No, it's not irrelevant. How can we talk about God without first defining the concept?

That makes no sense, since you are the one who first started talking about God. Look, it is very simple. We both know that you can't show how God can make a moral foundation. You're merely stalling and trying to bait out some quarrel to sidetrack the issue.

The sad irony is that if we go by Nietzsche' works, you're the nihilist. You see the loss of God as loss of human value.

Nietzsche was intellectually honest enough to admit that without God there is no moral foundation. He would be the first to tell you that. His whole project was an ATTEMPT at overcoming nihilism. It doesn't mean he succeeded. It could be argued, and has, that his own philosophy drove him insane. The ubermensch has a bad case of NPD.

And, we're getting way off topic. Forget God for a second. The point of this thread was that atheists can't have a moral foundation without a god. And you keep avoiding the issue.

I want to address sentence again.

First of all, I see the loss of God as the loss of humanity and all existence itself, so yes I agree with this statement.

Second of all, you can't just redefine the word nihilism and then accuse people of being nihilists, unless maybe your name is Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche 'redifined all values' because he saw the death of 'god' (god being a broad term for the ivory tower of certainty, reason, and anything 'outerworldly') as a serious problem with vast implications. Since the idea of god became impossible for him (maybe he had deep father issues?) he struggled to find a meaning to life. Which is not exactly an easy thing to do. He saw the world as a chaotic, vicious, darwinist minefield. He took darwin's conclusions to their extreme, and looked at life with brutal, brutal honesty. That's why I love Nietzsche. Most philosophers aren't capable of doing that day in and day out.

So he tried to find a reason to struggle in this nihilistic world. I give him credit for his creativity in redefining nihilism to fit his agenda. Since humans became the center of their universe, it was their task to rise above the death of god and create their own meaning.

That doesn't mean that he believed in a moral foundation at all. Quite the contrary.

Great.

So you just agreed that both of us (regardless of whether we believe in God or not) can do good, because we find it inherently valuable.

I'm surprised you couldn't see my next question coming:
If both my subjective morality, and your 'objective' morality can result in the same moral motivations and behaviours, then why is God necessary?

Nietzsche is the only philosopher that I'd recommend to no-one. He was a sexually frustrated and depressed loner. He has nothing useful to teach anyone about life, apart from how much his life was inadequate.

Get into some Voltaire, Wittgenstein, Plato, Aristotle, Russell and Descartes instead please.

He isn't necessary for you to behave well. I thought I already conceded that.

You're also conceding that 'objective' morality is unnecessary in that case...

He was a brutally honest writer and a genius who made some great observations. Although anything he wrote about women, and a lot of other topics, was complete trash and he was largely a wack job.

The observations he made, pre-dated him already, by about 2000 years.

In any case, this is largely unimportant. I'd just suggest reading some life-affirming philosophy instead. You may be lacking a balanced perspective.

To whom?

Everyone.

If you can get the same moral motivations and behaviours through a solely subjective morality, as you can through an objective morality, then the distinction between them is unnecessary and self-imposed.

Idk..


Even if he did id argue the same thing. I have yet to meet a believer who will say they have the objective moral answer to all moral dilemmas. Sometimes they have to break out their subjective thinking caps. And when they do, unless they say God is giving them the truth, they have no more foundation then the rest of us on those question.

That's a big if.

For one, not everyone is as self-reflective as you. Moral training and discipline is a good thing. There are enough sociopaths running around who probably could have used stricter parents.

Two, just because something is unecessary from one angle doesn't mean it isn't necessary from another. For instance, you're saying you don't need a god to behave well. But I'm saying ontologically you need a god for that morality to exist.

Three, there are alternatives. What if god implanted this morality into each of us, so it is both objective and subjective?

You're the one who conceded it just earlier...
Whether others arive at the same moral motivations and behaviours as me, or you, is also irrelevant. All one has to demonstrate is that it is possible to do so, which I demonstrated.

Since we're talking about the necessity of objective morality and God - to moral motivations and behaviours - it is clear that both are unnecessary. This is not easy to come to terms with, but you're at the right place at least.
You cannot demonstrate this. You take this ontology on the basis of faith. For me at least, adopting unnecessary assumptions is unnecessary.
Adopting additional assumptions that cannot be proven, is unnecessary.

What's with this unnecessary bit? Are you trying to bring in Occam's razor?

Occam's razor isn't an argument.

You are directly claiming the necessity of God, in order to prevent "All" from being "Permitted". Read the thread title.

I find objective morality much more plausible than absolute morality.

I also think that OP is arguing that objective morality exists, not that they are known to everyone or anyone. If objective morality exists then definitive answers to each moral dilemma exist and if they do we would all be able to agree on them. If there is no objective morality then two or more valid answers to each moral dilemma could exist.

It's getting late but I think you're saying that if in one instance, a human being can use his subjectivity to align himself with objective morals, then objective morals do not exist.

The conclusion doesn't follow the premise.

This is a separate issue entirely.

I am not claiming that objective morals do not exist.

I am claiming that objective morals are unnecessary.

Ummm

So objective morals do exist, but they are unnecessary?

I don't think I'm with you on that. I'd hate to live in a world we can't agree on right and wrong.

No.

Objective morals cannot be proven to exist, or proven not to exist.
They can be proven to be unnecessary however.

A scientific perspective looks at the unnecessary the same way it looks at the non-existent. I don't take this perspective, but I do acknowledge that since objective morals can be shown to be unnecessary, I do not need to believe in them (even if they exist).

Do you mean plausible as in if there is a God its more likely he would have objective morality then absolute? Id agree.
Im arguing there is objective morality but what happens here.

When people who say they have objective morality or believe in it come to a moral dilemma (you dont always get a lot of time in these..) they have to make a choice on what to do. They dont have the objective moral truth of Gods. Now what?

My argument is they have to use their own subjective mind like the rest of us.

Objective morals are necessary in everyday life in more ways than I can count. Murder, rape, jaywalking - all morally objectively wrong and punishable. How long would a trial take if we had to prove that anew every time?

Now i think he meant absolute.