New rule proposal

[EduChris]

All of us have a basic, metaphysical framework that we operate within. None of us can "prove" or "confirm" that our metaphysical frame is "true and factual."

We have allowed on this forum one individual, with apparently more time on his hands than anyone else, to bully and cajole and inflame many good people for years now, with the result that discussion and debate on this forum is debased and degraded.

With some people, learning and reason and civility begin to prevail--but others seem impervious to such appeals. Many good people have left this forum because of senseless antics such as described, coming from one individual in particular.

See this post for an example.

I propose we ban demands for "confirmation" of metaphysical frameworks for anyone who has been on the forum long enough to have learned better. Newbies ought to be able to ask questions and learn, but after a certain amount of time or a certain amount of posts, if an individual still hasn't learned that metaphysical frameworks cannot be proven, then such persons should be told to stop the incessant bullying and cajoling.

[otseng]

...if the suggestion is that the moderators should consider repeated off-topic challenges as essentially equivalent to excessive off-topic or unsupported claims, then it strikes me as reasonable...

Sounds perfect! If enforced at least in the most egregious cases, this should greatly improve the forum experience for everyone!

I think the issue is not off-topic challenges, but on-topic challenges. If someone makes an unsupported claim in a thread and is not explicitly stated as an assumption in the OP, anyone has the right to ask for support of the claim. If anyone makes an off-topic comment, including off-topic challenges, then it is already covered by the rule:

4. Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread.

[EduChris]

...If anyone makes an off-topic comment, including off-topic challenges, then it is already covered by the rule:

4. Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread...

It's nice to have your clarification that "off-topic challenges" are indeed covered by this rule. This rule is excellent, BTW. Hopefully the moderators will now be able to enforce egregious violations.

...If someone makes an unsupported claim in a thread and is not explicitly stated as an assumption in the OP, anyone has the right to ask for support of the claim...

In other words, theists can avoid answering any question posed by a non-theist, unless and until the non-theist can first confim the existence of the deity to everyone's satisfaction? Otseng, have you joined the igtheist camp?

[otseng]

...If someone makes an unsupported claim in a thread and is not explicitly stated as an assumption in the OP, anyone has the right to ask for support of the claim...

In other words, theists can avoid answering any question posed by a non-theist, unless and until the non-theist can first confim the existence of the deity to everyone's satisfaction?

You've twisted what I've said into something that is incomprehensible. What do you mean by "until the non-theist can first confim the existence of the deity to everyone's satisfaction"?

Otseng, have you joined the igtheist camp?

Whether I'm an igtheist or not is irrelevant. Let's leave personal comments directed at me out of this conversation too.

[EduChris]

...You've twisted what I've said into something that is incomprehensible. What do you mean by "until the non-theist can first confim the existence of the deity to everyone's satisfaction"?...

If a non-theist starts a new thread, and if their OP asks a specific question about God's nature or character or actions, do we really need to force the non-theist to explicitly state that God's existence may be assumed for the sake of answering their specific question?

Should theists refuse to answer any question until all of the obvious implicit assumptions in the OP are made explicit? Is that really the only way to ensure that off-topic challenges do not derail the specific question in the OP?

Wouldn't it just be easier--and more in keeping with common sense--to allow that non-theists: 1) don't want to confirm the existence of God, and 2) don't want each and every one of their specific questions about God's nature, character, or actions derailed until God's existence is first somehow "confirmed" to the satisfaction of every last non-theist on this forum?

[otseng]

Should theists refuse to answer any question until all of the obvious implicit assumptions in the OP are made explicit? Is that really the only way to ensure that off-topic challenges do not derail the specific question in the OP?

Ideally, yes, the major assumptions should be explicitly stated in the OP. If not in the OP, then the major assumptions should be stated somewhere. For example, in the TDD subforum, the assumption is that the Bible is considered authoritative. Anyone who debates there should know that this issue is not to be debated. If assumptions are not listed somewhere, then there is sure to be a conflict of assumptions by the participants.

[Jester]

If a non-theist starts a new thread, and if their OP asks a specific question about God's nature or character or actions, do we really need to force the non-theist to explicitly state that God's existence may be assumed for the sake of answering their specific question?

