If I can't forgive you, should I leave this place?

[99percentatheism]

I have been here for quite some time now. I claim to be a Christian. That declaration means something. I have seen what I would define as abject unfairness to Christians here. Unless of course you are a liberal or progressive religionist.

The Orthodox, historic voice of Christian reality is so attacked here, (and that attack seems welcomed and encouraged by the "powers that be" here), I see hardly a way to forgive the authorties for allowing the persecutions to continue without cease.

Where are these so-called civil and respectful, intelligent, thoughtful and challenging discussions? It is a Christian-bash fest here. If you do not kowtow to progressive and humanistic morality, that attack is simply like a pack of wolves on a lamb. And Darwin forbid if the lamb fights back in kind.

If "I" cannot find a way to forgive the attacks on me over and over and over again, should I leave, or continue being denigrated in concert from so many different yet connected sides?

What good is a so-called "debate" when there is none?

[AdHoc]

[Replying to AdHoc]

I wouldn't say you are an anomaly since atheism is on the rise and less and less people are Christian in the west. If we all believed exactly as our parents you would see the opposite effect.

I became convinced that I must be an atheist when I was about 13, simply because I wasn't buying any of the Christian story I was being fed. This was circa 1961 or so, and being an atheist was very lonely concept in 1961. I had heard of atheism and knew what the word meant, but had never met a single other atheist. Nor would I until well after I began college, which occurred in 1966. Even then, there just we not many openly avowed atheists about. But you are right about atheism, or at least open skepticism, being on the rise today. Today I am surrounded by people who hold no religious beliefs. Fifty years ago I was the Lone Ranger.

I don't think it is a good thing for you to not teach your children what you believe but maybe your timing was good.

My children are now both in their 30's. I specifically chose not to indoctrinate them into any point of view until they were old enough to become curious on their own. At that point we examined the issue.

In this society you are not the parent anymore. Miley Cyrus and Kanye are. The media and the internet are their schoolmasters.

If I taught my children anything, it was they should always be skeptical, especially of unbelievable claims, and to learn to think for themselves. But young people have always liked to feel that they fit in with their peers, so they follow trends. Fads come and go. Except for Beatlemania of course.

There will always be people in power and people who are controlled and even oppressed by power. Power is shifting to atheists and people who do not view Christians in a positive light.

Someone has to be in charge. More and more civilization has been moving in the direction of rule by popular opinion and away from the rule of the privileged. Right now those with the money are still in charge and they have found the religious to be the easiest bloc to control. But even the very rich are now required to use vast amounts of their own wealth in an attempt to direct popular opinion in their favor. The internet is proving hard to control. Truth and reason have a way of becoming popular opinion when ways can't be found to suppress them.

History tells us this is a good thing for Christianity.

Christians do love the role of the underdog, that is true. In truth Christians were really only the underdogs for the first three centuries of their existence. Christians have held the west in an iron grip of their religious doctrine since the fourth century. To hear them tell it though, no one has been more persecuted then the poor beleaguered Christians over the last 2,000 years. What a crock! I'm certain that the Jewish people, for a start, can make a pretty convincing counter argument to that nonsense.

"Love" that's a really funny way to put it... And I don't mean haha funny.

You think the internet is advancing truth and reason? Sure it is in some quarters but if you mean in general I think that is a fairly naive thing to say.

But since we are on the internet... You and everyone else is free to have an opinion, no matter how erroneous it may be.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to AdHoc]

You think the internet is advancing truth and reason? Sure it is in some quarters but if you mean in general I think that is a fairly naive thing to say.

But since we are on the internet... You and everyone else is free to have an opinion, no matter how erroneous it may be.

I'm a great believer that in an open exchange of ideas, the facts logic and reason will eventually emerge. For centuries the problem has been that the facts logic and reason were firmly and very efficiently suppressed. Now the door is wide open. Yes it true that there is a lot of what amounts to the most egregious forms of bull droppings on the internet to wade through. But even that has it's value, if for no other reason then it forces people to learn how to tell a nugget from a cow pattie. And learning the lessons of healthy skepticism is not a bad thing.

