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?

[Crazy Ivan]

Party A: God Exists (CLAIM)

This is a claim, just not a claim everyone would debate on as it stands. Some might, others would request a debatable REASON for the proposition to be considered truthful.

"God exists because x. "

Now THIS is a debatable claim as far as I'm concerned. X can be argued as inadequate support for the proposition. It does not demonstrate the proposition is false, it demonstrates the proposition cannot reasonably be considered true based on X alone.

And that is debate. It just doesn't necessarily start at the first claim.

[dgruber]

that is one structure, yes.. but that is not all there is.

There is 'Claim.. blah blah blah.' Can you provide evidence of that claim??

No, then why should we believe that claim?

I personally have never experienced this type of "debate" outside of internet sites. All debate I am familiar with holds to two stances being taken and backup provided for each side. I have read many "asking for evidence" arguments on this site and I have had discussions personally with those arguing against religion/theism/etc in my own life, and I find a common denominator seems to be that the person challenging the claim is often avoiding making any claim specifically as a debate tactic. They intend to force the one making the claim into a position of uncertainty while keeping themselves in a place where nothing needs to be defended. This creates an extremely effective argument, I am not doubting that, but it seems to neglect the intent of the debate. While one wants to "win" the debate, in this particular situation due to the gravity of what "God exists", vs "God does not exist" means , winning hopefully will take a backseat to truth.

Maybe this type of "debate" is brought forth with the right intentions when a new idea is presented, but this idea of god vs. no god has been going on for centuries. All the while there are theists claiming a god, and non-theists (grouping all others into this category for the moment) essentially saying there is no proof, no evidence, nothing can be verified, but other than that taking very little if any actual stance on the matter. When questioned the answer tends to fall back to, one cannot prove that a god does not exist, because nothing can be shown to not exist somewhere or at some time. While I don't disagree with this statement, I offer that most of you out there have an opinion on the matter as to whether or not there is a god, based on your circumstances but do not offer that as it cannot be substantiated. I for one am curious as to some of those opinions. Maybe that is the place for outside of this sub forum, but still would be interested. Anyone who is willing to share their opinion outside of "provide evidence" would be appreciated.

*Edited for my lack of focus in typing

[Crazy Ivan]

What's truly remarkable about all this, is that debaters get flak for arguing that god doesn't exist, automatically being accused of being as religious as those with whom they're debating (rightly so in cases where "god" is poorly or ambiguously defined), and they get flak if they just want to address the merits of the theistic claims used to answer theistic questions, and are accused of not debating at all. A guy just can't win...

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 172

I personally have never experienced this type of "debate" outside of internet sites.

With all respect, here we are.

...
I have read many "asking for evidence" arguments on this site and I have had discussions personally with those arguing against religion/theism/etc in my own life, and I find a common denominator seems to be that the person challenging the claim is often avoiding making any claim specifically as a debate tactic.

Regardless of whether it is a "specific debate tactic" or not, it is valid according to forum rules.

Why should one make claims they know they can't support to the level forum rules require?

They intend to force the one making the claim into a position of uncertainty while keeping themselves in a place where nothing needs to be defended.

Actually, I try not to make claims I know I can't support because I have a personal sense of honor.

Is that so bad?

Who's at fault here, the one who makes claims, or the one who challenges those claims?

This creates an extremely effective argument, I am not doubting that, but it seems to neglect the intent of the debate.

Isn't the intent of debate to examine the truthfulness and accuracy of claims?

How might'n we go about that if we are prevented from challenging claims simply because we can't* present an alternative claim? *As related to forum rules and personal honor.

While one wants to "win" the debate, in this particular situation due to the gravity of what "God exists", vs "God does not exist" means , winning hopefully will take a backseat to truth.

I object to the implication that challengers would put winning before truth.

This is nothing more than typical religionist slander against anyone who disagrees.

Maybe this type of "debate" is brought forth with the right intentions when a new idea is presented, but this idea of god vs. no god has been going on for centuries.

Times change. Rules change. Methods change. I will not be held to the standards of the ancients.

All the while there are theists claiming a god, and non-theists (grouping all others into this category for the moment) essentially saying there is no proof, no evidence, nothing can be verified, but other than that taking very little if any actual stance on the matter.

Can you present "proof", "evidence", "verification" for core religious claims? If not, why do you ostensibly make the assertion they exist, while complaining about folks asking claimants to show they speak truth?

