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?

[Zzyzx]

.

In my opinion the claim "If you challenge my statements or position you must present an alternative", is the height of the ridiculous. WHERE in reasoning, logic, or Forum Rules is that a "requirement"?

It appears to be nothing more than an outright (and transparent) dodge by those who cannot or will not support their claims.

The purpose of any debate is for both sides of an issue to present arguments by which one can make a determination who makes the better case. True or false?

False dichotomy. Debate can have many purposes. My objective (purpose) here is to help supernaturalists demonstrate to readers that they cannot support the tales they tell and the claims they make.

If one party makes a weak case and the other makes no case at all, who wins the debate?

Winning a debate has no meaning to me. Perhaps that is important or motivation to you or others; however, I am not bound by your / their limitations.

It's much, much, much easier to find holes in any argument than to make a cogent argument that supports your side of a debate.

My side of the argument is simply to point out the CLAIMS are being made about invisible, undetectable, supposedly supernatural gods that cannot be supported. I make no claim of non-existence of the thousands of proposed gods, but rather, I maintain that evidence has not been presented (beyond unverified tales, conjecture, opinion and dogma) to indicate that any of them actually exist or influence human lives (or proposed, unverified, afterlives).

So, who's dodging? The one presenting a weak case or the nay-sayer?

I am more than satisfied to allow readers to decide who is dodging.

BTW, what evidence can be presented other than bible tales, conjecture, opinion and dogma to support a claim that any of the storied miracles actually, literally occurred in the real world?

[The Mad Haranguer]

.
BTW, what evidence can be presented other than bible tales, conjecture, opinion and dogma to support a claim that any of the storied miracles actually, literally occurred in the real world?

That's not what religion is about. You are allowing the hammer (facts) to tell you what nails (Reality) are -- and to a hammer, everything is a nail.

As I pointed out elsewhere, there are at least three categories of knowing: factual, relational and experiential. Facts are not always appropriate when it comes to relationships or experience. A myth or religious truth can convey meaning without being factual.

[Grumpy]

The Mad Haranguer

The purpose of any debate is for both sides of an issue to present arguments by which one can make a determination who makes the better case. True or false?

It depends, you can set up a formal debate with each side making positive arguments for initial statements, or someone makes a claim and the implicit alternative is either the negative of that claim or the null position.

Otseng and McCullough had a formal debate where each stated a positive claim(god is more likely to exist/god is not likely to exist). In that instance there were two stated positions.

But otseng has made a claim in this thread that god is the most likely position, and the inherent counter position is null. It is entirely appropriate to demand that those making such claims during an argument to provide evidence or reason for that claim or we are justified in dismissing the claim as false defaulting to what has been evidenced(the Universe).

If one party makes a weak case and the other makes no case at all, who wins the debate?

If someone makes a statement and can provide no support, it is they who loose even if noone makes a counter claim(rule 5).

It's much, much, much easier to find holes in any argument than to make a cogent argument that supports your side of a debate.

1. If you make a claim without providing evidence of it's veracity or the reasoning behind it rule 5 says you should withdraw the claim.

2. When you make a positive claim during the general argument I don't necessarily have a side, but I do ask for supporting evidence. Otherwise that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without debate.

3. Making a claim about god being the most likely explanation requires that you present evidence of why you think that is before I can even have a side. If you say god because you cannot believe that the Universe could exist otherwise you must have evidence that convinced you of that, present it. THEN I will provide evidence of why that is not so or make claims of my own.

I can get along just fine without the supernatural, claims of it's existence unsupported by any valid evidence are automatically placed in file 13(the round one in the corner), just like the monster in the closet or under the bed, as being superstitious non-sense. I have very good reasons and abundant evidence for the natural world's existence and absolutely no evidence of any supernatural phenomena and therefore no reason to consider it seriously, UNLESS someone makes a positive claim that it does exist.

I stand attentive, waiting for valid positive evidence of such...imaginative claims. Do your best. There will be a test.

Grumpy

[I AM ALL I AM]

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

Answer: yes.

G'day The Mad Haranguer.

You missed a few other questions.

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

Sorry. I cant take seriously anyone who feels it necessary to dramatize what he says by using an unconventional font or uses the FSM parody in their post. Someone who uses the FSM hasnt seriously wrestled the question: there are at least two Christian definitions of God that make the FSM go away: God being ""that than which nothing greater can be conceived" and "God is existence."

However, I do like the signature, "When paired opposites define your beliefs, your beliefs will imprison you." I totally agree. Interestingly, though, such a statement contradicts the whole idea of "debate" because the very notion of debate implies dualism -- paired opposites defining your beliefs.

G'day The Mad Haranguer.

Well, that's a novel way of dodging questions.

Does such a response imply that you are a fontist ?

