I'm going to give the first part of your message every bit of the consideration and response it deserves. (*sound of crickets*)
Now, on to the tail end.
davidm wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:15 pm
Tell me, by Atheist suppositions, why is that wrong for me to do, if I want it?
Because morality comes from within and not from without. As I've explained.
It's still an inadequate explanation.
If it simply "comes from within," then we have no rational necessity of believing it at all. For many things we rightly mistrust "come from within": rage, violence, rudeness, perversity, greed, hatred, and so on. So what you've essentially said is that morality is a feeling -- Emotivism. And that Emotivism has been shown to be completely inadequate to ground any consensus -- and certainly not a polity, a law code or even a good conscience -- all things for which we (correctly, I would say) look to an adequate moral paradigm to provide us. But I won't pause to go over that here, because the works been done so thoroughly by others.
As I have also explained, religion is parasitical upon morality, which preceded religion and its dogmas and doctrines.
Yes, you've said. But you've said wrongly, because you're talking about pre-history, and have not a stitch of data for that claim. It's much easier to think, along with people like Eliade, for example, that morality
comes out of "the sacred" in any given society. But you're not going to be able to convince anyone, and I'm not going to be able to convince you...because the specifics we need in order to seal the case are not available to either of us.
In any case, your claim is just an example of The Genetic Fallacy (i.e. the belief that to say where a thing comes from is to say whether or not its true). That's just not the case, of course. So it really doesn't matter here at all, for that claim misses the issue completely: the real issue is how one can legitimize ANY morality, regardless of where it may or may not have come from.