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?

[Crazy Ivan]

If you expect the theist to address his or her claims, the theist must be allowed to define terms and set the agenda. Otherwise, it's diatribe on your part, not a discussion or even debate.

I agree that theists who make this request are incapable of defending their claims outside their own "terms and agenda". Though it is not their prerogative to demand such indulgence. The forum is specifically designed to address claims that have already been made, and are now expected to be argued for and against. To argue against, I do not need to provide "alternative claims", it suffices to show the arguments behind "for" are lacking and the conclusions do not logically follow.

That every theist might define terms differently or set a different agenda is something the atheist, as challenger, has to live with.

That every theist needs to define their own terms, and cannot debate on a level playing field, where the same terms apply to everyone, is painstakingly obvious. What you fail to realize is that there is a subforum where these "terms and agenda" are indulged, namely the "Holy Huddle Room". I live with the presence of this subforum just fine.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 40:

In your previous post you did exactly what the complaints are about: vandalize and reduce everything to "prove it" (not to mention ignoring the distinction made between "concept" and "idea").

If I fail to understand (or you fail to make clear) a given "concept", "idea" or etc., that's one thing, and I readily admit I'm not the brightest bulb in the drawer, but this still does not excuse your use of insulting language.

I will, at least for now, retract any previous points or notions or challenges or etc. addressed to you that you feel where due to misunderstanding on my part, but I will not concede the notion that one must supply alternatives, nor will I concede the notion that challenges to claims without alternatives are somehow foul - and I have moderator rulings on my side.

[Jester]

I don't think it is reasonable to conclude that Christianity has anything whatsoever to do with a 'God'.

Then I would argue that you have misunderstood Christianity. The entire concept centers around the idea of God.

As philosophical considerations, we can certainly gain insights on life and living from the texts claimed by believers as 'from God'. I don't see the Bible in terms of 'true or false', I read it as I would any other story or philisophical work in terms of the writers' imaginations, conjecture,opinions and ideas about various topics.

One can certainly read any text while ignoring the issue of whether or not its claims are true. That doesn't, however, mean that those claims are not basic to the philosophy being presented in the text.
More concretely, yes, there is some general good advice given in certain places in the Bible. Believers claim that this advice is from God because that is the claim of the text, and the idea of God is the core of what is being presented. It is your right to choose to ignore that fact, but that does not alter what it is that is being claimed.

I am don't feel any 'need' to believe in a god before my physical death.

Fair enough, but that seems irrelevant to this discussion.

Why do you express such a need?

I don't actually remember expressing that need at all. Rather, I expressed the intention to determine whether I feel the claims of Christianity are true or not - as opposed to ignoring the issue.

Is it possible you may gain evidence as to unanswered metaphysical considerations after your physical death here or perhaps in a following existence, why the rush?

It is not a matter of patience. I consider it my responsibility to use my time wisely, which would require determining the truths of life as well as I am able.
I may as well ask the opposite question, why bother waiting before we put some thought into the matter? I'm not asking you to reach a reasoned conclusion, but I don't see that you have given me a good reason not to do so.

Doesn't presuming truths without evidence close the mind from all other possibilities?

I don't remember claiming to presume anything, or agreeing that there was no evidence. Rather, those have been your assertions that we have not discussed here, but I have specifically disagreed about elsewhere. You needn't agree with me, but the fact that I hold the position that I do would mean that this statement does not apply to me.
Beyond that, I see no reason why my determinations infer a closed mind in that my claim was provisional. As far as I have been able to determine, a refusal to reach a conclusion is as close minded as a refusal to question one. Both states are closed to accepting new ideas.

What if you guess at the wrong God?

Then I will have been wrong.
There is definitely the chance that I have not reached the correct conclusion. Were I not to reach any determination, however, I would be guaranteed to have failed at discovering the truth.

[Zzyzx]

.

What if you guess at the wrong God?

Then I will have been wrong.

There is definitely the chance that I have not reached the correct conclusion. Were I not to reach any determination, however, I would be guaranteed to have failed at discovering the truth.

Jester,

Since there are well over two thousand proposed "gods", choosing any one has a chance of 1:2000 of being correct (or a 0.0005 chance) -- similar to the odds of winning significant money in a lottery.

