People who reject religion still display a strongly religious view of an absolute morality-- this time with the believe their view of morality is based on science.
Nonsense--that can only be true if you define religious so broadly as to be effectively meaningless. I also see no reason for you to make such a silly and specious claim about the foundation of "morality.' That one might reject religious superstition as a basis for one's ethic principles is not evidence that one relies upon their understanding of science (not perfect or very broad in any individual) as the basis. See, for example Thomas' first remark, which echoes Hobbes' Leviathan
But, morality (with religion or without religion) is still a cultural phenomenon.
Not necessarily--once again, see Thomas' remark. Your use of the term morality is as vague and meaningless as was your use of religious in the firts quoted passage.
There is a connection between morality and religion in that they are both features of a culture.
In many cultures, self-mutilation (including tattooing) or infant genital mutilation are features of the culture. Does that mean there is a connection between those practices and either morality or religion? My estimation of your ability to reason sinks now with virtually every post you make.
The first was an interesting discussion alleging an evolutionary rationale for faithfulness (which seems more wishful thinking than reality).
Some species are polygamous, some are monogamous--which is why i avoided that idiot thread. Making absolutist statements about almost any subject is a fool's game. The same could be said for the basis for morality and for law (which are not necessarily consonant features of a society).
The second involves allegations of the "evilness" of religious superstitions.
I am happy once again to assert that religious superstition is inherently evil, or productive of evil--because it is not based upon logical relations of cause and effect, and not because it is or is not "scientific." You're in a snit because you choose to take offense, and assume that saying religious superstition assumes all aspects of religion to be superstitious, and all products of religious conviction to be products of superstition. While i am convinced that religious adherence never made a bad man good, and the lack thereof never made a good man bad, i am more than happy to acknowledge that there are many religious beliefs that do not fly in the face of logic, and that their codification can be felicitous for society.
It is religious supestition to which i object--the enshrinement of certain beliefs without a logical basis, or in the defiance of logic, or in spite of well-established fact to the contrary.
You want to conflate that with a wholesale rejection of religion in any form, and to come here to whine about. To start an entire thread about it.
My purpose for this thread is to see if anyone can defend the idea that their views of morality has any objective scientific foundation.
That would be an interesting exercise, if anyone takes it up. That won't be me, given that i've never made any such claim.
The holy roller member "real life" always used to love to accuse me of being a moral relativist because i have always contended that all morality is subjective. As far as i can see, your little huffy rant here is pretty much the same nonsense, delivered in a different key. He was wrong because i am not a moral relativist--i have notions of what is wrong, and those notions don't change in reference to an era of the past, nor do they change in reference to different cultures. I consider female infanticide to be indefensible, without regard to the culture which practices it, for example. I always used to point out to "real life" that the only difference between my point of view and that of the religionists is that i know my values are subjectively arrived at, and am willing to admit, while the religionist insists on the imaginary friend in the sky.
And that's what this is all really about--your prissy objections to any libelling of religion. You have, i suspect, a "thin end of the wedge" attitude toward the curtailment of the evils of religious superstition--so much so, that you have ranted at me, for one, for quite a while now, when I have not called for the curtailment of religious superstition, and freely acknowledge that we will likely never be free of it.