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?

[Jester]

The point was that in almost all positive claims(X) "not X" is the inherent counterclaim. Until X is evidenced not X is the default.

If you take that position, then I have little debate with you on this topic.
I'd always considered this to be the case, and it wasn't until atheists began telling me that they don't make claims of non-existence that I began to argue this point.
So, though we'll definitely disagree on what constitutes evidence on some points (and over whether or not that's the best term to use), I completely agree on this point.

I see no reason to change views that I find to be the most likely case if my opponents admit openly that they can offer nothing better.

We can offer better explanations but why bother when your paradigm is totally based on supernatural speculation?

Why bother?
If it you have them, why not - particularly when they are requested?

What you are claiming as most likely has no evidence to suggest it is likely at all.

I'm not claiming anything about God on this thread. I've only been debating the matter of counterclaims and their position in debate.

Why should we have to make active alternative claims when your claims are so outside known science?

Yes, the counterclaim would have to fit the subject matter of the initial claim.
I don't know about "active", but "God doesn't exist" or "God is very unlikely" would work for me regarding that topic.

Creationism was rejected because a better explanation has been found

I agree, and I propose we do the same with other claims.

you must give a good reason and new evidence to show it would even be in competition with evolution as a valid explanation.

I agree in that I've already considered the matter. For those who have not previously agreed that evolution is better (though it is, in my opinion), this is not the place to start. We have to drag out all the reasons why it is better for each new debate - the same as in any other topic.

Each theory must be able to support itself without reference to other alternative theories(though they may be explaining the same things).

This is where you lose me. Every theory explains something, but none is perfect. So, is there some imaginary line we cross into self-support? What exactly does "support itself" mean, if not "be the most accurate explanation available"?

After hearing the definition and the case (and assuming I wanted to debate the matter), I would then make a statement against the existence of "schnorbs" and defend that statement.

Such a statement is not necessary if schnorbs have not been shown(by presenting evidence)to exist at all.

Of course it is - it would just be a very easy debate. I could present anything which was even flimsily supported and I'd be giving a better explanation.
The point is that a debate means that we're accepting the challenge to offer the better understanding of things. If not that, I don't see why I should be interested.

If we had to "disprove" every superstition in order to judge it's likelihood we would have situations where a theist simply makes one unevidenced statement after another and floods his post with religious dogma and then says "You can't prove it isn't so" or "The Bible tells me so".

In which case, all this theist has done is, exactly, nothing. Any aspect of debate can be abused by rude and unskilled debaters. That does not, however, mean that it is not a legitimate aspect of debate.
The need to support applies to the theist in your story as well, and avoiding a response by throwing out a new claim isn't support. When that is done to me, I inform my opponent that I'll be happy to move on to another claim once he/she has supported or retracted the original - then make my case against that.

It is not necessary to defeat each claim in detail if none of them are evidenced, they can be dismissed out of hand. That is one reason we have rule 5, to avoid argumentum by deluge of crap.

I don't see anything I've written in defense of breaking rule 5.
In any case, I've yet to see how challenging claims without telling the offenders or rule 5 that their claims are false has slowed them down any.

We haven't yet been able to find a means of testing String Theory. As such, there really isn't any evidence in support of it (in spite of how promising it currently looks to many scientists).

String Theory was developed because there was evidence that suggested the need for such a theory, not because someone wrote a book of fiction.

Whether or not you accept a parallel explanation about the origin of the God-concept, the point remains. We can't simply toss out a claim because it hasn't been tested.

They built a multi-billion accelerator at CERN to test these things(and others).

I am aware, but don't see that this relates to my point.

String Theory will stand or fall on it's own merits THEN it will be compared to other theories.

It has already been compared.
For a physics major, the need to compare this year, before the definitive results are back, is a necessary part of career choice. I advocate that these students study most closely the ideas they consider most likely to be true. Do you advocate something else?

String would not even be considered unless there was evidence to support it.

Its evidence is its explanatory power. Predictions have not yet been tested.
The concept of God, too, has explanatory power (though not in the field of science), but does not make scientific predictions.

They certainly didn't build it to produce evidence for counterclaims to religious claims.

I agree, but have no idea what this has to do with the conversation.

Thus far, I've received only reiterations of the claim from a group which insists that evidence must be provided in order to accept a claim.

That this position is perfectly logical and consistent with what we expect from every other claim(UFO, Werewolves, Ghosts, Hollow Earth)doesn't count when it comes to god claims?

