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?

[Flail]

Flail wrote:

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.

Jester responded:

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).

Interesting points here. I respond by re-stating my position that any definitions for the myriad proposed 'gods' are hypothetical only, as their various 'existences' are supported by subjective claims and hearsay only. Subjective claims of experience and hearsay cannot, by themselves, be characterized as verifiable, credible evidence of the actual existence of anything except the claim itself. I have supplied a definition of 'schnorbs' previously(invisible, undetectable, supernatural beings that exist within the interiors of new mercedes benz automobiles and which give the first owners thereof a feeling of superiority and which some claim emit a distinct aroma). You can supply a definition of 'god'(and most anyone can supply a differing definition). My defined 'schnorb' and your defined 'god' can be debated as hypothetical beings, but debating claims as to their actual existence or non-existence is meaningless without a viable definition and verifiable evidence to support the initial claim. We can and do debate such truth claims, but I contend that doing so is a meaningless endeavor.

[Flail]

Flail wrote:

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.

Jester responded:

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.

Perhaps I could have stated it better, but I was attempting to re-state my point that without credible, verifiable evidence no one has any viable, meaningful, supportable idea, (including me, including you) of what we are debating when it comes to truth claims for the existence or non-existence of 'gods' or 'schnorbs'.

[Jester]

If I haven't said it already, I love the name.

Okay, getting to points (and trimming a bit).

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.

This comment doesn't yet convince me. I don't claim to have final authority on the matter, of course, but I don't see that this is any less my "prerogative" than it is your prerogative to insist that we combine such things. They are separated in traditional debate. Whether or not we should include them here can be discussed, but it is not a matter of my demanding any kind of exclusive rights.

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.

I would like support for this.
I don't see that the competing claim is simply what is left after the initial claim is somehow discredited. If you wish to claim that this is the case, I feel that it should be outlined how thoroughly the discrediting should be and the basic standards by which that is measured. In addition, those systems should be supported.
I propose instead that we do what we do in all other areas of life, we accept that there is no such thing as establishing anything absolutely, and try to determine which position is more likely to be true. There may be indeed unanswered questions and difficulties with the belief that evolution causes the origin of species, but I don't feel that I should reject it because I also realize that there are bigger inconsistencies with not accepting it.

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.

This, however, seems to be the implication that evidentialism is the only way to benefit from debate without providing any support for such a position. Whether or not you accept that others might not agree, it is at the heart of your argument, and should be supported.
My first trouble with this position is that it fails on its own terms - I don't see any evidence for it. More significantly (to me), it leaves one in the position of "not accepting" the existence of the physical universe, as that has not been evidenced.
It seems far more reasonable that, as well as looking for evidence works in the physical world (assuming it is there, of course), it doesn't work as well when applied absolutely.

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.

I don't know that I insisted at all upon "concept indulgence". Perhaps a better analogy is alien life:
I don't claim to know if non-terrestrial life exists. While I can debate specific claims about it (i.e. Aliens landed last night in downtown London), my comments to that end really aren't addressing the overall question about alien life. I really don't have much to say about that.
This isn't a matter of indulging in a concept, it is accepting the reality that all viewpoints will cut us out of certain discussions. Specifically, the view that there is no answer to a question (such as my position on alien life) will cut one out of a debate over the answer to that question.
By all means, I could argue that it is a silly debate - and try to recruit others to give up the issue, if I wished to do so. All I have claimed is that this is a tangential issue - not really saying anything about whether or not there really are aliens out there.

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.

I am glad for the former - I definitely believe that it is important.
Aside from what has already been said - I see no valid reason why a person would refuse to commit to his or her own conclusions on a topic while trying to debate that topic.
I suppose I could refuse to commit to any claim of belief in God's existence while arguing against the points made by atheists and demanding that any who make claims to the contrary support that claim, but I've always felt that it would be seen as (and probably be) more out of fear of being challenged than having any logical reason for doing so.
But, in the event that I am simply not seeing it, is there any legitimate reason why I might do this?

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.

