[UndauntedR]

In the materialist world run by determinism...

We know the determinism debate is a whole 'nother beast. My point of view is that even if everything is deterministic (hmm... even if it's not... everything is still cause-effect + chance), we still have to punish those who violate the human social code. Even if we are big stimuli-response machines, we at least have the illusion of freewill (personal responsibility) and still have social expectations of others. I have no problem with punishing someone who is "wired incorrectly" - acts in a way that is detrimental to society and violates our trust/expectations.

I've never seen the possibility of determinism as a big hurdle to any of these moral arguements.

You simply borrow the morality from the "bearded man in the sky"

I've always thought all religions borrowed their morality from us. It's very easy (easier?) to recognize morality outside of religion - so... all religion does is cement existing morals as "moral absolutes" in alot of minds... which would be beneficial to society and social critters...

If religion didn't exist... and I was the evolution of social memes/cognitive thinking... you'd have a hard time convincing me NOT to create it.

[jwalsh07]

You state that free will is an illusion and that morality is borrowed from you. :-}

Absent free will my friend we can not be morally responsible folks.

You have what in known as a conundrum but if it is any consolation you are not alone, the world has plenty of atheistic determinist's who can't logically connect an absence of free will with a moral self, Dawkins versus Quinn (Or Massacre At Atheist Gulch). Those two propositions are totally illogical.

Good luck!