Why do Atheists Bother?

[Hizikyah]

I'd like to sum up a lot of these morality arguments with one simple phrase.

You keep telling me I have to base my morality off of God or somehow base it off our origins and evolution. Why does it have to be based off of one of those? Why can't my morality be based off of other things such as human emotion and philosophy?

If I may reply?

For an atheist I think that would be a well thought out path, of course as a follower of the Most High, I would like all to come to know Him.

Me personally, I see the world traing people to be, well generally evil, look at TV, now you may have the intelligence and the confidence in your self not to fall for every trap laid before you, but not all atheist have that, heck not all so called believers have that, but the problem is, as soon as a society decides there is no Creator, the state then becomes "GOD" and what the state giveth the state taketh away. As sonn as evil men get in power bye bye to the lives of millions. (Mao wht 65+ million killed? quote "political power comes out of the barrel of a gun"

Has this following passage been true?

10So Samuel told all the words of the Most High to the people who were asking for a king from him. 11He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. 12And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. 13He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. 15He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. 16He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. 18And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Most High will not answer you in that day.”

19But the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel. And they said, “No! But there shall be a king over us, 20that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.” 21And when Samuel had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the ears of the Most High. 22And the Most High said to Samuel, “Obey their voice and make them a king.” Samuel then said to the men of Israel, “Go every man to his city.”

 

[Hizikyah]

Isayah 59:13-15, "In transgressing and lying against Yahweh, and turning away from following our Father, speaking oppression and rebellion, conceiving and uttering from the mind words of falsehood: So judgment is driven backwards, and justice stands afar off, for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. Yes, truth is suppressed; and he who departs from evil is accounted as mad. Yahweh saw this, and it displeased Him that there was no justice."

..........

View attachment 95320

 

[Human]

If I may reply?

For an atheist I think that would be a well thought out path, of course as a follower of the Most High, I would like all to come to know Him.

Me personally, I see the world traing people to be, well generally evil, look at TV, now you may have the intelligence and the confidence in your self not to fall for every trap laid before you, but not all atheist have that, heck not all so called believers have that, but the problem is, as soon as a society decides there is no Creator, the state then becomes "GOD" and what the state giveth the state taketh away. As sonn as evil men get in power bye bye to the lives of millions. (Mao wht 65+ million killed? quote "political power comes out of the barrel of a gun"

Has this following passage been true?

10So Samuel told all the words of the Most High to the people who were asking for a king from him. 11He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. 12And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. 13He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. 15He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. 16He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. 18And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Most High will not answer you in that day.”

19But the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel. And they said, “No! But there shall be a king over us, 20that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.” 21And when Samuel had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the ears of the Most High. 22And the Most High said to Samuel, “Obey their voice and make them a king.” Samuel then said to the men of Israel, “Go every man to his city.”

Religious worship and state worship aren't the only two options for individuals within society.

 

[Cycel]

Stealing, killing, and lying can certainly promote gene spread in some situations.

Yes, if you are a warlord or king that is possibly true, but it doesn't negate the fact that for most of human existence we lived first in small, hunter gatherer bands who would have needed to rely upon cooperation and conflict resolution skills for their survival. That’s where we continued to evolved those behaviours. Even kings, in later periods, however, required the cooperation of nobles to rule (note King John and the Magna Carta). Also, it seems to me most warlords (ie. despots) live on a rich diet of paranoia, and for good reason. Coups are often their fate.

 

[Cycel]

..........

View attachment 95320

Pictures are not relevant to the discussion.

 

[newbirth]

I'd like to sum up a lot of these morality arguments with one simple phrase.

You keep telling me I have to base my morality off of God or somehow base it off our origins and evolution. Why does it have to be based off of one of those? Why can't my morality be based off of other things such as human emotion and philosophy?

that would be Ok if the origin of morality were based on human emotion and philosophy....but morality goes beyond human emotion and philosophy....human emotion would justify a wrong to protect its own.....philosophy would be human emotion perfecting the reason why you justify a wrong to protect your own....

 

[Percepi]

that would be Ok if the origin of morality were based on human emotion and philosophy....but morality goes beyond human emotion and philosophy....