Using the Pascal's Wager reasoning as you are doing (claim that worship is a better bet), the most intelligent application would be to worship as many of the "gods" as time permits to increase the odds of worshiping the right "god".

If one could worship a thousand "gods", they would have about a 50% chance of being right PROVIDED that one of the proposed "gods" actually exists.

[Jester]

What if you guess at the wrong God?

Then I will have been wrong.

There is definitely the chance that I have not reached the correct conclusion. Were I not to reach any determination, however, I would be guaranteed to have failed at discovering the truth.

Since there are well over two thousand proposed "gods", choosing any one has a chance of 1:2000 of being correct (or a 0.0005 chance) -- similar to the odds of winning significant money in a lottery.

Assuming we have no other information, that would be correct.
I don't see that it refutes the idea that that number is greater than zero, however.

Using the Pascal's Wager reasoning as you are doing (claim that worship is a better bet), the most intelligent application would be to worship as many of the "gods" as time permits to increase the odds of worshiping the right "god".

I actually didn't mean to use that type of reasoning to conclude that we should worship any sort of god. I was arguing that we should try to reach a conclusion. I have no objection to the idea that no gods exist as being equally valid for consideration.
In essence, the point of debate, or any rational thought, is to determine truth as best we are able. To claim that we should not on the grounds that we cannot know for certain strikes me as anti-intellectual. We cannot know much of anything for certain, that doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to draw conclusions.

If one could worship a thousand "gods", they would have about a 50% chance of being right PROVIDED that one of the proposed "gods" actually exists.

I see that neither as practically possible, nor in keeping with my statements about drawing rational conclusions.

[The Mad Haranguer]

If you expect the theist to address his or her claims, the theist must be allowed to define terms and set the agenda. Otherwise, it's diatribe on your part, not a discussion or even debate.

I agree that theists who make this request are incapable of defending their claims outside their own "terms and agenda". Though it is not their prerogative to demand such indulgence. The forum is specifically designed to address claims that have already been made, and are now expected to be argued for and against. To argue against, I do not need to provide "alternative claims", it suffices to show the arguments behind "for" are lacking and the conclusions do not logically follow.

That every theist might define terms differently or set a different agenda is something the atheist, as challenger, has to live with.

That every theist needs to define their own terms, and cannot debate on a level playing field, where the same terms apply to everyone, is painstakingly obvious. What you fail to realize is that there is a subforum where these "terms and agenda" are indulged, namely the "Holy Huddle Room". I live with the presence of this subforum just fine.

Religion is personal, interpretative and points to a supreme ideal rather than empirical facts. A "level playing field" means the theist's definitions and agenda.

[Nec Spe Nec Metu]

If you expect the theist to address his or her claims, the theist must be allowed to define terms and set the agenda. Otherwise, it's diatribe on your part, not a discussion or even debate.

I agree that theists who make this request are incapable of defending their claims outside their own "terms and agenda". Though it is not their prerogative to demand such indulgence. The forum is specifically designed to address claims that have already been made, and are now expected to be argued for and against. To argue against, I do not need to provide "alternative claims", it suffices to show the arguments behind "for" are lacking and the conclusions do not logically follow.

That every theist might define terms differently or set a different agenda is something the atheist, as challenger, has to live with.

That every theist needs to define their own terms, and cannot debate on a level playing field, where the same terms apply to everyone, is painstakingly obvious. What you fail to realize is that there is a subforum where these "terms and agenda" are indulged, namely the "Holy Huddle Room". I live with the presence of this subforum just fine.

Religion is personal, interpretative and points to a supreme ideal rather than empirical facts. A "level playing field" means the theist's definitions and agenda.

Perhaps in your idealistic understanding of religion. In the real world, theists often make claims directly related to things which can be objectively tested and methodically analyzed.

Such points include:
- The Earth is flat
- The Earth is the center of the universe
- A global flood occured
- Leprosy can infest walls
- Drinking dirt blessed by a Rabbi can determine the faithfulness of your wife

There are many other examples, but these should suffice to demonstrate my point.

[Zzyzx]

.

