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?

[The Mad Haranguer]

A final word on this subject.

Atheists, at least in this forum, generally reduce the question of Gods existence to a simple, yes or no and make your case based upon my understanding. Thats not debate.

Preceding any discussion about whether God exists, there must first be agreement on what the term means. It means what the theist, not the atheist, wants it to mean. If the atheist determines what "God" means, the theist is most likely to be obliged to say that God does not exist. But if I a theist says the substance of God is energy, how is the atheist to proceed? That being the case, God certainly does not act outside of nature as the atheist understands nature.

If the atheist asks, How do you know God is? and if the answer is "by way of apperception" (i.e., realized by a knowing that is beyond perception) and then proceeds to ask for evidence, the atheist is either ignorant of what apperception means or is just out to make an ass of himself. For such a theist, atheism is simply a hypothesis with no arguable points. In other words, atheism is irrelevant when not an amusing diversion.

[Crazy Ivan]

Atheists, at least in this forum, generally reduce the question of Gods existence to a simple, yes or no and make your case based upon my understanding. Thats not debate.

I find there is great care by atheists in this forum to ascertain exactly what the nature of the "god" in question is, in order to tell if there is a chance for meaningful debate.

Preceding any discussion about whether God exists, there must first be agreement on what the term means. It means what the theist, not the atheist, wants it to mean.

Kindly quote an instance where an atheist here demanded that "god" meant something in clear contrast to what the theist was arguing "god" to be.

If the atheist determines what "God" means, the theist is most likely to be obliged to say that God does not exist. But if I a theist says the substance of God is energy, how is the atheist to proceed? That being the case, God certainly does not act outside of nature as the atheist understands nature.

I have often witnessed the end of debate simply because it's acknowledged the theist's understanding of "god" is indistinguishable from something that can be described in the language of Science. So there is nothing to debate. It clearly displays a wish to be "religious" or "spiritual", or simply not "atheist", probably derived of peer pressure, without the actual beliefs that most theists relate to.

If the atheist asks, How do you know God is? and if the answer is "by way of apperception" (i.e., realized by a knowing that is beyond perception) and then proceeds to ask for evidence, the atheist is either ignorant of what apperception means or is just out to make an ass of himself.

It's pointless to ask for evidence of experience, and it's not something I've come across in this forum, despite your misplaced complaint. But if "experience" is all you have, there isn't much you have to offer in a debate forum. This should be obvious.

For such a theist, atheism is simply a hypothesis with no arguable points. In other words, atheism is irrelevant when not an amusing diversion.

"Atheism" is disbelief in theistic claims. The only "arguable points" concerned are those offered by theists, and how they're too inadequate to generate belief. Without even understanding what atheism is, you're hardly in a position to criticize.

[I AM ALL I AM]

... But if I a theist says the substance of God is energy, how is the atheist to proceed? ...

... "by way of apperception" (i.e., realized by a knowing that is beyond perception) ...

G'day The Mad Haranguer.

The substance of my physicality is energy. Does this mean that I am "God" to you ?

If not, please explain why, when I my physicality fits the description that you provide to re-present "God", that I am not "God" to you.

If something is perceived it can be known, if it can be known, then it can be considered a "knowing". How can something that is "beyond perception" be known if it cannot be perceived ?

Unless you have a different meaning attached to those words, it makes little to no sense what you have stated.

know-ing
(nng)
adj.
1. Possessing knowledge, information, or understanding. See Synonyms at intelligent.
2. Showing clever awareness and resourcefulness; shrewd.
3. Suggestive of secret or private knowledge: a knowing glance.
4. Deliberate; conscious: a knowing attempt to defraud.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/knowing


per-cep-tion
(pr-spshn)
n.
1. The process, act, or faculty of perceiving.
2. The effect or product of perceiving.
3. Psychology
a. Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory.
b. The neurological processes by which such recognition and interpretation are effected.
4.
a. Insight, intuition, or knowledge gained by perceiving.
b. The capacity for such insight.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/perception

[Jester]

Moderator Comment

Oh, how people hate it what their own ammo is used against them.

