BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale II - Knight vs. Zakath

[Eireann]

It will be fundamentally impossible for Knight to win his point. He may win the debate by votes (but not likely). But he cannot win his point. Why? It's in the wording. "There are moral absolutes." This is an affirmative, absolute statement. It is tantamount to saying, "There are moral absolutes, and I have irrefutable proof of all the conditions required for moral absolutes."

Well, an absolute requires that there be something to establish and maintain the absolute. God, or whatever. There is where the fundamental problem with proof lies. Knight proposes to prove God by proving absolutes. Unfortunately, that's a chicken/egg argument. You have to prove God in order to prove absolutes. You can't prove God. Since you can't prove God, you can't prove that God is the source of anything. Since God would be required to be the source of an absolute, you cannot prove that the absolute exists. Can't prove God = can't prove source = can't prove absolute.

The most an absolutist can possibly demonstrate is the statement, "I believe there are moral absolutes." This is also the most a relativist can possibly demonstrate ("I believe that morals are relative.") However, "I believe" statements are relativist statements by nature.

Had Knight argued that he believes there are moral absolutes, he would have a chance of winning his point. A good chance. Almost a 100% chance. But instead, he chose to word his platform in a way that is impossible for him to adequately demonstrate beyond the fact that it's a belief.

 

[Eireann]

I am wondering if my vote registered. I put in my vote for Zakath, because I think his arguments are a bit more cogent, but mainly because Knight's illustrations of the relativist stance are too stereotypical and inaccurate compared to how relativists really look at morality. Either way, I don't know if my vote registered or not. I've been having trouble being able to post votes on the polls lately. It keeps telling me that the action could not be taken because my "session appears to be invalid." What does that mean?

 

[MARANATHA2002]

I thought everyone knew the chicken came first. Peace, but not yet.

 

[Goose]

Eirann,

Actually, "I believe" are absolute statements.

 

[themuzicman]

You know, all Knight has to do is demonstrate a single abolutely moral statement, and he wins. It's not hard.

Michael

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by themuzicman
You know, all Knight has to do is demonstrate a single abolutely moral statement, and he wins. It's not hard.

Only if he can find one and then prove that it is absolute...

 

[Brother Vinny]

Hey Novice!

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Goose
Eirann,

Actually, "I believe" are absolute statements.

No, "I believe" is a relative statement. "It is" is an absolute statement.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by themuzicman
You know, all Knight has to do is demonstrate a single abolutely moral statement, and he wins. It's not hard.

Michael

I guess that means the battle goes to Zakath, then? Declaring that a statement is absolute is a far different thing than proving it absolute. Like I said, you first have to prove God, then you have to prove God is the source of the absolute, then you have to prove that the absolute exists, then you have to prove the absolute is as you've interpreted (otherwise you've failed to demonstrate an absolute). And if you want to be around when someone finally accomplishes all that, then you'd better pray that reincarnation is real.

 

[Zakath]

Eireann,

SHHHHH! Don't give away the entire ending of our little "morality play"...

Besides, I was planning to get goose to debate me on the existence of the IPU...

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by NoLies
...After reading this nonsense for a while it looses it’s edge. For a few post he seems rational but after a year he seems less than that...

Do you have the slightest idea how irrational do fundy Christians sound after almost forty years?

 

[Prisca]

Not voting just yet...

Not voting just yet...

This is quite fascinating to watch, er read! I thought Zakath came out swinging and I wasn’t sure how Knight was going to counter that first post. He came through by not letting Zak hold him to the following definition:

Zak’s definition, “Absolute morality - a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct that is independent of and unrelated to anything else.”

Since when did “absolute” come to only mean “independent of and unrelated to anything else”? It also means “to the very greatest degree possible,” “having total power and authority,” “completely unequivocal and not capable of being viewed as partial or relative,” and “complete and in no way conditional on any future evidence or behavior.”

Knight’s definition, “Absolute morality - a standard of right and wrong that supercedes - or is greater than - man's standard of right and wrong”

Knight’s definition, makes better use of the meaning of the word “absolute.” While Zak describes absolute morality as a “system of ideas,” Knight describes absolute morality as a “standard.” While Zak attempts to make these ideas “independent of and unrelated to anything else,” Knight shows that to uphold the definition of absolute they must “supercede” or be “greater” than man’s standards.

Way to go Knight! But to be fair, I’m withholding my vote until I see the battle develop for a few more posts.

