Is there no honor?

[Zzyzx]

.
From another thread:

It is painfully clear to me and other readers viewing this thread that you [a member I shall not identify] are not interested in improving your ability to debate, educating yourself on the subject matter, or even researching your own claims in order to prove them. You are merely here to repeat your beliefs ad nauseum as though they were fact under the guise of "debating" against non-believers.

I agree with Negative Proof and add that I wonder why those who attribute high moral standards to their chosen religious beliefs do not act ethically in debate.

Is it because the position they attempt to defend CANNOT be rationally defended in ethical and equitable debate " wherein substantiation of claims is required?

In my two years of debating here and years before that elsewhere I have encountered only a handful of Theists who debate with what I consider honor, integrity, ethics, civility and reason. NONE of them (with one possible exception) has attempted to defend Fundamental Christianity or literal bible interpretation.

WHY do those of supposed "high moral standards" and "instructions from god" so often FAIL and REFUSE to debate honorably?

[olavisjo]

From Page 1 Post 10:

Jesus said it would be like this...

I challenge you to show those were the actual words spoken by the Christian Jesus pseudo-god figure.

There was no intent to claim that those words were actually spoken by anyone, only that the words which were attributed to Jesus and Peter almost 2000 years ago would still be appropriate today, in that there is no other philosophy in this world that makes any sense compared to Christianity.

If I were to leave Jesus, where would I go?

Reasonburg? Logicville?

What do those places look like?

I sleep well under the shadow of God's wings, but how do you get your sleep, who's wing do you hide under?

You imagine that you sleep well under the shadow of God's wings. But the reality is that, like all of us, you see shadows. You interpret the shadows as being a particular thing because it gives you comfort. To rather abruptly switch metaphors on you, the emperor has no clothes.

Yes, a rather abrupt switch in metaphors, the king could not see any clothes but he was convinced that others could see them and he was afraid to admit that he could not see them. And that may be true for most Christians, but in my case I am so deluded, deceived, insane and or psychotic that I honestly do see the clothes.
In my metaphor I was just saying that since I know that I am going to live with God for all eternity, then nothing that happens to me in this life is going to matter in comparison, so I can sleep comfortably.

.

I Should I embrace the philosophy that you were indoctrinated into from birth?

What, exactly, is "the philosophy that [others] were indoctrinated into from birth"?

The question was specifically directed at Flail as he seemed to have it all together in the perfect philosophy department.
It would appear that we enter this world like a dry sponge ready to absorb whatever philosophical moisture is around us. I personally was raised in a very moral atheist home, and I was educated in an atheist public school where God was hardly ever mentioned, and naturally I became an atheist.

. Are you NOT aware (or do you deny) that many here are EX-Christians who were indoctrinated into Christianity as children but later in life rejected super-naturalism?

I am aware of that, but in my religion to become a Christian one must be born again, not indoctrinated again.

.

I have yet to see any evidence that any world view is any more true than theism, so why would I choose to be indoctrinated into something else

You should NOT adopt any worldview other than the one you have chosen. You are dependent upon that belief system to give meaning and structure to your life. Without it you would probably be lost.

There is no probably about it, I know I would be lost without Jesus. But now I know who I am, where I am going, and where I will be for all eternity.

.

that is even more mindless... unreasonable... illogical... and void of common sense....

It is not surprising that you would consider a Non-Theist worldview to be "more mindless, unreasonable, illogical and void of common sense".

However, in debate one is expected to substantiate their statements and claims with evidence if challenged. I challenge the truth and accuracy of that statement and ask for documentation of its truth.

The fact that the universe began to exist, is a contradiction of the laws of nature, and shows naturalism and other non-theistic philosophies to be false.
Also, naturalism denies that morality and free will exist, both of which you know to exist, as you demonstrated when you said...

. Be aware, however, that many others do NOT require external structure and meaning, but have developed INTERNAL values, ethics, judgment and knowledge of the real world upon which they rely " rather than upon unseen "gods".

The very words 'values', 'ethics', 'judgment' and 'rely' all demonstrate that you accept morality and free will.

