Moral superiority: Seculars vs Religious

[Zenith]

Blackout, I'd like to give my opinion here as well: If you look at the pagans of antiquity before christians and those who were not jews, you will see they had taboos as well. For instance, the ancient greeks, AFAIK had no rights for women, it was only men who had rights. I also don't believe that bible commandments like "if a woman committed adultery, then kill her!" were unnatural for the jews thousands of years ago: a similar view they must have had before, or at least they already despised greatly a woman who did that.

When I say "religion" I mean all religion, literally.

It's still not valid: the pagan gods (and thus, in pagan religions) did not give any commandments to people on how to behave and how to treat women, etc. They simply demanded offerings and that was all. It did develop later on, as ideologies started to rise and they were transposed to gods, such as some forms of Buddhism, the belief in "good gods" and "bad goods" - which was borrowed by Judaism / Christianity from the persians, etc.

A more realistic counter argument against my position would be the popular belief that ideologies regarding sex and thus the women's place in society turned against women's favor when agriculture was discovered: it invented private properties, and thus some men ruled over others, and thus began to claim ownership over people and women's rights decreased. Whilst before agriculture, the tribes required that all members contribute to the group for the group to survive, so there was / must have been equality between men and women.

Why think a prostitute is immoral? I'd relate it to our animal instincts, where men want to be the alpha males trying to pass their genes: if your woman is a prostitute / harlot, then you can't trust that her offspring is also yours. If another woman is a prostitute, yes, you'd like to f*ck her, but that's all.

Animal instincts? Prove it

First I want to emphasize that this is a hypothesis that I currently believe and which makes sense for multiple situations.
Second, if you look at various species of animals you will see behaviors where females are submitted to males and the alpha male mates with all the females and so on.
A quick search:
http://www.livescience.com/27921-animal-sex-chimps.html
http://www.livescience.com/48743-aggress...-more.html

"Subordinate males often like to mate in secret, out of the alpha male's sight. If an alpha male catches a coital couple, he may execute a "bluff display," where he charges at the pair"
In other words, the alpha male hates when someone else f*cks with his females.

Why is rape a bad thing? If she's married, you wouldn't like to raise some other guy's child; if you're her father, you're concerned she'll remain pregnant and nobody's gonna want to marry her and raise someone else's child. If you wanted to marry her and smb. else raped her, you wouldn't like to raise the child.

That's not the reason why we consider rape wrong. And pregnancy isn't even the most relevant occurrence, but you can always prove me wrong.

Have you not read what I wrote below? I said,
"Of course, some situations might not conclude now the same as they did thousands of years ago, but the natural instincts are the same."
The evolution does not keep the pace very well with our social and technological developments. If it had kept us up to date with everything, we would no longer have had pubic hair, after all.

Why is gay wrong? (in pagan antiquity the views were diverse) Perhaps because they're not "male enough" - alpha males are the ones who have all the females and thus have much greater chances of passing his genes forward. And perhaps that's why now, when a man sleeps with 10 women he's a hero, while if a woman tells everybody that she slept with 10 men she's a harlot.

Masculinity and femininity are social constructed concepts. But if you think this is about genes, prove it.

You prove that masculinity and femininity are social constructed concepts.
But they are in animal kingdom. And it is the reason a male lion kills a foreign pack's male lion and takes the females as his own later on.
Or perhaps you meant something else?

P.S. Similarly, why is a man who f*cks women frequently appreciated whilst a virgin who can't convince any woman to sleep with him is ridiculous? The former is the "strong one", i.e. the natural selection enlists him to pass his genes forward, whilst the latter is the "weak one", the "inferior one", the one who gets swept away by the natural selection process. And I don't think we have an explanation in the Bible for why we admire one and laugh of the other.

It's called gender double standards and it has a cultural explanation. But if you think this is natural, you can always prove it. I'll wait.

It can also have a natural explanation.

---

There are no alphas or betas.

What I mean, there might have been, and we might still have trails / leftovers from a time we were like that. Or is that impossible?

---

If the double standard was instinctive very few people would go against it because it would be hard wired into our systems. The fact that the invention of the pill could change our society's views on female sexuality is proof that the double standard is the result of our culture and not natural to our species.

There is also another thing that comes to mind, something a bit similar: The belief of one that he lives through your descendants. This is not a belief that everybody shares, but it is quite possible people throughout time believed in it, and it might be a natural incentive for procreation.