Can objective morality exist in Atheism?

[tavarish]

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?

---

More important in regards to what? There is no standard to which we hold morals. The concepts of right and wrong, are simply soncepts that manifest into reality via actions. My level of morality is important to me because it has an impact on self-worth, societal acceptance, and psychological development. My morals can be relatively superior to those who don't abide by them, but conversely mine can be seen as weak in their eyes.

Since there is no objective standard, it is impossible to compare these apples to apples.


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?

---

[/quote]

Atheism isn't a worldview, as I've discussed in other threads. I'm also beginning to understand that you're making the point that subjective morals = anarchy. I already posted, in some detail the methods in which we drive morality. subjective doesn't mean everyone just does whatever they want. Civilizations have forms of order based on their particular ideologies, and express this as moral code. A civilization based on anarchy cannot survive.

If I am mistaken, and I'm assessing this in an incorrect fashion, please correct me, as I'm a little confused where you're going with this.

(Please don't say "Your goin to HELL LOLZ")

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.

What you don't seem to understand is that survival and morality have very much in common.

We have morality so our society can prosper and breed other like-minded entities. This is happening with the Westernization of the modern world. Many people embrace the ideals of western society, and abandon older, more traditional societies in favor of ones that employ free thinking and expression. The same goes for the increasing secularization of the developed world.

To say the two concepts are not connected isn't seeing the big picture.