Atheism - Shadows of Doubt

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Elok
Lori: I thought that would be the most obvious part, so I didn't explain it. In any religion, there is a supernatural goal towards which moral behavior is oriented. In my own Orthodox Christianity, the goal is to become reunited with God as we were before the disruption of human senses caused by the Fall. In Buddhism, it's to end the cycle of Samsara, though what exactly that means varies depending on what sect you listen to. In Hinduism, it's just to stop the tedious freaking cycle of reincarnation as worms and goats and crap, or at least to come back as a higher being. Et cetera. In all cases, it's something uniting the personal with the universal, something which cannot be explained or demonstrated scientifically.

Yes, but even the moral codes set out by religions can fall prey to the same "crime does pay" sort of attitudes. And if this is true, how can you so easily dismiss the rationalizations for secular morality and not dismiss the rationalizations for spiritual/religious morality?

Take Hinduism, for example. There are many instances in history where rich Hindus will lead selfish, greedy lives making their money off of the poor and the helpless only to, in the last years of their lives, give it all up and going on a spending spree, building temples and shrines left and right.

Now, by the literal interpretation of their religious codes, they have done no wrong and will manage not to become a beetle next time, but they have most certainly violated the spirit of their religion.

Take the selling of indulgences by the Catholic church.

How is it possible to elevate spiritual morality above secular morality, when all sorts of contradictions and interpretations exist in one religion and amongst the many religions?

[Nubclear]

Morality based on religion is pure and great, whereas morality NOT based on religion will result in insanity and debauchery.

History backs me up here, sir.

[Lorizael]

Shh. I want him to think I respect him.

[Elok]

Mm-hmm. So, are there any arguments from people who are serious and NOT just being jackasses? The contradictions mentioned by Lori are not unique to religious systems of morals--secular systems go corrupt with less frequency, but they do go corrupt, and the discrepancy is easily explained by the fact that they are very rarely given the level of power that often corrupts religions. Robespierre didn't take long to become a monster, and the history of Marxism should be a clear indicator as well; don't mistake impotence for goodness. The problem of unjustifiability, however, is unique to atheistic systems.

...on further inspection of your latest post, I'm not sure we're speaking the same language. The "rationalizations" of religious morality are usually an attempt to conform the code to a desired behavior which isn't currently admissible, yes. But when did I mention rationalizations in terms of atheistic morality? I'm sure they exist, but I didn't bring them up. I only mentioned the casual evils we all commit in our day-to-day lives, without bothering to think up fancy justifications for them. Those I mentioned not in the context of "bad things religious people avoid," but to forestall the inevitable remark that some people are good all their lives or whatever. It doesn't happen.

Anyway, the ability to rationalize is found in all of humanity, religious or no, and so not especially relevant to our current discussion. Give a man enough time and motivation and he'll explain at length how no means yes and up means down. That's assuming he has enough respect for, or fear of, the current system that he bothers to work around it. Otherwise he'll just dismiss his erstwhile morals as a lot of mumbo-jumbo sophistry because they keep him from doing whatever he wants.

[Nubclear]

The "problem of unjustifiability" is merely given to another entity when we bring in religious explanations. I can say that I want to donate money to the Red Cross because thats what my moral systems says to do. But then I run into the problem: Well, why should I believe in my moral system?

You propose that religion is an answer to this, yes? That one should believe because ones religion, ones GOD says to believe. But why should I give God (or, de facto, the holy book) the status of a moral arbiter? Why is it "rational" to believe what God says as opposed to what I say? The act of giving God the status of the moral arbiter is a moral determination in and of itself, and therefore runs into the exact same "problem" that you mention - how it it "rationally" justified for me to make this determination?

Of course, given that reason is merely a slave of the passions and must be used as a tool in order to actualise desires, and given that logic merely looks for consistency in argument, the idea that morality needs or can be rationally explained is absurd. Morality is not rational nor can it be - things are only rational in relation to ones morals and values. To illustrate: Try to convince me of *any* position if I reject all of your values. Why should I, for instance, value educating children? Or democracy? Or despotism? Or anything?