In that I've never (not even when I was non-religious myself) used this type of logic with any of the above examples, no, it doesn't count here either. I don't believe in evidentialism; I never have. Is there any support for it?

I'm sorry, your god claims must meet a certain level of plausibility before they can even be considered in relation to other theories.

the idea that something must pass some kind of test before being considered strikes me personally as anti-intellectual. Certainly, it seems an odd position to take when debating the topic that one is refusing to consider.

Again, you are ignoring the inherent counterclaim to any positive statement, no alternative positive or negative claim is necessary to require that the original claim be supported by evidence.

I don't feel that I'm ignoring that claim. I feel that I am challenging it.

Again, why should we waste any time whatsoever on outlandish, unscientific claims of magic? That is all god claims are if unsupported by evidence.

Most obviously, your being here means that you've chosen to "waste your time" discussing the matter. So long as you have done so, it seems less a waste to be offering a reason not to believe than to simply lament the time you've "wasted" publicly.
Second, to equate the God-concept with magic betrays a misunderstanding of it. It would definitely be a waste of time to argue with me against something that I am not saying.
Third, I don't know if you feel that you can attach any objective value to your time, but this seems a poor argument in favor of evidentialism. If a lament about the wasting of time is, indeed, the best reason I have to accept it, I don't think I shall.

It is a useless excersize to argue over unevidenced claims other than to point out the lack of support.

If there were an evidenced competing claim, that would definitely be useful.

But it is not a requirement when one of the claims is totally unsupported by anything other than religious beliefs.

We can discuss the support for any particular belief elsewhere. The fact remains, however, that offering an unsupported claim of evidentialism in response to what you feel is another unsupported claim seems to me to gain you a draw at best.

You don't think the Flood happened because physical evidence convinced you of that(though you may try to support it by cherry picking some and ignoring, misinterpreting or denying everything else), it was a story in a book.

I don't remember sharing my position on the flood, but any claim I've rejected (barring unconscious motives) I have rejected do to support for an opposing claim as well as lack of evidence in its favor.

I've read many stories in books, many are fantastical tales of magic and science fiction(including L Ron Hubbard). But even in the "hardest" SF I do not accept claims made in the story unless they are supported by outside evidence(example: Faster Than Light travel=not possible).

I reject faster than light speed travel not so much on the grounds of a lack of evidence as on the grounds of evidence supporting the idea that it is impossible. I don't see why I should declare it impossible were it not for this.
All I claim here is that we should take the same approach to other topics.

Also, all the talk of unevidenced claims does incline me to point out that this has not yet been established of Christianity. In fact, there was a specific moderator ruling that established (for the purposes of this site) that the New Testament is non-conclusive evidence of the resurrection.

Are you laboring under the false impression that such a ruling changes reality.

The only "reality" it changes is the terms of the debate. That is an established position on this site, and it was specifically ruled to be against the rules to reject the New Testament as evidence without providing a specific case for doing so. Simply "challenging" doesn't cut it.
Essentially, if you feel the need to make statements in contradiction of the ruling, I'd expect a good argument. I've not heard yours to date, but, thus far, I've only heard the argument from personal incredulity in support of it.

It is only evidence that a religion claims that the resurrection happened, it says absolutely nothing about whether such a claim is true. Without real, supporting evidence the resurrection is not any more(or less)likely than any other religious claim unsupported by evidence and not even in the same category as scientific claims when it comes to veracity.

Yes, I understand that this is your position on the matter. Obviously, you are aware that I agree and may or may not be aware that I don't consider this to be support (and it is certainly not evidence). I'm not asking for any, however. I have no intention of debating that topic here.

[Flail]

Grumpy wrote:

The point was that in almost all positive claims(X) "not X" is the inherent counterclaim. Until X is evidenced not X is the default.

Jester responded:

If you take that position, then I have little debate with you on this topic.
I'd always considered this to be the case, and it wasn't until atheists began telling me that they don't make claims of non-existence that I began to argue this point.
So, though we'll definitely disagree on what constitutes evidence on some points (and over whether or not that's the best term to use), I completely agree on this point.

