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]

.

I cannot honorably or honestly take a position on the actual exitence or non-exitence of something that has no evidence and no meaning.

It is dishonest to say that God has no evidence and has no meaning. Proofs and arguments for God have existed throughout have been refined throughout the centuries, and although you may not think these are convincing proofs, they falsify the claim there is "no evidence."

By that reasoning, it is dishonest to say there is no evidence for ANYTHING as long as someone has offered a testimonial or opinion. Thus, there is evidence for unicorns, leprechauns, mermaids and fairies.

Acceptable standards regarding what constitutes evidence come into play. Those who have only testimonials, visions, opinions, conjectures and ancient writings to offer in support of claims insist that they should be regarded as evidence. Typically, however, those claimants refuse to accept the same level of evidence to support claims of competing gods or other invisible characters.

In other words, if testimonials and conjectures are evidence in support of one gods existence, they should equally be accepted as evidence that competing gods exist (or unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, etc).

As for "no meaning" (since this is a site for debating christianity) maybe we should us the abrahamic definition of God.

I disagree that this site is for debating Christianity. The opening sentence in Debate Forum Intro and Rules states:

Welcome to DebatingChristianity.com. This forum aims to be the most civil and engaging debate forum on Christianity and religion for people of all persuasions.

Sub-headers appearing atop individual forum pages include:

A civil debate forum for people of all persuasions (Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, Christians, and adherents of any religion)

Debates on Christianity, Creation vs Evolution, Philosophy, Politics and Religion, Ethics, Current Events, and Religious issues

Rational and civil debate between members of all religions and world views

Many who read no further than the website name assume that discussion is limited to Christianity and the Christian concept of god. Otseng has made it very clear that is not the case. Do you disagree with the website owner?

How can you expect me to make a case for or against the factual existence of a 'being' that has never before been seen, detected, identified, pointed to, discerned or detected in any verifiably credible manner? I leave that to others.

The same way prominent atheists debate, such as Peter Singer, Dan Barker and Christopher Hitchens. They make a case for the utility of atheism and they try to falsify christian claims.

Since I am not an Atheist, those arguments are not appropriate " so I will have to follow my own path.

I am asked by worshipers of gods to 1) take my word for it or 2) take bible writers word for it or 3) believe so you can go to heaven after you die. None of those are convincing to me, so the next gambit is to show me tales of miracles in a book written long ago that tells stories about a preacher named Jesus being divine because he performed miracles and came back to life after days in the grave " and that he is a gateway to rewards in a proposed afterlife.

When I ask for verification that the tales are true the answer is 1, 2 or 3 above.

When I point out that similar or even greater claims are made for other gods in stories from long ago (or their modern counterparts), and ask why some of the tales should be believed and others dismissed, I am told 1, 2 or 3 above " and given no rational answer for why one is accepted and others dismissed.


I think I can make a reasoned case for the advantages of Non-Theism " and will do so in a separate thread.

[Grumpy]

Jester

What if the atheists position is Gods non-existence is the most likely scenario? Thats rather like Dawkins. Can I demand that he produce evidence that God doesnt exist, while I challenge the validity/relevance of that evidence, without suggesting that there is any better scenario?

Why would that atheist have to produce evidence of god's non-existence, he made no such claim. But he would have to provide evidence and/or reasoning for what he did claim, that god(s) probably do not exist. That is required whether or not you make any counterclaim. But that atheist certainly would not be justified in requiring you to take a position you do not hold(IE god(s) do exist)when you are not certain but think god(s) are likely. The atheist cannot avoid his burden of supporting his statement by insisting others make statements of any kind before he does so, neither can you.

As for a more specific response to that - if you feel that all claims on the subject of God's existence are equally unsupportable, why debate the matter?

All such claims are not equally supportable, but only the two extremes have never been sucessfully supported at all. Both the "God(s) exist" and the "god(s) do not exist" positions are inherently unsupportable. There is no way to provide negative evidence of god(s), but there is no valid positive evidence of their existence either. So we are left with reason and as good as that can be it is not sufficient on it's own to come to concrete conclusions. Most of the atheist argument is from lack of valid evidence, most of the theist arguments are attempts to provide valid evidence but totally failing to produce anything that is not logically flawed. I expect anything you present in support of your statements will be as well. My support for my opinion will continue to be the complete lack of a reason to even consider god(s) anything but the imagination of men. Everything that used to be caused by god(s) is now known to be due to natural causes, god has been relieved of responsibility for what we see in the Universe, forcing him into smaller and smaller gaps in our knowledge, I doubt he's coming back(but who knows, maybe you will be the first to logically and with some valid evidence support your claim).

Grumpy

[Jester]

I've been considering what my next step should be. Obviously, I still take exception to the presumption that just by addressing the arguments made by those that offer them to prove a god's existence, without committing to any personal convictions on the matter, I would not be making a case regarding that god's existence, or debating the topic, as I or anyone else might be concerned. As far as I'm concerned it does indeed constitute making a case regarding some god's existence and debating the matter, and it might also be the case regarding someone else, but that is just my opinion. Since I know that Jester has shared nothing but his own opinion on the matter, regardless of how he thinks he "argued" for it, and disappointed as I may be that these opinions come from a moderator, I will have to let them stand for what they are, and remove myself from this thread.

Yes, that is essentially my position. And, yes, I do feel that I have argued for it.
If you do not intend to continue, that is certainly your right.
If you do, my main request would be to ask for support for the claim that my position is merely an opinion. I would point to the fact that it is a consistent rule of various formal debates as support of the idea that there is, in fact, not simply a matter of preference.

