Why is Holy Huddle sub-forum so inactive?

[Zzyzx]

.
With only three posts this year (six weeks) that sub-forum could be considered "dead" – yet many Christians bemoan having to tolerate opposition views in C&A sub-forum. Having a place set aside for believers to commune with one another in the absence of opposition views should be appealing to those who resent their views being challenged or criticized.

The A Room sub-forum is similarly inactive but few Non-Theists seem to complain about Theists posting opposition views.

Why?

[Zzyzx]

.
I have initiated a new personal policy of responding by PM to those who pick nits, derail threads, troll or otherwise display inability or unwillingness to debate honorably the issues. PM communication avoids trashing threads with nonsense and personal issues.

This is not intended to point fingers at anyone personally, but I trust that those who the shoe fits recognize themselves in the general statement – and that readers do also.

The topic of this thread is "Why is Holy Huddle sub-forum so inactive?"

Two possibilities that occur to me are:

1. A primary motivation of at least some religionist members is to evangelize / proselytize / spread the word / recruit for their belief system. Those who are so motivated may seek to engage Non-Believers (debaters and/or readers) and convince them to worship gods.

2. Preaching to the choir becomes boring (unless one is being paid to preach).

[WinePusher]

I have initiated a new personal policy of responding by PM to those who pick nits, derail threads, troll or otherwise display inability or unwillingness to debate honorably the issues. PM communication avoids trashing threads with nonsense and personal issues.

Three debaters in this thread have asked you to provide evidence for your claim that 'many Christians bemoan having to tolerate opposition views.' Provide evidence for your claim or retract it. Asking people to back up their claims with evidence is not 'derailing' or 'trolling' or 'trashing' threads. It is required by the rules.

many Christians bemoan having to tolerate opposition views in C&A sub-forum.

For the 5th time, do you have any evidence for this claim?

[Divine Insight]

many Christians bemoan having to tolerate opposition views in C&A sub-forum.

For the 5th time, do you have any evidence for this claim?

Having read this thread it appears to me that this has already been addressed. The term "many" is a casual indefinite description. It also may indeed be a perceived one. In which case it is a person perception.

Having been on this forum for quite some time I too have observed "many" Christians complaining about the strong opposition to Christian views on these forums. Many of these people were very short-lived as members. They left precisely because of this.

From my perspective I've see "many" Christians do this (i.e. definitely more than just a few).

Many does not necessarily mean "most".

I wouldn't even expect someone to keep a record of this for "evidence".

I would just accept it as a perception. If you disagree with this perception why not simply state that you disagree with it rather than demanding evidence be produced to prove it? Especially when you yourself have confessed that General Chat is not a Debate forum.

~~~~~~

Getting back to the topic.

I would like to comment on the following:

1. A primary motivation of at least some religionist members is to evangelize / proselytize / spread the word / recruit for their belief system. Those who are so motivated may seek to engage Non-Believers (debaters and/or readers) and convince them to worship gods.

I certainly see quite a bit of that to be sure.

However, something else I see that appears to even be more prevalent to me. (just as a personal perception), is that many Christians on these forums don't have proselyting or evangelizing in mind, but instead they seem to be more interested in simply defending their views.

They seem to feel that many (their perception) atheists are suggesting that they must be unintelligent or delusional to believe in their God. So they seem to be more interested in trying to defend the justification for their beliefs. Often saying outright that they aren't trying to convert anyone and they don't care what other people believe.

In fact, it's my "perception" that most of the Christians on this forum are more interested in defending (or justifying) their beliefs than they are with trying to convince anyone else to believe as they do.

And just to reaffirm that this is related to the thread topic, this may be why they aren't in the Holy Huddle room, because they don't necessarily need to defend their beliefs to other Christians. So the reason they debate with the atheists is to try to convince the atheists that their beliefs are "rational".

In fact, it is my "suspicion", that one reason Christians don't spend a lot of time in the Holy Huddle room is because they aren't interested in arguing with the opposing beliefs of other Christians. Which can sometimes happen in the Holy Huddle Room.

~~~~~

I'm willing to bet that if a preacher were to go into the Holy Huddle Room and try to set up a "Church" of Christian followers to support specific views he would end up finding opposition to his particular views by other Christians in any case.

This is why in the real world there are many different denominations of "Holly Huddle Rooms" We call them Churches. And they definitely don't all agree with each other.

We even see Christians taking vastly different stances on Christianity out here on the Open Forums.

Some atheists have even argued that there is no such thing as "Christianity" precisely because it is so ill-defined in this very way.

So many (my guess) Christians may avoid the Holy Huddle Room because they aren't interested in arguing with other Christians.

[WinePusher]

Having read this thread it appears to me that this has already been addressed. The term "many" is a casual indefinite description. It also may indeed be a perceived one. In which case it is a person perception.

If I said 'many scientists believe that evolution is false' then you or anyone else would be entitled to ask for evidence. That's all I'm asking for here. If you're going to make a claim then you need to support it.

I would just accept it as a perception. If you disagree with this perception why not simply state that you disagree with it rather than demanding evidence be produced to prove it? Especially when you yourself have confessed that General Chat is not a Debate forum.

Right, and I'm not trying to debate anything. Myself and two other users have asked the OP to verify his claim. Thus far the OP has refused to. If he can't support his claim then he should retract it. Very simple stuff.

[Divine Insight]

Having read this thread it appears to me that this has already been addressed. The term "many" is a casual indefinite description. It also may indeed be a perceived one. In which case it is a person perception.

If I said 'many scientists believe that evolution is false' then you or anyone else would be entitled to ask for evidence. That's all I'm asking for here. If you're going to make a claim then you need to support it.

