GDR writes:
It does mean though that Hitler was only right or wrong depending on your point of view which might even change day by day according to circumstances.
Certainly. If our goals were to change from say, promoting the wellbeing of humans in general to the goal of exterminating the Jewish people our view of Hitler would change from one of immorality to morality.
Fortunately that isn't very many people's goal.
GDR writes:
It also means that there is no real moral distinction between...
And again, what the *hell* do you mean by "real" distinction? I just distinguished them above, and yet your neck apparently so yearns for the non-existent yoke of some cosmic being that you categorically deny its validity in favor of a fiction.
GDR writes:
That doesn’t negate in any way the possibility that there is an external creative intelligence that does desire us to make moral decisions based on a objective moral standard.
No, certainly not. But considering the evidence for the existence of such a being is at the very most extraordinarily slim and the objective moral code perhaps somewhat lesser still, I think it appropriate to operate under the assumption that it is not the case. When you can prove the existence of an objective moral code we can revisit that point. Frankly the concept seems foreign to reality as we know it.
GDR writes:
It does occur to me that if love is not a moral absolute then we would have long ago all reverted to survival of the fittest if only due to self-preservation.
Then you haven't been paying attention in class. Societies are beneficial on the individual level even without empathy.
GDR writes:
In the end I believe that there has to be an absolute truth and morality.
This is my point exactly. You have been told that there is an absolute truth and morality by someone who wanted you to believe that *their* morality was absolute, and you are still crippled by your inability to conceive otherwise.
This crime of upbringing is of course coupled with the saddening lack of imaginative ability to see why someone would benefit from another watching their back without love being involved. I'm afraid we can't pawn that off on anyone but yourself.
GDR writes:
We support political parties, we appoint courts of law, we establish laws and expect people to follow them and so on.
And some even appoint kings. I am not inclined toward servility to such an extent, although I suppose the "flock" you call home may have a different view. I still maintain that such an inclination has been intentionally bred into you rather than innate.
GDR writes:
What could be more freeing than that? It is like a child responding to the unconditional love of a parent.
I'm not quite sold on the unconditional love bit; Hell doesn't seem terribly "freeing" or "unconditionally loving". But it seems you are not pitching it as true so much as somehow a weight off your chest to pass off self-determination to another being. Such a thing would in my view be incompatible with freedom, although perhaps less mentally taxing if thats your meaning.
Again, this is exactly what I am getting at. You have been so ingrained to being ordered around like a child that you won't accept that the person claiming to be your parent isn't, and that you don't have to follow their instructions. Even while you accept that you cry "Well where is my *real* mommy and daddy? I can't possibly do anything without their authority!"
Consider the possibility that you just need to grow up and think for yourself, make moral decisions for yourself, and take responsibility for the success and failure it entails.
GDR writes:
I agree that we could find purpose in our lives even if the world did come about by naturalistic means. ... I wonder though, what would be the meaning for life in the broader sense.
In what broader sense? In the "Mummy, mummy tell me what to do" sense? I hope I can work up your ire and ego to the point where you might have enough self respect to state that no being's opinion on what your life's purpose should be can trump your own, no matter how powerful that being might be.
GDR writes:
Science tells us that this world, and likely this universe will come to an end, even if it isn’t until the sun burns out. When that happens all meaning for our existence will have evaporated.
Yes, that appears to be the case. Do you think you have good evidence that this won't actually happen, or are you arguing against it purely on the grounds that it is disappointing?
GDR writes:
I suppose that is ok but the idea that this existence leads to something else does have a certain resonance.
Right, disappointing it is. Sorry about this, but News Flash: Santa isn't real, Candy Mountain doesn't exist, and no matter how long you wait the Tooth Fairy won't come.
I know that might make you pout but its *reality*. Part of growing up is to face reality. And here is something to chew on; if you were not told Santa, Candy Mountain, or the Tooth Fairy existed you wouldn't be disappointed to find that they don't.
Someone told you a cruel lie that God and Eternal Life existed. Get over it, and don't do the same to others.
GDR writes:
I suppose the only other question is do the choices that we make really matter.
It obviously matters today. But then what exactly do you mean by "really matter"?