Well, you could probably squeeze genetics in there, but since emotion comes from our genetics I felt it wasn't worth listing.

human emotion would justify a wrong to protect its own...

Morality isn't some sort of physical construct with a right and wrong answer. It's a man made concept. So, according to some people, it's morally acceptable to steal from others who have more than you.

And before we go down this road of whether or not morality is objective or subjective, keep in mind that I'm answering the question, "If you don't base morality off of God's word, what do you base your morality on?"

 

[Cycel]

"It is the dominant view of Western society..."
So, the answer to the question 'Who's to say Hitler was wrong', the answer, if I understand you, is 'Western society.' Myself, I'm not really into the 'most people think this, so it must be right' approach, if that's what you're endorsing...

The majority view is not always right, but Western society has unanimously agreed that Hitler was a war monger and needed to be stopped. I agree with this claim, most Christians agree with this claim, even if you don't.

I am not arguing that the majority view is always the right course, very often it is not, but in any given culture, it is members within the society that make that call and impose their choices. In the Middle Ages the final arbiter in the West was probably the Catholic Church and in parts of Iraq today it is Islamic fundamentalists who impose their will. Who, in what was to become the USA, decided that slavery was moral? Whether you agree with the morality of the issue or not Christian scripture was used in defense of slavery in the United States. So who decides morality? We all do, and none of us. Morality is an historical phenomena within a culture, that arises, shifts and evolves over time.

Am I in error to make these claims. Absolutely not. Everyone of us who is old enough has seen substantial shifts in morality. It happens, just as shifts in language take place spontaneously. If you heard English spoken a thousand years ago you'd swear it was a foreign language, and morality was all together different then as well. Societies change. They are not static.

So, whose morality is right? That would be whomever has the authority to impose their will. I don't like it, but that is the way it is. If you were a righteous Jew living in post conquest Jerusalem (c. 587 BC), then you'd think it was moral to kill the children of your enemies. If you are an Islamic fundamentalist living in the Middle East today then you think it is moral to sell the daughters of your enemies into slavery (note: Old Testament Jews did the same thing). If you are a liberal secularist you probably think it is moral to conduct stem-cell research (that would be me). And if you are a Christian conservative you probably would like to impose your views about gay marriage on the rest of society. You'd also claim biblical authority, but you'd ignore biblical approval of slavery, burning witches, stoning, cutting off hands, etc. You will protest that Jesus freed us from the Law, but the fact remains Christian (Western) morality has simply shifted.

We live in an open and fluid society in the West with separation of church and state. No group has the authority to impose its morality on any other, probably to the consternation of some, but society still exerts legal pressure for its members to behave in recommended ways and some members carry out acts of terror to enforce their will, as we recently witnessed in France. How this will all resolve itself in the end, I don't know, but if I can go by the example of history, then I think I can at least conclude that the great diversity of morality throughout the world demonstrates that all morality is man made.

 

[newbirth]

Well, you could probably squeeze genetics in there, but since emotion comes from our genetics I felt it wasn't worth listing.



Morality isn't some sort of physical construct with a right and wrong answer. It's a man made concept. So, according to some people, it's morally acceptable to steal from others who have more than you.

And before we go down this road of whether or not morality is objective or subjective, keep in mind that I'm answering the question, "If you don't base morality off of God's word, what do you base your morality on?"

well a man can base his morality on anything in that case...but morality is in fact based on right and wrong... man made concepts are spin off from these rights and wrongs crated to suit individuals ,cultures and anything in between....that is why you end up with situations like these.....

So, according to some people, it's morally acceptable to steal from others who have more than you.

that is a moral standard applied by some people...but the set standard for stealing is that it is wrong...

 

[Dan_473]

That's right Dan. Obviously different cultures have different moral values. This is as true today as it was in the past. Our history and our cultural background has given us a unique perspective on how we judge right from wrong. However, it should be obvious from the great diversity of codes around the world and throughout history that there is no single moral code that reigns supreme. As a Christian you might wish that the code you stand by is writ in the heavens, but if this were so we would not see the diversity of moral values that we do.

