Yeah, that's a pretty crappy hypothetical situation. First of all, you completely overlook any implications of a god existing aside from the afterlife.

What if this god tells you that all morals actually DO come from him? Even the so-called "secular" ones? What if he tells you that he takes care of orphans? Or sick old people? Or those suffering from schizophrenia (you know how they are always "talking to god"...)? 

What if you getting rid of god means you get rid of all those other things.  Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in such a god, but to ignore the possibility of such a god existing in this hypothetical are, to me, rather smallminded.

Instead, I will present this example instead:

You are sitting on your computer, reading this topic, and some guy poofs into existance in front of you. He explains to you that he is Paynal, the messenger of Huitzilopochtli, the Aztec god of war and the Sun. He tells you that the big H-word wishes to make a deal with you. Hu-Poch has been watching the world for a while, and has been moved by the plight of its people, but, being in a weakened condition, he has been as of yet unable to do anything about it. It is only now that he has been able to save up the energy to send his messenger to you. Why you? Well, as chance would have it, you just happened to be the closest person to the "underworld" at the time.

Paynal, quivering with excitement, informs you that if you restore Hu-Poch to power,  Hu-Poch promises to bring humanity into a new era. He will put an end to HIV, cancer, and almost all forms of serious and/or debilitating disease.  On the downside, he is the god of war, so he will want there to be some fighting. On the plus side, he has pledged to back the nation of your choice, and Paynal says that you can always choose the Swiss and be done with it.

Throughout the conversation, you notice that Paynal is looking rather nervously at you. When you ask him about it, he sighs lightly, and tells you the catch: in order for Hu-Poch to be restored to power, human sacrifice is required. To restore him to power, you will need to travel to Mexico City (aka Tenochtitlan, Hu-Poch's city of patronage), climb to the top of the Aztec pyramid, and cut out your own heart.

Do you do it or not?

Some Alternate verions (for some variance):

Alternate A: Instead of cutting your own heart out, you must cut out the heart of the person in this world about whom you care the most.

Alternate B: You need a group of people to sacrifice themselves alongside you at the pyramid. Say, 150 people in all. You still need to cut out your own heart too, but not until the first 149 people have done it.

Alternate C: The Aztec mythology of an afterlife was wrong, and there is no afterlife.

Please provide answers (and reasoning if applicable) to the dilemma and all alternate stories.

See? That was much cooler. 

I agree with you Fish

Yes I consider all non-Europeans a group perhaps a set is a better word. 

Perhaps you wish me to write:

All theists believe in God(s) , not all theists believe that killing in the name of God is wrong , all atheists believe killing in the name of God is wrong, no theists are atheists. (no theist is not a theist?)

 I find the more important divide in morals between different theistic groups yet atheists are challenged on their believed lack of morals.

I believe you answer it yourself in your post.  A religion can provide a justification for wonky behavior (God told me to do it), whereas without religion, you'd just be crazy. 

Not really. Eugenics as some rational basis. If you use a calculus that is based on the greatest good for the greatest number of people then it makes no sense to put resources into helping mentally disabled people. A person with an IQ of 65 consumes a disproportianate amount of society's time and energy compared to what they return to society. Cold hard logic says to leave them to their own devices and put the time and money to something that has a greater benefit to society as a whole. This isn't craziness. It is logic. And it's not so far fetched. I believe that in certain American Native cultures when a old person decided they were a burden on their tribe they wandered off to die ( would like confirmation of this, though). Only in our "enlightened" culture do we insist on caring for the weaker members of society. The grounds on which we decide to care for these people is no firmer than that which says Jesus saves. It is done as a way of appeasing some vague inner feelings of angst or guilt. In a harsher environment, the weak and infirm would be dropped overboard so the ship doesn't sink.

Note: I am not advocating abandoning the disadvantaged. 

You're right, i guess that's why it's illigal to not be christian.

I guess that's why we still have slaves.

I guess that's why we don't have churches and stuff for jesus.

I guess that's why we are still in the dark ages.

I guess that's why EVERYONE listens to the pope.

