Is it fair to debate Christians in the Lion's Den?

[midniterider]

I think there has been some internal debate as to whether some of the Christian participants may be mentally healthy enough to present a cogent argument in the Den. Are we just picking on the mentally ill? Are we pathetic morons getting our jollies from the less fortunate?

 

I think the first thing to consider is whether some of the more notable people we've had here are mentally ill? People who believe the batshit crazy stuff in the bible cant immediately be assumed to be mentally ill or all of us ex-Christians would have to consider ourselves to have been mentally ill at once time. Christians do live normal lives and can function well in society, despite their eccentric beliefs. It may be difficult to diagnose someone from the fire and brimstone rants on this site. 

 

One time I attended a pentecostal church that had an ex-marine drill sergeant for a pastor. The man came unhinged during his sermons...but I'm sure lived a happy healthy life otherwise. lol

 

Another consideration might be , whether or not someone is an  unarmed participant, I think we do help to arm them with better ideas by bantering back and forth. Some of these debates devolve and threads get locked. But not everyone learns by peaceful discourse. Sometimes 'Christian Assumed Authority' needs to be challenged with the big middle finger. Things get heated, but the mod team handles it. 

 

Is it helpful? It might be. When the emotions calm down, the common sense responses from ex-Christians are still in the Christian's head. 

 

One final point to think about is that the Christian might feel we are the ones who are mentally ill or unarmed participants.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

These are all very good questions and points to consider, @midniterider.  I've often pondered on them myself at times.  Ultimately, I can only answer for myself; and my answer is that it is more important to counter christian apologetics for the benefit of those lurking, struggling, or questioning, than it is to determine if a christian happening by is competent to stand trial before they wander into The Den.  We reach a wider audience than we know; and I need to be truer and more considerate to the nameless, faceless "them" than to the christian who comes here to preach the same mythical pile of fundagelical horse shit that damaged "them" in the first place.

 

I think many of us are survivors of emotional and psychological abuse; and I have gotten more sensitive about that in recent years.  My own personality is, quite obviously, I'd think, the product of such.  In that regard, I am happy to admit that I was once, and in many ways still am, mentally ill.  Even after  deconversion, my struggle continues; but I am grateful that I do struggle, and that I am healthier now than I have ever been.  This website and the people here have helped me in that regard more than anything or anyone else.

 

With that said, we all play our own unique parts here.  My gruff, snarky approach is countered by the calmer, gentler approach of others.  But with reaching such a wide audience, multiple approaches are necessary.  Not everyone will respond to or "get" my stander-of-no-nonsense directness; others need it.  I'm okay with some people being turned off by it; because I know we'll reach them some other way.  I respect and admire those kinder, gentler members, because they reach people I don't reach.  I guess I'm too busy cracking skulls open so their wisdom can get poured in.  

 

We really should have this conversation more often.

[Astreja]

I'm another snarky skull-cracker, but that's largely dictated by the tone of whatever I'm responding to.  If someone is respectful and gentle, I try to be respectful and gentle.  I have no patience for broken records, the argumentum ad baculum types and spammers, and have a jolly good time stomping on them and reducing their arguments to smoking rubble.

 

If someone is actually mentally ill, how do we deal with them?  Probably cutting them loose sooner rather than later would be the best approach, rather than practicing lay psychoanalysis on them.  We can't fix them, but we can keep them from cluttering up the site.

[walterpthefirst]

18 hours ago, midniterider said:

I think there has been some internal debate as to whether some of the Christian participants may be mentally healthy enough to present a cogent argument in the Den. Are we just picking on the mentally ill? Are we pathetic morons getting our jollies from the less fortunate?

 

I think the first thing to consider is whether some of the more notable people we've had here are mentally ill? People who believe the batshit crazy stuff in the bible cant immediately be assumed to be mentally ill or all of us ex-Christians would have to consider ourselves to have been mentally ill at once time. Christians do live normal lives and can function well in society, despite their eccentric beliefs. It may be difficult to diagnose someone from the fire and brimstone rants on this site. 

 

One time I attended a pentecostal church that had an ex-marine drill sergeant for a pastor. The man came unhinged during his sermons...but I'm sure lived a happy healthy life otherwise. lol

 

Another consideration might be , whether or not someone is an  unarmed participant, I think we do help to arm them with better ideas by bantering back and forth. Some of these debates devolve and threads get locked. But not everyone learns by peaceful discourse. Sometimes 'Christian Assumed Authority' needs to be challenged with the big middle finger. Things get heated, but the mod team handles it. 

