My point was that total control of our life isn't really possible and that, as some have said, freedom is crystalized in our minds' imagination. That said, of course at a certain degree we are in control, and if we're open to changes in our values, like you said, it'll only help us truly be Moral, without the need of an exterior power (be it law or god as I mentioned), but solely with the interactions with the world from which we are able to shape and mutate ourselves constantly.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
Why does an empowered control over one's life automatically denote amorality? I feel urges to cheat on my spouse, I dont act on them but I feel them. So do emperor penguins for fucks sake though! You dont have to be religious to be a moral person. Or in other words, just because I dont believe in god doesnt mean i dont believe in anything, there are various moral principles i believe in and follow quite rigidly.

What is important here, is that I am always open to the idea that I can re-evaluate my opinions. If my morals or my relationships change, I will change as well. I know who I am and who i want to be, and having freedom doesnt mean I have to act on every impulse I come across. It means I have the choice to shape my character how I see fit.

Feel free to continue the discussion as i always appreciate thoughtful comments.
-Jon

In reply to this comment by filantropo:
JiggaJonson, the power you speak of seems oh so ilimited, but for some not even the right to death is free of society's sick moral issues (mainly caused by obtuse religious bull'). For most of us, there's always a moral and ethical value obliterating the quality (and in a sense, the value) of our own life.

Be it overworking to pay college to our children, be it castrating our urges to not cheat on our (faithful?) partner, be it paying for something instead of stealing (although it's a ordinary thought to consider ourselves as robbed by the government), be it whatever impulse or pondered craving we come across, we're always members of a moral network, never are we free solitary individuals. And morality comes in many forms, many concepts, since it's simply the thing around which our choices concerning society revolve.

To be truly "in charge of our own life" as you said seems to imply amorality. Now you certainly are not amoral, and you'll understand how I know this if you're familiar with a notion as amorality.

To exist, morality has to be justified by an entity that transcends the immediate and belongs to the untimely. The concept of god and its inevitable judgement fit perfectly, to those who accept such concept. For the rest of us, there's the Law (in its turn, based on God's existence), and what it dictates happens to be out of our personal control.

Those who don't have faith in an entity that can't be rationalized are left with one question: "can anyone refuse the overwhelming power of Morality and still be rational?"

But those who do have faith in an entity are left with a more disturbing question: "after erasing all your doubts and concerns with the acceptance of a power that can't be proven nor rationalized, are you still rational and do you still seek Reason as the human that you are (and whose definition lies on Reason itself)?"