Faith? So you admit you have faith I don't have an ancient Obolesk in my yard? 

WARK! 

Quit talkin' into the mirror, We are over here. 

Spend more time learning, and les time evangelicalling. 

Sounds like you're jealous.

Wavefreak is a theist.

You ignore the possiblity that self fulfillment requires a concern for others.

So, you need a god to tell you not to kill?

Do you realize that this is not a moral system at all? It's mere prudence... obey or be tortured. Obey and be rewarded.

Mature morality is intrinsic, not punishment based. Punishment based rules, at most, are a developmental step towards inculcating intrinsic morality, and as psychology shows us, it's a very ineffective one.

Secular morality is based on empathy and human need, which includes a need to affiliate with others. It is a mature morality, in that it guides us rather than goads us, it leads us rather than compel us. It is based on the ability to be fair, consistent, and to see humans as an end in of themselves, a value onto themselves.

Actually, you have it backwards. Theists must steal their morality from secular systems. Theism cannot offer a moral system, in fact, theism undermines morality.

The bible does nothing and can do nothing towards inculcating moral behavior on its own. Christians must steal from secular moral systems, and then merely graft their 'god threats' on top of a purely secular moral system which already includes the concept of punishment.

The bible actually undermines the concept of morality. It holds that

1) All 'sins' are equivalent.

2) All positive moral behavior is immaterial, because works cannot save a person

3) There is an infinite reward for blind obedience (heaven) which undermines any intrinsic motivations for behavior

4) There is an infinite punishment for disobedience, which is a mockery of justice, seeing as a) an omnipotent creator and sustainer must be perfectly, ultimately responsible for all actions (See my entry on the incoherence of god and the problem of evil) and b) no finite act by a finite being can logically incur 'infinite punishment', seeing as 'punishment' itself is necessarily finite in nature (i.e. punishment is defined as the addition of an aversive stimuli, or removal of a pleasant stimuli, that alters future behavior).

5) Finally, the bible claims that all people are damned from birth simply by being born, meaning that man is thoroughly invalidated as a moral agent. This is a mockery of justice and reason itself.

"Take a look at what you dare to call a moral code: Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good, which is defined as what is impossible for him to practice. It demands that he accept his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start with a standard of evil, which is himself. The name of this monstrous absurdity is "original sin".

(However) if man is evil by birth then he has no will, no power to change it. If he has not will, then he can be neither good nor evil. to hold man’s nature as his sin, is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence can possibly exist is a mockery of reason.

To destroy nature, morality, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched.

- John Galt, addressing the world by radio, in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged"

Christians implicitly concede that the bible offers no moral blueprint through their behaviors, Christians actually live according to secular morality which holds that:

1) Man obviously has a value onto himself.

Otherwise, why treat people in the Kantian fashion as an 'end in of themselves' and not simply a means to an end?

2) Man IS a moral agent.

Otherwise, why even anticipate that others, particularly non-Christians, will act morally?

3) All 'sins' are obviously not equivalent

Otherwise, why respond to different 'sins' with different levels of punishment?

4) Infinite torture is morally wrong

Why else do Western nations hold that there are some punishments that are 'cruel and unusual'?

5) It is a mockery of justice to hold a man morally culpable when he has no intent to do wrong.

Otherwise, why even hold to the concept of responsibility? Why even hold to "innocence by reason of insanity"?

The Bible is about Obedience, Not Morality.

The bible is about obedience, not morality. In fact, the bible holds that is incapable of being moral. The bible holds that a person must 1) concede that humanity is worthless, 2) believe that an intelligent, loving god is the most cruel force imaginable, and 3) hold that the best thing a person can do is grovel in obedience before this cruel tyrant, or face hellfire. This is not the inculcation of morality, this is coercion.

One is forced to obey, or be destroyed.

This is not a moral system. It undermines morality itself. It is merely obedience.

Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Reasoning

If we look at Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning, we see that a system built upon punishments and rewards is pre conventional morality, and not a mature moral system at all:

Stages 1 and 2 in the preconventional level involve an "egocentric point of view" and a "concrete individualistic perspective" in which the person makes choices based on the fear of punishment and the desire for rewards.

