Godless morality

[Titan]

I use Ubermensch only in its most basic form. As someone just a little better. My assumption isn't so much a single man's greatness in terms of powers as it is a single man or group's ability to insert it's/their influence on others, with enough people to satisfy social needs (if that is still a necessity). This means that in this hypothetical situation the defense of morals by have it help both parties only applies to that small group. If that is the case then they can do whatever they want to others without a coherent moral argument to the counter. If you don't believe this is so, and that morals have a more absolute nature, then how does it not apply to animals...all of them?

[PipeBox]

I use Ubermensch only in its most basic form. As someone just a little better. My assumption isn't so much a single man's greatness in terms of powers as it is a single man or group's ability to insert it's/their influence on others, with enough people to satisfy social needs (if that is still a necessity). This means that in this hypothetical situation the defense of morals by have it help both parties only applies to that small group. If that is the case then they can do whatever they want to others without a coherent moral argument to the counter. If you don't believe this is so, and that morals have a more absolute nature, then how does it not apply to animals...all of them?

Oh, you're still around!  Ace!
I updated my post, I've had toast now and that always helps.  Anyway, there is no absolute system of morality, and I realized any ubermensch makes no difference because it still isn't you or I, and you and I would work against it if it harmed us and we had the ability.   Our ability to choose what our morals are is not compromised by someone else casting them aside.  All we have to work with as a system for right and wrong is the law, and that is controlled by the majority opinion of what right and wrong should be.  This can be manipulated, it even IS manipulated, but there are some things we all generally agree on and those things are part of this law.  Do not kill, steal, racket, print non-approved currency, inflict strange punishment, and so on.  And still, that law is only as effective as people take it seriously.  The Bible suffers the same problem, as anyone likely to commit crimes that harm others isn't likely to stop because God said so (seeing as how those people who implemented that law have been known to kill people, or send them to God faster, you might say, if enough of the more substantial laws are broken), doubly so when they can be forgiven by that God on their deathbed.

Anyway, read my update!  *nudge*  

[LARA]

Thanks for the great comments PipeBox.

Titan, thanks for the reply.  Now on to dissect your dissection of my commentary.

Absolutely, but it can be a logical outworking of the philosophy. Can you say that genocide is wrong with absolute certainty? If so, what do you base it on...assuming that your society already has all the pieces it needs in place and doesn't require any other workers but could use some more land without the hassle of getting permission.

Superiority is not a logical outworking of atheism.  Superiority has to do with ego, emotion and feelings of inferiority, not logic.  And yes, I can say that genocide is absolutely wrong.  I just did.

Titan can you say that genocide is wrong with absolute certainty?  Christians have committed genocide before.  The Nazis promoted strong Christian theism.  Watch some of their propaganda films.  They put out films to encourage the belief that they were assisting God with natural selection by exterminating the 'useless eaters' in the population. Not a great advertisement for theistic thinking.  Please find me the Bible passage that explicitly names genocide as a sin.

I make my own morals based on how I want to be treated and generally they fit in with the morality and law of the society I live in.  When my morality doesn't fit in with society's morality, I try to use non-violent action and the written word to change the opinions of society through legal means because part of my core morality is not to harm others.  When I get new and better information, I adapt.

1. You are limited to the conception that as long as mankind is a social animal society will stay intact, there is no continual hope for this. One day someone could really be outside of the need for human interaction.
2. There is no necessary care for those who fall outside the bubble. If I create the master race and find midgets to bother my world view, I could kill them without having any interpersonal relational issues.

I am not limited to anything.  Please give reasons for your lack of hope that human society has the potential to remain as you don't give any here.  Society might change in nature, but to say that a social creature can't have a society is simply contradictory.  I realize that there are sociopaths in this world.  There are lions and tigers and bears, too.  That doesn't make moral action invalid.
Titan As far as a "master race" goes, I don't believe in one.  A true master doesn't need mastery over others.  A true master is a master over themselves, and is intelligent and compassionate, not an immoral brutish killer.  And I've got to joke a little here, if you have a problem with midgets, Titan I'm sorry.  Personally, I kind of like midgets and but I wish they didn't suffer from so many health problems.  Hopefully science and medicine can help to solve their problems and make their lives cooler.