Given all this, the statement that somehow morality is "less" without religion is false, since religion does not actually solve anything.
I might even say that morality without this dogma is more genuine, since A) it is much more intellectually honest and rigorous, and B) It is not quite as open to manipulation from "God" or "the Party" or whatever.

The formation of these systems is of course a different question entirely, one that is likely answered by evolutionary biology and sociology.

[Elok]

In other words, you've made your morality into a cardboard god of itself, and put words in its mouth in order to obey them. Goody for you. I have an actual reason for obeying my god. And it's based on the one undeniable principle of personal benefit. You should value educating children because they take care of you when you're an old geezer in a nursing home. You should value democracy because it gives you a say in the way things are run. You should value despotism assuming you get to be the despot and you don't mind being paranoid about assassination attempts. And if you're a believer, you should value morality because it brings you closer to the divine.

It sounds mercenary, but doing anything that doesn't boil down to personal benefit in some way is literally nonsensical. People tend to make morality an exception to that rule, but I submit to you that this is because they know of no way to justify it. That, and shutting one's conscience up is another form of personal benefit--it just feels silly to leave it at that.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Elok
...on further inspection of your latest post, I'm not sure we're speaking the same language. The "rationalizations" of religious morality are usually an attempt to conform the code to a desired behavior which isn't currently admissible, yes. But when did I mention rationalizations in terms of atheistic morality? I'm sure they exist, but I didn't bring them up. I only mentioned the casual evils we all commit in our day-to-day lives, without bothering to think up fancy justifications for them. Those I mentioned not in the context of "bad things religious people avoid," but to forestall the inevitable remark that some people are good all their lives or whatever. It doesn't happen.

Anyway, the ability to rationalize is found in all of humanity, religious or no, and so not especially relevant to our current discussion. Give a man enough time and motivation and he'll explain at length how no means yes and up means down. That's assuming he has enough respect for, or fear of, the current system that he bothers to work around it. Otherwise he'll just dismiss his erstwhile morals as a lot of mumbo-jumbo sophistry because they keep him from doing whatever he wants.

Erg. No. Of course secular systems are crap. And I won't try to defend them. And I'm really not trying to rag on religious systems, either; I'm curious. You're an incredibly intellectual and rational religious individual, and I'm curious as to how you justify your beliefs. Let me reword, because I really am trying to figure things out here.

Okay.

You make the point that the inclination to be moral comes from some innate, built-in part of being human. Those that have no spirituality to them invent their own moral systems, with their own rationalizations as to why they use them, to match this moral sense.

For the good of society is one such rationalization, for example. But then people act contrary to their "moral sense" and they're still okay. You say that it can be "good" to act "bad" when using secular, natural morality.

But religious, spiritual morality is tied to something higher, you say. And what I'm trying to figure out is... how do you know that acting "good" is necessarily good. How do you know that it might not better better to act "bad," as it sometimes is within secular morality. How can you be so confident that whatever moral sense and compass you've established for yourself is above the problems of secular morality?

[Elok]

Originally posted by Lorizael
You make the point that the inclination to be moral comes from some innate, built-in part of being human. Those that have no spirituality to them invent their own moral systems, with their own rationalizations as to why they use them, to match this moral sense.

Or adopt another system, yes. So far, so good.

For the good of society is one such rationalization, for example. But then people act contrary to their "moral sense" and they're still okay. You say that it can be "good" to act "bad" when using secular, natural morality.

Sorry, can you rephrase that last sentence? The double use of quotes makes the sense of your argument ambiguous. Do you mean in the sense that a behavior can be advantageous in terms of physical benefit while still being immoral? Or that actions can be moral by my standards, or by the standards of the conscience, while being against the secular standards of the individual? Or the opposite, that secular morality can claim as good an action which is contrary to the dictates of conscience? For those three possibilities, my answers would be yes for the first two, and a qualified yes for the third. Before going into further detail, though, I want to be sure what you're really asking.

