Are Some Christians Immune To Rule 5?

[JoeyKnothead]

I'm starting to think that somehow God is up there, and he's protecting some of the Christians on this site, allowing them to just ignore any challenges they feel uncomfortable with.

I hate to sound bigoted about it, but I can document many cases where some Christians are allowed to ignore requests that they substantiate their claims. It is very discouraging to take the time and effort to challenge claims, only to be ignored. Then sure enough a few posts later they start claiming more stuff.

Am I just wasting my time? Is the "debate" part of C&A now null and void? It does no good anymore to challenge claims, all you get is being ignored, or worse, folks complaining that you'd dare challenge 'em.

Is it no longer a requirement that folks substantiate their claims?

Questions for debate:

1- Has God placed a cloak over some Christians, making it unnecessary for them to substantiate their claims?

2- Has rule 5 become irrelevant?

3- Should we just quit challenging claims when those challenges can be ignored?

[Vanguard]

1.) Has God placed a cloak over some Christians, making it unnecessary for them to substantiate their claims?

Please provide evidence of a god(s) existence.

2.) Has rule 5 become irrelevant?

I am in agreement there is at least a question of relevancy on many of the threads. Remember though, as Rule #5 requests -

Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

using the Bible is evidence albeit many times rather weak and especially without anything else to substantiate. Remember also, "logic" in-and-of-itself does not require "evidence" as it were.

3.) Should we just quit challenging claims when those challenges can be ignored?

No, we should not quit but also remember the challenge is sometimes not legitimate enough in the eyes of others or the mods.

Edited to add: this OP would be better served in the "Comments, Suggestions, and Questions" subforum.

[JoeyKnothead]

1.) Has God placed a cloak over some Christians, making it unnecessary for them to substantiate their claims?

Please provide evidence of a god(s) existence.

It's a question; I have only the following evidence a god or gods exist

2.) Has rule 5 become irrelevant?

I am in agreement there is at least a question of relevancy on many of the threads. Remember though, as Rule #5 requests -

Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

using the Bible is evidence albeit many times rather weak and especially without anything else to substantiate. Remember also, "logic" in-and-of-itself does not require "evidence" as it were.

If the Bible is evidence, then all we have are theological debates, and I use the term debate loosely in this case; just quote the Bible and carry on unchallenged.

3.) Should we just quit challenging claims when those challenges can be ignored?

No, we should not quit but also remember the challenge is sometimes not legitimate enough in the eyes of others or the mods.

I disagree. This leaves anyone to just say a challenge is not important enough to consider; the inference being the claim is too important to challenge.

Edited to add: this OP would be better served in the "Comments, Suggestions, and Questions" subforum.

I disagree. A central tenet of debate is that claims should be proven. As so many theists are allowed to ignore requests for evidence, I contend this alone is evidence of God, and that He's supernaturally removing this central tenet of debate from the equation.

[Vanguard]

OK Mr. j-knuc,, let's break this baby down -

2.) Has rule 5 become irrelevant?

I am in agreement there is at least a question of relevancy on many of the threads. Remember though, as Rule #5 requests -

Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

using the Bible is evidence albeit many times rather weak and especially without anything else to substantiate. Remember also, "logic" in-and-of-itself does not require "evidence" as it were.

If the Bible is evidence, then all we have are theological debates, and I use the term debate loosely in this case; just quote the Bible and carry on unchallenged.

Are you really saying the Bible is not evidence or that it is rather weak?

3.) Should we just quit challenging claims when those challenges can be ignored?

No, we should not quit but also remember the challenge is sometimes not legitimate enough in the eyes of others or the mods.

I disagree. This leaves anyone to just say a challenge is not important enough to consider; the inference being the claim is too important to challenge.

Are you really suggesting there is no such thing as a "not legitimate enough" challenge? Really? All challenges are legitimate?

Edited to add: this OP would be better served in the "Comments, Suggestions, and Questions" subforum.