The facts of the case are clear. Humans design their own morality, and some go so far as to compose sacred literature demonstrating that their gods, coincidentally, holds the same moral views they do. This accounts for and explains the sacred dominance of men over women (in a patriarchal society and approved by a patriarchal god), and the approval of slavery in both the Old and New Testaments. It should be no surprise that the God of the Old Testament approved the level of violence that men of that time saw fit to perpetrate on their enemies.

"As a Christian you might wish that the code you stand by is writ in the heavens, but if this were so we would not see the diversity of moral values that we do."
Well, as I think I said earlier, simply because there is a God who has principles (I believe), doesn't mean that knowledge of those principles is communicated to every person the same way.




"The facts of the case are clear. Humans design their own morality..."
To me, this is the same as saying that you know for certain that god doesn't exist... it's something you can believe, but I don't think you can know that for certain... if you can, I'm interested...

 

[Dan_473]

Well that points to the main argument Christians have against a fallible Bible. If certain parts are in error, how do you know which parts? How can you trust any of it? It gives someone permission to formfit the Bible to fit what they believe, disregarding things they don't like/agree with as error or inaccuracy, or as figurative and not literal.



I suppose it's possible, but once again, when you start adding concession upon concession it becomes a slippery slope. The farther you stray away from mainstream Christianity, the more you end up with your own personalized version of Christianity that you will find both Christian and atheist alike sharing disbelief in.

Furthermore, all of those things listed so far are not even the main reason why I no longer believe. And that is the problem of evil. The God of Christianity is not good. Even if He did exist, I would not want to worship someone so cruel and arbitrary.

Now, what I am about to say is not directed to you personally, but it is something I have come across time and time again when discussion with Christians about why I no longer believe.

There is not one singular reason why an ex-Christian no longer believes. It was not just because of one specific thing, but rather a collection of things. If asked, they will give some of the main reasons, but they alone aren't all of them. What Christians will often do, and once again, I'm not saying this is you, but what they will do is grab one of those reasons and say something like this: "Oh, you stopped believing because of this one thing? How foolish. Clearly you don't understand how that thing can be resolved." They say it in a manner to suggest that one's deconversion was based on some trifle, shallow reason, and hints at that person's lack of understanding. This is incredibly annoying to deal with because it's never just one reason. It is a collection of reasons and realizations that build off of eachother.

"If certain parts are in error, how do you know which parts? How can you trust any of it? It gives someone permission to formfit the Bible to fit what they believe..."
This assumes that there is no spirit of God who can communicate or lead humans.



"The farther you stray away from mainstream Christianity..."
You might be interested in this: the majority of Christians are Catholic or Orthodox, neither of which (I don't think) promotes a young-earth view. So, does the only scientific issue have to do with age of earth / evolution?


" And that is the problem of evil. The God of Christianity is not good."
If you're a bible literalist, then I can see that point.

So, I think if one sees the only options as fundamentalist Christian or atheist, then the best option is atheism... and that makes sense to me... fundamentalist Christians make up only a small percentage of the Christian world, though...

 

[Dan_473]

It does have to involve ignoring that your own will to survive, you own will to not be violated or murdered, would be violated by being murdered and that by murdering someone else your actions are not in interpersonal solidarity (you violate another's desire not to be killed against their will) because of that. It's really a matter of equilibrium; no person on this entire planet wants to be caused any suffering or caused a death they do not want to be inflicted with. So, it logically stems from there that in order to have that desire recognized one should not cause another to suffer unconsensually nor should one murder another unconsensually. Just the same, nobody on this Earth wants to be unwantedly violated in any means; by theft, by rape, by adultery, by violence. It is logically conclusive then that to see these things recognized, a person should not do these to another person.

Not everyone wants to steal, not everyone wants to rape, not everyone wants to murder, but EVERYONE doesn't want to be unconsensually violated in any of these ways. Thus, there is a universal human desire to not be unconsensually violated upon which a human being can base their moralities, and such a moral system is self-regulating and coherent and consistent in that it must always, constantly, take into account that principle. If I should at any time believe some desire of mine not inherent in all others, thus not universal (to rape, to kill, should I have such desires) is at any point warranted I should only need to ask myself whether carrying out that desire contradicts the universal desire not to be unconsensually violated or inflicted with suffering.

