Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[Eireann]

Originally posted by sawrie
I never recieved a reply so I will try this again.

Will one of you people who claim God does not exist, please answer this question, which both Zakath and the rest of you agnostics and Satanists (as there is no such thing as a real athiest) have refused to attempt to do up until now.

Not only can you not, you are afraid to even venture to think logically about it, as to do so will clearly prove the existance of God.

Agnostic here. So what was the question? I wasn't following your particular posts (I was embroiled in a couple of my own side discussions), so I missed it.

Now before I repost my post I will add: are dreams real?

What do you mean by "real?" Do you mean real as in prophetic, like what you dream will come true? Or do you mean do people really dream?

You see Zakath since consciousness is the only provible fact, God must exist in order for our consciousness to exist.

Why is that? You are presupposing that God must necessarily either be the source for consciousness or that God IS consciousness. Why must that be supposed? Why can't consciousness be perceived as the result of biophysical mechanisms, existing by its own accord rather than by some divine providence?

You don't care about the truth only to stand in your ignorance and arogance and claim things you cannot prove: if you can prove your claims then prove the non-existance of God!

Let's look at that another way: "You don't care about the truth only to stand in your ignorance and arogance and claim things you cannot prove: if you can prove your claims then prove the existance of God!" After all, that belief in God has been the cause of more suffering, murder and mayhem than just about anything else in this world.

I have reposted this because I would like to show anyone happening to be looking for the truth, that not only do Athiests not posses it but they are incapable of logical discussion.

I would say there hasn't ever walked the earth a man who has possessed the truth (sorry, Christ didn't have it either), and as for being incapable of logical discussion, I would point that finger back at many of your own fundie fellows.

I will repeat while some may question the logic of this reasoning it is not only plausable but it absolutly proves these Athiests care nothing for truth.

Since at no point in your life have you actually come across The Truth, then how would you have the slightest idea of someone else's care for it?

 

[Scrimshaw]

I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My critique:

I just read the whole debate and I think both sides made some mistakes. Knight's mistake was he said that they did not need to establish any particular moral behavior as absolutely right or wrong.....but then spent the rest of the debate doing just that - trying to establish that the specific moral behavior of kidnapping/raping/murdering a child is absolutely wrong. At worse, this was mistake of misspeak, double-speak, etc. A blunder no doubt, but not serious enough to undermine his position in the debate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Eireann
All Knight did was assert that there are absolute morals. Both parties agreed that for absolute morals to exist, a source/standard for such morals would have to exist.

A source, yes, but Knight also stated that determining specifically WHAT that source is, was peripheral to the question the debate was addressing - i.e., the existence of *absolute morals*, not the existence of it's SOURCE. Much of Zakath's arguments were spent trying to get Knight to explain/prove the *SOURCE* of the moral absolutes, which was a red herring tactic.

Knight never tried to build a case for the existence of such, and all he did toward building a case for absolutes was ask Zakath to show any circumstance where murder, rape or kidnapping was not absolutely wrong. He did so -- in rather dramatic and nearly farcical fashion, but he did so nonetheless.

No, Zakath DID NOT provide a circumstance where murder/rape/kidnapping would be "right". His scenario proved just the opposite. If murder was not wrong in Zakath's scenario, the terrorist would have had no motive for his "revenge". More on this below...

In scoffing, Zak's critics claimed that one murder to save many was still absolutely wrong, thereby suggesting that allowing the deaths of many to save one was not absolutely wrong -- which itself undermined their own position that murder is absolutely wrong.

No, the entire scenario leaves murder as "absolutely wrong" because if murder was not "wrong", the terrorist would not only have no motive for his evil plot, but there also would be no reason for thinking blowing up all the people in NYC would be a threat. The whole psychology of revenge is - "You wronged me, therefore, I will WRONG you." Either way, murder is still considered wrong. If the terrorist didn't think murder was "wrong", why would he think blowing up NYC was a threat?


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zakath's error was more serious. When responding to Knight's moral example of kidnapping/raping/murder, he tried to provide an elaborate scenario where the perpetrator of the act was a hero, not a criminal. However, in that scenario, Zakath explained that the reason the terrorist was committing this retribution was because he was very upset that an Arab diplomat (the little girl's father) had ordered the torture and killing of the terrorist's wife and infant son. But in Zakath's zeal, he totally overlooked the obvious fact that the terrorist obviously felt that the torture and "murder" of his wife and infant son was morally - WRONG!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This doesn't automatically suppose that the terrorist believed it was morally wrong. It does mean the terrorist was mightily upset that he suffered the personal loss of something he didn't want to lose.

Yes, the personal loss and suffering that murder causes is the main reason why murder is considered - WRONG!! Hello?

If my wife were to leave me, say, for another man, and that man hadn't actually made any overtures towards her but simply lured her by his natural personality, then I would not think that man did anything wrong, but I would still be extremely upset at him. It's a natural reaction to personal loss.