I disagree. A central tenet of debate is that claims should be proven. As so many theists are allowed to ignore requests for evidence, I contend this alone is evidence of God, and that He's supernaturally removing this central tenet of debate from the equation.

The OP would still be better served in the "Comments, Suggestions, and Questions" subforum. As you refuse to profer any sort of evidence for this supposed god of yours I will accept your premise. Welcome to the fold.

[Zzyzx]

.

Has God placed a cloak over some Christians, making it unnecessary for them to substantiate their claims?

Please provide evidence of a god(s) existence.

Hahahahaha – thanks for the levity Vanguard.

I think that it does extreme disservice to Christians to give them a free pass on documenting their claims – for the following reason:

1. Providing a handicap ACKNOWLEDGES that the position is unable to stand on its own merits in debate. If Christianity is valid and truthful, it should need NO contrived advantages in debate or discussion. If it was my belief, I would accept NO handouts or handicaps that suggested that my position couldn't be debated on even ground.

2. Many or most Christians who come to this forum are NOT accustomed to encountering well-presented opposition to their doctrine and dogma. They present "arguments" that have no merit (such as Pascal's Wager), evidently convinced that such "arguments" are effective – BECAUSE they have never had to attempt to substantiate the claims made.

3. Many Christians firmly believe that there is extra-biblical evidence to support the claims and stories they have been told -- UNTIL they are forced to try to find such evidence – and discover that it does not exist. Removal of the requirement for substantiation of claims removes the incentive to learn truth.

4. Fundamentalists / Literalists seem more prone to make unsupportable statements than do more liberal Christians. They often appear to represent the "vocal minority" shouting fanatical rigid beliefs – while more moderate people are often or usually silent. Catering to the needs of those who make unsupportable statements encourages them to appear to be "larger than life" even if they are a minority of modern Christianity – thus presenting a distorted view of Christianity.

5. Debate is at least partially a sham when one side is absolved from the requirement to support claims with evidence (aside from opinion, conjecture and religious promotional material).

On the other hand, in my observation Christian stories and claims CANNOT be substantiated with anything resembling evidence in any other context. I seek evidence that belief in supernaturalism is based in anything more substantial than emotion (fear and hope) and indoctrination (or "religious training") – and find no such evidence after years of question and years of debate.

I conclude that fundamentalism / literalism CANNOT be debated successfully in honorable debate on even ground.

[Vanguard]

A few comments -

I think that it does extreme disservice to Christians to give them a free pass on documenting their claims – for the following reason:

1. Providing a handicap ACKNOWLEDGES that the position is unable to stand on its own merits in debate. If Christianity is valid and truthful, it should need NO contrived advantages in debate or discussion. If it was my belief, I would accept NO handouts or handicaps that suggested that my position couldn't be debated on even ground.

This may be a semantics issue but I believe the Christian position is debated on even ground at least on this forum. I also believe after all is said and done the Christian position that relies too much on the Bible alone does not show as strong. There are no handicaps.

2. Many or most Christians who come to this forum are NOT accustomed to encountering well-presented opposition to their doctrine and dogma. They present "arguments" that have no merit (such as Pascal's Wager), evidently convinced that such "arguments" are effective – BECAUSE they have never had to attempt to substantiate the claims made.

I agree with this. The "warm-market" intellectualism in Christianity is legend. When teaching the adults in Sunday School I try to challenge them where appropriate to rethink certain positions.

3. Many Christians firmly believe that there is extra-biblical evidence to support the claims and stories they have been told -- UNTIL they are forced to try to find such evidence – and discover that it does not exist. Removal of the requirement for substantiation of claims removes the incentive to learn truth.

I disagree. There is extra-Biblical evidence only that it is understandably very weak in convincing a non-beleiver. Z, don't you remember the thread you started where you weighed the strength of different kinds of evidences? You progressed from strongest to weakest. I liked that commentary very much. It surprises me a bit when you now speak of these exchanges in terms of "no evidence". Shouldn't all claims be put on this continuum of strong - weak evidentiary standards?

