A Reminder About Our Charter

PDN

"The purpose of this forum is to discuss Christian belief in general, and specific elements of it, between Christians and non-Christians alike. This forum has the additional purpose of being a point on Boards.ie where Christians may ask other Christians questions about their shared faith. In this regard, Christians should not have to defend their faith from overt or subtle attack."

Some non-Christian posters seem to be under a misapprehension that this is the "Let's Attack the Christianity Forum". It is not.

Non-believers are welcomed here and are free to ask questions about Christianity. They may also participate in discussion of Christian issues. But a number of posters are crossing the line fairly regularly into a place where they are spending their time attacking and arguing against Christianity. This is contrary to the Charter and will not be tolerated.

This forum is supposed to be welcoming place for Christians to discuss stuff. That cannot happen when every thread and discussion is liable to be hijacked by some interloper who wants to vent their hatred of all things religious. At present most Christian posters are avoiding this place like the plague - and I don't blame them. Why would anyone want to hang out in an environment where they are subjected to continual hostility and antagonism?

If you come in here looking for an argument or to attack Christianity then I would encourage you not to bother. We can all do without the tiresome routine of me having to issue infractions, ban posters, and then respond to whining threads in Helpdesk.

Zombrex

Not this again

Christians posters seem more than happy, including yourself, to debate for pages and pages and pages with these "trolls". You only get annoyed when the discussion doesn't go your way.

And "Christian only" threads die a quick death of utter disinterest on a regular occasion.

I actually came up with that idea precisely because of claims from Christians such as yourself that there were a lot of Christian discussion that was being side lined by non-Christians. That isn't on I said, but it turns out that was completely untrue. Christian only threads are largely ignored by your fellow Christians, there seems to be very little interest in these threads or the discussions in them.

There is no evidence that Christian posters are being stopped from discussing Christian issues with each other (there is no evidence they seem particularly interested in discussion Christians issues with each other!), or that Christians posters are upset or distressed by non-Christians coming to this forum to question things.

You have Christian Only threads that everyone ignores

You have apparently atheist trolls upsetting everyone that everyone (including yourself) rush to debate with.

There are only so many times you can play the "poor us" card before it just looks silly.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Not this again

Christians posters seem more than happy, including yourself, to debate for pages and pages and pages with these "trolls". You only get annoyed when the discussion doesn't go your way.

And "Christian only" threads die a quick death of utter disinterest on a regular occasion.

I actually came up with that idea precisely because of claims from Christians such as yourself that there were a lot of Christian discussion that was being side lined by non-Christians. That isn't on I said, but it turns out that was completely untrue. Christian only threads are largely ignored by your fellow Christians, there seems to be very little interest in these threads or the discussions in them.

There is no evidence that Christian posters are being stopped from discussing Christian issues with each other (there is no evidence they seem particularly interested in discussion Christians issues with each other!), or that Christians posters are upset or distressed by non-Christians coming to this forum to question things.

You have Christian Only threads that everyone ignores

You have apparently atheist trolls upsetting everyone that everyone (including yourself) rush to debate with.

There are only so many times you can play the "poor us" card before it just looks silly.

Your comments( from an atheist who makes no secret of his dislike for Christianity) about how the Christianity Forum should be moderated are noted. I assure you that your views will be given the consideration they deserve.

Stephentlig

PDN maybe you should make a rule for debates in this forum, that there should be no debates and anyone who wants to debate a particular issue can run off to the ''debate'' forum provided to do so.

PDN

Stephentlig wrote: »

PDN maybe you should make a rule for debates in this forum, that there should be no debates and anyone who wants to debate a particular issue can run off to the ''debate'' forum provided to do so.

I think we would all agree that debate is healthy, Stephen. One of the purposes of this forum is so that Christians can debate things.

The problems occur when everything gets dragged into this 'us' versus 'them' thing where non-Christians attack anything and everything Christian, and Christians spend all their time having to defend their beliefs. It ends up like that 'Any Questions' where you know what they'll all say before they say it. the Fine Gael guy will attack the government, the Fianna Fail guy will defend the government, and the Sinn Fein guy will say it's all the Brits' fault.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The problems occur when everything gets dragged into this 'us' versus 'them' thing where non-Christians attack anything and everything Christian, and Christians spend all their time having to defend their beliefs.

Which the Christians, including yourself, appear perfectly happy to do for pages and page and pages.

Strangely this cry that the rest of us are oppressing your forum from you only comes when the debate isn't going particularly well for you .... :rolleyes:

Again, this charge that we are disrupting this forum is nonsense. Yes you get genuine trolls, "hit and runs" as well call them on the A&A forum, where someone, normally with 3 posts on Boards.ie, will come in and say that all Christians are morons, and then never be seen again.

But the debates between the Christians and the non-Christians are bread and butter of this forum.

Again the "Christian Only" threads show how utterly devoid of discussion this forum would be without non-Christian posters challenging assertions and assumption here (or "attacking" Christianity as you call it).

How about as well as the "Christian Only" threads we implement a "Challenges Welcome" thread handle, to totally avoid any Christian not looking to debate challenges to Christianity accidentally stumbling into these threads by accident and being forced to comment for pages and pages and pages (or what ever it is you think explains why so many Christians seem happy to debate ad nausea in these threads)

Or a Challenges sub-forum, like they have on the Paranormal forum with the Skeptics Sub-forum

Because I guarantee you that the vast majority of Christian posters will spend the vast majority of their time in these threads debating non-Christian challenges to Christian assertions.

And it would finally put to rest this ridiculous idea that non-Christians are "hi-jacking" this forum.

Stephentlig

As I myself who sometimes engages in such debates, I do with the notion that nothing can ever be achieved by such a discussion.

