Why Secular Morality is Superior

[elunico13]

THE most superior form of morality is that which enables one to lead the life one wishes, with a clear conscience.

Then don't condemn the rapist and child molester if that's the life they choose to live. How do you know that violates their conscience? And what obligation do they have to follow an an immaterial "urge" in a materialistic universe? None. It's an arbitrary standard set by padraic.

Going by the way Christians have behaved throughout history,one can only assume Judeo-Christian morality is perfectly designed for such an endeavor.

Christian: One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbour. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not incompatible with a life of sin (Ambrose Bierce)

Wrong. Many non christians believe the NT is divinely inspired also. You're judging the behavior of another without a standard to do so. If you assert your own its only arbitrary. Man has no authority for setting moral standards. Only your creator.

---

Sorry about dodging the second part. Since there are terrible crimes in the bible then you should be able to tell me why they're terrible.

They are terrible because I would not want any of them perpetrated on myself. I would not want to be killed, maimed, turned into a rape slave, have my property stolen or destroyed, have my children's brains dashed out on rocks, etc. My morality is formed on a very clear basis: certain things can cause me great amounts of stress, pain, or outright annihilation, and I do not want any of those things done to me. It would, therefore, be immoral to do those things to others, because my experience in interacting with other people indicates to me that none of them want these things done to them, proving to me that my morality is not based on quirks unique to myself.

That's all I, or anyone, needs to know. I do not ever want to experience harm, except the kind which is an absolutely necessary by-product of a process which will ultimately improve my life. Harm for the sake of harm is terrible, to me, and my experience tells me the vast majority of people agree with this. That is the basis of my morality. It is far stronger, and more beneficial to everyone I encounter, therefore it is the superior morality in every way, especially compared to the morals of a book which gleefully permits so many things I, or almost anyone else, could never find moral. It's why even believers, all but the most insanely literal at least, have long since cherrypicked biblical morals and keep the ones which are mostly similar to what I described. Unfortunately, they do still pick a lot which are harmful to other people simply for the sake of harming them, though, of course, they wrap up their immorality in pages of the bible, so that they can pretend it isn't evil.

Why do I choose the term 'evil'? Because there's no more concise way to describe moral evil than 'harming for harm's sake'.

How do you know your brain is fully developed and not in a sociopathic state? "My brain tells me".

I do not rely solely on my brain for this information. I rely on outside knowledge, the way people interact with me, and the relatively objective observations of others (such as the science of biology and the study of psychology) which give me the knowledge that my brain is mostly finished in its physiological development and that my mental state is in no way exceedingly out of whack. I could not possibly form a meaningful picture of my mental state if I had nothing to compare it to.

It is the theist which derives entire worldviews from single sources they insist are infallible; you shouldn't make that mistake about me.

Did you use your brain to come up with this conclusion? See the problem?
You use your brain to make these judgments and you've done nothing to show that your brain is fully developed to arrive at any valid conclusion.

I just see the fallacy of begging the question.