TRUMP AHEAD?

[Harbal]

I promise you, I have prepared accordingly.

See you there.

Unless I break a mirror, or walk under a ladder, or something.

[Age]

I think I am right. IC's argument is that a thing is morally right or wrong according to which God says it is, and its rightness or wrongness is given to it by virtue of that alone.

Okay, but "immanuel can" thinks, or believes, it is right.

Until either of you provide a sound and valid reason/argument for what you both think, or believe, is right here, do you think 'we' are better of deciding which one of you is right, or just remain observing only?

Firstly, that argument depends entirely on the existence of the biblical God, which is by no means generally considered to be a matter of objective fact.

I have not seen "immanuel can" argue that 'morally right or wrong' depends on 'which God says it is', and I do not think that "immanuel can" would even think this, let alone say this, considering the fact that "immanuel can" believes, absolutely, that there is only One God.

Also, could it be a possibility that the Rightness, or Wrongness, 'morally', was, and still is, given by God, Itself?

Or, is this an, absolute, impossibility, from your perspective and view of things here?

But putting that aside, it still wouldn't make morality objective, it would just be an instance of God's subjective moral view.

Now, could it be a possibility that when, and if, who and what the term and word 'God' means, and has been referring to, references the very Thing from which 'objectivity' is found, and/or comes from, exactly?

Or, is this not a possibility, to you?

Morality is defined as being our sense of right and wrong,

I have never seen the 'morality' word defined, previously, as being 'our sense of ...'. But, considering the fact that 'morality' is only conceived in 'our' sense, if the word 'our', here, is meaning what I think you are referring to, the words 'our sense' work here.

so my argument is that it's subjectivity is part of its definition.

But what if 'the subjectivity', which you have just placed in 'its definition' here, can be 'objectively sensed'?

Or, is this not a possibility, to you?

IC is talking about the supposed authority of God's word, not about morality.

But, "immanuel can" is, absolutely, in no position at all to speak about, nor for, 'the authority of God's word'. "immanuel can is, still, under a complete delusion that God is male-gendered and that 'a male thing' created the whole Universe, Itself. So, "immanuel can", clearly, is not in any position at all to speak of, or about, 'God's actual words'. "immanuel can" has absolutely no 'authority' at all here.

I don't claim to have any irrefutable reasoning, I just claim to be using the word, "morality", in accordance with its generally accepted definition,

'Generally accepted' 'to who', and/or 'by who', exactly?

whereas IC seems to have redefined the word to specifically support what he would like everyone else to believe.

Did you not just do, more or less, the exact same thing when you defined the 'morality' word with and by the words, 'our sense ...', which could be inferred as 'morality' is 'subjective' to 'our senses'?

I have been wrong too many times in my life to ever be 100% sure that I am right about anything.

But, surely you have been right, enough times, in your life, to know when you are 100% sure of some things, correct?

Could you have thought, or believed, that you were 'right' previously, too many times in your life, before you actually obtained and gained the actual clarity or clarification of what was 'actually right' and so learned, maybe 'the hard way', about things in Life?

Also, if you are not 100% sure that you are right about some thing here, then why are you trying to argue for 'that thing'?

It really depends on what, exactly, is meant by the word, "objective".

Very, Very True.

And, until you posters here even begin to agree upon and accept what you, each, mean when you use the 'objective' word, you could, if you lived long enough, be arguing and disagreeing about this same issue for another millennia, or two. Exactly like you adult human beings have been doing, hitherto, when this is being written.

The term, 'objective moral truth', could mean various things,

So, what is 'it', exactly, that you are trying to argue against here?

some of which I may well be able to accept, but I am as sure as I can be that what IC means by it is just plain nonsense.

When one starts with, God is a male-gendered creature, which created the whole Universe, and made up what is 'morally right and wrong', and 'objectively', then, obviously, and very clearly, what 'that one' means is, absolute, pure nonsense.

