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]

I disagree in that all debates should lead to some kind of conclusion. As such, the question should be "is my belief more warranted than any other possibility?".

And a theist will be more than glad to discuss that particular matter with you. What doesn't make sense is requesting this from an atheist. It's simply not your prerogative to establish what constitutes a conclusion or not. If I can conclude the alleged reasons behind a belief are insufficient, then that IS a kind of conclusion. Just not one you get from debating with other theists.

Yes, one can critique the logic of another without offering an alternative conclusion. The problem with this is that it doesn't address the matter of whether or not the proposition is the most likely possibility.

That's not a problem to the atheist, only to the theist. If we can help theists realize a logical flaw (when they care), then they can search for other possibilities with other theists. We facilitate this process, by weeding out logical incongruence.

I've yet to see defense of this, and contend that it is not. It may be in the theism "department", but there is nothing inherently theistic about offering a counter-proposal in debate.

I associate "theistic" with the set of properties that make a god-claim unverifiable. "God does not exist" is unverifiable, so as such can reasonably be considered "theistic", something like theological + unverifiable. You don't have to agree, just have the courtesy to acknowledge and respect.

I'm aware that you keep telling me this. What you have failed to do is support that claim. There is nothing about commenting on theology that makes one inherently theistic. Unless you are specifically taking the stance that "strong atheists" are theists, I don't see that this is a logically consistent position to take.

I think they fit the category, and I thought that was well understood from my previous post.

Any who do not believe that these questions have merit are free to hold that opinion. I am left to wonder why they are on this site however, and contend that they should not be debating in topics centered around such questions.

In turn, I contend you should not be debating outside "Holy Huddle", or maybe a future sub-forum where one is required to be a theist, or to hold unsupportable and unverifiable positions, or "alternatives".

To be more specific, you may not acknowledge that the universe needs a reason to exist, but unless you are willing to support that position, there is no reason why I should question my belief that it does.

Some people want to test their beliefs regardless of "alternatives", others need a safety net. I personally do not judge that either should be precluded from debate in this forum.

Fair enough if you aren't interested in persuading or giving reasons to believe or not believe something. If not, however, there seems to be no reason for you to be here.

I see no reason for you to manifest outside "Holy Huddle". These opinions hinge on what you consider a "reason for disbelief" might be. Again, to disbelieve in something there is no need to offer an alternative. I don't need to offer "alternative entities" to argue how unreasonable the belief in the Easter Bunny is.

I don't have a problem with clarifying beliefs, or even many subtle grades of meaning in a belief.
And, no, I don't suppose that you are required to acknowledge the fact that some atheists actually do make claims about God (that he doesn't exist, that his existence is very unlikely, etc.), the fact is that these people do exist whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.

You don't suppose I'm required? I just don't belong in the forum, right? That's rich...

I suppose it follows that we are allowed to claim anything you like about atheists that requires them not to exist in order to be true, but that doesn't make the argument sound.

Sorry, that statement doesn't make any sense.

Essentially, you seem to be claiming to speak for atheists

For atheists who think like me... obviously.

and claim the right ignore those atheists who happen to disagree with you.

Or just to not consider them atheists.

Fair enough, but is there any reason I should be persuaded by this argument?

Besides being "fair enough"?

I do feel that an idea should be treated with consideration in the sense that it should be considered (thought about) when it happens to be the topic of debate.

That's what I meant. I'm glad we agree, despite your whimsical standards as to what constitutes "thought about", which require "alternatives".

Rejecting an idea without this sort of consideration is, quite specifically, rejecting an idea without thinking about it. This does not strike me as a rational approach to discovering truth.

Addressing the reasons behind belief in the "existence" of an "idea" is "thinking about it". You arbitrarily set a line that I'm not obligated to acknowledge.

I completely agree, but your earlier issue was not that they were theological, but that they were theistic I clarified the difference out of concern that you were conflating the two. If you acknowledge that the former claim is merely theological, and not theistic, I see no reason why you should feel that it is less atheistic to make such a claim.
Frankly, even the claim "there is no good reason to accept God's existence" is a theological statement.
It is within your rights to personally consider such claims to be theistic. It is not, however, correct to do so. Yes, those claims are theological, but we must recognize the distinction. The claim "I have the right to not acknowledge the existence of God", too, is a theological (but not theistic) claim.

I'm sure it's reasonable to you, or I'm sure it would be if weren't having this conversation, that an unsupportable unverifiable claim about "god" is "theistic". Notice that atheism is often referred to as "religion", precisely because of the claim it is associated with, "god does not exist". And I happen to agree with them, when said "god" has nothing tangible enough to refute. To me, this brand of "atheist"... is "theism".

In which case, what work was done? What goal were you trying to achieve? Presumably, you already lack belief in God. If you have neither convinced a theist of anything, nor changed or affirmed your own beliefs, what was the point of commenting at all?

