User Tag List

Page 7 of 52 FirstFirst ... 4567891017 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 770

Thread: Battle Royale VII Specific discussion thread

  1. #91
    Over 2000 post club One Eyed Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greensboro, NC
    Posts
    2,093
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 20 Times in 13 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    3704
    Originally posted by jeremiah
    Either you raped and that was wrong: or you murdered the entire human race and that was wrong.
    Failing to procreate can't be equated to murdering the entire human race, even if you are one of the last two people on Earth. Unless, of course, you're the one that killed everybody else.

  2. #92
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally posted by claire
    Raping a person under even a "save the world" scenario would not be a reasonable thing to do (whatcha do is reason with them and get them to AGREE to procreate..LOL)....however, I essentially made your argument when I said I would willfully shoot an intruder in my home and kill them, with every convinction that while it was a bad act it was necessary...so I guess we just differ on the definition of "reasonable and necessary"
    And you just demonstrated my point even further. Of course we differ on things like "reasonable" and "necessary". Without specific circumstances attached, ideas like moral right and wrong, reasonable, and necessary, are ALL relative. From your post:
    Raping a person under even a "save the world" scenario would not be a reasonable thing to do
    It would, in fact, be reasonable if one's highest priority were the continuation of the species. I'm not addressing your tongue in cheek "get them to agree to procreate" because the point of the scenario is that they refuse to do so, dispite reasoning and my good looks
    Further, you have demonstrated the difference between "right" and "good". Two concepts that most people refuse to seperate. Of course it would be "right" to shoot an intruder bent on harming you. But that doesn't make it "good".

    The point I am making here is that there are two conceiveble sides to the dilema. That aspect alone makes the terms relative. If it were not relative, then everyone would see things the same way, which is falsifiable by observation. The theist can claim that the atheist views these issues differently due to a mental shortcoming of one sort or another, but the atheist can argue, with equal veracity, that it is the theist that suffers from the mental shortcomming. So who decides who is right? The knee-jerk answer among theists is "God". But the theists can no more prove the existence of their God then atheists can prove His non-existence. So we are back to square one, which means relativity.

  3. #93
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    389
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    To One Eyed Jack:
    I would not consider it murder to not procreate either. I am trying to follow the reasoning of the original hypothetical argument. Some atheists propose that it would not be wrong to rape a woman if that was the only possible way to prevent the death of the human race. The clear implication of this ridiculous argument is that you must rape her, or you would be guilty of something worse. What is worse than rape? Murder, I presume. The deliberate murder of the human race by failure to take the necessary action, Rape. What I am trying to point out is they have applied some absolute standard in this case. The human race must continue and equally as important their is no guilt. They are innocent. The very example they created sets up the issues of standards, rape, death, murder, guilt and innocence. The very things that they are trying to deny and avoid.
    The atheist has to say, I raped a woman, there was nothing wrong with that. I am innocent. If I did not rape the woman, then I would be guilty. That conclusion I think is inescapable. Or he must say, I did not rape the woman, because Raping is wrong. However I am guilty of ending or Murdering the human race. This is also inescapable. The very premise of the hypothetical is that either rape is not wrong or The one who does not rape is guilty osf SOMETHING? They have created their own conundrum and paradox.
    Last edited by jeremiah; July 8th, 2003 at 11:01 PM.

  4. #94
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Parker, CO
    Posts
    12
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally posted by BlueChild Just call me the cheerleader...

    WOWWWW! Zakath's 5th post was by far by far his best post yet, imvho. I see a couple comebacks available, but I don't see a LOT of others. I can NOT WAIT to see Bob Enyart's response! These 48 hour waits can be real killers!
    I haven't even finished reading Bob Enyart's post and I had to comment in the grandstands. I think it's kind of neat how Bob Enyart reads the grandstands but rarely posts. He seems to have referred to my pp above, which upon second reading really does make me look like an atheist. Bob, if you're reading this, I'm not an atheist. I am YOUR cheerleader. I just find this debate very exciting. I called myself a cheerleader because all I can do is say whoa and wow, and can't seem to offer much in the way of ideas.

    Maybe I don't know my stuff very well, but I am definitely being sharpened and educated by this debate. I'm having a tough time following Bob Enyart's last post. Maybe I'll pull a Bob Enyart, stop whooping in the grandstands and just read and think for a while.

