Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

POST GAME SHOW - Battle Royale II

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I agree with Becky's assessment. I also believe one’s conscious has a significant determining factor on the topic. There exist a small percentage of persons whom have no moral desire to analyze a conscious decision, and the perception of right and wrong are not relevant in their mental process. These are the worst of our criminal element. They have no conscious controlled restraint, restraining their physical actions of destruction. There are some who may have these same thoughts, but their conscious will not allow them to physically act out their thoughts.

    There exist, in the majority of our individual state of minds, a perception of conscious morality. This mechanism controls our actions. I believe this control also demonstrates that absolute morality is a part of our being, though we may fail to be perfect in its use. Peace, but not yet.

    Comment


    • #32
      Since YHWH, according to Judeo-Christian theology, cannot do wrong, when he orders something done (even genocide, kidnapping, or rape), the biblical response is "to obey is better than sacrifice" and morality gets a pass, making it relativistic.
      Wow, it's not enough just to not believe in a deity-- one must also slander Deity as well, huh Zak?

      I mean, I can see where God commanded what you'd call genocide (and, if allowed, I can even demonstrate where such a command was justified), but to accuse Him of commanding kidnapping and rape? That's a new low.
      "To deny Calvinism is to deny the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Charles Spurgeon

      Comment


      • #33
        Hi Becky

        I’m not a moral relativist but I think most people can see that there is no justice here on earth except as happens by chance sometimes. If there is a personal God, then there will be justice in the end. If not, there is no justice.

        My question for you is, how do you think justice is related to or proves or disproves moral absolutes? Maybe you should make this a thread.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Knight Wins

          Originally posted by Becky
          The only way that Zakath could have proved that absolute morality does not exist, would be to prove that kidnapping, rape, and murder are capable of being viewed as relative in every case. He was unable to do so and therefore, loses the debate.
          I don't know if you intentionally used that word or merely misprinted, but if we're assuming a definition of absolute that bars relativism, then the relativist need only show one instance of each that is capable of being viewed as relative to abolish the notion of absolutes. Therefore, your statement should read: "The only way that Zakath could have proved that absolute morality does not exist, would be to prove that kidnapping, rape, and murder are capable of being viewed as relative in any case. If absolutism bars relativism, then even one demonstrable case of relativity will effectively bar absolutism. If someone can show even one instance where murder is not wrong, then "murder is wrong" is not absolute. It may be so nearly unanimously agreed-upon as to appear absolute, but it is not absolute, because the one case demolishes the absolute.
          Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs!

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Hank
            From what I have read here, it appears that both Eireann and Becky may have some debate training. I would like to see the two of them debate this same topic.
            I would be more than willing to debate Becky on this topic. If she's willing. We should probably wait until another debate has come and gone, though. No need to have two debates on absolute morality in a row.

            Regardless who I debate, I fully expect the vote to go against me, though. The masses have already demonstrated that they don't vote according to who successfully established their position (since neither combatant did), but according to whether they agree with the combatant's position. An absolutist will vote for the absolutism candidate whether that candidate is able to demonstrate their case or not, as has been effectively shown with the number of votes Knight got, though he never demonstrated absolute morals. However, to be fair, I must admit that I did the same thing. I voted for Zakath on the basis that I agree with his position. I did so before I posted my analysis that actually neither combatant won the debate. I had approached it from the standpoint that Zakath was trying to prove the existence of relative morals, which he did demonstrate, but I had momentarily forgotten that his official position was to disprove absolute morals in this debate, which he couldn't do (no one can prove or disprove absolute morals).
            Last edited by Eireann; August 7th, 2002, 11:46 AM.
            Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs!

            Comment


            • #36
              Nice job Zak and Knight. I enjoyed your debate. Will post my thoughts on it later if time permits.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Paul DeYonghe


                Wow, it's not enough just to not believe in a deity-- one must also slander Deity as well, huh Zak?
                Time to open the old dictionary, Paul. I think you might be confusing the words libel (dealing with printed material) and slander (dealing with oral statements). ;

                Since either one involves false statements which damage someone's reputation, how have I committed such an act?

