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]

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.

[Flail]

The Mad Haranguer wrote:

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

I don't think challenges necessarily amount to diatribe(bitter/abusive attacks) despite the absence of expressed alternatives.

Often alternatives are implicit within challenges.

[The Mad Haranguer]

Often alternatives are implicit within challenges.

That may be true, but I've never seen it here.

[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.

[Grumpy]

Jester

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

The other position is inherent in any claim. If you claim a god exists the inherent other position would be that he does not. In fact, the null position is the default on almost every claim, there is no need to provide any other claim for the claim to be evaluated by what is known or can be known about the Universe. Example...

You claim there is a rabbit in your room. I do not need to claim that there is no rabbit in your room to investigate(even if I do not accept your claim as being factual). I certainly do not need to claim that it is a fox, not a rabbit(as you seem to want), nor do I need to claim that rabbits do not exist, or that it is impossible for a rabbit to be where you claim. All I need to do is investigate whether there is, in fact, a rabbit in your room. You could present evidence(a photo maybe)to try to convince me, but I am under no obligation to make a counterclaim or present any evidence for or against your claim. A debate CAN be between two claims, but the null is counterclaim enough to investigate how likely a claim is.

I don't see how we can do that without absolute proof, however. Everything in life is our best guess.

Absolute proof does not exist, as far as we can tell. Should we just throw our hands up in the air and declare all claims as being of equal value? No, we do the best we can. But to call that a guess is not accurate, a guess indicates a decision based on nothing. Our knowledge, while never certain, is much more than a guess. It is not a guess that the sun will appear in the East tomorrow, it is as close to a certainty as it is possible to get. And there are many things that we understand to a similar level, we call these things probable or highly likely(this is a probabilistic Universe). Other things that are claimed by some have no certainty whatsoever, they simply have no reason to be accepted as being true, no indication that they exist outside of the brain of the claimant, no physical evidence. We call these things improbable, not likely, not evidenced.

There is a great deal of difference between these two, and it is not guesswork.

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.

Yes, we do know to a good deal of certainty. And that is not consideration in a vacuum. You make claims that violate the laws of nature, it is up to you to provide evidentiary reasons to think it possible. Sans that it is highly unlikely to be other than a concept(the null position).

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.

Ridiculous! The one that is suggesting we are 'taters is the one on which the burden rests. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without consideration. We've recently seen poster who babble on and on, making one unevidenced claim after another about prime numbers, pyramids and other obvious vacuities. The reason they are obviously delusional is that we have a base of knowledge that informs us as to the veracity of such claims, no alternative(other than the null)needed.

So extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to overcome this knowledge base. It is a dodge to try to require others to make equally unsupported counterclaims or to provide unavailable(and near non-existent)negative evidence for unsupported claims.

If you claim there is a god, or even that a reasonable possibility of that god's existence it is up to you and you alone to provide the evidence if you want anyone to be convinced or even consider your claims as having any merit whatsoever.

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.

We are not required to say a thing if you have not provided any reason to take your claim seriously. People who go around insisting they are 'taters are often restrained for their own good, not for one second does anyone actually entertain the faintest consideration that it might actually be possible. Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence before they need be seriously considered at all, otherwise we are entirely reasonable to dismiss them out of hand. The null is what we know, things outside of what we know must be substantiated, those things which are substantiated become part of what we know, those that are not are discarded as being false claims.

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".

As an atheist I simply do not accept the various claims of gods or other supernatural entities. I accept the null that such things are not evidenced. That does not require me to say that I reject each and every god claim by offering a counterclaim for each separate one. I can make a statement of generality about why I do not accept supernatural claims at all, but I do not have to single out any one of the many god claims to do that, all supernatural, unevidenced claims can reasonably be dismissed without consideration if no valid evidence is forthcoming.

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.

The null is the default. Those claiming that the null is not valid have the burden of supporting that claim. I need make no positive claim of any sort.

And atheism simply means I do not accept your claim that the supernatural exists in any way. I am without the acceptance of the concept of gods. There is simply no reason to do so and it violates what we know of the Universe. But just like the theists who says that he knows god exists is wrong(he does not know), I would be in error to say I know god(s) do not exist, I don't know for an absolute certainty.

So absolute certainty cannot rationally be claimed about existence, nor about the null being true. We can only determine where on a scale of not likely(improbable) to likely(probable)any claim falls. It's really pretty simple, the less positive evidence, the less likely a claim is to be true, no positive evidence means a claim is almost certain to be false.

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.

Not being absolutely certain cannot be used an an excuse to say we know nothing about the likelihood. But a complete lack of evidence makes it unreasonable to call your god most likely. I don't even think the evidence is sufficient to call it possible. Being unevidenced it is among the LEAST likely scenarios and seems to require the complete rejection of logic and evidence to avoid cognitive dissonance.

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.

