Certain tactics

[Dantalion]

I would just like to say, that in my humble opinion, 'the community' here must look into this matter.
In general, certain people and certain tactics just serve to anger people, discredit genuine believers and make a mockery of the debate forum.

This isn't a 'theists vs atheists' thing, it's about intellectual honesty, respect for the principles of 'the debate'.
This is of course not for me to point out, but every rational person here can see there are users that SO often break the same rules (in this case, 5, 7, 9 and sometimes even 13) I find it baffling they're not acted upon.

[Angel]

So eventhough you your rules say that the Bible is not evidence of truth in certain sub forums

There is no rule that says that. The C&A subforum has this for a guideline:

2. Avoid using the Bible as the sole source to prove that Christianity is true. However, using the Bible as the only source to argue what is authentic Christianity is legitimate.

It does not say that the Bible "is not evidence of truth." It only says that it cannot be used as the sole source to prove that Christianity is true.

However, it is true that in the S&R subforum, the guidelines state:

"While posters may certainly take positions based on religious doctrine, the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims."

I edited my post because I looked up the rules again so I agree about the Bible part you posted. My other point though is still valid. I'm not sure why would you allow people to call unscientific evidence as being false just because it's unscientific evidence. If I understand correctly, you expect me to just let people CONTINUALLY make that FALSE claim and if I report it for a violation of rule #5, not supporting claims or repating false and misleading statements, you'll do nothing about it. Is that correct?

[Angel]

Otseng,

Please let me know if I need to explain anything further. My main point again is that by forum rules, evidence is not limited to scientific. That means that non-scientific evidence, (unless specified otherwise by the 'evidence' hyperlink for rule #5) is evidence. So why should we allow people to call unscientific evidence false just becase the evidence is not scientific? I can see if there was evidence that the unscientific evidence being presented was untrustworthy, but what if the ONLY reason is that it's "UNSCIENTIFIC"? Why allow people to waste time debating on that reason when your rules, a basic dictionary, society beyond this forum agree that unscientific evidence does NOT equal NO evidence or FALSE evidence? Even NO evidence does not equal false according to LOGIC which I assume is one of the standards to debates here. Why wouldn't that be enforced to enhance the quality and efficiency of debates here?

[otseng]

If I understand correctly, you expect me to just let people CONTINUALLY make that FALSE claim and if I report it for a violation of rule #5, not supporting claims or repating false and misleading statements, you'll do nothing about it. Is that correct?

It will be handled on an individual basis, which might or might not result in an intervention. There is no way I can make a blanket statement if I will or will not do something about it.

I can see if there was evidence that the unscientific evidence being presented was untrustworthy, but what if the ONLY reason is that it's "UNSCIENTIFIC"?

Can you point to a post where this occurs? I'd like to see the context of what you're talking about.

[Angel]

If I understand correctly, you expect me to just let people CONTINUALLY make that FALSE claim and if I report it for a violation of rule #5, not supporting claims or repating false and misleading statements, you'll do nothing about it. Is that correct?

It will be handled on an individual basis, which might or might not result in an intervention. There is no way I can make a blanket statement if I will or will not do something about it.

I can see if there was evidence that the unscientific evidence being presented was untrustworthy, but what if the ONLY reason is that it's "UNSCIENTIFIC"?

Can you point to a post where this occurs? I'd like to see the context of what you're talking about.

Keep in mind, I made it known from the beginning that my claims come from some scientific evidence and some UNscientific evidence. The following shows SailingCyclops calling my evidence nothing because it didn't go through his process, which is nothing more than the scientific process - replication, controls, etc:

Can you explain how or why using an infrared camera to measure body heat is "dodgy nonsense"? Please explain your logic and/or evidence for dismissing that particular piece of evidence as being NOTHING.

Are you seriously posting a Youtube video of Ripleys Believe it or Not, and claiming it to be evidence? Don't you know what Ripleys is?

Furthermore, to be evidence, we would need to see the camera, it's calibration, information about who ran the camera and how it was set up. We would need to analyze the towel to see what if any chemicals were embedded in it. Then we would have to repeat the experiment in a controlled environment and get the same results. What you have presented as evidence is a hilarious joke. You apparently have no idea what evidence is nor how to obtain it.

