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.

[I AM ALL I AM]

.
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.

G'day Zzyzx.

I totally agree.

It appears that those that cannot support their claims are attempting to 'rewrite the rules' to facilitate their not being held accountable for providing evidence for the claims that they make.

Because someone cannot 'kick the ball between the goal posts' does not mean that everyone else is required to move the 'goal posts' to make them 'feel okay' with themselves. This is supposed to be a debate forum, not a 'make little Johnny/Jenny feel good about himself/herself' forum.

[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.

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?

[Jester]

Moderator Comment

No. You said: "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." Moderator or no moderator, that's an indicator of diatribe being the motivator.

I won't waste my time.

If this is your position, then don't waste your time writing messages like this. It is neither civil nor does it contribute to debate.
Consider yourself warned: continuing to make posts like this will get you placed on probation.

[Flail]

Jester wrote:

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."
Jester wrote:

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. Before we debate please provide me a definition of your proposed existent 'God'; 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? Without this information I find nothing valid to debate and no other alternative to suggest.

[The Mad Haranguer]

...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.

[The Mad Haranguer]

Moderator Comment

No. You said: "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." Moderator or no moderator, that's an indicator of diatribe being the motivator.

I won't waste my time.

If this is your position, then don't waste your time writing messages like this. It is neither civil nor does it contribute to debate.
Consider yourself warned: continuing to make posts like this will get you placed on probation.

Sorry, Jester. In my mind "civil" also means being "respectful." Even the FSM fails on that account.

I put him on my ignore list.

[JoeyKnothead]

Moderator Comment

No. You said: "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." Moderator or no moderator, that's an indicator of diatribe being the motivator.

I won't waste my time.

If this is your position, then don't waste your time writing messages like this. It is neither civil nor does it contribute to debate.
Consider yourself warned: continuing to make posts like this will get you placed on probation.

Sorry, Jester. In my mind "civil" also means being "respectful." Even the FSM fails on that account.

I put him on my ignore list.

You're gonna be waitin' a spell, that line's longer than the one at Megan Fox's door.

Just as well ignore me as to complain and carry on when your claims get challenged.

ALL HAIL HIS NOODLINESS!

[The Mad Haranguer]

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

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

[The Mad Haranguer]

No, I am responding to your claim that He does exist. Before we debate please provide me a definition of your proposed existent 'God'; 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? Without this information I find nothing valid to debate and no other alternative to suggest.

These are unfair conditions as they require me to define the God I believe in out of existence. A being and a 'god' are themselves definitions that do not apply.