[cnorman18]

....there is no other philosophy in this world that makes any sense compared to Christianity.

This is clearly an opinion.

You are quite entitled to hold it, but you are not entitled to pretend that it is in any way probative, persuasive, or relevant to this debate, which is about ethics and integrity.

....In my metaphor I was just saying that since I know that I am going to live with God for all eternity, then nothing that happens to me in this life is going to matter in comparison, so I can sleep comfortably.

Again, this is an opinion. It is not a fact, and so is not relevant here -

Except in that presenting opinion, in this case religious dogma, as probative fact is a pretty good example of "preaching under the false pretense of debate," which is both dishonest and unethical.

....in my religion to become a Christian one must be born again, not indoctrinated again.

A statement of religious doctrine; not a fact relevant to a debate on the subject of ethics.

....There is no probably about it, I know I would be lost without Jesus. But now I know who I am, where I am going, and where I will be for all eternity.

This is also an opinion. It is also an implicit claim of superiority and authority, and therefore improper and unethical in debate.

.....The fact that the universe began to exist, is a contradiction of the laws of nature, and shows naturalism and other non-theistic philosophies to be false.

That is, to be blunt, nonsense. No scientist on Earth would sign off on such a statement. If it were within a light-year of provable, every scientist on Earth would be a fundamentalist.

This is also clearly not a fact, but an opinion (and a very poorly founded one); and presenting it here as fact is, again, dishonest and unethical.

Let me put it simply: If you cannot prove this in terms that are not dependent on an a priori belief in God, it is a statement of pure religious dogmatism and is not admissible in debate with nonbelievers.

Also, naturalism denies that morality and free will exist....

This is also a plain falsehood.

Attributing views to others that they do not hold, aka "putting words in their mouths," or redefining the convictions of others to suit one's arguments, is neither honest nor ethical.

The very words 'values', 'ethics', 'judgment' and 'rely' all demonstrate that you accept morality and free will.

Which proves that your statement above is a falsehood. There is no Apostles' Creed of Naturalism which states that one who takes that approach cannot or must not believe in either morality or free will, and you have no right to dictate that naturalists must believe such a doctrine. Further, assuming that either is dependent on a belief in God is nothing more than sectarian arrogance as well as abject ignorance of nontheist thought.

Bear in mind that I am a theist, not an atheist. My beliefs are my own, and I do not press them on others or claim that I can prove them to be objectively true. They are my opinions, and I claim no more than that. I do not presume to tell other people what they can, should, or do believe.

Here, you have done all three.

That is not debate; that is preaching. Period, full stop.

[byofrcs]

.....

.

that is even more mindless... unreasonable... illogical... and void of common sense....

It is not surprising that you would consider a Non-Theist worldview to be "more mindless, unreasonable, illogical and void of common sense".

However, in debate one is expected to substantiate their statements and claims with evidence if challenged. I challenge the truth and accuracy of that statement and ask for documentation of its truth.

The fact that the universe began to exist, is a contradiction of the laws of nature, and shows naturalism and other non-theistic philosophies to be false.
Also, naturalism denies that morality and free will exist, both of which you know to exist, as you demonstrated when you said...

. Be aware, however, that many others do NOT require external structure and meaning, but have developed INTERNAL values, ethics, judgment and knowledge of the real world upon which they rely " rather than upon unseen "gods".

The very words 'values', 'ethics', 'judgment' and 'rely' all demonstrate that you accept morality and free will.

What nonsense is this ?

I can show you morality in computer programs. You will not find a single line of code that points at "God".

The fact that the Universe began in the Big Bang is evidenced by the CMBR. The laws of nature were formed when the Universe formed. This is not a contradiction.

Your distortion of truth that Naturalism denies that morality and free will exist, which you then twist so that you can claim that only morality and free will can be of theistic source. This is a fabrication that has been the root of much of humanities distress over many centuries, culminating in the genocides of modern times. You stoop low to repeat this lie.