If you consider how the pyramids were built, how long the enslaving Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and Romans it appears that tyrannies can easily surpass a few lifetimes.

They didn't last forever did they?  A few lifetimes isn't forever and we now have better systems of government.

The Ubermensch is, however, an incomplete source of value since he is ultimately temporal and has no true claim over that which is in existence. His power only rests in people being forced to obey it. Whereas a supernatural being's power rests in the nature of him/her/them in the singular and nature itself derives its value from the higher order. Therefore if one disobeys, while they may not be punished directly (depending on the belief system) they are ultimately accountable on a more permanent scale.

God's power only rests in people being forced to obey it as well.  Your supernatural being doesn't exist.  God is a character in a book of loose historical fiction and the beginnings of human law and morality.  God means nothing at all in an atheist forum.

I disagree with this, do you mind if we open up this topic in a new thread entirely? I would love to explore the coalescence of contrariety in the Judeo-Christian deity if you would like to throw some of your objections towards me.

Open away, there is a religion corral on this forum that topic would probably fit into quite nicely.

How can there be a true nature of morality if the universe is changing in every perceivable way?

The universe is not changing in every perceivable way.  Where are you getting this?  The universe is highly stable.  Stars exists for billions of years.  Atoms are eternal.  Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.  It's a pretty static system and has little or nothing to do with human morality.

[Titan]

Superiority is not a logical outworking of atheism. Superiority has to do with ego, emotion and feelings of inferiority, not logic.

But if evolution is indeed occurring, and the person is working within a network of omnivores, then he could argue that just as a person eats lesser animals so to could a better person eat lesser people. Where would he be wrong?

And yes, I can say that genocide is absolutely wrong. I just did.

Sorry, I meant say it and use irrefutable logic to back it up so that atheists are forced to come to the same conclusion (if the are rational).

Titan can you say that genocide is wrong with absolute certainty? Christians have committed genocide before.

St. Augustine "Never judge a philosophy by its abuses."

The Nazis promoted strong Christian theism. Watch some of their propaganda films. They put out films to encourage the belief that they were assisting God with natural selection by exterminating the 'useless eaters' in the population. Not a great advertisement for theistic thinking. Please find me the Bible passage that explicitly names genocide as a sin.

In a speech to the Hitler youth in Nuremberg "I desire to create a generation without conscience, imperious, relentless and cruel."
How is that compatible with Biblical Christianity?
Using religion for propaganda isn't part of the religion, it is part of man's corruption of it.
As for the Biblical passage, can we open that discussion up in another thread because I would have to put a bit into it and I don't want this discussion to stretch out too long.

I make my own morals based on how I want to be treated and generally they fit in with the morality and law of the society I live in. When my morality doesn't fit in with society's morality, I try to use non-violent action and the written word to change the opinions of society through legal means because part of my core morality is not to harm others. When I get new and better information, I adapt.

What if I said: I make my own morals based on how I want to live. I only need society in as much as it fulfills my base social needs. All other aspects of it is superfluous and removable. I live to my own benefit, if I require someone I'll try to utilize them for my benefit whether it requires their will or not is irrelevant. If someone weaker than me is in my way I will cut them down or in some way remove them from the situation. Peace or no peace is irrelevant, I am all that matters because I am all I can experience.

How do you stop me?

I am not limited to anything. Please give reasons for your lack of hope that human society has the potential to remain as you don't give any here. Society might change in nature, but to say that a social creature can't have a society is simply contradictory. I realize that there are sociopaths in this world. There are lions and tigers and bears, too. That doesn't make moral action invalid.

So you are going to claim that it is absolutely impossible for a few people to have a subsistence living by themselves with one person in charge?