4. Fundamentalists / Literalists seem more prone to make unsupportable statements than do more liberal Christians. They often appear to represent the "vocal minority" shouting fanatical rigid beliefs – while more moderate people are often or usually silent. Catering to the needs of those who make unsupportable statements encourages them to appear to be "larger than life" even if they are a minority of modern Christianity – thus presenting a distorted view of Christianity.

I would say the "spirit" with which many a stereotypical fundamentalist approaches others with a different belief leaves much to be desired. No one should be catering to anyone though at some point IMO it is better to move on. As you say frequently, a non-believer and believer should state their claims and let the readers decide for themselves (or words to that effect).

5. Debate is at least partially a sham when one side is absolved from the requirement to support claims with evidence (aside from opinion, conjecture and religious promotional material).

On the other hand, in my observation Christian stories and claims CANNOT be substantiated with anything resembling evidence in any other context. I seek evidence that belief in supernaturalism is based in anything more substantial than emotion (fear and hope) and indoctrination (or "religious training") – and find no such evidence after years of question and years of debate.

Again, I don't see the absolution as easily as you appear to. The mods may not admonish many a theist claim because the mods also understand that the merits - or lack thereof - of said claims will speak for themselves.

I conclude that fundamentalism / literalism CANNOT be debated successfully in honorable debate on even ground.

It is all relative to the evidentiary standard expected. This site - and rightly so - expects quite the rigorous one.

[byofrcs]

I'm starting to think that somehow God is up there, and he's protecting some of the Christians on this site, allowing them to just ignore any challenges they feel uncomfortable with.

I hate to sound bigoted about it, but I can document many cases where some Christians are allowed to ignore requests that they substantiate their claims. It is very discouraging to take the time and effort to challenge claims, only to be ignored. Then sure enough a few posts later they start claiming more stuff.

Am I just wasting my time? Is the "debate" part of C&A now null and void? It does no good anymore to challenge claims, all you get is being ignored, or worse, folks complaining that you'd dare challenge 'em.

Is it no longer a requirement that folks substantiate their claims?

Questions for debate:

1- Has God placed a cloak over some Christians, making it unnecessary for them to substantiate their claims?

2- Has rule 5 become irrelevant?

3- Should we just quit challenging claims when those challenges can be ignored?

All religions have a subjective view at their core. This the only support it has. Therefore in the end it is just an opinion. Where rule 5 kicks in is if they are forced to support that opinion.

Most can't other than running back to the Bible or Koran and repeating what it says ad nauseum. They are not here to debate but preach. They are like driving over roadkill - makes a satisfying pop but it was already dead.

It is the other, much greater set of Christians that will try and find support for their subjective view (i.e. to be objective) and if they cannot then either become like the others or change their opinion.

Others like cnorman18 know this and doesn't think we should be discussing subjective views anyway. Which is one way to hide from the objective.

[Zzyzx]

.
Vanguard,

Thanks for your reasoned response. As usual, we agree on many things and disagree on some.

Providing a handicap ACKNOWLEDGES that the position is unable to stand on its own merits in debate. If Christianity is valid and truthful, it should need NO contrived advantages in debate or discussion. If it was my belief, I would accept NO handouts or handicaps that suggested that my position couldn't be debated on even ground.

This may be a semantics issue but I believe the Christian position is debated on even ground at least on this forum. I also believe after all is said and done the Christian position that relies too much on the Bible alone does not show as strong. There are no handicaps.

I agree that, to the best of my knowledge, DC&R is the most level ground on which Christianity and opposition are debated. HOWEVER, the requirement of "substantiate claims" is NOT enforced upon apologists who make claims (as Joey is famous for noting).

Refusing to support claims and being permitted to continue to post more claims IS giving a handicap to the weak side.

The "warm-market" intellectualism in Christianity is legend. When teaching the adults in Sunday School I try to challenge them where appropriate to rethink certain positions.

