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

[Purple Knight]

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.

What if it's not so much can't, as don't want to?

As an atheist I admit there are good defences for belief in god.

I try to put myself in the shoes of the other side and sometimes I feel like the reason there are not many Christians willing to defend their beliefs on the debate floor is not that there aren't good, logical reasons, but that presenting them as if they are needed is some sort of blasphemy. Maybe it's not as extreme as that, but when I put my theist cap on, I imagine that they may think they are doing something wrong by entertaining the other side, regardless of how likely or unlikely it is to be true.

This doesn't just happen with theist morality but with all strongly-held morality, even if it is secular. The response will not be to calmly entertain it, but to cry how-dare-you, if you ask certain questions. Maybe entertaining some things is itself immoral. To give an apolitical example, maybe it is wrong to entertain the idea that murder might not be wrong.

[Tcg]

It's never been dominated by Christians, ever since the very beginning. I have no idea why non-Christians can be so active debating Christianity.

There's no mystery about it. We're here to present the truth. Sadly, once one catches the religious bug, they're not likely to be interested in it. The hope is that some of the guests who may be reading will.

At this point I am only aware of 4 or 5 atheists who post regularly. There are that many non-atheists who post regularly in the TD&D section and another 3 or 4 who do so in C&A. We're clearly dominated by Christians presently. That's not a necessarily a bad thing. It shifts back and forth as posters come and go.


Tcg

[nanikore]

Hm, "truth." Reminds me of couple of blind people trying to feel out and describe an elephant (and then maybe have an argument over it...)

There's no reason for me argue until blue in the face. One reason I've already stated earlier.

The other reason is someone else already did a much better job at it for the past 30 years, so I'll just let him do it- Or better yet just let people search his site (there's is a search function there) https://christianthinktank.com/

Search his site https://christianthinktank.com/searchit.html

Or just start here https://christianthinktank.com/objedex.html

AFAIK he's "been everywhere" and "done all that" so there's no need for me to do anything extra.

[Mae von H]

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

If we look at the history of Christianity we will find it was embedded in anything but a protected environment. It grew like wild fire in an absolute hostile environment. So the protective environment theory lacks credence.

As to the lack of believers, it’s hard to say. It is often unpleasant to debate with atheists as they seem to feel quite free to attack personally. “You know nothing” is a favorite arrow in their quiver instead of “let me explain something” which generally means they cannot explain their position. One has to determine to be civil with an opponent who thinks nothing of being insulting. This tendency is often seen in public debates.

But it is also true that as the culture is less and less educated, so the church is less and less able to have adherents who can think and defend logically their position, And we only have words here. We don’t have a tea together.

[Mae von H]

Hm, "truth." Reminds me of couple of blind people trying to feel out and describe an elephant (and then maybe have an argument over it...)

There's no reason for me argue until blue in the face. One reason I've already stated earlier.

The other reason is someone else already did a much better job at it for the past 30 years, so I'll just let him do it- Or better yet just let people search his site (there's is a search function there) https://christianthinktank.com/

Search his site https://christianthinktank.com/searchit.html

Or just start here https://christianthinktank.com/objedex.html

AFAIK he's "been everywhere" and "done all that" so there's no need for me to do anything extra.

This is an example of what I mean. Ask a believer to explain THEIR thinking on a matter and they post a link. They, themselves, are unable to explain what they supposedly think. One can imagine a believer and atheist today simply posting links at each other…

“My position is. see this link ….”

“Oh yeah, well my position is … see this link…”

“Well that’s totally bogus….just look at this link..”

And so on.

[Purple Knight]

As to the lack of believers, it’s hard to say. It is often unpleasant to debate with atheists as they seem to feel quite free to attack personally. “You know nothing” is a favorite arrow in their quiver

This is absolutely a general truth and not only do I apologise for it, it absolutely has to change.

My personal theory is that we're coming out of the era where some sort of religion is a given, and now there are 1st-wave and 2nd-wave atheists. 1st-wave atheists got to their position by soul-searching, questioning, and thinking rationally. 2nd-wave atheists noticed 1st-wave atheists doing that and were quick to latch onto the labels of rationality and intelligence, without themselves ever exhibiting those traits.

Ironically, by arriving at their position by aping what others are doing, the 2nd-wave atheists are much less like the 1st-wave atheists than they are like the genuinely unthinking, dogma-accepting side of religion. Remember this: Science does have dogma, Pluto isn't a planet, and if you just accept the dogma of science today, you're tomorrow's laughingstock. So it's not as if you can avoid being a laughingstock by going along with what everyone is saying.

