Archtype said:
Third, yeah you are mistaken. The market of morality is dominated by religion considering that as far as we can tell morality was originally defined by various religions. After all, who gives a rip about morality if you have no one to answer to.. Just do what you want, right?
OK. You, me. We're having an off-topic discussion. Right now.
You clearly know squat about the philosophy of morality and ethics. There are numerous interpretations of how morality works, some requiring God(s), some not. There are hundreds and thousands of books written on the topic. Yet here you are casually dismissing other people's mores with some cheap throw-away argument you probably heard from your pastor.
First, you understand how bad this argument makes you sound, right? You're basically implying that you are an awful person, and that the only reason you do anything good is because of a carrot/stick reward system. I, on the other hand (imagine this with the most condescending attitude you can), don't do bad things because I actually give a damn about how my actions affect others, and I have a vested interest in the quality of human life.
Why is it implied that without some God judging us we'll just start killing each other in the streets? What, being good has no reward in life, in any philosophical sense? We don't go out of our way to kill each other for what should be obvious reasons; any population that did so would inevitably fail. The same can be said for stealing and lying, they are detrimental to a functioning society. If people are incapable of trusting each other there is no trade, no shared effort, no communication, no love, no community at all. These things increase our odds for survival, they make our lives better. Why would we not want them?
Is this such a bizarre concept of morality to grasp? We determine what is right and wrong through reason and observation. We avoid that which causes harm, and we encourage that which improves the quality of life. Why is that so strange?
Archtype said:
Faith without some dark spots would cease to be faith for starters. Correct?
There was a time when "faith" simply meant "trust", deserving or not. This is actually how it was often used in the old testament, trusting that God would do good. Now it often just means believing without proof. Either term could be applicable in the context I used, but I was primarily using the first, so by saying blind faith I was implying unwarranted trust. Is there a situation in which trust can be assured? That is an interesting question in itself, as the only examples in which I could think of require inductive reasoning as opposed to deductive. Good enough for practical use, not for philosophical debate. I'm rambling, I'll move on to the next part.
Completely blind though? Not quite, take for example the commandment to abstain from certain meats in the Old Testament. It did not make any sense at the time, but today we know that many of the restricted meats posed major health risks unless cared for in specific ways (refrigerators lol). I might not always be able to give an explanation as to WHY a commandment was given, but past examples tell me that God deserves trust.
I have all kinds of problems with this reasoning.
1) It's cherry-picking.
What about Deuteronomy 22:11? "Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together."
Exodus 23:19? "Do not cook a young goat in it's mother's milk."
What is the mighty wisdom in this? Why was this imparted upon us and not, say, the formula for penicillin?
2) It's inductive reasoning. "Eating X can be bad. The bible said not to eat X. Therefor the author must have known." It seems to follow, but it's far from irrefutable and there are always other possible explanations.
3) Even if the author did know it could have more likely been from observing people getting sick after consuming certain food. It doesn't take divine inspiration to understand cause and effect.
OR getting it done to you wrong 