I have to disagree with Grumpy on this point. Although I generally agree that 'not x' is the implied counterclaim to a denial of 'x' regarding most debate topics, I do not find that is the case with postive claims that 'God' is an existent supernatural being. Without repeating myself too much, I contend that all claims as to the existence or non-existence of 'gods' are meaningless to debate until and unless we can define, describe, point to and analyze with verifiable evidence such a supernatural creature. Debating 'gods' is akin to debating 'schnorbs', as we have no discernable idea about what we are debating. So as to God claims, my position to 'X' is..."what is X, where is X, show me X, define X".

Jester wrote:

I agree in that I've already considered the matter. For those who have not previously agreed that evolution is better (though it is, in my opinion), this is not the place to start. We have to drag out all the reasons why it is better for each new debate - the same as in any other topic.

IMO, debating evolution is an entirely different 'ball game' than debating 'God'.
Evolution theory is evidentiary. We have scientific as well as anecdotal and direct evidence to the fact that things evolve. We can then debate cause and effect and draw all reasonable logical inferences from these initial factual premises even if some of them(the inferences) are not yet evidenced. God theory is concocted out of nothingness...is empty...has no verifiable evidence. A better comparison: consider a debate over the X claim that "intelligent life(human like life) exists elsewhere in the universe". Such a debate would be meaningful because it is evidential. We have verifiable evidence and existent defined entities for all the terms being debated. We know what human beings are, what intelligent life is, we know something of where and of what the universe consists and something of its expanse, we know the necessary building blocks for life forms, we have discovered these building blocks elsewhere in the universe; and it is from these that we can begin to debate our logical inferences.

Jester wrote:

After hearing the definition and the case (and assuming I wanted to debate the matter), I would then make a statement against the existence of "schnorbs" and defend that statement.

Grumpy responded:

Such a statement is not necessary if schnorbs have not been shown(by presenting evidence)to exist at all.

Jester wrote:

Of course it is - it would just be a very easy debate. I could present anything which was even flimsily supported and I'd be giving a better explanation.
The point is that a debate means that we're accepting the challenge to offer the better understanding of things. If not that, I don't see why I should be interested.

Of course I agree with Grumpy as to 'schnorb debates'. How could any meaningful debate proceed without evidence for the initial premise to support the definition of 'schnorbs' as well to their existence, characteristics and qualities? How is debating 'schnorbs' any different than debating 'gods'?
Jester, to me when you claim that God exists you are not debating a 'better understanding of things', but rather you are staking a positive truth claim to an existent supernatural being and must therefore define, describe, point to and characterize that to which you are pointing with credible verifiable evidence. Otherwise we can have no meaningful debate in the first instance. There is nothing from which to proceed but your empty initial claim. How do you expect me to counter emptiness; how do you expect me to challenge with evidence something that has no evidence in the first place?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 230:

Jester, since you have many folks far more capable than I debating you, I'll bow out of the conversation at least for now, retracting any unanswered or unsupported statements. I 'preciate your patience and thoughtful approach and have a better 'preciation of your position.

[Jester]

Perhaps we have devolved into semantics. I mean to say that a definition is evidence of itself, and defining 'schnorbs' without an honest description of to what it refers is meaningless and it's very definition is the evidence that this is so.

I thought your description was clear enough - I didn't see any dishonesty in it, in that you never claimed to believe in them. It seemed perfectly fine as a definition, but not evidence that such a thing exists.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Either way, if both sides agree that nothing better has been offered, I feel confident in my appraisal here.

If one side has offered nothing, there is nothing to counter.

If you do not understand the claim, then it would be difficult to counter.
I've never had any difficulty countering someone who doesn't offer support. That makes debate all the easier.

I don't suppose anyone is required to do anything (save follow the rules of the forum). I've not insisted as much here. I've only pointed out that failing to answer a question will make building a case regarding that question impossible. There is nothing here, expressly or implied, that amounts to requiring anything from an individual.

Agreed, but only so far as the question posits a rational initial premise. Here is a question with such a premise that is often unanswered by theists:
"How do you believe in the 'God of the Bible' without verifiable evidence to support your belief?" Failing to answer this question 'makes building a case regarding that question impossible.'

I completely agree that theists should respond to that question - as well as the claims implicit in it. I've never argued otherwise.
I don't see, however, that this releases anyone who wishes to build a case against theism from the same responsibility.

Until and unless verifiable evidence is produced to define and verify the existence of any supernatural being(s), I will remain neutral while I search and wait.

I have never argued that you shouldn't be in debate. Yes, I've argued about the possibility or practicality of that elsewhere - but that is a different matter.
What I have argued here is not that you should take any particular position, but that, if you aren't taking a position, then you aren't building a case.
If you don't wish to build a case, you are not required, but I don't see why I should be expected to change my position based on an atheists lack of building a case.

