BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale II - Knight vs. Zakath

BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale II - Knight vs. Zakath

  • Knight

    Votes: 31 72.1%

  • Zakath

    Votes: 12 27.9%
  • Total voters
    43
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MARANATHA2002

New member
Re: WHOSE morality is it ?

Re: WHOSE morality is it ?

Originally posted by me again
  • Is there such a thing as absolute morality?
Yes, there is, but whose morality is it?

For example, when God told the ancient Hebrews to kill all the men, women, children and even the animals of a particular tribe, whose morality was it? And when the Hebrews did not kill all the animals, but kept them, it displeased God and the Hebrews suffered for their disobedience. Someone might ask "What morality is there in God ordering the Hebrews to kill all the men, women, children and animals???"

The point is that God decides what is moral or immoral. He is the Chief Judge, even if we don’t understand all of His methods. This is a hurdle that unbelievers are unable to cope with.

There is absolute morality and it rest with God.
Click to expand...

Me Again, has a good point here. People who reject the existence of GOD, must be judging that existence based on what they believe to be moral. The scripture context Me Again is referring to is an excellent example. I have talked with many who use this as their proof that there is no god. In their reasoning no true god would do such a terrible thing. I find most of these people, also believe abortion is OK, but the death penalty is wrong. When man tries to force their moral concepts on the sovereigns of GOD’S absolute moral, the man is left confused, and in a state of rejection. Peace, but not yet.
 
A

anselm13

New member
goodknight

goodknight

Knight's idea of WWF style debates works well for his opponent. He's still losing and he posted last.

Apparently Knight rejects Zakath's definition of absolute morality while failing to clearly establish his own definition (absolute morality = any morality greater than man's morality?). Instead he cuts down Zakath, argues against some hypothetical relativists, and spouts off a bunch of rhetoric.
 
temple2006

temple2006

New member
Zak & Knight...
If either of you could understand that God does not have attributes but rather that He IS THE ATTRIBUTES, you would not have this dilemma.
 
Goose

Goose

New member
Re: goodknight

Re: goodknight

Originally posted by anselm13
Knight's idea of WWF style debates works well for his opponent. He's still losing and he posted last.

Apparently Knight rejects Zakath's definition of absolute morality while failing to clearly establish his own definition (absolute morality = any morality greater than man's morality?). Instead he cuts down Zakath, argues against some hypothetical relativists, and spouts off a bunch of rhetoric.
Click to expand...
And just who is right, Korey? On what authority do you base your stance?
 
Last edited:
admiral_d

admiral_d

New member
Originally posted by temple 2000
Zak & Knight...
If either of you could understand that God does not have attributes but rather that He IS THE ATTRIBUTES, you would not have this dilemma.
Click to expand...

This is interesting.....Could you expand on this a bit further?
 
Zakath

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Originally posted by Freak
It's already over!

Zakath :eek:

Too bad Zakath....

Perhaps next time...maybe...I don't think so.
Click to expand...
Gloating over the perceived misfortune of others is such a venal pleasure, Jay... ;)
 
temple2006

temple2006

New member
Admiral_d...
By human standards we can say what God is like, say a father or mother, but we cannot know what an uncreated spirit is. God is love, justice, truth, mercy, beauty. When God says "I AM" that means God is Its own excuse for being.... God is absolute and there is no contradiction.
 
Zakath

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Originally posted by bill betzler
Did everyone notice that Zakath used a definition of absolute morality that precludes God as the giver of the absolute rules. So by his definition only humans can decide what is absolute. Those philosophers are very tricky.
Click to expand...

Perhaps internally consistent more than "tricky". What sense would it make for an atheist to build a philosophical definition around what some deity he doesn't believe in might or might not be responsible for? ;)
 
Zakath

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Originally posted by temple 2000
Zak & Knight...
If either of you could understand that God does not have attributes but rather that He IS THE ATTRIBUTES, you would not have this dilemma.
Click to expand...

IIRC, one of the theological monikers for deity is "The Absolute". From that perspective, your point has merit.

Now, if I only believed in deity, any deity... ;)
 
P

Pilgrimagain

Guest
Originally posted by Goose
You know one side is going to fail when that side starts to obfuscate in the first post by redefining things.
Click to expand...

If it is the first post then if can only be a definition and not a "redefinition" because as yet, no one has posited a definition in this argument. One of the key things to have a furitful conversation or debate is to come to a conclusion on definitions.

Pilgrim
 
P

Pilgrimagain

Guest
I see this going the way the other battle talk went. No one really cares who makes the better argument. Everyone is polarized in favor of the person who agrees with them (or whom the agree with) regardless of cogency of argument. And in the end, both sides will claim victory. We need to make this a bit more formal with points and loss of points. Maybe start each side out with 100 points and subtract points every time a fallacy or non-cogent argument or factual error is commited.

Pilgrim
 
J

Jaltus

New member
I think Zak is going to win, but that is because the more polished writer generally wins these debates.
 
novice

novice

Who is the stooge now?
Originally posted by Jaltus
I think Zak is going to win, but that is because the more polished writer generally wins these debates.
Click to expand...
Jaltus who cares about who is the more "polished writer"? That certainly would be a boring way to judge these debates. Heck... you could judge the debates before they start if that's the way your judging! I will be judging to see who makes the most logical argument.
 
J

Jaltus

New member
Hey, I am just projecting. I will not make my decision about who actually won until the debate is over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top