How would you determine if Norway was heading to moral decay?>

Good question. The answer is, of course, that there is no way for my compatriot to determine that. For a non-believer who does not believe in OMV, then the question of 'moral decay' has no meaning. In fact, if he accepted the logical consequences of his position, he would acknowledge that the whole topic is irrelevant to him, because there is no way for him to grade moral values. Moreover (again, IF he took the consequences of his non-belief), when he talks about *values*, what he really talks about are different *beliefs in the concept of moral values*, not the values per se. But it seems that <Tabanus> is ignorant of these important distinctions, which is not meant as an attack on him (he is my countryman, after all :=), because this is very typical, most people DO NOT recognize the logical implications of their position.

<Knowledge ultimately does come down to philosophy. If you can't back up what you believe at base level, by an appeal to logic, to demonstrating the logical conclusions of one's underlying positions, you can't claim any sort of valid viewpoint.>

Exactly right. And that is why <Tab> wil not be able to provide an answer.

<Tabanus: There are now 46% non believers in Norway, and the number increases every year. Let's see if it leads to moral decay.>

Well, since I am from Norway, and given that as a Christian, and as a believer in moral objectivism, I am in a position to reply to this question, I will give you my answer:

I almost never discuss these things with my wife. Her moral values are very good IMO, only she's wrong about where they come from.>

You haven't got an inkling about moral ontology and can't even debate it. You not only miss the target, but you don't know where the target is, so that you could at least make bad shots.

In our debate, there weren't two sides having their say. It was completely one-sided. You were off point and didn't even realize it. This is like standing up to fight me, but instead of swinging and missing at me, you turn around and just swing in the air, in the other direction.

I have seven points still waiting for you. That post completely and utterly defeats your position, and, for good measure, defeated your off point, misdirected, red herrings!

Make no mistake, we did not go "back and forth" or "round and round and round". I made DH4+ points and you did not.

If you were a wise man, you'd have the intellectual honesty and the capacity for critical thinking that would allow you to say to yourself (not to me or anyone else), "Gee, funny how I was totally trounced in that debate. What I thought I knew, I really didn't know, so I should change what I think from "My wife is wrong about where moral values come from" to the much more modest and honest, "I'm quite uncertain actually, what exactly I believe now".

We cannot prove or disprove the existence of objective moral values either. Why don't you all try to investigate something that can be measured. Such as moral viewpoints across cultures and over time.

I couldn't have said it better.

<Tab: Give it up BP. We can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God by use of logic.>

With the caveat that we're really not talking "prove", except in a pretty broad sense of the word, you're affirming that every one of the world's great philosophers who delved into this was engaging in an exercise in futility. I will stick with my affirmation that if you can't defend what you believe in a baseline, philosophical, syllogistic sense, you have a weak foundation for believing it.

<You know that well. Your seven points is nothing but eclecticism. You are trolling, but thanks for the fun.>

From my point of view, that is the stock answer from people on your side who lose debate after debate after debate. It's a concesssion speech. I get how hard it is to be faced with a direct challenge on positions you hold dear. I understand the inclination to dismiss them as mere words, or what have you. But as a human being who should be striving to search for truth the best you can, that is simply a complete concession, not much better than a kid sticking their fingers in their ears. The reason this is important is that it was people like YOU who led to the rise of Hitler. YOU would not have stepped in and said "This is wrong.", because in your worldview, you couldn't. YOU would not have said "What this man is doing is objectively wrong for all times, across all cultures.", because in your worldview, you couldn't. YOU would have said, "Well, maybe next time we can vote him out." If you had seen where things were going in that period of time where maybe if the right people had stood up and opposed it, YOU would have wrung your hands in despair, unable to articulate why anyone else should agree with your position, and not understanding why all those formerly decent appearing people were doing what they did. Own this, Tab, own it.

I believe possibly the most sublime bit of truth ever expressed in rock and roll history is from Sympathy for the Devil.

<I shouted out, "Who killed the Kennedys?" When after all, it was you and me>

Who killed the Jews? After all, it was you and me and anyone else who denied there was something objectively wrong with doing so.

<We cannot prove or disprove the existence of objective moral values either. >

With the caveat that we're really not talking "prove", except in a pretty broad sense of the word, you're affirming that every one of the world's great philosophers who delved into this was engaging in an exercise in futility. As a matter of fact, if you deny the use of syllogisms to appeal to truth, you're pretty much denying the primary source of man's understanding of knowledge. I think that you really don't believe that, but are just tossing out an ad hoc excuse for why you can't make your case, that is, "It doesn't matter anyway. This doesn't prove anything!" To be consistent, will you affirm we can't use a form of syllogisms to search for truth in the field of ____________? I'm guessing not, and then you're back to having no intellectual foundation for what you're so desperately clinging to here.

<Why don't you all try to investigate something that can be measured. Such as moral viewpoints across cultures and over time.>

So what, exactly?

<Which I guess is already more than you have done.>

So what, exactly? I have made plans for that eventuality, though. I suspect and have said on this site, in my lifetime people will be hauled off to jail for affirming homosexuality as an affront to God, even when done within the walls of a church.

<And guess what, 20 years later the government admitted they were wrong.>

Glad to hear if you were right.

<Own your hatred then.>

You should do the courtesty of showing me what my hatred is. I did the courtesy of showing you the source of world evil that you should own.

<I will not ask for your vote any more.>

I don't care. My vote has no bearing on morality.

Anyway, I accept all this as a concession speech. I've had similar things said to me by unbelievers hundreds of times when they get frustrated in their inability to deal with the logical ramifications of their position. You're just one more.