Titan As far as a "master race" goes, I don't believe in one. A true master doesn't need mastery over others. A true master is a master over themselves, and is intelligent and compassionate, not an immoral brutish killer.

Ultimately based on what though? "Necessity" appears to be the quintessence of this ideological vantage point.

They didn't last forever did they? A few lifetimes isn't forever and we now have better systems of government.

Why not? I don't experience any other lifetime why should I care how someone else's great grand babies feel about their surroundings? There is no RATIONAL reason to feel for them.

God's power only rests in people being forced to obey it as well.

Not at all, we aren't forced to obey his will but ultimately we pay for consequences. He has complete power REGARDLESS of what we feel. I like C.S. Lewis' quote (which can be extrapolated to fit the circumstance) "A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling ‘darkness’ on the wall of his cell." The point is that God is not diminished by our conception of him. Our opinions don't belittle him and he has no need for us (again, these are all part of my conception of who God is).

God is a character in a book of loose historical fiction and the beginnings of human law and morality.

Can we not degrade the debate by simply labeling the other person's beliefs without actually discussing it. I could say that "atheists simply want to live immoral lives and are dillusional enough to ignore all the evidence for God." I don't believe that but both points are ultimately ad hominem and red herrings.

God means nothing at all in an atheist forum.

If God means nothing what then is this forum for?
"Atheist" by definition requires God to mean something. How can you deny something that has no meaning?

The universe is not changing in every perceivable way. Where are you getting this? The universe is highly stable. Stars exists for billions of years. Atoms are eternal. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. It's a pretty static system and has little or nothing to do with human morality.

But the knowledge that every single aspect of matter is being bombarded by so many particles with names I can't even spell, the constant alternation of stars in the vast span of time, the continual evolution of thought and understanding, the constant sociological impact our lives are making and our ideologies are making on humanity, all that is changing...how then can we have a coherent system of morality when we can't even base anything in true stability, for we've already ruled out anything giving matter true value.

[Tom62]

"Atheist" by definition requires God to mean something. How can you deny something that has no meaning?

For an atheist, God is nothing more than a fantasy figure, similar like fairies, kobolds, witches , giants or Santa Claus. I don't deny God, I just don't believe that he exists.

[Titan]

For an atheist, God is nothing more than a fantasy figure, similar like fairies, kobolds, witches , giants or Santa Claus. I don't deny God, I just don't believe that he exists.

I understand that, but to say that to an atheist God doesn't mean ANYTHING is actually quite logically silly. Your position is completely rational, I'm not arguing against that, I'm arguing against the atheistic student in Russia who yelled at an apologeticist "You use the term God. Sir, I don't even know what you mean by that, what is God?" To deny the existence of something you have to have a cohesive understanding of what it is or could be defined as.

[Asmodean]

For an atheist, God is nothing more than a fantasy figure, similar like fairies, kobolds, witches , giants or Santa Claus. I don't deny God, I just don't believe that he exists.

(Couldn't resist...)

[LARA]

Thanks for the comic relief Asmodean!

Back to the thread.

Can we not degrade the debate by simply labeling the other person's beliefs without actually discussing it. I could say that "atheists simply want to live immoral lives and are dillusional enough to ignore all the evidence for God." I don't believe that but both points are ultimately ad hominem and red herrings.

That's fine, Titan.  When you brought up morality based on supernatural beings I made the assumption that you meant God.  Since God generally is considered the moral supernatural being in our culture, I hope you can see where the connection lies.

As far as my saying God has no meaning in an atheist forum, I wasn't referring to meaning as a definition, but rather meaning as in giving power to an argument.  I define God specifically as a character in the Bible.

But as far as supernatural beings are concerned, if we aren't talking about God, how do you define the supernatural and how can something that doesn't even exist inside nature and can't be detected by natural means have an effect on natural processes, much less have power over morality?

