That can't be discussed until you agree upon a definition of what IT actually is.

Creativesoul: My point about Nietzsche is exactly that. It doesn't work. Atheism does not work. I'm glad we agree.

You avoid the biggest issue: If there is no God then why would it be wrong for me to rape, or kill, or steal (so long as I get away with it)? You can't say because "society" says it's wrong. Many societys have believed in human sacrifice, slavery, infanticide, genocide etc..Most reasonable people will not argue that those things are justifable because that society at that time said it was.

What if it's all relative for each individual? Well then it's okay to rape, kill, steal or anything else that can be imagined. What right do you have to dictate my morality? Who made you God?

When God is eliminated from His cosmos then man becomes the center of the universe. Remindes me of the saying "in the beginning God created man in His own image and ever since then man has been returning the favor." Man is making himself god. And when I become the center of my universe all hell breaks loose. If I am the measure of all things then all things must serve me.

I think I'd be a pretty pathetic, childish, god. That kind of self-centeredness comes from the mentality of a 2 year old. Without god we live in a cold mechanistic universe where we absurdly scream into eternity that god is dead and we are god even as we fade back to the dust from whence we came. How meaningless. How hopeless. So very, very dark.

There are a lot of Atheists that have better morals than Theists. Atheism does work, and it works because morality is not just a about religious belief in a god.



You have no idea what this discussion is about. Nobody is "dictating" morality.



You are the center of your universe!

Has all hell broken lose yet?



You cling to a belief in God because without that belief you are lost.

I can't define exactly when a mole hill becomes a mountain but I know one when I see it. I can't define exactly what love it but I know it when I feel it.

Just because we cannot all agree on the precise definition of something that all humanity expierences does not mean that we have nothing meaningful to say about it.

I do know this: Evolution does not explain love. Insects, most animals, fish, birds, etc.., have been doing without love since the world began. Love is not necessary for the survival of the species. In fact, it can be downright suicidal at times.

Love is real in the same sense that mind is real. Neither can be quantified or put in a test tube. Where they both originate from has been debated for thousands of years up to the present. The mind is much more than the firing of synapses. Love is more than chemicals floating around in the brain. Both love and the mind in which it occurs are far more than the just the physical brain. And just as it is impossible to think consistently that mind arose from blind, deaf, dumb completely inert matter, so is it impossible to think that love came about in a vacume apart from the ultimate love that is God.

And did you ever consider this? If there is no ultimate love, no ultimate truth that is from the God of love, then love itself is just a lot of B.S. Just a little quirk of evolution that has no ultimate meaning despite how powerfull and meaningful it may feel. It then becomes a cruel joke giving me the desire for meaning, decieving me into believing there is when it all boils down to...nothingness.

And so are you.

I'm not lost, I have a global positioning device on my wrist. LOL

"You have no idea what this discussion is about. Nobody is "dictating" morality."

I know exactly what it is about. You just don't seem to have a grasp of the concept of literary devices. I'm not saying anyone is trying to dictate morality. I'm saying there is no morality in any meaningful sense apart from God.

Why would you depend on other people to define love for you or tell you that there is no ultimate love? You don't depend on people to tell you that God exists or does not exist. You simply chose to believe that he does. That is your decision, not some body else's.

The only cruel joke is if you allow someone else to convince you (or deceive you) of something that will send you into a deep pit of .... nothingness. You chose what to believe.

Darrick,

Read the thread.

Alrighteee then. You have made your opinion known. Bravo.

Nietzche is not atheism. We do not agree.



I'm not arguing in favor of moral relativism. In fact, I argue against it. I just do not need to use a belief in God in order to do so.



Again, I'm not a moral relativist. If you'd read the thread in order to understand what it is that we've been discussing, you'd know that.

I think you're confusing your personal moral beliefs/convictions with morality. Morality does not belong to people. Why do I need to be made God in order to reasonably identify what morality is?



You think that everyone is like that?



Here, I agree with the first claim. Although, there are plenty of 2-year olds who are not completely self-centered, at least not in the manner which you're suggesting.

By the way Darrick,

This is a philosophy forum. While theism can be philosophically discussed, you're not quite doing it yet. If you'd like to argue about God, then take it to the religion forum. If you'd like to show me why you think that God is necessary for morality, then please... do so.

Yeh that ought to be a good one.

If he proved his claim, (which he can't,) it would have to mean that all atheists are evil cruel selfish psychopaths.

But I have been trying to imagine how morality is possible without love/compassion.

I would like you, Creative, to answer that one.

I am thinking that "Love" could very possibly be one of the "properties" of universal morality that you mention in your definition.

Not really. Just because someone does not believe in God, does not make them a psychopath - even if we grant that God is necessary for morality to exist. In such a case, morality would exist and have an affect/effect upon a person even if they did not believe in God.



If it gives rise to love and compassion. I mean, if morality is a part of the structure that love and compassion emerge from. Love is a purely subjective thing. I find myself agreeing with Spinoza in that it is self-fulfilling in many ways. For instance, no matter who you talk to, no matter how they conceive love to be, they'll always do things out of love because that is what one does out of love.That fulfills as many definitions of what love is as there are people to conceive what love should be/is. They all do 'out of love' whatever is is that they believe ought to be done 'out of love'. It is important to recognize the 'ought' here. Love, much like morality, is traditionally held to be enacted for it's own sake, or the sake of another.

Compassion is very important in that one cannot have compassion for another without being able to relate to them. Universal morality bridges all of those gaps, for it is an objective part of everyone's thought/belief... necessarily so. That is the beauty of it.

Creative said:


In that you have not named or described any of the "properties" of objective morality I cannot possibly judge whether those properties could give rise to Love or compassion or not.

I rather think that love exists -- as a property outside of the mind and is not a product of the mind or brain. A brain is more like a computer, in that it simply processes information. Without the living element of consciousness it is doubtful if brain matter could feel love or compassion or any sense of morality.

A brain in jar is just brain matter even if it is being kept alive like bodies are kept alive after being pronounced brain dead.



I disagree. Although neither you or I could prove such a claim. I could say the same things about love that you have claimed about morality.

Our idea of what love is can be called "subjective" but that part is only our idea or concept of love, not what love really is.

Just like time and space. It may exist in spite of what we believe about it, and what we believe about it may be called subjective, but that may not really be what it is.




You keep making the claim that morality is objective and your 'proof' is only that you feel that it affects/effects the way we make moral judgments. I can say the exact same thing about love and I can no more prove that claim than you can prove your claim about morality.

Trust, truth, universal human warrant, universal behavioral expectation.

Which one would you like to discuss?



Are you denying that love is an emotion which felt by creatures capable of such a thing?



Not really. It is a much greater uphill battle convincing anyone else that love is not an emotion than claiming that morality is not emotive or based upon personal preferences/tastes.

Love is not an emotion. The only reason I would have to "deny" it would be if someone tried to shove that down my throat as a fact.

That is what I tell theists who ask me if I am "denying" that God is the creator of the world or if Jesus died for my sins.

I tell them that I don't have to "deny" it unless some tried to shove that down my throat as a fact.

You said that you have not defined morality into existence, nor assumed its existence as a premiss in your argument, but that you have sought out to identify what morality is.

If you did not assume its existence, why then would you seek to identify or define what it is? Why not just agree with the common academic understanding of it? What's wrong with that?

Some people classify love as an emotion, I do not. It is more than that. As you don't accept the academic definition of morality, Neither do I accept the idea that love is an emotion.