Anti-theist? I'm an Atheist. Atheism and anti-theism are two different things. Not really important, just wanted to point that out."The question remains to the anti theist, by what standard can you appeal to to say that something is really, objectively wrong?"
The fact that murder always causes unnecessary harm. And is never an opinion.
I think what you really mean, is why should anyone conform to the definition. Abide by a moral code, the idea of moral duties?
No one has to abide by the moral code. This doesn't mean we can't tell them they're wrong. Their action (i.e murdering someone) will cause unnecessary harm. Regardless if they Abide, or agree to the moral code. Unnecessary harm is an objective reason. Something I can use against their actions.
No one has to be moral. If you're acting moral out of fear of punishment, then you're amoral. You're selfish, and acting
If the only reason you're not killing is fear of hell/prison. That's the wrong reasons to be moral. Because it's selfish.
I'll explain why I am a moral person. 1st, I understand what my actions cause, (i.e the definition I gave). 2nd, Empathy, being able to relate.
If you lack empathy, then you lack morals."Couldn't it be argued that in some cases it may be preferable to the propagation of the human race, or at a minimum to the benefit of the individual committing the act, that chopping off the head of someone will improve the species, well being or health of an individual? Isn't that the whole idea of natural selection and evolution, i,e. survival of the fittest?"
I've seen similar arguments like this one. Normally it's torturing someone.
We're talking necessary, vs unnecessary harm.
The problems I find in these arguments, is the actual possibility of the scenarios being argued. And how such a scenario would be the only option. Or how the action would benefit another person.
Can you give me a realistic scenario. That will lead to cutting the head of someone off, as the only option, and would benefit another person?"Isn't that the whole idea of natural selection and evolution, i,e. survival of the fittest?"
Survival of the fittest, doesn't always mean survival of the alpha, or the strongest/fastest/biggest.
Survival can rely on many different factors. Survival could rely on the survival of the group.
Survival can lead to moral, and immoral actions."An explanation of where this realm of energy, un-caused, un-created, came from still remains and again seems to simply put off the problem another step."
Who says it needs to come from anywhere? Only theist think these things need be created."Lawrence Krauss in his book simply redefines what "nothing" is to make his remodeled inflationary theory work."
Not really. We have no experience with a "nothing". To believe there was a period when there was nothing.
We have it in our heads, that because this universe began to exist. That at that moment everything had to began existing. I'll refer back to Aristotle's 4 causes."I have no experience with things beginning to exist un-caused or un-created so that would lead me to lean toward the universe having a cause for its existence"
I would also say we both have no experience with things beginning to exist, creatio ex nihilo either.
My only point, is we don't truly know how this all came into be. And in every way we try explaining it. There is always something wrong with it. Neil Tyson's quote is to say, just because we can't imagine it, or because it doesn't make sense. Doesn't mean it's not what happen. We lack experience in this universe.
Getting late for me, hope to hear more from you.