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 123:

Challenges are fine -- so long as they are accompanied by an alternative. Without an alternative, it amounts to nothing more than diatribe.

Define it any way you wish, I will not stop challenging claims simply because it causes the claimant discomfort.

If the challenger's aim is to ask questions, do so with respect...

I will not* offer respect for claimants who refuse to, or are unwilling to support their claims, nor will I respect a claim I seek to challenge. (*except as relating to forum rules)

...and bear in mind that none of the "masters" (Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tsu, Moses, etc.) taught with an objective understanding in mind.

No problem... until folks make claims. I'm not even so sure your statement here is accurate.

Yet, no one doubts their impact on history and the human psyche. For most believers God's reality is properly basic; for others, a pointer, not an object.

How one views their position is on them. When they go to making claims I will not refrain from challenging any and all claims I seek to challenge.

Atheists want objective or logical answers to questions like suffering.
...

Are you certain this applies to every atheist on the planet?

I avoid preconceptions regarding the nature, veracity, or etc. of claims, except to challenge the claimant to show they speak truth. I ask folks to offer evidence in accordance with forum rules and guidelines that all have accepted by signing up for this site.

...
It is not objective in a sense that is acceptable to atheists, but the answer is there and it is consistent with Biblical teachings.

As long as claims are clearly marked as to their nature, I don't tend to challenge. "consistent with Biblical teachings" is best left to TD&D, or HH, IMO.

The mere fact that some people find this kind of answer satisfying and others do not is more telling about their respective goals than any "facts" put up for discussion.

Why the need to put quotaters around the word facts?

I would think if folks had facts, they wouldn't be so put off by folks asking them to show they speak truth.

...and then they wonder I call it "diatribe"?

With the moderator correcting you on unproductive, one-liner posts, would you care to elaborate on or actually address the points I present?

I am willing to accept one's personal definition regarding "diatribe", but think a further discussion of the points I address may be fruitful.

[Crazy Ivan]

Challenges are fine -- so long as they are accompanied by an alternative. Without an alternative, it amounts to nothing more than diatribe.

1 archaic : a prolonged discourse
2 : a bitter and abusive speech or writing
3 : ironic or satirical criticism

Obviously, the lack of "alternatives" isn't what makes a challenge "diatribe". Although "diatribe" is generally the response one gets to the challenge.

If the challenger's aim is to ask questions, do so with respect

I find it disrespectful to make claims in a debate forum one cannot support, and to respond to the challenges with diatribe.

and bear in mind that none of the "masters" (Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tsu, Moses, etc.) taught with an objective understanding in mind.

Then they would probably have been wise enough to stay clear of this forum, or stick to the subforums that don't require objective understandings.

Yet, no one doubts their impact on history and the human psyche.

First of all, not all "masters" have the same probability of having existed at all. Second of all, you're advised not to speak for everyone, since it includes me.

For most believers God's reality is properly basic; for others, a pointer, not an object.

"Properly basic" is obviously an expression you're fond of, but it means absolutely nothing to me.

Atheists want objective or logical answers to questions like suffering. Answers like:
Why are you unhappy?
Because 99.9 per cent
Of everything you think,
And of everything you do,
Is for yourself --
And there isn't one.

(From Ask the Awakened by Wei Wu Wei)

simply won't do. It is not objective in a sense that is acceptable to atheists, but the answer is there and it is consistent with Biblical teachings.

Then it would be more than adequate in the "Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma" subforum. Do you understand why these subforums exist?

The mere fact that some people find this kind of answer satisfying and others do not is more telling about their respective goals than any "facts" put up for discussion.

Agreed.

[The Mad Haranguer]

With the moderator correcting you on unproductive, one-liner posts, would you care to elaborate on or actually address the points I present?

No. You said: "I will not offer respect for claimants who refuse to, or are unwilling to support their claims, nor will I respect a claim I seek to challenge." Moderator or no moderator, that's an indicator of diatribe being the motivator.

I won't waste my time.

[The Mad Haranguer]

Challenges are fine -- so long as they are accompanied by an alternative. Without an alternative, it amounts to nothing more than diatribe.

1 archaic : a prolonged discourse
2 : a bitter and abusive speech or writing
3 : ironic or satirical criticism

Obviously, the lack of "alternatives" isn't what makes a challenge "diatribe". Although "diatribe" is generally the response one gets to the challenge.

That being the case, debate as a means of making determinations is impossible.

If the challenger's aim is to ask questions, do so with respect

I find it disrespectful to make claims in a debate forum one cannot support, and to respond to the challenges with diatribe.

Every challenge to a claim comes with a polar opposite. You cannot challenge without making an implicit claim in that challenge.

and bear in mind that none of the "masters" (Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tsu, Moses, etc.) taught with an objective understanding in mind.

Then they would probably have been wise enough to stay clear of this forum, or stick to the subforums that don't require objective understandings.

Got that right! LOL! By the way, Christian apologetics is not about physical evidences. Over the centuries, not many apologists claim to have any or addressed simple nay-sayers.

Yet, no one doubts their impact on history and the human psyche.

First of all, not all "masters" have the same probability of having existed at all. Second of all, you're advised not to speak for everyone, since it includes me.

First of all, that is irrelevant to the teachings. Second of all, it does include you whether you like it or not. You can no more escape it than the air you breathe. The history of the world is your history and part of your socialization and values.

For most believers God's reality is properly basic; for others, a pointer, not an object.

"Properly basic" is obviously an expression you're fond of, but it means absolutely nothing to me.

Science proceeds on the assumption that the universe is comprehensible. That's a "properly basic" belief.

Atheists want objective or logical answers to questions like suffering. Answers like:
Why are you unhappy?
Because 99.9 per cent
Of everything you think,
And of everything you do,
Is for yourself --
And there isn't one.