I suppose wicknight is correct on some level that Christians are only to happy to argue while the other threads lay dormant.

however my advice to Christians is this:

we all should have a defence ready for the faith that is in us as st.Peter tells us in his letter.

but we also have to keep in mind that the devil is the big arguer and loves to argue and cause chaos, so hes all to ready to use our ignorance to do just that.

Never get the idea that just because some atheist comes in and attacks or wishes to start a debate and comes up with something that christianity is all over, thats not a good thought and it comes from evil spirit, to try and trap you into the conversation.

just ignore the detractors and get on with it. nothing is ever gained from these debates in my opinion and the best thing to do is just ignore it.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

And "Christian only" threads die a quick death of utter disinterest on a regular occasion.

You have Christian Only threads that everyone ignores

Quality not Quantity;)

lugha

Stephentlig wrote: »

we all should have a defence ready for the faith that is in us as st.Peter tells us in his letter.

Stephentlig wrote: »

nothing is ever gained from these debates in my opinion and the best thing to do is just ignore it.

You’re advice seem to me to be somewhat contradictory Stephen. You seem to be recommending that Christians defend their faith but also refrain from getting sucked into such debates??

I think Wicknight does have a point. When I first stumbled in here, I read the charter, and my impression was that non-Christians or non-believers were welcome to ask questions, but not to question. When I started to read the posts I found considerable tolerance to breaches of this directive. The Islam forum has a similar rule, and while I don’t visit there very often, I get the impression that no violation of this rule would be acceptable.

Personally I don’t see much of a problem. Yes there are a lot of threads here with exchanges between those that believe and those that don’t. But there are threads, albeit fewer, where matters are discussed solely by those with a Christian conviction.
What exactly is broken here?

Stephentlig

lugha wrote: »

You’re advice seem to me to be somewhat contradictory Stephen. You seem to be recommending that Christians defend their faith but also refrain from getting sucked into such debates??

I think Wicknight does have a point. When I first stumbled in here, I read the charter, and my impression was that non-Christians or non-believers were welcome to ask questions, but not to question. When I started to read the posts I found considerable tolerance to breaches of this directive. The Islam forum has a similar rule, and while I don’t visit there very often, I get the impression that no violation of this rule would be acceptable.

Personally I don’t see much of a problem. Yes there are a lot of threads here with exchanges between those that believe and those that don’t. But there are threads, albeit fewer, where matters are discussed solely by those with a Christian conviction.
What exactly is broken here?

what I mean is that, if I end the debate and you can no longer respond, does that mean I win? and you are going to beleieve and become Christian? and seeing as my and other peoples knowledge of the doctrine and discipline fall short and we cannot respond, does this mean I now believe in atheists? the answer is NO! this is what I mean when I say nothing is ever really gained, but should have a defence ready and then leave it at that. people need to discern if such debates are worth having or not.

neuro-praxis

As an adult-convert Christian and a philosopher, debate is the order of my day. I love to discuss and argue issues of life, death, faith and God down the pub over a pint.

However I never bother with it here. This forum is overrun with disrespectful morons who wouldn't know logic if it battered them in the face with a truth table. (That goes both ways.)

Maybe we should just organise meet-ups? Although presumably very few non-Christians would come. Because the kinds of non-Christians that frequent this forum don't seem to be your average joe soap who makes up his mind from a variety of sources as he trundles through life, but rather they're the folks who made up their mind long before they ever logged in and are here to shatter our blind faith.

There are a small number of posters on both sides who break their backs to be civil, patient and detailed. I don't know how you do it. This forum is utterly depressing to the thinking Christian.

philologos

I think it is more the tone of the debate that turns people right off. I think it is far more productive speaking about these things in person rather than on these fora. Although I have learned a lot since I started here, it does get a bit tiresome after a while.

Soul Winner

I've still yet to hear anything from atheists that would undermine my faith. All they have to do is show with a convincing enough argument that the resurrection of Jesus didn't and couldn't have happened. When they come up with as much positives for not believing it as there are for believing it then I will listen with all ears. Unfortunately all we seem to get are arguments from Science which say that such things generally don't happen and hence didn't happen. That's not good enough. The resurrection issue only hinges on whether God exists or not. That's it. So prove He doesn't or can't and then you have it. As long as it is even plausible that God exists (and there are many good reasons to think He does) then the theist is quite rational to hold and express a faith in such a Being. Harping on about the stupid and evil things that some Christians have done over the course of history is not addressing the issue of whether the resurrection happened or not. I think that is the point PDN is making, that issues are not being argued at times, and that the debates just descend into mocking and attacking Christianity at the end of most threads. I get the impression from most atheists that it is their personal perception of Christianity that they hate not Christianity itself. I mean how can you hate the fact that someone died for your sins and rose to prepare a place in eternity for you simply because He loved you that much? I believe that the hatred atheists have for Christianity is misplaced due to a simple misunderstanding of what it actually is, what’s annoying is that they will not be swayed by anything a Christian will tell them about Christianity to the contrary simply because they are Christians. Anyway that’s my two cents.

lugha

Soul Winner wrote: »

I've still yet to hear anything from atheists that would undermine my faith. All they have to do is show with a convincing enough argument that the resurrection of Jesus didn't and couldn't have happened. When they come up with as much positives for not believing it as there are for believing it then I will listen with all ears. Unfortunately all we seem to get are arguments from Science which say that such things generally don't happen and hence didn't happen. That's not good enough. The resurrection issue only hinges on whether God exists or not. That's it. So prove He doesn't or can't and then you have it. As long as it is even plausible that God exists (and there are many good reasons to think He does) then the theist is quite rational to hold and express a faith in such a Being. Harping on about the stupid and evil things that some Christians have done over the course of history is not addressing the issue of whether the resurrection happened or not. I think that is the point PDN is making, that issues are not being argued at times, and that the debates just descend into mocking and attacking Christianity at the end of most threads. I get the impression from most atheists that it is their personal perception of Christianity that they hate not Christianity itself. I mean how can you hate the fact that someone died for your sins and rose to prepare a place in eternity for you simply because He loved you that much? I believe that the hatred atheists have for Christianity is misplaced due to a simple misunderstanding of what it actually is, what’s annoying is that they will not be swayed by anything a Christian will tell them about Christianity to the contrary simply because they are Christians. Anyway that’s my two cents.