What if I said: I make my own morals based on how I want to live. I only need society in as much as it fulfills my base social needs. All other aspects of it is superfluous and removable. I live to my own benefit, if I require someone I'll try to utilize them for my benefit whether it requires their will or not is irrelevant. If someone weaker than me is in my way I will cut them down or in some way remove them from the situation. Peace or no peace is irrelevant, I am all that matters because I am all I can experience.

How do you stop me?

As long as your actions aren't violent to me or society, I don't have to stop you.  If you want to live as a solipsist and believe that only your way is relevant because you are all that you can experience, that's fine. If you want to be cruel to those who are weaker than you, that's your choice, but i've seen from science that the environment has a way of changing so that strengths can become weaknesses and vice versa, and you may not be as strong as you think.

So maybe I can't stop you, but the endpoint of a truly superior sociopathic solipsist is always the same.  Supposing there is some kind of evil supernatural creator who always wins in the end and creates beings just to toy with them and ultimately punish them because they couldn't live up to it's standards, it will ultimately  have to face the same thing every time.  It is totally and utterly alone.  It has destroyed all that it can destroy, played with all it can play with, defeated all it's enemies and won.  And nobody is there to see it and bask in it's narcissistic glory but itself.  Sure it can create some more beings to toy with and go through the whole stupid silly mess again, but a being with ultimate power over it's creations only has imaginary creations, extensions of itself.  And truthfully a creature like that has no need for morality because life really is just a game, some sort of mental masturbation to pass the time.  But it's completely and totally irrelevant to reality.  It's just pointless and insane to go there as this thread keeps trying to do.

I don't want to waste my time on that sort of thing.  I believe in a material reality where all of us have to play by certain rules that science has elucidated and you are able to see this reality with your own eyes.  I don't believe that some sort of anthropomorphic supernatural being created it.  I choose a moral code that is fairly similar to others in society, hope for the best and try to find some enjoyment in this existence.  If some sort of superior jerk comes along and manages to cut me down because I'm weaker than it is, then oh fucking well.

[Titan]

When you brought up morality based on supernatural beings I made the assumption that you meant God. Since God generally is considered the moral supernatural being in our culture, I hope you can see where the connection lies.

I was merely providing the contrast that a religious view actually has a firm doctrine of morality as opposed to atheism. From a religious background you can say that what God says is the law and that is final since he decides your ultimate fate. In atheism there is no long term reference, nothing to keep me from not fully helping myself in this life.

As far as my saying God has no meaning in an atheist forum, I wasn't referring to meaning as a definition, but rather meaning as in giving power to an argument. I define God specifically as a character in the Bible.

Absolutely, I actually said that in my introduction to this forum. To say that would be circular reasoning. I was simply providing the contrast, as I said.

But as far as supernatural beings are concerned, if we aren't talking about God, how do you define the supernatural and how can something that doesn't even exist inside nature and can't be detected by natural means have an effect on natural processes, much less have power over morality?

There are several mistakes in regards to the idea of God.
1) God (I'll use the singular so I don't have to make constant distinction between God/gods, him/them, have/has, etc.) can exist in nature. In the Christian conception Christ existence demonstrates a coalescence of God in nature. The distinction is that God is not BOUND by nature.
2) As for detection, that really depends on what you mean...if you are referring to placing a box and seeing if we can get God to appear in a box like the proverbial prebiotic soup, then no, he would not be detectable. But from a standpoint of what may be considered miracles or supernatural phenomenon I would disagree. Having grown up in Indonesia I, my family and my friends have been witness to things that are considered fairy tales in America. Trust me, if you go to Indonesia and go to a witch doctor you will be struck by something far larger going on. If you want I can tell you some of the stories and you can give your naturalistic explanation for each one.
3) Just because God doesn't subject himself to man's tests doesn't mean he wouldn't have power over it. Again, you are arguing against an internal issue with Christianity so I'm going to defend it with the presupposition that there is a God (and again, this doesn't prove that God exists, merely that the perceived contradiction is fallacious). The very creation of the universe, if it had been done by God, as religion necessitates, means that God exerts a very real influence.

As long as your actions aren't violent to me or society, I don't have to stop you.