Stage 1 Punishment/Obedience - Consequentialism. This stage is characterized by avoidance of punishment and unquestioning deference to power as values in themselves. Simple Hedonism. Morality is seen as based on self interest; the goodness or badness of action is determined by their physical consequences, regardless of any human meaning attached to these consequences.

Stage 2 - Instrumental Relativist Orientation - defined by a focus on instrumental satisfaction of one's own needs, as the determiner of "right". Reciprocity may be present, but it is of the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" kind.

Conventional Stage (Late childhood, early adolescence)
In Stages 3 and 4 of the conventional level, persons make choices from a "member-of-society" perspective, considering the good of others, the maintenance of positive relations, and the rules of society. This level generally involves a move towards gaining approval or avoiding disaproval as the basis of morality; law and social rules are seen as valuable in their own right.

Stage 3 - Interpersonal Concordance (Good boy/girl orientation) - this stage is driven by a desire to please or help others with hope of winning their approval.

Stage 4 - Law and Order orientation - Focuses on the maintenance of social order and the importance of authority and strict rules. This is not the blind, unquestioning belief in power of stage one, however.

Postconventional level (This may develop in late adolescence, more likely in our mid 20s and beyond. It may never develop for most of us.)
Persons in the final stages of the postconventional level, Stages 5 and 6, reason from a "prior-to-society" perspective in which abstract ideals take precedence over particular societal laws.

Stage 5 - Social Contract/Legalistic Orientation - This stage involves a recognition of the relative nature of personal values, and the importance of having procedures for reaching a consensus and changing unfair rules. The individual at this stage can separate the legal world from individual differences of opinion.

Stage 6 - Universal Ethical Principle Orientation - This stage involves defining what is "right" in one's own conscience in a way that is consistent with one's own abstract ethical principles that are based on inclusiveness and responsibility to others; there is a clear emphasis on universality, consistency, logic and rationality. The highest stage of moral development in Kohlberg's original theory. Some state that stage 6 is only hypothetical. On the other hand, philosophers like Ken Wilber point to a 7th stage - the centaur - where universal concern for humanity is combined with a concern for all nature - identification is broadened to the universe itself, care is held for all nature in a manner such that one cares for the universe around him just as another cares for his own body.

Christian 'morality' (if we leave aside the other problems for a moment) is at best a preconventional morality.. it's external, it's based on obedience... on fear, on punishment and rewards. Such a "morality' is not a 'morality at all, it is mere prudence. It's driven by a hedonistic need to avoid torture and seek out pleasure.

Actual morality is both external and internal. It's part of your character, of who you are. It's a set of values - literally things that you value other than just yourself..... It's an inter-subjective standard - the morals of their community, which in turn are founded on human empathy.

In order for a man to be moral, to reach levels 3, 4, and beyond, he must disregard the claims of theism, and move towards intrinsic rewards for moral actions. As the philosopher Spinoza stated: "A moral act is never an act done solely for an external reward, it's done because the act, itself, is rewarding". So again, Christianity can only undermine morality through it's infantile use of external threats.

Here's a nice quote from Alan Dershowitz to support this view:

"There is a wonderful Hasidic story about a rabbi who was asked whether it is ever proper to act as if God did not exist. He responded, “Yes, when you are asked to give to charity, you should give as if there were no God to help the object of the charity.” I think the same is true of morality and character: in deciding what course of action is moral, you should act as if there were no God. You should also act as if there were no threat of earthly punishment or reward. You should be a person of good character because it is right to be such a person."

So even if we take the Christian at his word, his argument that these biblical actions are 'moral' because they are the rules of an unquestionable tyrant, still falls to pieces, because prudence is not a true morality.

And the Christian himself secretly agrees, because he himself rejects this paradigm as a moral system in his own daily life... Just look at his actions: he recognizes that some immoral actions are worse than others, he places moral actions on a hierarchy. He expects others around him to be reliable moral agents... he doesn't consider his fellow man incapable and loathsome, but someone to be relied upon. He lives his morals as something internal to him, something to be done because they act itself is a value... he helps others not because he will receive a reward, but because the helping behavior itself IS the reward.