When questioned the answer tends to fall back to, one cannot prove that a god does not exist, because nothing can be shown to not exist somewhere or at some time. While I don't disagree with this statement, I offer that most of you out there have an opinion on the matter as to whether or not there is a god, based on your circumstances but do not offer that as it cannot be substantiated.
...

Would you prefer folks violate forum rules and present an argument they know can't be supported to the level this site's rules require?

[Flail]

Party A: God Exists (CLAIM)

This is a claim, just not a claim everyone would debate on as it stands. Some might, others would request a debatable REASON for the proposition to be considered truthful.

"God exists because x. "

Now THIS is a debatable claim as far as I'm concerned. X can be argued as inadequate support for the proposition. It does not demonstrate the proposition is false, it demonstrates the proposition cannot reasonably be considered true based on X alone.
And that is debate. It just doesn't necessarily start at the first claim.

Agreed. As I have been arguing, without a real world definition or some other parameter or context the claim 'God exists' or even the question 'Does God exist?' is meaningless to debate because we don't have any evidence of a 'god' the existence of which to debate. The claim 'God exists because I exist' is perhaps debatable to some meaningful degree because we have the 'I' and the 'cause claim' to debate...albeit still no 'God.'

[Flail]

that is one structure, yes.. but that is not all there is.

There is 'Claim.. blah blah blah.' Can you provide evidence of that claim??

No, then why should we believe that claim?

I personally have never experienced this type of "debate" outside of internet sites. All debate I am familiar with holds to two stances being taken and backup provided for each side. I have read many "asking for evidence" arguments on this site and I have had discussions personally with those arguing against religion/theism/etc in my own life, and I find a common denominator seems to be that the person challenging the claim is often avoiding making any claim specifically as a debate tactic. They intend to force the one making the claim into a position of uncertainty while keeping themselves in a place where nothing needs to be defended. This creates an extremely effective argument, I am not doubting that, but it seems to neglect the intent of the debate. While one wants to "win" the debate, in this particular situation due to the gravity of what "God exists", vs "God does not exist" means , winning hopefully will take a backseat to truth.

Maybe this type of "debate" is brought forth with the right intentions when a new idea is presented, but this idea of god vs. no god has been going on for centuries. All the while there are theists claiming a god, and non-theists (grouping all others into this category for the moment) essentially saying there is no proof, no evidence, nothing can be verified, but other than that taking very little if any actual stance on the matter. When questioned the answer tends to fall back to, one cannot prove that a god does not exist, because nothing can be shown to not exist somewhere or at some time. While I don't disagree with this statement, I offer that most of you out there have an opinion on the matter as to whether or not there is a god, based on your circumstances but do not offer that as it cannot be substantiated. I for one am curious as to some of those opinions. Maybe that is the place for outside of this sub forum, but still would be interested. Anyone who is willing to share their opinion outside of "provide evidence" would be appreciated.

*Edited for my lack of focus in typing

Your points are well taken. Personally I have devolved into an ignostic position on the matter of 'gods', wherein I contend that until and unless we have evidence of what such a supernatural creature as a 'god' would be, debating truth claims as to the existence of 'gods' is meaningless. That aside, you could develop an interesting thread wherein you invite opinion and speculation only as to what a god might consist of, what characteristics a reasonable and logical 'god' would have if there were any. This could be drafted as a hypothetical and both theists,atheists,agnostics and the like would be freed of the shackles of verifiable evidence for a speculation only sesssion.

[Flail]

Flail wrote:

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 responded:

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.

It is not intended as a claim but rather a response that makes my opinionated point that debating the actual existence of something that has no definition or known existence is meaningless.

Jester wrote:

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

Flail responded:No, I am responding to your claim that He does exist.[/quote]
Jester wrote:

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.

I did not intend to make any claim as to your 'god'. I have no way of discerning to what exact being or creature you refer. Therefore I cannot make any claims about it including that your claim is false. I don't think either of us knows at all what we are talking about...hence the debate is meaningless.

Flail wrote:

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

Jester responded:

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.

However,in this particular thread we are debating the making of and challenging of claims and alternative claims, not specifically the existence or non existence of 'gods'. If I find a claim to be weak, I also consider the inverse and agrue for it. But when the debate involves truth claims as to the existence of supernatural entities that have never been know, defined or identified, we have an entirely different situation IMO, and as I have previously explained.

[dgruber]

With all respect, here we are.

Indeed. Here we are.

Regardless of whether it is a "specific debate tactic" or not, it is valid according to forum rules.

Why should one make claims they know they can't support to the level forum rules require?