                I am not speaking (or writing) false statements. I'm reading the stories in the OT as they are written...

                You appear to concur, in principle, on the first statement (murder/genocide).

                Reread my last post in the debate for specific references regarding the last two acts (kidnapping and rape).

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Valmoon
                  Nice job Zak and Knight. I enjoyed your debate. Will post my thoughts on it later if time permits.
                  Thank you Valmoon. It was a challenging venue. I'll be interested in reading your comments.

                  In reading the sidebar discussions, I found them almost as interesting as the debate itself.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    It was interesting. I have learned enough to find that taking a philosophy class would be a complete waste of time.
                    ac
                    ps thanks ,Maranatha2000 for the recomendation.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      anna,

                      LOL, you're just learning that now? I thought for sure we would have driven you to that conclusion long ago!
                      For Greek conversion,

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Zakath,

                        You said, “Knight did not, IMO, demonstrate absolutes. He merely asserted they exist then supplied emotionally charged scenarios to try to bolster his point.”
                        Using a scenario (especially an emotionally charged one) is a great way to get at the heart of an issue. There are two reasons why you could not answer “no” to his scenario. One, by answering “no” you would have admitted that there is at least one absolute – that there are absolutely no absolutes – which results in a bit of a paradox. Two, you realized what a monster you would have to be to say that the scenario Knight presented was not absolutely wrong.
                        You said, “If something is absolutely right or wrong then it does not depend on circumstances, it is independent of circumstance…”
                        How can you define “right” or “wrong” without circumstances? Sorry if I’m not understanding this point. Could you elaborate?
                        You said, “The fact that I demonstrated that (a fact to which Knight never responded), under certain (biblical) circumstances, any one of the three crimes Knight claimed as absolute were condoned by the biblical deity (thereby making them "right") shows that they were not absolute at all, but relativistic...
                        If the God of the Bible is true, then these particular instances are not crimes and cannot be condemned based on human terms. You are free to accuse Him, but since you don’t believe in Him, it seems kind of pointless.
                        Is. 45:9-10 “Woe to him who strives with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth! Shall the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’ Or shall your handiwork say, ‘He has no hands’? Woe to him who says to his father, ‘What are you begetting?’ Or to the woman, ‘What have you brought forth?’ ”
                        As for my question about justice, I assume you believe that there is no such thing?
                        For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!
                        Galatians 5:13-15

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Hank,

                          You said, “From what I have read here, it appears that both Eireann and Becky may have some debate training. I would like to see the two of them debate this same topic.”
                          I’m flattered, but I have to tell you I have absolutely NO debate training. Eireann would probably kill me in an actual one-on-one debate. I’m just a lowly English Major.
                          You said, “I’m not a moral relativist but I think most people can see that there is no justice here on earth except as happens by chance sometimes. If there is a personal God, then there will be justice in the end. If not, there is no justice.”
                          Absolutely!
                          You asked, “My question for you is, how do you think justice is related to or proves or disproves moral absolutes? Maybe you should make this a thread.”
                          It is not a question of proof, but of principle. Since justice is based on moral rightness and fair treatment, it must be based on absolutes. To be consistent, the moral relativist must take the position that there is no such thing as justice.
                          For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!
                          Galatians 5:13-15

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Anna, you said, "I have learned enough to find that taking a philosophy class would be a complete waste of time."

                            I dropped out of mine. It gave me headaches, lol.
                            For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!
                            Galatians 5:13-15

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Jaltus
                              anna,

                              LOL, you're just learning that now? I thought for sure we would have driven you to that conclusion long ago!
                              I think it is one of those lessons that I have been learning over and over! I am the most stubborn person that I know!
                              LOL

                              ac
                              Last edited by anna; August 8th, 2002, 10:18 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Becky
                                Anna, you said, "I have learned enough to find that taking a philosophy class would be a complete waste of time."

                                I dropped out of mine. It gave me headaches, lol.
                                Why pay money and waste a semester when you can get all the headaches you want on the internet. This way you can choose what headache you want when you want it!

                                ac

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X