Amoral atheists

[McCulloch]

In another thread

Nonsense is thinking that an atheist can have a moral position on anything but self-centered wants.

This is a common misunderstanding among Christians. Since they believe that their God is the source of all moral values, then how can someone who does not believe in the supernatural have moral values.
So, let's debate.
AlAyeti seems to have taken the position that atheists are by definition amoral and self-centered.
I will take the position that atheism is consistent with moral values and is not necessarily self-centered.

[AlAyeti]

Sexual promiscuity has everything to do with morality. Another aspect of fact I learned by empiricism. There is nothing I can say to an unreasoning mind that AIDS and the myriad of other STD's do not speak to more eloquently to the physical body. No, make that more intelligently.

But I do feel satisfaction in having an opinion proved once again as valid by empiricism.

Actions speak louder than words.

I sleep well at night knowing in truth I am not prejudiced nor ignorant.

The position of sexual promiscuity not being a moral issue is typical of the amoral belief system of atheism. The behavior goes hand in hand with the mindset.

Proved not by me but by a proponent of atheism in their own words.

[Corvus]

I knew you would focus on STDs.

Sexual promiscuity has everything to do with morality. Another aspect of fact I learned by empiricism. There is nothing I can say to an unreasoning mind that AIDS and the myriad of other STD's do not speak to more eloquently to the physical body. No, make that more intelligently.

And one can get salmonella and ecoli from under-cooked chicken. Yet serving undercooked chicken is not an example of immorality unless it is prepared in this manner to intentionally harm another person.

Promiscuity is not the cause of STDs. A person can contract a sexual disease on their first sexual encounter. But STDs have a greater likelihood of being picked up and spread from incautious promiscuity. But, still, if we are to follow your point of view, then promiscuous individuals who do not succeed in catching an STD, who make sure their partners are pure of disease, and take the proper precautions, are not doing any immoral acts.

I can also list plenty of other diseases that are brought about through no fault of the victim.

So what is it about promiscuity itself, and not the diseases we can pick up by unfortunate circumstance or naivety, that makes promiscuity something that should not be done? Without disease, there's no reason it should not be done, am I right?

But I do feel satisfaction in having an opinion proved once again as valid by empiricism.

I see nothing proven.

[QED]

I mean what I say about Paine. I deeply appreciate this man on freedom issues. But his view of Christianty is grossly mistaken and I wouldn't let him off the hook.

I see the same wrong point of view from in QED's referenced know-it-all. I find appreciation and togetherness with God, not fear of being tossed into an eternal pit. In fact, when you are not a believer there is no such thing as hell.

As a Former minister of the Standard Community Church, Dan Barker might actually deserve the title of "know-it-all".

AlAyeti, can you think of a reason why the sex-drive might be so strong?

[LillSnopp]

I knew you would focus on STDs.

Sexual promiscuity has everything to do with morality. Another aspect of fact I learned by empiricism. There is nothing I can say to an unreasoning mind that AIDS and the myriad of other STD's do not speak to more eloquently to the physical body. No, make that more intelligently.

And one can get salmonella and ecoli from under-cooked chicken. Yet serving undercooked chicken is not an example of immorality unless it is prepared in this manner to intentionally harm another person.

Promiscuity is not the cause of STDs. A person can contract a sexual disease on their first sexual encounter. But STDs have a greater likelihood of being picked up and spread from incautious promiscuity. But, still, if we are to follow your point of view, then promiscuous individuals who do not succeed in catching an STD, who make sure their partners are pure of disease, and take the proper precautions, are not doing any immoral acts.

I can also list plenty of other diseases that are brought about through no fault of the victim.

So what is it about promiscuity itself, and not the diseases we can pick up by unfortunate circumstance or naivety, that makes promiscuity something that should not be done? Without disease, there's no reason it should not be done, am I right?

But I do feel satisfaction in having an opinion proved once again as valid by empiricism.

I see nothing proven.

Mr AlAyeti, however much i hate to say this, i would have to sidle with Corvus on this. (Obviously).

You seem to say that that if you get AIDS, you are amoral. And as anyone can get AIDS (lets say your in a Hospital, and accidentally get HIV infected blood), in what way would this have to do with atheist being aMoral?

