Post #7
Zakath states...
Your right, you did strike a nerve, you struck my funny bone.

Zakath continues...
Gee I didn't realize it took a "perfect worldview" to be able to determine that murder, rape and kidnapping are always wrong! 
Zakath continues...
LOL! I have made myself very clear. Rape, murder and kidnapping are always wrong for two reasons... 1. There are no circumstances that could be present that could make those actions "right". 2. By their very definitions the words indicate these are wrong actions. I.e. if we were to describe an "un-wrong" death we would use words like "kill" or "die" not "murder".
Rape, murder and kidnapping are absolutely wrong, unless Zakath can give us compelling evidence that shows these things are not wrong.
The burden of proof is now (and has been for about the last four rounds) upon Zakath to give us compelling evidence that demonstrates that rape, murder and kidnapping are not necessarily wrong. He has yet to do so.
Zakath continues...
Now Zakath has really gone off the deep end. The debate is "Is there such a thing as absolute morality?" I have demonstrated that absolute morality must exist since we can point to absolute moral's such as rape, murder, kidnapping that by definition can never be "right".
Moreover....
If two gentlemen were arguing the existence of gravity the "pro gravity" side would only need to point to sufficient evidence that gravity exists to win the debate. There is no reason whatsoever that the "pro gravity" side would have to then go on to show the "source" of the gravity. If gravity exists, it exists!
Zakath continues...
Hmmmm funny... it was Zakath who brought this topic up in the first place!
Zakath's age and faulty memory are beginning to show.

Zakath defines rape, murder and kidnapping and then says....
Would these actions still be wrong if these actions weren't criminal?
Asked another way... is Zakath asserting that something which is criminal is absolutely wrong?
If not, why would Zakath use this standard?
A moral relativist has no right to appeal to another apparent absolute standard to show a relative moral standard. Said another way... Zakath, is in essence arguing that the standard "unnecessarily injuring a human" is an absolute standard NOT a relative one, as evidenced by his using this standard to deem rape, murder and kidnapping as always wrong!
Zakath continues...
ROTFL
why should I do that when you just did it for me?
I asked you to provide examples as to why rape, murder and kidnapping were NOT always wrong, but instead the only thing Zakath did was affirm that these actions ARE ALWAYS WRONG!
Was there any evidence from Zakath in his explanation that showed that rape, murder and kidnapping were NOT necessarily wrong? Nope, not a shred!
Zakath ends with...
Why not just answer the question???? Absolutely wrong or not???
A SPECIFIC ACTION:
A 40 year old man watches a 9 year old girl walk past his house everyday on her way home from school. On one day, the man decides to grab her off the sidewalk against her will. She struggles but the man is much stronger and successfully pulls her into his house. The man holds his hand over the girls mouth to prevent her from screaming. The man drags the girl into his basement where he proceeds to violently rape her several times. When done, the man decides it would be best to place a pillow over the girls mouth and nose and hold it there until she eventually suffocated. When the man felt the girl no longer breathing he placed her body in the trunk of his car and drove to a remote location where he dumped the girl's body.
Absolutely wrong or not?
I (and even Zakath) have demonstrated that there are actions that are never right, such as rape, murder and kidnapping. Therefore absolute morality exists! It is up to Zakath to give us compelling evidence as to why those very actions could also somehow be "right". He has yet to even come within a million miles of doing so.
Zakath states...
It would appear I hit close to a nerve with my last post, since Knight begins his post with an immediate insult


Zakath continues...
I have never claimed to have a perfect worldview. I normally leave such absolute claims to the religionists, like Knight

Zakath continues...
1. He refuses to show us why he thinks rape is absolutely wrong. He merely asserts that it is so.
Rape, murder and kidnapping are absolutely wrong, unless Zakath can give us compelling evidence that shows these things are not wrong.
The burden of proof is now (and has been for about the last four rounds) upon Zakath to give us compelling evidence that demonstrates that rape, murder and kidnapping are not necessarily wrong. He has yet to do so.
Zakath continues...
Think about it, all he would have to do is respond to item #2. If what he shows us is actually absolute by his own defnition (by which I agreed to abide), then he wins the debate. Yet he still refuses to show us his "absolute" moral standard.
Moreover....
If two gentlemen were arguing the existence of gravity the "pro gravity" side would only need to point to sufficient evidence that gravity exists to win the debate. There is no reason whatsoever that the "pro gravity" side would have to then go on to show the "source" of the gravity. If gravity exists, it exists!
Zakath continues...
What an astounding conclusion! Knight again demonstrates his ignorance or unwillingness to actually debate the topic he chose. We are not here to debate the absolute rightness or wrongness of Knight's Bible



Zakath defines rape, murder and kidnapping and then says....
Knight wants to know on what basis I think these things are wrong. There are two primary reasons: the definitions will tell you one reason - they are all crimes in the country in which I live.
Asked another way... is Zakath asserting that something which is criminal is absolutely wrong?
If not, why would Zakath use this standard?
Secondly, they are all unecessarily injurious to my fellow humans. Since I am a relativist, those provide sufficient reason for me at this time.
Zakath continues...
That wasn't difficult, was it, Knight? Now suppose you tell us why you believe these things are "absolutely" wrong...


I asked you to provide examples as to why rape, murder and kidnapping were NOT always wrong, but instead the only thing Zakath did was affirm that these actions ARE ALWAYS WRONG!
Was there any evidence from Zakath in his explanation that showed that rape, murder and kidnapping were NOT necessarily wrong? Nope, not a shred!
Zakath ends with...
While I agree with Knight that the actions of the adult in the scenario are wrong. I do not believe in absolute morals.
No matter how many times he asks the question, he'll get the same answer.
No matter how many times he asks the question, he'll get the same answer.
A SPECIFIC ACTION:
A 40 year old man watches a 9 year old girl walk past his house everyday on her way home from school. On one day, the man decides to grab her off the sidewalk against her will. She struggles but the man is much stronger and successfully pulls her into his house. The man holds his hand over the girls mouth to prevent her from screaming. The man drags the girl into his basement where he proceeds to violently rape her several times. When done, the man decides it would be best to place a pillow over the girls mouth and nose and hold it there until she eventually suffocated. When the man felt the girl no longer breathing he placed her body in the trunk of his car and drove to a remote location where he dumped the girl's body.
Absolutely wrong or not?
I (and even Zakath) have demonstrated that there are actions that are never right, such as rape, murder and kidnapping. Therefore absolute morality exists! It is up to Zakath to give us compelling evidence as to why those very actions could also somehow be "right". He has yet to even come within a million miles of doing so.
Comment