 

Is it helpful? It might be. When the emotions calm down, the common sense responses from ex-Christians are still in the Christian's head. 

 

One final point to think about is that the Christian might feel we are the ones who are mentally ill or unarmed participants.  

 

I agree with the Professor, midniterider.  You raise some good points and ask some excellent questions.

 

"Are we just picking on the mentally ill?"

"Are we pathetic morons getting our jollies from the less fortunate?"

 

In my opinion almost all of the Christian apologists who come here are not mentally ill.  Rather, they are emotionally compromised.  What do I mean by this?  I mean that religious people have invested a great deal of emotion in their beliefs, even to the point that their investment has become the most important thing in their lives.  Their emotions have compromised their rationality and so their ability to think dispassionately suffers as a result. 

 

A detached and dispassionate analysis of the evidence for their beliefs would inevitably result in their realizing that there is none.  But, because they believe on a emotional basis and not a rational one, they can never make that analysis - their inner desires would never allow it to happen.  Many people raised to believe on a purely emotional basis never acquire the skills to make that proper analysis nor do they posses the emotional resilience to endure the implications of it.

 

We have seen this more than once, here in this forum.  Believers arrive with little more than emotionally-driven faith and when confronted with biblical contradictions, scientific facts and with sound, logical arguments they react in highly emotional ways.  They become abusive, they lock horns with the Mods and/or begin handing out threats of eternal hellfire or they just leave.  These are fight or flight behaviours resulting from a perceived threat to their dearly-held beliefs. 

 

At no point am I suggesting that these people are mentally ill.  No, far from it.  They are as sane as any of us.  Its just that they are emotionally compromised (dare I say, even crippled?) and unable to function rationally when it comes to the beliefs that they are deeply emotionally invested in.  Midniterider's example of the drill sergeant pastor is a case in point.  No doubt he had no big emotional problems in his job, at work or in any other part of his life.  But, because he was emotionally over-committed to Jesus, whenever it was sermon time, he just lost it!

 

Of course, now that I've made this argument, another question needs to be asked.  At what point does a person's emotional commitment to something cause them to become mentally ill?  I'm no expert in these matters and so I leave this question hanging, hoping that others better qualified than me can answer it.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

@walterpthefirst, this is one of those times when I wish I could give multiple reaction emoticons to a single post.  

[alreadyGone]

Walter,

Very very well said.

 

Some of the points you have made here are at the center of my motivation for asking the question "what is a spirit?".

 

Such believers (as Austin) are emotionally insistent that you/I/we share their belief.

To share belief in something they cannot define themselves.

 

To define a thing is to say "this is what it is, to the best of my knowledge and understanding".

To hold belief in something and insist on the reality of it when you do not know the nature or origin of it does raise some question of mental integrity...  at least to my thinking (and belief!).

 

[alreadyGone]

5 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

@walterpthefirst, this is one of those times when I wish I could give multiple reaction emoticons to a single post.  

 

Agreed. Exactly so.

[walterpthefirst]

Thank you very much Prof and aG. 

 

I don't know if these links help much, but I recall a documentary of British tv about Jonathan Martin, a man declared to be suffering from a religious monomania.  That term is no longer in use, but it seems that Martin was one of those unfortunate people whose emotional preoccupation was his downfall.

 

https://www.on-magazine.co.uk/yorkshire/history/dramatic-life-of-jonathan-martin/

 

The emotionally compromised believers that come here are nowhere near as far gone as Martin.  But as this Wiki page says...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomania

 

In 19th-century psychiatry, monomania (from Greek monos, one, and mania, meaning "madness" or "frenzy") was a form of partial insanity conceived as single pathological preoccupation in an otherwise sound mind.

 

Midnitrider's example of the drill sergeant pastor seems to display similar (but much milder) traits.  His mind was sound in all other respects, except when it came to his emotionally-driven religious beliefs.  So, perhaps that might be the overarching pathology of the Christian believers who come here.  By and large they are of sound mind, but suffer from emotional issues relating to their supernatural beliefs.

 

If that's so, then a sharp dividing line between sanity and madness might actually be blurred into a broad spectrum.  Just as the autistic spectrum covers a wide range of displayed behaviours in sufferers, so the same might be true for religious people.  Quite where a person sits on the spectrum might relate to their degree of sanity or insanity.  If their obsession overrides all rational judgment, then they might be considered as insane.  But if they can hold down jobs, look after their families and function adequately within society, then they should be thought of as sane. 

