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?

[I AM ALL I AM]

G'day The Mad Haranguer.

The authors of the Bible wrote according their highest understanding, in a different age, and in a different setting. Some were more "enlightened" than others and all included a personal take on things.

So are you stating that the bible is only the writings of men and not the 'Word of God' ?

That appears to be what you have stated. Would you care to clarify your position ?

What if the apparent authors of the bible were fools. Who would be more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows the fool ?

There are signs of Christianity moving past the old dogmatism -- Teilhard Chardin, for example, is no longer the outcast he once was and some who were persecuted are now regarded as saints. Atheism, on the other hand, is still using thousand year old arguments and shows no sign of changing. "Where's the evidence?" they ask, as if to prove a point. The only point they prove by doing so is their own ignorance.

That's it ?

No response to what I actually posted, simply a verbal attack against "Atheism".

Is this verbal attack used because you could not refute what I posted ?

Have you even considered that others ask you for evidence for the claims that you make BECAUSE you have not offered any ?

For approximately 2,000 years no christian has offered evidence that can be verified as other than religious promotional material (propaganda) and/or opinion. Yet you attempt to blame others for asking for evidence of the claims of this apparent 'God' of the bible.

[Cathar1950]

The authors of the Bible wrote according their highest understanding, in a different age, and in a different setting. Some were more "enlightened" than others and all included a personal take on things.

There are signs of Christianity moving past the old dogmatism -- Teilhard Chardin, for example, is no longer the outcast he once was and some who were persecuted are now regarded as saints. Atheism, on the other hand, is still using thousand year old arguments and shows no sign of changing. "Where's the evidence?" they ask, as if to prove a point. The only point they prove by doing so is their own ignorance.

I tend to think it is the box that is invisible and all of us can imagine boxes.
I think atheists have helped make better boxes and imagine better boxes while seeing the fault in some real bad boxes.
I think it is rather sort sighted to claim they have made no contribution just because you imagine a pretty bad box.
One of the nice things they do, along with other skeptics, is point out some of the worse boxes as those that love their boxes are not apt to give them up.

[Zzyzx]

.

in a different age, and in a different setting. Some were more "enlightened" than others and all included a personal take on things.

Exactly -- different era, different setting, different degree of enlightenment, and different personal take on things " with people whose identity isn't even known.

There are signs of Christianity moving past the old dogmatism -- Teilhard Chardin, for example, is no longer the outcast he once was and some who were persecuted are now regarded as saints.

Does the "new" dogmatism recognize that tales of "miracles" and "divinity" (and talking donkeys) cannot be shown to be anything more than imagination?

Atheism, on the other hand, is still using thousand year old arguments and shows no sign of changing. "Where's the evidence?" they ask, as if to prove a point.

It must be tiresome for people who can show no reason why their claims and tales should be believed to be repeatedly asked for reasons they should be believed. Still, they keep trying to promote those ideas as though they were true " without any evidence to show that they speak truth.

Do you believe everything you (collective term) are told by people you don't know? Do you believe that someone else's favorite "god" or "godman" walked on water or came back to life after days in the grave " with NO evidence that the tales are true? If you do, that is known as being nave and gullible. If you don't, you should understand why others are not inclined to accept the tales you offer without evidence of truth.

Those who tire of being asked for evidence that they speak truth can eliminate the problem once-and-for-all by simply producing evidence that they speak truth. But they can't.

The only point they prove by doing so is their own ignorance.

Correction: What they clearly demonstrate is the ignorance level of those who promote ideas without evidence that those ideas are true or accurate.

[tar2]

Wow!

I am new to this forum, but have a habit of reading a thread before I post to it, and this one is a doozy. A lot of good posts and thoughts, it was hard to not respond along the way and difficult, now that I have read through, to remember who I wanted to say what to.

In general, I would say that JoeyKnotHead has every right on a debate board to challenge a claim made by a Theist, concerning an attribute of, or the nature of, the God the Theist claims exists.

But I would also offer, that the kind of proof or evidence required by an atheist is not forthcoming for several reasons. One being, that a supernatural god, is by definition, not natural, that is, not subject to natural laws, or to be found holding a certain position and momentum. And a second being, that since each description of god, the tenants of each religion, is particular to that religion, (reflecting the founder(s) beliefs, and often special claim of knowledge of, or association with said God), an Atheist is already convinced of the origin and nature of the God, as human imagination, due to the great variety of descriptions, and self serving attributes assigned.

At the same time, I do not agree with the Atheist position expressed, that an alternative need not be offered. Proof is possible, an explanation required, for consciousness and purpose and intent to exist in a universe following "natural laws".
The scientific view, expressed, that there is no intent, that it is all accidental, denies the obvious fact that I intended to write this sentence.