But, what is, actually and irrefutably, 'objectively morally Right and Wrong, in Life', is something that can be uncovered, comprehended, understood, and known. And, as you pointed out what the term or phrase, 'objective moral truth', actually means has to be discussed, agreed with, and understood, first.

I'm sorry, Age, but if you want me to reply to any of this you will have to condense it down to the essentials. I don't have the time or patience to deal with endless lists of questions.

If it is just to hard or to difficult for you to just answer any number of the limited number of clarifying questions here, then okay.

[Harbal]

If it is just to hard or to difficult for you to just answer any number of the limited number of clarifying questions here, then okay.

Thanks for your understanding.

[Gary Childress]

It's an interesting sight to see a person who professes belief in God trying to demolish morality in the name of insisting that his God must necessarily exist.

I'm not "demolishing morality," Gary. I believe in morality, and I'm arguing for it. It's Subjectivism that makes morality impossible, and which inevitably leads logically to Nihilism. Ironically, Nietzsche, the man who famously said "God is dead," agrees with me entirely on this point. And when two such strong opponents are found to agree despite all their differences, what does that tell you?

You're not arguing for morality, you're using morality to argue for God. You're trying to place all the onus on God to make morality possible and that may be OK if there's a God, however, if there isn't a God, then you've effectively undermined all morality saying that it's not possible. Why would you want to mislead atheists and agnostics that way? Stating that morality isn't possible without God is an erroneous statement. It does not follow that if there is no God then one cannot be moral. Morality is a very important aspect of human existence with or without a God. Without it, humanity would probably resemble a Hobbesian nightmare. Morality is clearly an intrinsic part of being human regardless if one is an atheist or theist.

As far as Nietzsche, I've long since outgrown him. I took a seminar on him in college and he was a bad influence when I was younger filling me with angst because I thought I had to have it without God. I've long since lived and learned to appreciate morality. Now the only angst I have is dealing with people trying to tell me I'm going to hell for being agnostic.

[Age]

How often do people ask each other if their moral views are just their subjective opinion, or matters of objective fact, ffs?

Maybe ordinary people never do so, at least in those words. Probably, what they ask themselves is, "Is it really right/wrong to..." And that's extremely common: and it amounts to exactly the same thing, but in common language, rather than with the precise language of philosophers.

But so what? They DO ask the question...and all the time.

There's an example: show me where I said that they do. You can't. I didn't. You made it up.

Well if you are not implying that, how would anyone know whether I think my moral views are just my opinion, or the subject of objective truth, so that they could then decide whether to take them seriously or not?

Look above, and you have your answer.

If that were true, moral consensus would be impossible.

People of the same culture tend to have many moral views in common, because it is our culture that shapes our moral outlook, so moral consensus is very achievable much of the time.

That's just another appeal to power, not to morality. The fact that other people "shape" your outlook doesn't begin to answer the question of its rightness or wrongness.

you have yet, once, began to answer to the question of 'its rightness or wrongness'.

So, when are you going to start here "Immanuel can"?

The answer is you cannot, because you do not even know where to begin.

As your refusal to answer here proves further.

If it did, beating women would be moral in Syria, and horribly immoral in Boston. And yet, it's exactly the same action.

Are you trying to suggest here that the beating of women in "boston" does not occur?

It makes a very big difference, actually.

It would make no difference to how they responded to you,

Sure it will. If somebody knows something is objectively wrong, then they have to make a serious decision about whether or not to do it.

Once more you have missed the point, completely.

you just saying something is 'objectively wrong' to another will never ever mean that the other knows that thing is 'objectively wrong'.

Once again, what is wrong, to you, is not necessarily wrong, to another. After all of the back and forth replies here are you still not yet understanding this irrefutable Fact.

If all you're saying is it's subjectively "wrong," then your saying has neither implications for them, nor any real meaning even for you. It just means, "I twinged."

Look "immanuel can" I could tell you all of the 'objectively wrong' things that you keep doing here, but this never means that you will agree with and accept what I am saying, and telling you.

