There are two things I struggle with in your reply.

1. How is what you are describing not just having a better attitude? What has fundamentally changed? And is it really realistic to expect someone to always have a good attitude? If not, how is what you're describing any different than simply "try to be a more mature person and regulate your emotions better"?
2. If it were possible to detach yourself from your frustration, wouldn't you also detach yourself from your joy? If you do not listen to your thoughts and emotions, don't you become something inhuman and neutral? That's assuming it is even possible, and I have never seen anyone who could do that. Not even monks, who meditate for their entire lives.

It seems to me that you are overlooking the fact that our perspective is more than just our thoughts. It's also our biology. What you're describing is like a form of meditation, where you allow your thoughts simply to pass without judging them, and without judging your life's experience. But judgment is programmed into us as a living being because judgment is part of making good decisions. If there is no difference between tripping over a hose and not tripping over a hose, maybe there is no difference between walking into traffic and not walking into traffic. You say you can apply your intelligence from a place that does not need drama, but we don't react the way we do because we seek drama. Pain is a signal that something is wrong. If you trip over the hose your body is startled, and the neuro-chemical networks that evolved to teach you not to trip over things because you could get injured or be vulnerable to predators kicks in. The whole idea that you can ignore this seems foreign and unlikely to me. Can you ignore a dog barking in your ear? Can you have open surgery done without any medication for pain? Can you lose a loved one without crying, and if so, would you even want to? I feel like this idea of having selective control over our emotions and thoughts is unrealistic. If you can truly do that you are a miracle, but I am very skeptical, having tried these things myself.

Yes, I'm aware of what Epicurus taught, that is why I referenced him. :) What I was trying to say is that it appears if our own happiness is the greatest good as far as our identity/ego is concerned, how could any other good attempt to usurp it? For example, if God threatens to punish us, then the only reason we would heed his commands is because punishment would threaten our happiness. If we attempt to compare personal happiness to collective happiness, such as in utilitarianism, as soon as collective happiness comes into conflict with personal happiness won't we rebel against utilitarianism? The only exception I see is when these things align with our own happiness, such as when it feels good to be charitable, but that is still a desire to feel good as the highest good. I guess my question is starting to boil down to, isn't the measure of how good a thing is, whether it's God's commandments or charity or selfishness, won't we measure it by how happy it makes us?

I don't really know how to interpret a world without personal identity or perspective. I am relatively familiar with eastern religions and philosophies. I am aware that the dissolution of the ego is a primary concept of their beliefs, but if I can not even imagine what they are talking about how is it achievable? I have certainly observed my own thoughts and meditated, etc. I do understand that you can alter your consciousness to a degree, but I have never understood the idea of living without an ego. An ego is an experience. An identity is an experience. Perspective is required to exist. Anything you observe, you do so from a perspective. Maybe you can try to let go of your own memories, or the perspective of a man, but then what other perspective would you take on? How could you have the perspective of a butterfly, or a tree? How could you have no perspective at all? How could you have the perspective of another person, or an existence you have no memories of? To me it is like saying "Imagine that you are not yourself, and instead, you are everything." To some degree this is possible, but I am still myself imagining that I am not myself, so it is anchored to my self/ego/identity/memory/mind either way. I don't see how that can be avoided.

This is very interesting. So your response if I understood it correctly essentially boils down to hedonism being the nature of the world we are playing the game in, but we (the soul, or the intellect, or something higher than the physical reality) are not the animal and therefore we should not limit ourselves to animal behaviors. So it isn't the animal individual vs. the moral collective, it's more that we are seeking a higher benefit through an animal vessel. Sort of like going to school in order to get a degree even though you might dislike school.

This makes sense. My next question would be: isn't that still essentially hedonistic? Maybe not in the sex and wine hedonistic tradition, but in the Epicurean tradition? If our own personal pleasure of the mind/soul/body is the highest good, then can we ever find a rationale to contradict that, even if other morals and goods are proposed by powers greater than ourselves? For example, if the collective good of humanity ever comes in conflict with my own pleasure in an absolute way, could I ever find a rationale to sacrifice myself altruistically?

I find your replies really ignorant and insulting. Why do you come here if you are only interested in mocking people? Why not refrain from commenting at all? You clearly don't even understand the question I'm asking, and your quote was ridiculous and inappropriate. Maybe in your head you are cleverly debating a religious apologist up on stage like Richard Dawkins, but I am not a religious apologist and you are not Richard Dawkins. Maybe if you made an effort to ask questions and understand someone else's position you'd be less of a clown and more of a philosopher.

Fair enough. If not god, we'll call it a collective call to something greater than ourselves. Adequate? If this collective call requires us to dissolve our personal ego and identity, why then should we agree to it? If you as an ego, as an identity, are all YOU know and have, then who or what gets to experience the joys allegedly created or produced by the thing greater than ourselves? I'll give a very simple example. Let's say you spend your whole life working for others. You give away all your money and you spend all your free time volunteering. You as an animal are suffering because the animal wants pleasure and is selfish. Maybe there is some element of pleasure that comes from giving and helping, but no one I have ever met wants to give everything all the time, even if that's what's best for humanity as a collective. So the question becomes: if it is the ego/identity that is experiencing life, and we must kill it to serve the collective, why should we serve the collective? This is very similar to the question I am asking about god, so we're still on the same page, just different terminology.

This is exactly what I'm trying to figure out. If our animal morals (biological hedonism) and desire for self-preservation disagree with god's commands in a world where god creates "objective morals" then what does that mean? What is the difference between objective morals set forth by an all powerful deity and subjective morals (laws) created by mankind?

I understand what you're saying. Thank you for introducing me to the emic and etic concepts.The reason I am posting it here in the philosophy forum and not in a religious forum is because I'm not so much interested in the religious apologist answer to "Why did God ask Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?" Instead I am interested in the answer to "If a hypothetical god created us and is all powerful, but his requests are in conflict with our hedonistic nature, what do we do?" This question emerged from the argument that god is the only source of objective morality put forth by William Lane Craig (a religious philosopher). I find his arguments convincing, but when taken for granted it raises other questions. What exactly is an objective moral? Is it one we must follow? Yet god grants free will in religious philosophy, so that can't be what is meant by objective morality. It must be that objective morality is morality that is part of nature, where here nature means god's creation that he has programmed to be natural. It raises all sorts of questions for me. Even if a god is necessary to create objective morality, what is the difference between objective and subjective morality if we are inclined not to obey it? Is it the punishment that makes it objective? Is it the consequence of going against nature (similar to eating an unhealthy diet, health being a byproduct of living in accordance with the laws of nature), or is it that a deity would know what is best for us all and so "good" here is also what we should desire if we were wise?

Would you say the same about other things we once did not know the nature of, such as disease, or neurology? I'm not sure if the nature of god is knowable or not, but wouldn't it be irresponsible to remain willfully ignorant? Also, according to Pascal's wager wouldn't it be more intelligent to behave as if a God does exist?

I assume by your very short reply that you're referring to my statement not being self-evident "If God..." but the question I'm asking is not whether God exists or created anything, it's a thought experiment about if God existed how should man behave? Can you approach it from that angle and share your thoughts?