Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[quip]

Re: Zakath please dont begin to argue against aboslutes by appealling to conditions

Re: Zakath please dont begin to argue against aboslutes by appealling to conditions

Originally posted by Valmoon
"Is it absolutely wrong to kill another human being for NO other reason other then you dont like his: skin color, way he looks, his smell, what he eats, etc etc".

The above is the question you need to be able to answer. If your answer is yes then yes you believe in absolute morality. If no then you do not.

No, Zakath correctly, should not have addressed this question.
Bob posed an highly emotive, false dilemma, this fallacy should have first been exposed for what it was. Furthermore, Bob must be required to justify such a question before Zakath is obligated to answer.

One can pragmatically believe that it is wrong to commit such acts 100% percent of the time. Such a statement from an atheist is far removed from providing evidence toward or proving the absolutists' doctrine.

 

[quip]

Re: One more Punch

Re: One more Punch

Originally posted by Tye Porter
Especially number 5. We have not even figured out which God he has defined as that which he wants to argue does or does not exist. We have yet to pick a deity to study and debate.

Geee … how dare 'Z' make the logical assumption that Bob is debating for the existence of some style of God and that the reason 'Z' must make this assumption was because the issue was failed to be addressed by Bob!!:doh:

Maybe the plurality of the question was the point of the question…..waddya think Tye?

 

[Brother]

A Cry for Help

A Cry for Help

Tye Portor, I came to the same conclusion you came to, in that Zakath, was asking these questions not to win the debate or to support evidence that his view is correct. But, he asked those questions in order to satisfy his own broken faith, hoping that Pastor Enyart would be able to heal him of his disease of not believing in God. It seems like it's a desperate cry for help.

 

[Servo]

Atheists and absolutes do not mix. The only absolute Zakath dealt with is he absolutely did not answer any of Bob’s questions. Dodge the question or change the subject, the only absolutes in ANY atheist’s worldview.

 

[Vitamin J]

Originally posted by NATEDOG
I know a lot of you may disagree with me here, but I doubt Bob Enyart's ability to smashingly win this debate because I don't think his Open View notions of God quite fit the neccessity for God.

You obviously have an axe to grind with Bob on an unrelated topic (God's foreknowledge).

I think its a bit sad you have let your axe take hold of you this way.

Personally I reject closed theism as strongly as one could. However, I would still put my money on a versed Christian in a debate against a hard core atheist even if the Christian were a hard core Calvinist.

If God has left the future somewhat open, or if God has closed the future, the evidence for God is still overwhelming.

I suggest you let your axe rest for a spell and enjoy the debate.

 

[Crow]

Somehow, I just can't interpret anything I've seen in the debate so far as Zak making a cry for help. This thing is going to be interesting to watch as it shapes up.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

True, but those blinders are largely self-imposed.

 

[Scrimshaw]

I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't have to prove a negative. If you claim such a society exists, then the onus is on you to prove it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Eireann
I didn't ask you to prove one does exist. I asked you to prove that one has never and can never exist.

I know that you didn't ask ME to prove one exists. That is what I asked YOU to do. I can't prove the "non-existence" of something. If there is no evidence that such a society ever existed, (which there isn't) then it can be considered nonexistent. If you believe such a society did exist, then you carry the burden of proving it.


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But even monarchies have laws against "unlawful killing", murder. For example, it is morally WRONG to kill the King. So even monarchistic governments have a conscious awareness of "murder" (unlawful killing), and morally oppose it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not talking about a monarchistic government. I'm talking about the society of people that live under a monarchistic government. If that government makes the law without representing the will of the people, it's not a moral law. If that society makes the law, it's a moral law.

You are falsely assuming that law can only be based on morals if it's law derived from the will of the people. Law can be based on morals regardless of whether or not it is morals of the people. Laws can be based on the morals of the people in the government who make them.


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even in Cuba they have a moral opposition to "unlawful killing". The commoners may have a different view of what is lawful or unlawful killing, but both the power elite AND commoners possess a conscious belief in unlawful killing (murder)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes.