As P.T. Barnum said "There's a sucker born every minute"

-------------

To me, anything which is not capable of being proved or disproved, verifiable or falsifiable, is inherently false by default. Since no god which has ever been defined can be proved or disproved by the very nature of the concept itslf, it must be false. Therefor I am atheist

------------

Like I mentioned earlier, I don't mind people disputing the evidence if they have EVIDENCE to show that the UNSCIENTIFIC evidence can't be trusted or there's a credibility problem, etc. That was not done here which is why I refer to it as a "knee jerk" reaction to dismiss (by calling it false or NOTHING), esp. when it comes to evidence that has subject matter that's usually associated with spirituality/supernatural or even just extraordinary feat. Saying that something is false or nothing BECAUSE it's unscientific is not a logical or EVIDENCED reason and thus it's an unsupported claim that MISLEADs. ANd even if this is not enough for you here, then I will certainly make sure to look for other examples in future debates and bring them to your attention.


You can even glance over this thread:
Miracles or Supernatural feats?....

It's riddled with skeptical dismissals - both explicit and implicit.

[otseng]

Furthermore, to be evidence, we would need to see the camera, it's calibration, information about who ran the camera and how it was set up. We would need to analyze the towel to see what if any chemicals were embedded in it. Then we would have to repeat the experiment in a controlled environment and get the same results. What you have presented as evidence is a hilarious joke. You apparently have no idea what evidence is nor how to obtain it.

My concern would be the statement, "What you have presented as evidence is a hilarious joke. You apparently have no idea what evidence is nor how to obtain it." One is free to question evidence, but it needs to be done in a civil manner.

To me, anything which is not capable of being proved or disproved, verifiable or falsifiable, is inherently false by default. Since no god which has ever been defined can be proved or disproved by the very nature of the concept itslf, it must be false. Therefor I am atheist

He is free to have his own standard for evidence. But, there's no rule on the forum that all evidence be verifiable and/or falsifiable.

Saying that something is false or nothing BECAUSE it's unscientific is not a logical or EVIDENCED reason and thus it's an unsupported claim that MISLEADs.

I read his statement as he views it to be false, not that it is actually false.

[Angel]

Furthermore, to be evidence, we would need to see the camera, it's calibration, information about who ran the camera and how it was set up. We would need to analyze the towel to see what if any chemicals were embedded in it. Then we would have to repeat the experiment in a controlled environment and get the same results. What you have presented as evidence is a hilarious joke. You apparently have no idea what evidence is nor how to obtain it.

My concern would be the statement, "What you have presented as evidence is a hilarious joke. You apparently have no idea what evidence is nor how to obtain it." One is free to question evidence, but it needs to be done in a civil manner.

To me, anything which is not capable of being proved or disproved, verifiable or falsifiable, is inherently false by default. Since no god which has ever been defined can be proved or disproved by the very nature of the concept itslf, it must be false. Therefor I am atheist

He is free to have his own standard for evidence. But, there's no rule on the forum that all evidence be verifiable and/or falsifiable.

Saying that something is false or nothing BECAUSE it's unscientific is not a logical or EVIDENCED reason and thus it's an unsupported claim that MISLEADs.

I read his statement as he views it to be false, not that it is actually false.

Questioning or incivility was not the problem. The reason for dismissing my evidence was the problem which centers around ignorance of your rules, a basic dictionary, LOGIC, rules at large in society (legal evidence, historical, anecdotal, video/audio, etc). AGain, calling something FALSE or NOTHING because it is unscientific is IGNORANT and a FALSE statement itself just like a CHRISITAN who attempts to use his bible as being scientific evidence and just claims that it's "his standard" and "his truth". Such remarks would amount to preaching even if it wasn't actually truth. People should not have to be wasting time debating these things when they are clearly in YOUR rules.

[Angel]

To add to my last post, let me go ahead and tell you that how you're handling this matter and based on your responses clearly show a DOUBLE STANDARD. I'm here to debate so I don't give a . about what someone personally sees as truth or false OR they should SPECIFY it's their opinion instead of calling my responses a "SILLY joke" or saying I don't know what evidence is.

[Angel]

If you can, I want to set up a time with you where you and I can speak through email or Instant messaging or whatever possible for us to have a live conversation instead of a once in a while posting. I want to talk specifically about why you think my point about SailorCyclops post is not a valid point. I think this would be helpful because it takes too long (one response a day?) to get a response from you. Feels almost as if you're thinking too hard on what to say when this matter is laid out so simple in your rules. If these simple rules can't be enforced to prevent the problem that I told you about, then I can see one reason why theists and some agnostics are reluctant to post on this type of forum. There is NO quality in debating on if unscientific evidence is evidence when it's already in your rules. And then to do nothing and continue letting people make these FALSE claims and use them as "their" truth. If Christians did that then I'm sure there would be a quicker and more sharp response.