 

But that's just so much speculation on my part.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[midniterider]

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

A detached and dispassionate analysis of the evidence for their beliefs would inevitably result in their realizing that there is none.  But, because they believe on a emotional basis and not a rational one, they can never make that analysis - their inner desires would never allow it to happen.  Many people raised to believe on a purely emotional basis never acquire the skills to make that proper analysis nor do they posses the emotional resilience to endure the implications of it.

 

 

Those with a deep emotional investment (or life investment) in Jesus would not want to damage that, even if somewhere in their head they suspected it was incorrect or illogical. Another apologist here would never entertain the idea for a second that God doesnt exist. Not even pretend it for a moment. When presented with a number of bible contradictions or logical contradictions about the bible or Jesus, the furthest into dangerous thought territory they would go was , "well, I dont know what to make of that." They didn't know what to make of the obvious and would rather just avoid that and get back to "God is great, God is love."  

 

Perhaps, like you said, they just dont have the skills to make a proper analysis of their own beliefs, especially if it was pounded into their heads their whole life that God and religion are the exception to the general rules of reality and reason.

 

 

[alreadyGone]

5 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Perhaps, like you said, they just dont have the skills to make a proper analysis of their own beliefs, especially if it was pounded into their heads their whole life that God and religion are the exception to the general rules of reality and reason.

 

 

 

Also, never underestimate the social aspect of Christian or other theist belief.

I believe that many would prefer to be wrong and live bound by a false belief than to be apart from the group.

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Very productive discussion!  Thank you midniterider for starting the thread.  I see it very much like Walter has described it.  Mental illnes is a very nebulous term.   I understand many in the mental health profession are avoiding the term.  Almost everyone in society has "blind spots" in certain areas and might be called eccentric.  And when does a blind spot become a delusion??  And people with delusions are not usually considered mentally ill until they can no longer function in society.  I have heard it argued that less than 2% of the population are considered "realistic" or objective.  

 

I believe most christians have blind spots, perhaps with different degrees of delusion.  They often avoid issues they don't want to face, and if confronted, agree to disagree with you, and leave the discussion, and avoid you. They "shake the dust off their feet."  Or (usually relatives) continue trying to lay a guilt trip on you if you allow them to.  I believe the truely delusional ones are the ones who come here and continue to argue.  Some get sadistic, and I don't see them as real christians.  They simply have a mean streak.  Some are naive, and perhaps mascochistic, martyr types and keep hanging on.

 

My main concern is that name calling and disrespect not be allowed from either side of discussions.  As soon as the name calling starts, i believe the discussion should be halted.

[walterpthefirst]

In my opinion the RedneckProfessor has given a very detailed description of Austin's modus operandi and motives in his closing statement of this thread.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/85764-is-logic-an-absolute-a-simple-test/page/4/#comments

 

To this I'd just like to add a further observation.  One that picks up a theme running through this thread.  Namely, how a person's emotional commitment to an idea corrupts their ability to use their reasoning faculties and their latent rationality.

 

 Yesterday I wrote...

 

We have seen this more than once, here in this forum.  Believers arrive with little more than emotionally-driven faith and when confronted with biblical contradictions, scientific facts and with sound, logical arguments they react in highly emotional ways.  They become abusive, they lock horns with the Mods and/or begin handing out threats of eternal hellfire or they just leave.  These are fight or flight behaviours resulting from a perceived threat to their dearly-held beliefs.

 

From what I've seen Austin isn't a runner, he's a fighter.  Upon having his cherished beliefs threatened his first reaction isn't flight, it's fight.  It's only today, upon re-reading what's gone down recently in the Den, that I realized what he was up with regard to the thread I created for him, where he and I could discuss whether science does or doesn't confirm that the universe had a beginning.  Here are his responses to my offer.

 

Good morning. If you woulod like to talk, we will continue at Twitter.

 

Very kind of you, let's meet on neutral ground, Twitter is perfect. Everyone here can also follow our conversation there too.

 

When I informed Austin that I didn't have a Twitter account he cut me dead in that thread and has made no move to engage with me in thread I created for him.

 

Please notice that from the moment he became aware of my offer he was trying to wrest control of the dialogue.  By taking it to Twitter he could operate more freely than here, where he is constrained by the Moderators.  And when he discovered that he couldn't have the debate on his terms, he has avoided it like the plague.  So, his initial politeness was only a means to end - to seize control and to keep it.

