carry the day.

I've seen lots of theist web forums. Invariably they use their administrator powers to support the theist side. It eventually becomes impossible to participate as an atheist. I take my writing seriously, and hate it when I feel that the moderator may delete my article because I say something he just can't bear to hear.

DanZ

[harvey1]

Boy, I didn't realize that this issue would cause you to leave the forum! But I am glad you haven't left.

Thanks, Osteng. I just dislike having to correct goofy opinions that shouldn't be needing time to correct.

[micatala]

I can sympathize with Harvey's frustration, but I am not sure that more moderating is the best answer.

Confusing atheism and agnosticism is certainly not the only 'definitional disagreement' that has run rampant around the board. Off-hand, I can recall observing confusion or worse between

Humanism and evolution
racism and evolution
biblical literalism and christianity in general
evidence and opinion
enacted law and opinions of private citizens

and I could probably think of another half-dozen given a few more moments.

As far as the OP, I would say that I don't buy into the assumption that there are 'not many' Christians here. However, I do think it might be fair to say that Christians might tend not to get involved in certain types of threads, based on the questions for debate raised. As Hugh said:

I just like to think of it as having certain views in response to other peoples views for the purposes of interest, debate and education.

If one is not interested in a particular question, or doesn't think it will prove educational, one will probably avoid the topic, especially as we all have limited time and can't keep up with even the threads we do find interesting.

This site attracts only certain types of Christians- others find it repellant.

Do you have any speculations on the characteristics of the 'types' of Christians who visit sites like this? Personally, it seems to me there is a very wide range of beliefs, attitudes, and viewpoints represented among Christians here.

[OccamsRazor]

For example, no way should a forum allow atheists to confuse the term with agnosticism. This is philosophy, and academic publications define atheism as opposed to agnosticism. It really peeves me that this is not corrected by moderators, and I thought about leaving this site once or twice in protest.

I don't agree that this should be moderated. You and I have had a long discussion about atheism versus agnosticism and we ended it by simply disagreeing.
You have to realise that although many publications and philosophers have attempted to define the terms, even they have disagreements over the fact. Also it may be noted that the terms have altered meanings over the years, for example Spinoza's and Russel's definitions of the term would vary greatly. Finally, as with any word in the English language, the definition is given by its use, a friend of mine works on the OED and I asked him the current definition of "atheism", he pointed out to me that the dictionary simply may no longer be correct.
My point is that it may be a little above their mandate for the moderation team to wield an iron fist purely because they disagree with someone's use of a term.

[Joe Blackbird]

This site attracts only certain types of Christians- others find it repellant.

Do you have any speculations on the characteristics of the 'types' of Christians who visit sites like this? Personally, it seems to me there is a very wide range of beliefs, attitudes, and viewpoints represented among Christians here.

Perhaps I should say certain 'personality types' come to this site who are Christian, rather than 'types of Christians'. The specific beliefs among Christians here, I agree, are broad. I think the Christians who come here realize that some of their most sacred beliefs will be called into question. Now, it takes either a BRAVE or FOOLHARDY person to willingly jump into that arena.

To me, those two types seem to be the most common here. You can usually identify the brave ones by how civil they tend to be. They like challenges and respond to questions in a direct fashion, usually without taking offense at the issue of debate. The FOOLHARDY ones get angry quickly, and usually lace their responses with a kind of flippant, "I guess you'll find out if there's a Hell when you get there" rhetoric. To be fair, you get equally absurd rhetoric from some non-Christians to, perhaps on a bad day from me to.

I come here because I like confronting the issues head on. I'm a non-Christian working at a Christian bookstore for going on the fifth year. I believe in trying to understand points of view that I do not necessarily agree with, and since I cannot confront customers, I find this site to be a great (I hope you'll forgive the term,) 'therapeutic' outlet for some of the things I am exposed to at my job that frustrate me.

[Tilia]

This is a great forum for debate. The moderators do a good job of keeping things under control without stopping anyone from posting.

Yet the most observable fact here is the reletive lack of christian posters.

I would expect there to be a lot more, given the popularity of amateur apologetics, and the biblical admonition to spread the faith.

I have a theory that is worthy of debate. I say that religion can only exist in protected environments. There must be an authority that prevents heretics and atheists from engaging in debate on equal grounds. Were there is no such authority, atheists carry the day.

I've seen lots of theist web forums. Invariably they use their administrator powers to support the theist side. It eventually becomes impossible to participate as an atheist. I take my writing seriously, and hate it when I feel that the moderator may delete my article because I say something he just can't bear to hear.

DanZ

It is not Christianity that needs protection. It is atheism (so-called), Catholicism, Calvinism, and a whole range of other anti-Christ beliefs that have to be protected in forums- protected from Christianity, that is. Moderation is just another word for censorship. Most people who set up private forums do so because they seek to occlude and pervert the truth, and they select moderators who share their views. Obviously they attempt to disguise their bias, but even so, their efforts can be quite farcical, at times.