It's not about when they got around to being atheists; it's about who influenced them.

Frankly I wish the 2nd-wave atheists would get out of my non-religion. I don't want them.

[Mae von H]

As to the lack of believers, it’s hard to say. It is often unpleasant to debate with atheists as they seem to feel quite free to attack personally. “You know nothing” is a favorite arrow in their quiver

This is absolutely a general truth and not only do I apologise for it, it absolutely has to change.

My personal theory is that we're coming out of the era where some sort of religion is a given, and now there are 1st-wave and 2nd-wave atheists.

The generation that banned Bibles in schools still had the frame of the godly christian parents before them so religion was a given. Their children grew up embracing rebellion including christianity. There was no rational reason for doing so.

1st-wave atheists got to their position by soul-searching, questioning, and thinking rationally.

I’ve never talked to a single atheist who did this.If they had, they wouldn’t be so abusive or aggressive in dealing with believers. On the rational level, their position has proven to be a house of cards. But ask for rational answers and they attack rather than give them. I assume they don’t have the goods.

2nd-wave atheists noticed 1st-wave atheists doing that and were quick to latch onto the labels of rationality and intelligence, without themselves ever exhibiting those traits.

I’ve noticed atheists very much like the “rational” label but don’t actually think rationality about their position.

Ironically, by arriving at their position by aping what others are doing, the 2nd-wave atheists are much less like the 1st-wave atheists than they are like the genuinely unthinking, dogma-accepting side of religion. Remember this: Science does have dogma, Pluto isn't a planet, and if you just accept the dogma of science today, you're tomorrow's laughingstock. So it's not as if you can avoid being a laughingstock by going along with what everyone is saying.

It's not about when they got around to being atheists; it's about who influenced them.

Frankly I wish the 2nd-wave atheists would get out of my non-religion. I don't want them.

Yes, they are very much influenced or indoctrination, true. So I agree.

[Purple Knight]

I’ve noticed atheists very much like the “rational” label but don’t actually think rationality about their position.

I agree; most don't. Hopefully you find some here who do.

[Mae von H]

I’ve noticed atheists very much like the “rational” label but don’t actually think rationality about their position.

I agree; most don't. Hopefully you find some here who do.

So far they lob the usual ad hominem attacks. Short on intellectual material and long on insults.

But in a way I understand. Their position is a house of cards, learned that long ago. Ad hominem is their strongest attack point.

[Purple Knight]

I’ve noticed atheists very much like the “rational” label but don’t actually think rationality about their position.

I agree; most don't. Hopefully you find some here who do.

So far they lob the usual ad hominem attacks. Short on intellectual material and long on insults.

But in a way I understand. Their position is a house of cards, learned that long ago. Ad hominem is their strongest attack point.

Well I know it's not the thread for it, but I have two big problems with Christianity, both of which are entirely intellectual. A third, if you count the beat-me-I'm-a-dog, turn-the-other-cheek, forgive-people-who-rape-you stuff, but some people debate whether Jesus really told people it's not okay to fight back when people hit you, and what is encompassed by forgiveness. To me it's obvious he did, but if this is not a true part of Christianity then I simply do not have that third problem. If it is then I do. I have to admit that I don't know whether it is or not because God isn't available for me to ask.

The first problem I have is sin transference. I don't think it is right that one person may suffer for, or make up for, what another has done. The person who murders should go to jail; not someone else. And if people haven't done anything that bad, if it's all actually Eve's fault, then Eve ought to pay for it and not anyone else. This is fundamental to the concept of right and wrong. No one disagrees except in the context of Christianity.

The second problem is the problem of worship; who gets it and why. You wouldn't worship me if I were all-powerful; I'm a bad person and I admit it. Neither do the people in Star Trek fall to their knees and worship Q when he demonstrates his superior powers, and they do rightly by that. If I cannot be so powerful that my will becomes right, and defying it becomes wrong, then neither can God.

I don't care whether the events in the Bible happened or if the Christian God exists. Whether he does or not is totally beside the point to me. He might, but it's unlikely, just as it is unlikely that Odin exists. We might all be fictional. Existence doesn't matter. If such a being were only hypothetical, but good, we ought to heed it. If such a being exists but is evil, we ought to defy it. We ought to defy bullies, whether they simply beat our faces black and blue or toss us into lakes of fire for eternity. I'll be the first to admit that I do not know what right and wrong are. I do know, whatever they are, right ought to be done, and wrong not done, regardless of what anybody says or how powerful they are. This means that there is no God - no being worthy of special moral consideration, no being whose will can make wrong into right - even if there is a being who is very powerful and his name happens to be God.