Who sets the laws of the secular world and why is wrong to break those laws?

 Responding to:

"Who sets the laws of the secular world and why is wrong to break those laws?" - @jdaze1  ---- That question was posed in the comments section of this video: . My thoughts about it: Every rule and law ever codified and enforced by humans ... has been written by humans. Even if there are any Super-Powered Super-People living in some phantom realm, ... We humans are still functioning on our own. Mind you, strictly speaking, I'm not an "atheist". I think spirituality can be a fully legitimate domain of exploration, discovery, and growth. I think some personal experiences are real. I think some miraculous events do happen. I just refuse to assume The Source is a literal person with a name, political ambitions, or who issues dogmas, threats, and bribes. It's probably something more like Taoistic Pansychism. But I just call it "The Source", "The River", and "The Mystery"; because I don't really know anything about it. A wilful "God" playing favorites and hosting a daily miracle-lottery is a very troubling notion. A "God" who is as violently insecure as the Abrahamic "God"(s) is even more terrifying. These ideas seem very much to be born from the minds of very troubled men. But if The Source is like a divine myst, then perhaps "faith" of any sort merely functions like a lightning rod. In that case, there isn't a "someone" playing twisted games with our lives. In any case, ... Every concept and "law" in biblical literature was conceived of by mere fallible humans; humans who weren't honest enough to admit that, because they wanted their voice to carry the great weight of radically unequal "authority" over everyone else. Humans arrive at their various ideas via: complex systems of psychology and social physics. Power exists. It's objectively real. However, "authority" is just a game people mutually agree to play. Those who play that game willingly ... do so because: organizing into hierarchical systems ... facilitates leveraged cooperation and acceleration toward desired societal goals. And yet, because every human has a unique psychology, motivations (and goals intended to serve their underlying motives) vary greatly. Absent of any specific goals that define the right course of action, I am an "anti-realist" about morality. I, however, do have relevant goals. What determines those goals, for me? 1. Compassion, 2. personal accountability, and 3. fully objectively rational reasons for wanting to live in a maximally healthy society.

Although, I willingly concede that 'it just might be' that The River supplies people with all virtues; along with the virtue of rational cognition.

But if that's the case, then this becomes an extra argument against "religion".

Because religions (for the most part) suppress virtue.

Every exception to that which I've seen ... seems to be the product of exemplary character ... in stark contrast to the religion they speak from. 

My perspective about that is this: Such "religion" made them character-strong merely by providing spiritual quicksand for them to struggle and overcome.  

In all fairness, I can relate to this sort of experience. It was the impressive levels of evil that family and domestic partners mentally trapped me within (for extended periods) that forced me to grow.

What determines moral goals for "moral authoritarian" religions? Clinical Narcissists and Psychopaths, at the top.

Beneath that? * A strange mix of clinical Narcissists, * flying monkeys who have been trained to unwittingly emulate and celebrate the features of that disorder, and * Actually, sane and decent humans who are too innocently naive to understand the control systems they've been maneuvered into.

-------
[review of the comments discussion which led up to JDaze1's question]:

@jdaze1

2 hours ago

"Can someone explain why everyone in all 3 so called "Abrahamic" religions are so focused on a "coming messiah"? Isn't the Most High enough for everyone? So much focus on a human being as a savior/deliverer seems to be idolatrous to me. Human deliverers in the past didn't quite live up to their expectations and no human ever will. Why not focus on God alone, then maybe peace will come to the world and all disagreements/wars will be solved naturally when mens hearts are changed by God. I just don't get this whole messiah business." --- My reply was this: "Today, it seems like most of the attention Judaic-believers give to the issue of a "messiah" is in response to what Christians are saying. If it weren't for that, I don't think Judaic-believers would think so much about it. Although, I could be wrong. This just seems like the reason it usually comes up. Although, anciently, I think it was core to their religions' "learned helplessness"; to always be waiting for an uber-male to save them from themselves and from outsiders. This helped their leaders keep their followers docile; in a perpetually dependent state, like children.

As for Muslims, I don't hear them saying much about it. They do think humanity needs messengers. But not necessarily an intermediary. -unless I've misunderstood them about this. Christianity seems to be where that obsession endures. But that's because their entire theology is predicated on it. There are many reasons for this. Besides the same reasons ancient Judaic believers had for this, Christianity is very much an "authoritarian" religious domain. As such, it serves their sociopolitical interests to have a religious icon to *represent* that authority. If they just say "accept God", that's not specific enough for their interests. Because they are in competition with the other religions. So they need a marketing gimmick that 'sets them apart' and reserves the *sole* power to speak for "God". That way, they can say "the only way to God is through our icon of authority". That way, they can say "you have to submit to US; otherwise God won't be your friend". --------