[otseng]

I think this would be helpful because it takes too long (one response a day?) to get a response from you. Feels almost as if you're thinking too hard on what to say when this matter is laid out so simple in your rules.

I do have a life outside this forum you know. And I think I've already spent quite some time responding to your issues. So the issue is not that I'm "thinking too hard on what to say." But, I will admit that I don't know what you're really asking for since I've already addressed your points and you keep saying I'm not addressing them.

As to discussing this privately, I think it's better to do it publicly so that everyone can see what is being discussed in case something does change on the forum. Also, I want others to be able to weigh in on the issue.

If these simple rules can't be enforced to prevent the problem that I told you about

What rule specifically are you referring to?

There is NO quality in debating on if unscientific evidence is evidence when it's already in your rules.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

And then to do nothing and continue letting people make these FALSE claims and use them as "their" truth. If Christians did that then I'm sure there would be a quicker and more sharp response.

If this is to be an open forum, there will always be different perspectives and standards.

Questioning or incivility was not the problem.

The reason for dismissing my evidence was the problem which centers around ignorance of your rules, a basic dictionary, LOGIC, rules at large in society (legal evidence, historical, anecdotal, video/audio, etc).

Incivility is perhaps the number one thing that is enforced on this forum. If it shows up, it is a problem. And it will warrant some sort of moderator intervention if reported. However, in the case of logic, quality of evidence, rejection of evidence, making fallacious statements, these do not fall in the rules. Theoretically, someone can state all day that he does not accept your evidence and it would not be against the rules. However, he cannot then report you for not presenting evidence just because he does not accept it. So, though you might use "unscientific" evidence, you are within the rules and nobody can report you for it. And though someone might not accept unscientific evidence -- or even scientific evidence -- he is free to do so. Nowhere does it say that someone must accept all evidence presented. If they don't accept it, again, move on, even if they say, "I don't accept that evidence." You can either at that point present different evidence or go to the next person.

People should not have to be wasting time debating these things when they are clearly in YOUR rules.

To be clear, the rules do not state anything about the types of evidence allowed or that all evidence should be accepted.

To add to my last post, let me go ahead and tell you that how you're handling this matter and based on your responses clearly show a DOUBLE STANDARD.

What exactly is the double standard that you are referring to?

I'm here to debate so I don't give a . about

It would also help if your discussions with me is civil.

what someone personally sees as truth or false OR they should SPECIFY it's their opinion instead of calling my responses a "SILLY joke" or saying I don't know what evidence is.

If someone says evidence presented is a "silly joke", then they can be charged with incivility. If someone simply says they do not accept evidence as sufficient to support a case, it would not violate any rules.

[Angel]

I think this would be helpful because it takes too long (one response a day?) to get a response from you. Feels almost as if you're thinking too hard on what to say when this matter is laid out so simple in your rules.

I do have a life outside this forum you know. And I think I've already spent quite some time responding to your issues. So the issue is not that I'm "thinking too hard on what to say." But, I will admit that I don't know what you're really asking for since I've already addressed your points and you keep saying I'm not addressing them.

I simply ask that you and your moderators prevent people from dismissing evidence (when they say that it's FALSE or NOTHING) because it is unscientific. The reason for that of course is that evidence being unscientific does not mean that it's NO evidence or FALSE evidence. So for people to say that ithe evidence is false or nothing for that reason is a FALSE statement. If you refer to the thread I linked to earlier, Miracles or Supernatural feats?, you should've noticed that skeptics often resort to calling evidence false, DEBUNKED, stunts, without offering ANY evidence to back their claims. If I told you that you were lying about something or that you used fraud, shouldn't I be obligated to provide proof just as much as the person claiming the affirmative?

If these simple rules can't be enforced to prevent the problem that I told you about

What rule specifically are you referring to?

Your rule #5 here. You also have other information within that rule under the word "evidence" that links to another page indicating that unscientific evidence can count as evidence. Logic and a basic dictionary and society beyond this forum agrees with you there. To enforce that would simply mean not only allowing unscientific evidence but also making sure that all understand that unscientific evidence IS evidence and to say otherwise is FALSE and MISLEADING. Nor should there be 100s of posts and space wasted on a QUALITY-aspiring debate forum debating on something that's already established by YOUR rules.

There is NO quality in debating on if unscientific evidence is evidence when it's already in your rules.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

REfer to my response right above this one.

And then to do nothing and continue letting people make these FALSE claims and use them as "their" truth. If Christians did that then I'm sure there would be a quicker and more sharp response.

If this is to be an open forum, there will always be different perspectives and standards.

