A society that permits behavior destructive to society will not survive.  

There's nothing arbitrary about that condition; it's axiomatic.

You're more than welcome to redefine "moral" as that which is conducive to strawberry shortcake.  Morality will simply cease at that point to be a worthwhile concern.

I didn't say that it was arbitrary that a society that permits destructive behavior will not survive.

I said that it is arbitrary to define "morally good" as that which applies to behavior conducive towards society.  You might as well say that "morally good" is whatever behavior promotes strawberry shortcake.  If that's not worthwhile enough for you, you could always define it in other ways that will make it more worthwhile but which have nothing to do with survival or society; for instance, I could say that "morally good" is whatever promotes physical fitness.

I presume you agree that your notion of "morally good" amounts to a simple redefinition, and that you're essentially a moral nihilist with respect to moral truths in terms of ideal persons; therefore, there's not much else for us to debate.

The ultimate argument you want to make is that your particular pet  god claim  invented morality.

Patently false.

Humans survived when they falsely thought vocanos were gods. They survived when they falsely thought the sun was a god. And even today human survive all around the world without believing in your pet god.

Humans invent gods, nothing more. 99% of all species that have existed in biological life are extinct today.

All our myths will die with us as a species when our species goes extinct because there will be no future generation to sell our myths to.

As far as whether it's *really* wrong, you'll have to clarify what you mean by "*really*".   It may not be *really* wrong to abstain from food and water; but anyone who does will not survive.  Likewise, a society that permits rape will not survive.
  

Rape is undesirable as the individual being raped has a nervous system which reacts painfully to stimuli such as being beaten or forcibly penetrated. We as humans have an evolved sense of empathy, so object as a society to such pain-inducing stimuli being inflicted upon any individual.

In case you're wondering :  There's nothing arbitrary about that condition; it's axiomatic. 

And anyone who abstains from food and water will not be able to make strawberry shortcake.  Why is survival anymore relevant?  I'm not talking about survival; I'm talking about moral rightness.

So it's not about survival anymore?  It's about pain vs. pleasure?  Yeesh, at least stick with one definition of "morally right" at a time.

We also evolved this general love of strawberry shortcake.  What's your point?

Actually, it's not axiomatic.  "Axiomatic" means "self-evident."  The stuff you're mentioning is not self-evident; it's empirically true.  It happens to be true in this possible world that rape triggers C-fiber excitation in our brain.  In some other possible world, it may give way to pleasure.  What's empirically true is not self-evident; we have to observe it in order to know that it's true.  "Axiomatic" refers to things like mathematical, analytic or synthetic a priori truths.

Where did I even mention the Bible?

Where did I even mention Islam?

Tell me a little bit about Buddhist, Hindu and Taoist areas while you're at it.  Oh, and what do the Raelians think about rape?  I mean, if you're going to just drop random facts about other religions, don't discriminate.

And promoting strawberry shortcake means that we have a tasty delicacy to satisfy us after dinner.  It means that our children will be happy after dinner.  Someone who has just been raped will not feel like making a strawberry shortcake.  Strawberryshortcakily, it makes no sense to allow rape since that reduces the chance of getting that cake made to perfection.

And I care about your personal history because..... ?

A common theistic assumption is that atheists are at a consensus regarding morality.  About the only thing atheists would agree upon on this topic is that there is no divine moral absolute.

I happen to think that morality is subjective, specifically subject to it's frame of reference.  I don't happen to think that there is a common society consciousness that weighs good vs. evil relative to murder, rape, etc.  I believe that murder is wrong only insofar as it serves no purpose.  Purpose may be subjectively attributed by society, my family or myself.  I also subjectively rate strawberry shortcake

As I previously requested, you will have to clarify what you mean by "*really*".  Again, one is not obliged to be concerned with his or her own survival, any more than one is obliged to make strawberry shortcake.  However, one who does not act with concern for his or her own survival is not likely to survive for very long.  Likewise (again), a society that does not embrace values conducive to its own survival is not likely to survive for very long.  

You ask at this point why survival is relevant, wherein  I assume you are asking why survival is relevant to "moral rightness".  I'll be happy to elaborate, but first let's take into account your mildly uncivil rejoinder:
 

I am sorry for presuming you could make the connection of your own accord.  I shall explain in more incremental a fashion:  

Our aversion to pain is not arbitrary; it is a feature of our physiology that has contributed to our survival (as individuals that do not avoid pain are more likely to die out than those that do).  In other words, "pain vs. pleasure" is itself about survival.  

Likewise, empathy for other individuals in our society is a trait that has contributed to our survival (as societies of individuals that do not practice empathy are less likely to collapse than those that do).  

So are murder and rape *really* wrong?  No, not *really*.  Just like it isn't *really* wrong to stop breathing oxygen, and it isn't *really* wrong to step into moving traffic.  But societies that treat murder and rape as "morally right" have a likelihood of success comparable to individuals who refrain from breathing or step incautiously into traffic.
 

I'll be happy to explain further should your misconstrual persist, but perhaps you would be interested in reviewing this post by another user in reference to this very topic:  ►William Lane Craig Has His Ass Handed To Him

"Just who the hell are you?!"