  5. #95
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    12
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally posted by BlueChild
    I haven't even finished reading Bob Enyart's post and I had to comment in the grandstands. I think it's kind of neat how Bob Enyart reads the grandstands but rarely posts. He seems to have referred to my pp above, which upon second reading really does make me look like an atheist. Bob, if you're reading this, I'm not an atheist. I am YOUR cheerleader. I just find this debate very exciting. I called myself a cheerleader because all I can do is say whoa and wow, and can't seem to offer much in the way of ideas.

    Maybe I don't know my stuff very well, but I am definitely being sharpened and educated by this debate. I'm having a tough time following Bob Enyart's last post. Maybe I'll pull a Bob Enyart, stop whooping in the grandstands and just read and think for a while.
    Wait til you read Bob's latest post!


  6. #96
    Documenting mans devolution DEVO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Waddling in the modern primordial soup.
    Posts
    150
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1038

    Thumbs up

    Pastor Enyarts 5th post was allot to digest.

    I think it was a fitting 5th post (the halfway mark).

    Its halfway through the battle and Bob is reminding Zakath of all the answers he has already given him which I think is fitting.

    Tragically I doubt Zakath will REALLY read what Bob is writing... I mean... Zakath will read it..... but will he READ it? Know what I mean?

    But in the end I don't really care if Zakath reads it or not, its great stuff! The audience is the real winner!
    Freedom of choice is what you want, Freedom of choice is what you got.


  7. #97
    Over 2000 post club One Eyed Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greensboro, NC
    Posts
    2,093
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 20 Times in 13 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    3704
    I think Zakath relies way too much on rhetoric. It's as if he forgets he actually has an opponent in this debate. Or an audience.

  8. #98
    Who is the stooge now? novice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Ordained to be here
    Posts
    459
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    223
    Lets place some bets, how many time will Bob need to type the sentence....
    My evidence to you was not based upon what we donít know, but upon what we do know
    before Zakath acknowledges what he is saying?

    Great fifth round post from Bob, I have no doubt that Zakath was not expecting Bob to take this debate so seriously.
    Oh, wise guy eh?

  9. #99
    Journeyman .Ant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    137
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    203
    Originally posted by DEVO
    The audience is the real winner!
    Too right

    My question to Zakath is: What's with all the obfuscation? What's with repeatedly ignoring Bob's points, and/or misrepresenting them?
    Attempting to get to the bottom of arguments at TOL since 2000.

    "Love is the fulfillment of the law." - Romans 13:10

  10. #100
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    389
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    To .Ant
    I think that Zakath's methods are turning into the old pastor's sermon "notes", { Point is weak here, POUND pulpit !!!!} If you can't explain your points better, then you simply repeat them over and over, and louder and louder. At this point, I think this is all Zakath is doing. In his 4th post he clarified and summed up his reasoning for disbelieving in God. I understood what he was saying, since I had once been there. In his fifth post he added nothing that was really new. I really liked Bob's response, and in simple debating points, Bob is now way ahead, through his constant and accurate reminder and exposition of Zakath's inadequate and unresponsive answering to important and legitimate questions,
    A couple of dodges are allowable to retain focus and control of the debate, so many dodges are a weak debating technique.
    Last edited by jeremiah; July 9th, 2003 at 12:46 AM.

  11. #101
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    38
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Zakath! Are you okay??? <-- toothless wonder

    Bob's not pulling his punches...maybe this is gonna be a TKO


    Let's see if Zakath has anything left in him...'cause his "God of the Gaps" argument was just devastated in Round 5.

  12. #102
    BANNED claire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    12
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally posted by Michael12
    And you just demonstrated my point even further. Of course we differ on things like "reasonable" and "necessary". Without specific circumstances attached, ideas like moral right and wrong, reasonable, and necessary, are ALL relative.
    Of course I supported your point in that respect, since we agree on that particular issue..one must attach particular circumstances to make ANY judgment on right, wrong, reasonable, necessary, good or evil.....The example of killing the intruder and your rape under the "save the world" scenario), clearly demonstrates that. I could list a dozen examples that were "seemingly" contrary to the ten commandments, which would generate differing opinions on all sides of the issue of good and right, or evil and wrong.....that is why I don't believe Bob can demonstrate moral absolutes across the board

    by Michael
    It would, in fact, be reasonable if one's highest priority were the continuation of the species. I'm not addressing your tongue in cheek "get them to agree to procreate" because the point of the scenario is that they refuse to do so, despite reasoning and my good looks