I'm not sure I see the point of this. I'm certainly not interested in debating "schnorb", and imagine that you aren't either - save to draw parallels to the debate over the God...

This is precisely my point. Debating the actual existence of 'gods' is the same as debating the actual existence of 'schnorbs'. The verifiable evidence for 'schnorbs' is the same as for 'gods'.

The part of my comment cut above makes the point that none of my intellectual reasons for belief in God can be applied to your definition of "schnorbs". You are free to claim otherwise, as you have here. But, if you wish to convince me to involve myself in a lengthy hypothetical debate, I will need to feel that you understand the difference between the reasoning surrounding these positions.

Until and unless we have something to define, and verifiable evidence upon which to draw logical inferences, meaningful debate as to actual existence is impossible.

We definitely have a definition for God.
We definitely have evidence, whether or not you personally consider it verified, I think, is irrelevant to how convincing this argument will be to someone who doesn't accept your position on that point.
I would also say that meaningful debate requires support, however, rather than evidence (though evidence is one form of support).

[Jester]

From Post 230:

Jester, since you have many folks far more capable than I debating you, I'll bow out of the conversation at least for now, retracting any unanswered or unsupported statements. I 'preciate your patience and thoughtful approach and have a better 'preciation of your position.

Thanks for the heads up and the kind words.
I'll see you around, I'm sure.

Happy postin' till then.

[Jester]

Jester, again you presume that discussion or debate on the issue of a god's existence is limited to arguing for or against,

I don't think so.
My basic position is that someone not making a claim on the topic of God's existence is not making a case on that topic. If you are not interested in it personally, and wish instead to discuss tangential matters, I have no argument against that.

Your presumption, as I have gathered, is that the building of such a case does not constitute debate.

It is that the building of such a case does not constitute debating God's existence. If you are disinterested in that topic, then this should not affect you; it was a claim only meant for those who were interested in debating whether or not God exists.

Regardless of all else, I just want you to acknowledge that presenting a case that a claim has not been objectively supported, or that BY ITSELF it does not warrant any more belief than any other alternative (which in the absence of objective evidence do not even have to be offered), does in fact constitute debate, and is perfectly legitimate in this forum.

Gladly. I completely agree, and do acknowledge this. It is debate, and I only meant to say that it is not debating the original claim. Apologies for anything I wrote which implied that my comments extended so far as to contradict that.

I have clearly substantiated my argument through Merriam definitions of "debate" which you have not disputed.

I remember agreeing with your definition, and have no argument other than the provisos listed here.

Despite that, you have not withdrawn previous claims that challenging a claim on its own merits, building a case that there is no reason to accept a claim as true, as opposed to building a case that it is false, does not constitute debate.

I agree that it is debate. I do not agree that it is debating the claim being made.

While I appreciate your your definition of the term "debate", I would like a definition of the phrase "on its own merits". I understand that you wish to question the claim that something is true without addressing the idea that a claim is false. There are a few points of disagreement here, the main being that I am not aware of any claim being shown true "on it's own merits".
More specifically, how much support must a claim have before it is shown to be true on its own - not needing us to think at all about competing claims?

I expect you to do the honorable thing, and admit you were completely out of line, stating this approach does not belong in the forum.

I hope that my comments here left you feeling better. I am genuinely sorry if I made you feel that I was demanding more than I have stated here. I am also apologetic if you feel insulted by any tone I have placed in my posts.


As to the points I have claimed in this particular post, I do continue to believe them, and feel that my challenges which accompany them have not been met. Specifically:

The position that a claim should not be accepted without evidence is known as evidentialism. I personally believe it to be flawed, and have requested support for it - as it is central to the idea that such challenges constitute debating the claims being challenged.
Also, I would like some support of the idea that a claim can be established without a need to compare it to competing ideas.
I would also like a response to my position that our beliefs, by their very nature, exclude us from certain debates. He who does not believe in vampires cannot honestly engage in debate about where vampires live, and he who does not believe in drawing a conclusion about God's existence cannot debate that matter.

[Jester]

I like the shortness here, so I kept it separate (but feel free to combine):

In a nutshell:

Person A states a debatable question concerning the merits of the claim X. As in "is X true or false?"