The Christian expects, in other words, that both he himself, and others around him, will operate under a conventional morality, a secular morality, a true morality.

Christians must steal their moral rules from secular morality. They have no choice, as the bible does not offer a moral system, it only offers a series of contradictory commands and a supposed threat of punishment in the "afterlife" for not following them - a punishment that is given equally to all violaters - whatever the sin.

In reality, Christians realize that some actions are more moral than others. They realize that moral actions exist in a hierarchy, and that rape is far worse than stealing a pencil. Yet the bible holds that all 'sins' are equal, as all deserve the same punishment.

Christians also realize that humans can be moral agents... they expect moral behavior from others, and they view their own children as something to value. Yet the bible holds that man is worthless, that he cannot be a moral agent, and that his sole salvation comes from grace.

The fact that a Christian can't go five minutes without contradicting his bible and stealing from secular morality says it all.

Find me a theist who finds any of these actions moral:

In Genesis 3:16 god punishes all women, innocent or not, with painful childbirth and subjugation to men.

In Genesis 7:4 god has a bad day at the office, thus decides to drown innocent babies, and animals both wild and domestic.

In Exodus 4:11 god boasts about making people handicapped.

In Exodus 4:23 god resorts to hostage taking and terrorism in order to get his own way. He does this via threatening a baby. Soon, he is slaughtering little babies all across Egypt.

In Exodus 9:19-20 god slaughters Egyptian cattle. Sometimes, cow tipping just isn't enough.

In Exodus 9:29-30 god kills off innocent babies, and whatever cows he missed earlier.

In Exodus 20:17 god tells us not to free another's slaves. Abolitionists beware!!

In Exodus 32:27-28 god tells the sons to slaughter their neighbors: 3,000 men are slain.

In Leviticus 19:20-22 god demands that raping a slave woman is punishable by scourging the victim. The rapist is to be forgiven.

In Leviticus 25:44-46 god tells his followers to make slaves of their neighbors.

In Leviticus 27:3-7 god helpfully provides a pricing guide. According to this guide, as a male between the ages of 18 and 60 years (the most expensive category), I am worth approximately US$25. How much are you worth to god?

In Numbers 14:18 god's idea of justice is explained: little children are to be punished for their great-great grandparents transgressions.

In Numbers 31:1-54 god tells his followers to commit genocide, "sparing" only the virgin girls, who are to be raped. Even god gets some "unspared" virgins.

In Numbers 33:4 god kills of another batch of Egyptian babies. Abortion is a sin because...?

In Deuteronomy 2:33-36 god demands genocide again. No mention of virgin girls this time, unless these children are raped to death...

In Deuteronomy 7:2 god demands more genocide from his followers.

In Deuteronomy 13:12-16 god demands new and improved genocide, now including cattle. Oh, wait, we've had that before. Damn cows.

In Deuteronomy 32:21-26 god glories in being a psychotic terrorist. Don't miss the atrocities of Deuteronomy 28, either!

In Joshua 6:18-19 the omnipotent creator is short of cash, again.

In Joshua 8:22-26 god demands more genocide, plus some more slavery as detailed in Joshua 9:21-27, but this time, in Joshua 10:10-11, we get slaughter and a chase scene!! Go, god!!
In Joshua 10:28-32 god demands still more genocide.

In Joshua 11:6-17 god still demands more genocide. There are more exceptions to "Thou shalt not kill" than there are to a rich man's tax code.

In Judges 1:2-7. god's takes a break from genocide, has his followers kill "only" 10,000 people, but at least they get to torture and mutilate somebody by cutting off both thumbs and big toes!

In Judges 1:12-13 Caleb offers his daughter as prize to anyone who conquers the City of Debir. The girl's cousin wins the contest, thus the prize.

In Judges 1:17-19 god gets back to good, ol' regular genocide. Killing innocent people is serious work!!

In Judges 2:14 god has a temper-tantrum and sells Israel into slavery.