Irrelevant. In Zak's scenario, the terrorist's motive wasn't based on anything other than the fact that the Arab Diplomat had ordered the *murder* of his wife and infant son.


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If he didn't believe that murder/torture were morally "wrong", why would the terrorist be upset? Why would he try to get "payback"?? The answer is obvious. In Zakath's haste to disprove a universal/absolute morality, he ends up supporting its existence with his very own example! After that moment, he had lost the debate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See above. Since this was an entirely fictional incident, then the reason I provided is every bit as valid as the one you presented, both equally possible.

Wrong. The reason you provided was simply the embodiment of why MURDER is wrong. Murder is wrong BECAUSE OF the very reasons you described. It inflicts loss, and suffering. It seems you are desparately trying to find a way to escape the obvious fact that Zakath screwed up. He lost the debate. Accept reality and let's move on.


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, Knight had asked Zakath to provide any possible circumstance, in any culture, where kidnapping/murdering/raping purely for sadistic pleasure would be considered morally "right". Zakath completely dodged that very critical question at least three times, totally failing to answer it. His lack of answer gives a strong implication that no such circumstances could ever exist, and therefore, universal/absolute morality does exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it the condition "purely for sadistic pleasure" were included as part of the query, then Zakath wouldn't need to answer it. The inclusion of a condition like that already makes it relativistic. By including the condition, Knight would have already admitted, without knowing it, that the condition would be needed to establish a seemingly universal wrongness, making it a case of "situational ethics," a relativist notion.

Your argument makes no sense. There is no culture, or moral system that has ever existed that would say murdering/raping innocence purely for sadistic pleasure is "right". They have a convoluted view of WHO is "innocent", but that is irrelevant. For example, a Viking pillager may have raped and murdered the women in the villages he raided, but he still believed it was morally WRONG to rape and murder the wife of one of his fellow pillagers, once they got back home.

The Nazis may have felt it was not morally wrong to murder Jews, but they definitely considered it morally wrong to murder other Germans. Why? Because they viewed other Germans as "innocent". So the only thing that is relativistic is the human ability to correctly perceive WHO is "innocent", and who is not........but the morality that it is "WRONG to murder the innocent", is universally/absolutely true and is a moral standard that has been adhered to by every human society that has ever graced the earth.

Absolute morality exist. Zakath lost. Stop beating the dead horse.

 

[Brother]

Setting the standard.

Setting the standard.

Bob Enyart has set the standard. I'm using his post as a study guide now. lol...I've already had it published as a text book for public school kids. We are working on having it translated into every known language. People are saying that this could be the best seller of all time, next to the bible. LOL....seriously, Bob has set the standard in that, if you don't make a post that can't be used as a study guide, then you have not made a post. LOL...

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw

A source, yes, but Knight also stated that determining specifically WHAT that source is, was peripheral to the question the debate was addressing

Granted, but he didn't even try to establish conclusively THAT a source exists. He merely made an assertion to that effect.

No, Zakath DID NOT provide a circumstance where murder/rape/kidnapping would be "right".

He didn't have to. He merely had to show a situation where it wasn't necessarily "wrong." "Not wrong" is not synonymous with "right."

No, the entire scenario leaves murder as "absolutely wrong" because if murder was not "wrong", the terrorist would not only have no motive for his evil plot, but there also would be no reason for thinking blowing up all the people in NYC would be a threat.

Incorrect. He clearly would see the murder of his own family as a threat to his own security and safety. That isn't the same as "wrong." And even if he did consider the murder of his wife and children "wrong," he apparently did not consider the murder of other innocents "wrong." Therefore it is still a relativistic view of wrong, not an absolutist view.

The whole psychology of revenge is - "You wronged me, therefore, I will WRONG you."

Not necessarily. It can also be "you took something from me, so I will take something from you." The psychology of the trade-off. Our entire economic system is based on that sort of psychology, for that matter.

Either way, murder is still considered wrong. If the terrorist didn't think murder was "wrong", why would he think blowing up NYC was a threat?

Because mass murder (wrong or not) is a threat to the continued stability of a society.

Yes, the personal loss and suffering that murder causes is the main reason why murder is considered - WRONG!!

Incorrect. Murder is considered wrong for a number of reasons, depending who you ask. You ask a Christian, it is wrong because of God's decree that it is wrong. You ask a Social Contract theorist, then rightness or wrongness is irrelevent but it is a social imperitive to protect the members of society from murder, because murder unchecked will lead to the disintegration of society. Whether or not it is wrong, in such a case, is not an important question; the important question is whether or not it is conducive to a stable society. There are lots of things that cause personal loss and suffering that are not viewed as morally wrong. Is it morally wrong for someone to die of natural causes, for instance? That causes personal loss and suffering every bit as much as does murder. So does accidental loss (in fact, insurance companies are more likely to offer double or triple indemnity for an accidental death, because of the amount of suffering it causes, than for murder or suicide).