And will refer you to Corvus, and simple ask, show us your basis for this. (And feel free to give more then one example)

[AlAyeti]

QED, do you mean the "normal" sex drive?

That's an easy question.

Procreation and the fun of procreating. And of course what about non-procreation activities?

I like to golf but going to the driving range is also very fun.

Read the song of Solomon. All sorts of fun to be had with physical love.

Corvus, you had to do so much qualifying of your position. Why? because promiscuity is immoral. Why all of the dancing around. Someone in a marriage that brings in an STD got it from some degenerate behavior somewhere. The origin is immorality. No one can disagree with that can they? Even through blood transfusions or some sneeze somewhere. And yes, I know you can't get AIDS from a sneeze. In fact the way you get AIDS again proves that facts back up my position.

Doesn't the Bible go out of its way to talk about hygiene??? Why? These ignorant desert dwellers had no microscopes. In fact even talks about sick people getting away from others. How did they know? Empiricism that's how. Concentrating on facts and not emotionalism is a good place to find a ratioanl position about morality.

The badly cooked chicken is something I should have mentioned.

LilSnopp, how can you agree with Corvus?

It's also extremely immoral to ask honest people to pay for the consequences your own licentious behavior. I forgot about that one.

[LillSnopp]

LilSnopp, how can you agree with Corvus?

First off, its spelled LillSnopp. Incorrect spelling is fine, we all do it. But constantly spelling my name with ONE L, Gawd damnit. Please. (LillSnopp = Small Penis, Lill = Small, Snopp = Penis, should enable you to remember it)


Now, to your Question.
It is very easy to agree with Corvus, because its commonsense. You still have not answered in a way i would consider satisfactory.

I will first Quote You AlAyeti:

There is nothing I can say to an unreasoning mind that AIDS and the myriad of other STD's do not speak to more eloquently to the physical body. No, make that more intelligently.

And then Corvus very good answer:

And one can get salmonella and ecoli from under-cooked chicken. Yet serving undercooked chicken is not an example of immorality unless it is prepared in this manner to intentionally harm another person.

Promiscuity is not the cause of STDs. A person can contract a sexual disease on their first sexual encounter. But STDs have a greater likelihood of being picked up and spread from incautious promiscuity. But, still, if we are to follow your point of view, then promiscuous individuals who do not succeed in catching an STD, who make sure their partners are pure of disease, and take the proper precautions, are not doing any immoral acts.

AlAyeti, you claim promiscuity to be aMoral. Please explain this to me in more detail, as your above statement does not hold (read Corvus answer). I am seriously very interested i nhearing your viewpoint on this.

[AlAyeti]

LillSnopp,

The Corvus analogy speaks to morality as something that can be proven.

Preparation shows that reason can be implemented to prove right and wrong. Of course empiricism is sometimes a painful lesson. A child might die or the preparer of an irrationally prepared meal without proper care to the act of preparing cooking and eating "properly."

I can eat a chicken just by picking ot up and biting a piece off of it as it walks by. I may lose an eye in process. I may get parasites in my hair. I may get parasites in my digestive tract.

Then I could shoot it from afar and wait (a short time) to "clean it, prepare it for cooking, thoroughly cook it" (something that can be proven by observation) and in a proper timeframe after it is cooked, I can consume the non-dangerous parts of the chicken's body parts.

Or I can just act licentiously and do what I want when I want with the chicken.

The whole chicken story lends credence to an absolute naturally existing moral right and wrong that when ignored has causes that affect a person or persons regardless of accidentily or a criminally perpetrated. Precisely because there is a proper way to prepare things to be eaten just as sexual intercourse is absulutely the safest when preparation and intelligence rules the choice behavior. Morality goes against unlimited, unrestrained promiscuity, and our (or the US) society testifies to that truth.

Two virgins coming together to have sex can do so like cooking a chicken properly. Once everything is in place for the desired "BEST" results especially in "thinking" people, than have at it. But even within "normal" sexual interactions, science has shown us that ther is right and wrong. Sperm is for ovum. An erection for only one purpose.

Like not preparing a chicken correctly, when nature or morality (which is exclusive to humans!), is violated or the absolutes inherent in human morality is ignored, bad consequecnces always happen.

Not doing the right thing when preparing a chicken and immoral behavior both have bad outcomes. That is empirical truth proved once again on the Five O'Clock news. STD's and liability law suits should be the example that rings a bell.

