So, you really believe there are no objective wrongs.
Correct
Even if it all were to end tomorrow, there is no "wrong". You are comfortable with that?
Correct, I would be uncomfortable believing otherwise.
You do not hold to any objective wrongs yourself?
Objective wrongs? No.
The Colorado shooter wasn't "wrong" when he killed innocent people for no reason and without remorse?
Of course I believe he was wrong, I dont believe in running around and hurting people. But thats not based on objectiveness. Its based on my personal worldview which is completely subjective.
Anyone that says that is "wrong" is stupid?
Youre mixing up what I said, I said people who say that is "evil" and mean it are stupid.
If the earth is incarcerated by the sun tomorrow we wouldn't exist either. So, not only do our morals cease to exist but we cease to exist. So both meaning, morals love cease to exist but so do we, so we don't exist either?
This is fallacious thinking. Of course we exist. We are physical beings made from organic material. Morals, love, and meaning are perceptions and ideas, they don't exist outside of us. In a sense they are "real" as in for us it exists but that doesnt mean that its real in the sense that without us to perceive it, it disappears. Meaning, morality can only ever be subjective, and not objective because it is not based on laws of nature it is based on the laws of human kind. Morality for example doesnt apply to animals.
So, love doesn't exist. Good doesn't exist. Meaning doesn't exist. Morality doesn't exist.
Love as defined doesnt exist, there are physical chemicals that run through our brains though that do in fact create the attachments we feel that we label "love" but I think you would be hard pressed to say that thats love.
What?
Is it stupid to try to define love and use the term? If you tell someone you love them, or if you tell someone they don't really love you...are you idiotic to use the term?
Of course not. You are comparing apples to oranges. But you may look idiotic if they don't share your assessment. Again "love" as defined is a severely complicated series of emotions, attachments, and ideals, some based on real things like chemicals in our brains and memories (bits of data stored inside of our brain) And some of it is just subjective... but love as defined is not real. Any more than if I say I Reetogifunticulate you (a word i just made up) and then attribute dozens of other characteristics of well defined psychological and scientific principles to it. Thats how we use love... and I agree. Its much easier than saying "you induce reactions of attachment and neurological dependence and a releasing of dopamine and serotonin in me." Talking like that is both boring and tedious.
There needs to be a judge for good and evil to exist...okay. So if objective morality was proven to exist at some point..then a God would HAVE to exist?
I didn't say anything about god, but I think ultimately there would have to be one or some higher power of some sort that makes judgement in order for objective morality to exist yes. By the way Objective morality is an oxymoron by its truest nature.
What does that mean for the person that holds to objective morals but doesn't believe in God? Are they stupid? Delusional? Living outside their beliefs?
Highly unlikely. If I sat down with someone who told me they didn't believe in god or an intelligent creator force and they were only swayed by physical evidence, but that some "judge" gives objective status to their beliefs I would tell them that they are probably confused or mistaken, because its oxymoronic. Most atheists I have encountered completely agree that their moral and ethical beliefs are indeed subjective, but that doesnt mean you cant hold on to them. As I think most atheists are existentialists are heart the majority of the time and while that too is subjective, we accept that and let it be at that. There can be logical conclusions as to why a moral is beneficial to society or a group of people, but not not a reason for why its more right than any other belief.
