The Instigator
Amoranemix
Con (against)
The Contender
Unstobbaple
Pro (for)

Amoranemix' view on morality is unreasonable.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Unstobbaple has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 355 times Debate No: 102306
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Amoranemix

Con

Context : in the comment section of www.debate.org/debates/The-Bible-is-Reliable-regarding-Israels-Covenant-and-Prophecy keeps complaining of me having declined two of his debate challenges as if that was somehow inappropriate of me. I challenged him to the reasonableness of the declination of the second challenge (the first no longer being accessible) in www.debate.org/debates/It-was-reasonable-of-me-to-decline-PGAs-debate-challenge-about-prophecy, but PGA declined (!)

In that comment section I also invited PGA to many formal debates on topics he took a stand in, which he all declined (except maybe a few about which he was ambiguous/unclear, like about morality), but since I didn't actually issue the challenges, that must be OK.

Thus here I provide PGA with the opportunity to behave inappropriately (which I am confident he will be eager to grab) : he claimed that my view on morality is unreasonable. So he must demonstrate that is indeed the case. Since the burden of proof lies with the person making the point-making claim, it lies with my opponent.


Since PGA has amassed a large burden of proof that he is unable/unwilling to honour, I can provide him with many more opportunities to behave inappropriately.


My opponent may have the last word, but may not present any new arguments in the last round.


May the truth prevail.

Unstobbaple

Pro

I accept; let's hear your moral arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Amoranemix

Con


I will identify my indented opponent as IP.

I was counting on no one else accepting this debate, because they would realize they don't stand a chance.


IP carries a large burden of proof and yet keeps portraying me as unreasonable, among other things because I declined two of his debate challenges (on which I carried no burden of proof, but the debates required me to take half of it). If it is unreasonable to decline debate challenges, IP is unreasonable for declining.



It is you who have the burden to prove my view on morality is unreasonable. That burden originates from the fact that IP made the claim : "My view is not unreasonable. Yours is." By accepting this debate, you have accepted that burden.

It is indeed likely that IP does not know my view on morality.

Christians do not understand morality. They have identified problems, apparent inconsistencies that IP is eager to share, e.g. in the thread 'Objective morality argument' : www.debate.org/forums/religion/topic/57072/


Essentially, although there is more to it than that, consider the example behaviour :

raping children for fun
That cannot be just an opinion, yet Christians cannot see how it can be anything else. Hence it is a mystery well suited for a god-of-the gaps argument.

Over the years, as I have argued with Christians around morality, I have acquired great insight in it. However, God plays no part in those insights. Hence IP sees all these problems with morality and since IP wants to believe in God, (s)he refuses to accept that these problems are real (i.e. that life sucks) or solutions without God. No mystery, no god. Unacceptable ! So (s)he ignores my insights. In stead (s)he assumes that I refuse to recognize the problems : Some things are truly wrong, while at the same time being merely an opinion. ← My view according to IP. Hence my view must be unreasonable.


About two years ago I shared some of my insights on morality in the thread 'The subjectivity of objective morality' : http://www.debate.org...



May the truth prevail.



This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Unstobbaple 8 months ago
Unstobbaple
You can send a debate challenge directly to someone you've debated with in the forum. As it stands your debate resolution is difficult to defend. Systems of ideas are complex and normally contain ideas that are not entirely reasonable since the human condition is not either. Moral positions more often rely on ideas that defend an emotional position since we are, in fact, emotional and that is an important part of a moral code.

I do not think that your resolution is easily defensible so I accepted.
Posted by Amoranemix 8 months ago
Amoranemix
PGA : "What exactly are you arguing about? You have not stated that in the debate challenge. State what you believe about morality first. How am I going to argue against something that you have not stated in the debate? Your definitions need to first be stated."
You claimed about morality : "My view is not unreasonable. Yours is."
You don't even know my view on morality. So why would you say such a thing ? Because you don't care about reality. All you care about is you and others believing in God. If you can convince people that the views of an atheist on morality are unreasonable, then they are more likely to believe in God. Whether that claim is true, is none of your concern.

You are into God. I am into reality. That explains why you make an order of magnitude more false claims than I do.

PGA "You were arguing against objective morality in the Objective Morality thread, yet you were very sly in not actually clarifying your full stand on what you actually believed?[7] You asserted many things but seldom took upon yourself the burden of proof for your assertions. It was always directed at me providing the burden.[8] But if you argue against objective morality then by default you carry a position that is opposed to it. Is that what this debate is about? Objective morality?[9] If so, state what you believe objective morality is. I'm not debating on something as vague as your unstated belief. You could change it and morph it as we went along.
[7] I did explain it, but since it didn't involve God, it went in one eye and out the other.
Explaining reality to you is a waste of time.
[8] If you wanted me to carry a burden of proof, you should have challenged my controversial claims.
[9] No. It is about you demonstrating a claim you made.