Irrelevant. In Zak's scenario, the terrorist's motive wasn't based on anything other than the fact that the Arab Diplomat had ordered the *murder* of his wife and infant son.

Which doesn't establish that the terrorist believe that murder was wrong in any circumstance.

Wrong. The reason you provided was simply the embodiment of why MURDER is wrong. Murder is wrong BECAUSE OF the very reasons you described. It inflicts loss, and suffering.

Incorrect. See above.

It seems you are desparately trying to find a way to escape the obvious fact that Zakath screwed up.

No, but it does seem you are desparately trying to find a way to avoid admitting that Zakath made a valid point.

Your argument makes no sense. There is no culture, or moral system that has ever existed that would say murdering/raping innocence purely for sadistic pleasure is "right".

Can you prove that? Have you ever read "Clan of the Cave Bear?" Can you prove that no such society ever existed or could ever exist?

For example, a Viking pillager may rape and murder the women in villages he raids, but he still believed it is morally WRONG to rape and murder the wife of one of his fellow pillagers, once they got back home.

So apparently he believes it isn't morally wrong to rape and murder certain people, just not his own? That's a relativist view of wrong, not an absolutist's. You're arguing against yourself.

The Nazis may have felt it was not morally wrong to murder Jews, but they definitely considered it morally WRONG to murder other Germans.

So they thought it was morally okay to murder other kinds of people, just not their own kind? That's a relativist's view of wrong, not an absolutist's. You're arguing against yourself.

Why? Because they viewed other Germans as "innoncent".

That's untrue, but even if it were, it is still applying a condition whereby murder is sometimes not wrong (if the murdering party doesn't see the victim as "innocent," by whatever definition of "innocent" they are applying). That's still relativistic. If it were an absolute that murder of the guilty is not morally wrong, then it wouldn't be morally wrong for you to walk out in our society and kill someone because you thought they were guilty of any given crime. But it is considered wrong to do so (only very specific parties are authorized to visit death upon another individual as a punishment, and only after very strict proceedings, and even that is still oft-challenged as being morally wrong).

So the only thing that is relativistic is the human ability to correctly perceive WHO is "innocent", and who is not........but the morality that its "WRONG to murder the innocent", is universally/absolutely true and is moral standard that has been adhered to by every human society that has ever graced the earth.

Is anyone besides me noticing how you guys keep having to add extra conditions to the original in order to try to keep your argument alive? It's gone from "it's wrong to murder, " to "it's wrong to murder purely for sadistic pleasure," to "it's wrong to murder the innocent." Why can't you just stick with the original and try to make a case for it?

Absolute morality exist.

You say that as an objective statement, not merely an opinion. If you feel you can make a case to prove it, feel free.

 

[Zakath]

Re: Murder is subjective?

Re: Murder is subjective?

Originally posted by JanowJ
Zakath,
Can I have your address? I'm thinking of eliminating you, which I'm sure many people on this board would think is virtuous. Also, would it be absolutely wrong for me to kill your family? After all, some might call me a hero for doing so.

......

All the reply this one is worth.

 

[NATEDOG]

Hey Zakath,
Did you used to be an episcopalian minister?
Peace,
Nathan

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by JanowJ
Zakath,
Can I have your address? I'm thinking of eliminating you, which I'm sure many people on this board would think is virtuous. Also, would it be absolutely wrong for me to kill your family? After all, some might call me a hero for doing so.

This comment is horrible! I don't want Zakath dead. This site woudn't be any fun without our resident :zakath:...

Don't worry about him Zakath, I've sent my men after him as we speak... :zman::up:

 

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by Eireann
Incorrect. He clearly would see the murder of his own family as a threat to his own security and safety. That isn't the same as "wrong."

But wait!! If he considered having his security and safety threatened to be "wrong", then he would also consider murder to be "wrong" since murder is the ultimate "threat" to one's "security and safety" (not to mention the security and safety of his wife and infant son!)

And even if he did consider the murder of his wife and children "wrong," he apparently did not consider the murder of other innocents "wrong." Therefore it is still a relativistic view of wrong, not an absolutist view.

If he considered the murder of his wife and son "wrong" then even in his convoluted moral system, murder was still "wrong" at least to some degree, thus, the universal/absolute moral against murder still exists.

Not necessarily. It can also be "you took something from me, so I will take something from you."

Oh please. Let's be real. He thought it was morally WRONG to have what was taken from him taken, therefore, he wanted to take something back. (Revenge) The more you try to find loopholes to wiggle through, the more ridiculous your argument gets.

Because mass murder (wrong or not) is a threat to the continued stability of a society.

