Replacing Religious Morality

[henryp]

1) I think what it's about, is that we have a conclusion that we'd like to believe about the nature of our existence, and God is the only answer that leads to the conclusion we want. Not just in morality, but meaning, and not being finite. I'm sure there are some "You're no the boss of me" cards to be played, but the idea of God having some legit authority is pretty reasonable compared to being nice cause nice is nice.

That's my point - it tries to be reasonable, but fails.

3) The funny thing about my personal 'living the way I want', is I'd prefer to believe in God. It's clearly the better way to go. The comfort of an eternal happy existence, and everybody should be nice to eachother. It's not a mistake it's so popular. It's better (minus it not being true).

Actually, it not being true is what precludes it from being better.

The reason I bring that up, is that I'm not reverse engineering how to live anymore based on what I wish the world was. I'm trying to do so based on my new 'objective' foundation which is, I'm guessing, mostly biological.

What 'objective' foundation? And how is it objective?

1) You don't have to recognize the authority of an all powerful omnipotent all-loving being that is the source of all creation, I suppose. I think in most situations with an all-powerful all-knowing super being that loves you, deferring to said all-powerful all-knowing super being is a sound strategy. Now, we agree the all-powerful, all-knowing super being that loves us doesn't exist, so it's moot, but if it were a thing, I think it'd just be stubborness to be all "I don't know Mr. allknowing allpowerful superbeing, Jimmy on the internet had some pretty interesting thoughts on this matter too."

I'm being a bit silly, but I think the distaste for the idea of God because of it's absurdity may be causing the minimizing of the immensity of what that being would be if real.

2) What precludes the christian fairytale from being better, is not being able to believe it. It's one of the things that confuses me about Atheists anger towards the religious. Ricky Gervais nailed it in the Invention of Lying. The idea of heaven brought peace to his mother who was terrified of death. That's a win. Why would you ever try to take that away from something when you would be replacing it with nothing of importance?

It doesn't matter if it's true or not, because in our Atheist reality, there is no right way or wrong way to live. My brain wants to maximize the happiness I feel, and whatnot. But if I just ate skittles until I popped, that's just as meaningless and valid in the end. So if religious people can believe in something that brings them peace and meaning and happiness, more power to them.

3) What is an objective foundation? The desire for personal happiness is a real thing, I think. Biological, evolutionary, whatever. And I build from there, and try to be objective as possible as I associate value to actions and things.

I like my Xbox. It brings me happiness. I don't care even a little about the people of the Philippines. So given the choice of keeping my Xbox, or saving 1000's of lives, I keep the Xbox.

And it's tricky business. Societal pressure is a thing. I think I've reverted back to old school tribal rules on that. Small group of people that impact my life positively, I also apply value to their happiness. And that's about as far as I've gotten, thus far. Like I said in the beginning, still a work in progress. But trying to look at things for what they are, and identifying which things are outside forces trying to manipulate me into acting outside my own interests is the big thing that has me disagreeing with people on here most, thus far.