That quotation is in regards to the Judeo-Christian morality expressed in the Bible, not my sense of morality, which as you see conflicted with this.
Maybe I'm wrong but I thought you said it: "...and that God most likely did not exist..."
"This particular version of God probably does not exist." =/= "No supernatural being exists at all, period." I am agnostic.
Where does the "wrong" come from if, God forbid, someone pokes you in the eye for no reason?
It is innate. I know it is wrong. It is painful to me.
Do you only know certain things are wrong because the list was written down for you thousands of years ago? If so, you are a scary person! :-o
If the pokee is really nothing more than mere epiphenomenon of matter in motion, as is the poker, so what?
Because the pokee hurts. :-(
Are the neuro-chemical reactions in the brain of the somehow pokee more "valid" that the chemical reactions in the brain of the poker?
Nope, they are equally valid, as I explained before. Thus we can universalize and say no one should be poked in the eye, because no one wants to be poked in the eye.
Of course you object to being poked in the eye, but what is the moral basis for your objection?
It hurts. :-(
The chemical reactions in your brain dictate that you do not have the taste for being poked in the eye. The chemical reactions in the brain of poker, not being the same chemical reactions as in your brain, dictate a different personal preference, in this case, for poking you in the eye. Why would there be any expectation of physical reactions to do something other than what they do? Physical phenomena just are what they are. How do you justify your expectation that they ought to be something else?
I'm sorry, was there a point there??
Is the source of morality agreement?
In a sense yes, in a sense no. The agreement of the Nazis that they ought to exterminate the Jews did not justify the Holocaust. It was not a true agreement, since if you consulted the Nazis and asked how they would like to be imprisoned, starved, tortured, and experimented upon they would have said no thanks.
What if the poker does not agree?
Like the Nazis, they are out of line because they are placing a different standard of moral treatment upon others than they would place upon themselves, and there is no rational reason to do this and every rational reason not to.
An animal caught in the jaws of a predator feels pain, too. So what? There is no morality associated with it. The victim presumably does not want to be devoured either. What does the victim's desire not to be devoured have to do with morality? You are assuming a dignity for human animals not yet in evidence.
The agreement of the Nazis that they ought to exterminate the Jews did not justify the Holocaust. It was not a true agreement, since if you consulted the Nazis and asked how they would like to be imprisoned, starved, tortured, and experimented upon they would have said no thanks.
I am asking for an account of the morality that you are assuming, given the premise of mere physical epiphenomena in a purposeless universe of necessity or chance. How does an impersonal universe produce something, anything, "wrong" with itself? Where does the expectation come from that it ought to be something else? You can't explain the origin of morality by positing a prior moral rule. Where does the prior moral rule come from that one should treat others as one would like to be treated?
Like the Nazis they are out of line because they are placing a different standard of moral treatment upon others than they would place upon themselves, and there is no rational reason to do this and every rational reason not to.
Again, it won't do to explain morality simply by assuming the very thing in question; namely, that an impersonal universe somehow generated a standard of incumbency independent of itself. How could it? How can the universe generate something that is independent of itself?
Beside that is the simple observation that in the natural world (which is all there is, under the premise) there doesn't seem to be any such obligation. Animals survive and prosper precisely by treating others the way they do not want to be treated. Sometimes humans animals do, too. Look at how Bill Clinton has prospered, for example. One could argue that his actions have been very rational, if getting what one wants is the criteria. Regardless, in a Darwinian world of chance or necessity presumably the ones that do not survive and prosper are functioning just as normally as the ones that do. So what? Why do you expect the universe ought to be "rational" , even-handed, or "fair"?
Cordially,