And it is considered "wrong" to have an unstable society, thus, it is wrong to mass-murder. All you are doing is explicating the reasons WHY murder is considered "wrong". You are making one circular argument right after the other and don't even realize it.

So they thought it was morally okay to murder other kinds of people, just not their own kind? That's a relativist's view of wrong, not an absolutist's. You're arguing against yourself.

The definition of murder is the "intentional killing of the innocent". Peoples' *perception* of who is "innocent" is the only thing that is relative. All human societies consider their own kind to be innocent, thus, there has never been a human society that believed the killing of it's OWN people (murder) was morally right. Thus, absolute morality against "murder" exists. There is no loophole. There is no way around it. The more you try to argue against it the more foolish your arguments become.

That's untrue, but even if it were, it is still applying a condition whereby murder is sometimes not wrong (if the murdering party doesn't see the victim as "innocent," by whatever definition of "innocent" they are applying).

If the murdering party does not see the victim as "innocent" then they wouldn't be committing "murder" according to their perception. According to their perception, they would be merely "killing", not "murdering". In order for it to be "murder", in their view, they'd have to see the victim as "innocent". However, the perception of the murdering party always considers it's own kind to be "innocent", thus, the killing of it's own kind would always be viewed as "murder", and would always be viewed as WRONG. Therefore, the wrongness of murder is still universal and has absolute presence in all human societies, regardless of their cultural worldviews.

Is anyone besides me noticing how you guys keep having to add extra conditions to the original in order to try to keep your argument alive? It's gone from "it's wrong to murder, " to "it's wrong to murder purely for sadistic pleasure," to "it's wrong to murder the innocent." Why can't you just stick with the original and try to make a case for it?

Murder, BY DEFINITION, is the "killing of the innocent". That is not a "change" of position; it's simply a clarification of the original.

 

[jeremiah]

Nothing has been decided yet in the battle royale. Bob is ahead on points because of the way Zakath decided to use his first post. However I am thoroughly enjoying, what I think, is a very intelligent debate here between Eireann and Scrimshaw. I am impressed with the intelligent elusiveness of Eireann. However I am more impressed with the persistence, and checking ability of Scrimshaw. There comes a point in a chess game when the defending and eluding is over, and the King is cornered or the player resigns.
Thanks guys.:up: This is a great sideshow for me,while I wait for the center ring action.

 

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by jeremiah
Thanks guys.:up: This is a great sideshow for me,while I wait for the center ring action.

Thanks Jeremiah! We're here to serve.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
But wait!! If he considered having his security and safety threatened to be "wrong", then he would also consider murder to be "wrong" since murder is the ultimate "threat" to one's "security and safety" (not to mention the security and safety of his wife and infant son!)

Note your key word here: "IF"

If he considered the murder of his wife and son "wrong" then even in his convoluted moral system, murder was still "wrong" at least to some degree, thus, the universal/absolute moral against murder still exists.[/qutoe]
Again, you're presupposing that he does consider the murder of his wife and son "wrong," and not just a threatening act. Remember, we're not talking about our society or culture here, we're talking about a culture that has a completely different set of beliefs and standards than our own. You're trying to apply Western standards to a culture where they may not apply. And no, even in his convoluted moral system, murder would necessarily be wrong "to some degree," but would more accurately be said to be wrong in certain instances. That's relativism.

Oh please. Let's be real. He thought it was morally WRONG to have what was taken from him taken, therefore, he wanted to take something back. (Revenge)

So you assume because that's the way you, a Westerner, would think. How do you know that this person from a completely foreign and alien culture to your own thinks in the same terms? Perhaps for him it's protection or recompense, not revenge.

And it is considered "wrong" to have an unstable society, thus, it is wrong to mass-murder.

According to you. And because I come from generally the same culture you do, I would also share that belief. But what dictates that this person from this totally alien and foreign must think the same way?

The definition of murder is the "intentional killing of the innocent".

Really? And where did you find this definition? I have three different dictionaries in my house, and I can't find that definition in any of them. Webster's defines it as "the crime of unlawfully killing a person, especially with malice aforethought." It says nothing of the presumed innocence of the victim. Nor do any of the other dictionaries.

Peoples' *perception* of who is "innocent" is the only thing that is relative. All human societies consider their own kind to be innocent, thus, there has never been a human society that believed the killing of it's OWN people (murder) was morally right.

How do you know that there does not exist, has never existed and can never exist such a society? Just how extensively have you studied to have this expertise in every culture and society that is, has ever been and will ever be since the dawn of man?

Thus, absolute morality against "murder" exists. There is no loophole. There is no way around it. The more you try to argue against it the more foolish your arguments become.

Well, I'll admit it'll certainly be hard for me to come up with a cogent argument if you keep redefining the terms just to fit your argument (i.e. murder = killing of the innocent.)

