[Diamond]

The whole thing became very distasteful to me. Once I had come to the conclusion above--that morality is not inherent, but what God says it is at the time, that God's character may not be "good" according to our judgment at all as a result, and that God most likely did not exist--I decided I had to work out a more internally consistent sense of morality.

Out of the frying pan into the fire.

Are you saying that Joshua exterminating the Canaanite babies is merely distasteful to you or that there really is something inherently wrong with it? If it's merely distasteful to you then I like chocolate ice cream. If you think that Joshua exterminating the Canaanites was brutal, unjust and immoral then you are contradicting your own thesis that morality is not inherent. If it's just a matter of personal preference then your moral approbation makes no sense.

I based this upon the principle that no person is inherently more valuable than any other person. I have a tendency to value myself more highly than you, but intellectually I realize that is a baseless preference. From this principle I draw the conclusion that each person should do as they like unless in doing so they harm another person. If the harm is sufficient, that justifies others stepping in.

How do accidental concatenations of atoms in a purposeless universe of necessity or chance produce "right" and wrong"? How does an impersonal universe produce something, anything, "wrong" with itself? What do physical forces know of "harm", and "value"? Where did you get your measuring stick from? If you are no more a product of the brute forces of the universe, by what standard do you judge those processes that made you, and how can you rely on the very processes that tell you that something is "wrong" with them? Given atheist presuppositions, complaining about "harm" as if there were some a priori moral rule in place makes about as much sense as moral condemnation of the moon for orbiting the earth. What are you comparing the universe with when you assume that some feature of it is "unjust"?

If you took your atheism seriously not only would you have no basis for condemnation of Mary Cheney's actions, you would have no basis for condemnation of those who condemn her actions either.

Cordially,

[ahayes]

If you think that Joshua exterminating the Canaanites was brutal, unjust and immoral then you are contradicting your own thesis that morality is not inherent.

No, you have read my post completely backwards. I said that it is inherent, it is always wrong to murder babies, even if you're in Joshua's army committing genocide under the supposed command of God.

Where did you get your measuring stick from?

I think every person can agree that if I poke that person in the eye for no reason I am doing wrong. That is from whence the measuring stick comes.

If you took your atheism seriously

Who said I'm atheist?

you would have no basis for condemnation of those who condemn her actions either.

Nonsense. I am quite capable of objecting when I'm poked in the eye, and I can observe and object when someone else is poked in the eye as well.