As an Atheist...

[St. Anger]

Can an Atheist really believe in moral absolutes and still be a true atheist? If so, who sets what is and isn't a moral absolute? Who has the power?

[naturalist griggsy]

My system covenant morality for humanity-the presumption of humanism, I claim that when theists use reason and facts, not those rants by those misanthropes of yore, they embrace humanism- that which embraces good consenquentailists for sentient beings and the environment.
God cannot ground morality but only could reflect it as Plato, that atheist hater, illuminates.We ground morality in the reality of inter-subjectivity for objective morality as we ground science and as with science it grows- we refine our evoloved moral sense and is debatable. Virtues and the common decencies transcends the cultural/socological relativism.
God would be that forked tongue behind the different, relativistic religius moralities!
Yes, atheists can achieve a decent morality as humanists!

[mal]

My system covenant morality for humanity-the presumption of humanism, I claim that when theists use reason and facts, not those rants by those misanthropes of yore, they embrace humanism- that which embraces good consenquentailists for sentient beings and the environment.
God cannot ground morality but only could reflect it as Plato, that atheist hater, illuminates.We ground morality in the reality of inter-subjectivity for objective morality as we ground science and as with science it grows- we refine our evoloved moral sense and is debatable. Virtues and the common decencies transcends the cultural/socological relativism.
God would be that forked tongue behind the different, relativistic religius moralities!
Yes, atheists can achieve a decent morality as humanists!

I really wish I could agree with this well written post.....but I can't because morality doesn't doesn't grow, it changes as it is faced with new challanges. One may say it evolves even, but to claim it grows includes the perspective that it grows for the better, that it improves when clearly it does not. Morals change which means a god that doesn't change could not have created morals.

[naturalist griggsy]

Mal, thanks! We, with better discernment of consequences. refine morality. It depends upon our moral sense-empathy for one thing- that we have to make now for the planetary ethic, as Paul Kurtz ever urges.
As Richard Carrier^ and Steven Pinker* maintain, we have better morals than those of the ages of faith!
Many lag in one way or another the requisite empathy as they are bigoted towards groups.Is John -Paul Sartre right that bigotry reflects self-hatred?
The common decencies make for our inter-subjective morality.

Those who decry moral decay reflect a perverse sexual morality, I daresay!
Carrier "Sense and Goodness without God. His goal theory presented there is similar to mine.
* Pinker "Our Better Angels"

[The Nice Centurion]

Can an Atheist really believe in moral absolutes and still be a true atheist? If so, who sets what is and isn't a moral absolute? Who has the power?

Well first there is right and wrong...


If you know what that is and live by it then it doesnt matter what you believe..

Right and Wrong are relative terms

[TRANSPONDER]

Mal, thanks! We, with better discernment of consequences. refine morality. It depends upon our moral sense-empathy for one thing- that we have to make now for the planetary ethic, as Paul Kurtz ever urges.
As Richard Carrier^ and Steven Pinker* maintain, we have better morals than those of the ages of faith!
Many lag in one way or another the requisite empathy as they are bigoted towards groups.Is John -Paul Sartre right that bigotry reflects self-hatred?
The common decencies make for our inter-subjective morality.

Those who decry moral decay reflect a perverse sexual morality, I daresay!
Carrier "Sense and Goodness without God. His goal theory presented there is similar to mine.
* Pinker "Our Better Angels"

Good points. Moral sense -empathy, or I'd put it as a local -to -global ethics consensus, based on evolved instincts. I use the analogy of art and music, which are the constructs of humans, even though likely based on some communication -instincts hardly understood as yet. Yet just because there is no cosmic law of art and music and we made up the rules (though it is startlingly similar but also differs, culturally, then just because it is objectively true, wedon't dismissart and music as invalid, just because a god din't write a book telling us how to do it.

Similarly, there is no objective law of ethics, but we have evolved it, and it is no worse for that, and maybe better, because it can evolve.

Your point about Moral Decay is a good one. Every century fumes about the moral degeneracy of the coming age, and yet that age looks back at the former ones and it looks embarrassing that the restrictive and coercive mores of that time look reprehensible to us now.

[Mae von H]

Can an Atheist really believe in moral absolutes and still be a true atheist? If so, who sets what is and isn't a moral absolute? Who has the power?

I don't think you can presuppose an atheist would agree with absolute objective moral principles. Morals arise out of explicit and implicit social contracts between members in a society to enhance social order and survival. No God required.

How come we have many if not all societies in which some members do not act according to the social order? There are those who demonstrate a lack of morals. How can this be?

[TRANSPONDER]

Do you take that one Flail? Or shall I?