We make decisions on behaviour according to a complex set of rules. We have built-in rules that have evolved and we also learn what are acceptable behaviours and rules from society according to how our society is organised i.e. the rules form spontaneously as part of the complex system of behaviours that result. These rules are not predictable but they form. They don't form from God but society and the societies can be animal, software or human. This forms the basis of our morality (or rather ethics).

Do not be naive to presume these are deterministic unless you also consider the n-body problem a trivial calculation. We can guess the average behaviour but it becomes harder to predict an individual's behaviour.

What it does mean is that it is patently nonsense to, for example, teach Children to kill and then saying that they have free will to not kill. If they are taught humanism then they will choose to be human.

Theology reduces our evolved human origin to the status of god-pet and perverts our morality with book-bound rules, whilst pontificating that we have free will. It has made us irresponsible.

Theology has failed spectacularly to date and I would hope that over time theology is proscribed as we now proscribe other bad behaviours such as Genocide. Certainly nearly 2000 years of Christianity have taken quite a few decades of Humanism to undo the harm so I think any Christian is on the losing side.

[Negative Proof]

And that may be true for most Christians, but in my case I am so deluded, deceived, insane and or psychotic that I honestly do see the clothes.

This post will be completely unsubstantiated personal opinion.

Statements like these bother me, because they expect to be respected. It is a point of pride for many theists that they cling to their belief in the face of any and all evidence to the contrary. Blind faith is considered a virtue.

In no other terms would rigid belief in something so outlandish and unfounded be treated with such reverence and respect, save the religious. I fear for our society when I see the undue pause and admiration afforded religious opinions.

[Zzyzx]

.

And that may be true for most Christians, but in my case I am so deluded, deceived, insane and or psychotic that I honestly do see the clothes.

Statements like these bother me, because they expect to be respected.

Such statements bother me because they indicate a person admittedly (even proudly) "sees" clothing that is not present " and is apparently proud to be "deluded, deceived, insane and/or psychotic" enough to see things that do not exist.

We recently had a president who also "saw" things that did not exist and ACTED upon those delusions " taking the country with him. It is not uncommon for religious "leaders" or "prophets" to "see" things that cannot be shown to exist.

Having such people in positions of "authority" and influence is VERY disturbing to me. Strong opposition voices MUST be raised to expose delusion, deceit, insanity and psychosis " otherwise we experience despotism, including theocracy.

It is a point of pride for many theists that they cling to their belief in the face of any and all evidence to the contrary. Blind faith is considered a virtue.

In no other terms would rigid belief in something so outlandish and unfounded be treated with such reverence and respect, save the religious. I fear for our society when I see the undue pause and admiration afforded religious opinions.

In most areas of endeavor, "blind faith" is regarded as naivety, gullibility or ignorance.

In religion and in armies, "Do as you are told without thinking" is standard fare (but is usually at least somewhat limited in the military).

Even those who promote "belief without evidence" in their religion usually do not apply the same standard to decisions in the real world. They do not promote taking the word of a used car salesman or a politician "on faith alone". They look for signs of deceit just like everyone else. However, what is said by favored priests and "prophets" (or ancient bible storytellers) is evidently exempt from examination for truth.

Thus, aside from religious decisions, Christians seem to be inclined to "check the facts" before investing their money or effort. However, a friend who is the best con man I ever knew and outspoken as a Christian told me that Christians are usually easier to con than Non-Christians " by a fellow Christian. Perhaps this accounts for the success of televangelists and celebrity preachers and "prophets".

To head off the typical Apologist response, "He wasn't REALLY a Christian"; he said he was a Christian, he read the bible, he said he was "born again", he said he accepted Jesus as his savior AND he appeared to believe that his sins would be forgiven (including conning fellow Christians). I am unaware of any criteria by which his Christianity can be denied.


This discussion is an example of what I consider the value of debating these issues " to expose to READERS the delusion, deceit, insanity and psychosis associated with "believe on faith alone" doctrine and mind-set. Statements such as Olavisjo's above must make more rational religionists cringe (though I wonder why so few protest).

