Goriller

Believe it or not, 2 heavy-weights have decided to put their big ego's on the line in a debate on the existence of God. Why don't debates of this quality happen more often? See: http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulle...&threadid=7709

TiredJim

I'd just like to say 3 things:

1) that quote made me want to vomit. Right and wrong are entirely perspective based. From my perspective, raping/murdering are horrible and wrong. From the perspective of those who do it (most times), they are absolutely right. There is no evidence in nature either way. Bad people aren't hit by lightning more often, and the good often die young. That's why nobody can ever agree on absolute right or wrong: they don't exist outside our minds.

2) both sides are unconvincing and annoying

3) the moderator needs to stop being a loser.

Theli

I haven't read any of the posts yet, but I must say that the forum itself looks REALLY trashy. Why does that Administrator-peice-of-shit "Knight" keep interupting?

emotional

Another great big waste of time, like all debates on the existence of God are.

Howard

I have no problem saying that's wrong for the motive given. However, if the guy murdered my family, I'd say it was a just and fitting punishment, particularly if the legal authorities didn't handle it. So the answer is: There is no absolute right and wrong, but there is situational or contextual right and wrong.

Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the existence of a deity. It’s the necessary rules we live by to maintain a civilized society. Same goes for the rest of this rather lame "argument."

Spenser

BE appears to be misrepresenting science. Perhaps he has forgotten that the laws of science begin to break down as we approach a singularity. Trying to apply them at this time is either absurdity or deception.

Now that is a bold statement from some one I've never heard of. He sounds like a shitty salesmen to me... :boohoo:

Theli

But wouldn't such circumstances render you incapable of a moral judgement, as you have too much emotion invested?
Does mutilating a person "right" his own wrong actions? I don't see how. We would now have two immoral actions.

Priapus

Well, you certainly picked a great board to spend your time on. However this "debate":
Zakath:"Define God/Wheres the evidence?"
Enyart:"I intend to prove it, but rather than do that I'd first like to say Atheism sucks and ask you poorly worded questions with ambiguous terms."
Zakath:"Yeah atheism sucks but so does theism. What did those questions mean by the way?"
Enyart:"What?"
Zakath:"Those questions..."
gets old pretty damn fast.

Howard

Well, I wasn't really concerned about the practical and legal ramifications that you mention. My point was that the original scenario really had two conditions.
1) Dragging a person to death
2) For purely racial reasons

If you asked people if dragging someone to death was wrong, most would emphatically say yes. But if you said that the person raped and murdered their children and got away with it, then I'll bet most would be a lot less averse to the act, and many would even consider it justified. So the morality of killing someone, even by such horrific means, is situational.

CX

When the OP said "Heavy weights" I assumed it meant these two bozos had some special qualifications and or abilities pertaining to the subject of the debate. I can only gather from the completely insipid mélée that has transpired since, that the OP knows both of these individuals to be carrying some extra pounds.