Person B will argue why it's true.
Person C will argue why it's false.
Person D will argue how person B's arguments are fallacious and do not support the position that X is true, thus no belief in the truth of the claim based on those arguments is warranted.

All I want is an acknowledgement that person D is engaged in debate and discussion concerning X, which can be "God exists". Simple.

Perhaps we differ on what is meant by "engaged", but I don't feel that I can give that acknowledgment.
Person D is not building a case that the claim is true or false. Her comments may be very helpful to person C, but she is not driving toward a conclusion regarding the topic. Her case amounts to "B's case isn't as strong as B says it is". Even if that is true, her comments are not an answer to the question "is claim X true?".
I don't see anything wrong with that unless person D starts to argue that she is debating the question "Is claim X true". So long as she doesn't, I'm fine with her position.

This is my basic position. I am open to changing it if and when others address my reasons for holding it and answer my challenges regarding the position you are taking on this topic.

[Jester]

Jester, again you presume that discussion or debate on the issue of a god's existence is limited to arguing for or against, as opposed to also arguing why someone's "for" or "against" arguments are inadequate or fallacious, which does NOT imply the opposite position is held. I repeat that this is NOT your prerogative.

Not intending to 'pile on' Jester,

I think I'm about done digging myself out (for this round) - but thanks for the consideration. I'm very pleased with your patience and civility in general.

but this has been my point as well.

I don't claim to be an expert, but didn't previously think you and Crazy Ivan were making the same point.
In any case, I addressed his in my last post (just above) and gave my thoughts about definitions earlier, so skipping to....

Jester, I think, contends that my position is not honorable debate because I do not offer an alternative claim.

I don't remember claiming anything about honor. I do remember Joey using the term, but I don't think I even repeated it back to him. Perhaps I did, but I definitely didn't claim that anyone was being dishonorable.
I wasn't accusing anyone of dishonorable debate. I was, however, claiming that one is simply not debating a point unless one is taking a position on that point.

I agree with CIvan that it is not Jester's perogative to demand alternative claims or to imply that I hold a position which I have never claimed...ie that 'god' doesn't exist.

I didn't mean to imply that you hold that position at all. I meant only to claim that, if you have no position on God's existence, then you will not be able to debate the question of God's existence. If it was not your intent to debate that question, then there is nothing more I really had to say on the matter.

I don't claim that 'god' does not exist. I have absolutely no debatable idea of what a 'god' would be, let alone whether 'one' exists somewhere...and neither does Jester...IMO.

Having insisted on your right to make your own claims, and to correct implications you see to the contrary, please be careful about implying what I do or don't have ideas about. I also value my right to make my own claims.

[Crazy Ivan]

My basic position is that someone not making a claim on the topic of God's existence is not making a case on that topic. If you are not interested in it personally, and wish instead to discuss tangential matters, I have no argument against that.

What constitutes a "tangential matter" is opinion. Arguing against the inability to support a claim of god's existence is making a case on the topic of god's existence. Specifically, a case that one has been unable to support a claim of god's existence.

It is that the building of such a case does not constitute debating God's existence. If you are disinterested in that topic, then this should not affect you; it was a claim only meant for those who were interested in debating whether or not God exists.

It isn't your prerogative to separate the inability to support a claim of god's existence from the topic of god's existence. It really boils down to this.

Gladly. I completely agree, and do acknowledge this. It is debate, and I only meant to say that it is not debating the original claim. Apologies for anything I wrote which implied that my comments extended so far as to contradict that.

If one is making a case as to how the original claim cannot be supported as true, by means of addressing the arguments that presume as much, how is that not debating the original claim? Your position is untenable as anything more than opinion.

While I appreciate your your definition of the term "debate", I would like a definition of the phrase "on its own merits". I understand that you wish to question the claim that something is true without addressing the idea that a claim is false. There are a few points of disagreement here, the main being that I am not aware of any claim being shown true "on it's own merits".
More specifically, how much support must a claim have before it is shown to be true on its own - not needing us to think at all about competing claims?

The competing claim, and whether or not it warrants belief, is just a natural consequence of the ability or inability to support the original claim. It need not be addressed at all since it boils down to how one supports the original claim. I personally leave the competing claim to the reader's discretion.

The position that a claim should not be accepted without evidence is known as evidentialism. I personally believe it to be flawed, and have requested support for it - as it is central to the idea that such challenges constitute debating the claims being challenged.