Good. So you admit that you have yet to provide an exception to the rule that all societies possess at least some moral opposition to murder. (which is whatever form of killing they perceive as "unlawful killing")


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and morally oppose it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. My example showed quite clearly that the society did not morally oppose it.

No it didn't. It simply showed that the commoners had a different perception of what unlawful killing is. The code of ethics of a society can be different than that of it's government.... but it is no less real, and no less important.


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, while the commoners may not think it is wrong to kill a soldier, they definitely would think it is wrong to kill other commoners.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And again you argue in favor a relativistic view of "wrong." In both cases the commoners recognize the killing as "murder," but in only one case would they view that murder as "wrong."

I doubt they would have characterized the death of the solider as a "murder". They would have said he got "killed", not "murdered". People generally use the term "murder" when they attach a moral disapproval to the killing.


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So no matter how you roll the dice, every single human society has some form of conscious opposition to "murder" (unlawful killing).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure. But they don't always view murder under ANY circumstance to be "wrong," as I've shown.

No, all you've shown is that the moral code of society can be different than that of it's government. The fact that the commoners still believed that killing other commoners was morally wrong proves that they had a moral opposition to "murder". There has never existed a society that lacked a moral opposition to what it viewed as "unlawful killing". Therefore, the moral opposition to "unlawful killing" is a universal and absolute morality.



I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, all you did was show how a government and commoners can sometimes have different ideas about what "murder" is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, they have the same view of what murder is. Murder is killing that is against the law.

Against WHO's law? The law of a government and the common law of the people can be two different entities. They obviously believed that killing the solider was just, and therefore, not in violation of their own ideas of common law and moral behavior. But their own ideas of common law and moral behavior still included an opposition to murder, so the moral standard is absolute.

Both the commoners and the soldiers live under the same law, recognize the same law, are subject to the same law. Where they differ is on whether or not they see murder, in a particular instance, as wrong.

But the fact that they have at least some view of murder as being "wrong" proves that the moral opposition to murder is universal and absolute. In order to prove that the opposition to murder is NOT a universal/absolute morality, you'll need to provide at least one example of a society that had NO moral opposition to murder, of any kind, whatsoever.



I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, that fallibility does not mean we can't make absolute statements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure you MAKE the statements. They just won't mean anything.

But those absolute statements are made based on our current knowledge/logic, so you're bascially saying that our current knowledge "doesn't mean anything" since it is infallible. So the only kind of claims that "mean anything" are claims that are based on infallible knowledge? What a ridiculous claim. :nono:

As above, you can MAKE this statement all you want, but without that absolute certainty (and I'm pretty sure you don't have any such absolute certainty), the statement is nothing more than verbage.

LOL! Are you "absolutely certain" that my statement is "nothing more than verbage"?? For someone who doesn't believe in absolute certainty, you sure sound absolutely certain.



I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I stated at the beginning of this post, I will adopt your definition of murder as (unlawful killing) in order to save time. However, the perception of innocence goes hand-in-hand with all human perceptions of murder. In nearly all cases, societies distinguish "murder" (unlawful killing) from lawful killing based on their perception of who is *innocent of deserving death*. If someone is killed who the society/government views as *innocent of deserving death*, then that killing will be defined as "murder" (unlawful/immoral killing). So my definition was not incorrect at all. I am only conceding it to save time and disengage semantical quibblings....and also because conceding that part of my definition has absolutely no bearing on the veracity of my argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I predicted, you did change your definition a bit when challenged. First it was "intentional killing of the innocent." Now it is "intentional killing of the innocent of deserving death." Did I call that one to a T, or what?

All I did was make my definition more specific. I original said "intentional killing of the innocent" but did not specify what they were "innocent" - OF. So I did not "change" my definition, I simply clarified it.

Are you ever going to just grab one definition and stick with it, or should I expect this constant redefining of terms, this constant adding on of conditions to keep your argument alive?

