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?

[WinePusher]

General Chat is not a Debate Forum.

What part of that are you not understanding?

I pointed this out way before you even posted in this thread. The fact that this is General Chat doesn't mean you can't ask people to support their claims. Zzyzx made a claim, the rules require to him to support it. Rather than support his claim, he has insinuated that anybody who dares to ask him for evidence is a troll or a nit picker.

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

Right, and I'm asking for evidence to see whether Zzyzx's claim, opinion or perception has any basis in reality or is the product of imagination. What part of this are you not understanding?

[help3434]

Inactive compared to what? A scan through the front page shows that it has more posts than most non debate subforums, including its counterpart the A Room.

[WinePusher]

Secondly, exactly how many Christians have bemoaned the fact that there is a great deal of opposition to their views. You, Zzyxz, say "many". How many is "many"?

You may not have a definite number, but can you verify the large part. That is part of the definition, after all.

I asked for you to support your claim. You claim that a large number of Christians 'bemoan having to tolerate opposition views' so please provide evidence and links to support it.

3 debaters have asked the OP to support his claim that 'many Christians bemoan having to tolerate opposition views in C&A sub-forum.' Thus far the OP has failed to provide any evidence whatsoever. I think that the verdict is in. The claim made by the OP cannot be supported and has no basis in reality.

I think this thread provides a valuable lesson to us all. Do not make claims that you cannot support and do not make blanket statements about a group of people, especially if you have no evidence for it.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 33:

3 debaters have asked the OP to support his claim that 'many Christians bemoan having to tolerate opposition views in C&A sub-forum.' Thus far the OP has failed to provide any evidence whatsoever.

He did...

"Many" is defined as: "a large but indefinite number". Bold added.

Among other definitions he presented for those unfamiliar with the English language.

I think that the verdict is in. The claim made by the OP cannot be supported and has no basis in reality.

Are we gonna trust someone who thinks dead folks hop and and move about to tell us what constitutes reality?

I think this thread provides a valuable lesson to us all. Do not make claims that you cannot support and do not make blanket statements about a group of people, especially if you have no evidence for it.

I see the greater lesson as being how important it is to understand the English language, if that's what it is someone's a-speakin', and one wants know what it is the speaker's getting at.

[OnceConvinced]

I think this thread provides a valuable lesson to us all. Do not make claims that you cannot support and do not make blanket statements about a group of people, especially if you have no evidence for it.

What I have learnt from this thread is that there are some Christians on this site who get so bitter and twisted about people asking them to support claims that they start to nitpick threads so as to get back at those people.

...............................

I think Z made an interesting point about the whole preaching to the choir thing. It's gonna get pretty boring pretty quick if you preach to an audience that already believes what you're preaching.

On the other hand though, it seems to be that Christians can never agree on anything anyway. So maybe it's not so much about preaching to the choir, but the embarrassment of the non-believers looking in and seeing the huge lack of unity amongst the Christian brethren. In fact maybe it's this lack of unity the prevents some of them from participating in HH threads. Maybe they see their fellow Christians as blasphemers and heretics. As not being "True Christians", so they steer clear of each other.

[help3434]

From Post 33:

3 debaters have asked the OP to support his claim that 'many Christians bemoan having to tolerate opposition views in C&A sub-forum.' Thus far the OP has failed to provide any evidence whatsoever.

He did...

"Many" is defined as: "a large but indefinite number". Bold added.

Among other definitions he presented for those unfamiliar with the English language.
.

Please explain how providing the definition of many is the same as providing evidence that there actually are a large (as opposed to small) amount of Christans bemoaning having to tolerate opposition views in the C+A forum. Thanks.

[help3434]

I think that the verdict is in. The claim made by the OP cannot be supported and has no basis in reality.

Are we gonna trust someone who thinks dead folks hop and and move about to tell us what constitutes reality?

Are we going to trust some who thinks that providing a definition is the same as providing evidence that the thing defined is true. If God is defined would that magically make you believe in it?

I think this thread provides a valuable lesson to us all. Do not make claims that you cannot support and do not make blanket statements about a group of people, especially if you have no evidence for it.

I see the greater lesson as being how important it is to understand the English language, if that's what it is someone's a-speakin', and one wants know what it is the speaker's getting at.

I see the the greater lesson as being how important it is to understand logic, and that defining a word in a claim is not the same as proving that the claim is true.

[WinePusher]

I think this thread provides a valuable lesson to us all. Do not make claims that you cannot support and do not make blanket statements about a group of people, especially if you have no evidence for it.

What I have learnt from this thread is that there are some Christians on this site who get so bitter and twisted about people asking them to support claims that they start to nitpick threads so as to get back at those people.

If you cannot back up your own claims then you have no right to demand evidence from others. Here we have one nontheist failing/refusing to support his claim and many other non theists making excuses for why he can't support his claim. These debaters have no right to ask others to support their claims when they do not do so themselves. This thread will serve as a reminder of this.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 36:

Please explain how providing the definition of many is the same as providing evidence that there actually are a large
...

1large
adjective \ˈlärj\
: great in size or amount
: not limited in importance, range, etc.

(tag edit)

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 38:

If you cannot back up your own claims then you have no right to demand evidence from others.
...

See my Post 52 here.

I propose that until WinePusher can find it in himself to live by his own standards, nobody should be expected to bother answering any challenges he may present - as I contend Zzyzx has held up his end of the deal.