Personally, I do exactly that when I wish to start a topic about the specific nature of God.
I also post the question in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma subforum, and refer any non-theists who demand that I first prove God's existence to the rules against doing so in that part of the site.
I confess that it is satisfying to do this last bit.

Wouldn't it just be easier--and more in keeping with common sense--to allow that non-theists: 1) don't want to confirm the existence of God, and 2) don't want each and every one of their specific questions about God's nature, character, or actions derailed until God's existence is first somehow "confirmed" to the satisfaction of every last non-theist on this forum?

While I agree that some of the demands for evidence of God's existence are unreasonable, theists that don't want to confirm the existence of God should post exclusively in the T,D, & D forum - or on another site.

If, however, you are referring not to an opening post, but to a comment about God's nature made in response to a non-theists challenge, such as:

Non-theist: I have a question for theists: Who created the creator?
Theist: God was not created, but exists eternally*.
Non-theist: I challenge you to show me evidence that God has always existed.

The particular non-theist here is clearly a bad debater. (S)he is not engaging with the position of the theist, but merely demanding evidence for something that is true of the theist's view of God by definition.
If this is the sort of case you are envisioning, I agree that it is frustrating. I even agree that this is shifting the topic (and a breach in rule 4 if it continues).

I see no reason, however, for an extra rule to cover this. This person simply needs to be told that this is off-topic. If (s)he persists, rule 4 will apply.

*For the record, I'd avoid this by claiming "God, as defined by Christianity, was not created, but exists eternally."

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 46:

Personally, I do exactly that when I wish to start a topic about the specific nature of God.
I also post the question in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma subforum, and refer any non-theists who demand that I first prove God's existence to the rules against doing so in that part of the site.
I confess that it is satisfying to do this last bit.

This.

I admit that I can be confused by a claimant's intentions, where they imply one thing, but seemingly say another. I think this confusion on my part is where things get all fouled up. I still propose the solution to a challenge, any challenge, is to just state the nature of the claim.

I'm a very literalist person who has difficulty with concepts or notions presented in my own native language. I remember in school I was asked "Why do we not count our chickens before they hatch?" My response - "Because we might crack an egg." While considered an excellent reason to me, I was told that wasn't even what the question was about.

My challenges are often not even about the claim per se, but about the reasoning behind the claim, and the claimant's credibility. I have and will praise those who are up front, who respond with such as, "Well, about that..."

I get that where an OP makes assumptions explicit, there's value in the discussion. Such may not be of value to me, but I do try to respect that others find value in debating based upon such assumptions.

That said, I try not to make assumptions about a claim until the claim is addressed by the claimant. In this fashion I avoid putting meaning into a claim that may not have been intended. The claimant would then be, it seems to me, within the rules of this site to just state why or how they came to such, and we go from there.

Mine is not an effort to "inflame" or "dictate" or "stop debate". Mine is an effort at finding the truth of a given matter, even if I stumble in my understanding of the intent or underlying assumptions behind a claim. The truth of the matter may well be that it's the claimant's opinion, belief, or of such factualness as to threaten the denier's credibility. I just don't know until the claim is addressed.

In the thread OP mentions, I accepted that the original claim was rife with assumptions, and changed the topic, midthread, to address this. If by doing so I moved the goalposts, I'll accept such a charge, while noting that in my neck of the woods the statement in question is most often expressed as literal, factual truth.

Of course I've come to understand, thanks to this site, that not all theists think this way. This new understanding doesn't just automatically come to mind however when I see claims, so I expect, request, and plead with a given claimant to just fess up as to the nature of their claim. That's all I really ask, even if others may think I'm trying to "dictate" what others are allowed to say.

While I agree that some of the demands for evidence of God's existence are unreasonable, theists that don't want to confirm the existence of God should post exclusively in the T,D, & D forum - or on another site.

Thank you. As well, if I'm unwilling to accept a given assumption, I should just let my position be known, if that, and just hush up.

If, however, you are referring not to an opening post, but to a comment about God's nature made in response to a non-theists challenge, such as:

Non-theist: I have a question for theists: Who created the creator?
Theist: God was not created, but exists eternally*.
Non-theist: I challenge you to show me evidence that God has always existed.

