Fair to Challenge Claims?

[JoeyKnothead]

In another thread there is much complaining about atheists challenging theist claims. I find it a bit weird, what with this being a debate site and all, but there we go.

For debate:

Is it fair for atheists to challenge theist claims on this, a debate site?

Is it fair for atheists to challenge theist claims outside of debate?

What are the real and possible ramifications of challenging theist claims?

What are the real and possible ramifications of allowing theist claims to go unchallenged?

[tar2]

Flail,

I like your guiding spirit. Not only do you have "proof", you have 100 proof.

Regards, TAR

[Jester]

I'm claiming that a particular position is most likely, and others are trying to refute that without considering the likelihood of any of the alternatives - or really even the position I mention.

So, no, the claim needn't come before I present any support, but it certainly must come before any statement that my position needn't be accepted.

I opened a separate thread last Friday to debate the "likelihood" of "god" existing. You are invited to present your reasons / evidence to support that conclusion.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=14294

Okay, I'll try to get down there as time permits.

But getting to the point regarding whether or not a counterclaim is required to refute a claim:

I can't at the moment, however, think of any claim which can be shown to be true in a vacuum. Every claim has to be determined to be more or less likely than the alternatives.

Claim: If a rock is dropped in the Earth's atmosphere it will fall.

What "alternative claim" must be made to show this is true?

The claim that it wouldn't fall would be my first guess (and, yep, your claim is more likely than that one).
The pertinent fact here is that claims about simple, physical realities are so obvious (given the existence of the physical universe, of course) that this process can be rushed through in a microsecond. This causes us to fail to notice some of the steps, but let's try something difficult enough that we'd actually want to test it:

I claim that evolution is the cause of the origin of species.
No one can actually "prove" any scientific theory, so what do we do? Well, we look at the information and ask ourselves which explanation fits the data the best.
Those who have it out for evolution can't simply claim "there's this bit that seems unlikely" or "this little piece here hasn't been explained". Even assuming those statements are true, they are pointless unless these people can come up with a better way to account for the data.
The fact is that evolution is a far better fit for the data (and is therefore more likely to be true) than any alternative yet presented. The Young Earth Creationists often miss this point, and seem to think that, if they can show any weakness in evolution, that they don't have to validate their own proposition.
What most of them have right, however, is that they are at least offering a position. I've spoken to some who seem to think that they needn't even propose any means by which life could have originated. Why bother testing that, so long as we can show evolution to be "untrue", we win, right?
Not hardly. The best fit wins.

Same thing here.

I don't see any dishonor in making a provisional "my best guess" sort of statement, so long as it is identified as that up front. Indeed, that seems a far better way to test it for truth in a debate than simply refusing to put it out there for examination.

I am not opposed to the "my best guess" provisional statement PROVIDED that it is consistently applied by all concerned. However, in years of debate I have encountered VERY few supernaturalists willing to acknowledge that "god" is their "best guess".

I am aware of those statements of absolute certainty, and am really with you in your frustration there. It gives me a headache to constantly read notes from people who think they are helping me, but who can't understand the difference between what they personally believe and what they can establish in debate.
That said, I don't see why this has to be done equally. If theists are going to overstate their case. Well, hate to say it, but that's just going to make their case harder to defend later on. I don't see any reason why the other party suddenly has to make the same mistake.
Personally, I breathe easy when someone makes an absolute claim and lets me get away with a provisional statement. They have just agreed to "provide absolute proof or bust vs. give decent support with a get out of jail free card". Those are among the easiest of debates I've been in.

Perhaps we can agree that the position put forth by Christian religions does NOT indicate that "god is my best guess", but rather a claim of certainty that "god" exists.

The statement of personal faith made by a religious person is distinct from a claim in debate. Yes, many claim to be certain. I do not. But claims about personal certainty are not really relevant here in any case. The only things that are is claims about external reality.
Granted, most theists I've seen here don't seem to know the difference, but this doesn't mean that there isn't one.

[The Mad Haranguer]

Does a "judgment call" count as a "best guess"?

[The Mad Haranguer]

A final word on this subject.

Atheists, at least in this forum, generally reduce the question of Gods existence to a simple, yes or no and make your case based upon my understanding. Thats not debate.

Preceding any discussion about whether God exists, there must first be agreement on what the term means. It means what the theist, not the atheist, wants it to mean. If the atheist determines what "God" means, the theist is most likely to be obliged to say that God does not exist. But if I a theist says the substance of God is energy, how is the atheist to proceed? That being the case, God certainly does not act outside of nature as the atheist understands nature.

If the atheist asks, How do you know God is? and if the answer is "by way of apperception" (i.e., realized by a knowing that is beyond perception) and then proceeds to ask for evidence, the atheist is either ignorant of what apperception means or is just out to make an ass of himself. For such a theist, atheism is simply a hypothesis with no arguable points. In other words, atheism is irrelevant when not an amusing diversion.