Once people start asking critical questions they often find that non-religious answers make far more sense than church dogma.

[Fisherking]

Notice that we are discussing DEFINITIONS not "ethical standards". I posted several definitions from reliable sources.

The WORDS used the OP have been defined in standard language. Those who are not comfortable with standard definitions but prefer bible or religious definitions are welcome to debate elsewhere.

I said,

The definitions are fine. The problem is that the definitions used to describe them[the words] are just as subjective as the words themselves.

Honor: "That which rightfully attracts esteem, respect, or consideration; self-respect; dignity; courage; fidelity; especially, excellence of character; high moral worth; virtue; nobleness" http://www.dictionary.net/honor

Esteem, respect, or consideration from whom? According whos idea of excellence of character or moral worth?

Honor: a keen sense of right and wrong; adherence to action or principles considered right; integrity to conduct oneself with honor http://www.yourdictionary.com/honor

If ones 'keen sense of right and wrong' differs from someone else's, who is to judge which is 'honorable'?

---------------------- Integrity ----------------------

Integrity: firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values: incorruptibility
Merriam Webster

Which code or moral values? If there is a difference between the code or moral values used, wouldn't that cause what one viewed as integrity also differ?

Integrity Complete honesty, uprightness.
http://www.answers.com/topic/integrity

Integrity is consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations and outcome

Integrity may be seen as the quality of having a sense of honesty and truthfulness in regard to the motivations for one's actions. The term "hypocrisy" is used in contrast to integrity for asserting that one part of a value system demonstrably conflicts with another, and to demand that the parties holding apparently conflicting values account for the discrepancy or change their beliefs to improve internal consistency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity

To the above I add " The quality of doing exactly what one says they will do " no more, no less " dependably " reliably " no exceptions.

Integrety appears to be applicable in most cases given the involved parties agree integrity is a 'good' quality.

---------------------- Ethics ----------------------

Ethics: a set of moral principles or values
Merriam Webster

Ethics: Ethics are a personal set of values used by an individual to guide their actions, and to recognize any obligation. Ethics are not objective, but are subjective to the individual. Ethics are a continuously evolving code of conduct dependent upon circumstances and the life experiences of the individual.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~blackburns/Ethics.html

Given the above definitions, how could different debaters with different sets of ethics claim either is un-ethical in debate?

---------------------- Civility ----------------------

Civility: the act of showing regard for others

Politeness, consideration, courtesy, tact, good manners, graciousness, cordiality, affability, amiability, complaisance, courteousness
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civility

While I agree civility is a good quality to have in debate, I am also aware that there are differences in what one considers good manners, tact, courtesy, cordiality, ect.
Again we run into the problem of subjectivity.

I ask Fisherking...HOW, exactly, he and others might differ with the above definitions.

The definitions are fine. The problem is that the definitions used to describe them are just as subjective as the words themselves.

How do you propose that you and/or others define and USE the terms honor, integrity, ethical, civil and reasoning?

I propose we define and use the terms in the context that the bibles uses them. I'm sure thats ok with you?

Was there some other ethical standard you had in mind?

In the real world I inhabit we use Standard English to communicate. -- NOT "bible talk".

We were not discussing the standard of communication you or I use. We were discussing which ethical standard we should use to define the above terms, where I suggested the bible.

Again, we are discussing definitions of common words " NOT "ethical standards".

I firmly reject using bible definitions of common words in this debate.

I'm sure you do, but as one reads the debate one can clearly see that the bible definition for common words was never proposed. It was ***(insert ethical common word)*** accord to whom or what? I proposed according to the bible.

Esteem, respect, or consideration from whom?

Those with whom one interacts. In this instance, it would include those who read and post in these threads.

Do you think that you earn the esteem, respect or consideration of readers and members?

Yes, I am aware of readers that esteem and respect me.

According whos idea of excellence of character or moral worth?

