Original Sin and...

[_subgenius]

...(snip)...but there is no way you can show/prove that there is a universal and/or external definition of right and wrong. Each individual ultimately decides for him or herself, under the influence of their society, culture, upbringing environment etc.

Sure there is a way...more of a way than you can show to support your self-centered premise of "I am the meaning of it all" theory of good and evil.
For example:
1. Human beings share common behaviors and feelings thus morality can be transcendent.
2. I have never claimed that indoctrination was necessary for morality, see also the noble savage....just that morality must rely on an external, likely supernatural source.
3. Secular morality, somewhat of what you seemingly subscribe to, relies on goals and not methods to attain those goals...thus it relies on a philosophy of the "ends justify the means" mentality....or perhaps more of a secular humanist, by which truth may only be derived from science and thus, currently, that position must accept the fate of being unable to choose otherwise...therefore personal accountability, or, as you say above, "deciding for oneself" is impossible....science currently eliminates the possibility to transcend the laws of nature, making it impossible to divert the chemical reactions which create your thoughts.
4. Without God (or even gods) it is impossible to justify moral behavior metaphysically and thus it is impossible to frame a coherent argument for any moral standard....this is why the most honest of atheists recognize and admit that they are, in fact, amoral.
5. From a secular position, an "inner" feeling/urge to behave "morally" is unable to be considered "moral" over any other urge or feeling...there is no inherent reason present.
6. I am not stating that being an atheist makes a person necessarily immoral, just that the atheist can not honestly offer an objective reasoning why they would or would not exhibit moral behavior.
7. Principles by which actions are judged is what constitutes moral behavior, and these principles must be founded on that which is transcendent. These principles are the "fabric" mentioned before and hinted at with #1 on this list.
8. Why start at ground zero when one can have a 6,000 year head start? Even a good scientist does not bother to re-prove the forces of gravity for himself before he proceeds to design a new airplane - why would you do the same with morality?

[_subgenius]

Sub,
Adam did not sin in partaking of the fruit, he was incapable of sinning not knowing right from wrong. This is why in the church we refer to Adam's transgression. He transgressed the law, but did not sin. As he did not sin, forgiveness has no import.

but a punishment was still levied, correct?
why punish when no law was broken?
i mean, transgress still means to "break the law" - yet the law was not present for Adam.
Romans chapter 5 seems to equate the work of Adam with the work of Christ....one being for all...yet i am having trouble resolving how Adam received no forgiveness, no pardon...no atonement?

[_SteelHead]

Sub,
Go live 6 months in a place where 90% of the people go hungry every day, where shelter and clothing is scarce and obtained at great sacrifice and then come and define for me what your transcendent morality encompasses.

[_subgenius]

Sub,
Go live 6 months in a place where 90% of the people go hungry every day, where shelter and clothing is scarce and obtained at great sacrifice and then come and define for me what your transcendent morality encompasses.

save the posturing and self righteous behavior for your family.
Peace Corps - Kenya, 2 years water project.
Salvation Army - 1 year feeding day old bread to whomever was lucky enough to grab a warm bed....or watching locals i never knew lived in the area appear from everywhere for their only meal for the day when the local meat processing plant had a failed freezer and was "doating" sausage on a stick.
you know very little about the plight of mankind or for that matter...morality.

ironic how you are advising that living for 6 months in some "circumstance" will provide an "objective" truth....how droll of you

thanks for the derail

[_SteelHead]

What derail? You keep talking about some universal transcendent morality, but when the rubber hits the road the first human "moral" is survival. Morality and civilization are a thin veneer on a race of aggressive naked apes. It is a symbiotic relationship that serves the "good" of both the society and the individual. But stating there is some universal transcendent morality is both conjecture and false. Different cultures have different morals.

You can not show a universal moral system of supernatural origin, or of any origin for that matter as different cultures have demonstrably different morals. You can claim it exists, you can talk all around it, but you can not prove it any more than you can prove god.

[_subgenius]

What derail? You keep talking about some universal transcendent morality, but when the rubber hits the road the first human "moral" is survival. Morality and civilization are a thin veneer on a race of aggressive naked apes. It is a symbiotic relationship that serves the "good" of both the society and the individual. But stating there is some universal transcendent morality is both conjecture and false. Different cultures have different morals.

You can not show a universal moral system of supernatural origin, or of any origin for that matter as different cultures have demonstrably different morals. You can claim it exists, you can talk all around it, but you can not prove it any more than you can prove god.

you can't even stay on task.
first, from you, we read
"Just because some one does not believe in sin, does not mean they do not believe in right or wrong."
viewtopic.php?p=705107#p705107

then i repsonded
"not to distract, but this position is an egocentric/narcissistic one. The idea here of "sin" is that there is a right and wrong that exists outside of man...that is eternal and objective...that is supernatural in origin. Your position relies on judge and jury being the "self"...it is tantamount to selfishness...determining right and wrong from some arbitrary life experiences is not a system that one could label as "morality". There is no reasonable argument that i have read which would support such a strategy....unless you were a hermit, perhaps."
viewtopic.php?p=705121#p705121

now already we can trace this thread and see that the only person talking about, making claims about, or arguing about God, on this point, is you...which you initially propose here:
"The attribution of your societal norms onto god as their author" (emphasis mine)
viewtopic.php?p=705124#p705124

i have yet to attribute anything to "God". I simply noted (see above) what qualifications an objective view of sin, or that which is even right or wrong, would necessitate. And the logical conclusions from the opposite position being proposed. This "objective" perspective being validated by your latter challenge for a person to spend 6 months among the hungry and naked
viewtopic.php?p=705388#p705388
...a challenge that obviously relies upon your belief in an "objective" experience being possible.....an experience that would "transcend" our individual perspectives and manifest, what you consider and believe to be, a truth about what is right and what is wrong...yes, something that would manifest without individual "decision" and without individual influence....otherwise your challenge is nonsense as support for what you claim you believe.

interestingly enough you made the following statement, as if it were to counter a claim i was making....nevertheless, it is interesting:
"there is no way you can show/prove that there is a universal and/or external definition of right and wrong. Each individual ultimately decides for him or herself"
viewtopic.php?p=705315#p705315

funny, because while you claim that i can not prove the former, it is more obvious that you can not prove the latter - and i challenge you to do so...after all i have proven the former, with your help, above. I have proven a transcendent morality simply with the foundation that humans have transcendent behaviors and feelings...and you assisted with a few naked and hungry friends.

[_subgenius]

...(snip)...the first human "moral" is survival. ...

according to you, viewtopic.php?p=705315#p705315, this 'first human moral' is an impossible claim...for every individual, according to you, decides for themselves.
Surely, in this quote you are not changing that position and now we read you claiming that "survival" for humans is universal??

[_SteelHead]

Not always. Some people sacrifice themselves for various causes.

[_subgenius]

Not always. Some people sacrifice themselves for various causes.

How do you know?
by the way, now you are contradicting yourself. Is your "decided" system of morality this inconsistent and incoherent as well?

[_SteelHead]

Not anymore so than yours is. Mine is consistent with the idea that each individual will decide what their morality is. It will be influenced by their culture upbringing and environment but it ultimately is up to the individual.

You still haven't offered up any evidence for you transcendent and universal morality & I've offered plenty of evidence that no such thing exists.