Seriously, how can you not yet fathom this?

Go ahead. But be cautious to remain within the terms your Subjectivism allows to you. And that means that you can't use any words that imply you expect anybody to have any duty at all to agree with you, since you insist they don't.

If you actually do want me to make the effort of explaining why I think tyranny is wrong, you will have to first give your explanation of why it is wrong.

No, no...no scrambling now. You said you could do it. Go ahead.

And also, I will do it in words of my own choosing, not only the ones I have your permission to use.

You have to use the ones that a belief in Subjectivism allows you. If not, of course, I'll quite happily point out your error.

What they "want" is not something Subjectivism would allow you or me to have any actual reason to care about.

I'm going to be blunt, IC; that is a fucking stupid comment.

Let me also be blunt: you need to think more carefully than you are doing. Subjectivism does not give you any reason to care what another person wants.

Once again this is another stupid comment of yours. Or, anyone could just as easily and simply state 'objectivism' does not give any reason to care what another person wants, as well.

That's definitional: because their "wanting" is just as subjective as whatever your reaction to their "wanting" is. So how will Subjectivism account for your feeling that you SHOULD care?

Quite simply, it cannot.

you appear to be under the delusion "immanuel can" that what you say and claim here falls under 'objectivism' and if anyone else says or claims anything different, then they are being subjective.

It is like you actually believe that you view things 'objectively' whereas others view things 'subjectively'.

Which, by the way, was a common trait, and fault, among the adult human being population back in the days when this was being written.

[Age]

Maybe ordinary people never do so, at least in those words. Probably, what they ask themselves is, "Is it really right/wrong to..." And that's extremely common:

It is very common, indeed, and I do that myself.

But so what?

So I'm pretty much like everyone else in that respect.

So?

That's just another appeal to power, not to morality.

It's not an appeal to anything, it's just a description of how morality works in my experience.

By power, you mean. Yes, Nietzsche thought that too.

The fact that other people "shape" your outlook doesn't begin to answer the question of its rightness or wrongness. If it did, beating women would be moral in Syria, and horribly immoral in Boston. And yet, it's exactly the same action.

I think you are beginning to understand.

I wish I could say the same about you. The point is that Subjectivism can never tell us whether beating women is right or wrong.

you keep telling us things like this, but you never show how so-called 'objectivism' can tell us whether beating women is right or wrong.

Do you even know how 'objectivism' can?

If yes, then why do you never ever provide any examples?

Again, what is 'it' that you are afraid of here "immanuel can"?

Sure it will. If somebody knows something is objectively wrong, then they have to make a serious decision about whether or not to do it.

And how will you make them believe that you have the objective truth,

I'm not responsible to force anybody's compliance. The job of a moral person is simply to point out what the moral truth is...not to force people to respect it.

So, once again, why do you simply not just point out what the 'moral truth' is, exactly?

I have asked you numerous times already to write down the list of 'objective moral truths', which you claim exist. But, as of 'now', you still have provided absolutely nothing at all. So, if as you claim here, the job of a 'moral person' is simply to point out what the 'moral truth' is, and you do not do this, then either you are not a 'moral person', or are a 'moral person' but a Truly afraid and scared of something here.

Some will, some won't. The moral ones will, the immoral ones won't. But all will have to answer for what they choose to do, in the Judgment.

Well, so far, you have been showing no respect for 'moral truths' nor have you shown that you are a 'moral person', either.

In fact your completely immoral behaviors here so far show that you are very, very far from being a Truly 'moral person', really.

No, no...no scrambling now. You said you could do it. Go ahead.

Fair enough, if you don't want to accept the challenge,

It's your task. You claimed you could do it. And now you can't?

You have to use the ones that a belief in Subjectivism allows you. If not, of course, I'll quite happily point out your error.

I don't really want to play a game in which my opponent is also the referee, so no thanks.