In Judges 3:28-29 & 4:15-16 god reverts to, you guessed it, genocide.

In Judges 5:30 god hands out a damsel or two to each of his rapist soldiers. Booty Call!!

In Judges 10:17 god gets angry at Israel, again, and sells them into slavery, again.

In Judges 12:6 god slays 42,000 innocent people because someone with a speech impediment mispronounces the word "shibboleth". I'll bet you thought the word "lisp" was cruel jest.

In Judges 15:4-8 a "righteous" Samson captures 300 foxes, ties their tails together, and sets them on fire. Abusing animals is almost as righteous as killing babies, apparently.

In Judges 19:22-30, after taking in a traveling Levite, the host offers his virgin daughter and his guest's concubine to a mob of perverts (who want to have sex with his guest). The mob refuses the daughter, but accepts the concubine and they "abuse her all night." The next morning she crawls back to the doorstep and dies. The Levite mounts her dead body on an ass and takes her home. Then he chops her body up into twelve pieces and sends them to each of the twelve tribes of Israel.

In Judges 21:7-23 in order to find wives for the Benjamites, who were unwilling to use their own daughters, the other tribes attacked and killed all occupants of a city except for the young virgins. These virgins were then given to the Benjamites as "wives".

In 1 Samuel 2:10 if god doesn't like you he will send a thunderstorm to break your body into little pieces. In 1 Samuel 2:31-34, if god really doesn't like you, he will cut off your arm, consume your eyes, grieve your heart, and slay your sons & grandfathers. In 1 Samuel 5:6, 9, and 12 we learn that if god really, really doesn't like you, he will give you hemorrhoids in your "secret parts".

In 1 Samuel 5:11 god wipes out another city.

In 1 Samuel 15:2-3 god demands more genocide, this time as punishment for some no doubt petty transgression committed hundreds of years previously by the forefathers of these innocent people.

In 1 Samuel 15:7-34 god goads Saul into torturing & slaying his prisoner, a King.

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus strongly approves of the law & the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament.

In Matthew 8:21 Jesus shows no compassion for the bereaved, saying to a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead."

In Matthew 8:32 Jesus abuses animals by sending some devils into a herd of pigs, causing the pigs to run off a cliff & drown in the sea below. The acorn does not fall far from the tree. Was there a local shortage of Egyptian cows? Moo!

In Matthew 10:15 Jesus becomes a terrorist, and threatens genocide against cities.

In Matthew 10:28 Jesus tries to scare people by telling them that his dad can beat up their dad.

In Matthew 11:20-24 Jesus threatens more cities.

In Matthew 12:47-49 "Mister Family Values" himself (Jesus) is disrespectful to his mother and rude to his brothers.

In Matthew 13:41-42 Jesus threatens to send his angels against any who offend him, and send them straight to hell. Love, peace, tolerance, and forgiveness are beneath him, apparently.

In Matthew 15:4-7 Jesus commits hypocrisy by demanding all others to honor their parents. "Sorry about being rude back in Matthew 12, Mom."

In Matthew 18:8-9 Jesus advocates self-mutilation, but for others, not him. He's perfect, thank you.

In Matthew 18:25 Jesus advocates slavery.

In Matthew 25:29 Jesus proposes a system of economy where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

In Mark 5:12-13 Jesus spooks 2,000 pigs, causing them to jump of a cliff and drown in the sea. Is this evidence of more animal abuse, or is the story from Matthew 8:32 getting better with each telling?

In Mark 6:11 Jesus resorts to threatening cities again. Die, innocent babies, Die!!

In Mark 7:9-13 Jesus criticizes people for not killing their children, as they should have, according to Old Testament law. The same law Jesus broke when he was disrespectful to his Mother in Matthew 12:47-49.

In Mark 10:29-30 Jesus will reward men who abandon their wives and children.

In Mark 11:13-14 Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing fruit, even though it was out of season. Apparently, "Mister Perfect" wasn't much of an agronomist, or ethicist.

In Luke 8:20-21 Jesus is disrespectful to his mother and rude to his brothers, again. Or still?

