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?

[Fisherking]

.
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?

Could it be because what they consider honorable, ethical, civil, or reasonable is different than what you consider honorable, ethical, civil, or reasonable?

[micatala]

.
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?

Could it be because what they consider honorable, ethical, civil, or reasonable is different than what you consider honorable, ethical, civil, or reasonable?

Such a different understanding of the terms is certainly possible.

However, even though what is "honorable" or "ethical" might be somewhat ambiguous, these ideas or terms are not totally without objective meaning. To suggest that standards of honorable debate are totally subjective ignores these objective aspects.

This also applies to the details of debate. There is such a thing as objective evidence. There is such a thing as logical validity. Now, not every assertion or opinion can be decided in a completely objective fashion, and there is an appropriate role for assumptions within debate.

I think what Negative Proof is expressing concern about are debating behaviors like:

1) Making a claim and then not being willing to defend it with anything other than opinion.
2) Responding to challenges by ignoring them or changing the subject.
3) Using rhetorical devices like sarcasm, parody, diversion, etc., to the exclusion of substantive debate.



However, having said that I think it is fair to challenge the assumptions inherent in the question for debate.

One way of handling this would be to provide examples. I would suggest, in order to get into debating about particular debaters, that we do keep the examples anonymous as possible and avoid personal commentary. As a first step, I would ask Zzyzx to provide definitions and examples for the terms (like honorable) used in the OP.

[JoeyKnothead]

>Opinion offered as a logical, reasoned take on the issue<

A good friend of mine within these forums kinda spelled it out quite well, at least for me. As I recall, his explanation for such behavior was akin to- some folks have a lot of who they are tied up in their god belief. Any attack on such belief is an attack on that person's 'whole world'. From my amateur understanding of psychology, I fully agree with this take.
That said, I do think there are some who make a conscious decision to avoid requests for evidence, and who, frankly, knowing lie to support their position.
With respect to Fisherking's position above, I could understand that some confusion may arise in regards to what constitutes honorable, or ethical. That position fails though when we see these criteria presented to a given debater, and their dishonorable, unethical tactics continue.
>More personal opinion; I am not a mod, and I respect the decisions they make in this regard. I am not privy to conversations they may have in determining their rulings and offer the following only from my perspective<
I think if some sanctions were in place for those who ignore repeated requests for substantiation there would be a way to limit such dishonorable debaters.
I would also like to see a rule that mentions retraction, rather than relying solely on the commonly held belief that claims should be retracted when they are unproven.

[Zzyzx]

.

As a first step, I would ask Zzyzx to provide definitions and examples for the terms (like honorable) used in the OP.

Excellent suggestion. Here are definitions I use for the terms.

---------------------- Honor ----------------------

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

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

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

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

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

Integrity is consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations and outcome. As a holistic concept, it judges the quality of a system in terms of its ability to achieve its own goals. A value system's abstraction depth and range of applicable interaction may also function as significant factors in identifying integrity due to their congruence or lack of congruence with empirical observation. A value system may evolve over time while retaining integrity if those who espouse the values account for and resolve inconsistencies.

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.

---------------------- 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

I realize that ethics also refers to a branch of philosophy " but do not include that specific study in the definitions I use here.

---------------------- 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


Civility is about more than merely being polite, although being polite is an excellent start. Civility fosters a deep self-awareness, even as it is characterized by true respect for others. Civility requires the extremely hard work of staying present even with those with whom we have deep-rooted and perhaps fierce disagreements. It is about constantly being open to hear, to learn, to teach and to change. It seeks common ground as a beginning point for dialogue when differences occur, while at the same time recognizes that differences are enriching. It is patience, grace, and strength of character.
http://www.instituteforcivility.org/who ... ility.aspx

---------------------- Reasoning ----------------------


Reasoning is the cognitive process of looking for reasons for beliefs, conclusions, actions or feelings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning

Reasoning: process of drawing conclusions, process of making inferences through logical thinking
http://www.babylon.com/definition/reasoning/English

----------------------- End of Reasoning --------------------------

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

Could it be because what they consider honorable, ethical, civil, or reasonable is different than what you consider honorable, ethical, civil, or reasonable?

I ask Fisherking (who consistently provides examples of unsuccessfully attempting to "sharpshoot" posts without engaging in substantive debate) HOW, exactly, he and others might differ with the above definitions.

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

[Flail]

This OP is asking the impossible...how can someone who has chosen to believe in something simply on the basis of indoctrination and birth or choice without reason be expected to be reasoned??....I think we should understand that indoctrinated theists are simply that...indoctrinated into mindlessness...no reason...no logic...no common sense....which is why I started another thread asking how can anyone debate with reason things based in whole upon superstion?

[cnorman18]

I don't know that claiming to be "debating" and presenting supposedly factual claims that are, in truth, only opinions is a failure of honor, integrity and ethics; I think it more likely that it is a matter of mistaking sincerity and intensity of belief for objectively credible argument.

Here is what I DO think is a failure or abdication of honor, integrity and ethics:

Coming to a debate forum to frankly preach and proselytize.

This is dishonest. Any hint of a threat of Hell - "You'll find out one day," or anything of the kind - is a dead giveaway. Any hint that one is spiritually or morally superior, or more enlightened, or privileged with special guidance from the Holy Spirit or whoever, is a giveaway as well. Those are not debate techniques; they are, no matter how sincere the protests of "I am just a sinner like you," indisputably claims that "I am better than you" and are both unprovable and unanswerable.

Posting that sort of thing on a blog is fine. Posting it under the guise of "debate" is intentionally dishonest and, to be blunt, a shameful betrayal of the Christian (or any other) religion.

There is nothing wrong with proselytization when it is done honestly and forthrightly and with that intent made clear. I don't personally care for it or do it, but I recognize that it is a virtual requirement of the Christian faith and agree that Christians have that right; but then others have an equal right to decline to be subjected to it, too, and in circumstances where that is being done honestly, they can walk away. "Walking away" is more difficult when preaching is done under the pretext of debate, since it leaves an opening for a specious (and also dishonest) claim of "victory." We have all seen that happen here.

Proselytizing under false pretenses - as in pretending to engage in debate when one has other ends in mind - is frankly dishonest, a violation of the spirit of debate, and, more to the point, a violation of the rules of this forum.

[Flail]

Right on,Cnorman....I agree....if theists of all stripes would just change their professions of absolute truth and their 'relationships with God(s),(the latter being particularly disgusting) to 'this is simply my opinion', we could avoid so much hatred and misunderstanding and blood shed attributed to God(s)....

consider that under typical religious indoctrinated circumstances and surrounded by enough mindless ritual and holy books and relics and herds of like-minded followers,that any poor fellow,weak and scared,would become indoctrinated into just about anything...witch or God....because the less we understand about something the more creative we become....proving that anything can be the cause of anything....and that with indoctrination even a pencil or a tree or a drug or a santa or a hitler could be a God......pick one...what is your particular God?,.....and in the end your God is just your way of proving to yourself that you are special and good and so you can have an instant reputation and be seen by your fellows as good while you pretend at life and hide yourself under your religion.....and so later you can sleep.....

[Cephus]

I agree....if theists of all stripes would just change their professions of absolute truth and their 'relationships with God(s),(the latter being particularly disgusting) to 'this is simply my opinion', we could avoid so much hatred and misunderstanding and blood shed attributed to God(s)....

But that's the real problem, these are people who cannot see their opinions as mere opinions, they have to see them as undeniable facts. As such, they cannot even conceive of the idea that their opinions can ever be wrong, their entire worldview revolves around their faith and if their faith is shaken, for even a moment, their entire view of reality can come tumbling down. That's why you get fundamentalists defending views that are utterly absurd, that's why you get creationists, for instance, who will purposely lie and misrepresent science, that's why you get people who would rather die for their beliefs than admit that they might not be true, they represent everything that these people have. Logic and reason don't enter into it, it's wild-eyed fanaticism from end to end.

[olavisjo]

This OP is asking the impossible...how can someone who has chosen to believe in something simply on the basis of indoctrination and birth or choice without reason be expected to be reasoned??....I think we should understand that indoctrinated theists are simply that...indoctrinated into mindlessness...no reason...no logic...no common sense....which is why I started another thread asking how can anyone debate with reason things based in whole upon superstition?

Jesus said it would be like this...

Many Disciples Desert Jesus

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67 "You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.

68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

70 Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

If I were to leave Jesus, where would I go? Should I embrace the philosophy that you were indoctrinated into from birth? 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 that is even more mindless... unreasonable... illogical... and void of common sense....

while you pretend at life and hide yourself under your religion.....and so later you can sleep.....

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