Why do you assume a theist wasn't "convinced of anything"? Simple acknowledgement that one's belief may not be supported by logic (a rare occurrence) is just fine by me. It may happen more often than you give it credit for.

I have alternatives to questions that don't have merit.
Question: "Do pink unicorns exist?"
Answer: "No, my alternative belief is that they do not."
That seems pretty simple to me.

Is it? The issue is about your presumption that atheists should present alternatives to what they don't believe in. If mere "disbelief" is the alternative you've been fussing about, then it's implied in "atheist".

With regard to God, however, I believe that his existence is the most likely of the possibilities I see. I'm not interested in reasoning about God in a vacuum ("should I believe this, setting aside any thought about the competing ideas..."), nor am I interested in setting the idea aside as not having merit without considering the question.
An alternate set of beliefs may be theistic "in [your] book", but that doesn't carry any weight with me, particularly when you directly refuse to acknowledge real-world people who don't fit your theory. As such, I have absolutely no reason to agree on this point, and every reason not to do so.

Obviously, I don't particularly care about your opinion. The problem arises when you publicly presume (being a moderator no less) other theists aren't entitled to have their beliefs questioned on just their own merits, without the need to be offered "alternatives", which is a position implied by your claims that atheists have no business in the forum if that's their only goal.

The claim was, as noted, an analogy. The fact that you choose not to see the parallel does not mean that my point was irrelevant.

Your point was completely irrelevant, because the analogy was related to a "god does not exist" claim. The analogy is only relevant to those that relate to the claim.

The fact is that all people are forced into the position of having unsubstantiated beliefs.

I beg to differ, and request you refrain from speaking in my behalf.

One can't, therefore, claim that a proposal should be rejected on this ground alone.

If this conclusion is based on your own shortcomings, then it does not apply to me.

I am, quite specifically, not being shown that my belief is any less unwarranted than atheism,

Obviously, that is not the point of this thread. If you mean other threads, any reader may have at any point decided you were unreasonably holding on to a belief, after the debate. That you "have not been shown anything", is a predictable personal perspective.

or the belief that we can ignore the question.

Again, you arbitrarily set the bar at what constitutes "ignoring the question".

Those claims seem at least as unwarranted to me; anyone who has proposed the latter has not only failed, but refused, to support it. This does not lead me to see it as credible.

I will certainly not be the one arguing for how your personal standards are credible or otherwise. Anyone can decide for themselves what constitutes "addressing the issue", or "ignoring the issue".

I will be cutting this short, and given your stance on what atheists should or should not present in the course of debate, I strongly suggest you reevaluate your position as moderator of this forum.

[Flail]

Jester wrote:

In my search to determine the most likely possibility regarding God's existence, atheists seem to be telling me directly that the only people even suggesting possibilities are theists. I have a strong adversity to any concept which does not allow a person to weigh possibilities, meaning that I am forced to reject this form of atheism outright, and go looking for a "strong atheist" who is at least willing to offer reasons that she feels might cause me to change my mind

.
Why do you insist atheists offer alternatives other than 'don't believe' or 'wait for evidence'? There are many possibilities other than your chosen one for consideration. Upon what basis have you chosen Christianity as the most likely proposition about 'God'? Why Christianity as opposed to Judaism or Islam or Bhudaism etc?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 28:

>snipping points of agreement<

Also beyond my comprehension is how we can debate without comparing two or more claims to determine which is more likely to be true.

It seems many theists need some alternate explanation regarding their religious claims, where the atheist need only consider a given claim.

I can base a decision on the veracity of a single claim, where if the claim can't be shown true I reject it, with no alternative required.

"How'd life get here?"

"God."

I reject it based on a lack of evidence (if only to me), and need no alternative to realize the "God" claim can't be shown true (if only to me). It leaves the question open, but that causes me little concern - and this seems to be an untenable position for some theists (if not you, then others - don't wanna state your position for you).

Every position is, in the end impossible to verify. I can't really prove that I'm not a partially intelligent sack of potatoes dreaming that I'm a human (or what passes for a human in my family). This isn't to say, however, that I shouldn't suggest and consider the possibility that this isn't the case. I happened to conclude that this isn't true, in spite of my lack of proof.

Would I be required to support the notion we're all just a fully ignorant box of strawberries, or can I challenge claims regarding the whole 'tater deal, and realize we may or may not be 'taters?

It is an acceptance of the limitations involved that leads me to not overtly support a position I know is so easily countered - right or wrong.

I think the claim "God probably doesn't exist" or "God is very unlikely to exist" are better ways of doing that myself.

My point is that I shouldn't be required to support a position I may accept, but that I realize can't be supported to the standards this site (rightly) requires.