There therefore exists, in a lot of people, this Atheist included, the requirement to come up with a "why". I don't care if it is a manmade reason. In fact, it has to be.
But I think it incumbent upon Atheists to make the attempt.

Regards, TAR

[Flail]

Wow!

I am new to this forum, but have a habit of reading a thread before I post to it, and this one is a doozy. A lot of good posts and thoughts, it was hard to not respond along the way and difficult, now that I have read through, to remember who I wanted to say what to.

In general, I would say that JoeyKnotHead has every right on a debate board to challenge a claim made by a Theist, concerning an attribute of, or the nature of, the God the Theist claims exists.

But I would also offer, that the kind of proof or evidence required by an atheist is not forthcoming for several reasons. One being, that a supernatural god, is by definition, not natural, that is, not subject to natural laws, or to be found holding a certain position and momentum. And a second being, that since each description of god, the tenants of each religion, is particular to that religion, (reflecting the founder(s) beliefs, and often special claim of knowledge of, or association with said God), an Atheist is already convinced of the origin and nature of the God, as human imagination, due to the great variety of descriptions, and self serving attributes assigned.

At the same time, I do not agree with the Atheist position expressed, that an alternative need not be offered. Proof is possible, an explanation required, for consciousness and purpose and intent to exist in a universe following "natural laws".
The scientific view, expressed, that there is no intent, that it is all accidental, denies the obvious fact that I intended to write this sentence.

There therefore exists, in a lot of people, this Atheist included, the requirement to come up with a "why". I don't care if it is a manmade reason. In fact, it has to be.
But I think it incumbent upon Atheists to make the attempt.

Regards, TAR

One persons 'god guesses' does not make it incumbent on others to likewise engage in guessing.

[The Mad Haranguer]

.

The only point they prove by doing so is their own ignorance.

Correction: What they clearly demonstrate is the ignorance level of those who promote ideas without evidence that those ideas are true or accurate.

If it's evidence you want, there is more evidence for Berkeleian idealism than material realism. After all, energy and matter are the same thing. There is no reason to assume energy and purpose are dualistic and, considering the reasonableness of the universe, plenty of reason to suppose purpose is intrinsic to energy.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence: where is the evidence for your claim that "just because" is sufficient to explain the cosmos?

[tar2]

Flail,

No, I suppose it doesn't.

But I have this theory that there is an analogy between the "authority" that a Thiest gives to God, and the "authority" that an Atheist gives to "the Scientific Method".

Both involve an "unseen other", that does not actually exist. Both have their preists that have a special knowledge of the truth. And in both cases followers take on faith, that which they do not understand themselves. And in both cases unbelievers do not recognize the error of their ways.

Might not be incumbent upon all to God guess, but if my theory is correct, all have chosen their guiding spirits. Seems fair to ask everybody for a declaration of theirs.

Regards, TAR

[The Mad Haranguer]

• 1: Matter and energy are different states of the same thing.
  
  2: Human beings are purpose-driven entities.
  
  3: Human beings do not exist in the universe, but are parts of the universe.
  
  4: Insofar as science can determine, the universe began as a singularity.
  
  5: Because the universe began as a singularity, everything is physically connected to and entangled with everything else.
  
  6: The extent of this entanglement is unknown, but peak experiences in which the self and all boundaries seem to dissolve happen.

Can skeptics compile a similar list supporting their claim that unconscious matter-energy is the ground of all being? That is, of course, assuming they understand what "ground of all being" even means.

Note: I mean no offense, but it saddens me to see what are essentially parts of me struggling to maintain the appearance of being rational. Nevertheless, they do represent the vast majority of human beings. Perhaps their interest in forums such as this is evidence of not being so settled in their thinking as they think they are.

[The Mad Haranguer]

I tend to think it is the box that is invisible and all of us can imagine boxes.
I think atheists have helped make better boxes and imagine better boxes while seeing the fault in some real bad boxes.
I think it is rather sort sighted to claim they have made no contribution just because you imagine a pretty bad box.
One of the nice things they do, along with other skeptics, is point out some of the worse boxes as those that love their boxes are not apt to give them up.

Is there such thing as a good box?

[Flail]

tar wrote:

But I have this theory that there is an analogy between the "authority" that a Thiest gives to God, and the "authority" that an Atheist gives to "the Scientific Method"...
Might not be incumbent upon all to God guess, but if my theory is correct, all have chosen their guiding spirits. Seems fair to ask everybody for a declaration of theirs.

Since I am neither theist nor atheist, perhaps I can stick to scotch as my guiding spirit?