If it does, then I have my answer on whether it's right or wrong.

Take you for instance. You, like every other human, do not desire to be inflicted with unconsensual suffering nor to be violated unconsensually. Say I felt like punching you. I would ask if that violates your will not to suffer unconsensually. The answer is that it would indeed violate that will. Thus, I would decide not to punch you.

As for the suffering my own anger and suppressed desire to hit you causes, that is a product of my own cognition and emotion. You did not cause it, thus you have not caused me to suffer. I have caused myself to suffer and I should learn in future how to recognize and detachedly view that anger rather than be sucked into any tempting situation by it.

"So, it logically stems from there that in order to have that desire recognized one should not cause another to suffer unconsensually nor should one murder another unconsensually."
I'm not seeing the logic... maybe you could lay it out step-by-step, or set up a syllogism... I think that along the way, you will want to use the statement, "It's good to not do to others what you don't want them to do to you"... but of course, that's a moral judgement. I would agree with Red Tory on that point, then, that it's circular...





"...can base their moralities..."
Of course. There are any number of moralities a person can choose from...





"It is logically conclusive then that to see these things recognized, a person should not do these to another person."
What do you mean by 'recognized'? By who? Other people? If so, then the statement becomes, "It's good to have this desire recognized by other people."

 

[Dan_473]

Yes, I believe so, but being fit only means to pass on more genes. There are plenty of ways to do that without being violent, and in fact, maybe violence and force are the least effective ways of achieving this.


I think you can answer that for yourself. If you did these things how long do you think it would be before you were hunted down or simply incarcerated, perhaps for life, or until you were well past reproductive prime? In small human groups the key to survival is cooperation and effective conflict resolution techniques among community members. Not every act affecting evolutionary outcome is red in tooth and claw.


Natural for the lions, yes, but not acceptable to the gazelles, and kid yourself not, early humans residing on the African plains were often the prey. They best way to survive and pass on your genes was not through stealing, lying or killing your own kind.

"... maybe violence and force are the least effective ways of achieving this."
I think it would depend on the environment.




"They best way to survive and pass on your genes was not through stealing, lying or killing your own kind."
Again, it would depend on the situation... one group of humans with better genes may steal the food of an inferior group... the better-gened group becomes stronger, passing on more genes... the inferior group weakens, less genes.

 

[Dan_473]

I'd like to sum up a lot of these morality arguments with one simple phrase.

You keep telling me I have to base my morality off of God or somehow base it off our origins and evolution. Why does it have to be based off of one of those? Why can't my morality be based off of other things such as human emotion and philosophy?

Actually, I would say you can choose any morality you want... Myself, I have more joy when I see myself as part of a larger plan... and, along with that, a morality based on God's principles...


btw, I'm interested in whether you see human fault as the same as, say, battery fault (a weak battery won't start the car)?

 

[Human]

"So, it logically stems from there that in order to have that desire recognized one should not cause another to suffer unconsensually nor should one murder another unconsensually."
I'm not seeing the logic... maybe you could lay it out step-by-step, or set up a syllogism... I think that along the way, you will want to use the statement, "It's good to not do to others what you don't want them to do to you"... but of course, that's a moral judgement. I would agree with Red Tory on that point, then, that it's circular...





"...can base their moralities..."
Of course. There are any number of moralities a person can choose from...





"It is logically conclusive then that to see these things recognized, a person should not do these to another person."
What do you mean by 'recognized'? By who? Other people? If so, then the statement becomes, "It's good to have this desire recognized by other people."

If every human doesn't want to suffer or die unconsensually (which is true, since unconsensual suffering by definition requires an opposition by the victim to the suffering or murder) then in order to see that universal desire realized by all of humanity, it befits each human not do inflict unconsensual suffering or death. If even one does it, that universal desire is violated in at least one person. If nobody does it, then the universal desire is universally recognized and realized and respected.

