What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?

[vulcanlogician]

You treat atheists as if they've closed their minds off to certain possibilities. This is a mischaracterization. By-and-large, we are a skeptical crowd. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The problem with relying on anecdotal evidence is that it can be used to support untrue claims. It can be a good starting point for investigations, but not a good finishing point. As I pointed out before, claims about alien abduction and bigfoot rely on such evidence.

Don't treat us like we are unwilling to engage in substantiated claims. Don't treat us like we carry around prejudices. You know as well as I do that theists are the ones who typically don't give the other side a fair shake. I, personally, have challenged myself to take a good hard look at many theistic claims, and I still do so to this day. You treat atheists like a group of prejudiced individuals, unwilling to look at the other side, when the truth is, we've taken a good hard look at the other side of the argument and we're tired of it.

It's time for the theistic community to meet us half way. Until then, unless you have extraordinary evidence, please don't bother us with your extraordinary claims.

Thank you for your honest appraisal. I respect your intellectual views. Some posts I do not answer because they are rude, crude, closed minded and or childish. I know some of the Christians are of the same nature and it bothers me. I know that alien abduction and bigfoot rely on anecdotal evidence, by the same token abiogenesis has no more evidence than intelligent design has. Certainly there is no  proof that life was created by spontaneous generation.

Cool that we both appreciate honest and rational conversation. That's a good starting point.

First off, I wouldn't use the term "spontaneous generation." That's an antiquated theory where mice were believed to spontaneously form from haystacks, maggots from rotting meat, etc. It was based on crude observations.

Spontaneous generation refers to an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. The theory of spontaneous generation held that living creatures could arise from nonliving matter and that such processes were commonplace and regular.
...
Rejection of spontaneous generation is no longer controversial among biologists. By the middle of the 19th century, the theory of biogenesis had accumulated so much evidential support due to the work of Louis Pasteur and others that the traditional theory of spontaneous generation had been effectively disproven.

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

(My emphasis)

No modern biologist lends any credence to the theory. So stick with the term "abiogenesis" to remain accurate.

You are correct to say that no theory of abiogenesis has been proven. How life arose from nonliving matter is a mystery to modern science. There are competing models at the moment; possibly one of them is correct. Perhaps not. We will see. Science is working on it. Be patient.

Not every truth can be discovered by scientific inquiry, but I don't think this particular mystery will is beholden to philosophic investigation or any other observation-based field besides physical science. Biologists will either figure it out and everybody will know, or they will fail... and how life arose from non-life will forever remain a mystery. My guess is that biologists will figure it out eventually. We'll have to wait and see.

I remember abiogenesis being covered in a high school science class. No one model was advanced as the "correct" one, though some were said to be more plausible than others. Putting plausible models out there as possibilities is part of the work of science. Don't forget that Einstein's relativity was once an untested idea. There were also competing models that tried to explain minor gravitational anomalies, theories which contradicted relativity. They turned out to be wrong. That's science. The important thing is that all claims were tested before being considered valid.

The religious claims surrounding the origins of life cannot stand a modicum of scrutiny before being demonstrated implausible. People have tried, but no one has produced compelling evidence for it. That's just the way it goes. If God really made life during the six day creation period roughly 6,000 years ago, maybe science will discover evidence for it some day. I'm not holding my breath... but hey, if you think that's how it really went down, why don't you think science will discover evidence for it? It seems as if you have already concluded that no evidence will be found that supports creationism. Don't worry. I've concluded the very same thing.

Try not to get butthurt so easily. A ton of fair and rational discussion transpires here, but this isn't a formal debate forum. Some people are going to shoot from the hip and react to your statements emotionally. I've gotten butthurt here before, and I'm an atheist. Might I suggest a metaphorical chastity belt, and maybe some metaphorical lube (in case someone manages to pop the lock). Really, it helps anywhere (whether in RL or the internet) where frank discussions transpire. I came here to have rational discussions and debates but also to say what I honestly feel about religion/religious ideas. Here, I can forcefully express what might be considered rude or disrespectful in RL. This is an appropriate place for such expressions. Get used to it. But keep in mind, also, that you'll find more intellectual honesty here than in any Christian forum I've ever been to.