The fact is the claim is, for all purposes, false UNTIL positive, valid evidence raises it from the scrapheap, and nothing can change that. I do not agree that considering unevidenced things as being non-existent by default is in any way false. Nor is the claim in any way supported by any other claims validity(or lack thereof), it must stand or fall on it's own merits. You can never evidence a things existence because noone can provide evidence of it's non-existence, nor does the near impossible task of proving something does not exist give any credence to that existence. A claim is only as credible as the valid evidence shows it to be, no valid, positive evidence=no credibility, period. The burden is still the claimant's.

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.

God is highly unlikely to exist because there is no valid evidence of that existence at all. This is the very lowest level of likelihood. To say it is the most likely position is not rational, in fact, rationality must be abandoned to make the claim. It is not rational to claim something exists or is likely to exist based on no evidence. Reason and logic cannot make a dent on blunt irrationality.You have provided no reason to accept god as anything but a delusional concept. So it will remain until you provide a reasonable, evidenced argument.

Grumpy

[The Mad Haranguer]

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"?

[micatala]

Moderator Intervention

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"?

This post seems to be an unproductive one-liner which is against the rules.


9. No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates (Do not simply say "Ditto" or "I disagree" in a post. Such posts add little value to debates).

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 121:

>Some snips for brevity, I'll be glad to address anything I snip out<

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.

^my emboldenizationin'

I would propose folks not make claims then. To me, it is relevant to see how a claimant reacts to challenges - do they offer some form of evidence, or do they get all disturbed?

By offering something by way of evidence, we can then consider the claim. By offering excuses, complaints, or just ignoring the challenge (this is NOT Jester), we can start to understand more about the individual making the claims, and perhaps gain a measure of trust in the claimant.

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.

The value in challenging a given claim is in determining the veracity of that claim, IMO.

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.

Not necessarily. By considering evidence for the claim "tater" we are closer to determining our "taterness".

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 [not?] any standards of this site that keep you from arguing that position.
...

If I make a claim (alternative explanation) which I know I can't support (to forum standards), I have violated Rule 5. I agree the mods are quite lenient, and offer as much benefit of the doubt, and patience as is humanly possible. My point is that I value my integrity, and don't wish to litter the threads with retractions (and you've been no help here, my dear friend, considering how many times you've forced me to retract ).

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 matter of honesty, I declare my atheism based on various notions, but as a matter of honor I realize my position can't be supported to forum standards. I can understand folks thinking I may be playing games, but I simply can't honorably make claims outside the bounds of forum rules.

So, *I can, as a matter of clearly expressed opinion make certain claims*, but even then, all I'm doing is offering opinion devoid of supporting data. *Where the mods are willing to be lenient*

(As a tangent, I keep wondering why we aren't simply calling it agnosticism at this point.)

For me, I will honestly say "atheism is the correct answer to 'God?'". My 'problem' comes in trying to abide by forum rules I accept (and consider valid, noble, good, etc.).

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.

Where the proffered evidence is agreed by all to have failed, can't we logically say that piece of evidence is invalid? The implication here is the particular claim is no longer valid, and therefore that particular claim doesn't support the given position. From this we "strike out" one more claim, regardless of the given position.

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.)

I s'pose this depends on the reasons offered. As I say, I am as atheist as they come, but I am bound by forum rules (which I agree are equal and level to all) to debate honorably and so can't present an argument I know to be outside these rules.

(Such as the claim that there is nothing immoral about refusing to defer to God's commands in the Bible.)

This is not a claim I make, except to declare I will follow no god's rules I disagree with.

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.

I look at claims on an individual level, and not so much as a direct link to the "big picture". If a claim fails, it still may or may not cause problems for the God / Not God angle.

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.

Notice then, you are perfectly content to not declare, but are ostensibly asking me to.

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.

I meant faulty in terms of violating forum rules.

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.

I consider the challenge related to the possibility of the claim being shown true. A possibility is already "likely" to some extent.

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.

Exactly. What conclusions folks draw from such is on them.

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.

I accept that, but wonder why folks would complain about others not offering alternatives when the rules of the site don't require such.

The implication I get is that "not good debate" means that one is being less than honorable, or somehow not living up to a standard this site doesn't require - and this implication is potentially a slur (though I'm certain you don't mean it this way).

Notice, we have one who declares challenges to be "diatribe" - regardless of whether the challenge is in accordance with forum 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.

That's just it... I don't debate on whether something is more likely, but whether a given claim can be shown to be true.

With the utmost respect, I will not be confined to considering whether claims are "more likely than not", but will stick closely to determining whether a claim can be shown true.

This is not so much a "fact of debate", as it is attempting to place your requirements into effect (if only as a matter of debate), in contradiction to previous moderator rulings (noting you're 'hatless' here).

Analogy alert:
If a Young Earth Creationist can't support his claims as fitting the evidence better than Darwinism, his debating is not effective.

According to you.

If the claimant can't* support their claim, then regardless of competing theories, the claim is null and void. (*Where all agree they can't)

8<

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.

Because you insist some alternate is required before you'll consider changing your position. I am not bound by this notion, in that a claim that fails is a claim that fails.