So if I murdered everyone in Africa you would be fine?

If you want to live as a solipsist and believe that only your way is relevant because you are all that you can experience, that's fine. If you want to be cruel to those who are weaker than you, that's your choice, but i've seen from science that the environment has a way of changing so that strengths can become weaknesses and vice versa, and you may not be as strong as you think.

Guns kind of deny the laws of naturalistic strengths and weaknesses and if perceived weaknesses could become a threat to me that makes it all the more important that I remove the threat. I have noticed that you have withdrawn from a more collective sense of morality into a personal sense of morality...am I right in this assertion.

So maybe I can't stop you, but the endpoint of a truly superior sociopathic solipsist is always the same.

How many generations of Pharaohs and Chinese emperors (let alone the thousands of other sociopathic kings) ended their reign in slumber rather than at the hands of the brutal mobs?

Supposing there is some kind of evil supernatural creator who always wins in the end and creates beings just to toy with them and ultimately punish them because they couldn't live up to it's standards, it will ultimately have to face the same thing every time. It is totally and utterly alone. It has destroyed all that it can destroy, played with all it can play with, defeated all it's enemies and won. And nobody is there to see it and bask in it's narcissistic glory but itself. Sure it can create some more beings to toy with and go through the whole stupid silly mess again, but a being with ultimate power over it's creations only has imaginary creations, extensions of itself. And truthfully a creature like that has no need for morality because life really is just a game, some sort of mental masturbation to pass the time. But it's completely and totally irrelevant to reality. It's just pointless and insane to go there as this thread keeps trying to do.

I...agree...on both accounts but why did you bring it up since no one in the discussion believes such a deity exists?

I choose a moral code that is fairly similar to others in society, hope for the best and try to find some enjoyment in this existence. If some sort of superior jerk comes along and manages to cut me down because I'm weaker than it is, then oh fucking well. I could give a shit.

So if I robbed you you wouldn't be upset? Since that's "the way the cookie crumbles"? Your child is killed at the hands of a serial rapist and your opinion is "oh well"? I have a hard time believing that this is an actual world view.

[LARA]

After several rounds of this thread Titan, my worldview right now really is 'oh fucking well'.  Look I can try to make up some imaginary higher power to give me guidance in life or I could accept one of the spiffy, happy ready-made deities that humanity is so determined to thrust on me.  I can fight with an atheistic morality based on evolution and empathy.  All in all, in the end, it really doesn't matter.  Yes, of course, if there is some horrible genocide in Africa, I will care.  I would bawl my eyes out, curse the heavens and shake my fist in anger at whatever cruel son of a bitch God that I don't believe is even up there.  I could blame it on the Devil, Satan or Lucifer, I could  descend into madness from the pain of living.  If my child were to meet a fate like the one you had the nastiness to write, I would care, I would be devastated.  You know this all to be true.

But eventually as all things go to their end, my world view really would become 'oh fucking well' if this life really did just amount to some ridiculous game of survival of the fittest for the entertainment of a non-caring, neglectful deity or upper class human slimeballs.  What else could it be?  How long do you want me to fight this before I get bored, desensitized to the pain and descend into apathy?  

The atheists here have given more than enough reasoning to justify their moral standpoints and the fact that it's not set in stone is a strength, not a weakness.  We can adapt and hope one day to make a world in which we don't have to adapt to any longer.  Yet still the thread keeps going and going like some freaking delusional religious nut case energizer bunny.  And I'm getting bored.

I'm not going to believe in something that isn't real.  Sure if you were to torture me, I would recant.  If you put me in some sort of hell on earth, drugged me, beat me, took my family and killed every last beautiful thing in this world, I would not be able to stand up against you and I would do anything you asked, including singing the praises of the Almighty Lord Jesus on High AMEN, as well as sacrifice chickens to any of his Voodoo god brethren while tap dancing to the tune of Amazing Grace done double time.  With a barber shop quartet in the background.  In a Star Wars Storm Trooper get up.