It is a touch ironic I think that we have a thread which expresses disquiet as the frequency with which Christians are compelled to / elect to (delete as appropriate) engage with atheists as to the truth or not of Christianity, which has now been slightly derailed by you, .. offering an argument as to why Christianity is right but them dastardly atheists won’t listen!
I’m pulling you leg a little of course, but I think your post illustrates that some Christians appreciate the opportunity to set out the case for why they believe.

Perhaps it might be sensible for both sides on these arguments, to begin by recognizing that there are pretty much two chances of changing anybody’s mind here. And slim has left town.

Soul Winner

lugha wrote: »

It is a touch ironic I think that we have a thread which expresses disquiet as the frequency with which Christians are compelled to / elect to (delete as appropriate) engage with atheists as to the truth or not of Christianity, which has now been slightly derailed by you, .. offering an argument as to why Christianity is right but them dastardly atheists won’t listen!
I’m pulling you leg a little of course, but I think your post illustrates that some Christians appreciate the opportunity to set out the case for why they believe.

Perhaps it might be sensible for both sides on these arguments, to begin by recognizing that there are pretty much two chances of changing anybody’s mind here. And slim has left town.

One of the reasons I post here is because I feel the need to (try at least) to straighten out some of the false ideas about the Christian faith held by some non Christians. I'm all for debating and listening to the other side but only when the other side are actually debating what Christianity actually is which is the belief that Jesus rose from the dead as a fact of history and ascended into heaven to prepare a place for us and with the promise to return one day to take us to be with Him there. All one needs to do to undermine that faith is to show with good argument that such a thing could never have happened and in fact didn't happen. What we usually get though are strawman ad hominem attacks which have nothing to do with that issue, and most other issues too.

chozometroid

I think one problem is that atheists always have the same argument, which is, "but there's no reason to believe that." They don't realize that we all ready know their argument, and it's not a stumbling block for us. They see it their way, and that's the end of it. So all these "pages and pages" of "discussion" are just both sides talking to a wall. This does not make these topics "hot" or more interesting than the "Christians only" threads, but instead shows how much effort is being made on atheists who have no interest in the Christian God, no matter what. Assuming God is real, there is still nothing that can be said that will change their minds.

The big problem to me is that every Christian response can always be met with further objection. This doesn't mean much, as anyone can do it, but atheists use this to their advantage. Coming up with objections to things is so easy and convenient (for or against anyone with any set of beliefs), and I think it's the root of the problem PDN is referring to.

All that said, I actually have gained something from debating with atheists. While debating with atheists probably(and sadly) does nothing for them, it has allowed me to gather and express my own ideas, thus helping me to know what I believe on a more concrete level. It has helped me to look at things more closely so I can explain my beliefs to a greater degree than if there had been no questions posed. Even though my efforts to explain my beliefs may have been casting pearls before swine, it still benefited me and perhaps other posters. I say this because reading other Christian responses to atheist objections has helped to solidify some of my own ideas.

Perhaps our efforts to defend our faith against hard-nosed atheists will help us to present our faith to people actually open to Christianity.

Turtwig

While, I like Wicknight's idea about the 'Challenges Welcome' tag.
It my own personal opinion, that anything in life that you happen to have a strong opinion on should be open to a respectful challenge. If a Christian (or anyone else for that matter) thinks their opinions are infallible and unquestionable then quite simply they are close minded, end of. However, if the forum charter chooses to compartmentalise,I'll respect it - Just laying out my opposition to it.


Christians should defend their faith; Atheists their lack of faith, just like a politician should defend their party. All, from respectful attacks of course.:)
Successful defense strengthens the position.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

While, I like Wicknight's idea about the 'Challenges Welcome' tag.
It my own personal opinion, that anything in life that you happen to have a strong opinion on should be open to a respectful challenge. If a Christian (or anyone else for that matter) thinks their opinions are infallible and unquestionable then quite simply they are close minded, end of. However, if the forum charter chooses to compartmentalise,I'll respect it - Just laying out my opposition to it.


Christians should defend their faith; Atheists their lack of faith, just like a politician should defend their party. All, from respectful attacks of course.:)
Successful defense strengthens the position.

Actually Malty, you are one of the atheist posters that I would see as indeed respectfully engaging in challenging and questioning. The vast majority of your posts are expressed as genuine questions and discussion, rather than as attacks.

There is no intention to make this a Christian-only forum, but neither do we need 2 A&A forums. Those that come here simply to attack Christian beliefs are the ones who are unwelcome.

lugha

Soul Winner wrote: »

All one needs to do to undermine that faith is to show with good argument that such a thing (the resurrection) could never have happened and in fact didn't happen. What we usually get though are strawman ad hominem attacks which have nothing to do with that issue, and most other issues too.

Well I think I could give you a very elementary argument against the resurrection based on nothing other than seeking out the most plausible explanation. But that would be way off topic.
What is on topic is the nature of the debates between Christians and non Christians. PDN’s opening post pointed out that the charter, if taken literally, prohibits such debates. It seems from some of the subsequent posts from Christians that the debates themselves are not objectionable, rather the manner in which they evolve. Personally I don’t see much evidence of ad hominem attacks or the like. I find the exchanges here to be relatively civil.

Stephentlig

its not the civil debates thats the problem, one part of the problem is the endless debates of same subjects, I rarely see posts that speak of the love of God, or the Love of tradition and Sacred Scripture.