[Crazy Ivan]

Atheists, at least in this forum, generally reduce the question of Gods existence to a simple, yes or no and make your case based upon my understanding. Thats not debate.

I find there is great care by atheists in this forum to ascertain exactly what the nature of the "god" in question is, in order to tell if there is a chance for meaningful debate.

Preceding any discussion about whether God exists, there must first be agreement on what the term means. It means what the theist, not the atheist, wants it to mean.

Kindly quote an instance where an atheist here demanded that "god" meant something in clear contrast to what the theist was arguing "god" to be.

If the atheist determines what "God" means, the theist is most likely to be obliged to say that God does not exist. But if I a theist says the substance of God is energy, how is the atheist to proceed? That being the case, God certainly does not act outside of nature as the atheist understands nature.

I have often witnessed the end of debate simply because it's acknowledged the theist's understanding of "god" is indistinguishable from something that can be described in the language of Science. So there is nothing to debate. It clearly displays a wish to be "religious" or "spiritual", or simply not "atheist", probably derived of peer pressure, without the actual beliefs that most theists relate to.

If the atheist asks, How do you know God is? and if the answer is "by way of apperception" (i.e., realized by a knowing that is beyond perception) and then proceeds to ask for evidence, the atheist is either ignorant of what apperception means or is just out to make an ass of himself.

It's pointless to ask for evidence of experience, and it's not something I've come across in this forum, despite your misplaced complaint. But if "experience" is all you have, there isn't much you have to offer in a debate forum. This should be obvious.

For such a theist, atheism is simply a hypothesis with no arguable points. In other words, atheism is irrelevant when not an amusing diversion.

"Atheism" is disbelief in theistic claims. The only "arguable points" concerned are those offered by theists, and how they're too inadequate to generate belief. Without even understanding what atheism is, you're hardly in a position to criticize.

[I AM ALL I AM]

... But if I a theist says the substance of God is energy, how is the atheist to proceed? ...

... "by way of apperception" (i.e., realized by a knowing that is beyond perception) ...

G'day The Mad Haranguer.

The substance of my physicality is energy. Does this mean that I am "God" to you ?

If not, please explain why, when I my physicality fits the description that you provide to re-present "God", that I am not "God" to you.

If something is perceived it can be known, if it can be known, then it can be considered a "knowing". How can something that is "beyond perception" be known if it cannot be perceived ?

Unless you have a different meaning attached to those words, it makes little to no sense what you have stated.

know-ing
(nng)
adj.
1. Possessing knowledge, information, or understanding. See Synonyms at intelligent.
2. Showing clever awareness and resourcefulness; shrewd.
3. Suggestive of secret or private knowledge: a knowing glance.
4. Deliberate; conscious: a knowing attempt to defraud.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/knowing


per-cep-tion
(pr-spshn)
n.
1. The process, act, or faculty of perceiving.
2. The effect or product of perceiving.
3. Psychology
a. Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory.
b. The neurological processes by which such recognition and interpretation are effected.
4.
a. Insight, intuition, or knowledge gained by perceiving.
b. The capacity for such insight.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/perception

[Jester]

Moderator Comment

Oh, how people hate it what their own ammo is used against them.

Both one liners (that don't contribute) and personal comments (particularly negative ones) are not allowed under the rules.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 114:

Atheists, at least in this forum, generally reduce the question of Gods existence to a simple, yes or no and make your case based upon my understanding. Thats not debate.

I challenge you to show you speak truth.

Preceding any discussion about whether God exists, there must first be agreement on what the term means. It means what the theist, not the atheist, wants it to mean.

Yes, where the claimant defines the terms. Sometimes though we point out inconsistencies, so definitions may become debatable.

If the atheist asks, How do you know God is? and if the answer is "by way of apperception" (i.e., realized by a knowing that is beyond perception)...

How one can know something, without perception, is beyond my fathoming.

I notice many theists use such nonsense phrases to support their unprovable beliefs.

and then proceeds to ask for evidence, the atheist is either ignorant of what apperception means or is just out to make an ass of himself.

More ad hom attacks?

Is it part of your religious training to insult those who disagree, or do you come by it through "apperception".

[Jester]

Does a "judgment call" count as a "best guess"?

Yes, in my understanding, but I suppose the final answer would be in the hands of the person making the claim.

[Flail]

The Mad Haranguer wrote:

Preceding any discussion about whether God exists, there must first be agreement on what the term means. It means what the theist, not the atheist, wants it to mean.

What does the term 'God' mean?
The Mad Haranguer wrote:

If the atheist asks, How do you know God is? and if the answer is "by way of apperception" (i.e., realized by a knowing that is beyond perception).

Kindly describe your 'apperception of 'God' with particularity.