But it still wouldn't make it real.

It still wouldn't change the fact that we all die.  It wouldn't make oil supplies anymore plentiful, nuclear weapons disappear from the face of the earth or make dog poo taste like chocolate cocoa.   It won't make global warming a myth.   It won't put electric cars in my driveway or solar panels on my roof.

The only thing that will do that is a lot of hard work and damn good science.

You don't have to go to Indonesia to see things that are strange, unusual or unexplainable.  You simply have to be crazy.  And once you see these things you can choose to let them rule you, or you can choose to rule them.  And then one day, you die.

[Titan]

All in all, in the end, it really doesn't matter. Yes, of course, if there is some horrible genocide in Africa, I will care. I would bawl my eyes out, curse the heavens and shake my fist in anger at whatever cruel son of a bitch God that I don't believe is even up there.

Even within your rejection there is an underlining knowledge of a moral code. We cannot argue for what should be without a moral code, we can't argue for a moral code without a sufficient moral code giver and we can't argue for a sufficient moral code giver unless we have purpose that relates to him who gives us value.

How long do you want me to fight this before I get bored, desensitized to the pain and descend into apathy?

I believe that is the lesser of the options. You can chose to become desensitized, turn your back to the Stalin's and the Mao's of the world or you can come face to face with the need in every human being for someone greater to give us purpose.

The atheists here have given more than enough reasoning to justify their moral standpoints and the fact that it's not set in stone is a strength, not a weakness. We can adapt and hope one day to make a world in which we don't have to adapt to any longer.

But with adaptation you have to have a basis for what constitutes a change. So what is that? Majority? Might makes right? Personal preference? You still haven't come to the answer you have just pushed the question deeper.

I'm not going to believe in something that isn't real. Sure if you were to torture me, I would recant. If you put me in some sort of hell on earth, drugged me, beat me, took my family and killed every last beautiful thing in this world, I would not be able to stand up against you and I would do anything you asked, including singing the praises of the Almighty Lord Jesus on High AMEN, as well as sacrifice chickens to any of his Voodoo god brethren while tap dancing to the tune of Amazing Grace done double time. With a barber shop quartet in the background. In a Star Wars Storm Trooper get up.

But it still wouldn't make it real.

Red herring...please stay on topic.

You don't have to go to Indonesia to see things that are strange, unusual or unexplainable. You simply have to be crazy. And once you see these things you can choose to let them rule you, or you can choose to rule them. And then one day, you die.

Ad hominem...please refrain from attacking others. You haven't even heard the story or listened to the experience and you purport to know that I and my friends and family are crazy. This is where I come to believe that you personally do not adhere to strict dogmatic science. Because science doesn't rule out something because it sounds strange or unusual.


Would someone else like to continue this debate. Lara is no longer answering the questions I am posing. I apologize if this sounds rude but I have some very serious questions regarding fundamental principles and I know some of you poses the knowledge to answer them.

[PipeBox]