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".

Perhaps your possible misunderstanding is in light of your insistence that an alternate claim be presented before the veracity of the first claim can be considered.

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?

It is my contention the veracity of a claim can be considered on its merits, regardless of whether a competing claim is presented.

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 some small sense of honor, and do not wish to violate forum rules regarding claims I know I can't support to the level this site rightly requires.

"God exists because...". Okay, show you speak truth.

Or, as you insist, I must take an opposing position...

"God does not exist because..." and I am forced into presenting some claim I know full well falls outside the bounds of the rules of this site. I am ostensibly being asked to forgo any sense of honor I have, in order that some folks can have an alternate explanation because they are unable to make a determination regarding the initial claim unless someone presents at least one or more of every known alternative explanation.

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.

The problem here is you keep implying that the veracity of the initial claim is dependent on an alternate explanation being shown true / false.

This is the infinite loop I keep referring to. What is so objectionable about determining whether the initial claim is true / correct / accurate on its own merits?

If a claim can not be shown true, then what matters about any alternate explanation? We toss out the original claim and move on to the next.

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.

If it's difficult, do the research before making claims.

If it's impossible, don't make claims.

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.

Agreed. The problem lies in asking me to support an alternate explanation when I can't honorably do so.

Given that, I intend to do it consciously. So the question of which is most likely becomes important.

I declare my atheism consciously, but the problem comes in asking me to support that notion when I know full well it violates forum rules (which I agree are level, good, etc.).

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.

Agreed. However, this says nothing about the veracity of an initial claim.

8<

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.

The initial question in reference here was along the lines of "is a god likely / not likely to exist", and so binds me to support claims regarding "not likely". Instead, I present the question as it relates to initial claims.

"God exists because x."

Can x be shown to be a true statement?

Assuming the evidence for the claim fails, then it need not, as a matter of debate, require an immediate conclusion that a god doesn't exist, nor is a conclusion immediately dependent on an alternate explanation. The evidence fails to show that the one particular claim can't be shown to be true.

8<

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 think the problem here is calling false any claim that can't be shown to be true.

If the claim can't be shown to be true, this should not automatically mean the claim is false. All it means is the claimant is unable to support the claim.

I make no overt claims regarding "non-acceptance", except to note I don't just accept claims to be false simply because a particular clamaint can't support a particular claim.

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".

Exactly, because I can't honorably present a position either way.

It is directly related to the individual claim regarding God / Not God.

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.

The challenge itself is not what determines the veracity of the claim. It is the evidence put forth in support of the claim that would be used.

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.

If folks wish to present alternate explanations, that's on them. My point is that determining the veracity of a claim is not, or at least is not always dependent on alternate explanations.

The evolution debate is again a great analogy. The question is "best fit", not "can this be established in a vacuum".

Actually, I readily admit the ToE is based on reasoned and logical conclusions (if only in my mind) moreso than a type of 1+1=2 sort of evidence.

...
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.

I'm not saying it should be, or even is signficant to those who require an alernate explanation. What I am saying is that the truthfulness of a claim is relatively independent of alternate explanations.

"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?

I apologize if this is indeed a strawman, and it is not my intention to present others' arguments for them.

What I'm getting at is that where the individual claim is shown to be true then I'm that much closer to accepting the "overall" claim - the claim that God exists.

Notice in the example, the important thing is the claim is supported before, or in the absense of any counter claim.

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.

It is predicated on the notion of "likely (or not) to exist", where the possibility is implied by "likelihood".

Where you require some form of probability regarding the "final claim" (God!) resulting from the individual, particular claim, I rely solely on the given claim being shown true. It is my contention the results of analyzing the individual claim may or may not directly impact the likelihood of the "final claim".

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

Can you support this?

It is in relation to the claimant's ability to support their claim, where either they do or they don't (where all agree the claim is or is not supported by the evidence).

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).

Which is why I can't honorably argue the position.

with little to no gray area in between

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

Retracted / amended, except where a claim is agreed by all to have been not / supported.

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.

As above, retracted / amended, except to note where a claim is agreed by all to have been not / supported.

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.

If I may, we are debating whether a challenge must be presented with an alternate explanation. I agree you don't seek to force others to accept your position, but as a matter of debate you implicitly do - keeping in mind caveats and other clarifications you've presented.

8<

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.

When anyone is unable to show they speak truth, it's readily apparent they have failed to show they speak truth.

Of course the failure of a given claim may or may not reflect on the God / Not God issue, but it does eliminate that claim, or it at least tells us that particular person is unable to support that particular claim.

8<

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...

Exactly. Where the support is or is not shown, we are all better able to approach a final conclusion.

The issue of what is actually most likely to be true has been left completely untouched.

Yes and no. I think this relies too much on the "weight" of the claim / evidence to really decide.

>Placing the final sentence back in context<

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.

This is also why I challenge claims - in case the observer has not noticed the nature of, or supporting data for the claim.

Y'all have good'n, and I hope all the puddles you stomp are full.

[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.