Both one liners (that don't contribute) and personal comments (particularly negative ones) are not allowed under the rules.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 114:

Atheists, at least in this forum, generally reduce the question of Gods existence to a simple, yes or no and make your case based upon my understanding. Thats not debate.

I challenge you to show you speak truth.

Preceding any discussion about whether God exists, there must first be agreement on what the term means. It means what the theist, not the atheist, wants it to mean.

Yes, where the claimant defines the terms. Sometimes though we point out inconsistencies, so definitions may become debatable.

If the atheist asks, How do you know God is? and if the answer is "by way of apperception" (i.e., realized by a knowing that is beyond perception)...

How one can know something, without perception, is beyond my fathoming.

I notice many theists use such nonsense phrases to support their unprovable beliefs.

and then proceeds to ask for evidence, the atheist is either ignorant of what apperception means or is just out to make an ass of himself.

More ad hom attacks?

Is it part of your religious training to insult those who disagree, or do you come by it through "apperception".

[Jester]

Does a "judgment call" count as a "best guess"?

Yes, in my understanding, but I suppose the final answer would be in the hands of the person making the claim.

[Flail]

The Mad Haranguer wrote:

Preceding any discussion about whether God exists, there must first be agreement on what the term means. It means what the theist, not the atheist, wants it to mean.

What does the term 'God' mean?
The Mad Haranguer wrote:

If the atheist asks, How do you know God is? and if the answer is "by way of apperception" (i.e., realized by a knowing that is beyond perception).

Kindly describe your 'apperception of 'God' with particularity.

[Jester]

Whoa Nelly!
I completely missed this - sorry!

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.

This (and the snipped explanation) are the claim that you aren't personally interested in the idea of determining which case is most likely to be true.
Well, if you're not, you're not. Okay but I don't find that convincing in itself. If you could support the idea that we can consider the value of a particular claim in a non-relativistic manner, I'd love to debate it.
I don't see how we can do that without absolute proof, however. Everything in life is our best guess.
So, here, which guess is best? We don't know - we've been considering only one guess in a vacuum. I don't see the value in that.

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?

Unless you are willing to actually suggest that we're not 'taters, I don't see how you've any logical reason to behave as if we're not.
To do that, you aren't required to say a thing about strawberries, but - at the very least - "not 'taters" has to come out of your keystrokes at some point.

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.

I can understand that, but my first disagreement is that there are any standards of this site that keep you from arguing that position. I'd say, rather, that it is a needlessly (and harmfully) narrow definition of what is acceptable as a reason for acceptance that has crippled the atheists ability to support the traditional atheist stance of "God does not exist".
This is one reason why I question those demands. Atheist arguments, as of late, seem to be as good at refuting their own traditional argument as their understanding of God. As such, atheism seems to have been redefined to something indistinguishable from agnosticism. (As a tangent, I keep wondering why we aren't simply calling it agnosticism at this point.)
But, if you genuinely feel that there is simply no reason to believe either way here, that is certainly your right. The trouble I see with most who take this position, however, is twofold:
1. As stated earlier, they aren't actually making a case. A non-position means just that. Nothing they say is actually in support of any answer to the topic of God's existence, and can't logically be taken as such.
2. I, personally, have a certain ethical issue with the idea of claiming to reject both beliefs, but to fervently challenge claims in favor of God's existence while making statements that tacitly support the idea that Christianity is untrue. (Such as the claim that there is nothing immoral about refusing to defer to God's commands in the Bible.) As an atheist (agnostic), you are certainly free to reject Christian claims, but it seems inherently contradictory to then claim to not be taking the stance that it is false.

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).

Nearly everything that either of us say are not things that we can verify as fact. As a matter of fact, I don't overtly declare God's existence (or the existence of the physical universe, for that matter) to be fact, but merely the possibility I consider to be most likely.