Again, I feel compelled not to presume the readers must require evidence before accepting a claim. Those that do might benefit from my efforts. Those that don't might not benefit much from debate in the first place.

Also, I would like some support of the idea that a claim can be established without a need to compare it to competing ideas.

"Established" as what? I don't presume the inability to support a claim as true establishes it as false. It just establishes it as unsupported. Some readers trust supported claims, others not so much. My efforts are aimed to benefit those that trust supported claims.

I would also like a response to my position that our beliefs, by their very nature, exclude us from certain debates. He who does not believe in vampires cannot honestly engage in debate about where vampires live

So, as a non-believer in real vampires, I cannot argue to the inadequate support of a claim that vampires live in glass houses? Your position demands that concept indulgence is unacceptable in debate. I honestly find that ludicrous.

and he who does not believe in drawing a conclusion about God's existence cannot debate that matter.

I believe in drawing conclusions about a god's existence. I also believe no one is obligated to commit to their own conclusions, in order to debate the validity of claims by someone else.

Perhaps we differ on what is meant by "engaged", but I don't feel that I can give that acknowledgment.
Person D is not building a case that the claim is true or false.

I didn't say that was the case. I never did. The contention is that debate on the topic, or on the question, is not limited to "building a case that the claim is true or false". That is your opinion.

Her comments may be very helpful to person C, but she is not driving toward a conclusion regarding the topic.

No member is obligated to manifest a personal "driving toward a conclusion". Helping others drive towards their own conclusions, by challenging the presumed support of a claim, also constitutes debate on the topic.

Her case amounts to "B's case isn't as strong as B says it is". Even if that is true, her comments are not an answer to the question "is claim X true?".

Those comments are meant to facilitate the reader's own "driving toward a conclusion".

I don't see anything wrong with that unless person D starts to argue that she is debating the question "Is claim X true". So long as she doesn't, I'm fine with her position.

Again, it isn't your prerogative to narrow the scope of what constitutes "debate on the question", to a whimsical and personal point, where making a case of how arguments that presume to support the claim as true, no longer apply to the "topic", and are just "tangential". Do you or do you not acknowledge this limitation is a personal opinion you have?

[Flail]

Flail wrote:

Perhaps we have devolved into semantics. I mean to say that a definition is evidence of itself, and defining 'schnorbs' without an honest description of to what it refers is meaningless and it's very definition is the evidence that this is so.

Jester responded:

I thought your description was clear enough - I didn't see any dishonesty in it, in that you never claimed to believe in them. It seemed perfectly fine as a definition, but not evidence that such a thing exists.

The very definition of 'schnorbs' as with all the definitions of the myriad proposed 'gods' is evidence that none of these entities subsist of credible,verifiable evidence for existence. Without a viable definition and at least some evidence tending to objectify and verify these entities(schnorbs or gods), debating their actual existence or non-existence is meaningless. This is my position, my counterclaim, if you will. I have repeatedly made my case for it, your appraisal that I have taken no position and made no counter notwithstanding.
Jester wrote:

Perhaps, perhaps not. Either way, if both sides agree that nothing better has been offered, I feel confident in my appraisal here.

Flail responded:

If one side has offered nothing, there is nothing to counter.

Jester responded:

If you do not understand the claim, then it would be difficult to counter.
I've never had any difficulty countering someone who doesn't offer support. That makes debate all the easier.

I do understand the claim, but take the position that any claim posited without a viable definition that is verified and objectified with credible evidence is meaningless to debate as to truth claims of actual existence or non-existence.
Flail wrote:

Until and unless verifiable evidence is produced to define and verify the existence of any supernatural being(s), I will remain neutral while I search and wait.

Jester responded:

I have never argued that you shouldn't be in debate. Yes, I've argued about the possibility or practicality of that elsewhere - but that is a different matter.
What I have argued here is not that you should take any particular position, but that, if you aren't taking a position, then you aren't building a case.
If you don't wish to build a case, you are not required, but I don't see why I should be expected to change my position based on an atheists lack of building a case.

I am not an atheist. I agree that if an atheist posits a claim that a 'god' does not exist, that they should be required to produce a viable definition of 'gods' and verifiable, credible evidence to support their truth claim that such beings do not exist. Debating theists or atheists as to such 'god' truth claims is meaningless. In fact, debating absolute truth claims as to the existence or non-existence of any entity for which there is no viable definition and no credible evidence would be meaningless unless the defined initial premise was couched as hypothesis or theory.