If the murdering party does not see the victim as "innocent" then they wouldn't be committing "murder" according to their perception. According to their perception, they would be merely "killing", not "murdering". In order for it to be "murder", in their view, they'd have to see the victim as "innocent".

Unfortunately, you had to completely redefine "murder" in order to arrive at that conclusion.

However, the perception of the murdering party always considers it's own kind to be "innocent"

Since when? I'm Irish, but I don't consider someone to be innocent simply because they're Irish.

Thus, the killing of it's own kind would always be viewed as "murder", and would always be viewed as WRONG. Therefore, the wrongness of murder is still universal and has absolute presence in all human societies, regardless of their cultural worldviews.

You're right and you're wrong. You're right that "murder" is probably wrong in all societies. However, you're wrong about what classifies an act as "murder." Murder is not an act, it's a motive and a degree of lawfulness. The act is killing. What determines whether or not it is a murder depends on whether or not the specific circumstances involved in the act of killing are permitted or proscribed by the respective law. Actually, since murder isn't actually an act, it is sort of moot to say "murder is wrong," since the conundrum is in trying to find an act that is universally considered "murder." But since the laws that regulate the right to kill differ from culture to culture, then "murder" is a very subjective term. For instance, if you have an abortion in a state where abortion is illegal, a legal case for murder could be built. Not so in a state where abortion is legal, though ... unless you want to redefine "murder" again, as you did earlier.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by jeremiah
Thanks guys.:up: This is a great sideshow for me,while I wait for the center ring action.

My pleasure.

 

[Flipper]

RogerB:

Are you referring to sawrie's last post? If so, I don't see Pascal's Wager. Take the easy way out why don't you. Why not just follow-up every post by with "Yeah!".

No I'm not. I'm referring to Bob Enyart's opening argument.

Potential Cost of Atheism Priced by the Nature of God

Pascal's wager with codicils....

The scientific arguments are somewhat uncompelling. A number of leading scientists have some interesting theories regarding the creation of the universe without divine intervention. One of these is up for experimental testing (i.e. a prediction has been made and will now be tested to see if it is verifiable). I wouldn't confuse Bob's overly simplistic approach with actual science as far as physics goes.

 

[Yorzhik]

You have me!!!

I'm honored. We'll have to meet in person when I can get out to Colorado.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Flipper
A number of leading scientists have some interesting theories regarding the creation of the universe without divine intervention.

Such as?

One of these is up for experimental testing (i.e. a prediction has been made and will now be tested to see if it is verifiable).

Which one?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Yorzhik
I'm honored. We'll have to meet in person when I can get out to Colorado.

It would be my honor!

 

[Scrimshaw]

I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Scrimshaw
But wait!! If he considered having his security and safety threatened to be "wrong", then he would also consider murder to be "wrong" since murder is the ultimate "threat" to one's "security and safety" (not to mention the security and safety of his wife and infant son!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Eireann
Note your key word here: "IF"

How about you quit your semantical tap dance and provide even ONE example of any moral system that believes it is morally "right" for their own security and safety to be threatened. Find even one example and I'll agree with you that "if" is the keyword above.


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If he considered the murder of his wife and son "wrong" then even in his convoluted moral system, murder was still "wrong" at least to some degree, thus, the universal/absolute moral against murder still exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, you're presupposing that he does consider the murder of his wife and son "wrong," and not just a threatening act.

Then that would mean that he thinks a "threatening act" is wrong! Well guess what? Murder is a "threaten act", thus, he would also think murder is wrong! You keep making the same circular arguments over and over again. It's getting ridiculous.

Remember, we're not talking about our society or culture here, we're talking about a culture that has a completely different set of beliefs and standards than our own. You're trying to apply Western standards to a culture where they may not apply.

There is not a culture on the planet that believes "murder" is morally "right". The moral opposition to murder is not a "western" belief. It is a worldwide belief and has existed in every society since the dawn of man. If I am wrong about that, all you'd have to do to refute me is provide even ONE example of a society that did not consider murder morally WRONG.


I said:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh please. Let's be real. He thought it was morally WRONG to have what was taken from him taken, therefore, he wanted to take something back. (Revenge)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you assume because that's the way you, a Westerner, would think.

This has nothing to do with Westerners! It's a transcultural fact that there has never been a human society that did not consider murder morally WRONG. The definition of murder says "unlawful killing". So the very definition of murder means that it is an act that can never be "lawful", and therefore, never morally right.

Perhaps for him it's protection or recompense, not revenge.

Maybe to him, but who cares! Maybe to Jeffrey Dahmer eating people was a simply a way of exercising a "healthy diet". I am not talking about individual wackos here. There are plenty of individual lunatics with completely insane moral codes. That's not what we're discussing. We are discussing moral SYSTEMS, the ones established by human SOCIETIES. The ones that establish LEGAL SYSTEMS. None have ever existed that did not consider murder morally WRONG.