    Well, the continuation of the species is a judgment (in my opinion) of the architect of it...it raises the age old question...for which there is no definitive answer, why are we here? If we are here to "continue the species" then you would be correct....if we are here to learn everything we can with the primary object of aligning our souls as nearly as humanly possible with god so that we can spend eternity at one with him, then the answer would be different....again, proving your point...that it is subjective and relative...and to head off your argument, yes, God uses man to do his work, so the "survival of the species" might, and probably is placed in the hands of man. (p.s., and any "last woman" of the species who could not be persuaded by your logic and undisputed good looks doesn't deserve to survive )

    by Michael
    So who decides who is right? The knee-jerk answer among theists is "God". But the theists can no more prove the existence of their God then atheists can prove His non-existence. So we are back to square one, which means relativity.


    Well, the knee jerk reaction of THIS theist is Man decides what is right and good, based on his knowledge of God and what God has taught us (which is why we have brains and choices), WITH this proviso...God created (by whatever means one subscribes) asociety of humans...since the nature of man is also the product of God then God knew that we would be faced with moral dilemmas which would overlap with societal needs.....hopefully, man will use his knowledge of God when exercising his societal boundaries which will enhance the survival of the species as well as not destroy his own soul....and chance for eternity.

  13. #103
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    108
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    RE Bob's 5th posting:

    1) Bob has a funny understanding of science.

    2) Bob is making points that would disprove the existence of the Christian God (as described in the Bible) -- specifically the points on morality.

    3) Bob is also obfuscating and dodging questions.

    I'll let Zakath expound on my observations in his next posting.

    --ZK

  14. #104
    BANNED flash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    34
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Interesting tactic. Bob just responded to Zakath's charges of God-of-the-Gaps arguments by making a God-of-the-Gaps argument.

  15. #105
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    274
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    199

    As a matter of truth

    Why is the position of God declared truths in no way adequate to understand the world and to find truth?

    A theist position is a doctrine in that it starts with the doctrine that there is a God. The world in the way in which is exists is then attributed as being caused or created by God. Formerly a lot of things which were known to exist but not understood, where therefore attributed to the existence of God. It is obviously clear that this never has presented any real explenation, and real understanding and any real knowledge about the world, and of what that the world in first instance and in essence is. Within the system of thought that starts out with the doctrine of there being a God, there can be of course no real proof nor disproof about the existence of God. For that, one needs to look outside of this doctrine, and find truth itself. If God speaks to man and declares a truth, then we are confronted with the question weather that particular declared truth is true or not. If one adapts to the vision of theism, the truth of this particular statement, is decided upon solely on Gods word. So, for example, if God declares it to be the case that the moon is made of butter, then this truth is being regarded as being true solely because that is being declared as such by god, and being independend of the fact wether or not the moon in fact is composed of and made of butter.
    As it is stated (we have God's word on that) that the world is made by God, then in the theist vision, the fact that the world in fact exist, is a "proof" of God. This in disregard of the question of what in fact the world in first instance is, how it is formed, how we understand the world to be, and it's causes for being there at all and changing.

    How can we find truth outside of the system of God declared truths?

    Despite these declarations of truth, man has confronted these declarations of fundamentalist theist thought with the fact that wether or not a declared particular truth is in fact true, with the fact that such is not dependend in any way of that particular truth declaration, but solely dependend on reality itself. Wether or not the earth revolves around the sun is something, which is in no way dependend on whatever declaration of truth is ever made by anyone (including God), but solely dependend on wether or not in fact the earth revolves around the sun. In this way man has not only discovered truths, which seem to have no relation with any declared truth, but as can be pointed out, are in fact in flagrant contradiction with particular God declared truths. This not only shows that the closed system of thought as presented by theism, has fundamental flaws, but needs replacement alltogether. In a fundamental way this means that for any truth system to be valid, all statements of truth which have no other source then subjective interpretations of reality, whatever their source in fact is, must be thrown out in first instance, and not be considered of relevance other then their objective conformity with reality itself. This includes of course all statement regarding the supposed existence of God itself also, as well as all other declared truths, for which no objective evidence exist.
    In our drastic measures, in first instance we seem to be left with nothing at all. All our mental constructs are under recondsideration, and even the most trivial truths we have, must be admitted not to have relevance. This will unequivocally lead us to the most fundamental question in philiosophy, which is then the question: why is there something (anything at all) instead of nothing?