Yes it is valid and, of course, fair game. I would hope that the challengers would not use this tactic for the sake of "winning", but rather use it in the search for truth. To date my experience has not always supported that.

I made no statement about claims that can't be supported. I'm not real sure where this comes from other than perhaps your standard question.

Actually, I try not to make claims I know I can't support because I have a personal sense of honor.

Is that so bad?

Who's at fault here, the one who makes claims, or the one who challenges those claims?

No not bad at all. I think that is, as you say, honorable. I don't think anyone is at fault. It is simply people with different view points. World would be a pretty dull place if we thought the same way don't you think?

Isn't the intent of debate to examine the truthfulness and accuracy of claims?

How might'n we go about that if we are prevented from challenging claims simply because we can't* present an alternative claim? *As related to forum rules and personal honor.

Yes we want to debate the truthfulness and accuracy of claims, I am in complete agreement. What I am trying to convey is that often times, from my experience, it is not done in an honorable fashion. Joey you seem to be honorable and seem to not fit this "situation" (maybe I'm biased since you too are from Georgia), so I would be interested in knowing what you think and what your opinions are as it relates to a god. Forget verifiable evidence. I'm interested in your opinion on the matter. I am not one who will cry for evidence with your opinions.

I object to the implication that challengers would put winning before truth.

This is nothing more than typical religionist slander against anyone who disagrees.

I am going to chalk this up to misunderstanding because otherwise I would be quite frustrated. I am as open as anyone to new ideas and most that know me would balk at this statement. I meant this statement for all, simply saying that I hope truth is the number 1 priority. "Typical Religionist Slander" is a very powerful choice of words especially when the statement was taken out of context. I would ask that you recant this statement.

Times change. Rules change. Methods change. I will not be held to the standards of the ancients.

You are certainly entitled to whatever opinion suites you and honestly I don't disagree with you.

Can you present "proof", "evidence", "verification" for core religious claims? If not, why do you ostensibly make the assertion they exist, while complaining about folks asking claimants to show they speak truth?

First of all I NEVER made "core religious claims," and I never made the assertion they exist. I also am not complaining about "folks asking claimants to show they speak truth". I am trying to ensure that truth is the true intent of these discussions.

Would you prefer folks violate forum rules and present an argument they know can't be supported to the level this site's rules require?

I would not prefer that. All rules should be followed as long as the rules are sound (which they seem to be).

I'll be honest with you Joey, it seems that instead of actually addressing my point, you took a standard approach that you associate with all theists and applied the same thoughts and similar verbage. Your constant search for verification of claims seems to extend to those who didnt make a claim as well. I feel that your intent is good, and maybe it is the non-personal of a debate site that creates the misunderstanding.

[dgruber]

Your points are well taken. Personally I have devolved into an ignostic position on the matter of 'gods', wherein I contend that until and unless we have evidence of what such a supernatural creature as a 'god' would be, debating truth claims as to the existence of 'gods' is meaningless. That aside, you could develop an interesting thread wherein you invite opinion and speculation only as to what a god might consist of, what characteristics a reasonable and logical 'god' would have if there were any. This could be drafted as a hypothetical and both theists,atheists,agnostics and the like would be freed of the shackles of verifiable evidence for a speculation only sesssion.

I think that would be a good idea. I just need to find the appropriate sub forum to place such a thread....maybe General Chat.

I respect the Ignostic position and have seriously considered it myself. I would be especially interested what you might say "off the record" as it pertains to a god and when evidence and proof can be suspended....When I start that thread you spoke of I would enjoy your presence.

[Flail]

Your points are well taken. Personally I have devolved into an ignostic position on the matter of 'gods', wherein I contend that until and unless we have evidence of what such a supernatural creature as a 'god' would be, debating truth claims as to the existence of 'gods' is meaningless. That aside, you could develop an interesting thread wherein you invite opinion and speculation only as to what a god might consist of, what characteristics a reasonable and logical 'god' would have if there were any. This could be drafted as a hypothetical and both theists,atheists,agnostics and the like would be freed of the shackles of verifiable evidence for a speculation only sesssion.

I think that would be a good idea. I just need to find the appropriate sub forum to place such a thread....maybe General Chat.

I respect the Ignostic position and have seriously considered it myself. I would be especially interested what you might say "off the record" as it pertains to a god and when evidence and proof can be suspended....When I start that thread you spoke of I would enjoy your presence.

Appropriately drafted, I see no reason why such a thread couldn't thrive in this sub-forum. If not, the moderators can move it where they think it would be more appropriate...but your choice.