"Constant redefining of terms"? Constant? Not hardly. I think you are overstating your case a little. I would hardly call clarifying what the victims were "innocent" OF is the same as - "constantly redefining terms". (btw, overstatements like that are another sign of sophistic tendancies) :shut:

 

[Crow]

Originally posted by Tye Porter

1) We can only scatter the seeds, and pray for the Lord to water and allow them to grow in good soils.
2) Are we supposed to waste our jewels, our inheritance among swine?
What is that scripture?
Somebody help me find it, the idea is that I have Good News, and great inheritance, and I want to share it with the world, it is meant to be, but if you continually refuse it, argue and deny it, aren't I simply supposed to turn my heels, kick off the dust, and move on to the next soul?

It's tough to allow people to exercise the free will God gave them. I like Zak about as well as I like about any other poster in this place. I can't save Zak, you can't save Zak--none of us can. That's a decision God left to Zak. His choice, not ours.

 

[Brenda]

Originally posted by PureX
Hi Brenda,
Maybe, but how can we tell? What objective criteria can I use to determine whether or not my "spiritual side" is indeed spiritual, or just the result of an over-active imagination? This is why I say that beliefs such as these must remain beliefs.

Christians believe it, true, but they don't actually know it. Even if God did show himself, how could we tell it was God? What criteria can we use to determine authentic "Godness"?

PureX, thanks for chatting with me.

I believe my original reason for posting was not to argue God's existence, but simply to question your statement that God (if he exists) is unknowable. Maybe he is, but he does not have to be. That is his choice, of course, and so far he hasn't proven himself. But I think it is very possible that he is to some extent knowable.

 

[temple2006]

I think it is fairly obvious that the existenceof a deity cannot be proven by any rational arguments or empirical evidence. God cannot be described but He/She can be experienced. Zak, it must be terrible to be locked up in one's own mind.........

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw

I know that you didn't ask ME to prove one exists. That is what I asked YOU to do. I can't prove the "non-existence" of something. If there is no evidence that such a society ever existed, (which there isn't) then it can be considered nonexistent. If you believe such a society did exist, then you carry the burden of proving it.

You seem not to understand the onus attached to statements. Perhaps now you see why I have merely asked questions and posited possibilities, refraining from making absolute statements. An absolute statement comes with an onus of proof. An absolute statement is something like "If there is no evidence that such a society ever existed, (which there isn't), then it can be considered nonexistent." The bold-faced section qualifies that statement as absolute. Therefore, the onus is upon you to prove it. One need not prove a statement that one has not made. Last time I checked a question is not a statement ... unless they've changed the rules of English since I last studied it.

You are falsely assuming that law can only be based on morals if it's law derived from the will of the people. Law can be based on morals regardless of whether or not it is morals of the people. Laws can be based on the morals of the people in the government who make them.

In which case it exists as a moral law only to the people of that government, but exists as a non-moral law to the society of people who are subject to that law. Try again.

Good. So you admit that you have yet to provide an exception to the rule that all societies possess at least some moral opposition to murder. (which is whatever form of killing they perceive as "unlawful killing")

Hmmmm. I'm checking back over the quote to which the above was a response, and I have to tell you I'm not seeing the words "moral opposition" anywhere in it. Are those words eluding me somehow? If they are there and I'm not seeing them, then please point them out to me, because last I knew I had only committed to agreeing that all possess at least some idea of "unlawful killing." I don't recall seeing anything in my words about moral opposition, do you? Perhaps you would care to refrain from putting words into my mouth (or on my screen) that were never said? That is what they call a straw man, and that is generally looked down upon.

No it didn't. It simply showed that the commoners had a different perception of what unlawful killing is.

No, they were quite aware it was an unlawful killing. They were quite aware that killing a soldier, for whatever reason, was against the law and that they would be subject to that law if they committed such a killing. They had the same perception of unlawful killing as the soldiers and government. They just didn't see it as "wrong" in this case.

I doubt they would have characterized the death of the solider as a "murder". They would have said he got "killed", not "murdered".

Then you doubt incorrectly. Like I said, I got it from the horse's mouth. Jorge was one of the people who helped smuggle the guy out. "Murder" was the word he used. It was quite understood among the people involved.

People generally use the term "murder" when they attach a moral disapproval to the killing.

Generally. But obviously not always.

No, all you've shown is that the moral code of society can be different than that of it's government. The fact that the commoners still believed that killing other commoners was morally wrong proves that they had a moral opposition to "murder".

