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?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 10:

Trust me, I don't cry foul, or complain or cry or throw a tantrum... so don't take it the wrong way please.

To heck you don't...

Couldnt agree more. Prove this, prove that. Then when you ask an atheist to explain their reason and logic behind things they have no reason or logic. Kind of sad when someone likes to build up an artificially superior complex just to antagonize other peoples views, beliefs and reasoning, pretty pathetic when you think about it.

I antagonize your views by challenging your views.

Theist are not suppose to force their beliefs onto anyone, atleast those who are christian are not suppose to.

"No true Christian" my foot. History is rife with examples of Christians trying to inflict their unfounded beliefs onto others.

Do you challenge my claim?

Please do.

However when you ask a "question" in the form a challenge, and get a response, don't look at it as someone trying to force their beliefs on you because you asked for a explanation and expect to debate.

Kinda hard to expect folks to show they speak truth when they refuse to do it.

[naz]

From Post 10:

Trust me, I don't cry foul, or complain or cry or throw a tantrum... so don't take it the wrong way please.

To heck you don't...

Couldnt agree more. Prove this, prove that. Then when you ask an atheist to explain their reason and logic behind things they have no reason or logic. Kind of sad when someone likes to build up an artificially superior complex just to antagonize other peoples views, beliefs and reasoning, pretty pathetic when you think about it.

I antagonize your views by challenging your views.

I was simply agreeing with someone else. Is that a crime?

Theist are not suppose to force their beliefs onto anyone, atleast those who are christian are not suppose to.

"No true Christian" my foot. History is rife with examples of Christians trying to inflict their unfounded beliefs onto others.

Do you challenge my claim?

Please do.

Aye, that is history, it is what it is, even though that isnt the way it is suppose to be.

However when you ask a "question" in the form a challenge, and get a response, don't look at it as someone trying to force their beliefs on you because you asked for a explanation and expect to debate.

Kinda hard to expect folks to show they speak truth when they refuse to do it.

you know that is just a matter of personal opinion.

[The Mad Haranguer]

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?

There seems to be a great deal of confusion, especially among atheists, about what constitutes philosophy. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, not the possession of it and most certainly not love for the analysis of concepts. Its watchword is Know thyself, not Challenge what others believe. It is about ideas that move man toward total integration with the cosmos through self-interrogation, not proving or disproving concepts designed solely to solve problems of the intellect. If that's all it is, one might as well go off in a corner somewhere and masturbate. (Please excuse crude analogy.)

Unless it contributes something towards philosophy thus understood, what atheists call "debate" is nothing more than diatribe.

[Flail]

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

The Mad Haranguer responded:

There seems to be a great deal of confusion, especially among atheists, about what constitutes philosophy.

Which particular atheists are you referencing? What evidence do you have that there is confusion among these atheists about what 'constitutes'(?) philosophy? What has this,if anything, to do with the OP?

[Flail]

The Mad Haranguer wrote:

Philosophy is the 'love of wisdom', not the possession of it and most certainly [u']not[/u] love for the analysis of concepts'. Its watchword is Know thyself, not Challenge what others believe. It is about ideas that move man toward total integration with the cosmos through 'self-interrogation', not proving or disproving concepts designed solely to solve problems of the intellect. If that's all it is, one might as well go off in a corner somewhere and masturbate.

(emphasis added)
If your need is to "know thyself" by avoiding the analysis of concepts and if you seek the 'cosmos' through "self-interrogation", debate may not be your cup of tea...and you might want to go off in a corner somewhere and "love your wisdom".

[Crazy Ivan]

There seems to be a great deal of confusion, especially among atheists, about what constitutes philosophy.

Not only do I know what constitutes philosophy, I am also aware of a subforum here entitled "Philosophy", where one is more than entitled to "contribute something", as you put it. The "great deal of confusion" is obviously on your end, given you apparently don't know the forum's primary goal is to debate theistic claims, claims that can only be "contributed" to by being theistic. All this protestation, and referring to debate with anyone other than another theist who "contributes", as "diatribe", is clear indication of simple inability to support one's claims when debating with a nonbeliever.

[The Mad Haranguer]

If your need is to "know thyself" by avoiding the analysis of concepts and if you seek the 'cosmos' through "self-interrogation", debate may not be your cup of tea...and you might want to go off in a corner somewhere and "love your wisdom".

I tried to be careful in my use of "ideas" and "concepts." There is a difference. Concepts are tools for associating and recombining symbols in order to deal with the external world. They do not rise to the level of human life, which is also interior. Ideas, on the other hand, "move man toward total integration with the cosmos through self-interrogation" and have the effect of bringing the mind to silence. Only there can real thinking begin.

The only thing atheists seem capable of offering is "prove it." That's "debate"?

[Zzyzx]

.

The only thing atheists seem capable of offering is "prove it." That's "debate"?

Many who oppose theistic pronouncements are NOT Atheists -- but are Non-Theists or even Ignostics (Note the difference -- which apparently is not discernable to many Theists).

In DEBATE, when one make CLAIMS, those claims are expected and required under Forum Rules and Guidelines to be SUBSTANTIATED.

Those who are unable or unwilling to substantiate their claims and statements are welcome to preach in Holy Huddle and Theology, Doctrine and Dogma sub-forums, but not in Christianity and Apologetics (which is clearly intended for DEBATE rather than preaching of unsupported opinions).

