Can objective morality exist in Atheism?

[objectivitees]

Of course it matters, it matters to US,

Yeah, but so what if it matters to you? Why is your version of what matters any more important than someone else's version which happens to oppose yours?

---

Ahhhh. I see what you're getting at. You're trying to assess validity of moral absolutes and eventual consensus of moral ideologies.

Almost... I'm trying to get you to asses your moral beliefs and justify them given the presupposition of your worldview (Atheism) which demands moral subjectivity, not 'moral absolutes' "validity". Consensus has nothing to do with what I am attempting to do. Consequences have everything to do with it. Have you reasoned out the logical consequences of a reality where morals are subjective? Are those consequences acceptable to you? Do you even know what the consequences are?

---

As soon as our moral behaviour falls outside this framework and jeopardises our future survival it is the nature of evolution that it will be breed out, or de-selected if you like. So, in a very real sense, a lot of our key morals can in some way be considered objective in that they are key to our species and in evolutionary terms, the survival of our species. They may not have been imposed on us by a celestial hierarchy but instead, like many aspects of human behaviour, the very fact that they are present requires that they have been naturally selected as an advantage to us as a species.

Here, you are equivocating on the definition of "morality", like Tavarish did, and conflating it with "survival". There is no "right and wrong" with respect to Darwinian survival. There only is what is. There is only what makes you survive or fail to survive. Survival speaks nothing to the concept of morally right or morally wrong.

If you continue to equivocate in this manner, I'm afraid all our dialogs will be fruitless.

So much for the total agreement eh? didn't last too long!! wink wink.