There are different standards but you should draw the line when it comes to using those standards to draw TRUE or FALSE conclusions. The standard to accomplish that here I thought was logic and evidence, and not what some person thinks is truth. If a Christian wants to use his or her Bible as authoriatative or objective evidence, would you let them? If a skeptic wants to accept that only scientific evidence is evidence and then call all others FALSE (which is where the wrong comes in), would you let them bask in their ignorance? I thought the purpose for making a rule for what using the Bible counts for was to avoid people from using the Bible as absolute truth in debate. Why can't a rule with similar purpose be used to keep people from dismissing unscientific evidence when they have no evidenced/logical reason to call it FALSE evidence or NO evidence?

Questioning or incivility was not the problem.
The reason for dismissing my evidence was the problem which centers around ignorance of your rules, a basic dictionary, LOGIC, rules at large in society (legal evidence, historical, anecdotal, video/audio, etc).

Incivility is perhaps the number one thing that is enforced on this forum. If it shows up, it is a problem. And it will warrant some sort of moderator intervention if reported. However, in the case of logic, quality of evidence, rejection of evidence, making fallacious statements, these do not fall in the rules. Theoretically, someone can state all day that he does not accept your evidence and it would not be against the rules. However, he cannot then report you for not presenting evidence just because he does not accept it. So, though you might use "unscientific" evidence, you are within the rules and nobody can report you for it. And though someone might not accept unscientific evidence -- or even scientific evidence -- he is free to do so. Nowhere does it say that someone must accept all evidence presented. If they don't accept it, again, move on, even if they say, "I don't accept that evidence." You can either at that point present different evidence or go to the next person.

Making fallacious statements does apply in your rules when it comes to not supporting a claim. If someone makes a personal decision not to accept evidence then that's fine; we have people that don't accept scientific evidence also. But then when you get to a point when they want to use their ignorance or illogical reason to call the evidence FALSE, then that's where I think you need to intervene. That is the difference between saying you don't accept something and saying that its false and then walking away like you can get away with making that UNSUPPORTED claim.

You propose that I move on, but no, that's not what I will likely do. Moving on from people who I see as biased is what causes me to be a aggressive debater because you have to pin that person down and corner them to get them to fess up or to EXPOSE how biased and unreasonable they are for dismissing or accepting something with NO evidence and/or logical reason. Being nice and moving on doesn't help that nor does it lead to a quality debate.

People should not have to be wasting time debating these things when they are clearly in YOUR rules.

To be clear, the rules do not state anything about the types of evidence allowed or that all evidence should be accepted.

That's not correct, Otseng.

We are not composing graduate level theses here. So, any source of evidence is acceptable. This includes any website such as Wikipedia, personal websites (however, not your own website), Youtube videos, podcasts, etc. Of course, all the usual sources of evidence ar
e acceptable: books, articles, journals, magazines, etc.

Acceptability of evidence

Some things do not count as acceptable forms of evidence. Though they can be presented, they do not bolster one's arguments and do not fulfill rule 5 (Support your assertions/arguments with evidence).

Examples include:
- opinions and assertions
- anecdotal evidence
- what most people believe

Source:
Your Rule #5. Then click on the link "evidence" which takes to here - which is where I quoted you from.

To add to my last post, let me go ahead and tell you that how you're handling this matter and based on your responses clearly show a DOUBLE STANDARD.

What exactly is the double standard that you are referring to?

You want to restrict Christians on what they call true while you refuse to restrict skeptics on what they can call false. Calling something false or true are both claims, and as such, both should be SUPPORTED with EVIDENCE and/or a logical reason. This is the only way to be fair-and-balanced instead of trying to appease the intellectual crowd (stereotypically atheists as many think) who usually hold the supernatural and Bible in very low regards (like it's only for the stupid), and that it can be easily dismissed.

what someone personally sees as truth or false OR they should SPECIFY it's their opinion instead of calling my responses a "SILLY joke" or saying I don't know what evidence is.

If someone says evidence presented is a "silly joke", then they can be charged with incivility. If someone simply says they do not accept evidence as sufficient to support a case, it would not violate any rules.

There's a slight difference between your point and mine. It's not that the evidence is insufficient, but rather that they don't accept the evidence at all. That latter point is where my point comes into play. Here's another way I can explain it; it's the REASON behind why they don't accept my evidence is what I'm bringing to your attention. If they don't accept it as insufficient, and they offer no EVIDENCED and/or logical reason for why that is, then they have no place here calling it FALSE in the context of a rational debate. This is getting a bit ridiculous if you really expect to have 'quality' debate without there being fair-and-balanced rules to ensure quality debates.