I'm not the one putting the constraint on you. A thing called "rational consistency" is, and he's the only referee. Let's both abide by his decision.

Go ahead...

[Age]

It's an interesting sight to see a person who professes belief in God trying to demolish morality in the name of insisting that his God must necessarily exist.

I'm not "demolishing morality," Gary. I believe in morality, and I'm arguing for it. It's Subjectivism that makes morality impossible, and which inevitably leads logically to Nihilism. Ironically, Nietzsche, the man who famously said "God is dead," agrees with me entirely on this point. And when two such strong opponents are found to agree despite all their differences, what does that tell you?

It, obviously, depends on what is in agreement but what that could tell 'me' is that 'you' are both idiots.

[Age]

I wouldn't call social consensus power, and although I don't really know what Nietzsche thought, I suspect he wouldn't, either.

Yeah, he would. He would say that "morality" is nothing more than the weak collectively trying to limit the great men (ubermenschen). That is, trying to use the power of social pressure to restrict those who are stronger and better than they. He argued that a great man is "beyond good and evil" completely.

The point is that Subjectivism can never tell us whether beating women is right or wrong.

I suggest we don't ask it, then.

I agree. Subjectivism can tell us nothing whatsoever about morality, so why consult it?

So, not that you have the courage to respond and answer but what does so-called 'objectivism' tell you, exactly, "immanuel can"?

But all will have to answer for what they choose to do, in the Judgment.

And what objectively true facts do you know about "the Judgement"?

Just what the Word of God says. "Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds." (Rev. 20:11-12)

Are you, really, that blind and deaf here "immanuel can"?

So, to you, God says, 'I saw a chair and 'Me' sitting upon that chair', and so on.

It seems you have completely and utterly missed or misunderstood the actual clarifying question posed, and asked to you here.

"harbal" asked you, 'What objectively true facts do you know about 'the Judgement'? (with a capital 'j').

Here's the thing: you think it won't ever come. I think it will.

What actual 'proof' are you basing your thinking upon here?

Besides, of course, that you have been told that what is written in a book is true.

you are like a very young child who is told, 'Go to sleep now "immanuel can" otherwise santa claus will not come down the chimney tonight'.

you actually believe that 'it will come', and if anyone asked you what 'objectively true facts' you have for this belief of yours, your response would be because it is the 'Word of those I worship', that is; the 'Word of my Mommy and Daddy'.

Have you ever considered 'growing up' and/or 'maturing' here "immanuel can"?

If it doesn't, you'll never know: you'll be dead and gone to oblivion anyway -- not great, but at least not as bad...

But if it does, we'll both know. Prepare accordingly.

How many actual years have you been alive for "immanuel can"?

[Age]

I promise you, I have prepared accordingly.

See you there.

Where, exactly?

[Immanuel Can]

It's an interesting sight to see a person who professes belief in God trying to demolish morality in the name of insisting that his God must necessarily exist.

I'm not "demolishing morality," Gary. I believe in morality, and I'm arguing for it. It's Subjectivism that makes morality impossible, and which inevitably leads logically to Nihilism. Ironically, Nietzsche, the man who famously said "God is dead," agrees with me entirely on this point. And when two such strong opponents are found to agree despite all their differences, what does that tell you?

You're not arguing for morality, you're using morality to argue for God.

That's not an either-or, Gary; it's a both-and. Both God and morality are objective realities, the latter being entirely dependent on the former.

You're trying to place all the onus on God to make morality possible

The opposite, Gary. I'm not trying to "place the onus" on anything. It's already there. I'm just showing that God is the basis of morality -- but more exactly, what you should say is that I'm showing the opposite -- that Subjectivism is NO basis for ANY morality.

and that may be OK if there's a God,

There's no other way the idea of morality even works, actually. If there's no God, morality itself is a delusion. As Nietzsche. It's not at all by accident that the same passage from which he wrote so famously "God is dead," (The Madman's Parable), he also identified morality and meaning as also being dead. The former caused the latter.

however, if there isn't a God, then you've effectively undermined all morality saying that it's not possible.