But religious, spiritual morality is tied to something higher, you say. And what I'm trying to figure out is... how do you know that acting "good" is necessarily good. How do you know that it might not better better to act "bad," as it sometimes is within secular morality. How can you be so confident that whatever moral sense and compass you've established for yourself is above the problems of secular morality?

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by good and bad when you put them in quotes that way. The main problem I've spoken of as unique to secular morals is the morality-leading-to-nowhere bit, which I think I explained well enough. I understand that most people don't really see the logical hole, which is why I only bring it up when atheistrolls get condescending. I can be downright neurotic about logical inconsistency--ask me sometime about the time I nearly threw a tantrum in Logic class and wound up actually dragging the prof down to his office after class and forcing him to concede. It comes with being aspie, I think.

But if I'm reading/guessing you correctly, you're asking me how I avoid becoming a fanatic who blows up buildings and justifies it with God, or some such? I think that's the beauty of the conscience. While it's a feeble thing by itself, capable only of nagging and pestering without specifying why, the conscience can be used in tandem with a code of ethics for much better effect, much like my nearsighted eyes can see as well as anyone else's with glasses on. Well, maybe that's a bad example. I mean that a code of morals translates the conscience from vague intimations of "bad, no" into meaningful guidelines.

Anyway, supposing I had a crisis of conscience over something my religion told me to do, my first instinct would be to look at the religion's reason for doing it. Mine always has a reason for ethical guidelines; if it didn't give reasons, I would probably decide to haul arse out of Dodge after some amount of soul searching. I would then probe at the justification given and sniff it thoroughly for BS. If it came up clean of inconsistencies and my conscience was still bothering me about it, I imagine I would regretfully start looking for a new faith. This is all conjectural, because honestly it's never happened. Orthodox Christianity always comes across as consistent and fair to me, which is why I've been one since a few weeks after birth. It strikes me as much more ethical (albeit more demanding) than your average secular code, which defines morality as largely minding your own business and not being a douche while neglecting the positive mandates of decency.

The one thing I don't get is the homosexuality thing, but we're not hardcore persecutors (the church disapproves, but doesn't waste time campaigning against gay rights that I know of), I'm not gay, and I have no means of understanding what it's like to be gay, so I just leave well enough alone until such time as the church gets taken over by Jerry Falwell wannabes. Plus I don't feel troubled in my conscience about it so much as puzzled. Is this making anything more clear?

[Nubclear]

In other words, you've made your morality into a cardboard god of itself, and put words in its mouth in order to obey them.

I suppose you could try to define "God" to make this sentence necessarily true. Except that my "god" contains none of the features of a God: It isn't personal, it has no power, it has no prior effect upon the world, or future effect upon the world....
But let's use your bizarre definition, since I don't particularly care

I have an actual reason for obeying my god.

Heh. We'll see.

And it's based on the one undeniable principle of personal benefit.

Undeniable? How so? If I deny your value on your own benefit, will your God strike me down?
Let's see: I deny that personal benefit has any value whatsoever.
Hmm. Nope, I'm still standing.

But more to the point: In a colloquial sense of the phrase "personal benefit", no, I don't always need something to benefit my person. For instance, I have volunteered to help struggling students. Nobody except the student in question knows my name, it takes time out of my schedule to do other things, and I gain no benefit whatsoever in the future. After I'm done, it is forgotten.
And yet I still do it, because it makes me feel good (which is a benefit, but not in a colloquial sense).

If we expand personal benefits to include moral gratification, then sure, except it doesn't tell us much (see below)

You should value educating children because they take care of you when you're an old geezer in a nursing home.

This contention rests on me valuing my own status in the future, which I need not value.
If I do not, then it is not rational for me to value educating children for this reason.

You should value democracy because it gives you a say in the way things are run.

That assumes that I value a say in how things are run.
If I do not, then it isn't rational for me to value democracy for this reason.