I relate excellence of character and moral worth to three sources:

1) The individual
2) One's associates
3) One's society (or parts thereof)

Ok, so there wouldn't be a problem if Fisherking (the individual), Goose, Easyrider, and olavisjo (one's associates), and the fundamental type Christians in general(one's society) were the source for deciding your excellence of character or moral worth?

If ones 'keen sense of right and wrong' differs from someone else's, who is to judge which is 'honorable'?

Each must decide for them self what constitutes honorable in their value system.

I agree, but should one from a different value systems decide what is honorable for differing value system?

Do you consider debater to be honorable if they disregard forum rules

no

" or present false or misleading information

Not if it has actually been shown to be false or misleading. Opposing debaters claiming false or misleading information without any evidence would also be dishonorable in my opinion.

or refuse to substantiate claims

This would depend on what one considered substantiation

" or use disreputable debate tactics?

According to who? If you mean disregarding the forum rules, yes. If you mean you or I's subjective idea of what is disreputable, no.

Integrety appears to be applicable in most cases given the involved parties agree integrity is a 'good' quality.

I need no committee agreement or public approval to maintain personal integrity. I do what I say, dependably and reliably. I hold myself to that standard whether anyone is watching or not " and whether others agree or do likewise or not.

Likewise, I debate with integrity even though opponents often do not.

You are welcome to your opinion.

I understand that you might prefer "sharpshooting" to trying to debate substance " and might prefer to define words in some special way that favors religion.

Comments directed at my debating style or me personally are off topic, irrelevant to this debate, and against forum rules (see Forum Guidelines if in doubt).

Examples of dishonorable debate apply to the OP.

You have not established that I have acted dishonorably.

Sharpshooting is an example of dishonorable debate

Sharpshooting (whatever that is) claims by an opponent are just that-- nothing more than a claim. If the claim is without substantiation, it is a personal attack.

as is application of "special definitions", personal definitions, or "bible definitions" when standard definitions are supplied by the originator of the thread

As I have clearly shown above, this is a red herring and possibly an attempt to draw attention away from a weak argument.

[cnorman18]

If ones 'keen sense of right and wrong' differs from someone else's, who is to judge which is 'honorable'?

I ask again: In concrete and specific terms, how would your "Biblical" standards of ethics and honor differ from those proposed and defined by Zzyzx?

For example: What act would be considered ethical by Z and others, including myself, and considered NOT ethical by your "Biblical standard"? Why?

What act would be considered ethical by you and not by the others mentioned? Why?

Is it possible for you to acknowledge a standard of ethics and honor that would be recognized by nontheists?

If not, why not?

If so, why should all this be seen as anything more than stalling?

[Cephus]

Such statements bother me because they indicate a person admittedly (even proudly) "sees" clothing that is not present " and is apparently proud to be "deluded, deceived, insane and/or psychotic" enough to see things that do not exist.

We recently had a president who also "saw" things that did not exist and ACTED upon those delusions " taking the country with him. It is not uncommon for religious "leaders" or "prophets" to "see" things that cannot be shown to exist.

Having such people in positions of "authority" and influence is VERY disturbing to me. Strong opposition voices MUST be raised to expose delusion, deceit, insanity and psychosis " otherwise we experience despotism, including theocracy.

That's exactly why I've taken to calling religion "insanity". When you see things that aren't real, when you claim to "know" things that you cannot know, when you believe things that are entirely irrational, what other word fits the bill? Certainly there are degrees of religious insanity, some that are benign and some that are, like this example, entirely out-there, but what's the real difference between believing in imaginary friends and believing in gods? Absolutely none.

[Flail]

anything not supported by reason,logic and common sense must not stand as truth until evidence can over come superstions.

[Zzyzx]

.

The definitions are fine. The problem is that the definitions used to describe them[the words] are just as subjective as the words themselves.

In the same post (#13 this thread) you contradict yourself with:

I propose we define and use the terms in the context that the bibles uses them. I'm sure thats ok with you?

Kindly supply verbatim "bible context" definitions and cite exact source for:

Integrity
Honor
Ethics
Civility
Reasoning

Kindly also cite bible passages in which each of the (exact) words is used.