That's true, but you can't really "undermine" something that had no foundation in the first place. You can only point out the deficiency it already inherently had. That's Subjectivism for you.

Stating that morality isn't possible without God is an erroneous statement. It does not follow that if there is no God then one cannot be moral.

Nobody has said that. I certainly haven't. An Atheist can arbitrarily to act in many ways we consider conventionally "moral." So let's you and I get clear on that, okay?

But what an Atheist cannot do is explain WHY anybody SHOULD be moral. That's the point. An Atheist's morality is not at all grounded in anything he believes to be true about the objective universe. That's what Subjectivism also says: there is no basis in reality for any morality. Morality is merely an odd social convention that people have to believe in arbitrarily -- even though, according to Subjectivism, it's not at all based in reality. Or, as Nietzsche said, it's all a trick by the weak to control the strong and vital. Pick your poison, I guess. Nietzsche himself said you have to.

Without it, humanity would probably resemble a Hobbesian nightmare.

Yes. Good thing, though, that our society is still running on the dying fumes of old Judeo-Christian morality: if it were not, we'd certainly be in a much worse way. How long those fumes will last, though, now that people now longer believe in Judaism or Christianity...well, Nietzsche thought it couldn't be very long. It has proved to be, perhaps, a bit longer than he supposed. But the question's still wide-open, of course.

[Harbal]

I'm not "demolishing morality," Gary. I believe in morality, and I'm arguing for it. It's Subjectivism that makes morality impossible, and which inevitably leads logically to Nihilism. Ironically, Nietzsche, the man who famously said "God is dead," agrees with me entirely on this point. And when two such strong opponents are found to agree despite all their differences, what does that tell you?

You're not arguing for morality, you're using morality to argue for God.

That's not an either-or, Gary; it's a both-and. Both God and morality are objective realities, the latter being entirely dependent on the former.

Saying they are does not make it so. Objective reality just doesn't work like that.

You're trying to place all the onus on God to make morality possible

The opposite, Gary. I'm not trying to "place the onus" on anything. It's already there. I'm just showing that God is the basis of morality

No, you are saying that God is the basis of morality, but you have failed to even remotely show that he is. You can't show it, because it isn't true.

and that may be OK if there's a God,

There's no other way the idea of morality even works, actually.

It works because human beings have a sense of right and wrong, and that is entirely what morality is based on; our human sense of right and wrong. Not only is there no need to bring God into it, it actually corrupts everything.

If there's no God, morality itself is a delusion.

Well Gary seems to experience it without God's involvement, and I certainly do, so you seem to have gone wrong somewhere.

But what an Atheist cannot do is explain WHY anybody SHOULD be moral.

Actually, he can, provided he is articulate enough. It is you who cannot explain anything. You say you can tell people what God wants of them, but you can't tell them why, and that is no explanation at all.

Without it, humanity would probably resemble a Hobbesian nightmare.

Yes. Good thing, though, that our society is still running on the dying fumes of old Judeo-Christian morality: if it were not, we'd certainly be in a much worse way. How long those fumes will last, though, now that people now longer believe in Judaism or Christianity...well, Nietzsche thought it couldn't be very long. It has proved to be, perhaps, a bit longer than he supposed. But the question's still wide-open, of course.

He's right about that, Gary. Just look at the world today: We have gay people openly living amongst us, just as if they were human beings, and women now have equal status with men, at least theoretically, but if things go on at their present rate, we will all soon be actually treating them as if they were equal. What will be next; an American politician who actually dare admit he doesn't believe in God? Fair enough, things will probably not go that far.

[Immanuel Can]

You're not arguing for morality, you're using morality to argue for God.

That's not an either-or, Gary; it's a both-and. Both God and morality are objective realities, the latter being entirely dependent on the former.

Saying they are does not make it so.

