The point is it could have, and then on atheism, a whole different kind of morality would have come to be. Therefore, as we agree already, morality on atheism does not exist objectively.

I refer you to the following post because you didn't address the points, and your points were already addressed.

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #3419)

Seems like you are stuck at DH3.

Many posts have followed your initial post, but none of them have even attempted to provide justification for your assertion that OMV do not exist.

An your theory here Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #3425) is exactly what I said atheism has to accept anyway.

You are making my point.

Oh, come on. Not exactly but that's how it works in practice, innit? Or should be. I have to sleep on that. I won't answer your question because it's hypothetical: there is no chance that >50% of normal people would vote for that. It rather shows your trust in mankind.>

This is embarrassing. <Tab>, do you think you are operating at anything above youtube comment level here?

This is just really embarrassing.

On your worldview, if most people think it's okay to own slaves, then it is. And then if most people think it's not, it's not.

It's completely arbitrary and no one is right or wrong.

It is for this reason that on your worldview, you are not morally superior to a pedophile.

It's not about judging actions as moral or immoral. It's about the very <existence> of moral values; their ontological explanation.

I think the answer to this lies in something you yourself wrote in an earlier post:

<Values don't develop.

Beliefs about concepts of values develop.>

That's just it. In fact, when <Tabanus> speaks about 'values', what he really is addressing are 'beliefs about concepts of values'. In every post he has made. When he mentions 'universal values', he means 'universal beliefs about concepts of values'.

And he conflates <objective> with <absolute> and <universal>, while those are three very different things.

But he repeats this stuff about how moral values (values themselves!) evolved from evolution. I already explained to him that sans God, the only way to explain our concepts of morality (concepts) is by evolution or societal conditioning, but he keeps repeating it to me as if I disagree and he's trying to convince me!

?????

?????

I don't know how to break it down any further to make it even more simple.

What an enormous amount of time he's wasted on that.

And all this time he hasn't gone beyond DH3 in explaining his contradictory statement:

<2. Objective moral values do not exist>.

I use the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to try to make sense out of concepts like "morality". (https://plato.stanford.edu/search/s...) I drew a blank on "objective moral value", however. So I looked it up on the SEP and to my surprise found no reference to the term.

I think it would help confused people like myself if you posted the definition in your bio.

I make sure to define what is meant by <objective> when the term objective moral values comes up, in each and every debate, including this one with <Tab>. In fact, in this one, I defined it early.

For your interest, I offer these three pages from SEP that use the term objective moral values.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/...

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/...

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/...

<Boomie>, the way the moral argument works, I should say, what makes it tick, is the fact that we all realize, and live accordingly, that some things are really right and other are really wrong, in any given situation. We realize, we apprehend in our inner moral experience, this reality.

For instance, we know that there is a <real> difference between loving a child and hating, being cruel to a child, and that it's not just a matter of opinion. Healthy, normal people all know this and it's never even up for question, until we bring God into the equation.

You see, when someone wants to deny a conclusion that they don't like, they will even deny premises they know to be true, and in this way one is reduced to ignorance. This is the case with the moral argument.

Simply: If God is the foundation for morality, then right and wrong are not a matter of our opinions. Right and wrong exist objectively because they are grounded in God. So if all of mankind died tomorrow, good and bad, right and wrong, moral values would still exist. Note: this is not to say that any given example is right or wrong. This is just a commentary on the ontology of moral values themselves.

If God does not exits, then moral values are illusory. It's just a matter of opinion. We invent them as we want. They belong to the imagination. On this view, all the ideas of morality are equal to all others, as each person simply has their own ideas.

This moral vacuum is what inspired Nietzsche to write his vast commentary on nihilism, and how to overcome nihilism, or how not to lose all hope now that "God is dead", as he introduced in the Gay Science via his Madman.

<I explained to him that the debate was about the nature of the <existence> of moral values.> I'll give it to you with a teaspoon then.

We had behavioural traits. Then we evolved intelligence and consciousness. This made us able to put names on and describe those traits. The description of the traits were agreed upon by all parents, modified over time, and put into words. We got a moral.

That's the nature of the moral's <existence>. It came into being because we are conscious, because we needed it, and because we could put word on it and describe it.

Now to Ohio: you know well that the wars in the world were fought in the name of God, Allah, Hitler, etc. Hitler was a God too, but never for the majority of normal people. Don't you cowardly blame it on people like me, who only wants to live in peace.

