Morality without god

This is not altruism. This is genetically driven instinctual behavior. The worker bee makes no choice to be altruistic; he simply follows his instincts. On the other hand, humans choose to be altruistic based on a set of beliefs. Those set of beliefs determine who they are as an individual. When a person fails to act in accordance with those beliefs, he loses a little bit of his sense of identity. This leads to psychological problems. People largely follow a set of rules that were established by authority figures they respected when they were younger. Most of those authority figures set up rules that included altruism. In short, people act altruistically because they have been trained to think of themselves as decent human beings when they do so. No one wants to think of themselves as a "bad person" or "anti-social" or whatever image they conjure up that they deem as intolerable for a self image.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

You are assuming that altruism is at least partially instinctual in humans. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. A worker bee sacrificing his life for the survival of the hive is instinctual. A human soldier throwing himself on a grenade is acting on behavior modification bred into him at an early age. That is a very significant difference. There is no selective pressure favoring altruistic behavior in bees. There is selective pressure on the genes of the queen bee to produce selfless worker bees. There is no selective pressure on the human genome to be altruistic. There is a selective pressure on the human genome to be psychologically sound. That psychological motivation is what drives altruism. The only other motivation possilbe is religious and that too is psychologicall driven. So, in short, peace of mind is genetically selected for whether that peace of mind is found in societal acceptance or acceptance from a deity.

i'm sorry but stating something is a fact does not make it a fact.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Who gets to define the words "harms", "destroy" and "live with each other"?

You do realize that christians and other theists have a different definiton of morality right? To us, it is not subjective and changeable, nor is it defined by the society you live in; it is defined by God.

That makes me a hostage to the whims of my society and as a minority opinion on the meaning of any of the words, it could mean my happiness is sacrificed at the altar of public opinion. I suppose you believe that the happiness of the majority should have precendence over the happiness of the minority in those times when conflicts with the other? And no, your answer is not obvious. Just because it is obvious to you, doesn't mean that it is obvious to me or anyone else for that matter.

I am sorry but NO ONE, and certainly not YOU will ever tell ME what is moral and what isn't moral. I do not hold to your definition and never will. Society does not decide the meanings of words for me. Societies definition of words is only accepted as a means to communicate with the rest of society. When I communicate with other christians, I do no use societies definition of morality, and neither do other christians.

"I am the Lord thy God, and thou shalt have no other gods besides me". That is an example of absolute morality.

Is there anything else you would consider to be always immoral regardless of the society or the time period? What are your reasons for that decision? What if another fellow disagrees with your reasons and has other reasons why they could be considered moral?