 

These manoeuvres tell me that his emotional commitment to his beliefs is so great that he's prepared to act in disingenuous and devious ways in order to protect them.  We have recently seen other examples of his obstruction, obfuscation and obstinacy.  The re-posing of questions that have already been answered.  The repetition of arguments and assertions that have already been refuted.  And so on.  These are just ploys to keep a thread going, where he tries to force us to restate our positions at length while he responds with a few brief lines or even just a few keystrokes.  In a nutshell, these are delaying tactics.

 

The current dialogue between DarkBishop and Austin about evolution are a case in point.  Please note the disparity between the length of their messages.  DB is putting in a lot work, carefully outlining the details of his argument.  Meanwhile, Austin is putting in the minimum amount of work that he calculates he can get away with while keeping the thread alive.

 

So, where does this leave us?  Well, I think we need to look back at the title of this, midniterider's thread.  "Is it fair to debate Christians in the Lion's Den?"

 

It would be FAIR if they would act FAIRLY towards us!

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[TABA]

On 11/9/2021 at 1:25 PM, midniterider said:

 

I think there has been some internal debate as to whether some of the Christian participants may be mentally healthy enough to present a cogent argument in the Den. Are we just picking on the mentally ill? Are we pathetic morons getting our jollies from the less fortunate?

 

First of all, I agree with @TheRedneckProfessor when he says this…

 

On 11/9/2021 at 2:25 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

my answer is that it is more important to counter christian apologetics for the benefit of those lurking, struggling, or questioning, than it is to determine if a christian happening by is competent to stand trial before they wander into The Den

 

This community exists to help people who are somewhere in the process of leaving Christianity.  One of the ways we help them is by exposing them to a wide range of arguments against Christianity, expressed in a variety of ways by a variety of people.  This helps them to gain confidence in their deconversion and lays to rest any lingering “What if I’m wrong?” fears.  Many of us have benefited from that help since we started our deconversion journeys.  
 

So having regular Christian visitors presenting their arguments allows us to respond and keep the counter-apologetics near the top of our feed for maximum visibility.  
 

For better or worse, recent Christian visitors have not been the cream of the crop when it comes to making their case.  Not surprising really, because more sophisticated Christians would recognize firstly that we are unusually resistant to arguments for Christianity, since we have already considered and rejected them, and secondly that the Holy Spirit is not nearly as helpful as promised in overcoming opposition.  So we had the recent visitor who came here, confident that the Holy Spirit had given him a sure-fire argument to win us back to the church or, failing that, to shut this operation down.  None of us lost any sleep over that and certainly none of us reconverted.   The message to observers was that the Holy Spirit tends to not show up as promised.  Not the takeaway the Christian visitor was aiming for.   
 

In dealing with Christian visitors, as with anybody, I try to follow the Don’t Be a Dick commandment.  But when Christians come here to make their case, they should expect opposition.  I don’t want to cause anybody distress, in general, but our Christian visitors do come here of their own accord to engage with us.  We’d be letting down our own if we didn’t take them on.  It’s unlikely that these believers experience any doubts as a result of their encounters with us, but we all started somewhere, and any who choose to pursue those doubts will be encouraged and welcomed here with open arms, needless to say.  
 

 

[Myrkhoos]

    Mental ilness is a neboulous and controversial topic. I do not trust "mental health experts" with clear definitions. I do not think there can be ONE definition of mental health anyway. The very human flexibility of mind/brain makes it virtually impossible. What body health is is not so well understood either. Mental health is always context dependant. I mean subjectivity is hard to, you know, objectively measure and all that. I am not saying it is all relative and that line of thinking, but there is a middle ground between universal certainty and absolute skeptical individualism.

     About arguing. I sometimes, often times, don't really know where to start because I often I do not share even basic premises with religious people anymore. Like what is knowledge and how do we get it.

    And I try to avoid scientific practice and theory discussion. Major reason I don't really know a lot. Also other reasonsFor one thing, science is a bunch of dynamic, different sets of conceptual models and practices and is firstly experimental and tries to eliminate personal input, and religions, lots of them, are at least in part faith based on unproven assumptions and heavily rely on personal experiences. I do not sat here one is worse than the other, just that they have very different starting points and stardards. I mean, for one thing, let's say upon other experiments, evolution, big bang theory, quantum mechanics are proven either incomplete or partially mistaken, etc. That is NO problem for the sciences. None. It is a good thing. Knowledge can advance. Careers ruined perhaps. But for at least abrahamic faiths, if you remove or change one major Dogma they tend to fall apart. They can adapt of course, but generally it is a disaster. Not to mention that religious worlds tend to be unfalsifiable.