That's the problem. Every atheist I seem to run into is saying that she can't show she speaks truth. I don't know what to do with that. My response is "Okay, but can you give me a reason why you settled on that position, as opposed to any other?"
At this point, there seems to be complete breakdown, where I'm usually told something to the effect of I don't understand - or that I have asked the wrong question.
...

I try to state right up front (or when challenged) the nature of my position - while realizing that honor requires I not overtly declare it as fact (without caveats or such).

If I challenge a theist's claim, I may be reticent to declare a position that I know to be faulty in terms of what this site (rightly) requires regarding one's claims, but this shouldn't negate that challenge. Nor should it be considered "not good" debate simply because I abide by the rules.

And they're right. I don't understand why that isn't a perfectly legitimate question.

Because an alternative is not always dependent on whether another's claim can be shown true.

Either a claim can be shown true or not, and that is good enough for me, and within the goals of this site (imo).

Why accept a (life altering) belief in something that can't be shown to be true?

You mean like atheism? Or like Christianity? Or like Islam? How about Buddhism? The idea that the physical universe exists? Humanism anyone?

Curses, foiled again, but...

Nothing can be shown to be true. What many atheists seem to be proposing in the face of that is simply refusing to answer the question. That doesn't help me find an answer however, and it certainly doesn't help me decide if I should behave as if God exists, or as if he does not.

Of course, all truth, in the form of "I believe it to be true" can be conditional and provisional, but I don't see that as such a problem.

I have little means of determining whether to believe or not if a claimant is unable or unwilling to support (or retract, clarify, etc.) their own claims. Again, I see no need for an alternate explanation, though agree such could be helpful.

Nearly everyone I've debated on this site, however, has insisted that it is actually impossible for atheists to make a claim, let alone support it, that the idea that God doesn't exist is more likely than the idea than he does.

How can I assess probability for something I can't show exists?

I don't know; I figured we'd just do our best.
It's like deciding whether or not (and how) to invest for retirement. No one really knows how it's going to turn out, and no answer is perfect, but considering the matter carefully and making a call seems better than just avoiding the question.

I'm actually kinda bound up here, because as the question is phrased it does seem to require support for "not god".

I would retract and / or rephrase my response...

Where there is a "single claim", such as "God", then I can and should be able to challenge each individual piece of evidence ("individual claim"), regardless of whether I can support the "not God" angle. Perhaps it doesn't ultimately answer the "dual claims" (God / not God), but it does answer whether the individual claims can be shown true or not.

In my search to determine the most likely possibility regarding God's existence, atheists seem to be telling me directly that the only people even suggesting possibilities are theists.

How 'bout, "If you can't show you speak truth, then your claims are questionable at best, and fraudulent at worst"?

That's a possibility of the state of God's existence?

It's a possibility regarding the veracity of one's claims, and an alternate explanation regarding those claims.

If the claimant attempts to support, we can see they're either right or wrong. If they refuse to support, then we can start questioning (if only in our / observers' minds) their intent to defraud.

Setting aside any arguments in favor of God's existence, I don't see how you plan on determining whether the claimant is right or wrong.

By asking them to show they speak truth. If they can, I'm so much closer to accepting the claim.

If the question for debate is "Does God exist?", and someone answers "yes", we have a complete meltdown. No one is suggesting the possibility that she is wrong (i.e. "Your claim is false; God doesn't exist"). This leaves us with the possibility of "true" and "there's no reason to ask the question".
For the time being, I'm not terribly interested in whether or not others understand why I'm asking the question. I'm interested in an answer, and this isn't one.

It may not be an acceptable answer to you, but to me it is / can be.

"God exists."

"Challenge."

"Because here's God right here, and ain't he such a fetchin' feller."

"I believe you brother, I believe."

Or...

"God exists."

"Challenge."

"Because it's possible."

"Now you've lost me."

As before, a claim can be shown true or it can't, with little to no gray area in between - even while such a determination may be bound to the individual's non/acceptance of the evidence.

If the alternate perspective is "we're not going to answer the question, and therefore not support an answer", it doesn't help me reach an answer myself.

But forcing one to present an alternate perspective is not required to determine if a given claim is true or not, though of course it can help.

I already question my beliefs...

I agree, but the point remains - if I can't question (challenge) claims, I'm lost as a cow at a square dance when it comes to determining the veracity of those claims.

I already question my beliefs. If that was your only goal, then (in my case), there's no point in showing anything - or even being here.

I love you man, but you ain't the only one I'm concerned with. There are others, as evidenced by this thread alone, who accept that a claim that can't be shown true can be rejected. It is for these folks I challenge claims.

The only value this site has for me is the potential for determining what is true (that is, in the real world, what is most likely to be true). Anything that doesn't help me with that seems superfluous, and, frankly, leaves me wondering quite a bit more about why such people are here than questioning my beliefs.
I suspect that it is largely (but certainly not entirely) for this reason that all of the things that have caused the deepest questioning of my beliefs have been things I've had to think through on my own. In context of the greater debate, I'm not convinced that all theists are going to be up for giving atheists that much help.

