Do atheists even need an objective moral system?

[Brian37]

Invisible magical super heros do not explain shit other than the fact that humans have vivid imaginations.

[DeistPaladin]

Invisible magical super heros do not explain shit other than the fact that humans have vivid imaginations.

On that point, I think we're all in agreement.

[Brian37]

Invisible magical super heros do not explain shit other than the fact that humans have vivid imaginations.

On that point, I think we're all in agreement.

No we are not. Your avatar lists you as "agnostic deist". So while you have that first part down in "I dont know" you lean to an invisible being(the deist) part of your position "agnostic deist".

If you were on the same page as me then you'd be calling yourself an agnostic atheist. I reject all god claims including Jeffersonian type wishy washy woo of a "natural god".

God is a broken concept and even deism has absolutely no validity as a claim. Deism is simply "god lite". None of the calories of ancient myth and twice the woo as pantheism.

Woo is woo and deism is as much woo as any old religion or new age superstition.

[DeistPaladin]

On that point, I think we're all in agreement.

No we are not.

We're still in agreement that it doesn't explain anything, especially re: the issue of morality which is the point of this thread. My morality is rooted in my humanism and would remain the same were I to ever shift to atheism.

[Mark 13:13]

Objective morality isn't really possible. A bit of subjectivity can be good; ...

But "good" is subjective...

wow what a long thread and will take me time to read it; and yes teaearlgreyhot your point of view seems to me the ultimate logical outcome of the good/evil question if we take God out of the question. But i will need to read the full tread before i can comment further. The question would of course arise of what sort of society do we become if we all follow this code. ( or maybe are as although many profess religion myself included how many really live up to it)

[Anomalocaris]

"Right" and "wrong" and subjective. All moral/value systems are subjective.

No, what should be the goal of the system of morality is subjective. But once the goals are defined, the rest of the system is in principle capable of being objective in its pursuit.

[Annik]

What is right, wrong, acceptable, not acceptable will always be subjective.

[Mister Agenda]

wow what a long thread and will take me time to read it; and yes teaearlgreyhot your point of view seems to me the ultimate logical outcome of the good/evil question if we take God out of the question. But i will need to read the full tread before i can comment further. The question would of course arise of what sort of society do we become if we all follow this code. ( or maybe are as although many profess religion myself included how many really live up to it)

Having God in the equation still doesn't make morality objective. Intuitively I think some aspects of morality ARE objective, we seem to be able to agree that using a live human baby as a hockey puck for the fun of it would be wrong, and I think agreement on extreme cases points to something, but I don't see that as proof. So I'm not someone who denies there's such a thing as objective morality, but recognizes that God (it's good because God says it's good) doesn't provide a solution to the problem. It being subjective to someone else doesn't make it objective to you, God doesn't solve that problem any more than basing your morality off of what Jeb Bush says would.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

"Right" and "wrong" and subjective. All moral/value systems are subjective.

No, what should be the goal of the system of morality is subjective. But once the goals are defined, the rest of the system is in principle capable of being objective in its pursuit.

Still, the "goals" are ultimately purely arbitrary which is what my point is.

---

...

The question would of course arise of what sort of society do we become if we all follow this code. ( or maybe are as although many profess religion myself included how many really live up to it)

That's the appeal to consequences fallacy that usually comes up in discussions such as this. It's irrelevant to the issue. The consequences of a position does not affect the truthfulness of a position.

---

... Intuitively I think some aspects of morality ARE objective, we seem to be able to agree that using a live human baby as a hockey puck for the fun of it would be wrong, and I think agreement on extreme cases points to something, but I don't see that as proof....

Yet for some, "intuition" says otherwise.

[Angrboda]

"It is precisely facts that do not exist, only interpretations."
— Nietzsche

"In order to live, man must act; in order to act, he must make choices; in order to make choices, he must define a code of values; in order to define a code of values, he must know what he is and where he is — i.e. he must know his own nature (including his means of knowledge) and the nature of the universe in which he acts — i.e. he needs metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, which means: philosophy. He cannot escape from this need; his only alternative is whether the philosophy guiding him is to be chosen by his mind or by chance."
— Ayn Rand



@Genkaus:

I just want to compliment you on the quality of your analysis and the clarity of your exposition. You've done a really good job of summing up many of the major issues in the last few pages, imho. Though we come to radically different conclusions, I think your perception of the question and your assessments of it share many points in common with mine. Good work.