ana, What is different about your morality to theirs? Yours, like theirs, is a cultural phenomenon. It is therefore bound culturally to you. Not only that but it is subjective to you as a person. It is simply a fact that even the things you may consider completely evil may not be considered evil by others. You cannot censor that fact. However there is hope for you since you want to hold on to objective morality. However, there is only one way to do that!

ana,What term are you on about?"Some shit is just obviously wrong." Well, no it's not obvious at all. Even if there was a worldwide consensus on a point of morality that would not justify it being called objectively 'good'. The most we could say is that it is agreed. There have been cultures who thought it right to smash babies heads against rocks. You may today take it as a given that this is 'wrong' but had you lived in that culture you would not have.

@CartesianTheist, Oh, it's a sort of like pornography. Hard to define--easy to spot. Raping children is wrong, even if its just their mind that you're after. I'm just not interested in whether you think that view must be tempered somehow, or might not be true for everyone. Those who it's not true for are fucked up. Some shit is just obviously wrong. But it doesn't strike as me as odd that religious people have a problem in this area. Their capacity to think critically seems to be impaired.

@CartesianTheist, Ah yes, the "that's not what I mean by it" defense. What exactly does the term mean to you then?

Sorry about that slip. Christmas party last night and I am not firing on all cylinders.I meant semantics. I know you can forgive me.

We are a species of animal. We are pretty much the same. What makes sense to the most people works. That is evolution for you.If my neighbour was Harold Shipman then he would disagree, but he is not the norm.

That is like trying to name the best song. Pointless.

I gave you a red thumb for that one. God had to test us? Why? He knows everything and built us perfectly according to you. Absurd!

You don't state what is pedantic so I can't respond to that.

Yes but you are only now saying which 'rules' make sense to you. Maybe they don't make sense to your neighbour. As such they should not be referred to as 'right' or 'wrong' actions. They can only have that label for you - subjectively. You can only ever say that murder is wrong for you. You cannot say it is wrong for anyone else. Why should any one human being's view be more authoritative than anyone elses?

No, the doctrine of original sin [which not all Christians hold to btw - only Calvinists] states that IN 'Adam' and 'Eve' humanity was tested. It then suggests that an omnipotent God would know that all other humans would make the same choice as they did [viz. to disobey]. And that is the idea so in fact people are charged with their own sinful doing NOT those of their ancestors. That idea is not a Christian one at all.

I doubt you could name as many atheist philosophers as I could theistic ones myself. But then the numbers game would not take us any closer to the truth. I'm just saying that claming such theists were only theists due to social pressure is highly presumptuous since many philosophers went into hiding anyway since their epistemologies and moral theories were so badly misconstrued. It's an argument from no evidence. I'm sure you would not like me doing that?! Let's be fair then?

That is a pedantic argument at best.

I googled "original sin" and came across pictures (so to speak) of Angelina Jolie's breasts, so it was not a total waste of time.It does indeed seem that your all loving god iis punishing us for some petty theft on the part of Adam and Eve. In his eyes we are all guilty. Even my little girl is guilty in his eyes and if that is the case I view him in the way I view anyone that has ill intent towards my girl. He is the enemy and I will smash his almighty jaw if he ever comes close.

Good question! I am going to stand on my balcony and smoke for a while.......I am back. I have to admit you got me on that.I see it this way. Most rules set by commandments of any cult make sense. Don't kill, steal, rape etc. The ones that don't make sense are the ones that deal with the god in hand. Don't pray to other gods etc. They are man made and quite silly.

The absurd concept of original sin is repugnant to any sane person. Put simply, if my father commits a crime, am I guilty in any way? No! The silly notion of original sin leads to collective punishment. Collective punishment is something Israel practices on Palestine. There is another theist nightmare.

I will watch your video, but it remains a moot point. For every theist philosopher you can name, I can name a atheist/agnostic one. It would be little more than 'name tennis'.Please don't tell me I, in any way, grasp conspiracy theories. It is a fact that 'the church' (of various cults) has hounded men of science for millennia.Thems the facts!

Not to ignore - you are still talking AS IF there are moral absolute standards which is completely indefensible as atheist philosophers have admitted. So basically you're assuming a theistic presupposition in order to criticise theism. Now if that's not twisted I don't know what is?!

Well I have no idea where you get such a silly notion? And then to suggest this is some case against theism in general. It may be some sort of case against some form of fundamentalist Judaism but even then I think your interpretation of the texts leaves a lot to be desired. Original sin is NOT the idea that a child is guilty of the sins of its ancestors so I think you're lacking the basic systematic theology to know how to critique the doctrine.

I disagree. Find me a single person that believes a child should be held accountable for the crimes of its ancestors. I know of no culture that enforces such laws. The idea itself is or should be morally repugnant to any rational being by virtue of its sheer stupidity. To suggest that we could be responsible for events wholly beyond any possibility of our own control is flatly absurd. Note that you make no case for it yourself--just an unsupported protest against condemning it. Why?