There is no need for moderation at all. People can post perfectly sensibly and safely in unmoderated groups, and the debate is often a good deal better, imv. Christians tend to use those groups, though in my experience most of us are too busy in the real world to use any of them.

[OccamsRazor]

I don't know why we have to categorise ourselves all the time.

Sometimes I'll take an athiest viewpoint, sometimes an agnostic viewpoint. Occasionally I'll even take a Christian viewpoint. I don't even like to be classified as a Buddhist (although that has my 'official' philosophy for the last 20 years if I had to name one).

I personally do not see the problem with categorising oneself. I also do not fully understand your point about taking an atheist/agnostic/theist viewpoint in different situations, surely you have a belief on the existence of a creator or higher intelligence, unless of course your belief changes in each situation.
My problem with many of the arguments on these forums is the implication that your theological belief directly governs your approach to logic. The implication is that all atheists think the same way and agree with each other.

[HughDP]

I don't know why we have to categorise ourselves all the time.

Sometimes I'll take an athiest viewpoint, sometimes an agnostic viewpoint. Occasionally I'll even take a Christian viewpoint. I don't even like to be classified as a Buddhist (although that has my 'official' philosophy for the last 20 years if I had to name one).

I personally do not see the problem with categorising oneself. I also do not fully understand your point about taking an atheist/agnostic/theist viewpoint in different situations, surely you have a belief on the existence of a creator or higher intelligence, unless of course your belief changes in each situation.

Well some days I'm more inclined to have sympathy for the idea of a 'creating intelligence' than others. It also depends upon the context of things in the debate in question.

Simply put, I don't know if there's a 'higher intelligence' or not. Right this minute I don't think so, but sometimes someone will put an argument forward that I find attractive and will support to see where it goes. Other times it'll be an argument I don't like, so I'll take a counter-view.

[OccamsRazor]

Well some days I'm more inclined to have sympathy for the idea of a 'creating intelligence' than others. It also depends upon the context of things in the debate in question.

Simply put, I don't know if there's a 'higher intelligence' or not. Right this minute I don't think so, but sometimes someone will put an argument forward that I find attractive and will support to see where it goes. Other times it'll be an argument I don't like, so I'll take a counter-view.

That's fine but I would say this essentially makes you agnostic. I think that it is great to follow an argument in any direction (and I fear that some people seem unable to do this). I think that my main problem is that people seem to think that if you label yourself with a theological group then you agree with everything they say. I have no issue with labelling myself as atheist but this does not mean that I agree with all arguments provided by atheists.

[HughDP]

Well some days I'm more inclined to have sympathy for the idea of a 'creating intelligence' than others. It also depends upon the context of things in the debate in question.

Simply put, I don't know if there's a 'higher intelligence' or not. Right this minute I don't think so, but sometimes someone will put an argument forward that I find attractive and will support to see where it goes. Other times it'll be an argument I don't like, so I'll take a counter-view.

That's fine but I would say this essentially makes you agnostic.

If I had to label myself it would be Buddhist Agnostic. I 'practice' Buddhism - in as much as any precise definition of that can be established - and have done for 20 years.

I think that it is great to follow an argument in any direction (and I fear that some people seem unable to do this). I think that my main problem is that people seem to think that if you label yourself with a theological group then you agree with everything they say. I have no issue with labelling myself as atheist but this does not mean that I agree with all arguments provided by atheists.

I quite agree.

[harvey1]

I don't agree that this should be moderated. You and I have had a long discussion about atheism versus agnosticism and we ended it by simply disagreeing.

I don't recall ending on disagreeing about the definitions of these terms. We agreed to disagree at this point about whether weak atheism is justified over an agnostic stance, and I certainly wouldn't ask moderators to jump in on that one.

You have to realise that although many publications and philosophers have attempted to define the terms, even they have disagreements over the fact. Also it may be noted that the terms have altered meanings over the years, for example Spinoza's and Russel's definitions of the term would vary greatly.

Sure, and that's true with many terms used in science as well. However, I think modern terminology as cited by peer reviewed and published academic sources.

Finally, as with any word in the English language, the definition is given by its use, a friend of mine works on the OED and I asked him the current definition of "atheism", he pointed out to me that the dictionary simply may no longer be correct.

That might be true for dictionaries, but when discussing the science or the philosophy of terms, it is not for layperson usage to decide the issue. For example, if someone used the general dictionary meaning of the term "which way" to describe the quantum physics term going by this same name, then there's going to be confusion. It would only make sense for a moderator to reject a dictionary or popular usage as irrelevant to the discussion.

My point is that it may be a little above their mandate for the moderation team to wield an iron fist purely because they disagree with someone's use of a term.

Ultimately this is the decision that I came to. Although, I'm not at all satisfied with it.