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

[juliod]

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.

Can you tell me were these unmoderated groups are that christians participate in?

Unmoderated groups on USENET used to be great. About 10-15 years ago. I understand they still exist, but ceased to be usable years ago.

DanZ

[OccamsRazor]

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.

No, good point. I think that we actually agreed on the definitions of the terms.

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.

You are right but "atheism" can be a very divisive term and I believe that some writers and philosophers still disagree with its usage. For example in Anthony Flew's The Presumption Of Atheism (London, 1976) he suggests that implicit atheism is the presumption that there is no God in the absence of any positive evidence. This is in contradiction to Betrand Russell's definition in Why I am not a Christian (New York, 1957).

[harvey1]

I believe that some writers and philosophers still disagree with its usage. For example in Anthony Flew's The Presumption Of Atheism (London, 1976) he suggests that implicit atheism is the presumption that there is no God in the absence of any positive evidence. This is in contradiction to Betrand Russell's definition in Why I am not a Christian (New York, 1957).

Well, this is what we were discussing about where the burden of proof lies. But, even though Flew is probably the one most responsible for screwing up the atheist community on the meaning of these terms (and then supposedly converts to deism and then leaves everyone in doubt...), I think Flew was very clear on a couple of things:

Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. (Presumption of Atheism)

I intend to argue for a return to the original usage of the word 'agnosticism', as first introduced by Thomas Henry Huxley. In the meantime it should be sufficient to point out that, following the present degenerate usage, an agnostic is one who, having entertained the proposition that God exists, now claims not to know either that it is or that it is not true. To be in this ordinary sense an agnostic you have already to have conceded that there is, and that you have, a legitimate concept of God; such that, whether or not this concept does in fact have application, it theoretically could. But the atheist in my peculiar interpretation, unlike the atheist in the usual sense, has not as yet and as such conceded even this. (ibid)

Even if one returned to the meaning of Huxley (basically, strong agnosticism), we still have to realize that Huxley rejected atheism because it made positive claims that Huxley was uncomfortable in making. (I can quote Huxley if you like.)

Anyway, I'm frustrated because I think this is a whole misconstrual stemming from atheist propaganda. It's unfortunate because these labels are very useful and these folks what to take that all away.

[OccamsRazor]

I'm not sure that it's worth getting into an argument about this because I think that between you and I we do agree, to a great extent on the definition of the terms.
My point is that the terms atheism and agnosticism are still disputed as to their usage.

I think this is a whole misconstrual stemming from atheist propaganda.

This also proves the fact that the term is divisive.

I think that the biggest problem is that many self-proclaimed atheists explain their belief system in, as I see it, an unfortunate manner.

[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.

One can see this typically in the way that rules in moderated forums are applied to Christians only. No-one should be the slightest bit surprised at this state of affairs. The 'net is infamous as an attraction for sexual perverts, and it would be crassly naive to suppose that people of similar (or even the same) criminal tendencies do not likewise gravitate, or even rush with some alarm, to hide the light of truth that is in Christ. The anti-Christ posters have mostly long since abandoned the unmoderated groups, because they know they are on a hiding to nothing in such places. They huddle together under the protection of 'moderation'.

Of course, knowing that they are immune from correction, atheists, Mohammedans, Catholics and Calvinists simply lie when cornered. It is somewhat amusing to note that they are often evidently of rather low intelligence, too. One can tell this because, when their logic or facts have been found wanting (and they always are, if the Christian is experienced; or even if not), there is quite often a delay in posting a reply- and it then contains either a blatant lie, a claim not to understand for some absurd reason, or a personal attack. The Christian gets no support, of course, and is forced to do his own moderation- the only real moderation in the forum!

All this is obvious to even a moderately intelligent lurker, who goes away ever more convinced that Christianity is the truth, if only because the most evil and indeed stupid people oppose it so strenuously and desperately.

[HughDP]

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.

One can see this typically in the way that rules in moderated forums are applied to Christians only. No-one should be the slightest bit surprised at this state of affairs. The 'net is infamous as an attraction for sexual perverts, and it would be crassly naive to suppose that people of similar (or even the same) criminal tendencies do not likewise gravitate, or even rush with some alarm, to hide the light of truth that is in Christ. The anti-Christ posters have mostly long since abandoned the unmoderated groups, because they know they are on a hiding to nothing in such places. They huddle together under the protection of 'moderation'.

Of course, knowing that they are immune from correction, atheists, Mohammedans, Catholics and Calvinists simply lie when cornered. It is somewhat amusing to note that they are often evidently of rather low intelligence, too. One can tell this because, when their logic or facts have been found wanting (and they always are, if the Christian is experienced; or even if not), there is quite often a delay in posting a reply- and it then contains either a blatant lie, a claim not to understand for some absurd reason, or a personal attack. The Christian gets no support, of course, and is forced to do his own moderation- the only real moderation in the forum!

All this is obvious to even a moderately intelligent lurker, who goes away ever more convinced that Christianity is the truth, if only because the most evil and indeed stupid people oppose it so strenuously and desperately.

Tilia, do you have any respect for anyone who has non-Christian views?

[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.

One can see this typically in the way that rules in moderated forums are applied to Christians only. No-one should be the slightest bit surprised at this state of affairs. The 'net is infamous as an attraction for sexual perverts, and it would be crassly naive to suppose that people of similar (or even the same) criminal tendencies do not likewise gravitate, or even rush with some alarm, to hide the light of truth that is in Christ. The anti-Christ posters have mostly long since abandoned the unmoderated groups, because they know they are on a hiding to nothing in such places. They huddle together under the protection of 'moderation'.