I purposely omitted "Unplanned Pregnancies" because only mentally retarded or seriously brain damaged individuals do not (or may not) know what happens from sexual intercourse.

[AlAyeti]

Let's take a finer look at this presentation.

- - - - -"Promiscuity is not the cause of STDs. A person can contract a sexual disease on their first sexual encounter. But STDs have a greater likelihood of being picked up and spread from incautious promiscuity. But, still, if we are to follow your point of view, then promiscuous individuals who do not succeed in catching an STD, who make sure their partners are pure of disease, and take the proper precautions, are not doing any immoral acts." - - - - -

Come on now. . . Promiscuity is not the cause of STDs? That is not only nonsense it disqualifies the person who wrote it from serious consideration in any intelligent converstion about STD's!

Uhh . . . we then have this: "Incautious promiscuity." Though I will accept the neologism of "Incautious," but, sorry "Incautious promiscuity" validates my point that fools that act like unreasoning beasts, need the majority of the sensible populace to rule them.

For goodness sakes we have the FDA going to Kentucky Fried Chicken restraunts to keep Corvus from getting sickened from badly "prepared" chickens from "Incatiuos" chicken cooks.

Some people can eat rancid meat and not get sick. But the vast majority will die! The vast majority takes precedent in both eating and humping and peopel who do both wrongly.

Just the fact that you have to "make sure your partner is free from disease" is in itself a stupid thing to do as well as the irrational dwelling in "Incautious promiscuity." Does anyone recognize the contradictory nature of this premise?

This is what we get from great "freethinkers?"

We don't even trust Kentucky Fried Chicken to do the right thing. We're going to trust whores?

Please! somebody? If you know the re-incarnted Socrates I'll give you my home phone number!

Logic needs to find its way back to modern man.

[Corvus]

Let's take a finer look at this presentation.

- - - - -"Promiscuity is not the cause of STDs. A person can contract a sexual disease on their first sexual encounter. But STDs have a greater likelihood of being picked up and spread from incautious promiscuity. But, still, if we are to follow your point of view, then promiscuous individuals who do not succeed in catching an STD, who make sure their partners are pure of disease, and take the proper precautions, are not doing any immoral acts." - - - - -

Come on now. . . Promiscuity is not the cause of STDs? That is not only nonsense it disqualifies the person who wrote it from serious consideration in any intelligent converstion about STD's!

Well, I'm glad you went ahead and critiqued my post anyway. But this imbecile still states that STDs are not caused by promiscuity. You can have sex with every person in the world, but you will only be perpetuating diseases you have picked up by contaminated people, not generating new ones.

What, do you believe that if you have sex with 5 people or less you get gonorrhoea , 10 people or less and you get syphillis and 50 people is HIV? Are you a creationist who actually believes in spontaneous generation, or are you rushing ahead without making sure you have understood what I have written?

If I have sex with 200 virgins, the worst I might catch is a cold.

Uhh . . . we then have this: "Incautious promiscuity." Though I will accept the neologism of "Incautious,"

Is it a neologism? It's certainly not a word I made up on the spot.

but, sorry "Incautious promiscuity" validates my point that fools that act like unreasoning beasts, need the majority of the sensible populace to rule them.

Why do they need the majority of the sensible populace to rule them? What is it about promiscuity - simply defined as having a casual approach to sex with many different sexual partners - that prevents promiscuous people from being cautious? Can they not use condoms?

Perhaps you are working from a definition that prevents any such caution on behalf of promiscuous people. If so, what would you call a promiscuous person who takes pecautions?

Just the fact that you have to "make sure your partner is free from disease"...

That's funny, since you do the same thing by advocating that partners should be virgins.

is in itself a stupid thing to do as well as the irrational dwelling in "Incautious promiscuity." Does anyone recognize the contradictory nature of this premise?

I certainly don't. Although checking to see if one's partner is disease-free is impractical unless they have something visible like genital warts, why can't a free and easy lad use a condom?

We don't even trust Kentucky Fried Chicken to do the right thing. We're going to trust whores?

So you propose we trust purported virgins, even though you've made it clear that in this decadent age, true examples of such a creature are hard to find?

[AlAyeti]

Corvus,

Do they use the term "Fumble" in Australian rules football?