I'm curious to this line of thought.

Do you mean that the instant after the Big Bang took place, and long before humans were ever on the earth, or any of their ancestors, that morality was already established? That the murder of people (concepts that were not even comprehensible) was already "wrong"?

I believe morality as an evolutionary adaptation makes a lot of sense, but this seemingly makes morality a magic-like, tangible phenomenon.

What God? My conception of God and yours are probably very different.

In the example I used of feeding you excrement in my basement, if an alien came and saw this happening and wanted to get an idea of what morals were like on earth, he would conclude that on earth, the more excrement you ate, the more points you got. A posteriori.

I'd love to see you try to support this in some way.

Setting aside the "most" claim, show me one atheist who has zero beliefs that he can't prove.

I've known a lot of scientific atheists who think philosophy is just an arcane methodology used when science can't find the answer to something. Actually I'm pretty sure just a few days ago I was arguing someone about that.

To see a platonic atheist is actually a refreshing change from the Dawkins fan boys

I'm not trying to disrespect atheists since I don't. It's just that the view of the omniscience of science seems pervasive

It is exceptionally ironic that you repeatedly use thought experiments to verify a claimed a posteriori conclusion. You don't seem to grasp why.

Lol. You're the one eating all of it.

I honestly don't even remember what we were arguing at this point

can they prove that philosophy is just an arcane methodology used when science can't find the answer to something or do they believe something they can't prove?

I don't think anyone thinks science is omniscient

it is a fact however that it's the only useful and reliable method for gaining knowledge

I don't know Sun Tzu,

My answer is I don't have the first damn clue. Maybe he was an early riser and liked to pack in the morning. And maybe he didn't have any friends. I'm an educated man, but I'm afraid I can't speak intelligently about the travel habits of William Santiago. What I do know is that he was set to leave the base at 0600. Now, are these the questions I was really called here to answer? Phone calls and foot lockers? Please tell me that you have something more, Lieutenant. These two Marines are on trial for their lives. Please tell me their lawyer hasn't pinned their hopes to a phone bill.

Well, so far we have shown that you don't know Nietzsche, haven't read Dostoevsky, misunderstand the meaning of a posteriori and that your responses largely seem to revolve around thought examples regarding your excrement.

Well, so far we have shown that you ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem, and ad hominem, bitchy snide remarks, and ad hominem.

Actually no; all these things have been presented and evidenced in this thread - so there is certainly no ad hominem. Pointing out that someone misrepresents known authors, philosophy and terminology is not a personal attack.

And I personally don't think someone who states "lol, you ate all my **** " (paraphrased) deserves much sympathy when they whine about "snide remarks". Others might disagree.

OK, think what you want. I'm done with this pissing match. Most of your responses weren't directed at my arguments, they were snotty claims of superiority without substance.

The fact that most things are taken on faith is no justification for adopting unnecessary assumptions, in circumstances where they do not need to be adopted.

Our system is based largely on retributive justice - due to religion's stranglehold throughout our history. A justice system that ultimately seeks to place borders around people's faith in one another. It stems from religious and tribal thinking that implicitly views 'outsiders' (e.g., non-believers, those outside the tribe) as inferior human beings, or barbarians or immoral anarchists.

Read into the alternative, known as - restorative justice. It is is slowly gaining traction as a contemporary justice alternative and it has a significant amount of positive scientific literature supporting it. It is still relatively new however and thus comparatively under-developed. It is a system that instead seeks to remove those borders and gradually change the way we think about our fellow man.

It should read: "But my reality is people suck".

Thanks.
There is such truth. Please read into the Principles of Sufficient Reason. Systems of morality can (and have) been built based on these principles. Whether they are enacted in reality depends on existing power structures but their truth does not.
You could give plenty of arguments to stop those with power enslaving people. First define human suffering and progress and then demonstrate why human suffering is detrimental to progress. Indeed, many philosophers, historians and scientists have already done so. Whether people listen or not, is a separate issue, and whether those that listen get into power, or even find the process of playing 'power-games' valuable, is also a separate issue.

These separate issues I've highlighted here are key to understanding why bad things will continue to happen. For example, often times, the smartest minds do not find it a valuable endeavour to dedicate their lives to accruing the power necessary to enact a morally superior system. Since our lives are limited by death, these minds are often too pre-occupied trying to understand reality instead. Arguably, this may be a more worthwhile endeavour, and it may not. There is however long historical evidence of one force of change, greater than that of political power: science.

The importance of Liking Yourself is a notion that fell heavily out of favour during the coptic, anti-ego frenzy of the acid era — but nobody guessed back then that the experiment might churn up this kind of hangover; a whole subculture of frightened illiterates with no faith in anything.

"Ah, **** it. Yes! That's your answer! That's your answer to everything! Tattoo it on your forehead! Your revolution is over, Mr. Lebowski! Condolences! The bums lost! My advice is, do what your parents did! Get a job, sir! The bums will always lose, do you hear me, Lebowski? THE BUMS WILL ALWAYS LOSE!"

The sentiment could be not be expressed more clearly than in The Big Lebowski.

Which revolutionary atheist thinker first thought of the concept of unconditional love for our fellow man?

There is no 'first' that can be reliably deduced, as far as I'm aware.

The earliest philosophies on this could however be dated back to either the ancient Greeks or Egyptians, or Buddhists, most of which pre-dated notions of 'Jesus', and most of which did not require 'God' to reach any such conclusions.

P.S. I forgot Mayans.

The Buddhists preached a kind of tolerance, but it is negatively defined. They're essentially atheists, and don't believe in a soul. Although compassion is closely related to love.

As I've said earlier, the Greeks didn't even have a problem with slavery. Their gods were capricious and far from loving.

An unbiased view would have to acknowledge Jesus as the first... but I'll look at research that shows otherwise...

Your God didn't care about slavery or torture, or equal rights for homosexuals, women et al.

In fact, here's a direct quote on Jesus' opinion on 'slaves/servants':
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given. (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Your God cared about the crippled though, so kudos on that.

The Jewish people had slavery...

Try looking up 'parable'

Somehow, looking that up didn't contradict Jesus not caring about slavery.