Then I will stop arguing with you now.

You don't deserve to be deprived of sleep.

I am about the 4th person to join in a critique of your position>

He's trying to <shift> it from an attack on the logical implications of the atheistic worldview to an attack on <his> morals.

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

See that?

This is a way to escape the pressure of not being able to defend his position. He's hoping that you'll back off.

< Tabanus: 30 minutes? This has kept me awake and walking back and forth for three days now. >

Never back off, unless you hate the man. Then it's okay to back off. But if you don't hate the man, then serve him the truth.

Don't play along with his pretend victimhood, "Oh, you're all ganging up on my morals making me defend them"

As <tga> said, it's not personal. It's about the worldview and the logic.

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.>

From BP's forum:

<Philosophical Thought of the Week:

Does further action include responding with DH4+ level rebuttals to my seven points, specifically stating how you are refuting each one, and then erecting seven of your own, stronger points, in their place?

<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)

<Al-Wazir> has admitted that rape and other heinous acts are not objectively less moral than tolerance and kindness.

<GSM> has infamously admitted that torturing a baby for fun isn't objectively wrong, it's just distasteful.

We have three atheists that say "Objective moral values do not exist" but only two of them accept the implications, while <Tab> wants to play liberal crybaby with hurt feelings.

<Tab>, that crybaby stuff, "I'm offended" stuff might work in your liberal circles, but it's not going to fly here. We have documented the argument and the logic,and you're not dealing with the average plebs here, who spend all day watching tv and listening to bubble gum music - and who can take a moment to opine of morality if you ask them.

You need to realize that in the history of this website, once someone has engaged with me on the OMV debate, we never, ever stop and I never let it go. Ever. I make sure to remind my opponents that the ball is still in their court, and I have our little debates neatly documented so no one can claim they forget where they were or what they said.

It took <Abdel> fully 5 years to finally admit that both premises were true, but at least he did it. 5 years.

<Tabanus>, you will either have to refute my seven points with DH4+ posts and replace them with your own irrefutable points, or you will have to accept that your position is untenable - or put your tail between your legs, hit the ignore button and give me unending satisfaction.

We fight for the Truth.
You fight for the lie.

It's no wonder you want to give up!

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

That's starting to split hairs over whether we're discussing why <people today> might engage in prayer. But yes, it does fail if you trace it back to whatever supposed beginning there is.

<So if mankind hasn't existed forever, then at some point, there was no one to tell the first generation about this option. They had to learn about it some other way.>

I saw some posts earlier about Mohammad being a pedophile. The Bible has some passages that seem to approve pedophily: It's OK to have sex with "female children" that are obtained in war (Numbers 31:1-18), and it's OK to sell your daughter (no mention of age) to a man for him to use as a sex slave (Exodus 21:7-10).

https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/...

Perhaps I interpret 1) the Koran and 2) the Bible wrong, or I use the passages out of context. Anyway, what does 3) the People say? In Norway, with >40% atheists, <the vast majority is explicitly against it>.

No matter what circumstance. Which is more than you will find in the Koran and the Bible. The latter does not mention pedophily at all, is that right? Now, whose side are you on.

See my forum header. I hope you'll rue the day you crossed me.>

I see.

Those with whom you take issue did nothing wrong. We merely used logic to demonstrate that your position is not tenable, rationally.

And your response to this is to post excerpts out of context???

And now you are hoping to have vengeance against me because I used reason?

Well, someone got <BP> banned permanently. Maybe it was Mark. Maybe it was you. I don't know. Maybe you will get me banned.

But I am not going to knuckle under to your demands that I censor myself because you can't deal with the logical implications of voting on moral values.

With the right premises, logic will produce whatever conclusion you want.

Questions for Ohio: Let's assume that your values are given by God, and that they are objective and eternal. You know what God wants and what his values are:

Admirable. Most people aren't so willing to advertise their losses.

<I hope you'll rue the day you crossed me.>

<Big Pawn
Member since Dec-10-05

Due to a violation of Chessgames.com policies,
the kibitzing privileges of this account/IP address have been suspended.

<Chessgames.com Antifa> has censored me permanently. Sometimes the bad guys win.

1. How do you know that? >

By the evidence found within what we call the Bible.

<2. How do I know that you know?>

Challenge me, question me, test me.

<3. Why should I believe you?>

Don't make too many assumptions...>

It is possible that they only put a posting restriction on him, say a limited number a day, except in his forum, and he has banished himself.

<Seems like same as normal. We'll see what we see.>

Truth.

What evidence do you have for that claim?>

Just his statement.

I asked him by e-mail how he was able to edit his profile if his IP address was banned, so yes, I recognize the seeming contradiction.