In DEBATE, one is REQUIRED and ETHICALLY expected to substantiate their claims. Those who are uncomfortable with those requirements and expectations are invited to post in "Christian friendly" environments where their pronouncements and bible tales will be accepted without challenge from the dreaded "Atheists" (anyone who opposes their "god" worshiping practices).

[Jester]

I'm not sure about "fair", but it seems to me to be very poor debating to challenge a claim without providing an alternative claim. This is not to say that all atheists do this, but it is common enough that it is worth mentioning.

I see you keep expecting atheists to provide "alternatives" to problems created by theists in the first place.

This strikes me as a misrepresentation of my claim. I didn't say anything about problems which had been created by theists. Frankly, I'm not even sure about what that may be. Ignorance about whether or not God exists exists quite well without theism.
What I claimed was that all debate participants, theist and non-theist alike, should provide an alternative claim to any which they oppose.

This forum's primary goal is to debate theistic claims. These claims address questions or problems that the atheist is not required to acknowledge as independent from theological thought, thus "alternative" answers to the problems they create should not be expected, and certainly not regarded as "poor debating".

While it is entirely correct to say that an atheist is not required to acknowledge theistic claims outside of a debate about those claims, I'm not certain what you mean by "independent of theological thought". I would agree that the topic is theological, but, as that is precisely the subject that we are debating, I don't see how this grants anyone the right to ignore the matter while debating that very subject.

Consider that if an atheist provides "alternatives" to theistic claims, he/she is no longer arguing from an atheist perspective, but from a theist one, which in my opinion makes your request rather nonsensical.

This argument seems to be based on a misunderstanding of words (though I admit that it may turn out that it is simply my misunderstanding your words).
The claim "God does not exist" is an atheistic one. It is a claim on the subject of theology and therefore is a theological claim - but that, in the current context, is a world away from a theistic claim, which would indeed contradict atheism.

The fact remains that, whether or not particular atheists happen to feel that they should address certain issues, those are the issues pertinent to most of the topics of discussions. Anyone, theist or non-theist, who wishes to debate those topics needs to address them.
Likewise, anyone who wishes to refute a claim needs to do more than establish that a given claim is unproved. Nearly all ideas are unproved, meaning that proof has never been our requirement for acceptance. As such, one needs to establish that a claim is not the most likely claim, given what we know. This means that an alternative claim must be established as more likely. In the case of atheism, I would assume that would be the claim "God does not exist", but I would, of course, leave the choice of claims to the individual atheist.
So, in the end, I'm left wondering how any debater (whether atheist or not), can expect to be convincing without actually letting us know what it is we should be convinced of.

[Crazy Ivan]

This strikes me as a misrepresentation of my claim. I didn't say anything about problems which had been created by theists. Frankly, I'm not even sure about what that may be. Ignorance about whether or not God exists exists quite well without theism.

"God", and anything related is "Theism", including a debate of "God's" existence. Considering the mere premise, the very concept of "God", is already an indulgence made by the atheist.

What I claimed was that all debate participants, theist and non-theist alike, should provide an alternative claim to any which they oppose.

Asking for theistic claim verification and substantiation is NOT "opposing" the claim. If by "opposing" the claim, you refer to "strong atheism" (indulging the notion for now), then you'd be correct, but we've been through this disambiguation already in another thread.

While it is entirely correct to say that an atheist is not required to acknowledge theistic claims outside of a debate about those claims, I'm not certain what you mean by "independent of theological thought".

You cannot logically disassociate "God" or any related matter from "Theism". I think it makes perfect sense that just by indulging the concept for debate, the atheist is already being slightly theistic about it. It doesn't change that one is an atheist, but one might no longer be debating exactly as one.

I would agree that the topic is theological, but, as that is precisely the subject that we are debating, I don't see how this grants anyone the right to ignore the matter while debating that very subject.

I don't see how "request of substantiation and verification of theistic claims", which is what I do, equates to "ignore the matter".

The claim "God does not exist" is an atheistic one.

I can reasonably argue it's already theistic. It indulges the theistic concept. The only atheistic claim I acknowledge is "I don't believe gods exist".

It is a claim on the subject of theology and therefore is a theological claim - but that, in the current context, is a world away from a theistic claim, which would indeed contradict atheism.

A "theological claim" does not contradict the atheist's lack of belief. It might contradict another theological claim, "God doesn't exist".

The fact remains that, whether or not particular atheists happen to feel that they should address certain issues, those are the issues pertinent to most of the topics of discussions. Anyone, theist or non-theist, who wishes to debate those topics needs to address them.

I address them just fine by requesting that theistic propositions be shown true.

Likewise, anyone who wishes to refute a claim needs to do more than establish that a given claim is unproved.

"Refutation" isn't always the goal. There's no need to always "refute" a claim that lacks verification or substantiation. If it is acknowledged as unsubstantiated belief, then the work is done.

Nearly all ideas are unproved, meaning that proof has never been our requirement for acceptance. As such, one needs to establish that a claim is not the most likely claim, given what we know. This means that an alternative claim must be established as more likely. In the case of atheism, I would assume that would be the claim "God does not exist", but I would, of course, leave the choice of claims to the individual atheist.
So, in the end, I'm left wondering how any debater (whether atheist or not), can expect to be convincing without actually letting us know what it is we should be convinced of.

Some atheists, or non-theists, or whatever, just ask that theists presuming to convince them of something, substantiate and verify their claims.