You appear to have some prejudices that inhibit your willingness to communicate with others in a debate. Or have you cited such on the basis of not being able to answer the questions that I posed ?

"Christian definitions" are based upon the assumption that their chosen deity is real, even though there is no evidence supporting such a deity and therefore why it is an assumption. It is also notable that you use such definitions to "make the FSM go away" ... whatever that means.

Even though you agree with the signature, it appears that you do not fully comprehend it. It specifically states "paired opposites". A debate can take place between differing view points that do not entail "paired opposites".

It also appears that you do not recognise the "paired opposites" within the christian religious doctrine, such as, 'God' vs 'Satan' (representative of 'good' and 'evil').

[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.

Are you advocating the idea that God does not exist - or is unlikely to exist?

Disagreeing with me is one thing, but asking this now is just a slap in the face.

[JoeyKnothead]

I cant take seriously anyone who feels it necessary to dramatize what he says by using an unconventional font...

Does such a response imply that you are a fontist ?

Hello, I AM ALL I AM.

Just so you know, there are those of us who support your right to marry the font of your choosing.

[Zzyzx]

.

I cant take seriously anyone who feels it necessary to dramatize what he says by using an unconventional font...

Does such a response imply that you are a fontist ?

Just so you know, there are those of us who support your right to marry the font of your choosing.

I second Joey -- and note that those who have little or nothing of substance to contribute often choose to focus upon non-substantive matters.

I, for one, cannot take seriously in debate anyone who cannot support claims, statements or assertions with something other than unverified tales, conjecture, opinion and emotionalism.

[Jester]

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.

A challenge to provide credible evidence to a truth claim which elicits a single response..."well what is your alternative claim", tells volumns about the veritable lack of such evidence.
An alternative claim is perhaps implicit in a challenger's request for credible evidence. The alternative claim is: "Your truth claim cannot be the subject of valid consideration or debate unless and until you can demonstrate to what it is you are referring."

I have no objection to the general concept of an implicit claim. This one, however, has been put forth (both implicitly and explicitly) many times already in this topic.
My response thus far has been to point out that it is not a claim on the topic of discussion at all. It does not resolve the matter of trying to discuss a single option in a vacuum.
Thus far, I've received no response to this answer save the (true, but inconsequential) statement that people are allowed by the rules to challenge even if they aren't actually making a case, and (more often) a repetition of the claim.

Are you advocating the idea that God does not exist - or is unlikely to exist?

No, I am responding to your claim that He does exist.

I agree that you are responding, but I don't see how anything here remotely makes the case that such a claim is wrong. Specifically, you have avoided even claiming that the statement is false.

Before we debate please provide me a definition of your proposed existent 'God'

Requesting a definition is perfectly acceptable before such a debate. I will be happy to do so, when we are debating the topic of God's existence.

when and where you observed/detected/communicated with such a being; who was present; upon what basis do you claim that this creature was a 'god' and what credible evidence do you claim supports your conclusions?

Those are all questions which come after a debate has begun, not before it can be started.
In any case, any success or failure to answer them on the part of the theist does not affect my claim here (that a non-position means just that: no case is actually being made).

Without this information I find nothing valid to debate and no other alternative to suggest.

If i find a claim to be weak, I consider the inverse claim, and, if it is stronger, take that.
You are allowed to avoid accepting neither. I have no argument with that. I have merely pointed out, as you seem to say here, that you are then not debating the topic at all.

[I AM ALL I AM]

.

I cant take seriously anyone who feels it necessary to dramatize what he says by using an unconventional font...

Does such a response imply that you are a fontist ?

Just so you know, there are those of us who support your right to marry the font of your choosing.

I second Joey -- and note that those who have little or nothing of substance to contribute often choose to focus upon non-substantive matters.

I, for one, cannot take seriously in debate anyone who cannot support claims, statements or assertions with something other than unverified tales, conjecture, opinion and emotionalism.

G'day JoeyKnothead & Zzyzx.

The font and I are enjoying a relationship of bliss free from fontist persecution and religious doctrine.

Oh, to be bold and blue,
Emboldened font written anew,
Of evidence supporting a claim true,
Or never mentioned in debate with you.

May the Flying Spaghetti Monster be with you.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 152:

That's not what religion is about. You are allowing the hammer (facts) to tell you what nails (Reality) are -- and to a hammer, everything is a nail.

Why do so many theists wish to dismiss facts as they relate to reality?

...
A myth or religious truth can convey meaning without being factual.

It's when folks go to declaring their myths or "religious truths" as objective fact that I go to challenging.

As this subforum seeks to determine the truth of claims, surely we'd consider fact before myth or "religious truth". And what's up with that? "Religious truth"? Why the need for the qualifier?