Of course, knowing that they are immune from correction, atheists, Mohammedans, Catholics and Calvinists simply lie when cornered. It is somewhat amusing to note that they are often evidently of rather low intelligence, too. One can tell this because, when their logic or facts have been found wanting (and they always are, if the Christian is experienced; or even if not), there is quite often a delay in posting a reply- and it then contains either a blatant lie, a claim not to understand for some absurd reason, or a personal attack. The Christian gets no support, of course, and is forced to do his own moderation- the only real moderation in the forum!

All this is obvious to even a moderately intelligent lurker, who goes away ever more convinced that Christianity is the truth, if only because the most evil and indeed stupid people oppose it so strenuously and desperately.

Tilia, do you have any respect for anyone who has non-Christian views?

I respect everyone,'net posters, criminals, and all. The above nasty, implied slur is an example of what I mean: unjustified ad hom. comment, with no attempt made to deal with the substance and its reasoning. Signs of desperation, even after my comments.

[HughDP]

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.

One can see this typically in the way that rules in moderated forums are applied to Christians only. No-one should be the slightest bit surprised at this state of affairs. The 'net is infamous as an attraction for sexual perverts, and it would be crassly naive to suppose that people of similar (or even the same) criminal tendencies do not likewise gravitate, or even rush with some alarm, to hide the light of truth that is in Christ. The anti-Christ posters have mostly long since abandoned the unmoderated groups, because they know they are on a hiding to nothing in such places. They huddle together under the protection of 'moderation'.

Of course, knowing that they are immune from correction, atheists, Mohammedans, Catholics and Calvinists simply lie when cornered. It is somewhat amusing to note that they are often evidently of rather low intelligence, too. One can tell this because, when their logic or facts have been found wanting (and they always are, if the Christian is experienced; or even if not), there is quite often a delay in posting a reply- and it then contains either a blatant lie, a claim not to understand for some absurd reason, or a personal attack. The Christian gets no support, of course, and is forced to do his own moderation- the only real moderation in the forum!

All this is obvious to even a moderately intelligent lurker, who goes away ever more convinced that Christianity is the truth, if only because the most evil and indeed stupid people oppose it so strenuously and desperately.

Tilia, do you have any respect for anyone who has non-Christian views?

I respect everyone,'net posters, criminals, and all. The above nasty, implied slur is an example of what I mean: unjustified ad hom. comment, with no attempt made to deal with the substance and its reasoning. Signs of desperation, even after my comments.

It was merely a question.

A comment like this:

if only because the most evil and indeed stupid people oppose it so strenuously and desperately.

... indicates to me that you may not respect the views of anyone who expresses an anti-Christian stance.

You don't have to agree with their views of course, but I think a certain amout of respect is necessary for healthy debate.

Therefore I asked the question.

No 'nasty, implied slur' was intended on my part.

[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.

One can see this typically in the way that rules in moderated forums are applied to Christians only. No-one should be the slightest bit surprised at this state of affairs. The 'net is infamous as an attraction for sexual perverts, and it would be crassly naive to suppose that people of similar (or even the same) criminal tendencies do not likewise gravitate, or even rush with some alarm, to hide the light of truth that is in Christ. The anti-Christ posters have mostly long since abandoned the unmoderated groups, because they know they are on a hiding to nothing in such places. They huddle together under the protection of 'moderation'.

Of course, knowing that they are immune from correction, atheists, Mohammedans, Catholics and Calvinists simply lie when cornered. It is somewhat amusing to note that they are often evidently of rather low intelligence, too. One can tell this because, when their logic or facts have been found wanting (and they always are, if the Christian is experienced; or even if not), there is quite often a delay in posting a reply- and it then contains either a blatant lie, a claim not to understand for some absurd reason, or a personal attack. The Christian gets no support, of course, and is forced to do his own moderation- the only real moderation in the forum!

All this is obvious to even a moderately intelligent lurker, who goes away ever more convinced that Christianity is the truth, if only because the most evil and indeed stupid people oppose it so strenuously and desperately.

Tilia, do you have any respect for anyone who has non-Christian views?

I respect everyone,'net posters, criminals, and all. The above nasty, implied slur is an example of what I mean: unjustified ad hom. comment, with no attempt made to deal with the substance and its reasoning. Signs of desperation, even after my comments.

It was merely a question.

Of course it was.

[OccamsRazor]

The anti-Christ posters have mostly long since abandoned the unmoderated groups, because they know they are on a hiding to nothing in such places. They huddle together under the protection of 'moderation'.

Surely this is exactly what non-Christians do not do. The point is that many atheists say that they come to these forums because they are allow to express a non-Christian view without fear of moderators removing their posts.

atheists, Mohammedans, Catholics and Calvinists simply lie when cornered. It is somewhat amusing to note that they are often evidently of rather low intelligence, too. One can tell this because, when their logic or facts have been found wanting (and they always are, if the Christian is experienced; or even if not), there is quite often a delay in posting a reply- and it then contains either a blatant lie, a claim not to understand for some absurd reason, or a personal attack.

I'm sorry but I have to back-up HughDP here. It is not an unfounded "nasty implied slur" to suggest that your statement here suggests that atheists, Muslims, Catholics and Calvinists are liars of low intelligence, this implies a fundamental lack of respect for their beliefs does it not?