Wow, this thread has taken a hard turn into the ground.  Titan, I request you go back and look at my jumbo post + edit, as it's extremely relevant.  I'm hoping you didn't let it sit unaddressed because I've made no motion for an absolute or objective morality.  The hypotheticals you're coming up with to test the limits of LARA's moral philosophy are crude.  I don't see how you could expect anything beyond an apathetic answer for anyone that wanted to carry on living in these situations.  If you had to live through the conditions you suggest I doubt you'd be very happy with your god, if you could still find reason to think it was looking out for you at all.  Wanting the people who wrong us to suffer an ill fate and being provided that desire, and having it reinforced, by the many holy books of the world doesn't make it so.  Not when there's no evidence.  I can no longer subscribe to a worldview that demands I pray or await the death of something (which conveniently rids the world of it anyway) rather than go out and try to make a difference.  At the very least I'll go on without my head bowed in prayer, because God doesn't do individual requests and he won't be touching the folks acting out these horrible injustices until they're dead anyway.  You haven't been so bold as to present us with a miracle in any of these situations, to say, "And then the Hand of God descended from the sky and ended the warlord serial rapist ubermensch for all to see," which I take is because you don't believe it would happen, or at the very least you're unwilling to make that kind of worldly retribution commitment.  Your view of how this god helps out is indistinguishable from the working of the naturalistic universe.  I see no higher or absolute morality at work here, and I see nothing but the hope that people suffer after they die for breaches of an absolute moral code, much the same as I might hope there are 4 lesbians in my closet forever making sweet love, and that when my neighbor wrongs me 4 dildos float out his closet at night and rape him but any inconsistency with reality is removed the second my neighbor wakes up, and the lesbians just disappear when I open the door.   But hey, there's still awesomeness in my closet and horrible suffering (albeit he doesn't know he's suffering) being inflicted on him whenever he does something the dildos don't like.  This childish, feeble, vulgar concept of morality and retribution is no more at odds with reality than the belief in the Christian God.  Until that changes, I don't see myself operating under the comfortable pretense of absolute morality, nor the god that comes with it.  We've been making the mistake of giving your absolute morality a free pass while you try to break our subjective one with vast and varying harm inflicted on us and our loved ones.  I'm not angry, but I do not like the fact that I'm reading your comments to have a deliberate heavy-handedness.  If I'm wrong, then I'm sorry to have written it, but I'm not sure whether you're honestly asking questions for the sake of moral expansion of LARA, or it you're asking these questions that appear to be maligned and rhetorical, questions you already know the reasonable answer to, just to watch the atheists squirm.  Now, I just woke up, and hopefully I'll be feeling better after four slices of toast, if you'll excuse me . . .

[Titan]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had edited that post, I'll read it and your last message and think about them.

[PipeBox]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had edited that post, I'll read it and your last message and think about them.

No worries, at least I don't have to worry that you passed it up deliberately.  I really was wanting a response but couldn't bring myself to make a post pointing to another post.  I guess I should change that, because you'll have surpassed my post count by tomorrow.  

[Titan]

Whether or not there is a higher morality has no effect on you or I, neither of us, nay, none of us need it.

I vehemently disagree in as much as a higher order and a higher morality makes it legitimate to say to the genocidal maniac that he is wrong.

Try this, next time you have the chance to get away with something for sure, ask God to forgive you and then remove God from the decision. I know you can do this because your freewill is still intact. And doing this doesn't jeopardize anything for you, so let's just have a run of this experiment.

The mistake here (which a good portion of the argument is based on) is that the first clause of the hypothetical situation is an impossibility. Asking forgiveness PRIOR to committing an act isn't even an option. You aren't sorry you are doing it, in fact it is a base problem that has plagued morality for a long time. We are basically saying that we want the best of both words, the forgiveness of God and the ability to do what we want. However, that runs contrary to everything Christ stood for so the situation cannot even present itself to a rational Christian. Imagine for an instant two situations of a student asking for forgiveness, the first is that the student goes up to the teacher and tells the teacher "I'm sorry, I feel ashamed, but I cheated on the test. I realize that it was wrong and I want to change." The second situation is the student coming up to the teacher and saying "Teacher, I'm sorry, I feel so ashamed, I'm going to cheat on this upcoming test whether you want me to or not and I realize it's wrong but I want you to accept that." Okay, how vastly different are the responses going to be to the student's confessions? The second one is so laughable. You see, forgiveness requires repentance, and repentance requires someone to be remorseful for what they did and willing to change. Your situation makes the Christian God out to be a fool.

Now, see if you can do this morally reprehensible thing, this thing that would repulse you under Christianity. If you can, I'll say that maybe it's better you keep your religion.

But I know why doing something like that is wrong for me and for everybody...I'm trying to see how an atheist can see that. So far I have not received an answer. "Because it is a dick thing to do" can't be applied to society as a whole because people could rip apart that concept into a thousand different definitions of each word (that is assuming of course that you could back up why being "a dick" is bad).