This does make things a bit more clear (though I should mention that I did note it before writing any of the above).
My issue is that I simply see no value in comments that don't build such a case. If they contribute to someone else's case, excellent. Those who are actually claiming that God does not exist, however, are growing rare around this site.
It seems to me that there are two options:
1. Such individuals are not really interested in whether or not the claim is true or false, or
2. they are interested, and wish to imply that the claim is false without building a case to that end.
Those who have (in the past) claimed the former position, argue that "non-acceptance" is different from uncertainty or belief in the falsehood of the claim. That is a claim which I have not yet seem supported. Also, they seem unable to support the idea that we should divorce the question of "should we accept?" from the question "is this likely to be true".
Those who have claimed the latter seem to me to be more interested in winning a debate than understanding what is true.
If you feel that you take a third option, feel free to claim and support it. Until that time, however, I do indeed see useful debate as being over whether a claim is more likely to be true or false.

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

I don't imagine that we have many readers, save for those participating. So, as someone who could represent up to 50% of the readers in this interchange of our discussion (and perhaps the only one who doesn't already hold your position), I would point out that, before I accept any conclusion based on a challenge of its opposite, I prefer to think critically about the conclusion (i.e. does "God doesn't exist", or "I should reject the idea that God exists" make any more sense than "God exists"?).
I don't see anything wrong with my desire to examine a claim before accepting it, nor have I claimed that anyone need make these kinds of claims. All I have tried to communicate is that attempting to "facilitate" my movement toward a conclusion without at all addressing my desire to examine it first is incomplete.
The implication seems to be either:
1. that there is no reason to think on these things, which may not be meant at all this way, but comes across as anti-intellectual, or
2. that there is simply no case to be made for them, which strikes me as a good reason to reject them.

[Crazy Ivan]

This comment doesn't yet convince me. I don't claim to have final authority on the matter, of course, but I don't see that this is any less my "prerogative" than it is your prerogative to insist that we combine such things. They are separated in traditional debate. Whether or not we should include them here can be discussed, but it is not a matter of my demanding any kind of exclusive rights.

Consider the following... the topic being debated is "the existence of god(s)", specifically the claim "god exists" is being considered as to whether or not it is true. One of the debaters (A) is arguing why the claim should be accepted as true, while another (B) is arguing the opposite. Part of the debate consists of B refuting the arguments of A. Now consider the precise instance when B is doing just that, refuting one of A's arguments, as opposed to offering one of his own. If at this instance B is debating the topic, then anyone else doing the same is also debating the topic.

I would like support for this.
I don't see that the competing claim is simply what is left after the initial claim is somehow discredited.

I did mention ability or inability to support the claim. Discredit is just one possibility. The person that makes a claim is required to support it. Quite logically, failure to support the claim automatically makes the competing just as likely. Personally, I acknowledge the competing claim concerning a god's existence just as untenable, so I don't argue for it.

This, however, seems to be the implication that evidentialism is the only way to benefit from debate without providing any support for such a position. Whether or not you accept that others might not agree, it is at the heart of your argument, and should be supported.

Evidence in support of claims is required under forum rules for a simple reason. To distinguish it from discussion. The benefit of debate is to force a logical conclusion that applies objectively to every debater. Not everyone appreciates that quality of debate.

My first trouble with this position is that it fails on its own terms - I don't see any evidence for it. More significantly (to me), it leaves one in the position of "not accepting" the existence of the physical universe, as that has not been evidenced.

"Not accepting" as what? Not as true or false, only as evidenced. Where is the trouble? Do you need to accept the existence of the physical universe as evidenced? I don't.

I don't know that I insisted at all upon "concept indulgence". Perhaps a better analogy is alien life:
I don't claim to know if non-terrestrial life exists. While I can debate specific claims about it (i.e. Aliens landed last night in downtown London), my comments to that end really aren't addressing the overall question about alien life. I really don't have much to say about that.
This isn't a matter of indulging in a concept, it is accepting the reality that all viewpoints will cut us out of certain discussions. Specifically, the view that there is no answer to a question (such as my position on alien life) will cut one out of a debate over the answer to that question.
By all means, I could argue that it is a silly debate - and try to recruit others to give up the issue, if I wished to do so. All I have claimed is that this is a tangential issue - not really saying anything about whether or not there really are aliens out there.