You should accept this debate challenge, because according to PGA it is inappropriate to decline debate challenges.
Posted by Amoranemix 8 months ago
Amoranemix
PGA : "I explained to him my view that that God had spoken through the Bible. He called the biblical God a make believe (imaginary) deity. This all smacks of a view that the Bible is unreliable in/to his mind. I challenged him to a debate on the reliability of the Bible according to its prophetic content."
Really ? Please quote me claiming the biblical god is a make belief (imaginary) deity.

PGA : "An invisible sky magician? An imaginary deity? Assertions."
You are mistaken again. Those are concepts, not assertions.

PGA : "He is questioning the reliability of the Bible. He does it over and over again. When I said I could give evidence/proof through prophecy he would not commit to a detailed discussion."
Over and over again ? In that case you asserted the reliability of the Bible a gazillion times.
You systematically refused to explain what the evidence was supposed to prove and how. You demanded that I commit to buying a cat in a bag. In addition, you tried to shift part of the burden of proof on me.

PGA : "Next, how does Amoranemix' view of morality tie in with the topic of absolute objective morality? He continually argued against objective morality and said he would define objectivity, which he never did."
You are mistaken, as usual, for I didn't argue against objective morality. You claim my views are unreasonable while you don't even know them, even though I explained them.
You are mistaken yet again, for I did not say I would define objectivity. I did mention it as a condition three days ago. That is again an illustration of your wile. You pretend that I have broken an engagement I made, while that is not the case.

PGA : "AND, since you are issuing the challenge it should be up to you to present the first argument. You have again placed this on me. Nevertheless, you need to do something else."
If you want me to provide the fist argument, you can skip your turn. You do however have the duty to demonstrate your claim, or you lose.
Posted by Amoranemix 8 months ago
Amoranemix
You continually asserted that my claims were not "reality" thus not true to what is, thus unreliable. My claims are based on the Bible and I claim most reasonable to believe also confirmed by history."
That would explain why you lost both our thread debates. Those debates made it blatantly obvious your beliefs are fantabulous.

PGA : "So, you need to change the topic of debate, the judging system, and comply with a shared burden of proof."
You are mistaken, for I need to do no such thing. I am however prepared to change the voting system.
You on the other hand, have the duty to honour your burden of proof.

PGA : "He challenged me to a debate on something I had said over and over again that I had not yet proven. He was NOT willing to commit to a detailed discussion on the topic of prophecy. I wanted his commitment FIRST."
Are you talking about this challenge ?
So you claim you have said over and over again to have not yet proven that my view on morality is unreasonable ? I don't think so. Please present a few quotes of you claiming that.
Anyway, now would be an opportunity for you to prove it. You have the duty to do so.

PGA "Again, he wants me to prove something that he was unwilling to commit to examining in detail - prophecy, which is proof. He wants to shift the burden entirely to me, even though he is making assertions of his own concerning the biblical God."
You are mistaken, as you so often are. On the contrary, I repeatedly showed to disinterest in prophecy. Faced with your insistence on discussing prophecy, even on shoving part of the burden of proof on me, I asked you to explain its relevance a few times. You systematically refused.
In addition, I don't want to shove any burden of proof on you. However, if you want to discuss prophecy, I will do so on condition that you carry the burden of proof.
Posted by Amoranemix 8 months ago
Amoranemix
PGA : "The debate is not what I agreed to. Get it right!"
I did get it right. Trying to honour your burden of proof is not your thing. You assert. You don't prove. If you make an exception, you will tie at best.

:- PGA "You continually asked me for evidence of the biblical God in the threads.[1] I told you that prophecy was reasonable and logical evidence that I would discuss with you if you would commit to a detailed discussion. You did not agreed to this detailed discussion."
[1] You are mistaken, for I did not do that. I did however repeatedly challenge you to support your claims.

PGA : "Now you want to change the topic to a "he said, she said" debate in which I would have to go back over countless posts (thousands between the two threads which is too much work that I'm not interested in doing) to prove something that was off topic from the claim I was making all along.[2] My evidence for God is, in part, from prophecy and it's reasonableness and logic. Fashion the debate around this since you continually assert it is not a reliable claim.[3]"
[2] You are mistaken, for I do not want that. In addition, what I want is irrelevant . What I ask or demand is. There are many claims I have asked you to support.
[3] Really ? If I continuously assert that, then it should be easy for you to conjure several claim of me making that assertion. Please do.

