He's done it before too.

Not to the asshat:

Before you talk about Allah - think the exact same argument with "God" or "Jesus" replacing "Allah" and see how it reads.

And if you are picking and choosing from the Bible how do you know you are picking the right parts? Maybe the parts yoy pick are wrong and those you reject are real and you'll go to like Super Hell!

Actually, you're the one not thinking deeply enough about the issue. If you happen to believe you're big and strong enough to take my things, that's fine, but if you think you're big and strong enough that you need fear no-one and nothing, that's not self-interest, it's stupidity. You see, I can, without breaking a sweat, give you a quick example of groups of folks big and bad enough to take your lunch without breaking stride.

The Federal Bureau of Investigations. The Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. The National Guard.

Make yourself enough of a nuisance, and you run afoul of these groups. And once that happens, you have violated your self-interest, because you have made life more difficult for yourself in just about every way.

So. Why is it wrong? It's wrong because it is detrimental to society's goals. Not 'the society I think we would all like', but the very definition and core purpose of ALL societies. Why should there be a law against it? To serve as notice that it is against your self-interest to act this way, in case you can't see that for yourself.

Ultimately, it's not about being big and strong enough to take someone else's things. It's about the quite blatant fact that no individual is big enough and strong enough to stop everyone else from taking their things.

What about the situation in which one does not care about society's protections, you ask?

That's called being a sociopath. It's generally regarded as an immoral position. I personally tend to think of it as a blatantly self-destructive position, and as I'm an agreeable fellow, I'm generally more than willing to give such people the self-destruction they seek.

Animals do display empathy. I suggest you do more research on this topic.

Again, that's the position of the sociopath. It's wrong, and it's wrong because it directly works against the goals of society. And, once again, this is not 'a utopian society I'd like to live in', this is true of ALL societies, from the most enlightened to the most tyrannical and savage: Someone trying to destabilize society and remove its protections, however scant, from those who make up the society, is wrong, and the society is more than justified in exercising its right to defend itself.

And yet, you have no way to know that your existence will continue beyond the death of your physical body. You believe it without proof. There's nothing wrong with that if that's what gets you through the night, man, but by the same token, with no proof of the existence of an eternal component of your being, you can't then use the thing you haven't proven as compelling evidence for anything else.

So far, you've established that you know you exist. You haven't established, for example, that you are not in fact an incredibly elaborate computer simulation of an organic mind.

Would such a simulation have a soul?

So let me see if I understand this: Your consciousness, which is a product of the electrochemical reactions in your brain over time, is proof of God. Your morality stems from this consciousness, and is proven to be 'alright' because God hasn't objected, and punished you for it.

So... that you can have an opinion is proof of God, and God not actually doing anything to demonstrate his existence is proof of the validity of your opinion?

But God hasn't done anything to punish the rest of us for our conflicting opinions, despite your claim that there is an absolute morality.

If there is an absolute morality, and your morality is validated by God's tacit approval (as evidenced by not destroying you or otherwise giving you massive hardships in your life), then those whose morality conflicts with yours should be experiencing God's disapproval, no?

And yet we don't. Some might consider this the same kind of evidence against the existence of any specific moralist deity as your own statements against 'Allah'.

Now, you say your God doesn't give a fuck. You also say your God is Jesus, because he said things that make sense, and claimed to be God. For the moment, we'll ignore that, as previously stated, Jesus never claimed to be divine in any way. I challenge you to show me where Jesus doesn't give a fuck, where he doesn't claim that those who don't follow him are screwed for all time. Show me that, and somehow un-make "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No-one comes to the Father except through me." Show me that, and un-write "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters."

That's not a man who doesn't give a fuck.

So then please, tell me why this God, who shows himself in the Old Testament to be a wrathful and vengeful God, would not punish those who claim a false morality. And yet, he doesn't. You claim God's tacit approval is evidence that your morality is correct. This is directly contradicted by God providing at least as much tacit approval to my morality. And yet my morality doesn't need a God to rubber-stamp it. My morality goes back millions of years, and is grounded in the social behavior of all social animals.

Further, you keep claiming that your morality doesn't come from God, and now that God's opinion doesn't determine morality. However, again I point you to your own words, though with my emphasis:

So: If God's opinion doesn't determine your morality, then your morality, by your own statement is simply a human opinion, no? And if it's just a human opinion, then it in no way requires, nor serves as evidence for, the existence of God.

 1. My morality isn't based on what god says. 

2. Will you please just give me a reason why a group of men is more valid than one man? Your morality is simply based on the state. If it goes against the majority than its wrong. But then right and wrong are worthless. They have no concrete meaning. You talk of "what works for society", well tell me in what way is the american society better than that of the tribesmen in africa who rape virgins to cure themselves of aids? Those society's were around for thousands of years before america, they obviously work quite well. Why not simply go with what works? Why the progression?

Again, since none of you seem to have heard me the first time:

I am not arguing the validity of anyone's morality. I am saying that as an atheist, you need to either 1) accept that without a soul there is no right and wrong or 2) accept the existence of a soul. There is no middle road. Without a soul, there is nothing that separates right from wrong, only what works for society. But you have no reason why society's view of right and wrong is any more valid than some psychopaths right and wrong. Your "morality" is worthless. 