I have a forum where I go debate on another site, and debate one on one rather than the silly ones here were you have to respond to a million ( over exagerrated number I know ) atheists.

this is why I think that if people want to debate then they should have a sub forum. from now on though I'm ignoring the debatable topics on this forum like the plague there are just too many.

and Malty_t just because an atheist sucessfully confounds a simple lay Christian, doesnt strengthen the position at all and does not mean Christianity is all over. :eek:Oh NO!! some dude won a debate with a christian on some little forum called boards.ie christianity is all over. :rolleyes:

Turtwig

Stephentlig wrote: »

and Malty_t just because an atheist sucessfully confounds a simple lay Christian, doesnt strengthen the position at all and does not mean Christianity is all over. :eek:Oh NO!! some dude won a debate with a christian on some little forum called boards.ie christianity is all over. :rolleyes:

No, of course it doesn't, if it were the case there'd be no Christians left.:pac:

Seriously, it means that the Christian needs to a get a better understanding of their beliefs, or else consider atheism.
Same principle applies for the atheist too.

Stephentlig

Malty_T wrote: »

No, of course it doesn't, if it were the case there'd be no Christians left.:pac:

Seriously, it means that the Christian needs to a get a better understanding of their beliefs, or else consider atheism.
Same principle applies for the atheist too.

A christian does not have to have debates with atheists in order to gain better understanding, all a Christian needs to do is better understand the Christian doctrine to do this, what amazes me is the great faith Christians have when it comes to atheists, who build strawman arguments, not to move from their believe in God.

the very fact that atheists cannot prove there isnt a God should be enough info for a Religious person to walk away from such an argument and give them all the more reason to believe in a God.

Turtwig

Stephentlig wrote: »

A christian does not have to have debates with atheists in order to gain better understanding, all a Christian needs to do is better understand the Christian doctrine to do this, what amazes me is the great faith Christians have when it comes to atheists, who build strawman arguments, not to move from their believe in God.

the very fact that atheists cannot prove there isnt a God should be enough info for a Religious person to walk away from such an argument and give them all the more reason to believe in a God.

Yes they do, to be open, you need to know both sides of the arguments. Strawman arguments, are a shame really, but both sides are guilty of this.

I'm bordering on a different topic here, so mods, feel free to move or delete if necessary.
I cannot prove something that you have defined to be unprovable via natural means, that fact should not give or take from anyones reason to believe. Do you believe in the cube I have placed outside of the natural world?? By your logic, unless you can disprove this cube to me, then you MUST believe in it. The burden of proof is on the believer to prove the cube is there. Not go -
"Oh there's a cube, which I believe to be there and as you cannot prove to me that it's not there, I conclude it MUST be there".

Stephentlig

Malty_T wrote: »

Yes they do, to be open, you need to know both sides of the arguments. Strawman arguments, are a shame really, but both sides are guilty of this.

I'm bothering on a different topic here, so mods, feel free to move or delete if necessary.
I cannot prove something that you have defined to be unprovable via natural means, that fact should not give or take from anyones reason to believe. Do you believe in the cube I have placed outside of the natural world?? By your logic, unless you can disprove this cube to me, then you MUST believe in it. The burden of proof is on the believer to prove the cube is there. Not go -
"Oh there's a cube, which I believe to be there and as you cannot prove to me that it's not there, I conclude it MUST be there".

Satans convuluted smoke.

however you cannot prove to me there isnt a God, Period, which leaves such a discussion dormant. there is no physical proof that God doesnt exist.

The End.

Turtwig

Stephentlig wrote: »

however you cannot prove to me there isnt a God, Period, which leaves such a discussion dormant. there is no physical proof that God doesnt exist.

The End.

Yes, but do you not acknowledge that by your logic we should believe in anything and everything that we define to be outside the realms of physical proof?

chozometroid

Stephentlig wrote: »

A christian does not have to have debates with atheists in order to gain better understanding, all a Christian needs to do is better understand the Christian doctrine to do this, what amazes me is the great faith Christians have when it comes to atheists, who build strawman arguments, not to move from their believe in God.

the very fact that atheists cannot prove there isnt a God should be enough info for a Religious person to walk away from such an argument and give them all the more reason to believe in a God.

You're going OT, but I have to respond. Atheists jump at opportunities to respond to posts like your's.

Not being able to prove something doesn't exist isn't a reason to believe in it. I believe in God for much better reasons. I think you would have a point if you said that atheists can't really explain anything at all, have nothing to offer on subjects outside of testable science, and what they do have to offer is just the best science for the moment, until further review. So, it's not that they can't disprove God, but more that they will never be in a position to propose a more reasonable alternative to the origin of life. The usual atheist response is that "God did it" is not more reasonable than "I don't know/-insert imaginative theory-." Problem with this is that "I don't know/imaginative theory" just doesn't cut it when you have to decide what to live for and why, for the short period of time we are here.

Maybe you should watch/read some William Lane Craig for some "reasonable faith." He has some good defenses for belief in God, even if his beliefs are a bit different from my own.

Stephentlig

Malty_T wrote: »

Yes, but do you not acknowledge that by your logic we should believe in anything and everything that we define to be outside the realms of physical proof?

Not at all I beleive only in the doctrine of Christ, nothing else, and I have seen the proof that he exists, yet its still up to me to put my faith into it and accept it as proof.

where as if Jesus were to appear to an atheist, he would still just rationlise it therefore, no matter what proof is given, we all need blind faith to believe in God.

homer911

I think the Christian should simply know when to draw a line under a debate and leave it at that. Too many of these threads go back and forth on the same point, with the same arguments - like two people shouting over a wall at each other and neither is really listening to the other. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree!

As the Bible says - dont throw your pearls before swine and know when to shake the dust off your feet - it is no disgrace. Satan loves to send these distractions to keep Christians from really doing God's work.