That's fine if that's your perspective, and I have no immediate objection.

I, however, consider it quite helpful to my cause when I challenge theist claims and they can't show they speak truth, they complain about even being challenged, or they ignore the challenge altogether. I feel confident the average reader observing such will see that the challenged claim is no more than opinion at best, or fraud at worst.

[Crazy Ivan]

Why accept a (life altering) belief in something that can't be shown to be true?

You mean like atheism? Or like Christianity? Or like Islam? How about Buddhism? The idea that the physical universe exists? Humanism anyone?

Curses, foiled again, but...

No, not at all. Jester keeps saying he respects the position of atheism as one of disbelief, but here it's already a position of "belief in something", completely disregarding what he repeatedly claims to understand and acknowledge. Well, it's obvious he doesn't.

[JoeyKnothead]

Why accept a (life altering) belief in something that can't be shown to be true?

You mean like atheism? Or like Christianity? Or like Islam? How about Buddhism? The idea that the physical universe exists? Humanism anyone?

Curses, foiled again, but...

No, not at all. Jester keeps saying he respects the position of atheism as one of disbelief, but here it's already a position of "belief in something", completely disregarding what he repeatedly claims to understand and acknowledge. Well, it's obvious he doesn't.

I see it thus...

By challenging claims I am potentially asking for Jester to alter his life by not believing in theism (and so disregarding all its rules, etc.), so it is legitimate he ask for evidence in this ("not god") regard, since I can't convince him on the power of showing a "God is / wants x" claim can't be shown to be true.

I think Jester is perfectly within his rights to hold such a position that one be required to present alternatives in order to convince Jester, I just don't think it's a matter of "good debate"* to require such as a means of convincing everyone.

*Implying (if only to me) that one must always offer alternatives or a given claim is not liable to challenge.

[The Mad Haranguer]

Concepts are imaged perceptions, the result of the process of separating and naming. Being is not a concept. As Jacob Needleman put it: Concepts, theories, hypotheses, distinctions, comparisons " all these may be taken ultimately as instruments for organizing perceptions into logically consistent patterns called explanations. They are effective tools for solving problems, but they do not and cannot rise to the level of cosmic consciousness.

Although they are prone to degenerate into concepts and beliefs, ideas have a higher purpose. Their purpose is to guide and direct human beings in the art of living and to bridge the gap between concept and humanness -- between concept and being-ness. Engaging in a religious debate without offering alternatives is like going into a museum open to every artists display and vandalizing other's art without comparing them against ones own. It is not unfair so much as it is immature, pointless, crude and intolerant.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 36:

Concepts are imaged perceptions, the result of the process of separating and naming. Being is not a concept.

So we ask those who propose the concept of God as actually "being", along with attendant claims, to show they speak truth.

As Jacob Needleman put it: Concepts, theories, hypotheses, distinctions, comparisons " all these may be taken ultimately as instruments for organizing perceptions into logically consistent patterns called explanations.
...

"Logical consistency" is dependent on its premises and may or may not apply to a god one can't show exists.

They are effective tools for solving problems, but they do not and cannot rise to the level of cosmic consciousness.

I was unaware there was a "cosmic consciousness". Can you show there is?

Although they are prone to degenerate into concepts and beliefs, ideas have a higher purpose. Their purpose is to guide and direct human beings in the art of living and to bridge the gap between concept and humanness -- between concept and being-ness.
...

As above, one who proposes a concept (God) rises to the level of "being-ness" is beholden to show they speak truth in honorable debate.

Engaging in a religious debate without offering alternatives is like going into a museum open to every artists display and vandalizing other's art without comparing them against ones own.

I'm just not seeing a lot of folks proposing the Mona Lisa is a goddess possessing supernatural abilities.

What you require is fine for you, but is not beholden on others, nor should it be - according to previous moderator rulings regarding offering alternative explanations.

It is not unfair so much as it is immature, pointless, crude and intolerant.

I object to this slander. If all you can do is insult others I ask you find some other venue in which to express your vitriol.

You've got a lot of dang gall complaining of intolerance.

[The Mad Haranguer]

It is not unfair so much as it is immature, pointless, crude and intolerant.

I object to this slander.

It's not slander if it is true.

[JoeyKnothead]

It is not unfair so much as it is immature, pointless, crude and intolerant.

I object to this slander.

It's not slander if it is true.

Bull feathers.

You have your perspective, and I 'preciate that, but I will not have you disparaging me or others.

[The Mad Haranguer]

It is not unfair so much as it is immature, pointless, crude and intolerant.

I object to this slander.

It's not slander if it is true.

Bull feathers.

You have your perspective, and I 'preciate that, but I will not have you disparaging me or others.

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 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.

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