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The definition of murder is the "intentional killing of the innocent".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? And where did you find this definition? I have three different dictionaries in my house, and I can't find that definition in any of them.

Oh for love of the ID! If you disagree with my definition of murder, what in the seven hells do you think the difference between "killing" and "murder" is then? What is the difference between murder and manslaugter?

How do you know that there does not exist, has never existed and can never exist such a society? Just how extensively have you studied to have this expertise in every culture and society that is, has ever been and will ever be since the dawn of man?

You're right. I could be totally wrong! Maybe there is some society that considered murder morally "right". Now, care to tell us what society that is?? Go ahead. Don't be shy. :chuckle:


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, absolute morality against "murder" exists. There is no loophole. There is no way around it. The more you try to argue against it the more foolish your arguments become.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I'll admit it'll certainly be hard for me to come up with a cogent argument if you keep redefining the terms just to fit your argument (i.e. murder = killing of the innocent.)

If murder ISN'T "intentional killing of the innocent", (which I assume is your argument?) then PRAY tell me what you think the difference between "murder" and "killing" is? You are proving to be a very dishonest debater. Your arguments continue to get sauteed, but you refuse to concede them.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the murdering party does not see the victim as "innocent" then they wouldn't be committing "murder" according to their perception. According to their perception, they would be merely "killing", not "murdering". In order for it to be "murder", in their view, they'd have to see the victim as "innocent".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, you had to completely redefine "murder" in order to arrive at that conclusion.

And of course you completed failed to show how my "redefinition" of murder is incorrect. Let's take it apart word by word, and you tell me which word does not apply to murder, K??

- intentional
- killing
- of the
- innocent

So which part of my "redefinition" doesn't apply to the act of murder? Are you going to claim that murder is UN-intentional? Is it NOT "killing"? The victim is NOT "innocent"? Unless you plan to argue that my definition of murder is inaccurate, your argument on this point is utterly meaningless.


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the perception of the murdering party always considers it's own kind to be "innocent"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since when? I'm Irish, but I don't consider someone to be innocent simply because they're Irish.

Holy Toledo. I think that is the most thick-headed thing I've heard all week! When did I ever say that "kind" means race or geographical heritage? Please reread my comment. I was talking about perpetrators of murder when there is more than one. (Notice the keywords above - "murdering party"? )

In case you are foggy on what I meant by "murdering party", here is an example...... Let's say four friends got together and decided they were going to murder a bunch of people in a store. They would be the "murdering party." If one of the friends decided to murder one of the other friends, the others in the murdering party would consider him to have done something morally WRONG. Why? Because they are on the same team. They are friends. They are the same "kind", and thus, while they consider it morally okay to kill the people in the store, they would NOT consider it morally okay to kill eachother. Get the point now?


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the killing of it's own kind would always be viewed as "murder", and would always be viewed as WRONG. Therefore, the wrongness of murder is still universal and has absolute presence in all human societies, regardless of their cultural worldviews.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're right and you're wrong. You're right that "murder" is probably wrong in all societies.

It is wrong in all societies, therefore it is absolutely WRONG and will remain absolutely wrong until proven otherwise.

However, you're wrong about what classifies an act as "murder." Murder is not an act, it's a motive and a degree of lawfulness. The act is killing. What determines whether or not it is a murder depends on whether or not the specific circumstances involved in the act of killing are permitted or proscribed by the respective law.

Yes, and the respective laws are determined by.....guess what? The society's MORAL SYSTEM. There has never existed a society that had a moral system (which means legal system too) that did not consider murder to be morally/legally WRONG. Not a one!

Actually, since murder isn't actually an act, it is sort of moot to say "murder is wrong," since the conundrum is in trying to find an act that is universally considered "murder." But since the laws that regulate the right to kill differ from culture to culture, then "murder" is a very subjective term.

The definition of "murder" DOES NOT differ from culture to culture. Every culture has "intentionally killing of innocence" as part of it's definition of murder. There are NO exceptions to this rule. If I am wrong, all you have to do to refute me is find an example of even ONE society that does NOT consider the "intentional killing of the innocent" to be murder, or morally WRONG.

 

[Flipper]

One Eyed Jack:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Flipper
A number of leading scientists have some interesting theories regarding the creation of the universe without divine intervention.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Such as?

www.google.com

I should point out that I was using the term "theories" in its non-scientific form. Hypotheses would have been more accurate.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of these is up for experimental testing (i.e. a prediction has been made and will now be tested to see if it is verifiable).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which one?

The Ekpyrotic Universe - http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/branes_collide.html

This hypothesis (and it is rather tentative) makes predictions about the observed wavelength of gravity waves. It is likely that these waves - if they exist - will be detected by a number of different sensors coming online between now and 2010. Alternatively, a search is on to detect optical polarization in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. If it is detected, it will support an inflationary theory of the universe. If it is not, it will add some credibility to the ekpyrotic hypothesis.