 

[newbirth]

The majority view is not always right, but Western society has unanimously agreed that Hitler was a war monger and needed to be stopped. I agree with this claim, most Christians agree with this claim, even if you don't.

I am not arguing that the majority view is always the right course, very often it is not, but in any given culture, it is members within the society that make that call and impose their choices. In the Middle Ages the final arbiter in the West was probably the Catholic Church and in parts of Iraq today it is Islamic fundamentalists who impose their will. Who, in what was to become the USA, decided that slavery was moral? Whether you agree with the morality of the issue or not Christian scripture was used in defense of slavery in the United States. So who decides morality? We all do, and none of us. Morality is an historical phenomena within a culture, that arises, shifts and evolves over time.

Am I in error to make these claims. Absolutely not. Everyone of us who is old enough has seen substantial shifts in morality. It happens, just as shifts in language take place spontaneously. If you heard English spoken a thousand years ago you'd swear it was a foreign language, and morality was all together different then as well. Societies change. They are not static.

So, whose morality is right? That would be whomever has the authority to impose their will. I don't like it, but that is the way it is. If you were a righteous Jew living in post conquest Jerusalem (c. 587 BC), then you'd think it was moral to kill the children of your enemies. If you are an Islamic fundamentalist living in the Middle East today then you think it is moral to sell the daughters of your enemies into slavery (note: Old Testament Jews did the same thing). If you are a liberal secularist you probably think it is moral to conduct stem-cell research (that would be me). And if you are a Christian conservative you probably would like to impose your views about gay marriage on the rest of society. You'd also claim biblical authority, but you'd ignore biblical approval of slavery, burning witches, stoning, cutting off hands, etc. You will protest that Jesus freed us from the Law, but the fact remains Christian (Western) morality has simply shifted.

We live in an open and fluid society in the West with separation of church and state. No group has the authority to impose its morality on any other, probably to the consternation of some, but society still exerts legal pressure for its members to behave in recommended ways and some members carry out acts of terror to enforce their will, as we recently witnessed in France. How this will all resolve itself in the end, I don't know, but if I can go by the example of history, then I think I can at least conclude that the great diversity of morality throughout the world demonstrates that all morality is man made.

of course you can can conclude whatever you decide is reasonable to you...based on your observation...using the same observation and reasoning....I can claim for instance most if not all medicine today as man made and that is a reasonable conclusion but every ingredient used has a natural base....that does not mean man made the natural base...

 

[nl]

If every human doesn't want to suffer or die unconsensually (which is true, since unconsensual suffering by definition requires an opposition by the victim to the suffering or murder) then in order to see that universal desire realized by all of humanity, it befits each human not do inflict unconsensual suffering or death. If even one does it, that universal desire is violated in at least one person. If nobody does it, then the universal desire is universally recognized and realized and respected.

"Do no harm to others" is an incomplete ethic stated as a negative.

The two great commands given by Jesus are superior and stated as positives. Briefly stated, they are:

• Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind (Mt 22:37)
• Love your neighbor as yourself (v.39)

At another time, Jesus set the standard even higher. Jesus said: "Love others as I have loved you." and "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15).

 

[Dan_473]

Yes, if you are a warlord or king that is possibly true, but it doesn't negate the fact that for most of human existence we lived first in small, hunter gatherer bands who would have needed to rely upon cooperation and conflict resolution skills for their survival. That’s where we continued to evolved those behaviours. Even kings, in later periods, however, required the cooperation of nobles to rule (note King John and the Magna Carta). Also, it seems to me most warlords (ie. despots) live on a rich diet of paranoia, and for good reason. Coups are often their fate.

"Yes, if you are a warlord or king that is possibly true..."
Possibly? Males who father lots of children, by whatever method, have a lot more copies of their genes around.





"...but it doesn't negate the fact that for most of human existence we lived first in small, hunter gatherer bands who would have needed to rely upon cooperation and conflict resolution skills for their survival."
Cooperation within the team or clan, yes... another good way to get food is to steal it from another clan... also, these hunter gatherer bands would sometimes fight over hunting gathering areas, with the healthiest (and therefore probably the better genes) more often winning, thereby having a better chance of spreading more genes. (It makes sense that the inferior group should be pushed aside or wiped out, doesn't it?)