On a final note, I invite Jester to have the courage of his convictions, and thoroughly admonish members that aren't "debating the topic" or "making a case" whenever claims are challenged without being offered "alternatives" or without committing to personal convinctions on the topic. I'm inclined to just report myself on every post I make, since I will never present "alternatives" or commit to any personal convictions when addressing theistic claims. If Jester doesn't think all he has is opinion, then I believe he is mandated to act upon it. And we'll see how that goes...

I'm not sure what this means - if you are claiming that I should, with those whom I debate, expect that an alternative to my claim be presented, I intend to do so. I have done so in the past, and have been becoming more strict about this particular. If I believe that an opponent has nothing to offer me but challenges, doubts, and demands of evidence, then I feel that I can have that conversation on my own. Support of an alternative is the only thing I need help with.
If, however, this means that I should try to enforce this as a forum rule - I will point out that this is not a rule here. I have never claimed that it is, nor have I claimed that it should be. I personally sided against it as a rule when it was presented. Yes, I consider it good debating to make a claim. No, I do not believe that there is, or should be, a rule that members must be good debaters. Many learn that after much practice here.

But, if you don't respond, happy posting elsewhere. Much as we disagree, I do hope that things are well with you.

[Jester]

What if the atheists position is Gods non-existence is the most likely scenario? Thats rather like Dawkins. Can I demand that he produce evidence that God doesnt exist, while I challenge the validity/relevance of that evidence, without suggesting that there is any better scenario?

Why would that atheist have to produce evidence of god's non-existence, he made no such claim. But he would have to provide evidence and/or reasoning for what he did claim, that god(s) probably do not exist. That is required whether or not you make any counterclaim. But that atheist certainly would not be justified in requiring you to take a position you do not hold(IE god(s) do exist)when you are not certain but think god(s) are likely. The atheist cannot avoid his burden of supporting his statement by insisting others make statements of any kind before he does so, neither can you.

I've never claimed that I could make any such avoidance, nor have I claimed that people who make claims of probability should support an absolute. I fully agree that those who make claims should support the claims they make, but must support no more than that.
I don't quite know, however, how one can refute a claim of probability without showing that another option is more probable.

As for a more specific response to that - if you feel that all claims on the subject of God's existence are equally unsupportable, why debate the matter?

All such claims are not equally supportable, but only the two extremes have never been sucessfully supported at all.

I agree, though I consider all claims to be less than absolute unless otherwise indicated.

So we are left with reason and as good as that can be it is not sufficient on it's own to come to concrete conclusions.

If it is all we have, I'd rather trust reason than simply make an assumption.

Most of the atheist argument is from lack of valid evidence, most of the theist arguments are attempts to provide valid evidence but totally failing to produce anything that is not logically flawed.

I disagree with it as well, but probably wouldn't go that far myself.

I expect anything you present in support of your statements will be as well.

They certainly will be to some.

My support for my opinion will continue to be the complete lack of a reason to even consider god(s) anything but the imagination of men.

That is fine, but I can't claim to be all that interested in your or my opinion either one. We may not be able to know, there may be extreme difficulties with gathering information here. But, like the matter of the physical universe, I have to behave as if the claim is true, or as if it is not. I'd much rather make that call with reason than to refuse to consider the matter.

Everything that used to be caused by god(s) is now known to be due to natural causes, god has been relieved of responsibility for what we see in the Universe, forcing him into smaller and smaller gaps in our knowledge, I doubt he's coming back(but who knows, maybe you will be the first to logically and with some valid evidence support your claim).

I would definitely not take the "God of the Gaps" route, as much for theological as scientific reasons. But, of course, that is another topic.

[Crazy Ivan]

If, however, this means that I should try to enforce this as a forum rule - I will point out that this is not a rule here. I have never claimed that it is, nor have I claimed that it should be. I personally sided against it as a rule when it was presented. Yes, I consider it good debating to make a claim. No, I do not believe that there is, or should be, a rule that members must be good debaters. Many learn that after much practice here.

Let's be clear about this. You clearly stated that on the topic of god's existence, "simply" challenging the claims made by those arguing "for" does NOT constitute debate on the topic, or addressing the topic. Such posts would then be in violation of rule #4. I don't see many options for you. Assuming you agree with the existence of rule #4, you either concede that the discussed position is on topic, or you act upon them as rule violations.

[Jester]

Let's be clear about this. You clearly stated that on the topic of god's existence, "simply" challenging the claims made by those arguing "for" does NOT constitute debate on the topic, or addressing the topic. Such posts would then be in violation of rule #4. I don't see many options for you. Assuming you agree with the existence of rule #4, you either concede that the discussed position is on topic, or you act upon them as rule violations.

When the moderators were discussing the issue and I took the stance that this sort of challenging should be allowed, I took the position that this is not a violation of rule #4. I don't, however, have any desire to re-open the discussion here.


Aside from that, I think I've reached a decision.
All individuals here, myself included, seem to be arguing in favor of the conclusion that would help their arguments the most.
Given that, and as we don't seem to be making any headway here, I'm thinking that an experiment (when possible) is always better than abstract discussion. As such, I'm going to try switching positions to the opposite of my personal belief, at least with those who have disagreed with me on this point. I plan on spending some time attempting to challenge without taking a position to see if it changes my perspective on the matter - or I get some good comments from those whom I challenge.
So, please keep that in mind for when I see you elsewhere, and I'll be sure to let you know if I ultimately conclude that you are correct in your position.