Shortage of Christians Around?

[C-Nub]

Not the sort of thing I ever thought I'd be lamenting, but we seem to be getting somewhat critically short of Christians. At this point, most of our threads asking questions are answered first by five to ten non-theists, and then, if we're lucky, one or two Christians. (Or Gnostics...)

Now, if it were because there were fewer Christians on earth, I'd celebrate that, but honestly, I think we're driving them away or, in some cases, converting them. Both are alright with me, since 'driving away' means that they can no longer argue, and hopefully walk away realizing that their position is much weaker than they originally thought, or like I said, they've been converted.

The problem, though, is that without theists to debate, or for that matter, moderate theists to balance out the current crop of mostly fundamentalists we're currently dealing with, we sort of lose our purpose here.

We either have people like CNorman, who are people of faith with all the qualities of agnosticism, making them very good to have around but very difficult to argue with, or people who'll argue almost insupportable positions without the ability (or at least willingness) to grasp or accept the most basic and fundamental of scientific principles, making them difficult to argue with (and not particularly good to have around, on the forums or the planet.)

Is it my imagination? Am I just not in the same threads as the active (and moderate) theists, or is there really a growing shortage of quality opposition to the atheist point of view here?

And if so, should we do something? And if so, uh, what?

[McCulloch]

And if so, should we do something? And if so, uh, what?

I don't know. Here are some ideas:

1. Give them a chance to explain themselves before jumping in.
2. Go along with them a bit before turning on them.
3. Not being the 5+ the skeptical reply to one faithful post.
4. Not asking for logic, evidence or rational thought.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

Not asking for logic, evidence or rational thought.

Isn't that the entire point of debate though? Outside of the Dogma forum, we need evidence outside of the Bible. Is this such a terrible thing to ask?

[OnceConvinced]

It's been a problem for quite a while, I think. Christians in general do not like to have their belief's challenged, but the fact that they are out numbered doesn't help. Actually in the last week or so I've seen more Christian posts in the threads I've been in. But I think you'll always have the problems of lack of Christians on a site where it has unbiased administration. Where arguments must be supported it is difficult when all you have is the bible to back you up.

[McCulloch]

Not asking for logic, evidence or rational thought.

Isn't that the entire point of debate though? Outside of the Dogma forum, we need evidence outside of the Bible. Is this such a terrible thing to ask?

October is national sarcasm month.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

Not asking for logic, evidence or rational thought.

Isn't that the entire point of debate though? Outside of the Dogma forum, we need evidence outside of the Bible. Is this such a terrible thing to ask?

October is national sarcasm month.

Sarcasm and the internet don't mix unless it's painstakingly obvious. (in this case, it wasn't because I actually agree with a couple rules you put up there, such as giving them a chance to explain themselves, and not giving the same reply as 5 other non-theists).

[McCulloch]

Here is an example. Hope, a newbie, posts some typical I know God's will kind of preachiness, in the Some of gods mistakes thread.
Joeyknuccione, Cathar1950 (twice), goat, byofrcs and C-Nub all respond, not without a little sarcasm.

I think that we might have to pace ourselves a little bit or the quarry might become scarce. Overhunting leads to extinction.

[Cathar1950]

Here is an example. Hope, a newbie, posts some typical I know God's will kind of preachiness, in the Some of gods mistakes thread.
Joeyknuccione, Cathar1950 (twice), goat, byofrcs and C-Nub all respond, not without a little sarcasm.

I think that we might have to pace ourselves a little bit or the quarry might become scarce. Overhunting leads to extinction.

Only twice? At least I am no longer worried about sending otters to hell.
Opening clams on their bellies is a sin you know?

If it were not for sarcasm I would sound like a cranky old white guy.
If it is a choice between fear and sarcasm I will take the sarcasm.
But I like the Simpsons, Family guy, American dad and South Park.

[C-Nub]

Normally, I'd agree on the "hope" case, but c'mon. She was talking about hearing angels and basically claiming to be a prophet for God, even though she said she wasn't, that was exactly what she was claiming.

There's no way a post like that should not have sarcasm absolutely heaped upon it, that sort of lunacy and self-delusional arrogance is intolerable.

Some people, around the world, will actually believe idiots and rambling half-mad would-be saints, and that's incredibly dangerous. That position, that one hears the voice of God and angels and has been sent to do his work (and sell books, let's not leave that little tidbit out of Hope's story here) is one that needs to opposed and shut down and, if possible, treated by professional doctors, assuming it isn't simply another case of fraud.

[Fallibleone]

It's very hard work indeed for me to post without the use of sarcasm. It's a national sport.

I find I have toughened up considerably lately when pondering why there is a shortage of believers about. It's not just on this site that I've noticed it, but on at least two others. I used to think when a believer abandoned a thread mid-debate that they probably had some pressing business in their personal lives or simply forgot to post, and while I do still think that this is sometimes the case, I'm more inclined to believe (since I have witnessed them in action for a while now, and seen their response to challenges) that one of 4 things usually happens (there are probably others too, but these are the most obvious to me).

1) a claim of bias because they find it's if not impossible, then very difficult indeed, to argue for God and the supernatural in general without invoking logical fallacies. Followed by disappearance.

2) they realise they can't back up what they've said and don't want to admit it, followed by disappearance.

3) they give up on people who are so intent on not seeing the 'truth', followed by disappearance.

4)they realise they've been caught in a lie, followed by disappearance, with perhaps a future reappearance when it is judged that the issue might have 'died down'.