If one or the other is shown to be true, it will tell us something about the state before the big bang. The ekpyrotic hypothesis may get shot down in flames, or it may spark a new search. The point is, it is not entirely impossible to start testing hypotheses about the early and pre-universe. Challenging, yes.

I eagerly await some testable hypothesis concerning the mechanism for fiat creation. When will we see one, do you think?

 

[shima]

Scrimshaw
>>No, the problem is proving that there IS a possible natural mechanism. <<

Your arguement was from INDUCTION. Therefore, for that arguement to work, you have to prove that there is NO natural mechanism that creates cells.

>>Okay, and what does that have to do with the origin of cells? <<

A lot ofcourse. Untill we can track the individual movements of the molecular components, we're probably not going to find out why they apparently don't react.

>>We have had microscopes, laboratories, and all the resources necessary for the study of biochemistry/cellular biology for many decades, and all we have discovered is how much more complex, and irrudicibly sophisticated cells are than what we first thought.<<

The cell is complex, but not irreducably complex.

>>What process? Do you mean the process that doesn't exist?<<

The process for which you STILL haven't proven that it doesn't exist.

>>That lack of understanding has nothing to do with the evolution of cells, and why that evolution has never been re-created in a laboratory, even when given all the same resources and conditions that would have existed on the primortial earth....and intelligent scientists manipulating the process to boot!!<<

I think that understanding the quantummechanical properties is very important, since they determine how the molecules interact whith eachother. If we don't know it, we cannot predict how exactly those molecules should be forming.

>>That matters little if the specific natural process you speak of doesn't exist, or is powerless to create a cell.<<

Since noone has been able to prove that natural mechanisms are unable to form a cell, your point is rather moot.

>>Since I don't even know what that is, and it doesn't exist,<<

Neither did a telescope or a spectrograph.

>>We are not talking about "inventing" a new lifeform. <<

Yes, we are. We want to assemble a CELL from simple components. Should we succeed, that lifeform then IMMEDIATELY has to compete with all kinds of bacteria for survival. Those bacteria have had a several billion year headstart on evolution.

>>We are talking about re-creating a lifeform that already exist on this planet. <<

No, we're not. We're talking about creating a cell in the way we think cells looked like several billion years ago. Ofcourse, the cell still exists TODAY, but with several billion years of evolution it is likely that it has changed somewhat since then.

>>6) There is no such thing as a natural process that can create cells from biotic chemcials.

Yes, I agree completely!!!<<

And I don't. If you could PROVE it, then it will be different ofcourse.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw

How about you quit your semantical tap dance and provide even ONE example of any moral system that believes it is morally "right" for their own security and safety to be threatened. Find even one example and I'll agree with you that "if" is the keyword above.

When did I say "right?" I said "not wrong." They aren't the same thing. "Not wrong" simply implies that personal safety and security is of greater importance than any notion of right or wrong. Ethics doesn't necessarily even enter into it; it's a pure matter of survival, which is baser than ethical codes.

Then that would mean that he thinks a "threatening act" is wrong!

Read it again. I didn't equate "wrong" with a "threatening act." I differentiated the two, in fact. I said you're presupposing that he (or his culture) automatically considers the murder of his wife "wrong," and not just a threatening act. Synonyms for "and not just" = and not only ... rather than ... instead of ...

There is not a culture on the planet that believes "murder" is morally "right".

Maybe, maybe not. But can you prove that every culture that is, that has ever been, and that ever could be does not consider there to be some circumstances where murder is not morally wrong?

The moral opposition to murder is not a "western" belief. It is a worldwide belief and has existed in every society since the dawn of man. If I am wrong about that, all you'd have to do to refute me is provide even ONE example of a society that did not consider murder morally WRONG.

There are some societies whose laws are not moral laws. Moral laws are also known as a mores (pronounced morays). Mores are instilled by custom and social contract. In other words, they represent the majority will of the people of a given society, particularly in democratic societies. However, not all societies have their laws imposed by social contract, and thus those laws are not exactly moral laws. For example, monarchies (especially feudal monarchies) and dictatorships, where laws are dictated, proposed, established and maintained by a single leader or a select few, despite the will of the people. Cuba, for example. In such times and places, while it would be against the law for a commoner to rise up and kill an overbearing soldier (murder), it would certainly not be viewed as wrong in the eyes of the majority of that society, although it would be wrong in the eyes of the power elite. The killing, even if for the protection of one's own family or self, would be contrary to the law, and thus murder, but not necessarily "wrong," except in the eyes of the power elite. Now here in the US, that wouldn't even be considered murder, because it would be protected under law as "self-defense." But that isn't the case in Cuba.

This has nothing to do with Westerners! It's a transcultural fact that there has never been a human society that did not consider murder morally WRONG.