This is going overboard, <OCF>. You cannot possibly know what <Tabanus> would have done in such a situation like the rise of Hitler. I'm on your side in the moral argument debate, but in the quoted passage you sound mean-spirited and disagreeable. To single out <Tabanus>, who I am sure is a fine and decent person even if he doesn't share our religious beliefs, is flat out wrong.

This phrase "it was people like YOU who led to the rise of Hitler." is not only deeply insulting and should be beneath a person of your moral and intellectual stature, but it is only based on a wrong premise. Let me explain:

Yes, like you I am very well aware of the dangers of moral relativism but your Hitler argument is utterly and completely wrong. Clearly you haven't thought this through, my friend.

Think about this: how many atheists do you think there were in the German populace in 1933 when Hitler was voted to power?

The answer is less than 2%.

<In 1933, prior to the annexation of Austria into Germany, the population of Germany was approximately 67% Protestant and 33% Catholic; while the Jewish population was less than 1%. A census in May 1939, six years into the Nazi era and after the annexation of mostly Catholic Austria and mostly Catholic Czechoslovakia into Germany, indicates that 54% considered themselves Protestant, 40% Catholic, 3.5% self-identified as "gottgläubig" (lit. "believers in God", often described as predominately creationist and deistic), and 1.5% as "atheist".>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relig...

So it wasn't non-believers that voted Hitler to power in 1933. Hence, your attack on <Tabanus> is baseless and denigrating.

Your hatred is very obvious: <it was people like YOU who led to the rise of Hitler.> Your friend BP said similar things, I'm <morally equivalent to a pedophile>. This is a hatred based on the assumption that you are morally superior. You think you have God and objective moral values on your side, and that I have nothing on my side because I haven't discovered those values yet.

The curve I showed you is that since 2015, non-believers are in majority in Norway. We have now more equal rights than ever, minorities are allowed to have their language in school, gays can marry, we have female bishops, gay priests, we are more conscious about the environment, etc. During the same time our Christian party have opposed most changes to status quo. Perhaps you should try to come here as a missionary, and bring things back to how it was. Bring your warriors with you.

Interesting. Please set forth the evidence whereby you knew he "can't" exist.

<When 28 or so I was about to die, and I prayed to God.>

May you live to be 150. Interesting how people who know God doesn't exist go begging for help when the medical problems arise.

<Not long after that, I realized the praying was only because I had been taught about God as a child.>

This seems to indicate you hadn't looked at the matter in a comprehensive manner by the time you were 28. Yet you knew at 14 he didn't exist. I'm having some trouble reconciling all your claims here.

<Your hatred is very obvious: <it was people like YOU who led to the rise of Hitler.> Your friend BP said similar things, I'm <morally equivalent to a pedophile>.>

In your worldivew, you are. I note you couldn't defend yourself against that claim. I'm sorry this has got you so upset, but maybe a seed of doubt has been planted.

<This is a hatred based on the assumption that you are morally superior.>

Could you give a little basis for thinking that of me? I will affirm I try to live consistently with my world view. I don't know that makes me think I'm morally superior.

<You think you have God and objective moral values on your side, >

Yes.

<and that I have nothing on my side because I haven't discovered those values yet.>

Yes. I don't know about morally superior, but I'll certainly claim a more rationally held view of morality.

<The curve I showed you is that since 2015, non-believers are in majority in Norway. We have now more equal rights than ever, minorities are allowed to have their language in school, gays can marry, we have female bishops, gay priests, we are more conscious about the environment, etc. During the same time our Christian party have opposed most changes to status quo. Perhaps you should try to come here as a missionary, and bring things back to how it was. Bring your warriors with you.>

Sounds like they need it. I'm a bit old for that, alas.

<In short, I find you intolerant. As opposed to my Christian wife.>

<Interesting how people who know God doesn't exist go begging for help when the medical problems arise.>

<That's perfectly normal. It's just a last resort, when everything else seems hopeless. Doesn't prove a thing.>

I agree.

<Or maybe it indicates why people believe in God in the first place: they've been told about this option.>

Maybe. It'd be a lot easier to believe in a much lesser god though. Maybe one who didn't limit our fun so much.

<The ballot box did not apply because it dealt with another people, the Samis, who even claimed to be the first inhabitants there. Now we have a Sami Parliament, who would have voted no to such a flooding of their land. Voting doesn't always affirm morality, it's just the best we got.>

What a sad world view.

<Any more doubts about my moral? I'm getting tired of defending it. I roughly know where I stand.>

A lifetime of holding to some sort of moral code and what, 30 minutes spent defending it? Okay, then.

But that's just the problem. It is not insulting at all.

Hitler was elected by everyday joes. The Nazi party was populated by everyday joes, to a large degree. Normal people.

This has been studied IN DEPTH. There is even a term for it - the banality of evil.

The answer is less than 2%. >

Yes, the atheists are more likely to support Stalin over Hitler.

Your friend BP said similar things, I'm <morally equivalent to a pedophile>. This is a hatred based on the assumption that you are morally superior.>

No, it isn't hatred at all.

It is the logical conclusion of your world view.

That is the whole point of all of these arguments. Here, in Rogoff, in <BP>'s forum, it is all about one thing.

You said OMV do not exist. Therefore, without emotion, without passion, without feeling, BUT SIMPLY LOGICALLY, we MUST MUST MUST conclude that your morals are not superior to the morals of a pedophile.

Maybe.>

I disagree. "they've been told about this option" doesn't work as an argument. How did you know? The previous generation told me. How did they know? The generation before them told! etc.

It requires an infinite number of previous generations to do the telling.