Dogs and cats have brains. They don't attempt to change the environment to suit their purpose. No animal does that. Humans have a drive to create, thoughts that have no base in nature and our surroundings but are purely abstract. Why does no animal create art, or seek to express itself in any complex manner? Even a child attempts to communicate. The brain affects the soul, it is part of me, but with only a brain, I can only assume that we would simply be like incredibly smart animals. 

 So there is nothing wrong with murder, only that it is against my self-interest? So in the hypothetical case of someone smart and strong and driven enough to create a new society based on the enslavement of women, their society would be just as right as ours because it offers some small protection? Why is it important to protect other people? I would be quite safe in that society, as I am a male, so what is wrong with me supporting that society? Is there anything wrong with it? Other than your claim that it would be detrimental to me or you, you still have yet to determine why it is wrong. 

So you say that the founding fathers of the US were wrong in revolting against Britain? Every society ever created is based off the blood and ruins of another society that preceded it. You say that to break down society is wrong, but then we are wrong for living in the product of a wrongful action.

None of us have any way of proving anything. Move beyond the idea of proof, since no one here is arguing about knowledge but belief. I am simply trying to find the consistency in your beliefs, since there has yet to be any. An incredibly complex computer would not want to express itself through art. In computers and animals input=output. This is not true of humans. Why?

 Why are children born with painful diseases? Because disease happens. Its part of life. There are bacteria and viruses and other things that can cause diseases and sometimes they do. Why are innocent people killed by tsunamis and earthquakes, because tsunamis and earthquakes are natural occurrences that can lead to death. Why do good people die as regularly as bad people? Everyone dies. 

I just gave you the answer, and not one of them was "Because god." 

Any more?

Because their brains are not as evolved as ours.

That's exactly what we are.  Why do you have so much trouble accepting that?

By the way, your attendance is requested back in the other thread you started, which you strangely claim you're unable to find.

WARNING, RIDICULE AHEAD

In my opinion, of all the numerous faiths, from Christianity to Buddhism to animism to eating, the most basic and unlikely is eating. Religion, unlike science, is the attempt to answer the question why (science attempts to answer how). Animism a  slightly less ridiculous faith, answers the question why with the answer of "everything". eating denies the existence of the question, because it denies the existence of non-food. Without an answer there is no question. However, since I can ask the question it is obvious that food exists, so there must be an answer. 

Besides lets be totally honest and say that its really unlikely that thinking beings such as humans just popped into existence without food. 

Finally you have admitted that there is no such thing as right and wrong without a soul. 

I am an expert of nothing, but why don't you show me an instance where input does not equal output in an animal or computer. 

So you say, but at the same time you claim that in order for anything to be moral there must be a higher power to determine whether or not it is moral. So which is it? Does morality require a higher power, or is your morality not based on what god says?

Actually, my morality is based on the group, not the state. A State's not needed for morality. A group is. I don't actually talk of 'what works for society', I talk about what serves the goals of Society. Not any one society, but society itself.

As for African tribesmen who rape virgins to cure themselves of AIDS? That's also sociopathic behavior, as it operates against the goals of Society. Just like holocaust was sociopathic behavior. Those more  'primitive' societies work just fine within the scope of themselves. The struggles they have come when attempting to deal with other societies... and that's not really an issue of morality at all. That's an issue of mob mentality, of group behavior, not behavior within groups.

Sure I do, and I've said a number of times: The reason why society's view of right and wrong is more valid than some sociopath's (sociopaths and psychopaths are very different things, btw) view of right and wrong because it serves the needs of more people.

Not coincidentally, those 'more people' includes me. I've said it a number of times, too: It's right because I say so. It's defensible because it serves more than just my needs. Again, I like the idea of absolute morality as a concept, but it doesn't exist in reality. Morality's subjective. The problem you run into is the same one I keep pointing out to you:

1 of you vs. 6.2 Billion 'not you'. Who wins?

Sure they do. Many animals do, in fact. Termite mounds, for example. Burrows. Dogs and cats marking territory to change a terrain feature into a warning sign and claim of control. Humans have a drive to create? Look at bird nests. Many are incredible works of complexity. Look at spiderwebs. Apes alter their environment all the time. Our alterations have increased in complexity as our understanding how to alter it has increased.

Why does no animal seek to express itself in any complex manner? What, you mean whale songs? Whales and elephants both communicate via complex signals over dozens, and in the case of whales, hundreds of miles. Gorillas and Chimps communicate with one another via complex calls, body language, etc, and learn sign language relatively readily. Certainly more readily than some humans do.

Except it doesn't offer as much protection to as many people, and so serves the goals of society less perfectly. Within the constraints of that society, its morality would be perfectly acceptable, though.

Not at all. The American revolution did not dissolve the bonds of society. It dissolved the bonds of government between one body of people and another. Government != society.

Belief is an assertion of knowledge. You hold things to be true; thus, you claim knowledge that they are true. Otherwise, all you have is mere speculation and opinion.

What makes you say this isn't true of humans? You think artistic endeavors aren't based on input? Artistic endeavors are side-effects of the incredible complexity of our self-referential thought process, nothing more. Were a computer program capable of fully simulating the function of the physical human brain to exist, it would likely attempt to create art.