Notice the use of the expression "not really saying". This is indicative that something is actually said, and it is only your opinion that it doesn't amount to much. Suppose there was an initial question "do aliens exist?". Someone said "yes", arguing he saw an alien. The claim can be accepted at face value, but as far as debate is concerned, evidence is required. Upon failure to support the claim, no one will be more oriented towards the possibility that aliens exist. I don't regard that as "tangential" at all. I think it speaks directly to the issue of the existence of aliens. I can settle for just having an opinion on this matter, but it seems to me you're the one refusing to acknowledge it as such, in which case you're the one who must support that position, that it is just "tangential", and not on topic enough to be considered... on topic.

Aside from what has already been said - I see no valid reason why a person would refuse to commit to his or her own conclusions on a topic while trying to debate that topic.

I think you just refuse to acknowledge the nature of debate. If you consider debate limited regarding certain matters, then that's just... tough. This forum is a debate forum. Commitment to an non-evidenced personal conclusion during debate is just admitting to a bias.

My issue is that I simply see no value in comments that don't build such a case. If they contribute to someone else's case, excellent.

I'm sorry you don't see the value in showing a claim is unsupported, for the benefit of those that might still be uncertain about it.

Those who are actually claiming that God does not exist, however, are growing rare around this site.

Good. That position is just as "theistic" and untenable in debate.

It seems to me that there are two options:
1. Such individuals are not really interested in whether or not the claim is true or false

I don't identify myself with that option.

2. they are interested, and wish to imply that the claim is false without building a case to that end.

Nor with that one.

If you feel that you take a third option, feel free to claim and support it. Until that time, however, I do indeed see useful debate as being over whether a claim is more likely to be true or false.

I am interested and simply wish to show the claim cannot be shown true. There is a multitude of potential benefits of not believing a god-claim is true. Not finding a certain god-claim true would prevent stoning in a god's name, for instance. I find considerable value in that option. Showing the claim not true has the same practical benefit of showing it false, but that is besides the scope of debate.

All I have tried to communicate is that attempting to "facilitate" my movement toward a conclusion without at all addressing my desire to examine it first is incomplete.
The implication seems to be either:
1. that there is no reason to think on these things, which may not be meant at all this way, but comes across as anti-intellectual, or
2. that there is simply no case to be made for them, which strikes me as a good reason to reject them.

Well, opinion noted.

[Flail]

Jester wrote:

I propose instead that we do what we do in all other areas of life, we accept that there is no such thing as establishing anything absolutely, and try to determine which position is more likely to be true. There may be indeed unanswered questions and difficulties with the belief that evolution causes the origin of species, but I don't feel that I should reject it because I also realize that there are bigger inconsistencies with not accepting it.

But as to 'Gods', there isn't anything at all similar in everyday life. Similarities can only be found in such things as Santa, Cookie Monsters, Tooth Fairies, Easter Bunnies, Unicorns and 'Scnorbs', all of which by definition and common understanding are mythical and harmless. 'Gods' are a serious matter however, wherein we judge, condemn, discriminate and separate ourselves from each other. I propose that we should demand verifiable evidence before we adopt beliefs in supernatural beings that cause us to become like superstitious aboriginals dancing around the campfire.

[Grumpy]

Jester

I suppose I could refuse to commit to any claim of belief in God's existence while arguing against the points made by atheists and demanding that any who make claims to the contrary support that claim, but I've always felt that it would be seen as (and probably be) more out of fear of being challenged than having any logical reason for doing so.

If an atheist claimed there were no gods and there could be no possibility of a god as a positive statement you would be right to challenge that claim and demand support without claiming gods exist, that a particular god exists or that the concept of god was even viable or reasonable. If said atheist could not support those statements why bother to offer alternatives or defend a claim that god exists when you have not made those claims. And if the atheist refuses to produce any evidence until you make a claim you do not support it is not because you do not care or wish to get to the truth that you protest, it is the dishonest tactic of him constructing a strawman argument for you to adopt, trying to get you to make an equally unsupportable argument.

Grumpy

[Zzyzx]

.

if the atheist refuses to produce any evidence until you make a claim you do not support it is not because you do not care or wish to get to the truth that you protest, it is the dishonest tactic of him constructing a strawman argument for you to adopt, trying to get you to make an equally unsupportable argument.