 

[Goose]

That's some good insight, Becky :up:

 

[anna]

Originally posted by Pilgrimagain


The issue is that if you write poorly, it is very hard to understand your argument. I agree with Jaltus that it is typical to see the better writer win an argumen. Poor writing is often a sign of poor reasoning skills, after all, if you can't string a few words together in a cogent way, why shuold anyone expect you to string ideas together with any more efficacy.

Pilgrim

Well said Pilgrim.
I believe that the Bible is THE authority- the source of moral absolutes, so I know there is "no wisdom, nor understanding, nor counsel against the Lord", but I know that in a debate, the winner is the person who can argue his case more effectively. Debates are intellectual, and as a Christian, I have to "contend for the faith." Of course this debate is not about salvation, but it is important because it is an issue that non believers use as a barrier to keep from discussing the real issue, salvation.
ac

 

[Zakath]

Becky wrote
Since when did “absolute” come to only mean “independent of and unrelated to anything else”?

I never stated or implied that "absolute" only meant that. I am quite aware of multiple meanings. The meaning I chose was the first of two philosophically related meanings presented in the dictionary I cited in my post. I found Knight's apparently home-grown definition humorous because it defines an absolute as something realative. For Knight, "absolute morality" is something relative to human society! His definition is more anthropocentric and relativistic than the definition proposed by me, the atheist humanist!

I was then faced with a choice: do I accept Knight's definition or spend another one or more posts arguing about it? According to the rules we each have only ten posts. If we were going to go through multiple possible definitions of the term absolute morality, we'd run out of posts before we ran out of definitions. In the end, I decided to accept Knight's somewhat illogical defintion so we could move onto the meat of the discussion.

I'm not willing to miss the main course by spending too much time on the appetizer.

 

[anna]

Originally posted by Eireann

No, "I believe" is a relative statement. "It is" is an absolute statement.

Eireann,

I think that you and goose have a different definition of the word
"believe"

In the Bible the word "believe" can mean trust or put faith in.
example: For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him shall not parish but have everlasting life. John 3:16

Most people, including myself, use the word "believe" to mean "think"

example: I believe it was Berlioz who said that the saxophone sings. After hearing Dr. Gwozdz perform this piece, I am convinced that the saxophone can laugh as well as sing.

The first definition of the word "believe" is absolute because it is saying whosoever trusts/ places faith in him. This is not open for debate

The second definition of the word "believe" is not an absolute statement because it is saying I think/ suppose... which is contemplative- it is open for debate
ac

 

[bill betzler]

Unfortuately for Knight and this christian who is rooting him on is that there is probably only one moral absolute in existance and that is God is good.

As Eriann and Zakath have mentioned God cannot be proven to the unbeliever by verbal persuasion. God proves himself individually to the saved, a personal inner experience.

There is a common thread in religions that mirrors a bible truth. God said, and I paraphrase, vengence is mine I will repay.

Others talk of karma or some justice system where, eventually, wrongs are righted.

Go Knight.

Zakath, were you a christian and is your testimony of why you left the church public knowledge?

bill

 

[anna]

Originally posted by Eireann

No, "I believe" is a relative statement. "It is" is an absolute statement.

Not according to Bill Clintion
"Bah Dump...Crash!"
ac

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by anna


Eireann,

I think that you and goose have a different definition of the word
"believe"

In the Bible the word "believe" can mean trust or put faith in.
example: For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him shall not parish but have everlasting life. John 3:16

Most people, including myself, use the word "believe" to mean "think"

example: I believe it was Berlioz who said that the saxophone sings. After hearing Dr. Gwozdz perform this piece, I am convinced that the saxophone can laugh as well as sing.

The first definition of the word "believe" is absolute because it is saying whosoever trusts/ places faith in him. This is not open for debate

The second definition of the word "believe" is not an absolute statement because it is saying I think/ suppose... which is contemplative- it is open for debate
ac

Good point. I should have clarified myself a bit more. I hadn't thought about it in quite the terms you expressed. What I mean is that "I believe" is a signal phrase for something that is automatically made relative by the fact that it is preceded by "I believe." Belief is faith without proof. If it were proven, then it would be called knowledge or fact, not belief. Belief is built and strengthened by evidence, but still lacks proof. Lacking proof of that which you believe (which you must if you "believe" it rather than "know" it), then that thing in which you believe is only "known" to be relative to your own experience and interpretation. It may be exactly as you believe it to be, it may be absolute, but lacking proof of it, it remains relative.

 

[Goose]

Eirann,

Youre description of morality seems defecient for the relatavist. Everyone is a relativist to an extent, and this seems what you're trying to prove. I agree with you, I think, to an extent.

Absolutists believe in having a relationship with absolute morality, where relativists don't believe there is absolute morality.