I think I just showed you one.

The definition of murder says "unlawful killing". So the very definition of murder means that it is an act that can never be "lawful", and therefore, never morally right.

Only if the law is moral, reflecting the beliefs and/or will of society.

Oh for love of the ID! If you disagree with my definition of murder, what in the seven hells do you think the difference between "killing" and "murder" is then? What is the difference between murder and manslaugter?

Killing is the taking of life, under any circumstance, intentional, cold-blooded, merciful, or accidental. Murder is the intentional and unlawful taking of life. Manslaughter is usually unintentional but the result of irresponsible behavior. And to answer the question you asked later in your post, it is the inclusion of the word "innocent" as a necessary component for murder that I contest. If that were a necessary component, then we would have a more messed-up society than we already do. By your definition, you could see someone pilfering a candy bar from 7-11 and walk up and shoot him in the head without worrying about prosecution because the guy wasn't innocent. Of course now I expect you are going to change your definition again so that it reads, "the intentional killing of people who are innocent of equal or greater crimes." In which case, I will ask you how exactly you determine what are "greater crimes" and which ones deserve death and which ones deserve imprisonment.

You're right. I could be totally wrong! Maybe there is some society that considered murder morally "right". Now, care to tell us what society that is?? Go ahead. Don't be shy. :chuckle:

I don't need to. For one thing, I already established that "right" and "not wrong" aren't the same thing. Then I showed you a society that would clearly not see murder, under some circumstances, to be wrong. Furthermore, your confession that such a society could exist is good enough for me. And as I said in another thread, I am more interested in possibilities than in probabilities, because the possibility of such a society existing negates the absolute, unless you can prove the existence of God and that he imposed such an absolute, regardless whether every society believes in it or not.

You are proving to be a very dishonest debater.

Why is it that every time I point out a fallacy in my opponent's argumentation, I get accused of "dishonest debate." Is it just a Christian thing?

And of course you completed failed to show how my "redefinition" of murder is incorrect. Let's take it apart word by word, and you tell me which word does not apply to murder, K??

No problem.

- innocent

That one. A victim need not be innocent to be an unjust victim of murder, even by the old Levitical law. An eye for an eye does not equate to death for any crime.

So which part of my "redefinition" doesn't apply to the act of murder? Are you going to claim that ... the victim is NOT "innocent"?

I'm not going to make any claim about the innocence or lack thereof for any given murder victim. But I will claim, as I just did above, that "innocent" is not a requirement for a killing to be murder.

Holy Toledo. I think that is the most thick-headed thing I've heard all week! When did I ever say that "kind" means race or geographical heritage?

Well, forgive me. I must have misremembered. I was under the impression that it was YOU who set the precedent by saying that the Nazis felt it was okay to murder Jews but not to murder other Germans, because they saw the Germans as "innocent." Now, unless you're wrongfully equating German and Nazi (the Nazis were very much in the minority during their reign of power), then this was clearly a racial/geographical comparison. If you don't want me to interpret your words that way, then please don't set such a precedent. You also spoke of the Vikings in a similar way, although I'll give you credit there that you did say only that they would think it wrong to kill the wife of a fellow pillager, not merely another Viking. But with the Germans, you clearly set a precedent whereby "own kind" could be interpreted as "own race or nationality."

It is wrong in all societies, therefore it is absolutely WRONG and will remain absolutely wrong until proven otherwise.

I think I've already proven otherwise with the Cuba example. By the way, that was not a made-up example. I had an ex-roomate who was from Cuba. He told me that story from actual personal experience. I'm not sure why I didn't think of it as an example until now. The guy in question actually killed the soldier, and the townspeople got together and smuggled him out of town before the authorities could find out about it. They smuggled him out with trash bags through the sewer and then on a fishing boat. As far as I know, the guy still lives here in the US.

Yes, and the respective laws are determined by.....guess what? The society's MORAL SYSTEM. There has never existed a society that had a moral system (which means legal system too) that did not consider murder to be morally/legally WRONG. Not a one!

You're probably correct. But not every society that exists or has existed has had a moral system. A moral legal system, as I said above, is one in which the voice of the people is a determining factor in the legislation of their laws and customs. Your observation does not apply in societies where it is not.

The definition of "murder" DOES NOT differ from culture to culture. Every culture has "intentionally killing of innocence" as part of it's definition of murder. There are NO exceptions to this rule.

No, actually every society is probably an exception to that rule. I don't think a society exists that has that as part of its definition of murder. While the intentional killing of an innocent would most certainly qualify as murder, it is most definitely not a requirement for murder ... anywhere! If you intentionally kill somebody without sanction of the law (unless it is self-defense), it doesn't matter whether that person is an "innocent" or not, you don't have the right to determine that that person should die. The only other exception, in our type of society, that I can think of besides the self-defense rule might be euthenasia.