A conditional opposition, not an absolute opposition. That's what you're not understanding.

There has never existed a society that lacked a moral opposition to what it viewed as "unlawful killing".

Wrong. I just showed you one, whether you want to accept it or not. It's right there in black and ... erm ... grey.

Therefore, the moral opposition to "unlawful killing" is a universal and absolute morality.

Except that it isn't, as I've already shown you. You can rail against it until you're blue in the face, but your argument was already lost several posts ago. These last few posts from you have been nothing but the desparate death throes of a defeated opponent.

Against WHO's law? The law of a government and the common law of the people can be two different entities. They obviously believed that killing the solider was just, and therefore, not in violation of their own ideas of common law and moral behavior.

You're incorrectly equating common law and moral behavior. These people live under the law of the government, they accept it, they recognize its authority. If they didn't, they wouldn't have bothered to smuggle the guy out after killing the soldier. They knew the act was against the law, a law they recognized and accepted to live under, but they did not believe it was morally wrong to break that particular law in this particular case.

But their own ideas of common law and moral behavior still included an opposition to murder, so the moral standard is absolute.

Conditional opposition. Conditions negate absolutes.

But the fact that they have at least some view of murder as being "wrong" proves that the moral opposition to murder is universal and absolute.

No it doesn't, for a couple reasons. For one thing, even if they did believe that murder was morally wrong in any and every possible case, they're still only one society. The beliefs of one society among thousands is a long, long way from proving a universal absolute. But it doesn't really matter in this case, because this particular society doesn't believe that murder is morally wrong and reprehensible in any and every possible case. They only believe that it is usually wrong, conditionally.

In order to prove that the opposition to murder is NOT a universal/absolute morality, you'll need to provide at least one example of a society that had NO moral opposition to murder, of any kind, whatsoever.

Incorrect. To show that it isn't an absolute only requires a single exception to the rule that murder is always morally wrong. I've provided that exception. You refuse to accept, that's your problem.

But those absolute statements are made based on our current knowledge/logic, so you're bascially saying that our current knowledge "doesn't mean anything" since it is infallible. So the only kind of claims that "mean anything" are claims that are based on infallible knowledge?

No, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that for an absolute statement to actually hold water, it would require infallible knowledge of the subject. You show me the human that has infallible knowledge of ANYTHING, and I'll show you the person who can make an absolute statement about that particular thing. It may be possible that someone has infallible knowledge of one thing or another. I'm pretty sure that I am wearing a navy blue Creed shirt right now. I think my knowledge of that is pretty infallible. But can you show me someone who has infallible knowledge of every social aspect of every society that has, does and will ever exist? If you can show me that person, that person is the one who can make an absolute statement about the universality of moral beliefs and actually have it mean something. Otherwise, it's just verbage. You can make all the absolute statements you want, but they won't mean anything. I can sit here and make an absolute statement that I'm Napoleon. Does my saying so make me Napoleon? If so, I want your land now!

LOL! Are you "absolutely certain" that my statement is "nothing more than verbage"?? For someone who doesn't believe in absolute certainty, you sure sound absolutely certain.

I guess you missed where I said "pretty sure." I said that intentionally, by the way, to avoid making an absolute statement.

All I did was make my definition more specific. I original said "intentional killing of the innocent" but did not specify what they were "innocent" - OF. So I did not "change" my definition, I simply clarified it.

As I'm sure you will continue to do as necessary whenever you find yourself backed into a corner with your current argument.

I would hardly call clarifying what the victims were "innocent" OF is the same as - "constantly redefining terms".