The particular non-theist here is clearly a bad debater. (S)he is not engaging with the position of the theist, but merely demanding evidence for something that is true of the theist's view of God by definition.

My issue here'd be the "...true of the theist's view of God" part. While the opinion may be there, I consider it perfectly valid to analyze that position, to see if it has merit. Of course then we get into the issue of prior assumptions, and especially stipulated assumptions.

For me, I have no problem with saying such as, "It's my opinion", and leaving it for the observer to consider. What I find often happens is there's this big to-do about the mere challenging of a claim. I contend that if folks'd just fess up as to the nature of their claims, there'd be no need for such a fuss.

If this is the sort of case you are envisioning, I agree that it is frustrating. I even agree that this is shifting the topic (and a breach in rule 4 if it continues).

I see no reason, however, for an extra rule to cover this. This person simply needs to be told that this is off-topic. If (s)he persists, rule 4 will apply.

I'd agree that a bit of shifting could be involved, if assumptions were presented prior to, or with the referenced statement. That said, I try to limit my own assumptions about other folks' assumptions. I'm of the "not a good reader of between the lines" crowd. Not proud about it, but there it is.

*For the record, I'd avoid this by claiming "God, as defined by Christianity, was not created, but exists eternally."

One reason I consider Jester among the best of debaters here. Highly intelligent, thorough and up front. Always.

I've been trying to get my mind around why folks disagree with my methods, and I sincerely don't wish to bring the forum down with a post that doesn't really add anything to our debates. My problem, if it is one, seems to lie in my background - where I've been exposed to a literal take on everything biblical.

These assumptions that others make or imply escape me, to the point of presenting what seems to some to be some really goofy challenges on my part. I would contend that in such a case, it's not the challenge that is goofy, but the claim or the assumptions that underlie the claim.

[Jester]

I find I'm still entertained by the endless string of avatars.

In any case, I thought I'd go back into this.
I enjoyed reading the post, but am trying to be less long-winded. I'll respond only when I feel that I actually have something useful to contribute.

I admit that I can be confused by a claimant's intentions, where they imply one thing, but seemingly say another. I think this confusion on my part is where things get all fouled up. I still propose the solution to a challenge, any challenge, is to just state the nature of the claim.

That definitely works with challenges that missed the point of what was being claimed. Clarification is a good thing.
Of course, an accurate challenge should be met with support and a request for the challenger's view (and reasons for it).

My issue here'd be the "...true of the theist's view of God" part. While the opinion may be there, I consider it perfectly valid to analyze that position, to see if it has merit. Of course then we get into the issue of prior assumptions, and especially stipulated assumptions.

It is valid in a general sense - and may or may not be valid relative to the topic of debate.

Either way, I think what a lot of theists are frustrated about isn't so much the consideration of merit of their claims, but the constant being under the microscope by people who aren't willing to put their own takes on life up for the same sort of consideration.
Without some example of what the challenger does find convincing, the theist is equally at a loss to know what sort of support the challenger is willing to accept.

This is definitely my issue. Personally, I simply refuse to debate anyone who won't offer an alternative claim for comparison with my own.

If this is the sort of case you are envisioning, I agree that it is frustrating. I even agree that this is shifting the topic (and a breach in rule 4 if it continues).

I see no reason, however, for an extra rule to cover this. This person simply needs to be told that this is off-topic. If (s)he persists, rule 4 will apply.

I'd agree that a bit of shifting could be involved, if assumptions were presented prior to, or with the referenced statement. That said, I try to limit my own assumptions about other folks' assumptions. I'm of the "not a good reader of between the lines" crowd. Not proud about it, but there it is.

So long as we don't keep hammering once the claim is clarified, an honest mistake is not a problem.

One reason I consider Jester among the best of debaters here. Highly intelligent, thorough and up front. Always.

Thanks much, Joey! Appreciate it.

I've been trying to get my mind around why folks disagree with my methods, and I sincerely don't wish to bring the forum down with a post that doesn't really add anything to our debates. My problem, if it is one, seems to lie in my background - where I've been exposed to a literal take on everything biblical.

