Aw, hell.  I'm not going to send you to trollville for this!  It's a little hard to dig into your post because it rambles a bit and doesn't seem to have an ultimate point, but I'll do my best.

Well, you see, spirale2, RRS is not a church or a political organization.  We don't require our members to have the same beliefs as us.  We do have a code of conduct because, well, we've seen how internet boards can degenerate into stupidity without rules and moderators.  We've banned people before, but not a lot, honestly.  Out of the tens of thousands of people who've visited, and thousands who've posted, we've only banned a couple handfuls.  For the most part, we like everybody to get their say.  If they do it while sticking to our forum rules, they can stay.

Though, while we're on the subject of "never getting called on it" you're just plain wrong there.  We've called quite a few of our members out for bad behavior, but you don't know about it because we try to avoid drama.  Most of the time, when someone is getting out of hand, we deal with it in private, so you might not even be aware that it's happening unless you're paying very close attention and notice that someone's behavior changes.

I'm flattered.  I had no idea I invented the concept of "peers" but considering how much it's done for social science, I'm happy to finally get the recognition I deserve.

Now if only you'd understood my post... that would have been better.  Anyway, if you want to know something about how various ensembles of organized atoms can construct models of social behavior from the ground up without any supernatural reference, you should read some more of my articles:

What Does Sugar Have To Do With Murder?!

Free Will: Why we don't have it, and why that's a good thing.

For New Atheists: Is This Really All There Is?

I admit it.  I'm very important to myself.  If I didn't have me, I wouldn't have anybody.

Careful there.  You know how people like to quote mine.  I believe that my opinions represent an objective truth about human beings.  I believe that opinions representing falsehoods are dangerous.  I believe that for the most part, education and critical thought will eradicate falsehoods better than anything else.  I certainly don't advocate eradication of ideas or people through any kind of force.  That's the beauty of education.  It lets people free themselves from falsehoods.

Well, you've got this pretty much totally wrong.  While a materialist certainly believes that humans are made up of tiny particles, it doesn't follow that humans are "nothing but" a bunch of particles.  We're obviously much more than that.  The human mind is an emergent property of the organization of subatomic particles.  Humans cannot directly perceive subatomic particles, so it's essentially useless to try to form some kind of philosophy around that level of existence.  We can only function as discreet biological organisms, so that's how we function.  Duh.

More astute readers recognize that two seemingly contradictory statements can both be true.  Here's an easy example for you:

1) That hammer is a terrible tool for that job.

2) That hammer is a great tool for that job.

Contradictory statements, but they can both be true.  All it takes is for "that job" to refer to two different things.  In statement 1, "that job" refers to flipping a pancake.  In statement 2, "that job" refers to hammering a nail.  So you see, words can be very confusing if we don't take the time to be certain of their meaning.

Back to subatomic particles, the following statements are both true:

1) Humans are composed entirely of subatomic particles.

2) Humans are discreet biological organism.

See?  Both are true.  Statement 1 is only useful to physicists, since we have no real way to interact with subatomic particles, or even to be aware of them.  Statement 2 is much more useful to psychologists, philosophers, and doctors.  The thing is, that doesn't mean statement 2 is more true than statement 1.  It's just that statement 2 is more useful in most contexts.

Thanks very much!  Trust me, I'm happy not to be like you, too.

(1) is just not true.  I don't think any of us believe that... at least I know none of the core members do.  If there was a god, I have no idea what it would be like.  It might be an evil son of a bitch.

(2) is partially true.  Evil and Good are descriptions of the relative value of particular events, and there is no way to find an absolute measure by which to lump a certain class of act.  However, the absence of absolutes doesn't mean there cannot be objective morality.  I bet you didn't know that.  Morality can be judged objectively when we have agreed upon parameters.  If we both agree that boiling newborn babies in peanut oil is wrong, and you boil a baby in peanut oil, I can objectively say that what you have done is wrong.  It's not absolute, but it is objective.

(3) Speaking of quote mining... geez.  Context, kiddo.  Context.  We maintain we are right because we have mountains of evidence on our side.  

Thanks for taking the time to brighten our day.

 Hell, that wasn't a blast.  That was a polite observation.  You've seen me blast before... much bigger boom.

I'd argue that this still doesn't create an objective moral system. If you and I create a social contract that says boiling babies would be wrong, the contract itself is going to be based on some subjective arbitration (though, of course, I don't disagree that within the confines of the contract itself there will be objective standards to abide by).

I just don't get why theists demand an objective morality. It's stupid. It's like demanding that the material world be devoid of pain and suffering, and upon seeing that it isn't, calling materialism 'evil'.

EDIT: ...Or, a better example (now that I've thought of it) would be demanding us to present  a 'most tasty food'. And then, when we can't provide one (instead, perhaps, attempting in futility to educate you of the mechanism behind tastiness and how to achieve certain flavors in cooking), crossing your arms and claiming that atheists don't/can't enjoy eating food.

The best page in the universe