Non-theist morality (ritual, morals, reject, homosexuality, blood)

[Dislekseyuh]

Originally Posted by Storm

Is it wrong to kill in defense of another?

Is it wrong to steal food for one's dependents, if there are no alternatives?

Do we as a society have a moral obligation to provide for the poor?

Is the death penalty just, or immoral?

Sexuality is a goldmine here:

Is promiscuity immoral? If so, where do you draw the line?

What about polyamory/polygamy vs. monogamy?

....prostitution?

These are all questions that I use my spirituality to explore, and hopefully answer. What do you use?

1. Depends on the situation, but yes if the person's life is in jeopardy.

2. If your life depends on it, then sure. But it's not as if people can't get food now a days, or not be able to pay off the food debt.

3. I think we have more of an obligation to get them jobs than to give them food.

4. I'm against it. Death is just the easy way out.

5. Nothing wrong with that if everyone is cool with it.

6. Same as 5.

7. Everyone is going to have sex anyway. We should do away with prostitution laws.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Francine

Jesus was the final human sacrifice for sin.

Not in Texas he wasn't.

[TurkeyOnRye]

The goal of morality is to eliminate suffering, increase happiness and increase quality of life and survivability for everyone, at least in an evolutionary sense...in my opinion. I think this is morality in its most bare and basic form. But that's all we really need, isn't it? We just need to make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

[science_is_my_god]

Why must we associtiate morals on a spiritual level? The complexities of the universe are too infinate to try to constrain them with a sense of "right" vs. "wrong". One could argue that both "right" and "wrong" are completely subjective to the individual. Thus, having a guideline for humanity to follow in regard to ethics is completely useless, as it is open to multiple interprataions. However, to completely ignore ethics would be shameful to the human race. One should help others for the sake of helping them, and one shouldn't cause harm onto others because it puts humanity a step back on the road to evolution, but not because it goes against any ethical or moral code.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

Great questions, Storm. To briefly answer one of them:

Reason, compassion, and facts.

In other words, sentiment; personal likes and dislikes are your criteria. It's emotion-based idealism and nothing more.

[yossarian22]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

In other words, sentiment; personal likes and dislikes are your criteria. It's emotion-based idealism and nothing more.

Do you have to pollute every single thread about atheism with garbage statements like this? Hypocrisy is amusing the first 20 times I read it. After that, it is just a waste of space.


I'll just answer the last question.
Statistics, and necessity.

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

Great questions, Storm. To briefly answer one of them:

Reason, compassion, and facts.

Originally Posted by Rolling Stone

In other words, sentiment; personal likes and dislikes are your criteria. It's emotion-based idealism and nothing more.

Nice strawman.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

Nice strawman.

A red herring, actually. But one that must be addressed if you answer is to make any sense.

Originally Posted by yossarian22

Do you have to pollute every single thread about atheism with garbage statements like this? Hypocrisy is amusing the first 20 times I read it. After that, it is just a waste of space.


I'll just answer the last question.
Statistics, and necessity.

Hmmm. Seems consistency of thought is of no concern for some. They can't refute the logic, so they aggressively or passively dismiss it.

Oh, well. Nuthin' new.

As for the new guy's signature: "A man's Ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary." Einstein was wrong here, for sympathy is sentiment and arbitrary while social ties and education are evolutionary--foundations of sand. However, he was absolutely right with respect to the second part: "Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."