Would you be so bold as to challenge your Sunday school adults to view and join these debates? I have asked this or similar question several times and have not received a single affirmative answer (only evasions).

I have (with admin knowledge and approval) approached several religious colleges and seminaries with invitations (or challenge?) for faculty and students to join our debates – with no known positive response (and one very notable disastrous impersonation attempt).

There is extra-Biblical evidence only that it is understandably very weak in convincing a non-beleiver. Z, don't you remember the thread you started where you weighed the strength of different kinds of evidences? You progressed from strongest to weakest. I liked that commentary very much. It surprises me a bit when you now speak of these exchanges in terms of "no evidence". Shouldn't all claims be put on this continuum of strong - weak evidentiary standards?

I agree and will revise my statement to read, "The 'evidence' brought forth to substantiate biblical tales is, in my opinion, very near the 'no evidence' end of the 'strength of evidence continuum'".

When a student scores consistently below 60%, they are regarded as failing. Perhaps I extend the same reasoning to evidentiary standards.

I would say the "spirit" with which many a stereotypical fundamentalist approaches others with a different belief leaves much to be desired.

Thank you.

No one should be catering to anyone

I agree 100%

though at some point IMO it is better to move on.

Perhaps

As you say frequently, a non-believer and believer should state their claims and let the readers decide for themselves (or words to that effect).

I agree, with the proviso that if a claim is challenged it is ethically required to be either substantiated or withdrawn.

5. Debate is at least partially a sham when one side is absolved from the requirement to support claims with evidence (aside from opinion, conjecture and religious promotional material).

On the other hand, in my observation Christian stories and claims CANNOT be substantiated with anything resembling evidence in any other context. I seek evidence that belief in supernaturalism is based in anything more substantial than emotion (fear and hope) and indoctrination (or "religious training") – and find no such evidence after years of question and years of debate.

Again, I don't see the absolution as easily as you appear to. The mods may not admonish many a theist claim because the mods also understand that the merits - or lack thereof - of said claims will speak for themselves.

With "in any other context" I attempt to convey that hearsay support and known frauds (such as Josephus) used to support claims by politicians and used car salesmen, for example, are NOT considered as evidence by most discerning people. When they are discovered and exposed, all credibility is removed (except in the case of religion).

Those who accept such tales with "slim to none" verification are known as gullible (or suckers) -- and may make ideal candidates for religious recruitment.

I conclude that fundamentalism / literalism CANNOT be debated successfully in honorable debate on even ground.

It is all relative to the evidentiary standard expected. This site - and rightly so - expects quite the rigorous one.

The "evidentiary standards" of this site may seem "rigorous" as compared to those of a "Christians only" or "Christians preferred" site BUT they are FAR from rigorous when compared to any valid academic / scientific debate or discussion.

As a person who HAS presented research and conclusions for critical examination by independent and capable (and often opposed) others, I can assure everyone here that the demand for evidence in those situations is INTENSE and standards of evidence make ours here "look like kindergarten".

[Cephus]

It's what I've been saying for years, theists get away with things that atheists never could, simply because of the nature of their beliefs. Everyone knows they're incapable of supporting their beliefs with evidence and well-reasoned arguments and if Rule #5 was imposed on them, they'd either never be able to respond or they'd all leave and where would that leave us?

Therefore, yes, some of the theists are treated like special ed students because in large part, that's exactly what they are. They are incapable, limited by the very nature of their beliefs, of engaging in anything resembling an actual debate, which makes attempting to debate them an utterly pointless exercise.

[Flail]

IMO a little slack is due to Christians....consider that they are indoctrinated with Christian doctrine and dogma....regularly enforced by ritual practices....they did not come to their faith by reason but only by indoctrination....and that indoctrination declares that they are special people...preferred and adored by the creator of the universe with whom they have a special relationship...they have eternal lives regardless of their conduct so long as they follow the indocrinated procedures....so it is natural for them to do as they do.....they are saved and the rest of the world is damned....and if you dont understand that you can go straight to hell with me...

'forgive them for they know not what they do'