They are not carved in stone, but we would need good reason to adopt new ones. The uberthingy has nothing to do with it when it is placed outside all moral systems. It is not you, and even if you have its power, you are not universally bound to be it.

What is "we" and why are you obligated by reason?

The uberthingy has nothing to do with it when it is placed outside all moral systems. It is not you, and even if you have its power, you are not universally bound to be it. Empathy still remains ("dick thing to do"), and as another mentioned, if you get rid of that, even religion has no bearing for you. The final thing is that us atheists have to deal with the fact that if an uberthingy were to exist, anything that cannot be done to stop or punish it in reality cannot be done.

Who cares about empathy, from what basis?

We have come to terms with this, and we do not require a belief in a place where a guy names Satan is giving it to Hitler in the ass all night and day for all the rest of time unimaginable.

Can we please refrain from mocking one another's beliefs?

We're trying to build a better society, where all of us are better off, where the environment it better off, because we want to be kind to each other; we're not concerned on the whole with developing a Self-Affirming Absolute Philosophy on Universal Right and Wrong.

Why do we want everyone to be better off and what makes a society a society? What makes it autonomous or tied to another society? Why are we all bound by a coherent structure of respect if one group has the ability to exert an influence in the other?

. The hypotheticals you're coming up with to test the limits of LARA's moral philosophy are crude. I don't see how you could expect anything beyond an apathetic answer for anyone that wanted to carry on living in these situations. If you had to live through the conditions you suggest I doubt you'd be very happy with your god, if you could still find reason to think it was looking out for you at all.

While I do not have omniscience and have no way of knowing my reaction I know reasons why I could put even the worst travesties into perspective (on multiple fronts).

Wanting the people who wrong us to suffer an ill fate and being provided that desire, and having it reinforced, by the many holy books of the world doesn't make it so. Not when there's no evidence.

This is a sidetrack, one that I disagree with but I believe this is getting long enough as it is without debating the evidence for and against various religions.

You haven't been so bold as to present us with a miracle in any of these situations, to say, "And then the Hand of God descended from the sky and ended the warlord serial rapist ubermensch for all to see," which I take is because you don't believe it would happen, or at the very least you're unwilling to make that kind of worldly retribution commitment.

I believe that such a conception is a fervent limitation of God and his character. Therefore, yes I would be quite unwilling to make a kind of worldly retribution commitment.

I can no longer subscribe to a worldview that demands I pray or await the death of something (which conveniently rids the world of it anyway) rather than go out and try to make a difference.

I'm sorry, which worldview would that be? Please provide evidence from said worldviews of such a position.

At the very least I'll go on without my head bowed in prayer, because God doesn't do individual requests and he won't be touching the folks acting out these horrible injustices until they're dead anyway.

Do you exercise? Running, weights, swimming, anything of that sort?

I see no higher or absolute morality at work here, and I see nothing but the hope that people suffer after they die for breaches of an absolute moral code

But the fact that you see something as blatantly evil as "suffering" implies a moral doctrine of absolutes. Namely that unjust suffering is wrong. But matter doesn't give us value.

We've been making the mistake of giving your absolute morality a free pass while you try to break our subjective one with vast and varying harm inflicted on us and our loved ones.

This isn't my position, but: Why should I care about harming you and your feelings? Why should I care about your loved ones and your subjective approach to the concept?

If I'm wrong, then I'm sorry to have written it, but I'm not sure whether you're honestly asking questions for the sake of moral expansion of LARA, or it you're asking these questions that appear to be maligned and rhetorical, questions you already know the reasonable answer to, just to watch the atheists squirm.

No, I am not asking these questions to simply watch you guys squirm, I truly believe they are valid considerations that have yet to be answered. I have posed questions to atheists, things I thought demonstrated a problem in the atheistic vantage point that I was corrected on, I no longer even mention these (even though some atheists wouldn't know the answer). If I am wrong I would want to be shown how I am wrong. But so far I have not seen a reason to say that Stalin was absolutely wrong in his atrocious crimes.