That's the nature of the moral's <existence>. >

I'm going to call this my definitive response. In the future, if you make another comment about this debate, I will check with this definitive response of mine and see if you've refuted all of the points here with DH4 responses or better. If not, you must accept that you are stuck, and if you don't accept that, the reader can decide for himself.

1. You again failed to give arguments and reasons to believe your 2nd premise, "Objective moral values do not exist" - DH3 (under the official rules, all such comments would be deleted)

2. Your commentary that I excerpted is not a commentary on the <existence> of moral values, the <ontology> of moral values, but rather it's about moral epistemology, or, how we come to know about moral values; how we acquire moral knowledge. This shows your comment to be irrelevant, DH5 for me.

3. We agree, as I've said many times now, on the description of moral epistemology (evolution, natural selection, societal conditioning etc...) given atheism. (Shows you're not on point - DH5 for me)

4. This description, however, only opines on the human consensus regarding <beliefs> about the <concepts> of moral values and not the moral values themselves. (Shows exactly why you're not on point DH6)

5. Values do not evolve, only concepts, beliefs and other ideas evolve. (shows a mistake on your part - DH5)

6. You committed to OMV not existing, but after being shown that you're not better than a pedophile, morally speaking, on your worldview, you've <shifted> and tried to show that your worldview has <objective values> after all. This point alone, refutes the central point of your argument - DH6.

7. When you <shifted> and tried to show, somehow, that your version of morality is <objective> after all, you blundered by appealing to the <universal acceptance> of certain concepts and beliefs, which is indeed a blunder because not only does it veer from the ontological question of moral values, but leaves the discussion of moral values altogether and engages instead with concepts and beliefs of those other things - called moral values. (Shows mistake - DH5)

Oh, come on. Not exactly but that's how it works in practice, innit? Or should be. I have to sleep on that.>

OK, fair enough. Sometimes we can give a more coherent response after some reflection. I do it too.

<I won't answer your question because it's hypothetical: there is no chance that (greater than) 50% of normal people would vote for that. It rather shows your trust in mankind. Just prevent the bad minority from grabbing power.>

Well, this is wrong on two (three?) levels. The first level is that it is a <plausible> hypothetical. Since moral values are important to the success of a society, the mechanism you embrace for establishing them should be able to handle a contingency.

Secondly, in reality Gay marriage got legalized by exactly this process!

Not many years ago, Gay marriage was defeated at the ballot box in more than one US state, IIRC. So according to your very own system, GAY MARRIAGE WAS IMMORAL!

As our younger generations came of (voting) age, Gay Marriage had enough electoral support to win at the ballot box. Our Supreme Court made that unnecessary, though. However, some states did elect enough gay marriage-supporting politicians to legalize it on the state level first (New York).

So now, according to your system, GAY MARRIAGE IS MORAL.

So, in this real-world scenario, which is correct? Is gay marriage moral or immoral? If it is moral now, then all I have to do to make it immoral is to educate a new generation of kids to be against it, right?

Then once they turn 18, if they are unwilling to vote the it stays moral. But if they are willing to vote, it becomes immoral. Right?

<Nisjesram:

<tabanus> , i saw your posts on omv debate in <big pawn> forum. Very good posts.

<johnlspouge> and i defeated <big pawn> in omv debate very thoroughly and later <nok> too defeated <big pawn> in omv debate . If you ever want to exchange notes about it in rogoff forum or somewhere else , you are welcome.

Thank you>

My favorite part:

<If you ever want to exchange notes>

heh

If everyone believed him, the rogoff forum would be flooded with people who left a long time ago, just to see my dead body lying there. <petrosianic> used to say the same thing, but people started calling him out on it and he disappeared.

I do think <Nizzle> is slightly handicapped though. He's got some kind of imbalance. I can see him sitting there in front of his computer late at night, getting upset with filthy fools, and slapping himself in the face in machine gun mode with loose wrists, in a sort of autistic hissy fit. You know what I mean?

When I left yesterday, I thought I'd read the whole debate.

Came back this morning and saw how much more had transpired.

I think it is a very good thing! You were able to conclude with your 7-point post, which will serve as an example of debate. And that is so much better than just having rules in the profile.

It is the difference between someone explaining to you how the chess pieces move, and two people playing chess in front of you. The second example is more helpful.

<Tabanus>' reply shows that he either hasn't grasped the points you are making, or that he doesn't want to.

In fact, I want to go further here. I will state that I've been following the moral argument on cg.com for more than 2 years, off and on. I've never seen anyone present a counter argument that I would want to defend in a debate.

In other words, if I were forced to debate the moral argument, and was allowed to choose my side based only on information posted here and in Rogoff, I would choose to take the side of theism.