Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh...its so obvious really. If you cannot see it then trying to explain it to you would be pointless.

What's obvious is that you don't have an explanation for why atheism leads to -anything- in particular.  It's just something that christers like to say....and you say alot of things.

[Mister Agenda]

If morality is merely a construct, then it is the same as choosing between chocolate and vanilla no matter how much law, police, or societal disapproval you put on the other side. 

1. Morality is merely a construct
2. Reasoning
3. Then it is the same as choosing between chocolate and vanilla

You're asserting that if morality is a construct, then it is the same as choosing between chocolate and vanilla. I assert that this is not true. You can put the ball back in my court with an adequate step 2. And 'it's so obvious!' would not be an example of that.

Houses are constructs, but choosing between a shack and a mansion is not the same as choosing between chocolate and vanilla. Because I couldn't resist the allure of Step 2.

[SteveII]

Meh...its so obvious really. If you cannot see it then trying to explain it to you would be pointless.

What's obvious is that you don't have an explanation for why atheism leads to -anything- in particular.  It's just something that christers like to say....and you say alot of things.

Are you saying that atheism/naturalism does not lead to metaphysical conclusions? Or are you saying that metaphysical conclusions have no meaning? Or something else?

[Neo-Scholastic]

He seems to believe that someone can deliberately excluding specific concepts from consideration without consequence. It seems clear to me that when someone departs from the traditional approaches people relied upon to supply meaning then they need to provide a reasonable substitute. Its like the guy who empties his bank account but still tries to cash his checks.

[bennyboy]

He seems to believe that someone can deliberately excluding specific concepts from consideration without consequence. It seems clear to me that when someone departs from the traditional approaches people relied upon to supply meaning then they need to provide a reasonable substitute. Its like the guy who empties his bank account but still tries to cash his checks.

. . . except that the money was never really there to begin with, you mean?

[The Grand Nudger]

What's obvious is that you don't have an explanation for why atheism leads to -anything- in particular.  It's just something that christers like to say....and you say alot of things.

Are you saying that atheism/naturalism does not lead to metaphysical conclusions? Or are you saying that metaphysical conclusions have no meaning? Or something else?

Atheism is a position regarding ones status of belief in gods...and nothing else. You, personally, have been reminded as much more times than I can count. So unless you think that your god shit has a monopoly on anything...you're not going to find it ruled out by atheism, itself. Atheism leads to nihilism, of any kind, exactly as much as roast beef leads to the same.

@Neo.
There -are- no consequences related to excluding your bullshit, none. I know, I know, it pisses you off, it makes you seem like a massive blowhard, but them's the breaks. You could always stop saying silly shit. / shrugs

[Crunchy]

Certainly people have their own built in morality; empathy. But it's different for each person, it won't be the same for every person. It is arbitrary.

The Golden Rule (Empathy) was discovered by many very different and disconnected cultures. See here for a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

If morality was simply arbitrary, then there is no way that such a specific law of reciprocity would, by pure chance, emerge from so many disparate sources so this points to a shared morality, not an arbitrary one. As animals, all humans share basic needs in common. If you're not familiar with this idea you can see maslow's hierachy of needs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_h...y_of_needs

The lower rung represents common needs that every human requires in order to survive. These are not arbitrary or even subjective needs and it appears that various human cultures attempt to meet these non arbitrary and non subjective needs through the use of moral systems making them non arbitrary and tied to the human condition. In this sense, morality evolved as a survival mechanism for the group and evolution is not an arbitrary process. It's a process of selection.

Now, I'm not in any way saying that that all our cultures share the exact same moral codes, just that there appears to be an objective and non arbitrary base from which we begin.

[SteveII]

Are you saying that atheism/naturalism does not lead to metaphysical conclusions? Or are you saying that metaphysical conclusions have no meaning? Or something else?

Atheism is a position regarding ones status of belief in gods...and nothing else.  You, personally, have been reminded as much more times than I can count.  So unless you think that your god shit has a monopoly on anything...you're not going to find it ruled out by atheism, itself.  Atheism leads to nihilism, of any kind, exactly as much as roast beef leads to the same.

Even in the broadest sense of the word, atheism (defined as an absence in a belief in God) is a position that contains no God. A worldview that contains no God affects key metaphysical questions like what is there? and what is it like? To deny this seems like your way of evading the conclusion: atheism leads to things like life having no intrinsic (essential) value/purpose/meaning. How could it--we are simply the product of time and chance--two things that cannot endow meaning. I am not saying that atheist can't find meaning in life--but that is different than a theist's position that human life has value simply because it is human life (intrinsic/essential). 

You might say that is a distinction without a difference. It is not. That is why abortion and euthanasia are abhorrent to many theists.

[Atheist Rambo]

Morality is an idea, similar to human decency you can act upon the construct but who's to say which is the right or wrong way?

[The Grand Nudger]

Even in the broadest sense of the word, atheism (defined as an absence in a belief in God) is a position that contains no God. A worldview that contains no God affects key metaphysical questions like what is there? and what is it like?

Which can then both be and has been answered in any conceivable way, by atheists, so long as that answer contains no gods.  

To deny this seems like your way of evading the conclusion: atheism leads to things like life having no intrinsic (essential) value/purpose/meaning. How could it--we are simply the product of time and chance--two things that cannot endow meaning.

Being an atheist doesn't mean "a person who believes we are the product of time and chance".  I'd have to ask about the latter, ofc..if we were the product of time and cahnce...and we can endow meaning....wouldn't it then follow that time and chance can, in fact, endow meaning?  Your categorical denial of the ability to endow meaning by x seems more a convenience than a well thought out objection.  

I am not saying that atheist can't find meaning in life--but that is different than a theist's position that human life has value simply because it is human life (intrinsic/essential). 

An atheist is also capable of holding that position.  You may notice you made no reference to any god...there...just to people who believed in one.  Human life has value, why? Simply because it's human life. What a wonderful secular exclamation.

You might say that is a distinction without a difference. It is not. That is why abortion and euthanasia are abhorrent to many theists.

-and also many atheists........

I'll say this again. You, Steve, privately worry and publicly project that without a god, your god, you would fall into some sort of nihilism. It's just you. It has nothing to do with atheism, it does not follow from atheism...atheism....doesn't have a damned thing to say about the meaning of life, whether it has a meaning..or it's value if there is any.