This is an excellent summation of the "argument" requiring alternative position.

[Jester]

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.

It is not a claim on the topic of does God exist, but the topic of is Gods existence or non-existence meaningful.
Also, I note that you move from claiming that a definition is evidence for existence or non-existence, then move from requiring a definition and evidence, why mention the latter if the former is evidence as you claim here?
Or, more to the point, how is a definition evidence? You have stated this position several times, but have not yet given me a reason to believe that it is true.

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.

I have absolutely no objection. In fact, this seems almost exactly my position. Ive been arguing that the group in question hasnt been debating the existence or non-existence of God. If you claim that your position is that it is meaningless to do so, that is certainly within your rights, but seems to be an agreement that you do not debate the existence of God.

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.

Very well, I will be careful not to refer to you as an atheist. I also note that you seem again to claim that you do not debate the matter of Gods existence.
As I am interested in debating it myself, I dont see why I should be expected to change my opinion on that topic based on a lack of a case being made for any other position on it.

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).

Interesting points here. I respond by re-stating my position that any definitions for the myriad proposed 'gods' are hypothetical only, as their various 'existences' are supported by subjective claims and hearsay only. Subjective claims of experience and hearsay cannot, by themselves, be characterized as verifiable, credible evidence of the actual existence of anything except the claim itself.

Im aware of this position, and have debated with it elsewhere, but dont think it is a good idea to get into it here.

My defined 'schnorb' and your defined 'god' can be debated as hypothetical beings, but debating claims as to their actual existence or non-existence is meaningless without a viable definition and verifiable evidence to support the initial claim. We can and do debate such truth claims, but I contend that doing so is a meaningless endeavor.

Is this to say that you personally debate these claims " or simply that others do so?
If the former, what case have you made that Gods existence is true or false? How have you supported that position?
If the latter, then I dont see that we are in disagreement.

Let me write what I read in your argument above as a syllogism:
Premise 1: There is no evidence for Gods existence
Premise 2: One cant make a case without evidence
Premise 3: It is meaningless to debate without making a case
Conclusion: Debating God is meaningless.

I find the logic here completely sound. The trouble I have is twofold.
First, I disagree with both Premise 1 and Premise 2. Premise 1 has never been established in spite of the boldness some have in claims to the contrary, and Premise 2 conflates evidence and support.
Second, Premise 3 is almost exactly my position in this debate. I see very little value in consistently attempting to debate a point without making a case on that point.

[Jester]

Consider the following... the topic being debated is "the existence of god(s)", specifically the claim "god exists" is being considered as to whether or not it is true. One of the debaters (A) is arguing why the claim should be accepted as true, while another (B) is arguing the opposite. Part of the debate consists of B refuting the arguments of A. Now consider the precise instance when B is doing just that, refuting one of A's arguments, as opposed to offering one of his own. If at this instance B is debating the topic, then anyone else doing the same is also debating the topic.

I dont know, and am unconcerned with, whether Ill be able to convince a majority about the semantics of debating the topic here, but that does not seem to me to address my issue. Rather, it seems to argue that a person who tries to steal a basketball is playing the sport even if he never dribbles, passes, or shoots. Is that technically true? Possibly. Does it ever mean that I should bet on him? No.
Likewise in debate " I dont see that anyone who has not made a case on topic has given me good reason to abandon my own position.

I would like support for this.
I don't see that the competing claim is simply what is left after the initial claim is somehow discredited.

I did mention ability or inability to support the claim. Discredit is just one possibility. The person that makes a claim is required to support it. Quite logically, failure to support the claim automatically makes the competing just as likely. Personally, I acknowledge the competing claim concerning a god's existence just as untenable, so I don't argue for it.

This seems to fit precisely with my position. You seem to be clearly taking the position that the claim that God exists and the claim that he does not are equally supported (or equally unsupported). How, then are your comments on a debate over which of these positions are more likely to be true making a case at all on the topic?
Yes, you may successfully prevent one side or the other from scoring " most from your position seem much more interested in preventing theists from scoring than atheists " but I dont see that Id say that this position is of any value when I finally sit down and ask myself which case is actually more likely. At that point, Im going to either side with exists or doesnt exist. Perhaps because Ive actually seen attempts at a case made for the former, and none for the latter, I currently side with exists.