I am aware that this is a problem. I've have some serious issues with the way the Bible is presented in some churches. They seem oblivious to the fact that they are a small minority of Christians.

These assumptions that others make or imply escape me, to the point of presenting what seems to some to be some really goofy challenges on my part. I would contend that in such a case, it's not the challenge that is goofy, but the claim or the assumptions that underlie the claim.

I once had a challenger (not you) simply repeat back my claim with an eye-roll smiley to show that he didn't agree. It took me five rounds of posting with him to (sort of) find out what it was he found to be wrong with it. Apparently, my claim struck him as so "goofy" that he thought it should be obvious to everyone (even me) why it was completely wrong. He just kept challenging me to "support it", but I thought I had been supporting it, and didn't have the slightest idea of what other kind of support it was that he wanted.

This is to say that it's hard for those of us getting challenged to have any idea why a claim strikes a challenger as goofy. It really isn't as obvious as it seems, and I think that it would really help if you could offer a counter-claim that you find so ungoofy as to be most probably true. That lets us see where your reasoning process is at.

[SailingCyclops]

.....
I am aware that this is a problem. I've have some serious issues with the way the Bible is presented in some churches. They seem oblivious to the fact that they are a small minority of Christians.

Not only a problem, but it makes understanding someone's "Christian metaphysical framework" / premise impossible to understand. Especially if the premise can't be questioned or challenged.


Christianity is such a broad and diverse belief system, that no two persuasions will agree on many issues. Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons, Pentecostals, Baptists, Catholics, British-Israelites, Eastern Orthodox, etc. etc. etc .... all have their own unique framework. All are minorities in their own right, but corporately make up what's known as Christianity.

When an assumption is made within what has been ambiguously referred to here as a Christian framework, it is entirely unclear, at least to me, what is being assumed. unless it is made within a specific tradition.

Bob

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 48:

Trying to be brief, as we seem to have come to an agreement at least twixt us...

I find I'm still entertained by the endless string of avatars.

I 'preciate that, and honor compels me to say I didn't create 'em.

It is valid in a general sense - and may or may not be valid relative to the topic of debate.

Acknowledged and agreed.

...
Personally, I simply refuse to debate anyone who won't offer an alternative claim for comparison with my own.

In the future, along with trying my best to fully understand the context or assumptions of a claim, I'll see if I can't put up an argument as to why I think there's better conclusions to be drawn from the pertinent data. That said, sometimes I see claims that are rather unlikely to have an opposite, beyond "nah-ah". But I vow here in writing to offer an opposing take where I can.

I've been trying to get my mind around why folks disagree with my methods, and I sincerely don't wish to bring the forum down with a post that doesn't really add anything to our debates. My problem, if it is one, seems to lie in my background - where I've been exposed to a literal take on everything biblical.

I am aware that this is a problem. I've have some serious issues with the way the Bible is presented in some churches. They seem oblivious to the fact that they are a small minority of Christians.

I 'preciate that. I don't say that in order to "hide behind" what would ostensibly be my own ignorance, because that'd be, well, ignorant, but I say it because I do notice that effect as I engage folks on this site. That, and I'm just not a good interpreter of subtle clues and nuance.

He just kept challenging me to "support it", but I thought I had been supporting it, and didn't have the slightest idea of what other kind of support it was that he wanted.

Hopefully I acknowledge a claimant's evidence, even if I may reject conclusions drawn therefrom.

I'll go ahead and apologize to all for those instances where I may have been so dismissive as to not add to these debates.

This is to say that it's hard for those of us getting challenged to have any idea why a claim strikes a challenger as goofy. It really isn't as obvious as it seems, and I think that it would really help if you could offer a counter-claim that you find so ungoofy as to be most probably true. That lets us see where your reasoning process is at.

Tit for tat.

I recognize that I may be awfully slow in learning some of these lessons, but hopefully folks'll see that I do eventually come around. I will endeavor, wherever possible, to put forth as compelling a counter-argument for any claims I may challenge in the future - while recognizing that there'll be times that such may not always be available to me.

That said, my personal opinion is that a counter-argument need not be presented in order to examine claims. I simply wish to extend to the theist my point of view, as they present theirs, so that my own take may be as critically examined as I'm gonna try to do to theirs.