You should value despotism assuming you get to be the despot and you don't mind being paranoid about assassination attempts.

That assumes that I value being the despot.
If I do not, then....

And if you're a believer, you should value morality because it brings you closer to the divine.

But if I'm not a believer, or if I do not value being closer to the divine....

See how, when I take out your value system, your statement then becomes false or irrational? Can you give me an "actual reason" as to why I should value myself? Or my say in things? Or the divine?
Probably not. Those values are just as arbitrary as all other values. If

[quiote]It sounds mercenary, but doing anything that doesn't boil down to personal benefit in some way is literally nonsensical[/quote]

Indeed! Except that gratification of ones moral system is a personal benefit. Hence, if I value (for instance) the existence of my children, then I can rationally sacrifice myself and remove my ability to make moral determinations or to enjoy things or whatnot because I take gratification in actualising this value.
If I value pain, then I can rationally torture myself.
Etc etc...The personal benefit comes in that I am fulfilling a value.

Hence yes, the statement is literally nonsensical. Which also makes the statement "People don't do things that don't benefit them" a truism. So what? The statement can never be false no matter what action a person takes, hence it's somewhat meaningless to this discussion.

People tend to make morality an exception to that rule, but I submit to you that this is because they know of no way to justify it.

Except that you do the exact same thing. Except instead of holding your fellow man and his quality of life to be of value, you instead hold that your own gratification and happiness is of highest value. It's no different than any other system of morality.

I think the misunderstanding occurs because you seem to think that amorality equals selfishness. If I am a person without morals at all, then I will act in a manner to maximise my own benefit. But this itself is a value and a moral statement - I'm saying it is DESIRED that I act to maximise my own benefit and that it is OKAY to act in such a manner. It is a moral system not dissimilar to any other moral system.

Ultimately, though, there are no "actual" reasons to value myself. There are no "actual" reasons to value my children. There are no "actual" reasons to value anything whatsoever. Our values are not based on reason, since reason *has to have a value to work off of*. They are not based on logic, because logic *checks for consistency, and hence has to have material to check*. Our intrinsic values, our highest values, are outside of these systems.

Now, sure, humans have certain biological and psychological urges and compulsions to value various things. Humans have a very strong impulse toward valuing themselves, and it makes sense: An animal that doesn't value itself at least somewhat highly is likely to not survive But as to whether this belief is rational or not is a literally absurd question.

Therefore, your attempts to "rationalise" them, to give us an "actual reason" to value something, are pointless and unnecessary. You can invent whatever gods you please to try to make you more comfortable with your moral system, but you are not doing anything fundamentally different than what I do when I make moral determinations about the world. Its just that you aren't comfortable with the idea that your morals or values are not rational, because you think that they must have a truth value in order for you to act, when this is not the case.

That, and shutting one's conscience up is another form of personal benefit--it just feels silly to leave it at that.

I suppose it may "feel silly", but it is perhaps correct to simply "leave it at that".

The one thing I don't get is the homosexuality thing, but we're not hardcore persecutors (the church disapproves, but doesn't waste time campaigning against gay rights that I know of), I'm not gay, and I have no means of understanding what it's like to be gay, so I just leave well enough alone until such time as the church gets taken over by Jerry Falwell wannabes. Plus I don't feel troubled in my conscience about it so much as puzzled. Is this making anything more clear?

No. IT sounds like you have no problem with homosexuality, and that you would be displeased if your Church were to began actively campaigning against it.
Hypothetical: Your Church begins to persecute and campaign against gays actively.
On one hand, your own "inner light" tells you that homosexuality is fine.
On the other hand, you seem to suggest that your Church is the arbiter of morality, and without it you don't have a 'reason' to believe things.

You could give up your own inner beliefs and emulate the Church....But that seems to me to be an irrational rejection of your own morality.
Or you could break from the Church, removing your reason for morality.
Or you could break from the Church and say that the will of God is different, that the Church is making a mistake....in which case, you've defined God as such that he rests perfectly with your ideal system, and therefore becomes rather unneccessary, since there would be no circumstances in which your moral system would be "wrong" (Which is factually true, but....).
So what would you do?