No, rationality makes it so. There is no rationale from Subjectivism to any moral precept at all.

and that may be OK if there's a God,

There's no other way the idea of morality even works, actually.

It works because human beings have a sense of right and wrong,

That they have a "sense" doesn't tell you anything. Sometimes, people have a "sense" they're being followed, or that the world is out to get them, or that they're desperately ill when they're healthy, or that they're a boy when they're female.

"Senses" of things can be total delusions. So we have no way of knowing if a subjective "sense" is something we should believe or not...unless there's something objective behind the "sense."

If there's no God, morality itself is a delusion.

Well Gary seems to experience it without God's involvement, and I certainly do,

I agree. You probably do. But that's only because you have a God-given conscience that still works. It's not because Subjectivism gives you any justification to believe your interpretation of your experience is warranted.

But what an Atheist cannot do is explain WHY anybody SHOULD be moral.

Actually, he can, provided he is articulate enough.

You're articulate: let's hear it, then.

What is the justification that begins with Atheism, and ends up with a particular moral precept? I'll leave the field wide open to you: pick a moral precept, and show that Atheism requires it.

And if you can, you're smarter than Nietzsche.

[Harbal]

That's not an either-or, Gary; it's a both-and. Both God and morality are objective realities, the latter being entirely dependent on the former.

Saying they are does not make it so.

No, rationality makes it so.

There is no rationality by which it can be shown that God is an objective reality. God is merely the main character in a religious myth. It might be your opinion that God exists, but you keep telling me that opinions are worth nothing.

There's no other way the idea of morality even works, actually.

It works because human beings have a sense of right and wrong,

That they have a "sense" doesn't tell you anything.

Of course it does; it tells us that people have the means to arrive at moral conclusions.

Sometimes, people have a "sense" they're being followed, or that the world is out to get them, or that they're desperately ill when they're healthy, or that they're a boy when they're female.

Or that God exists. Yes, I see the problem.

"Senses" of things can be total delusions. So we have no way of knowing if a subjective "sense" is something we should believe or not

You can agree or disagree with someone's moral opinion, but to talk in terms of believing it is yet another of your absurdities.

If there's no God, morality itself is a delusion.

Well Gary seems to experience it without God's involvement, and I certainly do,

I agree. You probably do. But that's only because you have a God-given conscience that still works.

Yes, Gary and I both have a conscience, and although I disagree with you about its origin, I won't quibble.

But what an Atheist cannot do is explain WHY anybody SHOULD be moral.

Actually, he can, provided he is articulate enough.

You're articulate: let's hear it, then.

How am I supposed to know what his explanation is?

What is the justification that begins with Atheism, and ends up with a particular moral precept? I'll leave the field wide open to you: pick a moral precept, and show that Atheism requires it.

All atheism requires is a lack of belief in God, and that's all. We are discussing morality, not atheism.

Put at its simplest, morality boils down to our feelings about what is right and wrong, but you say that is inadequate, and doesn't deserve the name, "morality". That would be fine, if only you could show how there could possibly be more to it than that, but you have so far been unable to. You have very wisely avoided any attempt at it, and I expect you to continue to do so. You haven't got a plausible argument, so all you have been able to do is make every post an attack on someone else's. There is nothing to stop you doing that, of course, but don't think it's gone unnoticed.

And if you can, you're smarter than Nietzsche.

From what I can gather, Nietzshe was a madman, so his mind doesn't impress me in the way it seems to impress you.

[Gary Childress]

Stating that morality isn't possible without God is an erroneous statement. It does not follow that if there is no God then one cannot be moral.

Nobody has said that. I certainly haven't. An Atheist can arbitrarily to act in many ways we consider conventionally "moral." So let's you and I get clear on that, okay?