Personally I wouldn't want to get "burnt out" on these boards engaging in a futile debate, to the point where I am not around when a genuine and seeking question is asked (although I'm not much of a contributor). If a person has a genuine question about Christian faith/life let them ask it here. If an athiest has a question about their "faith" let them ask it on the A&A forum for other athiests to answer, rather than use the Christianity forum as an opportunity to knock Christians.

In the same vein if a genuine question has been asked on the Christianity forum, the op is probably looking for a Christian answer, so why do we have to have all the athiests posting replies which have a go at Christians?? (I have been amazed at some of the Christian answers posted by self profesed athiests - they would put many cultural christians to shame!)

Turtwig

chozometroid wrote: »

You're going OT, but I have to respond. Atheists jump at opportunities to respond to posts like your's.

Not being able to prove something doesn't exist isn't a reason to believe in it. I believe in God for much better reasons. I think you would have a point if you said that atheists can't really explain anything at all, have nothing to offer on subjects outside of testable science, and what they do have to offer is just the best science for the moment, until further review. So, it's not that they can't disprove God, but more that they will never be in a position to propose a more reasonable alternative to the origin of life. The usual atheist response is that "God did it" is not more reasonable than "I don't know/-insert imaginative theory-." Problem with this is that "I don't know/imaginative theory" just doesn't cut it when you have to decide what to live for and why, for the short period of time we are here.

Maybe you should watch/read some William Lane Craig for some "reasonable faith." He has some good defenses for belief in God, even if his beliefs are a bit different from my own.

Now I have to respond (it's just with regard to Mr. Craig),

William Lane Craig does present defenses for belief, however many of these use misrepresentations of scientific theories that are either mistaken or deliberately misleading (His representation of the Big Bang drives me nuts!:mad:...Ahem...one second..*exhales*). I'm happy if you want for me to give you reasons to believe in God, but I won't allow for inaccurate ones.

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

Yes, but do you not acknowledge that by your logic we should believe in anything and everything that we define to be outside the realms of physical proof?

Oh no this thread is derailing :eek:

Speaking of WLC. He gives some realy good argumetns. That there are good reasons to believe that God exists, and there are no good reasons to believe that He doesn't exist. There just might be a teapot floating around Mars but there are no good reasons to believe that there is.

Some good reasons to believe that God exists are these:

1. The fact that the universe had a beginning. All the evidence points to a beginning at a finite time in the past and if it had a beginning then it must have had a beginner. The only way the atheist can get around this fact is to appeal to mind boggling theories for which there is no evidence whatsoever to back them up.

2. The fact that the initial conditions which permit life were present right at the beginning of the universe is evidence of an intelligent mind and not mere chance, the universe is fine tuned for life.

3. The constants of nature and the complexity of life are all good reasons to believe that it was designed by a designer.

4. The fact that there are objective moral values which would be impossible if there was no God. We heard in another thread from atheists that rape and murder are really wrong no matter what. But why are they really wrong no matter what? What makes them wrong? Don't get me wrong I believe they are wrong but surely our belief that they are wrong is not proof that they are really wrong is it? Without an absolute standard for what is right and what is wrong then what we call right and wrong are relative to our society or even our species. But everyone just knows that raping and killing are really wrong no matter what, which means that objective moral values do exist which can only mean that God exists.

5. And then there is the person of Jesus Christ who claimed to speak in God's place. He was either a nut or a fraud because no mortal man can make such claims unless they are true. Claims for which He paid the ultimate price for. If Christ really was a nut or a fraud then there would be no such thing as Christianity because the first preachers of this new religion paid with their lives for what they believed was a fact of history, that Christ rose from the dead. Which gives credence to His claims that He did speak in the place of God, which means that there is a God.

All these things can be argued and debated but the atheist cannot answer them with natural explanations. Until evidence arises which explains all these things naturally then the belief in the supernatural is as valid a position to take as any other, nay even more valid. The only ones who object are the ones who have their own worldview axe to grind, the view that there is only nature and nothing else, a claim as improvable by physical evidence as the belief in the supernatural. The atheist can only attack these five positive reasons to believe that God exists. They cannot give us any of their own positive reasons to believe that God doesn't exist.


Sorry for the further derailment of this thread.

PDN

Soul Winner wrote: »

Oh no this thread is derailing :eek:

Speaking of WLC. He gives some realy good argumetns. That there are good reasons to believe that God exists, and there are no good reasons to believe that He doesn't exist. There just might be a teapot floating around Mars but there are no good reasons to believe that there is.

Some good reasons to believe that God exists are these:

1. The fact that the universe had a beginning. All the evidence points to a beginning at a finite time in the past and if it had a beginning then it must have had a beginner. The only way the atheist can get around this fact is to appeal to mind boggling theories for which there is no evidence whatsoever to back them up.

2. The fact that the initial conditions which permit life were present right at the beginning of the universe is evidence of an intelligent mind and not mere chance, the universe is fine tuned for life.

3. The constants of nature and the complexity of life are all good reasons to believe that it was designed by a designer.

4. The fact that there are objective moral values which would be impossible if there was no God. We heard in another thread from atheists that rape and murder are really wrong no matter what. But why are they really wrong no matter what? What makes them wrong? Don't get me wrong I believe they are wrong but surely our belief that they are wrong is not proof that they are really wrong is it? Without an absolute standard for what is right and what is wrong then what we call right and wrong are relative to our society or even our species. But everyone just knows that raping and killing are really wrong no matter what, which means that objective moral values do exist which can only mean that God exists.

5. And then there is the person of Jesus Christ who claimed to speak in God's place. He was either a nut or a fraud because no mortal man can make such claims unless they are true. Claims for which He paid the ultimate price for. If Christ really was a nut or a fraud then there would be no such thing as Christianity because the first preachers of this new religion paid with their lives for what they believed was a fact of history, that Christ rose from the dead. Which gives credence to His claims that He did speak in the place of God, which means that there is a God.