    That is where this in fact leads us! We are totally naked and deprived from all of our mental constructs, even our most precious thoughts about the world, and this is where it takes us! Wondering about why at all a world exist! How do we solve such a puzzle? And we don't even know if at all a viable answer to this question exists! Where are we going here? Where does it take us? We better get us some inner rest, cause we will need all of our mental capabilities to solve this horrific and tremendous puzzle. We are stunned and perplexed, as to where we have arrived. Is there a way out of this, or are we completely dazed and perplexd, and never find a solution to this big monstruous puzzle. What first amazes us that at first instance, no attempt at all, seems to work. If we have to assume that nothing, nothing at all, could be hold to exist, then how can there be at all a world? From nothing will not get us to something, even the infinitessimal something, the barely at all something. From nothing at all, from the inexistence of the world, we can not get something. Not in a thousand, not in a billion, not in a 10 to-the-power of 10 to-the-power of trillion years, and in fact not even time does exist.

    We must therefore make a truth statement here: There are no grounds at all to form something, to reason something, to conclude something when there is not something.
    From an inexisting world, we can not find any reason any fundation to why at all the world would exist or have to exist, if it in fact at all exist. So, either we are eternally blocked, since no world could have ever formed, if ever there was a state of total nothingness. So where is the way out here? This may appear to be a total block, an eternal barrier, a puzzle never to be solved by humankind, but it can become immediately clear to us, that even when we were exercising through this teeming question, the world itself and our pressence in it, as well as our mental cognitive powers have not left us, but remained present all the time. The world itself neither ourselves, have not left us, but are there. So even if none of our mental thoughts can be hold relevance, at least we have to conclude this: There is a world, and we are in it!

    We can not conclude in first instance anyt further then that, we have no idea of what the world in first instance is composed of. We only know just that: There is a world, in whatever form, and not nothing! As we sterted our mental excercise, we have stated that there was no possible way the world or anything could come into existence if there ever was a non-existing world, so the fact that there is in fact a world, whatever it is that the world in first instance is, it must have been there for all of eternity!

    That is what we can know, and what we must remember of being true. The fact that the world exist, must mean that since a non-existing world can not bring forth anything, that what the world in first instance is or forms, must have always been there! So THAT puzzle is solved then!

    Now onto the question of what the world in first instance is, or forms or shapes. For the world to exist, there must be something significant, some primary stuff that constitutes and shapes the world. Although we have no idea of what that primary substance in essence is, we know that it can not be dependend on anything else for it's existence. That what the world forms, shapes and makes the world to be, must be a primary substance which is not in any way dependend on anything else, since it must have existed at all time. What could that essential substance be?

    We go back to the discovery we just made, the discovery that the world in fact exist and does not not-exist. How was I able of making that very statement at all? I made this discovery by not just looking into the world, and see or perceive that it exist, but also by my mental processes, or whatever is it that constitutes my thinking and directs my actions. So this then calls for a hypothese of to what the world in primary essence could be. And here I have two options:
    • It could be that the world in first instance is that what forms and shapes me, causes me to exist to be able to think and conclude things. Although I have as of yet no idea of what that could be, I just call that my consciousness, and denote that as that what in essence is what I am about, makes me me, and enables me to think and to act.
    • And the alternative for this is, that if the world in essence would not be formed by that what constitutes me, then it needs to be something that is independend, apart from and outside of my consciousness.


    Now which one of these, could be the answer to that what is the essence of the world, that what in primary sence constitutes the world and forms and shapes the world. As of yet, we do not have much to go for, except that we need to adapt our former conclusion, which was that: that what is the primary stuff that forms and shapes the world, and is the essence of the world, needs to have been there for all time.

    Here we have a clue as to which of the above hypothesis is the correct one. It appears to me that my first hypothese, which was the hypothese that the world in first and primary instance is formed by my consciousness, can not be correct. Cause my consciouss thougths seem to be to go no further back then at most 40 years. Is there a possibility in which I could fit this hypothese with the former conclusion? Could it be that my conscious memories before that time are simply gone, but that I existed in another form before that time? Or could it be that the world happens to have formed at the same time with my consciousness? Since the hypothesis states that I am the primary substance of the world, this would then need to be the case, but this conflicts with the fact that that what the world in primary essence is, must be something that was there all the time.

    I therefore have to conclude that my first hypothesis is wrong, and therefore I have to adapt the second hypothesis, which states: that what the world forms and shapes, and what the world in essence is, and which existed in all time and has always existed, is a substance or essence which is apart from, outside and independend of my consciousness.
    Last edited by heusdens; July 9th, 2003 at 11:13 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us