(From Ask the Awakened by Wei Wu Wei)

simply won't do. It is not objective in a sense that is acceptable to atheists, but the answer is there and it is consistent with Biblical teachings.

Then it would be more than adequate in the "Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma" subforum. Do you understand why these subforums exist?

I'm not sure where a "negative teaching" would fit. It's not a theology, doctrine, philosophy or a dogma.

The mere fact that some people find this kind of answer satisfying and others do not is more telling about their respective goals than any "facts" put up for discussion.

Agreed.

So, if the goal is a relationship with the Real however it is conceived, what purpose does it serve to simply challenge without proffering alternatives?

[I AM ALL I AM]

Challenges are fine -- so long as they are accompanied by an alternative. Without an alternative, it amounts to nothing more than diatribe.

G'day The Mad Haranguer.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster ...



... touched me with His Noodly Appendage, bringing Joy Joy into my heart, along with His Pasta Sauce, which now flows through my veins and has given me the Heavenly ability to subsist without any requirement of nourishment, as He nourishes me night and day, forever and ever, so help me Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Now, if I make this claim, from what you have stated, you are required to offer an "alternative", and without an "alternative, it amounts to nothing more than diatribe", even though the claim itself is utter nonsense.

My question to you is, why would you be required to present an "alternative" prior to asking for evidence for such claims made ?

And, what difference would it make to the validity of the claim even if you did present an "alternative" ?

And, in what way would a lack of an "alternative" make your asking for evidence without an "alternative" make such an asking "diatribe" ?

Obviously, such an entity as the Flying Spaghetti Monster you cannot disprove any more than you can disprove 'God'. As such, by using this as a counter claim, would I be required to offer evidence for the claim prior to you offering your evidence of your claim ?

Or are you obligated to offer your evidence before you can challenge the validity of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, even though it is obviously nonsensical ?

Now, let us say that I made a claim for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as being the Supreme Deity, which we recognise as nonsensical, is the purpose of debate to qualify the Flying Spaghetti Monsters validity ?

Or, as you have proposed, is it incumbent upon someone to firstly offer a counter claim for a deity, even if they do not have such a belief in deity, prior to any asking for evidence of the obviously non existent and non-evidenced Flying Spaghetti Monster ?

Personally, I see such requirement of a counter claim of deity as a theist requirement of non-theists to make claims about deity that they do not have. Further to this, I also see such a requirement as having no bearing upon the validity of the first claim being made.

[JoeyKnothead]

With the moderator correcting you on unproductive, one-liner posts, would you care to elaborate on or actually address the points I present?

No. You said: "I will not offer respect for claimants who refuse to, or are unwilling to support their claims, nor will I respect a claim I seek to challenge." Moderator or no moderator, that's an indicator of diatribe being the motivator.

I won't waste my time.

I consider this an admittance you can't refute the various points I presented.

Complain all you want about folks challenging claims, I will not stop until forced to do so.

[Crazy Ivan]

That being the case, debate as a means of making determinations is impossible.

Depends on what's being determined. It's legitimate to take the determinations that give rise to the forum in the first place, theistic determinations and claims, and debate to determine whether or not these determinations and claims are objectively demonstrable and verifiable, which some theists claim they are.

Every challenge to a claim comes with a polar opposite. You cannot challenge without making an implicit claim in that challenge.

The implicit needs not be more than "you cannot substantiate your claim". You can arbitrarily set the bar higher, or require more claims to be offered, but that is not the nature of the forum. Don't hate the playa...

So, if the goal is a relationship with the Real however it is conceived, what purpose does it serve to simply challenge without proffering alternatives?

Inadequate support of a claim attests to the unlikelihood of it being true, particularly when it's known there are so many other alternatives. How much more "real" does it have to get?

[The Mad Haranguer]

...is the purpose of debate to qualify the Flying Spaghetti Monsters validity ?

Answer: yes.

[The Mad Haranguer]

That being the case, debate as a means of making determinations is impossible.

Depends on what's being determined. It's legitimate to take the determinations that give rise to the forum in the first place, theistic determinations and claims, and debate to determine whether or not these determinations and claims are objectively demonstrable and verifiable, which some theists claim they are.

I posted this elsewhere and is relevant here:

Concepts are tools, not determinations of what's real or unreal because Reality itself is beyond all determinations: Reality is Reality; it is what it is. Period. It is not a concept. Concepts represent an approach or relation to the Real by individuations of the real who are often deluded into thinking concepts -- and by extension their polar opposites -- are representations of Reality itself and therefore either true or false.

But "true" or "false" are not opposites or even complementary: they are objects of delusion, the delusion of separation.

Every challenge to a claim comes with a polar opposite. You cannot challenge without making an implicit claim in that challenge.

The implicit needs not be more than "you cannot substantiate your claim". You can arbitrarily set the bar higher, or require more claims to be offered, but that is not the nature of the forum. Don't hate the playa...

The implicit is always the polar opposite. For example, if a theist claims "God did it" and the challenger says "prove it," the implicit claim is that something else did. What? "I don't know" or "chance" doesn't give us something else to consider. They might as well say "No. Bleh bleh bleh." That doesn't make for a very meaningful debate.

So, if the goal is a relationship with the Real however it is conceived, what purpose does it serve to simply challenge without proffering alternatives?

Inadequate support of a claim attests to the unlikelihood of it being true, particularly when it's known there are so many other alternatives. How much more "real" does it have to get?

"True" or "false" is irrelevant to my statement above.

[I AM ALL I AM]

...is the purpose of debate to qualify the Flying Spaghetti Monsters validity ?

Answer: yes.

G'day The Mad Haranguer.

You missed a few other questions.

Anyway, then there is no requirement to have another claim made to determine such.