You missed the whole bit about being more motivated by a carrot and stick thing did you?
Of course, if you'd actually read my reply:
"...any human (Humanist or otherwise) who does not suffer from some form of profound mental or social impairment is also an innate consequentialist." You might not have felt you have a pseudo-point to try and make here... but ho hum...anyway the point is the innate consequentialism, empathy and social conscience are all required to have a functioning morality; no gods are required for this to happen.
No and it would be nearly impossible to accrue such evidence and besides this is not what I was getting at.
For the third time now (I think...I'm beginning to lose count...) what I AM getting at is that innate consequentialism, empathy, and social conscience are all required to have a functioning morality; no gods required at all. This is axiomatic.
Where I think you may have fallen down is where I had hinted that is was conceivable that say two similar wrongs of some kind have been perpetrated; one by a christer and one by a normal atheist. Both the christer and the normal atheist will suffer real-world consequences but the christer could still potentially just ask for forgiveness later at any time (so long as they meant it of course
) and thereby simply think or feel that they have done something that makes everything alright for them personally without ever having made amends in the real world. I am not suggesting that they would; merely that they could...and that's fucked up.
Just because you may have trouble understanding something doesn't mean you have to act out now Andrew.
Beter to try actually reading, digesting and comprehending another's point or position before attempting to formulate an argument or counterpoint.