   The best one can do can be to make this apparent - how that religion works and the person takes it from there. An invitation to deeper reflection. Where that leads I do not know.

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I'm not sure that "fair" is the most appropriate term to use.  As much as we like to think of ourselves as a tolerant and inclusive community, there is, and always will be, an element of "us and them" here, so long as our prime directive as ex-christians is to help other ex-christians.  There's simply never going to be genuine equality between christians and ex-christians; and that is an unfortunate fact on both sides of the divide.

 

I think it is fair that we allow them to sign up and join our community.  I think it's fair that we give them a platform from which to preach and try to reach the lost among us.  I think it's more than fair that we give them plenty of warnings (and rope) before they get banned.  I don't think any of us would get the same treatment on a christian website.  Which underscores the unfairness and inequality of this present darkness.   

 

Perhaps some of the brutality of The Den is unfair; but that is usually between individual members and rarely occurs in the herd.  Perhaps the disproportionate ratio of ex-christians to christians in any given thread is unfair; but unless we're going to all go out to churches, christian schools, and religious websites in an effort to recruit new members, we're likely to have to live with this unfortunate circumstance. 

 

Further, I don't think it is ever going to be "fair" for us to debate christians for the same reason it's not fair to shoot someone during a knife fight.  They simply are not as well-armed and well-equipped as we are.  But if they're going to keep jabbing at us with their knives, at what point does it become "fair" for us to shoot back?  At what point does our own defense, and the defense of others outweigh the unfairness of the situation?

 

Perhaps the questions we should be asking are, among others: "Is it right for us to debate christians?"  "Is it compassionate for us to debate christians?"  "Is it helpful for us to debate christians?"  And these are all questions to ask of a better man than me.

[walterpthefirst]

20 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'm not sure that "fair" is the most appropriate term to use.  As much as we like to think of ourselves as a tolerant and inclusive community, there is, and always will be, an element of "us and them" here, so long as our prime directive as ex-christians is to help other ex-christians.  There's simply never going to be genuine equality between christians and ex-christians; and that is an unfortunate fact on both sides of the divide.

 

I think it is fair that we allow them to sign up and join our community.  I think it's fair that we give them a platform from which to preach and try to reach the lost among us.  I think it's more than fair that we give them plenty of warnings (and rope) before they get banned.  I don't think any of us would get the same treatment on a christian website.  Which underscores the unfairness and inequality of this present darkness.   

 

Perhaps some of the brutality of The Den is unfair; but that is usually between individual members and rarely occurs in the herd.  Perhaps the disproportionate ratio of ex-christians to christians in any give thread is unfair; but unless we're going to all go out to churches, christian schools, and religious websites in an effort to recruit new members, we're likely to have to live with this unfortunate circumstance. 

 

Further, I don't think it is ever going to be "fair" for us to debate christians for the same reason it's not fair to shoot someone during a knife fight.  They simply are not as well-armed and well-equipped as we are.  But if they're going to keep jabbing at us with their knives, at what point does it become "fair" for us to shoot back?  At what point does our own defense, and the defense of others outweigh the unfairness of the situation?

 

Perhaps the questions we should be asking are, among others: "Is it right for us to debate christians?"  "Is it compassionate for us to debate christians?"  "Is it helpful for us to debate christians?"  And these are all questions to ask of a better man than me.

 

Professor,

 

I submit that your analogy of knife vs gun is actually happening in reverse, right now.  DarkBishop has presented five lengthy and detailed posts for Austin's attention and in response Austin has given us what...?  A couple of one liners and a few brief sentences.  It looks to me as if Austin is the one in control here, making DB do all the legwork and doing the absolute bare minimum to keep the thread ticking over. 

 

He's laughing up his sleeve at us.  

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[midniterider]

12 hours ago, Weezer said:

 And people with delusions are not usually considered mentally ill until they can no longer function in society.  I have heard it argued that less than 2% of the population are considered "realistic" or objective.  

 

I agree. Everyone has a mistaken belief or mistaken idea. Some of my personal religious ideas and world view might be true, might be partially true or might be completely false. People, religious people in particular, seem to function regardless of their eccentricities. 