Murder has been claimed to promote many things, and almost always from a philosophical (and often academia-inspired) PoV, rather than an empirical one. In so many words, everyone has their fuzzy-logic ideas about what constitutes a "civilized" and "just" world and where such "barbarous" concepts like "murder" and "retaliation" have a place in such a largely hypothetical society.

After a quick look at human evolution and the evolution of other "great apes", one quickly realizes the innate, instinctual desire to kill, harm, or divert the attention of a potential threat to one's existence and well-being that evolved long before any recognizable concept of well-socialized "morality" developed amongst what is collectively classified as "placental mammals". As the instinct to attack and destroy or manipulate threats to one's existence evolved before our primordial ancestors crawled out of the sea so many evolutionary epochs ago and even our most recent common ancestors (y-chromosome Adam, lived roughly 34 millennia ago) displayed a habit of killing and even cannibalizing the remains of one-another, I thusly contend that there are mountains of evidence to contribute to the hypothesis of modern psychology that the basic, biological drive to destroy things that cause discomfort is alive and well within the modern human psyche as is the drive to destroy threats to one's existence, meaning specifically that (I suspect) over 95% of Earth's human population has such an instinctual drive. Sure, instincts can be surpressed with the help of reason, but if you've ever experience unbridled emotional stress regarding the actions or presence of another person you've likely at least once imagined what your life and the world in general would be like without their continued existence. Emotions have the effect of arousing instincts in people. I know Iwbiek and myself have briefly experienced such an innate drive to 'deny presence' one or the other during a trivial spat that is best left in the past. I suspect most of the people that have ever posted on RRS have experienced such a drive to 'deny existence' (for extreme lack of a better term) or be put in willful ignorance of someone that causes them harm or pain for seemingly no valid reason. It's in your evolutionary nature to destroy that which causes you discomfort. Be in denial of this at your own peril.

It's also worth pointing out that any challenges to my previous claim of human instincts that consist of emotionally-charged or snarky appeals for secular humanism will be immediately tossed into my (metaphorical) 'collective philosophy trash heap'. Believe you me, the more I interact with people online, the bigger such a 'trash heap' becomes. EoD.

edit1,edit2, edit3; forgot to proof-read

edit4; terminology

Best. Fucking. Post. In. A. Shite. Philosophy. Thread. EVAR.

**double post**

(heh)

There is no singular applicaple term, to my knowledge. In the OT, numerous means are used to describe what is believed to be scenes of forcible intercourse. They usually revolve around some apparent lack of consent such as "she said no and he laid with her". OT was very lewd at some junctures, and you have to wonder if its original authors were talking about "fantasy(s)" as opposed to say... reality. Since reality seems to have very little meaning in the OT.

But, of course... "fantasy" is an entirely different beast to the subject matter discussed here. Hundreds of millions of males and females have such fantasies, and they are almost always harmless and not acted upon literally. Often, it makes its way into fiction. But don't let my TMI remarks distract any of you from the sheer stupid found in this thread.

  Historically speaking it appears morals based upon sacred doctrines and belief in God have their dark side, that is to say their immoral side. 

If that were not the case the Southern Baptist Convention which was formed in 1845 over its pro-slavery stance would have never issued an apology stating "we lament and repudiate historic acts of evil such as slavery,".

The Evangelical Lutheran church apologized for the antisemitism of it's founder, Martin Luther and the harm done to Jews in his name.

United Methodists apologized for the 1864 massacre of 150 Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians, which was led by a Methodist lay preacher in Sand Creek, Colorado.

Pope John Paul II apologized for the sins of the Catholic Church against Jews, Muslims, heretics, women, native peoples...

Belief in an absolute moral standard...    even one that is alleged to come from "God" himself    ...seems to have little impact upon the actual behaviour of millions of those faithful followers who espouse it's superiority.  Apparently when it comes to actually living up to this supposed godly moral standard it's just not worth the effort. 

                                                                                                   Besides, they can always just issue an apology later on.

I just thought it was Bob playing POE....

Ya mean he's for real?

LC >;-}>

How does that disprove a subjective morality? Do you mean you will subjectively justify those actions as good?  I'm sure you could, and I will subjectively rate those same actions as bad, I'm not sure what you are driving at?

Morality is subjective.

No.

No.

No.

In the sense you are implying, it's not different. You don't understand what we believe. Sorry.

Hi Spencer Bobson (Hehe, clever boy )

I can see what you're doing there with your question, but I am of the oppinion that morals are entirely relative, and so the question doesn't really apply to me, but I do have a counter-question:

A common Christian assumption about morality includes that

a behavior is morally good if and only if it promotes Biblical values.

Certainly, one can argue that murder is morally wrong insofar as it does not promote biblical... no wait, bad example, murder can, and does promote biblical values very often. Let's say: one can argue that premarital sex is morally wrong insofar as it does not promote biblical values. But my question is, how is this any different from the assumption that

a behavior is morally good if and only if it promotes strawberry shortcake?

I mean, premarital sex doesn't promote that either, does it?