All these things can be argued and debated but the atheist cannot answer them with natural explanations. Until evidence arises which explains all these things naturally then the belief in the supernatural is as valid a position to take as any other, nay even more valid. The only ones who object are the ones who have their own worldview axe to grind, the view that there is only nature and nothing else, a claim as improvable by physical evidence as the belief in the supernatural. The atheist can only attack these five positive reasons to believe that God exists. They cannot give us any of their own positive reasons to believe that God doesn't exist.


Sorry for the further derailment of this thread.

Extremely derailed! Might I suggest an apologetics thread if the two of you wish to explore this further?

However, this serves as an example of what happens. If we see something that we perceive to be wrong, many of us rush to right that wrong before we see to anything else. In fact one of the books of the Bible (Jude) came about in this very way. The author says he was going to write a general epistle about salvation, but instead felt compelled to deal with some rather nasty false teachers that were bothering the Church.

So, its all very well to say that Christians should ignore attacks on their faith, but in practice it doesn't work out like that. I have often logged on to this board intending to post something uplifting that would be beneficial to other Christians, but then I see a slur, a misrepresentation or a falsehood and think, "If I leave that hanging like that, then that pillock is going to think that he's right and that his supposed point is unanswerable." So I end up refuting the crap instead of posting what i originally intended. Now, maybe that's wrong of me (and others) to be baited like that - but in the end it is detrimental to what the Admins of boards.ie (of which I am not one) see as the purpose of this forum.

I hear Wicknight's point about non-controversial threads receiving less answers, but I don't think it's valid. That's a bit like a loud mouth in the pub saying, "People must like it when I pick a fight, because they all argue with me instead of carrying on with quiet conversations." In truth, of course, it is most likely that the loudmouth is so obtrusive that he distracts everyone from their quiet conversations. Indeed, eventually, if they know the loudmouth is likely to be there, then people choose to go elsewhere for their quiet conversations!

Ultimately it will be up to the Admins to decide if a sub-forum should be set up for Apologetics or 'Challenges'. In the mean time, however, this forum will be moderated according to the existing Charter - which means coming in here looking for a fight, or in attempt to attack or disprove Christianity, will earn infractions.

lugha

Here’s a thought. Rather tha sub-forum, why not create a sort of Christian Atheist face off thread, somewhat similar to the mega B,C & P one, in to which all discussion on the veracity of Christianity or belief in general might take place. Any new treads, or any posts in existing threads, which drift towards this topic could be dispatched there. I think it is clear in this thread that many Christians do want to offer arguments for their beliefs. For those that don’t, there would be just one thread to avoid, much as many folk seem to choose to avoid the BCP thread.

Handsome Bob

lugha wrote: »

Here’s a thought. Rather tha sub-forum, why not create a sort of Christian Atheist face off thread, somewhat similar to the mega B,C & P one, in to which all discussion on the veracity of Christianity or belief in general might take place. Any new treads, or any posts in existing threads, which drift towards this topic could be dispatched there. I think it is clear in this thread that many Christians do want to offer arguments for their beliefs. For those that don’t, there would be just one thread to avoid, much as many folk seem to choose to avoid the BCP thread.

I reckon that would quickly become a muddied wreck of a thread where various different debates are going on at the same time at speed. It wouldn't be easy on the eye. Why not just a "debate" sub forum?

Look, I reckon this is straight forward. There are too many of my fellow non-believing brethern who take a ******* attitude when it comes to discussing religion. People will entertain your arguments if you show them some respect.

Soul Winner

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Ronnie Whelan said on Irish TV last month that the Liverpool eleven sent out to face Debrecen cost £250m. How many people will believe that? Quite a few, unfortunately.

It actually cost £78m. In what other profession would an “expert” get away with such utter mindless bollocks? - Paul Tomkins

Class Sorry to mods for quoting this sig in this thread.

Fanny Cradock

lugha wrote: »

Here’s a thought. Rather tha sub-forum, why not create a sort of Christian Atheist face off thread, somewhat similar to the mega B,C & P one, in to which all discussion on the veracity of Christianity or belief in general might take place. Any new treads, or any posts in existing threads, which drift towards this topic could be dispatched there. I think it is clear in this thread that many Christians do want to offer arguments for their beliefs. For those that don’t, there would be just one thread to avoid, much as many folk seem to choose to avoid the BCP thread.

Not a bad idea. However, I would think such a thread would struggle to hold back the surge of bitter argument and attack, which, as pointed out, seems to be main purpose behind some people being here. Eventually the dam would break and we would be right back where we started.

The simple truth is that I don't now get a great deal out of the shenanigans that go on here - certainly not in terms of my faith in Jesus - and I can't imagine what encouragement other Christians get out of this place, either. I've long ago grown tired of the circular disputes, the bitching, the attacks and I'm guessing others have, too. I would dearly like to see this forum shift its location away from the fault line where Christians and non-Christians clash, to a place where the is a little less tasteless negativity and hostility towards Christianity. In other words, a place where I would feel comfortable inviting Christian friends in the belief that the would have a positive experience, while also being exposed to the perspectives of non-believers. And if that means busting a few balls, then so be it.

Turtwig

Just a thought..

Is it possible to password threads? For example, Christians could start a discussion and all are welcome. If, however, the thread starts getting heated. the thread get's a password protection whereby the mod would then PM the other posters (deemed appropriate) in the thread with the password. Anyone else would have to PM the mods so they that they may post in the thread. Not only that but if someone blatantly broke the rules then the mod would simply change the password to the thread and PM all current posters who are obeying those rules..

Handsome Bob

Malty_T wrote: »

Just a thought..

Is it possible to password threads? For example, Christians could start a discussion and all are welcome. If, however, the thread starts getting heated. the thread get's a password protection whereby the mod would then PM the other posters (deemed appropriate) in the thread with the password. Anyone else would have to PM the mods so they that they may post in the thread. Not only that but if someone blatantly broke the rules then the mod would simply change the password to the thread and PM all current posters who are obeying those rules..