[Lorizael]

Elok: I am totally failing to express my point correctly. I blame this on a variety of things that don't matter here. Consider this discussion done for now. When I get my head on straight, I might try to engage you in this some other time.

[Nubclear]

lol now you can focus on me LOL

[Elok]

LOL Yep LOL your statements sound retarded and pedantic LOL go edit a PoMo journal and quit wasting my time.

With the exception of the homosexuality question, which is sound. In all likelihood, I would begin campaigning within the church to stop the persecution, it being a Christian duty to drive Pharisees out of the temple.

EDIT:

A. I'm looking forward to it, Lori. Thanks.

B. To go into more detail, Tassi (in retrospect, you might actually think those are real arguments, baffling though it seems to me), of course pleasurable feelings, like the one you get from helping others, are a personal benefit. I do not view them as a sufficient reason to be moral, any more than I would accept "because it feels good" as an answer to the question "why do people have sex?" Nor would I accept "because holding it in hurts" as an answer to the question of why we urinate. Of course it feels good, but why are they programmed to enjoy it? What natural purpose does it serve?

By undeniable reality I meant only that a human being will not knowingly and willingly behave in a fashion which has the net effect of his or her own detriment. I view this to be plain common sense; I assume you will never whack yourself in the nuts with a ball-peen hammer unless you are getting paid a good deal for it as in "Jackass," or it's one of the demands made by people holding your family hostage, etc. Or you could have some weird ideological justification, in which case you will do it because you believe you will be rewarded for it in some way. This is a basic truth.

The rest of your arguments just sound hopelessly anti-intellectual. Honestly, they remind me of the tripe PoMos pull out when they "explode dichotomies" by exploring the context of an argument until everyone forgets where in the logical superstructure of it all they are, and then turn to you smiling like they've proven something.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Elok
BeBro: Yes and no. As I said, people do have a moral instinct of some sort, regardless of upbringing.
And it's my theory that this moral instinct will drive the majority to some sort of supernatural explanation.

What exactly do you mean here: that all people have some built-in impulse to act in a way we universally see as "good" (=moral), or that all people have indeed moral beliefs which they basically intend to follow (if we agree on their belief system being "good" would be another thing then)?

Although I'm not a big fan of relativism due to the practical problems it brings I wouldn't buy the first.

Atheists are not necessarily immoral, it's just that they can't offer an explanation of morality that makes a lick of sense to me.

While religious folks just circumvent the prob by invoking a higher, as well not justifiable/explainable instance. But I think you already battle that out with the others, and I just briefly looked at their posts.

Back to those earlier things, I think you still haven't "killed off" the social explanation/rationalization (however you'd call it). I rather think we probably misunderstood eachother there completely. The idea that morals are there to regulate social life is not the same as to say this would prove these morals being "right". It describes the function they fulfill and explains why they did develop, but it doesn't say a certain set of morals (its actual "content") is proven if I just point to its advantages for social life.

Examples of violations of those morals or disadvantages brought by following them don't show that this function doesn't exist. Just take your "Tamburlaine" example, I didn't read the book, but I'd get this can be only the founder of the Timurid dynasty? I could just say his brutality is nothing special in a warrior culture and his "utterly warped" code of honor is just expression of the (completely different) morals of this culture. So whle he's a brutal guy it doesn't mean there aren't any social norms (that even he would value) etc....

As said I'm not a relativist, but this should also illustrate how problematic it is to say there's a general "moral instinct", because this guy doesn't seem to have one. I could buy your explanations why not all engage in criminal (or here brutal) behaviour, but I could as well think what you call moral instinct is a result of education/enculturation (so not at all independant from upbringing).