If I challenge a theist's claim, I may be reticent to declare a position that I know to be faulty

Therein lies my problem. If the belief that a claim is false is agreed to be faulty even by opponents of a belief, that does not establish it as true. It does, however, lend it a great deal more credibility as the most likely option. All the challenges (which lack support of any opposing claim) in the world do not change that.

but this shouldn't negate that challenge.

I don't feel that the challenge has been negated at all in the sense that a request for support was made. What I feel has been negated is any notion that such a challenge is remotely making a case that we ought to reject the claim as the most likely possibility.
If you have no issue with the idea that God's existence is the most likely possibility, and only wish to challenge the claim that it is proved, then, by all means, continue.

Nor should it be considered "not good" debate simply because I abide by the rules.

My position that this is not effective debating has nothing to do with the rules. If you find yourself unable to support a position as more likely than the one claimed, you cannot effectively debate an opposition to that claim. That is a fact of debate.
Analogy alert:
If a Young Earth Creationist can't support his claims as fitting the evidence better than Darwinism, his debating is not effective. Yes, I am personally pleased when he admits that, but any gained respect threatens to then be lost if he insists that he can still argue "against evolution" without offering something that better fits the evidence.
Many Young Earth Creationists seem to suffer from the misconception that they needn't offer anything better. So long as they can show something which evolution can't yet explain, they reason, they win. In reality, that's simply not how it works. The best explanation wins, even if it isn't perfect.
The same thing holds true here. We can't simply look at a claim in a vacuum, and decide whether or not to accept or reject it without such comparisons.

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.

This continues to be claimed, but I don't see anything in the way of support or refutations of my reasons for rejecting it.

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

I don't know what "shown to be true" means other than "better than the alternatives" or "proved absolutely". I don't think you're arguing the latter, and clearly not the former. In which case, is there a third alternative I haven't listed?

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 definitely take that route with darn near everything. If it isn't a problem for you either, then I don't understand why it would be a problem to make a conditional/provisional statement about God's existence.

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.

More than helpful, I'd say it is vital for any who are actually trying to make a determination.
As to the position that there is nothing on which to base a determination (agnosticism), my problem with it is that, when we get up in the morning, we have to decide to pray or not, sacrifice to Zeus or not, abstain from drinking because of Allah's command or down that bourbon, etc, etc, etc.
This seems to me to be perfectly analogous to that whole matter of not having evidence for the physical universe. Yes, coming up with anything solid on the subject is difficult at best. But life has put us in the position of needing to behave as if the idea is true or as if it is not. Meaning that, consciously or unconsciously, we're making a determination.
Given that, I intend to do it consciously. So the question of which is most likely becomes important.
I suppose anyone can disagree, saying that it isn't really important. Even if they rejected everything I've just written, however, (other than ask them why) I'm left wondering if claiming that answering the question isn't important constitutes debating that question.
Certainly, it doesn't constitute debating it effectively.

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

I agree, and don't see that as a problem. The question "does God exist" has hardly been doctored. It is a basic question, and, whether or not it feels fair to you or I, I don't see that avoiding answering it (and supporting that answer, of course) is going to help anyone determine anything about the truth.

But, as to your version of the question:

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.

Other than repeat my question about the meaning of "shown to be true", this isn't a rephrasing of the question. This is a different question.
I agree that all sides should support their claims. That's a staple of debate, and seems therefore superfluous to add it to a topic question (though I never mind a reminder for those that seem ignorant of the fact).
Yes, you should be allowed to challenge. If you find anyone claiming that you shouldn't be allowed to challenge a claim, then send me the link, and I'll show up and support the case that challenges should be allowed.
That has never been what I've claimed, however. I've claimed that any challenges you make, given your overall non-position on the subject, should not be taken remotely as a case that the claims you challenge should be rejected. They might make the case that a particular reason for accepting them is not itself valid, they might not. But they cannot do more than that.
If you have no intention of making the case that the belief in God should be rejected, then you are free to continue as you have. I really have nothing outside of personal subjective wishes for some more "hard-line" atheists to say to that.