Evidence in support of claims is required under forum rules for a simple reason. To distinguish it from discussion. The benefit of debate is to force a logical conclusion that applies objectively to every debater. Not everyone appreciates that quality of debate.

There is a difference between support and evidence, the import of which is significant here. Arguments from logic are valid reasons to accept a belief that do not bring new evidence to the table. There are commonly accepted premises between members " even from vastly different theological positions. There is a great deal that can be discussed via such things.
If that is accepted, and no implication is made that non-acceptance should not be supported as a valid conclusion before acceptance of it as legitimate, then I would agree.

My first trouble with this position is that it fails on its own terms - I don't see any evidence for it. More significantly (to me), it leaves one in the position of "not accepting" the existence of the physical universe, as that has not been evidenced.

"Not accepting" as what? Not as true or false, only as evidenced. Where is the trouble? Do you need to accept the existence of the physical universe as evidenced? I don't.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I dont expect that you are as quick to behave, speak, or post as if God does indeed exist as you are to act as if the physical universe exists. If this is true, and you believe that both are not evidenced, is there a reason why you accept one and not the other? Can this reason be defended?
To put it differently, if you feel a greater need to rely on the reality of the physical world in your arguments than you do to make a claim regarding the existence of God, then why be decisive about one matter and not the other?

Notice the use of the expression "not really saying". This is indicative that something is actually said, and it is only your opinion that it doesn't amount to much. Suppose there was an initial question "do aliens exist?". Someone said "yes", arguing he saw an alien. The claim can be accepted at face value, but as far as debate is concerned, evidence is required. Upon failure to support the claim, no one will be more oriented towards the possibility that aliens exist. I don't regard that as "tangential" at all. I think it speaks directly to the issue of the existence of aliens.

I disagree. I feel that the man claiming to have seen an alien is indeed saying something " whether or not I think hes saying something that is actually true.
I dont otherwise see how no one becoming more or less oriented to a position than they already were is really doing much on the issue " but, even given that it is, I still disagree.
If I were seeking to make people less oriented to believing in aliens by refuting this mans positions " well, whether I admitted it or not, Id be attempting to coerce people toward the direction of believing that they do not exist. That feels a bit inconsistent to me " better that I either admit that Im arguing in favor of no aliens, specify clearly that Im arguing only against a certain theory of aliens, or argue equally strongly against those who feel aliens dont exist in the universe.
Ive not yet seen those in support of the non-acceptance position take any of these routes.

I can settle for just having an opinion on this matter, but it seems to me you're the one refusing to acknowledge it as such, in which case you're the one who must support that position, that it is just "tangential", and not on topic enough to be considered... on topic.

If you are taking a sort of non-acceptance position on this topic, as well as that of Gods existence, then I dont feel that we have a debate. If you claim directly that any idea that the idea of your being on topic is simply your opinion, and is not at all meant as a claim about reality, then Im unsure why we are having this conversation. Are you trying to convince me that your subjective opinion is correct? If so, why? If not, why not allow me what you believe to be my own opinion?

Aside from what has already been said - I see no valid reason why a person would refuse to commit to his or her own conclusions on a topic while trying to debate that topic.

I think you just refuse to acknowledge the nature of debate. If you consider debate limited regarding certain matters, then that's just... tough. This forum is a debate forum. Commitment to an non-evidenced personal conclusion during debate is just admitting to a bias.

Please try to avoid telling me about my personal character " I dont mind questions about it (Ive asked you as much above), but simply telling me that I just refuse to acknowledge something does not incline me to feel that you have understood my points.
Getting to your actual comments, I agree that I feel that each debate should be limited regarding certain matters. As this is a staple of formal debate (though not a rule here), I dont feel that it makes sense to claim that my perspective is simply my personal misunderstanding of debate. I like debates to cover a specific topic, and not get sidetracked with claims about whether or not the topic question is worth asking. I assume that anyone who isnt interested in the topic question will go to other topics " that is certainly what I do.
As such, I agree that I feel that there should be certain limitations to a debate. I dont agree that limiting the scope in a debate is inherently a bad thing, or that we have shown that this particular limitation should be jettisoned.