I concede that there are times where it is to our benefit to act morally. But presumptively, you do not view morality as a "sometimes" thing, to be followed when it gets us something and ignored when it does not. Morals/ethics tend to be seen as the proper course of action in ALL circumstances (with some exceptions for cases of "the lesser of two evils," and the like). If you are moral where it is advantageous, and immoral where it is advantageous, you're not acting morally; you're just looking out for number one and sometimes acting ethically by coincidence. The idea that sleaze is sometimes profitable is a challenge to morals if that "sometimes" extends to any appreciable percentage of our lives.

Yes, we think mostly that moral principles should be general principles. However, you can't treat human behaviour like binary logic, that's absurd. Of course I agree with you that moral behaviour can't just be a case of getting the advantages (I mentioned possible advantages only to show that acting morally would not always be bad for the individual). But as always, the devil is in the detail, you can't take the sum of action and then say the result is either moral or immoral.

When you're acting sometimes morally and sometimes not, then you're acting sometimes morally and sometimes not. Means, you can't say guy A is acting generally immoral because he is on the one hand a good father for years, but otoh has received a speeding ticket yesterday.

There may be other cases where the violations of moral principles are more obvious and/or numerous. But this shows only that we would have to look closer, since reality is much more complex.

[Elok]

Originally posted by BeBro
What exactly do you mean here: that all people have some built-in impulse to act in a way we universally see as "good" (=moral), or that all people have indeed moral beliefs which they basically intend to follow (if we agree on their belief system being "good" would be another thing then)?

Although I'm not a big fan of relativism due to the practical problems it brings I wouldn't buy the first.

I believe I do mean the first. And why don't you buy it? Do you know of a culture wherein generosity and care for others without thought for personal benefit is despised? Or where the idea of not acting like a jerk even when you could get away with it is not supported?

While religious folks just circumvent the prob by invoking a higher, as well not justifiable/explainable instance. But I think you already battle that out with the others, and I just briefly looked at their posts.

Back to those earlier things, I think you still haven't "killed off" the social explanation/rationalization (however you'd call it). I rather think we probably misunderstood eachother there completely. The idea that morals are there to regulate social life is not the same as to say this would prove these morals being "right". It describes the function they fulfill and explains why they did develop, but it doesn't say a certain set of morals (its actual "content") is proven if I just point to its advantages for social life.

I read this as you saying that social utility is not the end of morality, just a reason why morality came about. If that's so, I'd like to hear what you think the end of morality actually is.

Examples of violations of those morals or disadvantages brought by following them don't show that this function doesn't exist. Just take your "Tamburlaine" example, I didn't read the book, but I'd get this can be only the founder of the Timurid dynasty? I could just say his brutality is nothing special in a warrior culture and his "utterly warped" code of honor is just expression of the (completely different) morals of this culture. So whle he's a brutal guy it doesn't mean there aren't any social norms (that even he would value) etc....

As said I'm not a relativist, but this should also illustrate how problematic it is to say there's a general "moral instinct", because this guy doesn't seem to have one. I could buy your explanations why not all engage in criminal (or here brutal) behaviour, but I could as well think what you call moral instinct is a result of education/enculturation (so not at all independant from upbringing).

It's hard to argue without your having read it, but Tamburlaine in the play (and he is indeed meant to be the historical Timurlane, just with wacky Elizabethan spelling) is spectacularly successful against seemingly impossible odds, as well as being downright vicious in his behavior. He's radically different from every other character in the play. I'd go so far as to call him inhuman for the most part--he kills his son when the kid doesn't participate in battle, and burns an entire city to the ground, together with all of its inhabitants, because he associates it with the death of his wife. It was written in the late 1500s in England, long before the concept of cultural relativism took off, so in the context of the play it doesn't make sense to talk of it. Both of the actions I just mentioned are appalling even to his countrymen. But if you haven't read it, it's a bad example, so I should just shut up about it. I do recommend it, though, if you can tolerate a war epic that's almost all talk.