Might as well make the forum private so.

Fanny Cradock

Malty_T wrote: »

Just a thought..

Is it possible to password threads? For example, Christians could start a discussion and all are welcome. If, however, the thread starts getting heated. the thread get's a password protection whereby the mod would then PM the other posters (deemed appropriate) in the thread with the password. Anyone else would have to PM the mods so they that they may post in the thread. Not only that but if someone blatantly broke the rules then the mod would simply change the password to the thread and PM all current posters who are obeying those rules..

I don't believe there is such a function available in vBulletin. But even if there was, I would think that it would be either impracticable or even unworkable. The best thing to do is simply convert to Christianity and agree with us all.

By way of clarification for all those who may be under a misapprehension. The idea is not to nullify debate and non-Christian perspectives, it's to dissuade the overtly negative boo-boys and those whose purpose for being here is sorely to attack Christianity. There are plenty of other fora able to accommodate these attitudes, it simply isn't welcome here now.

Sam Vimes

lugha wrote: »

Here’s a thought. Rather tha sub-forum, why not create a sort of Christian Atheist face off thread, somewhat similar to the mega B,C & P one, in to which all discussion on the veracity of Christianity or belief in general might take place. Any new treads, or any posts in existing threads, which drift towards this topic could be dispatched there. I think it is clear in this thread that many Christians do want to offer arguments for their beliefs. For those that don’t, there would be just one thread to avoid, much as many folk seem to choose to avoid the BCP thread.

I'd agree to that if christianity would not be given any privileged position in the thread and the normal personal abuse rules apply, as in I can say someone's position is stupid as much as I want as long as I don't say something like anyone who holds that position is stupid or some other personal insult and of course as long as I go on to explain why I consider it to be stupid (and that applies both ways). People also shouldn't be told not to make certain arguments because some people don't agree with them. Basically it should be run fairly

Also personal abuse should apply to members only so if someone says Richard Dawkins is an arrogant fundamentalist that's fine and if someone says the judeo-christian interpretation of the creator of the universe is (insert insult here) that should also be fine. You can't personally insult someone if you don't think he exists and you're only insulting someone's perception of this being

lugha

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'd agree to that if christianity would not be given any privileged position in the thread and the normal personal abuse rules apply, as in I can say someone's position is stupid as much as I want as long as I don't say something like anyone who holds that position is stupid or some other personal insult and of course as long as I go on to explain why I consider it to be stupid (and that applies both ways). People also shouldn't be told not to make certain arguments because some people don't agree with them. Basically it should be run fairly

Leaving aside your rather rather quaint notion that agreement is required from us non-believers on how this forum should be run , essentially what you're suggesting is that this “toxic ” thread should be an A & A one, but hosted in Christianity. A & A is of course the natural place for such a discussion but it is evident that Christians have been unwilling to cross the road in any great numbers for such debates. We can make any arguments we like about believers having no inherent right to require that their religious convictions be respected but they certainly do have the right to decline to engage with folk who withhold such respect.


And I think calling somebody's position stupid or something similar in any debate on any fora will almost inevitably bring an end to any informative exchanges that had been taken place. Arguments made with calmly stated logic alone are much more effective than ones where they are couched in emotive or provocative language. I doubt if anybody revises their viewpoint after been told that it's a stupid one.

Coriolanus

Personally I think a seperate forum under the Religion & Spirituality umbrella would work better than creating a sub-forum in Christianity.

That way there'd be no confusion or equivocation.

monosharp

Stephentlig wrote: »

however you cannot prove to me there isnt a God, Period, which leaves such a discussion dormant. there is no physical proof that God doesnt exist.

And you cannot prove he does exist, Period. There is no physical proof that god does exist.

On the topic, I believe I'm probably one of the posters PDN is referring to when he talks about disruptive people, at least some of the time. I'd like to think the majority of my time, if not all of my time now, is not spent in such a fashion.

But I don't agree with the reasoning here behind PDN's and others opinion.

What you are calling attacks, I mostly see as genuine questions. Let me summarise my last few weeks here to try and underline this.

I have posted on the thread about the new translation of the Hebrew Bible concerning the word 'create' in Genesis.

Firstly I am genuinely interested in it, if the new translation of 'seperated' was correct it would shine a new light on what I consider a good story.

But, whether its correct or not makes no difference to theist beliefs. I don't think it would change anything for most if not all Christians and I personally don't see the huge difference it would make except from a purely academic angle.

So basically my part in that thread has nothing to do with theists vs atheists. Its general historical/theological interest.

I also posted in the thread about the world leaders renouncing their religions. Again my part was in actually showing my disgust at one of the posters answers, ironically if you will, because of their disrespect for other belief systems. Again, I wasn't attacking Christianity. Perhaps you could paint it as attacking a particular christian belief under certain hypothetical circumstances but I certainly wouldn't see it as an attack on christianity or theist beliefs as a whole.

I also have been posting in the creationism thread where unless I'm mistaken I have been throwing scientific evidence at psuedo-scientific nonsense which just so happens to be supported by the beliefs of a small minority of christians.

So I don't see exactly where I have been attacking Christianity, at least lately.

Or am I innocent and your talking about others PDN ?

neuro-praxis

This thread proves without doubt that many of the users of this forum are absolutely addicted to their own opinions. You can't even discuss a potential change to the forum's framework without getting your oar in for your own agenda. FFS. It seems to be utterly irresistable to both sides.

It's tedious beyond belief. Unless the posters here actually are 14 years old, you really need to grow up.

Sam Vimes

lugha wrote: »

Leaving aside your rather rather quaint notion that agreement is required from us non-believers on how this forum should be run , essentially what you're suggesting is that this “toxic ” thread should be an A & A one, but hosted in Christianity. A & A is of course the natural place for such a discussion but it is evident that Christians have been unwilling to cross the road in any great numbers for such debates. We can make any arguments we like about believers having no inherent right to require that their religious convictions be respected but they certainly do have the right to decline to engage with folk who withhold such respect.

They certainly have that right but if they're going to set up this thread they might as well do it right. A thread meant for argumentation where one side must be shown inordinate levels of respect under threat of infractions to the point where certain lines of debate are off limits and the other side can be told that they're (insert insult here) spouting nonsense because they're tools of satan who will burn for eternity is kind of pointless

lugha wrote: »

And I think calling somebody's position stupid or something similar in any debate on any fora will almost inevitably bring an end to any informative exchanges that had been taken place. Arguments made with calmly stated logic alone are much more effective than ones where they are couched in emotive or provocative language. I doubt if anybody revises their viewpoint after been told that it's a stupid one.

I totally agree, I was more pointing out that that should work both ways. I'm also talking about arguments made in an irreverend tone, as in if I consider someone's position ridiculous and I say something that makes light of it, that shouldn't earn infractions. For example if someone says that an inability to prove god doesn't exist is enough reason to believe in the bible and I list off a few ridiculous things that can nevertheless not be disproven and ask if he believes in all of them, it's a perfectly valid question and "comparing christianity to these things" should not earn bans

Mark Hamill

neuro-praxis wrote: »

This thread proves without doubt that many of the users of this forum are absolutely addicted to their own opinions. You can't even discuss a potential change to the forum's framework without getting your oar in for your own agenda. FFS. It seems to be utterly irresistable to both sides.

It's tedious beyond belief. Unless the posters here actually are 14 years old, you really need to grow up.

You do realise that Soul Winner was the first person to drag this thread off topic by describing his own opinions instead of talking about the merit of theist/atheist debates (post 13, talking about no-one ever getting him to change his mind, instead of wether or not what happins in most threads constitutes attacks or wether they are actually any benefit). This is what happens in most threads on this forum, a theist says something, an atheist questions it and everything goes fine until the theist realises he cant answer the atheists question and starts claiming he's been attacked. The reason for this very thread is because the last two times this happened, it happened to a moderator who really should be bigger than all this, even just for commandment number 9.

Turtwig

Yea, and Mark you do realise s/he was saying users in general;)
Why'd you assume s/he was singling out atheists?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

"The purpose of this forum is to discuss Christian belief in general, and specific elements of it, between Christians and non-Christians alike. This forum has the additional purpose of being a point on Boards.ie where Christians may ask other Christians questions about their shared faith. In this regard, Christians should not have to defend their faith from overt or subtle attack."

Amongst all the other issues bound up with this discussion, there seem to be three principal ones. These are:

1. In the main, atheists and agnostics do not discuss the fundamentals of christian religious belief -- whether Jesus is god, whether or not he came to forgive sins and so on. On the contrary, most of the discussion focuses on the nature of religious belief itself, and how the appropriate religious texts should be, or could be, interpreted, and what that does, or could, or should, tell us about the characters depicted in it. Neither of these topics are specific to christianity and it is inappropriate to interpret a disagreement over the interpretation of some text, or to point out the mutual inconsistency some epistemological position, as a specific "attacks on christianity".

2. More generally, it is also inappropriate to assume that the intention of A+A posters is to "attack" religious belief. This is the disjunctive language of the persecution complex and it contributes little to the debate. On the contrary, we enjoy discussing religion, and christianity in particularly, just as, I suspect, the majority of religious posters do.

3. And finally, boards.ie is all about debate, argument and discussion. In [url=http://johnbreslin.com/wiki/images/9/93/20030829a.pdf
]the words[/url] of John Breslin, the guy who set up this website:

John Breslin wrote:

We call it Big Boys' Rules - people have to be fairly civil and we ban people who aren't. But if people didn't like it, they wouldn't be flocking to the site [...] At the same time, we're not a crèche. We let people vent their anger. Noone has a row or a flame war on the gardening forum.

I don't think these causes are served very well by shutting off debate.

PDN wrote: »

every thread and discussion is liable to be hijacked by some interloper who wants to vent their hatred of all things religious.

If this is the principal concern, then I suggest the easiest way to resolve it is simply to enforce the existing "christian response only" rule. Any posters who post dissenting opinions simply have their posts deleted with repeat offenders banned. It's easy to do, doesn't require any real change to the existing rules, and I think most people will get the idea quickly.

Whatever else, I don't think that anybody wants this interesting and worthwhile board to turn to decline to something with all the passion of the gardening forum. The topic deserves more than that.

postcynical

As someone who only logs in from time to time and is more interested in other Christians' opinions or ideas than in adolescent petty arguments, I much prefer the quiet threads where people have reflected before posting. Reading through pages of long-winded waffle stating the bleeding obvious is quite tiresome. As is reading a "hot" thread where two non-believers argue with each other about some misrepresentation of religion.

Particularly annoying (IMO) are the posters who display a very poor grasp of logical inference, and an inability to comprehend (or bother reading) thoughtful posts, yet they pronounce from on high about advanced science and condescend people of faith.

I know other Christians come to engage the atheists, but I've lots of atheist friends in the real world and can enjoy respectful discussions with them if they are interested in my faith. The forum is good as it is but I think PDN's suggestion will improve it.

Mark Hamill

Malty_T wrote: »

Yea, and Mark you do realise s/he was saying users in general;)
Why'd you assume s/he was singling out atheists?

Woops, misread the post . Turns out he was making the point I was making . Sorry neuro-praxis

Soul Winner

Sorry Moonsharp my reply to your post was deleted.

PDN

Soul Winner wrote: »

Sorry Moonsharp my reply to your post was deleted.

As was monosharp's post. Both were extremely off topic. This is not an apologetics thread.