 

12 hours ago, Weezer said:

My main concern is that name calling and disrespect not be allowed from either side of discussions.  As soon as the name calling starts, i believe the discussion should be halted.

 

Name calling is unproductive ... and yes, I've done some recently.  With regard to disrespect, we might be in a position to teach a Christian that certain tools of their evangelization are offensive, evil and unacceptable. Austin is big on telling people they are "Going to hell", which in the past, to me I would have thought was similar to saying "Spider Man is going to beat you up!". But as of late that has come to be very offensive to me. "Going to hell" is the last ditch effort of a Christian and I feel it is worthy of my "GFY". Christians need to learn that some talking points that are perfectly fine in their demented guy-hanging-on-a-cross churches really do equate to a horror movie in real life. 

 

All in all, you have valid points to consider.  

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Further, I don't think it is ever going to be "fair" for us to debate christians for the same reason it's not fair to shoot someone during a knife fight.  They simply are not as well-armed and well-equipped as we are.  But if they're going to keep jabbing at us with their knives, at what point does it become "fair" for us to shoot back?  At what point does our own defense, and the defense of others outweigh the unfairness of the situation?

 

If someone comes to my door, they are fair game. They sometimes do knock and my door and I say I'm not interested and they leave. The JWs have never told me I'll burn in hell if I dont listen to them. Maybe that's where internet anonymity comes in. 

 

edit. then again, I guess they dont believe in hell. lol

 

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

Perhaps the questions we should be asking are, among others: "Is it right for us to debate christians?"  "Is it compassionate for us to debate christians?"  "Is it helpful for us to debate christians?"  And these are all questions to ask of a better man than me.

 

Is it entertaining to debate Christians?  lol. 

 

We might also want to consider that Christians find it entertaining to mess with us. In the 90s I used to pop into pagan chat rooms on AOL and preach a bit. Just for entertainment sake.. though I was a Christian at the time. 

[TABA]

59 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

It looks to me as if Austin is the one in control here, making DB do all the legwork and doing the absolute bare minimum to keep the thread ticking over. 

That would be true if this were a private discussion between our guy and Austin.  But I suspect DB’s legwork will pay off in the minds of others who follow along, whether they’re already deconverting members or potential ones.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

It looks to me as if Austin is the one in control here, making DB do all the legwork and doing the absolute bare minimum to keep the thread ticking over. 

 

He's laughing up his sleeve at us.  

I didn't know much about countering christians myself when I first came here.  DarkBishop is finding his feet; and in the long run, that may prove more beneficial than a couple of battles perceived lost. 

[walterpthefirst]

Ok, I see the angle you guys are taking here.

 

It's good for DB and good for the lurkers, even if AA is trying to jerk us around.

 

I stand corrected and can see the wisdom of your words.

 

 

Walter.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

One thing I don't think has been mentioned is the possibility of brain damage----fetal alcohol syndrome, accidents, strokes, etc.  That can mess up a person's judgement, and other brain functions.

[freshstart]

On 11/11/2021 at 12:14 AM, Weezer said:

My main concern is that name calling and disrespect not be allowed from either side of discussions.  As soon as the name calling starts, i believe the discussion should be halted.

 I agree for the most part.  I see so much of this everywhere else on social media and its tiresome.   I would venture to guess that disrespectful posts would chase away some of the Christian lurkers. One has to wonder how and why a Christian would stumble upon this site.  What were they searching on the internet that led them here?  I think ex-Christians are both a curiosity and a thorn to believers who actually dare to engage with them.  Its very hard for Christians to understand.  I think we should expect Christians to emotionally unravel as they try to process this. (I mean, didn't we all do this to some extent?).  If they find themselves unable to answer difficult questions or swirling in doubt, its not like they're going to admit this to themselves, let alone anyone here (at least at first).  And who are they going to lash out at?  Certainly not god.  The fact that people like Austin continue to engage, tiresome as it is with the same old arguments, tells me they are trying to prove something to themselves, more than they are trying to prove anything to us.  For the occasional Christian who is just a plain ol' asshole or just way too irritating to tolerate, I think silence can be a powerful response. Hard as it is to do that, it doesn't give them the attention they want. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I Googled it... respectfully:

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+it+fair+to+debate+christians+in+the+lions+den%3F&oq=is+it+fair+to+debate+christians+in+the+lions+den%3F&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.36032j1j7&client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

[alreadyGone]

Why Professor, how cleverly recursive of you.