But what an Atheist cannot do is explain WHY anybody SHOULD be moral. That's the point. An Atheist's morality is not at all grounded in anything he believes to be true about the objective universe. That's what Subjectivism also says: there is no basis in reality for any morality. Morality is merely an odd social convention that people have to believe in arbitrarily -- even though, according to Subjectivism, it's not at all based in reality. Or, as Nietzsche said, it's all a trick by the weak to control the strong and vital. Pick your poison, I guess. Nietzsche himself said you have to.

Without it, humanity would probably resemble a Hobbesian nightmare.

Yes. Good thing, though, that our society is still running on the dying fumes of old Judeo-Christian morality: if it were not, we'd certainly be in a much worse way. How long those fumes will last, though, now that people now longer believe in Judaism or Christianity...well, Nietzsche thought it couldn't be very long. It has proved to be, perhaps, a bit longer than he supposed. But the question's still wide-open, of course.

Of course they can. Being moral makes the world more habitable, unless you want to fortify your home against your neighbors walking in and stealing from you. Morality holds society together. That is why you should be moral.

[Immanuel Can]

Saying they are does not make it so.

No, rationality makes it so.

There is no rationality by which it can be shown that God is an objective reality.

None you will admit, anyway. But yeah, there is.

It works because human beings have a sense of right and wrong,

That they have a "sense" doesn't tell you anything.

Of course it does; it tells us that people have the means to arrive at moral conclusions.

No, it tells you they have the means to arrive at conclusions. It doesn't even remotely imply those conclusions are "moral" in any sense.

"Senses" of things can be total delusions. So we have no way of knowing if a subjective "sense" is something we should believe or not

You can agree or disagree with someone's moral opinion, but to talk in terms of believing it is yet another of your absurdities.

Is that what you believe?

Actually, he can, provided he is articulate enough.

You're articulate: let's hear it, then.

How am I supposed to know what his explanation is?

Yours, of course. I'm not putting pressure on Gary. But you said it could be done, so you must know HOW it can be done...or were you just speculating?

What is the justification that begins with Atheism, and ends up with a particular moral precept? I'll leave the field wide open to you: pick a moral precept, and show that Atheism requires it.

All atheism requires is a lack of belief in God, and that's all. We are discussing morality, not atheism.

Funny. You just complained that since I allegedly couldn't show that God is an objective reality, I couldn't show that objective morality exists. Now you insist that what you believe about God makes no difference? You're going to have to pick a horse and ride it on that.

Put at its simplest, morality boils down to our feelings about what is right and wrong,

That's not morality, because morality is about right and wrong, but feelings are just experiences. They don't come bundled with their own objective value. And many feelings are misguided, out of context, inapproriate to truth, and even totally arbitrary, to say nothing of immoral, as well.

but you say that is inadequate, and doesn't deserve the name, "morality". That would be fine, if only you could show how there could possibly be more to it than that, but you have so far been unable to.

"More to it than that..." ? You'll have to be specific. I can't imagine what your "more" of "it" is.

And if you can, you're smarter than Nietzsche.

From what I can gather, Nietzshe was a madman, so his mind doesn't impress me in the way it seems to impress you.

He didn't maybe start that way, but he certainly eventually did become one. And probably had syphillis, though that's never been conclusively demonstrated, I think.

But what do you expect of somebody who has convinced himself that morality is a fix? You've done the same to yourself, but haven't realized the logic of your own position yet. But if God doesn't exist, then there's no reason why anybody has to be moral at all...in fact, there's every good reason not to be, so long as you can fool other people into being too afraid to cross the conventional lines. It would be an overwhelming personal advantage to be able to do whatever was strategic in any circumstance, whether or not it was moral. With God gone, and accountabiity gone, why not?

It's also the logic of your position, really. If morality is subjective, then the cleverest thing is to just make it up as you go. And use the term "moral" to bamboozle all the other losers around you to behave themselves in ways desirable to you, accept no duty to be faithful to any code yourself. That's mad, I agree. But it's the best that Subjectivism can offer. It certainly can't tell you that you have any responsibility to be good, or to follow the rules God has given, or even the conventions of your society, whenever you can get away with doing otherwise.