It seems that many religious people on Pro U think that, as an atheist, I have no clear moral stance. I have no base morality. However you want to say it. I figure that instead of trying to, in a reasonable length repeat myself over and over again whenever asked about my morals, I’ll explain myself very clearly in a full-length blog.
All right, here goes the morality of Jsaj:
1) Do not infringe on anyone else’s right to their own life. It is their life and they should be allowed to live and die according to their own wishes, so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.
2) Respect other’s rights to their own property.
3) Act with respect toward the people around you, if they have earned it.
a. Respect for a person and respect for a belief is different. I can respect a person who holds beliefs that I do not respect.
b. If a person fails to earn your respect, it is still best to be polite.
4) Give people the benefit of the doubt.
5) Live your life as you choose. As long as you don’t violate these rules.
My morality may be very simple, but that is best. Although there are some complicated situations where there is no easy answer, I have never seen a situation that I have not, eventually, been able to use these guidelines for.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Fix your blog for spacing. Right now. Or God will get on you.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Sorry about that.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
It's cool. God is no longer mad at you. He'll save smiting you for another day.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I expect to be smitten any day now...
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
Why?
Since this morality has no authority except yourself, isn't another morality just as valid?
Suppose for a moment this morality was enacted by a person who also recognized no authority greater than them self:
---
Intelligent rationality is supreme.
Foolish ideas are harmful to all of society. If a foolish or superstitious person insists on spreading their harm they must be stopped. These ideas have killed millions, and enslaved the minds of men since the beginning of time. Therefore whatever means are required to eradicate them are better than allowing them to continue.
People should be accorded respect and status based upon their intelligence, and contribution to society. The right to reproduce should be restricted for the good of the entire race.
---
I could go on with 'logical' conclusions that would be the worst sorts of oppression if personal liberty were not valued by the person deciding what is right. Just like yours is, there are secular morality systems that are very admirable. Yet secular societies that have existed to this point have been at least the equal of the worst theocracies when it comes to oppressing their citizens.
Atheism is not amoral by necessity, but the door in that direction is wide open.
A fact is always better than an ideal
To address this, I have to state my ideas about the origin of morality. I believe that morality is an evolutionary product that works to allow societies to flourish. This would be important considering the fact that we are social animals. Most people have the same moral standards with minor variations. Most people think that killing is wrong. However, strong dogmatic beliefs could allow you to bypass that morality. It is OK to kill in the name of god. Or for your country. Or whatever
However, these types of strong overpowering dogmatic beliefs are not good for society. They are unhelpful and create friction. And, although the source may be a foreign agent, that does not excuse the actions for infringing on the rights of others.
A belief that it would be better to eradicate all religions would be better than to allow them to exist is a type of dogmatic belief. It is overpowering a person's morality and causing them to act in a way that they would consider to be immoral when applied to a different group of people. Those actions are immoral. They are wrong. And, whatever your reason, there is no excuse for acting in such a way.
The only exception is when a person has some sort of mental problem that gives them a warped perception of the world. Although we may pity these people, that does not give them the right to enforce their warped morals onto other people.
Societies with unhelpful morality tend to cease to exist.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
Social Darwinism has an unearned bad reputation.
I agree that morals are based on allowing people to work together in a society. And evolutionary is a good description of the process that has gotten us to this point. When you say "Most people have the same moral standards with minor variations." you just about completely lose me. Is there any moral value that you can name where its violation is not very common? Dogma is a much rarer cause for imorality than individual motivations like Lust, Greed, Rage, etc. The reason for morality to exist is to prevent people from following their animal instincts in ways that make it impossible for us to live together.Those instincts are the common thing in individuals, not the morals.
Your stated morals are agreeable to me because we were both trained to think by the same set of social morals. Those morals are an evolutionary product of judeo-Christian religious teachings that were once the state sponsored in all western culture. Thankfully in the present day the more repressive portions of that tradition are being abandoned by more people.
For an Atheist I like the adherence to these traditional morals that have survived the 'social darwinist' process. I wish morality could be justified by reason, but historical perspective is the best we have. Strong dogmatic beleifs, or just a lack of trained morality can produce equally frightening results.
"A belief that it would be better to eradicate all religions would be better than to allow them to exist as a type of dogmatic belief."
I hope that is a misstatement. Otherwise you are guilty of dogmatic beleifs that should also be eradicated by the same reasoning. Eradicating any THOUGHT is something I would consider dogmatic. Actions that infringe peoples rights are entirely seperate from the thoughts that motivate those actions. I really did not expect you to agree with any of my bad exaples of reason based morality.
A fact is always better than an ideal
"Is there any moral value that you can name where its violation is not very common?" You know I can't. I think it is wrong to lie. I would imagine that you agree. Can you truthfully say that you don't lie? I know I can't. I try not to. I don't do it often. But sometimes it happens.
"Dogma is a much rarer cause for imorality than individual motivations like Lust, Greed, Rage, etc." I both agree and disagree. Strong emotions or desires can cause individuals to break their own moral code and I should have mentioned that. However, dogmatic beleif can cause more people to act in an immoral way, although usually in less extreme ways, such as the attepmts in the US to outlaw homosexual marriage, but extreme actions can still occur and do so regularly when motivated by dogma, such as killing abortion doctors or blowing yourself up in a busy street.
"Your stated morals are agreeable to me because we were both trained to think by the same set of social morals. Those morals are an evolutionary product of judeo-Christian religious teachings that were once the state sponsored in all western culture." I disagree. There was a study done recently on morality, where certain situations were presented to groups of people. The reactions were the same regardless of the exposure to Judeo-Christian teachings. I'll try and find the details.
"Strong dogmatic beleifs, or just a lack of trained morality can produce equally frightening results." Again, I sort of agree. In those rare cases where humans are seperated from society completely and live for very long times on their own, they would have a very different moral structure. However, as long as you live in a society, the chance is overwhelming that you will have the same basic morals, don't kill, don't steal, etc., regardless of what that culture is. If the culture does not promote a moral code beneficial to the society, which would have to include those basic things, that society would cease to exist.
"I hope that is a misstatement. Otherwise you are guilty of dogmatic beleifs that should also be eradicated by the same reasoning." Not exactly a misstatement, more of a miscomunication. The person can think that all he wants. If this person acts upon the thought and, say, goes around bombing religious institutions, that is a different story.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
"The reactions were the same regardless of the exposure to Judeo-Christian teachings. I'll try and find the details."
The teachings I'm refering to are not church specific, but rather the ones pervasive in our 80-90% Christian society.
A fact is always better than an ideal
"The teachings I'm refering to are not church specific, but rather the ones pervasive in our 80-90% Christian society." My point is that they are also pervasive in non-Church based societies. They are even pervasive in societies who don't even know what a church is.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft