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?

[JoeyKnothead]

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 pseudogod figure.

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

Reasonburg? Logicville?

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

Embrace what philosophy you may, but in debate present it in an honest, honorable fashion (not that you don't, just getting to the OP).

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....

LOL. That you find the Bible more reasonable, logical, and common sensical speaks volumes. Again, the OP seeks to address the dishonorable fashion with which some theists present their case.
To be sure, your post here doesn't seem in any way to be dishonorable.
However, we still have your Jesus quotes to verify.

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

I challenge you to show you sleep under the shadow of any god's wing.
Of course you may think you do, or you may use this as a metaphor, however, in honorable debate your claim should be clarified, supported, or retracted.

I personally do not, nor feel the need to "sleep under the wing" of anything.

>opinion based on my amateur understanding of such<
I consider this "sleep under the wing" to be a psychological tool used to soothe the wary. I think there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to show some folks are just overwhelmed by "the enormity of it all", and such platitudes help calm a confused, overwhelmed mind.

I mention this so the observer can make an informed decision about the validity of this Page 1 Post 10. Me, I see nothing but an emotional plea devoid of any of the reason, logic, or common sense the poster so strives to achieve.

[McCulloch]

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.

[Fisherking]

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?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 2 Post 13:

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

I would certainly hope it would not be those who ignore requests for substantiation or retraction.

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

Why do I sense this is an attempt to carve out a niche for those folks who refuse to prove or retract their claims?

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?

In light of the OP, I'm taking this as an effort to get folks to see that just claiming stuff is of no evidentiary value. The OP seems to seek understanding that it is a good and moral thing to substantiate or retract claims.

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

I think the OP seeks to come to an agreement between all sides of an issue that when one claims something, they should be willing to prove it with empirical evidence, and not more opinion, conjecture, and such as can't be verified.

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

This is why we should all get together and come to an understanding that debate tactics like circular reasoning, unproven claims, and for some, the ignoring of challenges should not be allowed among folks who consider themselves honorable debaters.

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?

Unfortunately, my experience has been that folks will use any means, ethical or not, in order to advance Biblical claims.
Judging from the actions of some of those who espouse Biblical claims, I would be quite reticent to use the Bible as a standard for what constitutes ethical debate.

[Zzyzx]

.

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

"Jesus" is a concept in your mind.

I, personally, do not recommend that you "leave Jesus" because it appears as though your entire worldview is based upon that belief system.

Others, however, can and do live successfully and happily by their own means and their own standards " untroubled and unconstrained by any need to worship or depend upon "gods".

I have been religion-free, unencumbered by the fear and guilt associated with most religious beliefs (fear of punishment in an "afterlife" " and hope for reward) for well over fifty years. The freedom has been "a blessing" for me (and for others with whom I am acquainted).

Depending upon the self is not for everyone " and is not promoted by organized, commercial religion (which promotes and profits from conformity).

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"?

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 supernaturalism?

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.

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".

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.

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

I do NOT require a "wing to hide under" in order to sleep soundly " and have not felt a need for any such thing since childhood.

I consider myself responsible for my wellbeing " and choose situations and associates with which / whom I feel comfortable.

[micatala]

Zzyzx has offered some reasonable and standard definitions for honor, ethics, integrity.

Fisherking has criticized these on the basis that they are too subjective.

It seems to me this is somewhat fair, and that the way to get around this is to come down from abstraction into the operational details.

Let's start with what I think is the easier one.

Integrity, to paraphrase, means being honest. Meaning what you say and being honest in what you say. It means that, whatever ethical rules one adopts, one applies them consistently. One behaves in the same way in the same circumstances, regardless of the consequences.

This does not seem to me to be prone to too much subjectivity. As examples of a lack of integrity, I would offer the following examples:

Jonathan Wells: Wells has been quoted as saying he began graduate studies in biology at the request of Reverend Moon in order that he would be better able to battle against evolution. However, in another context he claimed that he only came to doubt evolution because of his education in biology. These statement are clearly inconsistent and it is reasonable to believe Wells was being intentionally dishonest in one of these, probably the latter. The latter statement, as I recall, was made in his book "Icons of Evolution" and he was trying to portary himself as an objective critic of evolution, when in fact, as belied by his other statement, he has long been anti-evolutionary in his thinking and this view had nothing to do with what he learned in biology.


Duane Gish: While I would have to look up the details, Gish is rather famous for making dishonest statements about evolution and evolutionary scientists. He is a great lover of "quote mining" in which he takes statements by scientists out of contexts in an effort to portray their views as something other than what they actually are.


In the case of Gish and Wells, who are both professed CHristians, is is pretty hard to imagine that their ethical belief system does not include being honest. THus, to deliberately tell lies is against their own belief system. They seem to justify this because they seem to believe the end of battling evolution and getting people to disbelieve science justifies the means they use.


I would ask Fisherking if he would not agree that the above examples constitute behavior that lacks integrity?

I am also open to other examples to illustrate the concepts. As Edmund Burke once said "Example is the school of mankind; he will learn at no other."

[Zzyzx]

.

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

What a silly proposal (but not surprising). Do you think this is Holy Huddle?

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

These debates do NOT assume an authoritative bible (see Forum Guidelines if in doubt).

If you cannot debate here using Standard English, you cannot effectively debate. 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.

[Fisherking]

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?

What a silly proposal (but not surprising). Do you think this is Holy Huddle?

It was an honest answer to your question. 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. Care to take a stab at answering a couple of my questions in the previous post?

These debates do NOT assume an authoritative bible (see Forum Guidelines if in doubt).

The only relevance to the authority of the bible referenced thusfar only pertains to how I personally draw my ethics. The debate is dealing with the subjectivity of ethics, not bible authority.

If you cannot debate here using Standard English, you cannot effectively debate.

The subject of this debate is not the standard language of communication, but what is ethical/unethical in debate.

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).

[cnorman18]

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?

What a silly proposal (but not surprising). Do you think this is Holy Huddle?

It was an honest answer to your question. 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. Care to take a stab at answering a couple of my questions in the previous post?

These debates do NOT assume an authoritative bible (see Forum Guidelines if in doubt).

The only relevance to the authority of the bible referenced thusfar only pertains to how I personally draw my ethics. The debate is dealing with the subjectivity of ethics, not bible authority.

If you cannot debate here using Standard English, you cannot effectively debate.

The subject of this debate is not the standard language of communication, but what is ethical/unethical in debate.

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).

I think it might clarify matters if Fisherking were to explain, exactly and concretely, how a Biblical standard of honor, ethics, integrity, civility and reasoning would differ from the definitions already provided by Zzyzx.

If the answer is "not at all," this entire exchange is a red herring and a waste of time.

[Zzyzx]

.

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

What a silly proposal (but not surprising). Do you think this is Holy Huddle?

It was an honest answer to your question. Was there some other ethical standard you had in mind?

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

[quote="Zzyzx.

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

What a silly proposal (but not surprising). Do you think this is Holy Huddle?

It was an honest answer to your question. Was there some other ethical standard you had in mind?

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

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.

Care to take a stab at answering a couple of my questions in the previous post?

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?

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)

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.

Do you consider debater to be honorable if they disregard forum rules " or present false or misleading information " or refuse to substantiate claims " or use disreputable debate tactics?

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.

These debates do NOT assume an authoritative bible (see Forum Guidelines if in doubt).

The only relevance to the authority of the bible referenced thusfar only pertains to how I personally draw my ethics. The debate is dealing with the subjectivity of ethics, not bible authority.

You are attempting to inject the bible as an authoritative source concerning definitions of words.

If you cannot debate here using Standard English, you cannot effectively debate.

The subject of this debate is not the standard language of communication, but what is ethical/unethical in debate.

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 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).

Correction: The subject of this thread is HONOR in debate. Examples of dishonorable debate apply to the OP. Sharpshooting is an example of dishonorable debate " as is application of "special definitions", personal definitions, or "bible definitions" when standard definitions are supplied by the originator of the thread.

Those who are not capable of debating using standard word definitions (and prefer bible definitions) are requested to open a thread for that purpose in Holy Huddle.

"] 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. [/quote]
Again, we are discussing definitions of common words " NOT "ethical standards".

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

Care to take a stab at answering a couple of my questions in the previous post?

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?

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)

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.

Do you consider debater to be honorable if they disregard forum rules " or present false or misleading information " or refuse to substantiate claims " or use disreputable debate tactics?

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.

These debates do NOT assume an authoritative bible (see Forum Guidelines if in doubt).

The only relevance to the authority of the bible referenced thusfar only pertains to how I personally draw my ethics. The debate is dealing with the subjectivity of ethics, not bible authority.

You are attempting to inject the bible as an authoritative source concerning definitions of words.

If you cannot debate here using Standard English, you cannot effectively debate.

The subject of this debate is not the standard language of communication, but what is ethical/unethical in debate.

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 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).

Correction: The subject of this thread is HONOR in debate. Examples of dishonorable debate apply to the OP. Sharpshooting is an example of dishonorable debate " as is application of "special definitions", personal definitions, or "bible definitions" when standard definitions are supplied by the originator of the thread.

Those who are not capable of debating using standard word definitions (and prefer bible definitions) are requested to open a thread for that purpose in Holy Huddle.