Well, it does mark the third time in the course of this discussion that you've changed your definitions. First, you redefined "murder" as having a definition that doesn't seem to appear in any dictionary. Then, cornered by that, you changed it to conform to the dictionary definition I provided, but then still tried to squeeze in your original revision. Then when that didn't work, you added extra conditions on so that your argument would totally die away. Now, if "innocent of deserving death" is what you meant from the start, you should have said so from the start, because generally that is not what the word "innocent" means. Perhaps you thought I was a psychic and could read your mind? Well, in case you bought into that old stereotype about witches, let me set the record straight -- I'm not a psychic. If you don't want me to think you mean the relatively common definition of "innocent," then please don't use the word "innocent," because I'm generally going to default to the common meaning unless you clarify it from the get-go (not half a dozen posts later). Just for your sake, I have included the entire definition list for "innocent" from Webster's:

innocent: 1a. free from guilt or sin, esp. through lack of knowledge of evil. b. harmless in effect or intention. c. free from legal guilt or fault. 2a. lacking or reflecting a lack of sophistication, guile, or self-consciousness. b. ignorant. 3. lacking or deprived of something (her face ~ of cosmetics).

Now is there anything in the above that suggests to you that I or any other reader should have easily read "innocent" to mean "innocent of deserving death," since no such connotation is included in ANY of the definitions above?

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Brenda
Also, we can know God IF he chooses to show himself to us in terms we can perceive, as Christians believe he has done through creation and scripture.

Scripture is the collected efforts of many fallible humans to understand and explain Creation. That is the problem with the "revelation" of God through scripture, since what is really being revealed is the ideas and feelings of fallible men about God. When people seek the revelation of God through the Scriptures, they are really doing no more than inuring themselves to the ideas and interpretations of others, rather than trying to experience Creation and what revelations it may hold for themselves.

 

[jeremiah]

To Eireann:
Scrimshaw has you in "check" in a couple of places. You can either admit it and grow from it. Or deny it and challenge him to a new game when you can try a different strategy and defense. You are simply moving your King back and forth over the same black and white spaces you have used several times before. I admire your elusiveness and fight, but at this point I think he has won. Thanks again for a good debate.:up:

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Eireann
Scripture is the collected efforts of many fallible humans to understand and explain Creation. That is the problem with the "revelation" of God through scripture, since what is really being revealed is the ideas and feelings of fallible men about God.

That's an absolute statement. I'd like to see you prove it.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by jeremiah
To Eireann:
Scrimshaw has you in "check" in a couple of places. You can either admit it and grow from it. Or deny it and challenge him to a new game when you can try a different strategy and defense. You are simply moving your King back and forth over the same black and white spaces you have used several times before. I admire your elusiveness and fight, but at this point I think he has won. Thanks again for a good debate.:up:

Thanks, but he doesn't have me in "check" anywhere. If anything, I have him in check. He asked for proof, I gave it to him. He hasn't been able to make a consistent argument, whereas I've stayed with the same position from post 1. He, on the other hand, has had to redefine his terms at least three different times in order to stay in the game. If you ask me, he's all but capitulated. All he has left are death throes. The proof is right there in front of him, although he's been trying diligently even to redefine those terms in hopes that he can make that proof go away. It won't work, but I give him kudos for trying.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
That's an absolute statement. I'd like to see you prove it.

The Bible was written by men. It even says so. End of story.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Eireann
The Bible was written by men. It even says so. End of story.

You're not getting off that easy. You said "what is really being revealed is the ideas and feelings of fallible men about God." You made that statement -- now it's up to you to prove it.

 

[Eireann]

Already, you got me. I made an absolute statement that I shouldn't have made. It is my belief and opinion. However, unless you can prove that a) God exists and b) that he did directly dictate the Bible (as opposed to merely inspiring its works through Creation), then you or anyone else will have an extremely hard time demonstrating that my belief on the matter is incorrect.

Just use Occam's Razor:

The simple explanation: it's the work of men, their ideas, their thoughts, their feelings.

The less simple explanation: some supernatural entity came down and divinely dictated the thing and then left without bothering to leave something that will validate its involvement.

If you hold Occam's Razor to be a good measuring stick (and many do, though I don't always), then the simplest conclusion is that there is nothing of the divine in the Bible.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Eireann
Already, you got me. I made an absolute statement that I shouldn't have made. It is my belief and opinion. However, unless you can prove that a) God exists and b) that he did directly dictate the Bible (as opposed to merely inspiring its works through Creation), then you or anyone else will have an extremely hard time demonstrating that my belief on the matter is incorrect.

That doesn't matter. I was just trying to prove a point. I'm glad you got it.