My issue is that I simply see no value in comments that don't build such a case. If they contribute to someone else's case, excellent.

I'm sorry you don't see the value in showing a claim is unsupported, for the benefit of those that might still be uncertain about it.

This doesnt really address my issues.
I have been pointing out that those who might still be uncertain about it need more than claims being challenged. Ultimately, they need to know which claim makes the most sense. Challenges are a contributing factor " so long as they are accompanied by a better alternative. Challenges which not only offer nothing, but generally are as useful at attacking the opponency as the proponency are not helpful in making a decision.

Those who are actually claiming that God does not exist, however, are growing rare around this site.

Good. That position is just as "theistic" and untenable in debate.

Can you support the position you have just taken?
My counterclaim would be that such claims would be just as theological, but hardly theistic.

It seems to me that there are two options:
1. Such individuals are not really interested in whether or not the claim is true or false

I don't identify myself with that option.

Good to note.

2. they are interested, and wish to imply that the claim is false without building a case to that end.

Nor with that one.

Okay, then:

If you feel that you take a third option, feel free to claim and support it. Until that time, however, I do indeed see useful debate as being over whether a claim is more likely to be true or false.

I am interested and simply wish to show the claim cannot be shown true. There is a multitude of potential benefits of not believing a god-claim is true. Not finding a certain god-claim true would prevent stoning in a god's name, for instance. I find considerable value in that option. Showing the claim not true has the same practical benefit of showing it false, but that is besides the scope of debate.

Could you explain the practical difference between showing something to be not true and showing it to be false?
Can you also explain the difference between not true and uncertain?
Could you defend the claim that it has the same practical benefits as establishing falsehood? For example, could you explain your position on whether or not it is morally acceptable to fail to pray regularly?
Lastly, can you explain what standard by which something can be established as not shown to be true? Specifically, I am thinking of the fact that nothing in life is really proved absolutely. Is there some minimum standard you feel is on objective measure by which we can determine something to be not shown as true, or could this be applied nearly universally?

All I have tried to communicate is that attempting to "facilitate" my movement toward a conclusion without at all addressing my desire to examine it first is incomplete.
The implication seems to be either:
1. that there is no reason to think on these things, which may not be meant at all this way, but comes across as anti-intellectual, or
2. that there is simply no case to be made for them, which strikes me as a good reason to reject them.

Well, opinion noted.

Would you care to address?
I dont think it unrealistic to propose that some reader might think I made a half-decent point. Is there a reason why he/she should accept encouragement toward a conclusion that refuses to examine that conclusion?
Perhaps I should also add that I myself am very unsure about many of these matters. I call myself a theist, but I am openly uncertain about many of my conclusions " all are provisional unless otherwise noted (and I dont seem to remember ever so noting a claim). As such, I would be a member of the audience you seek to sway, and will do my best to hear you out on this one.

[Jester]

I suppose I could refuse to commit to any claim of belief in God's existence while arguing against the points made by atheists and demanding that any who make claims to the contrary support that claim, but I've always felt that it would be seen as (and probably be) more out of fear of being challenged than having any logical reason for doing so.

If an atheist claimed there were no gods and there could be no possibility of a god as a positive statement you would be right to challenge that claim and demand support without claiming gods exist, that a particular god exists or that the concept of god was even viable or reasonable. If said atheist could not support those statements why bother to offer alternatives or defend a claim that god exists when you have not made those claims.

I completely agree. I also agree that many theists do as much " and shouldnt.

And if the atheist refuses to produce any evidence until you make a claim you do not support it is not because you do not care or wish to get to the truth that you protest, it is the dishonest tactic of him constructing a strawman argument for you to adopt, trying to get you to make an equally unsupportable argument.

What if the atheists position is Gods non-existence is the most likely scenario? Thats rather like Dawkins. Can I demand that he produce evidence that God doesnt exist, while I challenge the validity/relevance of that evidence, without suggesting that there is any better scenario?