Moral Acts

[Catholic_Lady]

I don't see why there would be any? A person can always act morally, regardless of whether or not they believe in God.

I will say though that there are a few things that I consider immoral that the vast majority of atheists think is perfectly fine. But that doesn't mean they are incapable of it. I've personally known an atheist woman who was of the opinion that premarital sex was immoral and so her and her husband waited until their wedding night. If finding an atheist like that is possible, anything is lol.

[brewer]

Guilt free masturbation?

you got that backwards lol

Well, I can't say "guilt filled" if I'm successful.

[Catholic_Lady]

I think the argument from the other side is more along the lines of, "you can act moral but you can't actually be moral without religion." If you don't believe in God, then the religious will question your motivations, since any proper God-fearing citizen has that to motivate them to do good. Atheists don't have a standard to be judged by. But there's no specific thing you can't do without religion; it's all about intention and motivation.

I disagree with all that, obviously.

For the record, that certainly isn't my argument at all lol. 

In fact, I think it's actually less moral to only act moral because you think you'll be "punished" if you don't.

[Aegon]

I don't see why there would be any? A person can always act morally, regardless of whether or not they believe in God.

I will say though that there are a few things that I consider immoral that the vast majority of atheists think is perfectly fine. But that doesn't mean they are incapable of it. I've personally known an atheist woman who was of the opinion that premarital sex was immoral and so her and her husband waited until their wedding night. If finding an atheist like that is possible, anything is lol.

That's so weird to me. If you think Jesus will be upset if you bang before marriage, fine, but what other reason could you have for waiting? We're animals. We like sex.

I think the argument from the other side is more along the lines of, "you can act moral but you can't actually be moral without religion." If you don't believe in God, then the religious will question your motivations, since any proper God-fearing citizen has that to motivate them to do good. Atheists don't have a standard to be judged by. But there's no specific thing you can't do without religion; it's all about intention and motivation.

I disagree with all that, obviously.

For the record, that certainly isn't my argument at all lol. 

In fact, I think it's actually less moral to only act moral because you think you'll be "punished" if you don't.

I was certainly painting a broad brush with my post. I've seen that argument plenty of times, especially from Catholics (though I was exposed mostly only to Catholicism when I was younger.)

[Catholic_Lady]

I don't see why there would be any? A person can always act morally, regardless of whether or not they believe in God.

I will say though that there are a few things that I consider immoral that the vast majority of atheists think is perfectly fine. But that doesn't mean they are incapable of it. I've personally known an atheist woman who was of the opinion that premarital sex was immoral and so her and her husband waited until their wedding night. If finding an atheist like that is possible, anything is lol.

That's so weird to me. If you think Jesus will be upset if you bang before marriage, fine, but what other reason could you have for waiting? We're animals. We like sex.

Yes, but we like lots of sugar and salt and grease as well lol. Liking something doesn't necessarily mean those things are good for us. Or at least good for us outside of their proper context.

But to answer your question, I can definitely see the benefits of waiting for sex without bringing God into the picture. There is 0% chance of contracting or spreading STDs. There is 0% chance of getting pregnant unintentionally and out of wedlock. Contraceptives reduce the risk of both those things, but doesn't take them away completely. One could argue that it isn't very loving to put another person at risk for either of those life changing things. Also, you're saving that part of yourself to give to the person whom you've promise to spend the rest of your life with. Saving this and treating it as an exclusive "gift" to give to a life partner as an expression of your love, commitment, and exclusivity to this person is a very loving and special thing to do, imho.

---

I was certainly painting a broad brush with my post. I've seen that argument plenty of times, especially from Catholics (though I was exposed mostly only to Catholicism when I was younger.)

Wow, that's very much surprising. I've been taught the opposite of that.

[Edwardo Piet]

The thing is.... you can wait and take all the precautions without actually getting married. The ring and the ceremony doesn't reduce risk of STDs or provide any other health benefits. It's just a ring and a ceremony.

It's what's inside that counts. I'd certainly rather be fully dedicated to someone without marriage than get married without the dedication. If given the choice.

Basically CL, the benefits you listed comes about via the dedication to the partner rather than the making it official

Signed,

Yours Truly,

A.K.A. Non-Boru TheTurtleDudeWhoAlsoComesInTheFormOfASquirrel

[Catholic_Lady]

Well marriage is suppose to be the intention of dedication and life long commitment. If someone goes into a marriage without those intentions, then I would argue it's not a real marriage to begin with... regardless of ring/ceremony. 

As for STD's, you can't really contract them/give them if you only have sex with one person who's only had sex with you lol.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah but you can be 100% faithful without marriage

I agree that marriage really implies marrying yourself to someone in the abstract sense too

[Catholic_Lady]

Yeah but you can be 100% faithful without marriage

I agree that marriage really implies marrying yourself to someone in the abstract sense too

Very true. You can make the commitment to stay with someone for life without signing any sort of legal documentation, but then I'd question what their reservation was to making is "official" if their intention is to be with someone for the rest of their life. 

But yeah, if a couple makes the promise and commitment to be together for life, and they are being genuine in their intentions, then I would say it would work the same way.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah but you can be 100% faithful without marriage

I agree that marriage really implies marrying yourself to someone in the abstract sense too

Very true. You can make the commitment to stay with someone for life without signing any sort of legal documentation, but then I'd question what their reservation was to making is "official" if their intention is to be with someone for the rest of their life. 

But yeah, if a couple makes the promise and commitment to be together for life, and they are being genuine in their intentions, then I would say it would work the same way.

I agree with all that.

And actually, funnily enough, I just HAPPEN to be talking to you and I really need to actually go for a genuine full on poop out of my butt right now. What are the chances? We clearly have some kind of metaphysical connection. Be back relatively soon.