[AdHoc]

[Replying to AdHoc]

You think the internet is advancing truth and reason? Sure it is in some quarters but if you mean in general I think that is a fairly naive thing to say.

But since we are on the internet... You and everyone else is free to have an opinion, no matter how erroneous it may be.

I'm a great believer that in an open exchange of ideas, the facts logic and reason will eventually emerge. For centuries the problem has been that the facts logic and reason were firmly and very efficiently suppressed. Now the door is wide open. Yes it true that there is a lot of what amounts to the most egregious forms of bull droppings on the internet to wade through. But even that has it's value, if for no other reason then it forces people to learn how to tell a nugget from a cow pattie. And learning the lessons of healthy skepticism is not a bad thing.

Its getting to the point where you can't believe anything that you hear and only half of what you see. Concerning world events, the internet reports everything and anything no matter how fantastic. The reader is given no clue what to believe.

[jamesyaqub]

[Replying to 99percentatheism]


I can't speak for others but I can speak for myself. I have no argument with Christians who follow the teachings of Jesus. These are tolerant and forgiving. They have better things to do than to preach to others. There are other kinds though. The christians who continually seek to impose their will on the rest of the world are not deserving of any respect whatsoever.

When you read my posts and see "Christian" or "christian" you will know which of the two I am addressing.

The forum is entitled "Debating Christianity and Religion". The word "Debating" clearly means we can question the validity of Christianity or it's practice. If I am wrong and we may only speak from positions of weakness, if we are to submit to this religion on this site, I am in the wrong place.

[Ooberman]

It's a debate site, 99%. Debate, and I'm sure you, like many of us, will have a wonderful experience here.


Note these rules from an expert on debating:

3. When worded as a proposition of policy, the topic requires the affirmative to support some specified action by some particular individual or group. The affirmative has the right to make any reasonable definition of each of the terms of the proposition. If the negative challenges the reasonableness of a definition by the affirmative, the judge must accept the definition of the team that shows better grounds for its interpretation of the term.

4. The affirmative must advocate everything required by the topic itself. No revision of position of a team is permitted during the debate.

5. He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.

http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm


Note that the affirmative has the burden of proof. If you propose something, or assert something, you are required to back it up.


It seems you don't like any of the responses here, yet, no one is asking you to leave - only back up your claims.

Perhaps you need a break? Maybe the subject matter is too close to your heart?

We understand you LOVE Christ and God! We get it, but this is not the site for that.

[Ooberman]

IMO, one of the "unfairness" in these debates is that since atheists (generally) only accept provable truths, most of the assertions or facts they offer are of the provable variety.

We (again, generally) have learned to only make claims we have very good reason to believe can be supported. We all may have some wild personal beliefs based on those facts - a kind of psuedo-personal religion, as it were.

However, supernaturalists of many stripes, are the types of people who (generally) don't mind making unprovable claims; statements of Faith, or leading questions. This is not to say anything negative about their beliefs, only that it puts them at an immediate disadvantage in a Debate setting.

It doesn't mean their beliefs are necessarily wrong, it's that they are unable to back up their claims using the same level of evidence.

It seems to me, from doing this for 10 years or so, that atheists (generally) only accept about 10% (say) of the knowledge set of humanity and focus on those facts.

Supernaturalists seem to accept 9% of those facts, but claim an additional - oh, 5,10,25% more. Some even start with the Bible as 100% of the facts about the world and work backwards.

But, since their claims are supernatural in origin, and the supernatural is generally unprovable, they have a tough row to hoe in a Debate setting. It's why, IMO, they either leave, get banned, or continue to assert.

There are very few theists who are willing to put aide their strong, personal beliefs and simply argue the known facts and their moderate implications.