In Luke 8:27-37 Jesus heals a naked man who was possessed by many devils by sending the devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the sea. This messy, cruel, and expensive (for the owners of the pigs) treatment did not favorably impress the local residents, and Jesus was asked to leave. This story does get better with each telling!!

In Luke 10:10-15 Jesus terrorizes entire cities, claiming they will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. No doubt these people preferred their pigs.

In Luke 12:46-47 Jesus likens god to a sadistic, diabolical slave-owner, who will beat you "with many stripes".

In Luke 14:26 Jesus decides that it is not enough for men to abandon their families; they must actively hate them, too. Where is the love??

In Luke 16:17 Jesus declares that all the vicious, irrational laws of the Old Testament are binding forever.

In Luke 17:27 Jesus talks about Noah, neatly demonstrating his own ignorance of science, history, and justice.

In John 2:4 Jesus is, again, rude to his mother. She seems so nice, too.

In John 5:14 Jesus announces that god handicaps people as just punishment for their sins.

In John 7:8-10 Jesus lies to his family about attending a feast.

In Acts 5:1-10 Peter, with god's help, kills a man who sold his possessions, but did not fork over all of the earnings. Why is the omnipotent creator always short of cash?

In Acts 13:48 we learn that only pre-ordained people would be allowed in heaven. So much for freewill...

In each case, the average 'Christian' would hold that each of these claims is immoral. And they can do this because their morality comes from extra-biblical sources.

I quoted my own post so nobody has to go find it.

I'm wondering how we come to the conclusion that abandoning the mentally challenged is immoral when logic says that the greater good would be served by diverting the resources for their care into persuits more likely to return a benefit.  Is morality partly irrational? 

I suggest that morals are derived from what is considered right and wrong by a society. Some societies have been very irrational through a lack of understanding or belief for instance ritualized cannibalism/poisonous medicines. So it is very clear that some morals can be irrational.

However to claim that morality is irrational is to not understand what it is. Morality is the accepted moral standards, these do and have changed to what is currently considered rational.

On abandoning the mentally challenged you may consider it moral as you see a greater good from leaving them to their own devices, but your society disagrees. Perhaps it is something you should campaign for. 

I realise you weren't advocating it...but be aware that some might. The reason it is immoral is that the majority think it is.

I would say a society reaches a consensus on what is moral by being a society. The society interacts.

A moral code is in essence a way of behaving. A society demands a certain way of behaving on its members. If a current way of behaving is considered wrong by enough of the members it will be considered wrong by the society. The society itself will consider this rational, a different society may disagree. There are many cases of this be they political or religious....the adoption of laws of warfare or the catholic church adapting its doctrine. This is sensible and rational. Note that I consider the morals of a society to exist separately from individuals who may have a different moral code within the same society.

Bare in mind that this is highly simplified and not always the case, especially with larger groups as they are governed by a minority. The law of the land may not reflect the general consensus of morals quickly if at all. (Many other factors can come into play).

 It is also important to note that we as humans have a degree of inbuilt concepts of right and wrong, or readily accept the idea of something being able to be right or wrong. We are adapted to live in groups. + we reflect on experiences to weigh future considerations. 

 Morals are not hard physical laws some may be axioms others superficial dogma....it is good to eat vs you must not eat meat on fridays . 

 Whether you consider a moral code rational or not is entirely up to you, but consider parts that don't work or stop working can get filtered out. A moral code promotes stability for a species that needs stability to exist in groups...this at least is rational whether or not you consider the actual morals sensible.

Consider a single isolated conscience whatever they think is right or wrong is their moral code. Should this person be able to force this moral code on everybody else? ...or perhaps God did it....

 Many instances of morality may be deliberate in their initial conception but they must be able to move with the times. Womans rights for example is quite different from society to society.

Yes, but merely for that society. Do not get ahead of yourself morals are not the same for everybody. Moral for a society means, this is right judged by the average person. Morals for an individual of a society are their own personal convictions. These do not stretch beyond the borders of the individual or the society.

You could create a group (society) where they believe that not helping the disabled was moral but only within that group. I think it is highly likely that such a group has already existed.