One very big difficulty I have, however (and pardon the length here, I know I'm almost to the point of babbling), is the fact that the claim that "non-acceptance" is distinct from believing a claim to be false has never itself been supported. It has been asserted many times, by many people. I don't, however, see any support whatsoever that there are ways to reject an idea other than the following:
1. Determining it to be false (or, more accurately, most likely false)
2. Claiming uncertainty (which is not properly a determination, but is understandable)
3. Refusing to consider the matter (which sounds most like what some other atheists have claimed - it not being "worth their time" and the like - and otherwise strikes me as purposeful ignorance)

I've heard the assertion that simple "non-acceptance" must be added to this list, divorced from any of the above positions, but haven't yet seen anything approaching a valid reason to accept that.

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.

Let me write this as I read it:
"It's a possibility regarding (something off the topic of God's existence), and an alternate explanation (of the support of) those claims (but, specifically, is a non-stance about the claims themselves)."
What you have written above, while very intelligent and worth reading, is not a position on God's existence, nor is it an alternate claim to "God exists".

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.

How would this not apply equally well to anything?
Any theory or idea is imperfect. Claiming that one can't be shown to be true simply because you can challenge it doesn't, therefore make sense. Even responses to these sorts of challenges can always be met with any number of alternate explanations, or (and I see this a lot on all sides) simple personal incredulity.
The evolution debate is again a great analogy. The question is "best fit", not "can this be established in a vacuum".

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.

You are free to choose that. I'm not arguing otherwise. I'm only pointing out that you, by definition, aren't answering the question.
That being the case, I don't see how you're making a case that it at all significant to those of us who happen to be looking for an answer.

"God exists."

"Challenge."

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

"I believe you brother, I believe."

Can I just say "strawman" to this, and skip all the ramble about how this still doesn't remotely answer the question of existence or makes a case that is significant to that question?

Or...

"God exists."

"Challenge."

"Because it's possible."

"Now you've lost me."

I don't remember arguing that. If someone else is, condolences, but I don't see what that has to do with my point.

Is this the "I shouldn't accept the condition you propose on the grounds that others will abuse it" argument? If not, you've lost me.

As before, a claim can be shown true or it can't

Can you support this?
As to supporting the opposite claim:
Evolution can't be shown to be "true" in a vacuum (i.e. without knowing whether or not there is a better explanation out there).

with little to no gray area in between

In my experience, it's almost entirely gray area.

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.

Again the assertion without the support. Imagine that this were a claim in favor of God's existence, then imagine what atheists would do to it if it were.

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 don't ever remember claiming that you couldn't question. All I've ever claimed is that those questions don't add up to a reason for rejection.
If you agree that you've given no reason for rejection, question all you'd like.

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.

Okay, that's perfectly valid.
Point completely retracted.

The only value this site has for me is the potential for determining what is true ...

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

Thanks!

I, however, consider it quite helpful to my cause when I challenge theist claims and they can't show they speak truth,

I don't mind questions at all, even challenges.
I don't, however, see that this tells us anything at all about whether or not theists have shown that they speak truth.

they complain about even being challenged

Yeah, I don't understand that either.
As a theist myself, I feel the urge to apologize for them.
So, sorry.

or they ignore the challenge altogether.

Sorry x2.

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.

I hope that observers notice that a challenge alone tells us nothing about the claim, but only about the particular support. The issue of what is actually most likely to be true has been left completely untouched.
Will the average reader really notice that? I doubt it, which is why I bring the issue up.

[Crazy Ivan]

I hope that observers notice that a challenge alone tells us nothing about the claim, but only about the particular support. The issue of what is actually most likely to be true has been left completely untouched.

Nope. Inadequate support of a particular claim makes that claim less likely to be true and all other claims more likely to be true. A Muslim's belief might very well be strengthened by the inadequate support of a Christian claim upon an atheist's (or anyone else's) challenge, and vice versa.

[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.

If the challenger's aim is to ask questions, do so with respect and bear in mind that none of the "masters" (Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tsu, Moses, etc.) taught with an objective understanding in mind. 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.

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

[center]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.[/center]
(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. 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.