Yes, we think mostly that moral principles should be general principles. However, you can't treat human behaviour like binary logic, that's absurd. Of course I agree with you that moral behaviour can't just be a case of getting the advantages (I mentioned possible advantages only to show that acting morally would not always be bad for the individual). But as always, the devil is in the detail, you can't take the sum of action and then say the result is either moral or immoral.

When you're acting sometimes morally and sometimes not, then you're acting sometimes morally and sometimes not. Means, you can't say guy A is acting generally immoral because he is on the one hand a good father for years, but otoh has received a speeding ticket yesterday.

There may be other cases where the violations of moral principles are more obvious and/or numerous. But this shows only that we would have to look closer, since reality is much more complex.

I'm not saying it's completely binary, and labelling people is a good deal more problematic than labelling their behavior. I just assumed the simplification as a necessary evil for the sake of easy discussion.

[Nubclear]

(in retrospect, you might actually think those are real arguments, baffling though it seems to me), of

Ooh, your fierce intellectual recriminations make me cower in fear

Of course it feels good, but why are they programmed to enjoy it? What natural purpose does it serve?

Well, I think its fairly easy to see how pleasure during sex or an urge to urinate might help a species But I suspect that is not what you were questioning.

You've moved off of the original topic, which is whether religion is a necessary component to justify morality, whether religion gives it a "good reason" for existence. Having already refuted this (and noting that you refuse to challenge any of that portion of the argument), I will simply move on.

Morality, from an evolutionary biology perspective, would seem to have certain advantages, especially if a species is somewhat small and threatened. For instance, reciporical behaviour might ensure that resources continue to benefit the entire group as a whole (and cooperation of that group might be essential the survival of individuals within it). Hence, you do gain a benefit by having some sort of moral code.

As well, human abilities for abstract thought (possibly unlocked by language or whatnot) probably expanded the horizons of what sort of moral concepts we are able to analyze and assimilate.

It isn't so difficult to see exactly how morality might evolve in a species, especially considering we see it in other species as well.

This is a basic truth.

Indeed. If you read my post, you will notice that I agree with you (superficially), I just don't think it is a particularly important piece of information to bring up, since it does not change the parameters of the discussion whatsoever. All human actions have some percieved benefit to the actor, and hence all human actions are "justified" in this manner.

The rest of your arguments just sound hopelessly anti-intellectual.

Hmm....Let's see, I give you a fairly lengthy (and, in my view, consistent) argument for how morality need not and indeed does not have a "good justification", (that is, moral positions are not based upon some outside moral truth) and instead of refuting it (as one would assume you would do in order to prove yourself correct, especially after you began pleading for an actual debate), you simply dismiss it as "anti-intellectual" and "post-modern", as if these attacks somehow refute the logic and argument contianed within my post.
One might say that denouncing arguments that directly challenge your own and refusing to entertain (or challenge) them is "anti-intellectual" and intellectually dishonest.

I suppose a simpler refutation would be: I have a moral system not founded on religion. Therefore, moral systems do not need religion. QED.
Of course, you have defined the debate as such that any moral system not founded on religion secretly is because any moral arbiter is "God".

I am fully willing to entertain the possibility that I am incorrect. Indeed, if I was 100% certain of what I say, I would not be subjecting my view to scrutiny by posting it but would simply sit here and laugh at you in the security that I am completely correct.

Unfortunately, though, instead of seeking to tear my arguments apart and demonstrate why I am false, you instead simply resort to attacks without substance and assert this as some sort of proof against my argument.

It does tell me, though, that you are not particularly interested in an actual discussion, but rather you simply want to demonstrate you are "correct" and hence will dismiss categorically any argument that does not serve this end. It seems to me that you have arrived at a conclusion and then sought the "evidence" for it.

It is rather amusing that you were pleading for someone to challenge you instead of be a jackass, and yet when this occurs you shut it down as a "waste of your time". The true waste of time has been on my part, for unfortunately I thought you were being open and honest about your views and desires for substantive challenge to them.

Oh well.

But I think you already battle that out with the others,

Not so much