"...note King John and the Magna Carta..."
I don't know much about that situation. Is it a good example of people working together or nobles wanting to take some power away from the king... wanting it for themselves?





"Also, it seems to me most warlords (ie. despots) live on a rich diet of paranoia, and for good reason. Coups are often their fate."
Yes, and as far as the spreading of genes is concerned, it doesn't matter if the gene carrier is paranoid or euphoric or how long they live... the key is how many copies are spread.

 

[Hizikyah]

Pictures are not relevant to the discussion.

So photographic evidence of what is happening in the world has no bearing on what is happening in the world....?

you are connnfrrrussin me.

 

[Dan_473]

The majority view is not always right, but Western society has unanimously agreed that Hitler was a war monger and needed to be stopped. I agree with this claim, most Christians agree with this claim, even if you don't.

I am not arguing that the majority view is always the right course, very often it is not, but in any given culture, it is members within the society that make that call and impose their choices. In the Middle Ages the final arbiter in the West was probably the Catholic Church and in parts of Iraq today it is Islamic fundamentalists who impose their will. Who, in what was to become the USA, decided that slavery was moral? Whether you agree with the morality of the issue or not Christian scripture was used in defense of slavery in the United States. So who decides morality? We all do, and none of us. Morality is an historical phenomena within a culture, that arises, shifts and evolves over time.

Am I in error to make these claims. Absolutely not. Everyone of us who is old enough has seen substantial shifts in morality. It happens, just as shifts in language take place spontaneously. If you heard English spoken a thousand years ago you'd swear it was a foreign language, and morality was all together different then as well. Societies change. They are not static.

So, whose morality is right? That would be whomever has the authority to impose their will. I don't like it, but that is the way it is. If you were a righteous Jew living in post conquest Jerusalem (c. 587 BC), then you'd think it was moral to kill the children of your enemies. If you are an Islamic fundamentalist living in the Middle East today then you think it is moral to sell the daughters of your enemies into slavery (note: Old Testament Jews did the same thing). If you are a liberal secularist you probably think it is moral to conduct stem-cell research (that would be me). And if you are a Christian conservative you probably would like to impose your views about gay marriage on the rest of society. You'd also claim biblical authority, but you'd ignore biblical approval of slavery, burning witches, stoning, cutting off hands, etc. You will protest that Jesus freed us from the Law, but the fact remains Christian (Western) morality has simply shifted.

We live in an open and fluid society in the West with separation of church and state. No group has the authority to impose its morality on any other, probably to the consternation of some, but society still exerts legal pressure for its members to behave in recommended ways and some members carry out acts of terror to enforce their will, as we recently witnessed in France. How this will all resolve itself in the end, I don't know, but if I can go by the example of history, then I think I can at least conclude that the great diversity of morality throughout the world demonstrates that all morality is man made.

"The majority view is not always right, but Western society has unanimously agreed..."
Well, if the majority can be wrong, then there's still the question, 'Who's to say Hitler was wrong.'
So, it sounds like if a society unanimously agrees on something... how is that unanimoty measured? Certainly not every single person... Just Western society? Or could Japan count in the assesment, too?







"...it is members within the society that make that call and impose their choices."
They may make rules or laws, but that doesn't mean I have to consider those laws 'right'.








"Who, in what was to become the USA, decided that slavery was moral?"
I don't think anybody did. The governments passed laws allowing it. I think God decides what's moral.









"Whether you agree with the morality of the issue or not Christian scripture was used in defense of slavery in the United States."
Very true!








"So who decides morality? We all do, and none of us. Morality is an historical phenomena within a culture, that arises, shifts and evolves over time."
An opinion, a perspective... if it gives you joy, then go with it, I think.





"So, whose morality is right? That would be whomever has the authority to impose their will. I don't like it, but that is the way it is."
Well, sounds like it's not giving you joy, then...
I agree that people's ideas about what is right or wrong varies with time and place... this doesn't mean that there is no god who has principles that humans ought to (or will be happier if they) seek.