Hardly a fair analogy.

The quote you are bemoaning about was:

many Christians bemoan having to tolerate opposition views in C&A sub-forum.

It's clearly a statement regarding the behavior on a very specific forum. It's not a statement being made about Christians in general.

If you were to say that many Atheists on the C&A sub-forum believe that evolution is false, I doubt that anyone would agree with you, much less believe you.

I would just accept it as a perception. If you disagree with this perception why not simply state that you disagree with it rather than demanding evidence be produced to prove it? Especially when you yourself have confessed that General Chat is not a Debate forum.

Right, and I'm not trying to debate anything. Myself and two other users have asked the OP to verify his claim. Thus far the OP has refused to. If he can't support his claim then he should retract it. Very simple stuff.

I don't see it as ever having been a claim. It appears to me to have been an opinion based on perceived observations. Being that Zzyzx is a active forum participant in the C&A forum it seems rational to accept that his views of what goes on in the forum at least have experience behind them.

I don't understand why you are so demanding that someone retract something they offered in General Chat.

If you disagree with the view why not just say that you don't agree instead of demanding that someone else take back their views?

This idea that people need to retract views makes no sense.

As Zzyzx has already stated the very term "many" is descriptive. It's hardly a statement of fact that needs to be backed up with charts, graphs or a study.

If you disagree why not just say that you don't feel it's a valid assessment?

It certainly seems like a valid assessment to me. I've seen a lot of Christians yelling and screaming that there is too much opposition to Christians views on this forum. And many of them have indeed left. That's my personal experience from having been on this forum. I didn't keep tabs on precisely how many people actually did this and keep a list of their names. But I certainly recall having witnessed people complaining far more than once.

[WinePusher]

It's clearly a statement regarding the behavior on a very specific forum. It's not a statement being made about Christians in general.

Right, that should make it all the more easier to provide evidence. Provide evidence that many Christians in the C&A subforum bemoan having to tolerate opposing views. Otherwise, this perception is just the product of imagination and has no basis in reality.

I don't see it as ever having been a claim. It appears to me to have been an opinion based on perceived observations. Being that Zzyzx is a active forum participant in the C&A forum it seems rational to accept that his views of what goes on in the forum at least have experience behind them.

Correct, I would like to see whether this 'perception' or 'opinion' or whatever word you can think of has any basis in reality or is instead the product of imagination.

I don't understand why you are so demanding that someone retract something they offered in General Chat.

If he can provide evidence for his claim then he has no need to retract it. If he can't provide evidence, and it appears that he can't, then the honorable thing to do would be to retract it.

If you disagree with the view why not just say that you don't agree instead of demanding that someone else take back their views?

I don't know where you're getting this from. I'm asking for evidence first and foremost. If he can't provide evidence then he should retract his claim. again, he doesn't need to retract his claim but that would be the honorable thing to do.

This idea that people need to retract views makes no sense.

If a claim can't be substantiated then the honorable thing to do would be to retract it.

As Zzyzx has already stated the very term "many" is descriptive. It's hardly a statement of fact that needs to be backed up with charts, graphs or a study.

I didn't request any charts or graphs of studies. I, and two other debaters, asked for evidence, that's it.

It certainly seems like a valid assessment to me. I've seen a lot of Christians yelling and screaming that there is too much opposition to Christians views on this forum. And many of them have indeed left. That's my personal experience from having been on this forum. I didn't keep tabs on precisely how many people actually did this and keep a list of their names. But I certainly recall having witnessed people complaining far more than once.

Supporting a claim with opinions, personal experiences and anecdotes is not appropriate. Otherwise, I or any Christian could support the claim that the Christian God exists by appealing to our own personal experiences. Clearly you would not approve of this. So please try to be consistent. If personal experiences are not admissible as evidence for Christians then they are also not admissible as evidence for nonbelievers.

[Divine Insight]

Supporting a claim with opinions, personal experiences and anecdotes is not appropriate. Otherwise, I or any Christian could support the claim that the Christian God exists by appealing to our own personal experiences. Clearly you would not approve of this. So please try to be consistent. If personal experiences are not admissible as evidence for Christians then they are also not admissible as evidence for nonbelievers.

General Chat is not a Debate Forum.

What part of that are you not understanding?

How would Zzyzx's personal observations about how Christians might have complained about the C&A sub-forum be important to any particular debate?

A question was put up for discussion. Opinions were given.

If you have different opinions to offer just offer them instead of demanding proof of other people's opinions.

There is no debate here to win or lose.

[JoeyKnothead]

I find it a bit disconcerting that folks'd raise such a fuss about the use of the term "many", but who'd accept it when they're told dead folks hop up and walk about.

[Divine Insight]

I find it a bit disconcerting that folks'd raise such a fuss about the use of the term "many", but who'd accept it when they're told dead folks hop up and walk about.

So true. Where's the evidence for the "many" saints that were raised from their graves and were never seen by the multitudes they supposedly showed themselves to?

[Zzyzx]

.
Summation of the thread to date

Theists participating – 4 – number of posts 10 – on topic 2 – off topic 8

Non-Theists participating – 7 – number of posts 19 – on topic 12 – off topic 7

Something that may shed light on why a discussion became a debate over the word "many" rather than a discussion of why HH is inactive.

Do you have anything to contribute that relates to the OP ("Why is Holy Huddle sub-forum so inactive?")

Nope I don't really care why Holy Huddle is inactive, I have more important things to think about. I would like to either see you support or retract your claim. I believe I'm the third debater who has asked you to do so.

Bold added to emphasize the stated personal agenda with no intent to discuss the topic.

Can we now get back to the OP topic?

Edited to add the red above.