Since there are well over two thousand proposed "gods", choosing any one has a chance of 1:2000 of being correct (or a 0.0005 chance) -- similar to the odds of winning significant money in a lottery.

Assuming we have no other information, that would be correct.

Is there other information available -- credible information that can be shown or verified as being truthful and accurate?

I have encountered no credible evidence that any of the proposed "gods" is real. If you have such evidence (beyond speculation, opinion, hearsay, conjecture, and writings of ancient storytellers), kindly bring it forth for all to consider.

I don't see that it refutes the idea that that number is greater than zero, however.

Using that "logic", I may choose to become a member of the Zeus fan club AND the Quatzequatel fan club (but won't defend either). Thus, my odds are TWICE as good as that of a monotheist. Is there any way to know if the Christian "god" is more "real" than either of the above?

Using the Pascal's Wager reasoning as you are doing (claim that worship is a better bet), the most intelligent application would be to worship as many of the "gods" as time permits to increase the odds of worshiping the right "god".

I actually didn't mean to use that type of reasoning to conclude that we should worship any sort of god. I was arguing that we should try to reach a conclusion.

What is the hurry to reach a conclusion in the absence of evidence (other than testimonial, conjecture, opinion, speculation, and writings of ancient storytellers and religious promoters)?

I have no objection to the idea that no gods exist as being equally valid for consideration.
In essence, the point of debate, or any rational thought, is to determine truth as best we are able.

When there is NO credible evidence upon which to make a decision for or against, my conclusion is that a decision to defer judgment is the only rational decision to make.

To claim that we should not on the grounds that we cannot know for certain strikes me as anti-intellectual.

"Cannot know for CERTAIN" has not been suggested. I ask for credible evidence.

We cannot know much of anything for certain, that doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to draw conclusions.

Do you advocate drawing conclusions when there is no evidence upon which to base conclusions " if all is speculation, opinion, etc?

If one could worship a thousand "gods", they would have about a 50% chance of being right PROVIDED that one of the proposed "gods" actually exists.

I see that neither as practically possible, nor in keeping with my statements about drawing rational conclusions.

If one assumes that a "god" exists and that their "afterlife" depends upon choosing the right one, the most rational conclusion, in my opinion, would be to worship as many as possible to increase the chance of worshiping the right one.

Since I do not make the assumption that a "god" exists or that my supposed "afterlife" depends upon worshiping the right one, the whole matter is not of concern to me.

[The Mad Haranguer]

From Post 40:

In your previous post you did exactly what the complaints are about: vandalize and reduce everything to "prove it" (not to mention ignoring the distinction made between "concept" and "idea").

If I fail to understand (or you fail to make clear) a given "concept", "idea" or etc., that's one thing, and I readily admit I'm not the brightest bulb in the drawer, but this still does not excuse your use of insulting language.

I will, at least for now, retract any previous points or notions or challenges or etc. addressed to you that you feel where due to misunderstanding on my part, but I will not concede the notion that one must supply alternatives, nor will I concede the notion that challenges to claims without alternatives are somehow foul - and I have moderator rulings on my side.

Ideas are prone to degenerate into concepts and beliefs and you have every right to challenge them when they do. However, how do you determine what is belief and what are ideas acting as guides, symbols, to awaken man to a perceived ideal?

Ideas point to supreme ideals, not concepts of facts. History has shown that the power of an idea lies not in its reality or reasonableness, but rather in its vividness and the universality of its application. Purely factual knowledge exerts very little influence.

Analogies I posted in other threads might be useful. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... ht=#313881 Post#2

The analogies indicate how an idea pointing to an ideal can be consistent with the would as understood by science but in no ways be proven by it or even by pure reason. Proof or evidence isn't the point.

[Nec Spe Nec Metu]

Ideas point to supreme ideals, not concepts of facts. History has shown that the power of an idea lies not in its reality or reasonableness, but rather in its vividness and the universality of its application. Purely factual knowledge exerts very little influence.

You are correct. History does show us that people are often mislead by untrue or unsupported propositions and act upon those false or unverifiable premises. The doombringer of mankind is that it places so little value on purely factual knowledge. Regrettable.