PGA : "I also asked that any debate would have a shared burden of proof. You are making assertions too. You have not honored that request either.[4] You have the burden of justifying your assertions too.[5] Then I asked you for a voting style of the top ten judges, not an open voting style. This you also ignored.[6]"
[4] It is not my duty to honour your requests. It is your duty to honour your burden of proof.
[5] Really ? Are you prepared to defend that claim in a formal debate ?
[6] Complains the guy who challenged me to 2 formal debate on claims I did not make and topics I had shown disinterest in.
Posted by PGA 8 months ago
PGA
AND, since you are issuing the challenge it should be up to you to present the first argument. You have again placed this on me. Nevertheless, you need to do something else.

The question becomes:

What exactly are you arguing about? You have not stated that in the debate challenge. State what you believe about morality first. How am I going to argue against something that you have not stated in the debate? Your definitions need to first be stated.

You were arguing against objective morality in the Objective Morality thread, yet you were very sly in not actually clarifying your full stand on what you actually believed? You asserted many things but seldom took upon yourself the burden of proof for your assertions. It was always directed at me providing the burden. But if you argue against objective morality then by default you carry a position that is opposed to it. Is that what this debate is about? Objective morality? If so, state what you believe objective morality is. I'm not debating on something as vague as your unstated belief. You could change it and morph it as we went along.

So, you need to state your belief stance on morality in the debate challenge, change the argument to a vote style by judges, accept an equal burden of proof, provide a 10,000 character limit (the maximum), then I will again consider it.
Posted by PGA 8 months ago
PGA
Next, how does Amoranemix' view of morality tie in with the topic of absolute objective morality? He continually argued against objective morality and said he would define objectivity, which he never did.
Posted by PGA 8 months ago
PGA
Next, how does Amoranemix' view of morality tie in with the topic of absolute objective morality? He continually argued against objective morality and said he would define objectivity, which he never did.
Posted by PGA 8 months ago
PGA
Post 252:
Amoranemix: "As I have already told you, prophecy alone is no compelling evidence for God. For example prophecy, if genuine, as far as I know does not support that God created the universe, morality or that God still exists today.
In addition, he hasn't given any prophecy to me, nor the fall of Jerusalem.
Hence, again, the evidence you provide is not compelling evidence for your claim. It may help idiots with a desire to believe on God though."

He challenged me to a debate on something I had said over and over again that I had not yet proven. He was NOT willing to commit to a detailed discussion on the topic of prophecy. I wanted his commitment FIRST.

Amoranemix: "I am prepared to discuss your inability to prove God in a formal debate. I propose the following : a formal debate on whether you have proven God's existence in this thread. The burden of proof will be on you."

Again, he wants me to prove something that he was unwilling to commit to examining in detail - prophecy, which is proof. He wants to shift the burden entirely to me, even though he is making assertions of his own concerning the biblical God.

I explained to him my view that that God had spoken through the Bible. He called the biblical God a make believe (imaginary) deity. This all smacks of a view that the Bible is unreliable in/to his mind. I challenged him to a debate on the reliability of the Bible according to its prophetic content.

Post 189:
Amoranemix: "You are a hypocrite. You complain about all the problems of others and pretend that inventing an invisible sky magician whose existence you cannot prove (for obvious reason) liberates you from those problems all while oblivious to the problems it creates."

An invisible sky magician? An imaginary deity? Assertions.

He is questioning the reliability of the Bible. He does it over and over again. When I said I could give evidence/proof through prophecy he would not commit to a detailed discussion.
Posted by PGA 8 months ago
PGA
The debate is not what I agreed to. Get it right!

You continually asked me for evidence of the biblical God in the threads. I told you that prophecy was reasonable and logical evidence that I would discuss with you if you would commit to a detailed discussion. You did not agreed to this detailed discussion.

Now you want to change the topic to a "he said, she said" debate in which I would have to go back over countless posts (thousands between the two threads which is too much work that I'm not interested in doing) to prove something that was off topic from the claim I was making all along. My evidence for God is, in part, from prophecy and it's reasonableness and logic. Fashion the debate around this since you continually assert it is not a reliable claim.

I also asked that any debate would have a shared burden of proof. You are making assertions too. You have not honored that request either. You have the burden of justifying your assertions too. Then I asked you for a voting style of the top ten judges, not an open voting style. This you also ignored.

You continually asserted that my claims were not "reality" thus not true to what is, thus unreliable. My claims are based on the Bible and I claim most reasonable to believe also confirmed by history.

So, you need to change the topic of debate, the judging system, and comply with a shared burden of proof.

Do you believe the Bible is reliable? No, you continually insinuate the biblical God is imaginary, and the words of the Bible cannot be trusted.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.