Religion can control morals like this, a group is created that believes in something all powerful. All powerful says do this....the group thinks it is moral to do so.

A moral code needs to be flexible, traditional religion has far more problems with this than atheism. 

 I do not think there is one correct morality and what is virtuous now will likely change and should be able to.
 

I looked up Hauser's Trolley. My first reaction is it seems too simplistic. Without knowing more about how he set up his experiments I would not be able to say much about his conclusion. For instance, his thought experiments allow people to think about their response. In real life, how much time would you have to evaluate such a circumstance? You would have to react on an intuitive level. Unless his experiments cut away the thinking and got down to the actual reactions, I would be suspicious about the conclusions.

I'm not sure what it says about me that I would push the fat man off the bridge.

I believe most people take morality for granted - and fail to realize that morality is nothing more than an idea made up by the collective. Morality is simply our personal judgments of what is right - and what is wrong - nothing more or less. Religious Morality is simply Morality that is tainted (or otherwise influenced) by religion. Whether or not the religiously influenced version of morality is superior to another is nothing more than the judgment of the person judging it.

The mistake people make is by taking morality as a granted method by which everyone, supposedly, lives their life. If you believe such, you have failed to recognize there are alternative methods by which to live life. I live by a code of Honor. Honor differs from morality in the sense that judgments in Honor are based on the context - as opposed to merely a list of absolutist rules.

Personally, I have rejected morality as an inferior methodology by which to live my life. I do fully recognize that honor is merely my personal judgment on how to handle scenarios and evaluate my life position - however, I find this methodology feasible and much more in tune with handling life, as opposed to morality.

Morality is irrelevant to me. Your personal judgments are your own. ALL morality is subjective. There is no such thing as "objective morality".

Other researchers have followed up Hauser's experiments with brain scans using the same and similar questions.  (I can get you references next week if you need them--out of the office today.)  The brain scans support the original findings--the realtime neurological responses for the different situations are different (and predictable) regardless of culture, class, gender, and other factors.

All the evidence points toward a neurologically hardwired human moral foundation.  It's also what evolutionary theory would predict for social primates.

It seems to me that you are all busting your arms patting yourselves on the back for agreeing with each other.

 If you were a real atheist, you would understand that a moral code is meaningless. Meaning that morals themselves are meaningless.

 Right and wrong are ephemeral. I find my justification (if i felt I needed it) from what the act itself brings and that is cool and pleasing self fulfillment.  

If I feel like killing someone... I dont need a God to tell me to do that, I just do it because it suits me...

You call theism irrational, I have never seen more irrationality grouped in one place then at this atheist website.

 That you all have your view as to what atheism really means is admirable, there is no real reason that they should all be the same or even be coherent.

But reading you struggle with terms like right and wrong, or good or bad is really ridiculous. And yes you do struggle, because on one hand you want to lambaste Christianity and notions about God using words like good and bad and evil and the sort, when you have never ever provided (and can't provide) a satisfactory definition  about what is good or evil.

It is a crackup. If I had a thesis, it would be that Atheism ultimately ends in irrationality, incoherence and its result is insanity.

Insanity is not doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Insanity is not accepting reality.

The reality is that no matter how hard you try. For the rest of your life even, Atheism is in fact unlivable. Try to go one day without a moral code, without a legitemate understanding of right and wrong, try for a day, a different understanding of right and wrong.

Let wrong be right and right be wrong. Try it.

If you are an Atheist then you would understand that right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder, you may prefer the notions of right and wrong we have because it provides a stable framework for the life you currently live.

 But that is just buying into the Christian ethic (because the Western ethic is built on the Judeo-Christian ethic) it is inescapable, no matter how much people try to rewrite history...

You live on a foundation your faith could never create. And because you are neither brave nor very smart, you dare not try another and have been unsuccessful in trying to create a whole different ethic.

I dont have disdain for you. Just pity. No matter hwo you try to rearrange the furniture, it is still someone elses...

By the way. I am an evangelical Christian, I just thought I'd throw that out there.